Tweet
Dr Davies, support the Finsac probe
Raulston Nembhard
Saturday, May 03, 2008
The government has decided to proceed with a commission of inquiry into the collapse of the financial sector in the 1990s. This is a position for which this writer has argued for over four years now.
It is important for Jamaicans to know the reasons for the collapse so that mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that the country does not go down that road in the future. History forgotten leads to its repetition; history ignored can lead to calamitous events in the future.
The Opposition is against such an inquiry. When they formed the government of the day, they were adamantly opposed to the idea. The argument advanced at the time is that they had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the confidential relationship between a banker and its clients and to respect the legal imperatives inherent in those relationships. It is interesting that in his desire to score political points and to embarrass the present minister, Dr Davies did not consider this protocol relevant in respect to Minister Shaw. The protocol is an important and noble one that must be upheld at all times.
Contrary to what Dr Davies would have us believe, the massive collapse of the sector could not have been due to a number of borrowers failing to honour their debts. When the energies of the commission are fully engaged, it will be seen that the disease from which the economy suffered in the 1990s was a systemic one; that the principal vector of the disease was the extremely high and pernicious interest rates which prevailed in the economy. These rates were a function of government policy and had a deleterious and catastrophic effect across the entire spectrum of the struggling economy.
Finsac was a mere symptom of that systemic disease. We have to be careful that we do not promote the symptom over the disease or we will never get to the root cause of what happened. Dr Davies fulminates a great deal about his government's role in stabilising the sector through Finsac. This suits him because it deflects attention from the real causes of the collapse. The mantra seems to be to treat the symptom and you do not have to worry about the disease. He would rather be remembered as the knight in shining armour who came to rescue the damsel in distress (is this why Mr Shaw is talking about sweetheart deals?) than to be known as Nero who fiddled while Rome burned.
And fiddle he did. While the inquiry may unearth contracts with dubious content, the policies of government that led to the collapse must be its primary aim to uncover. The members of the commission must be bold to get to the truth. They must not be dissuaded by the fulminations of those who would not want such an inquiry to be conducted. A solid institution such as Mutual Life , which weathered many storms in its over 100 years of existence, could not have folded solely on the basis of a mismatch of assets.
Those who are resisting the inquiry should welcome the probe like other well-thinking Jamaicans. If they have nothing to hide, why are they so resistant to the truth being revealed? It is the truth that will set us free and bring some measure of relief to the many "finsaced" Jamaicans who continue to suffer the scourge of this monumental mismanagement of the country's economy. One gets the peculiar feeling that as events have unfurled, the previous government would not want important information and revelation of facts to emerge that might place it in an invidious position. This writer eagerly anticipates the first witness being called and hopes that it will be Dr Omar Davies.
This brings us to another aspect of the consequences of Finsac that seems to be lost on Dr Davies. This has to do with the spiritual dimension of the crisis. There can be no doubt from the catalogue of suffering that many Jamaicans have endured and are still experiencing, that Finsac has taken a heavy toll on individuals and families in Jamaica. To my knowledge, Dr Davies has never intimated that he has any sorrow for this horrendous suffering that his government's policy has had on the many "finsaced" Jamaicans.
One notices that whenever Finsac is mentioned, the former minister moves into a combative mode and becomes defensive and almost incoherent as he did in the closing of the budget debate. He sat in Parliament with a wry smile on his face, smug in the belief that he has played no role in the sufferings of many. One is sure that he has heard of those sufferings; of the families that have been destroyed; of the people who have committed suicide; of the entrepreneurial dreams that have become nightmares; and of the tears that have been shed by those whose lives have been shattered by their ongoing battle to stay alive.
But do you care, Dr Davies? It would help those who are suffering if you would show even a modicum of compassion and humility for those who are going through this nightmare. It is not enough for you to say that they are responsible for where they are. Ultimately, they must take responsibility, like any adult, for their decisions.
But the decisions that those people made were not made in a vacuum. They were made within the context of the policies which you and your government pursued. It is disingenuous for you to wash your hands as if you had nothing to do with it Your role was pivotal, and this is made even more palpably so as you often acted as a law unto yourself.
One of the essential hallmarks of a good human being is the ability to admit mistakes and to seek the forgiveness of those you might have wronged. It is a tall order to ask Dr Davies to admit a mistake, especially in a matter such as Finsac. But he can at least be asked to spare a compassionate thought for those who continue to suffer greatly from a policy of which he was the principal architect.
stead6655@aol.com
Raulston Nembhard
Saturday, May 03, 2008
The government has decided to proceed with a commission of inquiry into the collapse of the financial sector in the 1990s. This is a position for which this writer has argued for over four years now.
