STEP IN CHOISEUL-SALTIBUS

Dignity in Work — But Where Is the Path to Real Employment?

Let us begin where there should be no disagreement: there is dignity in work.

The men and women presently cleaning drains, cutting overgrown roadsides and beautifying communities across Choiseul-Saltibus deserve their respect. The photographs coming out of Morne Jacques and other communities show people working, and the work they are doing is necessary.

But we should be careful not to confuse a few weeks of temporary work with an employment strategy.

That is where the conversation about the Short Term Employment Programme — STEP needs to go.

The constituency representative has praised STEP for putting money into people's hands at important times — helping parents purchase school supplies, put something extra on the table at Christmas, or meet other household expenses.

Fair enough.

For a struggling household, even a few weeks' wages can make a difference.

But After All These Years, Shouldn't We Be Asking a Bigger Question?

Where does STEP lead?

If a person cuts grass this year, cleans drains during another cycle and returns to the same temporary programme next year, have we really created employment — or have we simply created periodic relief?

Who Gets Selected?

There is another uncomfortable question that deserves an answer.

How are STEP workers and supervisors selected?

There is a perception within communities that some of the same supervisors return from one STEP cycle to another and that people connected to those supervisors may have an advantage in getting selected.

Whether that perception is completely accurate or not, the solution is simple: transparency.

Publish the criteria.

• Tell the constituency how supervisors are selected.
• Explain how workers are chosen.
• Tell us how many people applied.
• Tell us how many were accepted.
• Explain whether priority is given to people who have never previously benefited from STEP.

If STEP belongs to the people, nobody should have to know the right person, support the right politician or belong to the right circle just to get a few weeks' work.

Dignity Must Include Fairness

This is where the phrase “dignity in work” becomes especially important.

Dignity is not merely receiving a cutlass, rake or shovel and being given several days or weeks of employment.

Dignity is also knowing that you had a fair opportunity to get the job.

🌿 Dignity is being able to provide for your family beyond one STEP cycle.

🛠️ Dignity is acquiring skills that make you more employable when STEP ends.

📈 Dignity is moving from temporary assistance towards sustainable employment.

What If STEP Became a Real Stepping Stone?

Imagine if every STEP cycle included skills certification, basic occupational safety training, landscaping instruction, small-business development or pathways into construction, agriculture, tourism and other sectors.

Then STEP could become more than temporary employment.

It could become a stepping stone.

The More Things Change...

Successive governments have used short-term employment programmes because they provide immediate relief and visible community improvements.

But Choiseul-Saltibus deserves more than another political photograph every time the bushes are cut.

We should be able to applaud the workers and still demand better from the system.

Clean drains are good.

Clean roadsides are good.

Putting some money into people's pockets is good.

But the ultimate measure of development cannot simply be how many people government can temporarily employ.

It must also be how many people eventually no longer need STEP.

That would be something worth celebrating.

Dignity. Opportunity. Fairness.

Those three principles should be at the heart of any programme claiming to empower our people.

The Question Choiseul-Saltibus Should Be Asking

After decades of STEP, when does the “short-term” opportunity finally become a pathway to something long-term?

Choiseul on the Move
Community • Accountability • Development

 

IF THE COST OF LIVING RISES FOR EVERYONE,SHOULD RELIEF RISE FOR EVERYONE TOO?

Choiseul on the Move — Question of the Day

Here is the question:
If Government accepts that rising living costs justify adjusting the incomes of people at the upper end of the public service, should there also be an automatic mechanism that provides some relief to the pensioner, minimum-wage worker, unemployed parent and low-income household when the cost of basic living rises sharply?

It is a question that deserves serious discussion, particularly at a time when many Saint Lucians are feeling increasing pressure on their household budgets.

The price of food matters. Electricity matters. Bus fare matters. Cooking gas matters. Medication matters. School supplies matter. Rent matters. These are not luxuries. They are the everyday expenses that determine how comfortably—or how painfully—a family is able to survive from one month to the next.

