IF SHE SPRAYS HER ATTACKER AND SAVES HER LIFE, WHO SHOULD BE IN THE DOCK?

There comes a time when we have to stop discussing violence against women only after another woman is dead.

Another candlelight vigil. Another photograph circulating on Facebook. Another family crying. Another minister condemning the violence. Another police investigation.

And then we wait for the next one.

Following the recent killings and troubling reports involving young women in Saint Lucia, I believe we need to have a serious national conversation about something we have been avoiding for far too long.

Should women in Saint Lucia be legally allowed to carry pepper spray for their own protection?

I know this is a sensitive subject.

But let us put the politics and fancy speeches aside for a moment and deal with the reality facing an ordinary woman.

Imagine a young woman leaving work at night.

She is walking towards her vehicle or waiting for transportation.

A man approaches her.

He grabs her.

Maybe he tries to drag her into a vehicle. Maybe he intends to rape her. Maybe he intends to rob her. Maybe his intention is even worse.

There is no police officer standing nearby.

There is no minister.

There is no security guard.

There is no press conference.

There is just this woman and the person attacking her.

She reaches into her bag, pulls out pepper spray, sprays her attacker in the face and gets away.

She survives.

My question is simple:

Who exactly should we be treating as the criminal in that situation?

The attacker?

Or the woman who refused to become another photograph on social media?

THE LAW ALREADY RECOGNISES SELF-DEFENCE

Saint Lucia's Criminal Code already recognises the right of a person to defend himself or herself.

Section 34 states that a person may use reasonable force to prevent crime or to protect himself, herself or another person from injury.

That is important.

The law itself accepts that there are circumstances where somebody does not have to simply stand there and allow another person to injure them.

You can defend yourself.

The big questions are whether the force used was reasonable and what defensive tools the law allows you to possess in the first place.

And that is where I believe Saint Lucia needs to have a fresh conversation.

WE CANNOT TELL WOMEN "PROTECT YOURSELF" AND THEN TAKE AWAY THEIR OPTIONS

We constantly tell women to be careful.

Don't walk alone.

Don't accept rides from strangers.

Share your location.

Watch your drinks.

Let somebody know where you are going.

Call the police.

Scream.

Run.

Fight back.

All good advice.

But suppose running is not possible?

Suppose the attacker is stronger?

Suppose there are two attackers?

Suppose the woman is trapped?

Suppose she has only seconds to make a decision that determines whether she gets home to her children that night?

What exactly are we telling her to do?

Wait for the police?

Police cannot be everywhere at every moment, and that is not an insult to the police. It is simply reality.

An attack can begin and end in seconds.

By the time somebody calls 999, explains the location and officers respond, the damage may already have been done.

That is why I find it interesting that this discussion is not even new.

Back in 2015, following reports of violent attacks against women, then Gender Relations Minister Alvina Reynolds publicly raised the possibility of women being allowed access to pepper spray and mace for protection.

That was more than ten years ago.

We talked.

And talked.

And here we are again.

RECENT EVENTS SHOULD MAKE US UNCOMFORTABLE

The latest discussions about violence against women did not appear from nowhere.

On September 14, Gender Affairs Minister Emma Hippolyte publicly called for renewed national action following the discovery of the body of a young woman near the Millennium Highway.

The Department of Gender Affairs itself acknowledged growing public concern over violence against women and reports of missing women.

That should trouble every parent.

Every father.

Every mother.

Every brother.

Every man who has a daughter.

Because when we speak about "women" in a general way, sometimes the issue feels distant.

But make it your daughter.

Your sister.

Your granddaughter.

Your wife.

Then ask yourself whether you would prefer her to have something available that might give her five seconds to escape an attacker.

I AM NOT CALLING FOR A FREE-FOR-ALL

Let me make something very clear.

I am not saying everybody should walk around spraying people whenever they get angry.

Pepper spray should never become a weapon for settling arguments, fighting neighbours, attacking partners or dealing with somebody you dislike.

That is assault.

There must be consequences for misuse.

But there is a major difference between spraying somebody during a quarrel and spraying somebody who is attempting to rape, abduct, beat or kill you.

The law should be capable of recognising that difference.

If Saint Lucia decides to legalise civilian pepper spray, then regulate it properly.

Limit the size and strength.

Set an age requirement.

Require approved products.

Provide basic instructions on proper use.

Make misuse a serious offence.

And make it very clear that it is intended for genuine self-defence.

That is not unreasonable.

WHAT I WOULD NOT ADVISE WOMEN TO DO

I would not sit here and tell women to knowingly break the law.

That would be irresponsible.

A woman should not survive an attack only to discover that she has created another legal problem for herself because of what she was carrying.

That is exactly why Parliament needs to settle the issue properly.

Do not leave women wondering whether protecting themselves could make them criminals.

Give people a clear law.

Tell them what is permitted.

Tell them what is not.

BUT HERE IS THE QUESTION THAT BOTHERS ME

Suppose a woman illegally possesses pepper spray.

