Public officials should be open to increased scrutiny

The Editor, Sir:

This past week we were exposed to the United States nomination process of one its judges to the Supreme Court.

If nothing else, what emerged during the nomination process left most of us convinced of the crucial need for proper background checks and careful scrutiny of those being selected or appointed to leadership roles.

In a democracy such as ours, we cast our votes based on the merits of the candidates put up for election by their respective political parties. But how much do we really know about the candidates?

The top tier of political parties participates in a national debate on policy or national issues, so we get a glimpse of where they or their party stand on issues, but we still know very little about the candidates themselves.

We certainly need to know much more about those presented for selection. Should we not be demanding proper probes/investigations of those presenting themselves as candidates?

After all, they will be making decisions about our lives that could very well be influenced by their possible perversions, prejudices, etc.

And what about other leaders appointed to head government agencies and our own judges? Shouldn't they also be open to close scrutiny in public view before their appointment?

I am etc.,

Colonel Allan Douglas