Cutting Cabinet? NOT Symbolism! (Or Optics!)

Photo by Grant Cocrane
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

The discussion about whether the Cabinet should be cut has focused – wrongly – on whether such a move would save the government money. This has allowed government spokespersons to wriggle out of the real discussion, which is one about good governance and leadership.

The 2011 Public Sector Master Rationalisation Plan states that:

“The Public Sector Transformation Unit (PSTU) was established in November 2009 with the mandate to “lead, monitor, evaluate and facilitate the implementation of the restructuring of the Public Sector for efficient, effective and economical government” to realise the vision of ‘a transformed cohesive Public Sector that is performance-based, efficient, cost effective and service oriented.’”

How can we have a transformed cohesive Public Sector without a close examination of the Ministers who lead the process?

Back to the Plan:

“This exercise focused on the entire Public Sector to include the sixteen (16) Ministries and over two hundred (200) Entities including Departments, Statutory Bodies, Executive Agencies and Limited Liability Companies. The reasons for rationalisation are obvious, chief among them are the following:

1. Overlapping and duplication of mandates and functions

2. Organizations and structures that are no longer relevant

3. Shifts in mandate and core functions

4. Archaic systems and structures

5. Outdated Statutes

6. High wage bill relative to GDP

7. Lack of appropriate technology

8. Lack of inter and intra-Ministry collaboration

9. Limited financial and material resources.”

How can it be “just optics” as Transport Minister Dr. Omar Davies colourfully insisted in Parliament, to ask whether the employment of 20 Cabinet Ministers is justified?

Let us be clear. The Plan did say that:

“…after extensive consideration, the decision was taken to retain all Ministries at this time, with modification in some instances to their respective core functions. It is anticipated, that with the efficiency gains over time, specific consideration will be given to the reduction of Ministries.”

However, one of the problems we have is that each Prime Minister has the flexibility to re-structure the Cabinet as she/he sees fit once the constitutional requirement of at least eleven Cabinet Ministers is observed.  So although Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller had criticized former Prime Minister Bruce Golding for the size of  his 18-member Cabinet, on winning the December 2012 election, she promptly named two additional Cabinet Ministers, for a total of 20.

How can it then be “symbolism” to call for an examination of whether we are getting value for money from our Cabinet Ministers?

Let me be clear. I am not calling either for a cut in the Cabinet, or for a retention of the status quo.

What I AM calling for, unequivocally, is an understanding that we cannot call for prudent expenditure of taxpayers’

Photo by posterize
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

money at one level and not at the other.

We cannot declare that we want to eliminate “overlapping and duplication of functions” at the civil servant level but not determine whether we have the same problem in the Cabinet.

We cannot, as the Plan does, state that we will see “mergers (that) will result in economies of scale and overall cost savings in areas to include staffing,” and not expect the Cabinet to be an integral part of that discussion.

Most of all, what I am calling for is a respectful response from the administration to the calls from civil society and a considered and thoughtful approach to the discussion.

Jamaican Leg of Shanique Myrie Case Ends – Points to Note

Flag of the Caribbean Common Market and Community (CARICOM) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The Caribbean Court of Justice sat in Jamaica for three days from March 4 – 6, 2013 to take the evidence of Jamaican witnesses in the Shanique Myrie case. Myrie claims to have been discriminated against by the government of Barbados when she tried to visit the country in March 2011.

The claimant, Myrie, called six witnesses, while the government of Jamaica, an intervening party, called four witnesses. It is great that the public is so interested in this case, but here are a few points to note. 

1. The part of the evidence to which the public has been exposed is that which has emerged under cross examination. This is because the witnesses state their account of what happened in written statements which are then tendered into evidence to stand as their evidence in chief. In other words, you don’t see, as you would in a criminal trial, the witness verbally giving his or her account. This means that the public generally does not know the entirety of the witness’s account, its length, how many details were provided, or the depth of the account. All we have heard are the parts which the opposing attorney chose to highlight.

In other words, when we hear an attorney in cross-examination – and the same thing will happen when the court travels to Barbados – hammering away at one or two or several details – at this stage it is very difficult to say whether a witness has been “discredited” or not. What are the key issues in the case? In this case, a key aspect of the evidence is the cavity search, which the government of Barbados is denying ever took place. Was Myrie shaken on that critical aspect of the testimony? This was not an aspect dealt on in any detail in cross examination so the public cannot really make any informed view of that issue. That, of course, will be for the judges to decide.

