The public entering Parliament is prohibited from wearing political paraphernalia. Yet political emblems on members’ lapels are treated differently. My decision to wear a political hat was a protest against that double standard.
The Speaker should have addressed the applicable Standing Orders, explained his ruling and enforced a consistent standard. Applying the principle to my hat would have required him to confront its implications for political lapel emblems as well. In my view, that is the contradiction he avoided.
Instead, I was repeatedly referred to as the “Leader of the United Workers Party.” The exchange became personal while the central question remained unanswered: why should citizens be held to a standard their representatives do not observe?
The Speaker has since said his objection concerned wearing a cap indoors, rather than its political insignia. That explanation still leaves the original question about political symbols unresolved.
The handling of the hat also exposed an arrogance of power: the belief that citizens are not even owed an explanation. No clear rule, no reasoned ruling—simply an expectation that we accept what those in authority say.
Consider the allegations described as “sex for cheques” involving the Saint Lucia Social Development Fund. Do we really expect satisfactory answers without an independent commission of inquiry? Allegations of exploitation involving public assistance demand an examination that protects complainants, establishes the facts and gives everyone involved a fair hearing. We have also written requesting an account of the $110 million put into SSDF. Even that request has gone unanswered.
Then consider Joy St Omer, who sought protection before she was killed. Her family’s call for an independent inquiry raises an urgent question: did the police, courts and wider protection system do everything they should have done?
The government announced in September that it intended to proceed with an inquiry following legal advice. Citizens deserve a clear account of the next steps: the appointment of commissioners, the terms of reference and the timetable for hearings and reporting. A promise must lead to an independent process, public findings and action to address any failures identified.
These matters concern human dignity, public protection and confidence in our institutions. They cannot be answered by political assurances alone.
The same demand for accountability applies to public money.
On the Global Ports Holding agreement, have citizens received enough information to assess the commitments made on their behalf and the obligations they will carry?
On National Lotteries Authority contracts, who received them, how were they selected, what was paid and what public benefit was delivered?
On the Citizenship by Investment Programme, where Galaxy’s contractual consent is invoked to withhold information, how is the public’s right to accountability protected? A private agreement should never become a convenient shield against scrutiny of public affairs.
On Hewanorra International Airport, how do the differing cost figures reconcile? Do they cover the same work? What is the full expected cost, and who will pay?
Parliament should also be insisting on the tabling of outstanding statutory reports from the Saint Lucia Tourism Authority, the CIP, the National Insurance Corporation, the SSDF and the NLA.
These reports are instruments of accountability. They allow citizens and their representatives to examine how institutions manage resources entrusted to them. Parliament should demand their submission and require explanations for delays.
Together, these institutions and programmes involve billions of dollars in public resources, national insurance contributions and other funds. The public deserves to know how that money is collected, managed and spent.
Sadly, the same attitude runs through these matters demanding answers. Decisions are made behind closed doors, information is withheld, and the public is expected to trust assurances without the contracts, reports, accounts and evidence needed to test them.
If Parliament cannot explain and apply its rules transparently on something as basic as a hat, what confidence can citizens have that the rules are being followed on matters involving billions of dollars and decisions affecting their lives?
The government says it acts on behalf of the people. Yet the people are expected to accept its decisions without the supporting evidence needed to judge those decisions for themselves.
It is unacceptable that we must even ask for this transparency. Citizens should not have to plead for information they are entitled to receive. Disclosure is a duty, not a favour. Parliament should enforce that duty.
Public office does not entitle anyone to unquestioning trust. It obliges them to account for the power entrusted to them.
So, what’s up with the hat?
The hat exposed the double standard. The deeper issue is whether those exercising power believe they owe the people proof—or merely expect their trust.
