Physics, Parliament, and the Word of Chang

The thoughtful commentaries of Peter Espeut and Kristen Gyles in Friday’s Gleaner (May 1, 2026) converge, perhaps unintentionally, on a central question: what becomes of civic engagement when truth itself is strained in the nation’s highest forum?

Espeut speaks to a troubling contempt for the Jamaican people. Gyles urges deeper, more meaningful civic participation beyond performative gestures and political patronage. Both are right. But there is a prior condition—one that must underpin both respect and engagement. It is accuracy. It is truth.

For only the second time in my longish life, I feel compelled to state that a minister of the Jamaican Government has uttered what is demonstrably false—whether through ignorance or deliberateness—either risking a miscarriage of justice or misleading Parliament.

The first occasion occurred in the lead-up to the court proceedings arising from the so-called Green Bay incident. Then Security Minister Dudley Thompson (PNP) asserted not only that “no angel died at Green Bay”, but further suggested that weapons allegedly in the hands of those killed were blasted from their grasp by the superior “Electric Gun” firepower of soldiers, causing them- the firearms of the victims- to be flung over 50 metres into deep water.

That explanation demanded scrutiny.

At the time, I was not a casual observer. I had been designated an “advanced marksman” within the military cadet system, serving as a senior NCO and acting Second Lieutenant, with responsibility for weapons training at both company and battalion levels. My academic grounding in physics—particularly energy and mechanics—had already taken firm root. I had captained my university’s rifle team and briefly represented Jamaica in international competition. I was familiar with the muzzle velocities and projectile characteristics of the military rifles then in service.

Crucially, I did not rely on instinct alone. I consulted with senior ballistics expertise within the Jamaica Constabulary Force and with physicist colleagues at the University of the West Indies and abroad. Without exception, our fact-checking converged on a single conclusion: the ministerial explanation was physically untenable.

I recount this not to rehearse history, but to establish context for the present.

Deputy Prime Minister of National Security, Hon. Dr. Horace Chang, addresses Wednesday’s (May 7) post-Cabinet press briefing at Jamaica House. (Photo: Donald De La Haye, Our Today)

Today, I again find myself compelled to intervene. Security Minister Dr Horace Chang (JLP)—an eminent Jamaican scholar who excelled in physics at Cornwall College—has stated in Parliament that M16 rifles are capable of delivering 60 rounds per second. I heard him say that myself.

That statement is simply untrue.

A rate of 60 rounds per second translates to 3,600 rounds per minute. No standard M16 variant is mechanically capable of such performance. The weapon’s gas-operated system imposes limits that are well understood within both engineering and military contexts.

The accepted cyclic rate of fire for the M16 family lies between approximately 700 and 950 rounds per minute—roughly 12 to 15 rounds per second. Even this is an upper-bound figure, not sustainable in practice without rapid overheating and mechanical stress. In real-world conditions, effective rates of fire are significantly lower, particularly in semi-automatic operation.

Weapons that approach or exceed 3,000 rounds per minute exist—but they are multi-barrelled, externally powered systems such as the M134 Minigun. They are not shoulder-fired infantry rifles.

Environmentalist Peter Espeut (Credit: Our Today)

This is not a trivial technical correction. It goes to the heart of the concerns raised by Espeut and Gyles.

When statements made in Parliament diverge so sharply from verifiable fact, the result is not merely error. It is erosion. It diminishes public confidence. It feeds the very contempt Espeut identifies. It undermines the meaningful civic engagement Gyles calls for.

Citizens cannot engage meaningfully with policy if the factual basis of that policy is unstable.

To be clear, this is not an attack on the individual. Indeed, it is precisely because Dr Chang is an eminent Jamaica Scholar—one who distinguished himself in physics—that the expectation of accuracy is higher, not lower. Scholarship is not a shield from scrutiny; it is a basis for it.

Nor should this intervention be mistaken for ingratitude. Murders in Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have declined from earlier peaks, and both the Jamaica Constabulary Force and the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service deserve commendation for their efforts.

But success in outcomes does not excuse imprecision in explanation.

If anything, it heightens the need for clarity. For it is precisely at moments of progress that trust must be consolidated, not compromised.

Kristen Gyles. (Credit: Our Today)

There is also a policy dimension that cannot be ignored. Statements of exaggerated firepower, whether intentional or careless, may influence public resistance to necessary reforms—among them, the routine deployment of body-worn cameras for security forces. Transparency tools such as these depend on public trust. That trust cannot coexist comfortably with demonstrable inaccuracies at the highest levels.

We live in an age of instant verification. A sixth-form student with modest curiosity can, within minutes, confirm the operational limits of an M16 rifle. When official statements fail such basic scrutiny, the damage is swift and enduring.

Science demands humility. It requires that claims be tested against evidence and corrected when found wanting. These are not academic niceties; they are the operating principles of rational governance.

Jamaica is not deficient in intellectual capacity. Our schools—from Cornwall College to institutions across the island—have produced scholars of distinction. Our universities continue to train capable scientists, engineers, and analysts.

Dr Dennis A Minott

The issue is not capacity. It is discipline.

We must insist, calmly but firmly, that accuracy in public statements is non-negotiable. Ministers must be supported by competent technical advisers and must rely on them. And when errors occur—as they inevitably will—the correction must be swift, clear, and unambiguous.

That is not weakness. It is leadership.

For in the final analysis, the convergence of Espeut’s warning about contempt and Gyles’ call for civic engagement leads us here: without truth, there can be neither respect nor participation.

When physics meets Parliament, truth must not be optional.

by Dennis A. Minott, PhD.

May 1, 2026