EDITORIAL - Not quite wrong, but pretty odd…

Oftentimes, many of us would have delivered ourselves of sentiments that on deeper reflection, we would have wished had never emanated from our lips. Many of these regrettable expressions would have been well intentioned. However, the true import of words is determined by what they mean to others, whatever might have been the speaker’s innate view of them.

In at least two instances in relatively recent days, two fairly prominent citizens in their own countries have made statements that when put into the public domain, satisfied the description in the heading, “not quite wrong, but pretty odd”.

First, here at home we had the current Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, Mr Jepter Ince, who sought to fob off recent talk of a likely devaluation of the Barbados dollar, by asserting that this scenario was not even a remote possibility. Not because the current governing administration would do its utmost to ensure that this did not occur, but rather because one could not devalue something that had no value. And, in his view, this was an apt description of the Barbados dollar since it was not recognised internationally. Moreover, according to him, he “could not travel with Barbados dollars when he went to the United States”.

The former Prime Minister and sometime professional economist, Mr Owen Arthur, almost immediately took umbrage at the statement deeming it “perfect and profound ignorance” and “a dismissible
offence”. While he was prepared to admit that the dollar was not easily convertible outside of these shores where it is legal tender, Mr Arthur was nonetheless emphatic that the value of the local dollar is two to one US or rather US$ .50.

We do not believe for one moment that Mr Ince was unaware of the exchange rate of the Barbados dollar as quoted by Mr Arthur. However, he failed to make a distinction between the currencies in specie (the banknote) that is at most a collector’s item abroad and the current set exchange rate of the dollar that we are so resolute in maintaining.

The second instance was the view expressed by the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago, Dr Keith Rowley, who, beleaguered by a burgeoning murder rate in the twin-island republic (a significant number of whose victims are female), posited that women should choose their male companions more wisely. This immediately created a furore, not merely among Mr Rowley’s political opponents, but also among some women’s groups that called for an apology.

And yet, in a certain sense, Dr Rowley does have a point. While we acknowledge that it is not yet possible for a woman to isolate at first sight a potential lover that might be disposed to cause her fatal harm, and that some women, in spite of themselves, are naturally attracted to the “bad boy” image, there are doubtless signs during the course of a relationship that the infliction of violence is far too ready a resort in stressful situations. Of course, we concede that by then economic considerations might have impinged to preclude her instantly “putting wheels on her heels” as Singing Francine once advised in song, but the state should then have an obligation to provide a safe harbour for such a female afflicted by domestic violence and so prevent a greater evil.

We feel certain that Dr Rowley, as the father of daughters, did not intend that his words should have been interpreted as an affront to the female or as an expression of official disinterest in her fate.
But then this is the age of political correctness and better it is, we suppose, not to ascribe the slightest blame to women who find themselves victims of these murderous men, but rather to portray them as helpless elements in the bloodbath that Trinidad & Tobago appears to have become in recent times.