The Editor, Sir:

I wish to put forward a few questions which we might do well to ponder for a clearer, balanced and more instructive debate on the Trafigura/People's National Party (PNP) funds transfer affair:

was the PNP or Government accused by the Leader of the Opposition in his press conference at Gordon House, of illegally diverting state funds in the "mother of all scandals," and therefore the Government should resign immediately?

Is it that a political party's acceptance of financial contributions from a foreign company with which its Government is doing business fits the "mother of all scandals" description and calls for the Government's resignation as a result?

If it is the former and the accusation is false, is there not a very serious case for the accuser to answer?

Is it the suggestion that the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) when it formed the Government, never accepted donations from foreign companies with which it did business?

Is this an unusual practice in western democracies in the absence of specific laws against it?

For the allegation to be credible, should proof of a "kickback" be presented?

Does not the receipt of financial donations to political parties from individuals, organisations and businesses anywhere carry the implication that favours are expected in return?

What is the motive behind government-to- government assistance? Philanthropy?

Why is this a partisan rather than a bipartisan issue, since both parties accept that transparency in such cases should be required by law (presuming that both parties engage in the practice)?

In addition:

Was divulging confidential banking information really motivated by dispassionate national interest concerns?

How then to explain revealing the information to a political party in the midst of an election campaign rather than following the established lawful procedure?

How is the public, graphic and dramatic display of information thus obtained, by representatives who are of such high national political stature, to be viewed?

What is the relationship between the provider of the information and the individuals or political party receiving it?

What does this say of the integrity of the entire financial/banking system? Are internal controls adequate to protect clients from unauthorised and malicious disclosure of their private affairs?

How is access to private client information regulated to prevent such a breach?

Answers to these questions could facilitate an honest and responsible debate instead of self-serving opportunism.

I am, etc.,

H. DALE ANDERSON

hdaleanderson@gmail.com