Dear Editor,
Your columnist, Mark Wignall, in his piece on Thursday, June 13, 2013 seeks to assess various aspects of the forthcoming commission of enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the declaration of the State of Emergency in May 2011 and the actions of the law enforcement forces in West Kingston. Mr Wignall makes no pretence that a prime objective of the column is to promote the view that the PNP Administration will seek to exploit the commission of enquiry for political gains.
Whilst every point Mr Wignall makes in his column can be effectively dismissed, I feel obliged to highlight his attempt to group the constituencies of South West St Andrew (represented by the prime minister) and South St Andrew (represented by me) with West Kingston. He opines "we will never know if similar criminal activities existed in those constituencies and many will not even bother to ask".
Mr Wignall's attempts to muddy the waters is easily rejected for several reasons. To begin, never in the 37 years that the prime minister has represented South West St Andrew, nor in the 20 years that I have represented South St Andrew have we given support to criminal individuals and gangs who would seek to challenge the legal authority of the security forces. Furthermore, it is beyond question that when action was taken against the criminal elements in Tivoli Gardens, in May 2011, the security forces were free to take similar action in either of our two constituencies if such were considered necessary. The public knows that the PNP was then in Opposition, and hence not in a position to have had any influence on the decisions made by the leadership of the security forces. Is Mr Wignall suggesting an inherent bias on the part of the security forces?
If Mr Wignall has views on additional questions to be explored by the forthcoming enquiry, he is free to advance them.
Omar Davies
Member of Parliament
South West St Andrew
Don't muddy the waters
-->
Your columnist, Mark Wignall, in his piece on Thursday, June 13, 2013 seeks to assess various aspects of the forthcoming commission of enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the declaration of the State of Emergency in May 2011 and the actions of the law enforcement forces in West Kingston. Mr Wignall makes no pretence that a prime objective of the column is to promote the view that the PNP Administration will seek to exploit the commission of enquiry for political gains.
Whilst every point Mr Wignall makes in his column can be effectively dismissed, I feel obliged to highlight his attempt to group the constituencies of South West St Andrew (represented by the prime minister) and South St Andrew (represented by me) with West Kingston. He opines "we will never know if similar criminal activities existed in those constituencies and many will not even bother to ask".
Mr Wignall's attempts to muddy the waters is easily rejected for several reasons. To begin, never in the 37 years that the prime minister has represented South West St Andrew, nor in the 20 years that I have represented South St Andrew have we given support to criminal individuals and gangs who would seek to challenge the legal authority of the security forces. Furthermore, it is beyond question that when action was taken against the criminal elements in Tivoli Gardens, in May 2011, the security forces were free to take similar action in either of our two constituencies if such were considered necessary. The public knows that the PNP was then in Opposition, and hence not in a position to have had any influence on the decisions made by the leadership of the security forces. Is Mr Wignall suggesting an inherent bias on the part of the security forces?
If Mr Wignall has views on additional questions to be explored by the forthcoming enquiry, he is free to advance them.
Omar Davies
Member of Parliament
South West St Andrew
Don't muddy the waters
-->