Political madness

Gordon Robinson, Contributor

Delusional behaviour appears to be public officialdom's occupational hazard.  Take our prime minister, for example. First, he snubs invitations from a sitting US president. Then he accuses the US of harassment. Then he visits Washington. Our US ambassador undiplomatically applauds herself for arranging high-level meetings.

What's she warbling on about? The prime minister, a visiting head of government, gains no audience with the host head of the state. Nor does he meet vice-president Biden. Nor third-in-command John Boehner. Who deigns to see him? Only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the same lady who stopped briefly at Norman Manley International Airport while Driva hurried to her side to listen and report. Why a second meeting? What more was discussed that couldn't be done by Foreign Affairs?

This makes Audrey Marks proud? She calls it "success"? Prince Buster had another word for it:

"Madness, madness

they call it madness.

It is plain to see

that is what they mean to me

Madness, madness

I call it gladness"

Government alleges that a business owes taxes. It's reached the point of an enforcement team being sent to seize assets. On-the-spot negotiations fail. Suddenly, a call comes from tax headquarters, "Cease and desist!" The enforcement team slinks away, tail between legs, without a dollar. Later that day, a $4-million cheque is sent on account followed by a $1-million cheque the next day. The enforcement team leader cries blue murder and says $5 million is but a drop in the bucket. The enforcement team leader is suddenly under pressure for his job. The tax debtor gets breathing space.

The business owner's brother turns out to be our propaganda minister, who denies making any calls on his brother's behalf. Was any made to him? His brother's lawyer, in a radio interview, says he called a senior tax officer (he won't say who) and was able to convince the senior officer to call off the hounds on a mere promise that money was coming. How did the lawyer know who to call at tax HQ? How did he get such a sympathetic ear there?

Would you and I be so lucky with an enforcement team 'chawing' fire at our gate? Who would we call? Ghostbusters?

"Madness, madness

they call it madness.

I'm about to explain

that someone is losing his brain.

Madness, madness

they call it gladness"

Separately, Driva and Daryl are entertaining. Together, they're a hoot! Driva goes off to Paraguay to shoot birds. Y.P. Seaton, whose corporation receives numerous government contracts, pays for tickets for Driva and Driva's son. The Sunday Herald, licking its political lips, breaks the story. There's no immediate response from Driva, but his defence is launched by a popular morning - radio hostess (same as chosen by Ricky Vaz's lawyer to deny Daryl's involvement in Ricky's tax problems) based on her telephone conversation with Daryl. Daryl says, historically, Seaton always arranged these trips. Daryl says he delivered money from Driva to Seaton, who bought the tickets. Daryl says all is copacetic. Dr Hook writes:

"Sylvia's mother says Sylvia's busy,

too busy to come to the phone.

Sylvia's mother says Sylvia's trying,

to start a new life of her own.

Sylvia's mother says Sylvia's happy

so why don't you leave her alone.

And the operator says forty cents more

for the next three minutes ..."

Based on Daryl's story, the radio hostess asked Peter Bunting what would be the complaint. Bunting stumbled badly trying to identify and articulate principle, eventually settling for the standard political tactic of alleging lack of credibility and asking for "documentary evidence". No, Peter. This is how you quash any anxiety to defend the indefensible. As prime minister, Driva's duty is to ensure that no implication of impropriety can arise from his actions. Why couldn't he make his own personal travel arrangements or ask his son, wife, social secretary or personal assistant to make them for him? Under no circumstances is it "appropriate" to ask Daryl to deliver money to Seaton, who had already advanced more than J$700,000 to buy the tickets. In my opinion, the 'gift' is in the advance, but whether Seaton's payment was in advance or in arrears, Daryl's report establishes inappropriate behaviour (aka misconduct).

Repeated misconduct

That's exactly the same procedure Driva used to pay Manatt's retainer. Instead of referring it to the JLP general secretary or treasurer, he instructed Daryl to make arrangements with a specific JLP contributor. Arsenio would say, "Things that make you go hmmmmmmm ... ."

Omar Davies writes 'Answering My Critics (Part 2)' (Sunday Gleaner, June 12), in which he answers no one. His best response to my column 'The blame's still on you' (Sunday Gleaner, May 22) is to rely on my alleged "ignorance of governance and the manner in which policy changes are made ... ", which provides no reply to my substantive points.

