FINSAC and NaRRA are not vote buyers

THE EDITOR, Madam:

In your publication of October 27, 2026, one of your columnists wrote: “ In my opinion, FINSAC and NaRRA were pursued for the same purpose – to buy votes and win the next election ...” This, in my opinion, is sophistry.

FINSAC became necessary because of policy decisions made by the Government of the day. In other words, FINSAC was the result of a man-made disaster. Its purpose was to protect the savings of ordinary Jamaicans. FINSAC ushered in an era of high unemployment, degradation of infrastructure, and “the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich ...”.

NaRRA is not needed because of a man-made disaster. It has become necessary because of a natural disaster called Melissa. Its main purpose is to rebuild infrastructure damaged by a Category 5 hurricane. NaRRA’s investment in infrastructure has the potential to stimulate economic growth and distribute wealth to all segments of Jamaica’s population: the poor, the middle class and, yes, the well-off.

I would argue that the unpopularity of the then opposition leader played a greater role in the outcome of the 1997 election than FINSAC did. NaRRA may very well determine the outcome of the next election, because its failure or success could affect the popularity of the current prime minister.

However, to paint FINSAC and NaRRA as “vote buying” is to misconstrue the role of government. The primary purpose of a democratically elected government is to exercise public power on behalf of the people, derived from their consent, while serving the common good.

While FINSAC was the result of bad policy, it did some good: it protected people’s savings. NaRRA, if properly implemented, has the potential to do great things for our country. FINSAC and NaRRA are not vote buyers. They are manifestations of what governments are elected to do.

ALWYN GREGORY

Manchester