OPPOSITION Leader Bruce Golding on Tuesday came out in support of Prime Minister P J Patterson’s proposal for an extension of the 2002 election code of conduct to cover periods between elections, as a better option for politicians than the private sector’s Emancipation Park Declaration.

Golding told the House of Representatives that while the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) Standing Committee had decided in favour of its members signing a declaration against criminal links, as proposed by the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), “we have not yet signed off on what is to be signed”.

The Opposition Leader took the opportunity to address the issue during a debate on a report from the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC) seeking to speed up its transformation into a commission. Golding had missed out on making his point on the issue during last week’s debate on the appointment of a select committee to monitor national security in the House, when Patterson made the proposal.

Golding said that the private sector had a right to make demands of politicians. “And I believe that, as representatives, it is our duty to respond, because we are public servants.” However, he said that in responding, the parliamentarians did not have to acquiesce, if they considered the demands unreasonable.

He said that what has caused discomfort among some members of House was the presentation of a declaration which predetermined that the members would have to sign in an atmosphere in which they were questioning the commitment and will of the parliamentarians, while expressing concern about the links between politics and criminal elements and placing the spotlight on them to respond.

“To the extent that what is demanded of us is what is right, to the extent that what is demanded of us is what is expected of us by all well-thinking Jamaicans, we on this side are prepared to sign and have so indicated. That position has been endorsed by the Standing Committee of the JLP by which process all members of the party are bound because the position has the full authority of the party.

“But we have not yet signed off on what is to be signed. And in that sense, the PSOJ I think was perhaps a little precipitous in that a document was drawn up unilaterally, there was no consultation, a deadline was given for signing.

Contracts are not drawn up in that way. Contracts have to be drawn up on the basis of consultation, so that we agree on what is to be signed, what commitments we are going to make and how we are going to ensure that those commitments are honoured,” Golding said.

Defects in the document prepared by the PSOJ had been pointed out by the parliamentarians and the PSOJ has indicated that it was awaiting comments from both parties, he said.

He noted that last week the prime minister had alluded to the 2002 Code of Conduct, signed in the House by himself and then leader of the Opposition (Edward Seaga), binding both parties and subsequently signed by a significant number of the candidates on both sides.

“The prime minister suggested that perhaps what we ought to do is to expand that to the extent that that code speak specifically, because that’s what it was designed for, to the conduct of elections. I would like to endorse that suggestion for a couple reasons,” Golding said.

He added: “(1) I think it is better to have one composite document that governs the behaviour of politicians in and out of elections. We have to be careful that we don’t find ourselves walking around with a pen in hand, because if one interest group insists on our signing a document now, we are not going to be able to say no to the next interest group that says, hey, we want you to sign a document as well;

And (2), I think that it is better to have that document prepared and overseen by a statutory authority, and it is for that role and function that the political ombudsman was established.

“I took the trouble of speaking to the ombudsman yesterday to find out whether or not he had been consulted in the preparation of this document. He indicated that he had not been. I want to suggest, and I seek the concurrence of my colleagues on the other side, since we have not yet agreed to a document, taking into account the suggestion made by the prime minister last week, that what we really ought to do is to look at the existing code of conduct to see whether we need to modify that or expand it, perhaps to put an addendum to it. To have that process carried out by the political ombudsman, taking into account the concerns expressed by the PSOJ and then to have that signing done under the auspices of the political ombudsman.”

The Opposition leader said that this would be an extension of what the ombudsman had done in 2002 and it is he who has the authority to monitor compliance with that code and who has the duty to report to Parliament on compliance with the code.

“I don’t think that it would do any injustice to the desires, or the purposes of the private sector orgnisation and, I think, in a sense it would preserve the dignity of this Parliament and the dignity of those of us who hold office in this Parliament, so that we don’t end up now being stigmatised because of the situation that exists out there with crime,” said Golding.