The Chen Rules (CR - VII)

In case you have not been keeping abreast of the happenings in Jamdown, there has been a very recent promulgation of a new protocol concerning the cancellation/revocation of a US Visa.  Such is to be referred to as CR-VII.

This is not to be confused with protocols surrounding "Chen-Chen" or that of "WC" although both share remarkable similarities with the new CR-VII.

• Rule 1 - Always let your driver wait until your flight has departed before exiting the airport environs.  The popular practice of depositing departing passengers and beating a hasty retreat is no longer prudent. It is hereby advised that budgetary allowances be made for a wait between 2-3 hours (longer if there are unintended delays in the car park. Such should increase substantially the revenue from this facility.
  
  
  
  
• Rule II - It is prudent to double check with immigration that your US visa is still valid just in case there has been a very recent update. Hence early morning departures are highly recommended since things may change as the day progresses.
  
  
• Rule III - Having cleared the Jamaican end there is no basis for comfort as your status may have changed before you reached the first port of entry in the USA. It is hereby advised that you visit the bathroom facilities strategically located throughout the terminal buildings before joining the long immigration queue.  Failure to heed this advice may be very embarrassing. There is absolutely no need to raise a stink.


• Rule IV - In case your intended journey has been aborted in Jamaica, it is advisable that you activate the following regimes (henceforth referred to as the total F). 


• F-O-B  (Friend of Bruce) Close associates of the ruling party whether original JLP, turn back JLP, NDM or just anti-Sista P who have actively and aggressively ensured the change are in this category. Political appointees will receive special consideration by the Chief Servant.
• F-O-P (Friend of Politician) This pertains to your local political representatives to whose election you have contributed financially or otherwise.
• F-O-D (Friend of Don) The local Don who had assisted you to obtain the visa in the first place.
• It is hereby recognized that only one category may need to be activated as the same individual may be involved in one or more of the others. 


• Rule V - Under no circumstances should you yourself make contact with the US embassy as they are not under any obligation to disclose the reasons for their action and you may be glad that they do not. Kindly use F-O-B, F-O-P or F-O-D instead.


• Rule VI - This new protocol has nothing whatsoever to do with any unsatisfied extradition requests or attendance of government officials at conferences aimed at establishing a regional grouping without the participation of the USA or Canada.  It must be recognized that the non-appointment of a USA Ambassador has in no way influenced this protocol save and except governmental communication must now utilize lower level channels.


• Rule VII - The janitor and policemen stationed at the US Embassy cannot handle any requests for explanations, irrespective of the bona fides of the requesting person.

It was thought prudent to issue this advisory as more cases are scheduled to become public. Air travel at this time to the US is not recommended for those who have acquired Don-manship status, total F's or beneficiaries of money laundermats.  

At this time applications are still being encouraged for  VISA and MASTER credit cards.

Read more...

Finsac Stop Order

FYI - Judgment of Mangatal J. - Order for Leave for Judicial Review

More anon

Read more...

Hypocrisy?

The JLP in Opposition roundly condemned the operations of FINSAC.  The charges were that:

• State funds were being used to bail out friends of the governing PNP;
• Selective secret criteria were being utilized to punish entrepreneurs who had been favourably disposed to the JLP; and
• FINSAC properties were being sold to foreigners at a substantially discounted rate whilst FINSAC owners were neither given statement of accounts nor allowed to re-purchase the FINSAC assets at a similar rate.

The JLP in its election campaign gained substantial political capital from its unrelenting attack on FINSAC and its promise to reveal the inner workings of such a diabolical plot which had resulted in the destruction of a budding entrepreneurial class of Jamaicans.

Lo and behold, the revealed list has so far included the names of two (2) senior Ministers in the JLP Government.  Confirmation has not been forthcoming concerning the extent of the amount owed and the amount written off.

Available information is that the figures regarding the extent of the waiver/stroke/forgiveness/write-off are grossly understated.  Furthermore that more Members of Parliament - past and present - are implicated. 

Time will tell as story come to bump. The JLP cannot have it both ways:

Criticizing the diabolical nature of the scheme (blatant and vulgar misuse of state power and state funds) yet its senior members - indeed cabinet ministers are in fact beneficiaries of the said scheme.

Chief Servant Golding should demand that such offending members of his cabinet either pay back the amount waived or have the appropriate deductions made from their salaries.

Consideration should be given to having a similar measure applied to all offending JLP members of the Upper House (Senate ) and the Lower House (House of Representative).

