I just came across a letter by D.S. Morgan that was published in the Observer yesterday (April 28, 2008) that challenges Ken Chaplin's unfounded claim that there are PNP activists in the Attorney General's Department. The letter was in response to Ken Chaplin's column of April 22, 2008 entitled Budget debate: Davies challenging, Portia emotional.
D.S. Morgan's letter was in relation to the following excerpt of Chaplin's column:
Mrs Simpson Miller spoke strongly about the level of blatant political interference that has taken place with regards to the Public Service Commission, Attorney General's Department and the Solid Waste Management Authority. This position, I believe, presupposes that those who administer these agencies were independent and non-political, but they were not.
The commission, for example, is appointed by the governor general on the recommendation of the prime minister. Four of the five members of the commission were staunch supporters of the PNP, one of whom actively campaigned for the party for the September general election. The commission appointed many of the lawyers who are PNP supporters to the Attorney General's Department. Here she was on weak grounds. Unless there is a breakaway from this contrived political circle in the public service, the country will be in serious trouble.
In a previous post, I had adverted to Chaplin's predisposition for intellectual dishonesty. Again, he baldly asserts that four of the five fired PSC members were PNP supported who appointed PNP lawyers to the AG's Chambers. Ken has unashamedly become a mouthpiece for the JLP, in the process surrendering whatever journalistic integrity might once have been attributed to him. It is curious that Ken Chaplin completely ignores the blatant political interference of the JLP government a few weeks ago in the matter of the acting appointments of Nicole Foster-Pusey and Lackston Robinson.
D.S. Morgan was much kinder to Ken Chaplin than I would've been. Neverless,I entirely agree with his sentiments which I reproduce below:
Monday, April 28, 2008
Dear Editor,
I see that columnist Ken Chaplin persists in his view that there are PNP activists in the Attorney General's Department. It would be good if he would let us know who they are, as well as his evidence for viewing them as activists.
If Mr Chaplin can show that someone is indeed an activist, maybe he can enlighten us further as to the ways in which the "activism" has affected their professional performance, since that is implicit in his criticism of the Public Service Commission for making the appointments.
DS Morgan
Kingston 8
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
D.S. Morgan raps Ken Chaplin
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
My letter appearing in today's Observer entitled "Withdraw partisanship accusation, Ken"
Here's a letter of mine that appeared in the Observer today repudiating Ken Chaplin's accusation of partisanship on the part of lawyers in the Attorney General's Chambers.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Ken Chaplin's column of January 15, 2008
Ken Chaplin had a column earlier this week on January 15, 2008, that did little more than compound his earlier misrepresentation of the issues concerning the PSC and the AG's Chambers. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20080114T190000-0500_131395_OBS_WHAT_S_GOING_ON_IN_AG_S_DEPT__.asp
For me, it is quite sad to see a journalist of Ken Chaplin's reputation and experience deliberately choosing misinformation and distortion over facts and analysis. He cannot claim ignorance; certainly I have been at pains to write him twice to point out his errors of fact, law, and logic. I can only infer that Ken Chaplin has an agenda that excludes any reference to 'inconvenient truths'.
Happily, D.S. Morgan has firmly rebutted Chaplin's latest attack on the lawyers of the AG's Chambers.
A week or two ago, the Faqurharson Institute led by Frank Phipps and Ken Jones, called for an inquiry into the operations of the AG's Chambers. Much of what they have publicly represented appears to be reflected in Chaplin's articles. Much as I am not generally given to conspiracy theories, I wonder whether Chaplin is simply the mouthpiece of the Farquharson Institute. I spoke with Chaplin briefly last week, when I faxed him my note of January 10. His first question to me was whether I was "holding brief" for the PSC or Stephen Vasciannie or both. That question, in retrospect, appears to have been quite autobiographical. Despite my record of taking principled positions on public issues, Ken's starting assumption was that I am representing a particular interest, rather than simply standing up for principle. Clearly, if that is his modus operandi, then I can understand his difficulty in understanding mine.
Regrettably, Ken Chaplin's views (and indeed those of the Farq Institute) have gained some traction in public discourse. This is hardly surprising, given the general apathy to critical thinking.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Responses to Ken Chaplin's column of January 08, 2008
I note with great satisfaction that Patrick Foster, the acting Solicitor General has firmly rebutted Ken Chaplin's scurrilous allegations of partisanship on the part of staff lawyers of the Attorney General's Department. See Patrick's letter at http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080110t190000-0500_131242_obs_no__mr_chaplin__not_at_the_ag_s_dept.asp)
As Patrick rightly points out, the AG's Chambers "has never provided a fertile ground for political activism to flourish". I can personally attest to Patrick's observations, based on my own experience as a lawyer, and indeed having a father who spent most of his career in the AG's Chambers.
I am glad to see that Chaplin has been challenged by DS Morgan (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080111t200000-0500_131297_obs_what_s_with_you__mr_chaplin_.asp) and Michael D. Pennycooke (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/letters/html/20080111t200000-0500_131296_obs_unfair_to_denigrate_past_gov_t.asp
I sent a note to Chaplin on his column which I set out below:
January 10, 2008
Dear Ken,
Re: Your column entitled Fight over control of Public Service
To say the least, I am quite appalled by your latest column appearing in the Daily Observer of January 09, 2008 [editorial note: it was really January 08,2008]. You deliberately ignored the information that I provided to you in my letter of December 29, 2007. Instead, you chose to propagate unfounded, and indeed damaging claims about the partisan nature of the PSC and indeed the Attorney General’s Chambers. I can scarcely believe that a journalist of your experience and seniority would exhibit such contempt for the facts. This is not a situation where you were genuinely ignorant. You were provided with information, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore.
