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 Outdated Statutes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.

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 Things We Can Learn From the US Presidential Campaign

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s campaign season in the United States and US President Barack Obama and his opponent Mitt Romney are edging closer to election day. Many Jamaicans are following the campaign and enjoying the spectacle. While we do so, there are some things we can take from the Americans.

1. “Democracy doesn’t have to be a blood sport.” – This was said by former US President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. Well, the truth is that US politics is often vicious, and campaigns can leave blood in the water. Given how close this election could be, it will be interesting to see if the Obama campaign can stick to the high ideal expressed by Clinton. The thing is though, he was speaking figuratively. Too often for us in Jamaica, those words could be taken literally. Yes, we’ve come a far way in curbing political violence, but we’re not there yet.

2. Lay it all out there. The candidates are subjected to a thorough vetting process. Between debates, media interviews, town hall meetings, it’s hard for candidates to dodge the issues and the tough questions. Too often our politicians manage to do just that. Between releasing manifestos on the very eve of the election, and restricting media interviews, too many politicians are able to slide into office without us having any clear idea of their positions on major issues, or without having those positions subjected to rigorous analysis and scrutiny.

3. Debates are good. The US Presidential candidates debate extensively at the primary stage and there are debates between the presidential nominees and even a vice-presidential debate. In fact, some people were complaining that the Republicans debated too much! Part of that of course, is

Mitt Romney & The Republican Team Event (Photo credit: mnassal)

due to their wanting to make an impact in the different states. We don’t have that issue, and we are a whole lot smaller. Still, we could do more. It’s good that we do have political debates, but it would be nice to see us step it up. Three leadership debates, for example, would be a good start, with different formats for each. Also, the public should be able to see the candidates for party leadership debate. The argument that party leadership elections are an internal matter is clearly nonsense, as the parties then use the parliamentary structure to catapult the new leader into the position of Prime Minister, as we saw with both the PNP’s Portia Simpson-Miller and the JLP’s Andrew Holness.

4. Country first. Whatever  problems you may have with the Americans (and the list is probably endless) one does get a deep sense of commitment to country from their candidates. Love of country and patriotism is one of the  things the Americans do best. Too often, from our politicians, I get a clear sense of party first.

5. Campaign reform is hard. Big money has always wielded a heavy influence in politics, and the US’s efforts to limit that influence have had very mixed results. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try. But we should study their history closely. At the very least, we may be able to get an understanding of what doesn’t work.

PNP’s Posturing on the CCJ Unhelpful

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

Today I’m blogging over at http://www.rjrnewsonline.com. I did a follow-up to my first piece on Jamaica and the Caribbean Court of Justice, where I had said that Jamaica is in limbo on the issue.

Today I’m saying that the PNP’s posturing on the CCJ matter  has been unnecessarily antagonistic and is unlikely to be at all helpful in fulfilling what they say is their goal, replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice as Jamaica’s final court of appeal. Check out my post here.

Related articles

• Sitting in Limbo – Jamaica and the CCJ – Part 1 (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)

Come on Gov’t! It’s Not Just Alia Atkinson Who Needs Help!

The Jamaican CARIFTA 2012 water polo team
Photo by Miller

The Jamaican government has, disappointingly, again succumbed to the lure of populism and bandwaggonism (to coin a particularly apt word). Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller declared proudly in Parliament that “help is on the way” for Jamaican Olympic swimmer Alia Atkinson who has been making the country proud, but who has said she needs help to continue.

Newsflash Madam Prime Minister! Many other athletes are in that position and nothing has been heard from you or your government about them. Andre Lowe of the Gleaner did an excellent article here on the woes some of our athletes have gone through in their bid to keep going.

In fact, one of the athletes he wrote about, Jason Morgan, had been the subject of a series of articles by Paul Reid of the Jamaica Observer and a blog post by me in the months leading up to the Olympics.

This is not a problem unique to Jamaica. Indeed, CNN recently highlighted the financial plight of the much ballyhooed American Olympians, who receive NO government support.

