1. Omar Davies, Bruce Golding and Audley Shaw have said on many occasions prior to the Debt Exchange (JDX) that Jamaica would never default on its debts. Omar Davies famously and proudly told UWI students that paying the debt will ALWAYS take priority over taking care of the country’s domestic needs.
2. In the talks prior to the signing of the 2009 IMF Agreement it was clear to the IMF and their technocrats that Jamaica’s debt level was not only unsustainable (the country was perilously close to a default) but required a radical reduction of the debt stock beyond the usual measures: suppression of government expenditure, etc. The IMF/UNDP suggested what became known as the Jamaica Debt Exchange (JDX) which resulted in a $40 billion write off of the local debt.
3. So beholden was the government to creditors that it was paradoxical for it to be the IMF/UNDP (who serve the interests of creditors) to encourage this debt write off instead of the government acting proactively and pragmatically on behalf of the most vulnerable. The government was dragged along kicking and screaming, even though they now proudly point to the JDX as one of their achievements.
4. A principle has therefore been established that normal means alone cannot be used to reduce an unsustainable debt level. European banks have been forced to write off 50% of the Greek debt because the Greek government was politically unable to impose more austerity measures on the population.
5. Despite the JDX, the debt stock is now at an even higher level. This is a result of the country’s high propensity to borrow which reflects deep ‘structural’ problems.
6. Objectively with 1.2 million or about 45% of the Jamaican population living below the poverty line and a 13% official unemployment rate it is clear that should the government impose more austerity it runs the risk of stirring up political resistance. It would literally be bleeding the poor dry.
WHAT TO DO? Taxing those who can afford it.
7. If precedent is to go by the Government will continue to refuse to impose radical new taxes on the wealthy. The Golding government, for example, using specious and self-serving arguments, refused to put a special tax on the super profits of the banks. Both BNS and NCB, not surprisingly (it is the trend all over the world) have been reporting record profits for several years now, and there is absolutely no temptation on the part of the government to increase taxes on those profits.
8. There was, however, a reluctant and minimal tax on earnings over five million dollars. But this was for one year only! It once again shows a clear class bias typical not only of this JLP government but the PNP as well. [By contrast former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown increased the tax level to 50% in 2009 for those making over 150,000 pounds].
9. The ideology behind refusing to tax the wealthy is that they will engage in capital flight and capital strike. We must all sink or swim coddling the rich.
10. With political leaders wearing such ideological blinkers it usually requires a strong political push from below to get them to face reality. This government and certainly the opposition seem to feel confident that the chances of such a movement developing are not very likely.
11. In the absence of such political resistance, the government aided by the ideological class, the IMF and the media, will continue to argue that it has no option but to suppress demand levels even further i.e. cutting fiscal expenditure (especially hurtful where education and health are concerned) and to institute public sector layoffs (which are pending) combined with imposing more taxes, which according to tradition, as we said before would be to tax the poor and the working class even more.
The radical but pragmatic option: debt repudiation
12. The truth is that in addition to increasing taxes on the wealthy [the current IMF-backed plan to impose a regressive tax policy under the guise of tax reform must be exposed and resisted], the only other effective option is to repudiate the debt. Argentina is one country to have done so recently with significant debt reduction results. Other countries in history have done so including the United States during the civil war, Mexico, and Cuba.
What does repudiating the debt mean.
13. The Government declares to all creditors that there is an immediate moratorium on all debt payments, but a door is diplomatically left open for negotiations. The national debt is approximately J$2 trillion. About 500 billion, the equivalent of all taxes collected is paid over each year.
Categories of creditors/negotiating strategy
14. First, there must be a forensic audit of the debt to determine what portion corruptly went to politicians, bureaucrats and private sector accomplices. Lenders are sometimes complicit with these corrupt practices. Morally and politically the poor should not be required to pay back such debt since they received no benefit.
15. Currently one politician is before the courts, and another is awaiting a ruling from the DPP. Highway 2000 and the US$62 million Palisadoes Highway are two projects which smack of corruption and which are of dubious benefit to the poor.
16. The late 1990s Bank bailout and the resultant FINSAC debt on the surface is also dubious debt. There is currently a FINSAC Commission of Enquiry going on but without a forensic audit being required this is a grand waste of taxpayer’s money.
17. The unearthing of such corruption is a legal, moral and political negotiating tool with creditors.
18. To amplify the point -- because the Jamaican constitution guarantees that debt has a first lien on the consolidated fund --creditors are not obliged to be responsible in their lending practices which gives rise to the concept of irresponsible lending.
19. There was no obligation, for example, for any lender to Air Jamaica to concern itself with whether the airline was bankrupt and able pay back its loans because all of Air Jamaica’s loans were guaranteed by the government. This would be a prime example of irresponsible lending.
The paradox of local creditors
20. Some local creditors are in fact government institutions which have invested in government bonds. This poses very little political problem for central government in cancelling this debt. The state must take responsibility for social welfare including pensions.
21. The Banking oligopoly owns a significant portion of the debt as well. The fact that they have enjoyed such super profits in the past years strengthens case for debt cancellation.
22. Generally speaking the government has the option to offer long term bonds with radical value reduction if it feels the need for a less acrimonious approach.
23. Should capital strike and capital flight be the response then government would obviously be forced to nationalize the banks, or any sector that engages in capital strike, and to take measures to prevent capital flight.
Negotiating with foreign creditors
24. Without precise data as to who are the foreign creditors, and the appropriate negotiating strategy, it is clear that government would generally demand a significant write off of the debt.
25. Argentina was able to get a 75% sovereign debt write off in some cases.
26. Creditors would rather get something on the dollar than nothing at all. This is something that those who predict doom and gloom fail to appreciate.
27. Externally it would be advisable to seek to form a debtor’s club with other heavily indebted Caribbean countries.
28. All of this requires a commitment to protect the 45% of the population living below the poverty line; to prevent further deterioration in our health care system; to invest in education at all levels; and to prevent the total breakdown of the country’s infrastructure which is inevitable should the present path of fiscal contraction be continued.
29. That is the pragmatic nature of debt repudiation.
30. It is a commitment to protect the poor and the working class generally, the class that is the producer of wealth, but expropriated by the few.
31. Finally we need to refute the ideologists who keep talking about growing our way out of the crisis.
32. According to the World Bank "Jamaica was one of the world's slowest-growing economies in the last four decades. In the 2000s, Jamaica's average real GDP growth ranked 180th out of 196 countries. Jamaica's ranking in terms of average real GDP growth continuously deteriorated during 1960-2008. Jamaica also lost ground against countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Its ranking in the 2000s was 29th out of 34 countries." Furthermore, says the World Bank “There is no silver bullet for all of Jamaica’s problems, or any single, unique binding commitment whose removal would solve them.”
