Letter of the Day | Why is the PM trying to dismantle a system he created?

THE EDITOR, Madam:

My third-grade teacher told me 65 years ago that “sometimes the things written in a report are sometimes less harmful than those that are not”.

This is the same message for Prime Minister (PM) Andrew Holness, who, to my memory, is among the persons who gave life to the Integrity Commission. Can someone explain why the PM finds it necessary to dismantle the same system that he created in a bid to keep politicians honest and fair to the populace.

The PM, in his inaugural speech as quoted by The Gleaner of September 7, 2020. “We know that a large number of Jamaicans are not satisfied with the integrity, dignity and efficiency of their state and government. We, therefore, see the strong correlation between the success of our economic and social programme and the trust of the public. We commit to make [the] Government of the highest integrity, dignity, and efficiency.”

He further stated that all elected members must undergo training to increase their awareness and understanding of the anti-corruption legislative framework.

In July 18, 2018 the PM said that systems of accountability are crucial to good governance, that is the difference which separates his administration from others. During his campaign he made several promises that are yet to be fulfilled. He promised that he would begin legislative actions for impeachment proceedings – nothing has been done in that regard.

How can such a paragon of virtue be now seeking to neutralise the only organisation that seeks to keep parliamentarians and their counterparts within the ambit of integrity. The PM is asking the court to remove the section of law that specifically challenges members to keep within legal bounds in the handling of public funds. If his request is granted, then there would no longer be a need for the Commission. He should withdraw that request. It undermines the fabric of everything Jamaicans hold in high esteem.

The PM was quoted in The Gleaner of October 2, saying: “I believe that the tabling of the report was intended to embarrass and cause harm to me and as such was made for an improper purpose and in bad faith to prejudice and harm me.” One would expect that he would seek to prove that these charges are fallacious. He is instead trying to change laws to facilitate the alleged illicit action.

It is also heartbreaking to see other members of parliament supporting Mr Holness, but it is not surprising – birds of a feather flock together.

RUPERT ANDERSON