We have to chart our own way, however. If we talk about sports development and sports as a business

Preparing for an event at the National Stadium
Photo by DJ Miller

(and if we’re not we should be) we have to take the development of our athletes seriously. Cheering when they do us proud and then walking away again can no longer be a sufficient or acceptable response. (Shout-out here to sports management expert Carole Beckford who speaks and blogs about these very issues)

My producer asked the (effective) Minister of Sports for a comment and we were told that the government “was looking at the issue.” Really. And now, months on, the “looking” hasn’t manage to produce either a statement of intent, or anything to suggest that a structured, considered proposal is being  developed.

Let’s be clear, athletes do get some assistance, but it appears ad hoc. The Jamaica Athletic Administrative Association (JAAA) says it does assist athletes, but cannot provide as much assistance as they want. Olympians Juliet Cuthbert and Grace Jackson have both said they think more can be done. Cuthbert suggests monthly stipends, for example to help defray expenses, and Jackson told me that she had submitted a detailed proposal to the JAAA which had not been acted on. She said it was being examined again, and perhaps if she runs for and wins the Presidency of the organisation, she could help effect change.

The point is that a structured programme of assistance is necessary. Bring together the various avenues of financial assistance, determine the basis on which an athlete at different levels will get assistance, and publish the criteria. You do not want any accusations of favouritism and cronyism.

These athletes deliver real value to the country. The waves of inspiration, joy and patriotism evoked every time the Olympics and World Championships roll around cannot be replicated.

Jamaican flag (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s do what we can to ride those waves of patriotism. Let’s look beyond one excellent athlete who happens to be in the public spotlight at the moment and for once, show some real vision.

Portia, that Time 100 List and Gay Rights

Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller
Photo - Office of the Prime Minister

Jamaica House and the People’s National Party (PNP) have been making much of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller’s inclusion on Time Magazine’s List of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. The list comprises, Time says, “the people who inspire us, entertain us, challenge us and change our world… the breakouts, pioneers, moguls, leaders and icons.”
It sounds really great for the Prime Minister of a small country like Jamaica to be included on the list. She is one of 38 women listed, more, the BBC reports, than ever named before.  And after all, she’s not in the rogue section populated by people like North Korean leader Kim Jong Un or Syrian president Bashar al-Assad!

But why is she there?

The blurb about her is written by US Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, daughter of former NY city councilwoman Una Clarke, herself a Jamaican, and a longtime friend of Jamaica.

Yvette clarke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Clarke says that Portia is :

“the embodiment of perseverance and strength.”

I have no quarrel with that description. It says a lot for her that she emerged from the recent political campaign with her head held high after one of the most vicious series of sustained and personal attacks I have seen on a political candidate.

Clarke goes on:

“In 2006 she made history, becoming the first woman to be elected Prime Minister of Jamaica. She was re-elected in December 2011.”

That is a fact. No room for quibbling there. She goes on:

“While she has worked for many years as a public servant representing all Jamaicans, there is a great sense that her leadership will expand far beyond her island nation.”

I’m not going to argue with that statement. Whether it’s true or not will be seen soon enough.

But then Clarke goes on to say:

“In addition to her call this year to break with the British monarchy and make the island a republic,  Portia is promoting full civil rights for gays and lesbians, a courageous move in a country with a violent history of homophobia.”

WHOA! STOP. Cue screeching brakes. What? What the hell? When did we in Jamaica and the media miss such a ground-breaking and phenomenal development?

Oh, come on. The Prime Minister is doing  nothing of the kind.

This all started at the leadership political debate on December 20, 2011 in response to a question I asked, which was originally directed to then Prime Minister Andrew Holness. The question was related to former Prime Minister Bruce Golding’s  famous statement in a 2008 BBC interview that gays were not welcome in his cabinet.

At the debate I asked this:

Q: Mr. Holness, Jamaica has an international reputation for homophobia. What do you think of former Prime Minister Golding’s statement that homosexuals were not welcome in his Cabinet, and do you share that sentiment?

Mrs. Simpson Miller, in her rebuttal, said this:

“Our administration believes in protecting the human rights of all Jamaicans. No one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Government should provide the protection. And I think that we should have a look at the buggery law and that Members of Parliament should be given the opportunity to vote with their conscience on consultation with their constituents but for me, I do not support the position of the former Prime Minister because people should be appointed to positions based on their ability to manage.” (My emphasis.)

