CERTAIN sectors of the media appear to be pursuing an ongoing effort in highlighting negative news on an ongoing basis which, in our view, is somewhat distasteful. We all live on a small island exposed to all the ills of the world which have been ongoing for years and though neither administration, i.e. SLP nor UWP, may wish to gloat over those ills affecting the nation, the consistent promotion of negativism on television and via some leading newspapers serve no useful purpose.
Some examples of the distasteful behaviour have been persistently highlighted on two television stations for incidents which took place in 2017 and on several occasions the identical story of the homicides which occurred in the Vieux Fort area was highlighted over and over. Similarly, the propaganda meted out by Earl Huntley in respect to the appointment of the new Governor General, highlighting certain constitutional lapses between January 1 and 12, 2018 were repeatedly televised.
There is nothing wrong with one’s view on such matters, but the constant repetition by two television stations is questionable as Mr. Huntley and, by extension, the said stations have shied away from providing the details of the Grynberg issue for 16 years while the affair was shrouded in secrecy by one who pretends to understand the Constitution so vividly.
On another note, those stations continue to focus on inflammable political issues with their e-polls when in fact this avenue could be well utilized to effectively promote questions which can bring about a positive impact on the nation.
Again, the tainted information delivered by Mr. Monrose in respect to the teachers and the condition of the schools were aired several times on those TV stations for reasons well-known. A similar broadcast by the mini bus secretary from the south was continuously repeated despite the views of various e-poll contributors disagreeing with any form of strike action.
It is very clear that the SLP has been in campaign mood from July 2016 while well-known figures within our society continue to participate and promote this behaviour. The UWP have already proven themselves by significantly reducing the unemployment and are well on the way to achieving much more during their remaining tenure in office and beyond.
Neville Cenac is a well-educated individual with a solid background, whose daughter holds an honours degree in law from a top university in the United Kingdom, and another two daughters hold law degrees. His brother, Winston, held the post of attorney general for years and later became prime minister of St. Lucia.
Yet certain forces within our society have tried to discredit Neville Cenac for exercising his rights of crossing the floor in 1987. As Rick Wayne rightly pointed out in the weekend’s Star, a number of high-ranking individuals exercised a similar option at different stages of their careers based on their instincts at the time which compelled them to act appropriately.
Finally, as a matter of interest, it should be noted that when Dr. Anthony became leader of the SLP, he promised to serve for two terms, thereby paving the way for the deputy Mario Michel to be the new leader, but we are all aware of what transpired. Has the new leader of the SLP, Phillip Pierre, forgotten the details? Has the hierarchy of the SLP and its staunch supporters crucified Dr. Anthony, or has he been forgiven, and did he act in the best interest of St. Lucia? Didn’t Dr. Anthony publicly state that after three years he would stand down after winning the 2011 elections? Could Mr. Cenac have had similar thoughts for his actions in 1987?
Food for thought.
Oswald Augustin
Big chairman as you are is this all the common sense you can employ? Or could it be your overflowing partisanship disable you from being an exponent of something meaningful even for the stand point from which you come.
From the many points you raised I will just dwell on one namely the appointment of the GG. I have always viewed the office of the GG to a uniting agent. It sees no one party but must be seen to embrace all subject to the law of the land. It must be seen to be morally upright and trustworthy. I can’t say that about the current office. It is not to take his rights from him but when in 1987 his exercised his rights he betrayed thousands whose trust he gained and the who he mischievously betrayed. Forget about the SLP. Let’s talk about thr ordinary people who voted him and then were denied the joy and satisfaction of their efforts. Live in the real world Oswald. The man is decisive he is controversial. And for that he should not represent the Queen. There are more suitable candidates.