Tweet
High-level public servants don't need subsidised housing
KEEBLE McFARLANE
Saturday, March 22, 2008
"Buy your own furniture," proclaimed a recent headline in this newspaper. It crowned a report which described the bare state of the cupboard where it relates to houses owned by the government and used to house ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries. It costs so much to keep the buildings in a decent state of repair that the only money left over would buy only refrigerators and stoves.
KEEBLE McFARLANE
There are 30 Cabinet members who are eligible for state-owned houses, either furnished or semi-furnished. Add to that the scores of other houses the government owns for the use of senior people in administration, the judiciary and statutory bodies, and you can see a hefty bill for a government staggering under a huge fiscal burden.
It is a constant source of amazement to me to learn that certain people, when seeking high-level positions in the public service, always drive the hardest bargain they can for the employer to supply a house, car, furniture, the services of a helper or helpers, and even groceries and gas for the car on top of the already generous salaries they can command. The irony is that those emoluments are paid for from the taxes that even the poorest in the society pay whenever they make the most modest purchases at the corner shop.
People who enter political life are generally successful to begin with, having run their own businesses or come from the law or some other similar profession. They already own a house and don't suffer from a lack of all the amenities modern life has to offer. So why, then, do they need a house that goes with the job, especially in a country which can't even provide proper toilets for children at the entry level of the next generation? I know, I know - these people can take their talents elsewhere, so we'll just have to provide whatever inducements are necessary to attract them. But how can they square this with the general level of poverty and need in the country?
In the spirit of openness, I have to declare here that I grew up in government houses, since my father spent all his working life with the Public Works Department. That department, along with the post office and others which dealt with land settlement, agriculture, justice, teaching and public health, provided housing for officers who had attained a certain level in each service.
That policy applied mostly in rural areas, where, historically, housing was sparse and those officers were subject to transfer periodically. And the housing wasn't free - the government charged a minimal rent and supplied only the house. The houses I was familiar with in my childhood were functional, but weren't by any means palaces. In those days most didn't have electricity and some didn't even have running water. The occupants had to supply their own furnishings, and if you lived in Kingston, St Andrew or Montego Bay, you had to find your own accommodation.
The teachers, postmistresses, nurses, extension officers, works overseers and such who lived in those houses may have received higher salaries than the average in the communities where they lived, but by no means lived in a princely manner.
I can see no objection in having an official residence for the governor-general (although I don't believe there should any longer be such a post in a genuinely independent country, but that's an argument for another day). That is an almost entirely ceremonial position, and the holder of the office has a lot of entertaining to do. Likewise, no problem in providing an official residence for the prime minister, as that job also has a ceremonial aspect to it.
The curious thing about this is that the PM's residence has not been very popular with prime ministers, who have chosen to live either at their own homes, or at Vale Royal - the pleasant, comfortable and less public old house dating back to the colonial era. Jamaica House was ordered by the first prime minister, Bustamante, who modelled it on the world's most well-known political residence, the White House. Up until that point, he lived comfortably in his quite ordinary (by today's standards) residence on Tucker Avenue at the foot of Long Mountain. His cousin and opposite number, Norman Manley, lived in his own modest house, Drumblair, until financial constraints forced him to sell the fairly large piece of land on which it stood to be chopped up and made into a housing development.
He retained a parcel for himself, and it contained a very average residence. That was a time when the concept of service was widely respected, and people generally went into public life with the curious notion of serving others and not merely looking out for themselves.
Considering the probity of Manley and the other founding leaders of his People's National Party, it is indeed ironic and unfortunate that some of the worst examples of excesses took place during a PNP administration. Occupants of some state houses reputedly ordered up gold-plated kitchen taps and fancy furnishings, including Persian rugs. Well, that dolly-house appears in serious danger of collapsing now, considering that the barrel is almost empty.
The Americans have a folk-saying which beautifully describes the mentality at work here - "Them that has, gits!" In other words, the more you have, the more you are entitled to. Prime Minister Golding, who embarked on a campaign of reform in public life when he left the JLP to found the NDM, may be well advised to take advantage of this situation and eliminate the housing perks for ministers. They don't need publicly provided housing or furnishings, and could, by this simple act, demonstrate that this is a government which means to do things in a manner which recognises the severe limitations the country faces as it tries to catch up with others in this dog-eat-dog world of the 21st century.
keeble.mack@sympatico.ca
KEEBLE McFARLANE
Saturday, March 22, 2008
"Buy your own furniture," proclaimed a recent headline in this newspaper. It crowned a report which described the bare state of the cupboard where it relates to houses owned by the government and used to house ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries. It costs so much to keep the buildings in a decent state of repair that the only money left over would buy only refrigerators and stoves.
