Tweet
God, Mammon and Uncle Sam
Common SenseJohn Maxwell
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A generation ago, in October 1980, the then leader of the opposition, Edward Seaga, announced that he was holding a news conference at the Terra Nova Hotel. It was to be solely for foreign journalists.
John Maxwell
I turned up at the hotel and was met by two members of Seaga's Praetorian Guard, Ms Anne Szabo of the United States, and Mr Gerry Grindley of Jamaica.
They told me that I was not welcome. The event was only for foreign journalists. I told them that the leader of the Jamaican Opposition could not hold a news conference in a place of public resort in Jamaica and deny entrance to Jamaican journalists. Ms Szabo and Mr Grindley then both interposed themselves between me and the door, denying me entrance; Mr Grindley put his hand on my chest, as if to push me back physically. I told him that I would hit him if he did not desist. He desisted.
Meanwhile, frantic messages were being transmitted by the rest of the entourage, no doubt to Mr Seaga. Meanwhile, John Hearne of the Gleaner who had also turned up, was on his way back to the car park when he heard the excitement and remained to watch. Canute James, then of the BBC, was admitted. There were no other Jamaican journalists present.
Finally, the word came. Jamaicans would be admitted, but their questions would be answered after all the foreigners had asked their questions. I was prepared to wait.
The mostly American press crew inside had heard the commotion outside, so when their questions were done they waited to hear the Jamaicans. I was the only one to speak.
I asked Mr Seaga about an article about him in the American Conservative Digest. In that article Mr Seaga had claimed that after taking his degree at Harvard he had come back to Jamaica, and having become interested in politics here, he had taken Jamaican citizenship.
My question was that since Jamaican citizenship had not existed in 1959, would Mr Seaga explain what process he had used to become a Jamaican citizen? Seaga exploded: "I know you would come to ask some nastiness! This press conference is over!"
The American journalists, full of investigative zeal, did not bother to try to find out what my question referred to or why Seaga was so hostile. They were there to hear the next prime minister of Jamaica, and the local press, for them, did not exist. And, of course, they had deadlines to meet.
Mr Seaga has never answered the question I asked. His father, Philip Seaga, became a Jamaican citizen by naturalisation in 1962, one of the first foreigners to be naturalised. When Mr Seaga went to Harvard he had already reconfirmed his intention to remain an American citizen - as he was entitled to do at age 17.
He was entitled to American citizenship because his parents went to the United States in order for him to be born there, which he was in a Boston hospital on May 30, 1930. His 17th birthday would have been on May 30, 1947.
I mention this incident because I am getting a little angry about the spurious and self-serving arguments being advanced in an effort to sway public opinion in favour of dual Jamaica/US citizenship. And many of the protagonists have not disclosed their own multinational status, pretending, falsely, to be concerned citizens.
Under American law, a citizen may lose his citizenship if he so much as votes in an election in another sovereignty or serves in its army, two litmus tests of loyalty to the US. This test applies to born US citizens as well as those naturalised. Since under international law no one can be made stateless, the sanction is rarely applied.
If one becomes a US citizen one is required to renounce your loyalty to any other country. It is a bit like marriage, when partners are enjoined to forsake all other relationships and cleave only unto their mates. The same is true here.
What the Bible says
I do not consider myself a Christian, but I value the wisdom of the Bible and its prophets and lawgivers. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus of Nazareth is recorded as saying, inter alia "No man can serve two masters," a precept which would seem to be self-evident.
In the same part of the sermon, Jesus also said, "No one can serve God and Mammon," and "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
It would seem to me to be most objectionable that two Americans should be needed to provide a majority for any party in a Jamaican Parliament. Since any member of parliament may become prime minister, it seems to me objectionable in the extreme that I should again be ruled by the servant and subject of a foreign power.
It appears to me utterly repulsive that any American citizen should seek to become a member of any other parliament than his own, or to have advantages not available to other members of the community in which he lives.
It is deceitful to pretend that dual citizenship is permitted under US law. What happens is that American human 'assets' who have dual citizenship may be given a 'blind eye', depending on whether the US believes that their equivocal status is of material benefit to the United States.
These benefits would include, among several other things, the holding of substantial US bank accounts and, not incidentally, the availability of information about the 'foreign' country not otherwise available.
A dual citizen is, by definition, a double agent. For an American citizen to offer himself as a candidate in Jamaican elections for a Jamaican Government is, in my view, no better than obtaining money by false pretences.
