Jamaica Observer

Dear Editor,

As our cops fortify a special unit while eyeing new tactics to cripple criminals, the police should understudy the techniques used by the senior (criminal executive officers) CEOs/dons and how they organise security downtown.

The dons provided mainly on-the-ground security, 24hrs security, tantamount to community policing. They had available all information on the criminal actors and their families in their jurisdiction. The police weakness downtown is that by 6:00 pm or 7:00 pm all or most police and handcarts on Barry or Princess streets are nowhere to be found; so a break-in between Saturday evening and Monday morning could be completed with great efficiency. The private security companies that mainly do money pick-up get around that by having remote security with the use of cameras and deploy a force appropriately. If one cannot afford that they have to work with the CEOs; the police is of little or no effect in that case.

The police needs to work with greater and efficient use of technology and on-the-ground information and personnel. The most effective policing downtown would involve some home-grown district constables, foot soldiers and blue-seamed officers. They know the culprits and you have to be as resolute, harsh and respectful combined with the leadership qualities of any don.

The JCF police patrols seem to move/operate aimlessly; arriving after the criminals are long gone. They should carve out the place in squares and have security in places similar to how the dons did. These higher level dons should be incorporated/consulted in preparing effective tactics to cripple criminals. Burying our heads in the moral/intellectual sand heap will only make things worse.

Michael Spence

Kingston 6

micspen2@hotmail.com

We need to police as the dons did

-->

Dear Editor,

Much has been said and written against the dismissal of Kern Spencer et al without expressed reason by the judge. It is my respectful submission that any judgement issued without reason is prima facie arbitrary; and while the judgement may be sound, it may not be.

Fair, open trial underpins judicial hearing, and even where hearings are permitted to be in private, decisions are invariably to be made public, because the public is not only presumed to have an interest, but absolutely entitled to hear the result with reason(s) of such proceedings at the time of delivery of judgement; as justice must not only be done but manifestly seen to be done.

Judges too often deliver verdicts and their reasons on an indefinite date. That must be discontinued. The judgement should, as far as practicable, be delivered with the reason at the same time to avoid, for example, delays in appeals and the generation of interlocutory proceedings.

In Kern et al's case, since Her Honour R M Pusey did not take the time out of her plate overflowing with work, I am calling on the powers that be to give her time to produce a written reason for her judgement in this most important case of general public interest and in the face of continued widespread criticism.

It can never be late to do what is right as there should be no time to do what is wrong.

Owen S Crosbie

Mandeville, Manchester

oss@cwjamaica.com

Give RM Pusey time off to write reason for Kern judgement

-->

Dear Editor,

This is the time of the year when the House of Representatives gather for the annual budget debate. Currently, there are aspects of the budget that have become very controversial among the masses. One of the main controversial issues is the tax levy that is to be imposed on bank withdrawals. My focus is not on the tax levy, but the fact that the budget debate is merely a façade.

Dr Peter Phillips and Opposition spokesman of finance, Audley Shaw, would be the main contenders of this debate; in other words, the stars of the show. The onus was on Dr Phillips to draft a budget presentation which would convey the strategic plans the Government has developed to manoeuvre the country into prosperity.

Dr Phillips, after hours or maybe days of thorough cogitation and advice, has drafted a $540-billion budget which is far beyond what the Government currently has. As such, there is a $140- billion gap that needs to be filled. Out of that amount, $6.7 billion remains outstanding, but how is he planning to achieve this?

When he decided on a way he could fill this gap Audley Shaw ensured that he pointed out the defects in plans, and in turn, proposed what he thinks the Government could or should have done. This has been going on for years, so why is the country the way it is?

Both parties are claiming that they have the panacea to our economic and social problems. Our current debt to GDP is a little under $2 trillion, our crime rate is constantly increasing and Security Minister Peter Bunting is being heavily criticised for his proposed "divine intervention". Over 40 per cent of females at our women's centers are under the age of 16 years. The child abuse rate has increased by about 40 per cent, and the list goes on. All the mentioned problems are indicative of a current social and economic atmosphere. How is the budget debate going to address these issues? How are our resources going to be tactically used to ensure growth and economic stability? I am sure that our politicians have all the answers. The best way to do this, is to debate the budget, don't you think?