Myrie’s witness statement was 18 pages long. The public was therefore not exposed to the vast majority of her evidence and as a result cannot at this point make any realistic or informed assessment of her evidence as a whole.

2. It is a truism in law that memories fade. It would always be unlikely for any witness to remember every detail of a matter that took place some time ago. That would be taken into consideration in assessing credibility of a witness.

3. This is not a domestic court. It is an international court with no jury, but with seven experienced judges hearing the case. The difference is helpfully explained in a rebuttal filed by Jamaica’s Deputy Solicitor General Dr. Kathy Ann Brown in response to an application by the attorneys representing Barbados to strike out the statements of three of the Jamaican witnesses. She stated that:

“International courts generally allow parties the freedom to submit any evidence they wish in order to prove the facts necessary to establish their respective cases. It is submitted further that an international court determines the relevance , materiality and weight of the evidence offered by any party and in appropriate circumstances may generally only exclude evidence if it is duplicative, defamatory or obviously irrelevant.

In contrast to the treatment of evidence at the national level …in international cases rules of procedure that govern the submission of evidence and its evaluation are less restrictive.”

 In other words, a lot of evidence will be admitted that may not have been admitted under the rules of evidence in domestic courts, and it is for the judges to sift through the evidence and make their assessments.

As  a result, one of the attorneys explained to me that the frequent objections which would normally be made in domestic court were not made, as they were allowing the court to hear all the evidence being presented. This would be why one concerned observer commented that the Barbadian attorneys were walking all over our witnesses.

4. I have also been disturbed by some of the disrespectful comments about one of the witnesses who told the court that he could not read or write. The suggestions I have heard (from Jamaicans) are that he should not have been called to give evidence. The witness has given his account of how he was treated. Why should he be denied the opportunity to do so because of his inability to read?

The courtroom can be an intimidating place for many people. Consider the lawyers flitting around in black robes – the imposing bench of, in this case, seven judges sitting on high, the way in which lawyers talk  (when in court) which almost inevitably does not sound anything like the way normal people talk, and in this case, the thick, to the ears of many of us,  Bajan accent in which the lead attorney was questioning the witnesses. And last but far from least, there was the frustrating refusal of almost everybody in this case to actually speak into the microphone – judges and attorneys alike. Add to that the fact that a witness’s natural language may have been Jamaican patois, not English. Any of these factors could have contributed to an inability to properly understand the questions being asked. Let’s be a little more sensitive in our assessment of our fellow Jamaicans.

 The upshot? Don’t jump to conclusions and pronounce the case won or lost just yet. This could be a landmark case in the region. I have no doubt that will be reflected in the ruling.

 

 

 

 

Related articles

• Caribbean Court of Justice Sitting in Jamaica – Significant (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)
• Eyeing the case before the Caribbean Court of Justice (kaieteurnewsonline.com)

Day One of the Shanique Myrie Case

Caricom-Flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Opening Submissions

The Caribbean Court of Justice on March 4, 2013 began hearing the case of Shanique Myrie, a Jamaican woman who alleges that she was unlawfully denied entry to Barbados on March 14, 2011, because of her nationality and that she was subjected to degrading treatment including an illegal cavity search. The case is grounded in the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which governs the operation of CARICOM.

Day one of the proceedings saw Myrie’s lawyers making opening statements, while Myrie’s witness statement was admitted to evidence, following which attorneys for the state of Barbados began to cross examine her.

Opening statements were made by Myrie’s lawyers, Michelle Brown and Nancy Anderson.

Anderson told the Court that the case was about two of the most important rights at the level of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) as set out in the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which governs the operation of CARICOM, freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of nationality.

The case, she said, is also about one young woman traveling for the first time to another Caribbean country, who arrived there on March 14, 2011, and experienced a pleasant first few minutes in that country. She was then escorted to a waiting area, interrogated by two police officers from the drug squad seeking to ascertain if she was a drug courier, and subjected to an embarrassing, painful and offensive cavity search, Anderson said.

The treatment was in breach of the government of Barbados’ international obligations, and its obligations under the Treaty. She said there was only one reason for the suspicion of Myrie, that of her nationality,

Brown, dealing with the legal issues relating to the case, said that the court will be asked to interpret three aspects of the Treaty, in relation to freedom of movement, a guarantee that the Treaty rights of CARICOM nationals must be observed, and that fundamental human rights of CARICOM nationals must be observed.

