By
Owolabi M Bakre
Lecturer in Accounting
& Finance
Department of
Management Studies
University of the West
Indies,
Mona, Kingston 7, Jamaica
West Indies
Abstract
This paper adopts the theoretical
framework of ‘cultural imperialism’ to critically examine the post-independence
aspiration of Jamaican government and accountants, in forming themselves into
an independent professional body, devoid of any foreign influence. This was by
forming the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ), which was
expected to be capable of examining and credentialing future Jamaican accountants.
However, while the professional body was formerly established in 1965, the
paramount issues of Jamaican professional examinations and credentialing of
prospective Jamaican accountants, continue to be a dream that remains to be
actualised. The obstacles to the actualisation were due to the conflicting
identities of the two elite groups of ‘global’ and ‘local’ capitalists that
emerged in the profession after the independence, and more importantly, the
negotiating influence of the self identified parent body, the UK-based ACCA. On
the basis of the available evidence, the paper concludes that the ability of
the ICAJ to achieve independence from the UK-based ACCA, without a legislative
backing from the Jamaican government, is constrained.
KEYWORDS: The
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica, The UK-based Association of
Certified Chartered Accountants, Cultural Imperialism, Localization,
Internationalisation, Professionalization, Conflict of Identity.
Introduction
In Jamaican colonial
era, the practice of accountancy as a profession was firmly under the control
of some foreign professional bodies in which those from the UK were dominant
Salmon (1998). The consequence of this development in colonial Jamaica was that
the non-white majority in the country had been denied the opportunity of
becoming qualified accountants, let alone to practise as chartered accountants
in their own country (Rattray, 1963). The existing colonial accounting firms
refused to article non-white Jamaicans, and advised them that the policies of
their parent bodies in England required that they travel to England to get
articled in order to become qualified accountants (Rattray, 1963).
Paradoxically, the same parent bodies in England consistently refused to
article non-white students all over the world on the racial excuse that such
students would not be acceptable to their London clients (Smith, 1962).
As for the Jamaicans, the attitude of the colonial
government made the matter worse, as it refused to employ even the few
non-white Jamaicans who were able to cross the hurdle and became qualified
accountants (Nunes, 1962). In order to address this issue, at independence, it
was the aspiration of the new Jamaican government and the Jamaican accountants
to bring about radical changes in the island’s accounting profession. As a
result, the new independent government of Jamaica and the Jamaican accountants
sought to put in place a new Jamaican accounting professional body to replace
all forms of colonial bodies operating in the island. It was further felt that
the proposed Jamaican body should set its own professional examinations and
credential prospective Jamaican accountants.
In order to achieve this national objective, it was decided
to enact a national accountancy law. The proposed national accountancy law was
to incorporate a clause, which would guarantee the conduct of local
examinations and also protect the interest of the Jamaican accountants against
any external encroachments. While these
two objectives were the main issues that led to the enactment of the national
accountancy law of 1968, paradoxically, the finally enacted national
accountancy law became silent on these paramount issues. Instead, the clause
contained in the enacted national accountancy law of 1968, now effectively
empowered the ICAJ, if it deems fit, to seek external examinations and
credentialing of prospective Jamaican accountants (see the Public Accountancy
Law, 1968).
However, as the main purpose of the national accountancy
law had been defeated, the majority accountants in Jamaica had no choice than
to again, identify the ACCA out of many foreign professional bodies in the
island to see them through to independence in the profession. This was against
the spirit behind the enactment of the national accountancy law (see
Minute Number 35, from Committee of Proposed Accountancy Law, to the Honourable
Minister, Ministry of Trade and Industry, February 5, 1963). At the initial stage of the negotiation
between the ICAJ and the ACCA, the trusted ACCA had agreed in principle to see
the ICAJ through to independence. However, having gained its full control over
the institution of the ICAJ, the trusted ACCA had to change its earlier
commitments from a ‘caretaker’ of the ICAJ, to the ‘landlord’ of the ICAJ.
However, such ACCA’s inconsistency and economic ambition in particular,
continue to receive the support of the minority but powerful global capitalist
elite members of the ICAJ who support internationalisation particularly under
the control of the UK-based ACCA, and the opposition of the majority local
capitalist elite members of the ICAJ, who support localization. This
‘controversial clause’ in the finally enacted national accountancy law of 1968,
has provided the minority, but powerful global capitalist elite members of the
ICAJ, which felt that the ICAJ should continue to adopt the ACCA’s
examinations, the legal backing to continue to defend the status quo, as the
ICAJ was formed almost 36 years ago.
The remainder of this paper is divided into 8
interconnected sections. Section 2 examines the framework of cultural
imperialism as the ‘lens’ and the ‘map’ to guide the complexities surrounding
the investigation. Section 3 examines the consequences of cultural imperialism
on the colonized identity and the existence of, and conflict between the two
elite groups of ‘local’ and ‘global’ capitalists in the colonized society.
Section 4 links the consequences of cultural imperialism on the colonized
identity, to the specific case of the existence of, and conflicts between the
two elite groups of ‘local’ and ‘global’ capitalists in the colonized Jamaican
society. Section 5 links the conflicts between the two elite groups of ‘local’
and ‘global’ capitalists in the colonized Jamaican society, to the specific
case of the existence of, and conflicts between the ‘certified’ and ‘chartered’
elite groups competing for the control of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ). Section 6 adopts the frameworks of cultural
imperialism as a tool to examine the professionalization project and the
subsequent formation of the ICAJ. In the context of the above
professionalization project, Section 7 examines how the Public Accountancy Law,
which was enacted to protect the interest of the Jamaican Accountants,
paradoxically, became the same Law that empowered the ICAJ to seek for a
foreign parent body against its main objective. This section illuminates how
the search for a foreign parent body became a negotiating influence of the
UK-based Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW) and
the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants (ACCA); those institutes
ICAJ had sought to avoid their influences in its professional development.
