THE EDITOR, Sir:
I HAVE been thinking about Mr. Chuck's dilemma and wondering whether he is not making the mistake of placing the expedient above the important. Thus for Mr. Chuck, Andrew Phang was a man "keen on maintaining the peace and harmony in the community."
However, what has not been said is the source of his authority, exactly how did he maintain this peace and harmony? How did he ensure that persons placed in the fowl coop remained there? What was the source of the funds used to school the children and feed the people? If the source of authority is corrupt then the exercise of such authority is also corrupt even though it may seem to bring 'peace'.
Unfortunately in a case as this Mr. Chuck knowing better than many of us what actually happens at ground level, cannot and ought not to be allowed to claim ignorance.
He must be able to convince us that the exercise of authority by Phang was based on legitimate sources.
When leaders in the society snuggle-up and eulogise so beautifully persons whose source of authority and funding are questionable at the very least, it has the effect of marginalising and sidelining the duly constituted authorities of this country and in fact the rule of law.
Consequent on the above I see no alternative but to hold Mr. Chuck (as I did with Dr. Davies) accountable for compromising law and order in this country.
I am, etc.,
S. RICHARDS
Kingston 10
