DISENCHANTMENT!!!

Some accepted the new Government of 2010 without hesitation! Reasons were disillusionment, the rapid change in the economic situation together with heightened uncertainty hovered over the country during that period, it brought much anxiety and no one seemed able to explain why things changed that quickly, the elections were timely, which results brought new promise. We are now close to two years into the governing term of this administration and observers now say that the people have lost the enthusiasm and have slipped into a very somber mood. Things have only gotten worse; consequently, present conditions are bearing heavily on the individual condition, the island is experiencing a turbulent period. The premise of a “plan” that would immediately reverse the trend and return the island to prosperity has not materialized and the level of confidence which emanated from the campaign has now simmered down to mere speculation. The notion that dismissed anything to do with a world-wide recession claiming that the people of Anguilla were victims of “bad government” under AUF, unattended by the British Government has proven not sustainable therefore, it now exposes the depth of unpreparedness of this team in anticipating of the reins of government..

It is unusual for a new government this far in their term not to have any clarity into the direction of the country, having not laid out a program with clear positions people are losing hope. Considering that a change of government usually, and most likely comes with a framework to succeed, there is a narrow window to analyze and make the necessary reviews for a reset. The People of Anguilla have come to love their politics and embrace the process which has evolved over many years; we love to engage each other in political debate, and even though some are well entertained by the protracted stalemate between the Governor and a faction of this government lead by Chief Minister Hughes it is now reflecting the impotence impacting the government. People like to ride the momentum but that window quickly closes with the lack of optimism and results. In general, people are now lowering expectations and the many pundits that were strongly defending the campaign and applauding the new government are slowly retracting and walking back their talk, in fact many of those voices have been silenced, the mood of the country has in effect changed, and people are now looking at very gloomy prospects, having concluded that this government indeed is without a clue how to fix things.

We must focus our attention on real matter that would make a difference; instead, our elected representatives use their esteem positions to insult and denigrate each in the “House” while to be considering honorable. If this kind of energy were exploited in reviving the Anguilla economy and creating jobs our people would have hope and homes and property may be preserved. To uphold this festooned honor, our representatives must themselves show respect for the country, the people and our honorable House. What disseminates from these sessions are much less than honorable, and more so, for member to be addressed as honorable with such state of mind is ironic. Our Representatives must respectfully discharge their responsibility to this society with respect, upholding the character of the House of Representatives, show respect for their associates and respect all positions associated with government. There is little respect shown to the position of Governor, The Deputy or the Attorney General, a posture seemed to be promoted in particular by this government, with such a low threshold of regard the same is meted in the most dishonorable form; we have no respect Minister to Minister, no respect Chief Minister to Governor, no respect Elected Representative to each other and therefore no respect from the people to the government.

This government has chosen to expend its time preoccupied with the role and function of the Governor which bears no immediate consequence for the people of Anguilla, if it’s a matter of policy to disregard this function aliened with our constitution, then such must be declared and the people must be clearly informed where this government is taking the country. If there is no such policy government must operate in absolute coherence with the constitution and conform to its directives. This matter should be put to rest and calm must be restored for the good of the country. Even if this Governor is recalled today, his replacement would be much of the same, which is to carry out the policies of the British Government in the governance of its Dependent Territories. Our government should get on with its agenda of setting policy and governing to shape the future and bring a spirit of optimism to the country, recompose its self with a full ministerial body and put an end to the factional dysfunction.

The political process we know must make the difference we aspire, and at some point our representatives must come to understand the consequence of their actions knowing that the work they do affects the country on a whole. Our politicians must be able to eloquently entertain opposing views, not respond with treats and insults, carry on debate in the House with integrity and respect for themselves and those they refer to as honorable. It is time that our elected representatives take a civil approach to the business of the people and learn to utilize the consultative process within our constitution for the greater good. Our Elected Representatives must utilize the appropriate tool for effective governing. Use the tools of dialogue, be tough, but respectful; the strength of a well formed opinion, a well articulated opposing view and well constructed thought process which is geared at producing results, all of which works in the advancing of our country and to bring hope to the people , “a people that is now disenchanted.”

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“BY JOVE! I THINK HE'S GOT IT!”

The cause most central to triggering the Anguilla Revolution was the many years of neglect Anguillians endured at the hands of the Central Government situated some seventy miles away in Basseterre, St Kitts. That neglect manifested itself in the lack of proper roads; potable water; telephones; and electricity. Today Anguillians can boast of having one of the best road networks in our region; island wide access to potable water; a modern “state of the art” telecommunications system; and one of the most reliable and efficient electricity providers in these neighbouring islands. For all intents and purposes, we have in great measure, achieved most of these stated national goals and aspirations since 1967.

However, in recent times, the increasing number of consumers being disconnected because of their inability to meet their monthly obligations to our electricity provider, ANGLEC, has become the subject of island wide conversation. High electricity bills and the lack of employment and business opportunities have been the root causes of this challenge to consumers. And the fact that ANGLEC has the monopoly on the provision of electricity services, has resulted in the company being vilified by a number of persons who support the viewpoint, promulgated during the past election campaign, that we are being “ripped off” by the Board and Management of the Company. It has been my intention for sometime now to attempt to sensitize the public to the challenges facing ANGLEC in this regard; the initiatives being pursued; and the solutions being considered to address them. 

It is important at the outset that I make it extremely clear that neither I, nor anyone in my immediate family own any shares in ANGLEC. In this context, I have absolutely no pecuniary benefit to derive from promoting the Utility other than the fact that its success will result in more efficient electricity services for all residents of Anguilla. It is also worth mentioning that even in these difficult times the incidence of “unplanned outages” is probably the lowest in the region and the occurrence of damage to household equipment a similarly small number. Understandably though, as customers when we are the ones affected it is very difficult to find comfort in these impressive statistics. 

My decision to make ANGLEC the topic of my column was sparked by two issues: 1) The increasing number of persons who have been complaining to me that their electricity bills have doubled and the Government needs to do something about it. 2) The response by the Minister of Utilities, the Hon. Evan Gumbs to a question posed to him by the Elected Member for Island Harbour, the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool in the House of Assembly. The question was: “You continue to promise the people of Anguilla that you will reduce the rate of electricity. When will the reduction take place and by how much?” I will deal with the two issues in order, but there will of necessity be some overlap in the discussion. 

High Electricity Bills. The base rate of 63 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity charges, has not changed since 1997. This is an important factor in understanding the fuel surcharge in the breakdown, which appears on our bills. It means that if the price of diesel were to return to the levels of 1997 we would not be paying any additional charges for the electricity we consume. In 1991, the Government of Anguilla through the Ministry of Utilities, the regulator of the newly established Utility Company (ANGLEC), put in place a number of mechanisms to deal with periodical tariff adjustments. Such adjustments could become necessary if any costs for producing electricity increase, for example the cost of fuel. This was done to establish fixed arrangements ahead of time and thereby exclude any subjective considerations in determining tariff levels when any such need arises. The Company would therefore have more certainty in putting together its budgets and making its projections with the knowledge that certain critical fluctuations in its operational costs would be dealt with by a system already established for that purpose.

The mechanism for determining the fuel surcharge in particular is based on a price level set in 1991. The agreement with the Ministry allows that every time the cost of fuel increases over that level by 10 cents the surcharge per “kilowatt hour” is adjusted by 1 cent. However, ANGLEC has never charged the full amount since the first time the surcharge was put on in 2003. As an example that the adjustment can go in either direction based on the price of fuel, it is to be noted that in May 2004 the surcharge was reduced to zero. And to demonstrate consideration for its customers, in 2010 alone, ANGLEC absorbed $4.85 million of the fuel surcharge. The actual costs for that year being $22.35 million and the amount charged to the consumer only $17.5 million. It clearly shows that the Utility has been extremely generous by not passing on the entire costs to its customers. 