Suppose a man attacks her.

Suppose she uses it only long enough to escape.

Suppose police later establish clearly that she was the victim.

Should the full weight of the law now descend on her?

Personally, I would find that extremely difficult to accept.

I understand that laws cannot simply be ignored because somebody believes their reason was good.

But justice must also involve common sense.

There is a difference between possession and malicious use.

There is a difference between aggression and survival.

There is a difference between somebody going looking for trouble and somebody desperately trying to get home alive.

Those differences matter.

WOMEN SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE LAW AND THEIR LIVES

That is ultimately where this discussion leads.

No woman should be placed in a position where she feels:

"If I carry something that could help protect me, I may be breaking the law. But if I carry nothing and somebody attacks me, I may not survive."

That is not a comfortable choice.

And government should not pretend that telling women to "be vigilant" solves it.

Vigilance helps.

Education helps.

Better policing helps.

Faster investigations help.

Street lighting helps.

Transportation helps.

Domestic violence intervention helps.

Stronger prosecution helps.

Men changing their behaviour most certainly helps.

But when an attack has already started, the victim may need something else.

She may need the ability to fight back.

MAYBE THE LAW NEEDS TO CATCH UP WITH REALITY

I support serious consideration of regulated pepper spray for adult civilian self-defence in Saint Lucia.

Not because pepper spray will solve violence against women.

It won't.

Not because every woman needs to carry it.

She doesn't.

And certainly not because women should have to arm themselves simply to exist peacefully in their own country.

But because sometimes the difference between becoming another victim and escaping may be only a few seconds.

If a non-lethal defensive tool can provide those few seconds, I believe government should at least explain convincingly why a responsible woman should be denied access to it.

And if our answer continues to be no, then government must answer the next question:

What practical alternative are we offering her at the exact moment somebody is trying to rape, abduct or kill her?

Not tomorrow.

Not when the police arrive.

Not when the minister issues a statement.

At that exact moment.

Because that is the moment that matters.

We have spent enough time mourning women after they are gone.

Perhaps we need to spend more time giving them a fighting chance while they are still here.

Choiseul on the Move

What do you think? Should Saint Lucia legalise pepper spray for responsible personal protection, with strict penalties for misuse?

 

🎉 CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE HAS CROSSED 2 MILLION PAGE VIEWS! 🎉

🎂 A MILESTONE WORTH CELEBRATING! 🎂

Can you believe it?

On July 17, 2026, we proudly announced that Choiseul on the Move had crossed ONE MILLION page views, with the counter then standing at an impressive 1,062,000.

👉 Remember that milestone?
CLICK HERE TO READ OUR JULY 17 MILESTONE POST

Today, September 23, 2026, I looked at the counter and had to look again.

🔥 TODAY'S TOTAL 🔥

2,002,941

PAGE VIEWS!

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT.

In just a little over two months, Choiseul on the Move added another 940,941 page views!

That says something.

It says people are reading.

It says people are sharing.

It says people are interested in what is happening in Choiseul, Saltibus and across Saint Lucia.

And most importantly, it tells me that there is still a place for community-based content that asks questions, celebrates our people, highlights our achievements, raises uncomfortable issues and gives ordinary people a space in the conversation.

👏 BUT TODAY, THE KUDOS BELONG TO YOU!

To everybody who clicked on an article.

To everybody who shared a link on Facebook or WhatsApp.

To those who agreed with us.

To those who disagreed with us.

To those who corrected us.

To those who quietly read without ever commenting.

To the people who send photographs, information, concerns and story ideas.

And yes, even to those who sometimes get vexed when we touch a sensitive subject! 😄

YOU ARE ALL PART OF THIS JOURNEY.

Choiseul on the Move was never meant to be about one person.

It was created to keep our communities informed, to document what is happening around us and to make sure that the stories of Choiseul and Saltibus have a place to be told.

We will not always get everything right. We will not always agree. But we will continue trying to be relevant, responsible and connected to the people we serve.

From

1,062,000 on July 17

to

2,002,941 on September 23!

That is not just another number on a Blogger counter.

THAT IS YOU.

More than two million reasons to keep writing.

More than two million reasons to keep asking questions.

More than two million reasons to keep celebrating Choiseul.

🙏 THANK YOU! 🙏

THANK YOU, CHOISEUL.
THANK YOU, SALTIBUS.
THANK YOU, SAINT LUCIA.
AND THANK YOU TO EVERY READER AT HOME AND ABROAD.

We appreciate every single click.

🎉 2,002,941 AND COUNTING! 🎉

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE

Our community. Our stories. Our voice.

And yes...

🎂 THIS ONE DESERVES SOME CAKE! 🥳🍾

 

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE | EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

REUNION PRESCHOOL GETS A BOOST: GOOD NEWS, BUT LET'S LOOK BEYOND THE CHEQUE

Government's latest investment reaches Choiseul, but the real test will be what it means for our children, parents and preschool educators.

