Wasn’t the UWI the recipient of funds from CLICO? If I am correct, then you can understand their tardiness or reluctance to become involved in any meaningful discourse. Ditto for political parties and the Boards of Directors of CLICO companies, all handsomely rewarded. So you can understand the “Code of Silence”.

From: Godfrey J. Martin
Sent: 25 July 2012 10:46
To: ‘Afra Raymond’
Subject: Your recent article

Hi Afra,

I read Terrence Farrell’s article on the appointment of Jwala and it makes impelling reading. Notwithstanding the issues that you have raised about Ewart Williams’ stewardship, the central thesis of the article is germane. We have been seeing an assault on all the key institutions and there is no pretence about seeking to make use of the most competent. It appears that ethnic balancing, loyalty and race may be decisive factors here. This is not to say that the PNM did not engage in some of the same behaviour. We are a small society and our talented resources in key areas are limited. When governments continue to simply move people because they belong or appear to be associated with the wrong party then we are on a slippery slope. As one colleague points out, when you assault critical institutions, the injury to the fabric of the society runs deep.

One of the important lessons from the advanced economies is the role of institutional building. This is what is going to help us to survive and prosper in the long run. This helps to build successors. What I have seen with some of the appointments is disheartening. Look for instance, the appointments at UTT for example and the attempts to clearly damage this institution. They have fired some of the best talent at UTT and effectively appear to be dismantling some key programmes. There is no serious national plan or programme and one commentator referred to the goings on as “We time come”.

I think that Terrence was clearly illuminating the dangers and the consistent pattern in their behaviour and we have to recognise that. I am very glad that he came out and spoke openly and I think that more of our professionals and economists need to do more of this. The situation can deteriorate into serious conflicts within the society and it is incumbent on “the validating elites” to also speak up.

I recognise that many of our professionals have been silent on many of the critical issues of the day. These include the absence of any serious discussion from the university and from any of the professional associations. None of the lawyers came out to comment on the behaviour of Gita in the CL affair. None of the accountants came out to deal with the conduct of one of their lot in the handling of the audit of the CL accounts. You have pointed out that there has been a “code of silence”.

I am very grateful that you were one of the few that have led the debate on the behaviour of key stakeholders in this CLICO/CL fiasco. It is unfortunate that many did not take up the mantle to engage in serious dialogue here. We really need to learn the lessons from this episode and in my view several people should have been arrested and brought to book a long time ago. This may now never occur.

We have to re-engineer the financial infrastructure in T&T and in the Caribbean. We cannot import the models in use in the Western capitals. Those of us who work in some of these centres understand the failures and the mistakes. We have to revisit the fundamentals of what we want to do in our societies and our mode of development. I fully endorse that transparency will be critical and is one of the important ingredients in reducing corruption, malfeasance and poor corporate governance. I remember Lloyd Best saying that you cannot have a “19th century economy and economic relations and want to operate as if you are running a “21st century economy”. I think that we have to go back to some fundamentals. One of the things that we will have to change is some of our cultural practices that are inimical to our own development.

Anyhow, I thought that your article did not do justice to Terry’s intent. You were letting the Prime Minister and her government off the hook. The performance of Ewart Williams and many others will come under scrutiny soon but I would suggest that that is not the critical issue here and should not divert our attention from the central thesis.

Furthermore, do not only blame the regulators. They may be guilty of omission, innocence, allowing political interference to dictate matters among other things, but they were not the owners and directors who engage in corrupt and illegal behaviour and broke the law. These Directors lied to their shareholders and their customers and the Government and they lived way above their means. Should Duprey and Harry and Monteil be living off the fat that they captured?

Let the debate continue! Keep on writing.

Regards

Godfrey

Godfrey J. Martin, PhD

Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Good Day Afra,

I’ve been enjoying the dialogue between Terrence Farrell and yourself. I was pleased that he had expressed his very strong views on the Governor’s appointment so succinctly. He is a commentator who I hold in the highest regard.

While I agreed with almost everything he wrote, I struggled to comprehend the fulsome praise for Ewart Williams, given his clear failings in the very expensive CLICO debacle. How is this contradiction to be explained?

The answer, it seems to me, lies in the two distinct roles that the Governor of our Central Bank is asked to perform. Firstly, he is a classical Central Bank Governor dealing with monetary policy etc. But secondly, he is the regulator of several important financial institutions.

His failings are in this second role. I leave judgment on his performance of the first role to those more qualified than myself. My confidence in the expertise of TF in that area is certainly sufficient to accept that he has performed creditably.

Equally, it should be obvious to all and sundry that he has failed spectacularly in his regulatory role. It pains me that we haven’t had the urgent review of this failing that is needed to prevent a repeat. More than three years after the collapse, we have had no admission of regulatory failures, just excuses. Without an understanding of how we went wrong, what hope is there of corrective action?

You will also know Afra, that I consider the failings of the Regulator after the MOU to be more serious and more costly than before the MOU. It is illogical to expect one institution to both run a business and be its regulator. Many of the things being done by CLICO would fall foul of a half-decent regulator, but who is there to protect us?

The lack of input by our professionals and institutions is shameful. We need more dialogue and more transparency from the authorities. I thank TF for joining the discussion and helping to break what you so correctly describe as a Code of Silence.

I look forward to even more insightful discourse in the near future.

David