Section 8 again, utilizes the above frameworks to examine how the ACCA has
emerged as the parent body of the ICAJ, in its keen competition with its UK
rival, ICAEW. The section further examines how the identification of the
trusted ACCA later becomes an impediment to the independent ambition of the
ICAJ. Section 9 reviews the paper in the form of summary and discussion.
Understanding Cultural Imperialism
Cultural
imperialism is a critical discourse, which operates by representing the culture
whose autonomy it defends in its own dominant colonial cultural terms (Said,
1993). It is the extensive and strategic use of political and economic power to
exalt and spread the values and habits of a Western culture at the expense of a
native (original) culture (Tomlinson, 1999). As Cox (1964) puts it:
Cultural
imperialism rests ultimately on the specific colonialist and capitalist use of
superior power among developing peoples. It is here that the colonialist and
capitalist use of the persons and property of others, in the interest of
domestic enterprise may be observed in its purest form; that is, the “distinctive parasitic” relations of capitalist
groups to developing peoples. (p. 95)
During colonization, the occupying imperialist introduces the use of its
language in its colonies in many important sectors like education,
administration and environment. The extent of linguistic colonization can go
from a marginal use to a total use of the occupier language in those three
sectors of the colonized societies. With the wide diffusion of the colonizer’s
language, the scene was set for an extensive spread of other cultural symbols
among the people under occupation.[1]
In
order for imperialism to be respected by the colonized, the colonizers
frequently tried to convey the impression that its own culture represented the
ultimate culmination of a stream of human progress (Beckford, 1972).
Consequently, to be socialized into the acceptance of beliefs proclaiming their
own inferiority and insignificance, the colonized had first of all to
experience waves of indoctrination. Such indoctrination promotes hero-images of
Euro-American cultures, while at the same time establishing non-Western
cultures as the polar opposites of all that was good, desirable and useful
(Biersteker, 1981). As Lindsay (1981) asserts:
In all of
this, it is clear that the inferiority complexes generated among non-western
peoples from the use of “condensation symbol”[2]
are part and parcel of the same processes, which produced the superiority
complexes of metropolitan rulers and citizens. (p.19)
Thus, cultural imperialism was in part a
rationalization of domination of other peoples, often based on the perceived
inferiority of the colonized “race” (Lindsay, 1981).
The
ideology depicted the colonizer’s role as that of a father caring for his
children, and further emphasized that the survival of the child was very much
dependent on the child’s association and reliance on the father (Jackman,
1994). This paternalism not only explained the colonizer’s dominance, but also
guaranteed assistance to all the Empire’s subjects. As Fryer (1988), quoting
from the book Black Jamaica written
by an Englishman, reports:
(The)
black man . . . on the eve of emancipation, was a child, ignorant, helpless,
irresponsible. His mind was dark and stagnant, moving, if at all, to the blind
impulses of superstition and fear, the advancement of the Negro is contingent
on his association with the white race . . . Without the stimulus of this
factor he cannot better himself. (p.6)
Thus, paternalism was clearly a major factor in
imperial ideology (Jackman, 1994). Within this framework, the domination of the
colonized could be justified, through its analogy to the pedagogical and
necessarily inequitable nature of the father-child relationship (Jackman,
1994).
However, the most efficient method of ensuring obedient subordinates was
through the latter’s consent, their acceptance of the moral authority and
legitimacy of the very institutions that oppressed them (Lindsay, 1981). As a
result, paternalism was premised on the unquestioning acceptance by the
colonized of the unequal relationship. Consequently, the colonized came to
believe that the socio-political, economic and cultural attributes associated
with people of European descent were inherently more valuable than those linked
with those of their original descent (Anderson, 1998). The internalisation of
the white supremacist mythology led to an appropriation of the colonizer's
ideology as that of the colonized (Anil, 1968). The original history of the
colonized was internalised (Anderson, 1998), and the intellectual, cultural and
social inferiority of the colonized generally accepted (Jackson, 1985).
As
a consequence, colonialism has succeeded in producing two major opposing elite
groups of conflicting identities in every colonized society. The first elite
groups are those whose lifestyle continued to be dictated by their colonial
past and, therefore, prefer to continue to defend the status quo, and would do anything
possible to sustain their position within a given society, association, or
occupation. This elite group mediates between their people and the principal
capitalist institutions, the colonial power bloc, and other foreign global
capitalist group. This elite group was of the view that the societal culture
ought to be shaped by the assimilation of the colonial, and other developed
Western capitalist, culture, and the identity ought to be a product of various
negotiations. As Hall and Du Gay (1996)
put it:
The group
is of the opinion that cultures that have provided the horizon of meaning for
large numbers of human beings, of diverse characters and temperaments, over a
long period of time . . . are almost certain to have something that deserves
our admiration and respect. (p.57)
The second elite group is the opposing group in the
society, association or occupation, with the further view that there was a need
to find a new compromise. Such a
compromise would not sacrifice the local culture, but would give the society a
new identity in changing times. As Ozal (1992) puts it:
This
group is of the view that the days of imposing one’s own elitist values on the
masses are over. Values, which have been borrowed in a wholesale manner in the
guise of universalism and expressed in a foreign or at best in hybrid idiom . .
. In no way does this approach, deny the universal features of culture. It only
emphasises that no people can be creative unless it draws its strength mainly
from its own cultural heritage through an intensive updating and upgrading of
effort. (p.310)
Thus, within a given society,
association, or occupation, elite factions do exist, there are conflicts of
policy, individual ambitions do clash (Mills, 1956).
However, within this conflict, if an external party pursuing its own
global economic interest became a mediator between the groups in cultural
conflict, the ingredients were available for the external party to manipulate
social categories and material resources of the entire society (Alleyne, 1988).
This could give the mediator the opportunity to keep the entire population
economically and culturally subordinate to, and dependent upon, its own
cultural institution (Nettleford, 1978).
Linking consequences of cultural imperialism to
the Specific Case of the Colonized Jamaican Society
The system of the British colonial rule in the colonial
Jamaican society, characterized by social inequality, exploitation and
oppression, had involved selective co-option and careful nurturing of a class ‘who
may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern (Rodney, 1982).
