Tweet
Some useful information here interspersed with a lot of junk..... but see highlighted section in the middle (presented in blue of course) for the probable reason Golding is opposed to Vasciannie.
Election win, but little power
Wignall's World
Mark Wignall
Sunday, December 02, 2007
A little over a year ago, the PNP administration responded to another in the long line of scandals generated not just under its watch but under its direction.
Bruce Golding was then leader of the opposition, and when he broke the story on Trafigura in October of 2006, it shot so many holes in the PNP's tattered armour that it forced the then prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, into silence for the better part of two weeks.
For those who came in late, Trafigura Beheer, a Dutch outfit, trades commodities, such as crude oil, refined products, concentrates and refined metals, and provides the ships and facilities to store and transport them. It has access to over 20 million barrels of crude in storage facilities worldwide. Jamaica has a soft facility with the government of (oil-producing) Nigeria which allows us to lift crude oil from its storage and sell it on the world market for the best price.
We have no companies in the business of commodities trading at this level and so we employed Trafigura, experts in the business, to lift the oil, take the lion's share of the profit, and give us what is left over. Bear in mind that the Nigerian oil is not free. We have to pay for it, but the conditions are so reasonable that in the minds of some, it suited us to have a transnational paying us US$0.12 per barrel out of the sale. It suited us to accept chicken feed.
In October 2006, Bruce Golding broke the news that the PNP had accepted money from Trafigura (J$31 million) and had done so quite surreptitiously. The money was wired in three telegraphic transfer tranches and sent to a bank account of then PNP general secretary, Colin Campbell. He in turn had withdrawn $30 million, lodged it to an account which bore the name of one of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller's constituency accounts.
In the race between obfuscation and truth, the PNP took the position that the majority of Jamaicans were wound-up robots, ready to accept its own version of the truth, that is, convenient political truth. The PNP said there was no conflict of interest in that party accepting a 'gift' from Trafigura while the PNP was the party which had formed the governmental administration. Meanwhile, Trafigura had been saying that the money was payment on a 'commercial transaction'. To date, this country has not determined what the PNP sold to Trafigura. Some of us know exactly what it was.
As was typical in scandals during the PNP run, the bright heads in the party/government decided that the time was opportune for the PNP to investigate itself. At the centre of the investigation was AJ Nicholson, an 'honourable' member of the Cabinet; specifically, attorney general.
Hopelessly out of touch with what decency dictated was the 'right thing', the attorney general sided with his party and used his legal advisor to the PNP' status to declare that there was no 'hanky-panky' in Trafigura money eventually arriving in the coffers of the PNP.
Today, focus is brought to bear on the Attorney General's Department. The man and the woman at street level could not give a hoot about whether Professor Stephen Vasciannie is appointed to the post of solicitor general or not. They want to know what the Government can do to assist them in weathering the price increases on basic food items brought on by the rising wheat, corn and oil prices. The new JLP Government, we are told, will be addressing the matter of the solicitor general soon.
Vasciannie is very highly qualified
The former solicitor general (SG), Michael Hylton, departed his post at the end of October, having served for about six years. At the beginning of October the Public Service Commission (PSC) met, interviewed those who had responded to the public advertisements for the post and, at the end of the process, recommended Professor Vasciannie for the job.
VASCIANNIE. if he wants to have his cake and eat it, there is a real world awakening for him
Vasciannie's resume reads like a book. As a son of Jamaica we ought to be proud of him, especially where we have grown used to tearing down those of us who have produced or attained much in academia, business and politics.
Three candidates/applicants were short-listed. Vasciannie, deputy SG; Patrick Foster, deputy SG and, Douglas Leys, deputy SG (on secondment to the CDB). Not that it seriously matters, but Vasciannie's application letter/resume counts 20 pages while Leys' runs nine pages and Foster's four pages.
Vasciannie outpaces the other two by far, not just in resume pages but in 'achievement', especially in academic publication. Leys tops the list in terms of courtroom experience. He is a seasoned advocate.
Was the PSC properly constituted?
The members of the PSC who met on October 2, 2007, were Daisy Coke, Mike Fennel and Pauline Findlay. Others who comprised the interviewing panel were Carlton Davies, cabinet secretary; and John Leiba, president, Bar Association of Jamaica.
