We live in a democracy. As such, the opposition has a right and a duty to be heard on public issues. To the degree that it is correct for the UWP to point out suspected improprieties of the incumbent government when they are in opposition, it is equally correct for the present SLP opposition to point out suspected improprieties of the incumbent UWP government.
Equally, any incumbent government errs gravely in not appropriately addressing legitimate concerns raised by the opposition of the day.
It must be borne in mind that, in any case, the funds at issue are neither the private property of the SLP nor the UWP. In both cases, the funds at issue belong to the St. Lucian public. Regardless what party is currently in power, or what past infringements perpetuated against the public trust may have been committed by another party, neither party has a right to justify suspected violations of its fiduciary obligations to the St. Lucian public by pointing to alleged violations of public trust on the part of a previous administration. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The government should answer the questions and publish the relevant facts so that the public may be reassured that its public servants are indeed acting in the people’s best interests, as is their sworn duty. If they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, there can be reasonable justification for denying the public its right to know.
The government should answer the questions and publish the relevant facts so that the public may be reassured that its public servants are indeed acting in the people’s best interests, as is their sworn duty. If they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, there can be no reasonable justification for denying the public its right to know.
The credibility or lack thereof is in the facts of the case, not in subjective opinions of the opposition, or the government, for that matter.
If the question has no merit, then the government should prove this by explaining the facts of the case. However, without a credible response to the concerns raised by the opposition, one is left to speculate - a condition that is against the interests of the country.
6 comments:
For chrissake, we still don't even know the full details of the Rochamel affair.
SLP not making any sense. Endless boring press releases demanding this and demanding that. Take a hike before you point fingers at others.
We live in a democracy. As such, the opposition has a right and a duty to be heard on public issues. To the degree that it is correct for the UWP to point out suspected improprieties of the incumbent government when they are in opposition, it is equally correct for the present SLP opposition to point out suspected improprieties of the incumbent UWP government.
Equally, any incumbent government errs gravely in not appropriately addressing legitimate concerns raised by the opposition of the day.
It must be borne in mind that, in any case, the funds at issue are neither the private property of the SLP nor the UWP. In both cases, the funds at issue belong to the St. Lucian public. Regardless what party is currently in power, or what past infringements perpetuated against the public trust may have been committed by another party, neither party has a right to justify suspected violations of its fiduciary obligations to the St. Lucian public by pointing to alleged violations of public trust on the part of a previous administration. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The government should answer the questions and publish the relevant facts so that the public may be reassured that its public servants are indeed acting in the people’s best interests, as is their sworn duty. If they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, there can be reasonable justification for denying the public its right to know.
The government should answer the questions and publish the relevant facts so that the public may be reassured that its public servants are indeed acting in the people’s best interests, as is their sworn duty. If they have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, there can be no reasonable justification for denying the public its right to know.
... which is why we need an Opposition with some credibility, to ask such questions.
The credibility or lack thereof is in the facts of the case, not in subjective opinions of the opposition, or the government, for that matter.
If the question has no merit, then the government should prove this by explaining the facts of the case. However, without a credible response to the concerns raised by the opposition, one is left to speculate - a condition that is against the interests of the country.
Post a Comment