Gov'ts must have 20/20 foresight

People say that hindsight provides the clarity of 20/20 vision. The term is used to explain that it is easy to analyse and understand situations after they occur. It is often used as a defence against criticisms for wrong decisions/actions (implying that a better decision/action would have taken place if we knew then what we know now).

However, critics of that defence fire back by saying that the term 20/20 hindsight means that the problematic situation would have been obvious all along if the decision makers were not acting in the heat of the moment.

This brings me to situations like the financial meltdown of the 1990s and the Financial Sector Adjustment Company (FINSAC). Ironically, as if to highlight its own shortcomings (some may even say wrongness for existing), if you Google the FINSAC website you will see: "Financial Sector Adjustment Company (FINSAC). We are the Financial Sectory (sic) Adjustment Company. This website is Jamaica's leading source of investment opportunities and economic information."

The website states: "Building confidence in Jamaica's financial sector. FINSAC was established in 1997 by the Government of Jamaica and is charged with a mandate to restore stability in a well-regulated financial sector. At that time, a number of Jamaican banks and insurance companies were experiencing shortfalls and an erosion in customer confidence." The historical background of FINSAC admits, "... With hindsight it was 'too little, too late.'"

My understanding of the situation back then is that several of our banks, insurance companies and lending institutions were offering stratospheric interest rates on savings. It was also my understanding that the Government of the day participated in the financial orgy. Even I saw the folly in maintaining such unsustainably high rates of return; the top-heavy sector was headed for a major collapse.

serious hardships

Investors sensed this and sought to pull their funds - which, of course, led to the collapse. The event was not a total wipe-out because the Government of the day stepped in with FINSAC. It led to the safeguarding of some of the life savings of the average citizen but made casualties of many investors, entrepreneurs and borrowers. The excessively high loan-repayment (and bad loan-repayment) rates caused serious hardships for many and completely wiped out others.

There will always be arguments for and against how FINSAC operated. Many remain convinced that FINSAC acted unfairly and harshly, and some even say spitefully. Some will always argue that FINSAC was necessary; some will say that it was a necessary evil, while others will always say that it was just plain evil. My problem with the 1990s financial crisis and FINSAC is that the situation that led to the meltdown was so blatantly obvious that it should have been seen and pre-empted by the Government of the day that was mandated to act responsibly for the sake of the entire nation.

I see FINSAC as a symptom of irresponsible governance. I also see our public and private transportation woes, our roads, our dependence on imports, our energy troubles and privatisation of essential services as symptoms of irresponsible governance. I see many other obvious potential, existing, emerging and upcoming major problems as symptoms of irresponsible governance. Our squatting, unregulated developments, crime, garrison communities, pollution and those international 'investors' with rapacious and mercenary financial agendas are all symptoms of irresponsible governance.

Cabinet members should accept total responsibility for the problems in their ministries and resign, or be fired for their failure to act decisively and in a timely manner, devoid of political bias and in the interest of the entire nation.

Garth A. Rattray is a physician with a family practice. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.