Loading ...With respect to the financial assistance the Taiwanese Ambassador has been doling out, it appears that the government and the opposition are guided by two different ethical standards. There is no evidence to suggest that one standard is inherently better than the other. Nonetheless, I take the position that it is problematic to adhere to one standard on an issue at one time and to conveniently subscribe to another standard on the same issue at another time. I will concede that often we are not aware of the ethical principle that guides our position on an issue because we adopt the stance offered by the group(s) to which we belong (in this case instead of “group” read “political party”). In this article, I consider two ethical theories; then show how the perspectives on the Taiwanese funds offered by leading advocates of the two major political parties clearly indicate a difference in the ethical principle, which guides each political party.
Persons whose ethics are based on a teleological perspective maintain that we have a responsibility to pursue a good cause. This view is sometimes belittled by the claim that it is consistent with the maxim, “the end justifies the means”. However, those who adhere to teleological based ethical principles are motivated by the need to “do as much good to as many as possible”. The United Workers Party (UWP) appears to have adopted that position with respect to the disbursement of funds by the Taiwanese Ambassador. For instance, the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary Darnley Lebourne assured NewsSpin’s host on Wednesday December 2, 2009 that Saint Lucians would make a judgment on the merits of the Taiwanese money on the basis of the benefits they (Saint Lucians) accrue.
The comments offered by the parliamentary representative for Vieux Fort North, Moses Jn Baptiste, supported the view that it was inappropriate for the government and people of Saint Lucia to benefit from Taiwanese money if that money was ill gotten. In addition, the Vieux Fort Representative, member of the Saint Lucia Labour Party (SLP), intimated that the Taiwanese money was likely to be the cause of impropriety because those funds were not funneled through the Consolidated Fund.
Jn Baptiste was clearly implying that the controls associated with the use of money in the Consolidated Fund will deter politicians from inappropriate use of the Taiwanese money.
The position offered on the Taiwanese money by Jn Baptiste (and by extension the SLP) appears to be consistent with a deontological view of ethics. This view of ethics posits that a person has a duty to behave in a prescribed manner regardless of the consequences of doing so. That view, for example, requires that a person follows the dictates of God regardless of the ill-effects that may result. On the basis of this perspective it would be ethical for Abraham to sacrifice his son because the Almighty required that.
Advocates of a deontological ethical stance may argue that it is inappropriate for civilized people to benefit from the proceeds of illicit activities because it is wrong to engage in such activities. For example, using that perspective with respect to the Taiwanese money, if it is established that that money was obtained through illegal means then it would be inappropriate for that money to be used for Saint Lucians’ benefit. What is clear, however, is that it would be necessary to establish that the money is tainted before a claim can be made that Saint Lucians should not benefit from that money. On that point, I think the SLP should provide conclusive evidence that the Taiwanese money is tainted or stop attempting to convince the population on the basis of innuendo.
I think there is some merit in the counsel found in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (Abstain from all appearance of evil). Consequently, I have concluded there is merit in the SLP’s stance that the Taiwanese money ought to be channelled through a mechanism that ensures accountability and transparency. Money withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund is subject to all the laws and other mechanisms that have been established and tested to deal with pitfalls and temptations that may result when money is used by government officials. Further, it is accepted that benefactors routinely require that established agencies manage the funds they (the benefactors) provide. The understanding is that the accounting systems used in those agencies will be used to protect the funds from those who must manage the projects being funded by the benefactors. I have found no cogent reason the Taiwanese money should not be lodged in the Consolidated Fund in order to receive the same protection that donors require.
It would be useful if both ethical perspectives can be achieved with respect to the Taiwanese money—thankfully that is possible. By all means use the money for the benefit of Saint Lucians but do so through an agency, which ensures that the funds will be used for appropriate requests, that appropriate records will be kept and that appropriate reports on the use of the funds will produced. I have no evidence that either the Town or Village Councils have the capacity to be such an agency. Persons serve on these Councils at the behest of the Parliamentary Representatives. Therefore, it is difficult to think that any of these Councils can take decisions that do not meet the needs of the respective Parliamentary Representative.