These were a class of persons, Jamaicans in blood and colour but British in
tastes, in opinions, in morals and intellect. This class needed to be educated
and ultimately it was being educated to rule and in the process, to also
continue to defend the status quo in the neo-colonialist socio-political and
economic development in Jamaica (Hadley, 1949). As a result, this class was not
only taught to read and write in English, but in the process it was also taught
how to think in the best British critical traditions (Norris, 1966).
Inevitably, this class discovered the contradictions between that which the
great British thinkers had had to say about those fundamentals of the British
society and culture: equality, liberty and brotherhood, and the hypothetical,
oppressive, racist institutions of the British colonialism under which they
were made to suffer (Garvey, 1916). They drew inspirations from the western
political writings on democracy, nationhood and socialism (Norris, 1966). As
these colonial minded Jamaicans continue to defend the status quo, the peasant
from mass majority who are against colonisation and perpetrating of colonial
ideas, especially in the post-independence Jamaica have risen to challenge the
status quo.
As a
result, as the global capitalist elite tries to build Jamaica into a home away
from home for Americans and Europeans, the local capitalist elite would like
Jamaica to be a comfortable place for Jamaicans. The global capitalist elite
based their view of the world on the premise that Jamaicans are “deficient” and
must learn to think, speak, dress, furnish their homes, and have industries
like their rich relations and the mother country (Norris, 1966). Anything less is uncivilized, crude, “not decent”, and “not right”.
On the contrary, the local capitalist elite’s view is that Jamaica has the
capacity for developing a unique and immensely rich civilization of her own
(Nettleford, 1989; Stone, 1989). The local capitalist elite is also of the
opinion that the global capitalist elite view that Jamaica should strive away
from her own potential and towards an imported standard, is often misunderstood
and applied out of context. The contribution of a truly Jamaican global
capitalist elite to the human experience lies in the culture and in the social
mores they have developed through a long history of harsh economic
circumstances and social alienation (Norris, 1966). The local capitalist elite,
however, believes that such contribution is irrelevant to the developmental
requirements of independent Jamaica (Stone, 1989).
However, the antagonism between these two
post-independence elite groups continued to be characterized by conflicts of
interest (Gordon, 2000). These conflicts of interest have continued to give
opportunity to some foreign global capitalists to penetrate and pursue their
own economic interest in Jamaica at the expense of the two elite groups and the
general interest of the society at large (Nettleford, 1989).
Linking
the Conflicts between the Elite Groups of ‘Local’ and ‘Global’ Capitalists in
the Colonized Jamaican Society, to the Specific Case of the Struggle between
the ‘Certified’ and ‘Chartered’ Elite Groups Competing for the Control of the
ICAJ.
Prior to the formation of the ICAJ in 1965, there was no
single body to articulate the views of the profession (Gordon, 2000). Instead,
there were three autonomous associations. While there were some Jamaicans who
had sat the professional examinations in England, most of the qualified
accountants were expatriates from the United Kingdom or North America. The
Society of Chartered Accountants represented the latter group. The second body,
the Jamaican District Society of the Association of Certified and Corporate
Accountants, comprised persons who had qualified locally, in some cases, while
working under the supervision of a chartered accountant, in circumstances not
unlike those of the now defunct legal system of article-ship. The third group,
the Association of Accountants of Jamaica Incorporated (AAJI), was affiliated
to a small English body. However, the locally qualified practitioners were
divided into two major elite groups. The first of these Elite groups was made
up of those practitioners who wished to see total independence of the
profession in terms of examination and credentialing[3].
The other group was made up of those practitioners who felt not only that the
colonial culture should continue to dictate the future direction of the
profession in Jamaica, but also that the profession should continue to be under
the control of the colonial professional bodies[4].
As Gordon (2000) observes:
Within the ranks of
the Association of locally qualified practitioners, was a group known as the ‘Young
Turks’. This group militantly opposed
the idea of approaching independence, with a profession not only dependent,
but divided, and having no local authority to impose discipline. (p.12)
When it was proposed to
establish the ICAJ, which could unify the opposing groups, conflicts of
interest and tension became apparent in meetings and negotiation between the
elite groups in the profession. The first president of the ICAJ, William
Thwaites, recalled his experience in the first 25 years of the ICAJ, in a talk
with John Jackson (Thwaites, 1990):
It was the culmination
of about four years of very solid and sometimes acrimonious arguments and
discussion between the Association of Certified Accountants and the Society of
Chartered Accountants, that is, the two bodies that were represented by members
in the island. Needless to say, each one and each person who was in practice,
or if not in practice, in business, in Jamaica had very strong ideas about how
the thing should be formulated, what the rules should be. The whole gamut of
things that went to do with it, which finally wound up with Phil Ogle and
myself leading the ‘pack’. He on the Certified Association side, and me from
the Chartered side and the two of us generally raised ‘holy hell’ with
everybody until we got our way and had the Institute and its Constitution
formed. (p.5)
Thus, the 1998/99 ICAJ
president, Gordon (2000) noted:
The road to the
establishment of the ICAJ was far from smooth, as the parties involved could
not arrive at consensus as to how to proceed. The “Certified” group felt that new legislation was necessary, in the
form of a Public Accountancy Act to regulate the practice of the profession.
Conversely, the members of the Chartered Association were in favour of the
English model, which had a special section in the Companies Act to prescribe
qualifications for auditors. (p.12)
The District Society of
Certified Accountants drafted a bill from prototypes of similar legislation in
other jurisdictions, and set about lobbying for consensus among the members of
the other professional accounting bodies. However, the draft bill met with
strong opposition from the members of the “chartered” association, who
resolutely held that the local institute should be incorporated under the
Companies Act.