Sometimes we hear about a Government programme and all we get are the big national figures. Millions here, thousands there, so many beneficiaries across Saint Lucia.

But when you see someone from your own community standing there receiving the support, the story suddenly comes closer to home.

And this time, Choiseul is part of the story.

The administrator of the Reunion Preschool in Choiseul was among the early childhood administrators participating in Government's latest financial assistance programme for privately operated Early Childhood Development Centres.

THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE PHOTO

According to Government, approximately EC$670,800 is being provided to 104 private early childhood centres for Term 1 of the 2026–2027 academic year.

The programme is expected to benefit 3,588 children.

SO WHAT DOES EACH PRESCHOOL RECEIVE?

Each participating private early childhood centre receives an EC$3,000 institutional grant.

On top of that, Government is providing EC$100 per child toward preschool fees for the term.

That second part is important.

Because when we talk about helping education, we cannot only talk about buildings and institutions. We must also talk about the parents who have to find the money every month to keep their children in school.

One hundred dollars may not sound like plenty money to everybody, but ask a struggling mother or father trying to balance preschool fees, groceries, electricity, transportation and all the other household expenses.

Every little bit helps.

REUNION PRESCHOOL IS PART OF THAT INVESTMENT

For us at Choiseul on the Move, that is what makes this particular photograph important.

It is not simply a picture of a preschool administrator standing next to Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre.

It tells us that some of the money being spoken about nationally is reaching an early childhood institution right here in Reunion, Choiseul.

And I have always believed that when something good happens for Choiseul, we should say so.

We can criticise Government when criticism is deserved and still acknowledge a programme when it brings something useful to our people.

There should be no politics in that.

But receiving the cheque cannot be where the conversation ends.

WHAT WILL THE $3,000 DO?

That is one of the questions I would like us to begin asking locally.

Three thousand dollars will not transform an entire preschool overnight. Anyone who understands the cost of running an early childhood centre knows that.

Teaching materials cost money. Furniture costs money. Toys and educational equipment cost money. Maintenance costs money. Electricity, water, cleaning supplies and keeping a safe environment for small children all cost money.

So EC$3,000 can certainly help.

The bigger question is how that support translates into a better learning environment for the children.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IS NOT BABYSITTING

This is something we sometimes forget.

Preschool is not simply somewhere parents drop their children in the morning and collect them in the afternoon.

These are some of the most important years in a child's development.

This is where children begin learning how to communicate, interact with others, follow instructions, solve simple problems, develop confidence and prepare themselves for primary school.

And behind all of that are preschool teachers and administrators who are often doing far more than many people realise.

So if we are serious about investing in children, then we must also be serious about investing in the people who care for and educate them.

BUT THERE IS A BIGGER PROMISE ON THE TABLE

Government has been speaking about moving Saint Lucia toward universal access to early childhood education.

That is a much bigger undertaking than presenting annual grants.

In March 2026, Government again identified universal access to free preschool education among its early childhood priorities.

If we eventually reach that point, it could fundamentally change the way early childhood education is delivered in Saint Lucia.

But there are questions that must be answered.

QUESTIONS CHOISEUL SHOULD BE ASKING

● How many registered private preschools operate in Choiseul/Saltibus?

● How many of them received the EC$3,000 grant?

● How many Choiseul children are benefiting from the EC$100-per-term subsidy?

● How is that subsidy reflected in what parents actually pay?

● What are the greatest needs facing our local preschools?

● And when universal preschool education comes, what exactly will it look like in communities such as Reunion, Roblot, Debreuil, La Fargue and the wider Choiseul/Saltibus constituency?

These are not questions being asked to attack anybody.

They are the questions we should naturally ask if we want to understand whether a national policy is making a difference at community level.

GIVE CREDIT, THEN FOLLOW THE RESULTS

Government deserves acknowledgement for continuing the assistance.

According to the latest figures, 104 private centres and 3,588 children are benefiting during the first term of this school year.

That is real assistance.

But at Choiseul on the Move, our responsibility should not end with repeating a Government press release or sharing a photograph.

We have to bring the story home.

What does it mean for Reunion Preschool?

What does it mean for the parents?

What does it mean for the children?

And one year from now, will we be able to point to something that became better because this investment was made?

THAT IS WHERE THE REAL STORY IS.

For now, congratulations to the administrator, staff, parents and children of Reunion Preschool.

It is good to see our community represented.

It is good to see some of the national investment reaching Choiseul.

But the cheque and the photograph are only the beginning. The real measure of success will be what happens afterwards, inside that preschool classroom, where the youngest members of our community are getting their first real start in education.

Choiseul on the Move
Community. Accountability. Development.

Information sources: Government of Saint Lucia / Office of the Prime Minister / Early Childhood Services Unit, September 2026.

COULD AI REALLY DESTROY HUMANITY? Let’s Talk About This Without the Hype

I have been following a story coming out of the United States, and I will admit that it caught my attention.

The headline is frightening.