RSS
“He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”
Interesting article, Urban. I would like to add, Urban, just in case you felt unwilling, or were unable to, that there are some fundamental reasons why the Taiwanese do not give a damn about their aid money avoidng the Consolidated Fund. One reason is that the Taiwanese government, in its relations with foreign governments, behaves like a rogue regime. Taiwan’s so called “aid” to poor countries in the Caribbean, the Pacific and in Africa, is based solely on those countries accepting Taiwan as a sovereign country, independent and separate from mainland China. In such an opportunistic context, the Taiwanese do not give a damn about real development in those poor countries. Their only objective is to buy-out corrupt government ministers (and there are many in Saint Lucia) thereby guaranteeing support for Taiwan’s political programme abroad. In Saint Lucia we all saw how they played their dirty money game, and had Rufus Bousquet and the Super 8 to disobey John Compton’s wishes to remain with China. John Compton in his wisdom was going to play the game with both China and Taiwan, since the UWP had accepted Taiwanese financial assistance to fight the 2006 elections. Compton, intelligently, would have recognized China diplomatically, given China’s status as a sovereign country, fully recognised by the United Nations, while he would have been willing to accord some semi-offical sort of recognition to Taiwan, in exchange for various forms of technical assistance in agriculture and one or two other sectors. Another reason the Taiwanese don’t give a damn about the Consolidated Fund, is directly as a result of their own corruption at home in Taiwan. Why do you think the former Taiwanese President, a friend of Compton and Stephenson King, is now in JAIL in Taiwan? it’s because of the same kinds of corrupt games that Taiwanese politicians play with the tax-payers money in Taiwan, buying out hungry and greedy local politicians abroad, stealing Taiwan’s money in the…
Donna,
I suggest you get in touch with Transparency International and correct their data which ranked communist China considerably more corrupt than Taiwan.
While I do not wish to comment on China and Taiwan internal affairs or their politics, political processes and their politicians, it is my opinion that the Government of St. Lucia must now stand on its feet and really stop mucking about with the Chinese and Taiwanese governments. As a small nation with limited resources, St. Lucia is not unique in that regard. I really am not concerned which political party has been elected to govern neither am I looking at who is a better person to be the PM, even if both should have the capability to manage/govern effectively. With sound policies in place, and a system whereby proper accountability and transparancy is afforded to the electorate, Government should do well with the job they are elected to do. I know it is always going to be difficult but, pray tell me, what is easy in today’s world? The government must look at other areas to generate revenue. I have a suggestion…embark on enhancing the Financial sector by encouraging investment in shares, currencies and commodities. We have the investors. Yes, risky and all that, but the Financial Industry continue to create wealth for the likes of USA, UK, Japan, Germany, to name a few of the richer, larger nations. But then, it’s just one suggestion. The smaller investors can always stick to the norm and continue to place their monies on a savings account at a bank of their choice which gaurantees them a minimum return. How does the Inland Revenue benefit from that norm?
As I said before, there are lots of other areas that can generate income for the government and they should persue these opportunities vigourously.
Foxtrot, why should I bother about contacting TI about China? I have made no case for China against Taiwan. What I have done is simply to explain to Saint Lucians what Compton’s strategy was concerning those two Asian countries, a very intelligent strategy if ever there was one. That’s why John Compton was head, shoulders and brain, immeasurably taller than ALL the blokes added together in the UWP government right now… indeed there can be NO COMPARISON!!!!!! I have no brief for Chna, my friend. What I will admit to is the fact that Taiwan refers to itself as a democracy, while China admits that it’s a developing nation “building socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Both systems surely have their instances of corruption. What should concern Saint Lucians however in this regard is our country’s relationas with Taiwan. Saint Lucia, since 2007, does not have diplomatic relations with China. China is not Saint Lucia’s problem right now. Donna.
I’m sorry, Donna. I thought your tirade was that Taiwanese corruption was used to persuade countries to accept it as a sovereign country, independent and separate from mainland China. Communist China, being more corrupt than Taiwan according to Transparency International, would never use its corruption in this way, though.
Could it be that Taiwan, wanting to ensure its largesse actually made it to the intended recipients, decided to bypass the Consolidated Fund? Is it possible that you suffer from a confirmation bias that prevented you (and Urban Dolor) from recognizing that?
I could write more, but I have to go and pack my barrel that I am sending to family in Saint Lucia via the Consolidated Fund.