BLAME IS NOT A SOLUTION

A major problem in Anguilla that was probably inherited with the introduction of the Westminster/Whitehall system of government is the way government departments are micro managed. The top civil servants are managers in every sense of the word but under the burden of rules and regulations these public service managers find it very difficult to function. Those who remain within the system and semi-function do so not because of their creativity but from their ability to manipulate and tolerate the system. The system is plagued by the presence of mini kingdoms within each Ministry and the Minister desire to rule his domain. In a colony unlike the metro pole important functions such as the management of Security and Human Resources are vested in colonial office as the locals cannot be trusted with such delicate matters. The Heads of these colonial administered departments are not subject to local control sometimes acted in a manner that is not consistent with the local interests.

For example when Anguilla was at the height of its boom, various departments found it difficult to function at current staff levels, so they hired a number of temporary workers. This was done with the knowledge and blessing of the Ministers as it is hoped the Minister understood that his department would not need these people when business returned to normal. It appears that either the Minister did not communicate his strategy to the Governor and the mini kingdom of Public Administration, or the Governor or the mini Kingdom of Public Administration felt the Ministers actions encroached on their power and authority. In response the mini kingdom decreed that all temporary workers must be regularized and brought in to the general pool. The end result of the mini kingdom decree was a bloated Public Service. On the surface the bloated public looks as if it was caused by the behavior of irresponsible Ministers or political patronage and although it is likely that some of these factors might have played a role. In the final analysis responsibility for the public service crisis must be borne directly by the Department of Public Administration and indirectly by the Governor’s Office.

The other problem Anguilla face is politicians who gear the public reaction and fail to make decisions. This is made worst by a number of people who irrespective of their education or training convince themselves that they are experts in every field without tested expertise. In Anguilla we got Lawyers who are convinced they were called to the Bar for engineering.  A prime example of this is the AUF decision to scrap the proposed planning bill. Everyone involved know that Anguilla cannot develop without proper planning but out of fear that known political pundits could disrupt what was expected to be a carefully planned re-election campaign the decision was taken to scrap the bill and thereby stifle progress.  If we want to see the benefits of the planning bill we only need to compare the disasters in Haiti and Japan.

Similar actions and behaviours are what turned the Airport project into the prime White Elephant it is today. The Airport is a dead donkey because it is not sustainable and it will not be sustainable unless the Government finds a way to acquire sufficient land to make it viable. In fact Anguilla will not have a sustainable economy until its Airport problem is rectified. Interestingly projects started by those who oppose the Airport expansion will find it very difficult to succeed without a viable airport. The role of fear in public policy can also be seen in the concessions the AUF gave to those who opposed the airport because they threaten to campaign against its re-election effort. Anguilla cannot continue to depend on St Maarten airport as a gateway for its upscale visitors, traveling via St. Maarten frustrates Anguilla’s visitors. This frustration begins at their point of origin. It only takes one ignorant airline attendant who has no reason to be aware of the Anguilla situation to cause major problems and frustrations for the visitor. It’s a nightmare and Anguilla cannot continue to sell an up-market product under the present conditions. If we do our upscale properties like Viceroy will continue to sell $5000 rooms for $195 or they will follow the example of Malliouhana and shut down.

The viability of the Airport is also dependent on the number of hotel rooms on the island. Tourists will not travel to a wilderness destination like Anguilla without reservations for accommodation. The number of hotel rooms on Anguilla is open to debate as a growing number of properties continue to close. The Department of Tourism lies to itself and the travel industry by counting villa rooms as hotel rooms. This is a practice that makes no sense and should stop. A villa can only be rented by one group at a time, therefore if a couple rents a three bedroom villa although they would only occupy one room the other two rooms become unusable and off the market. In terms of statistics is this counted as one room or three rooms occupied. If it is counted as three rooms occupied then the occupancy level will be out of sync with the number of persons visiting the island. If it is counted as one room occupied then the entire villa was just one room not three rooms. This is a problem that only common sense and practical action can solve. In the final analysis, Anguilla needs more hotel rooms the villas are just a bonus on the tourism product. In this regard hotel style villas also do little for the islands tourist capacity. These projects alienate land and might create a garden style residential setting but provide little benefit in terms of the islands occupancy capacity.

The Stabilization Levy is also another lazy knee jerk reaction to our economic plight. It appears that the Government took one look at the Social Security system and decided to introduce legislation based on that model. The Levy irrespective of what it is called is nothing less than an income tax. The tax should have been simple especially since it was introduced as a temporary measure. It should have been a flat 6% with the first $2000 exempt. There should have been no ceiling and no business contribution. If the Government wanted a corporate tax on profits, it should have introduced it as a separate law.  The necessity of the Levy can always be debate however the Levy in its present form is a bad tax that was ill conceived. The Levy is also a local law the Government can repeal if it so desires but repealing it would leave a budgetary void that must be immediately filled. In light of this the government needs to stop blaming the British and the opposition need to stop using the people money and misery as a political foot ball.

