“The Senate select committee is of the view that the information contained in this Report is respect to the documents covering the following Mortgages: Data Pro, Aquarius, Western Caribbean Properties Ltd., International Telecommunications Ltd., and the two other mortgages which were signed containing representations and warranties and other statements that is or may be misleading, false or deceptive; may amount to offences under the criminal code chapter 101 and in particular sections 20 153(1) 164 (1)(2), 165(2) and recommends that the DPP pursues this matter for which the committee makes its report available to him.”
– pg. 121, REPORT OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
– “Ernst Fehr, a behavioral economist at the University of Zurich, studies how our brains react when ‘social norms’ are violated. In Fehr’s research, two players are asked to exchange money according to various scenarios. When one player hoards the cash for himself, the other has an opportunity to punish him financially. The player who got burned is hooked up to a brain scan while he’s considering whether to retaliate. Fehr found that the part of our brain associated with feeling satisfaction was more strongly activated while players contemplated getting even. ‘There is a hedonic force behind the punishment,’ says Fehr. Put simply: Revenge is biologically, scientifically sweet.”
– pg. 67, BUSINESS WEEK, January 22, 2007
– At the time when the Senate Special Select Committee to investigate the Social Security Board was constituted in September of 2004, the leadership of the Opposition United Democratic Party was angry about it, because the UDP was for demanding a commission of inquiry, such as the one the trade unions succeeded in pressuring the Prime Minister to grant in February of 2005 for the Development Finance Corporation.
As the paths of the SSB investigation and the DFC commission of inquiry prepare to intersect this week with the questioning under oath by the DFC commissioners of a couple principals who were previously questioned under oath by the SSB investigators in 2004 and 2005, this newspaper would like to comment on the SSB Senate Special Select Committee (SSSC) investigations.
We can see where the UDP’s position was correct from their perspective, that the commission of inquiry would have been a more powerful investigative vehicle than the SSSC. The reason this newspaper unconditionally supported the SSSC was because of our complete faith in the sincerity and ability of Senator Godwin Hulse. The UDP, in a fit of pique, refused to have its Senator Arthur Roaches participate in the Special Select Committee, which reduced the composition from five to four, a decision which left the chairman, Senator Hulse, more vulnerable to the wiles and sabotage of the PUP Senator on the Committee. We shall not call names.
Remember that when Prime Minister Musa acquiesced in the proposal to have a Senate Committee investigate the Social Security Board, in September of 2004, he was not in as weak and threatened a position as he was in when he yielded to the NTUCB demand for the DFC commission of inquiry in February of 2005 – five months and much civil disturbance later.
Although the constitutional power of the DFC commission of inquiry was greater than that of the Senate Select Committee, the personnel composition of the DFC commission of inquiry was flawed from the beginning because the chairman’s health was delicate. The late David Price had been retired from teaching on medical grounds. The stress of the commission of inquiry contributed to his death, left the commission short-handed, and delayed for months.
We never expected Senator Hulse’s performance to be perfect. We expected his performance to be extraordinary, and it was. We can see now that, without the UDP to assist him, and undermined by the PUP, Senator Hulse made at least one key mistake. There is a man from the Ministry of Budget Management who was the “cut out switch” protecting the Minister from blame. That man should have been questioned in the public sessions under oath, and his testimony recorded and transcribed. Instead, that individual was only questioned in-camera.
Here is what the Senate Select Committee report says on page 6 about the in-camera interviews. “The Committee interviewed, in-camera, persons it considered could provide advice on certain technical issues. The testimonies of expert witnesses were not taken under oath and in cases where the Commission did not deem it necessary, the interviews were not recorded.”
But Senator Hulse should have noticed how many witnesses, under oath, were saying that they had not received advice or instruction from the relevant Minister. All of us knew otherwise. But those witnesses could so testify, because there had been a “cut-out switch” to protect the Minster. Those with eyes to see, let them see.