When the cost of those necessities rises, the effect is not restricted to one category of worker. It reaches almost everyone.

The Same Supermarket, The Same Electricity Company

A senior public officer and a pensioner may earn very different amounts, but both shop in the same supermarkets.

A politician, a minimum-wage worker and an unemployed mother all face the same increases when basic food prices go up.

The electricity company does not ask a customer whether he earns $1,500 a month or $10,000 a month before issuing the bill.

The bus driver does not charge a reduced fare simply because a passenger is struggling financially.

Inflation does not discriminate.

What differs is the ability of households to absorb it.

That is the heart of the issue.

A $50 increase in monthly living expenses may be inconvenient to a high-income household. For a pensioner or minimum-wage family, that same $50 can determine whether medication is purchased, whether a utility bill is paid on time, or whether enough groceries are bought for the week.

Income Adjustments Should Raise a Wider Question

Whenever Government reviews salaries at the upper levels of the public service, there will naturally be debate about whether those adjustments are justified.

But perhaps the more important national conversation should go beyond personalities, positions and percentages.

If rising costs are accepted as a legitimate reason for reviewing one person's income, then Saint Lucia must also ask how the country protects those whose incomes remain almost completely fixed while prices continue moving upward.

Pensioners cannot simply negotiate a higher pension every time grocery prices rise.

Minimum-wage workers do not automatically receive an increase because electricity, transportation and food become more expensive.

An unemployed parent may have no regular income at all, yet still has children to feed, clothe and send to school.

Low-income households frequently have the smallest financial cushion and therefore feel increases in essential expenses first and hardest.

Should Saint Lucia Consider an Automatic Cost-of-Living Mechanism?

This does not necessarily mean that every person should receive the same increase.

It means asking whether Saint Lucia should develop a more predictable system for responding when the cost of basic living rises beyond a certain point.

Such a mechanism could involve periodic reviews of areas such as:

• minimum wages;
• non-contributory and contributory pension support;
• public assistance payments;
• child and family support programmes;
• transportation assistance;
• school-related support;
• utility assistance for vulnerable households; and
• targeted relief when food and energy prices rise sharply.

The important word is automatic.

Too often, relief for poorer households depends on a special programme being announced, an application being opened, funding being identified, or political decisions being made after families have already spent months struggling.

A structured mechanism would create clearer expectations.

If inflation or the price of a defined basket of basic goods rises beyond an agreed level, Government could be required to review certain forms of income support.

Not Every Increase Has to Be a Salary Increase

Relief can take different forms.

Government does not necessarily have to respond to every cost-of-living increase by permanently raising every payment.

There could be temporary food support, transportation subsidies, electricity credits, school assistance, targeted tax relief or direct support for households below a particular income level.

The aim should be to prevent families from falling further behind simply because the prices of necessities increase faster than their incomes.

Come Down From the Numbers to the Household

Economic discussions can sometimes become trapped in percentages, reports and parliamentary language.

But come down from the statistics and enter an ordinary home in Choiseul.

Speak to the pensioner calculating whether the money left after paying the electricity bill is enough for medication and groceries.

Speak to the mother preparing children for school and trying to stretch one salary across uniforms, books, transportation, lunch money and household bills.

Speak to the minimum-wage worker whose pay remains almost unchanged while supermarket prices continue creeping upward.

Speak to the unemployed parent who is already depending heavily on relatives, neighbours or occasional jobs.

For those households, the cost of living is not an economic theory.

It is a daily calculation.

The real question is therefore not simply who deserves more.

It is whether Saint Lucia's system of income support responds fairly when the purchasing power of ordinary citizens is being eroded.

Fairness Must Work Both Ways

There is nothing inherently wrong with reviewing salaries after long periods without adjustment.

Workers at every level deserve to have compensation examined from time to time.

But fairness cannot operate only upward.

If Government recognises that inflation reduces the real value of higher salaries, then the same economic principle applies even more strongly to people living on much smaller incomes.

In fact, the lower the household income, the greater the percentage of that income that is usually devoted to essentials.

That means lower-income households often have fewer options when prices rise.

They cannot simply cut back on luxury spending when there was little luxury spending to begin with.

A Conversation Worth Having

Perhaps Saint Lucia is at the point where cost-of-living protection should become part of national economic policy rather than something addressed only through occasional interventions.

There would obviously have to be safeguards.

Any mechanism would have to consider Government's financial capacity, inflation, national productivity, employment levels and the danger of creating additional inflationary pressure.

But those challenges should not prevent the discussion.

A country can acknowledge fiscal realities while still asking whether its most vulnerable citizens deserve a predictable level of protection when economic conditions worsen.

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE ASKS:

If the cost of living rises for everyone, should relief rise for everyone too?

Should pensions, minimum wages and social-support benefits be automatically reviewed whenever the cost of basic necessities rises significantly?

YES, NO, or IT DEPENDS?
Tell us what you think and, more importantly, tell us why.

Choiseul on the Move encourages respectful discussion on the issues affecting ordinary Saint Lucians. The objective is not merely to argue over politics, but to encourage conversation about policies, fairness and the everyday realities of our communities.

```

 

23% After 15 Years:

Fair Adjustment — or a Bitter Pill for Ordinary Saint Lucians?

There are some numbers that immediately grab people's attention.

Twenty-three percent is one of them.

And when Saint Lucians hear that senior government officials and politicians are set to receive a salary adjustment of 23 percent, there will naturally be questions.

Some people will be angry.

Others will say that after approximately fifteen years without an adjustment, the increase is overdue.

Both reactions deserve to be heard.

The Salaries Review Commission report, tabled in Parliament by Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre, recommends adjustments affecting a range of senior public officials and political office holders. The report also has implications for retired senior officers, whose pensions are expected to be recomputed to reflect the revised salary structure.

This Is Not Just About Politicians

The Salaries Review Commission does not deal only with ministers and parliamentarians.

Its mandate covers some of the most senior offices in the State, including Permanent Secretaries, the Commissioner of Police, Director of Public Prosecutions, Accountant General, Chief Elections Officer, Director of Audit, ambassadors and other constitutional office holders.

Yes, Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament and Senators are included.

And that is precisely why the announcement will attract attention.

Whenever politicians benefit from a salary increase, the public is entitled to scrutinise it closely.

But describing the entire exercise simply as politicians awarding themselves a 23 percent pay rise would leave out an important part of the story.

The bigger question is whether the increase is reasonable after fifteen years — and whether the ordinary Saint Lucian feels that his or her own standard of living has received similar attention.

Fifteen Years Is a Long Time

Put politics aside for a moment.

Imagine working in the same position for fifteen years without your salary scale being reviewed while the cost of virtually everything around you changes.

Food goes up.

Electricity goes up.

Building materials go up.

Insurance goes up.

Transportation goes up.

A dollar today certainly does not purchase what a dollar purchased fifteen years ago.

Viewed strictly from that perspective, reviewing salaries after such a long period is not unreasonable.

The uncomfortable part is the size of the adjustment: 23 percent.

That is the number people will remember.

And understandably so.

Now Come Down From Parliament to the Village

This is where the discussion becomes very different.

Come down from Parliament and walk through Choiseul.

Talk to the farmer trying to make a living from a small piece of land.

Talk to the shopkeeper watching customers count their dollars before deciding what they can afford.

Talk to a pensioner after paying the electricity bill and buying medication.

Talk to a mother trying to find bus money, lunch money and school supplies.

Talk to a young person who has qualifications but cannot find the kind of job that allows him or her to build an independent life.

For these people, 23 percent sounds enormous.

Not necessarily because the senior officials don't deserve an adjustment, but because many ordinary citizens would love to see their own income increase by anything approaching 23 percent.

And that is where Government must understand the sensitivity of this decision.

There Is Another Side

It should also be remembered that ordinary public servants have received negotiated salary adjustments.

The Government and the Trade Union Federation concluded agreements providing a 6 percent increase for the 2022–2025 triennium and another 7 percent for 2025–2028.

That context matters.

So this should not become a dishonest argument suggesting that everybody else received nothing while politicians suddenly received 23 percent.

But neither should that fact silence legitimate questions about affordability, timing and fairness.

Because governments do not operate with unlimited money.

Every dollar ultimately comes from somewhere.

And citizens have every right to ask what the implementation of these recommendations will cost the Treasury.

Show Us the Numbers

This is where Choiseul on the Move believes transparency becomes critical.

Saint Lucians should be told clearly:

➤ What will implementation of the Salaries Review Commission recommendations cost annually?

➤ What will the recomputation of pensions cost?

➤ When will the increases take effect?

➤ Will there be retroactive payments?

➤ If so, from what date?

➤ What will be the total cost of any back pay?

Those are not partisan questions.

They are taxpayers' questions.

And taxpayers deserve answers.

The Pension Question Matters Too

One aspect of the announcement that should not disappear beneath the political noise concerns retired senior public officers.

If someone gave decades of service to Saint Lucia and retired on a pension calculated from a salary scale that subsequently remained frozen for many years, there is a legitimate discussion to be had about whether that pension fairly reflects the value of that person's service.

Correcting genuine disparities for retired public officers should not automatically be dismissed simply because politicians happen to fall under the same review mechanism.

Each part of the report deserves to be examined on its merits.

But Leadership Comes With a Higher Standard

There is nevertheless one unavoidable reality.

Politicians are different.

Not necessarily under the Salaries Review Commission Act — but in the eyes of the public.

A Permanent Secretary receiving an adjustment may barely generate conversation.

Tell people that a Minister or MP is receiving 23 percent and everybody suddenly has an opinion.

That comes with public office.

Politicians make decisions about taxation, expenditure, wages, pensions and social assistance. Therefore, whenever their own remuneration changes substantially, citizens will understandably apply a higher level of scrutiny.

Government should not run away from that scrutiny. It should welcome it.

Publish the figures.

Explain the calculations.

Explain why 23 percent was recommended.

Explain how fifteen years of inflation and salary stagnation were taken into account.

And most importantly, tell taxpayers exactly what the entire package will cost them.

Fairness Must Be Seen From Both Sides

This issue does not have to become another red-versus-yellow shouting match.

The question should be much simpler.

Is the adjustment fair?

If senior public officers have gone fifteen years without their salary structures being reviewed, there is a reasonable case for an adjustment.

But there is another equally important question:

Can Saint Lucia afford it, and does the Government demonstrate the same concern for the economic pressures being felt at the bottom of the ladder?

Because fairness cannot only travel upward.

The farmer must feel it.

The pensioner must feel it.

The minimum-wage worker must feel it.

The public servant must feel it.

The unemployed young person looking for an opportunity must eventually feel it too.

That is where the real test lies.

A 23 percent salary adjustment may very well be defensible after fifteen years.

But Government must make the case to the people.

Not with political slogans.
Not with party colours.
With numbers.

And once those numbers are on the table, Saint Lucians can decide for themselves whether this represents fifteen years of overdue correction — or whether, at a time when many families are still stretching every dollar, 23 percent is simply too bitter a pill to swallow.

Choiseul on the Move — keeping the conversation going.

 

WHO GETS TO BE “HONOURABLE”? ELISHA NORBERT HAS A POINT

Every now and then, someone raises a question in our politics that deserves more than the usual Labour-versus-UWP response.

This is one of those times.

Elisha Norbert has challenged Speaker of the House Claudius Francis to show where in the Constitution of Saint Lucia it says that only Ministers of Government are entitled to carry the title “Honourable.”

And quite frankly, we believe that is a fair question.

Forget for a moment who asked it. Forget party colours. Forget whether you like Elisha Norbert, Claudius Francis, the Government or the Opposition.

The question is simple:

Where is it written?

If the Constitution says that only Ministers are to be called “Honourable,” then show us the section and the matter is settled.

But if it doesn't, then surely the public is entitled to ask where this rule comes from.

Is it in the Standing Orders of Parliament? Is it some long-established parliamentary convention? Was there a ruling by a previous Speaker? Is it part of official government protocol?

And if the practice changed at some point, when did it change?

These are not unreasonable questions.

OUR OWN RECORDS MAKE THIS EVEN MORE INTERESTING

This is where things get rather interesting.

When we looked back at Saint Lucia's own official records, we found examples of people who were not Government Ministers being referred to as “Honourable.”

Opposition parliamentarians have carried the title.

Senators have carried it.

Speakers and Presidents of the Senate have carried it.

And here is the part that makes this debate particularly interesting.

Claudius Francis himself was officially referred to as “Honourable Senator Claudius Francis” when he served as President of the Senate.

So naturally, a question follows:

What changed?

If that form of address was acceptable then, why is it apparently not acceptable now?

Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If there is, give it to the people.

That is all Norbert is really asking for.

THIS IS BIGGER THAN A TITLE

Some people may look at this whole controversy and wonder why anyone should care whether somebody has “Honourable” in front of his or her name.

Fair enough.

But look a little deeper.

This isn't really about a word.

It is about how we regard Parliament and, particularly, the Senate.

Saint Lucia's Parliament isn't just the Cabinet. It isn't just Government Ministers sitting around a table making decisions.

We have a House of Assembly and we have a Senate.

Senators debate legislation. They scrutinise Bills. They raise concerns and are supposed to provide another level of examination before legislation becomes law.

Of course, we shouldn't pretend that our Senate has the same powers as the elected House. It doesn't.

Neither should we ignore the political reality of how it is constituted.

Six of the eleven Senators are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, three on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, while two are appointed by the Governor-General following consultation with religious, economic and social interests.

That naturally raises a much bigger question about how independent our Senate can truly be.

And perhaps that is where Norbert's comments strike a nerve.

HAVE WE COME TO SEE THE SENATE AS A RUBBER STAMP?

This is the discussion Saint Lucia should probably be having.

Not simply whether Senator X or Senator Y should have “Honourable” before a name.

What do we actually expect from our Senators?

Are they there simply to vote along party lines?

Or are they expected to examine legislation, question Government policy and occasionally tell their own side, “Hold on, we need to look at this again”?

Because there is little point having a second chamber if everybody already knows exactly how every vote will go before the debate even begins.

And that criticism shouldn't be aimed at one political party.

Governments change.

Today's Government becomes tomorrow's Opposition, and today's Opposition may become tomorrow's Government.

The principle remains the same.

Parliament should never become merely an extension of Cabinet.

The Executive must be answerable to Parliament—not the other way around.

OTHER COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY

There is another reason Norbert's question shouldn't simply be brushed aside.

Across the Commonwealth Caribbean, there isn't one identical practice when it comes to who is styled “Honourable.”

Some jurisdictions reserve the designation mainly for Ministers and certain office-holders. Others use it more broadly for Speakers, Senate Presidents and other parliamentarians.

So saying, “That's parliamentary convention,” only raises another question:

Which convention are we following in Saint Lucia?

And more importantly, has our convention always been the same?

Our own historical records suggest it hasn't always been applied in the way now being suggested.

That's why the Speaker has an opportunity to clear this up once and for all.

ELISHA NORBERT DESERVES AN ANSWER

Choiseul on the Move supports Elisha Norbert on this particular issue—not because we have decided that every Senator has some automatic constitutional right to be called “Honourable.”

We haven't found anything in the Constitution saying that either.

We support him because the question is legitimate.

If only Ministers are entitled to the designation, show us where that rule comes from.

That's it.

Give us the constitutional provision.

Give us the Standing Order.

Give us the parliamentary ruling.

Give us the protocol.

Or simply explain the convention and how it developed.

There should be nothing controversial about asking the Speaker of the House to explain the rules and conventions governing Parliament.

In fact, we should expect that level of transparency.

SOMETIMES A SMALL QUESTION OPENS A BIGGER DOOR

Maybe this whole debate started with two words—“The Honourable.”

But it has opened the door to a much more important conversation.

What role do we really want our Senate to play?

Do we want Senators who challenge, scrutinise and question?

Or do we simply want another chamber where Government and Opposition representatives turn up knowing beforehand which way their respective sides will vote?

Saint Lucia deserves strong institutions regardless of who is in office.

And our Parliament should be one of the strongest.

So yes, Elisha Norbert has asked a question worth answering.

There is no need for political gymnastics.

If it's written somewhere, show us.

If it isn't written in the Constitution but comes from parliamentary convention, explain that.

And if the convention has changed, tell Saint Lucians when it changed and why.

Because ultimately this isn't Elisha Norbert's Parliament.

It isn't Claudius Francis' Parliament.

It isn't Philip J. Pierre's Parliament.

It doesn't belong to the SLP or the UWP.

It belongs to the people of Saint Lucia.

And the people have every right to ask how it works.

— Choiseul on the Move

New Choiseul-Saltibus SLP Executive Takes Office Following Energised AGM

A new leadership team has been elected to guide the work of the Choiseul-Saltibus Constituency Group of the Saint Lucia Labour Party.

The executive was formally presented during the group’s Annual General Meeting, held on Sunday at the La Fargue Community Center. Party members, supporters, volunteers and invited guests gathered under the theme:

“Sustaining Success Together — Through Discipline, Delivery, and Dignity.”

The constituency office described the meeting as highly successful and energised, with a strong emphasis on transparency, accountability, grassroots participation and continued engagement with residents throughout Choiseul and Saltibus.

Meet the New Executive

The newly elected Choiseul-Saltibus Constituency Group Executive comprises:

Chairman: Cyril Edward
Deputy Chairman: Wayne Charlie
Secretary: Esteher Theophane
Assistant Secretary: Vincent Peter
Treasurer: Shernika Francis
Assistant Treasurer: Kevan Modeste
Public Relations Officer: Leo St. Croix
Mobilisation Officer: Canis Richardson
Women’s Officer: Daria Jn. Baptiste
Youth Officer: Chris Pamphile
Trustees: Wayne Winifred, Tyra Philip and Gregory Charles

The executive will be responsible for strengthening the organisation of the constituency group, coordinating community outreach, encouraging greater participation among women and young people, supporting local mobilisation and maintaining communication between residents, party officials and the Parliamentary Representative.

Electing an executive is an important organisational step, but the true measure of its success will be seen in the work that follows.

Residents will expect the group to remain visible, accessible and active throughout the year—not only when an election is approaching. Issues such as water, roads, agriculture, employment, youth development, education, sports, community facilities and social support continue to affect families across the constituency and require ongoing attention.

Parliamentary Representative Presents Progress Report

During the meeting, Parliamentary Representative for Choiseul-Saltibus and Minister for Physical Development and Public Utilities, Hon. Keithson “Kiffo” Charles, presented a report on his first eight months in office.

According to the constituency office, the presentation highlighted progress in areas such as local infrastructure, community development and social assistance.

Hon. Charles reminded those present that, during the election campaign, he had promised not to become a representative who met with constituents only when another election was near.

“During the campaign, I promised that I would not be a representative who only holds meetings when an election is around the corner,” he stated.

He said the development of Choiseul-Saltibus would remain a priority and that his approach to representation would continue to be guided by discipline, delivery, dignity, transparency and accountability.

Regular reporting to constituents is a positive practice and should be encouraged. However, progress reports are most meaningful when they include clear information, realistic timelines and opportunities for residents to ask questions about completed projects, ongoing work and unresolved concerns.

Support from Government and Party Officials

The AGM was also addressed by Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Hon. Shawn Edward.

In his remarks, Hon. Edward praised the history and contribution of the Choiseul constituency and expressed confidence in the representation being provided by Hon. Charles.

He described the Parliamentary Representative as grounded, hard-working and committed, noting that he regularly travels throughout the constituency to remain connected to the concerns of residents.

“He drives through every nook and cranny of this constituency, ensuring that he feels the pulse of his people, so that when he comes to Cabinet, he advocates fiercely on your behalf,” Hon. Edward told the gathering.

Other speakers included Hon. Moses Jn Baptiste, Hon. Alva Baptiste, Hon. Emma Hippolyte, Hon. Danny Butcher and SLP General Secretary Leo Clarke.

Their presence signalled strong support from senior party and government officials for the newly elected executive and the wider work of the constituency group.

Appreciation for the Outgoing Executive

The Parliamentary Representative and the Choiseul-Saltibus Constituency Group also expressed appreciation to the outgoing executive for its service.

Political and community organisations often depend heavily on volunteers who give their time, energy and resources without receiving much public recognition. It was therefore fitting that the outgoing members were thanked for the role they played in maintaining the organisation and supporting its activities.

The incoming executive now has the responsibility of building on that foundation while bringing its own ideas, energy and leadership to the task.

Leadership Must Remain People-Centred

Choiseul on the Move congratulates every member of the newly elected executive and wishes the team a productive term in office.

Leadership, however, must go beyond titles, photographs and public ceremonies.

A constituency executive should help create meaningful channels through which residents can raise concerns, receive information and take part in discussions affecting their communities. It should also be willing to listen respectfully to people who may not support the governing party.

The development of Choiseul-Saltibus is bigger than any one political organisation. Every resident—regardless of party colour, community, age or social standing—deserves fair representation and access to opportunities.

The new executive should therefore promote inclusion, respectful dialogue and consistent engagement across the entire constituency.

Particular attention should be given to the involvement of women and young people. The positions of Youth Officer and Women’s Officer should become active platforms through which programmes, ideas and opportunities are developed—not simply names appearing on an executive list.

The Public Relations Officer also has an important responsibility to ensure that residents receive timely, accurate and easy-to-understand information about meetings, projects, consultations and community initiatives.

A New Chapter Begins

The presentation of the new executive marks the beginning of another chapter for the Choiseul-Saltibus SLP Constituency Group.

The enthusiasm displayed at the AGM must now be transformed into practical action, regular communication and meaningful community engagement.

Residents will be watching to see how the new team supports the Parliamentary Representative, responds to local concerns and contributes to the wider development of Choiseul and Saltibus.

Congratulations to Chairman Cyril Edward and every member of the newly elected executive. May your term be defined by service, accountability, unity and genuine respect for the people you have been chosen to represent.

This article was prepared using information contained in a press release issued by the Choiseul-Saltibus SLP Constituency Office. Choiseul on the Move remains committed to highlighting matters of community interest while maintaining its independent editorial voice.

 

IS THIS HOW A PRIME MINISTER LEADS A COUNTRY?

Silence may protect an investigation, but it does not automatically protect public confidence.

Prime Minister Philip J. Pierre has made his position clear: he will make no public statement on the controversy involving Housing Minister Richard Frederick until the police have completed their investigation.

“No amount of slander, no amount of talk shows, no amount of memes, and no amount of Facebook postings will make me make any statements in public about Richard Frederick.”

Let us be fair. A Prime Minister should not interfere with an active police investigation. He should not pronounce a minister guilty before the evidence is examined, and he should not make comments that could prejudice any possible legal proceedings.

On that narrow point, the Prime Minister is correct.

But that is not the entire issue

The people of Saint Lucia are not necessarily asking Philip J. Pierre to reveal police evidence, interfere with investigators or declare Richard Frederick guilty.

Citizens are asking the Prime Minister to demonstrate leadership, explain the standards of his administration and reassure the country that ministerial accountability still matters.

The public has legitimate questions:

• Is Minister Frederick still exercising his full ministerial authority?
• Why were aspects of his portfolio reportedly placed under other ministers?
• Has he stepped aside, been asked to take leave or been temporarily relieved of responsibilities?
• What ethical standard applies when a serving minister becomes the subject of a serious police investigation?
• How is the government protecting public confidence while the investigation continues?

None of those questions requires the Prime Minister to discuss evidence or direct the police. They are questions about governance.

A dismissive tone does not inspire confidence

The Prime Minister’s reference to talk shows, memes, Facebook posts and alleged slander may satisfy his strongest political supporters, but it risks sounding dismissive of the wider public.

Not every citizen asking questions is spreading propaganda. Not every journalist seeking answers is attacking the government. Not every Facebook post is slander.

Some people are genuinely concerned about the integrity of Cabinet, the reputation of the country and the standards expected of those who hold high public office.

A Prime Minister does not only lead his Cabinet. He leads an entire country, including citizens who disagree with him.

Due process and accountability can exist together

Richard Frederick is entitled to due process. Being questioned or investigated does not automatically make a person guilty.

However, ministerial responsibility is not determined only by whether someone has been charged or convicted. Public office also involves trust, judgment, ethical standards and the appearance of integrity.

In many parliamentary democracies, a minister may temporarily step aside while a serious matter is investigated—not necessarily as an admission of guilt, but to protect the office, the Cabinet and the investigation itself.

That does not mean Richard Frederick must be condemned without evidence. It means the government should clearly explain how it is balancing his rights with the public’s right to accountable leadership.

The Prime Minister could have done better

A more statesmanlike response could have been:

“The police investigation must proceed independently, without political interference. Minister Frederick is entitled to due process, and no conclusion should be reached prematurely. At the same time, I understand the public’s concern. My government remains committed to accountability, and when the investigation reaches the appropriate stage, I will act decisively in the best interests of Saint Lucia.”

Such a statement would not compromise an investigation. It would acknowledge the public, defend the rule of law and demonstrate that the Prime Minister understands the seriousness of the moment.

Our honest conclusion

Prime Minister Pierre is right not to prejudge the police investigation. But he is wrong if he believes that refusing to discuss evidence also excuses him from addressing questions of ministerial accountability.

Leadership is not demonstrated merely by saying, “I will not comment.” Leadership is demonstrated by calmly explaining the government’s position, respecting public concerns, setting clear standards and assuring citizens that no individual is bigger than the office he holds.

The investigation belongs to the police.
The responsibility for the Cabinet belongs to the Prime Minister.

The people are not demanding a conviction from the Prime Minister. They are demanding leadership, transparency and reassurance.

Silence may be legally convenient, but politically and morally, it cannot be the government’s only answer.

---

Choiseul on the Move
Independent commentary. Community awareness. National accountability.

 

CHOISEUL ON THE MOVE

Book Bursary Distribution Set for District 7 – A Welcome Boost for Choiseul & Saltibus Families

There is encouraging news for parents and guardians across Choiseul and Saltibus as the Government of Saint Lucia continues its Book Bursary Programme, an initiative designed to ease the financial burden associated with preparing children for the new school year.

According to the official 2026 Book Bursary Distribution Schedule, District 7, which serves the schools of Choiseul and Saltibus, will have its distribution on:

📅 Wednesday, July 29 and Thursday, July 30, 2026
🕘 Time: 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
📍 Venue: Choiseul Secondary School

Parents and guardians are reminded to return all previously issued textbooks so that new books for the upcoming academic year can be issued without delay.

This programme deserves commendation. At a time when many families continue to grapple with the rising cost of living, the provision of textbooks through the Book Bursary Programme helps ensure that every child has access to the learning resources they need without placing additional financial pressure on parents.

Choiseul on the Move extends congratulations to the Government of Saint Lucia and the Ministry of Education for maintaining this important initiative. Investing in our children's education is an investment in the future of our communities and our nation.

To all parents and guardians in District 7, please make every effort to attend on the scheduled dates and ensure that all previously issued books are returned. Together, we can help make the start of the new school year a smooth and successful one for our children.

Education remains one of the greatest investments we can make—let's give every child the opportunity to succeed.

#ChoiseulOnTheMove #District7 #Choiseul #Saltibus #EducationFirst #BookBursaryProgramme #SupportingFamilies #BackToSchool2026 #SaintLucia