[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n my last message I suggested that those who can, should read a book over the Christmas holidays and perhaps begin to write their life story, if possible. I must be careful not to overplay my hand with too much heady advice at this time, which might have the effect of turning people off rather than encouraging them to think anew. The acquired and learned knee-jerk reaction to social, economic, political and yes, religious issues, may require re-examination by those sufficiently independent-minded to try.
In the meantime, here are two issues that may be worth discussing over the holidays. I recall a time when air travellers were allowed two pieces of checked-in luggage free of charge, plus one carry-on. Then, without warning, the airline cartel decided that only one piece of checked-in luggage would be allowed per passenger. Travellers had the option of paying for excess weight or having the excess shipped separately—after paying what amounted to an arm and a leg. Today, things have grown worse. Air travellers can be embarrassed at the check-in counter if their agent did not warn them of the charge for the one-piece allowable checked-in luggage. Yes, today customers on international flights to the U.S. are not permitted a single piece of checked-in luggage free of charge. Are air travellers damned to pay whatever the airline industry demands? Passengers from Saint Lucia had better be prepared to pay an extra US$81 per checked-in bag if they wish their checked-in luggage to travel with them.
This is not the limit and end of my issue. I have not recently commented on an airport tax that was turned into a political football but I did raise the issue some five years ago, highlighting the short-sightedness of the then Labour administration when it removed the Stephenson King administration’s airport development tax, implemented some ten years or so ago. How an airport tax, to be paid only by travellers using the airport and to be used for the improvement and development of the airport, could be a bad tax, beats me. Mark me stupid, if you must, but the people who need and use a facility are the ones with the first responsibility to pay for its use, maintenance and improvement. I refer to such facilities as hospitals, tertiary institutions, major roadways and so on.
We cannot afford our foolish, partisan, shortsighted argument that clearly has taken some people in circles of confusion. Some have been programmed to treat political gibberish as gospel. Those who have chosen to follow blindly, regardless of which party or politicians they choose to follow, need our prayers and sympathy, especially at this time, with a new year approaching.
The other issue I have difficulty wrapping my mind around is the change in the age of consent from 16 to 18. Something in there left me flat-footed. There must be some higher altruistic purpose for the change mentioned in the parliamentary debate which I may have missed. I make the other observation regarding the parliamentary debate, that at no time did any MP switch on his or her comedic pulse and ask Mr. Speaker: “What became of the phrase ‘sweet sixteen’ which so many upright Saint Lucians believed was spoken wisdom?” No analysis of the recent law is complete without the following question: How many persons have been charged and sentenced for taking sexual advantage of young people aged under sixteen years, and how many young people aged sixteen and under have given birth to children in the last seven years or so? Are the statistics available? Any government that wishes to stop the sexual abuse of young people below the age of legal consent must be aware of available statistics and must be determined to pursue the abusers of young girls and boys to the very end.
Perhaps the real concern with those who wished to raise the age of consent is the realization that the healthcare system would be overwhelmed by people aged sixteen years and under, producing children willy-nilly, even after the provision of national health insurance, as if some enemy of the state was paying these youngsters to produce feeble, traumatic and damaged offspring, that would likely end up servants of drug barons and criminal bosses. If the children are the future of our country, then we should declare a full-scale war of attrition on those who use them, abuse them and leave them to be exploited by criminals. The real criminals, like some politicians we can name, are always silent in the background when crime is discussed. They speak few works except to deceive and mislead the nation. It would be nice to hear the leader of this country, and the leader of the opposition, deliver separate addresses in which they each declare their support for the police for a full, no-holds barred attack on the real criminals in this country—IMPACS report be damned! The first part is to remove the criminal elements from the police force, setting the police free to use their firearms, when the situation demands. The state must stop the known gun-toting, violent and dangerous criminals in the society, and the people and the police must act as one, fully supported by their MPs, government and opposition.
Finally there is this: the CEO of the Hotels Association has fingered the high cost of doing business in Saint Lucia for the closure of the Blu Hotel in Rodney Bay. I suggest that parliament appoint a team of experts to verify this observation. While they’re at it, parliament should ask the hotels and foreign manufacturing entities what exactly they need to turn a profit in their businesses. Our MPs should also demand to know the salaries of all foreign executives in those industries and the concessions and tax holidays various governments have given to these businesses. More on this should be forthcoming next budget and when the report is made available to the public.
This discussion may also be a good way to begin the New Year, instead of wasting time with nonsensical matters that have no bearing on jobs and social services.
