MACROECONOMICS CAN’T SAVE THE JLP

Silly Season has started early this time around which contradicts the argument that fixed election dates would result in longer campaigns.

THE ESSENCE OF RED INK

Apocrypha, our favourite Fantasyland where all politicians are friends and Oma D’unn solves political problems by parable, was a ball of confusion.

Readers remember Oma?

HOW GOVERNMENT SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT (AGAIN)

Government has tied itself into unyielding legal and political knots to keep one public servant, former DPP Paula Llewelyn, in office for two more years.

URGENT BRAIN SURGERY NEEDED

It seems the human resources issue created by the Speaker’s appallingly callous treatment of former Clerk of the House isn’t going away soon.

HYPOCRISY’S EVIL UNDERBENNY

Israel’s horrific genocide in Gaza has shocked the world but a closer look might produce less surprise and more condemnation.

It’s obvious Benjamin (“Benny the Bully”) Netanyahu is desperately trying to cover up his contribution

THERE’S NO FREE LUNCH

So the Attorney-General (A.G.) has refused Gleaner’s Access to Information Act request for a copy of his Opinion delivered to the Speaker regarding tabling of Auditor-General (AudGen) reports.

BACKLOG? WORK HARDER!

In a tense 1970s domino game the Dunce drew six-four; five-four; double-four; four-trey; six-blank; five-blank; and trey-blank.

Sitting below the poser (me), the Dunce’s first play was six-four.

THE SPEAKER IS NOT A DETECTIVE

Current affairs commentators are tying themselves into knots dissecting sections 29 and 30 of Financial Administration and Audit Act (FAAA).

Why?

WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

There’s seemingly widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of “conflict of interest” especially as it relates to public officials where the relevant “conflict” is one of duty and interest.

Several comments on last Sunday’s column (Behind Every Dark Cloud) appeared based on this misconception. One, in particular, from a reader with online handle pgwja:

“I don’t agree with you this time, Gordon. One legal website has this to say re conflict of interest: ‘Having close relatives with direct rights and interests directly linked to the performance of their official duties.’ In any case, beyond the non-tabling of reports following the appointment, it is very bad optics if nothing else. However I do accept your point that no Speaker is independent of the majority in the Parliament.”

No prob. Agreement is always unnecessary to me. I prefer argument based on genuine disagreement. This reads like one such. So I welcome it and respond as best I can.

Firstly, I dunno which “legal website” this is. Many are suspect. Also, because our laws are regrettably based on English law, research from an American (not worth reading), Australian, New Zealand or South African law website would be unhelpful.

But, ok, for argument’s sake, let’s use pgwja’s “legal website” definition as correct. Once an MP is elected he/she has a constitutional right to be appointed Speaker regardless of his/her relatives’ elected offices. There’s no “interest” held by the Speaker because of her marital status that conflicts in any way with the performance of her “official duties”. It’s safe to surmise that her marital arrangement doesn’t amount to “employment” or any similar pact where she’d be bound to act on her husband’s behalf or take his instruction.

Even so, every Speaker’s political interest is aligned to that of the majority Party so there’s no “conflict of interest”. Politically, she and her husband have the same interest.

So let’s review duties. Speaker’s official duties are found in the Constitution, section 52:

“The Speaker…shall preside at each sitting of the House of Representatives.”

That’s a Speaker’s only “official duty”. Oxford English Dictionary defines “preside” as “to lead or be in charge of a meeting, ceremony, etc.”

Parliament meets for ONE reason namely to “make laws for the peace, order and good government of Jamaica” (Constitution section 48). Committees are appointed to monitor and supervise Government action

According to every conservative’s security blanket, the Privy Council, in its landmark judgment Hinds v D.P.P., Jamaica’s Constitution entrenches the principle of Separation of Powers. So Executive Government’s powers and duties are, at least in constitutional philosophy, congenitally separate from Parliament’s. That’s why the Constitution provides a Speaker cannot be a member of Government.

According to the Constitution the study of which should’ve been compulsory in every secondary school since 1962:

“69. (1) There shall be in and for Jamaica a Cabinet which shall consist of the Prime Minister and such number of other Ministers….as the Prime Minister may from time to time consider appropriate.

(2) The Cabinet shall be the principal instrument of policy and shall be charged with the general direction and control of the Government of Jamaica and shall be collectively responsible therefore to Parliament.”

