It was disconcerting to see Alfred Sant’s photograph in the papers. Despite everyone pussyfooting around, he does not look well, which is not surprising considering he has just undergone major surgery.
His first public appearance after his operation was premature and did not give him political mileage.
At a press conference held on Monday afternoon, he spelt out in minute detail what he had been through and spoke about the prognosis of his condition.
Do we really want to know the nitty-gritty of his condition? As leader of the Opposition, he is an important public figure, especially with a looming election, but there is a limit to how much detailed information the public needs, or indeed wants, to know.
I feel uneasy writing about this because I do not want to cause pain to his family, but why did he put himself in front of the TV cameras and photo lens when he is obviously not ready for it? He is laying his family wide open to hurt.
The public is interested to know that his operation was successful and that he is expected to recover well. And it does need to know whether he would be up to leading the country effectively if he wins the next election. But most do not need or want the gory details.
The Times was wrong to have published too much detail after his operation. It went beyond ‘the public’s right to know’, but Dr Sant now seems to be playing the same gruesome game, which I find baffling.
It must have been very traumatic for him to discover over Christmas that he had a serious condition, which needed immediate surgery and it seems to me that he has not come to terms with that trauma and is not being helped, by those around him with political ambitions, to face up to the debilitating aftermath.
However good his recovery DNA, he still needs time to fully convalesce, mentally as well as physically.
His message on Monday afternoon was that he was ready to face the election campaign, but the way he looks right now belies it. If he is playing the sympathy card, it could misfire badly, not just for him but also for the Labour Party.
Campaigning is very tough work. He will not only be battling the Nationalist Party and the people who want to take over from him within his own party, but there is a huge amount of door-stepping and non-stop meetings to contend with.
Besides, he has precious few friends in the media and although his detractors are treading carefully right now, it won’t last.
A scary thing to come out of the whole saga was the discovery that partisanship is so ingrained in our society that the surgeon chosen to carry out the operation and the nurses in attendance were involved with the Labour Party.
Now it is understandable that if one has the choice, one would prefer to have friends whose capabilities one trusts to look after one, but I still find it worrying that specialists within our health service are handpicked for their political allegiances. After all surely we can trust the professionalism of our medical specialists, can’t we?

Pointless public notices
Is it just me, or do other people put gift vouchers away in a drawer and forget about them until they resurface six months later and you discover that they are no longer valid, since they have an expiry date?
Well I have lost quite a few ‘gifts’ in that way. Yes, I know I should be more careful with vouchers for which hard-earned cash has been paid.
But, unlike Madonna I have never been a ‘material girl’ and am not overly concerned with possessions. However, I do not like to be ripped off either, so when I saw a recent notice from the consumer government department saying that “gift vouchers should be redeemed without date restrictions”, I was intrigued.
So are retailers getting away with cheating their customers? Have I lost out unnecessarily? “Any restriction on gift vouchers constitute an unjust clause…” said the notice.
So what is the Consumer Department saying exactly? That customers can insist on getting the value of their vouchers, even if the retailer has printed a date after which it cannot be redeemed, because the retailer is not supposed to do this?
That any retailer using these restrictions can be brought to book?
The message was unclear and confusing and whoever wrote it obviously realised this, because the statement ended with “Whoever wants to clarify these points or wants more information can contact the Department on 2144 6250 or 2148 2008.”
Either vouchers should not have restricting dates on, in which case they should be redeemed at any time, or not. It should be clear enough without the consumer having to get further clarification, otherwise what was the point of the notice in the first place?

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com