She said it must be the standard that all CARICOM nationals be treated with respect and that they should expect to be treated with respect.

She stressed that under the Treaty, there should be no discrimination against CARICOM nationals based on nationality, and that Jamaican nationals ought to be treated in the same way as Barbadian nationals.

She said that when Jamaicans arrive in Barbados “there should be no sniffer dogs if the same treatment is not meted out to other nationals.”

The Court will be asked to find that fundamental human rights in international law should also be recognized in Community law.

Myrie is seeking declarations that Barbados has breached its obligations under the Treaty, that her rights were violated and that she is entitled to damages in compensation. She is also seeking an apology from the government of Barbados.

Caribbean Court of Justice Sitting in Jamaica – Significant

 

Caribbean Court of Justice logo (Photo credit: Mark Morgan Trinidad B)

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is sitting from March 4-8, 2013 for the first time at the Jamaica Conference Centre  in Kingston, Jamaica, as it hears a case brought by a Jamaican, Shanique Myrie, against the state of Barbados.

Miss Myrie is alleging that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment by government officials when she sought to enter Barbados and that the discrimination was based on her nationality. This, she is arguing, is contrary to the Barbadian government’s obligations under the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas which governs the operations of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

It is a significant development for the region for a number of reasons. The discussion about whether CARICOM countries should accede to the appellate jurisdiction of the CCJ has been going on for years, somewhat obscuring the fact that the CCJ is up, running and adjudicating, and that Jamaica does in fact have access to the Court in its original jurisdiction, in relation to matters arising under the Treaty.

That simply means that if a matter relates to the Treaty of Chaguaramas, for example, trade, or as in allegations in the current case, free movement or discrimination based on nationality, the only court legally empowered to adjudicate on such matters is the CCJ.

The Shanique Myrie case brings the court to life for Jamaicans. It is sitting in real time, in Jamaican space, dealing with an issue that many Jamaicans have complained about – their treatment at the hands of immigration officials of other Caribbean countries.

Although based in Trinidad and Tobago, it had long been proposed that the CCJ would be itinerant, travelling throughout the region to hear cases. This is the first such occasion. It demonstrates to Caribbean nationals the proximity of the Court, and removes at least one layer of cost involved in traveling to the UK to access the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am not going to pretend that this will make access to the Court cheap, or even affordable for many. Legal fees can be prohibitive, and as the Shanique Myrie case has shown, depending on the facts of the case, traveling costs can still apply.

Nevertheless, this exposure can only be good for the Court.

Related articles

• Free movement in CCJ spotlight (trinidadexpress.com)
• Eyeing the case before the Caribbean Court of Justice (caribbean360.com)

That Burning (Jamaican) Flag

Does anybody but me think the excessive excitement we created over the VW ad, which I wrote about here,  led to the Saturn commercial featuring the burning of a Jamaican flag which is now being reviled? After all, the VW ad to date has received over 13 million views on Youtube, and was a talking point in the United States and Jamaica.

To digress a bit, have we gone a little, just a tad, overboard though? I mean the actor is now a VIP?  The red carpet is being rolled out, and it’s got him a trip to Jamaica and more work – so this white actor with the fake Jamaican accent is going to be promoting Jamaica now. Maybe we are trying too hard. Just a thought.

Anyway, is it any wonder that the Saturn people thought, “Let’s jump on board the Jamaica train. But we have to up the shock value. What will get people talking again? I got it! Let’s burn their flag!” Maybe to go from getting people talking, to burning our flag wasn’t a leap that most people would have made. But here we are again…ironically, discussing another German ad featuring Jamaica.

According to Wikipedia – sorry, couldn’t find another reference right now – it is illegal in Germany to burn the German flag. In relation to flags of foreign countries:

“…it is illegal to damage or revile them, if they are shown publicly by tradition, event or routinely by representatives of the foreign entity (§104 StGB –{ Criminal Code}). On the other hand it is not illegal to desecrate such flags that serve no official purpose (especially including any (that) the one willing to desecrate them brings by himself for that purpose).”

That is, it would be illegal to burn the flag at the Jamaican embassy, for example, but it would not be illegal to burn a random Jamaican flag – as in the coffee shop ad.

Should they have burned the Jamaican flag? Well, what were they aiming for? Controversy? Well, they’ve got that. Attention? They have ours. As of today, they have received nearly half a million views on Youtube. A far cry from the VW ad but we’ll see if that number climbs dramatically in the next week.

