Why is Ruel Reid treated differently?
WHY HAS Prime Minister Andrew Holness treated Ruel Reid, former minister of education, differently from Andrew Wheatley, former Cabinet minister? There are similar allegations of corruption, fraud and nepotism. Initially, Wheatley had one portfolio removed and retained the other two. Why not remove education, the source of the problem, and let Reid keep youth and information? Weatley was not summarily asked to resign based on the need to investigate first, so why the dismissal of Reid within three days? Will Reid be allowed to pay back money if it is found he was not entitled to it?
Is the prime minister saying the Wheatley model was a mistake and that the matter was handled poorly, and going forward, the Reid rule is the way to proceed? Or is it because the USA State Department gave a poor assessment about our tolerance of corrupt officials? Or is Reid being held to a higher standard because he is a leading churchman, preacher and a voice on the popular Christian programme, Look at
Life? We need to know.
It is widely reported that two Cabinet ministers were named by the contractor general in the bushing scandal, and not even a slap on the wrist, but Reid is thrown under the bus. To add insult to injury, a Cabinet minister and a Jamaica Labour Party member of parliament came out and made the unusual comment of supporting his removal. It is never wise to shoot your own soldier who has been wounded.
When Robert Montague was minister of national security, he claimed he formed a six- man committee to handle appeals for gun licence. Up to this day we do not know the names of the six, or the terms of reference and how a person of questionable character was
‘Prime Minister Andrew Holness took over Wheatley’s portfolio for about eight months and we are not aware of his expertise there. However, he has had at least four years’ experience as minister of education but he did not take over Reid’s ministry.’
able to successfully appeal to get a gun licence. Why no kid gloves for Reid too?
Some other strange differences. Prime Minister Andrew Holness took over Wheatley’s portfolio for about eight months and we are not aware of his expertise there. However, he has had at least four years’ experience as minister of education but he did not take over Reid’s ministry. Furthermore, he said he is a person of second chance, and therefore floated the idea of a Wheatley return, but Reid seems to be given no chance. Why?
Are we to believe that the way forward, when serious allegations of corruption, fraud and nepotism are made, is that the politician will be removed? What of those who do not declare their assets on a timely basis and flout the law?
This is not a defence of Reid, but rather that justice must not only be done but also appears to be done. And Reid has some serious questions to answer. For example, he was instituting a Code of Ethics to guide persons such as principals and chairmen of school boards into uncritical support of government education policy. If Reid had his way, these persons could not criticise how he was dismissed.
Furthermore, how could he as minister of education on secondment from the principalship of Jamaica College be living in the principal’s cottage when it was easy to get a government house? Was he was depriving the acting principal of the house and adding another cost to Jamaica College? If so, he should repay that benefit forthwith. The Jamaica College board which, facilitated that housing arrangement, is weak and should consider resigning. And if it is true that the board gave him three years special leave after a two-year secondment, then it has no choice but to do the decent thing.
Furthermore, why would Reid resign as a senator and feel he has the moral leadership to take back the reins of Jamaica College, unless this is just a ploy to get paid for three years?
Both Wheatley and Reid, who have similar allegations laid against them, said they are innocent. So why are they being treated differently? We need better particulars.