'Some questions about your behaviour, Senator'

From Ted Vibert.

I WAS surprised to read that former Senator Stuart Syvret now feels that the only way to achieve a ‘fairer and more accountable government in Jersey is through a political party’.

Five years ago, when I was formulating plans to put together an alliance of States Members who were like-minded and form a political party, he was the first person I approached. I did so because it was obvious that he and I had similar views on many matters about Jersey’s system of government and I admired his political courage

He refused to have anything to do with the concept and told me that a political party was unnecessary and unacceptable to Jersey people. When I asked him if he would speak at a rally at Fort Regent, which I was organising to launch the Jersey Democratic Alliance, he again refused and was extremely dismissive of my efforts, saying that we would be lucky if we got 100 people there. In fact, it was a brilliant success with over 1,000 people present.

Unfortunately, my health broke down and I was forced to give up my political life. But a group of very determined people, led by Deputy Geoff Southern, have continued the task of building the JDA and the four members of the States have done some sterling work in helping hard-working Islanders and those less fortunate among us.

As an example, had it not been for Deputy Geoff Southern and his fellow JDA members, the Woolworth’s staff would have been left totally without redundancy pay when the store closed down.

As he has decided to stand in the forthcoming by-election, which he caused by staying out of the island for more than six months, I hope he will publicly answer a number of questions about his behaviour over the last six months, such as:

1. If he wanted to remain in the States, why did he not come back to the Island before the six months period had passed? Had he done so, he would still be a member of the States and this by-election would not have been necessary, saving the Island considerable costs and inconvenience.

2. Was he not aware of the damage he was doing to Jersey’s reputation by petulantly going off to London to complain about corruption in our judicial system? Surely, the correct procedure was for to him to have prepared a report outlining all of his evidence and presented this to the States, with a motion of no confidence in the various officials he was accusing of corruption. This would have enabled him to present his case, have it made public and given those he accused the opportunity of defending themselves.

3. I cannot believe that he is not aware of the moral outrage and deep disappointment felt by many voters who are aghast at his behaviour, especially the fact that he feels he can swan back to the island with no explanation or apology for his outrageous behaviour and that he appears to have no regrets, but feels justified in absenting himself in London for six months on full pay to be an investigative journalist and to do legal research on how Jersey’s corrupt system of governance could be fixed, while the taxpayer picks up a bill of over £20,000? How does he justify a situation where those who voted for him and expected him to represent their interest were deserted by him for six months?

4. Will he explain to the Jersey public how he can reconcile his behaviour over the last six months with the solemn oath that he swore before the Royal Court when he pledged the following: ‘I swear and promise before God that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of Senator…I will attend the meetings of the States whenever called upon to do so and, generally, I will fulfil all the duties imposed on me by virtue of the said office, all of which I will uphold and maintain the laws and usages of Jersey’.

Did that solemn oath mean nothing to him? When questioned by a voter on some of these matters at his public meeting, Stuart Syvret’s supporters jeered at the questioner and told him to ‘shut up’ and ‘sit down’. Is this the sort of intimidating behaviour we can expect at the hustings?

Finally, Stuart Syvret said that if he was re-elected ‘all I can do is carry on doing exactly what I have done for the last 20 years, which is being honest’.

What guarantee will he give voters that, if re-elected, he won’t act petulantly again and disappear at the taxpayer’s expense, like a sulking schoolchild, to suck his thumb somewhere in England?