Some realities of the JLP’s small majority

Some realities of the JLP’s small majority
MARK WIGNALL
Jamaica Observer – Kingston,Jamaica
Thursday, August 07, 2008

Some weeks ago when the nation was expressing another bout of impatience over violent criminality and the prime minister announced measures seemingly designed to deal with those so involved, I saw the moves as “not enough” and accused the prime minister of being too incrementalist in his approach.

Many in the society wanted blood for blood and fire for fire. The man and woman on the street were fed up to the hilt with reports of murder piled on top of murder, especially where it involved minors and women.

We who had placed elected policymakers in power wanted them to be tougher on our behalf, even if it meant a lessening of our own rights. In this rush to see the floodgates open up on hanging convicted murderers on death row and in locking down repeat offenders at lesser levels of criminality, some of us may have allowed our own zeal to cloud the reality of the parliamentary procedures which had to be hurdled before any public announcement could be made.

Impatience can be a virtue, especially if we are able to recognise it as an urgent need to be at a better place than we are now. It is also a plus as long as we are able to place it alongside how societies progress and how they develop in broad terms.

In Rethinking Development, a 1989 paper written by the late Professor Carl Stone, he said, “Human society tends to change slowly by small, gradual and evolutionary steps over time. Development, as I see it, is a type of change which is non-evolutionary. It involves qualitative and quantitative leaps in the way human society is organised that open up wider horizons of opportunity for human growth.”

In other words, it is within the broad societal, evolutionary change which creeps slowly to the next level that we find those people and systems that can bring technological leaps or leadership, or both, to the society that will cause what appears to be radical positive change and a reclassification of that very society in terms of its human and socio-economic development.

It is pretty much accepted that Jamaica’s future development is directly linked to our ability to bring violent crime to controllable limits. Which doesn’t necessarily mean that we are parked in one spot forever. Our inability to put a cap on violent crime will mean more than anything else that any development for the here-and-now and in the near future will be done in an atmosphere where too many socio-political caveats will be automatically attached to development projects.

When I classified Prime Minister Golding as “incrementalist”, I was in effect saying to him that the times demanded more stringent approaches. But I did it without taking into consideration the reality of our parliamentary democracy and the dangerously small majority of seats held by the ruling JLP.

An examination reveals that several of the anti-crime measures contemplated can only succeed in Parliament if they have the support of the Opposition. Section 50 of the constitution requires that where any law passed by Parliament infringes any of the fundamental rights set out in Chapter 3, it can only be done by a Special Act of Parliament which must be passed by a two-thirds majority.

Anything that affects, say, the right to liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest like, for example, detention without charge or withholding bail or the right to privacy (phone tapping) can only be done by one of these special acts.

Sources told me that the government had to coax its way through the discussions with the Opposition. When some of us were criticising Golding, we were either unaware of the back-room horse-trading which took place, or we were much too impatient and simply ignored the reality of the parliamentary procedures.

My information is that, at the subcommittee level, Peter Phillips was encouraging and supportive, but AJ Nicholson was much less so. I take this to mean that Nicholson saw “politics” in so important a matter and did not want to side with Phillips. I also gather that when the matters left sub-committee level and returned to the full Vale Royal talks, Phillips was less strident. This, too, was probably a little political ploy on his part by not wanting the Opposition leader’s sham “defence of human rights” to become an issue of separation between them in the run-up to September.

Sources told me that what was finally presented was what could be considered the best compromise that was necessary in order to ensure the support of the Opposition when the bills are brought to Parliament in August/September.

Said one source to me, “It would have been foolhardy to press ahead in the hope of a split in the ranks and that Phillips and others would support the measures in Parliament. Think of it. The JLP would need a minimum of nine Opposition votes. This has to be placed in context with Peter Phillips “softening” en route from subcommittee level to full Vale Royal Talks.”

We understand the complexities now, prime minister, and I may have come down too hard on you in the specific instance.

David Smith says “Sorry”

On Monday I received a call from embattled Olint head David Smith. “Mark, I am truly sorry,” he said. As readers will recall, the week before he had promised to give me the “Full Hundred” on matters relating to Olint.

“I know that my legal team would not have wanted me to talk outside of the official positions given,” he said. So, why waste my time with “Full Hundred” nonsense, I thought, still hoping to hear something from him.

It seemed to me that misguided zeal got the better of him when he made the link with me. It is still my view that he owes investors more than just a nine-month promise. More on this on Sunday.

- observemark@gmail.com

D-day for Hill to disclose global assets

D-day for Hill to disclose global assets
Jamaica Observer – Kingston,Jamaica
Paul Henry
Friday, August 08, 2008

FORMER Cash Plus boss Carlos Hill must today make full disclosure of his global assets in the Supreme Court or face imprisonment for contempt of court.
HILL… failed to comply with an April court order to disclose all his assets

Today’s deadline was set last Wednesday after Hill failed to comply with an April court order to fully disclose his assets.

The embattled Hill was spared jail time last week as Justice Patrick Brooks said he was not convinced that his failure to comply with the order was deliberate.

Disgruntled Cash Plus investor Alexander Haber, who is suing Hill to recover $30 million, had in April made an application for the former Cash Plus boss to disclose all his assets.

Hill, 60, never complied with the order, forcing Haber to make an application for him to be committed to prison if he fails to comply with the court order by June 19.

Hill did make the June deadline but failed to make full disclosure, prompting another application from Haber to have him committed to prison.

When the matter came up for hearing on July 24, Hill’s legal team asked for more time to fully comply with the order, which they failed to do last Wednesday.