The fuel surcharge is not unique to consumers in Anguilla alone. An authoritative monthly electricity price survey data matrix is published in the Anguillian periodically, which compares ANGLEC’s adjusted rates with those of other Utilities in the OECS including St. Maarten and St Thomas. It shows clearly that the adjustment in all the territories are within a similar range and that ANGLEC is by no means the highest. Since this adjustment reflects the increasing cost of diesel a good statistic/fact for the consumer to note is that at present fuel makes up for almost ninety percent of the cost of electricity production in the Anguilla context. Put simply, for every dollar spent to produce electricity almost 90 cents goes to the fuel suppliers. And if one were to go a step further, this is as compared to 30 to 40 cents for the same costs out of that same dollar nine years ago. Reality must now step in! It is all about the price of fuel! 

I am making the point that there is no magic to the pricing mechanism of ANGLEC. And it is impossible for us to expect any radical reduction in our electricity bills if the price of fuel remains at present levels. ANGLEC is a public company with shareholders who bought their shares on the basis of a prospectus, which assured them that the company would be managed along commercial lines to produce a return on that investment. In fact, a twelve percent return on the investment is actually legislated. Obviously, any decision by the Management of ANGLEC, which impacts shareholders dividends, may be questioned. And it would therefore not be unreasonable for a shareholder to demand: “Why should I have to forego my dividends to subsidize the consumer?”

What this mechanism, which passes on such production costs to the consumer has afforded ANGLEC, is the ability to maintain an efficient service. And any profits forthcoming are used to further enhance ANGLEC’s transmission and distribution capacity. Were that not the case, every individual or company, which relies on a constant and steady supply of electricity to survive would experience many obstacles and setbacks to its own development as well as to the other quality of services it offers or expects. It would be most irresponsible of any leader in the community to propagate the idea that ANGLEC should not be allowed to recover the reasonable costs of producing and delivering electricity to its consumers. Equally, we (the consumers) are entitled to expect efficient services from ANGLEC at reasonable rates.

The Minister’s Response. It was a pleasant surprise to hear the Minister of Utilities, the Hon. Evan Gumbs’s written response in the House of Assembly to the question posed by the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool. It seemed that at last he had come to understand that his sweeping promises in the election campaign to drastically and unconditionally reduce electricity rates in the short term are both impractical and foolish. Furthermore, they were seemingly based on a strategy that included a “hostile takeover” of ANGLEC, which along with the Chairman of Social Security he orchestrated very early upon his ascendance to office. It was obvious that the Minister was a believer in the AUM conspiracy theory that electricity rates were artificially high because the wicked AUF Government was conspiring with the Board and Management of ANGLEC to “rip off” the Anguillian consumer. And it appeared that his mission and promise when elected was to fire the entire Board; replace it with AUM supporters; and reduce the rates. Unfortunately, there are a number of Anguillians including a few who have been placed on the Board, who have bought into this theory “hook line and sinker!” Fortunately, those plans were thwarted and I am proud to have in some way contributed to that eventuality by my article: “Comments on a hostile takeover of ANGLEC!” on May 21st 2010. 

While I certainly do not recommend it, because the Government needs valuable revenue, the Minister could have considered other options open to him over which he had more control --- than planning to take over a publicly owned company and slash its prices. In 2010, the Government of Anguilla derived some $7.5 million in direct revenues from ANGLEC comprising some $300,000 from the business licence; $465,500 in dividends; $4.1 million from the environmental levy; and $2.6 from duties on diesel alone. It would not be a good idea to slash these Government revenues to pass them on to the consumer --- but since the Minister seemed bent on fulfilling his promise maybe he could have found a way to replace them. Again, I repeat: “Not a good idea!” 

But if it is to be believed that the Minister meant what he read and read what he meant, we will be looking at a very sustainable approach to bringing “renewable energy into the energy mix of Anguilla”. This would be a most commendable strategy for the Minister and the Government to pursue --- as they seek to address the need for more affordable electricity prices for their citizens. I must quote a section of the Minister’s response that brings great comfort as follows: “Our exclusive reliance on conventional energy sources, i.e., diesel fuel, is the primary reason for the high prices we pay for electricity. If our dependence on diesel fuel is reduced then we will see a correspondent decrease in the price of electricity. It must be remembered that Anguilla has no control over the price of diesel fuel in the world market and thus has no control over its imported price. It therefore follows to a large extent that we in Anguilla have little or no control over the price we pay for electricity, unless and until we reduce our reliance on it." 

When I heard the Minister plodding through this written response --- it was as if a light went on in the room. (No pun intended!) This is precisely why the AUF Government put in place the Alternative Energy Committee; passed the Alternative Energy Bill; established, funded and staffed the Anguilla Renewable Energy Office; began the dialogue with international agencies like the Clinton Global Initiative; and brought ANGLEC into the equation. Eureka! He has finally got it! 

What the Minister said, seemed, at last, to be in recognition of the need to move beyond vacuous politics in dealing with such issues of national importance. He must now see ANGLEC as his partner, not his adversary, in the quest to provide long term solutions to our energy needs. The General Manager of ANGLEC is a full member of the Alternative Energy Committee. And every member of the Committee is a volunteer. Anguilla is making great strides because of the efforts of that Committee and ANGLEC is fully engaged in facilitating the process to rationalize the use of alternate energy sources by the wider community. This will necessitate revising the Electricity Act and drafting new legislation and policies to allow private producers using renewable energy systems to become a viable part of an island wide initiative. In fact, these ideas, including making the efficient use of energy a cultural phenomenon will have global and indeed planetary impacts.

Maybe, the Member for Island Harbour’s question really “hit a switch” because something seemed to have “clicked” with the Minister. It would be remiss of me not to quote a part of his closing paragraph as follows: “We must be mindful that the current financial and economic crisis gripping the entire world, including Anguilla, does not help the situation”. What a difference twenty months make! By Jove! I think he’s got it!

By: Victor F. Banks

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 the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“DEM COULD GIVE --- BUT DEM CARN TEK!”

I listened with interest to the House of Assembly intermittently yesterday (October 17, 2011) whenever the opportunity provided itself among my several other preoccupations. I wanted in particular to hear the Chief Minister’s response to the issue of the Governor’s Statement to Executive Council on September 8, 2011 regarding the “ill-considered conduct of the Chief Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary” to conclude an MOU with the Starwood Capital Group on their stationery and “without authorization from EXCO, without the benefit of the advice of the Tourism Investment Committee and without having been seen or negotiated by the AG’s Chambers.” He made a response on “To the Point” last week, which I have transcribed from his own words --- but I was looking for consistency in his response. I got an earful and so did David Carty and Marcel Fahie, if they happened to be listening. As the “usual suspects” in most of the Chief Minister’s conspiracy theories I am sure we all expected it. Once the Chief Minister can avail himself of the protection of “parliamentary privilege” in the House of Assembly he uses that “cowardly route” to spout his vicious lies and propaganda. I have noticed that his leadership by “bad example” is “rubbing off” on his junior colleagues as well.

One thing has become blatantly obvious is that the Anguilla United Front’s public meeting of Saturday, October 8th “struck a nerve”. And as a testimony to that a number of the elected members in their responses in the House showed themselves to have been well versed in our presentations made on that occasion. I heard the Hon. Jerome Roberts not only comment on that meeting but our Town Hall Meeting on Sunday as well. I consider my Elected Representative, the Hon. Evan Gumbs, to be an “innocent bystander” so I will not respond to his comments even though I heard he spoke for a very long time about my twenty-eight years of service as an elected member --- an honour and privilege to which I would have thought both he and all the newly elected candidates would wish to aspire. His self-righteous proclamation of his Christian principles, which lesser mortals as myself would not dare to judge, should however cause him to understand that just like the God he serves ordained that he should be the elected representative for Valley South likewise that same God ordained that I should be “the Journalist” to report on issues affecting at least the 677 voters in Valley South who supported me --- and in truth and in fact all Anguillians. But like I said before why take advantage of an “innocent bystander”.

