Ian Boyne, Gleaner Writer

Peter Phillips lost it last Tuesday evening. Badly. Stung by a charge from government Member of Parliament Gregory Mair that he was a CIA agent, Phillips, after wailing that government members had put in danger the lives of himself and his family, threatened, "Mr Speaker, let them come, because I can deal with all of them."

Omar Davies was trying fruitlessly to calm him down, but he continued to bellow amid the chaos which descended on the House of 'Representatives'. (Though most Jamaicans would disclaim being represented by that type of vulgar behaviour.) Peter Phillips is not the only one who lost it and behaved deplorably last Tuesday, and he might not even have been the worst. So why single him out? Because he has so much promise - and so much more to lose than most in that Honourable House(?).

Phillips has had better weeks. He survived the oppressively dreary cross-examination by Frank Phipps on Wednesday, but his brand continued to be damaged on the streets where, as I had said last week, the view that he had sold out Jamaicans to the Americans was gaining traction and resonance. The most popular figure on radio, Ragashanti, has been blasting him for "selling out" Jamaicans, and Raga is no Labourite. Phillips is politically astute and he knows the sell-out charge is an emotionally appealing one that could wound him seriously.

So after facing Phipps' endless questions about his alleged sell-out memoranda of understanding, and having to endure Phipps' raising his voice at him and being ordered to read long passages like a schoolboy, his ego could not take much more by the time he crossed over to Gordon House. He simply exploded. Enough was enough.

He would have wanted to tell Phipps a piece of his mind all morning but had to behave himself at the conference centre. He had to bottle up all that rage for the appropriate place downtown - a place which should be a marketplace of ideas, but which has turned into a more common market place. But Phillips will have to learn better anger management if he still cherishes the hope of becoming prime minister one day.

Last straw

For a seasoned politician, and an even longer student of Jamaican politics, to be so enraged by the silly charge of being a CIA agent - which Comrades routinely and recklessly threw on almost everyone outside of their party in the 1970s - shows that he was not really reacting to that charge in isolation. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Phillips had better get accustomed to more thrashing if he still intends to lead the PNP. (When there is a vacancy, of course.) The frustration and disgust of the majority of Jamaicans at what seems like the incessantly raucous, rowdy and rude behaviour of parliamentarians on both sides is intense. Somebody will have to convince these politicians to save themselves from themselves.

And those from whom leadership is expected will be punished more severely in the court of public opinion.

But we must not tarnish everyone. There are some who are always restrained. Chris Tufton is a gentleman par excellence. You never get Tufton ruffled. You never get him to support any 'almshouse' in the House. I watched him carefully last Tuesday, as I have on many occasions when the House erupts. You can't get Tufton involved in any bangarang. Many times he simply smiles through it - perhaps out of embarrassment and disquiet in being caught in such uncouth company.

But Parliament was not the only scene of bangarang downtown last week. The Jamaica Conference Centre, Conference Room Five, is the scene of a much more intense, if constrained, bangarang. It's high-priced bangarang - in more ways than one.

Secret MOUs

The way last week turned out, you would have thought that this commission of enquiry was about the 'scandal' of Phillips' secret MOUs which he hid not only from the country but his own Cabinet and even his own prime ministers. As I pointed out last week, it is a legally and strategically clever strategy to shift focus to the MOUs because of their emotive value and appeal. It is not just the Government-JLP lawyers who have been wisely forcing attention on the secret, lost-and-found MOUs, but the media have been giving them much play, too.

'Phillips, Phipps clash over MOUs', The Gleaner blared on its front page on Thursday. That same day, 'Phillips acted alone', read the Observer's front-page headline, with the subtitle 'Admits Cabinet, P.J. unaware he signed controversial MOUs'.

On Wednesday, the Observer advertised its page four story on its front page: 'Phillips tells why MOUs kept secret from Cabinet', and The Gleaner, interacting with the swelling debate, headlined its page one story that day, 'MOUs did not trample on J'cans' rights, says Phillips'.

The media are not just following any Jamaica Labour Party script. The fact is, the human-rights lobby has been very influential in the Jamaican media and people have rightly been more jealous of their rights and liberties as a result of the advocacy of human-rights groups. The People's National Party (PNP) itself has been vocal in standing up for constitutional rights and civil liberties and has skilfully employed human-rights rhetoric in advancing its own causes.