By way of compromise, the former group revised the Draft
and submitted it for consideration to the Ministry of Trade and Industry on the
eve of Jamaica’s independence in 1962. The Honourable Alfred Rattray, then
Assistant Under Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, reviewed the
draft, along with similar submissions, which had been invited from the other
accounting bodies, in his capacity both as a certified accountant and an
attorney-at-law. In his mediation for the group in conflict, Rattray delivered
his judgment that:
The Draft submitted by
the Certified Accountants group best addressed the Jamaican situation, and in
concept, it accorded with the direction being taken by the Ministry. Certain
changes were deemed necessary, however, to ensure the livelihood of persons
with years of practising experience, who might not have been eligible for
membership of a qualifying body.
Again, on the road for further unification of the
profession, conflicts of interest and tension became a renewed tool of
negotiation between the practitioners. In the interim between the submission of
the Draft Bill and the establishment of the Institute, a Committee was formed
of the two main groups of “certified” and “chartered” associations, as the two parties
tried to agree on an operational framework for the unification of the
profession. As Gordon (2000) observes:
Denis Goldson of Paul
Goldson and Company, who laboured over the minutes during the protracted
three-year period, concludes that the
amount of dialogue was equal only to the paper work, as they drafted the
Constitution and Rules twice. The second draft, which was more tailored to
the needs of the Jamaican situation, was finally accepted. This formed the
basis of the Incorporation & By-Law of the ICAJ, found in Volume 1, Section
1 of the Members’ Handbook (p. 12).
In addition to the formal
exchange at the Committee level, there was also ongoing dialogue with the two
warring principal bodies and the major audit firms of the day. Whereas there
was now consensus on the need to form a local institute, many within the
“chartered” group were still not entirely convinced that it should fall under
the proposed Public Accountancy Act. However, as the lobby intensified and the
barriers of opinion began to crumble, people like William Thwaites of the
Chartered Association (the ICAJ’s first president) and James Lord were pivotal
to the process of enlisting the support of the capitalist firms, particularly,
the members of the “big five[5]”.
In 1965, the unincorporated Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ) was formed.
On the formation of the ICAJ, the conflict between the
foreign capitalist elite who had dominated the profession before independence
with the support of the global capitalist elite, and the local capitalist elite
who did not favour any form of foreign domination, continued. In the course of
resisting such domination, and partisanship, the local capitalist elites in the
Council of the newly formed ICAJ, made nationalist calls on all the ICAJ
members that:
If we are Jamaicans
foremost in thinking, foreign pressure and partisanship will fall into place.
Foreign pressure should not be allowed to destroy our Institute. Present school ties are a dishonourable
arrangement, whereby our lovers take us to bed on the understanding that we
never marry. (Emphasis added, Minute of ICAJ Meeting, September 1965, p.2 –
ICAJ, Archival Records)
In fact, to put in place the Public Accountancy Act
(PAA) that could guide the operations of the proposed ICAJ, again, became a
matter of conflict between the local and global capitalist elite groups. While
the local capitalist elite wanted the PAA to guarantee professional
independence in Jamaica, the global capitalist elite wanted the PAA to continue
to defend the status quo. As the first
president of the ICAJ, William Thwaites (1990) further recalled his experience
in this regard:
Well, as you know, we
have had changes in the Constitution from time to time since then, but I think
that even from those days, we had obtained consensus of what we wanted. We have
had a certain amount of trouble with getting the Law in the fashion we wanted,
and that delayed the thing for quite a while. But certainly, our first Council
and “Shadow Council”, if I may put it that way, prior to the actual formation
had one consensus and that was that there should be no rift or Divisions
between the two sides that were to form and be The Institute of Chartered
Accountants of Jamaica. (pp.5–6)
On the formation of the ICAJ in 1965, one of the main
objectives was for the new national body to set and mark the Jamaican
professional examinations. As an interim arrangement, all parties agreed that
the ACCA be allowed to set and mark the ICAJ examinations for a period of three
years, after which the ICAJ should take over this responsibility. However,
since the formation of the ICAJ, this agreement continues to be the subject of
conflict and tension between the two major elite groups in the profession.
While the local capitalist elite felt that this objective should be respected
and accomplished, the global capitalist elite felt that the foreign nature of
the profession as it was during colonization should continue. However, the
ambition of the global capitalist elite continues to rule the profession 35
years after Jamaica’s independence. The continued conflicts of interest and
tension between the local and global capitalist elites in the profession since
its formation in 1965 was re-affirmed by the first president of the ICAJ, who
declared that, after 25 years (1965–1990):
There is something
that needs sorting out. I feel the Council will be able to sort it out. There has never been a time in the last
twenty-five years that you haven’t had some problem or another to solve,
but good sense has always prevailed and that’s it. (Emphasis added, William
Thwaites in an interview with John Jackson, 1990)
On a regional level, Mendes (1990) observes that the
conflicts between the social classes that characterize the Caribbean social
history have been responsible for the emergence of elite groups with
conflicting interests in the regionalization of the accountancy profession in
the Caribbean. These conflicts of interest have militated, and continue to
militate, against the achievement of the regional objective in the profession,
which was to put in place purely Caribbean examinations. As Ogle (2000) puts it:
The subject of West
Indian Institute of Chartered Accountants (WIICA) was on the agenda of a
meeting in Barbados in June 1967. The meeting envisaged that each territorial
institute would delegate the function of providing professional examinations to
a WIICA. This has not been achieved as
yet.
(Emphasis added, paper
presented at the conference of ICAJ on training and ethical consideration,
February 26, p.7)
The above analyses at the national and regional levels
indicate the link between the struggle and class conflict in Jamaica, and
Caribbean societies generally, and socio-political and economic development in
these societies. This has become more apparent in the post-independence
development of the accountancy profession in Jamaica and the Caribbean. This
situation reaffirms the observation of Ndubizu (1994), that the study of the
socio-political and economic development of any particular society may not be
successfully achieved outside of an understanding of the social history that
gave rise to the existence of that particular society.
The conflicts of interests in the Jamaican society, which
have been linked to the conflict between the elite groups in the accountancy
profession, continue to influence the post-independence development of the
profession. Consequently, the post-independence professionalization project and
the subsequent formation of the unified national body, the ICAJ, have been
influenced by the conflict of identities of the ‘Certified’ and ‘Chartered’
elite members of the ICAJ. This conflict of identity driven professionalization
project is examined in the next section.
