THE emergence and popularity of the social media today is a marvel. It has brought the world closer together than many have realised.

The world is at almost everyone’s fingertip. Distance and time no longer matter. Everyone (those with access to the internet that is) is only an internet access away.

With ever increasing speed, the world is getting even smaller, with distance being reduced by speed in terms of 3G, 4G and even 5G, which I had the opportunity to watch its demonstration at the headquarters of telco giant supplier, Huawei outside Beijing last September.

And technology just keeps improving.

With data and telephone calls traveling at speed of light, the potential to abuse this new marvel also increases. It can do one of two things. It can be a source of inspiration as some FSII members have been doing in sharing scriptural verses from the Holy Bible or it can be a medium to abuse others using false names.

In Solomon Islands this raises some ethical issues. For example, is it fit and proper to use the FSII, to attack someone hiding one’s real identity by using a false name?

It has happened to me on FSII on separate occasions. The first incident concerns a medical doctor who had everything firing at me. All the abuse was done under a pseudonym until I was tipped about the identity of this doctor.

When his name was openly mentioned on FSII, the person stopped his tirades. He may be using a different name now I don’t know. It’s a very frightening thing. Medical doctors have death on their fingertips. The potential to eliminate someone they disliked is real. Should they be allowed to continue in the medical profession?

Thanks to the whistleblowers out there.

The second attack on my persona was from someone I later learned was a constitutional officeholder. He was using a pen name to attack me until the man was openly identified as a constitutional officeholder who demanded transparency from everyone else but himselfz

It’s quite possible the cost of his use of the internet was being picked up by taxpayers. This then raises a number of questions. For example, is it fit and proper for a constitutional officeholder to use a pen name and using such guise to level personal and unfounded attacks on others?

In other words, should such a person be allowed to continue in his job given his own opinion might have coloured his perspectives on issues and individuals? Needless to say the man has since discontinued his use of the pen name.

In an ordinary person’s view, such practice is tantamount to abuse of office and indeed demeans the integrity of the constitutional office that he or she holds. It calls for the need to revisit whether or not the person is fit to hold such office.

So the closer we edge to what can only be described as an avalanche of technology, the urgency there is to move up a notch. What measures have we taken for example to ensure there is discipline within the system to deal with those who have allowed their actions in abusing their public offices?

For whatever way we look at this, actions by constitutional officeholders who use public funds to attack someone without any reason calls into question the integrity of constitutional offices they hold or represent.

Should they be trusted to continue in their offices? It is better they be disciplined in the same way the public has been demanding of our justice system in dealing with members of parliament.

It is no different