Beside finance minister, Dr Peter Phillips, and Opposition spokesman of finance Audley Shaw, others have their various contributions to the debate such as Opposition Leader Andrew Holness. He also poked holes in the proposition's arguments. Being that Audley Shaw has already made the proposals, he decided to look at social issues, such as the review of the buggery law that is long overdue. All that is happening now is just mere criticism, one criticising the other, claiming they could do a better job, yet our dollar is sliding. How is the budget debate helping the Jamaican people? All that is being done are utterances of false hope, for when it is over, they return to the corruption and backwardness.

Kenroy Davis

Clark's Town, Trelawny

kenroy_davis13@yahoo.com

Budget debate a façade

-->

Dear Editor,

It is a human tendency to take many things in life for granted. Recently I was required to source some personal data from a group of young adults. At first I thought how simple and routine such an exercise would be. However, I was in for a bit of shock.

I asked a particular youngster for her full name, which she told me. However, for this specific purpose one's middle name was optional. She knew her middle name, but was unable to spell it. I was amazed and a bit embarrassed for her. I have always taken for granted that by age 16 all children would know how to spell their names. The best this youngster could do was to tell me her seven-letter middle name. It is quite logical to think this young adult might have never seen her middle name in print. How is this possible I asked myself?

One's name and address are among the first things a child should learn at home. There is clearly a breakdown somewhere. Occasionally, one hears of students who were seen wandering the road and when asked where they live they are clueless. When asked to give the name of their parents they are only able to give their parents' aliases, "Pam Pam". This is certainly not good parenting. It is necessary that parents and guardians spend more time with their children, especially during the formative years to ensure that every child can at least give basic information about themselves and their parents.

This incident speaks to a wider issue outside of the classroom setting. It speaks to the breakdown of family life in the society. The home should be the first place of teaching and learning. Some may argue it is a case of neglect on the part of the parent/guardian. However, there comes a time when the child must take some responsibility for the direction of his/her life. There are too many youngsters in society who are clueless and void of direction. In the same manner in which we berate those parents and guardians who have been found wanting in terms of their responsibilities, we must also put some pressure on our young adults to become more socially responsible and responsive. As we make preparations to commemorate Child's Month 2014, let us redouble and recommit our efforts in making the circumstances of each child better. It takes a village to raise a child. It also takes all of us as Jamaicans to move the country forward.

Wayne Campbell

waykam@yahoo.com

www.wayaine.blogspot.com

The village must raise the child

-->

Dear Editor,

The prime minister's contribution to the 2014 Budget Debate was a thorough disappointment to the generations of attached Jamaicans, who are mildly interested in the political process, and now look to the United States to satisfy their political appetite as cable news feeds them colourful First World democracy and ideologies. This then manifests in their daily anti-government tweets and Facebook postings.

PM Simpson Miller apparently belongs to a generation who would have accepted such an unbecoming display of "smoke and mirrors" in a speech supposedly to inform the population of the People's National Party successes over the past two years. It seems all it was meant to do was spoonfeed party sympathisers -- not necessarily loyalists -- who may have been acting up because they fell prey to the new and improved charms of Prince Andrew "#AndrewOntheBus" Holness and the usual vigour of Audley "Man-A-Yaad" Shaw.

In today's world of follow, share and like, our leaders and older politicians are still operating under the guise that "those people won't understand, so they won't care". Both sides are guilty of letting the governance loopholes slide, which cause unaccountability, bureaucracy, and hence corruption. These loopholes are becoming too wide to ignore, especially now that we are tying the loose ends of Jamaican society that have plague us for too long -- the economy is a pillar, but governance is the unstable foundation.

Some of the important questions looming that must be looked at as important national and constitutional priorities include: federalisation, constitutional reform and oversight, term limits, campaign financing, removing MPs as ministers, elected officials accountability, meaningful local government reform (leading to autonomy), third party accessibility, and many other governance practices.

Madam Prime Minister, balancing the books, while balancing people's lives is honourable. If you're serious about people power, then truly return the power to the people by allowing the foundation of governance to become modern, stable and balanced.

Mario Boothe

m.raphael.b@gmail.com

Fix the governance loopholes

-->

Dear Editor,

Regarding Mark Wignall's thoughtful April 27 column, 'Will we miss out on the ganja money?', the clock is ticking, Jamaica, don't miss the ganja boat.

United States President Barack Obama is allowing marijuana legalisation to move forward. The next president may not be so enlightened. Jamaica would be wise to legalise ganja now before the US starts using its superpower status to bully other nations once again.