33. In other words, those with mono causal explanations, such as it’s because of crime, or it’s because of bureaucratic red tape, or it’s because of the need for tax reform why the economy isn’t growing, are really promoting a self-serving agenda, designed to distract from the root concern.
34. And as for those who promote economic growth as the magic answer, they need to be reminded that there can be economic growth with little or no improvement in the standard of living of the poor and the working class generally.
35. If the economy can’t ‘grow’ for whatever reason then the cake has to be divided up more fairly. We cannot allow for the alarming rates of poverty to continue increasing and for the country’s infrastructure to disintegrate further.
The political system has to change from a two-party dictatorship to a people’s democracy.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Prime Minister Holness must move beyond platitudes
Moving beyond rhetoric and platitudes
In his first speech as prime minister, Andrew Holness had things to say about corruption, education, garrison politics and the debt. The following are some of the things that Prime Minister Holness should do to show that he has intentions beyond rhetoric and platitudes:
1. Reveal to the country who paid Manat and Phelps. This was the issue which lead to Bruce Golding’s resignation and which still taints the entire leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party, including Holness. If Holness is serious about turning his back on garrison politics and corruption then he ought to come clean in terms of whether Christoper Coke or some mysterious JLP donors made the payment.
2. Give the green light to the Public Defender to initiate an enquiry into the role played by those who had command responsibility for the Tivoli massacre – Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Police Commissioner Owen Ellington, and Chief of Staff of the JDF, Major General Stuart Saunders, among others. Bruce Golding declined to answer the Public Defender’s letter asking for a commission of enquiry and now that he has resigned this cannot be the end of the matter – even if the media now chose to focus on the election circus. So many innocent people should not have died because of Bruce Golding’s folly, and those responsible for murder must be held accountable.
3. Repudiate Bruce Golding’s “not in my cabinet” policy of discrimination against gay Jamaicans. The upcoming Commonwealth Conference has been petitioned about doing away with buggery laws that still exist in some commonwealth countries. It is time for Jamaica to also repeal its buggery laws and respect the human rights of all citizens, including gays. Holness must declare his position now.
4. Initiate a forensic audit of the almost 2 trillion dollar public debt to determine how much of it was stolen by politicians, bureaucrats and affiliated private businessmen. The poor cannot be expected to pay back loans for which they did not benefit and did not contract.
5. The debt cannot be repaid at the expense of the poor. Hold a referendum on whether the debt should be repudiated and the alternative policies to put in place.
6. As Minister of Education and now prime minister Holness must initiate a loan forgiveness programme for all tertiary students who cannot move forward with their education because of debt.
7. Not only early childhood education but secondary and tertiary education is a human right – and should be free. A declaration about this would go along way toward determining whether Holness is serious about education or just running up his mouth. A people thirsting for education and social advancement cannot wait a decade for this to happen.
8. Access to health care is also a human right and therefore incompatible with the present policy of underfunding. Will the IMF to which Holness seems so beholden, sign off on adequate and increased funding for health?
9. Corporate Jamaica, and the rich generally, should be required to pay increased taxes and shoulder their rightful portion of the economic crisis. The current tax reform being urged by the IMF and others is nothing but a trick to increase taxes on the poor and the working class. We need a progressive tax policy not a regressive one.
10. Special increased taxes on the Banking /financial oligarchy that is making tens of billions of dollars of profit while 1.2 million poor Jamaicans are living below the poverty line.
11. Bruce Golding threatened at the last JLP Conference to make his income and assets public because he said he had nothing to hide. Despite the threat and the boast nothing happened. Holness should now go one step further and publish his own asset and income statement to dispel any notion that he may have benefited from corrupt acts committed by the Golding government of which he was an integral part. The LNG scandal is one of the many which has tainted the government -- the people have yet to learn about all who benefited.
Finally, on Thursday October 27 at 1:00 PM the Marcus Garvey People’s Political Party (MGPP), supported by Campaign for Social and Economic Justice (CSEJ) will be having another Occupy Jamaica protest outside the Bank of Jamaica. Let’s build a democratic movement to take Jamaica from the One Percenters who run the country as if it is their private property.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va8iBF4CA0U
http://lloyddaguilar.blogspot.com/
In his first speech as prime minister, Andrew Holness had things to say about corruption, education, garrison politics and the debt. The following are some of the things that Prime Minister Holness should do to show that he has intentions beyond rhetoric and platitudes:
1. Reveal to the country who paid Manat and Phelps. This was the issue which lead to Bruce Golding’s resignation and which still taints the entire leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party, including Holness. If Holness is serious about turning his back on garrison politics and corruption then he ought to come clean in terms of whether Christoper Coke or some mysterious JLP donors made the payment.
2. Give the green light to the Public Defender to initiate an enquiry into the role played by those who had command responsibility for the Tivoli massacre – Prime Minister Bruce Golding, Police Commissioner Owen Ellington, and Chief of Staff of the JDF, Major General Stuart Saunders, among others. Bruce Golding declined to answer the Public Defender’s letter asking for a commission of enquiry and now that he has resigned this cannot be the end of the matter – even if the media now chose to focus on the election circus. So many innocent people should not have died because of Bruce Golding’s folly, and those responsible for murder must be held accountable.
3. Repudiate Bruce Golding’s “not in my cabinet” policy of discrimination against gay Jamaicans. The upcoming Commonwealth Conference has been petitioned about doing away with buggery laws that still exist in some commonwealth countries. It is time for Jamaica to also repeal its buggery laws and respect the human rights of all citizens, including gays. Holness must declare his position now.
4. Initiate a forensic audit of the almost 2 trillion dollar public debt to determine how much of it was stolen by politicians, bureaucrats and affiliated private businessmen. The poor cannot be expected to pay back loans for which they did not benefit and did not contract.
5. The debt cannot be repaid at the expense of the poor. Hold a referendum on whether the debt should be repudiated and the alternative policies to put in place.
6. As Minister of Education and now prime minister Holness must initiate a loan forgiveness programme for all tertiary students who cannot move forward with their education because of debt.
7. Not only early childhood education but secondary and tertiary education is a human right – and should be free. A declaration about this would go along way toward determining whether Holness is serious about education or just running up his mouth. A people thirsting for education and social advancement cannot wait a decade for this to happen.
8. Access to health care is also a human right and therefore incompatible with the present policy of underfunding. Will the IMF to which Holness seems so beholden, sign off on adequate and increased funding for health?
