Tweet
Why now, Dr Sangster?
Why now, Dr Sangster?
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Dear Editor,
In the matter of the prime minister's dismissal of the Public Service Commission, Dr Alfred Sangster, despite his lack of legal qualifications, has proclaimed that "the prime minister's position can be upheld in court".
Dr Sangster was a member of the PSC that was dismissed for supposed acts of "misbehaviour". In the face of such accusations, one might have thought that a sense of pride might have induced him to either remain quiet or defend his honour. The question arises, if Dr Sangster felt so strongly about the "misbehaviour" of his colleagues, why didn't he say so before? Why now, when his erstwhile colleagues have launched a legal challenge to their dismissals? Why didn't Dr Sangster resign instead of waiting to be fired?
It is curious that Dr Sangster's public condemnation of his colleagues remarkably mirrors the views that have been vociferously propagated by the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs (FIPA). It is my understanding that Dr Sangster is a former vice-chairman of this organisation.
Like the FIPA, Dr Sangster charges that the PSC's "failure" to reinstate Lackston Robinson, following the judgement of Mr Justice Jones, was a ground for dismissal. Curiously, the former academic fails to grasp that Mr Justice Jones' judgement does not contain any order of reinstatement.
According to Dr Sangster, the PSC ignored his entreaties to review their recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie for the position of solicitor general, in light of Professor Vasciannie's 2002 criticism of Bruce Golding's return to the JLP. Before being made aware of the criticism, Dr Sangster had himself considered Professor Vasciannie the best qualified candidate for the post.
It entirely escapes this esteemed member of the Order of Jamaica that Professor Vasciannie's commentary is entirely irrelevant to his qualifications for the post of solicitor general. Unfortunately, Dr Sangster appears to be no different from so many Jamaicans who suspend critical thought to placate authority. If we really want Jamaica to change, we need Jamaicans like Dr Sangster to do differently.
O Hilaire Sobers
Washington, DC
ohilaire@yahoo.com
Why now, Dr Sangster?
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Dear Editor,
In the matter of the prime minister's dismissal of the Public Service Commission, Dr Alfred Sangster, despite his lack of legal qualifications, has proclaimed that "the prime minister's position can be upheld in court".
Dr Sangster was a member of the PSC that was dismissed for supposed acts of "misbehaviour". In the face of such accusations, one might have thought that a sense of pride might have induced him to either remain quiet or defend his honour. The question arises, if Dr Sangster felt so strongly about the "misbehaviour" of his colleagues, why didn't he say so before? Why now, when his erstwhile colleagues have launched a legal challenge to their dismissals? Why didn't Dr Sangster resign instead of waiting to be fired?
It is curious that Dr Sangster's public condemnation of his colleagues remarkably mirrors the views that have been vociferously propagated by the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs (FIPA). It is my understanding that Dr Sangster is a former vice-chairman of this organisation.
Like the FIPA, Dr Sangster charges that the PSC's "failure" to reinstate Lackston Robinson, following the judgement of Mr Justice Jones, was a ground for dismissal. Curiously, the former academic fails to grasp that Mr Justice Jones' judgement does not contain any order of reinstatement.
According to Dr Sangster, the PSC ignored his entreaties to review their recommendation of Stephen Vasciannie for the position of solicitor general, in light of Professor Vasciannie's 2002 criticism of Bruce Golding's return to the JLP. Before being made aware of the criticism, Dr Sangster had himself considered Professor Vasciannie the best qualified candidate for the post.
It entirely escapes this esteemed member of the Order of Jamaica that Professor Vasciannie's commentary is entirely irrelevant to his qualifications for the post of solicitor general. Unfortunately, Dr Sangster appears to be no different from so many Jamaicans who suspend critical thought to placate authority. If we really want Jamaica to change, we need Jamaicans like Dr Sangster to do differently.
O Hilaire Sobers
Washington, DC
ohilaire@yahoo.com
Comment