Tweet
Tell the truth, tell it early and tell it all
CHRIS BURNS
Monday, March 03, 2008
Admittedly, I pinched a piece of the title for this article from Lanny Davis' book, Truth to Tell. Lanny Davis, as you know, was special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and was instrumental in formulating the defence strategy during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.
CHRIS BURNS
Telling the truth, telling it early, and telling it all, is essential to the preservation of sanity and personal character, however perceivingly bruised. Sometimes telling the truth requires framework and, as with some criminal or civil proceedings, may necessitate the retention of competent legal talent, in order to safeguard against self-incrimination or possible imprisonment.
This brings me to the current imbroglio surrounding former junior minister Kern Spencer and the aftermath of the Cuban light bulb project. On the face of it, the arrangements surrounding the acquisition, distribution and installation of the Cuban light bulbs leave much to be desired. It seems fair to conclude that like many other government programmes, this particular one was subjected to the worst acts of gross untidiness. I cannot imagine what could have caused such a simple programme to be mired in so much ugly controversy from start to its abrupt suspension. Was the truth told initially about the arrangements or true purpose of this programme?
Though innovative, was the programme also used as an attempt to curry-favour with voters, or was it a genuine move by government to kick-start its energy conservation strategy? Put simply, did the government tell it all from the get-go? Now, as things unfold, Kern Spencer will have to wrench himself from the vortex of a right royal mess and the bitter ball of opprobrium fed mostly by a somewhat vulpine press, all of which could short-circuit his political ambitions. Even so, one cannot blame the media for its coverage, because if there was nothing to report, the media would be hunting something else to report.
Nevertheless, all actions to pursue and prosecute people must be guided by due process of law. It does not hurt, therefore, that as we rush to feed our insatiable appetite for "blood", we should also avoid impugning people's reputation in the process. It would be worthwhile then, to develop the habit of distinguishing and understanding the differences between "charges laid against", "guilty", "sub judice" and "adjudicate". This, I believe, could save us from rushing to judgement or prejudicing the outcome of certain cases, especially those with jury trial that have to rely on the premise of objectivity and fairness.
As I have often said, those who breach public trust, by engaging in all sorts of "hanky-panky", must prepare themselves to withstand the full force of the law, because no crime goes unpunished, at least not so when you believe, as I certainly do, in ultimate justice. It's a simple matter, especially since the laws defining adult crimes are written clearly as to procedures and punishments - if you do the crime you must do the time. In this regard, there can be no equivocation on the current efforts to identify and root out acts of corruption, because the taxpayers of this country have, for far too long, been left with the basket to carry water while those in high places go scot free.
Now, a lot of people have been deliberate in their actions to link Kern Spencer's alleged actions to the People's National Party as though he is the PNP and the PNP is he. To bolster their argument, they have also cited the enormous tarnishing this catastrophic affair has done to the image of the party, as though the light bulb affair is unprecedented. I have a fundamental disagreement with this strategy, unless it can be proved that the PNP, as an organisation, encouraged, participated in, or benefited materially from the alleged misdeeds.
Yet, I am not surprised by this move because we Jamaicans have an uncanny habit of side-stepping the issue of taking personal responsibility and the role accepting such plays in character development and restoration. We seem transfixed on pointing to everything and everyone else, as reasons for some of the things that happen in our lives and country; except to turn the searchlights on ourselves with the view of identifying possible deficiencies that we need to fix. My sources tell me that the party's approach to this matter, from the day Energy Minister Clive Mullings sounded the bell (no pun intended), has been consistent with the title of this article. If true, then claims by some in the media are grossly inaccurate and malicious.
I cannot speak one way or the other of Mr Spencer's innocence or guilt. However, what I do know is that it does matter to "tell the truth, tell it early, tell it all, and tell it yourself" as the title of Lanny Davis' book implies. Shedding tears in Parliament may, or may not, communicate innocence to a skeptical public that has become fed up with governmental inertia towards corruption. And while we cannot regulate emotions or legislate honesty, we can certainly encourage those who seek our support and trust to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their actions when necessary.
Taking responsibility for our actions is not a requirement that starts or stops with public officials. It is something that we should instill in our children from an early age. We will not always act responsibly, I can attest to this, because we are imperfect. However, it is somewhat idiotic to talk about maintaining integrity while at the same time ignoring opportunities to show penitence by telling the truth, or by keeping silent out of fear of self-incrimination in the face of overwhelming evidence against you.
