JOY COMETH IN THE MORNING

Last Thursday, September 23rd, the “circus master” (Haydn Hughes) pulled off probably one of his most amazing acts since the “circus” came to town seven months ago. It was reminiscent of the panic that was set off on October 30 1938, in the United States when the famous American actor and director, Orson Welles, caused a nationwide panic while promoting his radio program --- an adaptation of the science fiction novel “The War of the Worlds”. It was about a Martian invasion of the Earth written and performed so that it could sound as if it was an actual news broadcast, complete with eyewitness accounts.” Unwitting listeners thought it was the real thing and “people packed the roads, hid in cellars, loaded guns, even wrapped their heads in wet towels as a protection against Martian poisonous gas, in an attempt to defend themselves against aliens”. The people were placed into “a kind of virtual world in which fiction was confused for fact”.

In commenting on the event, Dorothy Thompson a journalist for the New York Tribune wrote: “They have proved that a few effective voices, accompanied by sound effects, can convince masses of people of a totally unreasonable, completely fantastic proposition as to create a nation-wide panic. They have demonstrated more potently than any argument, demonstrated beyond a question of doubt, the appalling dangers and enormous effectiveness of popular and theatrical demagoguery….” A further comment on this comment suggests that: “Dorothy Thompson foresaw that the broadcast revealed the way politicians could use the power of mass communications to create theatrical illusions, to manipulate the public.”

I have taken the time to present this illustration with the hope that I could conjure up, for your reflection, some of the images that came to my mind. The first call I received concerning the “circus act” came from overseas. When asked whether there was any truth to the rumour I replied: “Rubbish!” I knew full well that it would take more than a casual conversation to trigger such a serious action as the Governor asking the Chief Minister to resign immediately and call for fresh elections.

First of all, Section 63 of the Anguilla Constitution that deals with Prorogation and Dissolution requires a number of actions before the House can be dissolved. Some of these actions are included in the section while others are part of the established practice. The most appropriate clause in Section 63 would be clause (2) which states: “The Governor, acting after consultation with the Chief Minister, may at any time, by proclamation published in the Official Gazette, dissolve the Assembly.” But in the context of the matter of reshuffling, the relevant section is Section 27 where it states: The Governor, “acting in accordance with the advice of the Chief Minister, may by directions in writing, assign to any Minister responsibility for the conduct of any business of the Government of Anguilla.”

With regards Section 63 (2), let me make it clear that even though the Governor acts after consultation with the Chief Minister he is not required to act based on the Chief Minister’s views. He simply needs to fulfil the requirement “to consult”. However, in practice no sensible Governor would dissolve the House of Assembly, even if he felt he had strong grounds to do so in the “public interest”, until he would have received such instructions or approval from the Secretary of State, most likely via the Minister responsible for the Overseas Territories. Such a statement as asking the Chief Minister to resign would therefore definitely be accompanied by an official letter to that effect not simply on the basis of a “casual conversation”. There would therefore be no need for the present situation where persons are now trying to determine whose word they should accept --- the Governor or the Chief Minister.

With regards Section 27 (1) the Governor must act on the advice of the Chief Minister in assigning Ministerial responsibilities. The Governor is obliged to accept the advice of the Chief Minister. However, for the time being the Constitution allows for only four Ministers. The Governor cannot therefore be asked to create a fifth Minister unless the Constitution is amended by some instrument or decree. Frankly speaking, there is no need for the Chief Minister to make a fuss --- he has a number of options available to him if he wants to achieve his objectives, as follows:

1. He can remove one of his Ministers and give the portfolio to Jerome Roberts.
2. He can make Jerome Roberts the Parliamentary Secretary instead of Haydn Hughes and give him the portfolios.
3. He can take the portfolios himself and make Jerome Roberts a special adviser to assist him in managing them. In such a case the Governor will not even be required to assign the portfolio to anyone.

I have quoted and commented on these sections of the Anguilla Constitution to illustrate that there is no believable basis for last Thursday’s theatrics. And given the glowing picture which the Chief Minister and his gallery of supporters painted for Mr. Bellingham, the Minister for the Overseas Territories less than twenty-four hours earlier --- I found it incredulous that the situation could have deteriorated so rapidly. As a consequence I immediately advised my many callers that this was probably another one of the “circus master’s” “smoke and mirrors” illusions.

There is an old Caribbean saying: “If you give a dog a bad name you may as well hang it!” In plain language (lest I be deliberately misinterpreted) it means that if someone is known for a particular pattern of behaviour --- he/she will always be accused of behaving in that way. The “circus master” is notorious for misinformation so I naturally concluded that he must be up to his misinforming ways again. I also suggested that based on the immediate state of panic created in the community by the phrasing of the communication --- the architect of such a hoax should in my view be subject to some civil or perhaps criminal suit. In fact there was a Radio Station in Anguilla where a young and overly zealous DJ/Announcer seem to have bought this communication “hook, line and sinker” and sensationalized the situation to the extent that many private and public businesses and institutions were contemplating closing, in anticipation of the incidence of major civil disobedience and likely violence.

While the “circus master’s” statement used the phrase “democracy is under siege”. I was looking back at the recent public consultations and reflecting on how little some of the AUM supporters seem to understand about the notion of democracy and freedom of expression, in practice. It was scandalous the manner in which they sought to silence Clive Smith in the Anguilla House of Assembly when he tried to present a different viewpoint of the relationship with the Governor to the Minister of the Overseas Territories. It was perhaps the most classic display of “mobocracy” I have witnessed in a long time.

