THE EDITOR, Sir:

Is the recent proposal of the JLP to dispense with the Ministry of Local Government, driven solely by the expediency to realise funds for education, or in part, by a long-standing apparent dislike of Local Govern-ment, which led to the ruthless savaging of this institution in 1985?

Of course, while abolishing the Ministry of Local Government does not necessarily imply a similar fate for local government, the absence of an accompanying thoughtful observation on its position in the scheme of things, is cause for concern.

For instance, will local government be hitched to a ministry which has its focus directed primarily to preferred areas, leaving the affairs of the local authorities to languish in a state of disinterest?

Or more optimistically, could it be the intention to accord the local authorities substantial autonomy with the resulting loosening of central government's stranglehold? Or will it be just discarded? What in fact is the commitment to local government?

In 1985 several functions of the local authorities were peremptorily transferred to Central Government in an unbelievable centralising mania. Meanwhile, two centralised bodies were constituted to operate two of the most basic local services. This removed from the purview of the locally elected representatives, the monitoring and administrative role they ought to be performing on behalf of the people. In which other western democratic countries are fire and public cleansing administered outside of local government bodies?

If this country accepts that in addition to providing vital local services, local government is the most credible vehicle for participation from the grassroots up, as well as a potentially stabilising force, deriving from its proximity to the people, it ought to be entrenched along with its core functions, in the constitution.

I am, etc.,

WILTON F. SOLOMON

Discovery Bay