Burnscg@aol.com
CHRIS BURNS
Monday, March 03, 2008
Admittedly, I pinched a piece of the title for this article from Lanny Davis' book, Truth to Tell. Lanny Davis, as you know, was special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and was instrumental in formulating the defence strategy during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.
CHRIS BURNS
Telling the truth, telling it early, and telling it all, is essential to the preservation of sanity and personal character, however perceivingly bruised. Sometimes telling the truth requires framework and, as with some criminal or civil proceedings, may necessitate the retention of competent legal talent, in order to safeguard against self-incrimination or possible imprisonment.
This brings me to the current imbroglio surrounding former junior minister Kern Spencer and the aftermath of the Cuban light bulb project. On the face of it, the arrangements surrounding the acquisition, distribution and installation of the Cuban light bulbs leave much to be desired. It seems fair to conclude that like many other government programmes, this particular one was subjected to the worst acts of gross untidiness. I cannot imagine what could have caused such a simple programme to be mired in so much ugly controversy from start to its abrupt suspension. Was the truth told initially about the arrangements or true purpose of this programme?
Though innovative, was the programme also used as an attempt to curry-favour with voters, or was it a genuine move by government to kick-start its energy conservation strategy? Put simply, did the government tell it all from the get-go? Now, as things unfold, Kern Spencer will have to wrench himself from the vortex of a right royal mess and the bitter ball of opprobrium fed mostly by a somewhat vulpine press, all of which could short-circuit his political ambitions. Even so, one cannot blame the media for its coverage, because if there was nothing to report, the media would be hunting something else to report.
Nevertheless, all actions to pursue and prosecute people must be guided by due process of law. It does not hurt, therefore, that as we rush to feed our insatiable appetite for "blood", we should also avoid impugning people's reputation in the process. It would be worthwhile then, to develop the habit of distinguishing and understanding the differences between "charges laid against", "guilty", "sub judice" and "adjudicate". This, I believe, could save us from rushing to judgement or prejudicing the outcome of certain cases, especially those with jury trial that have to rely on the premise of objectivity and fairness.
As I have often said, those who breach public trust, by engaging in all sorts of "hanky-panky", must prepare themselves to withstand the full force of the law, because no crime goes unpunished, at least not so when you believe, as I certainly do, in ultimate justice. It's a simple matter, especially since the laws defining adult crimes are written clearly as to procedures and punishments - if you do the crime you must do the time. In this regard, there can be no equivocation on the current efforts to identify and root out acts of corruption, because the taxpayers of this country have, for far too long, been left with the basket to carry water while those in high places go scot free.
Now, a lot of people have been deliberate in their actions to link Kern Spencer's alleged actions to the People's National Party as though he is the PNP and the PNP is he. To bolster their argument, they have also cited the enormous tarnishing this catastrophic affair has done to the image of the party, as though the light bulb affair is unprecedented. I have a fundamental disagreement with this strategy, unless it can be proved that the PNP, as an organisation, encouraged, participated in, or benefited materially from the alleged misdeeds.
Yet, I am not surprised by this move because we Jamaicans have an uncanny habit of side-stepping the issue of taking personal responsibility and the role accepting such plays in character development and restoration. We seem transfixed on pointing to everything and everyone else, as reasons for some of the things that happen in our lives and country; except to turn the searchlights on ourselves with the view of identifying possible deficiencies that we need to fix. My sources tell me that the party's approach to this matter, from the day Energy Minister Clive Mullings sounded the bell (no pun intended), has been consistent with the title of this article. If true, then claims by some in the media are grossly inaccurate and malicious.
I cannot speak one way or the other of Mr Spencer's innocence or guilt. However, what I do know is that it does matter to "tell the truth, tell it early, tell it all, and tell it yourself" as the title of Lanny Davis' book implies. Shedding tears in Parliament may, or may not, communicate innocence to a skeptical public that has become fed up with governmental inertia towards corruption. And while we cannot regulate emotions or legislate honesty, we can certainly encourage those who seek our support and trust to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their actions when necessary.
Taking responsibility for our actions is not a requirement that starts or stops with public officials. It is something that we should instill in our children from an early age. We will not always act responsibly, I can attest to this, because we are imperfect. However, it is somewhat idiotic to talk about maintaining integrity while at the same time ignoring opportunities to show penitence by telling the truth, or by keeping silent out of fear of self-incrimination in the face of overwhelming evidence against you.
Burnscg@aol.com
Comment