Undercover MPs - Politicians say no to public disclosure of financial standing
Published:Sunday | November 14, 2010 | 12:00 AM
Tyrone Reid, Sunday Gleaner Reporter
SOME MEMBERS of parliament (MPs) have given the thumbs-down to a proposal to make their financial status public.
The MPs who spoke with The Sunday Gleaner made it clear that they would not back a move to make public their financial status as recorded in declarations made to the Integrity Commission.
In several First-World democracies, the financial disclosures, which include income, assets, and liabilities, filed by public officials are available to the public.
But not in Jamaica.
And if the current crop of lawmakers who sit in Gordon House have anything to do with it, the secrecy that exists now will remain intact.
Robert Pickersgill, member of parliament for North West St Catherine and chairman of the Opposition People's National Party (PNP), said he would not support a push towards making the process more transparent, as he was satisfied with the checks and balances which now exist.
While being pressed for the reason he would not support the proposal, Pickersgill would not budge.
"Advocate for it if you want, but you're not going to get anymore out of me," the veteran politician said.
Pickersgill, who pointed out that the passage of the legislation requiring parliamentarians to file financial disclosures had been met with resistance, believes the law, as is, is an important first step.
He made it clear that his position did not represent the opinion of the PNP as the issue had not been discussed by the party.
Everald Warmington, an MP on the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) benches, declined to comment on the matter.
The usually fiery Warmington was uncharacteristically coy. "My brother, I have nothing to say. Nothing at all to say."
Private matter
Another opposition MP, Dr Morais Guy, said he would not support a push to have the financial details made available to the populace.
"No, sir. I wouldn't agree with that. That's a private matter," he said.
Guy argued that if the country was to move in that direction, there would be no need for the Integrity Commission because all MPs would need to do is table the declarations in Parliament and then the documents would be available to the public.
Under the law, an MP is also required to submit to the Integrity Commission information on property or assets held by their spouse or children.
When told that some First-World countries already had this public disclosure rule in place, Guy intimated that not everything that was good for the goose was good for the gander.
"Not everything that is necessarily relevant or that is done in First-World democracies means that Third-World democracies should follow suit," argued Guy.
He believes the framers of the Integrity of Members Act chose for the financial particulars of the elected representatives to be disclosed to a body of respected individuals for a number of reasons.
Chief among them is the fact that publishing such intimate financial details could potentially expose the individuals to becoming victims of crimes.
Government MP Dr St Aubyn Bartlett told The Sunday Gleaner that the only way he would support such a move was if all civil servants and powerful private-sector figures, who serve on public boards, would be required to do likewise.
According to Bartlett, private-sector players who serve on government boards should publicly declare because "they, more than politicians, run this country".
Dr Omar Davies, PNP MP and chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said he would not support a push for public disclosure of the filed financial declarations. He, too, said his support of such a measure was conditional: powerful private-sector players would have to be required to declare their income, assets, and liabilities as well.
"I will do it when all the owners of media do," Davies said.