Opposed to views of Boyne, Cooper

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I TAKE issue with some opinions expressed by two of the regular contributors to your Sunday Gleaner, namely Mr Ian Boyne and Ms Carolyn Cooper, in The Sunday Gleaner of December 25, 2011.

In critiquing the leadership debate, Mr Boyne stated, "Telling me about testing people's ability to 'think on their feet' and to 'précis their answers' - and the importance of that being a criterion of judging leadership acumen - is a foolish cop out." This, clearly is an attempt to discredit what supporters of the prime minister have posited as a selling point for his suitability to lead the country.

For her part, Ms Cooper, in coming to the defence of the indefensible 'don't draw my tongue' tirade from Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller, once again went to her pet position - that of the supposed class and gender warfare being waged against poor women in Jamaica and the disregard that those in the Jamaica Labour Party have for our "mother tongue" Patois, or Jamaican Creole.

mental ability not passé

To Mr Boyne I say, "Really, Mr Boyne?" When did "mental ability" as I knew it when I was in primary school become passé? Is it not important, in a knowledge-based world, for the leader of a country with aspirations of attaining developed-country status in less than 20 years to possess the mental acuity to process loads of information well enough to make informed decisions in a short time? I say that is absolutely the case. Even if there are advisers, the leader will still need to be able to process and choose the best option from a slate of options. The person better able to do this and quickly is the person I want at the helm of the ship of State.

However, what I saw in the leadership debate were two candidates - one who showed an ability to treat with the issues without resorting to a notebook and the other who consulted a rather thick notebook for almost every issue that was raised. I think everyone, even the most diehard political supporter, knows who is who.

Now there are those that may argue that Prime Minister Andrew Holness was reciting that which he had studied, but to those I say that still counts for something. Because if it doesn't, we may as well scrap the GSAT and stop torturing our children to study and recall what they have studied in order to answer questions posed to them. That sounds strangely similar to the debate, doesn't it? We may as well have open-book examinations for our children where they can resort to notes, whether their own or those written by someone else more knowledgeable on whatever topic.

Digel Nixon

digelnixon@gmail.com