PARLIAMENT MET TO REINTRODUCE TINTING OF VEHICLES AT A COST; APPROVE PERSONALIZED NUMBER PLATES; AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO VEHICULAR ORDINANCE.

This rash incompetent behaviour by a visionless brain-dead so-called government on Anguilla yet demonstrates why the British government needs to take a more hands on approach in administering certainty and prudence, if serious about the well-being of life on Anguilla.

British experts concluded that light transmitted through the vehicle windscreens must be at least 75%. Front side windows (to either side of the drivers’ head) must allow at least 70% of light to be transmitted through them - to be legal on its roads.

Whilst I don’t support a total ban on tinting, measures to limit the impact of irresponsible vehicular tinting on Anguilla must be maintained in line with similar regulations in the United Kingdom. This includes equipping our police force with the necessary equipment and use thereof, to enforce necessary legislation established. 

We must never be put in a situation of choosing to raise revenue over our internal security, especially by a set of unlearned idiots. The question is, where is our Commissioner of Police at a time when we need him most? 

Anguilla is in dire need of a Top Cop! 

How about addressing our irresponsible drinking; strict liability for the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors; giving police the necessary powers to enforce breathalyser testing on Anguilla; criminalisation to the further serving of alcoholic beverage to an intoxicated person; vehicular seatbelt requirement; and the no usage of mobile phones and other hand held devices while driving a vehicle. There is a lot of revenue uncollected there…

Tinting might look great - and you may get away with it - in the same way that there are plenty of motorists with illegal exhausts, lighting, sounds and other outfits - but health and safety must be a government first responsibility to its citizenry. Excessive tinting is a high security risk, and must not be tolerated in any civilised society.

Anguilla's taxpayers must not underwrite the lack of vision or incompetence by our authorities.

By: Change Hope

“GLAD TIDINGS OF GREAT JOY!”

This week the East End Community opened its long awaited HOPE Centre on Separation Day, December 19, 2011. It is the time when we celebrate the official culmination of the primary goal of the Anguilla Revolution, that is, secession from the unitary state of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla. The date is also symbolic of Anguillians struggling together to achieve a better life for our people and the strong determination and unwavering resolve that saw that struggle through. The Centre is the brainchild of Mrs. Cora Richardson-Hodge but its realization is a result of praiseworthy community effort that was evident from the extensive list of contributing sponsors and volunteers presented at the ceremony. In every way the Centre is a monument to people taking the initiative to further the interests of their communities using their own resources and employing their own resourcefulness. Indeed, remarkably similar to the approach, attitude and spirit that have traditionally allowed Anguillians to achieve their proudest moments in our History.

As if to add to the historic quality of the project, the Centre is housed in the family residence of one of the stalwarts of the Revolutionary period, Hon. Nauson Campbell Fleming who was also one of the earliest elected representatives for the District. His willingness to agree to have his family home used to advance the causes of the Hope Centre was reflexive. This is according to his son, Dr. Herbon Fleming, who traveled all the way to Anguilla with his wife to be a part of this historic event. The Centre is therefore poised to take up its role in the development of the East End and Island Harbour Districts and as a model for similar projects throughout the island.

It was also refreshing to see, for the most part, the “absence of raw politics” in the proceedings. There were speakers from all persuasions --- political, religious and generational. Indeed, the mission statement was evident in the formulation of the program, namely: “Helping Our People Excel --- H.O.P.E. is a community-based organization that seeks to develop and enrich the physical, emotional, and spiritual being of our community, and particularly the lives of our young people, through mentorship, education, the arts, sports and spiritualism”.

Pastor Gary Hodge, (the Chairman of the Board of Directors) acted as the Chairman of the proceedings but the speakers included, Hon. Edison Baird, Hon. Jerome Roberts, Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool, Dr. Herbon Fleming, Ms. Renee Fleming a successful student of the Centre, Ms. Ariela Gaskin an outstanding student from the District, Mr. Josie Vanterpool a young music student from the District and the invocation and blessing were done by Pastor Norril Gumbs and Pastor Roderick Webster, respectively, both being sons of Districts 1 & 2. All their comments, with few exceptions, were salutary and evoked an equally inspiring sense of community that could be infectious to other groups across Anguilla.

The Centre has already been playing its part in the lives of young people in the area through various classes and summer programs even during its unfinished phase. This launching and opening event has been able to showcase the facilities, furnishings, equipment and teaching tools available for creating an environment much more conducive to promoting the goals and objectives of the Centre. And the walls of the Centre is a gallery of photographs of community leaders, educators, elected representatives and exceptional achievers in various fields who have made positive contributions to these communities. The young people and other groups who will use the Centre must feel a sense of history whatever their reasons for being there.

I used the term “infectious” earlier to describe the kind of inspiration projects like the HOPE Centre can transmit to other groups and villages. Indeed, the elected Representative for Island Harbour the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool could not help but mention in his remarks a “food bank” project that likewise grew out of an idea from Mrs. Claudette Bryan and naturally gravitated towards the promoters of the Hope Centre Ltd and another successful group the Welches Village Fest Committee, to “piggy back” on their momentum and capacity to deliver on wholesome social projects. As a result, after a few short meetings and the enthusiastic and caring support of both local and expatriate residents of Anguilla they are able to launch this “food bank” project on the 23rd December just in time to deliver help to some needy citizens during this Christmas season. This is the way positive ideas feed on each other and wholesome social projects create “believers” who will cause other such projects to be realized.

But even though heartened by this atmosphere of caring, sharing and positive ideas I needed to read the Chief Minister’s Budget Address which I did not really listen to when it was delivered last Friday. Fortunately, I had listened to Mr. David Carty’s Open Letter to the Chief Minister just hours before and I picked up some “pluck” to do so. I made the decision to read the printed version of the Chief Minister’s address because I had heard a few clips from his labouring presentation in the House of Assembly and I found it painful to the ears. I was thoroughly entertained by Mr. Carty’s presentation because it seemed a long time since I heard someone so eloquently describe and satirize the kind “buffoonery” with which many persons in and out of Anguilla have labeled the Chief Minister’s conduct.

As a former Minister of Finance who has presented and heard budget addresses over the years --- I must admit that I was deeply disappointed and wondered which regional organization or institution would publish such a document in its entirety. And I am referring to the first seven and a half pages of his presentation because I can identify clearly where the technical staff of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development made its input. It is an exercise which, as professionals they (the technical) cannot compromise because when they interact with their colleagues in the ECCB, OECS and CDB they would be severely embarrassed by the quality of the presentation and of the technical analysis.

The Chief Minister’s first seven and a half pages of “political garbage” is so filled with lies and fabrications that I would not destroy my mood at this time of year to comment or respond. In fact, he has again used the “cowardly approach” of telling lies in the House where he deems he has protection from being sued. This “parliamentary privilege” which he exploits will soon however, come to haunt both he and his junior colleagues who believe they have a “new toy”. I will leave it up to my competent associates in the House, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers and the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool to have their say. I will leave my response until a later date.

I am also aware that a written version of Mr. Carty’s Open Letter to the Chief Minister will be published in the newspaper this week so I feel very comfortable in yielding some of my space to him. I must comment though that I would have thought that given the challenges that Anguillians are facing as they approach this festive season the Chief Minister would have presented a much more convincing message of hope based on facts. Because I am sure that this Christmas will not be the same for many Anguillians.

Most Anguillians do not want to hear politics as usual; they don’t want to hear about why the Governor is stymieing the CM’s progress; they don’t want to hear about how the Opposition is destabilizing his (the CM’s) Government; they don’t want to hear how much deficit you inherited; They don’t want to hear who is forcing you to implement new tax measures; they don’t want to hear about how frugal you are in your private life or how you have never borrowed money from a bank; they don’t want to hear your imaginary stories about corruption or how clean you are; and they are tired and fed-up of you conspiracy theories.

So I would like to suggest that during this festive season when we think about receiving or giving gifts --- let us be reminded that the true meaning of Christmas includes hope for all mankind wrapped up in the birth of the infant Saviour. Let us look back to those traditions that have made this season special to all of us as a people over the years and strive to use them (those traditions) to make a difference for our family and for others.

If our people can come together and make a difference in their communities without relying on neither Government’s initiative nor support --- then we can also search within ourselves as individuals and make a difference in the lives of a few people in need of an act of kindness or some word of hope. And despite the preoccupation of others with uncovering imaginary demons from the past --- let us lift up that promise of salvation to all mankind and speak with confidence of those glad tidings of great joy!