Now, this was a courageous stance, and one for which Simpson Miller took a lot of flak. But do you remember how fast the PNP rushed to “clarify” her statement when the anti-gay lobby began denouncing her for allegedly promising to repeal the buggery law? (And clearly she had done nothing of the sort.)

But the PNP made sure to emphasise the limits on Simpson Miller’s statement. The party said in a statement on December 27, 2011:

“The People’s National Party (PNP) has labeled as deliberate mischief making by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), suggestions that it supports a repealing of the Buggery Act. The PNP says that is not its position.

“PNP Campaign Director, Dr. Peter Phillips said … that the PNP has no position to repeal the Buggery Act, and that the issue arose out of a question posed to party leader Portia Simpson Miller during the recent national debate with prime minister and JLP leader, Andrew Holness.

“…there is no position taken by us of a repeal…” Dr. Phillips said. He adds that the Party Leader has proposed a review of the Act, and not a repeal of it.”

All this is true, but you must admit that Simpson Miller’s position falls short of “promoting full civil rights for gays and lesbians” as is being claimed.

Dare I suggest we remind ourselves of the recently enacted Charter of Rights. The Jamaica Forum for Lesbian, Allsexuals and Gays (JFLAG) was pushing for a clause prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ha! They would have had a better chance promoting non-discrimination on the basis of being vegetarian or not liking track and field. Point is, I didn’t see any politician, including the Prime Minister, in Parliament championing that cause.

Instead we now have a constitutional amendment in the Charter of Rights in section  13 (3) (i) which provides for:

The right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of being male or female; race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinions.

The PM has been in the spotlight a lot recently, whether hugging Prince Harry or being called upon to comment on the fake flag fiasco in Montego Bay. That spotlight is likely to shine throughout her tenure as Jamaican Prime Minister. Part of that attraction is that she has made history and continues to do so. Has Simpson Miller overcome a lot to arrive at the pinnacle of politics in Jamaica? Clearly she has. Her memoirs will make fascinating reading.

Did she take a courageous stance on the buggery law? Yes she did.

But is she “promoting full civil rights for gays and lesbians”? No, she isn’t.

Let’s not oversell the stance she did take, or re-write history. Perhaps the PNP should once again “clarify” the PM’s position? But there’s no political benefit to be gained from that now, is there?

What’s your take?

Related articles

• Remember your promise, Madam Prime Minister! (newsandviewsbydjmillerja.wordpress.com)
• Jamaica gets ‘nudge’ toward repeal of anti-LGBT laws (76crimes.com)

WE RAN OUT OF GREEN – MO BAY MAYOR

Montego Bay Mayor Glendon Harris has explained that the fiasco in Montego Bay where green, one of the national colours, was left out of the decorations for his swearing-in ceremony occurred because the decorator ran out of green fabric.  Jamaicans will decide for themselves if they accept that explanation.

The Mayor announced that the decorator will issue a statement and will also refund to the council the monies paid over to him.

I suggest with respect, however, that the Mayor, while insisting that the incident was not motivated by any partisan motive, does not appear to fully understand the concerns which have been raised by the public.

He did earlier apologise for the incident. However, at the monthly meeting at the St. James Parish Council, as politicians are wont to do, he chastised those he said were taking the opportunity

 “to score cheap mileage”

Mixed metaphors aside, this was not the appropriate tone to be taken by a Mayor still wiping green (or should it be orange?) egg off his face. The Opposition Jamaica Labour Party was well within its rights to raise the issue.  What we needed to hear was a comprehensive apology(yes, again!), an acknowledgement of the concerns and disgust of the public, an indication that the Mayor understands the root of those concerns, and the specific steps to be taken to ensure that there is no recurrence. Vague reassurances carry no real weight right now.

Years ago, former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, after a fiasco of a ceremony in Montego Bay, ensured that a protocol officer was assigned to the city. As the island’s only city apart from Kingston, and the hub of commerce in western Jamaica, Montego Bay deserves to be shown the same level of respect as Kingston and its civic ceremonies should be on par.

