Change the way the Speaker is appointed

THE parliament speaker holds the most important office in the house of representatives.
The house cannot operate without a speaker as far as the constitution is concerned.
The speaker is the principal office holder in the parliament.
They are the house’s representative or spokesperson, the chair of its meetings and its ‘minister’ in respect of its support services.
Because the speaker chairs the meetings of the house, they are commonly referred to as the house’s presiding officers.
The speaker’s authority is derived from the house to which their duty lies and to which they are answerable.
Just as a speaker is elected by the house, he or she may be removed from office by vote.
In Singapore, the speaker of parliament is the head officer of the country’s legislature and the prime minister nominates a person, who may or may not be a member of parliament (MP), for the role.
The person’s name is then proposed and seconded by the MPs, before being elected as speaker.
The Singaporean constitution states that parliament has the freedom to decide how to elect its speaker.
While the speaker does not have to be an elected MP, he or she should possess the qualifications to stand for election as an MP as provided in their constitution.
The speaker cannot be a cabinet minister or parliamentary secretary and should resign from the mentioned or similar positions prior to being elected as Speaker.
The speaker is one of the few public sector roles which allow its office-holder to automatically qualify as a candidate in the Singapore elections.
Speakers in this country are MPs and they forget that.
I believe in order to function effectively and be politically impartial in parliament, it’s about time the speaker of our parliament should be a non-member of parliament.
PNG is missing an opportunity for democratic renewal of its parliament by allowing ruling parties to determine who the speaker is.
PNG is different to the United Kingdom as it lacks an independent speaker. Commentators usually focus on the speaker’s perceived political bias in refereeing question time and ejecting opposition MPs from the chamber and the need for a more impartial adjudicator.
That’s only part of the story.
The contemporary British experience shows that the importance of having an independent speaker goes beyond merely giving red cards more evenhandedly.
The reality is that the speakership has become so politicised in PNG – by both sides of house – that we’ve been blinded of the possibilities that having a truly independent speaker might open up.
As similar to Singapore, the British election law provides for the speaker to contest elections for the speaker’s position rather than as a candidate with a party affiliation. Traditionally, the major parties do not run a candidate against the speaker. The speaker’s political fortunes thus become divorced from the political fortunes of the party of which the speaker was once a member.
The speaker speaks for parliament, not for the government.
Having an independent speaker allows for the parliament, as an institution separate from the government, to keep ministers accountable.
It is impossible to imagine anything as this in Papua New Guinea.
Papua New Guinea speakers have somewhat always been affiliated with the prime minister’s party.
Without an independent speaker, PNG’s parliamentary democracy is deficient.

Ian Aima Serege