Conscience vs collective responsibility

[Karl]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Conscience vs collective responsibility</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Ken Chaplin</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>The Westminster principle of governance which argues that all Cabinet members are responsible collectively for decisions of the Cabinet, even if they did not vote for a measure, is not sacrosanct.<P class=StoryText align=justify>A Cabinet member may differ in public with a policy decision, if his or her conscience so dictates, as has happened in Britain and the United States of America.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Sometime ago Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, as minister of local government, disagreed with the inadequacy of the money allocated to the fire brigade services and made her stand known in Parliament when she abstained from voting on the matter. It is believed that her stand, which was widely supported across Jamaica, boosted her chance of becoming prime minister. It has also been a regular occurrence in the US and Britain for parliamentarians of the ruling party to criticise publicly policy decisions of their governments. In Jamaica by tradition our parliamentarians, except in the rare case of Mrs Simpson Miller, remain silent and serve as a rubber stamp for everything Cabinet does. Surely, this is not a good thing for the country.<P class=StoryText align=justify>This leads to the recent onslaught on the government by Errol Ennis, minister of state in the ministry of agriculture who sometime ago occupied a similar position in the ministry of finance and planning. Ennis has always been outspoken. In essence, what he said about the handling of the Olint Corporation issue by the state-run Financial Services Commission was justified, but his language was far too strident. Self-criticism is important in a parliamentary democracy. And perhaps if we had more of it the country probably would not be in the delicate economic position it has been over the past 18 years. Finance Minister Omar Davies dealt with the situation quite frankly and admirably. He said that investors engaged in such schemes as Olint which offer high interest rates
far above what is available in the market and operate outside of the financial regulations, cannot expect any protection from the government. Of course, they do so at their own risk. In an attempt to get Ennis to change his mind the government has set up a Cabinet committee to meet him. I know Ennis quite well and I would be surprised if he retracted his statement condemning the "Gestapo-like invasion" on Olint's office by agents of the FSC.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Public officials' travel allowance
Many years ago when I used to travel overseas on government business, the political directorate and other public servants were often embarrassed by the conditions imposed on them in spending the money to meet hotel bills, meals, transport and telephone calls. One had to submit to the entity within seven days the receipts covering the amount spent. If a delegate from another country takes you to lunch or buys you an alcoholic drink you could return the compliment only out of your own pocket. Such expenditure was not permitted out of your allowance. The receipts for contingencies also had to be submitted and the unspent portion returned, or the amount would be deducted from your salary.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Years later, the system was changed. You were given a per diem (daily) travel allowance and you could spend it whichever way you wanted without having to produce receipts, but you stil

[MdmeX]

RE: Conscience vs collective responsibility

[The per diem provided to Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller during the first 10 months of taking office and the officials who travelled with her overseas was quite sufficient.
If there is any overspending of the maximum per-diem allowance, the additional amount must be returned to the director of finance in the Office of the Prime Minister, failing which the amount must be deducted from their salaries. Or they would run into difficulties with the auditor general who will demand a refund. Clearly, Mrs Simpson Miller would have no problem as she can pay it from the credit card which she boasted last week that her husband gave her.]

Unuh get funnier by the day(Tant)