Dear Editor,
The recent announcement to not pursue the bank withdrawal tax by the minister of finance undoubtedly will evoke mixed reactions in the days ahead. To a greater degree, many will celebrate this move as a victory; for the voice of the victims have spoken valiantly and commendations are deserving to those who were vociferous in their cry for foul.
There still remains a matter of vexing concern. Already there is the intimation of ascribing self accolades trumpeting from a certain quarter: "This Government listens." Is there really an attempt to seek political mileage from a colossal blunder? What has become of listening before speaking? I dare say this intimation is by far not a best practice on the part of any administration who seeks to model active listening skills. If this is an attempt to squeeze a political good out of an evil act it can only add to what can be described as the crime of apathy in the first place.
Did the minister listen to the voice of conscience when contemplating the imposition? Was the decision to impose the tax an informed one? And, if so, who or what was consulted? It would seem to me that genuine concern, compassion and sound judgement were not appealed to. If so, the minister would not have postponed his listening to this late hour after the damage was done. A case for inactive listening on the part of the minister has been made. A genuine apology from the minister on behalf of the Government for such lack of consideration and actions characteristic of indifference would have resonated more pleasantly in the aftermath of the previous traumatic announcement. A better kind of listening in this context would have been to first listen to the hurt that is potential, and not when it's actual. Listening now to the heart of the minister in repealing the initial imposition is made more difficult because it comes across as delayed listening, which is deemed damaging to the character of good governance.
Donville Colquhoun
Edmonton, Canada
dcahoun@hotmail.com
Delayed listening caused the colossal tax blunder
-->
The recent announcement to not pursue the bank withdrawal tax by the minister of finance undoubtedly will evoke mixed reactions in the days ahead. To a greater degree, many will celebrate this move as a victory; for the voice of the victims have spoken valiantly and commendations are deserving to those who were vociferous in their cry for foul.
There still remains a matter of vexing concern. Already there is the intimation of ascribing self accolades trumpeting from a certain quarter: "This Government listens." Is there really an attempt to seek political mileage from a colossal blunder? What has become of listening before speaking? I dare say this intimation is by far not a best practice on the part of any administration who seeks to model active listening skills. If this is an attempt to squeeze a political good out of an evil act it can only add to what can be described as the crime of apathy in the first place.
Did the minister listen to the voice of conscience when contemplating the imposition? Was the decision to impose the tax an informed one? And, if so, who or what was consulted? It would seem to me that genuine concern, compassion and sound judgement were not appealed to. If so, the minister would not have postponed his listening to this late hour after the damage was done. A case for inactive listening on the part of the minister has been made. A genuine apology from the minister on behalf of the Government for such lack of consideration and actions characteristic of indifference would have resonated more pleasantly in the aftermath of the previous traumatic announcement. A better kind of listening in this context would have been to first listen to the hurt that is potential, and not when it's actual. Listening now to the heart of the minister in repealing the initial imposition is made more difficult because it comes across as delayed listening, which is deemed damaging to the character of good governance.
Donville Colquhoun
Edmonton, Canada
dcahoun@hotmail.com
Delayed listening caused the colossal tax blunder
-->