Election delay, political expediency
Published:Wednesday | November 25, 2015 | 12:00 AM
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller have us believe that her decision to postpone the general election was born out of concern for the over 37,000 newly enumerated persons. This is not so. In fact, her decision comes more as a result of political expediency rather than any principled stance or commitment to ensure that those 37,000 new persons were not disenfranchised. Why didn't we hear any reference to the Prime Minister accommodating the 37,000 new persons before Sunday?
There is a clear and discernible pattern of political expediency in the People's National Party's approach to governance. In every instance, the PNP opts to go the route of political expediency, rather than good governance, or that which is considered the principled thing to do. The prime minister has a tendency of protecting her party and acts in her party's interests rather than to act in the interests of her country. Instead of relieving former health minister of his ministerial portfolio, she assigned him to another ministry. While others would have prioritised acting in the nation's interest and seek to ensure the health and well-being of general public, Prime Minister Simpson Miller acted to protect the interest of the PNP.
CONTEMPTUOUS RESPONSE
When the nation lost thousands of productive man hours due the massive Riverton fire that went on for two weeks in March of this year, Simpson Miller acted in defence of former executive director of the National Solid Waste Management Agency, Jennifer Edwards. Simpson Miller's response in the wake of that infamous fire at Riverton was to the effect that 'Jennifer Edwards wasn't there when the fire started and she didn't start the fire'. How trite and contemptuous of the prime minister to have made such a suggestion?
Why didn't the prime minister express her commitment of facilitating the newly enumerated
persons prior to the obvious determination she made that going to the polls at this time would be too risky? Why didn't Portia Simpson Miller relieve Dr Ferguson of his ministerial portfolio instead of assigning him to another ministry? Shouldn't Mrs Simpson Miller encourage herself and her party to work beyond the nation's expectations, to grow the country and economy?
Kimberly Rowe