The bold press releases issued on the subject of the belated (and beleaguered) Anti-Money Laundering Bill should be adequately applauded, despite the long time lapse allowed by the Administration to address the issue.
The releases may even earn sympathy for the perceivable concerns regarding the financial implications for local businesses; while nevertheless ignoring the issue of morality and other imperfections exhaustively addressed in Professor Clive Thomas’ and other expert commentary, on the subject.
The complainants also deserve sympathy for an intervention, the objectivity of which targets the Opposition for its fallible non-cooperation in facilitating the passage of legislation that informed analysts consider less than adequate.
Not totally irrelevant, that is from the viewpoint of some onlookers, it would have been equally applaudable if these concerned institutions could be consistent, by issuing appropriate releases requiring the defaulting members of their business communities to do the honourable thing and comply with the legal requirements of the National Insurance Scheme.
If they chose, they could even apportion to the Opposition liability for the ineffectuality of the current management of the Scheme.
There is a perspective of a consistent trend of selectivity in the ‘bold’ interventions, emanating from the institutions referred to.