By: Mr. Victor F. Bank
Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

OPEN LETTER TO MR. HUBERT HUGHES

Mr. David Carty - former Speaker of Parliament on Anguilla 

Dear Mr. Hughes,

Once again, over the last few weeks, I have noted your tendency to hit the replay button of your old grudges against the former Chief Minister Sir Emile Gumbs and myself. Issues and events that I and many others had assumed were relegated to history, have now resurfaced and become imaginary fuel to the fire of your crusade to destroy the evil British empire and all it’s minions, who supposedly haunt you day and night. These devils in your mind, are hell bent on turning Anguilla back into a slave society and colonial possession. I am sad and sorry you feel this way. I wish I could render professional psychiatric help for these recurring nightmares. But as a humble boat builder I am forced to confess that in this regard, I am woefully under-qualified.

However I am also concerned at a time when our island is beset by so many difficult issues, that you as the constitutionally elected and appointed leader, seem so determined to create a distraction from the real issues which face us. Like Don Quixote you seem compelled to chase windmills in the belief that these imaginary enemies are what stand between you and the glorious future which awaits us all under your enlightened leadership. Some of the real issues which face us like, rising unemployment; an alarming inability which most of us face in not servicing our debts (a problem which you have openly stated does not affect you); the rising and intractable cost of electricity bills; a growing crime rate (about which you have little or nothing to say); the alarming descent by some of our young citizens into the world of international criminal activity; the frightening rate of properties being put up for auction; the disconcerting decrease of inward flows of foreign investment; the specter of taxation that can neither be afforded or even collected; and the consequential reduction in services that can be afforded by Government; the list goes on and on. These issues must all be faced squarely by any responsible Government. Although I have not had the privilege like you of going to Oxford, I do know that the word “responsible” can be broken into two words; “response” and “able”. Any responsible person must therefore be able to respond to the difficulties and challenges they face and use “resource-fullness” to find solutions to problems. Alas it seems that your preferred approach is to invent more problems and continually and incessantly find someone, something, anything and everything to blame for all these ills rather than proposing solutions. When President Harry Truman coined the famous quote “the buck stops here”, he was saying that any leader must realize that to be responsible means accepting the fact that he or she is in charge and must step up proactively to deal with the issues that must be faced. But your approach to leadership seems always to be looking backward. Leading Anguilla today, could be likened to that of a bus driver who is responsible for the lives of the many passengers and is tasked with steering his bus along a dark and dangerous road in the midst of a lashing rainstorm. On one edge of the road lies a cliff and a precipice to destruction and so he must drive very carefully with due care and attention if he is to navigate his vehicle and passengers to safety. But your style of driving this bus on the other hand, seems not only to be reckless but to be concentrated on looking in the rearview mirror instead of on the dangerous path ahead, a style that must end in an accident if not disaster.

So in an attempt to help you focus ahead and ensure that the windshield wipers are working well so that you can see more clearly, I will try yet again to help you understand a few points. You claim that Sir Emile and I are some sort of agents of the British Government and that no Anguillian Government can function well without our consent. I guess I should be flattered that you think me so powerful. But the truth is Mr. Gumbs like Mr. Ronald Webster is enjoying a quiet retirement and like Mr. Webster is confident that history will judge their great contributions to Anguilla fairly. I, like every other employer on the island am struggling day and night in this recession to create and sell my products so that the men and women I employ can find work and support their families. I have no time to be 007 or James Bond working for Her Majesty’s Secret Service as it tries in the imagination of your heart to bring you down or frustrate you. Your fight with the British and The Governor is yours and yours alone, and since it seems that the vast majority of Anguillians are not supporting you in this almighty struggle, it may be best for you like men of old to simply challenge the Governor to a duel on the lawns of Government House. Whereas I will not recommend swords or pistols, you may consider using jumping shoes, shorts or knickerbockers, and a pair of boxing gloves and challenge His Excellency to a bout of fisticuffs. When all two rounds of that is over you should feel a lot better and perhaps we can then all settle down to deal with serious matters.

But before moving on I must help you to come to terms with another one of your obsessions. My infamous trip to London as Parliamentary Secretary in 1992. Yes, 1992. For the benefit of all, we are still today talking about a five day visit to London 19 years ago before any 6th former in school today was even born. Contrary to your conspiracy theory that my visit was some grand design by the F.C.O. to enthrone me as Anguilla’s “Generalissimo” for life, if you were paying attention, you would have noted that the visit was geared entirely to exposing me to the key players in London who could impact the development of education in Anguilla, a portfolio for which I was then responsible. The Governor at the time was very disappointed with British overseas aid to Anguilla in the area of education to the extent that on one occasion he referred openly to British officers at the B.D.D. in Barbados as a bunch of “refrigerator salesmen”. The strategy therefore was simply to put an Anguillian face to the need for investment in education in Anguilla and it was my duty at the time to play that part. I listened and observed all the players carefully on my visit. I asked key questions, shared a new vision for education’s future and guess what; I did not curse anybody or complain about the terrors of colonialism. No, rather than doing so I adopted a very British Diplomatic tactic which was to embarrass them with a smile and persuade them with a noble premise. Or like the master himself advised I tried to be “wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.” – As a result therefore of this infamous trip, and the hard work and good advice of key people at that time, in particular, Mr. Elvett Hughes then CEO, Mr. Merritt Lake then Principal of the ALHCS, Mr. Roy Tabor, Mr. Claudel Romney, Mr. Marcel Fahie, Mr. James Fleming and many others, we were able to see British aid to education go from zero to 12 million in less than 2 years. Apart from major renovation to all six primary schools some of which were literally falling down and extensive work on Campus A, the Library and Teacher’s Resource Center was erected and budgets ear -marked for the erection of what is now Campus B, a school that was built under your watch as Chief Minister. On a personal note, the library stands as the most gratifying result of this trip as it is by far and away still the most widely utilized Government structure on Anguilla today. This was the true result of my infamous trip to London which you claim was everything short of me taking tea with the queen. Had I known at the time how obsessed you would become with this visit I would have brought home with me a souvenir replica of a double Decker bus as a gift for you, or perhaps a lovely painting of London Bridge to hang in your drawing room as a reminder of your glory days in the United Kingdom. I apologize for not having done so.

Now on the issue of your need to keep calling me “the blue eyed boy” let me say this. I have never cared one wit what names or epithets you call me in order to try and sully my image. With respect to this one, I know as a fact that my eyes are not blue just as I know well that my hair is unruly and my legs are skinny. That and the colour of my skin all rest well with me not because I like or dislike them but simply because that is how God made me and thus I am satisfied. But on a serious note you need to be cautious about using such an epithet if for no other reason than the fact that it contains a racist overtone. I suspect that most of the visitors to our island who visit as tourists do indeed have blue eyes and it would be inconvenient and certainly unbecoming if they were led to believe that you as Chief Minister and especially Minister of Tourism were a closet or worse an avowed racist .This is not good for our bread and butter industry. I know well that from my debut into politics right up to the present that you have used the race card against me time and time again. This is undoubtedly the worst form of David Duke politics practiced by some politicians in democracies all over the world in differentiating themselves from their opponents on the basis of appearance or race. The fact that my legs are skinny or yours knock- kneed should not influence our respective political passions. But not to worry, you can continue to huff and puff, I am still here as true to myself as I always will be. But if you insist on your racist attacks I can do no more for you than ask your various prayer warriors to lift you up and hope for redemption.

In addition, you continue to accuse me (as in fairness you do all of your opponents) of corruption merely to score cheap political points. This is nothing new for you as you have been accusing me of this even as far back as with the removal of the “Sarah” from Road Bay in 1991. You especially love to do this in the House of Assembly wherein you are protected by privilege and in your whispering campaigns. In this regard you have simply been a coward as you know well that your accusations will not stand the scrutiny of any court. Here again my feelings for you and your overbearing need to degrade the personal character of all who disagree with you, are simply those of pity. But take heart read the psalms and rest in the Lord. I recommend Psalm 37 highly, it has been good for my spirit of late.

But you need to reflect deeply on the fact that none of the above really matters to Anguilla today. What we need is proactive, imaginative, resilient and above all focused leadership to steer us though this period of global economic crisis. The average Anguillian cares not a wit about my trip to England or your war with the British. What they do care about are jobs, business opportunities, how they are going to pay their bills and what hope is there for their families and especially their children. Essentially that is what Government is there for and like it or not you are in charge. Blame the British, me and everyone else all you want but at least lay out a vision for the future that is credible and realistic and do not expect us to believe that like Rumpelstiskin you can turn straw into gold. That is a fairytale.

