Bamboo, ballots and benefits - Time to end shallow debates in Parliament
Published:Monday | January 20, 2014 | 12:00 AM
GOVERNMENT SENATOR Norman Grant last Friday failed miserably to convince The Gavel that there is a need to strengthen the current task force which is seeking to position Jamaica as a major producer of high-value bamboo products.
Grant failed to indicate where the current task force is going wrong. But this is Grant; he just has to speak.
The senator, who is president of the Jamaica Agricultural Society, clearly just wanted to talk about bamboo and its various uses, as well as its potential for the Jamaican economy. Hence, he crafted a motion, without due research, asking the Senate for the establishment of a task force to position a bamboo industry for Jamaica and the establishment of a pilot factory for high-value bamboo products.
Someone might have pointed out to him that the task force is already in place, so he sought and received support to amend the motion asking instead for the strengthening of the task force.
One would have thought that he would have brought the terms of reference of the current task force to Parliament, indicating that it either lacks certain technical competence or it has not been working. Nothing of the sort. He just wanted it strengthened without demonstrating the need for this.
WOn'T BE outdone
The Gavel, however, is not surprised. China is in town and everyone is trying to convince the other man of his relevance. Grant won't be left behind. He wants a task force and a bamboo factory - two things that are already in place.
Instead of spending his time during that debate speaking on the issue of this US$15-billion industry, Grant could have done all of us a favour if he had spoken to the cost associated with producing bamboo. At present, the Forestry Department estimates Jamaica to have 67, 000 hectares of bamboo. Grant said nothing that would have convinced me to put 10 acres of land into bamboo cultivation as opposed to planting coffee, banana, black mint, or mango.
The Gavel has long held the view that our parliamentary debate is too shallow, one which was reinforced by Grant's approach to his motion last Friday. Let us hope that our repeated call for parliamentarians to be provided with research assistance is finally answered.
'Warmy' right on the money
On another note, we see where heavy weather is being made of Everald Warmington's no-vote, no-benefit statement. It has even given rise to the suggestion that Jamaica should consider mandatory voting in light of low voter turnout at the polls. I say, hold your horses.
Let me address the first issue. Warmington has said he is not prepared to provide assistance or benefits to people who do not vote. The question those rebuking Warmington should seek to answer is: What are the benefits that are disbursed through the office of the member of parliament (MP)?
My understanding is that MPs make recommendations for people to benefit from certain services, for example indigent housing and farm-work tickets. In the case of farm-work tickets, an MP can only make 25 recommendations for a programme. We see no reason why a person who, without good reason, did not vote and has registered a protest, and in some cases detest politics, should benefit from a political office. Persons who refuse to vote should not turn to the political office for any kind of assistance.
A lot has been said about whether persons who Warmington - and those MPs who silently practise this no-vote, no-benefit philosophy - mentioned should be exempt from paying tax. That argument should not be entertained. Not one Jamaican can say he does not have access to the services for which his tax pays. While there might be an issue of quality, all taxpayers are entitled and receive services from health to education to security to even funeral grants. No one can deny them that right.
CONTEXT IMPORTANT
It is important that Jamaicans all recognise that apart from the Constituency Development Fund (CDF), which is valued at $15 million and is monitored like a hawk, MPs are given no discretionary funds. So while $3 million of that amount is reserved for economic enablement, an MP is well within his/her right to ensure the persons who he or she recommends to get a few chickens to start a small business, or a few pigs, are persons who believe in the political system.
I can hear the shouts coming from across the length and breadth of the country to strip the MPs of the CDF as it represents pork-barrel politics. But we should all ask ourselves whether it is not the case that MPs are being set up when they are not given at least petty cash to come to the rapid assistance of people who they encounter daily. Surely, the ideal is to make the agencies work, but until we are at that stage, the MPs should not be left as sitting ducks.
On the matter of mandatory voting, I marvel at the suggestion that putting laws in place to make people vote is the way to go. People would just spoil the ballot.
My strong feeling is that a lot of those who refuse to vote stay away because of the equality that the polls allow. Persons, if their ballots were being weighed, would have no hesitation to go to the polling station.
WEAK ARGUMENT
The argument that the candidates are often weighed and found wanting does not fly with me. No political party would select a candidate who the people indicate is not likely to receive the support of the majority of the people.
Also, there is absolutely nothing preventing persons who have a problem with the two main political parties from organising themselves in such a way to either start third-party movements or identifying independent candidates who can make the change. The critical mass that does not vote in many constituencies is large enough to cause the political change that is so desired.