Observer EDITORIAL: What if.?

[Karl]

What if.?

Sunday, September 16, 2007


So the short honeymoon is over, and it's time to get down to the serious business of running the country. And the timely injunction to the new administration from Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who embarks on his first official overseas engagement at the one-day summit of heads of government of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) on chronic non-communicable diseases in Port of Spain, Trinidad, is "fervet opus in campis" (the work is burning in the fields).

Yes, there are files to be read, decisions - some more urgent than others - to be taken in preparation for the challenging task of ushering this country into the era of prosperity that we all crave.

It's an exciting time for our country, especially for those members of parliament, some of whom were reported in various sections of the media last week as being ready and raring to go.

To them, we extend our best wishes for a successful tenure in office.
But we must urge the new Government to begin to look seriously at those among its ranks who have, among other constitutional clouds, the issue of dual citizenship hanging over their heads.

In fact, this issue, which is scheduled to be aired in the Supreme Court within weeks, isn't just hanging over their heads. It's hanging over the heads of every last one of us, from Prime Minister Golding, the appropriately self-styled chief servant, to the most unassuming labourer.
For when the courts - as they are bound to do - rule on the issue, there may be serious consequences which could signal a very dark note in the history of this nation, if the appropriate measures are not put in place to help the citizenry deal with whatever changes may ensue.

And we believe that the best place to start is with a declaration on the part of the members of parliament who are alleged to have sworn allegiance to a foreign power, be it the USA, or any other country, or who are otherwise - prima facie - in potential conflict, to put their cards on the table. For the balance of parliamentary power which emerged from the September 3 general elections is too delicate to withstand any sudden or violent shocks which a radical shift would be sure to produce.

Far better to prepare the country for what may or may not come, via a series of frank, official revelations as opposed to the somewhat wild allegations and counter allegations which seem to have given birth to an undesirable and dangerous school of thought that the current court issues simply don't exist.

One of the issues that Prime Minister Bruce Golding has consistently demonstrated an interest in is that of constitutional reform. This infers a respect on his part for the Constitution, which is at the heart of the issues to be considered by the courts.

It is going to be very interesting to see how his Government engages with this one.

[Karl]

What if.?

Sunday, September 16, 2007


So the short honeymoon is over, and it's time to get down to the serious business of running the country.

...To them, we extend our best wishes for a successful tenure in office.
But we must urge the new Government to begin to look seriously at those among its ranks who have, among other constitutional clouds, the issue of dual citizenship hanging over their heads.

In fact, this issue, which is scheduled to be aired in the Supreme Court within weeks, isn't just hanging over their heads. It's hanging over the heads of every last one of us, from Prime Minister Golding, the appropriately self-styled chief servant, to the most unassuming labourer.
For when the courts - as they are bound to do - rule on the issue, there may be serious consequences which could signal a very dark note in the history of this nation, if the appropriate measures are not put in place to help the citizenry deal with whatever changes may ensue.

And we believe that the best place to start is with a declaration on the part of the members of parliament who are alleged to have sworn allegiance to a foreign power, be it the USA, or any other country, or who are otherwise - prima facie - in potential conflict, to put their cards on the table. For the balance of parliamentary power which emerged from the September 3 general elections is too delicate to withstand any sudden or violent shocks which a radical shift would be sure to produce.

Far better to prepare the country for what may or may not come, via a series of frank, official revelations as opposed to the somewhat wild allegations and counter allegations which seem to have given birth to an undesirable and dangerous school of thought that the current court issues simply don't exist.

One of the issues that Prime Minister Bruce Golding has consistently demonstrated an interest in is that of constitutional reform. This infers a respect on his part for the Constitution, which is at the heart of the issues to be considered by the courts.

It is going to be very interesting to see how his Government engages with this one.

So the Observer, (no doubt after having done its indepth investigation?) things there is merit in this matter being taken with the utmost seriousness?

...and further believes there is the possibility that there could be "violent shocks" if there is a "radical shift" in "the balance of parliamentary power"?????

mmmm?!!!!

[Karl]

Excerpt from - Mopping up

Mopping up

Common Sense
John Maxwell
Sunday, September 16, 2007

Government and Governance
I said last week that I thought that, as the Americans described it, the PNP was the 'natural party of government in Jamaica'. Some people seemed to think that what I was saying was that the PNP should always be the government of Jamaica. I thought I made it plain that I meant no more than that the PNP, because of its history and organisation, had a larger normal support base than the JLP. This means that in ordinary times the PNP is more likely to win an election than the JLP. I believe my point has been proved.

I do not believe that in our system of governance, any party is somehow entitled to win all the time. If the opposition is inept they will lose, and they will need to re-organise themselves to better represent the people.
As it was, in the recent elections the two parties were separated by less than 3,000 votes, nationwide, less than one per cent.
Because the JLP has been out of office for so long, our system provides almost irresistible temptation for extra-legal means to supplement the weaknesses of an opposition. Because of the 'now extinct 'two-term syndrome', some people feel cheated when their party does not get 'its' turn in office. Because of that, Jamaica may be at this moment in a fairly dangerous situation.
There are three seats still under contention and two of them will depend on how the courts interpret the constitution. As it is, I cannot see how any Jamaican court can allow a foreign national to sit in the sovereign parliament of Jamaica.

