Self-importance run amok

The issue had its genesis when Professor Deosaran, during a Senate debate, said that some doctors were "enthusiastic mercenaries." Dr Ayoung Chee appears to have taken this comment personally, and despatched a letter to Professor Deosaran in which he "strongly advised" the Senator not to visit the San Fernando General Hospital while he was there or else Deosaran would face Ayoung Chee’s "full wrath and rot."

Deosaran, in his turn, felt that Ayoung Chee’s letter to him constituted contempt of Parliament, and made a formal complaint to the Privileges Committee. Last week, however, the Committee found that, although Ayoung Chee’s letter was insulting, the contents did not constitute a breach of privilege or contempt.

Professor Deosaran was not happy about this decision, branding the Committee’s report as a "lame duck" one.

Clearly, he fails to understand that the Committee was bound by rules. This is shown by Professor Deosaran’s own comment that he was baffled that the Committee could make its decision without talking either to himself or Ayoung Chee. But the Committee had a very specific decision to make whether — the letter in question broke the law about contempt for Parliament.

Talking to either of the two parties was therefore not only unnecessary, but might even have been out of order. Besides, the Committee’s members included attorneys Christine Kangaloo, Robin Montano, and Dana Seetahal — all competent professionals who would have based their decision on proper legal interpretation.

At the same time, the Committee, whether by accident or design, made a politically correct decision. It is true that Dr Ayoung Chee’s letter was intemperate, insulting, and completely without foundation. Indeed, as one of the more vocal founding members of the Medical Professionals Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MPATT), Ayoung Chee has done his part to promote the negative image the public has of doctors.

But, be that as it may, citizens should have every right to express their contempt of Parliament and its members. Indeed, we are sure that Professor Deosaran would agree that such contempt is often justified — but, when it isn’t, citizens must also have the right to express even foolish opinions. Had the Committee found against Dr Ayoung Chee, their decision would have been a small blow to our burgeoning democracy.

In the aftermath, Dr Ayoung Chee has observed that, "While parliamentarians are prevented from making derogatory remarks about each other, they seem to possess the right to make derogatory statements about members of the public, who seem to have no form of redress."

At the same time, Professor Deosaran, also in the aftermath, has made a most penetrating observation, when he asked why the Medical Board and MPATT has let Ayoung Chee’s letter go unattended.

And it is here that we find the crux of the matter. In any society, individuals will always transgress what are called "civilised boundaries." When this happens, it is the function of the society’s institutions to maintain those boundaries. But there must always be a balance, for if social institutions transgress the rights of the individual, the result is always the eventual collapse of a civilised social order. In this instance, Parliament has trod that fine line well.