The Editor, Sir:

This is in response to the Garth Rattray column:

Mr Rattray:

You said, It is ironic that it was the 'chief servant' who wanted to have fixed general election dates and now he wants an early general election to stay in power.

As you should know, in argument, an assertion may be generally true but have peculiar exceptions. The prime minister, understanding this, expressed while in opposition the position that a review of the 'law' as it concerns the election date will have to include provisions for situations which may demand an election outside of a fixed election date.

Examine all records

Please examine all records of statements made by Mr Golding on this matter as your comment suggests that the gentleman is simply opportunistic when his position may actually be a principled one.

In any case, this is not just a flippant 'I want an early general election to stay in power' matter. There is a dilemma to be faced. As the prime minister expressed, there is another matter of principle at issue. Should someone not elected by the people sit in the Lower House of Parliament to represent those people? You argue that Mr Vaz should have been immediately disqualified. Legally, you may be proven correct by the Court of the Appeals, but the prime minister's concern is still a reasonable one.

Not necessarily opportunism

So, even if the prime minister had not qualified his desire for fixed election dates (and he did), that he may call another general election is not a necessary indication of opportunism. And, I would add that the prime minister really does not appear to want an election at this time.

I am, etc,

ERICA CAMPBELL

erica4ja@yahoo.com