Letter From The President: Are we independent?

Jubilee reflections II: Are we independent?

Countrymen and women, loyalists and opponents, I started a four part series last week to coincide with the golden jubilee celebrations of Sikaman. The first part was on the meaning of ‘independence’. This week, my fickle mind is going to try to focus on whether or not Sikaman is as independent as our forefathers envisaged when they chased out the queen and her agents.

Jubilee reflections II: Are we independent?

Countrymen and women, loyalists and opponents, I started a four part series last week to coincide with the golden jubilee celebrations of Sikaman. The first part was on the meaning of ‘independence’. This week, my fickle mind is going to try to focus on whether or not Sikaman is as independent as our forefathers envisaged when they chased out the queen and her agents.
Last week I used the analogy of a child coming of age and deciding to go out on his own – to stop living under his father’s roof and start fending for himself – to illustrate what I see independence to be. I hope I drove home the point that those guys who led us to independence had noble intentions. They wanted to see us deciding for ourselves. At the time I knew very little about what was going on. But I have grown up, I have read the history books and I have come to understand why they fought so hard to lead the country to independence. The problem is that independence seems to have done us more harm than good and, as a result, we have been thrown into a situation whereby it is difficult for us to assert ourselves and our independence. Simply put, I am convinced beyond every reasonable doubt (and no one can change my mind on this) that we are no more independent now than we were before March 1957. In other words, we are still being governed by the people we supposedly gained independence from. Why do I say this? Well, let me explain.