Soul of a Nation – Calling Houston!

HELLO … Hello, Houston? Yes, … yes – thanks for your help with that “seeing double” problem we had last time. It get fixed, but Houston, we have a new problem …

…What’s that again Houston? Sorry, but communication a little spotty and we have letters reading in the house too …

… Ahhh! You say that you only deal with emergencies, but this is an emergency Houston; our captain seems to have taken to shooting himself in the foot …

… That’s OK Houston, we know that you don’t deal with mental emergencies, but that’s not the real problem. The problem is that that is the same foot that the captain uses regularly to put in his mouth and now it in “plaster paris” – how it go fit?

… What you say? You think we should be thankful that it is his foot he shooting up and not other more sensitive parts of his body? But those long gone Houston, and the captain still shooting from the hip. Houston, suppose next time he take “de eye” as Calypsonian Herb Black might have sung?

… Now you say you see the problem, but you still can’t fix that – you that fix a broken-down spaceship hiding behind the moon and save three people life, you can’t fix that? Shots firing, Houston, everybody life on the line here …

… Ahhhh wonderful, wonderful, Houston! Even if you can’t fix the problem you say that you still have space on that manned mission to Mars – how soon you say? …

… Ok, Ok, keep working on it, we holding on, but one more thing Houston – you have space for the co-pilot too?

It was 1984, and the year that Trinidadian calypsonian and now also university lecturer Professor Hollis Liverpool, The Mighty Chalkdust, gave us instruction in his song “Learn to Laugh”. As usual, our calypsonians know what they are talking about, and in describing how Trinidadians coped with life in Trinidad back then, this is what “Chalkie” had to say: “Ah tell them, man every Trinidadian, Have a secret weapon, To fight misery and corruption; And then ah tell them, When they shove we in a corner, And we can’t take it no longer, We does laugh we way out brother”. And from the chorus, “In Trinidad you either go mad or write your epitaph, So to survive, you got to learn to laugh, Just laugh”.

Laughter is good medicine; it soothes the soul, and relaxes a lot of facial muscles too, and so every now and then we deserve a good laugh. Trouble comes though when we find ourselves laughing every day, and worse, when we find ourselves having to laugh, as in the “Lord, I can’t take it no more” kind of laugh.

It is not too many years ago that the discussion which we were having was whether or not cameras should be allowed in the Parliament, with the argument against this being that, knowing that the cameras were there, politicians would tend to show-off. That is now the least of the problems, because in today’s world, technology has long since neutered whatever skill these showmen think that they possess, and it exposes a lack of the necessary skills in those who should otherwise possess them.

And so, as the business of the House unfolded in the run-up to the last general elections, we were treated, by an elected parliamentarian, to one of the most uncouth displays yet recorded on the floor of the House, and we laughed. We made slogans, bumper stickers, and sung calypsoes about it, and yet, six months later none of us can remember what the issue then was, except that we had a good laugh. And we survived. None of us thought to censure the unbecoming behaviour of that politician, so, “we go with the flow”. So that today, when that politician is now in government none of us have any expectation that the matter raised then will be examined now, because we all understand that it was “just for fun”, and that bacchanal is not only for carnival time, but for us, it is all year round.

Not to be outdone, our Prime Minister has now staked, or maybe re-staked, his claim to internet fame. This time, he managed to read a letter from the former Prime Minister to a potential investor under the rubric of an Election Amendment Act at the last meeting of the House. We don’t know why he chose this forum, or that Act, but whatever the reason, with the Opposition blocked in their efforts to address the letter’s contents a meme (video clip) has now arisen showing the Prime Minister in a very uncomplimentary light towards the end of that sitting of the House.

While the meme is not an accurate reflection of the events which took place in the House, it would seem that more harm than good has come to the Prime Minister with this last performance, and so, once more, some of us get the last laugh. But where, oh where is that promised piece of legislation giving us a fixed date for elections? Laugh! Just laugh! Because that promise was in the Governor General’s last Throne Speech under the previous administration, is in the current administration’s election manifesto and was included on the UWP political platform in the last election campaign. Instead, we get a new law telling us that Nomination Day cannot be on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday. What to do – Laugh! Just laugh!

But this is not the only comedy taking place in fair Helen, because a bunch of rogues are busy trying to pass off some new denomination $700 bills, and now everybody has one. They should lock them up! It’s unfair! No laughing matter! People’s personal business outside and they find something to joke about? Some conclude that having taken its measure, it’s a small matter, but that is beside the point. That matter is now before the Court and we must wait for the truth to come out before we can pass any judgment on the scale of things!

