Let ye without sin...
EVERALD Warmington, the former minister of works and current Member of Parliament (MP) for St Catherine South Western, exhausted all nine political lives earlier this month. He made a reprehensible statement which cannot be defended. No spectacles are needed to see that his exit from the Cabinet was the right thing.
Warmington’s exit from the Cabinet released political blood in the waters. Understandably, his political opponents swarmed, obviously in the hope of gobbling up a piece of his flesh.
Politics is a blood sport, someone said long ago. That is a reality.
But, “bad fi bad” (all things considered), as we say in the rural parts, “Warmy”, as he is affectionately called, is an attentive MP. The majority of his constituents love him because he puts their needs first.
He is famous for saying: “The people of South Western St Catherine sent me here [Parliament], I represent them and will be here as long as they want me to be.”
He has also done a very good job as minister of works, in my view.
Like him or loathe him, the devil deserves his due. But, Warmington tempted fate once too often.
ARE THEY WITHOUT SIN?
On the matter of frequency, those who are discerning cannot help but notice that some individuals and groups among us have appointed themselves as prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, and hangman in matters concerning accountability of
public officials.
At a minimum we ought to demand the application of the fairness metric in all ‘trials’. I don’t believe that basic standard is being satisfied.
This salient deficit reminds me of the story in the Bible in which a woman was caught in the act of adultery. Recall the scores of men — quite possibly some were her clients — who bunched up to stone her to death. Jesus quelled the mob with his famous entreaty, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” (John 8: 7)
The lesson of this story is obvious to me. If you are going to be a self-appointed prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, and hangman in matters concerning public accountability, you must be like Caesar’s wife — you have to be above suspicion.
It has not escaped my notice that certain groups which have branded themselves as civil society arbitrators, particular some church leaders and some societal notables, are continuing to rain hefty body blows on the already punched-drunk Warmington. He deserves most of the licks he is getting, because he has carelessly put down his guard. Consequently, he left himself defenceless.
That reality aside, I believe there is another truth to which we should not blind our eyes. As I see it, the mentioned guardians of integrity seem glaringly inconsistent in the application of their fathomable remit. Why?
I believe that if these champions of public virtue are to be taken seriously, their actions must also be subject to the sanitising heat of sunlight. Regrettably, one of the many
negative residual effects of slavery and, thereafter, colonialism is a tendency to put up strong barricades which protect certain individuals, institutions, and groups that serve the cause of public interest, are paid by the public purse, and/or are adorned with grand religious titles. There can be no sacred cows in public service.
Recently, Greg Christie, the chief executive officer of the Integrity Commission of Jamaica (IC), posted egregious tweets which understandably triggered widespread demands for his resignation. Recall these two headlines: ‘We did nothing wrong… Under-fire Integrity Commission defends its handling of allegations against
PM’ (Jamaica Observer,
February 18, 2023); and ‘Christie: I have done nothing wrong …defends anti-corruption stewardship; says criticism of tweets disingenuous’ (The Gleaner, February 20, 2023).
Recall the Jamaica Observer
news article noted inter alia: “The Integrity Commission has rejected allegations of misstep, if not bungling, in its decision to table a report in Parliament which stated that Prime Minister Andrew Holness could face corruption charges, while being aware that its director of corruption prosecution had ruled that he should not be charged.
“With commentators and the general public slating the body since news broke on Thursday that it had allowed the tabling of a report from its director of investigation accusing Holness of a possible conflict of interest over contracts issued to a friend of his, more than a decade ago, while being aware that he had been cleared, the five directors of the Integrity Commission on Friday fired back.
“‘There has been strict compliance with the law. Adverse comments in respect of the commission or its director of investigation are unwarranted and misconceived,’ the directors said in a release as the commission faced calls for heads to roll.”
And recall The Gleaner‘s
news item delivered these and other details: “Integrity Commission (IC) Executive Director Greg Christie has strongly rejected calls for his resignation, declaring that he has been unbiased in his duties over the last three years at the anti-corruption agency.
“The commission’s publishing of a ruling exonerating Prime Minister Andrew Holness two days after the February 14 tabling of a report referring him for a corruption probe sparked a firestorm about procedure, law, and conspiracy.
“‘I have carried out my job obligations faithfully and diligently and, above all, with scrupulous integrity. I have done nothing wrong,’ Christie said in a Gleaner interview Sunday.
“‘I have faithfully complied with the instructions and directives of the chairman and commissioners, to whom I report, inclusive of instructions that are associated with the issues that are now in the public domain,’ the anti-corruption campaigner added.”
Christie’s actions and subsequent doubling down caused a firestorm of criticisms. Individuals and groups, including the Private Sector Organization of Jamaica (PSOJ); Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP); National Integrity Action (NIA); the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP);; Government senators; the editorials of our two national newspapers; hundreds of ordinary citizens on social media; several commentators by way of letters, articles, and calls to national talk shows declared their lack of confidence in Christie; some even calling for his immediate resignation.
