The spoken word, the exact words of human beings, can be stored for posterity. Dependence purely on human memory is now outdated. Human memory is often hostage to elasticity, so, I say, thank God for the permanent forms.

The implementation of the public sector compensation review, in particular the increase to the political directorate, has caused the hurling of salvos against the Andrew Holness-led Administration. Among those who are pouring fire and brimstone daily are some who only a few short years ago sang a very different tune.

Thank God, the era when only a few privileged people controlled the levers of the media are gone. I believe they are gone for good.

Rapid improvements in technology have enabled hundreds of millions of people globally to escape the hitherto restricting grasp of those who once had the power not only to determine what people thought but how often they thought it. Those days are gone for good too, I believe. This new liberation should be welcomed by all well-thinking persons.

The People’s National Party (PNP) says it is vehemently against the increases to the political directorate as a matter of principle. What is that precise principle, though? Early last Friday, while I was on a school campus, I overheard a conversation between two gentlemen:

“The Comrade Leader is going to make a big announcement on this salary scandal at a press conference this morning,” one said.

“What time?” the other asked.

“Eleven o’clock,” the information provider submitted.

This was useful information. Prior I did not know of the presser. Anyways, due to other commitments I could not join live. So later in the day I checked what news had come out of the PNP’s press conference. A headline in this newspaper read: ‘Golding says he will give back 80% of massive salary hike’. The story delivered these among other details: ” ‘As leader of the Opposition, I must lead by example at a time like this. I will therefore redirect the bulk of the 240+ per cent increase in my pay and retain 20 per cent of that increase and contribute the rest to persons in need and other worthy causes,’ Golding said. ‘I intend to do this until the outstanding grouses affecting the public sector workers arising out of the restructuring have been satisfactorily addressed,’ he added.” (Jamaica Observer, May 19, 2023)

I checked the reportage of this newspaper against that of two other credible media outlets. There was congruence.

I get it. I understand the whole symbolism of Golding’s move, but, given the outright condemnation by the PNP in a recent press advisory which, among other things, described the pay increases for the political directorate as “morally indefensible”, I did wonder whether Golding would surprise all by pulling a Michael Manley-type move and refuse the increases altogether.

The only surprise from the PNP presser was that there was no surprise.

By the way, for my readers of younger vintage, in 1983 then Opposition Leader Michael Manley outrightly condemned and did not contest the snap general election announced by then Prime Minister Edward Seaga. Manley claimed there was violation of a bipartisan understanding on election reform.

No political brownie points

It should be obvious to any discerning citizen that the PNP’s position is motivated by the pricking of political blood. I said in this space many months ago that incessant attempts to prick political blood, specifically from Prime Minister Andrew Holness, key members of his Administration, and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), in general, by Mark Golding, has not only failed, they have failed miserably. I have been proved right. I don’t believe the PNP understands that pricking political blood is not always a sensible strategy.

Recall that last Tuesday Julian Robinson, Opposition spokesperson on finance, said this in Parliament, “Madam Speaker, the Opposition takes no issue with what the minister has announced.” I doubt Robinson was on a frolic of his own.

Recall, too, that a few hours after Robinson’s endorsement of the increases to the political directorate a statement under the signature of the PNP’s General Secretary Dr Dayton Campbell condemned the increases. Dr Campbell is one of the PNP’s representatives on the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ). With the recent increases, his salary has moved from about $9 million to near $20 million. He says he will only take 20 per cent. Why not forego the whole increase?

So, while Golding and Campbell say they are operating from a position of deep-rooted principle, these leaders — the two most powerful in the PNP, I understand — have essentially left it up the all their councillors and Members of Parliament (MP) to decide whether they will take all, some, or none of their increases. The approach here is obvious, each man for himself. Is that the principle here?

Golding’s reasoning on this salary matter reminds me of something Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th president of the United States of America, said to a member of his Cabinet after he could not get a clear position from him on the Vietnam War. Johnson said: “You remind me of a schoolteacher in Texas who told me he could teach evolution or creation with equal conviction because his personal belief wasn’t important.”

To me Golding’s so-called solidarity move was hollow and exuded rank opportunism. I don’t believe he won any political brownies points from his announcement at the press conference. The Opposition, I believe, would have lost political brownie points on the matter of the salary increases given its strident advocacy for massive increases, especially in recent times. Google has faithfully preserved those submissions.

Consider this: “The discussion against the treatment of Jamaican parliamentarians in terms of their compensation and pension arrangements was led by seven-time MP for St Catherine North Western Robert Pickersgill, who blew the lid off the dispute in a lengthy speech which blasted the continued reluctance to give MPs more pay.

