​Dear Editor,

I have observed with keen interest the recent announcement of candidates contesting the St. Phillip’s South constituency, which lists four contenders. The anomaly, however, does not lie in the number of candidates but rather in the peculiar inclusion of one who presently serves as an Independent Senator, appointed by His Excellency, the Governor-General.

This development raises serious concerns regarding constitutional propriety, ethical consistency, and the principle of impartiality expected of members of the Upper House. An Independent Senator, by definition, is appointed to serve the national interest - free from partisan allegiance. Their primary function is to deliberate on legislation objectively, offering balance and wisdom uncolored by political ambition or party loyalty.

When such a senator publicly declares candidacy on behalf of a political party, a profound conflict of interest emerges. It undermines both the spirit and purpose of their independent appointment. Continuing to occupy the senatorial seat while simultaneously campaigning under a party banner erodes public confidence in the independence of the Senate and raises legitimate questions about the senator’s ability to perform legislative duties without bias.

The Constitution entrusts the Governor-General with the appointment of Independent Senators precisely because they are meant to remain above the fray of partisan politics. By seeking to contest elections under a party ticket, the senator has, in essence, relinquished that neutrality. To maintain the dignity of the Upper House and uphold public trust in our democratic institutions, it would be both prudent and principled for the senator to resign the independent appointment forthwith.

This is not a matter of personal judgment but one of constitutional ethics and institutional integrity. Our parliamentary system depends on clear boundaries between roles that are political and those that are meant to remain nonpartisan. Blurring that line risks setting a dangerous precedent that could compromise the credibility of the Senate as a nonpartisan reviewing chamber.

I pray that principled action prevails!
Regards
Watchful and Non-Aligned (Independent) Constituent

-END-

Letter to the Editor

​Sir/Madam,
Recently, while speaking with a close friend, I was struck by a deeply troubling story concerning the St. John Hospice and the care her now-deceased relative received there. Over the years, I have heard scattered accounts of poor standards at the facility, but I often dismissed them as hearsay. However, when someone I know personally and trust recounted her family’s painful experience, it became clear that this is an issue demanding serious attention.

I must also add that I myself had a somewhat unpleasant encounter at the hospice when visiting someone. Upon entering, I was firmly told that I needed to wear a mask, which I was informed was the hospice’s policy. I want to be clear: I respect protocols and had no objection to complying. However, what troubled me was observing that staff members, who also come from external environments, were not themselves wearing masks or following the same procedures enforced on visitors. This inconsistency raises questions about whether such measures are being applied fairly or meaningfully, and whether they are serving the intended purpose of safeguarding patients.

Hospices are meant to be sanctuaries of dignity, compassion, and professional care - places where individuals in the final stages of life are comforted, and where families can feel assured that their loved ones are receiving attentive, respectful, and humane support. Instead, what I am hearing and experiencing points to a disturbing departure from this mission: patient neglect, disregard for basic medical protocols, insufficient nurse supervision, limited doctor coverage and input, discourteous interactions from staff, poorly train CNAs who seem to operate above their scope, and an alarming lack of empathy and oversight. Families have described an atmosphere where patients who require attentive and specialized care are left vulnerable, while administrative leadership seems detached from the daily realities of the hospice.

This is not simply a matter of operational shortcomings - it is a matter of human dignity. At a time when patients and families are most in need of compassion, professionalism, and reassurance, it appears that many are instead experiencing frustration, disappointment, and emotional distress. The role of a hospice is not only clinical but profoundly moral: to uphold the dignity of the dying and to support families through an emotionally demanding journey.
If these reports are accurate, then urgent corrective measures must be taken. Greater accountability, improved staffing and supervision, and a renewed commitment to patient-centered care are essential. The community deserves confidence that the St. John Hospice is a place of comfort, not concern.

Concerned

-END-