DR FRANCES CHANDLER, in her column which appeared in the MIDWEEK NATION of March 30, suggests that it would be better if people, like the “distinguished retirees” who were quoted in the March 22, DAIL Y NATION, advocated for a change in the laws governing our Mercy Committee rather than promote a change of the Constitution “to get rid of the Queen”, as she puts it.
Dr Chandler must surely be aware that it is possible to call for changes in the laws governing the Mercy Committee and, at the same time, advocate for a Constitutional change to provide for a citizen of Barbados to become the Head of State of Barbados. It doesn’t have to be an “either or” situation as the dear lady seems to think.
According to the report in the March 22, DAIL Y NATION, to which Dr Chandler refers, the “distinuished retirees” submitted a letter to the editor of the DAILY NATION, in which they stated that they were calling for a Constitutional change because they and, they contend, the vast majority of Barbadians, “would want the person who occupies the highest office of state [i.e. head of state] not only to reside among them but to also reflect and symbolise the culture and ethos of Barbados and its people”. In their view, “a non-Barbadian head of state, residing outside Barbados, is not capable of meeting those criteria”.
I am among the many Barbadians who agree that, for the reasons articulated by the “distinguished retirees”, our head of state should be a citizen of Barbados who should reside among us.
It would be interesting, however, to hear from Dr Chandler whether she concurs with this point of view. If she does not, she should let the readers of her column know why, after almost 50 years of lndependence, she still prefers to have the non-Barbadian Queen Elizabeth II, who resides in Britain, as the head of state of Independent Barbados.
In the meantime, I join Dr Chandler in calling for an urgent review of the laws or regulations or rules which govern our Mercy Committee.
– JOHN ARTHUR
