SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION: KIFFO BRINGS ENCOURAGING NEWS — BUT THE CHILDREN STILL NEED A RIDE!

Choiseul on the Move | October 16, 2026

There is encouraging news on the school transportation issue affecting families in Choiseul/Saltibus. But while we welcome the development, we are keeping our fingers crossed.

For months, Choiseul on the Move has been raising concerns about the financial burden facing parents whose children attend Beanefield Secondary School without access to government-subsidized transportation.

We have spoken about the sacrifices. We have highlighted the inequalities. We have appealed for intervention.

And throughout this discussion, one principle has remained unchanged:

No child should be disadvantaged simply because of the secondary school to which he or she has been assigned.

At Last, Some Encouraging News

This morning, Friday, October 16, Parliamentary Representative for Choiseul/Saltibus, Keithson "Kiffo" Charles, communicated an encouraging development concerning the school transportation situation.

According to the Parliamentary Representative, the Ministry has finally called in the operator of an additional school bus to complete the necessary sign-up arrangements.

He indicated that the operator attended earlier this week and expressed the expectation that the additional service should begin any day now.

Mr. Charles also disclosed his intention to meet with the drivers currently serving the route to discuss how students can be allocated among them to make transportation arrangements more manageable.

This is welcome news.

It suggests that the matter is receiving attention and that steps are being taken towards addressing the concerns of parents.

We acknowledge the Parliamentary Representative's communication and appreciate his willingness to keep us informed.

But There Is a Difference Between an Arrangement and a Solution

Here is where we must exercise some caution.

An operator being called in to sign an agreement is encouraging.

A meeting being proposed with drivers is encouraging.

An additional bus expected to begin operating is certainly encouraging.

But the real measure of progress will come when the affected children are actually being transported to school safely, reliably and affordably.

As the old saying goes:

"A promise is a comfort to a fool."

We use that expression not to question anyone's sincerity, but to remind ourselves that good intentions must eventually produce tangible results.

Parents cannot pay transportation costs with promises.

Children cannot travel to school on assurances.

And families struggling to make ends meet cannot indefinitely survive on the expectation that relief is coming.

The Beanefield Question Must Be Answered

While the announcement is encouraging, one important question remains:

Will this additional transportation arrangement specifically accommodate students travelling from Choiseul/Saltibus to Beanefield Secondary School?

That is the issue we have consistently highlighted.

We would also welcome clarification on the proposed routes, pickup arrangements, the number of students who can be accommodated, and when the additional service is expected to become operational.

These are not unreasonable demands.

They are practical questions that parents deserve to have answered.

A Word to Our Parliamentary Representative

Mr. Charles, we welcome this development and recognize the effort being made.

Your proposed meeting with the drivers could be particularly important in ensuring that students are properly accommodated.

We encourage you to pursue that meeting as soon as possible, establish a workable arrangement and communicate the outcome to affected parents.

The children of Choiseul/Saltibus deserve a transportation system that works for them, regardless of which secondary school they attend.

This is an opportunity to demonstrate that the concerns of ordinary families are being heard and translated into action.

And when that happens, Choiseul on the Move will be among the first to acknowledge it.

We Are Keeping Our Fingers Crossed

We have always maintained that community advocacy should not be about attacking individuals or scoring political points.

It should be about identifying problems, encouraging solutions and recognizing progress when it occurs.

Today, we acknowledge what appears to be a positive step.

Tomorrow, we hope to report that the additional bus is operating, that students attending Beanefield Secondary School are being accommodated, and that parents are finally experiencing some financial relief.

Until then, our position remains one of cautious optimism.

We welcome the news. We appreciate the update. But we await the results.

Because at the end of the day, the success of this initiative will not be measured by the number of meetings held or agreements signed.

It will be measured by the number of children who can finally get to school without their parents having to carry an unbearable transportation burden.

And that, Mr. Representative, is the outcome we are all hoping for.

Choiseul on the Move — Giving our communities a voice, recognizing progress and holding firmly to the principle that no child should be left behind.

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE · COMMENTARY

Let Them Speak Kwéyòl: The Search for Truth Must Make Room for Our People

A reflection on language, dignity and the Anse Cochon boat tragedy inquiry

By Dedan Jn Baptiste | October 15, 2026

In July, our words were heavy with grief. Here at Choiseul on the Move, we responded to the boat tragedy through articles and songs, trying in our own small way to give expression to a sorrow that had reached far beyond the shoreline. Now, as witnesses give their accounts before a Commission of Inquiry, another responsibility rests before the country: to listen carefully, ask searching questions and make sure that those with something to tell us can express it fully.

