Dear Editor,

Imagine, for example, that a Cabinet minister was observed consuming an excessive amount of alcohol at a private party while his Government was in the midst of a massive public education campaign against alcohol. The minister’s action, although not illegal and within the confines of a private setting, would no doubt be contrary to the spirit of the Government’s campaign. Moreover, the undesirable effects of alcoholic intoxication on the minister would not in any way depend on whether he was drinking at an official function or private party or even whether he would face sanctions or only condemnations.

I see a somewhat similar scenario with the recent actions of Senator Aubyn Hill, the minister of industry, investment and commerce. He addressed a function recently and clearly expressed support for Israel in its conflict with Palestine, which was contrary to the official position the Government has declared.

It’s a monumental decision for any Government to declare war on another State, voice support for any side in a conflict, send peacekeeping forces, or even remain neutral. Was Hill’s declaration a major blunder? Minister of Foreign Affairs Kamina Johnson Smith responded that Hill was acting in a personal capacity. But the capacity in which he acted, whether official or personal, does not change the gravity of the situation because Senator Hill, a Cabinet member, publicly contradicted the Government.

Cabinet functions by the all-important principle of collective decisions and responsibility. If Minister Hill adheres to this principle, it would mean he does not support Israel and that he also does support Israel, officially and personally, respectively. Respectfully, I dare say this is definitely an inconsistency because one could correctly or reasonably argue that Minister Hill is ambivalent or conflicted, with dual interests.

Based on Senator Hill’s recent declaration, would it be facetious to ask: Why the inconsistency?

Daive R Facey

DR.Facey@gmail.com