Audley Shaw has for a long time been the Opposition's Shadow Finance Minister. We we can only assume, therefore, that he will get that portfolio if the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) wins the next general election. Opinion surveys suggest that that is a distinct possibility.

So, when Mr. Shaw speaks on matters of finance and economics, we take him seriously, especially when his pronouncements are likely to impinge on matters of national policy. There is a matter about which Mr. Shaw spoke this week that has so far received surprisingly little attention, but on which the Shadow Finance Minister needs to enunciate further - and with greater clarity. It has to do with how a JLP government, with Mr. Shaw as Finance Minister, would regulate, or cause to be regulated, Jamaica's financial sector.

Now, Mr. Shaw was not specific in comments in Parliament earlier in the week. There was, nonetheless, little doubt that he spoke in the context of David Smith's investment 'club', Olint, and the suggestion by the Minister of State for Agriculture, Errol Ennis, that Mr. Smith is being persecuted by the Financial Services Commission (FSC). Indeed, Mr. Ennis has characterised a search of the Olint offices last year by the FSC as Gestapo-like and suggestive of a totalitarian state.

Indeed, the Olint issue has been emotive, especially for those who have benefited from its ostensible return of 10 per cent monthly on foreign exchange trade, a yield that, when compounded, would double their investment in under a year. The FSC has concerns about Olint, which operated outside its regulatory realm. Mr. Smith insists that he does not need to be licensed by the FSC because what he runs is a private club, rather than a public investment house. When the FSC - which apparently fears that what Olint runs may be close to a Ponzi scheme - sought to test its regulatory power over Olint in the courts, Mr. Smith moved his operation outside the jurisdiction of the Jamaican courts.

In his parliamentary statement, Mr. Shaw suggested that Jamaica should operate an environment that is entrepreneurial and encouraging of the creative, rather than one that is spiteful and oppressive of investors. That as a general principle is absolutely correct. But there are also frameworks within which economies operate, if there is to be order, legal recourse to all parties engaged in transactions and some level of protection for the weak, powerless, and in some circumstances, undiscerning.

Indeed, even the world's largest, most open and most competitive economy has regulatory frameworks, which are no more obvious than in the financial and capital markets, where it is far easier for charlatans to prey on the gullible. There is an understanding that loss of confidence in capital markets can have profoundly negative impacts on national economies, especially if its 'poor' investors are driven further to the margins.

We make no claims about Mr. Smith's operations and/or its legal issues with the FSC. We, however, would like clarity from Mr. Shaw for what appears to be a suggestion by the Opposition spokesman that an agency like the FSC should be aloof to the operations of people who provide financial services. Or perhaps, judging from the tone, that the FSC should not exist.

We know that is not what Mr. Shaw would have meant. We just want to be assured of it.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.