So we have a week to go before the general election. Yesterday, December 14, was 67 years since our first general election under Universal Adult Suffrage. Today, December 15, marks 35 years since the general election of 1976 and 28 years since the general election of 1983. By the way, it is no longer possible for Andrew Holness to be the shortest-serving prime minister of Jamaica. Sir Donald Sangster was prime minister for 48 days and today is Holness’s 52nd day in office. So Sir Donald Sangster is once again the shortest-serving prime minister of Jamaica so far.

Other than Damion Crawford, the People’s National Party candidate, another man by the same name has been nominated in East Rural St Andrew. What a good thing that candidates have a symbol as well as their names on the ballots. One recalls the general election in Great Britain in 1970 when several people by the name of Edward Heath were nominated. Edward Heath was then leader of the British Conservative Party and he was elected prime minister of that country on June 18 that year.

Also, in 1978 in Jamaica, there was a by-election in Western St Andrew following the resignation of David Coore. Dudley Thompson was the PNP candidate. Officially, the JLP did not contest the by-election. On nomination day, some seven men and women, all with the surname of Thompson showed up to be nominated. Only one person (not Dudley Thompson) was nominated.

There was something of a riot, and then Prime Minister Michael Manley announced a postponement of the nominations to a new date, with the by-election set for a new date. On the new by-election date, August 3, 1978, the independent candidates combined polled fewer than 200 votes while Dudley Thompson polled in excess of 7000.

The person who was nominated in the initial nomination argued in court that he should be declared the winner and the other by-election declared invalid. He did not contest the newly set election. The court never ruled on this.

Did Michael Manley have the legal right to postpone the by-election? Early in 1980, the court ruled that he did not and that Dudley Thompson was therefore not duly elected. Dudley Thompson appealed and kept his seat during the appeal. When the House was dissolved for the October 1980 elections, the matter was closed as upon the dissolution of Parliament all election petitions are brought to an end.

Andrew Holness has made peace with RJR. Does he know about RJR’s broad-based ownership? For example, the Jamaica Co-operative Credit Union League has substantial shares in RJR. The credit union league is made up of all the credit unions in Jamaica and the credit unions are owned by its members. As co-operatives, the highest authority in the credit unions are the annual general meetings.

There are some 970,000 Jamaicans who are members of credit unions. The Credit Union League is represented on the RJR board of directors. Apart from providing media information on credit unions, the profit from RJR benefits the credit union members. The league provides all sorts of services to credit unions.

One such service is the bailout of credit unions and the provision of loans to credit union members when their credit unions are unable to do so. And the league takes the money from its income which is partly dues from credit unions and partly from the profits from the league’s shareholdings including RJR.

What would have happened if the nearly one million credit union members knew about the Credit Union League’s shares in RJR and the benefits that flow from those shares? Would there then be a hue and cry after the statement by Holness? Would any politician ever dare appear to threaten the freedom of the press, especially so near to a general election?

Please remember that the voters’ list has 1.6 million voters. It could be argued that the one million credit union members make up roughly almost two-thirds of all the voters on the list. Would Andrew Holness have made any statement about RJR in such circumstances? My own opinion is that credit union league representatives on the RJR board should pay attention to content, mainly factual accuracy and appropriate music, especially on Fame FM.

The league’s position appears to be that as long as the profits come in, then nothing else matters as long as everything said or sung is within the law. And it does appear that the majority of delegates at the league level would agree with the league board’s position rather than with mine.

So Andrew Holness has apologised to RJR media personnel. But would he have made the mistake in the first place if he knew about the broad-based ownership of RJR? Does Holness know what he did?

ekrubm765@yahoo.com