Let's see if we can translate Dr Davies' political double-speak into simple English. In my column, I made three clear points. First:

"When the Government introduced its high-interest rate policy, was it sanguine (or even concerned) that it might be the context within which some banks could/would've engaged in 'bandooloo' tactics? What was done ... to beef up the regulatory process, to try to effectively prevent or punish those who might try?"

I went on to ask:

"Why didn't the Government address the issue of our lax financial legislation BEFORE electing to run with a high-interest rate policy? Were these consequential "violations" not foreseen as probabilities ...?"

Dr Davies replied:

"It may be that Mr Robinson, despite his seemingly authoritative writing style, has no idea of the limits of bank inspections and audits. It is simply not possible for the Bank of Jamaica (BOJ), or any regulator, to monitor, continuously, every single operation within these institutions."

No rocket scientist is needed to see that Dr Davies answered a phantom question. Nobody suggested bank inspections could locate EVERY SINGLE infringement. But the infringements Dr Davies described in his self-serving defence of his policies were widespread and egregious. The word Dr Davies himself used to describe these corrupt practices was "innumerable". Obviously, no regulatory system would've uncovered every single infringement, but it should've uncovered some.

Dr Davies' gobbledygook translated into simple English?

"Robinson was right. The regulation was poor. I did nothing about it. But that's the way banks have been regulated forever, and it would've been too difficult to change the policy. Poor fool, Robinson, he has no idea how hard it is to alter government policy. It's simple enough to introduce a crippling high-interest rate policy using the BOJ as implementers, but to ask the same BOJ to get off its bureaucratic behind and ensure depositors are protected from likely shenanigans is just TOO HARD!

Second, I wrote:

"When did the Government first become aware of the impending crisis?

My understanding is that a delegation, led by a well-known head of a local insurance conglomerate, informed the finance minister of the problem and asked for help at least two years before any action was taken by the Government. Is this true? ... If it's true, Omar Davies must explain to Jamaica why it took so long for the Government to act."

Dr Davies reply:

"There is no need to be coy about this assertion; it is true. Why wasn't action taken earlier? The answer lies in the fact that while the owners/managers were seeking liquidity assistance, they were unable (or unwilling) to provide full responses to the questions posed by the regulators. Nor were they willing to inject additional capital into their institutions."

Move to take over

Dr Davies, you disappoint me. You're a bright chap, and you expect Jamaica to believe that this took upwards of TWO YEARS? After the first 10 questions remained unanswered for a reasonable time, why not move to take over (as you eventually did) once the shilly-shallying continued?

Dr Davies' reply translated to English?

"Robinson, you're right again, but what could I do? The boys just wouldn't cooperate, and the Government was too weak-willed to react effectively."

Dr Davies, I have some related questions for you based on information from my sources? Is it true that, at a time before you became finance minister, the BOJ advised the ministry to revoke Blaise's banking licence? Is it true that the BOJ's advice was accepted by the then finance minister but the then prime minister intervened and prevented the revocation? At the time, were persons connected to the Blaise group significant PNP contributors? Don't be coy, Dr Davies, this is public business. If I'm wrong, once again, I offer sincere apologies in advance to all concerned, as my information comes from usually reliable moles. As I get it, so I ask you to clarify or deny.

If I am right (again), when did that happen? For how long was Blaise knowingly permitted to run what was basically a storefront operation before you finally pulled the plug? And even then, why did you start with Blaise Insurance (BI) alone? And why did GOJ's temporary manager allow months to pass without applying for a Mareva injunction against BI's directors, doing so only after the Bank had also been seized and after Willie Thwaites (of blessed memory), who was the bank's temporary manager, moved immediately to freeze the directors' assets?

"Propaganda ministers

I've got a heavy due

I'm gonna walk all over you

'cause Madness, madness

I call it gladness"

My third point was:

"Why not let the natural consequence of this alleged corruption take its course? It's one thing to bail out failed financial institutions whether because they are 'too big to fail', or whatever. It's another barrel of politics altogether to bail out institutions that you allege failed because of corrupt practices. Was it the Government's policy to reward corruption?"

Dr Davies didn't reply.

Jamaican politicians whose failings are pointed out habitually rely on abuse and ridicule of the messenger instead of listening to the message. It's the same habit that pushes West Indies Cricket administrators to drop our most experienced and accomplished performers because of what they say instead of how they play.

Omar Davies should heed the people's voice. In private life, he's entitled to be as stubborn as he wants. In public life, democracy demands he listen, learn and act accordingly. The Jamaican electorate has sent Omar Davies, qua Cabinet minister, a clear and unequivocal message. It is that he should pack his bags and go!

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com