It's not just about opportunistic timing, it's the right thing to do.

Marijuana prohibition is indefensible. If the goal of marijuana prohibition is to subsidise violent drug cartels, prohibition is a grand success. The drug war distorts supply and demand dynamics so that big money grows on little trees. If the goal is to deter use, marijuana prohibition is a catastrophic failure.

The United States has almost doubled the rate of marijuana use as against the Netherlands where marijuana is legal. The criminalisation of citizens who prefer marijuana to martinis has no basis in science. The war on marijuana consumers is a failed cultural inquisition, not an evidence-based public health campaign.

In Jamaica and all around the world, it's time to stop the pointless arrests and instead tax legal marijuana.

Robert Sharpe, MPA

rsharpe@csdp.org

Don't miss the ganja boat, Ja

-->

Dear Editor,

Recently, in my neck of the woods, Christiana, I saw where two businesses owned and operated by Jamaicans have been sold out to Chinese who will continue operating them or try something else with the space.

This has been the pattern for the past two or three years, where seven of the nine supermarkets in this town are now owned and operated by Chinese immigrants.

Personally, I don't have a problem with this development, but I have a few concerns and questions to ask.

I have often heard it said that the Chinese operate tax-free for five years in this country. My question is why? We need to have a system in place so ensure a level playing field for all people who wish to invest their money and operate businesses in this country.

It can be argued that this is an incentive to encourage overseas investors to invest in Jamaica. Is this only extended to the Chinese? Such a policy is only meaningful if we as a country can gain significant benefit from it.

Whenever the Chinese take over any businesses they seem, in my view, to employ less people than were employed by the previous owners. Is it that they are smarter than we are that they find a way to cut expenses right from the start?

I am also concerned that we are not checking on the statutory deductions of the persons employed to them. Do we ensure that these deductions are paid over to the government so the country can benefit from this form of taxation.

I am also concerned about where they send their profits. Do they keep profits for re-investment in Jamaica or do they send them back to their own country. The main concern is if their doing business here help us in Jamaica or is it to the benefit of China more.

In the final analysis, I believe that a five-year tax-free incentive is too great a price to pay for the little return we get from them being here. I am proposing that this policy be reviewed immediately with a view to levelling the playing field so that our Jamaican business people can at the least compete.

Gary Rowe

Christiana, Manchester

magnett0072004@yahoo.com

Revisit Chinese no-tax policy

-->

Dear Editor,

I am baffled at some of the comments and responses I have been seeing and hearing in regard to the Alpha Boys' Home Saga. It is the belief of many that the minister did the right thing; I agree to an extent. However I am not in agreement with the approach taken. Did the minister really have to be that detailed? Why did she neglect to speak of the financial issues? Is it that in revealing the financial troubles of the institution it would have publicised the lack of attention from the relevant ministry?

My main issue with this particular case is what can stem from the labelling of persons affiliated with the home and/or school. We in a society dubbed worldwide as homophobic. Why can't people see the danger in the pronouncements of the minister in "one of the most homophobic" societies?

Let's weigh the pros and the cons. I applaud the minister for making an attempt at the concept of transparency. I believe it is fair that she announced the closure of the home, a place known to many for its 100 plus years of contributions. She seemingly attended to her ministerial duties by being available for consultations with the beloved sisters at the home.

On the other hand, complete transparency was not necessary in this instance, as it produced potential long-term trauma for an already vulnerable group. The negative impacts of labelling/stereotyping have already taken effect. The 'good will have to suffer for the bad' maxim is brought to life, ie all boys affiliated with the home and school will be seen as sexual predators.

It really doesn't take a magnifying glass for one to see the disaster in the minister's pronouncements. This is not about covering up what is deviant, but rather protecting what is good. the purpose of the home.

JKH

Portmore

jkayeharris@gmail.com

The good (and bad)

of the Alpha issue

-->

Dear Editor,

The recent announcement to not pursue the bank withdrawal tax by the minister of finance undoubtedly will evoke mixed reactions in the days ahead. To a greater degree, many will celebrate this move as a victory; for the voice of the victims have spoken valiantly and commendations are deserving to those who were vociferous in their cry for foul.

