Dear Editor,
Public commentary plays an important role in shaping opinion in a small community like ours. People turn to the opinion pages to understand different viewpoints, to hear concerns, and to follow discussions about leadership and accountability. Because of that influence, commentators carry a responsibility: if they choose to speak on issues of integrity, they must be consistent in how they apply their standards.
Over the years, the name Joslyn Morton has appeared frequently in this newspaper’s opinion section. Her letters often focus on leadership failures, moral decline, and political misconduct. Strong criticism is her right, and criticism when balanced can be healthy. But what creates concern is not the criticism itself; it is the silence that follows when similar or even more serious issues arise involving individuals or parties she chooses not to confront.
For example, Morton has written repeatedly and firmly about Minister Grisha Heyliger-Marten, Minister Melissa Gumbs, MP Raeyhon Peterson, former MP Rolando Brison, and former Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs, often portraying them as responsible for many of the issues she highlights in her letters. These letters are usually intense, sweeping, and uncompromising.
But when a matter arises involving others, matters that directly relate to procedure, or political influence, that same intensity suddenly fades.
A recent example is the court proceedings involving MP Ardwell Irion and attorney Jairo Bloem regarding the CBCS nomination. According to witness statements reported from the hearing, Mr. Bloem said he went on radio to defend his own appointment at the request of Democratic Party leadership. He also acknowledged he had personally reviewed the official advice regarding his own nomination, something in the reporting described as unusual, since nominees do not typically review or receive their own appointment documents.
These are serious concerns involving influence, procedure, and ethics, the very issues Morton claims to champion. Yet not a single letter addressed it.
The same silence appeared in her commentary on Minister Heyliger-Marten’s recent exchange with MP Francisco Lacroes. In that piece, Morton focused solely on the Minister’s response, completely omitting the context: both the Integrity Chamber and SOAB reports raised serious concerns about how the former Minister of TEATT and his cabinet staff handled the taxi and bus licensing process. That cabinet structure in which MP Lacroes served is central to understanding why the exchange occurred at all.
Ignoring that context while criticizing only one side presents a deeply incomplete picture.
This is the pattern the public should pay attention to.
It is not the presence of criticism that raises questions, it is the absence of it where it clearly belongs.
When a commentator chooses outrage selectively, the message becomes less about integrity and more about preference. When certain parties, personalities, or political circles are exempt from scrutiny, it becomes difficult to trust the objectivity of the commentary. And when major issues are ignored entirely while lesser ones are amplified, the public narrative becomes distorted.
The problem is not that she criticizes. The problem is what she refuses to criticize. That imbalance says more than any letter she has written.
When criticism becomes selective, it is no longer about integrity, it becomes strategy. And when silence surrounds certain individuals or circles while others face constant attack, the public deserves to ask why.
Consistency is not a luxury in public commentary. It is the minimum standard. Without it, criticism loses its credibility and commentary loses its purpose.
In the interest of fairness,
A Concerned Citizen