9. Corporate Jamaica, and the rich generally, should be required to pay increased taxes and shoulder their rightful portion of the economic crisis. The current tax reform being urged by the IMF and others is nothing but a trick to increase taxes on the poor and the working class. We need a progressive tax policy not a regressive one.
10. Special increased taxes on the Banking /financial oligarchy that is making tens of billions of dollars of profit while 1.2 million poor Jamaicans are living below the poverty line.
11. Bruce Golding threatened at the last JLP Conference to make his income and assets public because he said he had nothing to hide. Despite the threat and the boast nothing happened. Holness should now go one step further and publish his own asset and income statement to dispel any notion that he may have benefited from corrupt acts committed by the Golding government of which he was an integral part. The LNG scandal is one of the many which has tainted the government -- the people have yet to learn about all who benefited.
Finally, on Thursday October 27 at 1:00 PM the Marcus Garvey People’s Political Party (MGPP), supported by Campaign for Social and Economic Justice (CSEJ) will be having another Occupy Jamaica protest outside the Bank of Jamaica. Let’s build a democratic movement to take Jamaica from the One Percenters who run the country as if it is their private property.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va8iBF4CA0U
http://lloyddaguilar.blogspot.com/
Monday, October 17, 2011
Occupy Wall Street coming to Jamaica
The Marcus Garvey People’s Political Party (MGPPP) is calling for a demonstration in front of the Bank of Jamaica on Thursday at 1 PM to express sentiments similar to those being made in America by the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement or the 99% Movement and which has now spread to many other countries especially in Europe.
The Jamaican context for similar expressions
Though Bruce Golding was forced to resign because of his involvement with confessed drug dealer and arms trafficker, Christopher Dudus Coke, he still had a hand in selecting his successor Andrew Holness. Golding promptly took Holness to Washington to meet with the directors of the international financial institutions that are currently running Jamaica’s financial affairs. The visit was felt to be necessary to underline Holness’ stated intention to continue with the policies of his predecessor and ultimately the Jamaica IMF agreement.
What is this continuation of policy to which Holness has committed himself? Very simply, the IMF agreement with Jamaica is designed to ensure that creditors, local and foreign, who are owed more than a trillion Jamaican dollars are paid their pound of flesh as per agreement. And, as is the refrain in the United States, 99% of Jamaicans (who had no part in contracting this debt) will unfairly have to bear the burden of paying back the debt, especially hard on the 1.2 million who are living below the poverty line, including the 14% (according to official statistics) who are unemployed.
The OWS movement, which is being replicated all over the world, is shining a bright spotlight on a reality that exists globally -- not just in New York and the rest of the United States -- that it is the poor, the working class, who are being forced to bear the burden of this global economic crisis. The US financial aristocracy for example, [the 1%] were bailed out by the US government with billions of dollars of public money and there is nothing positive to show for such largesse. Unemployment is at its highest since the 1930s depression and there is no will to tax the rich as the OWS and the majority of Americans are demanding according to recent polls.
In Jamaica the situation is no different. On the verge of defaulting or declaring bankruptcy the JLP government turned to the IMF for a bail out, but with the understanding that massive burdens would be placed on the poor as the basis of the IMF guarantee to creditors.
The fact that the government has not completely performed its end of the bargain as demanded by the IMF should not be interpreted to mean that there is any fundamental conflict between the two. One of the main sticking points is that the government had been expected to institute massive public sector layoffs, but not done because of declining public support over the Coke affair which they fear would be compounded by labour strife. As the IMF no doubt realizes such savaging (as Seaga sympathetically describes it) has to be done at the most opportune time.
Will Andrew Holness be able to pull it off? Or must it wait until a possible PNP government is in power? There is no reason to believe that the PNP would be shy about taking such resolute action. After all, they have been crying for the government to get back on track with the IMF.
So if the real import of the OWS or 99% Movement is to have any meaning in Jamaica the appropriate slogans and demands must be raised.
1. No to public sector layoffs. The unions have sent mixed signals about this. as if they would be prepared to accept such layoffs. These trade union bureaucrats must not be allowed to betray the workers.
2. Tax the rich. The government could only muster the courage to impose a minimal tax increase on incomes over 5 million dollars for one year! The taxation measures being discussed in parliament and endorsed by the IMF is nothing but a trick… to impose a more regressive taxation system on the poor and the working class and reduce taxes for the wealthy and for corporations. This must be rejected.
3. Repudiate the debt. It cannot be repaid. The Debt Exchange, though praised, did not go far enough. Where is the economic rebound to come from to reduce the debt other than from squeezing the poor who cannot be squeezed any further.
4. Debt repudiation must be accompanied by a forensic audit of the national debt to determine who else other than those before the courts, have corruptly enriched themselves at the public expense. The culprits are many, and in very high places.
5. Those financial institutions which engaged in irresponsible lending to our politicians should not expect the poor to pay back such loans. Highway 2000? Palisadoes Highway? etc. etc.
6. Free health care. The deteriorating situation in public hospitals is not because of user fee removal as the PNP and some doctors foolishly believe, but because of underfunding.
7. Free education. The same problem as in the health sector – poor test results are a direct result of the historical underfunding by successive governments and now the savage cuts undertaken by this government.
8. Massive public works programmes must be enacted to put people back to work.
The above is the context in which an OWS or a 99% Movement makes sense in Jamaica.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
The Jamaican context for similar expressions
Though Bruce Golding was forced to resign because of his involvement with confessed drug dealer and arms trafficker, Christopher Dudus Coke, he still had a hand in selecting his successor Andrew Holness. Golding promptly took Holness to Washington to meet with the directors of the international financial institutions that are currently running Jamaica’s financial affairs. The visit was felt to be necessary to underline Holness’ stated intention to continue with the policies of his predecessor and ultimately the Jamaica IMF agreement.
What is this continuation of policy to which Holness has committed himself? Very simply, the IMF agreement with Jamaica is designed to ensure that creditors, local and foreign, who are owed more than a trillion Jamaican dollars are paid their pound of flesh as per agreement. And, as is the refrain in the United States, 99% of Jamaicans (who had no part in contracting this debt) will unfairly have to bear the burden of paying back the debt, especially hard on the 1.2 million who are living below the poverty line, including the 14% (according to official statistics) who are unemployed.
The OWS movement, which is being replicated all over the world, is shining a bright spotlight on a reality that exists globally -- not just in New York and the rest of the United States -- that it is the poor, the working class, who are being forced to bear the burden of this global economic crisis. The US financial aristocracy for example, [the 1%] were bailed out by the US government with billions of dollars of public money and there is nothing positive to show for such largesse. Unemployment is at its highest since the 1930s depression and there is no will to tax the rich as the OWS and the majority of Americans are demanding according to recent polls.
