MP [Member of Parliament – Ed.] George Pantophlet made use of a teaching opportunity and made it a teaching moment and is made out to be audacious. What he wrote was not directed to the public, it was meant for his colleagues.
Before continuing, permit me explain why I am deviating from my principle. The letter to you in the paper of November 15 with the heading “Audacious” was signed NVD. I had barely read the first line when I noticed it was regarding MP George Pantophlet. and I became curious, because the day before I had tapped MP Pantohlet on his fingers for the use of the term “opposition”. I also wanted to know which coward would have the audacity to ask another person, “how dare you?”
I consider people who (not jokingly) throw stones and hide their hand cowards. And same goes for NVD. I know for a fact that MP Pantophlet is able to clarify why he says certain things, The heading of the letter was “Audacious”, so I wanted to know what prompted the reason for display of “lack of respect” or “impudence” by MP Pantophlet towards anyone in his letter to you.
It is exactly because of senseless reactions like those by NVD that one has to be audacious.
Obviously, I was not a politician, but the job that I did, I was consistently confronted with audacious behavior, so I understand the concept of being audacious. I did not hide behind the editor of any newspaper to perform my duty or to exercise my rights.
I would assume that NVD has been boasting among his people, how he let George have it, but at the least George took that risk of being what NVD termed “audacious”, but I would rather be audacious even though, in my opinion, erroneously used in the letter, than to be a coward.
I would advise NVD not to disparage the members of the OMC until NVD can prove him- or herself to be better. What I can say about any member of any OMC is “What they have forgotten NVD has not learned yet”, otherwise NVD would not have proven him- or herself to be so ignorant.
If I had to make a choice between being sarcastic and being a coward, I would choose sarcastic. A sarcastic person is not necessarily a coward, but a coward is a coward. When one wants to belittle others, one should let one’s identity be known.
Another similar situation (not slander}. Should I be afraid to let government know that I have a suggestion to combat vote buying? (See letter on page 33 of Friday/Saturday 18/19 paper).
Along with what is written in that letter, I would accentuate the moving of the front screen and to shorten the heights of the side screens, because I was told that voters come into the polling stations with ballots already filled in hidden in their clothes. They would replace an already filled-in ballot with the empty ballot which they received from a member of the polling station, deposit it into the barrel and take the empty ballot to the person who will pay them for making that exchange. Meaning that that person who was paid to vote does not use the red pencil. He/she only changes the already filled-in ballot for the ballot that he/she got from the members of the polling station, hides it in his/her clothes and deposits the already filled-in ballot in the barrel. So, if those who were paid to vote did so, when the barrel is emptied there should always be a dummy ballot in that barrel.
Those who want to live honestly, who want their lives to display faithfulness and authenticity make choices based on what is true rather than what is expedient. Whoever goes about slandering, reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered. The integrity of the upright guides them.
In closing I would like to ask this question. What should one call an employee who is not ill, but goes to his job and in a cunning and strategic manner refuses to work? What should be done with such an employee?
In case your readers don’t realize who I am referring to, it is the people who we voted for and who promised to represent us and who earn at least eight pensioners’ times the salary of the majority of the working class. Not to talk about those on old age pension. And the people should not accept “It is not in the law” for an answer, because when MP W. Marlin was absent because of illness, they had a different opinion.
All of this is possible when we accept irresponsible children to be able to be elected to office. Whether it is because of the tumbling of government or whether it is by the end of the term, elections are just around the corner. We know what the routine politicians have done, or rather have not done. Those who were elected for the first time have also shown that the word “integrity” does not appear in their dictionary, nor in the Google app on their phones.
Showing up and voting against is one thing. Reaching by the door and refusing to sign in to avoid forming a quorum is childish and petty. And because everyone knows who the MPs are, and because these meetings are broadcasted live, those who act childish are automatically exposed and they should know from now that they should not even look in my direction with the intention of asking me to vote for them. That includes the older ones also. As a consequence of this kind of behavior the word “disdain” is constantly on my mind.
Russell A. Simmons