Opinion · Accountability
When Politics Reaches Into An 89-Year-Old’s Pocket, Something Has Gone Wrong
Dr. Ralph Gonsalves says two elderly women were struck from public assistance. If that is true for the reason he alleges, the government owes the country an answer.
There are political disagreements. There are policy disputes. There are changes of government. And then there are allegations so troubling that, if true, they should disturb every decent Vincentian, whether that person supports the ULP, the NDP, or no party at all.
Opposition Leader Dr. Ralph Gonsalves has accused the NDP government of removing two elderly women from the public assistance list. One, he said, is an 89-year-old from Choppins whose only income was public assistance. The other is an 82-year-old from Sandy Bay he referred to as Miss Nero, whose family, he said, is itself struggling and unable to support her. According to Dr. Gonsalves, the first woman was removed for a single reason: because she supported the Unity Labour Party.
Consider that carefully. Eighty-nine years old. Not a political activist on a government salary. Not somebody chasing a lucrative contract. Not a wealthy party financier. An elderly woman whose only income, on the Opposition Leader’s account, was public assistance.
An 89-year-old should not have to prove which party she supports before she can eat.
If the allegations hold, this is not ordinary partisan politics. It is political victimisation aimed, on Dr. Gonsalves’s telling, at some of the most vulnerable people in the country. And there is something especially troubling about turning public assistance into a political weapon.
Public assistance is not an NDP gift. It is not ULP money. It is not the personal property of any minister, permanent secretary, welfare officer or party operative. It is public money. It exists because a civilised society accepts that the elderly, the poor and the vulnerable must not simply be abandoned when they no longer have the strength, income or family support to survive on their own.
A person’s political opinion should never decide whether there is food in the cupboard, medication on the table, or a few dollars for the necessities of old age. That is the line that must never be crossed.
Dr. Gonsalves was furious. He described what he sees under the NDP administration as a spreading wickedness, arguing that political authority should lift people up rather than punish them. He characterised the removals as “pure wickedness”. His demand was straightforward: put these women back on the list.
The questions the government should answer
- Were these two women removed from public assistance?
- If so, on what criteria, and who authorised it?
- Were their circumstances reassessed, and were they told in writing?
- Were they given any opportunity to appeal?
- Can the government assure the country that political affiliation played no role whatsoever?
Those are not partisan questions. They are accountability questions. Because if a government begins rationing basic social assistance by political loyalty, the problem reaches far beyond two elderly women. It sends a chilling message to everyone: keep quiet, support the right party, or pay a price. That is not democracy, and it is not good governance.
And no one should grow comfortable with such allegations simply because the alleged victims support the other side. Today it may be an elderly ULP supporter. Tomorrow it could be an NDP supporter under another administration. That is exactly why principle must matter more than party colours.
Dr. Gonsalves drew one further distinction worth noting. He argued this was not a policy decision that merely turned out badly, but something different in kind, because the alleged motive was political punishment rather than honest error. That allegation deserves investigation and a direct response.
If the government can show these women were removed through legitimate, transparent and politically neutral procedures, it should produce that explanation. But if an 89-year-old woman whose only income was public assistance was struck from the list because of how she votes, then whoever took part in that decision should be ashamed. The same applies to the 82-year-old in Sandy Bay.
Governments change. Prime ministers change. Our humanity should not. There ought to be some citizens whom political warfare simply does not touch, and the elderly should be among them. A government holding fourteen of fifteen seats does not need to fear an old woman’s opinion.
So the question for the NDP government is simple. Were these two elderly women removed from public assistance, and if so, why? Answer the country. And if politics had anything to do with it, put these women back on the list. Because no Vincentian should have to choose between conscience and their next meal.
Power to the People.
Leave a Reply