In Jamaica the situation is no different. On the verge of defaulting or declaring bankruptcy the JLP government turned to the IMF for a bail out, but with the understanding that massive burdens would be placed on the poor as the basis of the IMF guarantee to creditors.
The fact that the government has not completely performed its end of the bargain as demanded by the IMF should not be interpreted to mean that there is any fundamental conflict between the two. One of the main sticking points is that the government had been expected to institute massive public sector layoffs, but not done because of declining public support over the Coke affair which they fear would be compounded by labour strife. As the IMF no doubt realizes such savaging (as Seaga sympathetically describes it) has to be done at the most opportune time.
Will Andrew Holness be able to pull it off? Or must it wait until a possible PNP government is in power? There is no reason to believe that the PNP would be shy about taking such resolute action. After all, they have been crying for the government to get back on track with the IMF.
So if the real import of the OWS or 99% Movement is to have any meaning in Jamaica the appropriate slogans and demands must be raised.
1. No to public sector layoffs. The unions have sent mixed signals about this. as if they would be prepared to accept such layoffs. These trade union bureaucrats must not be allowed to betray the workers.
2. Tax the rich. The government could only muster the courage to impose a minimal tax increase on incomes over 5 million dollars for one year! The taxation measures being discussed in parliament and endorsed by the IMF is nothing but a trick… to impose a more regressive taxation system on the poor and the working class and reduce taxes for the wealthy and for corporations. This must be rejected.
3. Repudiate the debt. It cannot be repaid. The Debt Exchange, though praised, did not go far enough. Where is the economic rebound to come from to reduce the debt other than from squeezing the poor who cannot be squeezed any further.
4. Debt repudiation must be accompanied by a forensic audit of the national debt to determine who else other than those before the courts, have corruptly enriched themselves at the public expense. The culprits are many, and in very high places.
5. Those financial institutions which engaged in irresponsible lending to our politicians should not expect the poor to pay back such loans. Highway 2000? Palisadoes Highway? etc. etc.
6. Free health care. The deteriorating situation in public hospitals is not because of user fee removal as the PNP and some doctors foolishly believe, but because of underfunding.
7. Free education. The same problem as in the health sector – poor test results are a direct result of the historical underfunding by successive governments and now the savage cuts undertaken by this government.
8. Massive public works programmes must be enacted to put people back to work.
The above is the context in which an OWS or a 99% Movement makes sense in Jamaica.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Bruce Golding plays another three card trick
Orchestrators of Tivoli massacre must not go unpunished
Once again Bruce Golding has one been able to outmaneuver the media, commentators, talk show hosts, and so-called civil society. Forced to resign because he compromised himself with Christopher Dudus Coke, there are rumours of very damaging conversations between himself and Coke caught on tape in possession of the American DEA and Justice Department. Instead of focusing on such issues, the Jamaican media have become obsessed with the unfolding drama of who will be his replacement, and what will be the effect on upcoming elections without him in the race.
A distraction
All of that is of little significance compared to the role that Golding played in the unnecessary deaths of 73 to 200 people in Tivoli Gardens. Golding may have negotiated his resignation with the Americans as a way of saving himself further embarrassment, but as far as Jamaican society is concerned, there can be no deal.
Golding keeps saying that Coke’s constitutional rights were violated and yet he agreed to the extradition and resultant deaths of so many people. If Golding’s resignation as some commentators are now saying shows that he is not obsessed with power, then why did he not resign then, or stand up for Coke’s constitutional rights come what may.
Golding’s actions then and now are the signs of a very compromised, selfish and cowardly politician . . . not of a patriot.
Questions
(1) Do Jamaican authorities (those who recorded Coke’s conversations ) have copies of the tapes that are in possession of the Americans?
(2) Shouldn’t there be a commission of enquiry into these tapes to determine if any local co-conspirators of Coke have breached Jamaican laws?
(3) Why has the Public Defender refused to conduct his own investigation into the role played by those with command responsibility for the Tivoli massacre --- prime minister, police commissioner, head of the JDF, and others -- to determine if they have criminal charges to answer?
The media and so-called civil society organizations seem to believe that the snuffed out lives of poor Jamaican people are of no great significance but we in Campaign for Social and Economic Justice will continue to remind the world that there are mass murderers in our state apparatus who have the potential to commit far worse crimes than were committed last year.
And these mass murderers are emboldened by our continued silence.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
NB: Date for internet launching of Looking Back Looking Forward (formerly on Newstalk 93 FM) will soon be announced.
Once again Bruce Golding has one been able to outmaneuver the media, commentators, talk show hosts, and so-called civil society. Forced to resign because he compromised himself with Christopher Dudus Coke, there are rumours of very damaging conversations between himself and Coke caught on tape in possession of the American DEA and Justice Department. Instead of focusing on such issues, the Jamaican media have become obsessed with the unfolding drama of who will be his replacement, and what will be the effect on upcoming elections without him in the race.
A distraction
All of that is of little significance compared to the role that Golding played in the unnecessary deaths of 73 to 200 people in Tivoli Gardens. Golding may have negotiated his resignation with the Americans as a way of saving himself further embarrassment, but as far as Jamaican society is concerned, there can be no deal.
Golding keeps saying that Coke’s constitutional rights were violated and yet he agreed to the extradition and resultant deaths of so many people. If Golding’s resignation as some commentators are now saying shows that he is not obsessed with power, then why did he not resign then, or stand up for Coke’s constitutional rights come what may.
Golding’s actions then and now are the signs of a very compromised, selfish and cowardly politician . . . not of a patriot.
Questions
(1) Do Jamaican authorities (those who recorded Coke’s conversations ) have copies of the tapes that are in possession of the Americans?
(2) Shouldn’t there be a commission of enquiry into these tapes to determine if any local co-conspirators of Coke have breached Jamaican laws?
(3) Why has the Public Defender refused to conduct his own investigation into the role played by those with command responsibility for the Tivoli massacre --- prime minister, police commissioner, head of the JDF, and others -- to determine if they have criminal charges to answer?
The media and so-called civil society organizations seem to believe that the snuffed out lives of poor Jamaican people are of no great significance but we in Campaign for Social and Economic Justice will continue to remind the world that there are mass murderers in our state apparatus who have the potential to commit far worse crimes than were committed last year.
And these mass murderers are emboldened by our continued silence.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Campaign for Social and Economic Justice
NB: Date for internet launching of Looking Back Looking Forward (formerly on Newstalk 93 FM) will soon be announced.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Bruce Golding to resign and so should the police commissioner
Bruce Golding has said he will resign as party leader and as prime minister for reasons not clear – though there was some babble about the toll of the office.