I have always urged our Governments especially in this age of globalization to “think globally and act locally”. We must follow global trends carefully if we wish to secure any future we may have. In this regard, you should have taken note of the recent failure of the conference in Durban South Africa commonly known as COP 17, which failed to extend and replace the Kyoto Protocol and deal with the pressing issues of climate change. I expect that you and others may feel like some U.S. politicians that this is all nonsense and has nothing to do with Anguilla. So think again. We are looking down the barrel of an environmental gun that may literally blow us away or fry us away in the coming decades. But despite the threat, there are also opportunities embedded in the threat that can bring about fundamental change to how we generate electricity and the bills people have to pay for those rates month by month. This is simply because the climate crisis is the energy crisis. They are one and almost the same and small island states like ours are in the firing line for destruction. So why am I talking about this here? Because we are now in a key position to leverage our vulnerability to climate change to access global funding which can help us to pursue energy independence in a massive way and change Anguilla in a fundamental way all for the better.

So Despite your continued personal abuse, you should know that I and other local volunteers have helped your Government behind the scenes and below the radar to secure some of these same climate change funds to help you change our legislation and allow serious renewable energy investments to be made in Anguilla, weaning us off our dependence on diesel which is the main reason our rates are high. So now that you know that I was helping your Government to achieve something good, please do not throw an epileptic fit. True as God, I did not call the Queen to get her assistance nor did I instruct MI6 to force CDKN to make this contribution. And I swear on your hero Robert Bradshaw’s grave that I have no connections with any renewable energy company, solar or wind that may wish to invest in Anguilla. So please, just take it easy, breathe deeply, smile and pass the legislation when it comes to the House.

In one of the last sessions of the last House of Assembly in which I presided as speaker, the then chaplain the Rev. Joseph Lloyd led the meditation by quoting from the book of James chapter 3: 5-6.“Even so the tongue is a little member and boasteth great things. What an immense stack of timber can be set a blaze by the tiniest spark. And the tongue is in effect a fire. It represents among our members the world with all its wickedness; it pollutes our whole being; it keeps the wheel of our existence red-hot, and its flames are fed by hell”.

Did you listen to the Chaplain? Did you discern what he was trying to tell all politicians in and out the House? Or were you asleep? Your tongue has always been a fire. A fire of distrust and confusion and most of all negativity and you should heed the scriptures because you will never do good for Anguilla in the way you use it. To extend and add to the warning of the Hon. McNeil Rogers, you have “no” style, a “bad” attitude and a “destructive” approach.

So in conclusion let me just say this. Sir Emile has asked me to tell you that “you can say what you like, for whatever you say is like water off a duck’s back”. In my case, I was reminded by a friend who had listened to one of your tirades against me to be philosophical and console myself by recalling Shakespeare’s Macbeth Act 5, scene 5. “Whatever Hubert says” he advised, “however much he abuses you, his words are merely- “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

I keep thinking about that.

Have a Happy Christmas

By: David Carty

“GOOD FOR THE GANDER!”

On Tuesday December 13, 2011, democracy was at its best in Anguilla as the Governor received a protest march comprising, for the most part, supporters of the Anguilla United Movement Government. I was surprised that the march was not cancelled out of respect for the passing of Mr. Kirkley Carty one of the Chief Minister’s strongest supporters in the epicenter of his constituency, Blowing Point. Let me take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and condolences to the family of Mr. Carty on his untimely death.

It is my understanding that the turnout at the protest march was very disappointing given the seriousness accorded the issues by the several speakers on the platform at the parking lot of the Webster Park less than twenty-four hours prior to the event. Based on the presentations, which I only heard on Radio, the key issues seemed to be: a) objection to the proposed transfer of Permanent Secretaries because it would impede their ability to address the budget effectively, and; b) the claim that the Governor is deliberately stymieing development on Anguilla and should leave. In my humble opinion none of these cases have been made with any convincing facts. Indeed much of the arguments put forward by the Chief Minister and his supporters are severely flawed and many based on false premises. However, I respect the rights of those persons who feel strongly about these issues because the Chief Minister and his colleagues have been peddling these conspiracy theories from the moment they came to Office. And I can empathize with the passion displayed by the protesters, many of whom, genuinely believe in the positions they are defending. 

It has been twenty-one months since the Chief Minister has taken over the reins of Government and he still seems to be unaware of the role he must play in leading a country in challenging times. He seems caught in “a time warp” as he speaks about a struggle for self-determination --- when in fact every document and statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office suggests that, if he is dissatisfied with our political status, all that is required is for his Government to hold a referendum and if he is successful then he can proudly lead the country into independence. As his favorite “ whipping boy”, David Carty pointed out: “We can almost get our independence by email!” It is incredible that a Government in power has organized at least four protests within less than two years of ascending to Office. While the Opposition that it constantly blames for dividing the country has not led a single demonstration over that period. 

It is apparent that the Chief Minister does not possess the ability to operate within our system of government. In this regard he must be considered a failure. Based on his own words, the only Governor that he has given any credit during his entire period in politics is the late Governor Alan Hoole --- and I would wager odds that were it not for Mr. Hoole’s untimely death he would likewise have been “painted with the same brush” as his other colleagues. Again based on his own words the only major developer over the entire period of our involvement in Tourism who he has given any real credit is Mr. Lee Rizzuto --- but in recent times he also has been attacked by the Chief Minister for “having tea” with the Governor. 

One can reasonably conclude that it cannot be everyone else’s fault if there is an absence of civil relationships between the Chief Minister and important partners in the public and the private sector who have a critical role to play in our national development. It is an unwise strategy to be fighting on several fronts. Nevertheless, it is a strategy that the Chief Minister continues to embrace almost wholeheartedly as proof of his concern for the welfare of Anguillians. Throughout his entire political career this approach has not brought any positive outcomes for the people of Anguilla. On the contrary, there has been no time that Mr. Hughes has been a part of Government that Anguilla has not experienced turmoil and uncertainty. And if you listen to every single one of his speeches it has always been someone else’s fault. Here are a few such claims that he has made on various occasions and in several letters, speeches and interviews: 

• He claims that in 1977 he was used by the UK Deputy Head Administrator to moved a motion of “no confidence” to remove the Hon. James Ronald Webster from Office. Comment: “Do you really believe that Mr. Hughes was used? Or is it more plausible that he was intimately involved in the removal of Mr. Webster?He has always claimed that he cannot be used! Is he rewriting history again?” 

• He claims that he teamed up with the Hon. James Ronald Webster in 1980 and formed the Government but in 1981 “when it became clear that Mr. Webster and the then Governor Henry Godden were united he resigned from Government within eleven months of the term”. Comment: “Mr. Hughes did not resign because of the CM’s relationship with the Governor he resigned because of infighting among the Ministers!” 

• He claims that he teamed up with Sir Emile R. Gumbs in 1984 and was appointed the portfolios of Finance and Lands and he was dismissed within eleven months because “he refused to be bribed by an alien developer who was accepted by Government to invest in a Hotel/gambling casino project.” Comment: “Who held a gun to the Chief Minister’s head to accept a “gold rolex watch? ” 

• He claims that in 1999 Governor Malcolm Harris “contrived to take his Minister of Finance (Victor F. Banks) out of my (his) Government and arranged for him to link with Mr. David Carty …… which resulted in the removal of my (his) two month old government in 1999-2000.” Comment: “As I recall “I stood alone” in South Valley with no support or arrangements from any Governor!” 

• He claims in 1999 “ there was a vicious plot by the FCO to remove me (him) from Office with the alibi that I (he) had no quorum for a House meeting to get a budget passed.” Comment: “Mr. Hughes demitted office as a result of a High Court ruling! There was no alibi --- it was the Court’s ruling that he had no quorum!” 

• He claims that in 2000 when “I (he) was finally forced to demit Office I (he) had already converted a deficit financial situation which the ex-Minister of Finance had bequeathed to me (him) into a healthy surplus.” Comment: “Mr. Hughes could not have met a deficit --- he benefitted from the large surpluses from the transshipment revenues which was one of my revenue initiatives!” 

Based on my comments and perhaps your own recollection I am certain that readers will realize that the Chief Minister continues to build up these conspiracies theories by a series of lies and half-truths. Sadly it appears from the manner in which he presents them --- that he believes them himself. Again sadly there are a number of his supporters and advisors who promulgate these false statements apparently without seeking to ascertain the facts. 

