He was an effective left-arm orthodox spinner at Campion College during the late 1970s while he played schoolboy cricket, although he, at times, had to yield to the ‘big bats’ of Kingston College, St Jago High, Tivoli Gardens Comprehensive, Wolmer’s Boys’ and St Andrew Technical High School.

But Mark Golding brought back the days of using those turners and the occasional ‘arm’ ball to leave Prime Minister and Leader of the Jamaica Labour Party Dr Andrew Holness short of his crease in the third and final political debate leading up to the September 3, 2025, general election last Thursday night.

For periods, the banter was lively and befitting of a debate in the classic sense. There were times when Holness played straight, but on too many other occasions, he went across the line to try and nullify verbal balls sent down by Golding. The Opposition Leader and President of the People’s National Party started the action with Holness’s feeble attempt at suggesting that he was not born in Jamaica, something that had been thrown into the public space many times before, led by the ignoramus, mentally challenged Everald Warmington, and should never even have been brought up again. A sheer waste of time. 

Eyes opened wide in amazement when Golding pulled the original ‘age paper’ from his jacket pocket to shock Holness, and, hopefully, end the citizenship saga. 

Interestingly, while Holness had a problem with Golding being born elsewhere, he did not mention that at least one member of his Cabinet, Matthew Samuda, is British-born.

Holness’s position that one does not have to be born in Jamaica to be Jamaican must have been a slip on his part, as the sentiments that he expressed do not warrant a comment. 

The prime minister was behind the mark early into the contest, by ending his segment with 57 seconds on the clock, leading to the moderator turning things over to Golding. Having to be reminded of the cross-talk rules was also another low point from Holness’s presentation, after he attempted to interrupt Golding while he spoke.

While there was extensive debate on the $3.5 million threshold put forward by the PNP, which Holness described as “unworkable”, there was little time spent discussing the JLP’s proposal to reduce Pay As You Earn income tax from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, which some financial experts have suggested would result in a loss of revenue to the Government of $135 billion.

Interestingly, Holness, when it came to the question of Jamaica’s final appellate court, pushed for a Jamaican tribunal, instead of the Caribbean Court of Justice. It was still unclear if he meant that the Jamaican Court of Appeal ought to be that final court, or an institution higher than that, but still based in Jamaica.

Holness did connect with his argument that, in respect of the salary increases given to parliamentarians three years ago, the PNP flip-flopped in its stance. The initial comment by the spokesman on finance, Julian Robinson, in the House of Representatives that the party had accepted the increases did not correspond with the party’s statement a day later, condemning the salary hikes, and it sounded quite confusing on the PNP’s part.

While Holness said that he did not accept his salary increase, Golding did not say what he did with his, although we have heard before that he has been giving it to charitable causes and projects.

As for the whole business of press freedom in Jamaica, the prime minister went on a trek to distance himself from the practice of attacking journalists, adding that the JLP had not objected to any journalist participating in the debate, which, as pointed out by Golding, was a blatant lie. One of these days, I will tell a story about the role that Holness played in a plan to ‘silence’ a journalist. The facts are there.

Golding had great control of his emotions and succeeded in getting Holness irritated and agitated. He proved to me, at any rate, that he was not only prepared for oral warfare, but to lead Jamaica if he got the chance to. Much of the information that he presented to the globe showed that deep research was involved, and research itself is something that you cannot do without, as it determines how you handle current and future situations.

In what was the best of the three debates that I have seen, maybe the best debate ever, since the Jamaica Debating Commission started arranging them, there was much to digest. But the man who came away with more than enough to feed the folk was definitely Mark Jefferson Golding.