By Vernon Daley, Parliamentary Reporter
I'M A little bit disappointed with some public comments about last week's marathon debate in the House of Representatives. A number of influential persons, including some of my colleagues in the media, raised questions about the usefulness of the exercise given the many "important" and "urgent" matters affecting the country.
By this logic, one can only assume they don't think the possible corruption of a Minister of Finance, is something we should worry our heads about. Many of us talk about poverty and economic decline in Jamaica and pretend that they have nothing to do with the level of corruption in the society.
Whether we like Dr. Omar Davies or not; whether we knew him when he was wearing short pants or not; whether we think he has been a great Finance Minister in the past or not the fact of the matter is that his recent controversial statements properly raise the question of whether he is fit to continue to hold the post of Finance Minister.
And where else was that issue to be properly ventilated and tested than in the nation's Parliament the highest court in the land. Some argue that the debate was irrelevant because it was a fait accompli that the governing People's National Party (PNP) would have used its majority to defeat the censure motion brought by the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (PNP).
It is true that Dr. Davies' position was always safe but the issue was properly thrashed out and Jamaicans had an opportunity to draw their own conclusions on whether there was a credible defence of the Finance Minister's statements.
Having sat through that debate, I have to say that the defence of Dr. Davies by his colleagues was quite weak and insubstantial. Speaker after speaker on the government benches rose to say what a wonderful Minister of Finance Dr. Davies was and what he did in the past, ignoring entirely the specific charges of corruption and fiscal irresponsibility that had been brought against him.
Roger Clarke's contribution was particularly laughable. He talked about knowing the Minister for many years and was sure that Dr. Davies would not get involved in any act of corruption. He, however, failed to state how he would characterise the Minister's admission that he had made financial decisions, designed to foster a fourth term for the PNP to the detriment of the economy.
But, I'm not surprised that the defence of the Finance was so weak, for what Dr. Davies said at that PNP constituency conference a couple of weeks ago, is quite indefensible. In fact, had he said that in any mature society, he would have had to tender his resignation. Many have refrained from calling for the resignation of Dr. Davies because they do not think there is any other person in the government who could handle the job as Finance Minister. However, we should make up our minds, as a society, whether we want to protect the personalities of government or the systems of government.
One thing is for sure, we are all going to pay for Dr. Davies' very expensive decisions when the 2003/2004 Budget is presented in April.
Overall, last week's debate was not of a particularly high quality. Both sides used the opportunity to score points, pointing to the acts of corruption, which took place when the other party occupied office. As it were, they tried to point out which party had the greatest acts of corruption. I wonder when our leaders will realise that most Jamaicans have tuned out of this puerile approach to serious public matters?
To my mind, the most intelligent contribution to that debate, fittingly came from the JLP's Andrew Holness the youngest MP in the House. It was sober, direct and sharp. Mr. Holness asked the very important question: if we don't take the recent statements by the Finance Minister seriously and reprimand him for them, how will we know which statements to take seriously in the future? The danger of not being able to trust the precision and honesty of a Finance Minister's statements, is evident.
There is one other matter from that debate last week that deserves a comment. There was much public consternation about the "rowdy" behaviour of the MPs in the House. To be truthful, the debate often threatened to become very chaotic. But let's remember that in the tradition of Westminster parliamentary democracy, that's nothing out of the ordinary.
In fact, the House of Commons in the England the mother of our parliamentary system is often the scene of far more heckling and cursing than we have witnessed in our Parliament. In the cut and thrust of debate, a few sparks will fly. There's nothing wrong with that.
However, there is need for parliamentarians to respect the rulings of the Speaker and operate within the rules governing Parliament. The JLP should take heed. As Leader of Government Business, Dr. Peter Phillips, pointed out last week, we could all rue the day parliamentarians start defying the rulings of the Speaker of the House.
Send comments to: vernon.daley@gleanerjm.com