The entire episode in the House smacked of being “stage managed”. A fact that may have been inadvertently exposed when a self-proclaimed human rights activist mentioned that she was asked to speak. In the circumstances of that fiasco, I believe that Clive Smith must be commended for his determination and courage. Indeed it can be said that he was practically a “lone voice in the wilderness.”

But returning to the “circus act”, when it became obvious to some of us that the “circus master” was in fact promulgating the existence of a serious matter --- even though my understanding of the Constitution convinced me that it could not be so --- I found myself having to come face to face with the possible consequences. It was therefore a relief when the Governor’s press statement stated emphatically that he was not seeking the removal of the Chief Minister nor was he asking him to resign.

The “talking heads” on many radio shows over the weekend were seemingly at pains to come up with a theory of the incident which would neither offend the Governor or the Chief Minister --- since the Chief Minister’s response to the Governor’s press statement suggested that the Governor misrepresented the facts. In fact one commentator suggested that both the Chief Minister and the Governor were telling the truth --- as they understood it to be. If that theory is to be accorded any credibility it could only be derived from the premise that the Chief Minister misunderstood what the Governor said. Because the statement in question is purported to have been made by the Governor. Any other premise would only lead to the conclusion that the Governor is not telling the truth --- this would not fit theory being advanced.

Following the foregoing argument, my question now is whether the Chief Minster’s interpretation of the Governor’s statement is mistaken or deliberate. And if it is deliberate what is the motive and/or motivation. My strong view is that what the Chief Minister is suggesting would not have been said by any Governor if he possessed even basic training in foreign office diplomatic procedures. In fact, it is a part of the terms of engagement of every Governor of the Overseas Territories for matters of this nature to be approved by the Secretary of State.

Were I to be generous and suggest that the Chief Minister misinterpreted the Governor’ s statement I would then have great difficulty rationalizing the events that followed. It was very easy for the Chief Minister and his colleagues after the Governor’s statement to forget the whole thing and in the interest of national security, social stability and maintaining foreign and local investor confidence in a time of great economic challenge --- calm down his supporters as well as the rest of the community --- and move on. But on the contrary he incited his supporters with a speech that provoked, in fact, demanded discourteous, defamatory, discriminatory and even seditious responses. He then went on to promote a public rally at a newly dubbed “Freedom Park” where he would invite his supporters to choose between the elected Government and the British Governor.

At that point it became obvious to me that the Chief Minister’s response to his “one on one meeting” with the Governor was an opportunity for him to distract attention from the real issues which have been plaguing his Government over the past months and especially in the last three weeks. And perhaps some of the very concerns that the Governor discussed with him most of which he has been extremely vague in explaining. My conclusion therefore is that the Chief Minister’s response that he orchestrated through the “circus master”, was a “smoke screen” for some very serious issues that now face his government. I will speak of these at the appropriate time.

The reactions that followed the “circus masters” mass communication theatrics were mixed. There were the supporters of the Government who felt they were defrauded. There were supporters of the Opposition who felt vindicated. There were persons from both sides who felt that this could not be good for anyone. There were the skeptics, perhaps like myself, who always felt that this was a hoax --- another circus act. There were the young men in prison standing on the roof waving tree branches who perhaps felt that this may also be a referendum on their freedom.

Many Anguillians were in a state of anxiety on Saturday night as they awaited the outcome of the great meeting, touted by the AUM stage-managers, as a referendum on independence “Hubie style”. Their concerns were misplaced --- it was just another AUM political campaign rally. As usual Victor Banks was responsible for everything including the Governor’s alleged actions. (My comment: Wow! I don’t know my own power!) As usual the “Journalist” needs to stop writing about the Government and write about the airport project; transhipment, and; other topics of their choice. (My comment: Fat chance!! Don’t hold your breath!) As usual Haydn tries to employ more innuendo saying nothing worthy of my attention. (My comment: Keep on going my lawyers are waiting!) As usual there were conspiracies against the Chief Minister’s Government --- left, right and centre. (My comment: What else is new?)

I quoted Dorothy Thompson earlier when she spoke of “the appalling dangers and enormous effectiveness of popular and theatrical demagoguery”. Let give you the Oxford Dictionary definition of a “Demagogue” so that you may capture the essence of what we went through last Thursday. Demagogue: “a political leader who appeals to people’s desires and prejudices rather than using reasoned arguments”. The “circus master” found a way to rationalize the ongoing theme among the AUM supporters about going independence --- getting rid of the British Governor seem a solid first step. You will also recall how the AUM clerics rationalized the need for an Anguillian Governor (Soon!!!) at the recent public consultations with the FCO Minister. Is all this coincidental? A number of Anguillians have said to me that the probability of much of this has caused them sleepless nights. I continue to believe that Anguillians are a blessed people and like the Psalmist may I humbly admonish you not despair “joy cometh in the morning!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
September 28, 2010

"MINDSET"

Events of this week would indicate a clear lack of diplomatic protocol on the part of our government. Trying to stage a mutiny (uprising) against the Governor in the presence of his superior The Minister of Overseas Territories, a lack of respect for a significant arm of authority in the country and probably backfired very quickly plunging the island into utter chaos. Such actions are totally unnecessary for the peaceful atmosphere the island enjoys and political stability we’ve known for the past ten years. The Hughes regime in well known for its continued battle with authority. The AUF government of the past ten years functioned under the very same rules of order, and maintained a tranquil island for the entire term; clearly radical elements of the current administration are working overtime to damage the good name and character of Anguilla. A few talk show hosts in recent weeks have been trying to stir up discontent on the island, trying to organize a demonstration against the Governor over an issue related to the civil service core. Reports are that the ministers are not happy with the level of cooperation they are receiving from the civil servants, apparently impeding progress with their agenda. The civil service on the other hand says, there is utter confusion in government, and there is no agenda, on the other hand the Acting Governor with the civil service are trying to maintain some order and some degree of sanity for the professional functioning of government, part of said reason why the Governor has called for resignation of several ministers because of the circus atmosphere and lack of protocol in government. Permanent Secretaries appear to be stresses with the on going frustration of the day to day process.