KEEBLE McFARLANEThere are 30 Cabinet members who are eligible for state-owned houses, either furnished or semi-furnished. Add to that the scores of other houses the government owns for the use of senior people in administration, the judiciary and statutory bodies, and you can see a hefty bill for a government staggering under a huge fiscal burden.
It is a constant source of amazement to me to learn that certain people, when seeking high-level positions in the public service, always drive the hardest bargain they can for the employer to supply a house, car, furniture, the services of a helper or helpers, and even groceries and gas for the car on top of the already generous salaries they can command. The irony is that those emoluments are paid for from the taxes that even the poorest in the society pay whenever they make the most modest purchases at the corner shop.
People who enter political life are generally successful to begin with, having run their own businesses or come from the law or some other similar profession. They already own a house and don't suffer from a lack of all the amenities modern life has to offer. So why, then, do they need a house that goes with the job, especially in a country which can't even provide proper toilets for children at the entry level of the next generation? I know, I know - these people can take their talents elsewhere, so we'll just have to provide whatever inducements are necessary to attract them. But how can they square this with the general level of poverty and need in the country?
In the spirit of openness, I have to declare here that I grew up in government houses, since my father spent all his working life with the Public Works Department. That department, along with the post office and others which dealt with land settlement, agriculture, justice, teaching and public health, provided housing for officers who had attained a certain level in each service.
That policy applied mostly in rural areas, where, historically, housing was sparse and those officers were subject to transfer periodically. And the housing wasn't free - the government charged a minimal rent and supplied only the house. The houses I was familiar with in my childhood were functional, but weren't by any means palaces. In those days most didn't have electricity and some didn't even have running water. The occupants had to supply their own furnishings, and if you lived in Kingston, St Andrew or Montego Bay, you had to find your own accommodation.
The teachers, postmistresses, nurses, extension officers, works overseers and such who lived in those houses may have received higher salaries than the average in the communities where they lived, but by no means lived in a princely manner.
I can see no objection in having an official residence for the governor-general (although I don't believe there should any longer be such a post in a genuinely independent country, but that's an argument for another day). That is an almost entirely ceremonial position, and the holder of the office has a lot of entertaining to do. Likewise, no problem in providing an official residence for the prime minister, as that job also has a ceremonial aspect to it.
The curious thing about this is that the PM's residence has not been very popular with prime ministers, who have chosen to live either at their own homes, or at Vale Royal - the pleasant, comfortable and less public old house dating back to the colonial era. Jamaica House was ordered by the first prime minister, Bustamante, who modelled it on the world's most well-known political residence, the White House. Up until that point, he lived comfortably in his quite ordinary (by today's standards) residence on Tucker Avenue at the foot of Long Mountain. His cousin and opposite number, Norman Manley, lived in his own modest house, Drumblair, until financial constraints forced him to sell the fairly large piece of land on which it stood to be chopped up and made into a housing development.
He retained a parcel for himself, and it contained a very average residence. That was a time when the concept of service was widely respected, and people generally went into public life with the curious notion of serving others and not merely looking out for themselves.
Considering the probity of Manley and the other founding leaders of his People's National Party, it is indeed ironic and unfortunate that some of the worst examples of excesses took place during a PNP administration. Occupants of some state houses reputedly ordered up gold-plated kitchen taps and fancy furnishings, including Persian rugs. Well, that dolly-house appears in serious danger of collapsing now, considering that the barrel is almost empty.
The Americans have a folk-saying which beautifully describes the mentality at work here - "Them that has, gits!" In other words, the more you have, the more you are entitled to. Prime Minister Golding, who embarked on a campaign of reform in public life when he left the JLP to found the NDM, may be well advised to take advantage of this situation and eliminate the housing perks for ministers. They don't need publicly provided housing or furnishings, and could, by this simple act, demonstrate that this is a government which means to do things in a manner which recognises the severe limitations the country faces as it tries to catch up with others in this dog-eat-dog world of the 21st century.
keeble.mack@sympatico.ca