This is not a case of cock-mouth-kill-cock. It has more to do with credibility, confidence, sincerity and trust - all of which this government is diminishing at supersonic speed.

Political integrity demands no less.

Read more...

Full Disclosure

There can be no argument about the position of any adjudicating panel.  It must be in fact and in perception free of bias, conflict or compromise in the matter at hand.  There must not be even a whiff of bias. 

The FINSAC enquiry is not a trial.  It is a fact finding mission geared at unearthing the truth.  Many individuals are playing critical roles in this endeavour.  Questions are asked not only by members of the panel but also attorneys representing various vested interests.  Both panelists and attorneys play critical roles in determining the eventual outcome of the exercise. But are the attorneys themselves conflicted or compromised?  The public needs to know where each attorney stands in relation to FINSAC and the FINSACKED.  For example:

• Did any attorney, now appearing, work previously for FINSAC?
• Did any attorney now appearing, take steps to acquire any of the FINSACKED properties?
• Was any attorney now appearing FINSACKED?
• Has any attorney now appearing benefitted personally from the operations of FINSAC?

Let us have full disclosure of all the parties involved in this FINSAC enquiry.  If hands are dirty, then it is better to know the extent now than to be surprised later. Full disclosure does not pose any jeopardy to an attorney appearing before the enquiry. This is fundamentally different from the position of the commissioners. Clients have the right to employ an attorney of their choice. Their antecedents could affect the angle and manner of approach and the public has a right to know.

We need to put all the cards on the table in order to end the suss, speculation and rumours.

The hide and collide must stop.

Read more...

Bawl Out

There exists a listing of all beneficiaries of the FINSAC bail out.  This fact was revealed to the general public by the General Manager of FINSAC at the Commission of Enquiry.

So the list exists; it has been compiled; it is available, but only to a select few. Why?

The taxpayers of Jamaica have funded the operations of FINSAC.  Taxpayers have borne the gigantic financial burdens of the so-called meltdown.  Companies and selected individuals were bailed out.  They were given very substantial wavers, write-offs, loans forgiveness, blighs and turn blind eyes. Some were not: their properties were confiscated and sold to foreign interests at a song.  While some are still singing a jolly song, others are humming a dirge. 

But what were the criteria applied to select those for special treatment and those who were forced to the wall?

Which interests benefited from the forced sale of choice properties?

Did some beneficiaries their political connections to feather their nest?

Are there any members of this JLP Government who have benefited from special treatment  by FINSAC?

Are there PNP Members of Parliament - past and present - who are connected to entities that have been given a bligh by FINSAC?

Are there any legal firms or attorneys-at-law who have benefited from special operations by FINSAC?

What are the factors what precluded former owners from re-purchasing their seized businesses/assets at the same price offered to foreigners?

We need to know chapter and verse. Publish the names, connected parties, extent of the sums owed and the extent of the forgiveness by FINSAC.

Bawl Out those who got the Bail Out.

Let us all know those who have been accorded by the GOJ the order of the BO. It smells. Phew!

Read more...

The X - Factor

The Government is patting itself on its back for the self-declared success of its debt swap initiative, termed the Jamaica Debt Exchange (JDX).

It is being trumpeted that there has been a 95-99% "voluntary compliance". In any language "voluntary compliance" must be of one's own free will induced neither by threat or treat. 

The JDX was done in circumstances where the Government unilaterally set the rates and the degrees of the extension of maturity dates for the swapped bonds. Bond holders were threatened with illiquidity, taxation compliance oversight, termed greedy and characterized as unpatriotic - in short "rapacious capitalists" of the present.

There was no comprehensive analysis of the probable consequences for the Government itself.  It has been said that state agencies hold approximately 50% of the local debt stock. They were told to accept it - argument done.

Poor pensioners and holders of pension funds who had patriotically invested in Jamaica and indeed invested in a government which had earlier pronounced that it would not allow "constitutional technalities" to get in the way of its hold on power.  Now it is the turn of "contractual technicalities".  This regime will not shackled by contractual obligations either to its employees or its creditors. 

The attitude is vulgar: we cannot pay at the time stipulated or the rate of interest we had agreed. So this is it, take it or else.

Everything is now being contextualized as a pre-condition for an IMF agreement.  Hence, the indecent haste, opaqueness (as opposed to transparency) and prolific edicts (as opposed to consensus). 