That last part has been troubling me.

I watched the first two days of the inquiry. On several occasions, a couple of witnesses appeared to have difficulty with questions put to them. Questions were rephrased, and I acknowledge that effort. Yet, even after the wording changed, I still had the impression that some witnesses were uncomfortable expressing themselves.

In the exchanges I watched, I did not hear a panel member offer to put the question in Kwéyòl.

We are in Saint Lucia. Surely that possibility should come naturally to us.

A serious inquiry needs people to be understood

The public hearings opened on October 13 at the Parliament Building in Castries. The inquiry concerns the July 18 collision involving Ocean Angel and Cazorla Jr. at Anse Cochon. Four people lost their lives. Families and survivors deserve a careful examination of what happened.

Justice Mario Michel chairs the Commission, alongside Cuthbert Didier, Kentry Frederick and Luke Defreitas. Its work includes examining the collision and recommending improvements to maritime legislation, procedures and safety.

That is an important responsibility. Every useful detail matters. But a question can be properly framed and still fail to reach the person being asked. A witness may understand part of it, hesitate over a word, or struggle to find an English expression for something they could explain more easily in Kwéyòl.

Changing the English wording may help. Sometimes, changing the language may help more.

Before we repeat a question, have we asked whether the witness would prefer to hear it—and answer it—in Kwéyòl?

Ask the witness. Do not guess.

Let me be fair. Watching someone hesitate does not tell me why they are hesitating. It could be nerves, the formality of the setting, difficulty recalling events, emotional distress, an unfamiliar expression or uncertainty about what is being asked. I cannot diagnose a language difficulty from my screen.

Neither should anyone assume that a witness prefers Kwéyòl because of where they live, their occupation or how they speak English.

That is precisely why the Commission should ask. A simple invitation at the beginning would remove the guesswork: “Would you be more comfortable giving your evidence in English or Kwéyòl?” Witnesses should also know that they can ask to change languages during their evidence.

A person should not have to struggle publicly before that choice becomes available.

Kwéyòl belongs in the serious business of this country

We are in October, when we proudly celebrate our cultural inheritance. We bring out the madras, prepare our traditional dishes and enjoy the sound of Kwéyòl across the country. But the respect we give our language must reach into the rooms where important decisions are made.

Kwéyòl belongs wherever a Saint Lucian needs it to explain an experience, ask for help or give an account of something that matters.

As a retired teacher, I know the importance of checking whether a question has actually been understood. Repeating it louder, or dressing it in slightly different words, does not always resolve the difficulty. Sometimes you must meet the person through the language in which they can best organise and communicate their thoughts.

The same care has value in a public inquiry. A witness may have a clear memory and still struggle to put it into formal English. We must be careful that fluency does not become a misleading measure of how much someone knows or how seriously we take them.

A respectful appeal to the panel

Among the commissioners is Assistant Commissioner of Police Luke Defreitas, whom we in Choiseul regard as one of our own. It is encouraging to see someone connected to our community serving in such an important national exercise.

I appeal to him and to the entire panel to consider this concern. The responsibility belongs to the Commission collectively. Could a clear language choice be offered to every witness? Could a competent interpreter be available whenever needed?

Where interpretation is used, the question must retain its meaning, the answer must be accurately conveyed, and any uncertainty must be clarified for the record. A casual translation that changes a question or supplies an answer would serve nobody. Proper arrangements would support both the witness and the integrity of the evidence.

A practical step the Commission can take

Offer English or Kwéyòl at the outset. Allow witnesses to switch when needed. Ask one clear question at a time. Arrange accurate interpretation and a reliable record of the evidence.

The families deserve every effort

This inquiry must be allowed to examine the evidence and reach its findings. My concern here is about how we help that process obtain the fullest, clearest accounts possible.

The families deserve answers. Survivors deserve to be heard with patience. Witnesses deserve an opportunity to explain themselves without avoidable barriers.

As attention turns to the third day, my appeal is simple: if a witness would be more comfortable in Kwéyòl, make room for it. Ask the question in a language the witness understands, and allow the answer in a language the witness can use confidently.

