The plan by Mr Greg Christie, the new Contractor General, to routinely monitor contracts with the government by MPs, their close family and interested parties is a welcome idea which we hope will be vigorously implemented.

At present, Parliamentarians are constitutionally barred from entering contracts to provide services to the government, unless they get an exemption from the legislature. And indeed, all contracts over a certain value, entered into by the government, are subject to review by the Office of the Contractor General.

However, contracts between MPs and government agencies have, up to now, not been subject to close official scrutiny by the Contractor General or other agencies. We suspect that these have largely fallen through the cracks because of the requirement of parliamentarians to file annual asset and liability statements with the Parliamentary Integrity Commission.

While the Integrity Commission's review should indicate whether the income earned and assets accumulated by legislators and their close family were legitimately gained, it hardly, in cases of contracts with the government, goes to another aspect of corruption. It does not indicate whether such contracts were fairly awarded and whether taxpayers are getting the best deal.

We agree with Mr Christie that no one should draw the conclusion that a contract between the government and an MP, the parliamentarian's family or an interested party is ipso facto suspect.
However, anything that adds transparency to the process of government and governance is inherently good.

In that regard, parliamentarians should have an interest in opening such contracts to the Contractor General's - and the public's - scrutiny. This can only help to enhance public trust in the actions of legislators and rebuild confidence in government.

We hope that the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the leaders of the political parties and any legislator who has cause to enter a contract with the government, see Mr Christie's plan for the potential positive that it is. In other words, they should facilitate the efforts of the Contractor General, whose announcement, we hope, will be more than that and becomes fact.

Rethink, Mr Shaw

We disagree with Mr Audley Shaw's instinctive reaction of promising protest if the government considers hiking the tax on fuel - a matter that has floated around in the administration for a long time.
The last time the government attempted to adjust the fuel tax upwards it led to several days of street protests in which people died and property was damaged and destroyed.

The fact, though, is that oil is a non-renewable resource, which Jamaica does not, up to now, produce. The bulk of the world's known reserves of oil are in politically unstable areas of the world and the price of the commodity is sensitive to political tensions. Indeed, over the past two years, the price of oil has risen sharply and Jamaica's import bill for the commodity has almost tripled in the last five years. Yet, we continue to ravenously consume the commodity.

It is unfortunate that the sharpest growth in the consumption of oil is not in the productive sectors, but in transportation. Yet, in US dollar terms Jamaica, which does not produce oil, has among the lowest gasoline prices in this hemisphere.

It seems to us that we have to rethink this matter - as was suggested by the Matalon Committee on tax reform. Rather than oppose, Mr Shaw should engage so that we can arrive at a rational policy on the pricing of oil. Higher prices at the pumps for motorists, for instance, do not have to translate to higher prices for factories.

The Audacity of Art

Marjorie Whylie to receive Stella Gregory Award

Traditional Thanksgiving offerings at EVITAS