But I will repeat the point that I have made time and time again, namely, that the AUM and its supporters seem to believe that the concept democracy and freedom of speech or expression is a “preserve” to which only they are entitled. In fact yesterday this was reinforced by the comments made by the Chief Minister in the House of Assembly and Mr. Elkin “Larry King” Richardson (an apparent AUM sympathizer) on “ To the Point” last night. Let me demonstrate the inconsistency and ambiguity of their thinking through their own statements as follows: 

• The Chief Minister said in the House yesterday “that in some countries political parties are prohibited from campaigning for a period after elections”. It is obvious from this comment that he believes that the Anguilla United Front is guilty of campaigning after elections. And secondly, that he has adjudged that any media that the Anguilla United Front uses to express its opposition to the actions of his Government, constitutes a campaign platform and should not be allowed. On the other hand, during the entire period of the AUF’s second term in particular, it was fine for him to use every available forum to express his political views because he is Hubert Hughes --- and, as is well known, “the rules” do not apply to him.
• Mr. Elkins “Larry King” Richardson on his part tried to cajole Mr. Curtis Richardson on his show last night into agreeing with him that my column in the Anguillian is “dividing Anguilla”. The irony of this “sad” position by Mr. Elkin Richardson is that he is not in the “print media” but he is in the “broadcast media” yet he genuinely appears to believe that while he has the right to freedom of expression on his “show” I should not have the right to freedom of expression in my column. And even further, like other supporters of the AUM, he seems to want to determine the editorial policy for the “Anguillian Newspaper” also. Obviously, our “Larry King” seems to believe that the rules do not apply to him either.

But this attitude goes even further. A number of the members of the House yesterday made the statement that I am fighting to get back into the House. As a matter of fact the “innocent bystander” said that I should not be the Leader of the Anguilla United Front because I do not have a seat in the House of Assembly. Simply put it would appear that they want to run the AUM and the AUF as well. Our membership elects our party officials. The party officials do not elect themselves. If any member of the AUM wants to determine who should lead the Anguilla United Front let them join the party. The point I am making is that not only does the AUM and its supporters believe that “democracy and freedom of speech or expression” is a concept designed for them --- but also that only they, apparently, have the right to run for public office.

Every single elected member of this Government, including the Parliamentary Secretary, has lost a bid for public office before. Has Anguilla now elected the “Perfect Government” ordained by God, which it is sacrilegious to criticize or oppose? Maybe the AUM clerics have that view --- as one of them frequently declared during the election campaign. Someone once said that the will of the people is the will of God! However, one must never question or try to “divine” God’s will and purpose! Like the Children of Israel, Anguillians may also have to experience several manifestations of God’s omnipotence before the truth is revealed to them. But far be it from me, a lesser mortal, to make any boasts as those widely spouted by the “anointed ones” of the AUM in the House of Assembly yesterday.

But as I said earlier, it was my intention to analyze as a case study in poor governance, the Chief Minister’s response to the Governor’s Statement in Executive Council regarding the 18 million dollar fiasco caused by the July 27th Starwood Capital MOU negotiated by the Parliamentary Secretary alone. I will therefore have to fulfill that analysis albeit in an abbreviated form given the mother lode of issues now demanding my attention. First of all, I must commend the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers and the Elected Member for Island Harbour, the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool, for their questions and their stellar performance in the House today. Needless to say, as usual the Chief Minister avoided providing any substantive answer to most of his questions. However, with regards the 18 million dollar question he regurgitated what he said on “To the Point” adding a few political spins with his usual conspiracy theories, which I will ignore at this time. However, I will quote directly from what he said on “To the Point” on October 10th 2011, to expose both the lies and the examples of poor governance as follows: 

1) Mr. Hughes: “Starwood Capital came to us in New York last year June and told us that they were interested in buying the note from Citibank. … but they wanted to take our taxes on US$15 million because that is the amount the former Government agreed that they should pay their taxes on. But we said no!” My Comment: Starwood Capital Group did not negotiate taxes on the sale of the note from Citibank because when we were in Government the issue of the sale was never a subject of discussion. Starwood Capital was not even in the picture! We were preoccupied with getting the property open. The Chief Minister cannot produce any such agreement! It never existed. It is another one of his lies.

2) Mr. Hughes: “We had a lot of wrangling and most of this wrangling took place outside of EXCO. Because, as a matter of fact it is as if you go to EXCO for the Governor to decide everything. And even some Governors used to wonder why certain things come to EXCO.” My Comment: The Chief Minister is trying to justify why he did not take the matter to EXCO and to make the point that in EXCO the Governor decides everything. The fact is that the Governor is merely the Chairman of EXCO --- it is the elected members who make the decisions. And since EXCO minutes are now released to the public everyone will notice that all EXCO minutes report that: “members decided, advised, or agreed”. Not the Governor! If the elected members do not agree --- that matter cannot be passed. EXCO is to ensure transparency and proper procedures. It is where Government decisions are recorded. Actually, it also protects Ministers of Government by ensuring that their decisions have the support of the entire Government. Can you imagine what the Chief Minister would have been saying today if another Chief Minister and his son negotiated a US$500 million MOU for the people of Anguilla? Mr. Hughes good governance procedures apply to you as well! There is no justification for your misguided actions.

3) Mr. Hughes: “But the Governor in his conspiracy to mislead is saying that the Government of Anguilla would have lost 18 million dollars on that transaction. … The Governor fully well knows that even though, I signed that agreement in my office, I signed that agreement in my office because the people came in on a chartered flight and they wanted a signature before they leave.” My Comment: With whom did the Governor conspire? He made his statement in EXCO! It is on record. Mr. Hughes did not follow proper procedure! One cannot rush an agreement before due diligence is completed simply because an Investor has his chartered jet waiting on the airport. That is bad governance. There is no need in this age of technology to sign an agreement under such duress --- there is Fedex, UPS, DHL and electronic mail. What’s the rush?

4) Mr. Hughes: “But it was under provision. The proviso was that this must be approved in the EXCO. I signed it tentatively. My Comment: Where is the proviso? As soon as the MOU was signed on July 27th two days afterwards, before EXCO met or its members saw the MOU, he and his son were on the international media boasting that an MOU was signed and Viceroy was sold. One of his own Ministers admitted that it never came to EXCO. Obviously, the Chief Minister does not get the point that he and his son are not the Government. A signature of the Chief Minister cannot be tentative! It is either signed or it is not! Once you signed the document, the other party has legitimate expectations that you will adhere to the terms of the agreement. This is bad Governance!

5) Mr. Hughes: “There was an arrangement made between Starwood and the KOR Group … that they would declare bankruptcy so that it makes it easier for the KOR Group. It had nothing to do with us. That was an internal matter … this was to satisfy an American Court process.” My Comment: How could the Chief Minister accept that this arrangement between Starwood and Kor Group is a reasonable justification for fixing the market value of Viceroy for stamp duty purposes? As I predicted a year ago in my article: “So shall it be in the end!”, it would have been more appropriate to set a minimum rather than a maximum. The rushed MOU limited the negotiating capacity of the Tourism Investment Committee (TIC). This is bad governance!

6) Mr. Hughes: “We were mislead into thinking that we could get some extra money now --- but the lawyers --- our lawyers our Attorney General and their lawyers and the Developers and us had debate over whether we could draw some extra money. … We were told categorically that that was only a device to satisfy the bankruptcy.” My Comment: Who mislead the CM? It was he and he son who caused this situation! Not the Governor! The Governor did not sign the July 27th MOU. The CM did and that is the root cause of the problem! There can be no device to overrule the stamp duty assessment. It is paid on the real price! That is why the Government had to reduce its rate of stamp duty to fit Haydn’s negotiated maximum payable by the developer. That is bad governance!

7) Mr. Hughes: “Yet the Governor issued a statement sometime after without even discussing it with anybody in the EXCO --- without raising it as an issue --- you know something we could have gotten some extra money. We couldn’t because we all knew that he was not telling the truth about this --- 18 million dollars. That it is why he could not do it and that is typical of the Governor --- every now and then he will raise a particular issue with somebody to create a false impression.” My Comment: What is the Chief Minister talking about? The Governor’s statement is retrospective he is advising the Chief Minister to exercise better governance in such matters in the future --- because it could cost the people of Anguilla well-needed revenue. What can be wrong or misleading about that! But the Chief Minister is so caught up in never accepting responsibility for anything that he does not get the message. The Chief Minister must come to grips with the fact that he did not exercise good governance in this matter!