Artificial Intelligence could become so powerful that it poses a threat to humanity, possibly within the next decade.

Now before anybody starts throwing away their phone, shutting down their computer or blaming ChatGPT for everything wrong in the world, let us understand what is actually being said.

Because there is a difference between saying AI WILL destroy humanity and saying there is a risk that future AI could become dangerous if humans lose control of it.

And that difference is important.

The warning is coming from people inside the industry

What makes this story worth paying attention to is that these warnings are not simply coming from somebody sitting in his bedroom watching science-fiction movies.

Some of them are coming from researchers who have actually worked on advanced AI.

Former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon recently raised concerns about where this technology is heading and whether humans will be able to reliably control much more powerful AI systems.

Another Anthropic researcher, Evan Hubinger, has publicly put his own estimate of the risk of an AI catastrophe killing everyone within the next decade at greater than 10 percent.

That doesn't mean there is a scientific calculation proving we have a 10 percent chance of extinction.

It is his assessment of the risk.

But think about it another way.

If an engineer told you there was a 10 percent chance that a bridge would collapse while you were crossing it, would you drive across?

I wouldn't.

And that is why I don't believe we should simply laugh at these people.

But how can a computer destroy the world?

That was my question too.

My little laptop sitting on my desk cannot suddenly get up and attack anybody.

Neither can your cellphone.

And the AI systems we are using today are not the super-intelligent machines these researchers are worried about.

The concern is about what comes next.

Suppose AI eventually becomes capable of performing many intellectual tasks better than humans.

Suppose it can write its own computer programs, find weaknesses in computer networks, operate other machines, manipulate people, conduct scientific research and make decisions at a speed humans simply cannot match.

Then suppose we begin giving those systems more independence.

That is where the concern begins.

The danger doesn't necessarily require some evil robot waking up one morning and saying, "I hate humans."

The problem could be much simpler.

We give an extremely powerful system a goal.

It finds a way of accomplishing that goal that we never anticipated.

Then we discover that stopping it is much harder than starting it.

We have seen a smaller version of this problem before

Human beings have a habit of inventing first and dealing with the consequences afterwards.

We built cars before we developed the road-safety systems we have today.

We embraced social media before fully understanding what misinformation, addiction, algorithms and mass manipulation could do.

We developed plastics without imagining that decades later we would be finding microplastics practically everywhere.

The invention comes first.

The rules usually come afterwards.

With ordinary technology, we sometimes get a second chance.

The people sounding the alarm about advanced AI are asking a troubling question:

What if this is one technology where getting it badly wrong does not give us a second chance?

That is the part of this discussion that bothers me.

Senator Jon Ossoff has entered the discussion

This concern has now reached American politics.

U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff has called for stronger oversight of advanced AI research, including inspectors at major AI laboratories and international cooperation.

And whether you agree with him or not, the basic question deserves an answer.

Who is watching the people building the world's most powerful AI systems?

Right now there is enormous competition between technology companies.

There is also competition between countries.

Everybody wants to be first.

Everybody wants the most powerful system.

There are billions, perhaps eventually trillions, of dollars at stake.

That creates another problem.

Imagine two companies racing towards the same finish line.

One company says, "We should slow down and make sure this thing is safe."

The other says, "Fine. While you slow down, we'll get there first."

You can see the difficulty.

And where does little Saint Lucia fit into all this?

This is where I believe we in small countries need to start paying attention.

Most of the powerful AI systems being developed today are not being built in Saint Lucia, Dominica, Barbados or the rest of the Caribbean.

We are mainly consumers of the technology.

Yet if AI transforms employment, banking, education, journalism, cybersecurity, elections, warfare and the global economy, we will live with the consequences too.

Nobody will ask Saint Lucia whether the world should develop super-intelligent AI.

The decision will largely be made elsewhere.

But whatever comes from that decision will eventually arrive on our shores.

Already our children are using AI for schoolwork.

Businesses are using it.

Governments will increasingly use it.

People like me use it to research, write, create and understand things that previously might have taken hours or days.

There is tremendous good in this technology.

I can see it myself.

But something can be extremely useful and still require rules.

Electricity is useful.

We still put breakers in our houses.

Cars are useful.

We still put brakes on them.

Medicine saves lives.

We still regulate drugs.

So why should the most powerful AI systems humanity has ever created be treated differently?

Are we all going to die in ten years?

Nobody knows.

And anybody telling you that scientists have proven AI will wipe out humanity within ten years is going too far.

They haven't.

There is enormous disagreement among AI researchers about how likely these extreme scenarios really are.

Some researchers believe the extinction warnings deserve urgent attention.

Others think those scenarios are too speculative and distract attention from problems AI is already causing today.

And those present-day problems are real enough.

Scammers can use AI.

Criminals can use AI.

Governments can use AI for surveillance.

Fake photographs, voices and videos are becoming harder to distinguish from genuine ones.

Workers could find some jobs disappearing or changing.

Students can become dependent on AI instead of learning how to think.

