So, for example, a person trying to claim divine sanction and stave off all challenge will preface their statements with vivid descriptions of how they had a vision of Jesus on the cross with his hands pierced and the blood flowing down his hands and side, and then how he revealed to them the position they are now articulating.

Those who venture into the world of religion and the exploration on religious truth know that such an appeal to sincerity as constitutive of unquestioned authority is not in and of itself tenable. Within my own religious tradition, every such claim must be addressed using the three-fold test of conformity to scripture, the tradition of the church, and reason.

The Honourable Prime Minister has articulated frequently her religious commitment and has on various occasions made it clear to the leadership of the various religious traditions in this country that she understands the Church as having a vital role to play in the life of the nation in the moral, spiritual, and social spheres.

She has even invited the church to partner with her in building the nation and in forging the way forward. She has gone further and challenged the Church to be faithful in its mission, even as she reminded the church of the serious judgement which it faces if it fails in the execution of its mission. To that extent, one needs not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister in her utterances and decisions, but she needs to understand also that sincerity in and of itself does not constitute licence.

News reports during the past week indicate that the Prime Minister has again stated her administrations' intention to use money from the National Housing Trust (NHT) to fund projects in impoverished areas. While reminding the nation that many of our social problems relate to the home or the lack thereof, she is quoted as saying, "That's why I am not concerned about the threats of bangarang if we touch NHT money, because we are going to touch more NHT money to provide for the poor".

There is a method by which moral decisions are made known as utilitarianism. This methodology is one, which deposits the notion that in making moral decisions the end justifies the means. The government had taken a decision to pursue this path in relation to its use of the National Housing Trust Fund and the National Insurance Fund (NIF) prior to Prime Minister Simpson Miller's taking over the leadership of the government.

What we are now seeing is the Prime Minister advancing that position and stamping it with the imprimatur of sincerity. Noting that the Prime Minister is reported to have been speaking at the handing over ceremony for keys to new home owners in inner city communities, it must be made clear that no one in his/her right mind can question the importance of the provision of such housing.

But we can surely ask questions as to whether the project is geared toward contributors of the NHT accessing benefits at concessionary rates or conditions; whether the new homeowners will be required to service their mortgages like other beneficiaries; whether this is another of those low-income projects in which occupants stop paying mortgages, rents, and utility bills and become untouchables while enjoying political patronage; and whether this is just another low-income housing project with government using its assumed right to raid the NHT fund, notwithstanding its purported surpluses.

If the latter holds true, then the government is channelling the NHT fund into the financing of projects for which the fund, which comes from statutory deductions as determined by law, was never intended. In doing so, the government has not only taken the position that its moral decision is right and not subject to negotiation or difference of opinion, but that it has the legal authority so to do.

The question of the use of NHT funds must be seen in the wider context of government's announced intention to utilise the resources of the National Insurance funds for the promotion of small business enterprises, as well as the proposal of the Ministry of Finance to merge payroll taxes.

It should not surprise us that while the leadership of the government seems intent on pursuing these steps in relation to the NHT, NIF and payroll taxes, Earl Samuels, managing director of the National Housing Trust is reported to be anticipating problems ahead and has serious concerns about the interruption of the normal flow of funds if housing contributions are married to other statutory taxes.

Perhaps Mr Samuels hits the nail on the head and speaks for many in this nation when he is reported to have said that he wants an assurance that NHT contributions will be extricated swiftly from the pool and paid over to the Trust, whose funds are normally filed directly to the agency bypassing the Consolidated Fund.

I hope that Mr Samuels has not been sticking his neck out where his job as a public servant is concerned, but he has articulated clearly the crux of the matter, namely that it is easy for the government to manipulate the financial resources of this country in ways that make its perceived task easier, especially when the nation is in an electioneering mode and without regard to due process, morality and law. An expanded Consolidated Fund may suit the government even as it violates the integrity of its component parts.

The threat of 'bangarang' by the Opposition simply sets the stage for conflict and the old style politics which just lead to the political divide of the country widening, when what we really need is a public debate on the issue, led and complemented by a debate in the House of Representatives.

The Opposition, which has constituted the government at various stages in the life of this nation, needs to challenge the government to join forces in reducing the nation's recurrent vulnerability to the vagaries of government in its arbitrary use of its power, real or perceived, to take the kind of action we are now seeing in the use of the National Housing Trust and the National Insurance Fund.

In this regard, I would like to see if the action of the government in its handling of the NHT and NIF resources could be challenged on legal grounds. There needs to be further discussion of the implications and legality of the government's stated intention to merge all statutory deductions into a single fund and for the government to have the discretionary powers to move those funds around as it sees fit.

