Dear Editor,
The recent "outing" of former senators Arthur Williams and Christopher Tufton with the use of undated resignation letters, signed when they were appointed to the Upper House, raises the question about their legality.
My own view is that, although signed, they were incomplete without a date. I'm not sure who dated them, but if it weren't dated by the signer, can it be considered legal? Can someone technically resign, in advance, by using undated letters to be applied at any time in the future as needed? Timing is just as important for a resignation, as it is for a legal will, a resignation ought to be the will of the signee at the present time.
If these letters were dated by someone else, other than the writer, wouldn't that be an element of fraud?
If undated letters can be applied legally to remove appointed senators, couldn't they also be applied to ministers of government, MPs, even prime ministers. Despite being elected, they were officially appointed to their posts, and they, too, can officially resign. Undated letters seem like a clever but manipulative ploy to maintain control, but it doesn't seem legal or ethical, this matter should be settled in Courts.
Andrew Holness as re-elected leader, had a tremendous opportunity to put the party on a new path, uniting divisive factions, and cementing himself as a formidable choice and change, as was the perception of the public. The JLP continues to be perceived as a fragmented party with a bunch 'yes men' who must toe the line, or else.
This is definitely a difference with how the PNP is perceived. Many who didn't support Holness's leadership accepted the results nonetheless, and were open to change. Of course, Andrew Holness had every right after the JLP elections to reshuffle his appointments. However, this should've been done based on ability, talent and experience, without fear, malice or vindictiveness. It would've been a great show of unity to reappoint many of those who didn't support him, a sign that he is listening and willing to work harder to make the party better.
Holness must realise by now that his challenger, Audley Shaw, amassed nearly half of the delegates' votes — a significant amount who obviously had a problem with Holness's leadership and the direction of the party. How can you heal, by continuing to divide? The concept of "one don" rule is outdated and shows arrogance. It continues to negatively impact public perception and, although "one don" may rule a party, it becomes more difficult to sell when it comes to general elections where a leader must be able to deal with ongoing criticisms, differences of opinion, conflicting views -- even within his/her own ranks!
But, one has to ask, does the Government also use undated resignation letters to keep their senators in line?
P Chin
chin_p@Yahoo.com
Are undated resignation letters even legal?
-->
The recent "outing" of former senators Arthur Williams and Christopher Tufton with the use of undated resignation letters, signed when they were appointed to the Upper House, raises the question about their legality.
My own view is that, although signed, they were incomplete without a date. I'm not sure who dated them, but if it weren't dated by the signer, can it be considered legal? Can someone technically resign, in advance, by using undated letters to be applied at any time in the future as needed? Timing is just as important for a resignation, as it is for a legal will, a resignation ought to be the will of the signee at the present time.
If these letters were dated by someone else, other than the writer, wouldn't that be an element of fraud?
If undated letters can be applied legally to remove appointed senators, couldn't they also be applied to ministers of government, MPs, even prime ministers. Despite being elected, they were officially appointed to their posts, and they, too, can officially resign. Undated letters seem like a clever but manipulative ploy to maintain control, but it doesn't seem legal or ethical, this matter should be settled in Courts.
Andrew Holness as re-elected leader, had a tremendous opportunity to put the party on a new path, uniting divisive factions, and cementing himself as a formidable choice and change, as was the perception of the public. The JLP continues to be perceived as a fragmented party with a bunch 'yes men' who must toe the line, or else.
This is definitely a difference with how the PNP is perceived. Many who didn't support Holness's leadership accepted the results nonetheless, and were open to change. Of course, Andrew Holness had every right after the JLP elections to reshuffle his appointments. However, this should've been done based on ability, talent and experience, without fear, malice or vindictiveness. It would've been a great show of unity to reappoint many of those who didn't support him, a sign that he is listening and willing to work harder to make the party better.
Holness must realise by now that his challenger, Audley Shaw, amassed nearly half of the delegates' votes — a significant amount who obviously had a problem with Holness's leadership and the direction of the party. How can you heal, by continuing to divide? The concept of "one don" rule is outdated and shows arrogance. It continues to negatively impact public perception and, although "one don" may rule a party, it becomes more difficult to sell when it comes to general elections where a leader must be able to deal with ongoing criticisms, differences of opinion, conflicting views -- even within his/her own ranks!
But, one has to ask, does the Government also use undated resignation letters to keep their senators in line?
P Chin
chin_p@Yahoo.com
Are undated resignation letters even legal?
-->