Most people do not know that there are serious penalties applying to otherwise qualified members of parliament who vote on matters in which they have a financial interest. And this applies even to people who did not know that they had a financial interest which should have been disclosed.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It cannot possibly be an excuse if people who have chosen to renounce their Jamaican nationality and become foreign nationals, because their citizenship application explains in detail what it is they are undertaking and what it is they are forswearing.
Prospective parliamentary candidates are expected to know the rules.
When you know the rules and deliberately break them you are regarded as an offender under the law. To try to weasel your way into Parliament under an assumed identity is equivalent to 'personation' which, under the Representation of the People Act, carries a prison sentence.
If I sound harsh it is because the Constitution of Jamaica is the fundamental law supposedly guaranteeing our sovereign integrity. We cannot breach the Constitution for anyone or any reason. If we don't like what the Constitution says there are ways to change it, ways demanding the consent and approval of the Jamaican people.
To attempt to circumvent the Jamaican Constitution is dishonest, shameful and illegal. If anyone, in any party, has obtained entry to Parliament by stealth, defying the Constitution, he or she is no better than a common housebreaker or burglar.
I did not make the law, but there are two people among us who helped write the Constitution. One is Edward Seaga and the other is David Coore, QC. Anyone in any doubt about what those who framed our Constitution intended may find it appropriate to ask these gentlemen.
Where your treasure is
It has always been a matter of law that lawmakers cannot work for any other concern, public or private. An employee of the National Water Commission, for instance, cannot remain an employee if he becomes a member of parliament.
So I was really dumfounded by the argument that we should allow talented men to be paid by their old employers while holding office in the Jamaican Government. It is not, as this newspaper said recently, an ungenerous spirit which objects to such an arrangement; it is common sense. To return to the Sermon on the Mount: One cannot serve God and Mammon.
The Government of Jamaica makes thousands of decisions affecting the life and welfare of everyone in Jamaica, Jamaicans and foreign nationals. The Constitution forbids anyone doing any act which discriminates in any way against anyone in Jamaica.
If someone is allowed to be a member of parliament while being an employee of a private company, no matter how honest a man he is, his apparent integrity must be compromised.
As Lord Hewart said in November 1923, "Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
GraceKennedy, of which Mr Don Wehby was an employee and director, is a multinational corporation with subsidiaries all over the world, in places like Canada, Bermuda and the Far East.
The accounts of these companies are, of course, not published in Jamaica, so we have no idea whether they make any profit or whether they make billions. If Mr Don Wehby, as one of the three ministers in the Ministry of Finance, should make a perfectly fair and reasonable decision which, other things being equal, seems to give an advantage to the Grace subsidiary in Thailand as against, say, the Caribbean Cement Company, it is not only Mr Wehby whose integrity may be impugned, but that of the entire Government.
That decision, of course, would probably not be much noticed outside the Caribbean. But suppose the Ministry of Finance makes a decision, which seems to put Alcoa at a disadvantage against, say, the Grace subsidiary in Canada or Bermuda, all hell would break loose on the international scene, even if there was no justification. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is enough.
If we want to recruit ministers or members of parliament from the private sector we need to put into place rules which will ensure, as far as possible, the protection of their own integrity as well as the public interest.
Two Jamaicas
Before now I have written about those of us who live in Jamaica but whose hearts and wallets reside overseas. Jamaican development is not possible if the profits made out of this country are exported to foreign countries. The recent disputes about multinational MPs and Mr Wehby expose a crucial fault line in Jamaica society.
Beneath most of the argument is the unspoken presumption that certain privileged people in this society should be entitled to even more privilege: in essence we should formalise one law for the rich and another for the poor.
There is an unspoken assumption, as I said a decade ago, that the man walking on the road from hut to field has a duty to endure the unwashed clothing and the starvation rations he is able to wrest from his labours; an unspoken assumption that the poor have a duty to be invisible.
In the eastern section of Montego Bay on Saturday last, the poor were indeed invisible. In the town that is the capital of the northwest, few ordinary Jamaicans were to be seen walking or doing anything else on the Gloucester Avenue "Strip' except for a few higglers selling fruit and trinkets.
Inside one hotel the waitresses are paid between $8,000 and $9,000 a fortnight or just a little above the national minimum wage.
Meanwhile, on the streets everywhere, there were signs recommending the virtues of various 'wealth-management' schemes. To whom were they being offered, I wondered?
The shops all seem to be crewed by foreigners and there was one grocery, which dealt only in Indian groceries. In another society that would be a sign of social diversity. In the Jamaican context it means that the Jamaican people are being excluded from the fruits of their economy.
I hope those who talk about "Jamaica First" will be able to explain this paradox.
