OCG, DPP, Tufton quarrel healthy

Sunday, October 03, 2010

Dear Editor,

The apparent disquiet found in the independence of thought that exists between the OCG, the DPP and the Minister of Agriculture and his team was signalled on Thursday, September 30 when both editorials in the country's major newspapers expressed similar concerns that this was not a good thing. I'm not sure I concede.

Firstly, I am not aware of any admission on the part of Christie that he had behaved inappropriately, or that had he consulted with Llewellyn, he would have taken a different approach.

What seems apparent to me is that Christie asked questions of the agriculture ministry and found the response suspect. It seems to me that the opportunity to clear oneself, or to not implicate oneself, came with being ASKED.

To not have known the truth about Mr Hill's engagement with the Ministry may not show corruption, but it may imply gross incompetence. It is an insult to Mr Hill as well, because apparently his engagement with the Ministry was treated with no greater importance than that of a temporary filing clerk -- the permanent secretary doesn't have to know, and clearly the Minister would be insulted with this bit of detail. Not likely. So of course there is a big question mark here, and Christie saw it. I don't know that I blame Christie for drawing attention to this question -- as far as I know that's his job.

On a tangent note, Mr Tufton is an obviously hard-working minister who gets positive results. Perhaps aided by the timing of this incident, and the fact that there are still far weightier matters yet to be resolved with his party, I don't see him being seriously hurt by this. But it is good to know that he's interested in getting the matter settled.

As far as this petty quarrel between the named parties goes however, rather than being worried, albeit that quarrels carry a certain taint, I am excited that there is no indication of collusion. I find it healthy.

Charles Evans

charles.evans@ncu.edu.jm