In the November 17th issue of The Punch Catherine Kelly contended that the press was increasing its reliance “on unnamed sources to slant their coverage of the business and financial news.” The trend is described as being so prevalent that “even the Nassau Institute thinks that a 2,000-word interview with ‘BF’ – a ‘banker friend’ – can be passed off as credible criticism of the Tax Information Act.”

One test of her argument is whether the "content" of the article in question is valid. However, Ms. Kelly did not speak to the issues addressed in the article. Yet…she sells herself as the expert on “DOLLARS$ AND $EN$E”…that’s the message in her masthead.

Instead…she attacks the anonymity of the author. This is an “ad hominem” argument; and Webster describes this as an argument “directed at one’s prejudices rather than one’s intellect.” She owes us, her reading public, something more than that.

Even more importantly she overlooks one of the characteristics of Bahamian businessmen; with good reason they don’t speak nor write publicly in order to affect public opinion and ultimately legislation. The reason is not hard to find…it’s called victimization.

The Bahamas is governed by a political elite whose objectives are to secure their continuing political power and to enrich themselves and their supporters in the process. They do this with a comprehensive system of controls, rewards and punishments; and any public questioning of government policy or intent is discouraged. In this system “politics” trumps “economics”.

� For instance, all entrepreneurial activity is controlled with permits and licenses by a Government that does not value private enterprise or free markets. So the Government actively promotes its plan for compulsory national health insurance; but doctors, who strongly object to the plan, neither speak up nor propose alternatives even when an alternative may better suit the nation's long-term interest. They personally cannot afford the potential adverse consequences.

� Another example is the Chamber of Commerce. Historically, it has not spoken out to promote the business interests of its members. Instead it has acted as if its role was to promote the objectives of the political elite…most often this meant simply remaining silent on critical issues.

The Nassau Institute has long used anonymity of its authors to protect them. In the case cited by Catherine Kelly the “banker friend (the ‘BF’)” was just such a man, an individual with extensive experience who deserved to be heard. Anonymity in this instance made $EN$E.