Orville W. Taylor, Contributor
IN A stormy two weeks, Bruce Golding presented his Budget discourse. I am not sure if he read from his script but like that of Omar Davies and Audley Shaw, his speech matched his written document.
Then, on Tuesday, the 'Big Lady' spoke in her inaugural presentation as Prime Minister. Her detractors and apologists, like deeply-entrenched hypocrites, lined up on each side of the fence, some saying that her speech was brilliant. In fact, she did say herself it was a very good speech.
On the other hand, many gave her a failing grade. One commentator on TVJ gave her a low pass while awarding Bruce a grade in the 80 percentages. He is perhaps one of the fairest and not just in complexion.
Straight off my cuff, it was an unspectacular but not bad presentation. Were it delivered by someone as bland as Golding when he presented his first address as leader of the JLP, it would be worse.
I do not accept that everything that Portia says or does is either wrong or right, even if she is declared to be ordained by God. Whether ordained by God or not, she presented herself for the job as Prime Minister, won and accepted it. Well, welcome to Jamrock Sister P, because Michael, Eddie and P.J., all of whom are your mentors stepped up to the plate and took their licks. Bite your lips and don't get 'bringle!' At least, not in public.
UNNECESSARY
Her declaration that there was nothing wrong with her presentation and that it was a good speech is unnecessary, immodest and ill-advised.
At the University of the West Indies (UWI), we frequently have disputes with students over their grades. One student who barely scraped a 'B' was pestering me for an 'A' that he did not deserve. After his pursuing me relentlessly for a week, I got fed up and asked him, "Why do you want a gift 'A'? Is it that you have two Ss and want to complete your name?" The point behind this story is that students do not grade their own work. Artists don't critique their own paintings, and sportsmen do not evaluate their own form.
There are many things that I liked about the speech. First, she assuaged my concern about Omar Davies having full access to the National Insurance Fund (NIF). Like Bruce, I strongly oppose the Finance Minister being able to use it as part of the general kitty for expenditure on any willy-nilly scheme. Portia was the minister responsible for the NIF skyrocketing from a few million in 1989 to more than $40 billion at present. Thus, she must have a vested interest in not seeing it compromised.
Second, the idea of making soft NIF loans available to small business as part of a national poverty alleviation, and thus, crime reduction strategy is commendable. However, the concern is real that a government that has had its fair share of financial misconduct could possibly take poor people's money and 'run with it!' While it is indeed true that the only minister of government that has ever been convicted of 'tiefing' poor people money was a Labourite, we have had more than enough reason to be suspicious of this administration.
EMPHASIS ON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
Another strong point in Portia's presentation is the emphasis on early childhood education. She has my full support. As a man not of the cloth, (well not that type) who happens to sit on a primary school board, the University Council of Jamaica (UCJ) and the National Council on Education (NCE) and who is an educator, I commend her. It is appalling just how underprepared many of our children are when they enter primary school. Some are 'dunce,' spelled with a 'T' - because they graduate after taking the Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) not knowing the differences among the various letters of the alphabet. For them, GSAT means "Gee! You sat that exam?"
Portia has also been knocked because she only dedicated a few paragraphs to the daunting phenomenon of crime. In her defence, she argued that the poverty alleviation strategies are part of the means of reducing the epidemic. True, but in a prime ministerial presentation, this must be explicitly stated and not left to the public to "go read the speech!" Given that her constituency is one of the nation's hot spots, she should have been more direct.
Nonetheless, the one area of the presentation that I gave her a failing grade for is her unnecessary dedication of her speech to an attempt to score points against Golding by responding to his presentation full scale. Since her friends and so-called advisers won't tell her, I will. "Portia, you are Prime Minister and likely to beat Bruce in the next election. You have it all to lose and nothing to gain. To engage in a toe to toe with him is like the forward on a soccer field who has beaten the defender and only has the the goal to score. However, in a rush of indiscretion and vanity he showboats with a 'shift' or 'salad' and ends up losing the ball."
Still, Bruce raised a point to which she has yet seriously to respond. She was there during all of the malpractices of the PNP since 1989. Good argument! Although I have maintained that he was also there when the political and criminal quagmire was being created, she has to account for her presence and in doing so, tell us what she will be doing differently and why we should believe her, since many of the colleagues of yesteryear are still with her.
Trod along Sister P, I can't afford for you to fail.
Dr. Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