According to the Jamaica Constitution, Chapter 10, Section 136, 2 - 'At any meeting of any Commission established by this Constitution a quorum shall be constituted if three members are present. If a quorum is present the Commission shall not be disqualified for the transaction of business by reason of any vacancy among its members and any proceedings of the Commission shall be valid, notwithstanding that some person who was not entitled so to do took part therein.'
I am no lawyer, but something in that section puzzles me. It states that a quorum constitutes three members. No problem with that. What I am at a loss in fathoming is this, 'If a quorum is present the Commission shall not be disqualified by reason of any vacancy among its members...'
Vacancy? Does the constitution mean 'absence'? I cannot see it meaning absence if there is a quorum. If 'vacancy' means that the PSC had recently lost one of its members, how would that bear on a matter or decision which was deliberated/made with a duly constituted quorum? And certainly 'vacany' could never bear any reference to the mental state of any member of the PSC.
But even if the section was making a reference to the three members who formed a quorum making a decision that they needed personnel to assist them in the interviewing process, what is the meaning of, ... any proceedings of the Commission shall be valid notwithstanding that some person who was not entitled to do so took part therein'?
Does this mean that Vasciannie, Foster and Leys could have sat in and deliberated on their own interviews?
I could have sought legal assistance in attempting to clarify the section, but my lawyer friends all speak Swahili while I speak English.
In another part of the Jamaican Constitution, Chapter 9, Part 1, 125, Section 3, the following is stated:
'No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a member of the Public Service Commission if he holds or is acting in any public office other than the office of the Judicial Services Commission or, member of the Police Service Commission.'
Question: Is there some fundamental difference to be drawn in the make-up of the PSC when meeting to discuss everyday business as against conducting interviews? Dr Carlton Davies, cabinet secretary and brother to Dr Omar Davies, recently minister of finance in the PNP government, is not, as far as I know, a member of the JSC or the Police Service Commission. Question: Why was he on the interviewing panel?
The PSC praised Michael Hylton
A chief preamble to the PSC's decision to recommend Vasciannie as SG was the 'service with distinction' of the outgoing solicitor general. Indeed, prior to interviewing the applicants for the job the PSC met with Hylton and spoke with him at length on matters to do with the operations of the AG's office. One sensed that the PSC saw Hylton as 'creme de la creme' and hence, possibly accepted directions from him on the way forward for the AG's chambers.
Question: Could this exit interview with Hylton have coloured the decision made on the SG's appointment?
Question: Based on this understanding, should Ms Pauline Findlay have sat in any deliberations having to do with finding a replacement for Hylton? Better yet, can Ms Findlay assist us by informing us if there was even one single reason why she should have absented herself from the interviewing process?
I am certain that Michael Hylton performed well in his time as solicitor general. We must remember that the AG's office exists for the purpose of providing legal services for the Government. The solicitor general is the chief legal adviser to the attorney general on legal matters having to do with the state.
The AG's office provides these services free of cost to central government departments because the batch of lawyers employed there are already collecting a salary. But of course, reader, you have seen where the very same Michael Hylton and others in the AG's chambers have invoiced some of these departments for exorbitant amounts and the AG's department has collected these monies. In essence, you the taxpayer were forced to pay persons like Hylton and others TWICE because no one at the Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet Secretariat stepped in to protect the taxpayer.
Why would Vasciannie want to work with a JLP administration?
JLP persons have been telling me that the young, super-bright university professor, Stephen Vasciannie, has little courtroom experience and hence cannot be seen as the man for the job. I buy that argument up to a point. The SG has to be very familiar with court procedures. In terms of experience Vasciannie is weak in this area, strong in everything else.
The SG is the point man for the younger members of the AG's Department. Where difficult areas of law arise in the courts, the inexperienced members of the AG's office will be seeking advice from the SG. If the SG is weak in areas of the law which relate to the principles of public and constitutional law as administered by the courts, he or she will be a damp squib in the AG's chambers.
Like any arrangement between lawyer (the SG) and client (the Government), if mistrust exists, the relationship will suffer stillbirth.
