Dear Editor,

It is always refreshing to read ‘Ian On Sunday’ and his column of Sunday 11-03-2007 is one to behold. In that column, Dr. Mc Donald highlights the danger of public officials and business executives finding comfort in the unprofessional conduct of those who are usually known as ‘Yes-men’, and I dare say that these days we have a fair share of Yes-Women’ as well.

The Yes-men and women (Yes-people) are found at one end of the Leadership spectrum and at the other end are those who dare to disagree.

Dr. Mc Donald has succinctly identified the perils of a leader who adorns himself with Yes-people, but I wish to extend the discourse a bit further by suggesting as follows.

Regardless from which end of the spectrum a leader draws his advisers, one must always be prepared to advance the rationale which informs their position.

Invariably those who choose to disagree are the ones to be asked for a logical explanation of their stance. Yet I find that in many instances those who propose as well as those who oppose may fail to offer sound intellectual and scholarly reasoning in support of their positions.

Often I am led to believe that if the ‘movers and shakers’ of many decisions were to be asked to reduce to writing the reason(s) for their bearings, they would be unable to do so in a scholarly manner capable of withstanding rigorous scrutiny. Many of us are in the habit of saying “I believe this or I disagree with that” without having to say why. This approach is quite unhealthy and fosters mediocrity.

It is against such a background that Lords Bingham and Walker at Para. 26 of the Privy Council Judgment involving the Chief Justice of T&T said:

But it is ordinarily the duty of a professional judge to give reasons, and her failure to do so fully justified the Court of Appeal in making its own analysis.”

In that instance the Law Lords were highlighting the deficiency in the trial judge – Justice Jones’ judgment.

I rather suspect that if public officials and business executives were to be held to the high standard to which judges are held, the quality of life in the “Republic’ many have been much higher today.

Yours faithfully,

Francis Carryl