Flag burning is usually seen as an act of political protest, against a government’s policies.

Just this month alone, a political activist in Hong Kong was sentenced to nine months in jail for burning the flags of China and Hong Kong to protest government policies and positions. In Belgrade, criminal proceedings are being taken against deputy leader of the Serb radical party for allegedly “setting flags of the United States, the EU and NATO on fire” to protest against the Hague Tribunal’s decision to acquit someone accused of war crimes against Serbs.

Last September, thousands of people in Lahore participated in protests where the American flag was burnt to protest against a movie trailer said to insult Islam (in an ironic twist, one protestor died from inhaling the fumes from the burning flag, according to reports.)

But in the United States, that bastion of patriotic red, white and blueness – the flag can legally be burned, as it was in protests during the Vietnam

United States flag being burnt in protest, in New Hampshire on the eve of the 2008 election. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

War. That’s not to say everybody is happy with the state of the law. Congress has tried to pass laws banning desecration of the flag but these have been struck down by the court. The Supreme Court in 1989 in the case of Texas v Johnson ruled that flag burning is an expression of free speech protected by the constitution.

So the legal treatment of flag burning varies from country to country. But everywhere, it is recognised that  flags are usually burned to protest important, political issues in a dramatic (and offensive) statement of contempt. It is the very fact that the act is one which most people find deeply offensive that makes it such an effective form of protest.

You can’t convince me that this was a misguided attempt to praise Jamaica. Not with the political context and significance world-wide of flag burning. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Be offended. Don’t be offended. That is up to you. But don’t be fooled by assertions that the intention was good and it is actually a compliment to Jamaica. This was a cynical attempt to use a controversial device to get attention, while cloaking it in pseudo-respect for the Jamaican flag and people.

That the makers of the Saturn ad understood the political issues is clear from the storyline of the ad. I assume they thought the attention to the commercial would override the very real risk of offence it would cause. The motive was clearly to get attention. And we are certainly giving it to them.

Parliament Called Upon (Again!) to Work Harder

 

Gordon House
Photo by DJ Miller

Speaking in Parliament this week, Leader of Opposition Business in the Jamaican House of Representatives Delroy Chuck yesterday echoed a sentiment that many non-Parliamentarians have long expressed – that not enough business is being done in the Houses of Parliament.

At the end of a sitting which lasted less than an hour, Chuck said “enough business is not being done in The House, but let us hope that next week will be a full session. Apart from next week, let us make sure that we deal with these Private Members Motions and utilize the sittings of The House in a more fulsome way.”

The Gleaner’s parliamentary affairs column The Gavel also drew attention this week to what it called

“the lacklustre manner in which the Parliament has been attending to the people’s business.”

This came a year after the Gleaner’s editorial which called for an end to the “doziness” in Parliament and expressed the optimistic wish that “with its members having taken their oaths, the legislature will immediately get down to serious work, eschewing its laziness of the past. That is, we expect the House and Senate will sit more often, for longer hours and pass more laws than they did during the life of the last Parliament.”

The editorial writer’s expectations have surely been dashed!

CARIMAC lecturer Fae Ellington and Douglas Orane, former Senator and the chairman of Grace Kennedy, are among those calling for Parliament to sit more frequently, with Orane noting that there is a “direct correlation between the number of times that Parliament meets and the number of bills it is able to pass.”

Parliamentarians argue that they need more resources, including better research facilities . There have also been calls for a new Parliament building which I wrote about in an earlier post here.

We need more sittings of Parliament, better facilities and expanding physical facilities. Maybe even constitutional reform. There are a lot of possibilities and a lot to discuss.

Before all that, however, I would like to see us make better use of the time we have now. Sure, better research facilities would? should? result in more informed debates (assuming they are used).  But can our Parliamentarians, particularly those in the Lower House, really say they are doing all they can at the moment? Can they really say they read the Bills properly (or at all), try to digest and understand them? Reading the Bills and doing some basic research on the Internet would be a good start. The laws and policies of many other jurisdictions can be found online. That can be done from their living rooms and that alone would allow for more informed interventions in the House.

Why can’t they sit longer? Why can’t they have more debates on issues of national importance? Why can’t more of the Private Members’ motions be taken?

More sittings that last less than an hour won’t help solve that problem. I do think we need more sittings. But until we have a commitment from the Parliamentarians to sit longer and work harder, I am not sure that additional sittings will help.