The Chairman of the People’s National Party Robert Pickersgill has issued a  statement which says everything    

we should have heard from  Mayor Harris. He expressed

 ”most profound regret and unreserved condemnation of what, seems to have been the misuse of the colours of the Jamaican flag at the recent swearing in ceremony of the newly elected Major of Montego Bay.”

He also said that

“The PNP won both the national and local government elections by promising a more open, transparent and non-tribal Government. We take this principled position very seriously, and will not allow it to be violated by anyone.”

My only problem is that I believe the statement should have come from Prime Minister and PNP President Portia Simpson-Miller. As I said in my initial post on this issue, given the Prime Minister’s comments in her swearing-in speech, and the embarrassment this has brought to her administration and party, it would have been most appropriate for her to have thrown the weight of her office behind the condemnation. This is a national issue.

Don’t tell me she was off the island. To quote Justice Sykes in the Supreme Court of Jamaica:

“This is the modern age. The days of the Niňa, the Pinta and the Santa Maria have long left us. We are now in the age of microchips, fibre optic cables, wireless transmissions, computers, emails and portable handheld devices, all of which, when used effectively, provide first-rate communication services.”

I also wish the PNP’s charge to mayors and councillors to

“ensure that all civic functions are organized in keeping with necessary protocols, including ridding these functions of any semblance of partisan behavior”

had come much earlier.

That said, the PNP has said the right things. It is to be hoped the party now understands what many people have been saying. This is not the same Jamaica which they left in 2007. Jamaicans are much less inclined to accept foolishness, be it cloaked in orange or green. The country and diaspora are watching.

Remember your promise, Madam Prime Minister!

Kudos to People’s National Party deputy general secretary Julian Robinson for his frank and forthright condemnation of the nonsense that took place in St. James, when the stage was decorated at the civic ceremony for the swearing in of the Mayor of Montego Bay with black and yellow (gold?), excluding the green, which, coincidentally, is the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party’s colour of choice.

(Alan Lewin photo)

His open admission that the incident was “embarrassing” shows that he gets it. His colleagues need to listen to him. Too many of them don’t get it.

Too often, we hear politicians try to brush off criticism with various versions of “a nuh nuttin” and the tired refrain that “we should stop playing politics and get on with the work.”

Well, here’s why the vulgar and unacceptable actions of those responsible for those decorations in Montego Bay cannot be allowed to fall into the “a nuh nuttin” category.

1. Every such incident turns off more and more Jamaicans from involvement in the political process. All this talk about “getting on with the work” will be for nothing if you are turning off the very people you need to work with you. Do we really need another reason for Jamaicans to view our political parties and politicians with disgust?
2. Patriotism is important. So are national symbols. There was an outcry (and rightly so) when Yohan Blake and Usain Bolt disrespected our national anthem on the podium at the World Championships. And yes, the “a nuh nuttin” brigade was out in full force then, too. If we are to fully engage our citizens, we must demonstrate respect for ourselves, our country and the symbols of that country.
3. How about at least trying to make us believe that you value country over party? This is yet another indication that some of you don’t. And if it’s party over country, in whose interest are policy decisions being taken? For whose benefit are you spending our money? Do you understand the cynicism? It’s all related.
4. We talk of moving towards first world status. Well then, we need to act like it. This banana republic display shows clearly that some of us still have no understanding of what is appropriate, and the importance of protocol. Worse, it shows that the St. James Parish Council had no real systems in place for proper planning and organisation. Closely related to this issue, by the way, is the behaviour which we have been witnessing at some of these formal civic ceremonies, including heckling and booing.

 

Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller, in her swearing-in speech, promised that that her

“administration will be marked by respect and responsibility”

urged Jamaicans to be

“more respectful of our national symbols and national institutions”

and pledged to

“earn your respect by how we conduct ourselves and the nation’s business.”

Well, Madam Prime Minister, maybe that speech should be directed to your own supporters first. Speak out, and speak out loudly! Tell us how you intend to ensure that there is no repeat of this shameful episode.  We need to hear your voice, and others, joining Mr. Robinson’s, to let us know you, also,  get it.