Posted on

Having one National Hero is not a problem



Editor: R.A. Byron-Cox wrote almost in defence of Arnhim Eustace, but failed in fact to show cause why the latter should be defended. The problem as I see it is that the NDP is short of leadership talent. There is no reasonable replacement for the incumbent – not even King James – but he ought to have resigned earlier in order to test the mettle of some other.{{more}}

The role of the Comrade Doctor in denigrating both the Opposition and its Leader should not go unnoticed. The nation has no idea how the PM would have functioned in the presence of an Opposition with backbone.

I think Dr. Fraser’s article in last week’s paper is well argued. I wish to add my own comments.

My main thrust is about National Honours, but allow me to say that I support the following:

a) First Past the Post

b) Some increase in the number of members of the national assembly, both of the elected and nominated members;

c) Abolishing appeals to the UK Privy Council and using the CCJ.

In the matter of National Honours, I propose that we re-focus on annual awards to Vincentians who make and continue to make wonderful contributions to our lives; and propose further that we consider a system of awards, but not including that of National Hero, to those who are no longer with us; and that furthermore, that awards to the rank of National Hero be made using two criteria. These are, firstly, that those being honoured should not be personally known to anyone alive today (note that Chatoyer fitted this description), and secondly, that we await written histories about candidates which will put future generations in a good position to judge their merits.

In principle, we should now be considering only those past Vincentians who died before any of us were born, and whose histories we can research.

There is no harm or loss in having, for the time being, only one National Hero.

Cedric Harold