Dear Editor,
There is a principle in political psychology that says people often remember who solved a problem more than they remember who created it. Whether intentional or not, that principle came to mind as I watched the controversy surrounding the proposed Sexual Offenders Registry.
The Minister of Human Services has stated that she, the President, and Cabinet support an open registry, but that the legislation was drafted with a closed registry because public consultations overwhelmingly supported that position. After the public backlash, the President then emerged saying the registry should be public and that the matter should be sent to a Special Select Committee for further scrutiny.
As a citizen, I have a simple question: which public was consulted?
The Minister has placed responsibility on public consultations, yet the reaction from the public appears to suggest the exact opposite. If citizens overwhelmingly supported a closed registry, then where is the evidence? Where are the submissions, reports, recommendations, or findings that led to such a conclusion? Public consultation cannot be used as a shield without transparency. If the public is being blamed for the proposal, then the public deserves to see the evidence.
What makes the situation even more interesting is that legislation does not simply appear in Parliament. Bills go through drafting, review, discussion, legal examination, ministerial oversight, and Cabinet processes before reaching the National Assembly. That is why many citizens find it difficult to accept the explanation that key decision-makers supported an open registry while a closed registry somehow found its way into legislation.
This is where the political psychology becomes fascinating.
We have seen similar patterns before. In the Quindon Bacchus matter, the family won compensation against the State and there were reports that the ruling would be appealed. Public concern followed. Then came the intervention. The President stepped in and the appeal was abandoned. Now we have a Sexual Offenders Registry that sparks public outrage, followed by another intervention. Different issue, similar sequence. The controversy emerges, public outrage grows, and then a senior figure arrives to correct the situation.
I am not suggesting every controversy is deliberately manufactured. What I am saying is that citizens are not foolish. When people repeatedly observe the same sequence of events, they begin asking questions. They begin wondering whether the focus is being placed on solving the problem rather than explaining how the problem reached that stage in the first place.
Equally interesting has been the silence from some quarters. In today’s political environment, social media commentators, political advocates, party representatives, influencers, and self-appointed watchdogs rarely miss an opportunity to weigh in on national issues. Yet on a matter involving a Sexual Offenders Registry, victims’ rights, public safety, and access to information, many of the loudest voices suddenly became very quiet.
I saw lengthy posts when Aubrey Norton questioned Azruddin Mohamed’s motives in politics. I saw essays, videos, rebuttals, and outrage. Yet when one of the most significant social policy issues currently before the country emerged, many of those same voices appeared nowhere to be found. The leader of WIN had little to say. The MPs had little to say. The advocates had little to say. The usual defenders had little to say. The urgency that appears on other issues was strangely absent here.
That observation is important because principles are easiest to identify when they are applied consistently. It is easy to speak when an issue benefits your political position. It is much harder to speak when an issue requires you to challenge people you support.
Ultimately, the question is bigger than the registry itself. The question is whether citizens are being given the full story. If public consultations overwhelmingly supported a closed registry, then publish the evidence. If Cabinet supported an open registry, explain how a closed registry reached Parliament. If political movements claim to represent the people, explain why some issues generate immediate outrage while others are met with silence.
Democracy requires more than intervention after the fact. It requires transparency before the fact. Until then, citizens will continue asking questions, because accountability does not begin when the hero arrives. Accountability begins by understanding how the problem was allowed to exist in the first place.