There still remains a matter of vexing concern. Already there is the intimation of ascribing self accolades trumpeting from a certain quarter: "This Government listens." Is there really an attempt to seek political mileage from a colossal blunder? What has become of listening before speaking? I dare say this intimation is by far not a best practice on the part of any administration who seeks to model active listening skills. If this is an attempt to squeeze a political good out of an evil act it can only add to what can be described as the crime of apathy in the first place.

Did the minister listen to the voice of conscience when contemplating the imposition? Was the decision to impose the tax an informed one? And, if so, who or what was consulted? It would seem to me that genuine concern, compassion and sound judgement were not appealed to. If so, the minister would not have postponed his listening to this late hour after the damage was done. A case for inactive listening on the part of the minister has been made. A genuine apology from the minister on behalf of the Government for such lack of consideration and actions characteristic of indifference would have resonated more pleasantly in the aftermath of the previous traumatic announcement. A better kind of listening in this context would have been to first listen to the hurt that is potential, and not when it's actual. Listening now to the heart of the minister in repealing the initial imposition is made more difficult because it comes across as delayed listening, which is deemed damaging to the character of good governance.

Donville Colquhoun

Edmonton, Canada

dcahoun@hotmail.com

Delayed listening caused the colossal tax blunder

-->

Dear Editor,

A photograph caught my eye in the recent media (mainstream and social) coverage of the Carnival celebrations. It was of a heavily pregnant woman outfitted in the garb of bacchanalia on the streets of Kingston. She was half-nude, barely covered, decked in bright orange, glitter and feathers, with her precocious foetus rivalling for the position of prominence.

I mused whether the same concessions would have been given to another female feting at a dancehall party, her protruding stomach exposed, babe in utero, and mother engaged in the sounds and movements of dancehall revelry.

I imagine that the public would have had a different reaction to this display. For dancehall was created out of the bowels of this country. Yet, though shades of similar elements exist between soca and dancehall, many, including our radio stations, create imaginary distinctions.

Our public conscience should denounce both, or neither. Yes, our country continues to be beleaguered by episodes of inconsistency, the fare of foreign imports versus our rejected local offerings, lines of demarcation drawn between what uptown supports and what the masses embrace.

While not being an advocate of dancehall, the hypocrisy is striking and revolting. Still, our posterity may be grateful to the half-naked, pregnant reveller for the (re) birth of Bacchus or Bacchante.

Janene Laing

St Andrew

Pregnant Carnival hypocrisy

-->

Dear Editor,

I read your editorial of May 1, 2014 and noticed a quote from Minister Phillip Paulwell saying that the IDB's refusal to fund Jamaica's energy project is a "damnation" of our country. Maybe he is correct.

Where were you and the rest of Jamaica when Paulwell was interferring with the bidding process and squeezed in EWI after the process was closed? Where were you and the rest of Jamaica when the contractor general (CG) wrote to Parliament informing them that Paulwell was improperly faciilitating EWI in the bidding process? Did you write an editorial backing the CG?

What about Parliament? They were warned by the CG and they did nothing to rectify the situation. It's only now that the IDB has spoken and refused to fund the project that folks have now started to see the light.

We all need to wake up and smell the coffee. If Paulwell was stopped quickly when he started Jamaica would not have found itself in this pickle.

R Wilson

wilsonr@cwjamaica.blackberry.net

We gave Paulwell too much rope

-->

Dear Editor,

The splendid photograph on last Sunday's Agenda of a rushing, bubbling stream with a picturesque bridge in the background was breathtaking.

Scenes like this must inspire lovers of nature, such as Diana McCaulay and Peter Espeut, to continue to articulate the obvious to the unknowing and the uncaring.

However, the caption "We haven't built a dam...since the 1920s" needs elaboration.

In the 1940s the reservoir at Mona was built. A dam was also constructed on the Hope River then a lively stream, whose waters were channelled to the reservoir as the main source of supply.

Severe deforestation and poor farming practices have depleted the stream to a miserly flow nowadays and create flood devastation during and after heavy rains.

In the 1980s an inlet was constructed on the lower Yallahs River in St Thomas, which captured water, piped across hill and dale, to flow into and provide the main source of the Mona Reservoir.

Let this titbit be noted for the record.

Courtney Ilgner

Kingston 8

We did dam it...in the 40s

-->

Dear Editor,

Children are often admired for their humility, but they also possess some unfortunate attributes; for example their inability at times to take responsibility for their actions. At first most onlookers sympathise with youngsters, but eventually maturity is thrust upon them, however some opt not to evolve, since it is easier to identify scapegoats.