The Professionalization Project and the
Formation of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ):
Negotiation Influenced by the Conflict of Identities of the ‘Certified’ and
‘Chartered’ Elite Members of the ICAJ.
Before and at independence, the diverse group of
accountants and accounting firms operating in Jamaica had formed themselves
into three main accounting associations.[6]
Some of these newly formed associations, which were satellites of different
foreign established professional accountancy bodies, particularly in the UK,
employed racial discrimination policies to exclude Jamaicans from becoming
members (Rattray, 1962). In addition to this situation, the predicament of
prospective Jamaican accountants became compounded by the discriminating
attitude of the Jamaican business community and the government in the
employment market (Smith, 1962). Consequently, both the government of Jamaica
and the Jamaican business community were accused of being guilty of practices
that marginalized their own people (Smith, 1962). As Rattray (1963b) opines:
As regards the
attitude of business and indeed, of government, the combination of prejudice
and ignorance have operated to deprive Jamaicans of their fair share of
accountancy practice and experience. It would
be interesting to examine the occasions on which the government over the past
few years have employed the services of accountants, to note the firms that
they have employed and to try to determine why these firms have been employed.
(Emphasis added)
He further argues:
Another
profitable exercise would be to try and find out just who has been assigned by
these firms to do the work.
I believe that it would become apparent that the main effect of this policy
(dictated by ignorance and prejudice) is to deprive Jamaicans of their
opportunities in the heart of their own land. (Emphasis added)
Thus, Smith (1962) argues:
It would, I think, be
difficult to justify taking any drastic action against the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, as a body, in the matter of colour
discrimination, when it appears that
individual members of government and the business community have in the past
been guilty of the same practice. (Emphasis added)
The above situation led to the
belief that Jamaicans who became qualified in the accountancy profession
hesitated to launch out on their own (Salmon, 1998).
In light of the above, it was agreed to promote
“nationalism” in the profession, so as to protect the professional interests of
Jamaican accountants. Hence, it was decided that Jamaica should have a
“national accountancy law” (the Public Accountancy Act). It was further agreed
that the effect of the national accountancy law was to make the Jamaican
accountancy profession respond effectively to the socio-political, economic and
cultural environment of the island. Moreover, the national accountancy law
should also be able to protect the interests of Jamaican accountants and the
Jamaican accountancy profession from any global encroachment (see Report of the
Committee on a National Accountancy Law, 1963). Particularly, it should make
the Jamaican accountancy profession independent of the British-based
professional accountancy bodies (Report of the Committee on a National
Accountancy Law, 1963). Paradoxically, the national accountancy law, which was
finally enacted in 1968, seems to have been conspicuously silent on the above
issues, which were said to have been the main reasons behind the enactment of
the law (see National Accountancy Law, 1968).
In fulfilling the above requirements, therefore, the
Ministry of Trade and Industry’s committee charged with the responsibility of
drafting the national accountancy law, cautioned that:
The Jamaican situation
is somewhat different and hence, we were
determined to find an appropriate solution, which of course must be different
from those adopted elsewhere. (Emphasis added, Minute Number 43 to the Honourable Minister,
Ministry of Trade and Industry, June 11, 1963)
Having made these
nationalistic commitments, the same committee went further to obtain literature
from the USA, UK, and Canada for use as the basis for finding their different
solutions. This was done in spite of the earlier warning in the advice given by
the same committee to the minister that:
In
a small country like Jamaica, there is probably no room for us to operate on
the English system unless we are to be satisfied with abandoning the
accountancy profession to overseas organizations. The only way to
secure a square deal for our nationals and at the same time ensure protection
of the public is to have a national accountancy law. (Emphasis added, Minute
Number 35, from Committee of Proposed Accountancy Law, to the Honourable
Minister, Ministry of Trade and Industry, February 5, 1963)
In addition, the committee
claimed that the effect of the Public Accountancy Act, 1968 was to create a
truly Jamaican profession. Consequent upon this claim, the committee proposed
that:
The
real answer to the problem is for Jamaica to have its own bodies of professional
accountants who would set the examinations hitherto set by the parent bodies in
the United Kingdom,
and for the Articles to be served in Jamaica. (Emphasis added, Ministry of
Trade and Industry, Minute Number 2, to the Permanent Secretary, March 29, 1962)
It was, therefore, agreed that
the proposal be discussed with the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona,
in order for the university to take up the responsibility for the education of
Jamaican accountants. This agreement with the UWI, proposed since 1962,
continues to suffer non-implementation. This is due mainly to the criticisms
that the minority, but influential, members of the ICAJ, who strongly believe
in defending the status quo, continue to level against the proposal, that the
UWI is not the appropriate institution to train professional accountants (see
Thwaites, 1990). These critics further argue that the UWI and the professional
institutions have different missions and yardsticks with which to measure the
quality of their products (ICAC, 1998a). Consequently, these critics propose
that:
Such
proposal of independent examination and credentialing, of Jamaican professional
accountants was an impracticable solution in the short and even medium term, and one which would
in fact continue for a considerable time, the foreign nature and control of
Accountancy profession in Jamaica. (Emphasis added, the proposal of the
influential members of the Association of Jamaican accountants, responding to
the controversial issue of accountancy independent ambition in Jamaica, 1962)
These critics were not indifferent to the allegation by
other people regarding the imperial and racial problems faced by Jamaicans in
their association with the established institutes in the island, particularly,
those from the mother country. But these members equally shared the view that
the solution to the problem of professionalization of accountancy had to be a
Jamaican solution. However, they could not offer any solution, such as when and
how the profession in Jamaica could become independent. This situation
therefore seems to suggest that the proposed national accountancy law, which
was also backed by these critics, was to be an instrument to continue to
safeguard the international mobility of capital, to the detriment of
safeguarding the socio-political and economic interests of Jamaica.
As a result of these criticisms, a bargain had to be struck
between the majority members of the ICAJ who had opted for total professional
independence, and the few powerful minority members who had opposed total
professional independence.