Sounds reasonable so far, until a goodly gentleman offered the suggestion that the Minister for Justice should endeavour to have the hearing of the associated court case speeded up so that the matter does not degenerate into a long public trial. We’re still laughing! Because now, it is the Minister of Justice who is going to be responsible for that long public trial and not the principal actor in that play, and so the suggestion is that, we, the people, should zip it up. “How come is us?”

They’re accustomed to shutting us up with fancy arguments, but we have technology, and those arguments don’t stop others from outside commenting on our business inside, even if they end up making the same laughable suggestion. We also know from one of our Caribbean politicians that “politics has its own morality”, although there is also the suggestion that that quotation has been taken out of context. Now we have proof however that there are those who take it seriously.

In neighbourly commentary recently, there was again the suggestion that the only issue surrounding the saga of those false banknotes was a legal one, and while the commentator is entitled to his views, he dismissively rejects the concern expressed by our young people who merely asked if they should not be able to expect a better example from their leaders. Unfortunate and reeking of political bias, thundered our commentator, having previously advised us that public interest is to stop at the bedroom door (Wickham, Nationnews, Feb. 05).

But what happens when you leave your “bedroom” door open and the public gets to see inside? Our commentator’s answer seems to be that “the peculiar problem emerging here has been created by the social media”.

I knew it! I knew it was your fault that the whole country on pause and either laughing their guts out or “cheupsin”, because according to our commentator, the legal issues surrounding this matter are “quite serious”. Take that to mean: Really, y’all should just shut up, or at least, stop laughing! Because possibly for the first time in their working lives, Civil Servants are now happy to go to work, except that they’re still not doing any work – they’re just sitting there at their desks laughing their heads off.

I refer to our regional commentator because he so beautifully frames the issue and tells us of the ongoing discussions on the morality of persons in and out of public life, coming down firmly on the side of those persons’ right to share as they please without negative moral judgment. Eh? But he troubles himself with his final comment where, having previously suggested reflection on the intellectual value of the principal actor, he had this to say: “… the sordid matter can be left to the courts to adjudicate the legal aspect” and the “family to deal with any residual moral questions which are really none of our business”.

Now, after all of the commentary, we have, first, the open recognition by our commentator that the matter is a sordid one. According to the Oxford dictionary, sordid means “involving dishonourable actions and motives”, or, “arousing moral distaste and contempt”, and so we are all agreed on the nature of the matter concerned. Next, we have acknowledgement that this sordid matter has led to two separate issues, namely a legal one, and as well, a moral one. Where we disagree is on the question of whether or not the moral aspect is any of our business.

Politics may or may not have its own morality, but how is it possible for someone in whom our business has been entrusted to allegedly behave in a manner arousing moral distaste and contempt, and then have others tell us that that behaviour is to be excluded from any consideration of the conduct of our business? The Court will decide on the legal issue, but luckily, we already have guidance on what is expected of persons engaged in the conduct of the public’s business.

At Section 1.6 of the St. Lucia Civil Service Staff Orders, we find that “Public officers shall be liable to disciplinary action in respect of any of these Orders”, and at Section 4.1 (3) “Any act of an officer that is considered likely to bring the public service into disrepute must be reported forthwith to the Permanent Secretary, Personnel …”. And finally at Section 4.7 “An officer shall not at any time engage in any private activity which might: bring the officer or the Government into disrepute”. For good measure, again according to the Oxford dictionary, “disrepute” means “the state of being held in low esteem by the public”.

If a public servant is to be disciplined for any act that might cause either that public servant or the government to be held in low esteem by the public whether that act is performed in a public or private capacity, then it stands to reason that those providing guidance to the public sector, and paid from the public purse, must be held to a similar or higher standard. And to an even higher standard if that person occupies a seat in the Upper Chamber of the House.

In these circumstances, it would seem that it would be incumbent on anyone occupying ministerial position to do everything in his or her power to clear the air should such an allegation arise, and to demonstrate that he or she has not acted in any way that might bring the Government or themselves into disrepute. As has been previously aknowledged, this is an entirely separate matter to the legal one.

And while this is being done, it would seem also that it would only be reasonable if the Government afforded that minister every opportunity to protect his or her good name, and might offer to that minister a leave of absence until such time that his or her name can be cleared of any unsavoury allegations. That shouldn’t be so difficult …

… Houston! Calling Houston! … Houston, about that manned mission to Mars – I know we pushing our luck, but Houston you think you might have space for just one more?

Don’t Laugh!