CAN WE TRUST THE WORDS OF OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS?

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]lways remember . . . Rumours are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots,” Ziad K. Abdelnour. Words are the singularly most powerful force within our control. They have the power to enlighten or bamboozle; uplift or destroy; regale or terrify. Mathew 12:36-37 of the Good Book even suggests that our words will be the key determinant of whether we will be allowed entry through the pearly gates on judgment day. With so much hanging in the balance one would think it prudent to be mindful of what we say; but alas, we are anything but.

We willfully help sustain the vilest unsubstantiated rumours and most debasing unfounded innuendo by repeating them. Often punctuating the dubious pronouncements with, “I eh know, that’s what I hear,” or “Pa di mwe di.” As if these disingenuous caveats will preemptively exculpate us from the inevitable damage caused by the indictments contained therein.

As damaging as rumour-mongering by ordinary Saint Lucians is, it is particularly dangerous for rumours to be afforded credibility by those in authority. That was the case when Dr. Merlene Fredericks, in her capacity as Chief Medical Officer, sought to clear the air on a number of mysterious deaths in the Coolie Town community early last week. While most of what she said was fact-based—i.e., besides the fact that four people
were dead, she had no facts—she couldn’t resist the temptation of joining the bruiting masses.

“We have heard rumours of a possible toxic substance, perhaps something that looks like and smells like alcohol, being stolen and shared but have no evidence at this point of what the actual toxin may be, proclaimed Fredericks. Heard rumours? Possible toxic substance? Perhaps something? These are things you expect to hear from the neighbourhood busybody or even the average Saint Lucian in idle conversation, not in an official statement by a country’s CMO.

I had heard something similar earlier that day from a friend who, when asked for the source of his information, pointed me in the direction of Facebook. Could the good Doctor have heard it from someone who, like my friend, was merely repeating what he/she had heard or read on Facebook?

Did she give any thought to the unintended, very real consequences for those who may be unjustly implicated in these rumours? Individuals such as well-known Marigot businessman, J.J., from whose business “ rumour had it” the unidentified toxic substance was stolen. It is worth noting that earlier this week the ministry of health received a sample of a substance purported to be the toxic substance in question – to date there has been no confirmation as to the ministry’s findings as far as the substance is concerned.

When J.J. was contacted for comment he indicated to the STAR that there is absolutely no truth to this rumour. He went on to bemoan its personal and business impacts. He has been bombarded with calls from those seeking to confirm the rumour which, in very little time, had made the rounds verbally as well as on social media. He pointed out that events he held over last weekend were patronized less than is customary. While he stopped short of faulting the rumour for the uncharacteristic low patronage, he did say that one prospective patron referred to his business as “the place that the poison that killed the people came from.”

Does Dr. Fredericks’ willful perpetuance of these rumours make her just as culpable for any damage left in their wake as those who started them? I leave it to you to determine dear reader. However, what’s indubitable is that we would be better served if official statements of the type made by Dr. Fredericks are utilized for what they are intended (to instruct and inform), not feed potentially harmful speculation.