And powerful technology concentrated in the hands of a few companies or governments creates problems of its own.

We don't have to wait for some super-intelligent robot to see reasons for concern.

So should we be afraid of AI?

I wouldn't use the word afraid.

I would say we should be awake.

AI could turn out to be one of humanity's greatest tools.

It could help discover medicines, improve education, increase productivity, assist people with disabilities, improve disaster forecasting and solve problems we presently struggle to solve.

I don't want us to throw that away because somebody frightened us with a headline.

But neither should we become so fascinated by what AI can do that we stop asking what it should be allowed to do.

That is the conversation I believe ordinary people should be having.

Not:

"Will robots kill us next Tuesday?"

But:

Who controls increasingly powerful AI?

Who decides how far it goes?

Who makes sure it is safe?

Who is responsible when something goes wrong?

And perhaps most importantly:

Are governments putting the brakes and steering wheel on this thing while there is still time to do it?

I use AI.

I appreciate what it allows me to do.

I also believe that when some of the very people helping to build this technology start warning the rest of us about where it could eventually lead, we should at least listen.

Don't panic.

Don't swallow every frightening headline either.

But don't laugh this one away.

Sometimes the sensible thing to do when somebody who understands the machinery tells you there might be a problem under the hood is to open the bonnet and have a proper look.

Choiseul on the Move

 

KIFFO, BRING THE WATER DISCUSSION HOME TO CHOISEUL-SALTIBUS

“You cannot build a 21st-century economy on 19th-century pipes.”

Those were strong words from Hon. Keithson “Kiffo” Charles, parliamentary representative for Choiseul-Saltibus and the minister responsible for utilities, as he celebrated the launch of the US$22.8 million John Compton Dam Raw Water Pipeline Replacement Project.

And he is right.

According to the information shared by the minister, the 40-year-old pipeline serves approximately 58 percent of Saint Lucia’s population and has been experiencing as many as 30 major failures per year. It clearly needs to be replaced.

The WASCO workers who have been going into difficult and dangerous areas to repair the damaged line also deserve the recognition given to them.

But after reading the minister’s Facebook post, one question immediately came to mind:

What about Choiseul-Saltibus?

While our representative is celebrating a major water project in the north and using hashtags such as #KiffoWorks and #ActionNotTalk, many of the people who elected him are still receiving water only twice per week.

That is the reality in Roblot, Debreuil, Lamaze and several other communities.

In some areas, residents say the duration of the water supply has decreased significantly over the past few years. The water comes for a few hours and disappears again. Families must rush to fill drums and tanks, wash their clothes and complete as many household chores as possible before the pipes run dry.

Sometimes the water arrives late at night. If you are sleeping, you may miss it.

People are paying water bills, buying tanks, installing pumps and making all kinds of arrangements simply to have enough water for their basic needs.

That is not a dependable water service.

WHAT ABOUT OUR OWN OLD AND LEAKING PIPES?

The minister described the 40-year-old John Compton Dam pipeline as a “ticking time bomb.”

Fair enough.

But what would he call some of the pipelines serving Choiseul-Saltibus?

The Sauzay-to-Choiseul Village line is reported to be more than 80 years old. The Debreuil-to-Lamaze line is said to be almost 60 years old. Several other sections of the Choiseul water network are also believed to be old, undersized and vulnerable to leaks.

WASCO should publicly confirm the ages and conditions of these lines.

If the figures being circulated are incorrect, give us the correct information. If they are accurate, tell us why these pipelines are still in service and when they will be replaced.

We keep hearing about water shortages, broken lines, low pressure and communities being placed on schedules. But how much of our treated water is being lost before it reaches the consumer?

How can we continue asking residents to conserve every bucket of water while old pipes may be leaking thousands of gallons into the ground?

This is not a new problem. It has followed the people of Choiseul-Saltibus for years. What we need now is not another general statement about WASCO’s challenges. We need a clear plan for our constituency.

KIFFO IS NOT ONLY THE REPRESENTATIVE

This is where the matter becomes even more serious.

Kiffo is not only the parliamentary representative for Choiseul-Saltibus. He is also the minister responsible for utilities.

He cannot stand on the outside and say the water problem belongs to somebody else. This matter sits directly within his ministerial responsibility.

That gives him both the opportunity and the duty to push for improvements.

So let us ask some direct questions:

• How many communities in Choiseul-Saltibus are receiving water only once or twice per week?
• Why has the duration of the supply reportedly decreased in communities such as Roblot, Debreuil and Lamaze?
• How much water is being lost through leaks in the Choiseul water network?
• Which pipelines have been identified for replacement?
• Is there a funded water-improvement plan for the constituency?
• What work will begin first, and when?
• What temporary assistance will be provided to families living under an unreliable water schedule?

These are reasonable questions. The minister should be able to provide reasonable answers.

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THE JOHN COMPTON DAM CHARGE?

There is also the long-standing issue that many residents refer to as the John Compton Dam tax.

