I thought it was obvious that when Government ministers or officials appointed by the Government make public statements those statements represent the views of their Government.
If the views expressed in those statements are contrary to the views of, or embarrassing to the Government, the Government should wisely remove that office- holder in recognition of the fact that retention could negatively affect its longevity.
This is a simple application of the Basdeo Panday's version of the golden rule: "Do unto others before they do unto you," and was the swift experience of a past ambassador.
But will this termination occur in the curious case of Minister Jack Warner in response to pronouncements he made about the President of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago? Or will this minister with foot-in-mouth disease be retained after a possible politician's apology/explanation that his words were taken out of context?
What has happened so far in the nuclear fallout of Warner's rhetoric is that another Government minister has gone on the defensive to insist that a minister is entitled to his own views—further insulting the presidency and the intelligence of the people of T&T.
The obvious relevant issues are the public expression and not the private holding of views and, importantly, the office of the person expressing the views.
The fact of the matter is that if Mr Warner is not fired for his latest outburst, this time against the heart of our Republic, there is no good reason for Minister Volney not being reinstated as he is now demanding.
Melvin C Julien