WHEN ONE is young there is a very popular game that most children play. It's called musical chairs, when one runs around in a circle and tries to find a seat when a whistle is blown or hands are clapped, as the number of seats to persons gets progressively reduced. I am reminded of this game when I see the reliance on Committees to sort out unpalatable events in recent weeks.
This can apply to the re-visiting of the Members of Parliament salary increase issue; several current industrial disputes between the Government and some vocal public sector groups; or even the floating of a renewal of 'social contract' agreements. For me it does not matter how many times one uses new Committees, re-visit old issues, but it only ends up with running in circles.
All the issues I highlighted for instance above will not go away now, or even in the next ten years, unless Jamaica discovers gold, silver, platinum and crude oil, in sufficient quantities and qualities, to drastically double the revenue inflows. Even if this occurred there is no evidence that it would be well-spent as net oils exporters like Venezuela, Nigeria and Mexico, among big names, have found out when oil was 'black gold' in the 1970s and early 1980s. Implementing 'harsh medicine' will mean that in Jamaica some critical decisions will please a few, anger a lot more and reduce political popularity.
I for instance, do not even wish to comment on the salary increases for MPs since deserved or not, and my views on this should be well-known by those who have read my various articles on this, as it is clear that the horse had already gone through the gate on that. To hold future increases subject to a new Committee (when there have been so much previous Committees Ashenheim, Sasso, Fletcher is to me, regarding the labour groups in contempt, since it cannot convince them to buy into the social contract idea. What sacrifices are each group prepared to make may be late in the day but needs urgent consultation. Why are some groups to be constrained by national interest and the available public revenue and others exempt need to be explained? Why should some be given special privileges need to be justified, if not to themselves, at least to most of us, especially when there is little growth to justify the excesses given.
The current state of the fiscal budget, for the near future, means that once you are paid from the public purse then increases must be justified. What we need to do is explain to various groups why they may receive no increases for the next three years. Explain to others why they will receive only small increases for the next three years (lower than the cost of living). Explain which are priority groups that come first in the government's totem pole. To do all of above will involve tough leadership, instead of passing the buck and running around in circles and it seems that this is in short supply.
