Tweet
EDITORIAL - The strength of oaths of office
published: Saturday | September 22, 2007
Now that Mr. Don Wehby has formally resigned from GraceKennedy, we hope that the brouhaha aroused by his appointment as a Minister without Portfolio in the Ministry of Finance will subside. As we reported yesterday, in the case of Mr. Danny Williams' association with the Michael Manley administration in the late 1970s, there is precedent for this level of linkages with prominent private sector personalities.
We can only speculate that the sensitivities of the post-election readjustments at the political and administrative levels have given rise to the objections raised. These may also have been spin-offs to what has transpired from the close margins in some of the parliamentary seats and the legal proceedings now being pursued which have given a tentative quality to this transition period.
In a sense, there is still a clutching at straws, as it were, even while there continues to be contrasting attitudes on the part of the victors and the vanquished. We have yet to see any positive response from the PNP Opposition leadership to the 'olive branch' overtures from Prime Minister Bruce Golding. Such expressions may have to await both the formal and informal gathering of the newly-elected Members of Parliament who are scheduled to be sworn in at Gordon House next week.
After all, the parliamentary chamber is supposed to be a civilised arena of political contention subject to time-honoured rules of engagement.
There is one aspect of the contretemps over the Wehby appointment that is worthy of serious contemplation. It is fair enough to argue, as former Finance Minister, Dr. Omar Davies, has done, that such appointments affect a matter of principle, even while conceding that the personality at the centre of the argument is of the highest integrity.
But what weight is given to the oath of office such appointees are required to take? As one correspondent argued in a Letter to the Editor, Mr. Wehby should be trusted to live up to his oath; and that oath specifies transgressions which can ultimately invoke legal action.
It may well be that the oaths that 60 Members of Parliament, ministers of government, and other functionaries in the infrastructure of Government are required to take are simply empty recitations that the formal ceremonials dictate - without weight or serious purpose and commitment. If that is so, on what is this theoretical principle based?
The moral underpinnings of the laws and regulations under which we live is the very essence of our civil society - and we are all in it together.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
published: Saturday | September 22, 2007
Now that Mr. Don Wehby has formally resigned from GraceKennedy, we hope that the brouhaha aroused by his appointment as a Minister without Portfolio in the Ministry of Finance will subside. As we reported yesterday, in the case of Mr. Danny Williams' association with the Michael Manley administration in the late 1970s, there is precedent for this level of linkages with prominent private sector personalities.
We can only speculate that the sensitivities of the post-election readjustments at the political and administrative levels have given rise to the objections raised. These may also have been spin-offs to what has transpired from the close margins in some of the parliamentary seats and the legal proceedings now being pursued which have given a tentative quality to this transition period.
In a sense, there is still a clutching at straws, as it were, even while there continues to be contrasting attitudes on the part of the victors and the vanquished. We have yet to see any positive response from the PNP Opposition leadership to the 'olive branch' overtures from Prime Minister Bruce Golding. Such expressions may have to await both the formal and informal gathering of the newly-elected Members of Parliament who are scheduled to be sworn in at Gordon House next week.
After all, the parliamentary chamber is supposed to be a civilised arena of political contention subject to time-honoured rules of engagement.
There is one aspect of the contretemps over the Wehby appointment that is worthy of serious contemplation. It is fair enough to argue, as former Finance Minister, Dr. Omar Davies, has done, that such appointments affect a matter of principle, even while conceding that the personality at the centre of the argument is of the highest integrity.
But what weight is given to the oath of office such appointees are required to take? As one correspondent argued in a Letter to the Editor, Mr. Wehby should be trusted to live up to his oath; and that oath specifies transgressions which can ultimately invoke legal action.
It may well be that the oaths that 60 Members of Parliament, ministers of government, and other functionaries in the infrastructure of Government are required to take are simply empty recitations that the formal ceremonials dictate - without weight or serious purpose and commitment. If that is so, on what is this theoretical principle based?
The moral underpinnings of the laws and regulations under which we live is the very essence of our civil society - and we are all in it together.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.