Dawn Ritch, Columnist
Anyone who would ridicule financial independence has obviously never had it.
Last Sunday, this newspaper made a big hullabaloo on its front page about the travel bill of the current Prime Minister. At a political meeting later that day, Portia Simpson Miller had a number of things to say about prime ministerial foreign travel. In a subsequent news report, however, only one of them was carried - that her husband gave her a credit card when they got married.
If I'd been there, I would have immediately asked her what kind of credit card, because I'm sure it must be a glorious one. And one in hard currency. No minister's salary or Prime Minister's salary can buy the kind of clothes she wears. Madam Prime Minister doesn't just wear outfits, she wears Chanel.
It may be none of my business, but I'd really like to know what kind of credit card Errald Miller gave his wife when they got married. Long before the election for the presidency of the People's National Party, this column reeled off the names of her couturiers, none of which I can now remember. But they were all fabulous. Recently, I got an overseas phone call from someone in the fashion industry to say that Mrs. Simpson Miller has also been wearing Chanel.
Special credit card
Financial independence can be inherited, it can be married into, and on occasion it can be established by the sweat of one's brow. Mr. Miller has it. This must, therefore, be some kind of special credit card, because Madam Prime Minister is sure spending out his pocket.
This is why TheGleaner's cartoon last Thursday was so risible. They had her barefoot in a dance- hall outfit and covered in bangles. Clearly they have not been observing her as keenly as I have, and the rest of the world as well. Her style is, and has been for quite some time, classic European. But perhaps the press in general can't recognise it, otherwise they'd have asked her what kind of credit card she had.
She gave them an opening - why did they not pursue it? Or was it pursued subsequently in the mostly off-the-record luncheon she gave for them at Vale Royal, and she bid them to silence?
As to the travel bill story, a later Gleaner editorial said, "We also know that a decision for a leader's accommodation may not be entirely in his or her hands, given a host country's concern for the security and safety of guests."
Why was this not stated in the first place when they broke the story? My theory is that the press has come to expect that the answers to their written questions will present them with the entire story. So nobody bothers to think through the answers anymore, or 'connect the dots' as the Americans now so illiterately put it.
Criticised
By way of comment, Donald Buchanan, Minister of Information, only wondered on camera in the post-Cabinet press briefing, what would have happened to the bill, had Mrs. Simpson Miller taken the European trips she was criticised for not taking last year.
Readers will remember that she was excoriated for not going by one and all, both in the press and among the private sector. Whatever the reason for the trips not taken, it was not for want of the right clothes.
This newspaper also stated in the same editorial, "It is hardly our business, or the business of anyone else, that Mrs. Simpson Miller's husband has given her a credit card to use on her travels, except if she uses that credit card to conduct business on behalf of Jamaica. In that regard, the rules for public officials is that they should first have permission from the Ministry of Finance for the transaction if they expect reimbursement from the national treasury."
Mrs. Simpson Miller's financial independence does not arise from the national treasury, nor does she need the permission of the Ministry of Finance to spend it. The Jamaican national treasury could not afford to keep Mrs. Simpson Miller in the style to which she has become accustomed since marrying Mr. Miller. So the press can forget about reimbursements for her clothing allowance.
Her taste and his money have combined to create an elegance that any country would be proud to have representing them as Prime Minister. And this is where her personal credit card is indeed the nation's business.
If, however, the press is interested in amending legislation, they can indeed look at the difference between having a female Prime Minister and a male one. Whereas a man can get away with a few suits and two dozen silk ties, no woman can do that, not as Prime Minister anyway.
The pace that Mrs. Simpson Miller is setting means that any future female Prime Minister will also have to have a rich husband too.
All I hope is that she keeps away from the catwalks of Paris, no matter how important or official the business may be. Poor Mr. Miller would have to sell property if she likes anything.
Even if he doesn't want the money he has spent thus far refunded, at least he should be entitled to a tax break. For these are the expenses he has incurred, while his wife acquires income for a nation.