Statements made by the honorable Chief Minister on many occasions at his press briefings actually appeared in many instances to be picking a fight with the Governors Cabinet and directly with the Governor while some incoherent supporters not having the slightest understanding how the government works seem to be fanning the flames of utter chaos on the island. The radical behavior and attitude of elements with in this government will harm the island. Anguilla is not a militant society and there is no reason for this government to be feeding fringe elements as their reservists. The rule of law must be maintained for our economic benefit and social tranquility. This Government must first give some respect then get some. If government feels that there is need to recall the Governor, there is a process, then begin the process at least with the support of the people. There is no need to be seeking sympathy from the electorate for a process out of order, one must ask by what standard we as a people would reject a crown appointment to the island? Certainly this government has not brought this to the people and does not have a mandate to reject the crowns appointed authority to maintain good order and governance of the people.

It is obvious that The Hughes regime has not learned lessons from the past; now having some support among the population intends to stir up turmoil on the island. Having the Governor recalled would only result in a replacement, which would be well informed and prepared to enforce similar actions. The Mind set and real objective of this government is independence for Anguilla. A clear objective of the honorable and great Mr. Hubert Hughes, an accomplishment he desires in his life time. But a thought not well germinated. Not even a single paper has been developed as to what this really means and it is irresponsible for any administration to be projecting such ignorance to the people. Independence is quite in the distant future for Anguilla, but the process can be started intelligently. No one in this administration should believe that anything can be done on such short notice, neither with removing the governor or independent status for the island, what would most likely happen if the island seems out of control is that the British would reign in all the power unto it’s self and we would be left with a well structured puddle government.

By: ejharrisxm

“So Shall It Be In The End”

“So Shall It Be In The End”

On Friday July 30th, 2010 the Anguillian carried an article based on a press conference held by the Chief Minister, Hon. Hubert B. Hughes and his son the Parliamentary Secretary, Haydn Hughes. The actual press conference was actually held on Tuesday July 28th and as a consequence the news had already been circulated on the various broadcast media that Viceroy Resort was sold to an investment group, Starwood Capital Group (SCG); an MOU was signed; the new buyer would be paying US$ 40 million in taxes, and; the Government would be receiving 9% Alien Land Holding Licence fees on every villa sold.

Understanding the long process of negotiations associated with such deals many persons were stunned by this announcement. And especially so when the Parliamentary Secretary, Haydn Hughes stated: “Last week the property was up for sale this week it has been sold.” The Chief Minister for his part went on to say that Viceroy had been under “serious stress and so Citibank, which financed it at US$ 412 million, has not been paid and moved in to sell the note to Starwood Capital. He further stated that the Parliamentary Secretary was given the task to redeem some of the taxes lost under the previous MOA. We have more or less quashed the MOA and have formulated an MOU.”

What was most ironic about this press statement is that whereas the AUM politicos in the recent election campaign had been accusing the former Government of conducting their negotiations in secret here are they now presenting an MOU negotiated by HAYDN alone! In fact after this press statement a number of Ministers of the Government denied having any knowledge of the transaction and in particular the MOU. Transparency Indeed!

The past AUF Government had a very organized system for dealing with the negotiation of Memorandum of Agreements. A first draft would be produced by senior technical officials on a committee called the Tourism Investment Committee (TIC); followed by a presentation by that committee to Ministers of Government; then the preparation of a negotiating stance to be agreed in Executive Council. Once the first negotiating stance has been agreed more discussions with the investor takes place and that process is repeated several times until a final document is ready to be presented to Executive Council for final approval before signature.

This process could take considerable time if there are significant points of difference between the Government and the Developer. And very often the Government would hire consultants from the United States or elsewhere to provide advice in cases where there are legal and commercial issues/practices not familiar to our jurisdiction. In fact the methodology for negotiating with foreign investors during the past AUF Administration was considered to be a best practice in the OECS region.

I will take this opportunity to commend the members of the TIC for the thorough job they did. There were times when the pressure to conclude critical agreements would have led to fiery confrontations between senior technical officers and Ministers of Government but it was always in an atmosphere of the utmost respect. At the end of the day it was a constant struggle to arrive at a place where both the interests of the people of Anguilla and those of the developer/investor were equitably addressed.

I said in my column last week that the Chief Minister and his colleagues strongly believed that the rules are for everyone but them. It is the kind of behaviour strongly associated with persons who have sociopathic tendencies. And I say this in the context of the arrogance of the Chief Minister after so strongly accusing the past Government of closed negotiations to be boasting in his press conference that he had appointed his son to “redeem some of the taxes lost under the previous MOA.” He did not appoint the trained economist, Deputy Chief Minister, Hon. Edison Baird nor a committee of Senior Technical Officials seized of the intellectual memory to deal with the Viceroy MOA; --- he appointed his son. I will come back to the issue of these lost taxes later!

There are many AUM supporters who have been led to believe that to bring an MOU to the House of Assembly constitutes public consultation. In fact, I have had to disabuse a senior news reporter of this view. The same Chief Minister and his colleagues who allow the most junior members of the House of Assembly to negotiate MOU’s, by themselves on Government’s behalf would have us believe that they are actually exercising good governance and transparency simply by bringing it to the House after it has already been signed off.

