Tweet
It's not the name that matters
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Like the members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament, we, too, are puzzled by the transfer of $500,000 from the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP) to the account of a former employee of the Office of the Prime Minister.
That it happened is just as reprehensible as the inability of the permanent secretary to say how it did, and to explain who gave permission for the money to be granted to two Jamaican students attending universities overseas.
We note the concern of the PAC chairman, Dr Omar Davies, that while members of parliament had to deal with an elaborate system of approval to access SESP funds, it was quite easy for civil servants to abuse the system and access the funds.
It is vital, therefore, that the PAC gets to the bottom of this irregularity, because failure to put corrective measures in place and implement sanctions for any breach of procedures will leave the door open for a recurrence.
But even as we encourage the PAC to move swiftly on this matter, we must restate our opposition to the SESP. For even though it may be rebranded the Constituency Development Programme by the Jamaica Labour Party Government, the fact is that the concept remains the same - that of providing parliamentarians with money to support projects in their constituencies.
This programme, we maintain, gives politicians the opportunity to take hold of the people's resources in order to distribute political pork.
Of course, the politicians never miss a chance to inform us of the lovely and important projects they have implemented or assisted with these funds, as well as the hundreds of people who benefit from the good deeds made possible by the funds.
But it is from within the ranks of the politicians that we have learnt of a number of cases in which the programme is used as a means of distributing money and other benefits to party die-hards and political hangers-on. Bogus receipts, we are told, are submitted for goods and services not provided, resulting in the cash being siphoned off.
But added to our objection to the opening up of this avenue to corruption, is our central belief that political representatives should not be distributing state resources.
Politicians, we hold, should articulate the needs of their constituents in the legislature where the laws and policies that hopefully contribute to a better life for Jamaicans are shaped.
Implementation of these policies and programmes, therefore, should be left to state agencies, guided by clear and specific criteria. And there are quite a few government agencies established to administer the social welfare programmes that the politicians so love to associate with under the banner of the SESP.
Given the views expressed by parliamentarians on both sides of the House in the past, we would be surprised if our position on this issue attracts support. For the temptation to use the SESP for political advantage is too great to resist.
After all, 'the people' must, at all times, be grateful for the care and attention to their plight shown by those who offer themselves to serve.
Instead of changing the name of the programme, the Government ought to change the concept.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Like the members of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament, we, too, are puzzled by the transfer of $500,000 from the Social and Economic Support Programme (SESP) to the account of a former employee of the Office of the Prime Minister.
That it happened is just as reprehensible as the inability of the permanent secretary to say how it did, and to explain who gave permission for the money to be granted to two Jamaican students attending universities overseas.
We note the concern of the PAC chairman, Dr Omar Davies, that while members of parliament had to deal with an elaborate system of approval to access SESP funds, it was quite easy for civil servants to abuse the system and access the funds.
It is vital, therefore, that the PAC gets to the bottom of this irregularity, because failure to put corrective measures in place and implement sanctions for any breach of procedures will leave the door open for a recurrence.
But even as we encourage the PAC to move swiftly on this matter, we must restate our opposition to the SESP. For even though it may be rebranded the Constituency Development Programme by the Jamaica Labour Party Government, the fact is that the concept remains the same - that of providing parliamentarians with money to support projects in their constituencies.
This programme, we maintain, gives politicians the opportunity to take hold of the people's resources in order to distribute political pork.
Of course, the politicians never miss a chance to inform us of the lovely and important projects they have implemented or assisted with these funds, as well as the hundreds of people who benefit from the good deeds made possible by the funds.
But it is from within the ranks of the politicians that we have learnt of a number of cases in which the programme is used as a means of distributing money and other benefits to party die-hards and political hangers-on. Bogus receipts, we are told, are submitted for goods and services not provided, resulting in the cash being siphoned off.
But added to our objection to the opening up of this avenue to corruption, is our central belief that political representatives should not be distributing state resources.
Politicians, we hold, should articulate the needs of their constituents in the legislature where the laws and policies that hopefully contribute to a better life for Jamaicans are shaped.
Implementation of these policies and programmes, therefore, should be left to state agencies, guided by clear and specific criteria. And there are quite a few government agencies established to administer the social welfare programmes that the politicians so love to associate with under the banner of the SESP.
Given the views expressed by parliamentarians on both sides of the House in the past, we would be surprised if our position on this issue attracts support. For the temptation to use the SESP for political advantage is too great to resist.
After all, 'the people' must, at all times, be grateful for the care and attention to their plight shown by those who offer themselves to serve.
Instead of changing the name of the programme, the Government ought to change the concept.