After hearing the responses of the AUM members of the House yesterday and Mr. Curtis Richardson’s performance on “To the Point”, someone declared with appropriate emphasis: “Dem could give --- but dem carn tek!”

By: Victor F. Banks

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 the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“They Talk Stupid;” TIME TO REFOCUS!!!!

It is well within the right of every Anguillian to choose their affiliation and association! In recent years our people have become extremely enthusiastic about political talk and it seems that we are very motivated about political campaigning. The affiliation and or association with a particular organization or group are actually a good thing if it is known what the ideals and basic principles are that drive the concept, this type of association should contribute to a better frame of mind in our public discourse. The lacks of anticipation, especially within our political parties have created a less informed people and has caused serious division and a clear lack of astuteness in our conversation. It was the year 1992 I believe, the Association of Anguillian Citizens of St. Maarten received a report which indicated that Anguilla had a very high illiteracy rate compared to the rest of the region. Our association invited the Parliamentary Secretary Mr. David Carty to St. Marten to explain, and to give us his opinion on such a report. Mr. Carty indicated that such a report was probably an opinion of an organization but was not an official position of any recognized institution that the island relies on for data.

Such a report could well have been based on hypothesis because of some of our unscrupulous dialogue where facts escape the airwaves and viewpoints are smeared by partisan rhetoric. It is true that some of the conversation on the airwaves led by some uninformed hosts, or others are exactly partial in their point of view, hell bent on vigorously defending their party at all cost without pertinent contribution to the larger platform of public discourse, meanwhile probably creating unintentional damage in general. This has caused much unintentional severing of good personal relations and family feuds, but more so presented a very negative image, raising in some instances the question of literacy among our people. Just recently I was told by someone being resident on Anguilla for some years that they would soon be leaving the island, I inquired why? The person said to me I probably came to the island in the good times, I was very impressed and I guess I lost my enchantment, it could be because of the economic situation, but I find the people to be very simple minded, I asked by what measure? The person said they talk stupid! I asked are you saying that the people of Anguilla are stupid. The person said not really, but much of their conversation is really about nothing, you can listen to the talk shows and they talk very little that you can learn from or stimulate good wise discussions, the people are too political and they don’t even know what they are talking about.

This conversation helped to reset my mind and has caused me to refocus on the direction of the country. It is noticeable that many who call in on radio are actually unable to broaden the scope on the subject matter. We must find it necessary to enable our people to focus on what matters and not to engage in unsubstantiated claims and matters beyond our reach, and those who can indeed make a viable contribution should be part of the discourse. What we say, and in context present an image which transmits to understanding, this is the bedrock of literacy. It would probably do our talk show hosts well to change their format; instead of stimulating vague talk on matters of public interest, they should ensure that an expert is on hand to inform the people on these matters. 

Much is said of our politics as well, which seems to have no focus except to diminish one another. It is time our political leaders begin to think less about our past and commence the process of shaping the future of the country; this must begin with positive political leadership which focuses less on their party. The election of 2010 should be made our final, having the premise being the revolutionary period. We must see new leadership for the island that would lead the people first. My concept of the revolutionary period leads me to believe that our entire field of politicians is still beholding to the ideals and accomplishment of that period, the frame of mind, and reference do not permit us to envision new horizons. As a people, we have lived the primitive lifestyle and have lived hardship, we must shake off that stigma, our children are now privileged to be well educated, and we are a society that has excelled in all of the requirements that makes us a better country today, we must now refocus on those values and attributes that present a well rounded society, this begins with appropriate political leadership with a vision for the country. We must refocus; commence the process of leading the country into the future, building a society of modern minds.

By Elliot J. Harrigan

“ZACCHAEUS COME DOWN!”

It was very amusing --- but perhaps sad to hear Members of the House of Assembly on the Government side boast that they will have a budgetary surplus at the end of the year to the tune of 20 million EC dollars. While this is conceivable on the recurrent budget, given the revenues from the sale of the Viceroy Resort, such a boast begs a plethora of questions as follows:

1) Why then are we making a fuss about contributing a measly US$10,000 for the National Cricket Team to participate in the important Annual Leeward Island Cricket Tournament if we expect such a big surplus?

2) Why then are we not making a case to the British Government that we have already achieved a balanced budget?

3) Should not taxpayers now begin to wonder whether the newly imposed and proposed tax measures are excessive?

4) Will carrying a 20 million dollar surplus into 2012 allow for a repeal of unfair and inequitable tax measures and provide an opportunity for a more comprehensive review of our tax regime?

5) Does the Government contemplate the sale of another major property in 2012 to ensure another surplus next year?

6) Should the Government not be considering a major capital project to stimulate economic activity as the FCO Minister suggested?

7) With that kind of surplus could we not create some well-needed jobs and business opportunities?

8) Wow! Isn’t the Government lucky that the past Government decided to allow for two major tourism developments?

9) Wow! Would it not have been an EC$40 million surplus --- if the Chief Minister did not allow the Parliamentary Secretary to negotiate an MOU with the Starwood Capital Group on his own; without the consent of Executive Council; and without the knowledge of other Ministers of Government?

10) What are they talking about? --- People are out of work; people cannot pay their basic bills; people are losing their homes and personal assets; businesses are closing down --- How will the surplus be employed to bring them good news?

These are just a few of the questions, which I fielded from concerned citizens who listened to “Haydn and Jerome”. The overarching question of course was: “Are these guys serious?” It is a natural tendency for most Governments --- after a long period in office to loose touch with the burning issues affecting the people. Very often it is not because they are insensitive but rather because they may become inundated with so many complaints and requests that they are unable to process all of them effectively. They then get caught up in dealing with situations almost dispassionately, having been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the matters they must attend to --- and the impossibility of being able to please everybody, sometimes even at the same time.

The AUM Government in particular, during the election campaign accused the past Government of such an attitude. They pledged on the other hand to be a Government that would listen to the cries of the people. In fact, it is reported that the Elected Representative for Valley South, Hon. Evan Gumbs, cried real tears as he described the hungry people in Anguilla who were brought to this state of want by the wicked United Front Government. One of the leading clerics of the AUM, Rev. John A. Gumbs, supposedly through some divine connection, declared that: “Anyone who votes for the Anguilla United Front commits an act against God and will be punished!” The point I am making is that the present Government has been in office just over eighteen months and has already lost considerable touch with the people they have been elected to represent. In fact, within a few short months of their ascension to power their supporters were claiming that they do not answer their phones; they have changed their phone numbers; they only respond to BBM’s; they switch parties without their consent; they have become arrogant; and so on.

Indeed, the Hon. Jerome Roberts, who appears to have taken over the role of “mouth piece” of Government from the Parliamentary Secretary --- tried to explain in the House of Assembly why he and the elected Member for Valley South should have new vehicles approved for them even while the National Cricket Teams’ request for funding to participate in the traditional Leeward Islands Tournament (for less than one quarter of the value of the vehicles in question) should be rejected. A listener whose party affiliation I am unable to ascertain, made this remark in my presence: “How de hell Jerome fix he face to say dat?”

But before I proceed with the issue of the so-called surplus, let me make one point very clear! It appears the Government has been engaging the British in a debate as to whether the funds from the Viceroy sale constitute “windfall revenues”. Typically, the term “windfall” means: “a piece of unexpected good fortune”(Source: Oxford Dictionary). In this sense, the revenues from the sale of Viceroy were not unexpected. In fact, they were anticipated in the projections of both this Government and the past Government. However, I believe that the point is a moot one. Whether the revenue is “windfall” or otherwise its application to the budgetary situation must be the same! The reality is, these revenue levels may not be forthcoming in next year’s budget. The Anguilla Government must therefore decide on how to best to use this revenue, given our present circumstances. To boast of having a year-end surplus based on unsustainable sources is at best puerile. It is extremely unlikely that the GOA will benefit from such revenues on a constant basis. Government should therefore be using this space and opportunity to expand the economy and rationalize the tax structure so as to create more reliable revenue streams for sustainable growth and development.