You may ask why am I speaking about the Viceroy MOU? After HAYDN had boasted in his press conference that a MOU was signed with the new buyers for Viceroy Resort --- the Leader of the Opposition, during the debate on the Cap Juluca MOU, pressured him to explain how could he have signed an MOU before bringing it to the House of Assembly or to Executive Council --- given his Government’s pledge to bring all MOU’s to the House? His response was extremely evasive.

In doing my research I have discovered what I suggest could account for the Parliamentary Secretary’s evasiveness. The extremely effective presentations by the Members of the Opposition in the House on the Cap Juluca MOU debates pointed to the naivety and inexperience of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Elected Member from Sandy Hill in negotiating such documents. The Parliamentary Secretary must have therefore been reluctant to admit that there was in fact an MOU signed with the Starwood Capital Group. Other Ministers in the Government refused to allow that MOU to go to Executive Council.

It is now being said at the time of writing (Tuesday Sep 21) that the Government is hoping to take a Memorandum of Understanding agreed with Starwood Capital Group to the House of Assembly on Thursday September 23, 2010 for debate. Again up to the time of writing the Members of the Opposition have not received copies of that MOU. However, it appears that this MOU now has the benefit of the revitalized Tourism Investment Committee’s (TIC) expertise and experience and for this I commend the Chief Minister for in effect acknowledging that the United Front Government system of negotiations is indeed a best practice that his Government should follow. I also applaud his wise decision to take this very serious undertaking out of the hands of veritable amateurs.

But hold on!! Here is the most serious part of this drama. Many of us believed that MOU that they purported to have signed was an innocuous document. However, we later discovered that the MOU was actually signed on July 27, 2010 on Starwood Capital letterhead by the Chief Minister and witnessed by a Senior Government Official. We are privileged to have the signed copies of that document. That is, the same MOU in which the Chief Minister instructed the Parliamentary Secretary to redeem supposedly “lost taxes” and giveaways by the past government. HAYDN actually did quite the opposite as follows:

• He fixed the value of the real estate for the purposes of calculation of the various stamp duty and alien land holding license fees as not to exceed US$105 million. My comment: Revenue will be lost if the value exceeds US$105. Even if that were considered to be unlikely, given the circumstances of the sale it would have been a better deal to set a minimum rather than a maximum.

• He increased the number of exemptions for refurbishment to six times in twenty years rather than four times as in the original MOA. My comment: Is this how we redeem lost revenue from taxes?

• He removed the payment of the Resort Resident Asset Levy in most cases. This is an ongoing stream of revenue established in the original MOA for the life of the project that in time would exceed all up front payments. My Comment: He has sacrificed revenue for future generations for upfront windfalls. Obviously, simply to make the Government look good in the short term.

• He removed the section dealing with increases every five years of the annual levies payable by condominium owners and fixed the rate at no more than US$ 6.50. My comment: Again! Is they how we redeem lost revenue from taxes?

What the Parliamentary Secretary did by having the Chief Minister sign this seriously flawed MOU had to impact the efforts of the TIC in eventually negotiating the MOU now being proposed to be presented to the House in a few days. The fact is that even though the document did not go to EXCO or the House it could have been argued to be legally binding given the fact that it contained the Chief Minister’s signature witnessed by a senior civil servant. This reality may have taken away a considerable amount of the TIC’s leverage in negotiating a more favourable agreement. While I am confident that what they have worked on will be a considerable improvement on the travesty that the Parl. Sec. negotiated --- they will not be fully satisfied with the outcome.

I believe that I have established so far that the press announcements made regarding the sale of the Viceroy Resort have been shrouded in misleading statements, deliberate inaccuracies and downright lies. In fact as I speak and probably in this very issue of the Anguillian there are even stronger views being promulgated against the Parliamentary Secretary in the handling of this matter. The good governance, transparency and accountability to which the Chief Minister refers ad nauseam as the motto of his government comes into serious question. And there are damaging documents being circulated which reinforces my view that the Parliamentary Secretary and his father continue to believe that the rules only apply to other people.

In dealing with the Viceroy issue the Chief Minister and his son have caused a number of investors to waste their resources by giving them assurances that they subsequently reneged upon. One investor has produced facts and figures that suggest that there may be grounds for an investigation into the transparency of the decision to enter into an exclusive MOU with Starwood capital. In fact strong supporters of the AUM government have become very vocal in their opposition to the manner in which Haydn has dealt with this entire matter. Words like truth, integrity, transparency, honesty, and good governance pervade their correspondence to the Parliamentary Secretary in an extremely accusatory manner.

I will allow those who have been aggrieved by the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with these issues get the facts out to you the people of Anguilla. You will then have an opportunity to hear them first hand rather than rely on my commentary. It is refreshing to hear someone else address the “selective transparency” which I have been writing about for the past seven months.

But what does one expect? This Government came to office on the basis of lies; it continues to consolidate its support on the basis of lies; it justifies its campaign of victimization on the basis of lies; and; it seems intent on governing on the basis of lies. Nothing has changed! What can I say? As it was in the beginning ---so shall it be in the end!


Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
September 21, 2010

« UNSUSTAINABILITY » (Part -2)

Part 2 "We can learn from St. Maarten"!!!!!