Let them speak Kwéyòl. Then listen carefully to what they have to say.

About this commentary: Observations about witnesses’ apparent discomfort and the absence of a Kwéyòl offer in the exchanges watched are the author’s impressions from viewing the first two days. They do not establish any witness’s preferred language or that the Commission prohibited Kwéyòl.

Sources: Government of Saint Lucia: public sitting notice, commission membership and terms of reference, October 9, 2026; HTS News4orce: opening-day inquiry coverage, October 14, 2026; Saint Lucia Tourism Authority: Creole Heritage Month.

 

SHOW US THE RULE! PARLIAMENT OWES SAINT LUCIANS AN EXPLANATION

If political party emblems are acceptable inside the House of Assembly, show us the authority that permits them. If they are prohibited, show us the rule. But please, don't expect the people to accept confusion where clarity should prevail.

By Dedan Jn Baptiste | Choiseul on the Move

There is something about the recent confrontation in Saint Lucia's House of Assembly involving opposition parliamentarian Norbert and Speaker Claudius Francis that continues to trouble me.

And no, it is not simply the exchange between the two gentlemen.

It is the question that appears to have been lost somewhere in the controversy.

Can the Parliament of Saint Lucia produce the specific Standing Order, Speaker's ruling, dress directive, or established parliamentary convention governing the wearing of political party emblems inside the House of Assembly?

That, to my mind, is where the discussion should begin.

Not with who embarrassed whom. Not with who had the final word. And certainly not with whether we support the government or the opposition.

SHOW US THE RULE!

A PARLIAMENT BELONGING TO THE PEOPLE

Let us remind ourselves of something fundamental.

The House of Assembly is not a political party headquarters. It is not a campaign platform. And it certainly does not belong to whichever political party happens to command the majority.

It belongs to the people of Saint Lucia.

Yes, members enter Parliament through a political process. They campaign under party banners, wear party colours, and seek the support of voters.

But when they enter the chamber, they become participants in a constitutional institution governed by rules, procedures, and established standards of conduct.

And those standards should apply to everybody.

Government members. Opposition members. Independents, should there be any.

No exceptions based on political allegiance.

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY SAY?

Section 53 of the Constitution of Saint Lucia gives the House of Assembly and the Senate the authority to regulate their own procedures and make rules for the orderly conduct of proceedings.

That is clear enough.

But here is where we must be careful.

The Constitution does not say that the Speaker has unlimited personal authority over everything that takes place inside Parliament.

The Speaker certainly has the responsibility to maintain order, interpret the Standing Orders, and ensure that parliamentary proceedings are conducted properly.

Nobody is questioning the necessity of that authority.

However, there is a difference between exercising authority under established rules and expecting the public to accept a decision without understanding its procedural foundation.

The Speaker's authority deserves respect. But respect for authority should never eliminate the need for accountability.

NORBERT'S CONCERN DESERVES AN ANSWER

According to Norbert's account, before the sitting commenced, he noticed political party emblems being displayed on the clothing of certain government parliamentarians.

He reportedly brought the matter to the attention of some members and communicated his concerns to senior parliamentary officials.

If his account is accurate, this was not necessarily an issue that emerged without warning in the middle of parliamentary proceedings.

There may have been an opportunity to address the concern before the sitting began.

Yet the matter developed into a confrontation.

Now, I am not suggesting that Norbert was automatically correct.

Neither am I suggesting that the Speaker was automatically wrong.

But surely we can agree on one thing.

When a parliamentarian raises a question concerning the rules governing the House, the appropriate response should ultimately be a clear explanation of those rules.

If Norbert misunderstood the Standing Orders, show us where.

If the wearing of party emblems is permissible, explain the basis on which that conclusion rests.

If the matter falls within the Speaker's discretion, identify the procedural authority for exercising that discretion.

And if there is no specific rule, let us acknowledge that openly.

Why should such a straightforward question become a political battlefield?

THE SPEAKER'S CHAIR IS BIGGER THAN THE PERSON OCCUPYING IT

I have always maintained that institutions must be respected, regardless of who occupies their offices.

The Speaker's chair carries tremendous responsibility.

It is supposed to represent order, fairness, impartiality, and the dignity of Parliament.

But the authority of that chair should be strengthened by transparency, not weakened by uncertainty.

There is nothing unreasonable about asking for the rule governing a particular parliamentary practice.

