Leave Tufton’s private life alone

I saw a WhatsApp message sent last Thursday evening about an individual asking Dr Chris Tufton the question if he had “cheated’ on his wife, but never paid much attention to it.

But when I turned to Television Jamaica’s Prime Time News about an hour later I was flabbergasted to see a clip of an earlier news conference of that same individual asking Dr Tufton the question that she felt another member of the media should have asked, or wanted to ask: ‘Did you cheat on your wife?’

I thought, what a sick individual! Health ministry Permanent Secretary Dunstan Bryan appeared ready to shield Dr Tufton, who would have none of it, and proceeded to tell the out of order woman presenting herself as a journalist that it was none of her business, and rightly so.

I never imagined that in this age a so-called journalist could ask such a foolish and irrelevant question at a news conference, which might be one of the reasons I hardly attend such events these days, in person or via Zoom.

Why get so personal with the minister? And what does the word ‘cheat’ really mean? Is it a crime if the minister wants to get involved with someone other than his wife, or she wants to be with someone else?

The Jamaican society has to be one of the most hypocritical. There are people here who do some of the most disgusting and disgraceful things, yet when others do whatever they feel like doing, those hypocritical moralists start biting like intoxicated red ants.

It’s not good. For journalists though, they should stick to the facts — the national issues — and not try to pry into the personal affairs of people, even if they are Cabinet ministers.

I always try not to confront media practitioners about the work that they do, but this one was utterly distasteful and unnecessary. Hopefully, emerging students of journalism would have missed it.

Holness could learn much from Michael Manley

(Michael Manley)

Prime Minister Holness’s comments two weeks ago, which in effect attempted to dilute the legacy of Michael Manley, a former prime minister, were also quite disingenuous.

Instead of criticising Manley, Holness would do well to learn from the greatest prime minister that Jamaica has seen, one who was so far ahead of his time and who, had the country been patient with him, would have realised far greater benefits for this nation.

People continue to run off their loud mouths about how Manley almost destroyed Jamaica, especially during his first period of serving as prime minister from 1972 to 1980, and also from 1989 to 1992.

They are the ones who will tell you that democratic socialism, as articulated by Manley during the 1970s, brought woe and destruction to the land. But one of the things that set Jamaica back was the wanton acts of sabotage by the ruling class…the capitalists who would stop at nothing to keep ordinary citizens at the same economic and social levels all their lives. Should we forget the hoarding of goods during 1980, and one day after the October 30 election the supermarket shelves were full upon the change of government? Where were those goods all that time? Were they miraculously flown into Jamaica within two hours of the general election?

The same people will tell you that economic growth during the 1960s was the best of any era, but it was also the time of record unemployment, and a time when black people could not get certain jobs. So how do you do that balancing act?

In a way, Holness has gone back to some of Manley’s ideas. It was he who, in recent years, reminded Jamaicans to grow what you eat, eat what you grow, a phrase introduced to this island by Manley during the 1970s.

The move to get Jamaicans to own a part of their country was pushed vigorously by Manley, who would have been proud to know that Holness allowed ordinary Jamaicans like myself to own a piece of Wigton Windfarm, at an attractive share price.

The positives on Michael Manley are endless, but I guess this is the season for negatives. At this rate we will never be reminded that Sir Alexander Bustamante sold Jamaican bauxite for a penny a ton in the 1960s, a situation that was rectified by Manley by 1974 when he also introduced the bauxite levy.

I know that Michael Manley must be rolling in his grave to see how the party that he led from 1969 to 1992 has slumped to something resembling a rudderless vessel. But he did well for this country and his name should never be tarnished by those who ought to know better.

What happens to that US$3 million if due diligence fails?

My attention was drawn to a news item on Nationwide News Network at noon last Thursday surrounding a move by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Commission (BGLC) to conduct a due diligence on the Chinese service provider Genlot, after which a decision will be made regarding the application for a lottery licence by Mahoe Gaming Ltd.

It appears to be a matter of putting the cart before the horse, as first we heard that Mahoe had spent US$3 million with Genlot to prepare for the granting of a licence from the BGLC. Now, why would a company go ahead and spend US$3 million on a service provider if there are no guarantees for the licence?

So what if during the due diligence it turns out that the company does not satisfy the criteria which the BGLC requires? Does it mean that the US$3 million spent so far by Mahoe will go down the drain just like that?

The BGLC states on its website that for a service provider to be given the go-ahead to operate in Jamaica, that provider must be already doing business in five jurisdictions, and there are mutterings from near and far that Genlot may not fit that bill.

But, I’m sure the BGLC will ensure that the matter is thoroughly checked. For, any hiccup now — at a time when so many claims of favouritism have surfaced in the public sector — could result in the kind of climax that will not be pleasurable.

A sniff of two elections in one

It may not be a bad idea for the general election and local government election to be held simultaneously, if even from the point of view of saving money — in this case $750 million we are told by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica.

But if general elections are to be held every five years, and local government every three, the chances of more such marriages going ahead in future are slim, which is why consideration ought to be given to amending the Jamaica Constitution so that both elections are held every four years.

Local government is largely insignificant; central government is the real deal. There are so many variables involved, one of which could see the party winning the general election yet coming second in terms of the local government results and the control of municipalities.

In St Mary, for example, the Jamaica Labour Party won one of three seats in the 2016 General Election — St Mary Western — the only seat in Jamaica which has always gone to the party that wins the general election. Of the 13 divisions, the People’s National Party won eight and the JLP five.

But in the local government election mere months later, the JLP took 10 of the 13 divisions. Do you see how things can turn?