It is irresponsible government to allow its people to be chasing goods and services. Every government should minimize risk to the livelihood of its people, especially when we must travel the seas for minimal, but important things. It must also be brought forward, that this phenomenon is also a capital resource liability for the country which is over looked or simply not looked at all. Personally, I believe that St. Maarten is over saturated, but has proven to sustain its self without the degree of embarrassment we have faced in the very worst of times. They have built an economy with several key pivots that have provided long term economic stability to the island. Their tourism structure comes with a well equipped airport facility and modern facilities, and other facets, a robust commercial port with varying degrees of services and an extraordinary cruise port. A very lively commerce center and extraordinary shopping possibilities, a marine industry accommodating most of the world largest yachts, in addition to sufficient hotel rooms they also have a very active time share industry. So St. Marten understood very early on that because of size restriction and recognition, considering that smaller territories get lesser attention, decided to demand that attention by strategically focusing on key facets in the industry, so that if one aspect fails, there sustainability is not jeopardized.

At some point, we must consider our economic ties with St. Maarten / St. Martin and strengthen those ties with a more balanced trade exchange. We must add strategic importance to the daily movement from our side and balanced the exchange, where both islands stand to benefit. St. Maarten is a dominant destination in commercial activity and continues to expand while Anguilla has failed to develop any kind of commerce concentration causing the average Anguillian to utilize St. Maarten as our believed, commercial capital. If we art to consider enhancing the current degree of exchange, Anguilla must find a niche that St. Maarten / St. Martin can find attractive and buy into. That would signal some rationality in the movement, but from an observation standpoint, this is a one way trade which simply provides the people of Anguilla the opportunity to utilize the more commercially active off shore possibilities on St. Maarten. Most economists I believe would recommend a strategy where the government seeks ways to bring more commerce to the people, weather that means more of our own businesses, Chinese, Indians, Arabs or Americans establishments. It’s the job of government to be inclusive; if necessary, with the most extreme stringent screening requirements, and manage the island, so we don’t get over crowded, and the quality of investment is the best quality we can find. We have been utilizing the exclusion route which has not brought sufficient economic security to the country thus far. The consistent shopping experience of Anguillians, from St. kitts to St. Thomas, Puerto Rico and SXM, Miami and else where sends a message as to where we want to go in commerce and trade. Simply, “I we don’t have it here I’ll go and get it anywhere”

There is now no certainty that our model for sustainability will ever work, what is perhaps more sure is that we must rethink the way forward. Our government must invest in the country to procure that acceptable degree of economic growth that would guarantee a continuous climb into sustainability. We continue to seek new foreign investment while opting ourselves, not to invest in any meaningful way to sustain our credibility as a small developing country. The government of Anguilla must find money, big money to invest in the country, in those key areas that are extremely viable to our medium to long term progress and absolute sustainability. It is unavoidable, that if we want to build a modern economy we must invest in key infrastructure project that would provide a foundation for advancement and growth.

(1) A modestly functioning modern airport facility with all of today’s requirements that would serve the travelling public optimally. A modest, but sure modern upgrading to the terminal we have to meet all the requirements for international standard operations and a well funded marketing plan for Clayton Lloyd’s International Airport and our tourism program. This government would say, “we’re not investing in that facility” Well, we have just put the island’s prestige on the line when we invested in renaming a facility without any attempt to upgrade it; a some what unusual act.

(2) We need a modern deep water harbor modestly, but well equipped that would attract normal shipping to a small developing territory like our country with all required facilities that make the harbor function in today’s Anguilla, having a keen eye on the future.

(3)We also need an appropriate commercial environment or town setting, where our commercial activity is concentrated, having the amenities to attract commerce. I was told by a very high ranking immigration official from Anguilla once, I look forward to my off day which comes on a Thursday, when I can leave the island and go to St. Maarten just to hang out for two days. Just to sit around or walk in town makes a big difference. When I return back to my job I feel renewed, reenergized.

We have consistently confused our marketing with an incoherent tourism policy which has more exclusions than inclusions; which is surely not a positive marketing tool for the island. If we are a touristic island, then let’s compose a plan that would attract tourists to our island. We seem to be quite happy with our brand, the so called “high end tourists destination.” Let’s keep that. But certainly they are exactly the one that will stay away at the buzz of high crime rate, weather speculation and any minor inconvenience, they will chose another destination. Having tourist ship cruise to and near the island but not having disembarkation does the island no good. We need a policy that will cater for cruise tourism with managed disembarkation numbers. If the island can entertain 600 tourists per visit lets market that. We must be an inclusive market and minimize our exclusions, if sustainability is our objective. This opinion I know is not popular on the island, every report I have heard or seen on Anguilla Tourism is just the opposite, but to date has not worked either.

ejharrisxm

« UNSUSTAINABILITY » (Part -1)

"we can learn from St. Maarten"

Anguilla has great potential. It is almost phenomenal that we have attained the level of progress in a single generation that has made the country almost unrecognizable and left us having a great fight to maintain aspects of our culture. Certainly some of the more primitive life styles have vanished and we have adapted a good portion of the modern ways of life. To some extent in our preservation effort we have managed to maintain more of our heritage than other islands. For instance, St. Martin / St. Marten have perhaps lost much more of their heritage than we have, to a robust tourist economy which most people claim is out of control. Anguilla has managed to control its growth with reasonable development while containing aspects of our past, not allowing everything to be consumed in our effort to build an economy.

