Please allow me space in your newspaper to ask one simple question, with regard to the current discussion concerning the salary and perks of the governor of the Bank of Jamaica. Why is it that former colonies like Jamaica feel that they need to pay their top level civil servants as if they were still British expatriates?

Before Independence it was customary that top civil servants be given a house or rent, a paid gardener, housekeeper and provided car, chauffeur and other perks, in addition to their salaries. This could be excused as they were foreigners who did not have their own place to live here in Jamaica. They would also receive a paid vacation of six months or more for themselves and family, going by ship back to Britain every few years. Yet, when Jamaicans came to occupy these positions after Independence in 1962, these practices continued.

Wisely, the Government eventually removed the privilege of paid vacations to Britain. But we seem not to have done the same with regard to the other privileges and perks formerly reserved for these foreigners. Isn't this what is at the root of the present debacle? We have shed our colonial masters yet we demand to be given all the perks and privileges they enjoyed. Yet we scream of our love of country.

Why would a Jamaican, earning a salary in the millions of dollars, expect to be given a free house or rent, housekeeper, upkeep and repairs for the house, a car, chauffeur, etc? Why can't he pay his own rent or mortgage, household helper, etc, like the rest of us all? Why must he live as a privileged foreigner within his own country?

I agree with the prime minister that all contracts of top civil servants and heads of statutory bodies should be reviewed, and those perks which drain the public purse be removed. Salaries should reflect the true remuneration for services rendered, sans hidden perks and privileges. How utterly undemocratic?

I am, etc.,

LLOYD A. COOKE

Royal Flat

Mandeville, Manchester