So, using pgwja’s “legal website” definition let’s ask ourselves which one of the spouses have “direct rights and interests directly linked to the performance of [the other’s] official duties”?

One leads meetings of Parliament where laws are passed. The other leads Cabinet that makes policy; directs and controls Government. The cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament simply because Parliament passes Cabinet’s Bills into law and oversees the laws’ implementation. There’s not one single “direct right and interest” (or, better put, duty) that conflicts with the other. One makes policy. The other reviews and passes laws presented based on that policy. One engages but doesn’t conflict with the other.

Neither can influence the work of the other any more than any lobbyist or political donor might. The Speaker only leads Parliamentary meetings. It’s PARLIAMENT, which includes PM, doing the real supervision and passing of laws. Now why isn’t THAT perceived as a conflict of interest? Why isn’t there a hullabaloo that cabinet sits in and dominates Parliament? Instead, we prefer to dissect a marital relationship between PM and Speaker? Kmt!

It may be male society is so accustomed to man being head of the household and wives being submissive, as Church has indoctrinated for eons, that it can’t wrap its head around a wife whose duty is to preside over (not make decisions for) an organization that reviews, implements and supervises the work of a separate organization led by her husband. The Speaker has no “direct right” in policy-making and PM has no “direct right” in any parliamentary power or duty. Neither one’s “direct right or interest” is linked to the other’s job. Both have duties that are linked in sequence but no personal “right or interest.”

But, let’s look at a more accurate definition of the more appropriate “conflict of duty and interest.” Since the Speaker has no personal interest in the Speaker’s or PM’s role, there can be no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest (or interest and duty) is a conflict between YOUR interests or between YOUR interest and YOUR duty. If you have a personal interest in, say, a corporation owned or operated by a close relative and, somehow, your duties include deciding matters affecting that corporation then your obligation is to resolve that conflict in favour of your public duty. This is best done by recusal and having your Deputy deal with the particular matter. If you perform your duties unethically in order to promote a relative’s separate interests that would be an abuse of power NOT a conflict of interest.

There can be no conflict of interest (or duty) based only on the appointment of any qualified public officer regardless of a spouse’s public office.

This is important because the current political sandbox scuffle is all about Juliet Holness’ appointment as Speaker not the performance of her duties. The unmeritorious issue belatedly being raised is whether she’s disqualified from appointment by marrying PM. Apparently the “optics” should keep her on the backbench and voters who elected her shouldn’t have because they were blighting her political future.

Juliet Holness’ duties as Speaker don’t conflict in any way, shape or form with any interest she may have, beyond that of citizen, in Government’s policy making. She has zero duty in Government so none that could conflict with a Speaker’s duty. The Speaker’s duty trips in AFTER Government’s duties are fulfilled. They don’t conflict.

The Office of the Public Service published non-exhaustive examples of “conflicts of interest” by public officials:

1. Engagement of private activity similar to official functions;
2. Using information and/or material gained from official position for private gain;
3. Exploiting the status and privileges of one’s position for private gain;
4. Soliciting and/or accepting payment and/or any other consideration relating to the performance of or neglect of official duties;
5. Conducting private business during work hours and/or on Government property;
6. Engaging in transactions with relatives or family members or an organization in which relatives or family members have interest (my emphasis);
7. Ownership of investment or shares in any company or undertaking;
8. Acting as auditors or directors of companies or societies.

So what are you really saying? Why are the “optics” bad? Is marriage a “transaction”? Is Juliet Holness a person or her husband’s appendage?

It’s not as if PNP needs this ridiculous red herring to be strident in holding the Speaker accountable for performance of HER duties. Missteps, lack of transparency and egregious overreach have been hallmarks of her brief career. For example there’s the dangerous arrogating of authority to look behind Auditor General Report submissions to unilaterally ascertain their bona fides and deny tabling based on her understanding of the Financial Administration and Audit Act. BUT this isn’t a legislative issue. It’s a Constitutional law issue (see my November 19 Column Senseless Scuffle and tug-o-war).

She has been wrong and strong on that issue for months. But her recent appropriation unto herself of authority to publicly harangue and discipline the Clerk of the House, a career civil servant who isn’t employed by the Speaker, was beyond comprehension. The Clerk has decades of experience in parliamentary protocol. The Speaker is still a rookie. Is this an attempt at political hara-kiri?

