Commentary on Sunday Gleaner editorial- The PSC and relative morality

The editorial in yesterday's Sunday Gleaner rightly criticized the PM's specious use of 30 year old correspondence between the then PSC (chaired by Prof. Gladstone Mills) and the then Governor General. This correspondence was in relation to Michael Manley's request to the then PSC to resign.

The editorial is the first reference that I have seen in the Jamaican media to the PM's parliamentary reference to the PSC issue. See the editorial at:
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080427/cleisure/cleisure1.html

The editorial captures my own sentiments. However, there was no direct reportage of the text of the letters referred to by the PM. Further, the Sunday Gleaner mysteriously opted not to include any reference to the PM's affidavit in response to the litigation initiated by the fired PSC members. The affidavit makes no reference to these letters, nor is there any indication that the PM had asked the PSC members to resign. I sent an email yesterday to Byron Buckley (the Sunday Gleaner editor)which I have reproduced below:



April 27, 2008

Dear Byron,

I have not had a response to any of my previous emails. However, I do agree with your editorial today on the PM's unprincipled defence of his handling of the PSC issue. A couple things though:

1. As a reader, I would've liked to have seen verbatim excerpts from the letters used by the PM. So far I have seen no reportage by the Gleaner (or any other newspaper) on this. The text of the PM's speech (at the JIS website) only refers to the letters, but not to the quotes themselves. I would be obliged if the Gleaner would consider reproducing the PM's references in full for the benefit of its readers.

2. Once again, I am mystified as the absence of any reference to the PM's affidavit in the editorial. The affidavit has no reference to the "Manley precedent". I would have thought that this might have merited editorial comment. It is legitimate to ask (a) why the PM has applied the Manley precedent to defend his handling of the PSC issue, when he has not done so in defence of the litigation initiated by the dismissed PSC members; (b) why the PM chose to raise this matter at all in parliament just prior to the scheduled hearing of the litigation.

While it is your prerogative to comment on public issues as you see fit, I do believe that you have concomitant obligation to do so in the context of a full disclosure of all the relevant facts/issues at hand.

Best regards,

Hilaire