As columnist for the Gleaner, Vasciannie wrote the following on September 30, 2002, about a month before the general elections of that year. It was at a time when Golding had just made his surprise re-entry into the JLP: "Moreover, given that less than three weeks remain before the General Election, we are all entitled to wonder if this is rank opportunism dressed up in dry leaves.
We may also wonder whether Bruce, who was never able to project the NDM to the heights, has the qualities to help a sagging JLP campaign. If he prompts "big money" to assist the JLP, then, perhaps he will be an asset, but beyond that, the impact of his return should not be exaggerated.
"Let's put it this way: Bruce's return is not a torpedo to the hull of the PNP ship. Rather, it is more akin to the JLP throwing a dead cat on the PNP deck. For a short time, PNP seafarers will be hurrying and scurrying about wondering what to do, and then someone will wash the dead cat away. No lasting impact."
As a newspaper columnist myself I know the danger of the pen. I was one of the chief persons urging Golding towards what became the NDM in 1995. And I was the main columnist urging him to leave the NDM and return to the JLP when the NDM was in the process of dying on the vine. And I then criticised Golding's return because I saw it as too 'surreptitious' for my liking, even though I was privileged to witness some of the last-minute deliberations between the JLP and Golding before Golding returned to Seaga's JLP.
Stephen Vasciannie was a young idealist in the NDM, and at the time he wrote that column, his disappointment with and anger at Golding were obvious. At that time Vasciannie was still in Real World Politics 101.
The lesson here is quite probably, do not make such harsh criticisms of those who may become prime minister when one day you may have to seek a job as one of the chief legal advisers to that very prime minister.
Vasciannie's 'dead cat' criticism cannot be seen as just another in the long line of kudos for the democratic ideal and freedom of speech. Question: Why would the professor, who can get a job paying him far more that the J$3.6 million to J$4.1 million per annum plus allowances, about the median income in the USA, insist on accepting such a job where he will be forced to work with a dead cat, maybe a small one, but rotting and stink to high heaven?
If Stephen Vasciannie wants to have his cat. er, cake and eat it, there is a real-world awakening for him. In such a sensitive area as solicitor general, were he the prime minister, he would never want to work with Vasciannie.
There are many areas in Government where the deck has been set by PNP politicians three months after the PNP Government demitted office. I would never accuse Vasciannie of playing politics on this matter, but there is the possibility that others have a vested interest in pushing the appointment because they know that it will be another channel clogged up in the JLP administration.
For the administration to work effectively it must have some say in those who will be chief legal advisers to the Government. There is much more on this, but I first want to hear what Prime Minister Golding has to say on the matter.
Come clean, whoever you are
The man is 67 years old, a pensioner and his letter to me began with, "Mr Wignall, please help me. My life savings of J$350,000 is tied up here. My wife has J$100,000 which she has invested too. Help me, Mr Wignall. I will be eternally grateful to you."
Then he sent me an e-mail which he had sent to one of the 'investment' entities whose future is uncertain at best.
"Dear MR .... I WROTE YOU THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ON MONDAY AND YET YOU DID NOT HAVE THE DECENCY TO REPLY TO ME, JUST LIKE HOW YOU HAVE NOT DONE BEFORE. MR. .... I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO MY MONEY. CAN'T YOU HAVE THE DECENCY TO EVEN REPLY TO ME? CERTAINLY IT CANNOT ONLY BE THE BANKS. WHY HAVE YOU NOT BEEN REPLYING TO MY EMAILS? WHY AREN'T YOUR OFFICES ANSWERING MY PHONE CALLS? MR. .... I NEED MY MONEY."
Then the letter to the company
"Dear Mr. ....,
"On August 24 I opened an account with you in your Montego Bay offices, with the understanding that I would have the first payment to my account at JMMB the following month. On November 12 after several checks with JMMB and no money was forthcoming I went to Montego Bay and applied for full disbursement of my money, which I was told would be in my account today (November 26), being 10 working days after.
"I checked with JMMB and they told me that no money is in the account, despite the fact that they, JMMB, have issued NO order that any cheque coming from you would be dishonoured.
"As a matter of fact I was told that up to Friday last, one such cheque was honoured by them.
