Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>FirstCaribbean Bank and the Trafigura dilemma</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>
Sunday, October 08, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>FirstCaribbean International Bank (FCIB), facing possibly its worst dilemma in 86 years of operation in Jamaica, has understandably gone into damage-control mode.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the aftermath of the leaking of confidential information about the $31-million Trafigura contribution to an account of the ruling People's National Party (PNP), the bank has sent a senior executive on leave while it investigates how the leak came to be.<P class=StoryText align=justify>It has also opened negotiations with the PNP, in hopes of avoiding the potentially devastating damage to the bank's image from a long-drawn-out court battle, all of which is coming at a time when the bank is growing rapidly and looking good from all accounts.
FirstCaribbean has certainly found itself in a situation that journalists, doctors and lawyers, in particular, would well understand: Confidentiality to these and several other professions is like oxygen to the human body - needed for their very survival.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Journalists have chosen to go to jail, rather than reveal their sources of information, for fear that sources would dry up in future. No patient could rest comfortable knowing that his/her doctor is likely to share private details of their treatment with the public. And similarly, no customer wants to know that at any given point, any bank employee can decide that it is in the national interest to give out information to the public on their account.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Which brings us to the point about the national interest, as raised by the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) Mr Pearnel Charles, in defence of the person or persons involved in the leak.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Mr Charles may, of course, be expected to defend the leak, since his party benefited substantially from it, considering how severely embarrassed the PNP has been since the revelation that the Dutch company, which sells Nigerian crude on behalf of Jamaica, gave them this hefty 'gift'.<P class=StoryText align=justify>One could ask whether the JLP would be as happy about a similar leak, if the shoe were on the other foot.
Yet, Mr Charles' invocation of the 'national interest' clause cannot be dismissed out of hand, despite the confidentiality dilemma that the leak has caused.<P class=StoryText align=justify>History is replete with instances when an insider has chosen to reveal private activities that were detrimental to the public good. That has given rise to the concept of the whistle blower.
Somewhere in the back of the mind, it is comforting to know that there are people who feel a patriotic duty to watch out for the nation and to sacrifice their own well-being to act in its behalf, by exposing hanky-panky.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The question that arises is 'what is in the national interest?' And who decides when something is in the national interest?
More specifically, was the leak at FirstCaribbean in the national interest? What was at stake such that the overarching need of a bank for confidentiality should be overlooked? We think this is where the debate should be directed.<P class=StoryText align=justify>For our part, we don't expect an objective answer to this question from politicians and their supporters who have instinctively drawn lines behind their party. But we hope that it is still possible to discuss the issue with the requisite level of impassivity.
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>
Sunday, October 08, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>FirstCaribbean International Bank (FCIB), facing possibly its worst dilemma in 86 years of operation in Jamaica, has understandably gone into damage-control mode.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the aftermath of the leaking of confidential information about the $31-million Trafigura contribution to an account of the ruling People's National Party (PNP), the bank has sent a senior executive on leave while it investigates how the leak came to be.<P class=StoryText align=justify>It has also opened negotiations with the PNP, in hopes of avoiding the potentially devastating damage to the bank's image from a long-drawn-out court battle, all of which is coming at a time when the bank is growing rapidly and looking good from all accounts.
FirstCaribbean has certainly found itself in a situation that journalists, doctors and lawyers, in particular, would well understand: Confidentiality to these and several other professions is like oxygen to the human body - needed for their very survival.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Journalists have chosen to go to jail, rather than reveal their sources of information, for fear that sources would dry up in future. No patient could rest comfortable knowing that his/her doctor is likely to share private details of their treatment with the public. And similarly, no customer wants to know that at any given point, any bank employee can decide that it is in the national interest to give out information to the public on their account.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Which brings us to the point about the national interest, as raised by the Jamaica Labour Party's (JLP) Mr Pearnel Charles, in defence of the person or persons involved in the leak.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Mr Charles may, of course, be expected to defend the leak, since his party benefited substantially from it, considering how severely embarrassed the PNP has been since the revelation that the Dutch company, which sells Nigerian crude on behalf of Jamaica, gave them this hefty 'gift'.<P class=StoryText align=justify>One could ask whether the JLP would be as happy about a similar leak, if the shoe were on the other foot.
Yet, Mr Charles' invocation of the 'national interest' clause cannot be dismissed out of hand, despite the confidentiality dilemma that the leak has caused.<P class=StoryText align=justify>History is replete with instances when an insider has chosen to reveal private activities that were detrimental to the public good. That has given rise to the concept of the whistle blower.
Somewhere in the back of the mind, it is comforting to know that there are people who feel a patriotic duty to watch out for the nation and to sacrifice their own well-being to act in its behalf, by exposing hanky-panky.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The question that arises is 'what is in the national interest?' And who decides when something is in the national interest?
More specifically, was the leak at FirstCaribbean in the national interest? What was at stake such that the overarching need of a bank for confidentiality should be overlooked? We think this is where the debate should be directed.<P class=StoryText align=justify>For our part, we don't expect an objective answer to this question from politicians and their supporters who have instinctively drawn lines behind their party. But we hope that it is still possible to discuss the issue with the requisite level of impassivity.
Comment