<H2>Audley Shaw must go</H2>
We the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate as part of our function often pass judgment on the conduct of everyone including members of our own fraternity. Passing judgment on the conduct of others carries its own risks and responsibilities. Above all those who pass judgment on the conduct of others to remain credible must be consistent.
The usefulness of the conclusions we offer depends on the consistency with which the standards are applied and the principles adduced in coming to those conclusions. Recently two similar actions from two members of the political class from opposite sides of the political fence have required their resignation for the inappropriate manner in which they carried out aspects of their responsibilities.
In the case of the one, he stepped aside, giving up the source of his income but retaining an honorific position for which he receives no income. In the case of the other, he expediently stepped aside at no cost to himself, with the prospect of returning to his position in the not too distant future. The one is condemned and further demands are being made that he should go even further by also surrendering the honorific position that he now holds. In the case of the other, encomiums are poured out on him and his act of expediency is termed an act of nobility.
Those who passed opposite verdict on the similar action would no doubt justify themselves by saying that one wrong was greater than the other. We contend otherwise. Colin Campbell resigned from his post of Minister of Information and Development for having conducted business in his personal or other capacity with a company on a subject he had direct Ministerial responsibility (namely bauxite, a subject that falls to the Minister of Development). It was therefore a conflict of interest and he could not be sustained as a Member of the Cabinet. He failed to fully and properly advise his colleagues, the officers of the PNP about the nature and the fact of the money form Trafigura, and therefore resigned of General Secretary of the PNP.
It is our view that so long as it is accepted by Colin Campbell that his resignation in all of those circumstances was a minimum requirement; he should also have resigned as a member of the Senate. The lost of public trust will make his continued membership in the Senate untenable.
Audley Shaw used language at a public gathering that demeaned his office as Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. He insulted his audience and descended to a level of crassness for which DJs are often roundly condemned, and he did so at a time when all acknowledge that leaders have a duty of care to carry and conduct themselves in a manner that is civil, decent, and exemplary.
He abused his office as Chair of the PAC by publicly announcing his intention to use his office for party political point scoring and therefore to turn a solemn fact finding, truth seeking, and accountability process of the Parliament of the Land into a political circus. In those circumstances to vacate the Chair temporarily to return on a timetable of his own making is a further act of contempt for public decency. We believe that Audley Shaw has misused his office and therefore his resignation from the Chair of the PAC should be made permanent.
We the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate as part of our function often pass judgment on the conduct of everyone including members of our own fraternity. Passing judgment on the conduct of others carries its own risks and responsibilities. Above all those who pass judgment on the conduct of others to remain credible must be consistent.
The usefulness of the conclusions we offer depends on the consistency with which the standards are applied and the principles adduced in coming to those conclusions. Recently two similar actions from two members of the political class from opposite sides of the political fence have required their resignation for the inappropriate manner in which they carried out aspects of their responsibilities.
In the case of the one, he stepped aside, giving up the source of his income but retaining an honorific position for which he receives no income. In the case of the other, he expediently stepped aside at no cost to himself, with the prospect of returning to his position in the not too distant future. The one is condemned and further demands are being made that he should go even further by also surrendering the honorific position that he now holds. In the case of the other, encomiums are poured out on him and his act of expediency is termed an act of nobility.
Those who passed opposite verdict on the similar action would no doubt justify themselves by saying that one wrong was greater than the other. We contend otherwise. Colin Campbell resigned from his post of Minister of Information and Development for having conducted business in his personal or other capacity with a company on a subject he had direct Ministerial responsibility (namely bauxite, a subject that falls to the Minister of Development). It was therefore a conflict of interest and he could not be sustained as a Member of the Cabinet. He failed to fully and properly advise his colleagues, the officers of the PNP about the nature and the fact of the money form Trafigura, and therefore resigned of General Secretary of the PNP.
It is our view that so long as it is accepted by Colin Campbell that his resignation in all of those circumstances was a minimum requirement; he should also have resigned as a member of the Senate. The lost of public trust will make his continued membership in the Senate untenable.
Audley Shaw used language at a public gathering that demeaned his office as Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament. He insulted his audience and descended to a level of crassness for which DJs are often roundly condemned, and he did so at a time when all acknowledge that leaders have a duty of care to carry and conduct themselves in a manner that is civil, decent, and exemplary.
He abused his office as Chair of the PAC by publicly announcing his intention to use his office for party political point scoring and therefore to turn a solemn fact finding, truth seeking, and accountability process of the Parliament of the Land into a political circus. In those circumstances to vacate the Chair temporarily to return on a timetable of his own making is a further act of contempt for public decency. We believe that Audley Shaw has misused his office and therefore his resignation from the Chair of the PAC should be made permanent.
Comment