“The Opposition MP, a lawyer, confessed that entering Parliament in 1993 he did not consider the salary paid to the MPs until he learnt from legal colleagues that a single legal opinion could be twice an MP’s annual salary. ‘When I came here and heard the figure I nearly died,’ Pickersgill added. ‘The time has come, in my opinion, Mr Speaker, for us to, as I said, take the bull by the horn and settle these long-outstanding issues regarding emoluments, pension, and health benefits for parliamentarians.’ He noted that the issue of MPs’ salaries dated as far back as 1945, and that for 47 years now various commissions led by prominent Jamaicans had made recommendations to improve the salaries and pension coverage of parliamentarians without success.” (Jamaica Observer, January 15, 2020)

In the mentioned article Pickersgill continued: “Parliamentarians deserve better. It is time to do what is right. Nonetheless, I still say, and I am serious about it, I am not joking, our union leader must be the prime minister, and our general secretary must be the minister of finance, and we will find a way for you to dovetail it into the committee that I just suggested. We have to meet now. We have to talk,” he told the House.

“Like our new member from Portland said…beautiful speaking can’t increase parliamentarians’ salaries. Is action a go do that, not bag a mouth. As the saying goes, hope has no expiry date, but we must not die in Constant Spring. I hope you understand what I mean. If you don’t confront, you cannot conquer, and the time has come now for us to confront,” Pickersgill said then.

Pickersgill’s passionate presentation was buttressed by the then Member of Parliament for Central Kingston Ronald Thwaites, who said among other things: “We, as parliamentarians, on both sides, have become hostages to our own self-contempt. It is time to stop that. No other public servant takes a loss as a result of his or her public service,” Thwaites added. “It is unjust for us to treat ourselves this way, and it is unjust for the public to expect that the persons who serve here at great sacrifice should be made paupers,” Thwaites said.

I could cite many other instances where PNP parliamentarians have over the years argued cogently and forcefully for massive salary increases. It is very clear to me that the PNP, when in Opposition, has always wanted the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in Administration to do what Norman Manley’s party was intensely afraid to do when they formed the administration? This is cowardice by any measure.

Fantastical to farcical

Still on the matter of political brownie points, I believe the Opposition descended from the fantastical to farcical in a release they put out last Tuesday. The release said, among other things: “The prime minister’s authority: We question the prime minister’s authority to direct the use of government funds to ‘remove the prime minister’ from the salary roll. Were the salary increases announced by the minister of finance not a Cabinet decision? The prime minister’s action appears quite disingenuous, as the public has been told by the minister for information that the ministry of finance had already administratively implemented the new salary rates from May 15, 2023, even before Minister Nigel Clarke announced the increase on May 16, 2023,” the PNP continued.” (Jamaica Observer, May 23, 2023)

It seems to me that the PNP, in this release, among other things, is attempting to reprimand Prime Minister Holness for not accepting the salary increase, which they described as “morally indefensible” recently. What is the principle here? If there is a political logic here, it escapes me.

I believe the call by the Opposition for another layer of bureaucracy to deliberate on and then decide on the matter of salary increases for the political directorate is simply farcical. According to the Opposition, another salary committee is needed “to look at the matter afresh and with objectivity, an independent panel should be appointed to review the salaries of ministers and Members of Parliament”.

A little research would have revealed to the PNP that over the last 40 years we have set up several committees/commissions that have done mountains of research and made many recommendations on the matter of salary increases for the political directorate. These committees were headed by eminently qualified Jamaicans. They include the Richard Ashenheim Committee in 1970s, the Ron Sasso Committee in the 1980s, the Fletcher/Stone Committee in the 1990s, and the Oliver Clarke Committee in 2000s. Hefty salary increases have been recommended by all these panels. Why would we need another committee?

I believe the Opposition has put itself into a huge political crater on this salary increase matter. I suspect it recognises that it is staring down the barrel and has to find ways to upset the equilibrium. Typically in this type of situation Oppositions grab for elaborate disruptors. Others throw political grenades in the hope that they can upset the dynamics of imminent failure. I believe the best thing the Opposition can do now, having found itself in a gigantic crater, is to stop digging.

To me, an Administration that is worth its salt has to take the really tough decisions that will ultimately cause improvements in the lives and livelihoods of everyone it governs. As I pointed last Sunday, “Folks will now expect massive improvements in representation/results from the political directorate and, indeed, all public officials. They will not wait very long either.” This is the clear road ahead now.

Garfield Higgins is an educator, journalist and a senior advisor to the minister of education and youth. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or higgins160@yahoo.com.