Dear Editor,
I must have missed it. I was a little surprised to see a reply from Minister Manickchand based on the letter I sent, especially so since I can’t recall seeing it published; I must have missed it. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you that the letter did reach her attention and was pleased that she sought to clarify the issues raised.
After reading her response, I was happy to find that the Minister and I have many things that we agree on. This was delightful. I was also largely satisfied that the findings of my letter proved to be inaccurate which eased my mind very much. What I do find strange is that the Minister had prepared the statement “long before the video.” This tells me that she has some special ability to foretell the future; to which I would credit her many years in service as a minister.
Her statement had words like: “cell phone,” “cameras,” “egging you on,” “dance,” “Christmas parties,” “broad-cast,” and so much more. Which led me, and others, to believe that her statement was pertaining to the said video in ques-tion. I apologize for my misunder-standing.
With regards to the Minister’s third paragraph I do agree that she is perfectly correct in saying that she had not “condoned any words of Baby Skello.” I too agree that she did not do so. However that was not what I was referring to. I think anyone in their reasonable senses would find the lyrics of his song gross and disturbing.
I somehow have memorized a part of the statement she made regarding Skello and this is where I have the issue. She said, “…I hope he [Skello] finds a good lawyer to defend him.” She said this because he was denied bail. Her public critique of the court’s decision to deny him bail was in her words “excessive” and an “odd decision.”
You could tell that her lawyer instincts kicked in and the tone of her statement was defensive, advisory and protective. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that I respect but I do not have to agree with her.
Right before that defensive statement she made the dull, less passionate, common statement for the Hindu community: “I stand with the Hindu community unreservedly in condemning the idiotic mumblings by some Baby Skello.” A clear case of having one foot in and one foot out. A politically correct statement in every possible way which is why she has the perfect career.
The Minister’s final paragraph contains questions about what boundaries and limits should be and who is to determine what these should be. But I would like to say that the boundaries and limits already exist for example she clearly identified this in her statement when she says, “have a little chat with your babies about what may and may not be acceptable for a school environment and for their ages.” The fact that we are encouraged to have this “chat” with our “babies” tells us that there is a limit. That there is a boundary.
Merry Christmas and a bright and prosperous New Year to you the editor and family and to the Minister and her family.