It is in this context, that we must examine what happened on Tuesday, December 13, 2011. A number of persons who responded to the two main reasons given for the protest march should ask themselves a number of questions: 

The Issue of P.S Transfers 

1. Have any of the Permanent Secretaries who have been transferred made any loud protests about being moved? Given the fact that they are all amply qualified to make their own cases. 
2. Do Permanent Secretaries work alone or do they work with a team of qualified technicians in every department? 
3. Is this the first time that Permanent Secretaries have been transferred to other departments that are not necessarily within their specific area of formal training? 
4. Are not all Permanent Secretaries responsible for managing budgets of several millions of dollars in their Ministries? 
5. What should be the main competency of Permanent Secretaries specific technical expertise or managerial skills? 
6. Can one Permanent Secretary be so indispensable that the country would grind to a halt if he or she is not placed in a specific Ministry? 

Let me make it clear! My questions do not suggest that there is no reason for the Chief Minister and his colleagues to question the transfers. However, the Deputy Governor who is responsible for making these decisions must do so based on what he believes is in the best interest of the overall public service. The Chief Minister must recognize that this is not the first time that elected Ministers have opposed such moves --- but those views have always been presented in an atmosphere of mutual respect. 

The Issue of the Governor’s Removal 

• Will the immediate removal of the Governor solve the challenges we face in this global crisis? 

• Who will be the Governor’s replacement? Will the Chief Minister and his colleagues make that choice from an informed position? 

• Who are we petitioning to remove the Governor? Is it not the same Minister responsible for the FCO who the Chief Minister has been maligning in various forms of correspondence to Her Majesty’s Government? 

• Do approximately seventy people and six hundred and two signatures constitute a clear indication of support for the Governor’s dismissal? 

• Does the Chief Minister have all of his Ministers on board with this protest? If not how does he intend to get Members of Opposition and the wider community to support him? 

• What is the next plan if the British Government decides to retain the Governor? How will the Chief Minister be able to fix things? Surrender and resign? 

It must be realized that in all of this the Chief Minister has done nothing to endear himself to the Opposition or the main players in the private sector. As I said earlier he is fighting on every front. He continues to suggest that the Opposition, by expressing itself on occasion, is dividing the country. Yet his supporters believe that they have the right to use very Radio Station every week to put forward their views. It is apparent that no one is entitled to an opinion, which is contrary to the Chief Minister and his supporters. And even as we speak Anguillians are being maligned for not participating in Tuesday’s protest march. 

The Governor is not perfect! The British Government has its agenda! Our people are anxious to find positive solutions to the challenges they are facing! But Anguillians on both sides of the aisle have a right to freedom of expression! “What is good for the goose is good for the gander!” 

By: Mr. Victor F. Bank
Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“ANOTHER MASQUERADE!”

I was very happy when I heard that the Chief Minister was doing an interview on the “Nation’s Station”, Radio Anguilla because as I said in my column last week, many of us were looking forward to “a more structured report” on the London excursion. Broadcasting journalist, Keith “Stone” Greaves, did an excellent job in conducting a balanced interview that was both incisive and respectful. But alas! Many of his (Mr. Greaves’) questions still remain unanswered, as the Chief Minister seemed to “laser in” on the Governor and the Deputy Governor for most of the session. Thankfully, on this rare occasion the Anguilla United Front (AUF) and I, appear to have escaped his usual verbal pummeling. While I remain grateful for being spared, I am very concerned by the Chief Minister’s performance. He appeared to be at his “wits end” as to how to handle the issues facing Anguilla and seemed content to hang on to the same conspiracy theories, which he has been promulgating since his ascendance to Government.

I will not get into the details of the Chief Minister’s interview because I only heard it once before I wrote this piece. In the cause of accuracy and fairness in the content of my column, I prefer to hear such presentations several times. However, there are three points that emanate from specific questions posed by Mr. Greaves: 1) The Chief Minister considers the trip to London a woeful waste of taxpayer’s money. 2) The Chief Minister blames his inability to get things done entirely on the Governor. 3) The Chief Minister has no solution for moving the country forward other than the immediate removal/dismissal of the Governor. One or several of these three points were recurrent aspects of every single response that the Chief Minister made to almost every single question put to him during the interview. And his closing remarks were extremely brief and along the same “vein”.

Many consider the Chief Minister’s interview to be a clear indication of “failed leadership”. Here is an elected Leader of Government Business who after twenty-one months in office is unable to devise an effective strategy for dealing with the issues confronting his country; a leader who still blames the past Administration and the Governor for matters that are entirely within his control; a leader who still does not seem to understand the procedures of his own Executive Council; a leader who is unable to build harmonious relationships within his own Government yet preaches national unity; a leader who seems to believe that lies and half-truths is a “best practice” for maintaining political power; and a leader who believes that the removal/dismissal of one man (the Governor) is the panacea for all his country’s ills.

But I always believe that there is method to the Chief Minister’s “madness”. On every occasion over the last twenty-one months that he has been faced with a challenge he has diverted attention away from the issue by inciting civil disobedience and indecorous conduct among his supporters. With the budget exercise coming up this promises to be no exception. The Chief Minister has convinced a number of his supporters that the proposed transfers of Permanent Secretaries by the Deputy Governor and supported by the Governor, is a national calamity, which demands widespread protests and uncivil behaviour. It was evident from the threatening comments on “To the Point” last evening that a number of AUM “loudmouths” were well primed for such a show of belligerence and “fear-mongering”. It is obvious that the Chief Minister is paving the way to absolve himself from blame for any increases in taxation; cuts in salary; reduction in staff levels; and any other unpopular fiscal measures associated with the upcoming budget. He is placing the blame for all these things squarely on the Governor --- actually not even on the British Government. Because based on his interview, he opines that if this Governor is removed a new Governor will make a difference to the solving of our present challenges. And as a consequence of his skilful execution of that charade the “usual callers” to “To the Point” were almost hysterical in their calls that “the Governor must go!” --- while they planned yet “another masquerade” to Old Ta.

You can be assured that the frenzy associated with the island wide scurry to pay up the Interim Stabilization Levy (“the Levy”) by the end of the grace period last week will now dissipate, as all attention will be focused on this latest distraction orchestrated by the Chief Minister because of his recent statements and his interview. It is conceivable that very shortly the talk shows and the blogs will be inundated with comments about the Governor’s removal --- rather than how we are going to meet our budgetary requirements in a way that takes into account the overall interests of the island. And chances are that the Chief Minister will convince a considerable number of his supporters that any taxes imposed and any harsh fiscal measures adopted are because of the “wicked” Governor.

But I will not allow such distractions to deter me from bringing the conversation back to the “Levy” because the time has become ripe to reinforce the points that we (the AUF) have been making that it is a “bad tax” which must be repealed or substantially amended. It is not only the AUF that has condemned “the Levy” but several other informed citizens, including the former Financial Secretary and Permanent Secretary, Finance, Mr. Franklin Connor, OBE, who said categorically: “Any sensible administrator looking at the law, the way it is written, and the implications that it will have for relations between the people of Anguilla and the Government, would say this is not good, this is not fair.”

Let me also remind you how the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, in his letter of May 10th 2011 to Minister Henry Bellingham, represented the AUF position very clearly as follows:

. The Levy is applied only on income earned under $12,000 Eastern Caribbean Dollars or approximately 2,200 pounds sterling.

. The law will increase the hardship on businesses at a time when many are struggling merely to keep their doors open. Small businesses in particular will be badly affected.

. The Levy is also grossly unfair to the self-employed who are being taxed at 6% of their income, double the rate at which employed persons are being taxed and twice the rate at which businesses are taxed to match the tax paid by their employees.

. The principles on which the law is based are inappropriate to the purposes that the tax is intended to achieve and will cause harmful effects in the economy and the Anguillian community generally that will be felt for years to come.

. The Interim Stabilization Levy Act is a bad law that will be enforced by draconian measures in the form of high penalties and lengthy imprisonment terms.

. Employers are being required to pay 50% of the Levy on behalf of their employees.

. No proper provisions have been made to assess the self-employed.

. Persons having more than one employer cannot be fairly administered for purposes of taxation.

. The burden of proof as to an assessment is placed on the self-employed.

. There was not sufficient public consultation in the management and control of the tax measure that can result in the criminalization of taxpayers based on the extremely high and inflexible penalties.

. There are categories of taxpayers who will not be adequately monitored.

These are the points that we have been raising for several months now regarding issues relating to general aspects of the Levy. But I want to “hone in” on the penalties aspect of the Levy Act, which generated much concern over the past week. I also want to make the point very strongly that we have always contended, namely, that the penalties were excessive and if nothing else it was within the power of the elected Government to amend this section. Even though the Chief Minister has been spreading the false statement that he cannot repeal the Act he cannot similarly claim that he is unable to amend the penalties section because these are approved in Executive Council. In fact, by virtue of the grace period recently granted it demonstrates that the Government can exercise considerable discretion in the imposition of penalties.

