If you preach it, be it

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Please allow me space to address comments made by Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness in his speech at the swearing-in ceremony for members of parliament on Tuesday, September 18.

During his swearing-in speech, the prime minister said that he was embracing unity, and extending a hand to the leader of the Opposition in a quest for this proposed unity. He said among other great admonitions that we must now “retract accusatory fingers and embrace each other.” Great words. In his speech at the swearing ceremony for the parliamentarians he again called for national unity. However, addressing the South Coast Highway project, he said in part that the work’s progress has “unfortunately been marred by interference, intimidation and attempts by individuals to unlawfully insert themselves into the works.” He alluded to anarchy later in his speech when he said, “No one has the authority to hijack national projects, intimidate contractors or substitute political muscle for lawful governance.” He was referring to a visit made to the office of China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) by the new member of parliament, where she was amicably accommodated and where there was no violent incident whatsoever. Neither was there any unpleasant actions or behaviour. These allegations are as spurious as they are serious. There is absolutely no truth in them. I was privileged to see a letter over the signature of the manager of CHEC which stated that they met with our member of parliament as is conventional when there is a change in parliamentary representation. The letter states in part: “ It has been customary for the sitting member of Parliament for any constituency in which works are being carried out to appoint a Liaison Officer to the project.” And later in the same letter. “ This process was also done in 2016 and 2020 after previous elections.” It is obvious therefore that a pattern or precedence is being observed. How therefore, can Mr Holness’ statements be verified? How can a person be a proponent of unity and respect, and an advocate of division, and polarisation at the same time?

The prime minister, while calling for a retraction of fingers, has his menacingly pointed at our member of parliament when he states that “That way of doing things is the old politics. It is the very political violence that we celebrate that we have gotten rid of.”

As a country, we do not need this kind of rhetoric that seeks to divide and polarise our people. I am pleading with the prime minister to give us more reasons to have a level of trust in him, and less reason to question his deliberations. I am asking him to give clear indications that our country is not descending into kakistocracy. It is imperative that our prime minister check the veracity of his statements before making them. We depend on him for the honesty, servitude and integrity he so fervently extols. If you preach it, Doctor Holness, be it.

RUPERT ANDERSON

Concerned Citizen