Copyright©2007 John Maxwell
jankunnu@gmail.com
Common SenseJohn Maxwell
Sunday, September 30, 2007
A generation ago, in October 1980, the then leader of the opposition, Edward Seaga, announced that he was holding a news conference at the Terra Nova Hotel. It was to be solely for foreign journalists.
John MaxwellI turned up at the hotel and was met by two members of Seaga's Praetorian Guard, Ms Anne Szabo of the United States, and Mr Gerry Grindley of Jamaica.
They told me that I was not welcome. The event was only for foreign journalists. I told them that the leader of the Jamaican Opposition could not hold a news conference in a place of public resort in Jamaica and deny entrance to Jamaican journalists. Ms Szabo and Mr Grindley then both interposed themselves between me and the door, denying me entrance; Mr Grindley put his hand on my chest, as if to push me back physically. I told him that I would hit him if he did not desist. He desisted.
Meanwhile, frantic messages were being transmitted by the rest of the entourage, no doubt to Mr Seaga. Meanwhile, John Hearne of the Gleaner who had also turned up, was on his way back to the car park when he heard the excitement and remained to watch. Canute James, then of the BBC, was admitted. There were no other Jamaican journalists present.
Finally, the word came. Jamaicans would be admitted, but their questions would be answered after all the foreigners had asked their questions. I was prepared to wait.
The mostly American press crew inside had heard the commotion outside, so when their questions were done they waited to hear the Jamaicans. I was the only one to speak.
I asked Mr Seaga about an article about him in the American Conservative Digest. In that article Mr Seaga had claimed that after taking his degree at Harvard he had come back to Jamaica, and having become interested in politics here, he had taken Jamaican citizenship.
My question was that since Jamaican citizenship had not existed in 1959, would Mr Seaga explain what process he had used to become a Jamaican citizen? Seaga exploded: "I know you would come to ask some nastiness! This press conference is over!"
The American journalists, full of investigative zeal, did not bother to try to find out what my question referred to or why Seaga was so hostile. They were there to hear the next prime minister of Jamaica, and the local press, for them, did not exist. And, of course, they had deadlines to meet.
Mr Seaga has never answered the question I asked. His father, Philip Seaga, became a Jamaican citizen by naturalisation in 1962, one of the first foreigners to be naturalised. When Mr Seaga went to Harvard he had already reconfirmed his intention to remain an American citizen - as he was entitled to do at age 17.
He was entitled to American citizenship because his parents went to the United States in order for him to be born there, which he was in a Boston hospital on May 30, 1930. His 17th birthday would have been on May 30, 1947.
I mention this incident because I am getting a little angry about the spurious and self-serving arguments being advanced in an effort to sway public opinion in favour of dual Jamaica/US citizenship. And many of the protagonists have not disclosed their own multinational status, pretending, falsely, to be concerned citizens.
Under American law, a citizen may lose his citizenship if he so much as votes in an election in another sovereignty or serves in its army, two litmus tests of loyalty to the US. This test applies to born US citizens as well as those naturalised. Since under international law no one can be made stateless, the sanction is rarely applied.
If one becomes a US citizen one is required to renounce your loyalty to any other country. It is a bit like marriage, when partners are enjoined to forsake all other relationships and cleave only unto their mates. The same is true here.
What the Bible says
I do not consider myself a Christian, but I value the wisdom of the Bible and its prophets and lawgivers. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus of Nazareth is recorded as saying, inter alia "No man can serve two masters," a precept which would seem to be self-evident.
In the same part of the sermon, Jesus also said, "No one can serve God and Mammon," and "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
It would seem to me to be most objectionable that two Americans should be needed to provide a majority for any party in a Jamaican Parliament. Since any member of parliament may become prime minister, it seems to me objectionable in the extreme that I should again be ruled by the servant and subject of a foreign power.
It appears to me utterly repulsive that any American citizen should seek to become a member of any other parliament than his own, or to have advantages not available to other members of the community in which he lives.
It is deceitful to pretend that dual citizenship is permitted under US law. What happens is that American human 'assets' who have dual citizenship may be given a 'blind eye', depending on whether the US believes that their equivocal status is of material benefit to the United States.
These benefits would include, among several other things, the holding of substantial US bank accounts and, not incidentally, the availability of information about the 'foreign' country not otherwise available.
A dual citizen is, by definition, a double agent. For an American citizen to offer himself as a candidate in Jamaican elections for a Jamaican Government is, in my view, no better than obtaining money by false pretences.