This is a replica of Jamaica's political system. Politicians are viewed as villains, but none of them could implement unsavory policies without the assistance of a complicit electorate. One of the bigger flaws with our political system is that its emphasis is on welfare and not wealth creation, and too many of us accept the view that pro-poor programmes should be a priority of a responsbile government. Consequently, we have no problem in supporting politicians who spend billions on social programmes, even if the money is borrowed. And, ironically, these are the same people who accuse the poor of being too dependent on politicians.

Before we can discuss social safety nets for the poor we must craft a strategy for long-term growth. It is impossible to tap into major industries, like electronics, without making sufficient investments in research and human capital. The fruits which countries like Taiwan are now reaping are due to years of economic planning and close colloboration with the private sector. Many politicians proudly boast about creating social programmes to assist the poor, but it would be better to finance the boosting of R&D talent. Social programmes will ameliorate the living conditions of the less fortunate for a short period. But investing in the former will result in innovations which will make our businesses and economy more competitive.

For example, Singapore's ability to train and retain R&D talent has made it an ideal location for high-tech firms to establish new plants. Now is the time to choose what we want, do we want to develop a global business brand or is it our goal to create a class of permanent dependents? Furthermore, we have never done a cost-benefit analysis to determine the success of these anti-poverty programmes so we cannot laud them. Patronising politicians may sound appealing, but more than anything else those affected by poverty need an environment to empower themselves, not a government handout.

Portia Simpson Miller likes to brag about her dedication to the poor, but it is only her committment to creating a dynamic, free enterprise system, which will boost their living standards, is worth its weight in gold. Jamaica's future is in the hands of the electorate, if we are truly serious about developing our country then we must reject populist politicians, taher than elect them and then complain like that immature child who is never the cause of his problems.

Lipton Matthews

lo_matthews@yahoo.com

This 'love the poor' talk is keeping us poor

-->

Dear Editor,

In 2010, the JLP Government went to the IMF for help in squeezing yet more from the Jamaican taxpayer in order to service the public debt. In 2013, the PNP did likewise, arguing that by giving the debt higher priority than public services, economic growth and jobs would eventually follow. Many have questioned whether the continued austerity will do more than satisfy the creditors' insatiable appetite.

Is growth possible in a contractionary economic environment or will small entrepreneurs continue to struggle, leaving it to the whims of foreign capital to come to our rescue?

Will the sacrifices, felt more by those already struggling on low or no incomes, be worth it?

Can the debt burden, in fact, be reduced significantly in this way or do we need a radical re-think of our strategy?

This strategy would include putting an end to borrowing, a forensic audit and a focus on growth, driven locally, with a redirected primary surplus providing more jobs and an end to personal and national dependency.

The budget debate came to an end last week without these larger issues being addressed. The discussions must continue.

If you want to join a discussion which looks at the wider options, join us at the CVSS, 2D Camp Road, Kingston on Sunday, May 11 at 2pm. Speakers include Ralston Hyman, Danny Roberts, Dorothy Maitland-Price (small entrepreneur from August Town), Paul Jennings, Xavier Malcolm, and Lloyd D'Aguilar (rights activist).

Paul Ward

Kingston 7

pgward72@gmail.com

Stop squeezng the people to pay the debt

-->

Dear Editor,

Your editorial cartoon in Sunday's newspaper (May 4) is deplorable. You really take Jamaicans for fools. One day you are portraying the Most Honourable Prime Minister in a most dishonourable way, displaying your contempt for poor black people and your self-hate. Now you purport to be representing the same category of persons you so callously disregard.

Your cartoon would have us believe that brown and white Jamaicans are beating upon Minister Paulwell because he so heroically wants to bring US 12.88 cents energy to Jamaica. Presumably, they are doing this because they don't like black people. We are tired of that nonsense.

There was a time that the majority of us black people would buy that. Not anymore. Misguided and dangerous policy is so, whether the perpetrator is black, brown or white. There is no shield because you are black. There is no lower standard of conduct and judgement expected.

The simple matter is that we all want lower priced energy. No one profits more from lower priced energy than business people. The reason that they are upset with Mr Paulwell and opposed to his continued stewardship is that they do not believe that EWI is capable of delivering on its promises and they question Mr Paulwell's true motives and his competence to deliver. The evidence is clear that the minister is interfering in the process in a manner that crosses the line, which is not in keeping with proper governance, and that exposes the country to significant risks, losses and delays. That is why people are upset.

