Gordon Robinson | Trivial pursuits

What’s been going on while I was away?

In order of most to least trivial: Billboards featuring obviously female legs clad in fishnet and spread apart with a bottle of alcoholic beverage strategically positioned in between created a furore. Apparently one causing particular outrage was positioned opposite the entrance to a school. The moral police were out in full voice; the word “vulgar” was thrown about like corn to pigeons; and a cowed KSAMC hurriedly forced the billboards’ removal.

Really? Seriously?

In the aftermath of the most devastating natural disaster in Jamaica’s history; with inflation through the roof despite official stats; with an unchecked third-term government running amok; and Argentina available to bad mind in the World Cup, THIS is what we are flapping about? In a world where school children are exposed to catfishing, misinformation, cyber bullying and straight up pornography on their Magic Rectangles daily, we leap into action against a suggestive billboard as the tipping point?

Surely you jest?

So let’s go back 60 years to the release of Nancy Sinatra’s monster hit These Boots are made for walking. Watch the official video, if your moral fibre can survive it, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM1kzbAgo_E.

Tell me the difference between the antics of fishnet legged Nancy with her backup dancers and this earth-shatteringly suggestive billboard sure to poison our children’s minds with moral turpitude.

You keep lyin’ when you oughta be truthin’

and you keep losing when you oughta not bet.

You keep samin’ when you oughta be a’changin’;

Now what’s right is right but you ain’t been right yet.

These boots are made for walkin’

and that’s just what they’ll do.

One of these days these boots

are gonna walk all over you!

We really need to get a life.

What else? Oh yes, the Speaker of the House, indistinguishable from that arrogant, autocratic third-term Government currently running amok of which I earlier wrote, actually prevented an Opposition MP from using patwa in her sectoral debate contribution. The Speaker relied on the Standing Orders that required the King’s English to be used.

How petty can you get?

Now I’ve a lot to say about this particular trivial pursuit so bear with me. First and foremost you might have noticed I never use the spelling “patois” to refer to Jamaican Creole. That’s a French word more suited to Creole spoken in former French colonies like Haiti than in Jamaica. Jamaican Creole has zero connection to or affinity with French. Jamaican slaves were forced to learn and speak English so we blended that language with the ancestral Twi which is the native language of Ghana from whence most of us were taken. So I spell our patwa phonetically and I encourage you to do the same.

Secondly what di watsitnotsit?

I’m not going to bother with the creativity argument, which is profound, or the utter disrespect for our indigenous language that still permeates what’s left of the quasi-British Upper Crust in Jamaica. Just as The Speaker stood on her Standing Orders I shall stand on the law which is often a jackass but not this time.

Jamaica’s quasi British Upper Crust still won’t wrap their heads around the fact that Jamaica is not England. In England, where there’s no written Constitution, the King’s Parliament is sovereign and any law passed by it has constitutional effect.

Not. So. Here!

In Countries with a Written Constitution especially one that expressly provides that “…if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void” dat foolishness nuh suppose fi happen.

Get it? ANY. OTHER. LAW!

There’s a Charter of Rights in the same Constitution that guarantees certain human rights. It provides:

“Parliament shall pass no law and no organ of the State shall take any action which abrogates, abridges or infringes those rights.” [section 13(2)(b)]

Note the cursory nod to the alleged separation of Government and Parliament. But I digress because even stronger language precedes this in Section 13(1):

“The State has an obligation to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and freedoms.

All persons in Jamaica are entitled to preserve for themselves and future generations the fundamental rights and freedoms to which they are entitled by virtue of their inherent dignity as persons and as citizens of a free and democratic society.”

Not only is State and Parliament barred from passing any law or taking any action contrary to the guaranteed rights but the State is also obliged to PROMOTE those rights. And we, as humans, are entitled to preserve them.

Anyone who read the Constitution would know that, among the rights guaranteed is “the right to freedom of expression”. So let me be clear (not Huxtable). No law, no Act, no Standing Order can derogate from every person’s right to freedom of expression providing that expression doesn’t infringe someone else’s rights. How nonsensical is it to grant Parliamentary expression absolute privilege from defamation suits but restrict it so that one cannot speak in Jamaican patwa?

It’s not only a national affront, it’s unconstitutional! Mash down dat Order!!

But how many members of Jamaica’s Parliamentary Upper Crust have actually read the Constitution? How many understand its impact?

Anyway, we all know that an upper crust is nothing more than a lot of crumbs sticking together so whatever….

Readers have time for one more? It’s been a minute and there’s plenty triviality to review. For example, our third term Prime Minister proposes we emulate Dubai and Singapore. On June 13, Gleaner reported:

“Prime Minister Andrew Holness has held up Dubai and Singapore as development models for Jamaica, arguing the island must shift from attracting visitors to becoming a place where people choose to live, work, and invest permanently.

But he warned that the transformation would require a fundamental change in attitudes toward productivity, wages, and labour.”

See what I mean about third term Governments? Worse, the Opposition appears determined to gift Government a fourth term by more infighting among self-serving, self-promoting political duncebats who seem oblivious to and incapable of providing what it takes to win a national election.

Sigh.

Emulating Singapore and Dubai will require far more than a change of attitude. It would entail radical constitutional change miles beyond what either of Jamaica’s political parties has publicly championed.

Singapore pretends to be a Westminster style democracy but has been best described as a “managed democracy”. It holds regular parliamentary elections for a unicameral parliament (no Upper House) and has a constitutional government. But ruling People’s Action Party has been in power since 1959 and imposes strict media controls, limits on public assembly, and strategic manipulation of electoral districts.

Singapore is effectively a One Party state, like Cuba, with carefully controlled “elections”. Political opposition is, er, um, “discouraged”. The Government appears transparent and free from corruption but we can’t be certain since there’s no free media.

Dubai doesn’t pretend. It’s an absolute Monarchy led by Ruler, Vice President, and Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum who single-handedly holds Executive and Legislative authority. Both countries are economic successes. Singapore’s economy is consistently ranked the world’s most open, competitive and pro-business. Dubai’s economy is highly diversified; largely independent of oil; and fed by international trade, finance, tourism, and a booming real estate market. Singapore recorded 5.7% year-over-year growth in 2026’s first quarter while Dubai achieved 2.4%. Like everywhere else, second quarter growth is USA/Israel/Iran dependent.

Jamaica’s first quarter contracted by 4.1% so we have a ways to go.

So is this the governance system Andrew Holness wants for Jamaica? Do you? Can we achieve similar results with our current governance system? Should we change to Singapore’s or Dubai’s system? Is there another choice?

It’s time for a serious renewed conversation around real constitutional reform led by an independent, consultative Constitutional Reform Commission or Holness’ ideals will remain illusions, pipe dreams or fantasies.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com