I trust you will allow me space to indicate a perspective on the above-captioned matter.

I viewed the news clip twice Friday evening, and noted that on the days following the airing of the newscast several callers to the talk-shows were incensed at the brusque manner in which Minister Montague addressed the matron of the infirmary, and seemed to hold as their primary focus the desire that he apologise to the matron to whom he had been disrespectful. Some even called for his resignation.

As I recall, Montague was seeking both to have a rational explanation of, and to upbraid the responsible officer in charge of the infirmary for the less-than acceptable care which was being afforded the senior citizens who are residents of the facility. The basis of his enquiry was a report to the parish council, from the public-health authorities, which detailed unsanitary conditions at the facility, inclusive of its being fly-infested and rank with the stench of urine among other signs of inadequacy in its maintenance. In response to Montague's query regarding the flies and the stench, the administrator provided an answer which, ostensibly, sought to explain away the fly infestation as a consequence of mango season and there being mango trees on the compound.

underperformance

Prima facie, this seems plausible in and of itself. But I was minded to interrogate the details a bit further to determine the relevance of the response to the context in which they were spoken. And, in this regard, I was clued by the matron's language.

It seems to me that Montague was seeking to identify and expose the underperformance of the institution's staff and the failure of the management to apply and insist on minimum acceptable standards of sanitation. Hence, he referred to the litany of substandard conditions, all of which spoke to the inadequate standards of cleaning and sanitation that were in evidence.

The matron's response - and I note that she sought to particularise that response, stating that she could offer an answer in regard to the presence of the flies at the institution - was clearly not seeking to address this contextual question. In fact, given the way she set up her response (and I would suggest her body language as well), it appears that she was seeking to use a particular minor point to give the appearance of a substantive response/explanation, fully knowing that this did not really address the matter.

It is a cute trick in debating - presenting a red herring - or, if you like, an attempt at 'spin doctoring'.

If you accept this reading (and I call it a reading because I may be wrong), then it would appear that the matron's response was a pleasantly couched attempt at deception to throw the enquiry off the scent.

The logic of the sequence of events suggests that Montague sensed this disingenuous attempt at manipulation, notwithstanding the guise of the pleasant and ingratiating tone used by the matron, and the apparent plausibility of her res-ponse. And, having sensed the insincerity of the response, at an intuitive and emotional level, he responded as he did with moral and ethical outrage and indignation.

Please note that Montague appeared to have been so shocked by the effrontery of the officer that he could only repeat himself, some two or three times, and in the vernacular, giving vent spontaneously to these powerful feelings of shock, amazement and indignation.

I would suggest that by this complex emotional rejoinder Montague was seeking to champion the cause of the suffering seniors in the infirmary, who had clearly been mistreated in that the staff of the institution had failed to maintain the environs in a sanitary condition. At the same time, Montague also spoke out for truth and accountability - the matron and the staff had done far less than their job required them to do, and should be ashamed at treating their livelihoods in the way they had, let alone other human beings, and seniors at that! And finally, Montague spoke against deception.

Montague's errors

Strategically, however, Montague erred by using an elevated pitch, coupled with couching his response in the vernacular, and using certain phrases, associated in our culture with the stereotype of the 'tracing match' because, by so doing, he not only 'hooked' a whole set of socio-cultural norms about propriety but he also appeared to lose control.

Montague, a junior minister, could well learn from his fellow parliamentarians Ronald Thwaites and back-bencher Clive Mullings, both of whom know well how to convey powerful feelings while retaining the manner of urbanity.

But I am grateful that he chose to champion accountability.

We should place first things first, value substance over form, and not overly magnify the proverbial 'molehill'.

I am, etc.,

NOEL STENNETT

ndstenn@gmail.com