Bookmark Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Go-Jamaica Gleaner Classifieds Discover Jamaica Youth Link Jamaica
Business Directory Go Shopping inns of jamaica Local Communities

Home
Lead Stories
News
Business
Sport
Commentary
Letters
Entertainment
Arts &Leisure
Outlook
In Focus
Social
The Star
E-Financial Gleaner
Overseas News
The Voice
Communities
Hospitality Jamaica
Google
Web
Jamaica- gleaner.com

Archives
1998 - Now (HTML)
1834 - Now (PDF)
Services
Find a Jamaican
Library
Live Radio
Weather
Subscriptions
News by E-mail
Newsletter
Print Subscriptions
Interactive
Chat
Dating & Love
Free Email
Guestbook
ScreenSavers
Submit a Letter
WebCam
Weekly Poll
About Us
Advertising
Gleaner Company
Contact Us
Other News
Stabroek News

Editorial - Transparency required
published: Sunday | November 13, 2005

IT MAY well be that the context in which it became necessary to appoint the Parliamentary Salaries Review Committee has been forgotten. Or perhaps it is remembered, but an excess of hubris has determined that the public's concerns are of no import. But it is unfortunate that a Special Parliamentary Group has rejected a recommendation from that committee that members of the House of Representatives should declare all their sources of income and earnings.

Over the past few years, there has been much concern about whether Parliamentarians, Ministers of Government, other elected officials and public servants were either being adequately compensated or feathering their own nests. When that is added to the general perception of rampant corruption throughout all levels of the public service, the question of openness and transparency should not be treated lightly.

Under the Corruption (Prevention) Act the Government requires nearly all public sector employees and their spouses to sign statutory declarations each year outlining their incomes, assets and liabilities. Members of the House of Representatives have long been required to table an annual accountability report.

But there is no good reason to believe that our elected representatives are any less susceptible to corruption than civil servants, or that that the policeman or customs officer is any more likely to be venal than the persons who sit in Gordon House.

Nor are we so naïve as to believe that a simple declaration by itself gives the full picture. As an example, the recently-slain Donovan 'Bulbie' Bennett, who was not a public servant but who benefited by providing 'contractual services', is reported by the police to have had considerable resources and assets amounting to at least $100 million, many of them in the name of his relatives. His is hardly a peculiar case.

We do not believe that the Parliamentary Group's decision is the right one. It is not in sync with a culture of transparency and openness to which various Government spokesmen claim they are committed.

Regrettably, in the absence of information, rumour and speculation gain traction undercutting the goodwill and trust necessary for cooperation and good governance.

MPs and senators need to remember that they are servants of the people. By virtue of having decided to enter public life, they have ceded some rights to privacy. It goes with the territory. The decision not to give full declaration is a bad one and should not be adopted. Unless, of course, there is something to hide.

More Commentary



Print this Page

Letters to the Editor

Most Popular Stories















© Copyright 1997-2005 Gleaner Company Ltd.
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Letters to the Editor | Suggestions | Add our RSS feed
Home - Jamaica Gleaner