What is the cost to Jamaica if, as seems highly possible, this project fails in 12 months? 18 months ? Who is going to pay for that loss to Jamaicans? Please stop trying to use the "colour card" to distort reality. We tried that already and it failed for us. Why didn't your cartoonist include the contractor general, the Jamaican Civil Society Coalition, and other groups who, the last time I checked, were black people? All of us want accountability, good governance and better lives. We will accept wisdom from wherever it comes. We don't give two hoots whether you are black, brown, white, male, female. We just want to get ahead. Those old tricks will no longer work. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time. While you check your behaviour, please also stop representing the prime minister in the manner you do. It is OK to disagree, but it is deplorable to denigrate.

R Murray

Mona

mrachel338@google.com

We don't give two hoots whether you are black, brown, white...

-->

Dear Editor,

The less I see of the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Holness the more I like him. I arrived at that conclusion after watching his "Alice in Wonderland-like" performance on Cliff Hughes' Impact the other evening .

Just in case one wonders why I watched the programme, given my view of Holness, let me state I was with a group so I had to sit through the interview in mental torture.

The matter of the moment -- the granting of a contract to EWI — seemed to be easy fodder for Holness to chew up. But, in his haste to score political points, he took the viewers on a merry-go-round.

For instance, he suggested that the matter should be taken over by the already overworked prime minister, whom he accused of 'over-travelling'. That would be disastrous.

I believe that a matter of such importance should be handled by the minister, because it is he who the people elected and, should the project fail, he will be held accountable by way of the ballot when the right time comes; not small groups like the PSOJ and JMA.

Paulwell's point is that he favoured EWI as they came in at the lowest price and they were the only bidder that guaranteed the use of LNG; as other companies with Jamaican connections were going to use more expensive generating facilities which use oil.

Ken Spencer

Kingston 8

ken3_1999@yahoo.com

Energy issue is not open for points-scoring

-->

Dear Editor,

If Phillip Paulwell were a minister of government in either Canada or the United Kingdom, operating as they do under the principle of the Westminster model, he would not have to wait to be shown the door in relation to the EWI project. Since we say that is the system under which Jamaica operates, even as a matter of principle, he should have done the decent and right thing and resigned.

I watched the hapless minister on TV on Tuesday being interviewed near the House of Parliament, and then I fully understood the expression of "a deer caught in the headlights". He looked scared; he reached for every excuse he could find; and his body language seemed to ask: What have I got myself into this time, and how do I get out?

In my view, the minister has been committing blunder after blunder in relation to this project, which is one of the most important at this point in time to the average Jamaican and to businesses. And his so-called explanations and justifications only seem to expose more blunders and muddy the waters even more.

I honestly do not believe that Minister Paulwell has ever heard the admonition that says: When you have dug yourself into a hole, you should throw away the shovel. Former JLP Works Minister Mike Henry, who resigned over the handling of the JIDP, now looks like a shining star compared to Minister Paulwell.

My hope is that Jamaicans don't miss the big picture. Paulwell is not just fighting to save the EWI project or his job; he is fighting for a much bigger prize. Somewhere along the line some people have convinced Mr Paulwell that he could be the next prime minister and he realises that if he is ousted now, the chance of that happening will significantly diminish.

Paulwell is nothing if not ambitious, but he needs to show us that he has the intelligence and the credibility that goes with that ambition that would allow him to lead a government that is transparent and honest.

If EWI is the test, he failed miserably and should "pack his bags and go". If he doesn't, I hope the prime minister has the backbone to kick him out the door.

Madam PM, the concept of collective responsibility does not just imply that the entire Cabinet is accountable for every decision made by any one of them. It also implies that the entire Cabinet has a responsibility to remove any member who would sully their name.

The Westminster model also has the PM as "first among equals", and she now needs to use that position to send Phillip Paulwell to a place where he can do no further damage to his own, or Jamaica's reputation.

Stephen Harrison

St Mary

stepharrison28@gmail.com

Paulwell should 'pack his bags and go'

-->

Dear Editor,

One enters a Jamaican political debate with great fear and trepidation that it is most likely going to be a grand waste of time and effort. But, somehow I feel that I must this time because there is so much at stake in this energy crisis that we are using as a political football, our obsessive national pastime.

