Tweet
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Dear Editor,
The appointment of Sherene Golding as an adviser to the minister of justice is further evidence of the government's agenda of partisan governance. Despite campaign promises to eliminate tribalism from governance, cronyism continues to eclipse meritocracy. In keeping with this agenda, the government has:
. derailed Stephen Vasciannie's appointment as solicitor general and dismissed him as chairman of the Air Policy Committee.
. fired the Public Service Commission for daring to comply with the Constitution.
. appointed Joan Gordon-Webley as executive director of the NSWMA, in violation of the law.
. engineered the appointment of Edward Seaga as pro-chancellor of UTech.
On a recent radio interview, the justice minister unashamedly defended the appointment of the prime minister's daughter as her adviser, claiming that she was entitled to have an adviser who is "loyal" to her. That was the most revealing statement of all. The appearance of cronyism was of no concern to the minister. All that mattered was that the Cabinet had approved the appointment. Given that the prime Minister is Ms Golding's father, is there any chance that the appointment would not have been approved?
Ms Golding's credentials appeared to be of even less concern to the minister. Ms Golding is apparently advising the minister on her legislative reform agenda and other related issues. While Ms Golding may have three degrees, including a law degree, Ms Golding is not a lawyer, nor does she have any track record in legislative or justice issues, as far as I am aware. I have no objection to ministerial advisers, per se. However, ministerial advisers are paid for by the taxpayer, and not the ministers to whom they report. In a non-tribal context, ministerial advisers are selected for their capacity to add value to a ministerial portfolio, rather than their loyalty to a particular minister or their genetic connections to the prime minister. In Britain, for example, one would hardly expect the secretary of state for justice Jack Straw to appoint Prime Minister Gordon Brown's son as his adviser. The blatant appearance of nepotism would inhibit him from doing so; worse yet if Gordon Brown's son patently lacked the credentials for the job. In Jamaica, we choose not to understand that in public appointments, appearance does matter.
The disregard for appearance, coupled with the garrison mentality of the government, enables the elevation of a relatively unqualified Ms Golding while rejecting a qualified Stephen Vasciannie as solicitor general, and as chairman of the Air Policy Committee. The message is clear. Loyalty trumps competence.
James Hunt Farnußm Griffiths
Maryland, USA
Billy.Farnum@gmail.com
Dear Editor,
The appointment of Sherene Golding as an adviser to the minister of justice is further evidence of the government's agenda of partisan governance. Despite campaign promises to eliminate tribalism from governance, cronyism continues to eclipse meritocracy. In keeping with this agenda, the government has:
. derailed Stephen Vasciannie's appointment as solicitor general and dismissed him as chairman of the Air Policy Committee.
. fired the Public Service Commission for daring to comply with the Constitution.
. appointed Joan Gordon-Webley as executive director of the NSWMA, in violation of the law.
. engineered the appointment of Edward Seaga as pro-chancellor of UTech.
On a recent radio interview, the justice minister unashamedly defended the appointment of the prime minister's daughter as her adviser, claiming that she was entitled to have an adviser who is "loyal" to her. That was the most revealing statement of all. The appearance of cronyism was of no concern to the minister. All that mattered was that the Cabinet had approved the appointment. Given that the prime Minister is Ms Golding's father, is there any chance that the appointment would not have been approved?
Ms Golding's credentials appeared to be of even less concern to the minister. Ms Golding is apparently advising the minister on her legislative reform agenda and other related issues. While Ms Golding may have three degrees, including a law degree, Ms Golding is not a lawyer, nor does she have any track record in legislative or justice issues, as far as I am aware. I have no objection to ministerial advisers, per se. However, ministerial advisers are paid for by the taxpayer, and not the ministers to whom they report. In a non-tribal context, ministerial advisers are selected for their capacity to add value to a ministerial portfolio, rather than their loyalty to a particular minister or their genetic connections to the prime minister. In Britain, for example, one would hardly expect the secretary of state for justice Jack Straw to appoint Prime Minister Gordon Brown's son as his adviser. The blatant appearance of nepotism would inhibit him from doing so; worse yet if Gordon Brown's son patently lacked the credentials for the job. In Jamaica, we choose not to understand that in public appointments, appearance does matter.
The disregard for appearance, coupled with the garrison mentality of the government, enables the elevation of a relatively unqualified Ms Golding while rejecting a qualified Stephen Vasciannie as solicitor general, and as chairman of the Air Policy Committee. The message is clear. Loyalty trumps competence.
James Hunt Farnußm Griffiths
Maryland, USA
Billy.Farnum@gmail.com
Comment