That VW ad – Jamaica No Problem – Offensive? Or Good Exposure?

Have you seen the VW ad that’s creating all the controversy? It depicts an American spreading joy and cheer by talking to everyone in what is supposed to be a Jamaican accent. Check it out, it has had over 1.5 million hits on Youtube in less than a week!

The ad has also sparked criticisms of racism and stereotyping.

USA Today cites “pop culture guru” Barbara Lippert  as one of the critics.

“It made me uncomfortable to see all of those white people in an office setting doing this,” she is quoted as saying. “I found it offensive.”

Apparently, seeing white people trying to talk Jamaican is  offensive.

Diving at Rick’s (Negril, Jamaica) (Photo credit: caribbeanfreephoto)

Well, that happens every day of the year in our resort towns though! Somehow, the critics perceive the ad as making fun of Jamaicans and our culture. It is interesting that many Jamaicans, who can be so quick to take offence, don’t seem to see it that way.

Erwin Floyd G, commenting on the Facebook page of my radio programme Beyond the Headlines said this:

“there’s nothing wrong with the ad…it shows how much everyone around the world appreciates our culture and will do anything to incorporate it in their’s…it shows happiness and acceptance to me. A great ad!”

Let’s get this straight. I have NO problem with this ad. Do the accents suck? Of course! The VW executive interviewed about the issue on CNN’s Starting Point said they used a coach to work on the accents. Emmm, ok. They didn’t do such a great job. But is that really the issue?

The message of the ad is that if you go to Jamaica, you’ll be happy. Jamaicans are happy-go-lucky people who spread happiness wherever they go. Is it a stereotype as some charge? Yes, probably, but when we’ve spent 50 years marketing ourselves as the country to visit if you want to “feel alright” and with our unofficial (official?) tourism slogan being “Jamaica, no problem” I’m not sure that we can take offence at this point. But undoubtedly some people have.

Another visitor, to our Facebook page, Barbara Hart, said this:

“VW need (sic) to pull this ADD (sic) this is outrageous, we are not a poppyshow, this is not hilarious this is mocking our Patwa language, and he sounded so false to the bone, every one try (sic) to use us in every way possible…”

Is Jamaica more nuanced a country than sea and sand, with some dreadlocked ganja-smoking idlers sitting under a coconut tree? Clearly. But the vast majority of our visitors will never see that side of Jamaica, since they will only ever interact with “happy”, smiling Jamaicans whose job is to make them “feel alright.”

For me, the more important issue is the tremendous reach of our culture, how others enjoy our language (which we are unable to come to terms with) and the tremendous impact we have on the world.

Let’s put this in financial perspective.

Yahoo Finance reports that companies are paying nearly $4 million for one 30-second Super Bowl ad this year, and

English: Line graph of cost of 30 second advertising spot during Super Bowl US television broadcast. Data taken from Wikipedia articles (if more than one price is given, lower has been set). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

that last year more than 111 million people watched the 2012 Super Bowl. That’s millions of people who will likely see this ad and could be influenced by it.

One CNN anchor who commented on the VW ad said that he wasn’t sure what it did for VW but it did make him want to visit Jamaica. I’ll take that!

What do you think? Did the ad offend you?

Related articles

• VW Jamaica-theme Super Bowl ad: Racist? (usatoday.com)
• EXCLUSIVE: VW reveals 2013 Super Bowl ad and ‘Starting Point’ panel debates use of Jamaican accent (startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com)
• Volkswagen’s Super Bowl Ad Has a Jamaican Accent (mashable.com)
• Volkswagen accused of racism for ad using whites with Jamaican accents (caribbean360.com)

The problem with Prime Minister Simpson Miller and that Chicago Tribune editorial

 

One of the primary problems facing Jamaica’s Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller is the cult of fanatical followers she has inspired. While this is understandable given her tremendous popular appeal, the negative side is that every criticism is perceived as a personal attack on Jamaica’s first woman Prime Minister by elitists who turn up their noses at her humble background and are determined to bring her down. As a result, many of her followers seem incapable of objective analysis of her pros and cons.

One can only hope that there is at least one person in the room with her who will stick up a hand to say when she is going wrong, but I’m starting to seriously doubt it.

