Sun | Aug 20, 2017

PNP's 'principle' quite convenient

Published:Saturday | February 13, 2016 | 2:00 AM

PNP's 'principle' quite convenient

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The reasons profferred by the People's National Party (PNP) for not wanting to engage the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and its leader, Andrew Holness, in debate, to my mind, seems spurious, even if under the guise of a principled stance.

In the heights of a political campaign, the question of motive on the part of the PNP cannot go unnoticed. Further, why wasn't the PNP concerned about the integrity of the opposition leader during the last Parliament, dissolved February 5, 2016? If the PNP has in its possession information which calls into question the integrity of Mr Holness, is this the route through which to have those questions addressed? What of the constituted authorities' role? Further, has the information been shared with any of the relevant authorities?

I find it most shameful that the issue of Mr Holness' property should be used in this vulgar manner under the guise of a principled stance by the PNP. Is one to believe that all the concerns now being raised were never known to the PNP before now?

Wouldn't the PNP have been obligated to arrive at its principled position of seeking to uphold the integrity of the Parliament as soon as it had information that led it to believe that the integrity of the holder of a constitutional office was in question?

Principled position, really, or self-serving political expediency?

E.S.

Cheziof@gmail.com