Dangers of full disclosure

The Editor, Sir,

I disagree with the analysis, inferences and assertions made by Peter Espeut in his recent article, titled, 'Shame, Professor Miller' (September 10). Mr Espeut states, "The so-called 'independent' members of the Electoral Com-mission of Jamaica (ECJ) have recommended to Parliament that only limited disclosure of contributions to political parties be required by law.

"If enacted, their proposal would cause political parties to declare their sources of funding in secret (no transparency there) to a special committee (set up by the two political parties) which will examine them, and only make them public if a false declaration has been made. How this committee will ever discover that a false declaration has been made is unclear."

Mr Espeut expresses little or no confidence in a special committee whose mandate would be to examine political contributions after they have been declared by the two parties, and goes on to question how such a committee will ever discover that a false declaration has been made. First, it seems to me that a false declaration can be made by either or both political party/parties, whether such a declaration is made to a secret committee or to the public. It seems to me that if there is a special committee in place, made up of competent and trustworthy individuals, to examine political contributions - albeit those that fall within a certain limit - a significant improvement to what currently exists would have been made.

FALSE DECLARATIONS

Second, if such a committee were not established and contributions were made public instead, would this not make it even more difficult for the public to determine if a false declaration was made? Mr Espeut does not seem to hold this view.

In another part of his article Mr Espeut states, "If all political contributions of whatever size are made publicly available (say, on a website, as is done in several other countries) the public will be able to correlate them with contracts or waivers awarded, and thereby discover conflicts of interest and influence peddling. That would be a giant step forward against corruption, and would clear the private sector of accusations made against them of political corruption."

I would like to ask Mr Espeut if a large political contribution from a person or entity necessarily means that if that person or entity receives a subsequent government contract or contracts, it necessarily follows that the person or entity was unfairly favoured by the government? If the person or entity was awarded a government contract and, when examined, all of the strict guidelines relating to the awarding of government contracts were adhered to, then the person or entity to whom the contract was awarded should not be unfairly targeted.

CORRUPTION

Yes, sometimes there is cor-ruption at play in the awarding of government contracts, but is this not why we have a contractor general? Should each and every government contract not be based on merit instead of taking the low road of linking the size of political contributions to the awarding of a government contract?

Last, the private sector of this country has to be protected because of the enormity of its value and importance to the economy. Because of the looming danger of political victimisation if full disclosure of political contributions is made, such a move would not be in the best interest of private-sector firms (those that make political contributions), both political parties and the country as a whole.

I am, etc.,

PATRICK A. GALLIMORE

pagalley@hotmail.com

If full disclosure of political contributions is made ... it would not be in the best interest of private-sector firms, political parties and the country as a whole.