By Vernon Daley, Staff Reporter 
Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, right, opening the debate on the amendments to two companion Bills enabling changes in the Oath of Allegiance. At left, Opposition Spokesman on Justice, Delroy Chuck, responds. - Junior Dowie/Staff Photographer
THE GOVERNMENT last night used its majority in the House of Representatives to push through legislation providing for a new Oath of Allegiance to replace the one public officials now pledge to The Queen.
This followed a heated debate between Government and Opposition MPs in which both sides accused each other of 'playing politics' to gain an advantage with the electorate.
There was loud desk banging by Government MPs after passage of the two companion Bills, which aim to have parliamentarians, ministers and judges swear allegiance to Jamaica and the Constitution rather than the British Monarch. Forty Government MPs voted for the changes, while the two Opposition members present abstained.
"Every nation has to have its own ethos, its own symbols," said Prime Minister P.J. Patterson in opening the debate on the Bills.
He said he could not think of anyone who had to take the pledge who did not have misgivings about doing so. In taking the oath of office after being re-elected as Prime Minister in 1997, Mr. Patterson had promised to do away with the Oath.
However, very little had been done over the period until last week when legislation was brought to the House and referred to a committee. Yester-day, Mr. Patterson suggested the public debate on the matter had dragged on for too long and it was now time to have the matter dealt with.
"There is a time and a tide and that time is now," he said.
Opposition MPs Abe Dabdoub and Delroy Chuck, who last week walked out of the parliamentary committee studying the legislation, yesterday continued their opposition to what they claimed was the Government's arrogant approach to changing the Oath.
Mr. Chuck said the Opposition agreed that public officials should not swear allegiance to The Queen but felt that the people should have been consulted because the new Oath requires a change to the Constitution.
"The process is wrong," he insisted. He suggested that even though it requires only a simple majority in both the House and Senate to pass the legislation, it sets a bad precedent not to hear the views of the public.
However, the Leader of Government Business, Dr. Peter Phillips, accused the Opposition of trying the stall the passage of the Bills for political purposes.
"What we are seeing is an unwillingness to put aside political advantage for one moment," he charged.
This triggered a fiery response from Mr. Dabdoub, who himself accused the Government of playing politics last week.
He said the Government had failed to undertake a genuine consultative approach to amending the Oath, accusing the Prime Minister of not telling Opposition Leader Edward Seaga of his intention to take the Bills to the House last week.
"The Government ought to be the one accused of political advantage," he said.
Tomorrow the Bills will be considered by the 21-seat Senate, where there are 11 Government members, eight from the Opposition and two Independents.