Indeed, when parliamentary decisions are explained clearly, citizens are better able to distinguish between legitimate enforcement of procedure and disagreements over how that procedure is applied.

And that is healthy for democracy.

SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OF ADULT SUFFRAGE — WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

Here we are, commemorating 75 years of adult suffrage in Saint Lucia.

Seventy-five years since the extension of voting rights helped give ordinary Saint Lucians a greater say in choosing their representatives.

Our foreparents fought for political participation and representation.

They wanted their voices heard.

They wanted accountability.

They wanted a system in which ordinary citizens mattered.

But democracy is not simply about placing an X beside a candidate's name every five years.

Democracy is also about what happens after the election.

It is about the behaviour of our representatives, the standards of our institutions, and the willingness of those in authority to answer legitimate questions.

What better way to honour 75 years of adult suffrage than to demonstrate that Parliament remains accountable to the people whose votes give it legitimacy?

THIS IS NOT A RED OR YELLOW QUESTION

I want to be very clear.

If opposition parliamentarians were wearing party emblems in the House, I would ask precisely the same question.

If government parliamentarians were doing so, the same standard must apply.

This should not be about which party we love or which politician we dislike.

It should be about consistency.

Because a rule that applies only when convenient is not a reliable standard of parliamentary conduct.

And a parliamentary convention that nobody can clearly identify is hardly helpful to citizens seeking to understand how their House operates.

FOUR SIMPLE QUESTIONS FOR PARLIAMENT

I believe Parliament should clarify the following:

1. Is there a specific Standing Order, formal dress directive, Speaker's ruling, or established parliamentary convention governing political party emblems inside the House of Assembly?

2. If such an authority exists, what does it actually say, and does it apply equally to all members?

3. If the Standing Orders are silent, what established procedure determines whether such emblems are appropriate?

4. What procedure should a parliamentarian follow to challenge or seek clarification on such a matter during a sitting?

These are questions that can be answered without political insults, personal attacks, or unnecessary confrontation.

And answering them would serve a much greater purpose than simply settling the latest parliamentary disagreement.

It would help educate the public about the institution that represents them.

MR. SPEAKER, SHOW US THE RULE

Let me end where I began.

The Parliament of Saint Lucia is bigger than Norbert.

It is bigger than Speaker Claudius Francis.

It is bigger than the government and the opposition combined.

It is an institution that belongs to the people.

And when questions arise about the standards governing that institution, the people deserve explanations grounded in the Constitution, the Standing Orders, and established parliamentary practice.

I am not asking Parliament to invent a rule.

I am not asking the Speaker to surrender his authority.

And I am certainly not asking anyone to take sides in a political quarrel.

I am simply asking for clarity.

If there is a rule, produce it.

If there is an established convention, explain it.

If the matter rests on the Speaker's discretion, identify the authority and the principles guiding that discretion.

And if there is no specific provision, say so.

Seventy-five years after adult suffrage, Saint Lucians should not have to guess how their Parliament works.

THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A FAVOUR. THEY ARE ASKING FOR AN ANSWER.

PARLIAMENT OF SAINT LUCIA — CAN YOU SHOW US THE RULE?

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE

Our Community. Our Voice. Our Responsibility.

Editorial note: This commentary seeks clarification of parliamentary procedure. Norbert's account of events before the sitting has not been independently verified here. No specific prohibition on party emblems has been conclusively established from the materials examined.

 

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE | COMMUNITY ACCOUNTABILITY

MR. CHARLES, PARENTS CANNOT PAY SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION WITH PROMISES!

Twenty-five days after a personal assurance, parents are still asking questions — and still paying the price.

October 9, 2026 | By Dedan Jn Baptiste

There comes a time when patience begins to look like foolishness.

And there comes a time when the silence surrounding an unresolved problem becomes almost as frustrating as the problem itself.

We may well have reached that point with the transportation difficulties facing parents whose children attend Beanefield Secondary School.

And this morning, I am not going to mince words.

Mr. Parliamentary Representative, something has to give!

THE PHONE CALL THAT STOPPED MY ARTICLE

On September 15, I was preparing to publish an article with the headline:

"MR. REPRESENTATIVE, THE PARENTS DON'T NEED A PRIVATE EXPLANATION. THEY NEED TRANSPORTATION."

It was ready. The concerns were serious. I was about to press the publish button.

