The Tribune

THIS week, there have been notable shifts in what ministers have said on issues that have arisen recently.

In yesterday’s Tribune, we reported on how Minister of National Security Wayne Munroe had gone from deriding the police incentive scheme as fake news to defending it now that he knows it exists.

Mr Munroe claimed that when he said the scheme was fake news he was referring to officers getting cash prizes. For the record, that is not what he was asked – he was simply sent a screenshot of the award scheme and asked to comment.

So if he was indeed saying it was fake news that the officers were getting cash prizes, he was answering a question that was not asked.

And today we report on the issue of concerns about some Cuban teachers not being able to speak English well enough to be understood by their students.

When The Tribune reported on the claims by the Bahamas Union of Teachers, the Ministry of Education was terse in its response, saying: “The group of education professionals were recruited as a result of a scrutiny process which involved seasoned public servants from the Public Service Commission, Ministry of Public Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Education and Technical and Vocational Training and representatives of the Bahamas Educators, Counsellors and Allied Workers Union (BECAWU). It was unfortunate that the BUT was unable to send a representative for the interview panel.”

The ministry added: “The panel was satisfied that the teachers are highly qualified and have competency in English.”

Yesterday, Education Minister Glenys Hanna-Martin shifted that tone somewhat, accepting that a “very small” number of those teachers had been a barrier.

Ms Hanna-Martin said it is “not unusual” for there to be a barrier in the first few weeks of school – which if that is the case, it is surprising that was not a part of the ministry’s earlier response if it is so commonplace.

She said yesterday: “We have been advised in a very small number of cases in certain schools and that those issues are not unusual in the first few weeks of school, which I’ve said before.

“We have been advised over the 20 years that initially it acquired some acclimation between the teacher understanding the Bahamian child and the Bahamian child understanding fully the Cuban teacher in a minority of cases.”

So in other words, yes, there were some issues over clear communication, but they think it will be resolved in weeks as teachers and students learn how to understand one another.

That, of course, does leave the question over whether pupils will lose out in those weeks as they adjust – but more than anything, if this is a regular occurrence, why be so combative about it in the first place?

We should reiterate of course that none of this is any fault of any of the teachers who have been hired – and there should be no criticism of any of those involved, simply because some may not have the needed skills. That is a flaw in the recruitment process, not in the teachers themselves.

In both of these cases, was it a case of being uncertain over the facts in the first place? Or is it just being reluctant to admit the initial response might not have been correct?

If a question is raised over the existence of a police incentive scheme, why feel the need to dismiss it so readily?

If teachers raise concerns over whether students can understand some of their teachers, why not listen to those worries and address them?

What is the initial reluctance to consider that these things may actually be true?

Not all things have to be adversarial. And the problem comes that if these are true, then it casts doubt on other instances where government officials make denials. And that is by far the worst option.