Consequently, section (ix) of the proposal, which was finally designed
and agreed upon to achieve the objectives of the national accountancy law,
states that:
The Institute of
Chartered Accountants in Jamaica would, of course, make provision for articles
to be served here in Jamaica and this would be open to all Jamaicans who fulfil
the educational requirements and who can arrange for being articled. (Ministry
of Trade and Industry Minute Number 43, June 11, 1963)
However, section (ix) of
Minute Number 43, further clarified that:
As
regards examinations, these would in the first three years or so continue to be
set by one of the two bodies – the UK bodies of the Association of Certified
Accountants and Chartered Accountants –, which would then be not parent bodies
but sister, bodies. But it would be expected that in the meantime, arrangements
would be worked out for examinations to be set locally, probably under the
auspices of the University of the West Indies, or some other examining bodies
established for that purpose. It would be expected that the Public Accountancy
Law would seek to give effect to these arrangements. (Emphasis added,
Ministry of Trade and Industry Minute Number 43, June 11, 1963)
Considering these two
clarifications, the final draft of the approved and enacted Public Accountancy
Law, paradoxically, gives the following effect to such an arrangement:
Any person who passes
the prescribed examination held in Jamaica, i.e. the examinations specified by the Professional Accountancy Body
incorporated under this Law as being the qualifying examinations for membership
in the said professional accountancy body, and who fulfils such other
conditions precedent to membership as that body prescribes. (Emphasis added,
Part A section (2) sub-section (iv) of the Public Accountancy Law, 1968)
Thus, the national accountancy law, the main purpose of
which was to guarantee the conduct of local examinations, seems to be silent on
the matter of conducting local examinations for the purposes of qualifying
chartered accountants in Jamaica. Consequently, this clause seems to have
effectively empowered the ICAJ, if it deems fit, to seek external examinations
and credentialing of future Jamaican accountants (Mendes, 1990). The
implication of this development is that the national accountancy law that was
enacted to protect the interests of Jamaican accountants seems to have been
changed into an act that was incapable of protecting the Jamaican accountants
who it sought to protect. The national accountancy law has, in fact, made the
Jamaican national body (the ICAJ), which was formed for that purpose, a target
for expanding the market of certain foreign accounting professional bodies,
particularly, the UK-based ACCA. As a result, the ICAJ, operating with the
dominance of a few, powerful and influential minority members, who preferred to
continue to defend the status quo, had to start searching for a new accountancy
colonizer either temporarily, or permanently.
Failure of the Public Accountancy Law to Protect
the Interest of the Jamaican Accountants and the Accountancy Profession: ICAJ
Searched for a Foreign Parent Body Against its main Objectives
Out of the three main professional bodies formed in Jamaica
before the unification in 1965, the two leading bodies were the Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales Branch, and the Association of
Certified and Corporate Accountants Branch, both of the UK. The Institute of
Chartered Accountants in England and Wales[7]
on the one hand, is noted for its use of racial and closure policies in its
professional activities wherever it operates (Johnson & Cargill, 1971). The
Association of Chartered and Corporate Accountants[8],
on the other hand, has been a business-oriented body, which emerged with a
vigorous overseas policy, oriented to increasing its membership and expanding
its organization in such a way as to create a widely based professional empire
(Johnson & Cargill, 1971). As Johnson and Cargill (1971) described the two
colonial bodies:
“In case of the
Institute, the cost and length of obligatory articles in the offices of its
Fellows and the severity of its examinations soon became high barriers to
entrance. This relative closure of the established profession created
conditions for the emergence of new and competing associations catering for
those who worked as accountants but were unable to gain admittance to the
Institute. While the Institute
effectively blocked from entry many who held responsible positions in industry
and public practice, the accountancy student and practitioner in the Empire was
even more disadvantaged by the Institute’s Charter as articles could only be
served with Chartered Accountants in England and only British residents could
become Fellows. The Association on the other hand, adopted ‘Imperial’ policy in
an effort to attract members, money and influence”
(Emphasis added,
p.157).
These characteristics of the
"Institute" and the "Association", as described by Johnson
and Cargil, were also demonstrated by the ICAEW, and the ACCA, in their
ambitions to become the chosen permanent parent body of the accountancy
profession of the island of Jamaica (ICAJ).
As the Jamaican accountancy profession considered unification,
and the main purpose of the National Accountancy Act had been defeated, the
next option considered by the Jamaican accountants was to identify one of the
overseas professional organizations that could act as a parent body for the
proposed ICAJ. However, when the ICAEW and ACCA were approached concerning the
decision of the Jamaican government to enact the national accountancy law, the
reactions put forward by the two organizations were unacceptable to the
Jamaican accountants (Rattray, 1961). In this respect, the committee on Public
Accountancy Law complained to the Honourable Minister that:
It will be recalled
that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, had expressed
themselves forcibly against the Public Accountancy Law. Whereas, the
Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants had put forward proposals
for such a law. The attitude of the former was of course, reactionary; while the
proposals of the latter, although conforming with our objectives, were not
acceptable as put forward. (Ministry of Trade and Industry Minute 43,
section 5 of June 11, 1963)
Despite the unacceptability of the proposal put forward
by the ACCA towards the enactment of the national accountancy law, the ACCA was
still favoured over the ICAEW as the likely parent body of the proposed ICAJ.
