Integrity in public life
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Can you support integrity in public life and still support the call by most citizens for our Prime Minister to participate in a leadership debate that has become a mandatory event in the year of a general election? Of course and the resounding yes is because both are part of what makes our democracy work.
This is what helps to set us apart from totalitarian regimes in which leaders take the view that the people must not get a chance to test their promises/proposed policies in the oxygen chamber of public critique. I am still left in a state of total dismay as to why the PNP thinks that it is ok not to allow the nation's PM to participate in this year's leadership debate. The reasons advanced are nothing short of deserving of the epitaph "tricky logic". The type of logic that parades what on the surface seems reasonable but when interrogated with the analytical skills of a five-year-old, leaves us wondering aloud: why are they taking us to be fools.
This is an election that will define a generation and I find it logic-defying, to listen to the leadership of the party of Norman Manley, PJ Patterson and Michael Manley, treat the Jamaican voter in 2016 with a contempt more associated with others less capable. The PM's request for an apology is not in issue that will inhibit growth or correct or balance of payments deficit ,but keeping ideas for change from the rigour of interrogation can affect those macro-economic issues negatively .
Finally, I support any call for integrity in public life but the Jamaican people know that it's downright wrong and an act of cowardice to insinuate impropriety, whilst unwilling to provide evidence. He who asserts must prove . Jamaicans of my generation have come to expect something higher of those who seek to lead this country into its better days