Think again, Prime Minister
WHEN IT comes to politics, perception is often more important than the truth. Because of this, it is perception, not fact, that shapes society’s feeling about matters of public interest.
The corruption scandal at the Ministry of Science, Energy and Technology and some of its agencies grabbed headlines for most of 2018. When the pages of the auditor general’s report were peeled away, they revealed a catalogue of financial recklessness, including lavish private parties, overpaid consultants, procurement breaches, cost overruns and nepotism, all occurring under the stewardship of Dr Andrew Wheatley.
The torrent of criticism and public outcry which erupted after the corruption scandal came to light triggered Wheatley’s resignation in July of 2018.
The perception is that Dr Wheatley’s stewardship was found wanting. Furthermore, he has been painted as a somewhat reckless party animal.
We believe Prime Minister Andrew Holness is savvy enough to appreciate the difference between perception and truth, having been in politics for a long time. Further, we think Mr Holness understands that an event or person can be adjudged to be so negative that there is no positive public perception of them. Dr Wheatley appears to have achieved that status.
‘DAMAGED GOODS’
One political commentator described him as “damaged goods” and suggested that the embattled former minister should be kept out of the public’s eye, at least for now.
So when the prime minister appointed Wheatley as one of a three-member panel to look into poverty alleviation, it was bound to be met by protest from some quarters. Many assumed the committee would have access to government funds and saw that as a red flag. It has since been revealed that there are no government resources available to the committee.
Meanwhile, investigations into activities at the ministry and its agencies are continuing, and there are suggestions that more damaging revelations may be coming. So, even though the prime minister may be anxious to put his best minds to work, the fact that the ministry is still mired in the depths of a scandal ought to give him pause.
Could it be that the prime minister is ignoring the depth and breadth of problems unearthed at the Ministry of Energy under Dr Wheatley? Is he signalling to the country that corruption and mismanagement are not matters to worry about? Is he relying on the fact that members of the broader public may not be too bothered about corruption and are more focused on basic things in life, such as jobs and housing?
Politicians have brushed off past woes and have come back from bad situations from time to time. The unfortunate ones have been punished but the majority get off scot-free, although not unblemished. It may very well be that when the dust is settled, the nation will be told that it was all a case of “youthful exuberance”, as we have heard in the past. The several ongoing investigations may confirm what Dr Wheatley has said – “I have done nothing wrong.”
Until then, though, we deem it a bit of effrontery to the citizenry that Mr Holness thinks it is okay to assign Dr Wheatley to a committee researching and examining, of all things, poverty. For one thing, the kind of extravagance, waste and missteps identified at the Ministry of Energy are not indicative of a management interested in ensuring a sustainable future for the poor.