It is the people of Tivoli Gardens, however, who could have and who should have called for his immediate resignation for the dastardly role that he played in last year’s Tivoli Gardens massacre, a constituency that he was elected to represent.
Furthermore, there is need for an immediate investigation to determine if he should be charged for his command responsibility in those crimes committed.
Genesis of Golding’s dastardly role in Tivoli Gardens' massacre
(1) Golding would have had to get the blessings of Christopher Coke to represent west Kingston and Tivoli in particular.
(2) Golding was made aware almost immediately after taking office that the US justice system was preparing to indict Coke for his involvement in drugs and gun trafficking.
(3) So intriguing is the possible relationship between Golding and Coke that the question was raised at the Manat Commission of Enquiry as to whether Golding had tipped off Coke about the indictment. The factual background to that question was that Golding was made aware by US sources of the indictment when it happened and Coke knew almost immediately according to wiretapped conversations. How did Coke find out so quickly?
(4) Golding tried to protect Coke by contending that the extradition request was based on wiretap evidence that violated Coke’s constitutional rights. Golding boasted in parliament that rather than betray Coke he was prepared pay the ultimate political price in order to defend those constitutional rights.
(5) Jamaican civil society refused to accept Golding’s position, and demanded his resignation.
(6) Rumours began to circulate that the Americans had either indicted Golding for obstructing the extradition of Coke or, had other damaging information regarding his association with Coke that could prove embarrassing or be used against in him other ways.
(7) Golding wilted under the pressure and after withdrawing his phony threat to resign betrayed Mr Coke’s constitutional rights by having his Attorney General approve the extradition.
(8) Clearly, it is still a moot point that Coke’s constitutional rights were in fact compromised by the manner in which wiretap evidence was shared with the Americans. Golding might very well have been on good legal grounds but his reasons were clearly opportunistic.
(9) With the convenient help of some criminal west Kingston sympathizers of Coke, two police stations were firebombed which created hysterical media headlines about the state being under attack. A political decision was taken to crush Tivoli Gardens. This was in order to demonstrate to the Americans and Jamaican civil society that Golding was not a criminal associate of Coke as had been alleged by a major American media outlet; that he was prepared to destroy the fearsome Shower Posse; and by so doing justified his continued role as prime minister. This was certainly the implicit understanding with so-called civil society groups.
(10) The crushing of Tivoli was not politically difficult for Golding. He had already gone through a dress rehearsal for this when he failed to raise his voice about the 2008 security forces execution of five young men in Tivoli Gardens. The military was integrally involved in that operation and Golding is the minister in charge of the army.
(11) The 2010 assault on Tivoli Gardens went like clock work. First a state of emergency –- Golding as prime minister would have played a major role in the Cabinet’s decision to suspend the constitutional rights of Jamaican citizens on very flimsy grounds.
(12) The military carried out a counter-insurgency operation ( which had been planned long in advance) and as minister in charge of the army and as head of the Jamaica Defence Board Golding would have been in the thick of broad plans for the operation. If he chose he could have had very intimate briefings of what was happening on the ground.
(13) Some residents claim that when the operation started and frantic calls were made to him about the executions and abuses he turned off his phone. Why?
(14) Golding does not have the moral authority to represent the people of Tivoli Gardens and on that basis alone his very late resignation is quite logical.
Golding has resigned and now it is time for the police commissioner to resign and to be investigated for his command over the police abuses that were carried out against unarmed Jamaican citizens.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
It is the people of Tivoli Gardens, however, who could have and who should have called for his immediate resignation for the dastardly role that he played in last year’s Tivoli Gardens massacre, a constituency that he was elected to represent.
Furthermore, there is need for an immediate investigation to determine if he should be charged for his command responsibility in those crimes committed.
Genesis of Golding’s dastardly role in Tivoli Gardens' massacre
(1) Golding would have had to get the blessings of Christopher Coke to represent west Kingston and Tivoli in particular.
(2) Golding was made aware almost immediately after taking office that the US justice system was preparing to indict Coke for his involvement in drugs and gun trafficking.
(3) So intriguing is the possible relationship between Golding and Coke that the question was raised at the Manat Commission of Enquiry as to whether Golding had tipped off Coke about the indictment. The factual background to that question was that Golding was made aware by US sources of the indictment when it happened and Coke knew almost immediately according to wiretapped conversations. How did Coke find out so quickly?
(4) Golding tried to protect Coke by contending that the extradition request was based on wiretap evidence that violated Coke’s constitutional rights. Golding boasted in parliament that rather than betray Coke he was prepared pay the ultimate political price in order to defend those constitutional rights.
(5) Jamaican civil society refused to accept Golding’s position, and demanded his resignation.
(6) Rumours began to circulate that the Americans had either indicted Golding for obstructing the extradition of Coke or, had other damaging information regarding his association with Coke that could prove embarrassing or be used against in him other ways.
(7) Golding wilted under the pressure and after withdrawing his phony threat to resign betrayed Mr Coke’s constitutional rights by having his Attorney General approve the extradition.
(8) Clearly, it is still a moot point that Coke’s constitutional rights were in fact compromised by the manner in which wiretap evidence was shared with the Americans. Golding might very well have been on good legal grounds but his reasons were clearly opportunistic.
(9) With the convenient help of some criminal west Kingston sympathizers of Coke, two police stations were firebombed which created hysterical media headlines about the state being under attack. A political decision was taken to crush Tivoli Gardens. This was in order to demonstrate to the Americans and Jamaican civil society that Golding was not a criminal associate of Coke as had been alleged by a major American media outlet; that he was prepared to destroy the fearsome Shower Posse; and by so doing justified his continued role as prime minister. This was certainly the implicit understanding with so-called civil society groups.
(10) The crushing of Tivoli was not politically difficult for Golding. He had already gone through a dress rehearsal for this when he failed to raise his voice about the 2008 security forces execution of five young men in Tivoli Gardens. The military was integrally involved in that operation and Golding is the minister in charge of the army.
(11) The 2010 assault on Tivoli Gardens went like clock work. First a state of emergency –- Golding as prime minister would have played a major role in the Cabinet’s decision to suspend the constitutional rights of Jamaican citizens on very flimsy grounds.
(12) The military carried out a counter-insurgency operation ( which had been planned long in advance) and as minister in charge of the army and as head of the Jamaica Defence Board Golding would have been in the thick of broad plans for the operation. If he chose he could have had very intimate briefings of what was happening on the ground.
(13) Some residents claim that when the operation started and frantic calls were made to him about the executions and abuses he turned off his phone. Why?