Most people do not know that there are serious penalties applying to otherwise qualified members of parliament who vote on matters in which they have a financial interest. And this applies even to people who did not know that they had a financial interest which should have been disclosed.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. It cannot possibly be an excuse if people who have chosen to renounce their Jamaican nationality and become foreign nationals, because their citizenship application explains in detail what it is they are undertaking and what it is they are forswearing.
Prospective parliamentary candidates are expected to know the rules.
When you know the rules and deliberately break them you are regarded as an offender under the law. To try to weasel your way into Parliament under an assumed identity is equivalent to 'personation' which, under the Representation of the People Act, carries a prison sentence.
If I sound harsh it is because the Constitution of Jamaica is the fundamental law supposedly guaranteeing our sovereign integrity. We cannot breach the Constitution for anyone or any reason. If we don't like what the Constitution says there are ways to change it, ways demanding the consent and approval of the Jamaican people.
To attempt to circumvent the Jamaican Constitution is dishonest, shameful and illegal. If anyone, in any party, has obtained entry to Parliament by stealth, defying the Constitution, he or she is no better than a common housebreaker or burglar.
I did not make the law, but there are two people among us who helped write the Constitution. One is Edward Seaga and the other is David Coore, QC. Anyone in any doubt about what those who framed our Constitution intended may find it appropriate to ask these gentlemen.
Where your treasure is
It has always been a matter of law that lawmakers cannot work for any other concern, public or private. An employee of the National Water Commission, for instance, cannot remain an employee if he becomes a member of parliament.
So I was really dumfounded by the argument that we should allow talented men to be paid by their old employers while holding office in the Jamaican Government. It is not, as this newspaper said recently, an ungenerous spirit which objects to such an arrangement; it is common sense. To return to the Sermon on the Mount: One cannot serve God and Mammon.
The Government of Jamaica makes thousands of decisions affecting the life and welfare of everyone in Jamaica, Jamaicans and foreign nationals. The Constitution forbids anyone doing any act which discriminates in any way against anyone in Jamaica.
If someone is allowed to be a member of parliament while being an employee of a private company, no matter how honest a man he is, his apparent integrity must be compromised.
As Lord Hewart said in November 1923, "Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
GraceKennedy, of which Mr Don Wehby was an employee and director, is a multinational corporation with subsidiaries all over the world, in places like Canada, Bermuda and the Far East.
The accounts of these companies are, of course, not published in Jamaica, so we have no idea whether they make any profit or whether they make billions. If Mr Don Wehby, as one of the three ministers in the Ministry of Finance, should make a perfectly fair and reasonable decision which, other things being equal, seems to give an advantage to the Grace subsidiary in Thailand as against, say, the Caribbean Cement Company, it is not only Mr Wehby whose integrity may be impugned, but that of the entire Government.
That decision, of course, would probably not be much noticed outside the Caribbean. But suppose the Ministry of Finance makes a decision, which seems to put Alcoa at a disadvantage against, say, the Grace subsidiary in Canada or Bermuda, all hell would break loose on the international scene, even if there was no justification. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is enough.
If we want to recruit ministers or members of parliament from the private sector we need to put into place rules which will ensure, as far as possible, the protection of their own integrity as well as the public interest.
Two Jamaicas
Before now I have written about those of us who live in Jamaica but whose hearts and wallets reside overseas. Jamaican development is not possible if the profits made out of this country are exported to foreign countries. The recent disputes about multinational MPs and Mr Wehby expose a crucial fault line in Jamaica society.
Beneath most of the argument is the unspoken presumption that certain privileged people in this society should be entitled to even more privilege: in essence we should formalise one law for the rich and another for the poor.
There is an unspoken assumption, as I said a decade ago, that the man walking on the road from hut to field has a duty to endure the unwashed clothing and the starvation rations he is able to wrest from his labours; an unspoken assumption that the poor have a duty to be invisible.
In the eastern section of Montego Bay on Saturday last, the poor were indeed invisible. In the town that is the capital of the northwest, few ordinary Jamaicans were to be seen walking or doing anything else on the Gloucester Avenue "Strip' except for a few higglers selling fruit and trinkets.
Inside one hotel the waitresses are paid between $8,000 and $9,000 a fortnight or just a little above the national minimum wage.
Meanwhile, on the streets everywhere, there were signs recommending the virtues of various 'wealth-management' schemes. To whom were they being offered, I wondered?
The shops all seem to be crewed by foreigners and there was one grocery, which dealt only in Indian groceries. In another society that would be a sign of social diversity. In the Jamaican context it means that the Jamaican people are being excluded from the fruits of their economy.
I hope those who talk about "Jamaica First" will be able to explain this paradox.
Copyright©2007 John Maxwell
jankunnu@gmail.com
Comment