Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Trafficking in Trafigura</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Michael Burke
Thursday, October 12, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Michael Burke</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I recall the first time that I heard arguments for state funding of elections. It was in 1973 and I was on the teaching staff of the Lluidas Vale Youth Camp near Worthy Park in northwest St Catherine. There were some Peace Corps and United Nations volunteers. The American Peace Corps volunteer shared with me a proposal that had reached the United States Congress. The Watergate scandal, which broke that year but came to a head in 1974, was perhaps what triggered it off.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The USA went into state financing of elections after 1976, the 200th anniversary of its political independence. And because there is state financing of elections, we are being asked by some in Jamaica to do the same. Jamaica is not fully developed and we have just passed our 44th year of political independence. State financing of elections is good if we can afford it. But can we?<P class=StoryText align=justify>I do not like the unethical way in which some political parties get some of their funding. But can it be the lesser of two evils? The state cannot really afford to finance elections when there is so much stress on the national budget. So if groups like Trafigura (who despite their many sins will write cheques) are not to finance the political parties, who will? The people who cannot afford to have millions of dollars in cash? And the majority of those who can do that are involved in illegal activities.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I shudder at the idea of the various cartels in control of our country. As someone who adheres to Christianity, I am obedient to Jesus Christ who told his disciples, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. You are to be as cunning as the serpent though harmless as the dove" (Matthew 10:16). And knowing that Jamaica simply cannot afford state financing of elections, taking it from sources like Trafigura might be the lesser of two evils. The other available source might be the drug lords.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But who was it after the 1980 elections who told the bank owners not to ask customers how they got the money, but just grab on to it because we needed foreign exchange? Seems to be the same principle here. The politically naive will write letters of condemnation. So will the hypocrites who know that what I write is the truth. And my opinion is that in this matter of campaign financing we are really between the devil and the deep blue sea.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Third-party and independent candidates consistently lose elections and one reason for that is that they do not have the money to finance elections. I grieve for them and I am disappointed that they cannot succeed because I am basically a third-party man. Does that surprise you, even though I keep telling you that my brother Paul and myself are not clones?<P class=StoryText align=justify>I did not hear it, if he said it at all, when Dr Peter Phillips said something about the one who plays by the rules is the one who gets shafted. I know Wilmot Perkins repeats the quote often. If he said it, I do not know the context in which it was said. What I can say, however, is that such a statement does not necessarily mean that he is not in favour of playing by the rules. I suspect, if he said it, that he was just stating an objective fact, because it is the unfortunate truth.<P class=StoryText align=justify>And Robert Pickersgill is right. The Jamaica Labour Party, in its scat
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Michael Burke
Thursday, October 12, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=80 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Michael Burke</SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I recall the first time that I heard arguments for state funding of elections. It was in 1973 and I was on the teaching staff of the Lluidas Vale Youth Camp near Worthy Park in northwest St Catherine. There were some Peace Corps and United Nations volunteers. The American Peace Corps volunteer shared with me a proposal that had reached the United States Congress. The Watergate scandal, which broke that year but came to a head in 1974, was perhaps what triggered it off.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The USA went into state financing of elections after 1976, the 200th anniversary of its political independence. And because there is state financing of elections, we are being asked by some in Jamaica to do the same. Jamaica is not fully developed and we have just passed our 44th year of political independence. State financing of elections is good if we can afford it. But can we?<P class=StoryText align=justify>I do not like the unethical way in which some political parties get some of their funding. But can it be the lesser of two evils? The state cannot really afford to finance elections when there is so much stress on the national budget. So if groups like Trafigura (who despite their many sins will write cheques) are not to finance the political parties, who will? The people who cannot afford to have millions of dollars in cash? And the majority of those who can do that are involved in illegal activities.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I shudder at the idea of the various cartels in control of our country. As someone who adheres to Christianity, I am obedient to Jesus Christ who told his disciples, "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. You are to be as cunning as the serpent though harmless as the dove" (Matthew 10:16). And knowing that Jamaica simply cannot afford state financing of elections, taking it from sources like Trafigura might be the lesser of two evils. The other available source might be the drug lords.<P class=StoryText align=justify>But who was it after the 1980 elections who told the bank owners not to ask customers how they got the money, but just grab on to it because we needed foreign exchange? Seems to be the same principle here. The politically naive will write letters of condemnation. So will the hypocrites who know that what I write is the truth. And my opinion is that in this matter of campaign financing we are really between the devil and the deep blue sea.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Third-party and independent candidates consistently lose elections and one reason for that is that they do not have the money to finance elections. I grieve for them and I am disappointed that they cannot succeed because I am basically a third-party man. Does that surprise you, even though I keep telling you that my brother Paul and myself are not clones?<P class=StoryText align=justify>I did not hear it, if he said it at all, when Dr Peter Phillips said something about the one who plays by the rules is the one who gets shafted. I know Wilmot Perkins repeats the quote often. If he said it, I do not know the context in which it was said. What I can say, however, is that such a statement does not necessarily mean that he is not in favour of playing by the rules. I suspect, if he said it, that he was just stating an objective fact, because it is the unfortunate truth.<P class=StoryText align=justify>And Robert Pickersgill is right. The Jamaica Labour Party, in its scat
Comment