A perfect example is the Prime Minister’s recent national broadcast. At a time of great uncertainty for the Jamaican economy, at a time when the whispers in the corridors of finance and business are that the year ahead will be very difficult for the country, at a time when Jamaicans are unsure what to expect from an IMF agreement, or what to expect if there is no agreement, the Prime Minister steered clear of actually talking about any of the real problems facing the country.

Sometimes it takes an outsider to point out what should be obvious to us all, and the Chicago Tribune for some reason, has now chosen to hold up Jamaica to the world as an example of failed policies and a dismal economic outlook, saying Jamaica provides an object lesson in

“the catastrophic effects of borrowing way too much, and the painful choices that follow. This saga, less familiar than Greece’s, is a lesson for lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

“The Caribbean nation actually is in worse financial shape than Greece: Jamaica has more debt in relation to the size of its economy than any other

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

country. It pays more in interest than any other country. It has tried to restructure its loans to stretch them out over more years, at lower interest rates, with no success. Such a move would be risky for its already nervous lenders. So Jamaica is trying to wangle a bailout from a skeptical International Monetary Fund. Another deadline for a potential deal just came and went last week, though negotiations continue,” it goes on.

That’s the reality the Prime Minister seems determined to ignore. What Jamaica needs is not Pollyanna-type platitudes, and an exhortation that

“Our ancestors did not fight so gallantly; did not shed their blood for us to now capitulate to gloom and doom. No. We know, as Jimmy Cliff assured us, that we can get it if we really want. All we have to do is to try, try and try, and we will succeed at last.”

No, what Jamaica needs now is a hard, realistic look at our current situation, and a courageous start to the necessary conversation the country needs to have.

Maybe someone in the room could point that out to the Prime Minister the next time she and her people are crafting a national broadcast.

Five Wishes for Better Political Leadership for Jamaica in 2013

Gordon House – seat of Jamaica’s Parliament
Photo by DJ Miller

Here are some qualities I would love to see to a greater extent in our political leaders.

1. Leaders who can see through their orange and green coloured glasses that not everybody criticizing them belongs to a rival political party. Some of us just disagree with your policies or direction. Full stop.  Hell, with barely 50% voter turn-out in the last election, there’s a 50-50 chance that whoever is criticizing you isn’t voting for any of you, anyway.

2. Leaders who take the time to understand the criticism aimed at them. When Jamaicans complain about your pay or perks, it is coming from years of disillusionment at what politicians have done to our beloved country.  You may not have been personally involved, but don’t ever forget that for the sake of power, politicians have torn Jamaica apart with political tribalism and killed our children, our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends with political violence. Whatever you have or have not done individually, memories of the havoc wreaked by your fellows are still fresh.

In addition, you have failed to deliver even moderate sustained prosperity to our nation and you have spectacularly failed to deliver an equitable education system.  When people complain about what seems to you to be a measly sum of, say $4 million, it is coming from Jamaicans, many of whom are struggling to find lunch money or bus fare, who have no option but to use the under-resourced and over-crowded hospitals you have given us while you fly off to Miami for treatment. Some of your critics have to send  children to the ill-equipped schools which is your legacy to us, and many of our children leave school as illiterate and innumerate as the day they started. So instead of responding with arrogance and disdain, how about listening carefully to what people are really saying, and answering in a tone of respect and understanding with a real and empathetic attempt to explain your (sometimes reasonable) position.

3. Leaders with a vision for Jamaica. Vision 2030 or not, very few of us have a sense that there is a targeted vision for Jamaica, that a clear direction has been charted and that we are moving with steady determination towards a real goal. We have no real hope that in our lifetimes, Jamaica will see an economic turnaround that will bring real benefits to all society, not just your friends the rich businessmen. Have you ever really, really listened to I-Octane’s “My Story?”

“Respect to all who sell bag juice
Who sell it to help dem youth
A whole heap a hell dem go through…

Man a suffer too long
Yeh man a suffer too long
Live in a di ghetto too long
Man a suffer too long.”

Listen to it again. One more time. That’s why we need a vision and visionary leaders.

Inside the Parliament of Jamaica (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

4. Leaders who do real work in Parliament. Our Parliaments have been singularly unimpressive. Many in the Lower House are efficient only at warming benches. There is scant attention given to careful scrutiny of the Bills that are brought to the House. Debates are stunningly superficial and often lacking  much evidence of research and thought (save for a very few speakers), and the desk-thumping that passes for participation apparently serves only to wake up the somnolent. I must note that the Upper House has traditionally been light years ahead of the Lower House in this regard. This is why it has been so disappointing to have seen over the years Senate appointments made on the basis of party loyalty only, resulting in Senators who bring little in the way of intellectual rigour to the Upper House. Which brings me to Number 5.