"I have tried to telephone your offices on several occasions INCLUDING TODAY, with no reply. Neither have I had replies to emails that I have sent, so I am waiting to see if you are straight and up-front as you profess to be.
"Please let me hear from you Mr. ....
"My identification No. is..."
I feel powerless whenever I receive these messages. What is going on? With lawyers hovering and waiting to pounce, persons like myself are forced to sit by and watch, and wait. The lawyers are the lucky ones. They demand cash up front before a move is made. Smart fellows, while the man with his life savings of J$350,000 and his wife's $100,000 face an uncertain future.
Mr X, you know who you are. What about this man's money? What am I to tell him? What more can you sell him?
We both need to hear from you now!
I have five other complaints!
Lock them up, Bruce
A reader has suggested that Bruce Golding has a bigger job on his hands than he would imagine. He writes as follows:
"I think I've emailed you numerous times expressing the same thoughts: If you know of all these things and have reported on them for all these many years - the wholesale plunder of the treasury by politicians, the policemen with multiple allegiances, the businessmen who are either facilitators of the corruption or victims(?), the major drug lords who fund (and own?) the politicians, marauders like 'Shine' - why do so many people in positions of power and authority continue to feign ignorance at the existence of these negative forces which are working to turn the country into a failed state?
"Am I missing something? You have politicians, ministers of religion, high-ranking policemen, prominent businessmen, columnists, other worthies all proclaiming a desire to 'stem the rot' and change things for the better.
"Foreign cops are brought in, studies are done, other notable measures are taken, all in an attempt to make it seem as if those in authority are really and truly and deeply concerned about doing something to cure the disease. But it's all an illusion, a game of smoke and mirrors maybe.
"The only serious way to get people to do what's right is to start prosecuting and locking people up. There is no drug dealing in Saudi Arabia or Singapore because in these countries drug dealers are executed.
"Likewise, in Jamaica, if a man knows he can get away with screwing the country, murdering innocent people and making decent people's lives a living hell, he'll do it - it's human nature. The only way that Bruce Golding can show he's different from all those flunkies who occupied the position of PM before him is to start getting serious about prosecuting those who abuse and have abused the people's trust."
Election win, but little power
Wignall's World
Mark Wignall
Sunday, December 02, 2007
A little over a year ago, the PNP administration responded to another in the long line of scandals generated not just under its watch but under its direction.
Bruce Golding was then leader of the opposition, and when he broke the story on Trafigura in October of 2006, it shot so many holes in the PNP's tattered armour that it forced the then prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, into silence for the better part of two weeks.
For those who came in late, Trafigura Beheer, a Dutch outfit, trades commodities, such as crude oil, refined products, concentrates and refined metals, and provides the ships and facilities to store and transport them. It has access to over 20 million barrels of crude in storage facilities worldwide. Jamaica has a soft facility with the government of (oil-producing) Nigeria which allows us to lift crude oil from its storage and sell it on the world market for the best price.
We have no companies in the business of commodities trading at this level and so we employed Trafigura, experts in the business, to lift the oil, take the lion's share of the profit, and give us what is left over. Bear in mind that the Nigerian oil is not free. We have to pay for it, but the conditions are so reasonable that in the minds of some, it suited us to have a transnational paying us US$0.12 per barrel out of the sale. It suited us to accept chicken feed.
In October 2006, Bruce Golding broke the news that the PNP had accepted money from Trafigura (J$31 million) and had done so quite surreptitiously. The money was wired in three telegraphic transfer tranches and sent to a bank account of then PNP general secretary, Colin Campbell. He in turn had withdrawn $30 million, lodged it to an account which bore the name of one of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller's constituency accounts.
In the race between obfuscation and truth, the PNP took the position that the majority of Jamaicans were wound-up robots, ready to accept its own version of the truth, that is, convenient political truth. The PNP said there was no conflict of interest in that party accepting a 'gift' from Trafigura while the PNP was the party which had formed the governmental administration. Meanwhile, Trafigura had been saying that the money was payment on a 'commercial transaction'. To date, this country has not determined what the PNP sold to Trafigura. Some of us know exactly what it was.