In this context, one of the questions I raised earlier, in the face of this boast by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Elected Member for East End was: “Will carrying a 20 million dollar surplus into 2012 allow for a repeal of unfair and inequitable tax measures and provide an opportunity for a more comprehensive review of our tax regime?” This question is particularly important given the recent complaints regarding the draconian and inequitable penalties imposed on taxpayers for unintentional breaches of the Interim Stabilization Levy Act (“the Levy”). The “Letter to the Editor” section of the Anguillian Newspaper contains a submission on “the Levy” from an exceptionally honest taxpayer and law-abiding citizen explaining how he/she was penalized for trying to be compliant with “the Levy” after he/she realized that he/she was misinformed about the procedures for filing. In other words technically punished for trying to do the right thing.

In my March 18th article entitled “You born on All Fool’s Day!” in speaking about the planned implementation of “the Levy” I wrote: “The IRS style penalties contained in the Bill are also a cause for concern and particularly so in a “no direct taxation” culture. Compliance laws are important for ensuring fairness in any tax system but they should not lend themselves to creating criminality without due regard for the nature of the environment in which the system is to operate. In this context the self-employed will require special attention.”

The Anguilla United Front used several platforms to explain the unfairness of the “Levy”. AUF elected representatives tried to move motions in the House of Assembly for its repeal; petitions were circulated calling for substantive amendments or repeal of the Act; the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter to the FCO Minister advising him among other things that: “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;” and there were at least two public meetings where this matter was the main topic.

There was no shortage of initiatives from our party to point out the dangers of the “Levy” and demand its repeal. While the community expressed outrage --- precious few stepped up to the plate to be counted. In this regard one of the AUM supporters was probably right when he said to me: “Banks why awh you harassing yourselves! People gon complain --- but it gon only be a two week talk! Most of dem don’t believe the tax is for dem anyway!” We believe, however, as the situation in Anguilla worsens economically, people are beginning to take us more seriously even though we may have lost valuable time.

In a letter to the Chief Minister dated May, 4th 2011, the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, requested that he should “take all necessary steps to repeal the Levy as a matter of urgency” giving a lengthy list of reasons for doing so. The Chief Minister’s response was only two sentences as follows: “Your letter of today's date has just been referred to me and I have read it with interest. As you should be well aware, your letter should be addressed to His Excellency, the Governor.” On other media the Chief Minister maintained the position that “the stabilization levy is not his tax but rather a british tax forced on him to implement. And that it is only the Secretary of State that can repeal an ACT”. All of which goes to show that the Chief Minister does not take responsibility for anything not even to exercise powers that are a part of his function as a legislator.

The concerned business owner with an income of less than EC$2,000 per month received a rude awakening because he/she did not know that being exempt from the tax he/she was still required to file a timely return. The penalty came up to EC$8,700 for not filing returns since April --- a period of just five months but almost as much as his/her declared income for the same period. The business owner made two excellent points:- a) To the best of his/her knowledge there has been no documentation on penalties sent to business licence owners outlining their full obligations under this law. b) There is a need to consider penalties more in line with the size of the business entity.

We have been saying all along that given the “culture change” required for the successful implementation of the “Levy” --- there was need for more consultation not only with employers but with government agencies as well. This is especially true with regards to what we have constantly referred to as the “IRS style” penalties involved. In fact during the first month that the Levy was due --- few answers were forthcoming from the agencies responsible for collections. And during the consultative process it was heartrending to see just one Senior Officer in the entire service burdened with the task of responding to questions from angry employers and self-employed persons pointing out the unfairness of the tax.

The Chief Minister and his colleagues may try to convince you that the British Government is responsible for the tax but he cannot blame the British Government for the penalties. The Government has every opportunity to decide on the level of penalties required to encourage compliance. It is patently unfair for the nice lady down the street selling sugar cakes and mauby to pay the same EC$50 penalty as Cable & Wireless, if she is a day late on filing her return. The Government could easily have adopted the penalty system of Social Security, which is a 5% late fee penalty. Furthermore there should have been a grace period on penalties during the implementation phase of the Levy since it was clear that the process was rushed and the information was not properly disseminated. All this was in the Government’s hand --- instead they simply stood aside and blamed the British.

What is ironic about the whole thing is that if the same draconian penalties were enforced in the Property Tax Act the Chief Minister and one of his Ministers would have received the maximum penalty, that is, imprisonment --- and probably would not have been able to run for public office. Yet they sit “holier than thou” in the Executive Council Chambers approving tax laws with such inequitable penalties being imposed on their own people. And even worse refusing to respond to the call of the Opposition to consider making major amendments or repealing this bad tax, by claiming that they do not have the power to repeal an Act --- when in fact that power is clearly enshrined in Section 47 & 55(1) of the Anguilla Constitution. This was an opportunity for Government and Opposition to work together to improve or repeal this bad tax.

I would like to believe that the purpose of the Levy is not to collect huge penalties but to encourage compliance in an atmosphere of understanding. And furthermore that any penalties imposed would be based on a fair system of Offences and Punishments approved by the Government. But with new tax measures being discussed even as we boast about a surplus; and the Government continually using the “british scapegoat” to abdicate its responsibilities to the people --- I believe that it is time for all of us to demand that “Zacchaeus comes down from the sycamore tree” of arrogance and deals fairly and equitably with the taxpayers of this country! Biblically speaking of course! Zacchaeus Come Down!

By: Victor F. Banks
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 the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

THE GOVERNOR, THE CHIEF MINISTER; nothing to lose!!!!

At some point it becomes a matter for the people! The battle of words and insults throughout this term of governing between the Governor and the Chief Minister has inhibited the full capacity of governance and brought neutrality and civility in this high office to a grinding halt. There is no good will between these two men, and caught between is a country exposed to risk. The battle lines were drawn quite early, resulted from much of the loose rhetoric bubbled up in the last election. It is perhaps true that this government is a target of the British; this, effectively being executed by the Governor, Mr. Harrison. The Chief Minister, who is quite naturally willing to climax his political career in a blaze of glory, wants to be adorned with the reputation for “standing up to the British.” Frankly speaking, this is a moment in our history not to be admired, and most hideously, both of these men are poised, Governor Harrison is here on assignment; he will serve his term, then leave, we might never hear from him again, and Hughes, winding down his illustrious political career, emphatically declaring he will not seek reelection. "The Governor, the Chief Minister, they have nothing to lose!!!!"

In an exclusive and extensive conversation with the honorable Chief Minister, he has conceded that he has just about exhausted his good will and reasoning in the function of executing his responsibility, having Governor Harrison as a partner. He feels that his governing capacity is severely restricted and perhaps has been actually hijacked. In an effort to offer advice where a reasonable compromise may be sort in the interest of the country, I found a defiant and determined Chief Minister, not willing to give an inch and feels that the Governor must either allow the normal process of an elected government to function in the interest of the majority of the population who elected them or be welcome to take the process by force, meaning that the battle lines are drawn. What emerged from our conversation is that much of the conflict is personally targeted and they both seem to be willing to infliction blistering insults out of diplomatic circle.

It is very clear to me that the public is actually at arm’s length, and not aware of the depth of discontent, disagreement and dysfunction between these two most powerful men, which unfolds an ugly picture for the Hughes Government. Having nothing to lose in the process is not a good enough reason to impede the process of governing in the interest of the country, this means that only the people lose in this tense and reckless standoff. It is presumed that the people of Anguilla must be allowed to criticize their government if deemed necessary; and government must respond to the will of the people. As we know it, the governing process is within the rights and reach of the elected government and the Queen’s representative is empowered, and should execute within the constitutional framework, but not usurp the power and authority of the elected. From the observation of public scrutiny, we know the behavior of Mr. Hughes, and are well aware of his persona relative to the British; this should not enable the absolute disregard for the elected government, who should be allowed to perform and be ridiculed by said electorate if necessary. The Governor has no direct responsibility to the Anguilla people and should not infringe on the electorate by absorbing all the rights to rule.

