By Phyllis Thomas, News EditorTHERE IS one more reason to question Prime Minister P.J. Patterson's moral authority to tell anyone about values and attitudes.
Dr. Omar Davies admitted that the Government, prior to the election, made public spending decisions at the expense of other pressing matters in the country, and then further insulted the country with that load of rubbish he called an apology. But instead of doing what any other Prime Minister with integrity would, that is, reprimand Dr. Davies even if the will to fire him was not there, the ultra-loyal Mr. Patterson said: "The Minister retains my full confidence as Prime Minister..." That could drain whatever residue of respect people had for Mr. Patterson as Prime Minister.
At the same time, however, the answer to the problem cannot be to oppose, oppose, oppose to bring down the Government. That is grossly irresponsible and will never ever get my support.
Those issues occupied the Main News last week with people expressing outrage, disappointment, disgust and surprise.
But I fail to understand why people would be surprised. It's the same old same old, Mr. Patterson maintaining his track record of giving support to wayward Cabinet Ministers and justifying their actions no matter how scandalous, even when the rest of the country cries foul and when the evidence of their less than sound actions stare us all in the face. Mr. Seaga with his same old inflammatory reaction...bring down the Government, with the country stewing in instability and simmering in uncertainty.
Dr. Davies apologised for the tone in which he admitted to comrades about those unsound financial decisions. (He later apologised for calling members of the Employers' Federation thieves). He didn't apologise for the scandalous manner in which the Government used the money that I and the other taxpayers worked so damn hard for, which put the country in further debt. Yet Mr. Patterson is saying Dr. Davies' remarks were taken out of context.
So what did Dr. Davies mean when he said: "Last year on the road to the fourth term there was no way I was going to stop any project which we had on the ground ... Even with the flooding, even with the other things them...there is no way I was going to stop the projects. If it was another time I probably would have held back on other things and deal with the flood damage...but there was no time and I am not going to make any apologies for it."
And when he said: "Admittedly, continuing the projects helped our cause as the Government in power but I asked this: which Government, whether in the USA, Canada or the U.K. would have stopped a project in the middle of a campaign to give the Opposition an advantage?" What does Mr. Patterson think he meant?
Against that background, how can the Prime Minister back Dr. Davies? He doesn't just back him, he blamed all of us wicked, ungrateful, bad-minded people for saying all those things about poor Dr. Davies and taking what he said out of context.
Then Mr. Seaga with his own brand of recklessness and obsession with Jamaica House, has only succeeded in shifting public attention from a situation which is going to affect us for a long while. The attention is now turned to him and not in any complimentary way.
All of us are disappointed by the actions of the Government in this matter and want to get to the root of it to prevent a recurrence. And if the Opposition takes a position to be strong, to lead this drive to ensure that it doesn't happen again, the country would throw its support behind such actions. But when the goal is merely to bring down the Government it becomes as irresponsible as that which Omar Davies admitted to.
Mr. Seaga has said that he would be using legal means to accomplish his mission to bring down the Government. But try telling that to some of the half idiots out there. The language used can be interpreted to be confrontational even though that might not be the intent. But then, bringing down the Government is bringing down the government and that process can only be confrontational in Jamaica.
The only way such a process could be non-confrontational, is with a strong Opposition that has the backing of equally strong and determined civil society. That way any foundation that is built on corruption can be successfully undermined without crossing legal or ethical boundaries. Outside of that, confrontation is inevitable and confrontation the country can do without. In fact, we should strongly resist it. It will backfire and the damage from the reverberation will be irreparable. It will result in further devastation of the fragile economy and an escalation of crime and violence.
So Mr. Seaga, you can oppose, oppose, oppose because the role of the Opposition is to be state watchdog, advocate for change, development, justice and equity. But when you oppose, oppose, oppose merely to bring down the Government especially with the volatility of the Jamaican environment, where tempers are short and murder is sure, then bringing down the Government becomes an irresponsible act.
PM'S FAT PAY INCREASE
It's now two weeks since I dared the 60 Members of Parliament to voluntarily roll back the pay increase they got by 97 per cent, in the interest of the country. No one has budged. But another pay day
approaches.