As was typical in scandals during the PNP run, the bright heads in the party/government decided that the time was opportune for the PNP to investigate itself. At the centre of the investigation was AJ Nicholson, an 'honourable' member of the Cabinet; specifically, attorney general.
Hopelessly out of touch with what decency dictated was the 'right thing', the attorney general sided with his party and used his legal advisor to the PNP' status to declare that there was no 'hanky-panky' in Trafigura money eventually arriving in the coffers of the PNP.
Today, focus is brought to bear on the Attorney General's Department. The man and the woman at street level could not give a hoot about whether Professor Stephen Vasciannie is appointed to the post of solicitor general or not. They want to know what the Government can do to assist them in weathering the price increases on basic food items brought on by the rising wheat, corn and oil prices. The new JLP Government, we are told, will be addressing the matter of the solicitor general soon.
Vasciannie is very highly qualified
The former solicitor general (SG), Michael Hylton, departed his post at the end of October, having served for about six years. At the beginning of October the Public Service Commission (PSC) met, interviewed those who had responded to the public advertisements for the post and, at the end of the process, recommended Professor Vasciannie for the job.
VASCIANNIE. if he wants to have his cake and eat it, there is a real world awakening for him
Vasciannie's resume reads like a book. As a son of Jamaica we ought to be proud of him, especially where we have grown used to tearing down those of us who have produced or attained much in academia, business and politics.
Three candidates/applicants were short-listed. Vasciannie, deputy SG; Patrick Foster, deputy SG and, Douglas Leys, deputy SG (on secondment to the CDB). Not that it seriously matters, but Vasciannie's application letter/resume counts 20 pages while Leys' runs nine pages and Foster's four pages.
Vasciannie outpaces the other two by far, not just in resume pages but in 'achievement', especially in academic publication. Leys tops the list in terms of courtroom experience. He is a seasoned advocate.
Was the PSC properly constituted?
The members of the PSC who met on October 2, 2007, were Daisy Coke, Mike Fennel and Pauline Findlay. Others who comprised the interviewing panel were Carlton Davies, cabinet secretary; and John Leiba, president, Bar Association of Jamaica.
According to the Jamaica Constitution, Chapter 10, Section 136, 2 - 'At any meeting of any Commission established by this Constitution a quorum shall be constituted if three members are present. If a quorum is present the Commission shall not be disqualified for the transaction of business by reason of any vacancy among its members and any proceedings of the Commission shall be valid, notwithstanding that some person who was not entitled so to do took part therein.'
I am no lawyer, but something in that section puzzles me. It states that a quorum constitutes three members. No problem with that. What I am at a loss in fathoming is this, 'If a quorum is present the Commission shall not be disqualified by reason of any vacancy among its members...'
Vacancy? Does the constitution mean 'absence'? I cannot see it meaning absence if there is a quorum. If 'vacancy' means that the PSC had recently lost one of its members, how would that bear on a matter or decision which was deliberated/made with a duly constituted quorum? And certainly 'vacany' could never bear any reference to the mental state of any member of the PSC.
But even if the section was making a reference to the three members who formed a quorum making a decision that they needed personnel to assist them in the interviewing process, what is the meaning of, ... any proceedings of the Commission shall be valid notwithstanding that some person who was not entitled to do so took part therein'?
Does this mean that Vasciannie, Foster and Leys could have sat in and deliberated on their own interviews?
I could have sought legal assistance in attempting to clarify the section, but my lawyer friends all speak Swahili while I speak English.
In another part of the Jamaican Constitution, Chapter 9, Part 1, 125, Section 3, the following is stated:
'No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a member of the Public Service Commission if he holds or is acting in any public office other than the office of the Judicial Services Commission or, member of the Police Service Commission.'
Question: Is there some fundamental difference to be drawn in the make-up of the PSC when meeting to discuss everyday business as against conducting interviews? Dr Carlton Davies, cabinet secretary and brother to Dr Omar Davies, recently minister of finance in the PNP government, is not, as far as I know, a member of the JSC or the Police Service Commission. Question: Why was he on the interviewing panel?