Then my telephone rang.

Guess who was on the other end?

Hon. Keithson "Kiffo" Charles himself, Parliamentary Representative for Choiseul/Saltibus.

He informed me that he was making contacts in an effort to address the transportation situation.

I listened. I appreciated the call. And I decided to hold back the article.

Why? Because I believe people should be given a reasonable opportunity to act on what they say.

But Mr. Charles, that was September 15. Today is October 9.

24

DAYS SINCE THAT PHONE CALL

No further update has reached me. Parents are still asking what is being done.

I am not saying that no contacts have been made. I am saying that the parents deserve to know whether those contacts have produced anything meaningful.

THEN CAME A MESSAGE FROM A MOTHER

Recently, a parent with two children attending Beanefield Secondary School contacted me on WhatsApp.

"Hi good evening have you heard from the Rep concerning transportation for the children?"

Read that message again.

There is no political attack in it. No insults. No grandstanding.

Just a mother looking for some hope.

And I had nothing encouraging to tell her.

I felt uncomfortable because I had withheld my earlier article, believing that something might come out of the Representative's efforts.

But my discomfort is nothing compared with what these families are experiencing.

$50 A DAY JUST TO KEEP TWO CHILDREN GOING

Another mother, also with two children attending Beanefield Secondary School, explained her daily expenses.

And Mr. Representative, I want you to pay very close attention to these figures.

ONE CHILD. ONE SCHOOL DAY.

Transport to Vieux Fort and back	$10
Drop-off point to school and back	$4
Break and lunch	$10
ITEMISED DAILY TOTAL	$24

The mother estimates her daily spending at approximately $25 per child.

$50

TWO CHILDREN PER DAY

$1,000

APPROX. 20 SCHOOL DAYS

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS!

That is the approximate monthly cost of transportation and school-day meals for two children in this household.

Of that amount, transportation alone accounts for $560 over 20 school days, based on the fares she described.

Now subtract that from the income of an ordinary working household. Then consider groceries, water, electricity, rent, other children, and all the other expenses.

Tell me, Mr. Charles, where is that money supposed to come from?

THE PART OF THIS STORY THAT BROKE MY HEART

"WHEN THE BUS DROPS THEM AT ROBLOT JUNCTION..."

Another detail shared by a parent has remained on my mind.

She explained that when the bus drops her children off at the Roblot junction, she encourages them to walk the remaining distance home, or ask for a lift.

Think about that for a moment.

After spending the day at school, the children still have another journey to complete.

And their mother is trying to find a way to avoid another transportation expense.

Do we understand what this means?

Here is a parent who wants her children educated, wants them home safely, and is trying to make limited money stretch just a little farther.

No parent should feel financially pressured to choose between paying for a safer journey home and asking children to walk or seek a lift.

Depending on the distance, conditions and availability of safe transport, that final journey may present concerns of its own.

This is not merely a question of dollars and cents anymore.

It is about dignity. It is about peace of mind. And above all, it is about our children.

MR. REPRESENTATIVE, HOW MUCH MORE MUST THESE FAMILIES ENDURE?

CAMERAS, CEREMONIES AND THE REAL TEST OF LEADERSHIP

Mr. Charles, I see your name associated with community activities and developments across the constituency.

There is nothing wrong with that.

A Parliamentary Representative should be active and visible.

But let me ask a question that may make some people uncomfortable.

Are we placing as much urgency on the quiet suffering of struggling families as we place on public events and ceremonies?

It is easy to be photographed at a presentation.

It is easy to issue congratulations and public messages of support.

But the true measure of representation is also found in how effectively one responds when a mother says she cannot comfortably afford to get her children to school and back.

"A mother's financial hardship may not attract a photographer. But it deserves the attention of her elected representative."

Our children must not become invisible simply because their transportation difficulties do not make for an attractive publicity photograph.

PARENTS ARE NOT BEGGING FOR CHARITY

Let me be absolutely clear.

These parents are not asking the Parliamentary Representative to pay every household expense.

They are asking for meaningful intervention to ease a transportation burden directly connected to their children's education.

That could involve a dedicated school bus, a subsidised service, an arrangement with transport operators, or assistance from the relevant government authorities.

The precise solution should come from serious discussions with the people responsible for education and transport.

But surely by now the parents deserve to know what options are being pursued.