On the other hand our government must conduct its self in a coherent way that induces respect and not react undiplomatic in the process of governing. There is no room for personal misconduct; this has no place in the high office representing the people. We cannot be driven by a militant few, pundits or radio personalities who unrealistically want to diminish the role of the British and the Governor, by this, causing the unnecessary use and exercise of extra ordinary powers and micro, management the country. These powers should be reserved to rescue the country in case of gross negligence or disorder, we have not yet entered that zone. Hughes expressed his disgust, indicating that the Governor is the monster in the room absorbing all the influence and power of the elected and not demonstrates a fair and balance approach, which is not serving the country well. The people of Anguilla must be allowed the right to representation by a government they choose, and the people in due time will decide whether this government deserves a vote of confidence or not, we don’t ask for this degree of protection from our selves.

Clearly some of Hughes’s remarks were unwarranted and not deserving of coverage, but we know Hughes, and his intentions are good towards the country, while he may inhibit his very own progress by his style of governing, he must be allowed to fall on his own sword, or we will witness a classic re institution of massive British rule and control over our lives once again. It must be said, that for a major power who offers the people of Anguilla nothing, in the worst of economic conditions, and exhibit no remorse over the number of homes on the auction block and misfortune suffered in this recession by the Anguillian people, but continues to anticipate more taxation; at some point must be called out to consider the people and their immediate conditions, to ensure that we enjoy a stable and continued well being. We are well aware that the Governor must executes his responsibility according to protocol, and we know that our Chief Minister is not quite a submissive man, these two men, while having great ambition seems to demonstrate to the people of Anguilla that they’ll fight on, “they have nothing to lose.”

By Elliot J. Harrigan

"JUST ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH THE NATION!"

Nineteen months have elapsed since the Anguilla United Movement ascended to office as the duly elected Government of Anguilla. They were swept into office on a platform of lies; the promise of openness, transparency, good governance, integrity; and the pledge that they could turn around the economy in three months with “an invisible plan”. One week after that election, as party leader of the Anguilla United Front, at our public meeting adjacent to Landsome Bowl Cultural Center, to thank our supporters, I made the following statement: “The people have spoken! We have lost the election but we are not losers! We are disappointed but we are not discouraged! We will give the new Government the opportunity to govern but we will not cease to defend the interests of our supporters and the people of Anguilla as a whole!” In keeping with that pledge our party did not hold a public meeting for an entire year. However, we believe that since February 16, 2010 the situation in Anguilla has deteriorated and despite the “smokescreens” which this AUM Government has set up --- it has not demonstrated its ability to deliver on its promises. And its conduct brings into question its understanding of the principles of openness, transparency, good governance and integrity. And the lies continue!

Exactly two months after the election I was moved to comment on what I generously referred to as a rumour, namely, that the new Anguilla Social Security Board was considering moving Social Security deposits from the two local banks to the international commercial banks on the island. I entitled that article: “Please Say It Isn’t So!” For those comments I received a “tongue lashing” from the new Chairman, Mr. Thomas Astaphan, who used the term “unsolicited advice” and further questioned my standing to make such a statement. My response was in my subsequent article entitled: “Thanks Mr. Chairman!” as follows: “I would like to suggest to Mr. Astaphan that as a representative of the people of Anguilla for almost thirty years --- and might I add through the electoral process, not by appointment --- and by virtue of being a born and bred Anguillian over sixty years of age with considerable experience --- I do not need anyone’s permission, approval or solicitation to comment on whatsoever I believe affects the people of Anguilla. Despite any views to the contrary I have no intention to roll over and play dead simply because I am not a member of the House of Assembly.”

After those first articles in April 2010, I came to the realization that my commentaries in the Anguillian could make a difference in influencing the decision making of the Government and bring public attention to important issues affecting our island. Indeed, as a result of that first article, the new Social Security Board did not pursue that decision. That success strengthened my resolve to use the print media to place on record my views on decisions and actions taken by the Government. I could have chosen other platforms, like the “blogs” and other social media to advance my views --- but I decided that as a matter of principle I would continue to do what I have done in politics all my life: “Speak the truth and be fair in the statements I make!” I would not revert to using the anonymity of social media, which may contain irresponsible statements and lies, which further the interests of cowardly and dishonest contributors. Anything I write in the Anguillian Newspaper, under my own name, I am fully responsible for --- and I am prepared to stand fully behind. And if I misrepresent the truth and anyone --- I also recognize the recourse to legal action available to those affected!

It was also obvious that the “platform of lies” that catapulted the AUM to office was being considered “best practice” by the new Government and in particular the Chief Minister. I was therefore forced to point out a wide range of conflicting and incongruous statements, which he used to consolidate his support even in those early months after his victory at the polls. For example, in my April 29, article I wrote:  

• "He says that no one can force him to introduce taxation yet he commissions a revenue study the findings of which he claims that he will not implement at this time.
• He speaks about the AUF giving away revenue to investors by MOA’s but he does not mention the new streams of continuous revenue that were designed to create a robust plan for economic sustainability. 
• He does not mention that the AUF Government built up total reserves of over $62 million, even while we built some of the best roads and seaport facilities in the region. His government is surviving on these reserves while we speak.
• He speaks about almost $200 million in debt but does not point out that it is the lowest in the region (of course Montserrat excluded); it was sustainable based on our budget and was not built up by this Government alone. His government is increasing that borrowing as we speak.
• He criticizes the AUF Government for seeking permission to borrow to meet recurrent requirements --- which is the exact thing that his Government has been doing since it came to office."

I could not allow this ongoing strategy of lies, half-truths and innuendoes to overwhelm the people of Anguilla any longer.  

Since those early times the supporters of the Anguilla United Movement have been trying to silence me. They have been selling the idea that my column is dividing Anguilla; that my column is preventing the Government from doing its work; that I have been silent for sixteen years and all of a sudden I am a journalist; and that I want to bring down the Government. And even in the midst of those arguments there are persons who claim they do not read my column; that my column is too long; that I am not elected so I should not comment; that I am trying to upstage the Leader of the Opposition and so on. While these comments have done nothing more than to convince me that my column is bothering the right people --- my most significant reason for continuing is that I have created a well documented record of my articles on relevant issues of the last nineteen months. And as a result by looking back I can demonstrate that my articles have been factual, analytical and prophetic as the issues unfold. Sadly though, it appears that there is either a genuine lack of understanding of the meaning of “freedom of expression” or a warped belief that “freedom expression” is the unique privilege of diehard AUM supporters.

My weekly commentaries represent a fair record of the Government’s performance over its tenure and show how it has been stumbling from crisis to crisis over that period. Let me remind you of a few such incidents: -

• The Government tried to orchestrate a “hostile takeover” of ANGLEC with the new Social Security Board by trying to politicize the Board of Directors, apparently, so as to put forward the party agenda without following proper governance procedures.
• The Government allowed its junior members, namely, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Elected Member for East End, to negotiate a new MOU with Cap Juluca, which had the effect of giving the Developer back pond lands, beachfront resources, and other national assets belonging to the GOA and people of Anguilla.
• The Chief Minister allowed the Parliamentary Secretary alone to negotiate an MOU with Starwood Capital Group on the purchase of the Viceroy Resort. The Parl. Sec. did so and had the Chief Minister sign it on Starwood stationery without Executive Council authorization.
• The Chief Minister with the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary tried to stir up civilian protests by claiming that the Governor had asked him to resign immediately and call fresh elections. He then proceeded to establish the groundwork for a movement for independence.
• The Chief Minister signed a document authorizing the Social Security Board to borrow US $200 million from a relatively unknown financial institution and secured the loan against present and future Social Security Funds. All of this without Executive Council approval and the required authorization of the House of Assembly. 
• The Chief Minister’s inability to make the case for more time to balance the budget and come up with sound proposals as to how he intends to retire the deficit and restore fiscal and economic stability, led to an ongoing budgetary dispute. It was this failed approach which led the Leader of the Opposition to ask him to adjust his “style, approach and attitude” in his dealings with the British Government, the Governor and senior officials in the public service.