The PSC praised Michael Hylton
A chief preamble to the PSC's decision to recommend Vasciannie as SG was the 'service with distinction' of the outgoing solicitor general. Indeed, prior to interviewing the applicants for the job the PSC met with Hylton and spoke with him at length on matters to do with the operations of the AG's office. One sensed that the PSC saw Hylton as 'creme de la creme' and hence, possibly accepted directions from him on the way forward for the AG's chambers.
Question: Could this exit interview with Hylton have coloured the decision made on the SG's appointment?
Question: Based on this understanding, should Ms Pauline Findlay have sat in any deliberations having to do with finding a replacement for Hylton? Better yet, can Ms Findlay assist us by informing us if there was even one single reason why she should have absented herself from the interviewing process?
I am certain that Michael Hylton performed well in his time as solicitor general. We must remember that the AG's office exists for the purpose of providing legal services for the Government. The solicitor general is the chief legal adviser to the attorney general on legal matters having to do with the state.
The AG's office provides these services free of cost to central government departments because the batch of lawyers employed there are already collecting a salary. But of course, reader, you have seen where the very same Michael Hylton and others in the AG's chambers have invoiced some of these departments for exorbitant amounts and the AG's department has collected these monies. In essence, you the taxpayer were forced to pay persons like Hylton and others TWICE because no one at the Ministry of Finance and the Cabinet Secretariat stepped in to protect the taxpayer.
Why would Vasciannie want to work with a JLP administration?
JLP persons have been telling me that the young, super-bright university professor, Stephen Vasciannie, has little courtroom experience and hence cannot be seen as the man for the job. I buy that argument up to a point. The SG has to be very familiar with court procedures. In terms of experience Vasciannie is weak in this area, strong in everything else.
The SG is the point man for the younger members of the AG's Department. Where difficult areas of law arise in the courts, the inexperienced members of the AG's office will be seeking advice from the SG. If the SG is weak in areas of the law which relate to the principles of public and constitutional law as administered by the courts, he or she will be a damp squib in the AG's chambers.
Like any arrangement between lawyer (the SG) and client (the Government), if mistrust exists, the relationship will suffer stillbirth.
As columnist for the Gleaner, Vasciannie wrote the following on September 30, 2002, about a month before the general elections of that year. It was at a time when Golding had just made his surprise re-entry into the JLP: "Moreover, given that less than three weeks remain before the General Election, we are all entitled to wonder if this is rank opportunism dressed up in dry leaves.
We may also wonder whether Bruce, who was never able to project the NDM to the heights, has the qualities to help a sagging JLP campaign. If he prompts "big money" to assist the JLP, then, perhaps he will be an asset, but beyond that, the impact of his return should not be exaggerated.
"Let's put it this way: Bruce's return is not a torpedo to the hull of the PNP ship. Rather, it is more akin to the JLP throwing a dead cat on the PNP deck. For a short time, PNP seafarers will be hurrying and scurrying about wondering what to do, and then someone will wash the dead cat away. No lasting impact."
As a newspaper columnist myself I know the danger of the pen. I was one of the chief persons urging Golding towards what became the NDM in 1995. And I was the main columnist urging him to leave the NDM and return to the JLP when the NDM was in the process of dying on the vine. And I then criticised Golding's return because I saw it as too 'surreptitious' for my liking, even though I was privileged to witness some of the last-minute deliberations between the JLP and Golding before Golding returned to Seaga's JLP.
Stephen Vasciannie was a young idealist in the NDM, and at the time he wrote that column, his disappointment with and anger at Golding were obvious. At that time Vasciannie was still in Real World Politics 101.
The lesson here is quite probably, do not make such harsh criticisms of those who may become prime minister when one day you may have to seek a job as one of the chief legal advisers to that very prime minister.
Vasciannie's 'dead cat' criticism cannot be seen as just another in the long line of kudos for the democratic ideal and freedom of speech. Question: Why would the professor, who can get a job paying him far more that the J$3.6 million to J$4.1 million per annum plus allowances, about the median income in the USA, insist on accepting such a job where he will be forced to work with a dead cat, maybe a small one, but rotting and stink to high heaven?
If Stephen Vasciannie wants to have his cat. er, cake and eat it, there is a real-world awakening for him. In such a sensitive area as solicitor general, were he the prime minister, he would never want to work with Vasciannie.
