ONLINE READERS COMMENT: Damion Crawford wrong on several fronts
Dear Editor,
Damion Crawford’s attempt to justify his early comments on the size of the Cabinet is still what it was – not deep enough, and also speaks to how important issues can be trivialized, in part due to a lack of understanding of the “big picture.”
There are four points worthy of his reflection.
Firstly, symbolism shapes culture. The change in the size of executive is a clear signal of “something new” – that it is not business as usual. Changing the policy of selling vehicles below market value to outgoing MPs, was a similar signal. Culture has a huge impact on strategy every single time; changing thoughts leads to changes in behaviour and changes in behaviour lead to new levels of achievement. Symbolism counts, as are the stories told, and they should not be discounted or ignored.
Secondly, there is the use of an incorrect benchmark. Why assume that the size of the previous cabinet (ministers and junior ministers) was optimal, or even a good benchmark? Recall the “bloating” which took place under the last four administrations and consider what was actually achieved in some of these “entitled ministries”, apart from providing jobs with senior titles for the most influential in the parties.
Thirdly, in our context, savings are always meaningful, especially where nothing of significance is negatively affected by reducing the investment in ministries. But the worse that one can do is assume, or suggest that things will get worse because no minister has been assigned. Just reflect on how many ministers and junior ministers failed to perform over the last 30 years…in the last administration, including those recalled by their own party. Percentage of total budget is not the real metric to assess the savings; how about the fact that it is a significant three per cent of the tax reduction plan, or that it can help Jamaica retain say 50-100 nurses?
Lastly real progress requires change. The assumption that what has been done in the past is the only way to get the same or even more things done in the future is incorrect. New thinking, better (prepared) leaders and things like technology can affect how ministries are resourced and how they perform.
As someone who clearly sees himself as a future leader, Mr Crawford would enhance his image and build credibility by initiating dialogue around the areas which might not be well represented, or where there is a significant gap.
Why must we continue to operate bloated Cabinets, many times led with individuals hardly prepared to operate at that level? Why have full-fledged ministries that can be integrated within a broader framework, or as sub-unit of another, in order to better align strategy or execution?
Why criticize for the sake of criticizing?
Vincent Gordon
Same so.
Mr. Vincent Gordon, I agree with the premise of your argument, with the exception to where you mentioned your benchmark reference. At no point in time did Mr. Damion Crawford state that the prior administrations cabinet composition or size was adequate or the benchmark–in actuality, he ensured to state that he was not contending such.
As you are theorizing here, he did the same and we all know that things manifest themselves differently in reality than they do in a vacuum. I love how you were able to show how the savings from the smaller cabinet size can be used to employ and an additional 50 to 100 nurses–such represents effective thinking and I thank you for such.
The business of the opposition is to critique the party that’s in power and if they find issues, they are expected to notify the powers that be and if necessary, the citizenry.
Given the fact that the two parties have ideological differences, don’t expect them to see eye-to-eye on everything. None the less, our penultimate expectation is for them to work in tandem with each other.