Hartley Neita

A photograph of former Minister of National Security Derrick Smith being removed from the wall (and upside down at that), should be a reminder to our leaders of the temporary nature of their status.

Now, I do not have to go the ministry to know that more than one photograph of the minister was removed. For, apart from being mounted in the foyer of their ministries, ministers' portraits are also in their conference rooms; and, depending on the immodesty of the minister, there is also one hanging on the wall behind his desk.

Photograph displays

In the case of Mr Smith, his photograph will also be removed from the foyers of every police station in Jamaica. These will now be replaced by the new minister, Colonel MacMillan. The same is true of Minister Mullings. His photograph will now be removed from all the departments and agencies being transferred to Derrick Smith.

Now there are also photographs of ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries, along with the governor-general and the prime minister all over Jamaica and abroad. The photographs of our high commissioners, ambassadors, and consul-generals are also on display in the countries to which they are assigned. In addition, the photographs of ministers and their ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries are displayed in the offices of statutory bodies and other agencies of government.

At one time, the only photographs on display in government offices were those of the king or queen, and the governor. Following the granting of universal adult suffrage and the appointments of ministers in embryo and later 'ministers for' and now 'ministers of', Bustamante's photograph was added to this list, and then one by one, the new ministers'. The photographs of mayors are also mounted at their offices and in the council chambers.

In this modern age perhaps we will soon see television screens in the foyers of government offices displaying the photograph of ministers and their sidekicks with their families, enjoying their hobbies, at conferences, at their desks and in other situations. After all, why not.

Egotistical behaviour

There was one custos, years ago, who submitted a request for his photograph to be mounted at all post offices, schools, police stations, court houses and other government buildings in his parish. It was a civil servant of blessed memory who refused to authorise this expenditure. Thank heavens.

The cost of printing and framing (unless there is recycling) the 200 photographs of Colonel MacMillan which will be needed for the various offices in his ministry and the police stations is approximately $700,000.

Meanwhile, only about 50 of Mr Smith's photographs will be needed for his new ministry, so the other 150 will be destroyed or filed away in case he is re-appointed to the office.

And, in thinking about this matter, what happens to all the photographs of these ministers who have lost their posts over the years. Are they stored? Are they bonfired under the supervision of the auditor general? Are they offered to the departing ministers for distribution to members of their families?

All this leads to my final question. In this age of e-mail, numerous newspapers and television stations, do we need to have this multitude of photographs of our political leaders? Big Master is watching you!