Time come for PNP and its sycophants to jump off this disqualified-by-marriage hobby horse and hop on the readily available below-par-performance bandwagon. If the Speaker allows her husband to influence any of her decisions including the two indefensible ones highlighted here, that’s her bad. She’ll pay for that. Not him.

Peace and Love

THE ESSENCE OF HELL

One week ago the Old Ball and Chain turned twenty-nine.

Again!

Only her forty-year-old son, The Computer Whiz (a.k.a. SkullDougery), remained in Jamaica to commemorate it with her. The Ampersand with wife and son, now live in Ontario while SputNick is working in Lancashire. No wonder Jamaica is now at “full employment” (lol). Anyhoo, to celebrate her yardstone, we traveled to Apocrypha, where our pal Oma D’unn, political consultant, who solves political problems by parable, was swamped.

It was budget debate time. Everybody had difficult choices. Bark Balding, Leader of the Opposition Promises Not Performance (PNP) was agonizing over whether he could successfully highlight the Speaker’s marital status then claim he was critiquing only her performance. AndRue Polemess, PM and leader of Just Lazy People (JLP) wondered how best to label Bark a misogynist if he chose to proceed.

Oma told them both to buy a porn movie. They looked blank so Oma told them the story of the American man who died and was sent to Hell:

“The Devil told him he had three choices then took him to the first room.

It was empty except for a pool of scalding hot water. The man saw Richard Nixon, jump into the pool, climb out and jump back in again.
The Devil said ‘That’s his punishment. He has to jump into the pool for eternity. If you pick this room, you take his place.’

The man hurriedly asked for Option 2. So they went to the next room.

This room was filled with rocks. The man could see John F Kennedy smashing rocks. The Devil said ‘That’s his punishment. He must smash rocks for eternity. If you pick this room, you take his place.”

The man asked for option 3.

This room was magnificent. It had a massive king size bed, a table full of delicacies and the works. On the bed, the man saw Donald Trump having sex with Linda Lovelace. The man jumped with joy: ‘This room! I pick this room!’

‘Are you sure?’ the Devil asked.

‘Yes definitely!’

‘Okay then, Linda you can leave. This man here will be taking your place.’”

Neither Bark nor AndRue understood so Oma explained that, in the world, nothing is as it appears not even choice. First and foremost you must recognize then see through illusion to discern the real choices before picking one. Or none! The most attractive looking scenario mightn’t be a choice at all. Before making his choice the dead man didn’t take into account that he’d only seen dead people being punished in two rooms.

Like Geraldine Jones, Jamaican voters are faced with similar the-devil-made-me-so-it choices in every election.

Speaking personally, and based only on present day circumstances, if you asked me who, between the two most prominent candidates, I prefer to be Jamaica’s PM, my answer would unhesitatingly be Andrew Holness. Like all of us he’s far from perfect but my analysis, based on public performance and public characteristics, concludes that, of the two, he has the superior maturity, governance understanding and leadership skills. However, in order to contribute to the result I prefer, I must vote against Julian Robinson as MP for my constituency.

Not. Gonna. Happen!

There’s a better chance of me locksing up and then being accepted in JDF. Or, in other words, Ras Solja I shall be!

My choice isn’t driven by political apathy. It’s a personal revolt against an anti-democratic electoral system.

I’m equally certain several hundred residents of North-West St James (MP Horace Chang) and East-Central St. James (Ed Bartlett) would prefer that Mark Golding be the next Jamaican PM. But if, in order to achieve that, they must vote against their high quality JLP MPs, they’d rather stay home.

Their choices would NOT be the result of political apathy. Those choices would be their revolt against an anti-democratic electoral system.

We the People want REAL choices. We the People want to be represented by the best representatives of the people not by Prime Ministerial surrogates. We the People don’t want the PM, regardless of whether he/she is our preference, to be able to have a free hand to take or veto every governance decision unilaterally. We the People want our constituency representatives to vet appointments, including cabinet; monitor and regulate actions of Executive Government; and hold Government members politically accountable for political misdeeds. We the People want the right to dismiss our chosen political representatives by recall election.

I keep saying, if you give the electorate real voting choices, “voter apathy” will disappear. They’ll vote in droves. If the only choice is one of two colours, they recognize that tomfoolery as Hobson’s choice. It’s a hard pass.

Peace and Love