People in Choiseul-Saltibus continue to question why they should carry a charge associated with the John Compton Dam while many communities in the constituency do not receive water from that dam.

This concern becomes even harder to accept when customers receive water only twice per week.

What has Kiffo done about it, not only as our representative, but as the minister responsible for utilities?

Has he instructed WASCO to review the charge?

Has he requested a technical or legal assessment to determine whether customers who do not benefit from the dam should continue paying it?

Has the matter been discussed at the level of Cabinet?

Has any proposal been prepared to remove or adjust the charge for affected consumers?

If action has been taken, the minister should put the information before the public. Show us the correspondence. Explain the process. Give residents a timetable.

If nothing has been done, then he must tell us why.

This is not an issue he has to carry to another minister. He is the minister. He is also the representative of the people making the complaint.

In this situation, Kiffo is not standing outside the door asking someone to let him in. He is one of the people holding the key.

ACTION MUST ALSO REACH CHOISEUL-SALTIBUS

No one is opposing the replacement of the John Compton Dam pipeline. A line serving such a large part of the country must be secured.

But our representative should be careful about celebrating “action” elsewhere while people in his constituency are still arranging their lives around two uncertain days of water.

The people of Choiseul-Saltibus need more than photographs, speeches and hashtags.

We need a constituency water-improvement plan. It should identify the old pipelines, the areas losing the most water, the communities with the poorest supply, the projects that have been approved, the money allocated and the dates when work is expected to begin.

Give us something we can measure.

Give us something we can monitor.

Give us something more substantial than another Facebook post.

Mr Minister and Parliamentary Representative, bring the water discussion home. Speak to the people of Roblot, Debreuil, Lamaze and every other community struggling with an unreliable supply.

Tell us what has been done.

Tell us what is planned.

Tell us when the old pipes will be replaced.

Tell us what you are doing about the John Compton Dam charge.

Most importantly, tell us when the people of Choiseul-Saltibus can expect water to flow through their pipes regularly and for a reasonable length of time.

If a 40-year-old pipeline in the north is a ticking time bomb, then the ageing lines in Choiseul-Saltibus cannot be treated as a minor inconvenience.

Water is life in the north, but water is also life in Choiseul-Saltibus.

 WHEN A RANT BECOMES A THREAT: THE VIRAL VIDEO SAINT LUCIA SHOULD NOT SIMPLY LAUGH OFF

By Choiseul on the Move

By now, many Saint Lucians have probably seen or heard about the disturbing video circulating on social media.

A man, identified in media reports as a Saint Lucian who was deported from the United States, launches into an angry tirade about Saint Lucia. But this is not simply another man complaining about the country, the cost of living, unemployment or the difficulties of starting over.

The video attracted serious attention because some of his statements were interpreted as threats of violence against himself and other people.

And that is where we need to draw a line.

People are entitled to dislike Saint Lucia. They are entitled to complain about the Government, the police, the economy, the roads, the country or even their circumstances after being deported.

Freedom to express anger, however, does not mean that statements suggesting violence should simply be dismissed as "just talk."

According to reporting published on September 17, police are actively pursuing the man following circulation of the video.

There is also one very important fact that needs to be corrected.

This man was not brought into Saint Lucia under the recently discussed Third-Country Nationals programme.

Information attributed to the Ministry of External Affairs says he is Saint Lucian by birth and was deported from the United States to Saint Lucia in March 2023.

That distinction matters.

Social media moved quickly to connect his video with the controversial agreement involving third-country nationals transferred from the United States. Understandably, a frightening video appearing at a time when people are already questioning that programme creates fertile ground for rumours.

But two separate issues should not be forced together simply because doing so makes a more sensational story.

The Third-Country Nationals arrangement can and should be scrutinised on its own facts. Saint Lucians have every right to ask who is being accepted, what background checks are conducted, what safeguards exist and what happens if something goes wrong.

But this particular man should not be presented as evidence of a failure of that programme when the available information says he was deported to his own country three years ago.

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION

What happens when somebody goes online and makes statements capable of putting an entire population on edge?

Saint Lucia is already experiencing considerable anxiety surrounding violent crime. People are worried about their children. Women are concerned about their safety. Families are grieving.

This is therefore hardly the environment in which threats of violence should be treated as entertainment.

The Royal Saint Lucia Police Force has itself recently warned the public about irresponsible information circulating electronically. Police have also pointed to provisions of the Computer Misuse Act concerning electronic communications that are menacing in character.

Whether this particular man's statements amount to a criminal offence is a matter for investigators and, ultimately, the courts. That determination should not be made by Facebook, TikTok or Choiseul on the Move.

But police are right to take potentially credible threats seriously.

DON'T TURN THIS INTO A MANHUNT

There is another side to this which is equally important.

Saint Lucians should not attempt to find, confront or punish this man themselves.

Do not see a photograph circulating on WhatsApp and decide that you are now investigator, judge and police officer.

If somebody knows where he is and police are seeking him, give that information to the authorities.