(14) Golding does not have the moral authority to represent the people of Tivoli Gardens and on that basis alone his very late resignation is quite logical.
Golding has resigned and now it is time for the police commissioner to resign and to be investigated for his command over the police abuses that were carried out against unarmed Jamaican citizens.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Public Defender sees urgency to investigate Brownings story but not in regard to those who had command responsibility for killing black people in Tivoli Gardens
“Witter on the warpath… public defender to launch investigation into role played by prime minister, police commissioner, chief of staff of JDF and others into 2010 Tivoli Gardens massacre” was what I was hoping that today’s Sunday Gleaner headline (September 18)really said.
Instead the Public Defender is supposedly on the warpath about an anonymous officer of HEART telling the Sunday Gleaner that some employers prefer to employ brownings. In the article the Public Defender hinted that he has the power to compel HEART to give the names of those employers. I hope he does get the names so it can be determined whether this matter is really just a sensational Gleaner headline trying to outsell the competition or a problem that requires not only the intervention of the Public Defender but the rest of civil society in order to stamp out an ugly racist practice.
But what about the Public Defender using the same powers to compel the prime minister to tell about his role in last year’s security forces massacre of innocent civilians in Tivoli Gardens and its environs. The prime minister would have had discussions with the police commissioner about the so-called attack on the state; the prime minster would have persuaded his cabinet to declare a state of emergency; the prime minister would have had discussions with the chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force about its deployment into west Kingston; the prime minister as head of the National Defence Board would surely have met with the Board to consider the parameters of the operations. Once the operations began one would have expected the prime minister to ask for reports from the heads of the security forces (whether directly or through his minister of national security) in terms of what was happening on the ground. Surely the prime minister would have had a special interest in the matter in terms of being the political representative for the area. Indeed, it is my understanding that from the very beginning residents got messages through to the prime minister about the massacres taking place. Did the prime minister do anything about these direct reports to him? If he did nothing was this criminal negligence or complicity with murder?
In response to Mr. Edward Seaga claiming that the prime minister was at some point trying, unsuccessfully, to get the army to leave the area, Colonel Rocky Meade made it plain that the army would never disobey an order from the prime minister. The implications of this is clear: the prime minister, who is also the minister of defence, not sanctioned the deployment of the army, but gave no orders as Mr. Seaga suggested for it to pull back. This suggests that he has taken full responsibility for their conduct (as he should) and the public record supports that. He has at no time expressed any concern about their conduct or about the sufferings of the people he politically represents in parliament. Indeed, the prime went so far as to tell the people of Tivoli that what happened could not have been avoided!
Questions to Public Defender, Ear Witter
Do you, Mr. Witter believe this, that bloodshed was unavoidable? Don’t you think it is your duty according to the powers vested in you under the Public Defenders’ Act to investigate the truth of this allegation? Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin has testified that there was intelligence gathering on the activities of Coke. Shouldn’t you Mr. Witter appraise yourself of this intelligence in order to assess why Mr. Coke could not have been arrested in a more efficient way? Or was Tivoli Gardens to be the sacrificial lamb to appease higher powers and save Mr. Golding’s career?
And what about the police commissioner? How could the police commissioner have congratulated the security forces on a professional job in the middle of accusations that residents were being summarily executed by the men he commanded? I’m sure that in the statements collected by your office, residents would have told you that security force personnel taunted them with the claim that they were sent to kill dem off. Was that the professional instruction given by their commanders?
The chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force has similar questions to answer. Were instructions given to JDF snipers to shoot innocent civilians as they scampered about to save their lives -- sometimes for just trying to get to the hospital? On what basis for did US surveillance planes fly into Jamaica from Guantanamo Bay to be part of the operations? Were they there to assist JDF helicopters in dropping incendiary devices on civilians? Certainly the prime minister and head of the JDF must be compelled to answer these questions.
As you know very well Mr. Witter, the Tivoli Committee of which I am a member wrote to you asking that you use your powers (similar to that possessed by the Contractor General) to launch an investigation into the role played by those who had command responsibility for the operations. Such an investigation would not be in conflict with a Commission of Enquiry but a very needed complement.
Unfortunately, you have not only refused to meet with us but insist that your preferred course of action is through a Commission of Enquiry. Allow me to state publicly what we told you privately. Apart from the question of whether the government has the desire for another commission of enquiry so soon after the last fiasco (same goes for civil society especially now that general elections are being hyped), a commission of enquiry ultimately makes recommendations which the government is not bound to accept. The terms of reference and the appointment of commissioners is ultimately the sole prerogative of the government as was demonstrated in the last commission of enquiry. If history is to be our guide, another commission of enquiry is bound to end up as a white wash as others have been, and ultimately 73 or 200 people would have been killed without anyone being held accountable.
As it currently stands your office is the only one that has the potential independence and mandate to carry out the kind of investigation that would make a difference in determining whether those who had command responsibility for last year’s carnage should face criminal charges – or what is defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as crimes against humanity.
And as for the ICC, it should be clear to everyone by now that the real reason why neither PNP nor JLP government saw fit to ratify the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, is precisely so that in situations such as what happened last year, those who have command responsibility for crimes against the people can be further shielded from legal scrutiny at the international level.
It would be truly sad that that your office turns out to be just another cog to facilitate impunity for state crimes against the people.
How ironic it is that white British progressives saw the necessity to agitate for Governor John Eyre to be put on trial for his role in the 1865 massacre, but in 2011 independent Jamaica, people are more exercised about sensational browning stories than the murder of black Jamaicans by a black Jamaican government, even if lead by a browning.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Instead the Public Defender is supposedly on the warpath about an anonymous officer of HEART telling the Sunday Gleaner that some employers prefer to employ brownings. In the article the Public Defender hinted that he has the power to compel HEART to give the names of those employers. I hope he does get the names so it can be determined whether this matter is really just a sensational Gleaner headline trying to outsell the competition or a problem that requires not only the intervention of the Public Defender but the rest of civil society in order to stamp out an ugly racist practice.
But what about the Public Defender using the same powers to compel the prime minister to tell about his role in last year’s security forces massacre of innocent civilians in Tivoli Gardens and its environs. The prime minister would have had discussions with the police commissioner about the so-called attack on the state; the prime minster would have persuaded his cabinet to declare a state of emergency; the prime minister would have had discussions with the chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force about its deployment into west Kingston; the prime minister as head of the National Defence Board would surely have met with the Board to consider the parameters of the operations. Once the operations began one would have expected the prime minister to ask for reports from the heads of the security forces (whether directly or through his minister of national security) in terms of what was happening on the ground. Surely the prime minister would have had a special interest in the matter in terms of being the political representative for the area. Indeed, it is my understanding that from the very beginning residents got messages through to the prime minister about the massacres taking place. Did the prime minister do anything about these direct reports to him? If he did nothing was this criminal negligence or complicity with murder?
