The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

I have just returned with my family from Exuma where we spent ten days relaxing and admiring the beauty there. If there is anyone who doubts that there is a God, go to Exuma and they will quickly realise that there must be a Supreme Being to have created such beauty and perfection.

On returning, I met a letter to the Editor from The Graduate advising me not to kill the messenger. To take a message seriously, you must know who the message is from. In this case, The Graduate (he/she/it) is not delivering the message. The Graduate (he/she/it) is rendering a personal opinion, not delivering one for somebody else.

There is a difference. The Graduate (he/she/it) is not the messenger, but the source. And why is this distinction important? If the Graduate is a paedophile and writes a column condoning paedophilia, then you ignore the contents of the message. If the Graduate is a wife beater and writes a column condoning wife beating, then that is important to know when reading the article.

And so I don’t waste my time taking The Graduate’s opinion seriously, nor do I waste my time trying to determine who the Graduate is. I know what The Graduate is. To call the Graduate a snake would be to insult the snake. To say that The Graduate (he/she/it) is someone who could walk upright under a snake’s belly and still have head room would be the more accurate description.

The Graduate (he/she/it) pretends to know a lot about Sir Etienne Dupuch and mentions the motto, “Being Bound To Swear To The Dogmas Of No Master.” The Graduate (he/she/it) also claims to know a lot about the diversionary tactics that Sir Lynden used to keep his adversary’s eye off the ball.

This is interesting. Sir Lynden was known to keep his tactics close to his chest. Only his closest colleagues knew them. But The Graduate claims to know them.

I wonder if The Graduate has inadvertently exposed himself/herself?

Is The Graduate in fact using Sir Lynden’s diversionary tactics by addressing everything and everyone except the problem?

By attacking Tennyson Wells, is The Graduate (he/she/it) trying to keep the public’s eyes off the ball with regards to the FNM convention?

What has been going on recently with respect to the FNM’s leadership makes no sense. We have a situation where the FNM Constitution calls for the election of its Leader by the Delegates in Convention. The Parliamentary members are only a small part of the Delegates.

As I understand it, the Delegates of the FNM, on two occasions and by landslides at both, elected Dr Hubert Minnis as Leader of the FNM. It appears now that six of those Delegates, all members of the House of Parliament, object to the results.

Do you know what they are saying? What they are saying is that the majority of delegates who voted for Dr. Minnis don’t know what they are doing. They are saying that the majority of the delegates of the FNM are stupid. This is incredible!

If this is how they (the six MP’s) feel, maybe they should resign from the FNM and distance themselves from these honourable people.

Dr Duane Sands, who I have tremendous regard for and believe has a lot to contribute in public life, is either being used or has been badly advised.

Recently, there was a vacancy in the Senate. Dr Minnis, as FNM Leader, had to choose the replacement.

Both he and Dr. Sands had to meet and discuss policies, approaches to problems, etc. Dr Minnis must have been satisfied that they both had reached an amiable agreement as to the direction of the Party.

On the strength of agreements reached at this meeting, I assume that Dr Minnis must have concluded that he and Dr Sands had agreed to work together.

Almost immediately after Dr Sands was appointed, Dr Sands announced that he had no faith in Dr. Minnis and had teamed up with Loretta Butler. Dr Sands was further quoted as saying that if Dr Minnis was re-elected as Leader, he (Dr Sands) would resign his Senate post. I stand to be corrected, but this is what I understand the case to be! Incredible!

If Dr Sands plans to resign if Dr Minnis is re-elected, why did he accept the position in the first place? This is no marbles game! These people seem to be playing games with the Bahamian people.

None of this makes sense. There’s something wrong here. Are we looking at the wrong ball? Is The Graduate writing these letters to distract the Bahamian people and cause voters to look the other way? Is The Graduate using Sir Lynden’s tactic of diversion?

Yes, there’s something wrong here. Why is this small group causing so much confusion in the FNM? Is it because they have a special agenda that has not yet been announced?

Is this a replay of the Convention where the public and Tommy Turnquest were assured, right up to the final hour, that Hubert Ingraham was not running, only to see him strut onto the platform at the convention and push Tommy aside to take control of the party?

The tactics look similar. Think Bahamians! How many times are some people going to lie to you, and take you for stupid fools?

Wake up Bahamians, wake up.

PIERRE V.L. DUPUCH

Nassau,

July 20, 2016.