Ronald Thwaites | When Fitz wins, we all win ...

I remember the first time Fitz Jackson’s resolution to limit the fees which banks can arbitrarily charge their customers came up for debate in the House of Representatives. Several government members were obviously in favour but, to a man and a woman, they all voted against legislating the protection their constituents need to avoid the advantage-taking. It has only got worse since.

The Honourable Audley Shaw OJ led the assault. First, he contended that the very mild prescriptions sought had already existed. Later, the story was that the Bank of Jamaica would be tasked to prepare a report to deal with the concerns of the public. Opposition objections were shouted down. Then, and subsequently under Nigel Clarke’s regime, this administration kowtowed to the money gods. If ever proof were needed, those votes showed which interests the party in power defended and whose protection would be spat upon by those who bayed prosperity.

Of course, nothing which was promised has ever happened, while everything which was predicted has become more attenuated. Fees have been increased arbitrarily, and there has been no end to the pillage of so-called dormant accounts.

Once again, citizens have had to turn to the court for redress, given the betrayal of the majority of their political representatives. In a connected matter, Fitz Jackson has filed an action in the Supreme Court against his bank, claiming that under existing law, the deduction of a fee for encashment of a good cheque paid to him constitutes an illegal act. The matter is yet to be heard, but in the procedural stages, the bank has conceded Fitz’s contention, attempted to pay him back the money originally deducted and indicated that the fee for encashment is no longer being exacted.

This is a partial win after years of struggle and millions of dollars invested in legal fees. If the defendant bank refunds Fitz, there should be a similar repayment of the fees, now conceded to be illegal, to every bank customer who has suffered from this practice by the cartel (sic).

PERSISTENCE AND PRINCIPLE

There are not many others who could match Fitz Jackson’s persistence and long pocket. He is doing this to vindicate some very important principles of our common life. First, that it is exploitative to expose defenceless consumers to predatory market forces. It must be the responsibility of the State to balance the social contract between grossly unequal sections of the polity. Clearly, the administration of the Jamaica Labour Party does not subscribe to this principle, proven by their repeated opposition to the modulation of bank fees. Bustamante would never sanction their present posture. His heirs flaunt his name but betray his spirit.

Next, there is an important precedent being set. A declaration by the court that cheque encashment charges breach existing law should occasion a review of public policy in a way that the majority in Parliament has been too cowardly to do.

Fitz must insist on his resolution being taken, now that there is the promise of greater equity in the chamber, and he should call for a conscience vote to determine the matter. That could allow every member to vote without necessarily being identified. Since some are so afraid of Moloch.

HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE

Step back and consider the convolution we have to go through to get a modicum of consumer protection. Watch who aligns with which class interest and decide where your confidence should lie. And never forget, these are the same guys who gave themselves ‘dubloon-a-joint’ raise of pay out of your money. Same rake as the banks’ high-ups, who fatten themselves by drawing big-big fees out the penny-quattie money we give them to work for us. All this in place of the usurious interest rates of the past.

The bottom line is: don’t look to the State, as presently operated, for protection or redress. If you want more current examples, think of the deliberate policy of this Government to keep our final appellate court inaccessible to all but a few rich people. Check also the escalating threats to the Charter of Rights: all instances of official ‘bad mind’.

Fitz Jackson deserves national honours for standing up against advantage-taking. He tells Pearnel and I that every possible delaying tactic is being employed to postpone the trial of his matter. Same tactic as Trump. Where is our Judge Chutkan?

THOSE ‘NON-TRADITIONALS’

At one of the high schools I am connected with, some 200 entering students were tested recently for reading ability. Less than five per cent – nine in number – were reading at grade-six and seven levels. There were many who could not read at all, while most of these 12 year olds were reading at low primary-school standard. How can they possibly manage high-school work?

This situation is, tragically, not at all uncommon. The teachers in that school are reasonably well equipped to deliver grades seven to 11 academic and vocational subjects. Few, if any, are trained or disposed to be remedial literacy teachers. They simply cannot deliver.

Those students who cannot read at an acceptable standard are on an escalator of failure. All but a few will either drop out of school in frustration or ‘graduate’ without certification. Their condition will be the causal factor of every social and economic distress for themselves and the nation, which is spending hundreds of futile millions of taxpayer dollars to keep that school and others like it in operation.

Last week, Mr Johnson of the JTA called for more resources for the so-called ‘non-traditional’ high schools, where most low-literacy students are placed. Yes, of course. Please recall however that in recent years, all students have been awarded a two-year extension to the normal five-year high-school experience. The students I am telling you about need the extra years not at the end of their school experience, but at its beginning to make sure that they are made ready to benefit from the secondary experience.

I am reliably informed that under a programme called the Grade Seven Empowerment Programme, schools may utilise the first year of high school for remediation and resocialisation. This should become the immediate norm wherever there are gaps in literacy, numeracy and behavioural standards in at least 100 high schools.

Of course, the longer-term solution is the reform of primary education, so that by grade six all students are ready for high school. What are the plans for that? Right now, the benighted non-traditionals are inadequate creations of our own making.

Rev Ronald G. Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. He is former member of parliament for Kingston Central and was the minister of education. He is the principal of St Michael’s College at the UWI. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.