There are many areas in Government where the deck has been set by PNP politicians three months after the PNP Government demitted office. I would never accuse Vasciannie of playing politics on this matter, but there is the possibility that others have a vested interest in pushing the appointment because they know that it will be another channel clogged up in the JLP administration.
For the administration to work effectively it must have some say in those who will be chief legal advisers to the Government. There is much more on this, but I first want to hear what Prime Minister Golding has to say on the matter.
Come clean, whoever you are
The man is 67 years old, a pensioner and his letter to me began with, "Mr Wignall, please help me. My life savings of J$350,000 is tied up here. My wife has J$100,000 which she has invested too. Help me, Mr Wignall. I will be eternally grateful to you."
Then he sent me an e-mail which he had sent to one of the 'investment' entities whose future is uncertain at best.
"Dear MR .... I WROTE YOU THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ON MONDAY AND YET YOU DID NOT HAVE THE DECENCY TO REPLY TO ME, JUST LIKE HOW YOU HAVE NOT DONE BEFORE. MR. .... I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO MY MONEY. CAN'T YOU HAVE THE DECENCY TO EVEN REPLY TO ME? CERTAINLY IT CANNOT ONLY BE THE BANKS. WHY HAVE YOU NOT BEEN REPLYING TO MY EMAILS? WHY AREN'T YOUR OFFICES ANSWERING MY PHONE CALLS? MR. .... I NEED MY MONEY."
Then the letter to the company
"Dear Mr. ....,
"On August 24 I opened an account with you in your Montego Bay offices, with the understanding that I would have the first payment to my account at JMMB the following month. On November 12 after several checks with JMMB and no money was forthcoming I went to Montego Bay and applied for full disbursement of my money, which I was told would be in my account today (November 26), being 10 working days after.
"I checked with JMMB and they told me that no money is in the account, despite the fact that they, JMMB, have issued NO order that any cheque coming from you would be dishonoured.
"As a matter of fact I was told that up to Friday last, one such cheque was honoured by them.
"I have tried to telephone your offices on several occasions INCLUDING TODAY, with no reply. Neither have I had replies to emails that I have sent, so I am waiting to see if you are straight and up-front as you profess to be.
"Please let me hear from you Mr. ....
"My identification No. is..."
I feel powerless whenever I receive these messages. What is going on? With lawyers hovering and waiting to pounce, persons like myself are forced to sit by and watch, and wait. The lawyers are the lucky ones. They demand cash up front before a move is made. Smart fellows, while the man with his life savings of J$350,000 and his wife's $100,000 face an uncertain future.
Mr X, you know who you are. What about this man's money? What am I to tell him? What more can you sell him?
We both need to hear from you now!
I have five other complaints!
Lock them up, Bruce
A reader has suggested that Bruce Golding has a bigger job on his hands than he would imagine. He writes as follows:
"I think I've emailed you numerous times expressing the same thoughts: If you know of all these things and have reported on them for all these many years - the wholesale plunder of the treasury by politicians, the policemen with multiple allegiances, the businessmen who are either facilitators of the corruption or victims(?), the major drug lords who fund (and own?) the politicians, marauders like 'Shine' - why do so many people in positions of power and authority continue to feign ignorance at the existence of these negative forces which are working to turn the country into a failed state?
"Am I missing something? You have politicians, ministers of religion, high-ranking policemen, prominent businessmen, columnists, other worthies all proclaiming a desire to 'stem the rot' and change things for the better.
"Foreign cops are brought in, studies are done, other notable measures are taken, all in an attempt to make it seem as if those in authority are really and truly and deeply concerned about doing something to cure the disease. But it's all an illusion, a game of smoke and mirrors maybe.
"The only serious way to get people to do what's right is to start prosecuting and locking people up. There is no drug dealing in Saudi Arabia or Singapore because in these countries drug dealers are executed.
"Likewise, in Jamaica, if a man knows he can get away with screwing the country, murdering innocent people and making decent people's lives a living hell, he'll do it - it's human nature. The only way that Bruce Golding can show he's different from all those flunkies who occupied the position of PM before him is to start getting serious about prosecuting those who abuse and have abused the people's trust."