Since penalties are designed to enforce compliance it is essential that taxpayers understand what is required to be compliant. The lack of effective public consultations caused many taxpayers to run afoul of the law genuinely unaware of what was required of them. Indeed, in addition to the nice old lady down the street selling “sugar cakes and mauby” there were Ministers of Religion who found themselves running in to file their returns having being completely misled that there were not required to do so based on a layman’s interpretation of the Act. There are persons who only became aware of the filing requirement that very day and without question the whole process encouraged dishonesty. All of this having implications for the ability of the department to institute a system of assessment that will lend itself to fairness. Until such is achieved the Levy will remain an unfair tax measure and as a consequence a bad tax. From a moral standpoint any tax measure that does not “pass the litmus test” of fairness and equity should either be substantially amended or repealed. There are situations in the present administration of the Levy, which cry out for adjustment as follows:

1. The EC$2,000 floor for the payment of the Levy should be an exemption for all taxpayers. In other words no one should be required to pay on the first EC$2,000.

2. The EC$50 per day penalty for late filing should be replaced with a penalty based on a percentage of the return as is the case with Social Security.

3. The grace period for the late filing of returns applied to persons with earnings less than $2,000 should also be extended to persons earning over $2,000 The grace period generally should be extended until the end of the year.

4. The self-employed and the employee should pay the same rate.

5. The employers should not be required to pay 50% of their employees Levy return given the fact that they are required to file returns as well. The present system is a disincentive to job creation and salary increases.

6. Clear provisions need to be in place to define and assess the self-employed.

But perhaps the most important aspect of fairness in any tax measure is that every citizen should pay his/her fair share. In the circumstances of Anguilla at present Government employees and employees of large firms pay the brunt of revenue earned from this measure while many self-employed persons are not captured by the system. And unlike Social Security that has a direct benefit for the taxpayer the Levy provides no incentive to be compliant. A tax measure that allows non-payers to escape with relative impunity is unfair to those who pay; is therefore a “bad tax”; and must be substantially amended or repealed.

The Chief Minister has consistently claimed that this is not his tax --- it is a British tax. However, over the past months he has made considerable amendments to Act without British intervention. Will the Chief Minister be forced to introduce new tax measures to meet a possible budgetary short fall? And if so will he ensure that they are fair and equitable? Will he be prepared to repeal the Levy since he is now boasting a surplus on the recurrent account? Will he blame the Governor? Or will he plan another masquerade? 

By: Mr. Victor F. Bank

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“TIME TO TAKE CHARGE!”

Were it not for his appearance on the Upbeat Radio and Kool FM upon his return to Anguilla many of us would have thought that our Chief Minister had lost his voice while in London. Contrary to his usual affection for radio interviews when abroad, all the reports we heard were from his spokesperson, Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor. In her first report, Mrs. Gumbs-Connor gave a “ball-by-ball” account of the proceedings in London in a shrill voice that evoked a sense of despair --- but later in a more intoned presentation conveyed a message that eventually the mission achieved some success. To date, however, the Chief Minister’s demeanour and his comments to the media do not bring comfort to the many of us, who had hoped that this high-powered delegation would make the case in an atmosphere of mutual respect. And most importantly, that some concrete proposals on the way forward would be presented to us rather than the “empty boast” that: “We let them have it --- good!” That kind of “one-upmanship” without substantive results, is not what the people of Anguilla are looking for at this time. Indeed, we still look forward to a more structured report from the Chief Minister, hopefully this time from the “Nation’s Station”, Radio Anguilla.

The Chief Minister returned to blessings from the torrential rains that beset us on Sunday, November 27, 2011. The resulting flooding was reminiscent of Hurricane Lenny in the same the low-lying areas of the island that were affected by that storm, in 1999. The several thousand Anguillian “civil engineers” who were critical of the drainage project on Queen Elizabeth Avenue seemed happy that that area retained a great deal of water. And the Chief Minister joined the chorus by exculpating himself and then blaming it on the Anguilla United Front (AUF). Yes Fellow Anguillians! Let me repeat according to the Chief Minister: “The past AUF Government caused the flooding on the Queen Elizabeth Avenue last Sunday!”

I am embarrassed to admit that I was not surprised that he would want to blame the the AUF --- because we have become so accustomed to the Chief Minister blaming everything on our party/government that we are beginning to accept it as normal. What surprised me though --- is that he is also prepared to throw his own Minister of Infrastructure “under the bus”! I must admit that I felt some sympathy for my elected representative, the Hon. Evan Gumbs who just last week had to defend himself against his colleague Minister Baird in the Anguillian Newspaper. Now I expect he will also have to defend himself against his own dear Chief Minister. The Chief Minister said that he warned “Evan” not to associate himself with the Queen Elizabeth Avenue drainage project. In other words, it is not me it is “Evan”!

The whole matter is disgusting! Rather than thanking God for the rain and spared lives --- upon returning to Anguilla the first thing the Chief Minister does is attack the Anguilla United Front whose “tentacles” he declares are still running the Government. But more upsetting is his “cowardly readiness” to throw his own Minister to “the wolves” and proceed to abuse senior technicians in his department --- apparently because he only cares about himself and refuses to take the blame for anything that attracts criticism.
But I must rise to defend both, my Elected Representative, the Hon. Evan Gumbs and the Road Engineering Division of the Ministry of Infrastructure. And in doing so I hope that I put to rest all the criticisms from the other twelve thousand engineers on Anguilla and in particular, my friend, Elkin “Larry King” Richardson. It is true that the Anguilla United Front established the financing mechanism through the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Fund to assist the island after such disasters --- but the fact is that the Ministry of Infrastructure was not tasked to engineer a system to deal with catastrophes such as Hurricane Lenny and the rainstorm on Sunday. If that were their objective the cost would be astronomical. I have researched the facts for your benefit as follows:

. The project was designed to address severe drainage problems in the avenue affecting the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic during and after heavy rains.

. Reinforced concrete surfacing instead of the traditional asphalt or “chip and seal” was employed to reduce surface maintenance.

. The scope of work included the raising and resurfacing of this section of the avenue; installation of an additional culvert as well as drainage inlets; adjustment to the existing drainage features; and adjustments to the sidewalks.

. The lighting along the avenue was re-commissioned. Installations, realignments and relocations by the conduits and cables for various utility companies were also undertaken simultaneously.

. The repair and upgrade of the walkways to prevent vehicular conflicts was also carried out and the capacity of the drainage pond was increased to take the overflow away from the driving surface.

. The work was undertaken by several local contractors and managed by the Ministry of Infrastructure to ensure optimum benefits to the economy.

. This project was approved by this Government in Executive Council for implementation and funded under Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Fund, (CCRIF). It was made quite clear in the Executive Council Memorandum that while the improvements would address the localized “ponding” after heavy rains, they (the improvements) were not designed to handle area flooding from rain storms such as a Hurricane Lenny.

. Events such as Hurricane Lenny occur once in 25/50 years and it does not make good economic sense to devise extremely expensive solutions to handle events (like Lenny) occurring so infrequently.

. Increasing the cost of this project to deal with rare catastrophic occurrences like Lenny would also have meant that other priority areas (Fire Station Construction, Police/Emergency Operations Center Expansion) also funded by the same CCRIF project could not have been addressed.

The truth is this project could not have been undertaken without the Executive Council (EXCO) approval, a body of which the Chief Minister is a most important part. No decision can get the approval of EXCO if he decides to object. A project such as this would have been discussed in EXCO and if it was felt that the scope of the project should have been increased, the costs and other implications of the additional work could have been ascertained and decided upon. The Chief Minister therefore has no reason to berate his Minister and abuse officials in the Roads Engineering Division to avoid blame for a project that was not intended to deal with catastrophic events. In fact he should be trying to take credit for the fact that:

1. The project was implemented with Design, Laying out, Project Management, Construction and Material Supply provided 100% locally.

2. The security along the Q. E. Avenue has been improved by the clearing and lighting that was done as a component of the project.

3. Since the project was completed all sustained rains leading up to the severe weather system on Sunday Nov. 27, 2011 were accommodated and it was observed and registered that the water was disappearing in a matter of minutes.

Will the Chief Minister also blame the flooding in Welches, Mount Fortune, Island Harbour and other low-lying areas where residents were affected on the Anguilla United Front? Such questions are not without merit based on a pattern of behaviour that has characterized the Anguilla United Movement Ministers; Advisers and supporters. Indeed, they have even blamed the AUF for the very tax measures that they have implemented since coming to Office on February 16, 2010. And speaking about tax measures, our (AUF) warnings about the Interim Stabilization Levy are now impacting thousands of law-abiding Anguillians. Among so many other things regarding “the Levy” we said:

. The law will increase the hardship on businesses at a time when many are struggling merely to keep their doors open. Small businesses in particular will be badly affected.