Before any such procedural and legislative changes take place, there should be public debate on the issue, which rises above the level of partisan politics.

There are some issues which I believe must be of concern in this debate about the use of the NIF. The government has advanced its position in terms of the projects to which it seeks to direct the funds taken from the NIF, projects to address needs which, I believe, most Jamaicans would have to agree are deserving of attention, and may I add, needs which have in part arisen because of a level of neglect of which this and other governments cannot seek to absolve themselves.

Let me suggest though that in this debate we need to begin with the purpose of the NIF, which, to the best of my knowledge, was established under the watch of the late Lynden Newland. The NIF was incorporated by law and was intended to provide a social benefit to the contributors to the fund so that in the time of retirement and/or disability, the contributors would have a meaningful source of support in order to maintain their dignity and independence.

Hardly had the fund gotten off the ground and started to pay out benefits than thousands of persons were 'grand-fathered' into the list of beneficiaries, a shrewd move which usually gains political mileage for the government of the day.

Over the years, there have been various charges and counter charges concerning the fiduciary management of the Fund. Now we are being told that the current government has done such a good job of the management of the fund that it is awash with cash.

The government, in what appears to have been a gratuitous mood, recently announced increased benefits to beneficiaries of the NIF and presented these in terms of percentage increases, which seemed at the time very attractive. The timing of this announcement was most fortuitous or a masterpiece of coincidence.

The truth of the matter though is that the benefits paid to the contributors to the fund have been woefully inadequate over the years. Pension schemes usually have an actuarial report which determine the benefits which contributors can receive and one is left to wonder whether this fund is subject to an actuarial review, and not just policy decisions of the government, and what has been the last recommendation of the actuaries concerning the level of benefits which could be paid out to the contributors.

The reality is that there are persons who have contributed faithfully to the Fund, most not having any choice, who have had the hope that in their retirement they would receive a benefit that would help to see them through the years of their retirement.

I am aware of beneficiaries of this scheme who have served this country faithfully and who are living in a state of poverty while trying to show a good face to the public, while some live off the charity of others. After one has contributed to the NIF for 40 years of one's working life, of what use is a benefit of $1,500 per week, being paid out of the NIF pool, which is supposed to be awash with money?

If the means exists within the resources of the fund to alleviate the dire circumstances of contributors to the fund, then it seems to me that we need not hold these persons to a state of poverty while trying to convince ourselves that by diverting the fund to others outside of the fund we are solving the problem of poverty and creating employment.

It is argued that investment in micro businesses is a definite way to improve employment and, therefore, at a theoretic level one cannot argue with strategies to promote such an end, this being the line being pursued by the government. At the same time, I am reliably informed that lending to micro enterprises is among the most risky form of lending and subject to non-repayment.

When one adds to this the timing of this venture, that is, when elections are in the air, and the history of benevolence and the lack of accountability in the handling of social benefits received as part of the election milieu, I am of the opinion that the use of NIF resources for this project, is not a good idea. Even if the government gives a guarantee as to the repayment of this money, then any failure in this regard would come right back to the public purse perhaps as a delayed accounting of the campaign costs.

All of us who belong to pension schemes are aware of the fact that the government is enacting new legislation designed to protect contributors from the vagaries of those who manage such schemes but which are making it much tougher and more costly for those who operate these schemes.

Whatever we make of the NIF, it is a pension scheme and should be subject to the same constraints and policies which the government is seeking to impose on private schemes. In other words, the government cannot claim exemption from the laws and regulations which it seeks to enact and implement where non-governmental agencies and institutions are concerned.

Those of us who have to work with institutions funded by government, including school boards, know that government regulations do not allow for the movement of funds by these institutions regardless of the nature of the needs which may exist. There is no such discretionary power given to these bodies, yet the decision of the government to shift funds collected under law to purposes not permitted by such law, constitutes virement and should be subject to the same regulations and constraints as prevails in other institutions falling under government control.

I would also urge the government to look again, not just at its handling of the NIF as a source of benefit for legitimate contributors who have a right to expect the highest level of benefit which prudent handling of the fund allows. Instead, I urge the government to take another look at its current policy of withholding tax refunds amounting to millions of dollars to pension schemes for an inordinately long period of time, thereby effectively depriving another set of pensioners of the kind of return on the investments of their fund, which would lead to the payment of more realistic benefits. This is something, which they have a right to expect of government.

This is cache, read story here