Intellectual dishonesty in the Jamaican media- the case of Kevin O'Brien Chang

In the Sunday Gleaner of January 06, 2008 ( http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080106/focus/focus3.html), Kevin O'Brien Chang declared that:


In 1977, Prime Minister Michael Manley called for and got a new Public Service Commission (PSC). So did Prime Minister Edward Seaga in 1980. Now in 2007 some are making a big deal about Prime Minister Bruce Golding doing the same. Ken Jones and Ken Chan a mandate by the people to do whatever he thinks is in the best interests of the country, as long as he stays within the bounds of the constitution. Mr. Golding has not transgressed the constitution anymore than Mr. Manley or Mr. Seaga did. Every democracy allows its elected leader to choose his own management teams, subject to the scrutiny of relevant bodies. Surely the proper function of the PSC, which was not voted in by the people, is to make certain that the PM's picks are fit for the job, and not to impose selections he deems unsuitable upon him. And no self-respecting democracy would allow the head of its Public Service Commission - responsible for vetting all major public service jobs - to provide rent-free premises to any political candidate. Caesar's wife, etc ...




Like the other two Kens (Jones and Chaplin), Kevin’s reasoning owes little to fact or evidence that can be substantiated. . On December 11, 2007, Kevin carried much the same line of argument an interview on Nation News Network. During that interview, Kevin praised Ken Jones' position and defended the PM's dismissal of the PSC, suggesting that it had been guilty of misbehaviour because of an adverse judicial review decision in the matter of Lackston Robinson. Kevin was evidently unaware that "misbehaviour" is a legal construct that is not readily amenable to a lay interpretation. Further, I could see no sign that he had considered that that public/statutory bodies/decision-makers like the IDT, Resident Magistrates, Police Service Commission, et al are regularly the subject of adverse judicial review decisions, without any imputation of misbehaviour on the part of the decision-makers. Following his logic, every time a judge is reversed on appeal, that judge should resign for "misbehaviour".


I emailed Kevin in an attempt to set him straight on the legal issues, if nothing else. I even sent him a copy of the article that I had submitted in rebuttal of Ken Jones' piece of December 09, 2007. In his initial response, Kevin did not dispute the correctness of my position. He deflected my critique by suggesting, among other things that the media should have lawyers discuss these matters and not laypersons. He also thought that Stephen Vasciannie was foolishly allowing himself to be used as a political tool. Like many other commentators, Kevin accepted without question the tale that Stephen had called Golding a 'dead cat'. I subsequently sent Kevin the column in which this reference first appeared, which clearly demonstrated that Stephen did no such thing. Undeterred, Kevin insisted that this 'dead cat' reference disqualified Stephen from selection as SG. I pointed out to him that even if Stephen called Golding a 'dead cat' that this was legally irrelevant to the fact that Stephen was constitutionally selected to be the new SG. I also pointed out that the PM has persons in his administration (like Aundre Franklyn) who have said far worse things about him in the past. In simple terms, the Chief Servant is not constitutionally or ethically permitted to privilege his hurt feelings (assuming they are/were) over the rule of law. Vainly, I pointed out that Stephen is not being used as a political tool, but is simply standing up for principle
Despite all of this dialogue, Kevin wrote a column that appeared on Sunday 16, 2007 (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20071216/focus/focus2.html)in which he claimed:


The Public Service Commission impasse between Prime Minister and Opposition Leader has engendered much veranda gossip. Not being a lawyer, I leave the niceties to the shylocks. To my layman's ear, Ken Jones' December 9 Gleaner article made sense. O. Hilaire Sobers claims Mr. Jones' arguments are not legally persuasive. But since Michael Manley and Edward Seaga demanded and got new PSC members in 1976 and 1980, respectively, this hullabaloo seems a tempest in a teapot.


Once again, I attempted to engage Kevin on what I considered to be his mischaracterization of the issues.
On the issue of a presumptive convention of resignations, I pointed out to Kevin that:

First of all, if indeed such a convention exists, it would clearly undermine the presumptive constitutional autonomy/independence of the PSC from the political directorate. Essentially, the PSC would become nothing more than the rubber stamp of the political directorate, something that is clearly not contemplated by the design of constitutional service commissions.

Secondly, even if previous PSC members tendered their resignations at the request of a PM, this was done by choice, not compulsion. This history does not equate to a convention of resignation when requested by a PM.



Thirdly, if indeed there is a convention of asking for, or tendering resignations, one would have to ask why Prime Minister Golding did not insist on this upon assuming office (not only for the PSC, but for the other constitutional service commissions).

Fourthly, it is a matter of public knowledge that the "Vale Royal talks" between the JLP and PNP resulted in an agreement that future appointment of PSC members would be done by consensus, rather than the lower constitutional standard of consultation. As far as I am aware, the current PSC members were appointed under that formula.

Fifthly, the so-called convention of resignations is clearly inapplicable to this situation, given that the PSC members were fired for purported misbehaviour, as opposed to being asked to resign to make way for personnel favoured by the PM.

If, having regard to these considerations, you remain of the view that this situation is merely "a tempest in a teapot", my only inference must be that the termites have been nipping at your cranium.


Kevin's brief reply was that he only had 1200 words for the column, and that what people really wanted to hear about was the crime problem (his article was entitled Where's the crime plan?)


Now, three weeks later, the best that Kevin can offer is the same: reasoning untouched by facts, logic, or balance. Now, he goes as far as to declare that the PSC's job is to essentially rubber stamp the choices of the PM!!! Further, he repeats Mark Wignall's story about the Daisy Coke renting premises to Maxine Henry-Wilson, as if to say, there is something intrinsically wrong with such a commercial transaction. If Kevin had made some inquiries , he might have discovered that the building on the premises in question had been scheduled for demolition. The building itself had been stripped of all fixtures, and was subsequently rented to Maxine Henry-Wilson as is, where is, for a peppercorn rental. Nothing more, nothing less.


Sadly, journalists like Chang, Chaplin, and Jones reinforce a Jamaican practice of preferring the ease of suss and kass kass to the rigour of critical thinking.