BACK in the 1970s when the People’s National Party Government was flirting with Democratic Socialism, I was serving as the full-time chaplain of the Mona Campus of the University of the West Indies. I recall preaching a sermon in which I raised the question of communal rights versus individual rights and liberties within that model of governance.

I raised the question in these terms, “When does the vendor in the Papine Market have a voice and a right to be heard within the framework of this communitarian model?” I recall that it raised some level of discussion among the faithful, which one hardly tends to receive, as the faithful tend to be polite in their comments after a sermon.

There is a perception that this is a question which is appropriate only to communist and socialist systems of government as the democratic system of governance is supposed to epitomise the ultimate expression and protection of individual rights and freedoms. I have come to see this more and more as a lie peddled by those who control governance and those who are most privileged in society.

It certainly appears that not only the ordinary man has a difficulty being heard as having a voice and a right to be heard, but large communities in today’s Jamaica have to take to the streets and to threaten social disorder before they are heard and acknowledged as having a legitimate voice by the relevant authorities.

Today there are systems and structures being put in place which purport to be about accountability and the protection of the corporate good and which are becoming extremely oppressive. They also alienate the ordinary citizen. It is as if the measures which are supposedly intended to be in the interest of people are losing their human touch and are becoming mechanical and impersonal.

The situation reminds me of a story I heard some time ago of the Christian teacher who was so deeply committed to God that he wanted all of his students to learn about the love of God. Unfortunately, many of his students neither understood nor shared his enthusiastic embrace of the love of God.

As the story goes, he was so incensed by their slowness and failure to learn about the love of God that he committed himself “to beat the hell out of them until they learnt about the love of God”.

While it appears that individuals are not being heard within the system of governance and the administration of institutions within the country, it is also true that there are groups that wield a certain amount of clout and that are able to get a response from those in authority when they speak or issue statements.

In this regard, I am indeed grateful to the president of the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, Mr Milton Samuda who, no doubt fully cognisant of the power of the business interest which he represents, has sought to challenge those in governance to remove the bureaucracy and red tape which are frustrating the entry of foreign investments into the country.

According to a report carried in this newspaper, while Mr Samuda, an attorney by profession, knows first-hand why procedures for investments in Jamaica must be adhered to and the proper protocols observed, he stands convinced that those procedures should be expeditiously done so you don’t have an investor endlessly waiting for a decision in what is supposed to be an investor-friendly country.

Citing examples of delays related to the licensing and approval of the REDJet and the Claro/Digicel deals, he proceeded further to assert: “I am not saying these are simple things — we know they can be complicated; nevertheless, there must be a degree of urgency bringing these projects to fruition”.

I am particularly struck by the forthrightness with which Mr Samuda speaks to this issue, as in the following comments:

“When people are talking about public sector reform, invariably they are referring to job numbers, eliminating duplication wages and salaries. Those things are important, but public sector reform must also adopt a new mindset where it views itself as a facilitating agency. Too many pockets of it are like stumbling blocks and impediments. No one is saying one should not be vigilant when going about their work, but all too often it is not within the framework of facilitating an investor. The entire approach and mindset has to change in Jamaica if we are going to seriously attract investment into this country. No one coming here wants to be strangled by bureaucracy, a lack of transparency and an unwillingness to expedite a project.”

A declaration of this nature by one in such a pivotal role in the realm of commerce and business will get a response from those in governance and will probably evoke a lecture from those within the bureaucracy informing him of some situation of a decade past which now requires all of the controls and red tape that are now in place. Clearly, however, we need such a pronouncement as that offered by Mr Samuda, because the country needs these foreign investments if we are to grow and develop.

Where I must part company with Mr Samuda is at the seeming boundaries of his interest in the commercial investment into the country as articulated in this particular pronouncement. I am compelled to move to a concern for the increasing red tape and bureaucracy which are overtaking our country daily, not just in the realm of the public sector, but in private and public institutions, and in the way the ordinary citizen of this country is being handled as he/she tries to carry out his/her daily activities.

And yet, even as I try to part company with Mr Samuda, I must draw on his well-articulated assessment of life in this country which, while packaged in the language of commerce, speaks to the everyday experience of citizens. So he says:

“I have had this discussion with prime ministers PJ Patterson, Portia Simpson Miller and Bruce Golding. Government has viewed the private sector almost as homogeneously dishonest and therefore all the administrative requirements, legislative hurdles and regulations are designed to catch people doing things. Therefore, if the approval needed requires two steps, you then put in 10 steps to stop any shady dealings.

“What the Government should in fact be doing is leaving it at the two forms instead of the 20 and then the money you save from reducing the bureaucracy you put into other good use, including detection and punishment.”

The day-to-day experience of persons trying to do transactions with the financial institutions in this country is a nightmare. My recent experiences tell me in my very warped mind that these institutions employ management personnel to come up with the most ridiculous regulations and red tape imaginable, to dust off the records of several decades past for precedence, and to read the daily reports of criminal activity to come up with regulations to stop the entire population from the prospect of doing something illegal and criminal.

In the course of the life of most of us who have a bank account, we place the name of someone of our choosing to co-sign on the account. The recognised clause used over the ages is “either or survivor”. Often, the intention is to ensure that in the event of incapacity or death, the alternate person will have access to our funds.

Accordingly, those accounts are usually listed with an “either/or” designation for transactions. This has been standard practice and expresses the will of the account holder. Now, the financial institutions have claimed for themselves the right to say who can do transactions with their own money on their own account. So now, in recent time I have been told that I cannot close an account with some residual funds in it without the other optional party coming in and signing the withdrawal form.

In another case, having operated a chequing account for nine years, and being the only one to have signed cheques over that period, I am now told that I cannot receive my new supply of cheque leaves without the signature of the optional partner as well.

Is it that the Bank of Jamaica and Financial Services Commission have lost their sense of mission and purpose, or is it that financial institutions have lost their sense of mental balance and are blaming these developments on the Bank of Jamaica and the Financial Services Commission which are exercising oversight?

In the most polite language possible that is appropriate for this medium, one can only ask of what business is it to those in governance and those running these institutions which of the optional co-signers close an account or collect cheque leaves?

Mr Samuda is entirely correct in saying that apparently those in governance and management in the public and private sectors seem to see the nation as “homogeneously dishonest” and therefore have designed regulations to catch people doing things.

What really requires two steps end up with 10 steps to stop any shady dealings. What ought to be done with two forms ends up requiring 20. His recommendation that there can be cost-cutting by reducing the bureaucracy should be obvious to all and sundry.

Having telephoned the management of some of these institutions from time to time expressing my concern, I am amazed by what they tell me is the allocated time for each customer transaction. The last officer informed me that it is five minutes. Not to mention that those of us who stand in line from time to time know that these calculations are extremely conservative, even as they represent a waste of productive man hours by the organisation and the customers who have to endure the same.

My fear is that if we continue on this senseless path we shall not only turn away the potential foreign investor but we shall see the already slow wheels of operation of areas of our commercial and social life come to a grinding halt. Perhaps we shall then be satisfied that the “homogenously dishonest” citizens have been eliminated and full accountability has been achieved.

— Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay

SAMUDA… public sector reform must also adopt a new mindset where it views itself as a facilitating agency