In mentioning St. Maarten /St. Martin, it was with intention; I want to focus on particular aspects of economic growth in connection with my topic. Certainly, both island have sustained a long history of friendliness between governments and people and have managed to advance their economy in very obvious different directions while fostering desirable growth and satisfaction in their pursuit. Having some first hand knowledge of both countries, since I balance my stay in proportion; it is to some degree deserving to say that St. Martin French and Dutch sides have an acceptable record of sustainability since forging ahead in its progress as a tourist destination and no holds bard economic development strategy. Especially the Dutch side of the Island that has left out nothing in its pursuit of economic growth. But in so doing has sacrificed a significant portion of human capital and community life. One of the foremost criticisms of St. Maarten is the class proportion, where it depends on which district you name, you can get an immediate imaginary picture of the quality of life and living standards implied.

Anguilla on the other hand has always endeavored to meticulously craft its journey into a sustainable economic growth pattern which has actually failed so far. It would appear that most governments of the island have followed that pattern, set forth by the original concept of slow growth sound economy but until now have not succeeded in maintaining any sustainability in the economic growth factor of the island. We are actually well known for a boom and burst economy which always has a devastating effect on the island and the people. As a country we seem to know the kind of model we wish to develop but have consistently failed to maintain a pattern of steady growth. It might be time to consider reshaping our growth pattern and minimizing some of the exclusives that seem to direct most of the conversation on our growth model. Unlike St. Maarten we seem to build a single pivot economy with no spread that would support the desired sustainability. It would seem that indeed we know what is required, because certainly we have had a good look how St. Marten has managed to maintain a much better model of sustainability than we have, while we have consistently criticized that as a model off limit. There is growing evidence that the people of Anguilla spend more of its disposable income and savings on St. Maarten rather than Anguilla. This entrenched custom where Anguillians feel that St. Maarten / St. Martin is better than Anguilla If you wants to be entertained, to be amused, to purchase, to stroll in town, to window shop, gaming, playing and to find what ever you need; this mind set has impeded some degree of our growth, lamenting that since we can get it on St marten, we don’t need it here on Anguilla.

ejharrisxm

Part 2

It is irresponsible government to allow its people to be chasing goods and services. Every government should minimize risk to the livelihood of its people, especially when we must travel the seas for minimal, but important things.

A LESSON IN POLITICS!!!

“climb the social ladder, or crush your enemy”

Growing up in Island Harbour east side, there was really nothing much to aspire to. Many of the youngsters of the village would fish either as a fun thing or as a serious money making job. Most went to St. Thomas. I wanted to go to St. Thomas and when I reached there, I was culture shocked, coming from Anguilla. Here is where I understood what it meant to know something, weather that’ll be a skill where you can master a trade or a profession that will make a difference in society. Anguilla has truly evolved from those days. In our politics, the country has evolved significantly and our people have become totally engaged. At some point, it was a conscious decision that I wanted to be a politician. I have actually lost that intuition, mostly because I have accept the fact that a five year terms is a significant waiting time for available space that is not readily available, and to occupy that space, one must engage in brutal warfare in our political culture.

Politics speaks of influence between groups or individuals for power or leadership, not limited to government only. Case in point; “Cut down those beautiful old shade trees to make room for more cars?” That would be a dumb thing to do! This was the response of a West Viginia Ecology Club when they heard what city officials were planning, they wanted to add another lane to the street. The students agreed that the lane was necessary, but was strongly opposed to cutting down the trees. The Club members did not have the power of the city government, but in their eyes, they have the right to be heard. The question is “what is politics? The astuteness of a politician must be capable to appeal to reason and compromise. “Politics is actually competition between interest groups or individuals for power or leadership, but also the science and art of governing and guiding or influencing government’s policy, the science and art of winning and holding control of government.” Which is more important in politics, Ideas or personalities? In reference to a run for the US House of Representatives, the class was asked to think this answer over very carefully and to consider weather they’ll chose their candidate because of his or her ideas or because they liked that person. The words of the professor, “If ideas were most important to making a choice at the polls, you’re probably closer to the politics of the Soviet Union, Italy and Germany than the United States. America’s government at best is “for the people, by the people.” Leaders rule by consent of the governed.

Professional politicians must know how to influence people, large numbers of people. The way you do that is by making them feel better about themselves. This is the philosophy of American Author Townsend in his best seller book “Up the Organization” compared to his Italian counter part Niccolo Machiavelli who believes that people must not be trusted. “People are selfish and dishonest; a politician must be watchful and crafty. If you trust too many people you will surely lose everything.” “His best seller book “The Prince” went on to say, “Politicians live in a dangerous world, it is good to make people afraid of your power, just as other beasts are afraid of the lion. It is better to destroy your enemy than to injure him.” “Men ought to either be well treated or crushed” because friends will remain friends if you treat them well; but if you distrust a friend then it is best to crush him entirely.” “Show no mercy; destroy him before he destroys you” Most politicians will respect a leader who shows the power of the lion, but one must also be like the fox, otherwise you’ll be overcome by those who approach with a smile and bring along a trap. “You must be both the lion and the fox.”

The American said, “People must be helped. “Up the Organization” is based on Social science theory of human values “climbing the social ladder.” If you want people to do their best, you must understand their needs. “All people have needs that are not yet satisfied.” I’m cold, I can’t protect myself. Am I better off today than I was last year? People who are scared of losing their jobs or freezing to death are not motivated by the need to feel good about themselves it takes human understanding to know where one person is on the social ladder. Townsend’s philosophy is that, the foundation of government is to help people meet their needs and politicians must know where whole groups of people are on the ladder. Barrack Obama recently said “I am constantly thinking how to create ladders for people to climb into the middle class. (Anguilla) Our democracy is hinged to Western civilization which makes our politics very similar to that of America. Have we ever asked our selves how well our politics work for us? Is our social ladder part of our advancement?

