Dear Editor,

Tuesday’s sitting of the House of Representatives, during which Opposition Leader Mark Golding was adding his contribution to the 2023/2024 Budget Debate, was disrupted when Prime Minister Andrew Holness and members of the Government walked out of Parliament due to comments made by Golding about House Speaker Juliet Holness, who is also the prime minister’s wife.

Golding inferred that replacing former Speaker of the House Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert with Juliet Holness was a strategic move by the prime minister and his Government, but it goes against the tradition of the Parliament. “The move to replace her with the wife of the prime minister, so that the head of Parliament is now the spouse of the head of Government really does not sit well with the tradition that the Speaker must act independently of the Government of the day,” said Golding. An obviously irate Andrew Holness blasted Golding, labelling his comments “low and desperate” before exiting the chamber.

Subsequent to this, Golding took to Duke Street to finish his presentation. Since Tuesday evening, several press releases, social media posts, and interviews have been done to defend and justify the positions taken by the two political parties. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and its affiliate groups have described Golding’s comment as misogynistic and hypocritical. They argue that Golding and others in the People’s National Party (PNP) — especially men — have constantly reduced women to mere objects of their gender rather than focus on their expertise.

The JLP has also lambasted the PNP for being hypocritical in its stance regarding Juliet Holness’s ascension to House Speaker. And rightly so. The PNP had warmly welcomed the nomination and appointment of Juliet Holness last September.

In its defence, the PNP said its concern is not about Juliet Holness’s gender, but her agenda. This, they say, is in reference to her delay or refusal to table reports of the infamous “illicit six” which were submitted to Parliament by the Integrity Commission. Additionally, the PNP noted Juliet Holness’s refusal to share the opinion of the Attorney General on matters regarding the tabling of reports.

Despite the Speaker declaring more than once that there is no “illicit six”, the PNP, certain political analysts, and sections of the media have continued to use this narrative. It would be useful if the Integrity Commission gave a public update on the matter so that the country knows what is really happening.

It does not augur well for the bipartisan community to be left in a state of confusion around this matter. Or is it in the interest of the Integrity Commission to watch this conundrum continue without any resolve? Perhaps there is a gag clause?

Having grown up in the Church, it was often the practice for the pastor and his wife not to serve together on the church board because of the potential conflict of interest. This principle of not having spouses and other close family members serving together at high levels is also practised in other organisations in both the private and public sectors. In essence, the concern raised by Golding has merit. However, as to whether the timing and intention of his comment were right, that is another issue. In any case, both political parties should have contemplated the potential perceived conflict of interest that could result from Juliet Holness’s ascension to the high seat.

Perhaps some sort of protocol ought to be established to prevent a reoccurrence? But if the Speaker of the House is nominated or elected from the governing party, isn’t that by itself a potential for conflict of interest? This is something that may need to be considered on the road to republic status.

On the other hand, should people’s potential and expertise be stifled simply because they are affiliated with someone in management or leadership? I had a strong debate with my good friend Damario Pattern, who is currently studying at the Norman Manley Law School. He does not believe family members should be serving in politics at the same time. I asked him if people’s pursuits should be limited in the name of family affiliation.

Indubitably, we all have biases, but are we saying that people cannot be objective and exercise critical thinking skills in their operations? What if the expertise required to move the organisation forward rests in a family member? Do we watch the organisation decline or do we capitalise on the family member’s competence?

Prime Minister Holness was slick in his jab at Golding in opening his budget presentation on Thursday when he said, “I want to thank Juliet, an independent woman, a self-made woman, who has achieved all she has in her own effort, in her own right.”

In the end, a real man will defend his wife.

Oneil Madden

maddenoniel@gmail.com