‘Bang-belly’ economy

‘Bang-belly’ economy
published: jamaica-gleaner.com
Thursday | August 7, 2008

Colin Steer, Associate Editor – Opinion

While many parents may admire the pleasingly plump baby or toddler, paediatricians will often warn of the dangers of the onset of childhood obesity and the potential for this to continue through adolescence and into adulthood.

And, of course, medical doctors often warn adults that an excess of weight, which some like to interpret as a sign of healthy contentment, may, in fact, be pointing to an underlying unhealthy state of affairs.

In several of his many stump speeches on the hustings to regain prime ministership in 1989, Michael Manley compared the state of the Jamaican economy at the time to a man with a ‘bang belly’. An expanding girth might have suggested prosperity, he argued, but it was largely unhealthy fat. If we had a ‘bang-belly’ economy then, we have since become grossly overweight.

As Dennis Chung argued in a recent article in the Observer newspaper, “the problem with paper profits is that there is no productive asset to back it up, so what it creates is a false sense of wealth for the country, with no productive base.

“When paper profits were being created by high rates of interest on government paper in the 1990s, in order to prevent the inflationary pressures from pushing prices up, we borrowed money to create an illusion that there was real stability when all the time we were only setting up ourselves for the pain that comes with debt repayment.”

Investment schemes

We can add to that scenario, the phenomenon of the alternative investment schemes. In the last few years, we have seen spurts of growth in certain spheres of economic activity, but we have been slow in getting a better understanding of the people and networks involved and the likely impact on the wider society.

With our streets teeming with top-of-the-line sedans, SUVs, Escalades, F150s et cetera. we were happy to tell ourselves that ‘dollaz a run’. Why bother to question where from and driven by what and whom?

Amid a boom in the construction sector a few years ago – in terms of new houses and renovations – I would ask colleagues and people in business where the money was coming from to pay for this. The standard response was: ‘mostly remittances’. In succeeding years, that view was modified to suggest that returns from Cash Plus, Olint and similar schemes were significant contributors. Others would suggest that proceeds from the narcotics trade were still playing a significant role in the economy.

If those who are planning social and economic policies are slow to catch on to new developments in the economy, they may either be pleased with the illusion of wealth or propose solutions to perceived problems that fall short of the mark.

Did any of our economic planners question in any serious way the possible negative impact of many people depositing thousands and multiple millions of dollars in the so-called alternative investments schemes?

Where did people get these funds to invest?

While it was reported that, in some cases, people pooled family funds to invest, how widespread was this?

With some of the commercial banks making enticing offers of ‘unsecured’ loans, some of their customers and new clients reportedly borrowed money to invest in these schemes. Others tapped their credit union savings and in the initial phases were using ‘returns’ on their investment to pay off their loans and still have cash to do their business.

What now are the implications for loan repayment to the established, regulated financial institutions?

As it is with people’s physical health, social and economic maladies are not immediately obvious. The illusion of wealth creates a sense of confidence and people often make plans for the future that are not built on solid foundations. Perhaps our state agencies need to be more aggressive and proactive, if not in saving people from themselves, then certainly the rest of the society from the domino effects of the actions of foolish people.

Turks and Caicos Islands investigators eye Jamaica

Turks and Caicos Islands investigators eye Jamaica
Jamaica Gleaner – Kingston,Jamaica

published: Thursday | July 17, 2008

OFFICIALS FROM the Turks and Caicos Islands Financial Crimes Unit say they may head to Jamaica and the United States for assistance with their probe into the multibillion-dollar investment club, Olint Corporation Ltd.

On Monday, the police in the British colony confiscated documents from offices of Olint and froze the assets of the company.

This latest development has fuelled increasing uncertainty in the minds of thousands of local investors who are concerned whether they will recover their investments in the alternative scheme.

Head of the unit, Assistant Superintendent of Police in The Turks and Caicos Islands, Mark Knighton, told The Gleaner/ Power 106 news yesterday that other jurisdictions, including Jamaica and the US, could be asked to assist in the investigations. The Turks and Caicos officer did not disclose details about when they would approach other jurisdictions for help.

He, however, made it clear that neither US nor British investigators were involved in the probe at this time.

Smith not sought

Knighton said the head of Olint, David Smith, was not being sought for questioning.

“We need to record and examine the documents we have seized. Nobody has been questioned yet or arrested in relation to this enquiry,” he said.

Attorney-at-law Shirley Ann-Eaton suggested that if the investigations revealed that Olint was involved in financial crimes, the clients’ investments would be irrecoverable.

“What would have happened, any money they give the company, their money would become a part of criminal activities – the proceeds of crime,” she told The Gleaner yesterday.

“I would be extremely surprised if all the authorities within the Caribbean and the US authorities are not doing active investigations into all the alternative investment schemes,” she said.

A source close to David Smith told The Gleaner yesterday that the head of Olint was at the residential location in the Turks and Caicos Islands when the police carried out the raid. Claims that Olint had an office in Miami were also dismissed.

Olint has been facing legal problems in Jamaica since 2006 when the Financial Services Commission served a cease-and-desist order on the entity.

Breached the provisions

The Supreme Court later ruled that Olint had breached the provisions of the Securities Act.

The investment club carried its operations offshore, outside the immediate jurisdiction of the local authorities in Jamaica.

National Commercial Bank was, in May, barred from closing three accounts of Olint until an appeal was heard in the courts from the company.

Yesterday, NCB distanced itself from claims that a prominent bank had reported the wiring of US$200 million through its accounts.

NCB is assuring the public that it has kept the accounts of Olint open in accordance with an injunction by the Court of Appeal until the court hands down a judgment.