Let law enforcement do its work.

The RSLPF has specifically cautioned the public against confronting people based upon information circulating on social media or engaging in vigilante action.

AND PERHAPS THERE IS A BIGGER LESSON

A deportee returning to Saint Lucia may arrive with almost nothing.

Some have spent years or decades abroad. Their family relationships may have changed. Employment may be difficult. They may return to a country that is legally home but feels completely unfamiliar.

Acknowledging those realities does not excuse threats.

But it raises a question worth asking:

What happens to Saint Lucian deportees after the aircraft lands?

Is there any structured reintegration process?

Is assistance available for employment, housing, documentation or counselling where appropriate?

Are individuals assessed when circumstances suggest they may pose a risk to themselves or others?

And who follows up?

Those questions deserve attention long after this particular TikTok video disappears from people's timelines.

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE'S BOTTOM LINE

Don't exaggerate the story.

Don't attach the man to the Third-Country Nationals programme when the available evidence says otherwise.

Don't diagnose him from a TikTok video.

Don't go looking for him yourself.

But equally, don't dismiss threatening language as entertainment simply because it happened on social media.

Let the police establish the facts and determine whether an offence has been committed.

And perhaps Government should answer the broader question this episode has exposed:

When one of our own citizens is deported back to Saint Lucia, particularly after many years overseas, what system exists to reintegrate that person into society and identify serious risks before they become everybody's problem?

That, to me, is the conversation worth having.

Choiseul on the Move

 

EC$1,131 A MONTH: LIVEABLE FOR WHOM?

There is a word in Saint Lucia's minimum wage policy that continues to trouble me.

That word is “liveable.”

Not minimum.

Not wage.

Liveable.

Saint Lucia's national minimum wage is EC$1,131 per month, or EC$6.52 an hour. It came into effect in October 2024 and Government presented it as an important step towards fairness, reducing working poverty and improving the standard of living of ordinary workers.

I welcomed the introduction of a national minimum wage.

Saint Lucia needed one.

Thousands of workers who previously had little protection against extremely low wages finally had a legal floor beneath which employers could not go.

That was progress.

But nearly two years later, I think we need to ask the question that perhaps we did not ask loudly enough at the beginning:

Can EC$1,131 really provide a liveable life in Saint Lucia?

Because there is a difference between a minimum wage and a living wage.

And calling something liveable does not automatically make it so.

LET US TALK ABOUT THE ORDINARY WORKER

Forget politics for a moment.

Think about the security guard.

The shop attendant.

The cleaner.

The labourer.

The supermarket worker.

The young mother working eight hours a day.

The father catching a bus from Choiseul to Vieux Fort or Castries every morning.

The hotel worker who has to leave home before sunrise.

The person earning EC$1,131 at the end of the month.

Before that worker buys food, the money has already started disappearing.

Transport.

Electricity.

Water.

Telephone.

Cooking gas.

Rent, if the person does not own a home.

School expenses.

Medication.

Household supplies.

And then comes food.

That EC$1,131 is not sitting in the bank waiting to build savings.

It is fighting for survival from the moment it arrives.

NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER END OF THE SCALE

According to the funded base-salary figures in the Government's 2026–2027 Estimates, the annual salaries attached to several senior public positions work out approximately as follows:

Prime Minister: EC$201,164 annually, about EC$16,764 monthly.

Government Minister: EC$154,742 annually, about EC$12,895 monthly.

Leader of the Opposition: EC$154,742 annually, about EC$12,895 monthly.

Speaker of the House: EC$92,845 annually, about EC$7,737 monthly.

Deputy Speaker: EC$70,269 annually, about EC$5,856 monthly.

An ordinary elected member works out at approximately EC$5,577 monthly, while a senator, a part-time parliamentary position, works out at approximately EC$2,510 monthly.

The Government has published its 2026–2027 Estimates as the country's official financial plan. Historical parliamentary remuneration data also independently confirms the same broad salary structure for the Prime Minister, ministers, Opposition Leader and Speaker.

Now compare that with the worker.

EC$1,131 per month.

Approximately EC$13,572 for the entire year.

And before somebody misunderstands where I am going with this, let me make something very clear.

I AM NOT SAYING POLITICIANS ARE PAID TOO MUCH

The Prime Minister carries enormous responsibility.

Ministers carry responsibility.

Parliamentarians make decisions affecting an entire country.

They should be properly compensated for that responsibility.

This is not a campaign to cut their salaries.

Actually, the comparison leads me to the opposite conclusion.

The problem is not necessarily that those at the top are earning too much.

The problem is that too many people at the bottom are earning far too little.

That distinction matters.

Because turning this into an argument about politicians' salaries allows us to avoid the more uncomfortable conversation about the wages of ordinary Saint Lucians.

DO THE ARITHMETIC

A Prime Minister's base salary is almost 15 times the minimum wage.

A minister's is more than 11 times.

The Speaker's is nearly seven times.