While these examples may not be exhaustive, they illustrate the pointless battles, which continue to obstruct “real progress” as well as the Chief Minister’s blatant disregard for good governance. The fact is that while we hear many of his supporters making the claim that “we need Hubert to deal with the British” --- the record and history has proven irrefutably, that Mr. Hughes has never gotten anything out of the British with his approach --- except of course his own political demise. On the other hand the record of the past Government in terms of its relationship with the British has been one of mutual respect and partnership in the governance process that has led to many positive and constructive outcomes. 

So while the last nineteen months have been replete with criticisms of the past Government and its management of the economy --- the present Government must thank the Anguilla United Front for the visionary initiatives from which it has benefitted over its term so far. Let me name a few: - 

• The AUF created a vibrant economy as a result of a deliberate plan to attract private sector investment, which created thousands of jobs and business opportunities leading to the building up of a substantial Social Security Fund. The present Government has used this fund as a source of financing for its budgetary shortfalls. Without this facility the Government would have been hard-pressed to meet many of its commitments in the early months.
• The AUF initiated the Policy Based Loan (PBL) from the Caribbean Development Bank that has enabled the present Government to consolidate its loans and manage its debt obligations with more sustainable arrangements. Without this loan the Government would have been unable to satisfy its borrowing needs and reduce its debt service.
• The AUF established a separate Inland Revenue Department along with appropriate IT support systems to create more effective revenue collection. Without this integrated tax collection system the present Government would have been unable to get accurate data on the performance of the economy and make informed fiscal decisions.
• The AUF signed on to the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Fund (CCRIF) to ensure that Anguilla has a facility that can provide a source of guaranteed assistance in the event of a natural disaster. Without this assistance in the amount of 4.3 million US dollars, Hurricane Earl would have placed considerably more stress on an already struggling economy.
• The AUF, despite some objection from the present Chief Minister while in Opposition, provided ways and means to facilitate the timely completion of the Viceroy Resort. The AUF also insisted that there was need for more than one major project to allow for more certainty in the delivery of new jobs and business opportunities in the operational phase. That property can now accommodate over six hundred guests and almost as many employees. Without the Viceroy Resort, the failure of the Flag would have had a more disastrous effect on our economy.
• The AUF decided as a component of its access strategy to improve the pier facilities at the Blowing Point Ferry Terminal, as a result even as we await a more modern terminal building the facility provides an entrance for more than sixty percent of all passenger arrivals to Anguilla. Without the improvements at the pier facilities the impact of the decision of our main carriers to reduce flights to Anguilla would have been devastating to our tourism industry.
• The AUF decided to expand the Clayton J. Lloyd International Airport (formerly Wallblake Airport) to facilitate larger commercial carriers and more direct private jet arrivals into Anguilla. In one week last December, even in the midst of the recession, we had record private jet landings into Anguilla --- up to some fifty movements a day. Without this expansion Anguilla would not have been able to facilitate this new trend in air travel and the upper end Tourists that visit our island. And we would still have been waiting for Hubert’s “pie-in-the sky” Airport in Brimegin.

The truth is that the Chief Minister and his colleagues have not brought any new ideas to the table for “fixing” this economy. We the members of the Anguilla United Front are proud of the contribution our Government made such that even today it is assisting the present government to survive this challenging period.

But in the midst of all of this the Government led by the Chief Minister continues to construct a series of conspiracy theories so as to take no responsibility for anything, which has gone wrong since he ascended Office. He paints a deliberate picture of a pattern of sabotage being directed against him by successive British Governments and has no problem rewriting history to prove it. For example, in one of his latest press conferences he sets about creating a historical basis for his conspiracy theory by suggesting that the British Government threw him out of office unconstitutionally in 2000. Those of you who remember the circumstances of the Chief Minister’s demise in 2000 will recall that on the basis of my resignation from our coalition Government in 1999 he ended up with a minority government which could not meet the quorum requirement for a sitting of the House of Assembly. The FCO did not throw Hubert Hughes out of office, unconstitutionally! Mr. Hughes lost on this constitutional matter in the High Court! It was the High Court that ruled that the Speaker acted constitutionally not the FCO. As a consequence Mr. Hughes could not effectively govern and was obliged to demit office. But the Chief Minister continues to perpetuate this lie to erode credibility from the British Government’s insistence on his adherence to correct procedures and good governance.

The Chief Minister has also over the years constructed monuments of lies and half truths which have not only led to the distrust and denigration of his opponents but have also created an illusion of himself as being an honest and sincere leader. To build this false image, anyone and everyone, including family and friends are dispensable. “I am clean!” He proclaims. Such a claim seems hardly a characterization for a self-admitted liar.

The recent arrangements/agreements between the Government and the Temenos and the Viceroy Projects have been the subject of island wide discussion. The transparency with which this Government purports to cloak itself needs to be disrobed --- and a number of questionable matters may well justify investigation. For example, the question has been raised to me as to why it is that the Chief Minister’s sons appear to be receiving an inordinate share of the limited opportunities in the construction sector? Or what is the story on the land leased by Government to one of the CM’s tenants to build a shopping mall in the Spring Path area? Who is the actual owner of that shopping mall? Who is building and/or financing it? And by the way, a request for duty free concessions for that project is now before the House of Assembly! I have been told that this is the only request from a local investor in construction brought to the House for the entire AUM term of office.

Quite recently the CM has made libelous comments about the Chairman of our Party, Mr. Fritz Smith, to imply illegal conduct in his role as Project Manager of the Airport Expansion Project. But I have noticed that neither the Chief Minister nor his offspring respond kindly to any allegations of corrupt practices directed at them. The Parliamentary Secretary was both incensed and defensive when questions were raised about his alleged participation in a fast ferry service agreement with Viceroy. Yet he is quite comfortable when he casts aspersions on other persons, in a most cowardly manner, on the blogs or in the shelter of the House of Assembly. Nevertheless, I will not shirk from the urge to raise a number of questions in connection with the Temenos and the Viceroy negotiations.

My question is what were the assurances given Mr. Rizzuto, which caused him to express surprise at the Government’s position after he won the auction for the purchase of the Tenemos? It is quite reasonable, based on the Chief Minister’s characterization of Mr. Rizzuto as “a good friend”, to assume that there were no impediments to cordial negotiations. In fact, in Mr. Rizzuto’s letter of November 15, 2010, there seems to be some “quid pro quo” arrangements being made by the CM to Mr. Rizzuto long before the auction process took place. I now quote a small section of that letter for your own interpretation as follows: “On a side note you asked me to remove Joe Hylton from Anguilla and in a short time I achieved this. I now need you to finalize the property transfer and award it to CuisinArt Resort & Spa and you will have my personal word that I will complete the project and utilize local workers.”

The Chief Minister was very strong in condemning the Governor for having a social meal or drink with Mr. Rizzuto but in this case his insistence on the removal of Joe Hylton as Project Manager of the construction site for expansion of the Resort, raises a number of questions. How did the CM’s request for the removal of Joe Hylton relate to the involvement of his sons in the construction of the six new villas at CuisinArt? Were any promises made by the CM to Mr. Rizzuto as an incentive for Hylton’s dismissal as Project Manager? Where were these discussions held? On the other side there are also questions regarding the Parliamentary Secretary. Why is the Parliamentary Secretary so adamant that Mr. Rizzuto should not be allowed to acquire the property? Does the Parliamentary Secretary still harbour resentment against the Resort for not giving him an executive position? Why are members of the Government making public statements claiming that they are not aware of what is happening with the Temenos deal? I believe that there are strong grounds for an investigation into these matters.

For more than a month I have been making the point that because of the Parliamentary Secretary’s solo negotiations on the notorious three-page MOU for Viceroy written on Starwood Capital Group stationery, we lost upwards of EC$18 million in direct revenue for 2011. The media statement shows a smiling picture of the CM and the Parl. Sec. and the three-page MOU carries the signature of the Chief Minister witnessed by his Permanent Secretary. In writing about this incident in his Confessions entitled: “Who runs Anguilla?” the Minister of Social Development, Mr. Eddie Baird had this to say: “Only the Executive Council possesses the authority to issue a licence and to approve a Memorandum of Understanding. Not even the Chief Minister and definitely not the Parliamentary Secretary, acting outside the walls of the Executive Council, can approve an Alien Landholding Licence or a Memorandum of Understanding. At the time of the Parliamentary Secretary’s announcement, the Executive Council had not even discussed these matters.” This action by the Parl. Sec was obviously condoned by the Chief Minister, which illustrates what I have been saying continuously that: “the Chief Minister leads by bad example.”

