The Editor, Sir:

Please allow me space to respond to your editorial of Monday, December 28, in which you sought to make the argument for the replacement of Audley Shaw as finance minister. I take issue with your editorial as it obviously seeks to lay all the blame for the current debacle at Shaw's feet, while completely exonerating the Cabinet of which he is a member.

Last time I checked, we still operate under the Westminster model, which is founded on the tenet of collective responsibility. We hardly think it likely that Shaw could have presented a budget or tax package without it being first approved by Cabinet, of which Christopher Tufton and Andrew Holness are members.

Entitled to resign

Under the Westminster system, persons who are not in support of the collective decisions of the cabinet are entitled to resign. Since the new administration has taken office, only a few persons with different policy agendas have resigned. Kudos to former commissioner of police, Lucius Thomas. Other than he, numerous persons have remained in the departments or ministries with the aim of sabotaging the administration, a point which you have completely overlooked when assessing the performance of Shaw.

Give the devil his due. While there have been mistakes, such as underestimating the impact of the global recession, Shaw has kept the ministry intact under extremely difficult circumstances. There have been no scandals so far, we have not experienced a meltdown similar to FINSAC and tax collection efforts have improved.

Continue Audley, our support is not limitless but it's much too early to pull the plug on your innings.

I am, etc.,

PHILLIP CHAMBERS

phillipdcchambers@yahoo.com

Greater Portmore

St Catherine