Dear Editor,
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, in revving up the People's National Party's (PNP) propaganda machine in preparation for the upcoming elections, has been referring to the last Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) term in office from 2007 to 2011 as the "four missing years". It is her claim, quite disingenuously advanced, that the JLP wrecked the country's economy during their term, and is the reason behind Jamaica being so economically depressed today, forcing her PNP Government to embark on a painful path of repair.
This claim has been forwarded despite Mrs Simpson Miller admitting overseas that, had the PNP formed the Government during that period, it could not have done much, if anything, differently given the challenges of the global recession that confronted the JLP for pretty much all its time in office.
The JLP assumed the reins of government after Jamaica suffered almost two decades of continuous anaemic economic performance, despite the world economy registering more of an economic boom during that period.
Rather than merely improving on what the PNP did economically, the JLP Government had to spend time correcting or cleaning up the mess of an economy it inherited. Moreover, as mentioned, the JLP Government was confronted with the challenges of the global economic recession, which resulted in serious economic ruination to many countries, including the mighty United States.
Impressively, Jamaica was able to largely withstand the economic crisis, without suffering any meltdown as happened in the United States, across Europe, and even closer to home in Trinidad with the collapse of CLICO.
The economy was being rehabilitated under the JLP of 2007 to 2011, with the macroeconomic fundamentals all trending in a positive direction. Inflation was trending down; interest rates were reduced to single digits, being the lowest in over 30 years; the dollar was stabilised; and we started to register economic growth towards the end of the JLP's term.
Things were by no means perfect, as legacy issues, such as high unemployment and underemployment, among other issues remained troublesome. However, by no means should that term be accurately deemed the "four missing years" that are responsible for our current challenges.
If 2007 to 2011 were the "four missing years", what would Prime Minister Simpson Miller term the turbulent period of the 1970s, of which she was a part, when the PNP Government then inherited a booming economy only to, in eight short years, completely reverse such economic gains and bring the country almost to bankruptcy?
How would Prime Minister Simpson Miller refer to the period of 1989 to 2007, which saw the collapse of the financial sector, that completely wiped out a huge chunk of the country's new entrepreneurial class, drove up unemployment, and which saw the economy being kept alive largely by investments in government debt instruments?
Would those events, as happened during those two reigns of the PNP, not be more responsible for our current challenges than the last term under the JLP? Would the PNP not be more responsible for where our country is today, especially since the JLP historically has passed on a healthier economy to the PNP than the PNP has ever passed on to the JLP?
Kevin KO Sangster
sangstek@msn.com
Four missing years? Really, PM?!
-->
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, in revving up the People's National Party's (PNP) propaganda machine in preparation for the upcoming elections, has been referring to the last Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) term in office from 2007 to 2011 as the "four missing years". It is her claim, quite disingenuously advanced, that the JLP wrecked the country's economy during their term, and is the reason behind Jamaica being so economically depressed today, forcing her PNP Government to embark on a painful path of repair.
This claim has been forwarded despite Mrs Simpson Miller admitting overseas that, had the PNP formed the Government during that period, it could not have done much, if anything, differently given the challenges of the global recession that confronted the JLP for pretty much all its time in office.
The JLP assumed the reins of government after Jamaica suffered almost two decades of continuous anaemic economic performance, despite the world economy registering more of an economic boom during that period.
Rather than merely improving on what the PNP did economically, the JLP Government had to spend time correcting or cleaning up the mess of an economy it inherited. Moreover, as mentioned, the JLP Government was confronted with the challenges of the global economic recession, which resulted in serious economic ruination to many countries, including the mighty United States.
Impressively, Jamaica was able to largely withstand the economic crisis, without suffering any meltdown as happened in the United States, across Europe, and even closer to home in Trinidad with the collapse of CLICO.
The economy was being rehabilitated under the JLP of 2007 to 2011, with the macroeconomic fundamentals all trending in a positive direction. Inflation was trending down; interest rates were reduced to single digits, being the lowest in over 30 years; the dollar was stabilised; and we started to register economic growth towards the end of the JLP's term.
Things were by no means perfect, as legacy issues, such as high unemployment and underemployment, among other issues remained troublesome. However, by no means should that term be accurately deemed the "four missing years" that are responsible for our current challenges.
If 2007 to 2011 were the "four missing years", what would Prime Minister Simpson Miller term the turbulent period of the 1970s, of which she was a part, when the PNP Government then inherited a booming economy only to, in eight short years, completely reverse such economic gains and bring the country almost to bankruptcy?
How would Prime Minister Simpson Miller refer to the period of 1989 to 2007, which saw the collapse of the financial sector, that completely wiped out a huge chunk of the country's new entrepreneurial class, drove up unemployment, and which saw the economy being kept alive largely by investments in government debt instruments?
Would those events, as happened during those two reigns of the PNP, not be more responsible for our current challenges than the last term under the JLP? Would the PNP not be more responsible for where our country is today, especially since the JLP historically has passed on a healthier economy to the PNP than the PNP has ever passed on to the JLP?
Kevin KO Sangster
sangstek@msn.com
Four missing years? Really, PM?!
-->