Christie has not resigned. It is curious, as a matter of fact, scandalous, that some of those who are dressed in fine, shiny robes, and some others who are now rending their garments because of the contemptible behaviour of Warmington, opened not their mouths to say a single word of reprimand in relation to Christie’s egregious action. Maybe they all simultaneously had laryngitis. Some will doubtless say that Christie’s egregious tweets were a ‘first offence’.
Recall that after this first offence, Christie made the very inflammatory, “Ask the Government”, comment on the occasion of a shooting incident in which one of his colleagues was injured.
I said here previously that I believed Christie’s utterance was deplorable. I stand by that.
Christie’s utterance understandably again caused huge pubic outraged. Individuals and groups; the editorial of this newspaper; hundreds of ordinary citizens on social media; scores by way of letters, articles, and calls to national talk shows, and I could go on, declared their lack of confidence in Christie and called for his immediate resignation.
Christie has not resigned. Christie doubled down in both instances.
Again, it is very curious, as a matter of fact, unseemly, that many who are dressed in bright, shiny robes, and some who are rending their garments because of the detestable behaviour of Warmington opened not their mouths to say a single word of reprimand in relation to Christie’s egregious action. Why?
Is it that they are hard-line disciples of the ‘three strikes and you are out’ rule, and as such are awaiting a third egregious infraction before they speak? Or is that they all simultaneously again had laryngitis or some other related aliments/ afflictions which prevented them from public speech?
We are not fools. We see you. To me something just does not pass the new car smell test here.
I have absolutely no challenge with individuals and/ or groups demanding public accountability. That is par for the course in a functional democracy. I do, however, have a big challenge with glaring partiality, false rectitude, blinkered application of calls for high standards in public life, disingenuous peddling and pondering as regards demands for public accountability and blatant hypocrisy. We who are discerning have a duty to alert the public.
WRETCHED COMMENTS
On the matter of obligation to warn, these frightening and abhorrent comments by Dennis Meadows, the former PNP MP candidate for Trelawny Northern, should be a wake-up call for all.
Meadows said among other things: “Let me tell you straight up, and me can speak openly, I have no problem with a man if him want chop [scamming] because dem chop us during slavery, so nut’n no wrong if wi chop dem back... nut’n nuh wrong wid weh yah do,” he said while addressing a crowd
of supporters at a PNP meeting in Trelawny during the lead-up to the local government elections.” (RJR News, February 28, 2024)
I note that some who suffer with opportunistic laryngitis finally found voice enough to condemn Meadows for his repulsive comments. Applause! But others of their ilk who are leading the charge for the banishment of Warmington, specifically some very vociferous men of the cloth, still seem to be suffering from convenient political sore throat. I suggest they try the good, old home remedy of salt water, honey, lime, and a smidgen of white rum.
THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER
To me and many other discerning Jamaicans there is a noticeable unfairness in how many of the guardians of public accountability are carrying out their functions. The very negative consequences of their one-sidedness are conspicuous.
It is no secret that many of these guardians of public accountability are not viewed healthily by the ‘man in the street’. Many of them are justifiably viewed with great suspicion. I readily understand why. Many, especially ordinary Jamaicans, see some of them as local agents of overseas groups that push agendas which are inconsistent with our cultural mores. Many Jamaicans view some of them as speed-dial supporters of perpetrators of crime. Where is their care for innocent victims? Some of these individuals and groups are doing a great disservice to their function due to their conspicuous application of one-eyed criticisms of only
some officials. No one in public life must be immune to the crucible of accountability. As such, the same rigour must be consistently applied when we veer off off the straight and narrow path.
PRETEND TACTILE IMMUNITY?
Speaking of paths, I have been saying for months in this space that a statistically good economy must be felt in the pockets of people and on dinner tables.
I maintain that the Administration still can and needs to do more to cause our good macro-economic achievements to be better felt at the micro levels, but this must be done in a sustained way.
Three Sundays ago I suggested here a number of ways
in which the feelings or vibes deficits could be additionally neutralised. “Vibe-cession,” the disconnection between positive economic data and consumer sentiment is a global reality, especially where economies are doing well, experts says.
Consider this: The Joe Biden Administration in the US, during the novel coronavirus pandemic delivered a relief package of nearly US$2 trillion.
Among other things, it took the form of direct payments of up to US$1,400. They extended a US$300 per week unemployment insurance supplement, extended the child tax credit, put billions into vaccine distribution and student loan forgiveness.
Today, the US is enjoying low inflation and interest rates. Unemployment at 3.90 per cent is the lowest in 50 years. America’s small business sector is growing faster than it has for 25 years. Yet the cry from many Americans, as revealed in the findings of several recent national and credible scientific polls, is: “Close to 51 per cent of Americans say they are not feeling the benefits of the healthy macro growth.”
How is this possible? Economists and other experts are baffled. Professor Justin Wolfers, economist and public policy scholar at University of Michigan, says one explanation lies in the rabidly partisan manner in which many more people are answering the questions of pollsters these days. Other noted economists and sociologists say we are in a global “pessimism bubble”, typical of a post-pandemic period. And some experts say greed-flation and shrink-flation are the real culprits. More anon!