Dear Editor,

It seems like every time Prime Minister Andrew Holness tries to make a step forward, he turns around and makes a few steps backwards.

The recent appointment of former Minister of Science and Technology Dr Andrew Wheatley to participate in a government study to recommend social intervention measures to reduce poverty was another example of a blatant lapse in judgement by the prime minister.

Wheatley is the embattled minister who was responsible for State run entities such as Petrojam and National Energy Solutions Limited (NESOL) which became embroiled in scandals, embarrassing the government.

Wheatley was forced to resign after news surfaced about questionable expenditures, corruption, mismanagement, cost overruns, breaches in procurement policy, nepotism, and cronyism involving entities under his charge.

The calls for his resignation and termination came from many sectors including private and other civil groups — it was not limited by politics.

Wheatley was not only in charge as minister but he participated in some events with questionable expenses (according to the Auditor General Report), which included lavish parties with expensive cakes and all. In many countries a person like Wheatley would’ve been banished from Parliament, possibly facing criminal charges. Not so in Jamaica.

I believe the prime minister could’ve found countless qualified people to sit on this social intervention committee. Many outside of Parliament would’ve volunteered willingly to add their input. Instead, as if showing defiance against the Wheatley backlash, Holness chose to show that regardless, he still supports him and still has the confidence in him by giving him added responsibilities related to government matters.

Wheatley proved as minister he lacked reasonable insight and tact to lead, with a lack of experience in good governance, public policy, accountability and responsibility. He has no business now assisting Government on public policy matters.

It does not matter whether he has a staff assisting or government resources at his disposal as stated in a release from the Office of the Prime Minister. There is more to the matter when one’s character, ability, integrity, morals and sense of judgement are questioned.

This is not the first time Holness has made a blunder, counteracting public sentiments, I recall recently in an interview when he referred to those who dared to have another opinion on the controversial NIDS set to roll out this year, as ‘backward’. This type of arrogance and defiance has no business in modern day government. A good leader listens first, and tries to find a reasonable balance by keeping in tune with public opinion.

P Chin