THE EDITOR, Sir:
I WILL not allow myself to become a victim of this ethos of fear. I see too many possibilities in Jamaica to follow the baseless and distorted opinions of the 'fathers' and 'mothers' of negative vibes, who for their own selfish motives, incite opposition to the government's public policies, and attempts at national development, both of its institutions, and its people. Let me share some facts with you, and hopefully, initiate public debate in this regard.
The Human Development Report of 2000, ranks Jamaica at 83 - medium human development - of a total of 174 under the heading 'Crime'.
In gender and education, we are ranked at 83 and classified as 'medium human development'.
In 'health' and 'Women's Political Participation', we are also ranked at 83. Overall, we are ranked at 83 on the HDI.
Transparency International ranks us at 47, scoring four out of a possible ten. No reason for comfort but certainly not bad relative to many other countries, and not as catastrophic as certain of us with access to the media would want the rest of us to believe.
The World Bank Country Assistance Strategy Report of 2000 analyses aspects of our strength as, '...a well established formal tradition of democratic participation and accountability. Political participation is widely exercised, as evidenced in high but declining voter turnout. Jamaican civil society includes a free and active media (no wonder Mutty, Dawn et al still remain), and a rich, often vocal array of civic, professional, and labour groups ....Healthy debates on public policies are customary as evidenced recently in the public commentary on Govern-ment's Memorandum of Economic and Financial Policies.' Certainly, this runs contrary to what some of our public opinion shapers constantly throw at us.
One could reasonably advance the argument that governments and its agents are not the only source of our problems, and seeking to destroy the rulers of the state and their agents, cannot be the panacea for all our ills. Certainly, to reason along that line would be myopic and unjustifiable in the face of existing facts. The facts which I believe certain of my friends would prefer to keep out of the public domain, and therefore public debate, are stubborn things, i.e., they refuse to change, and keep coming up as oil pushed under water.
It seems to me that Latin American and Caribbean countries continue to suffer from a widening gap in income dispersion; gross inequality and corruption not only in the public sector, as some would have us believe, but also in the private sector. These countries are regarded as 'among the world's highest income inequality' grouping (Human Development Report 2001, Pg.17), and corruption in both sectors, which facilitates a 'lawlessness syndrome', are the main disincentives to international investment (World Development Report, 1997).
Recently, I undertook a major research into the nature and scope of corruption in Jamaica's public sector entities, and its consequences on the public financial systems. One troubling reason for the increasing levels of corruption seems to be the lack of credibility among public opinion shapers, and the consequent erosion of respect for public debates even initiated by persons adopting a 'neutral' stance. Another reason advanced is the inequalities and injustices in large corporations, public and private sector.
What this has done is to remove the incentive for hard work, as there is no direct co-relation between workers' effort at lower levels in those organisations, and their ability to provide for their basic necessities.
This has a multiplicity of effects. Firstly, it 'justifies' at least in the minds of 'hustlers' that 'runnings' are necessary to supplement income levels. Secondly, it leaves public sector workers with wide powers, vulnerable and intimidated to carry out their functions effectively.
What moral authority can be brought to bear on leadership, when there exists gaps of more than 1000 per cent, yes 1000 per cent between the highest paid and lowest paid in any one organisation, public or private? How do we justify the numbers game by positing that 'we accepted 10 per cent, so you can do the same', when clearly there is a vast difference between 10 per cent of $10M and 10 per cent of $500,000?
Recently, during the 'Banking Sector Crisis', are we aware that even during that crisis, persons were still paying themselves millions, engaging in 'related party transactions', and simultaneously asking lower level staff to 'hold strain'?
There is a maxim in law, that he who seeks equitable remedies must come with clean hands. How many of our corporate leaders can embrace that maxim?
When brilliant but clearly bitter and unreasonable radio talk show hosts incite mass public disorder resulting in the need for billions of dollars to effect road repairs and damage control in the international community, what contribution do these persons believe they make to national development? I have heard my 'friends' in the media declaring their intention to leave Jamaica if this government regains power for more than three consecutive general elections, but still remain, undermining every attempt at national development, being critical of every idea put forward, but bankrupt of any tangible and solid ideas themselves.
One must certainly be critical of public policies, but one must be willing to advance ideas of one's own, and be able to criticise one's own arguments, and allow criticism too.
I pray for honesty, balance, and an obvious willingness to seek solutions which build and unify.
I am, etc.,
WAYNE CLARKE
kjwesclarke@hotmail.com
Handsworth Wood
Birminghan, England
Via Go-Jamaica
