Letters & Opinion

Rufus Bousquet: My Outstanding Question

Rufus Bousquet

The Independent Eye - By Kensley Peter Charlemagne

I HAD to decide between writing about the late payment (or is that the non-payment) due to calypsonians after the season is long past over or Rufus Bousquet (again) and the United Workers Party which is better named the Divided Workers Party. And the winner is, the Divided Workers Party.

The question on my mind is: “Can anything happen in the United Workers Party that is not dividing?” Last week, I attested to the popularity of Rufus Bousquet in Choiseul and his election to the chairmanship of the constituency branch, unanimously, testifies, despite the noise of the “vocal minority”.

One thousand signatures to oppose Rufus Bousquet’s return to elective politics. I don’t think so. I am very far removed from the internal workings of the UWP but I can’t but think that Mr. Haynes’ attempts are personal and destructive. There are many things that Haynes has said, that rather than paint Bousquet black is really giving him the nod. For one he said that Bousquet is affable and charismatic; a nice individual. I concur. Bousquet has shown once again that he is able to negotiate that power in his favour. Talk about power! Both Haynes and Bousquet concur that power and its attainment are necessary for governance. I agree. But despite all the odds against him, he ( Bousquet) was able to command the support of many including that of Haynes; that is a feather in the man’s cap.

Haynes contends that Bousquet’s 30 odd votes does not reflect the voice of the people of Choiseul. I think that Haynes is trying to be the voice of Choiseul. If I should transpose Haynes’ statement of the short comings of Bousquet’s support, can I then reason that Chastanet’s 200 plus votes at the last convention does not translate to an overwhelming support of him ( Chastanet) by UWP members island-wide?

There is another issue that I want to take Haynes up on and not just him but many who voice that opinion, that we must give room to fresh blood to take things over. For many it means an annihilation of the foundation set by those who have gone before, a recipe for disaster which was proven by the ousting of Stephenson King as leader of the opposition.

How many times must it be shoved down the throats of the UWP before they swallow; Allen is not cutting it for the United or is that Divided Workers Party. Take Doctor Matthew’s latest smearing of the leadership of Allen Chastanet. (A word to Dr Matthew: Independent is another option.)

My only question over Bousquet’s head right now is the handling of the Taiwanese donated money in Choiseul during the last administration. SLP, we are still waiting. Where’s the report?


  1. Your ONLY question is about the Taiwan money?! Are you sure about that mate? Nothin else might disqualify him?

    Declare your real intention mr independent eye.

  2. You have your own questions? Then state them. You have a reason for questioning my motive and independence, please state your case. I have tried not to muddle in juxaposition. And there’s a face to my name. I have no window or internet curtains to hide behind. At least i’ve tried not to.

  3. You are the one who has the opinion piece, so you’re the one holding the mic; publishing your name is a prerequisite in most respectable news outlets. It just so happens that the Voice allows anonymous opinion pieces, which is regrettable, so credit to you for putting your name to the piece.

    That aside, the fact that you can only seem to find one issue which requires clarification, would suggest you either aren’t looking very hard or you are partisan. Is the alleged misappropriation of funds not enough for you? Do you set the bar so low for Lucians that any old bullshit will suffice for public office? Your laissez faire attitude is part of the reason the country is in a mess. If someone wants to hold elected office they need to be subject to proper scrutiny, you haven’t done it. You shouldn’t be relying on commenters to do your work for you, it’s your article not mine.

    What are your views on having a criminal conviction and holding the reins of power? Where do you draw the line for what is a permanent transgression? What about lying about academic qualifications- do you have an opinion on that? For someone claiming to be the Independent Eye you have exonerated / approved someone’s credentials without considering any of the issues that are available from a cursory glance at the Internet and their history.

    I welcome the fact you have responded though, and I applaud you for that.

  4. This is my opinion piece and I take full responsibility for it. I welcome your own opinion, i wish you would man up and stop hiding behind pseudonyms.
    An analysis of your feedback though, tells me at least that I am not talking to Allen Chastenant. You might be close to Allen but at least you’re not him. Sorry for the guessing game but these are the things you resort to when people hide behind internet curtains. But you and I can converse. There are some admirable stances deduced in your feedback so I can, as I am now, making time for you.
    You accuse me of being partisan. Which way am I leaning though, would be interesting to know. But i will move on to the meat of the matter. I am not the one who elected Bousquet to office so if Saint Lucians have subjected themselves to ‘any old bullshit” that is their own doing, not mine.
    I do not see my article as exhonarating Mr Bousquet, i was giving my own analysis of what I picked up on my interaction with people in Choiseul.
    There are several disqualifying stipulations in the election act that debar a person from contesting an election. If Mr Bousquet offends in any of these then you need to take that up with the electoral office since you seem to have studied him a lot more than i have.
    I do not believe in ‘permanent trangression’. I believe in forgiveness and i do not think that people should pay a thousand times over for their sins, even hell does not do that to us.
    You can’t expect me to sacrifice someone over the “alledged misappropriation of fund”. I am asking for the evidence, and it is because that evidence has not been supplied that that is the one “over hanging question” that i have on Bousquet as according to you everything else seems to have evidenced themselves through a more that cursory internet search.
    I am sorry if it seems that I am writing another article but as i said, i have time for you. You bring some balance into you discussion which I admire.
    To close, two things. I want to think that my article spoke to a lot more that just the issue of Rufus Bousquet, would be nice if you picked on some of the other points or are you consumed by the personality that is Rufus Bousquet. Let it me known that i don’t remember me and Bousquet ever exchanging words or having any conversation whatsoever. You speak of me as being laissez-faire, i would like you to state you case on that accusation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend