Seeing imps

THE PRIME MINISTER sees imps all around him. But some would say it is he who is guilty of impish conduct.

The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) on Tuesday backtracked after a muddling rant was posted on its Facebook page. The post seemed designed to somehow capitalise on the profound grief over the murder of Ashanti Riley. It lumped that horror with another: Venezuelans drowning in the Gulf of Paria.

The statement was in poor taste. It was deeply offensive. The apology issued after its retraction was inadequate and raised troubling questions about this government’s social media policy (or lack thereof) and more.

The apology stated the original post “should have been written as two separate statements and was intended for publication on the Prime Minister's personal social media account.”

And yet the original post devoted merely one line to Ms Riley. The rest was dedicated to disparaging “imps and agents…lying in the face of the available information” in relation to this country’s response to the Venezuelan crisis.

“Our grief comes in double doses,” it said, making a connection later characterised as inadvertent. That claim of inadvertence is unconvincing, indeed, not credible.

Meanwhile, mixing private business with official responsibilities is the classic definition of untoward conduct in public life. There is a reason why Cabinet ministers, when appointed, must normally estrange themselves from their commercial interests, normally placing them in trusts managed by other parties.

Yet this is how the Cabinet seems to be running its social media.

You might be tempted to dismiss this. But, especially today, social media sets the tone for how we perceive government.

And the tone being set is disturbing. Only a few months ago we had cause to raise questions about Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s use of his personal social media to announce national policy.

The truth is, Dr Rowley, whether tweeting via an official account or a personal one, is no ordinary citizen. His personal views clearly have profound implications for how his government sets public policy. Some would say this is precisely the problem.

Dr Rowley sees his critics as being overly concerned with the affairs of foreign countries. The OAS, the OAS, the OAS – that is all he seems to see.

Not the babies drowning on our doorstep. Not the deficiencies of our own “humanitarianism” with regard to our closest neighbour, with whom we have profound historical, social and cultural ties. Not the views taken by judges in our own Supreme Court who have made it pellucidly clear that the State’s deportation process is wanting and dangerous.

“We do not support might is right,” Dr Rowley said rather mightily yesterday. He has shown us otherwise.