. The Levy is also grossly unfair to the self-employed who are being taxed at 6% of their income, double the rate at which employed persons are being taxed and twice the rate at which businesses are taxed to match the tax paid by their employees.

. The principles on which the law is based are inappropriate to the purposes that the tax is intended to achieve and will cause harmful effects in the economy and the Anguillian community generally that would be felt for years to come.

. The Interim Stabilisation Levy Act is a bad law that will be enforced by draconian measures in the form of high penalties and lengthy imprisonment terms.

Despite all of our several pleas the Chief Minister refused to heed the AUF Elected Members in the House of Assembly in their requests to repeal this bad law. The Chief Minister even responded to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers that he could not repeal the Act and that it was a matter for the Governor. This was a most ridiculous statement and lie given the fact that he subsequently made several amendments to the Act in the House of Assembly. Indeed, the AUF came out since mid-March this year with a strong campaign against the Levy on various media. We believed that most importantly “there was not sufficient public consultation in the management and control of the tax measure that can result in the criminalization of taxpayers based on the extremely high and inflexible penalties”. We labeled them “IRS style” penalties!
Over the past week following a press release from the Inland Revenue Department have raised the concerns about the Levy. All of a sudden despite our many articles, press conferences, letters, petitions, speeches and motions --- persons are only now becoming aware that the levy can affect them. The nice old lady selling “sugar cakes and mauby” suddenly realizes that she is a self-employed person under the Act and must file a return even if she is not making 2,000 dollars a month. And further if she does not file she will have to pay 50 dollars a day just like Cable & Wireless; that if she does not go to file by November 30, she is liable to pay as much as 12,000 dollars in penalties; that even if she files by that date she will still have to pay 5% of that amount, that is, about 600 dollars; and that if she did not realize that she is considered self employed and makes more than 2,000 dollars a month and has not filed, she will have to pay up to 12,000 dollars in penalties as well as 6% of her earnings.

If the Chief Minister and his colleagues claim that they are not responsible for the tax --- they certainly CANNOT claim that they are not responsible for the penalties. They approved those penalties in EXCO. And just like they are now granting a grace period for penalties in certain categories --- they can likewise do something to ease the burden on persons who have been affected by the lack of public consultation and clarity on the implementation of the Levy. The Government must be called upon to correct these excessive penalties in a system that has not been properly introduced. Indeed to enforce compliance in the terms of the present penalties will criminalize a large percentage of the population --- many who would not have been aware of contravening the law. It is therefore time for law-abiding taxpayers to point out the inequities and unfairness in the system. We must not allow the Chief Minister and his colleagues to abdicate their responsibility to govern any longer by shifting the blame. It is time to take charge!

By: Mr. Victor F. Bank
Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“NO OUTRAGE IN BRITAIN!!!”

The attitude exhibited by the Honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hughes since taking office, that he is fighting an “undeclared war with the British” has incited constant “outrage” with the Governor and FCO and to some degree has created an impediment to a progressive approach to the business of governing on the island and has apparently resulted in a brutal reception in London. This is according to the Chief Minister’s own reports of hostile treatment. Clearly, the Chief Minister was extremely disappointed and blamed it on negative reports reaching Britain. No doubt much of what is been said here at home is reported back to London. The Chief Minister felt appeased by the other delegates and Dependent Territories heads seeming to have better relationships with Britain than Anguilla and Mr. Hughes does; It brings into focus the consistent feud with the Governor over matters that seem unclear to the population and is causing Mr. Hughes difficulty and embarrassment with his diplomatic business. Business with Britain is all about the interest of the country and should not be about personal feuds or the raging of personal battles. There have been many calls for the Chief Minister to control his rhetoric and conduct business on better terms with the Governor which would reflect a better functioning government. It is possible though that much of this conflict is staged just for local consumption to appease party supporters. Hearing Mr. Hughes report of hostile treatment in London make us believe that he was expecting royal treatment there amidst a lingering dislike for the British and revved up anger on the island, giving the impression that the island is being deprived of its constitutional rights and privileges and is somehow oppressed, Mr. Hughes wants us to believe that he has the will to change the constitutional framework with Britain and change the political direction of the country; but had “No Outrage in Britain.” even though he acts like the big bad dog here at home there was no bark in London and in the end he subdue himself truly, as a “loyal British Subject.”

A door was swung wide open for the Chief Minister to openly address his fury and issues with Britain, when Anguilla became the subject matter in the British parliament recently and questions were asked to the Minister of State and Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Minister was asked to give an assessment of at least one of the many disparaging statements by Chief Minister Hughes of the British, stating that “Anguilla’s biggest dilemma is Britain which is not our friend ….. They are no asset to us.” “They are our liability”. The Minister replied in writing, and stated that he was not aware of such a statement by Mr. Hughes. Curious! Such statements are common by the Chief Minister, so it is unbelievable that the Minister has not heard. Mr. Hughes should now take the opportunity and set the record straight which would give him a direct link to the British Parliament and perhaps he’ll have a friend in Lord Ashcroft the Parliamentarian who asked the questions.

If one follows the approach of the British Government, they have been extremely clear on their policy towards the Dependent Territories, which have been reiterated consistently. The question is whether our government has a good grasp of the undertaking and the process of governing according to the British order? Leading up to these bilateral meetings the Secretary of State Mr. Hague again outlined the UK Government’s fundamental responsibility and objective to its Dependent Territories, which is to “ensure security and good governance of its people.” Britain is willing to shape policy to the specific needs and circumstances of each Territory. It goes to say that “the strategy is to design a framework in which these policies can be developed and implemented consistently and effectively.” The word developed would indicate a process of putting together, clearly meaning that they expect input from the Territories. It can only mean that, because no one knows the special needs of these Territories than they who live there. The fact that the Minister is indicating in advance that in February of 2012 a White paper would be issued is in effect giving those Territories time to make an input. Our government has to stop politicking and get busy structuring a serious frame work that would shape the future of the country after 2012.

The honorable Chief Minister summarized his trip by declaring that he and his delegation came out on top, but very little was brought back in terms of real substance. He has distinguished the hard work and effort of the Permanent Secretary who made the case to the British that monies received from Voice Roy’s sale in effect brought our budgetary chaos into positive territory with excesses, but the British maintained that the island is not a massive real estate scheme and they would rather see a methodical approach to governing that would result in a more strategic process of solving the island’s fiscal problems. What was interesting was the direct exchange the Chief Minister had with his counterpart in one of his meetings where Mr. Hughes apparently stuck to his local theme and language, indicating to the British that their approach to our problems is not workable, declaring that people on Anguilla are hungry! This perhaps was a little too local and could have been dressed up in better diplomatic language, I must reiterate that it appears that while the delegation emphasized a strong will, this trip pretty much reinforces the fact that with all the rage and disgusts with the British here at home, when Mr. Hughes touches down on British soil he is pretty much “A British Subject” "with no outrage in Britain!!!

By Elliot J. Harrigan

It'S ALL STUPID!

There is a level of discussion that is needed in Anguilla politics. A level only a few of our politicians or political pundits are capable of attaining, however none have made the effort to achieve this level. There is the possibility that certain issues that need to be discussed will be unpopular with the masses and might render those who participate in the discussion unelectable, however these things must be discussed and understood before Anguillians are ready to take the next step.

If politicians know better they have to do better, they cannot fail to make economic decisions because it’s an election year; they cannot turn a blind eye to the unethical practices of friends. They cannot be soft on crime and condone stupidity just because the criminal and the stupid are their friends or supporters. They cannot become a supporter of independence just because the people object to their political style or because they hate the British or the British Governor of the day. Anguilla cannot become independent to satisfy the egotistical needs of any politician, preacher, fisherman or hotel worker.

In order to build a new Anguilla, Anguillians have to follow processes and have standards that are fair to all. Anguillians must respect and preserve the rule of law. A criminal is a criminal, and criminals destroy lives and property. It matters little if the criminal is local or foreign. Anguillians cannot socially ostracize the police or the magistrate because they are too tough on crime. Anguillians cannot continue to know who the local thugs are but refuse to identify them. The blind cannot continue to lead the blind, whether it a political party or a radio talk show.

By: Statchel Warner

“NONE SO BLIND!”