In response to Mr. Edward Seaga claiming that the prime minister was at some point trying, unsuccessfully, to get the army to leave the area, Colonel Rocky Meade made it plain that the army would never disobey an order from the prime minister. The implications of this is clear: the prime minister, who is also the minister of defence, not sanctioned the deployment of the army, but gave no orders as Mr. Seaga suggested for it to pull back. This suggests that he has taken full responsibility for their conduct (as he should) and the public record supports that. He has at no time expressed any concern about their conduct or about the sufferings of the people he politically represents in parliament. Indeed, the prime went so far as to tell the people of Tivoli that what happened could not have been avoided!
Questions to Public Defender, Ear Witter
Do you, Mr. Witter believe this, that bloodshed was unavoidable? Don’t you think it is your duty according to the powers vested in you under the Public Defenders’ Act to investigate the truth of this allegation? Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin has testified that there was intelligence gathering on the activities of Coke. Shouldn’t you Mr. Witter appraise yourself of this intelligence in order to assess why Mr. Coke could not have been arrested in a more efficient way? Or was Tivoli Gardens to be the sacrificial lamb to appease higher powers and save Mr. Golding’s career?
And what about the police commissioner? How could the police commissioner have congratulated the security forces on a professional job in the middle of accusations that residents were being summarily executed by the men he commanded? I’m sure that in the statements collected by your office, residents would have told you that security force personnel taunted them with the claim that they were sent to kill dem off. Was that the professional instruction given by their commanders?
The chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force has similar questions to answer. Were instructions given to JDF snipers to shoot innocent civilians as they scampered about to save their lives -- sometimes for just trying to get to the hospital? On what basis for did US surveillance planes fly into Jamaica from Guantanamo Bay to be part of the operations? Were they there to assist JDF helicopters in dropping incendiary devices on civilians? Certainly the prime minister and head of the JDF must be compelled to answer these questions.
As you know very well Mr. Witter, the Tivoli Committee of which I am a member wrote to you asking that you use your powers (similar to that possessed by the Contractor General) to launch an investigation into the role played by those who had command responsibility for the operations. Such an investigation would not be in conflict with a Commission of Enquiry but a very needed complement.
Unfortunately, you have not only refused to meet with us but insist that your preferred course of action is through a Commission of Enquiry. Allow me to state publicly what we told you privately. Apart from the question of whether the government has the desire for another commission of enquiry so soon after the last fiasco (same goes for civil society especially now that general elections are being hyped), a commission of enquiry ultimately makes recommendations which the government is not bound to accept. The terms of reference and the appointment of commissioners is ultimately the sole prerogative of the government as was demonstrated in the last commission of enquiry. If history is to be our guide, another commission of enquiry is bound to end up as a white wash as others have been, and ultimately 73 or 200 people would have been killed without anyone being held accountable.
As it currently stands your office is the only one that has the potential independence and mandate to carry out the kind of investigation that would make a difference in determining whether those who had command responsibility for last year’s carnage should face criminal charges – or what is defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as crimes against humanity.
And as for the ICC, it should be clear to everyone by now that the real reason why neither PNP nor JLP government saw fit to ratify the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, is precisely so that in situations such as what happened last year, those who have command responsibility for crimes against the people can be further shielded from legal scrutiny at the international level.
It would be truly sad that that your office turns out to be just another cog to facilitate impunity for state crimes against the people.
How ironic it is that white British progressives saw the necessity to agitate for Governor John Eyre to be put on trial for his role in the 1865 massacre, but in 2011 independent Jamaica, people are more exercised about sensational browning stories than the murder of black Jamaicans by a black Jamaican government, even if lead by a browning.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Open Letter to Cordel Green -- Broadcasting Commission CEO
A broader look at what is payola
Dear Cordel Green,
Two weeks in a row I see favourable press reviews of you and the Broadcasting Commission in the Gleaner written by one of my favourite Gleaner writers Mr Mel Cooke. I am a fan of the serious poems that Mel writes and interviewed him on my radio programme “Looking Back Looking Forward” some years ago. This programme by the way was broadcast on Sundays on Newstalk 93 FM for four years and was the number one listened to programme at that station and on radio during that slot until I was summarily fired at your instigation.
However, it is the subject of payola that forced me to take up pen (I will come back to the firing in a moment) because that seems to be the next crusade being undertaken by you and the Broadcasting Commission. Let me first declare that I have no knowledge about payola, it probably exists, it can’t be a good thing, but I wonder how much knowledge you yourself have of it, and assuming that you have knowledge, I call upon you to share it with the public, and have the broadest possible discussion before you march off to the holy land. In fact this call for an open discussion is dictated by having been a victim of one of your self-righteous crusades against Ragashanti -- in other words your indiscriminate slash and burn method to protect public morality.
The problem here is that while it is convenient to see payola in terms of paying for musical air time, what about payola where a well-paid public administrator such as yourself (paid by taxpayers hard earned money) uses his power to force media owners to do things at his will. And here I’m talking about the hiring and firing of radio talk show hosts that you don’t care for?
Firing -- first case in point. I will not revisit your firing of Ragashanti, he is better able to speak for himself, but because I happened to disagree with how you handled the Ragashanti matter your knee jerk response was to have me fired from Newstalk. You were invited by me to discuss the matter along with Raga (though separately) and after agreeing to be on the programme, you called to cancel a couple hours before based upon an alleged meeting you forgot about. Within minutes after the interview began with Raga you were nevertheless able to call the General Manager away from a moment of relaxation she was enjoying to complain about the criticisms that were being raised about your handling of the matter. (What about that meeting your supposed to be in Mr Green?)
This call precipitated my firing within less than 24 hours. What power and influence were you using when you made that call? Why was it so urgent to call instead of following your own protocol and write a letter to make your complaint? I don’t gamble but I will bet you publicly that you subsequently wrote no letter of complaint because the General Manager, as Mr Bruce Golding famously said, was a very convenient "lubricated conduit". Do you therefore like Pilate wash your hands of the whole matter as if you had nothing to do with it?
Hiring – second case in point: On two occasions I was about to be hired by Bess FM and then things went cold. When I enquired I was informed, and on at least one of the occasions by the owner of the station himself, that he had to consult with the Broadcasting Commission as to whether I could be hired or not?
