Edward Seaga

In the past two months or so while I have been otherwise pre-occupied, so many of the programmes which I initiated and which today form a part of my legacy, have been in the news for good or bad reasons that I find it impossible to keep up with their fortunes or misfortunes, or for that matter, the misunderstandings which surround them.

I decided, therefore, to devote this column to setting the record straight by applauding the good, condemning the wrong, and clearing misunderstandings.

Public Defender

The proposal for the establishment of the Public Defender in 1992, (originally titled Advocate General) was an initiative which I strongly felt could bring an end to official discrimination and victimisation.

These are ills which sap the moral strength of the country and severely weaken the social structure. Men work to achieve, and if they are prevented from reaping their just rewards, or accused of wrongs they never committed by discrimination or victimisation, they lose the interest and energy to continue. Sometimes the response is aggressiveness. All of these instances have a negative effect on the society.

I considered that since the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms which I was preparing to submit to the Constitutional Reform Commission would make discrimination and victimisation more clearly violations of human rights without any question whatsoever, what was needed was the creation of a post dedicated to prosecute such violations. The abuses of rights would then stop because of the fear of conviction.

The post of the Public Defender would allow the holder of the post to prosecute directly or to hire counsel on behalf of those whose rights and freedoms were abused so as to ensure that justice would be done, having regard to the fact that most of those who are affected are too poor to afford the cost.

When the bill to provide for the post of the public defender was enacted, there was no power in it to enable prosecutions to be carried out. Hence, it was toothless.

I have spoken with the new holder of the position, Earl Witter, a well-known attorney, and I believe that he will strenuously seek to have this omission rectified.

Contractor General

The Contractor General was first proposed by me in 1979 and later enacted into law in 1986. While I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in 1974-1980, I found that there were wide open doors through which contractors could abuse the contract process between private sector entities and government, or were allowed to do so to enable corruption to be practised.

I proposed that a dedicated post be created with enabling powers to single out these instances and bring them to public attention. The establishment of the post of Contractor General was to enable these abuses to be prosecuted.

Untold amounts of government expenditure could be saved by detecting padded expenditure. This also applies to government property sold at prices below value, or agreements made to allow kick-backs.

We now know that blowing the whistle by the Contractor General tabling reports in Parliament is not enough. Nothing happens there-after. Like the Public Defender, the Contractor General legislation provides inadequate bite.

Now that the new holder of the post, Glen Christie, is prepared to act in dealing with violators, he must be given the backing to do so.

I, for one, am extremely happy with his stance and will support him fully as long as he does not abuse the enormous powers which he holds.

Again, by choosing judiciously the cases prosecuted in order to establish precedents which would persuade others not to pursue corrupt or abusive paths, the Public Defender and the Contractor General could shut down so many openings for corruption and abuse that the government of the day and of the future could readily create a truly open, accountable and just society.

I will leave my comments on the Charter of Rights, which I introduced to the Constitutional Reform Commission in 1996, until it is debated, as is expected shortly.

But that too was another glaring case of trying to defang legislation with teeth so that it would be harmless. I believe that after 10 years, the battle may now have been won, to ensure that the charter will be effective, but I will wait to see what compromises were made.

Leaving aside those programmes dealing with justice, I need to register my own great disappointment and dismay with what has happened to the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) in recent years. This has been one of my most treasured accomplishments.

Urban Development Corporation

The UDC was established in 1968 to, among other things, transform urban waterfronts to bring life to decaying or undeveloped areas.

It was given the same powers of the Town and Country Planning Department to take decisions on the development of lands in designated areas without waiting on projects to take their place in the line-up of those awaiting Town and Country Planning processing. In other words, it was a fast-track organisation.

In the three-year period 1968-71, the UDC carried out the planning, design and, later, the construction of the Kingston Waterfront; the reclamation of Turtle Beach and substantial construction of hotels and apartments on the new 80-acre beach; the reclamation of the Montage Bay Waterfront and the design for the by-pass highway now named Howard Cooke Drive; the purchase of 40,000 acres of land, which I acquired for government to form a land bank for the future so that prime properties would not fall into the wrong hands.

All this was done in three years, as well as designing and building the multi-storey Pegasus Hotel - one of six high-rise hotels it was responsible for building in that period. There was not a single query or scintilla of corruption in this vast programme.

The lands bought included Auchindown (where the Sandals Whitehouse Hotel has been constructed), all of the precious Negro properties, (Bloody Bay, half of Long Bay, all of the Negro Morass); Seville; Winnifred Rest Home in Portland; a sizeable portion of Caymanas Estate; and, all 20,000 acres of Hellshire.

There was no instance of corruption. In later years, the seeding of Bloody Bay with the Grand Lido Hotel and several projects in Hellshire were also carried out.

A special programme, for which I asked the assistance of the United Nations Development Programme towards the end of the 1960s, was approved and commenced in the 1970s and concluded in the 1980s.

The work was to upgrade several rural towns which were on the fringe of development but did not have the infrastructure to retain the population once benefits started to flow.

Many towns benefited under this programme known by the clumsy name, Comprehensive Rural and Town Development Programme. It was carried out by the UDC, without blemish.

Other projects

The UDC built the Jamaica Conference Centre and its associated buildings in one year to meet the deadline of the United Nations Law of the Sea requirements. The contractor was the first, and last, to build on a 24- hour, seven days a week programme.

To these several major projects can be added the cruise ship piers in Ocho Rios and Montego Bay, as well as housing schemes and potable water supplies to help Ocho Rios grow with the pace of the Turtle Beach Development which made this little town into one of the prime tourist areas in the country.

On the other hand, the UDC was at the centre of a blatant act of discrimination against the people of the western area of Kingston when, instead of roofing the Oxford Mall Market, it warehoused the roofing panels for 10 years.

The result was higglers having to occupy the sidewalk for an extended period at great distress to them and inconvenience to shoppers. I can only hope that the UDC will now resume its role as a major organisation in carrying out vital specialised programmes on a strictly professional basis.

Edward Seaga is a former Prime Minister. He is now a Distinguished Fellow at the University of the West Indies. Email: odf@uwimona.edu.jm.