Beggars can't be choosers

By Garth A. Rattray

A few years ago, I ended up sitting near to a couple of strangers when the vexing topic of apparent ubiquitous mendicancy somehow came up. I lamented that I was tired of having to say 'no' to the multitude of streetside and traffic light beggars when I run out of appropriate change. The husband of the couple shared his solution to the problem.

He explained that he kept a specific sum of 'giveaway' money whenever he went on the road. When that is exhausted, he consoled himself because he did what he could and he told the rest of beggars that he had no money.

The moral of the story is that benefactors are the ones who decide how much to give, to whom, and when. They also make decisions based on what they can afford to give/lend/assist with and they do so in their own best interest. Beggars are forced to take what they get, how they get it, and when they get it.

Not long after that little lesson, I was in a plaza in Liguanea, St Andrew. I noticed a very dishevelled and half-starved-looking man sitting on the edge of the sidewalk. His clothes and extremities were the colour of the asphalt below his bare feet. He weakly raised his right hand, palm up, whenever a pedestrian passed nearby. Eventually, someone put money in his palm.

The beggar closed his fist, raised himself up with noticeable effort, gathered the voluminous waist of his shredded trousers with his free hand to prevent it from falling to the ground, and slowly padded his way to join the line formed outside the Supreme Ventures betting window nearby.

The lesson here is this: If his benefactor thinks that the beggar is not putting the money that he assisted him with to good use, the benefactor has the option not to assist that mendicant in the future. In other words, benefactors reserve the right to bring those they help in line with their own values. Strings may be attached.

Begging the imf

When some people criticise the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, for sanctioning the further devaluation (she calls it right valuation) of our dollar, they must remember that benefactors make decisions based on what they can afford to give/lend/assist with and they do so in their own best interest. It's therefore in our best interest to satisfy their best interest.

The recent revelation that our own commissioner of police wanted, and finally decided, to walk away when pressure was brought to bear by the foreign powers that are our partners in the fight against crime raised the ire of many Jamaicans. The Americans were guided by their own Leahy Act, which forbids them from furnishing assistance to "... any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the secretary of state has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights".

But "credible information" is tenuous. It need not be admissible in a court of law, and can be taken from NGOs or press reports or from any source that is considered to be reputable. Although ideal, the evidence does not have to be corroborated.

All this certainly sounds extrajudicial, intrusive and draconian. We would rather have allegations proven by a commission or in the courts. Unfair as it seems, this is the act under which assistance is given to our security forces. This is the act through which our benefactors work.

So, when Gleaner columnist Martin Henry writes 'Sovereignty only in our heads' (July 13,2014) , he is right. But, it's our fault for allowing ourselves to become beggars (of loans and of assistance) and, as such, we must capitulate and obey the strings attached to us until we become self-sufficient. However, I wonder if we have the discipline and political will to do so.

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