The following are letters sent to The Gleaner in response to Dennie Quill's columns of the last three weeks. The column appears on Fridays.
Always lessons to learn
I read your article in today's online Gleaner with interest. Indeed, it has been a story of the gullible and the greedy.
In the article you said: "The Financial Services Commission (FSC) was feeble in its response to the impending disaster. It needed to have acted sooner and to have done more than tell investors to 'research and think before they invest'."
Although I might be expected to disagree with you, you are certainly entitled to express your own judgement on whether the FSC's response was sufficient.
FSC Action
I, for one, am always happy to discuss that particular subject because I believe that there are always lessons to be learnt from critically reviewing past actions.
However, I believe that you could not have been aware of some important facts when you came to the conclusion that you expressed in your article.
First, the FSC took early and decisive action against David Smith, Olint, Lewfam, Neil Lewis and a number of other named entities and individuals related to them. This action was based on their legal powers to order persons who it perceives as acting in breach of the law to cease and desist.
The FSC action followed an investigation, which garnered considerable publicity when search warrants were lawfully executed on a number of premises.
All of this took place as far back as March 2006 and the court drama as David Smith et al have exercised their legal right to challenge the FSC has continued to this day.
The publicity and strong advice of the FSC against investing in such schemes has been unceasing since then.
Hostile reaction
Wynter
Second, this action by the FSC generated a real storm of hostile reaction, both in public and private, to the point where a government minister publicly described its actions as 'Gestapo-like', and the then opposition spokesman on finance suggested that the FSC was wrong to have stopped David Smith and Olint.
Even the FSC's publicity campaign on the subject was publicly attacked as wasting money. The FSC did not flinch in its efforts and continued with its very unpopular stance.
Rather than suggest that the FSC was feeble in its response and should have acted sooner and done more, it could be that now is the time for independent observers like yourself to publicly commend the fortitude of the board and staff of that organisation for persisting in such an unpopular course, and for taking such courageous action when it was so clearly not in the interests of their personal careers at that time.
You have been observing Jamaican public institutions for many years and have no doubt noted their many shortcomings. Don't you think that this example of commendable dedication to their statutory mission deserves to be supported?
Perhaps, the enhanced credibility that such support will help to create would cause more investors to heed the FSC's warnings in future and thereby diminish the likelihood of the Ponzi pheno-menon from recurring in Jamaica.
I hope you don't mind me sharing these thoughts with you. I really enjoyed your article.
The social, economic and even psychological aspects of this matter are truly intriguing and deserving of the type of commentary that you provide, and I hope to see more writings from you on the subject.
- Brian Wynter
No 'interest' from banks
Your article expressed the views my co-worker and I were sharing just this morning.
One thing, though, people can't say they weren't warned. And they have submitted and adopted the conspiracy theories that the schemes have crashed because the other greedy set (the bankers) were losing customers.
What is interesting, though, is the fact the banks have not attempted to increase the miniscule interest rates to their customers.
But I guess they are content with posting the millions they make per quarter.
- Gillian
Why the fuss?
The shameful social disadvantages, right here in Jamaica, experienced by those (often educationally disadvan-taged) people who are fluent in Jamaican, but not in English, have been pointed out repeatedly by Hubert Devonish, Lena McCourtie, and others. These, and other researchers in the field of linguistics, have also shown the practical benefit, when learning a second language, of knowing that one's mother tongue is respected.
The evidence, not only of examination results, but of the written and spoken English of so many who claim to be efficient communicators, suggests that a majority of our citizens find it difficult to differentiate between English and Jamaican lexicon, pronunciation and grammar.
(Yes, there are grammatical rules for Jamaican speech, as there are for every language form, and these have been publicised since the 1950s by people such as Beryl Loftman-Bailey, Frederick Cassidy, Robert LePage, Jean D'Costa and Pauline Christie).
It is disappointing to note that, while a number of educators have for decades been at pains to emphasise the value of comparing English with Jamaican speech in the classroom, otherwise able commentators insist that their intention is to replace English with Jamaican, rather than to ensure competence in both languages.
- Peter Maxwell
Creole has structure
Cooper
I am not absolutely sure I understand the following statement from your column:
"I can also see with those persons, who perceive some difficulty in the way such a text would be standardised, bearing in mind that there is no system of the harmony of nouns, verbs, pronouns and grammar within Jamaican creole."
If what you're saying is that you think Jamaican has no grammar, I'm recommending that you do a bit more research.
Grammar is the structure that holds a language together. That's why we're able consistently to produce meaningful sentences.
If you think about it, you'll realise that people can make grammatical mistakes in Jamaican. Just think about the ungrammatical Jamaican that is spoken by foreigners who don't understand the structure of the language.
- Carolyn Cooper
A Jamaican in exile
I share your outrage, worse, I yearn for the 'sweet' Jamaica that Luciano sings about, but I cannot reasonably envision it ever returning. Alas, we cannot go back.
I know that you are aware of the Jamaican proclivity for leading the way - everywhere.
Since I am on the nether side of the 'generation gap', I have to call these 'gangsters' the younger generation - those who have become the beneficiaries(?) of the legacy prepared for them by my generation.
I do not enjoy writing this, but, for what it may be worth, the conversation should continue, even if all we can do is express and analyse ideas.
There was a time when the 'baddest' Jamaican carried a ratchet knife and wore Clarks shoes. At that time, we would give the excuse for carrying the knife as: 'Mi have it fi peel aringe, affisa'. Sometimes, the police would take the knife and laugh, or detain and 'check you out.'
Emotions aside (including grief), we are one people and we have got to somehow negotiate our way out of the bloody quagmire. No person is greater than any other person, but the foregoing is only my opinion.
All living creatures/things are my neighbours. I have not arrived at the point of turning the other cheek, brother, but I am trying ... hard ... so hard.
- Lloyd Narcisse
Our heads in the sand?
Thank you for that thought-provoking column. I migrated over 30 years ago, but retain a very strong interest in my home country.
One of the things that never sat well with me from my pre-college years was the acceptance of disorder in our country. In recent years an ever-increasing lawlessness and lack of accountability have engendered a sense of hopelessness for my country.
The widespread violence, to my mind, is not the issue, but rather the impression that neither the previous nor the present government has a clue of how to deal with it.
You and a few other patriots have expressed your opinions on some of the obvious problems, but there are so many others who appear to have their heads firmly buried in the sand.
- Alvin Nembhard
