Dear Editor,
According to media reports, Jamaican heads of missions overseas, following protocol, have tendered their resignation, given the change in Government, and these have been accepted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs effective May 1.
Heads of Mission in Beijing, China; Washington, DC, USA; London, UK; and the consul general for New York have all resigned and are heading home.
Now I understand the protocol, and am aware that appointees accept these positions knowing well they can be recalled. But I have always wondered why certain appointments must end abruptly when there is a change of Government, considering Jamaica is a small country. This must be extremely costly. If protocol requires them to resign, couldn’t they be offered the option to serve out their current contracts if they are functioning well in the national interest?
I always thought that serving in the foreign service was about putting country first, before self or anything else. They are not appointed to function politically or represent any political party or interests overseas.
Ambassador Fay Pickersgill, for instance, was just recently appointed. And, according to reports, the ambassador hasn’t even presented her credentials to the foreign ministry in China, and now has to return home to be replaced by an appointee who is acceptable to the current Jamaica Labour Party Government.
Taxpayers obviously foot the costs of relocation which must be excessive considering families are often involved in the relocation. Common sense and practicality should prevail, and we hope Government will be more practical when it comes to certain appointments, and this includes public sector agencies. They should consider competence and performance first and foremost, and not see these appointees purely as “political”, whichever party has the reins.
P Chin
chin_p@yahoo.com
According to media reports, Jamaican heads of missions overseas, following protocol, have tendered their resignation, given the change in Government, and these have been accepted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs effective May 1.
Heads of Mission in Beijing, China; Washington, DC, USA; London, UK; and the consul general for New York have all resigned and are heading home.
Now I understand the protocol, and am aware that appointees accept these positions knowing well they can be recalled. But I have always wondered why certain appointments must end abruptly when there is a change of Government, considering Jamaica is a small country. This must be extremely costly. If protocol requires them to resign, couldn’t they be offered the option to serve out their current contracts if they are functioning well in the national interest?
I always thought that serving in the foreign service was about putting country first, before self or anything else. They are not appointed to function politically or represent any political party or interests overseas.
Ambassador Fay Pickersgill, for instance, was just recently appointed. And, according to reports, the ambassador hasn’t even presented her credentials to the foreign ministry in China, and now has to return home to be replaced by an appointee who is acceptable to the current Jamaica Labour Party Government.
Taxpayers obviously foot the costs of relocation which must be excessive considering families are often involved in the relocation. Common sense and practicality should prevail, and we hope Government will be more practical when it comes to certain appointments, and this includes public sector agencies. They should consider competence and performance first and foremost, and not see these appointees purely as “political”, whichever party has the reins.
P Chin
chin_p@yahoo.com