Another advantage that the ACCA had over its rival, the ICAEW, was the issue of
professional article-ship. While the ICAEW’s policy in this respect stipulates
that article-ship must be served before qualifying, the ACCA allowed
article-ship to be served after qualifying. The latter position appeared to be
more suitable for the purposes of Jamaican students. As Rattray (1963b) argues:
One point to bear in
mind, and I emphasize this, is that there
is great ignorance, even among those who one would think ought to know about
this question, of accountancy status and qualifications. One used to be led
to think that article-ship was the hallmark of proper training. It is now known
that it is largely a device for cheap labour, that very little training, if
any, over and above purely clerical functions flows from such article-ship and
that the real training comes from study and later application. (Emphasis added,
Ministry of Trade and Industry Minute Number 21, section 8, from Mr. Alfred
Rattray, to the Honourable Minister of Trade and Industry, February 5, 1963)
The above statement, again, gave the ACCA a higher
rating over the ICAEW. In this context, the last statement that seemed to
finally guarantee the ACCA’s appointment as the parent body of the ICAJ came
when, in the discussion with the local representatives of ICAEW (as part of the
Public Accountancy Law Proposal deliberations), the committee on the Public
Accountancy Law declared:
It would be extremely
unlikely that any government could continue to give recognition to a body that discriminated against its
nationals. (Emphasis added, Ministry of Trade and Industry Minute Number 43
section 4, February 5, 1963)
Apart from the fact that the
ACCA had been able to provide education to about 70% of the qualified
accountants in Jamaica at the time of the unification, the above flexible
policies were an added advantage in favour of the appointment of the ACCA. As a
result, it was finally declared that:
Based on the available
information, many people feel that the arrangements of the Association of
Certified and Corporate Accountants, which require practice after qualification
as a condition precedent to associate membership is much more meaningful than
article-ship before the completion of examination followed automatically by
professional status. What we have been
doing over these years is to deprive our own people of opportunities in the
name of a purely illusory concept, which is the result of our own snobbery. (Emphasis
added, Committee on Public Accountancy Law Recommendation to the Honourable
Minister, Ministry of Trade and Industry, February 5, 1963)
Thus, the Jamaica government and accountants seemed to
have decided that the only way forward for the accounting profession was to
embrace the UK-based ACCA. The ICAJ therefore chose to become one of the
“empire markets” of the ACCA. Moreover, the term of the agreement with the ACCA
was not for the ACCA to be the sister body of the ICAJ, as stipulated in the
National Accountancy Act, 1968, but for the ACCA to be the parent body of the
ICAJ, contrary to the provision in the National Accountancy Act, 1968.
The UK-based ACCA thus emerged as the popularly identified
parent body of the proposed national professional body of accountants in
Jamaica (ICAJ).
The UK-Based ACCA emerged as the Identified
Parent Body of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica (ICAJ)
Immediately the negotiations for unification had started in
the island, negotiations started simultaneously with the ACCA, based on the
unanimously agreed proposal put forward earlier by the members of the Jamaica
District Society of the ACCA towards the unification of the profession in
Jamaica. The proposal states (inter alia) that:
To fill the needs of
government, society, commerce and practice suitability, qualified accountants
are needed in greater numbers. Training should include expert knowledge of
Jamaican financial and mercantile laws and institutions. Qualifying, as accountants by means of training and examinations
written in Jamaica are the ones most likely to acquire such knowledge and
responsiveness. In due course, examination questions should be framed and
students’ answers marked in Jamaica. This should not completely take place
until such qualifications granted by a Jamaican examining body can be assured
first class status in the eyes of the world. (Emphasis added, Proposal of ACCA
Jamaica Branch, to the committee on Public Accountancy Law, August 1, 1962)
The requirements and hence,
the clarifications went further to specifically state that:
Such
an examining body should follow the pattern set by the University College of
the West Indies in its progress towards being, as it is today, the University
of the West Indies. (Emphasis added, Proposal of ACCA Jamaica
Branch, to the committee on Public Accountancy Law, August 1, 1962)
As this proposal had already
received the unanimous approval of the Jamaican Branch of the ACCA, it is
therefore reasonable to assume that such a proposal may also have received the
approval of the parent body (ACCA) in England. Above all, this proposal was
quite in agreement with the overall understanding and the unanimous agreement
of the entire body of qualified accountants in Jamaica in general, towards the
unification of the profession in the country, as contained in the Public
Accountancy Law proposal.
During the unification process, the Jamaican Branch wrote
to the ACCA that they had tentatively agreed to merge with the representatives
of the Jamaican Branch of the ICAEW. The letter further indicated that there
was also some tentative agreement that legislation along the lines of a public
accountancy law should be sought after the merger. The letter further
emphasized that in the matter of a merger, the present thinking of the District
Society’s Committee was to have an Institute of Chartered Accountants in
Jamaica which would adopt the code of ethics of the English Institute, and the
basis of qualifications of the ACCA including that association’s syllabus. The
letter indicated (inter alia) that:
After
these ideas are mutually agreed upon, the
ACCA will be asked to set examinations in Jamaica on behalf of the proposed
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica for a number of years. (Emphasis added, Letter of integration of the
profession in Jamaica from the Secretary of the ACCA, Jamaican Branch, to the
Secretary, ACCA in England, April 11, 1963, AAJ - Archival Records)
The letter specifically
clarified that:
During this time, a
panel of Examiners in Jamaica would mark the examination papers and the ACCA
Examiners in London would review these markings. After a number of years, the Jamaican Institute will set its own
examinations. (Emphasis added, Letter of integration of the profession in Jamaica from
the Secretary of the ACCA, Jamaican Branch, to the Secretary, ACCA in England,
April 11, 1963, AAJ –Archival Records)
In its initial response to the demands from the
proposed ICAJ objectives, the ACCA did not show any sign of disagreement with
any part of the proposal. Some ICAJ members interviewed by the researcher for
the purpose of this research were of the opinion that any initial disagreement
on the part of the ACCA might possibly have denied the ACCA the parent-ship of
the proposed ICAJ. However, such a denial could be against the ACCA’s desire of
vigorous empire market-driven objectives (Johnson & Cargill, 1971). More
importantly, the ACCA did not also show any indication to the negotiating team
and individuals from Jamaica that it would not in any way be able to meet the
specific demand of the clause dealing with the handing over of the examination
and credentialing after a certain mutually agreed period. This period,
according to the proposal presented by the ICAJ, and duly accepted by the ACCA,
should be between 2 and 3 years. Instead, the ACCA seems to have re-employed
its marketing strategies at the initial stage of the negotiation, by showing
positive signs of compromise and readiness to do business with the proposed
unified Jamaican body, the ICAJ. The ACCA also enthusiastically indicated its
readiness to cooperate in all the demands put forward to it by the proposed
ICAJ (see report of the meeting between the ACCA secretary, and the executive members
of the proposed ICAJ in New York, September 1962 for details). Interestingly,
the ACCA even suggested some other areas for further improvements in the
contents contained in the public accountancy law proposal presented to it by
the ICAJ (see report of the meeting between ACCA Secretary, and the executive
members of the proposed ICAJ in New York, September 1962). This particular
initial enthusiasm of the ACCA towards the ICAJ’s demands seems to have
engendered in the Jamaican negotiators a measure of confidence in their
business relationship with the ACCA, that the relationship would be a mutual
one.
