Dear Editor,
This is an open letter to JLP General Secretary Dr Horace Chang:
I am a young labourite who loves my party dearly. However, I am disappointed by the way in which the recent internal leadership election was handled by you, the party's general secretary. I do believe that you ought to have maintained a neutral position as to who you supported in the race for leadership. You must have known that this is required of any general secretary.
As you rightly said on TV on Sunday, the general secretary of the party is the "CEO" of the party, while the leader is like the "chairman of the bboard". My question to you then is simply this: Do you feel justified that your partisan behaviour in supporting Andrew Holness publicly is a best-practice in running Busta's party?
Dr Chang, I put it to you that your behaviour in the leadership race will hurt the party in more ways than you might be concerned. It is not just a matter of Audley -- the now vanquished -- making "ray ray" of your biased involvement in the process, but rather it goes back to the delegates and "surrrogates" -- that of Shaw -- with whom you will have to contend from here-on. I believe that you should have recused yourself totally, since as you rightly said you are an influential member of your party with strong views.
Why would you then want to waste time doing up a delegates' list when you could join your allies racking up a "storm" on the campaign trail? Don't you feel, in retrospect, that you would have served Busta's party better by doing that? After all, surely Andrew coudn't possibly lose. But you had to remain in your big chair.
You were so busy preparing a list that you forgot that James and Christopher, though contrary, were not properly nominated for deputy leadership posts until the week before the election. Your actions, Dr Chang will affect party unity. Any worker of the party not on the list, that shoudl have been, would feel robbed of the right to choose who leads their party. This runs the risk of ending up with a leader, as is the case now, that is not favourable among grass root Labourites. I don't have to sing the party anthem twice to know this. Many workers of the party are disenchanted with Holness and his highhandedness. They certainly prefer Shaw. Watch out fi dis!
Dr Chang, you are foolish to think that a party leader in modern Jamaica, worst one with the "lay-lay" style of Holness, can win an election against the election machinery of the PNP. For JLP to win State power you need the helping hand of every single worker; from Miss Joan a St Thomas to Mass Charles in Tivoli. You cannot afford to create discord. So in other words, democracy must not only be the buzz word, but seen to be done freely and fairly.
I have lost all confidence I once had in you, Dr Chang. Even if my leader, Andrew Holness, was in fact the preferred choice of the delegates of my loved party, the entire process seemed contaminated.
Dr Chang, you are like a football referee who issued all the cards wrongly, and yet, shows no remorse. Even if it is not so, your failure to have remained neutral has hurt everyone. How can you now set about to ever fix the suspicion which is now looms over your head?
Amos Wint
amoswint@hotmail.com
Dear, Dr Chang
-->
This is an open letter to JLP General Secretary Dr Horace Chang:
I am a young labourite who loves my party dearly. However, I am disappointed by the way in which the recent internal leadership election was handled by you, the party's general secretary. I do believe that you ought to have maintained a neutral position as to who you supported in the race for leadership. You must have known that this is required of any general secretary.
As you rightly said on TV on Sunday, the general secretary of the party is the "CEO" of the party, while the leader is like the "chairman of the bboard". My question to you then is simply this: Do you feel justified that your partisan behaviour in supporting Andrew Holness publicly is a best-practice in running Busta's party?
Dr Chang, I put it to you that your behaviour in the leadership race will hurt the party in more ways than you might be concerned. It is not just a matter of Audley -- the now vanquished -- making "ray ray" of your biased involvement in the process, but rather it goes back to the delegates and "surrrogates" -- that of Shaw -- with whom you will have to contend from here-on. I believe that you should have recused yourself totally, since as you rightly said you are an influential member of your party with strong views.
Why would you then want to waste time doing up a delegates' list when you could join your allies racking up a "storm" on the campaign trail? Don't you feel, in retrospect, that you would have served Busta's party better by doing that? After all, surely Andrew coudn't possibly lose. But you had to remain in your big chair.
You were so busy preparing a list that you forgot that James and Christopher, though contrary, were not properly nominated for deputy leadership posts until the week before the election. Your actions, Dr Chang will affect party unity. Any worker of the party not on the list, that shoudl have been, would feel robbed of the right to choose who leads their party. This runs the risk of ending up with a leader, as is the case now, that is not favourable among grass root Labourites. I don't have to sing the party anthem twice to know this. Many workers of the party are disenchanted with Holness and his highhandedness. They certainly prefer Shaw. Watch out fi dis!
Dr Chang, you are foolish to think that a party leader in modern Jamaica, worst one with the "lay-lay" style of Holness, can win an election against the election machinery of the PNP. For JLP to win State power you need the helping hand of every single worker; from Miss Joan a St Thomas to Mass Charles in Tivoli. You cannot afford to create discord. So in other words, democracy must not only be the buzz word, but seen to be done freely and fairly.
I have lost all confidence I once had in you, Dr Chang. Even if my leader, Andrew Holness, was in fact the preferred choice of the delegates of my loved party, the entire process seemed contaminated.
Dr Chang, you are like a football referee who issued all the cards wrongly, and yet, shows no remorse. Even if it is not so, your failure to have remained neutral has hurt everyone. How can you now set about to ever fix the suspicion which is now looms over your head?
Amos Wint
amoswint@hotmail.com
Dear, Dr Chang
-->