WE ARE VERY BIG on personal broadcasting these days, using various means of prominently “announcing” ourselves (often signalling our membership of some “tribe”).
Expensive and/or highly accessorised cars; vehicle noise (of engine, muffler, sound system). Tattoos, jewellery, earrings, nose rings, lip rings, other things stuck in pierced parts, designer clothes. Hair-as-I-please. Things which seem to say, “Check me out. I’m here.”
But whether we like it or not, the prominence of these things also tends to say, “This is me/my tribe.” And if they so forthrightly put us and our tribe forward, should we not also have even stronger concern about what else we “publish” that more high-mindedly identifies us?
This past week or so we heard from Mr and Ms Hair (all those Barbadians disparaging almost any circumscription in relation to our supposed crowning glory, who would trump anything in any circumstance with some right to be hair-brained – you can use the non-coined homophone if you like).
And in very similar vein from Mr Prime Minister, Mr Morris Lee, Mr Tariq Khan and Ms Marguerite Woodstock-Riley – all of them seeming to take their identity solely from a tribe and broadcasting it.
I will get to the Prime Minister later. First, the two prominent members of the Bar Association.
Mr Khan, president of the asssociation, rather than showing understanding of public concern and consternation that there are a troubling number of bad eggs (good Lord, the public could easily point to at least five lawyers – some with more than one instance – in the last two years involved in alleged misdeeds) in a profession of which the most lofty ideals are expected, virtually pooh-poohed public worry in relation to the legal profession.
Is like the bank telling the public, “Only four of our workers have stolen your money. You making too big a thing of this.” The banks know better than to try that tribe-protection approach. Why not Mr Khan?
Ms Woodstock-Riley, head of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Association, in what smells suspiciously like too much tribe-consciousness, said that there is no need for civilian members on the association’s disciplinary committee.
Now, you know that the public generally and lawyers in particular are highly suspicious of police forces (another set of law officers) having only police officers dealing with reported professional misconduct on the part of their colleagues. We are all uncomfortable with “Caesar judging Caesar”, because – you know it – justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
And when your populace has a low view of lawyers and when there seems to be too much slapping of wrists for what they consider clear cases of embezzlement and grievous breaches of trust, why would you so strongly hold to that which has so far shown little potential for quelling public concern about lawyers’ impropriety?
Morris Lee, president of the Association of Private Transport Operators, seems like a good candidate for tribe-centredness, too. Last week Friday’s WEEKEND NATION had him backing a “holistic approach as it would promote a better service with greater efficiency, reduce the fierce competitiveness that has led to recklessness on the road, and could lead to general profitability in the system”.
Apart from a reference to recklessness on the road, which he apparently links only to Government’s unsatisfactory financial policies in relation to the sector, he pays no attention to what should be the fundamental aspects of transporting a country’s people.
Aware of what it takes, for instance, to run a hotel, the overheads, the fickleness of clientele, the exposure to vicissitudes of financial and other fortunes, why would you buy/build/open a hotel and then seek to excuse your failing to observe the best standards of comfort, service, convenience, privacy, cleanliness, etc. on the basis of the play of these other things?
Yes, I know it is not a charitable endeavour, but yuh still got to start with the best standards of running a hotel.
Or a public transport fleet: the need to view the transporting of people as a sacred trust and as a consequence of that beginning position you would know that respect for law and order is a non-negotiable feature of your involvement, along with overarching commitment to standards of safety, decency, dignity and timeliness.
Mr Lee never seems to start there. What kind of tribe are you broadcasting that you belong to when you are not starting there?
And now the PM. Over and over I hear it: “The Prime Minister is a decent man.” “Yuh cahn point to anything underhand in relation to he.”
So, judging from his statements on the now very public pickle Speaker of the House Michael Carrington finds himself in, Stuart must not have given due consideration to the several instances of speakers in various other parts of the world stepping down in relation to “private” matters in which their populations found their behaviour highly inappropriate and not in keeping with their high role as representatives and exemplars of the best public morals.
I would not dare say that the Prime Minister was taking his “identity” from his party tribe and broadcasting that as the overriding consideration, but it does seem that he was taking it from a tribe of legalists or those with parliamentary rights and privileges. Even as others were shouting “natural hair”, the Prime Minister said in effect, “It is not written here” – for he declared, “To date I am not aware that anybody has said that any particular right or privilege of Parliament has been breached by the Speaker”.
We got the broadcast loud and clear. It could have been tattooed on his arm. So to offend the office and the populace and the best values, it would have to contravene what is written down only there?
E. Jerome Davis’ letter in the last WEEKEND NATION refreshed my memory and should do more than that for the Prime Minister. Davis mentioned instances in which speakers in other countries stepped down over “private” matters, certainly matters that would not have breached the rights and privileges of their parliaments.
Davis pointedly quoted the words of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who said when he accepted the resignation of Speaker Michael Palmer that lawmakers must uphold the “highest standards of personal conduct”.
Could it be that these things took place in situations in which the tribe was not made the chief thing?
Sherwyn Walters is a writer who became a teacher, a song analyst, a broadcaster and an editor. Email offwally@gmail.com.