I was amused by the exchanges between the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool, the Elected Member for Island Harbour and the Hon. Haydn Hughes, the Parliamentary Secretary on several media over the past week. It began with Mr. Vanterpool's response to an interview over Radio Anguilla by the Chief Minister in which he accused the Anguilla United Front of being responsible for the challenges at Cap Juluca. The Chief Minister also used the opportunity to boast that he is "more qualified than all of them (the AUF) put together!". The exchanges as a whole, but in particular the line of defense put forward by Mr. Haydn Hughes regarding statements made by Mr. Vanterpool about the negotiation of MoU's, caused me to question whether our people are really listening. 

Are people actually keeping track of the statements the Chief Minister and his colleagues have been making since the election campaign; through to their ascendancy to Office; and over the last twenty-one months? Were they actually paying close attention --- I would be most surprised if they would continue to accept that this Government is genuine in terms of its campaign promise to turn the economy around in three months; its pledge of integrity, transparency, openness, good governance, honesty, and fairness; its condemnation of nepotism, favoritism, party politics and conflicts of interest; and its call for a united Anguilla.

In reflecting on whether or not Anguillians are actually paying attention to the behaviour of this Government since it came to office, it occurred to me that perhaps it would be a good thing to actually catalogue some of the many inconsistencies between word and action. In other words, the difference between what the Government professes that it will do --- and what it actually does, both individually and collectively. My reason for doing so is because it is a puzzlement to me (as it is to many others) how the very same people who, rightly or wrongly, accuse the Anguilla United Front for a particular kind of conduct could support the present Chief Minister and his colleagues in the identical conduct it claims to condemn. Or why it is that certain rules applicable to the past AUF Government do not apply to the Chief Minister, his colleagues and his advisors. 

I have observed that there are five very common excuses for the AUM Government's failures, namely: 1) The United Front left the Treasury empty; 2) The United Front created this situation while they were in Office; 3) The United Front is not allowing the Government to function; 4) The Governor is sabotaging the Government; and more recently, 5) It is not the Government it is the global financial and economic situation. 

I will endeavour to be concise in my presentation of the inconsistencies but I certainly cannot be exhaustive because there are many more examples than those I have almost randomly selected. However, it is my intention to provoke more focused reflection by putting a number of these examples of contradiction and inconsistency in one place. Here goes:-

· During the election campaign the Chief Minister claimed to have a "secret plan" to turn Anguilla around in six weeks. Now that he cannot deliver on that plan, twenty-one months, later he resorts to blaming the past Government for leaving the Treasury empty.

· Upon ascending to Office the Chief Minister accused the past Government of excessive borrowing. Yet in less than a year they borrowed ninety four million dollars from Social Security System alone.

· The AUM Government criticized the United Front for being reckless with the Social Security Fund when we created ASSIDCO as an investment arm of the Fund. Yet one of the Chief Minister's first executive acts after coming to Office was to sign a document pledging present and future funds of the Social Security System to secure a loan from an unaccredited lender for US$200 million. 

· The Chief Minister and his colleagues campaigned on Good Governance. Yet when he signed the authorization for the borrowing of US$200 million he did not seek, nor did he obtain Executive Council or House of Assembly approvals as required by law.

· The Chief Minister and his colleagues campaigned on transparency and accountability. Yet when he was questioned why he did not seek EXCO and House of Assembly approval as required by law he said that he did not do so because he knew he would not get the approval of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Is this not circumventing, the principles of good governance? 

· During the campaign the Chief Minister and his colleagues claimed that if the Anguilla United Front were re-elected they would impose new taxes. Now that have been elected and have imposed new and increased taxes he is now saying that these taxes were already in place and that they are British taxes not his. 

· During the campaign the Chief Minister and his colleagues strongly condemned nepotism. "Nepotism is the practice among people in power and influence of favouring their own relatives, especially giving them jobs." (a definition from an Oxford Dictionary). Yet the day after the Chief Minister was elected he appointed his oldest son Haydn as Parliamentary Secretary and the pattern has continued ever since with other colleagues. 

· The Chief Minister claimed that he would revise all MoA's to MoU's upon coming to Office and recoup the revenue that he claimed the Anguilla United Front gave away. Yet the first MoU that the Chief Minister signed resulted in the Government of Anguilla eventually losing 18 million dollars in tax revenue.

· The Chief Minister claimed that the Anguilla United Front negotiated MoA's "in the bush". Yet the Viceroy MoU is purported to have been negotiated by the Parliamentary Secretary alone; prepared on Starwood Capital stationary; and signed by the Chief Minister without the approval of Executive Council and unbeknownst to some of his Ministerial colleagues. 

· The Government accused the Anguilla United Front of giving away too much on the Cap Juluca MoA. Yet the Hon. Jerome Roberts and the Parliamentary Secretary Hughes boasted of negotiating an MoU for Cap Juluca in which they gave away over seventy acres of pond lands; seven acres of national park beach front lands; the right to remove coral reefs from the foreshore up to 100 feet; and an option for Anguillians to purchase a 20% interest in Cap Juluca. They have in fact given much more concessions than they accused the AUF of granting! 

· The Chief Minister, his colleagues and advisers boast that they reduced a deficit left by the Anguilla United Front from $70 million to $20 million in a matter of months. Yet they were never able to generate enough revenue to cover recurrent expenditure during the same period. Where did the money come from?

· The Chief Minister talks about honesty and forthrightness. Yet when questioned at one of his Press Conferences about an official report published in the newspaper regarding his salary he declared: "I do not know what my salary is it goes directly to the Bank. I don't even look at it!" Yet this is a man who knows everybody else's financial affairs!

· The Government ran on a platform of good governance. Yet the Minister of Utilities and the Chairman of the Social Security Board orchestrated a hostile takeover of ANGLEC, a publicly owned company, without following due process, apparently to expedite the party agenda. The same shareholders whose rights they claim to champion --- they were planning to make mere spectators in the decision making process of the company.

· The Chief Minister claims to be transparent with the use of public funds. Yet as Minister responsible for Social Security after being asked two specific questions in the House of Assembly by the Elected Member for Island Harbour, he still has not responded as to whether Social Security Funds were used to pay the legal fees of the lawyer in the ANGLEC case. What is the CM hiding?

· The Chief Minister claims that only the Governor can repeal or amend the draconian and "IRS style" penalties in Interim Stabilization Levy Act. Yet he passed an amendment of the Customs Act in House of Assembly to reduce the import duty on vehicles and spare parts by 50 percent. What is the difference? Just like they amended the Customs Act they can also amend or repeal any inequitable or unfair aspects of the Interim Stabilization Levy Act if required. 

· The Chief Minister is fully aware that the British Government has pledged not to stand in the way of the Overseas Territories rights to self-determination and independence once it is the expressed will of the people in a referendum. Yet the Chief Minister continues to provoke social instability by giving the impression that there is need for civil disobedience to achieve that status.

· The Chief Minister boasts about being squeaky clean. Yet there is a cloud of suspicion hanging over his head because of the government lands leased to one of his tenants to build a Shopping Mall. That tenant was the first local developer granted duty free concessions since the AUM government came to office. The question is being raised as to who actually owns the proposed development. 

· Supporters and advisors of the AUM constantly send out calls for unity. Yet they are unable to unite among themselves. One of the Ministers of the AUM continues to criticize his colleagues openly on public fora. Why is the Chief Minister afraid to punish that Minister? Does he (the Minister) have something on the Chief Minister?

· The Chief Minister knows that the situation at Cap Juluca is a longstanding ownership dispute that has its own mutually agreed framework for settlement. Why then should the Chief Minister encourage the employees to protest the Governor's Office to further his own image as a champion of the workers rather than produce any real results in their interests? Why should a self-proclaimed "champion of the workers" use them literally as "human shields" in his battles with the Governor?

· The AUM in its election campaign suggested that the past Government was corrupt and many of their Ministers, including myself would be arrested. Yet to date they have not produced any information or evidence to substantiate their spurious claims. 

It is incredible that in the face of such blaring examples of the CM and his colleagues's lies and inconsistencies --- there are persons who still seek to find excuses such as those mentioned earlier. We believe that such persons really do not want to know! One famous Trinidadian Calypsonian in commenting on such willful disregard for the facts in assessing the performance of a Government coined the jingle: "We know we like it so!" In other words, it does not matter what the Government does they will not shift their support. Which has led many of us to conclude that: "there are none so blind as those who will not see!"

By: Mr. Victor F. Bank

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

Hon. Haydn Hughes response to Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool's Press Statement

Fellow Anguillians, I am here to address you in response to the press statement made by the Honourable Member for District one, Mr. Othlyn Vanterpool. His press statement was issued on national radio on Monday 14th November 2011 and it related to the Cap Juluca issue.