It is important for Jamaicans to know the reasons for the collapse so that mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that the country does not go down that road in the future. History forgotten leads to its repetition; history ignored can lead to calamitous events in the future.
The Opposition is against such an inquiry. When they formed the government of the day, they were adamantly opposed to the idea. The argument advanced at the time is that they had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the confidential relationship between a banker and its clients and to respect the legal imperatives inherent in those relationships. It is interesting that in his desire to score political points and to embarrass the present minister, Dr Davies did not consider this protocol relevant in respect to Minister Shaw. The protocol is an important and noble one that must be upheld at all times.
Contrary to what Dr Davies would have us believe, the massive collapse of the sector could not have been due to a number of borrowers failing to honour their debts. When the energies of the commission are fully engaged, it will be seen that the disease from which the economy suffered in the 1990s was a systemic one; that the principal vector of the disease was the extremely high and pernicious interest rates which prevailed in the economy. These rates were a function of government policy and had a deleterious and catastrophic effect across the entire spectrum of the struggling economy.
Finsac was a mere symptom of that systemic disease. We have to be careful that we do not promote the symptom over the disease or we will never get to the root cause of what happened. Dr Davies fulminates a great deal about his government's role in stabilising the sector through Finsac. This suits him because it deflects attention from the real causes of the collapse. The mantra seems to be to treat the symptom and you do not have to worry about the disease. He would rather be remembered as the knight in shining armour who came to rescue the damsel in distress (is this why Mr Shaw is talking about sweetheart deals?) than to be known as Nero who fiddled while Rome burned.
And fiddle he did. While the inquiry may unearth contracts with dubious content, the policies of government that led to the collapse must be its primary aim to uncover. The members of the commission must be bold to get to the truth. They must not be dissuaded by the fulminations of those who would not want such an inquiry to be conducted. A solid institution such as Mutual Life , which weathered many storms in its over 100 years of existence, could not have folded solely on the basis of a mismatch of assets.
Those who are resisting the inquiry should welcome the probe like other well-thinking Jamaicans. If they have nothing to hide, why are they so resistant to the truth being revealed? It is the truth that will set us free and bring some measure of relief to the many "finsaced" Jamaicans who continue to suffer the scourge of this monumental mismanagement of the country's economy. One gets the peculiar feeling that as events have unfurled, the previous government would not want important information and revelation of facts to emerge that might place it in an invidious position. This writer eagerly anticipates the first witness being called and hopes that it will be Dr Omar Davies.
This brings us to another aspect of the consequences of Finsac that seems to be lost on Dr Davies. This has to do with the spiritual dimension of the crisis. There can be no doubt from the catalogue of suffering that many Jamaicans have endured and are still experiencing, that Finsac has taken a heavy toll on individuals and families in Jamaica. To my knowledge, Dr Davies has never intimated that he has any sorrow for this horrendous suffering that his government's policy has had on the many "finsaced" Jamaicans.
One notices that whenever Finsac is mentioned, the former minister moves into a combative mode and becomes defensive and almost incoherent as he did in the closing of the budget debate. He sat in Parliament with a wry smile on his face, smug in the belief that he has played no role in the sufferings of many. One is sure that he has heard of those sufferings; of the families that have been destroyed; of the people who have committed suicide; of the entrepreneurial dreams that have become nightmares; and of the tears that have been shed by those whose lives have been shattered by their ongoing battle to stay alive.
But do you care, Dr Davies? It would help those who are suffering if you would show even a modicum of compassion and humility for those who are going through this nightmare. It is not enough for you to say that they are responsible for where they are. Ultimately, they must take responsibility, like any adult, for their decisions.
But the decisions that those people made were not made in a vacuum. They were made within the context of the policies which you and your government pursued. It is disingenuous for you to wash your hands as if you had nothing to do with it Your role was pivotal, and this is made even more palpably so as you often acted as a law unto yourself.
One of the essential hallmarks of a good human being is the ability to admit mistakes and to seek the forgiveness of those you might have wronged. It is a tall order to ask Dr Davies to admit a mistake, especially in a matter such as Finsac. But he can at least be asked to spare a compassionate thought for those who continue to suffer greatly from a policy of which he was the principal architect.
stead6655@aol.com
Comment