Dear Editor,

Having read the Constitutional Reform Committee’s (CRC) report on the “Transition to the Republic of Jamaica and Other Matters”, I agree that it could be improved for clarity and depth. I’d like to add some thoughts.

Of concern is the use of the the term “parliamentary republic” instead of “republic” since the recommendation is to use the best from both parliamentary and presidential systems. The report made reference to instabilities in some countries which are strictly presidential, a parliamentary system will help to maintain and strengthen our democracy and political stability.

The report referred to the “Republic of Jamaica” multiple times, which suggests a name change is imminent, although this wasn’t clear. I believe a name change is unnecessary and would be very costly, especially for documents, forms, etc.

Dual citizenship remains a topical issue. I’ve heard Prime Minister Andrew Holness in a televised interview say that he’s okay with members being elected to the House with dual citizenship; however, the leader of the Executive must only have Jamaican citizenship. The CRC was clear that the president must not have sworn allegiance to any other country, and I agree, considering the president will be head of State and Jamaica’s first citizen. A 10-year residency rule would apply for eligibility to the office of president. Dual citizenship in the House of Parliament is still debatable.

The president would be elected by two-thirds majority in Parliament, I believe, after a process of nomination from both sides, and the prime minister would be appointed by the president based on who is the leader of the majority in the House. The CRC draft number 6.1.9 recommends that, “Jamaican citizenship should be the essential qualifying citizenship criterion for membership in the Parliament.” One could argue, since it is not explicitly stated, that dual citizenship of any country would be allowed for Members of Parliament, the prime minister, and Opposition leader as long as the qualifying citizenship, Jamaican, exists.

I agree with the removal of the Commonwealth clause, which could allow a non-Jamaican Commonwealth citizen, residing in Jamaica for at least a year, access to Parliament and influence over our laws. Although the period of residency was removed, I believe it should be retained, as this is one test of loyalty which can be easily validated. Twelve months is not a long time, and if a Jamaican is interested in public service at a senior level and making laws, he should be residing here for a period leading up to his appointment to ensure familiarity, interest, and connection. How can one be political with no ties other than being Jamaican?

Commentator Kevin O’Brien Chang and veteran journalist Cliff Hughes have been critical of Opposition Leader Mark Golding’s character over the handling of his citizenship matter. Golding never lied, he broke no laws, and his British lineage is well known.

I have been critical of Golding before, especially when he was first elected leader of the People’s National Party (PNP). However, he has evolved into a formidable leader, who now speaks with confidence, enough to command attention. As an experienced attorney, Golding is well versed in the law and his skill as a politician is also evolving. Golding’s “come back” lines to political opponents lately have been sharp, quick, and stinging. Indeed, there are many ways to test loyalty and patriotism which transcend citizenship. Prime Minister Holness is well aware that members of his executive have dual citizenship. Is the prime minister concerned that they might run away if things go wrong? Is he concerned about their loyalty and patriotism? His argument suggests that none of these Members of Parliament could serve as Opposition leader or prime minister, which is myopic in my view. What matters most, I believe, is the oath of allegiance, a commitment to public service and the constitution as well as performance.

I prefer if elected members are honest, decent, competent, and have integrity. Many people with dual citizenship have lived in other countries; worked in other countries; and experienced systems, processes, and cultures which could benefit Jamaica tremendously. Why prohibit them from public service as elected or appointed officials? The UK, Canada, Germany, Austria, France, Israel are some countries which allow dual citizens to serve.

The matter of impeachment in the report was disappointing. There was no recommendation except to say that serious offences would normally be dealt with by the courts. I also question the appointment of an interim president. I agree with the Opposition that the chief justice should be the first choice in the event that the president cannot serve. Appointing custodes as recommended by the CRC does not sit well.

Was it wise for the CRC to be chaired by a government minister? Both chair and co-chair of the CRC are government employees who report to the prime minister. I would’ve preferred if both positions were held by independents with legal backgrounds and government appointees sat on the committee as members.

I have zero confidence in Marlene Malahoo Forte, minister of legal and constitutional affairs, who has only served two years as minister. Since the prime minister is not a lawyer, he must rely on expert legal advice and under his leadership we have seen laws “pushed” through Parliament only to be ruled unconstitutional when challenged in court, this speaks volumes.

P Chin

chin_p@yahoo.com