I will not comment on the overtures of the United Front to, “assist the Government” while at the same time, holding a public meeting across from the Chief Minister’s residence to abuse, ridicule and malign the Chief Minister, his wife and family. I thought it important that I respond to Mr. Vanterpool’s assertion that I was given authority to renegotiate all the MOAs of the Anguilla United Front Government. I need to place on record, at no time did Executive Council nor the Chief Minister grant me any authority to negotiate the MOAs. Neither did I take it upon myself to negotiate any MOAs.

Mr. Vanterpool stated and I quote, “the Cap Juluca MOU was negotiated by Haydn and Jerome and a new MOU was signed on August 13th, 2010.”

Fellow Anguillians, that MOU which Mr. Vanterpool spoke of, was negotiated by a number of persons from Government including the Trade and Investment Committee which includes the local Attorney General Chambers. The persons who sat in the initial negotiations of the Cap Juluca MOU on August 5th 2010 in the Conference Room in the Ministry of Home affairs were, Mr. Adam Aron, Ms. Sheila Davis, Ms. Carol Webster, Ms. Collette Warner, Ms. Violet Gumbs and Mr. Cardigan Connor.

On Government’s side were Permanent Secretary EDICT Dr. Aidan Harrigan who is also the Chairman of the Trade & Investment Committee, Ms. Kathleen Rogers PS Finance, all the Ministers of Government, Hon. Jerome Roberts and I.

The negotiations with Mr. Aron and the Government of Anguilla were void of controversy and on the 13th of August, a new MOU was signed by the Chief Minister, witnessed by Minister of Social Development, Hon. Edison Baird. Asked about the new MOU His Excellency, Governor Harrison said and I quote, “I was happy. I am delighted that there was an agreement because I think it is a good one for the people of Anguilla and the Government; it is a good agreement for the employees of Cap Juluca, as well as being a good agreement for the Cap Juluca management otherwise they wouldn’t have signed it. It was a long and difficult process and I think the conclusion was a very satisfactory one from all sides.” The record would prove that if Hon. Jerome Roberts and I were to be the lone negotiators on this MOU, the comments of HE the Governor would have been much different.

I am not here to appropriate blame on anyone or any Government but to give clarity to the situation-not only as the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Tourism but also as someone who spent the better part of my life to date working in the hospitality industry of which, eleven years was spent as a Julucan, some, as a member of the Executive Committee.

The situation that has gripped Cap Juluca is one that finds its roots many years ago in 1980/81 when the Government of Anguilla granted lease to the Maundays Bay land to Mr. Dion Friedland to develop said land. Mr. Friedland in turn, sold the lease to Mr. Hickox for US$1 million. For reasons known to many, both men ended up in court over the same. A public auction held in the United States in 1997 saw the property change hands as Mr. Friedland won the rights to the property through the same. Mr. Hickox then sought a judgment in the courts for moneys owed due to his investment in Cap Juluca.

During that time, Cap Juluca and its staff suffered as the hotel’s infrastructure continued to deteriorate even though occupancies and accolades continue to pour in on our flagship.

In 2007, Hon. Hubert Hughes, as a member of the Opposition tabled a motion to the House on Tuesday, August 22nd. The motion read: 

“WHEREAS the Cap Juluca Hotel is Anguilla’s prime tourism property; AND WHEREAS several hundred Anguillians are employed in this hotel; AND WHEREAS the hotel has been the subject of serious litigation between two American citizens for several years; AND WHEREAS the hotel is in serious need of repair; BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Anguilla urgently explore all legal measures to have the property acquisitioned in order to facilitate a meaningful ownership of this hotel project.” Mr. Banks, who was Minister of Finance at the time responded by saying, “We had used not only the advice of the Attorney General, but also sought the advice of an independent law firm or lawyer to do an opinion on the process going forward. Those opinions were then up for consideration in Executive Council and within Government’s Cabinet to really fine-tune that way forward. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Member for Road South did his duty in presenting this motion to the House of Assembly. It gives a clear indication…that on both sides of this Honourable House there are persons who are concerned about the future of Cap Juluca and are willing to explore all options to ensure that takes place.”

That said it is clear that all were concerned about Cap Juluca’s survival then as is now. It means therefore that the blame that is meted out on the Hon. Jerome Roberts and me by the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool is purely political and an attempt to mislead. He is clearly using our pride and joy, Cap Juluca as a political football to advance his political goals. This is no time for that fellow Anguillans. Chief Minister Hughes and indeed, the Government of Anguilla has given its support to Mr. Tacon, the liquidator charged with sorting out this impasse their fullest support to ensure that when Cap Juluca emerges, it will be stronger and better than before with an owner who truly deserves it.

Fellow Anguillians, I wish to inform you again that the issues at Cap Juluca are due to ownership and a settlement agreement between one owner and Mr. Hickox. On the 16th of April 2010, a press release issued by Webster Dyrud Mitchell with respect to the Cap Juluca case stated that an appeal was heard on 24th March, 2009 before Her Ladyship, the Hon. Ola Mae Edwards, Justice of Appeal, His Lordship the Hon. Michael Gordon, QC, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] and her Ladyship, the Hon. Mde. Rita Joseph-Olivetti, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] in the presence of Mr. David Phillips, QC, with him Mr. John Benjamin and Mr. David Fisher for the Appellant and Mr. Roald N.A. Henrigues, QC, with him Mr. William Roger, for the Respondent.

In the end, the Judgment ended up being in excess of US$100 million in favour of Mr. Hickox. Mr. Aron then entered into a Settlement agreement with Mr. & Ms. Hickox on 6th October 2010. The agreement stipulated that Mr. Aron would pay Mr. & Ms. Hickox some US$75 million over a period of time beginning on January 31st 2011. The payment was made. However, the payment due on July 31st 2011 was not and under the agreement, Mr. Hickox could ask for a transfer of shares which means, the hotel could revert back to him.

The MOU that was signed on August of 2010 was supposed to put Cap Juluca on stable footing and indeed, in a letter copied to the press from Mr. Aron on October 14th 2010 read, “It is with great relief that I advise the Government of Anguilla that the longstanding litigation between Cap Juluca and Charles Hickox has been formally settled. Mr. and Mrs. Hickox and I signed a settlement document a few minutes ago. This finally gives Cap Juluca the opportunity to move forward with its business plan without the cloud of litigation hanging over its head. This settlement dramatically increases the job security of more than 350 Anguillian Julucans, and also strengthens the job security for all Anguillans. Indeed anyone participating in the Anguillan economy will benefit from a stronger more secure Cap Juluca.

I would not be in a position to provide you this welcome news if the Government of Anguilla had not embraced the new Memorandum of Understanding, which was signed less than 60 days ago as you know. So, this positive outcome is the direct result of actions taken by your Government. For that support, I both congratulate you and thank you for your wisdom and confidence in allowing Cap Juluca to move forward with our ambitious but prudent plans.

Respectfully submitted,

Adam Aron

Chairman and CEO

Cap Juluca Properties Ltd.” 

Needless to say, the stability which this Government had hoped for then and previous Governments before, did not occur and there is little the Government of Anguilla can do legally to bring about a quick fix. The fact that the Chief Minister has given the assurances to Mr. Tacon of cooperation is encouraging and sets the stage for a smooth transition to long term stability for the hotel, its workers and Anguilla at large.

On Tuesday 15th November 2011, Mr. Dion Friedland sent an email to Mr. Victor Banks reminding him that it was he, not Mr. Aron who paid the staff some US$1 million and he admonished him to correct Hon. Vanterpool’s untruth in his press statement that I am now responding to. Mr. Friedland said in his email and I quote, “Dear Victor, please correct your mis-statement below. I gave $1 million (one million dollars) as a gift to the Cap Juluca employees, not Aron.” End of quote. 

In closing, I would like to say that both the Chief Minister and Hon. Jerome Roberts can speak for themselves on this matter. Again, I am merely responding to the Hon. Mr. Vanterpool for his false and misleading statements and urge the politicians on all sides to refrain from using Cap Juluca in their quest for political mileage. The record will show for over 20 years, this dispute has found its way through the courts and several Governments have done all they could to stabilize the hotel to no avail. This in itself proves that this is bigger than Government and the process must be allowed to work itself out now for the greater good.

I am truly confident that Cap Juluca, like Anguilla will rise again. I am confident that the Julucans will be proud, settled and happy when we all come out on the other side in a few weeks. The operative word now is patience. I urge the Julucans to continue giving the legendary service they have been known for and rest assured that all will be well and feel confident that Cap Juluca will be now, and in the future, the Flagship of Anguilla’s hospitality industry.

May God continue to bless Anguilla

By: Haydn Hughes

Haydn Hughes is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Tourism, and First Nominated Member in the Anguilla House of Assembly.