The only reason that I am bothering to write on this occasion is because you have recklessly assailed the reputation of the lawyers of the AG’s Chambers, including my own father, Peter A. Sobers, OD. You might not know this, but he spent 30 years in the service of the Attorney General’s Chambers, rising to the position of Deputy Solicitor General before his retirement at the turn of the century. A significant part of his tenure at the AG’s Chambers was during the 18-year regime of the Peoples National Party. My father, as Deputy Solicitor General, would’ve had some input in the hiring and promotion of professionals in the AG’s Chambers. By implication, your analysis indicts him as either a PNP activist or an accomplice to those who sought to recruit such activists during the PNP regime. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. The most superficial research on your part would reveal that my father, like the rest of his colleagues in the AG’s Chambers, have unfailingly comported themselves with the dignity, independence, and professionalism that the job requires. To accuse them all of being PNP activists is sordid to say the least.
I find it utterly nauseating that you would seek to tarnish the reputations of lawyers without adducing the slightest evidence in support of your assertion of partisanship on their part. Frankly, you owe them an apology. Might I add that some of those recruited during the PNP regime have been elevated to the Bench. Miss Justice Mangatal is an example. Are you accusing Justice Mangatal of being a PNP activist too?
With respect to the PSC, you insist on accusing them of being partial to the PNP (with the exception of Alfred Sangster) without offering any evidence. The first time you did it, I thought you were careless. The second time, however, is clearly deliberate. Nowhere in your column have you offered any evaluation of their performance or indeed offered any evidence of public service appointments based entirely on partisan grounds. Is this your idea of quality opinion journalism?
You continue with this myth of a convention of resignations, when I clearly explained to you why such a convention couldn’t exist. You have not taken issue with what I explained to you, so I can only infer that you accept my explanation, but that your agenda does not permit you to do so publicly. That you would suppress information that does not fit in with your agenda is disturbing to say the least.
Your intellectual dishonesty also applies to your treatment of the PM’s relationship with Stephen Vasciannie, where you continue to pretend that the PM’s actions are grounded in some animosity towards Prof. Vasciannie. Speculation, Ken, is not the same thing as fact.
Finally, you assert, “If Golding does not reinstate the non-partisan characteristics of the PSC, the public service will be in dire trouble”. Excuse me, but what sort of characteristic do you think the newly appointed PSC has? Given the circumstances of their appointment, do you seriously believe that they can reasonably be perceived as non-partisan? For argument’s sake, if the selection process for the SG were repeated and it considered Prof. Vasciannie the best candidate, do you believe that this new PSC would appoint him? Another thing that you conveniently omit is that the political parties previously decided on consensus as the formula for appointing members of the PSC. Former Prime Ministers Patterson and Seaga arrived at this agreement in 2005 during the Vale Royal. Perhaps you are unaware that the so-called ‘PNP PSC’ was appointed under this formula.
One day I hope you recover your conscience.
Best regards,
Hilaire (Sobers)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Intellectual dishonesty in the Jamaican media- the case of Ken Chaplin
Ken Chaplin, a columnist with the Observer has written two columns recently on the PSC/Vasciannie issue. The first was published on December 25, 2007, and was entitled Golding, PSC, and the Opposition. The second was published on January 08, 2008 and entitled Fight over control of public service.
Both these columns symbolize the intellectual dishonesty that prevails in the Jamaican media.
In these columns, Chaplin has largely justified the government's position, citing among other things:
1. The partisan nature of the PSC;
2. A convention of resignations by the PSC upon a change of government;
3. The supposed animosity between the PM and Stephen Vasciannie;
4. The alleged misbehaviour of the PSC that warranted its dismissal;
5. Partisan lawyers in the AG's Chambers.
Following Chaplin's first column, I faxed him a note (see previous post), pointing out several mistakes of facts and analysis. I know he received the note because I called him to confirm receipt. Despite the information provided to Chaplin, he has persisted in propagating the same nonsense. For example, he continues to insist on the existence of a convention of resignations, when I have clearly demonstrated that it does not, and cannot exist. He now baldly claims that all the members of the PSC except for Alfred Sangster were either rabid PNP supporters or sympathizers. Chaplin advances no evidence in support of this claim. The question I would put to him is this: even if all of the PSC members were indeed rabid PNP supporters, has this negatively impacted on the discharge of their responsibilities? Did this PSC habitually select persons for public service based on party affiliation instead of merit? Of course, Chaplin completely ignores the fact that these so-called PNP-packed PSC was appointed on a bipartisan formula of consensus, based on the Vale Royal talks of 2005. This is a singularly powerful example of Chaplin's intellectual dishonesty at work. His dishonesty and indeed maliciousness is no less in his characterization of the lawyers of the AG's Chambers as being partisan. Frankly, I think this allegation borders on defamation.
What does Chaplin say now about the new PSC? Isn't this PSC more likely to be labelled a JLP PSC given the circumstances of its appointment? Does Chaplin imagine this PSC to take any decisions that go against the wishes of the JLP government? Again, the intellectual dishonesty is stifling.
Chaplin, like other "journalists" of his ilk have become just as tribal as the politicians they criticize. What irks me is none of them are honest enough to declare their interest or agenda. I fully expect opinion journalists to express their opinions, but for God sake, I don't expect them to wilfully ignore the facts in the process.