However, from the outset, while the Jamaican ACCA
qualified accountants (the Jamaican District Society of ACCA) had the belief
that they had an autonomous professional body in Jamaica, the ACCA had not at
any time been at ease with this independent ambition of the Jamaican branch. In
fact, the series of letters which the Jamaican branch had written to the ACCA,
using its own letterhead, which seemed to be portraying them as an autonomous
body (unknowingly to the Jamaican branch) seems to have posed a threat to the
ACCA’s ambition of colonization in the accountancy market in the empire
(including Jamaica). As Johnson and Cargill (1971) note:
The desire of the ACCA
to have perpetual control of the empire accountancy market in general was an
ambition that had actually brought the ACCA to this empire after the Second
World War. (p.160)
For example, as far back as
December 1961, in its ambition to dominate the Caribbean accountancy market for
example, the secretary of the ACCA wrote to its branch in Jamaica thus:
I am sure that the Council is extremely anxious that in
Jamaica, an acceptable pattern is laid down for the rest of the West Indies. It
is moreover, the one place where we are most likely to be able to enforce our
wishes because it is only here, from the whole of the Caribbean, that we
actually outnumber the members of the various Institutes. The Council has
therefore been giving some consideration to the desirability of an official
visit from the Association’s officers. Such a visit. I may say, would not be in
any way with the intention of interfering with your own legislative activities
but rather with the intention of giving such assistance as we can if you desire
it. (Emphasis added, letter from the Secretary of ACCA, to Jamaica Branch,
December 12, 1961)
In order to remedy this situation, which the ACCA
regarded as an oversight on the part of the Jamaican Branch, therefore, the ACCA
called the Jamaican branch to order. Thus, in 1963, the ACCA made Jamaica to
realize that it was just an enlarged market of the imperial body in England
(ACCA) and not an autonomous body, as it had been claiming. As the ACCA letter
to the Jamaican branch reads:
There
has all along been one somewhat curious oversight on your part, namely, that you have always referred to it as ‘the
Jamaica District Society’ whereas; it has from its inception been a Branch,
which is a slightly superior type of organization. (Emphasis added, ACCA Letter
of August 27, 1963, to the Jamaican Branch)
However, there was no evidence
that the Jamaican accountants reacted to the corrective letter from the ACCA,
which therefore suggests that they did not see such a corrective letter as a
threat to their aspiration of professional independence.
The Jamaican accountants continued to pursue their
ambition of professional independence, hence their request to the ACCA, as
stipulated in the public accountancy law proposal. In September 1962, four
members of the local executive of the proposed ICAJ from Jamaica attended the
Eighth International Congress of Accountants held in New York. There, they held
discussions with the ACCA representatives. The Jamaican executive officials,
again, specifically reiterated their earlier position that:
This scheme as laid
down in the proposed Jamaican Public Accountancy Law, would eventually lead to examinations being ‘entirely’ taken over from
the Association (ACCA) by a Jamaican body to be formed for that purpose in due
course. (Emphasis added, Jamaican Executives to the ACCA Secretary, Mr.
F.C. Osbourne, in New York, September 1962)
In his response, the secretary
of ACCA was of the opinion that:
The
Association (ACCA) would be willing to set special examination questions in
certain subjects for Jamaican students. Examiners in Jamaica could mark the
answer papers.
The council would have to approve the examinations. The council would accept
Chartered Accountants as examiners, if nominated by the District Society. The
marked papers would be reviewed in the United Kingdom. (Emphasis added, Mr.
Osbourne, Secretary of ACCA to an ICAJ Executive in a meeting in New York,
September 1962)
But, Mr. Osbourne seemed to
have technically avoided the question of the ‘entire’ examination being taken
over by a Jamaican body in any foreseeable future, which was specifically
stated in the original proposal and was earlier agreed upon by both parties. As
no response was given to this important omission by any of the Jamaican
representatives, this non-response seemed to convey the impression that the
ICAJ was accepting the new position of the ACCA, which seemed to be contrary to
the provisions contained in the Jamaican public accountancy law.
Again, in July 1963, one of the executive members of the
Jamaican branch of the ACCA visited England and held discussions with the ACCA
secretary. As this executive again emphasized the Jamaican position on the
aspiration for independence, Osbourne responded this time around with a
reactionary counter view to his second opinion in New York thus:
As
a result of developing countries such as Jamaica, the Association’s (ACCA)
sources of membership would be dwindling. He therefore asked the Jamaican executives to
consider the possibility of enabling persons sitting the ACCA’s examinations
and obtaining the Jamaica qualification automatically being entitled to be
members of the Association. (Emphasis added, ACCA, Jamaican Branch, Memorandum
of August 6, 1963)
Although the Jamaican
executive argued that such a third proposal might not be well received and in
addition, might generally be misinterpreted by his colleagues in Jamaica, it
was this position of the ACCA that was finally accepted in Jamaica, and has
been absorbed uncritically, up to the present time.
In continuation of their negotiations on the issue of the independence of the Jamaican accountancy profession from the ACCA, the Jamaican branch reminded the ACCA in London (in a letter dated March 10, 1964), of its previous request. The Jamaican branch, in the letter, further reminded the ACCA’s secretary of his earlier opinion and commitment in that direction. Specifically, the secretary of the Jamaican branch said he had ment