FIVE QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS

1. What contacts have been made since the September 15 telephone conversation?
2. Which authorities or transportation providers have been approached, and what has been their response?
3. Is a dedicated or subsidised transportation arrangement being actively considered?
4. What temporary relief can be explored while a permanent solution is being pursued?
5. When will parents receive an official update and a realistic timetable for the next steps?

These are not outrageous questions. They are the questions that any concerned parent is entitled to ask.

And they deserve more than another private assurance.

DON'T MISTAKE THE SILENCE OF PARENTS FOR SATISFACTION

Not every parent will complain publicly.

Not every mother will call a radio station or contact a blogger.

Some will simply keep struggling, borrowing, cutting back and trying to ensure their children do not miss school.

But their silence does not mean the burden is manageable.

And their patience must never be taken as permission to leave them without answers.

Mr. Charles, the parents are not fools. Their concerns must not be treated as though they will simply disappear with time.

I HELD BACK MY ARTICLE. I WILL NOT HOLD BACK THE QUESTIONS.

I gave the Representative the benefit of the doubt on September 15.

I would gladly give credit where credit is due if tangible progress has been made.

But I cannot report progress that has not been communicated to me or the affected parents who continue asking for information.

So today I am making a simple public request.

MR. CHARLES, GIVE THE PARENTS AN UPDATE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS.

Tell them what has been done, what remains outstanding, and when they can reasonably expect the next step.

If there is progress, show it. If there are obstacles, explain them.

We are not demanding a miracle within seven days.

We are demanding communication, urgency and accountability.

Because another school week means another round of payments.

And for at least one mother, it also means another day of wondering how her children will complete their journey home from the Roblot junction.

FINALLY, MR. REPRESENTATIVE...

Public office is not merely about being seen.

It is about being there when the people who placed their trust in the system need help.

Parents are making sacrifices every school day to ensure their children have the opportunity for an education.

They are doing their part.

Now they want to see the authorities doing theirs.

THE CHILDREN NEED A WAY TO SCHOOL.

THE PARENTS NEED FINANCIAL RELIEF.

AND THE REPRESENTATIVE NEEDS TO ANSWER.

Mr. Charles, turn those contacts into concrete action.

And while you work towards a solution, please keep the parents informed.

They have waited long enough for a meaningful response.

Dedan Jn Baptiste

Choiseul on the Move

Giving a voice to the concerns of our communities.

A PUBLIC INVITATION TO RESPOND

Choiseul on the Move welcomes a response from the Parliamentary Representative, the Ministry of Education, and other relevant authorities. We will gladly publish verified information on any meaningful progress towards resolving the transportation difficulties.

Parents are also invited to share their experiences respectfully, without disclosing children's personal information or unsafe travel details.

🎉📚 TEACHERS’ DAY TRIBUTE: “TIME SERVED… AND STILL SERVING!” 👏🏽🍎

— A Choiseul on the Move Salute to Our Educators —

There’s a funny cartoon making the rounds where a man reaches the gates of heaven and is told, “You should be in hell, but since you were a teacher, we’ll count it as time served.” 😂

We laugh… but if we’re honest, we also nod our heads, because anyone who has ever spent time in a classroom knows — teaching is not for the faint-hearted.

Our teachers don’t just teach Math and English.
They teach patience.
They teach discipline.
They teach hope.
They teach children who come hungry, tired, frustrated, distracted, and sometimes hurting.
And they do it with lesson plans in one hand and compassion in the other.

Right here in Choiseul and across Saint Lucia, teachers are shaping tomorrow’s nurses, engineers, farmers, entrepreneurs, artists, leaders — and yes, even future politicians 😄 — often with limited resources but unlimited dedication.

So when we joke that teachers have already “done their time,” what we’re really saying is this:
👉🏽 You have given more than your job description ever asked.
👉🏽 You have stood in the gap for families and communities.
👉🏽 You have helped carry this nation forward, one child at a time.

On this Teachers’ Day, Choiseul on the Move says thank you to:
🍎 The early childhood teachers who build the foundation.
📘 The primary school teachers who spark curiosity.
📐 The secondary school teachers who push discipline and direction.
📚 And the educators at every level who never stop believing in our children, even when the children stop believing in themselves.

We see you.
We appreciate you.
And we salute you — not because your job is easy, but because it is essential.

