The Editor, Sir:

Were I not aware of the unfortunate outcome to that plaintiff who uttered these words in literary history, I would have described Ian Boyne, in his writing, 'Vasciannie and our political culture' (Sunday Gleaner, 01/13/2008) as "a Daniel come to judgement". (Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.)

Nonetheless, Mr. Boyne is spot on when he makes the case that any objection to Dr. Vasciannie's appointment to the post of Solicitor General is not - and cannot be - for his harsh criticism, in 2002, of Mr. Golding.

Pragmatist

I, too, believe that Mr. Golding is "... a democrat and a pluralist". (Boyne). Above all though, I think that he is a pragmatist - resisting all calls for "wholesale clean out". He may have a problem indeed with the appointment of Dr. Vasciannie as Solicitor General (SG).

For example, a disinterested observer may very well think that the advice given by Dr. Vasciannie (as acting SG) to the then PNP government on the request by the Dutch to come to Jamaica to investigate the Trafigura matter, was at best 'incomplete' or 'inadequate'. I have no empirical evidence of this, but Mr. Golding may well have held - and still holds - this view. But his objection then would be with what he sees as a "poor" choice by the PSC, based on that perceived inadequacy, rather than any 'sin' on a dead cat by Dr. Vasciannie.

I have long maintained that the quarrel - if it can be called that - is not with Dr. Vasciannie, but with the then PSC. There were more than four 'strikes' against the then PSC, including breach of the spirit of convention - to offer their resignation en masse on the change of an administration and, in the absence of an appeal against the judgement, the possibility of a charge of contempt of court for their apparent refusal to reinstate an employee, but purporting to transfer him to another post, in what may be seen as clear defiance. No PSC should - nor could - continue in office with such baggage and controversy on its performance. It quickly leads to a perceived loss of moral integrity, authority and credibility.

At the time of the 'dead-cat bounce' comment by Dr. Vasciannie in his published column, I thought that it was intemperate and that it reflected his personal disappointment in things that - he thought - could have been, rather than a dispassionate analytical assessment of the reality which prompted Mr. Golding to return to the JLP. The fact is that Dr. Vasciannie was excellent in perspicuity (clarity) but very poor in perspicacity (acuity of foresight).

Mr. Boyne is absolutely correct. I remember that his was the only public criticism I had seen or heard in the media to that comment. History has indeed absolved Mr. Golding in this regard.

I maintain that the fault lay not in/with Dr. Vasciannie or Mr. Golding but in/with the then PSC.

I am, etc.,

L.L. VENTOUR

lawven@cwjamaica.com

Kingston 6

Via Go-Jamaica