Any foreign national, especially one who has become a foreigner in spite of being originally Jamaican, must be under impossible pressures to put his adoptive country first, especially when the adoptive country is the United States.
In matters such as extradition treaties and things like the 'Ship-rider" agreements, to name just two, the interests of Jamaica are unlikely to mesh seamlessly with those of the United States. I cannot imagine how a Jamaican would feel were she to be disadvantaged by the vote of an American citizen in the Jamaican Parliament.

It is a situation too dire to contemplate with any equanimity.
The question has come up before but it was never resolved for a variety of reasons.
But before we discuss that, what will happen if the JLP suddenly loses its majority in parliament?
I must confess that I do not have any confidence in the political skills of the governor general to make anything but a disaster out of such a situation.

Briefly, I believe that if the JLP loses its majority in Parliament, the PNP should not rush to form a government.
I believe that what would make sense would be for the two major parties to come together to form what the Europeans call a 'grand coalition' to run the country for an agreed period - say one year- during which time the parties would pledge to work together not simply to manage the administration, but to put right certain constitutional anomalies and weaknesses which can only be corrected by joint action. Increasing the number of seats in parliament is another such issue.

I believe that it would be dangerous to hold another general election within weeks of the last one and most of us, I think would prefer to wait until the political temperature cooled.
If the two leaders were to alternate in office for say six months, I believe it would be possible, given the increasing level of bipartisanship, to work out arrangements which would be fair to the parties and more important, to the people of Jamaica.

None of the panjandra now pontifying seem to have considered the possibility of a sudden change in parliamentary majority, but I believe that we all need to think urgently about the possibility and to undertake to do our best to keep the country peaceful and unified while we solve the problem and hold new elections..
There can be no more urgent agenda at this time.

Copyright©2007 John Maxwell
jankunnu@gmail.com

[Karl]

Furore over dual citizenship - Time to exorcise Section 40
published: Sunday | September 16, 2007

Ken Jones, Contributor


Manley, Worrell and Franklyn

In post-election contentions some losing players are seeking to be declared winners by technically knocking out their opponents with Section 40 of the Constitution.

Learned judges will in time decide the validity of claims that will, in effect, benefit just a few individuals. However, the outcome may also determine whether a million Jamaican dual citizens are to be accorded identical and equal rights in representational politics.

The restrictive rule has remained unused for 45 years; and in that time, many a dual citizen has served, without question, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The country's first Prime Minister may have been a dual citizen, having been, by his own account, adopted in Spain by a Spaniard. In 1944, he forestalled a PNP move to disqualify him as a parliamentarian, but that was because he had not yet formally changed his name from Clarke to Bustamante. There is no report that he ever renounced the Spanish nationality he must have taken on adoption, yet he rose to the highest parliamentary rank in Jamaica.

Bustamante got around Section 40 of the Constitution when he appointed Frank Worrell to the Jamaican Senate. I do not recall any question being raised then or since about Worrell's Barbadian nationality. Norman Manley named Dudley Thompson to the same Senate and nobody bothered about the Panamanian citizenship he had acquired at birth. Nor is there any report that Hector Wynter was required to shed his Cuban credentials.
There was no denial of their love of and loyalty to Jamaica; and these appointments by our former heads of Government, might be judged against the explanation of dual citizenship as given by Norman Manley in March 1962.

a clarifying statement
The then Premier of Jamaica actually issued a clarifying statement after helping to draw up the Jamaican Constitution. His interpretation should be carefully examined, especially where he wrote:-

"Our Constitution permits a Jamaican to hold citizenship in another country - without peril to his status as a Jamaican citizen, provided that such Jamaican did not acquire his second citizenship by asking for it or by taking part in any ceremony (other than marriage) if he acquired it after 6th August 1962, and provided, also, that he does not exercise any of his rights as a citizen of that second country whenever or however those rights were acquired. For example, a citizen of Jamaica who was born in another country, (whether Commonwealth or foreign) and who, by the laws of that country, is still a citizen of that other country, will still be regarded as a full citizen of Jamaica.

If, however, he acts as a citizen of that other country (e.g. by voting in its elections or holding public office where by the law of that country only its citizens may vote or hold such offices, or is travelling on that country's passport) then, and only then, does any question of depriving him of his Jamaican citizenship arise. Nor is this an automatic process of law. Our Constitution simply states that anyone who acts as a citizen of another country, or who applies to be naturalised as a citizen of another country, may (not must) be deprived of his Jamaican citizenship."

