Tweet
Missing the point ... PM's travels flout allowance limits
published: Thursday | February 1, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody Q4HiA="true">
The Editor, Sir:
I have been watching with dismay the response of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) to The Sunday Gleaner's expose of the <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">financing</SPAN> of her overseas travel. In their strident knee-jerk defence of any criticism of the Prime Minister and attacking of the messenger mentality, the OPM seemed to have missed the point.
I certainly do not begrudge the Prime Minister of Jamaica <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">travelling</SPAN> in a manner which meets the <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">security</SPAN> and protocol requirements of a head of government. Nor do I have any reason to believe that the monies spent on these <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">trips</SPAN> were not spent for the purpose of the Prime Minister's official travels.
The issue for me is that the OPM does not seem to grasp the concept of the rule of law. If the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance can arbitrarily flout the regulations made by the Government which set the per diem travelling allowance, what message does that send to the wider society? The arrogance suggested by this behaviour is compounded by the fact that these regulations were created by the same persons who now so brazenly flout them.
Change the regulations
[b]Unlike most of us who c
published: Thursday | February 1, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody Q4HiA="true">
The Editor, Sir:
I have been watching with dismay the response of the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) to The Sunday Gleaner's expose of the <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">financing</SPAN> of her overseas travel. In their strident knee-jerk defence of any criticism of the Prime Minister and attacking of the messenger mentality, the OPM seemed to have missed the point.
I certainly do not begrudge the Prime Minister of Jamaica <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">travelling</SPAN> in a manner which meets the <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">security</SPAN> and protocol requirements of a head of government. Nor do I have any reason to believe that the monies spent on these <SPAN class=kLink style="FONT-WEIGHT: 400; COLOR: orange! important; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; POSITION: relative">trips</SPAN> were not spent for the purpose of the Prime Minister's official travels.
The issue for me is that the OPM does not seem to grasp the concept of the rule of law. If the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance can arbitrarily flout the regulations made by the Government which set the per diem travelling allowance, what message does that send to the wider society? The arrogance suggested by this behaviour is compounded by the fact that these regulations were created by the same persons who now so brazenly flout them.
Change the regulations
[b]Unlike most of us who c