Somehow the X in JDX does not mean exchange, but rather extortion. The miniaturization of the economy continues and revenues decline unabated. The Government has got it wrong (X), in what can be described as an X-rated intervention.

X marks the spot: not only on the ballot.

Read more...

Wobbles

"Wobbles" can be considered as attempted spin which has failed to achieve its objective and has in fact worsened the situation. It is worse than foot-in-mouth disease as it reflects rank stupidity of the progenitor and contempt for the intended audience.

What must be a classic is Charles Ross' contention that the $80 million budget is only an estimate of the overall cost of the enquiry and in any event is a very small figure, in the broader national context.

"The estimated cost is 0.01% of last year's [national] budget so it's really, in the grand scheme of things, not a huge burden. We were offered a rate of compensation and we accepted it. The compensation was not discussed at the time of engagement at all that was something that came when the administration was putting a budget together, we were offered compensation and we accepted it," RJR

This Rossian wobble rubs salt into a raw national wound:

• Is the estimate likely to be exceeded and by what percentage (since we are now into statistical importance)?
• What does the relationship between the estimated cost and last year's national budget have to do with taxed salt?
• What is the relationship between Mr. Ross' earnings from the Commission for a mere 70 days work and his full time remuneration from his private company?
• Who would not gladly accept $7.5 million for a 70-day appointment?
• That the "compensation was not discussed at the time of the engagement at all" raises the issue of Mr. Ross' appreciation of budgeting, negotiation and reasonable returns, in short financial matters.Then again, the innocent victim: St. Charles may be alluding to the timing of the discussions regarding the compensation to be paid.

Acting Constable Carey is beyond belief.

"I was not adversely affected by the Finsac situation. How does that make it unfair for me to inquire? In this case, I don't sit as a judge. I'm more like a policeman, investigating what went wrong."Jamaica Observer

In a sense Carey is correct: no sitting judge of the Court of Appeal receives $15 million for 70 days work.  So he is not sitting as a judge. But no policeman in Jamaica - not even the imported variety - has ever received such extortionist and unconscionable packages. So he is not sitting as a policeman.

But Carey is not even sitting as a Governor of the Bank of Jamaica.  Lattie had to work right throughout the year after gaining much experience for his compensation package (and he was fired for it).

If Acting Constable Carey is roasting, then such practice ought not to be tolerated by the JCF. Then again, was there not a report some time ago of someone strategically placed in the JCF? That bogus policeman  undertook special assignments beneficial to the special interests.. He was an imposter.  Nuff said.

Read more...

Run With the Bag

The outrage resulting from the revelation of the compensation packages involved in the FINSAC enquiry has  been widely reported in the Jamaican press. Radio Jamaica (RJR), TVJ, CVM, Hot 102, The Gleaner, The Jamaica Observer - all have reported this debacle. Nevermind the report in the Sunday Herald. This is shame and scandal, with or without familial ties.

"Value-for-Money" - that is a well known standard form response by the government for the unconscionable, extravagant and extortionist compensation packages that are now becoming a vexatious characteristic of this JLP regime.

The Bruce Golding-led JLP has never been "value for money".  Colossal sums were spent on a two year campaign only to win by less than 3,000 votes. The Bruce Golding-led government has carried on the same wanton abuse of money - this time with government revenue (and not private funding, the UFO's being exhausted).

• What is likely to be the final outcome of this so-called FINSAC enquiry given the undue reliance on memory? 
• Would not a forensic audit have provided a more reliable and accurate account of how the money was spent/lost and decisions arrived at in the particular circumstances?
• Is there not an appearance of a conflict of interest where the legal counsel to the commission and the attorney marshalling the evidence are members of the same private law firm?
• The budget is $79 million for approximately 70 days. How does this compare with the remuneration packages of the fired governor of the Bank of Jamaica and Hill's sweet deal?
• Is the daily rate approximately $1 million applicable to any part of a day or is it adjusted pro rata given the frequency of aborted sittings? 
• What mechanisms are in place to minimize the likelihood of overruns, resulting in the commission sitting in concrete?
• The commission is expected to produce a report.  What happens next? How will those who have been adversely affected by state action be compensated? Is there any real possibility of redress or is this merely an exercise to fodder an election campaign?
  

In the end ( whenever that is) there is likely to be no action; not even a bag-a-mouth but costing the taxpayer a bag-a-money. This has given new meaning to "run-with-it". $216,000.00 per day must be a good roast for a retired anything.

"Value-for-money" is an assessment of outcomes - not of promises or expectations.

Read more...