Happy Teachers’ Day to all our educators.
Your service is not forgotten.
And yes… your “time served” will never go unnoticed. 🙌🏽🇱🇨

#ChoiseulOnTheMove #HappyTeachersDay #SalutingOurEducators #NationBuilders #ThankYouTeachers

 GOOD ENOUGH ABROAD, “OVERQUALIFIED” AT HOME: A Choiseul Resident’s Painful Question

Choiseul on the Move | Commentary

Imagine coming home with years of experience, ready to work, only to hear that the very experience you bring makes you unsuitable.

For one Choiseul resident, Uyre Peter, that is the frustration behind a deeply personal account of returning to Saint Lucia and eventually leaving again.

His story deserves attention because it asks an uncomfortable question: what happens when a Saint Lucian wants to bring his skills home, but cannot find a place to use them?

According to his account, he represented Saint Lucia at a bartending competition in Trinidad in 2008, finishing fourth among fourteen competitors. He says he spent nineteen years working at ACR and Jade Mountain, followed by three years in Turks and Caicos.

Then, in August 2025, he returned home.

He describes going to interviews and repeatedly being told he was “overqualified”, while acknowledging an exception and expressing gratitude to people who treated him well. Since April, he says, he has been working in the Cayman Islands.

“Why can't I be recognized as what I am in my own island,” he asks.

That question carries more hurt than any polished employment statistic could convey.

Here is a man describing years spent learning his trade, serving guests and representing his country, yet feeling that he had to leave that country to have his experience appreciated.

We should listen.

What does “overqualified” actually mean?

Let us be fair. A worker can apply for a position below his experience level. An employer may have a limited salary budget, no senior vacancy, or concerns about whether an applicant will remain in the job. Those are legitimate matters to discuss.

But “overqualified” should begin a conversation, not automatically end one.

Was the salary explained? Was he asked whether he would accept it? Were supervisory, training or other suitable opportunities discussed?

We do not have the employers’ accounts or the details of those interviews. This resident’s experience alone cannot establish that the whole industry treats returning workers this way.

But it gives us every reason to ask whether experienced Saint Lucians are receiving a fair assessment when they come home.

A rejection may be justified. A vague rejection still leaves a worker wondering what, exactly, he was supposed to have done differently.

Choiseul should care about this

For those of us in Choiseul, the issue reaches beyond one bartender.

Experience built over years has value. An experienced hospitality worker may be able to guide a young recruit, improve service, demonstrate professional standards and help another Saint Lucian build a career.

When that worker finds an opportunity overseas, we can be pleased for him. But we should also consider what our communities could have gained had there been a suitable opportunity here.

His account suggests that returning home was something he wanted to do. That makes the disappointment particularly sharp.

People can endure the demands of working abroad while holding on to the hope that, one day, their experience will help them settle at home. What do we tell them when they return and discover that their strongest qualification has become the explanation for turning them away?

Work is also about dignity. It is about feeling that the years you invested in your craft count for something in the place you belong.

Give experience a fair hearing

The answer is not to demand that any hotel hire someone simply because he is Saint Lucian. Employers must assess competence, suitability and the requirements of the job.

The expectation should be straightforward: assess returning workers fairly, explain decisions clearly, and consider where their experience could be useful.

Where a vacancy is too junior, say so. Where the budget is too low, discuss it honestly. Where another role might fit, explore it.

Hospitality employers and training institutions should also consider practical ways for experienced returning workers to pass on their knowledge. Training, mentoring and supervisory opportunities deserve serious consideration where there is a real need.

This resident should not have to prove he is “the best bartender” in Saint Lucia for his experience to deserve respect. His account raises a question that matters regardless of rankings.

He says other islands have given him opportunities he struggled to find at home.

Saint Lucia should be willing to examine why.

We celebrate our people when they represent us abroad. We should put equal effort into recognising what they can contribute when they return.

For this Choiseul resident, the question remains painfully simple:

After all those years building his experience, where was his place at home?

 PARLIAMENT MEETS TOMORROW: CHOISEUL, HERE IS WHAT I WILL BE LISTENING FOR

Tomorrow, Tuesday September 29, the House of Assembly is scheduled to meet from 2:00 p.m.

Now normally, an Order Paper is not the kind of document that gets everybody excited. Plenty legal language. Plenty numbers. Plenty "Statutory Instrument this" and "Amendment that."

But sometimes buried inside all of that are decisions that can eventually reach right into our communities and our homes.