Given the enormous talent, creativity, assertiveness, and business acumen of our people, Jamaica could have been way ahead had it not been for the crippling cost of energy.

As far back as the 1970s we saw that we were unable to benefit as we should from smelting alumina which we have in abundance.

Our manufacturers have not been able to compete with our Caricom partners, not because of a lack of quality, but because of the cost of energy.

While I worry about the many controversies in which Energy Minister Phillip Paulwell has been involved in, it seems clear to me that he is seized with a mission to provide Jamaica with cheaper energy. If this were an easy matter, we would have solved it long ago.

But instead of cheering him along, correcting where necessary, but making our support for him sure, we are trying to lynch him for his passion. It is a crime of passion that he is guilty of on all our behalf and we need to stop the politicking with this matter.

Andrew Goldson

Riffraph54@gmail.com

Lynching Paulwell for his 'crime of passion'

-->

Dear Editor,

After watching the news on Sunday evening I've had a bad taste in my mouth. I heard of the events that took place at a lay magistrates' function in May Pen recently.

The news stated that the Contractor General Dirk Harrison, who was slated to give the keynote address, expressed to the host of the function that he was uncomfortable being in the presence of His Worship the Mayor Councillor Scean Barnswell.

Both men are public officials who are supposed to serve the citizens of this country based on the portfolio of the offices.

Mayor Barnswell was invited to the function not just because he is mayor, but also because he is a justice of the peace that serves the parish of Clarendon and a member of the lay magistrates association of the same parish.

It is reported that the mayor had to leave due to the wishes of Harrison.

I must exclaim, without reservation, that if this is so, I find the actions of the contractor general to be very petty and unprofessional.

Even if Barnswell had been charged with breaching the Contractor General's Act, this has nothing to do with Harrison himself.

If the contractor general can behave in such a manner in this a simple matter, that does not have anything to do with him personally, the question is how will he behave with the more serious issues that are brought to the attention of his office?

The fact is, if Dirk Harrison resigns today Barnwell will still have to answer to the charges.

This behaviour reminds me of when I was five and went over to my neighbour's house to play with my friend of the same age. When things didn't go the way I wanted I would say "mi nah play wid yuh again" and left, being very upset.

I am of the view that, based on this occurence, Dirk Harrison is not mature enough to hold such an office of great responsibility. If he exercises this lack of maturity with the matters that come to his office then, without a doubt, as a people, as a country, we will pay the price.

Gary Rowe

magnett0072004@yahoo.com

'Mi nah play wid yuh again'

-->

Dear Editor,

I have lost the love for a place I loved so deeply, the land of my birth, where I lived for the first 27 years of my life. I was extremely proud to tell everyone I met where I was from. I would tell my friends, co-workers, and schoolmates that the place to vacation was Jamaica. I was a proud Jamaican until the night of May 6, 2013 when I received that dreaded phone call no one wants.

That night someone, a vile, cruel person, murdered my dad. My dad was brutally murdered on Diana Drive in Vineyard Town, Kingston 3, Jamaica, an area he knew extremely well. He was stabbed and left to die alone in his car after an honest, hard day's work. To date the murderer(s) have not been found and brought to justice. What does that say about solving crimes and the justice system in Jamaica? What is being done to resolve this huge problem in the country? Is the Jamaican Government assisting the police by providing the equipment required to aid in the solving of crimes? For example: DNA testing equipment, fingerprint database, and witness protection.

With technology being advanced daily, Jamaica seems to be stagnant or moving backwards. I believe that is why people will continue to commit crime in Jamaica. They know they will not get caught; as no one will say anything, and nothing will be done to solve it because the country lacks the necessary resources for crime-solving.

Is my family supposed to live with the fact that in a country, or even a community so small, no one heard or even saw a murder being committed? No one heard or overheard the murderer(s) talking about what they did? I fail to believe that.

I admit, though, that the bottom line is people are afraid to come forward and disclose information to the police. Is that what Jamaicans have been deduced to; living in fear? The murderer(s) took away the heart of my family. My dad was the most hard-working, generous, gentle, and kind-hearted person I knew. The only reassurance we have is that my dad is in a better place. My family and I continue to go through a difficult period in our lives. I never thought our family would be the victim of a crime, especially an unsolved crime.

C Angella Henry

canghenry@yahoo.com

They took away the heart of my family last May 6

-->