Dear Editor,
I am in a state of disarray like, I suspect, many people I know, as well as those I don’t know.
I must admit to restless nights, trying to sort out in my mind the confusion in all the thinking and talking about two current provocative topics: a) the casino bill and b) freedom of the press.
I have in fact been trying to make sense of the various expressed positions. I keep groping for a logic that informs behaviour which addresses at least two communities of citizens in a manner which says: ‘you voted for us in your self-interest; now in making our decision (on casino gambling) we feel no indebtedness to you. You have no say in state matters’.
The confusion continues when in a reported meeting with the representatives of religious groups one learns of the ‘leadership’ being reminded of the inconsistencies contained in his previous statements on the particular topic.
Some questions need to be answered:
– What are we to understand from a law which discriminates against established international institutions, in pursuance of specific commitments; yet claim it to be in the interest of the tourist industry as a whole?
– How sustainable is the rule of law in such a volatile environment?
As for freedom of expression, I recalled a TV owner being hassled not so long ago; now a newspaper being circumscribed; that there was still no private radio station; that the opposition continues to complain about the scarcity of ‘air space’; and more recently the censure on the intervention by religious bodies uttered in the National Assembly; but could not bring myself to make mention of previous similar scenarios elsewhere; and where this mimicry may take us. However, I keep in mind the fall of constricted societies in Eastern Europe in our time; and that as private enterprise spreads in socialist China human rights have to be increasingly recognised.
“The future depends on what we do in the present” – Mahatma Gandhi.
Yours faithfully,
Melissa Diaz