Because of a tradition of travel and migration, Jamaicans have always placed importance on dual citizenship and the country has benefited greatly from that course of action. It was a dual citizen, Walter Adolphe Roberts, who began the struggle for Jamaican Independence. In 1936, he and other migrant Jamaicans established the Jamaica Progressive League (JPL), with the primary purpose of getting political Independence for Jamaica. The JPL was a sponsor of the PNP when it was founded and it provided inspiration and substantial backing for the self-government platform. I wonder what those giants - Roberts, Wendell Malliet, Wilfred Domingo, the Rev. Ethelred Brown - might say about today's PNP stand against dual citizens.

to promote the UNIA
National Hero Marcus Garvey did not acquire foreign nationality. However, it is known that in 1921, he was seriously considering American citizenship as a convenient way of promoting the UNIA. Had he done so, it would have been accepted that his loyalty to Jamaica was undiminished by the act. Dual citizenship as a matter of convenience is well understood by millions who, over decades, have left these shores for social or economic reasons; and no Jamaican politician in his right mind would dare to publicly question the patriotism of the Jamaican diaspora. We all know why Jamaicans often swear allegiance to foreign countries; and the reason is definitely not lack of love or absence of loyalty to the land of their birth.

It is from our migrants, including dual citizens, that Jamaica receives remittances to bolster the economy. Internationally recorded figures published in March of this year state that Jamaica is the second-highest recipient of remittances in the Latin American-Caribbean region. The country is estimated to collect U.S $ 641.74 per person per annum, which is comparable to the total value of all our exports combined. Thousands of Jamaicans look forward to these remittances; and a Gleaner poll last year showed that 12 per cent of them "depend absolutely" on this income.

A year ago, while speaking in New York, then Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller confirmed that, "the growth in remittances from the Jamaican Diaspora in the U.S.A., Canada and the United Kingdom has been truly phenomenal - remittances now surpass the gross earnings from tourism and bauxite and alumina."

Until recently, the PNP administration had openly courted support from Jamaicans abroad, including those with dual citizenship. Junior Minister for Foreign Affairs, Delano Franklyn, was among those urging Jamaicans to get American citizenship. In his words, the aim was to "galvanise our nationals to play a more active role in their communities in their adopted country, as well as in the country of their birth." He implored Jamaicans to become citizens of the countries of their residence "so you can take more effective roles in the decision-making process".

regularise yourself
Before that, Mr. Franklyn told Jamaicans in Canada: "It is critical that you regularise yourself, so if you are not a citizen, become one." Strangely, the PNP while asking our dual citizens to seek public office in America, finds it unacceptable for them to do the same thing in their own homeland.

Islanders are noted for reaching out to opportunities provided by the larger more advanced mainland countries. The British writers of our Constitution may not have taken this into account when they inserted Section 40 and had it accepted by a negotiating team that seems to have had no intention of imposing its restrictions. But what escaped the colonial rulers should not have survived for so long that it can now be used to prevent good citizens from serving in the island's Parliament. It should be noted that neither Britain nor the United States imposes any bar on dual citizens sitting in their respective national legislatures.

Jamaica recognises dual citizenship and it is so written in the Jamaican passport. Why then are Jamaican politicians questioning the loyalty of Jamaican dual citizens and seeking to bar them from parliamentary service when America allows these same citizens of Jamaica to occupy public officesin the United States? State Department officials confirm that the formal oath of allegiance is never enforced. One American spokesman is quoted as saying: "The United States allows dual nationality. It doesn't keep track of persons who are something else besides a U.S. citizen. And there is no such thing as being less than a full U.S. citizen with all the rights. We have no interest in a person's dual nationality or whether he votes in a foreign election - that's not an expatriating act."

useless hand-me-down
In my view, Section 40 is a useless hand-me-down from former colonial masters. It does nothing for the Jamaican people and only hampers our ability to draw from a great pool of our talented people. It is also out of step with modern ideas of globalisation and international cooperation. It might even be repugnant to the idea of democracy and human rights, as set out by the United Nations in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Jamaica signed this agreement in December 1966, and to continue with Section 40 might well put us in breach of Article 25, which reads in part:

"Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors."

It is time to exorcise rather than exercise Section 40. Can Jamaicans dare hope that members of the new Parliament will together and with due haste, do what is necessary to revise or remove it from the Constitution?


Ken Jones is a veteran journalist and general secretary of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs. He may be contacted at Ken Jones alllerdyce@hotmail.com.

[Karl]

Ken overlooks - possible conflict(s) of interest! Which interest would/can such a national serve when in our parliament?

...and, Norman Manley's stated command that you cannot act 'travel on the passport of the foreign entity'.

...and, now seems inconsistent as he had in the past raised concerns about the oft misquoted statement (not used in the context intended it to be used and actually used it in) and falls right in-line with that which he had reservations about -"the law is not a shackle".

Who would not feel unease if a foreign national had to make decisions in parliament affecting one's life and one country's well-being - particularly if the competing interests were both countries? It would be interesting to see the number of Jamaicans who would raise their hands signifying - No Problem?!

The fact is such 'dual citizens in our parliament' discussions fit well in the current rejections signified by the "dem an hus" debates we have had on this site - and, those discussions had not then even risen to level of parliamentary representations!