Sympathetic to concerns

So the media, having been so sensitised to constitutional rights, are naturally sympathetic to concerns over any possible violation of those rights which Phillips' MOUs might engender. Frank Phipps' narrative about constitutional rights being violated would get a natural, even reflexive, hearing by the Jamaican intelligentsia generally.

Indeed, it is only because we are such mindless tribalists why certain pro-PNP voices in the media so vociferously back Peter Phillips on this issue. It is not out of any philosophical integrity why they do so. Had any member of the JLP Cabinet ever signed such an MOU, you would hear how these 'reactionary Labourites' are always 'prostituting themselves' to their 'American masters' and that they are lackeys of the Americans. Some might even hark back to Bustamante's famous statement, 'We are with the West'. They would be joining the human-rights fundamentalists today in decrying these MOUs - rather than being on the back foot.

K.D. Knight brilliantly, masterly and fatally smashed the "sell-out" arguments against Phillips last Thursday in his thrilling conclusion to his cross-examination of National Security Minister Dwight Nelson. Students of law must invest in buying the DVD of that piece of legal artistry and rhetorical ecstasy. Displaying yet again that penchant for comprehensive research and dumbfounding quotes, K.D. quoted the prime minister as accepting that the MOUs could not be used to infringe the rights of Jamaicans.

John Vassell, a clearly competent lawyer who appears for Nelson, was quick to point out that K.D.'s quote was incomplete and that K.D.'s attempt to show that his client was contradicting his prime minister was contrived. When Vassell said he would provide other quotes to prove his point, master apologist K.D. said: "I know where he is going; see it, I have it here marked."

Vassell quoted further from the prime minister and went on to add his own excellent elaboration and summation of what the prime minister said - which compellingly vindicated Phillips that the propaganda on the street that these MOUs give foreigners the powers to use intelligence gathered to extradite Jamaicans - to sell us out - is completely untrue.

THE PROBLEB

K.D. allowed Vassell to make his (K.D.'s) point more pointedly and credibly than he could. K.D. showed that the Government had time to start the process of renouncing the MOUs and has not, and that the prime minister's statement about the MOUs shows that the existence of the MOUs themselves is not the problem, but the illegitimate way by which the US government sought to implement them.

But K.D. must know that that sword swings both ways: It means also, K.D., that Bruce had had a point all along that the US has been, in effect, reckless and irresponsible in marshalling its evidence and has sought to adduce agreements which provide no grounds for their claims. Yes, you will say Bruce had other evidence to rely on to extradite Dudus, but that does not alter the fact that the US should have been countered on its faulty grounds for the extradition request. In other words, K.D., they should have done their work more assiduously and not rely on fallacious grounds for their request. They could benefit from your legal scrupulousness.

Peter Phillips should pay no attention to anyone calling into question his commitment to this country. Phillips has been championing the rights of the masses of this country when others were busily exploiting the poor. Peter Phillips is a patriot, and you won't find a Jamaican with greater commitment to this country.

From 1976 when he published in Essays on Power and Change in Jamaica, I have been following his work and have been impressed. He has much to offer this country, and those in the know are aware of how much he has worked across the political divide in the interest of his country. He is Aubrey Phillips' son, and he has a family tradition of service, voluntarism and patriotism. I know it must hurt him to hear people call into question his patriotism and loyalty, but he must soldier on, embracing emotional self-mastery and civil behaviour at all times.

I have for long felt that Bruce, Peter and Portia should be in one party and that our political system would be better for it - once they master emotional intelligence and learn to work together, respecting one another's strengths and weaknesses. We are too quick to dismiss, defame and destroy people who are committed to Jamaica, simply because they belong to different parties. Portia, Peter and Bruce are all committed, deeply patriotic Jamaicans. If we adopt a kind of Saw mentality (from the movie series) where somebody has to be sacrificed for the other to live, we will continue to delay development.

If after this commission of enquiry, we solidify our opinion that Bruce and Peter are unworthy to lead, and that all politicians are liars, who really wins?

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com [2] and ianboyne1@yahoo.com [3].