Maybe after an appropriate cooling-off period, the Government could appoint a new commission, with clearer objectives and, hopefully, better moderation. For we feel that the 1990s meltdown of large segments of Jamaica's financial sector is worthy of serious examination and analysis.

We suspect that there are lessons to be learnt from that episode. It won't happen in the environment that has been created by this commission.

We have not come to this position lightly and it gives us no pleasure in doing so. Indeed, as indicated in our previous comment on the matter on November 27, we had hoped the commission would have had the wisdom and the will to save itself.

Then, we made the point that you can have a good idea of the eventual quality of commissions of enquiry by the procedural rules they set themselves, and the manner in which their chairmen manage the proceedings.

This one, presided over by chairman, retired judge, Boyd Carey, investment banker Charles Ross and chartered accountant Worrick Bogle, has been run like no other commission of enquiry in our experience. It appears to be cobbling its rules on the fly.

Indeed, we were surprised by the approach it took during the initial phases of the evidence of former finance minister, Dr Omar Davies, who presided over the FINSAC years and the bail-out of banks and insurance companies that cost taxpayers more than $140 billion.

emotionally charged environment

All and sundry, including the gallery, were allowed to pose questions to Dr Davies, who was confronted, in a dramatic and emotionally charged environment, by borrowers who had lost their assets. Was that the aim? To hold up Dr Davies as the object of vilification in a sport of retribution?

We do not begrudge commissioners the personal perspectives they bring to the issue, but they owe it to themselves and all the stakeholders in the enquiry not only to be swayed by the facts, but to send a signal that they intend so to be. The attitude and tone with which they dealt with Dr Davies suggested to us that they had arrived at a priori positions.These flaws could have been remedied. But judging by the approach of Chairman Carey in dealing with Shirley Tyndall, the retired financial secretary, who gave testimony last week, they won't be.

It is unlikely that Ms Tyndall, when she was a senior public servant, which we suspect still to be the case, would be the most congenial person in the room. But she is competent and frank.

We suspect that at this stage, her best contribution would be on the broad conceptual frame and the impact on fiscal policy, rather than the recall of minutiae from more than a decade go, which Mr Carey wants. He did not grasp why Ms Tyndall had not used her old contacts at the finance ministry to get the information, since she once held a powerful position in the country and her decisions "affected many lives".

If that level of input is required from Ms Tyndall, she should perhaps be provided a team of researchers, and specific access to appropriate files. But these documents should already be available to the commission.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.