The Deputy Speaker earns more than five times the minimum.

Even the calculated base salary of an ordinary elected member is almost five times what a minimum-wage worker earns.

And a senator's base salary, for what is generally a part-time parliamentary position, works out at more than twice the monthly minimum wage.

Again, that does not prove those salaries are excessive.

It demonstrates something else.

EC$1,131 is very, very small money in today's Saint Lucia.

SO SHOW US THE “LIVEABLE” BASKET

This is where I believe Government should go further.

If EC$1,131 is officially described as a Minimum Liveable Wage, then publish the household budget behind the word liveable.

Show us.

How much was allocated for rent?

How much for food?

How much for transportation?

How much for electricity?

How much for water?

How much for cooking gas?

How much for telephone and internet?

How much for clothing?

How much for medication?

How much for a child's school expenses?

And after all of that, how much is the worker expected to save?

That would move this discussion away from politics and into mathematics.

Because a living wage should not be a political slogan.

It should be a calculation.

TRY EC$1,131 IN CHOISEUL

This conversation becomes even more real when we bring it home.

Imagine someone in Roblot, Saltibus, Mongouge, Piaye, Delcer or another rural community travelling to work every day.

Transport alone takes its bite.

Then the person comes home and has to contribute towards electricity, water and food.

Perhaps there are children.

Perhaps there is rent.

Perhaps there is an elderly parent in the house.

Perhaps the refrigerator breaks.

Perhaps somebody gets sick.

Perhaps school asks for another book, uniform or contribution.

What happens then?

At EC$1,131 monthly, there isn't much room between managing and crisis.

One unexpected expense can destroy the entire month's budget.

That is not financial security.

That is survival.

AND LET US NOT FORGET WHAT A JOB REQUIRES

Sometimes we speak about wages as though workers simply wake up and collect money.

Working costs money.

You need clothing.

Transportation.

Lunch.

Sometimes childcare.

A phone.

Basic grooming.

And increasingly, internet access.

Before some workers even begin contributing to their household, they have already spent part of the wage simply getting themselves to work and remaining employable.

That reality must be part of any serious discussion about a living wage.

WHAT SHOULD THE MINIMUM BE?

I will not pull a figure out of the air and pretend it is scientific.

That would be no better than the politics I am questioning.

But I will say this.

EC$1,131 should now be reviewed.

Government should commission and publish an updated cost-of-living basket showing what it actually costs a single working adult to maintain a basic but decent standard of living in Saint Lucia.

From there we can have an intelligent national discussion about whether the figure should be EC$1,300, EC$1,500, EC$1,600 or higher.

Personally, I would find it very difficult to describe anything around EC$1,100 as genuinely liveable under present-day conditions.

But let the numbers speak.

And once a proper living-wage figure is established, it should not remain frozen for years while prices continue climbing.

It should be reviewed regularly and linked in some way to changes in the cost of living.

BUSINESSES HAVE A SIDE TO THIS STORY TOO

There is another reality we cannot ignore.

Many small Saint Lucian businesses are struggling too.

A shop in Choiseul does not have the same financial resources as a large hotel, bank or multinational operation.

So increasing wages substantially overnight without considering small employers could result in reduced hours, layoffs, higher prices or businesses closing altogether.

That would help nobody.

This therefore cannot simply be:

“Raise the minimum wage tomorrow.”

Government may have to examine tax relief, productivity support, lower business costs and transitional assistance for genuinely vulnerable small enterprises.

But protecting businesses cannot become a permanent excuse for keeping workers poor.

A business model that depends indefinitely on a full-time worker remaining unable to meet basic living expenses deserves scrutiny too.

A FAIR DAY'S WORK MUST MEAN SOMETHING

Government itself has used the phrase “a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.”

I agree.

Completely.

Workers must turn up.

Workers must be productive.

Workers must give employers value.

But fairness cannot travel in only one direction.

If we demand a fair day's work from the employee, then the employee has every right to ask:

What is a fair day's pay?

Not a luxury wage.

Not a politician's wage.

Not a salary that buys vacations and expensive vehicles.

Just enough that an honest person working full time can feed himself, travel to work, keep the lights on, handle basic necessities and still retain some dignity when the month ends.

That should not be a radical demand.

THE QUESTION IS STILL WAITING

Saint Lucia deserves credit for finally establishing a national minimum wage.

That was overdue and necessary.

But establishing the floor was never supposed to end the conversation.

It should have started another one.

Two years later, perhaps the question we now need to ask is no longer:

Do we have a minimum wage?

We do.

The question is:

Can a Saint Lucian actually live on it?

And if the answer is no, then we should have the courage to stop hiding behind the word “liveable.”

Call it what it is: a minimum.

Then let us get to work determining what an ordinary Saint Lucian worker actually needs to live.

Not merely survive.

We can do better.

Choiseul on the Move

#SaintLucia #MinimumWage #LivingWage #Workers #CostOfLiving #Choiseul #ChoiseulOnTheMove