Dear Editor,
The business of politicising certain actions or decisions of a Government -- by an opposing party -- that seemingly goes adversely against the people is primarily to raise awareness publicly about the issue in the hope of sparking reaction.
A case in point is when Opposition spokesperson on finance, Audley Shaw, put forward his view of dissatisfaction at the publicising of Caricom nationals being able to compete for jobs in Jamaican Special Economic Zones (SEZ) under the amended Bill governing the operation of SEZs in Jamaica. I wondered if I had missed the mark.
"The adoption of a new SEZ regime will ensure that Jamaica is in conformity with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by December 2015. An SEZ is by definition a geographically demarcated area that has different trade and business laws from the rest of the country. It is used to attract foreign direct investment, stimulate local investment, increase trade, and create jobs. Jamaica's SEZ regime represents 'a customised economic strategy designed to enhance industry competitiveness and positively impact growth'," as stated in the White Paper outlining the Bill.
This was made possible through a Bill passed in the House of Representatives to allow for an adjustment to the agreement's employment clause, replacing "Jamaica" with Caricom. Now Industry Minister Anthony Hylton defended the amendment by pointing out that the Government was indebted to doing so under the Treaty of Chaguaramas. But Shaw would not have it, pointing out that "Jamaicans must get top priority to jobs in their country".
While that is comprehensible, why did Shaw then proceed to threaten that he will take the matter to his election campaign platform? Of the many treaties that we have entered into, do our governments seek to forfeit or dishonour them, especially one that is established to address economic integration in the region in light of the harsh global environment. I am almost certain that Shaw is aware of this, so why does he have this viewpoint, and to what end?
I would think it quite perplexing if that issue was to be used as a moot point to dissuade our electorate, decided or undecided to vote, against the current Government.
I don't believe that we should play loosely with these agreements. Jamaica, therefore, cannot simply choose not to let in other Caricom nationals, as this would go against the terms of the Treaty of Chaguramas and the free movement of nationals, including in search of employment opportunities. If Jamaica decided, unilaterally, to lock out other nationals, wouldn't they be inclined to lock out our nationals seeking jobs?
The biggest problem of not honouring a treaty after agreeing terms is that it may incite problems with our international partners. Hylton also assured the public that Jamaicans will get offered these jobs first, so I don't see where there is the need for alarm.
Shaw's sentiments might be taking things much too far, but I await his rantings on the political podium to convince me otherwise.
Robin Rock
rrock06@yahoo.com
Shaw taking it too far
-->
The business of politicising certain actions or decisions of a Government -- by an opposing party -- that seemingly goes adversely against the people is primarily to raise awareness publicly about the issue in the hope of sparking reaction.
A case in point is when Opposition spokesperson on finance, Audley Shaw, put forward his view of dissatisfaction at the publicising of Caricom nationals being able to compete for jobs in Jamaican Special Economic Zones (SEZ) under the amended Bill governing the operation of SEZs in Jamaica. I wondered if I had missed the mark.
"The adoption of a new SEZ regime will ensure that Jamaica is in conformity with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by December 2015. An SEZ is by definition a geographically demarcated area that has different trade and business laws from the rest of the country. It is used to attract foreign direct investment, stimulate local investment, increase trade, and create jobs. Jamaica's SEZ regime represents 'a customised economic strategy designed to enhance industry competitiveness and positively impact growth'," as stated in the White Paper outlining the Bill.
This was made possible through a Bill passed in the House of Representatives to allow for an adjustment to the agreement's employment clause, replacing "Jamaica" with Caricom. Now Industry Minister Anthony Hylton defended the amendment by pointing out that the Government was indebted to doing so under the Treaty of Chaguaramas. But Shaw would not have it, pointing out that "Jamaicans must get top priority to jobs in their country".
While that is comprehensible, why did Shaw then proceed to threaten that he will take the matter to his election campaign platform? Of the many treaties that we have entered into, do our governments seek to forfeit or dishonour them, especially one that is established to address economic integration in the region in light of the harsh global environment. I am almost certain that Shaw is aware of this, so why does he have this viewpoint, and to what end?
I would think it quite perplexing if that issue was to be used as a moot point to dissuade our electorate, decided or undecided to vote, against the current Government.
I don't believe that we should play loosely with these agreements. Jamaica, therefore, cannot simply choose not to let in other Caricom nationals, as this would go against the terms of the Treaty of Chaguramas and the free movement of nationals, including in search of employment opportunities. If Jamaica decided, unilaterally, to lock out other nationals, wouldn't they be inclined to lock out our nationals seeking jobs?
The biggest problem of not honouring a treaty after agreeing terms is that it may incite problems with our international partners. Hylton also assured the public that Jamaicans will get offered these jobs first, so I don't see where there is the need for alarm.
Shaw's sentiments might be taking things much too far, but I await his rantings on the political podium to convince me otherwise.
Robin Rock
rrock06@yahoo.com
Shaw taking it too far
-->