5. Leaders who put Jamaica before party. No, we don’t think all of you do this. In fact, we are sure you don’t put Jamaica first when we see ill-advised appointments, clueless Cabinet ministers, the constant and costly re-invention of the wheel just so that you can say such and such a programme was all yours, the dithering on matters of national importance, the refusal to make hard decisions that will cost you at the polls. So while you spend decades and generations thumping desks in Gordon House, our beloved Jamaica becomes choked with garbage, squatter communities mired in poverty abound, stray dogs roam the streets and our beautiful, bright children lose their way permanently.

There are some politicians whom I think have some or all of these qualities. However, they are usually not the ones in the most senior positions of leadership. But there is some hope.  What do you think? What kind of political leaders do you want to see? Who gives you hope? 

P.J. Patterson’s Legacy

Parliament has now devoted two sessions to eulogising and lionising former Prime Ministers Edward Seaga and P.J. Patterson.

The glowing one-dimensional tributes intentionally ignore the negative sides of both men’s political balance sheets. For honest assessments of their leadership, we will clearly have to look further than their desk-thumping friends in Gordon House.

In this post, however, I want to focus on one small thing that P.J. Patterson did, which is likely to be ignored in the academic treatises that will be produced about his tenure.

He created Emancipation Park  which has now been open for ten years. It sounds like such a small thing to single out, but it’s one which I think has had tremendous impact. And lest we forget, there was no overwhelming outpouring of support for him at the time.

One reasonable criticism is that it was part of the diversion of National Housing Trust funds away from housing for contributors. It could not have happened if contributors’ funds were sequestered away in a real trust, which is a discussion we really need to have, although it is a step the politicians are unlikely to want to take. That’s because if NHT money were locked away, for use for contributors’ housing only, it would deprive them of their Santa Claus goodie bag.

Would I turn back the clock and leave the NHT funds untouched, and the park the dusty bowl it was? No, I wouldn’t. But I certainly would favour locking away NHT funds going forward.

Having said that, we do now have a beautiful green space in the middle of the city.  Joggers and walkers frequent the park in the early morning or afternoon and evening, and friends gather to catch up, and chat. For those who think that only the New Kingston elite use the park, you need to go by and visit.

Walking in Emancipation Park
Photo by DJ Miller

The park hosts a range of free activities and concerts that draw in Jamaicans from all walks of life, especially on week-ends. (That’s the problem with projects like these, by the way – they are necessary and useful, so you can always rationalise funding them, until you drain the well dry.)

The entrance to Emancipation Park, New Kingston
Photo by DJ Miller

As I mentioned, The National Housing Trust maintains Emancipation Park which is why it has been so successful. At this stage of our (lack of) development), we probably can’t afford an Emancipation Park in every town centre, although we need one. I’m not forgetting Hope Gardens, another beautiful location, more beautiful  in its way than the manicured prettiness of Emancipation Park.  The point is, we need more such spaces. Is there a model we can look at to create more safe, green spaces with  jogging tracks, some benches, a bandstand, and some grass? Because we’re paying for not having them – paying in hospital bills and medication. Perhaps we’re paying the cost in anti-social behaviour as well.

Friends chat after exercising
Photo by DJ Miller

The research is well-known. Access to green spaces promotes mental, physical and social health. One report suggested that the “health gap” between rich and poor can be reduced by creating more green spaces.

The Tropical Medicine Research Institute at the University of the West Indies has reported that nearly half of Jamaicans have been reported as having low levels of physical activity, and are obese or overweight.  Many neighbourhoods are either unsafe or unpleasant to walk in. The diseases associated with these risk factors, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension are also well-known. Green spaces could be used to encourage more physical activity, but would, of course, have to be managed to ensure that they don”t become havens for drug dealers and living quarters for the homeless.

So while I will leave a detailed assessment of former Prime Minister Patterson’s legacy as a whole for another occasion, his decision to create Emancipation Park is one which I think, on the whole, was a good one.

PS  - incidentally, I also applaud and thank him for resisting the temptation to name it after himself or some other politician!

NB More photos below!!!

Catching a nap
Photo by DJ Miller

Those statues!!
Photo by DJ Miller

Photo by DJ Miller

Photo by DJ Miller

Photo by DJ Miller