Tomorrow may be one of those days.

US$20 MILLION FOR HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The big item I will be watching is a motion by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance seeking Parliament's authorization for Government to guarantee up to US$20 million being borrowed by the Saint Lucia Development Bank from the Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan).

The stated purpose is a Low to Medium Income Infrastructural Development and Home Construction Project.

US$20 million is roughly EC$54 million.

That is no small change.

Government announced the financing agreement in August and said the facility is intended to increase access to affordable housing for low- and middle-income households, including people who have traditionally had difficulty accessing conventional mortgage financing.

Fine.

But here on Choiseul on the Move, you know how we operate.

We bring the discussion home.

SO WHERE DOES CHOISEUL FIT IN?

This becomes particularly interesting because Government's own announcement concerning this financing said that Invest Saint Lucia was in discussions on a condominium-style housing development at La Fargue, Choiseul.

Now my ears are up.

Does tomorrow's US$20 million facility have any connection to that proposed La Fargue development?

How far have those discussions reached?

How many homes are being contemplated?

Who would qualify?

And most importantly, what does "low to medium income" actually mean in dollars and cents to an ordinary Choiseul family?

Those are some of the answers I will be listening for.

I am not saying tonight that Choiseul is getting a portion of that US$20 million. The Order Paper does not say that.

But once a national housing programme of this size is being guaranteed by the Government, and another Government announcement has specifically identified La Fargue as a location where a housing development is being discussed, then asking where Choiseul fits is perfectly reasonable.

AND IT IS NOT ONLY ABOUT BUILDING HOUSES

There is another interesting part.

Government previously described this financing as being available not only to help low- and middle-income Saint Lucians build or improve homes, but also for housing-related infrastructure including drainage upgrades, water tanks and solar PV systems.

Now that certainly gets my attention.

Because when we speak about housing in communities like ours, we cannot separate a house from the infrastructure surrounding it.

A house still needs water.

It needs proper drainage.

It needs access.

It needs reliable infrastructure.

So tomorrow I want to hear whether this is simply another mortgage facility or whether communities themselves could see meaningful infrastructure improvements associated with housing development.

WHAT WILL PEOPLE ACTUALLY PAY?

The Order Paper also gives us the financing terms between the institutions.

The interest rate is tied to Term SOFR plus 0.2% plus another 1% per annum.

Repayment is to be made in 30 semi-annual instalments, with the first instalment falling due after a 66-month period from the initial advance.

But that still doesn't tell me something much more important to the man or woman trying to build a house:

What interest rate will the borrower walking into the Saint Lucia Development Bank actually pay?

That is the number ordinary people need to hear.

VAT, EXCISE TAX AND PRICE CONTROL ARE ALSO ON THE TABLE

There are other things on tomorrow's Order Paper that I will be keeping an eye on.

There are instruments concerning amendments to VAT and Excise Tax.

There are also two Price Control Amendment Orders.

But I am not going to jump ahead and tell you tonight that prices are going up or prices are coming down.

The Order Paper does not give us enough information to make that conclusion.

Let us see exactly what those amendments contain and what is said in Parliament.

If they affect the things ordinary Choiseulians buy, build with, drive with or put on their tables, then we will talk about it.

INVEST SAINT LUCIA'S REPORT IS COMING TOO

The Invest Saint Lucia Annual Report for 2025-2026 is also scheduled to be laid before Parliament.

That interests me too.

Particularly because Invest Saint Lucia is the agency Government identified as being involved in discussions surrounding that proposed housing development at La Fargue.

So I will be looking to see whether that report gives us anything more concrete about Choiseul.

TOMORROW, WE LISTEN

So tonight I am not writing the story.

I am telling you what I believe we should be listening for.

Who qualifies for this housing programme?

What will the interest rate be to the ordinary borrower?

How much can someone borrow?

Can existing homeowners qualify for improvements?

What infrastructure will be financed?

What is happening with the proposed La Fargue housing development?

And finally:

Where does Choiseul/Saltibus fit into this EC$54 million national housing initiative?

Tomorrow Parliament meets.

Tomorrow we listen.

And when the talking is finished, we will come back here, put what was said alongside what was promised and what is written in the documents, and determine exactly what it means for the people of Choiseul/Saltibus.

That is what Choiseul on the Move is here to do.

Not just report what happened in Castries.

Bring the discussion home.