Ej harrisxm

GOD BE MERCIFUL UNTO ME A SINNER!

It is good to give God thanks and praise! And indeed we must --- having been spared the full impact of a queue of hurricanes from the African coast on a beeline to our homeland. Even though Hurricane Earl was almost a direct hit --- we did not sustain the level of damage that could be possible for a storm of that category. We have been truly blessed. We commiserate with those persons who suffered losses, particularly boat owners and those with properties in coastal areas. We pray that they recover swiftly.

Let me especially thank the clean-up crews who came out and in so doing created an atmosphere of hope. Particularly impressive were those I saw on the Coronation and Queen Elizabeth Avenues where heavy equipment contractors like Rayme Lake; Bumba Carty; Wilmoth Richardson and Eldon Rey donated their equipment free of charge to assist in the clean-up operations.

There is a well-known saying: “you never miss the water till the well runs dry!” In this context, the absence of water, electricity and television was strongly felt throughout the island. The work crews from these utilities persevered even under threat of on-coming storms to restore these practical amenities of modern living. We are thankful that they worked safely and without incident.

There were many murmurings among the impatient ranging from: “why they taking so long? -- St. Maarten don got current back!” to “we shoulda have electricity underground!” Or, “we got electricity wa happen to de cable?” and “I gon get me own satellite dish!” Of course as soon as these utilities were restored all these murmurings were quickly abandoned. And soon taken for granted once again.

I cannot help but mention our service at Ebenezer at six o’clock the morning before the Hurricane. It was there that our Pastor on duty gave a prayer of deliverance that moved me and I assume many others into a realm of confidence to believe that we would fare well despite the forecasts. And as I said to a couple of friends after the service I was confident that those prayers would find favour with the Almighty. Indeed they did!

Our gratitude must be extended to the St. Maarten Radio Stations, Laser Radio 101.1 and Radio Soualiga 99.9 for keeping us informed and entertained --- thus providing a vital service when Radio Anguilla went down. Indeed it was instructive to hear our Minister of Home Affairs reporting from Cole Bay. Someone said jokingly: “the Minister of Home Affairs don’t stay home at all!” All in good post-hurricane humour!

Radio Anguilla eventually returned and held its own as the “Nation’s Station”. And although almost an entire “work-week” was affected --- the aftermath as usual highlighted the renowned resilience of the Anguillian Community and its ability to adapt to changing situations.

It was a widely held view long before the storm that in some mysterious way hurricanes seem to have an attraction for the present Chief Minister, the Hon Hubert B. Hughes. Many theories have been advanced that seek to show a causal relationship between his tenure and the incidence of hurricanes. Of course I would not credit any of those theories with having any scientific evidence to support them. Nevertheless, the historical facts will show that during the first two years of his tenure as Chief Minister and beginning in 1995, Anguilla was struck by three Hurricanes within a nine-month period, namely, Luis, Marilyn and Bertha. It should also be noted that we did not get a direct hit for thirty-five years, that is, since the famous Hurricane Donna in 1960. Then upon his reelection in 1999, Jose and Lenny struck us, one month apart in October and November of that very year. Now once more, in 2010, Hurricane Earl has struck and the season is not yet over.

One of the theories being propagated locally is that disasters attract disasters whether human or natural. Little wonder then that when the Chief Minister made his joint statement with His Excellency the Governor before Hurricane Earl he saw it fit to make the following clarification and I quote: “Remember this is a natural act of nature, Anguilla is in the Hurricane path, it is not Hubert Hughes. I am not God!” I would have like to have been a “fly on the wall” to observe the Governor’s face when our Chief minister made these comments.

But before I return to this issue of “divinity and/or deity” let me make some explanatory comments about a very cursory statement made in a press release from the Government of Anguilla two days after Hurricane Earl. It stated that the Government of Anguilla would be receiving just over four million US dollars after fourteen days from the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF). No one in this Government took the time to mention that the former “do-nothing” AUF Government had the foresight and forward planning to enter into a contract with CCRIF for catastrophic insurance, in October 2006, at a rate of US $500,000 per year. Neither did anyone mention the sterling efforts of the senior technical officers in the Ministry of Finance who worked hard to negotiate that contract. Indeed, when the past Government brought the supplementary budget to the House of Assembly for this expenditure many negative statements were made during the committee stage of the debate. Today when this preliminary payment would have been received it will represent more than double the total premiums paid to CCRIF since the agreement was signed. Sweet!!!

The CCRIF contract is a very important national security arrangement. It covers Anguilla for both hurricane and earthquake losses and is triggered by an index formula which is based on historical measurements of such events which have occurred in our region. Once a country is affected by an event that exceeds the trigger amount, an automatic payout is generated for the first of three events per annum. In the case of hurricanes, it is for one that exceeds certain wind speeds and for earthquakes once a particular magnitude is reached. There is therefore no “guess work” in calculating the payout. And an interim payout is made within three business days of the event and a final payout within thirty business days.

Based on our contract, the overall losses to Government is assessed as follows:

• Loss due to direct damage to key Government buildings.

• Reduction of tax revenue due to reduction in business activity.

• Estimated loss due to damage to key infrastructure.

• Estimated Government Relief Expenditure (assumed to be equal to 1% of total damage to residential buildings in the area)

In essence this “thirty-one page” insurance policy document is both accurate and effective in dealing with the insurance of public assets. In recent times such coverage became woefully inadequate because of the prohibitive costs --- as the amount of damage caused by natural disasters in our Caribbean region continues to increase. The CCRIF’s rapid response in the wake Hurricane Earl is therefore a solid testimony to the efficiency of this solution.