The questions continue! Why did the CM give the Parliamentary Secretary the authority to negotiate an MOU on a 500 million US dollar property on his own? Why did the Chief Minister sign the MOU without Executive Council approval? Why did the Chief Minister decide to move this MOU forward without sharing the details with his colleagues? Will the boasts made by the Parl. Sec about the employment of Anguillian contractors be realized in the upcoming construction works at Viceroy? I believe there are strong grounds for an investigation into these matters.

This latter matter in particular as well as the ANGLEC and the Social Security US$ 200 million loan were used by the Governor in his letter to EXCO to demonstrate this Government’s disregard for good governance procedures. I believe the Governor was well within his right to raise these issues but it is obvious from the Chief Minister’s response on a talk show on Monday night that he still has not gotten the message or otherwise he definitely believes that the rules do not apply to him. The Chief Minister tried to compare this action with the past Government’s concessions granted so as to attract investment in the economy at a time when we were in a recession. Of course in keeping with the AUF’s support of good governance principles! All those concessions were approved in EXCO after negotiations with the Tourism Investment Committee (TIC). They were not negotiated in a corner at Da’vida’s and signed by the CM without authorization from Executive Council. The seriousness of these actions demand investigation --- according to Minister Walcott there is a “stench” coming from the head.

What I have been constructing is a pattern of style, approach and attitude, which is not delivering the goods of the people of Anguilla during this period of global financial crisis. And I wish to point out that this situation does not have to be so! The Chief Minister and his Government fail in their responsibility to the people they have been elected to represent. In fact they appear clueless as to how to fix the present situation. They seem to take comfort in being able to blame everyone else and they believe that confrontation and incivility is a mark of good leadership and will bring success. And lies, half-truths and innuendoes still remain “best practice” as a strategy to consolidate their authority and legitimacy. This is not what the people of Anguilla deserve.

The Government needs to stop acting like “little cry babies”. Whenever the Chief Minister receives a letter from the British Government or the Governor he runs on the radio complaining: “look wah di Governor do we!!”. For example, the Chief Minister was on a talk show on Monday night reading out a letter from the FCO Minister on his concerns regarding revenue shortfalls and the high probability of a larger than anticipated deficit. The FCO Minister then goes on to make the suggestion that “anticipated revenues from the sale of the Viceroy resort should not be used for recurrent expenditure, but should be used for capital expenditure and to build up the Government of Anguilla’s reserves.” As far as I am concerned these are the views of officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the basis of their analysis. The operative word here is “should” not “must” therefore the Government of Anguilla has the opportunity to make the case why this should not be so and why --- and provide suggestions as to how it will deal with the issues involved. And in his final paragraph the Minister says: “I look forward to hearing about the urgent actions your Government is taking to improve the fiscal position this year.” It is not only the British Government who is looking forward to the Chief Minister’s plan of action for our economy --- every single Anguillian is doing so as well! It is time for Chief Minister to “man up!” Take the issue by its horns! The British Government gave their opinion --- you are entitled to yours. And since we all know what that objective is, namely, to restore stability, show us your plan! And stop being a cry baby!!

The truth of the matter is that I believe that the British position needs to be qualified. Putting some of the windfall into a capital project, which generates economic activity could be a good thing but it is equally important that some recurrent expenditure commitments, which are critical to ensuring social stability, are addressed. And any resources put to building up reserves would have to be very marginal indeed. Such savings have little value when the economy is hemorrhaging. The unique circumstances of Anguilla must be made clear to FCO officials. Britain is a modern country with all the social and financial “safety nets” to provide for the indigent; the unemployed; bankrupt businesses; and struggling financial institutions. Anguilla is an open economy heavily impacted by issues of external origin and depends on the strength of the markets to which we sell our products and services. There are serious limits to the amount of trimming of expenditure and increases in tax revenues we can absorb. These are points that need to be made strongly in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Not cussing! As a Government the AUF faced the same challenges and we found this approach most effective.

But what is further lacking in this Government’s strategy is an awareness that the private and the public sector must work hand in hand, especially in times like these. The AUM came to office with an adversarial approach to most developers (local and expatriate) because they never appeared to understand that their investment created jobs and business opportunities and since our competition is regional and even international as a Government we must make it worth their while to invest in our country. Companies invest in a country because they see it as a good business opportunity --- not for philanthropy but for profit. As a Government we have to help them to be profitable so as to increase economic activity. Such activity creates more taxable income and as a consequence more Government revenues. However, there must be balance --- that is the technical aspect of negotiations. Our decision makers and our technicians must understand the business models and as a consequence know how, when and where to design the most effective systems for sustainable revenue streams. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister is still insisting on a business model for successful tourism project development that expired in the early 1980’s. He has not and will not be able to attract investors with those antiquated financing models.

So since the Government came to office all we have been hearing about is taxation and expenditure controls. Taxation and expenditure management are only two sides of the development equation. That equation has many sides. And one of the most important is private sector investment --- be it local investment or foreign direct investment both are critical. It is time for the Government to direct the FCO’s attention away from “taxing a dead economy”. We should be asking the FCO to direct us to their Department of Trade and Commerce to help us to design programs to attract qualified British and European investors for a number of our failed projects or provide financing for qualified local projects. And help our financial services industry and banking sector with meaningful interventions not only regulation. Our Government put in place legislation, which could assist Anguillian families with large landholdings to hold on to their undivided property and place it in corporate entities that can empower them to participate equitably in major development ventures. That is a Government taking charge!

It is obvious to me that after a year and a half this Government has not come to the realization that they are the Government! They cannot continue to be a Government of excuses they must take charge and accept responsibility. I was impressed with Mr. John “Torpedo” Ruan’s understanding that time is up for this approach when he staged that most impressive Radio Talk Show last Friday. The AUF never complained about the British and the Governor, we engaged them as equals in the Governance progress. We did not have the disunity that is now tearing this Government apart and during our campaign we preached the importance of a team “United to Lead”. That team was campaigning on a proud record, which contributed to the realization of the Anguillian dream and the vision of our forebears by real progress. Before this economic downturn we were able to deliver EC$ 70 million in road construction; 9 million in school construction; 13 million in seaport development; 50 million in training; 20 million in land acquisition for the future; 70 million in airport expansion and relocation; and 65 million in reserves just to name a few areas. That is a total of almost EC$300 million in direct public sector development. But in addition, we were able to attract almost a billion US dollars in foreign direct investment. All this was not achieved by accident --- it was by a studied approach to what was required to make our island the best that it could be with the resources with which God has blessed us and the ingenuity, civility and pride which brought us respect as a people at home and abroad.

I was especially moved by the Minster of Social Development’s plea for support for our national cricket team. A team which especially in recent years under the mentorship of Cardigan Connor in particular and his staff has made us proud. It is almost shameful to note that the Chief Minister and Minister of Finance is not inventive enough to find less than US$10,000 for their participation in the Leeward Island Cricket Tournament. We understand the scarcity of the times; we understand the need for organizations to help themselves; we understand the differences among the Minister’s of Government; but, based on what is being reported to us from credible and reliable sources, we fail to understand how money can be approved for two new vehicles for Ministers of Government and our national squad and Anguilla is disgraced by not being able to have our gladiators compete in this prestigious arena of regional cricket. It has never happen before to my recollection --- so it is a sad day indeed. According to “The Adjudicator” in her courageous rendition during the Summer Festival Calypso Monarch Competition, even for this alone: “It is time for the “Veteran” to go!” Indeed there is a widely held view that the “Veteran” should depart “in style” with his entourage in tow. But this is just another conversation with the nation!

I thank you for your kind attention.

Victor F. Banks

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 the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.