I have no direct knowledge as to what transpired between the owner and the Broadcasting Commission (you certainly would know) but given today’s Sunday Gleaner article where there is a suggestion that radio DJs (and I’m not a DJ by any means) might come under some kind scrutiny for potential conflict of interest, it is not far fetched to believe that grateful media owners (grateful for getting a licence from the powerful Broadcasting Commission for example) might believe it necessary or convenient or prudent to consult with you on everything including whom to hire and fire what they might eat for lunch? Of course we know that you would never advise people what to eat for lunch but it’s interesting that some media owners should have that impression.
So what other indirect or not so subtle powers of persuasion does the Broadcasting Commission have? Could the $32 million dollars of taxpayers’ money that is given to the Commission from the national budget and earmarked for “public education” be a source of subtle influence wielding. After all, in these tight financial times media houses competing for scarce and shrinking advertising dollars would be most grateful for any dollar that the Commission spends with them. (Bess FM I’m sure is grateful for those dollars that you have spent with them). Would they be willing to do your bidding by a wink or a nod? This is certainly not payola as commonly defined but in reality is it any different?
The Press Association of Jamaica, along with others who consider themselves liberals or as having a social conscience, may chose to be deaf, dumb and blind to the implications of what has happened in my case, but there is no denying that part of your mission, by casting such a wide net is political censorship. Those who dare to criticise the Broadcasting Commission and in my case also, being described as "too anti-establishment" are fair game. There are varying degrees of anti-establishment persons in the media, and I have no doubt that your radar is well attuned to send them a message, or fix them, even if by a phone call or a nod or maybe a wink. Nothing can be proved. Or outrightly threatening to yank their licence. There is no way you can deny that political censorship was the ultimate consequence in my case. I’ll allow Raga to argue his case.
Finally, one of the disappointments of this government is that they did not follow through on their pre-election promise that individuals appointed to public jobs such as yours, should before being appointed, be subject to parliamentary or public scrutiny so that we may know beforehand about agendas, real or apparent. And the worst choice that could possibly be made is someone who can’t take public criticism. That is the one of the main ingredients of the imperial censor.
Sincerely,
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Dear Cordel Green,
Two weeks in a row I see favourable press reviews of you and the Broadcasting Commission in the Gleaner written by one of my favourite Gleaner writers Mr Mel Cooke. I am a fan of the serious poems that Mel writes and interviewed him on my radio programme “Looking Back Looking Forward” some years ago. This programme by the way was broadcast on Sundays on Newstalk 93 FM for four years and was the number one listened to programme at that station and on radio during that slot until I was summarily fired at your instigation.
However, it is the subject of payola that forced me to take up pen (I will come back to the firing in a moment) because that seems to be the next crusade being undertaken by you and the Broadcasting Commission. Let me first declare that I have no knowledge about payola, it probably exists, it can’t be a good thing, but I wonder how much knowledge you yourself have of it, and assuming that you have knowledge, I call upon you to share it with the public, and have the broadest possible discussion before you march off to the holy land. In fact this call for an open discussion is dictated by having been a victim of one of your self-righteous crusades against Ragashanti -- in other words your indiscriminate slash and burn method to protect public morality.
The problem here is that while it is convenient to see payola in terms of paying for musical air time, what about payola where a well-paid public administrator such as yourself (paid by taxpayers hard earned money) uses his power to force media owners to do things at his will. And here I’m talking about the hiring and firing of radio talk show hosts that you don’t care for?
Firing -- first case in point. I will not revisit your firing of Ragashanti, he is better able to speak for himself, but because I happened to disagree with how you handled the Ragashanti matter your knee jerk response was to have me fired from Newstalk. You were invited by me to discuss the matter along with Raga (though separately) and after agreeing to be on the programme, you called to cancel a couple hours before based upon an alleged meeting you forgot about. Within minutes after the interview began with Raga you were nevertheless able to call the General Manager away from a moment of relaxation she was enjoying to complain about the criticisms that were being raised about your handling of the matter. (What about that meeting your supposed to be in Mr Green?)
This call precipitated my firing within less than 24 hours. What power and influence were you using when you made that call? Why was it so urgent to call instead of following your own protocol and write a letter to make your complaint? I don’t gamble but I will bet you publicly that you subsequently wrote no letter of complaint because the General Manager, as Mr Bruce Golding famously said, was a very convenient "lubricated conduit". Do you therefore like Pilate wash your hands of the whole matter as if you had nothing to do with it?
Hiring – second case in point: On two occasions I was about to be hired by Bess FM and then things went cold. When I enquired I was informed, and on at least one of the occasions by the owner of the station himself, that he had to consult with the Broadcasting Commission as to whether I could be hired or not?
I have no direct knowledge as to what transpired between the owner and the Broadcasting Commission (you certainly would know) but given today’s Sunday Gleaner article where there is a suggestion that radio DJs (and I’m not a DJ by any means) might come under some kind scrutiny for potential conflict of interest, it is not far fetched to believe that grateful media owners (grateful for getting a licence from the powerful Broadcasting Commission for example) might believe it necessary or convenient or prudent to consult with you on everything including whom to hire and fire what they might eat for lunch? Of course we know that you would never advise people what to eat for lunch but it’s interesting that some media owners should have that impression.
So what other indirect or not so subtle powers of persuasion does the Broadcasting Commission have? Could the $32 million dollars of taxpayers’ money that is given to the Commission from the national budget and earmarked for “public education” be a source of subtle influence wielding. After all, in these tight financial times media houses competing for scarce and shrinking advertising dollars would be most grateful for any dollar that the Commission spends with them. (Bess FM I’m sure is grateful for those dollars that you have spent with them). Would they be willing to do your bidding by a wink or a nod? This is certainly not payola as commonly defined but in reality is it any different?
The Press Association of Jamaica, along with others who consider themselves liberals or as having a social conscience, may chose to be deaf, dumb and blind to the implications of what has happened in my case, but there is no denying that part of your mission, by casting such a wide net is political censorship. Those who dare to criticise the Broadcasting Commission and in my case also, being described as "too anti-establishment" are fair game. There are varying degrees of anti-establishment persons in the media, and I have no doubt that your radar is well attuned to send them a message, or fix them, even if by a phone call or a nod or maybe a wink. Nothing can be proved. Or outrightly threatening to yank their licence. There is no way you can deny that political censorship was the ultimate consequence in my case. I’ll allow Raga to argue his case.
Finally, one of the disappointments of this government is that they did not follow through on their pre-election promise that individuals appointed to public jobs such as yours, should before being appointed, be subject to parliamentary or public scrutiny so that we may know beforehand about agendas, real or apparent. And the worst choice that could possibly be made is someone who can’t take public criticism. That is the one of the main ingredients of the imperial censor.
Sincerely,
Lloyd D’Aguilar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)