But let me now return to the issue of “deity and divinity” which seems to be very loosely banded about by the Chief Minister and a number of his supporters. And for those of you who may have missed it --- I will personally pay to publish in the next Anguillian Newspaper a copy of the Chief Minister’s 2000 campaign pamphlet entitled: “My Long Crusade”. The pamphlet brings into focus his egotism; his tendency to rewrite history; his belief in his own fabrications, and; his feeling of having a divine right to rule.

I will quote four statements from that pamphlet and very briefly comment on them as follows:

1. He wrote: “When the true story of Anguilla was written it may very well be proved that my entry into politics sparked the Anguilla Revolution.” My comment: Everyone knows that Hubert was a staunch member of Bradshaw’s Labour Party even based on his Anguilla Day Speech this year.

2. He wrote: “Anguilla lost much because selfish covetous people shortened my stay in Government in 1980-1981 and 1984 to 1985.” My comment: “ Who are these selfish covetous people he is speaking about he left (or was fired from) the Hon. James Ronald Webster Government in 1981 and then left (or was fired from) the Sir Emile Gumbs Government in 1985.”

3. He wrote: “ As Minister of Finance and Lands 1984-1985 I single-handedly negotiated the purchase of the Bank of America for the NBA, now the largest bank in Anguilla.” My comment: Hubert had nothing to do with negotiating the purchase of Bank of America for NBA even though GOA bought shares it was neither negotiated nor purchased by the Minister of Finance or Government of Anguilla.

4. He wrote: “A glowing glory for Anguilla however, was when due to the intervention of the Holy Spirit I was made Anguilla’s third Chief Minister in March 1994.” My comment: Again the Holy Spirit is being evoked into the Anguilla political process.

You may be wondering what all this has to do with hurricanes and catastrophic insurance. Well --- we are all talking about disasters, their causes and responses. It is obvious that we have a Government that has done nothing but complain since it came to office. We have not yet seen the plans that it claimed to have during the recent campaign to turn things around. We continue hear about “prayer warriors” supporting their campaign of political victimization. Indeed we have heard one of the AUM campaign clerics, the Rev. John A. Gumbs declare: “Anyone who votes for the Anguilla United Front commits an act against God and will be punished!” I have been warned by one of the AUM clerics not to touch the Lord’s anointed. But while I will not venture to touch “the hem of the garment” of any of the AUM clerics --- I do have a sense of blasphemy when I hear it.

A skeptic may ask whether our hardships from man-made or natural disasters are as a result of those persons who voted for the Anguilla United Front. Are we all being punished because of the AUF voters? While I strongly doubt the prophecies of the AUM clerics. I have a strong belief in God’s providence to all mankind. And like the publican standing afar off I too declare: “God be merciful unto me a Sinner!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
September 8, 2010

“POLITICS AND THE WEATHER”

Our most northerly position of the Leeward Islands sometimes makes us pruned to be hit by these systems coming off the African Coast. We can however be very thankful to God that we in fact did not get a direct hit. Even in a week which was totally dominated by the weather in tropical paradise. There is always something political that can be extrapolated. In this case I’ll draw your attention to an article published in the Daily Herald on Wednesday September first. “The Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) is preparing to make a payout to the government of Anguilla as a result of Hurricane Earl which passed close to Anguilla and other islands in the north-eastern Caribbean as a major hurricane Monday.” The CCRIF explained Tuesday that based on preliminary calculations untaken, using it’s catastrophe loss model and the most recent data from the National Hurricane Center, Anguilla will receive just over US $4million after 14 days during which time a calculation of loss and payout will be made. Anguilla has tropical cyclone and earthquake policies with the facility as part of the country’s disaster risk management strategy.

In my very own political life, I had to come to grips with a course to take. I was never a party operative but always remained very conscious of the direction of the country, and of course, I have always hoped to see the island developed along my imagination. In some cases it has passed my wildest dreams and others far from expectation. I had to resolve the personal issue of my political alignment, weather I would oppose AUF or join them in support as a political party. I had to take a careful look at the alternatives and what they stood for. I actually stepped back and looked at the island, and how I knew it, and concluded in the affirmative; Anguilla is definitely better off today. In my analysis, I have not calculated the so called “boom period” only the general function of government and advancement of the country. I actually laid the chaos we find ourselves in today squarely and directly at the feet of AUF and recognized their failures, and many areas of neglect, and said they indeed could have done a much better job. In spite of all that, I chose to align myself with the AUF for the simple fact that I believe they governed the country well in the past ten years.

It is becoming more evident that AUF, during their governing period was able to well establish the mechanisms and apparatuses so as to guarantee the actual effective functioning of the country. Our status with the Eastern Caribbean States and the Eastern Caribbean Bank as an associate state guarantees our stability and security so the people of Anguilla can feel safe. When the story broke that Anguilla borrowed 10M from Dominica, it was said, “what a disgrace” none of us understood, neither did our government, until it is now their turn. Government is about the future and not as much the past, other than, “to lead by example and be directed accordingly.”Knowing that the island has catastrophic insurance in place and enforced, for both hurricane and earth quakes liabilities, enforces the allusion that AUF was a responsible government. In many cases the optimal functioning and stability of the country has to do with the reliable functioning of the country’s NGOs and not altogether that of government; with the effective functioning of the NGO systems and a variety of independent national institutions such as many of those now being dismantling, for the lack of clarity of their function in our society, could indeed negatively affect the country. Right now, while government is without liquidity these very important social mechanisms are our sustainability.

By:EJ Harri