I was greatly disappointed in Lambert Brown's article in The Sunday Gleaner (August 9, 2009) under the caption 'Joy and Sorrow of Independence', To say it was disingenuous is to say the least.

Did the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) really oppose Michael Manley's mantra of 'Eat what you grow'? And did they equally oppose 'Free Education', as proposed by Manley? For me, the answer is no, to both questions.

Michael Manley and his regime placed the emphasis, and rightly so, on 'Eat what you grow', and proceeded to cut the importation on certain foreign goods, for example American pear and apple, coupled with the maximising of ground provisions through the land-lease project whereby individuals operated farms on Government-owned lands.

Edward Seaga and his regime, on the other hand, had as his mantra, 'Grow what you eat', and proceeded to boost the farming industry through the land authorities and private farms by providing:

a) meaningful and generous subsidies to farmers

b) trained extension project officers who did not just theorise about farming, but who provided practical and technical skills to farmers free of cost on the ground in their fields.

Manley and Seaga, in their own way, said the same thing but differently, with the same objective. That is to become more self-reliant, self-sufficient and reduce the need for scarce foreign exchange.

It was a PNP mantra

So when Christopher Tufton, the present minister of agriculture, out of necessity and the demands from the economic crisis, reintroduced the mantras as one entity, its efficacy and relevance should not be distracted on the basis that it was a People's National Party (PNP) mantra. It is as much a JLP mantra as it is PNP. And if the nation benefits from this new thrust in agriculture and farming production, it really does it matter whether it was PNP or JLP inspired.

The time is now, more than ever, when we must put aside partisan politics with all its prejudices, which only divides and enslaves the mind and serves as deterrent to sound thinking, goodwill and appreciation of the efforts of others.

Regarding free education, Jamaican style, the genesis of this takes us back to the seventies. It might have been about 1974, after 12 years of Independence, when Michael Manley, in a most brilliant Budget speech in Parliament, concluded by stating, among other things, that come September of the same year there would be free education from primary school to university.

The proposal was made against great odds:

We were ill-prepared for it

The country lacked the means economically, to sustain it.

It put on hold, if not totally destroyed, other would-be excellent education programmes.

It worked for while but subsequently suffered from eight successive years of negative economic growth under Manley's leadership. The economic downturn in the eighties was occasioned by a raft of factors, many of which we had no control over, such as a recession of the American economy, the after effects of hurricane Allen - which wiped out our banana plantation - downturn in the production of bauxite, resulting in the closure of three major bauxite plants, massive lay-off of workers. This forced the Government of the day, led by Edward Seaga, to put a cess of four per cent on tertiary education, not on high school education. This was most reasonable.

Opposition to free education?

Should this then be regarded as opposition to free education? Unfortunately there are some people who erroneously think so.

At the instance of the introduction of the cess Michael Manley vowed that if he returned to power he would remove it. But did he? Instead, he increased it to the present 15 per cent and when it was considered inadvisable to increase it any further the PNP Administration introduced cost-sharing at the high school level. It is this cost sharing that was recently abolished by the Bruce Golding-led administration.

The bald truth is both parties are equally committed to free education. But with our limited resources can we afford it to university level? Not even in the great America, the super-rich country of the world, is this offered. What seems more realistic at this stage of our history is free education guaranteed to high school level.

Thereafter, each individual must take full responsibility, with assistance from Government ,where necessary, through grants and scholarships and special assistance to the needy so that no child who has the ability to pursue higher education and professional training is left behind.

Realism is the name of the game.