The politicians also need to understand that when they open their mouths they are no longer speaking for local consumption; every utterance is going to be debated in the global village. It appears that the present Chief Minister still fails to understand that his sometimes locally humourous rants are now instantly transmitted around the world. The anti-white venom will undoubtedly damage the economy by scaring away investors while it antagonizes a fragile and damaged imperial mentality. The Leader of the Opposition party also needs to realize that perception is usually more powerful than reality. The perception of corruption through deals and kickbacks follows him like a second shadow. The fact that many in the electorate have great confidence in that leader’s intellectual ability doesn’t necessarily translate into personal trust or confidence. A significant part of leadership is trust and more need to be done to repair a damaged public image. A desperate electorate is increasingly saying it prefer the days when the country was getting 90% of the investment dollars; however don’t misinterpret this as a vote of confidence or future tolerance for the same old behaviour. In the final analysis it is what it is an act of desperation not a license for corruption, Anguilla need to find ways to keep its politicians honest.

We all know what happened in the past, some of us elect not to speak of evil, others make it a battle cry, however blame without action is like faith withour works, it offers no solution to our problems.  Let us move ahead as a people ready to join the global community.

By: Statchel Warner

OUR ECONOMIC STRENGTH!!!!

The economic situation on Anguilla has always been one of ambiguity and insecurity; our economic model is an ambitious one, but in distinctively structured, meaning that the country thrives on third party planning and we have failed in the years of preparation to be methodical, where the elements within our reach dictate our success. We are too dependent on the unknown and lack a structure where our economy is supported by a few pillars of vibrancy within our control that would dictate the direction of the country. A fully functional and well operated airport facility, a well equipped, modern harbor, a vibrant and bustling commerce sector and town center, a well planned tourist port, capable of handling our ferry traffic, day trippers, and a medium disembarkation of cruise tourists, and perhaps, a planned and structured fishing and lobster industry. These are economic pillars of significance pivotal to a sound economic structure. Our Tourism model is a clear example of continued instability and unpredictability. No aspect of our most important economic asset is within our control and is dependent on third and fourth party planning and execution.

All governments of the past have intuitively chosen the model of “high end tourism” for Anguilla. Ironically, embarking on this journey was like inviting a prince into a wilderness. We had nothing to offer, moreover to those who expect the very best. This means that we have chosen to market the island as one ready to accommodate tourists that are willing to spend top dollar, but also means that our guests would be those of very high expectations and most critical of our lack of delivery. This must be viewed across the board, meaning that we have always put the onus on the quality of our accommodation, which government has no control over. The quality of our hotels is our major marketing tool which represents and reflects our image, take that away and we’re probably back to the wilderness. Our sun, sea and sand do not make us unique in this region, but we can boast of a good quiet and relaxed atmosphere on the island. We have however been very successful in selling Anguilla as, “tranquility wrapped in blue,” vaguely conceivable, but may have accounted immeasurably for our success thus far.

Our political leaders have no vision and no leadership capability for the leap into the future. For too long we endeavored to build soundness on vague perception. Money must be invested in important facets of the country that is within our control, where a government can apply their policies to see future returns. Sitting back in an expensive tax payer’s office hoping for a “white man”! The same type of humanity that this government despises and hate to even communicate with, simply because of insecurity; to come with millions of dollars to spend on one project in our interest, which in turn becomes the most important aspect our economic future is only shifting the inevitable, “a total crash of the country” we need a reliable economic base to guarantee the future and there is no one right now with a plan! The AUF government put in place policy in the first few years of its governing which produced significant economic activity in the country some years later, but in the absence of good stewardship and custodian management, they in fact later introduced policy, raising the spending levels out of control that consequently undermined that progress to a level of economic chaos. I am a supporter of the AUF governing approach and machinery, but at some point AUF must take responsibility for the success they presided over, and the ultimate failure ensued, considering all the elements which have negatively impacted the island since, but in fact resulted in an unsustainable exercise.

This says something, which, if a new government sits in office they must analyzes very carefully that path and plan more carefully going forward. But since this government came into office they have not projected any new ideas. It is very painful for our people to have to pay out salaries to our elected political leaders in average of $1000.00 EC per day in some capacities, charged with equal responsibility, to ensure a growing economy and the security of the people; Our leaders sit in office and have failed to execute good governance, or enact policy that would produce any real prospects for the country. Meanwhile engages in divisiveness and unnecessary rhetoric to destabilize the island. It is the responsibility of all of our other elected representatives to collaborate and cooperate with the British Government in the interest of the Country. The island is not private property where each group defends their turf, personal interests and desires.

Anguilla is a British Dependent Territory, and a very secure island in the region, within the existing constellation. This implies that the British Government does have a say in the affairs of the country, and the wellbeing of the people. It further implies that the British has equal responsibility to ensure that the island is governed well. But certainly can be restrained from any direct engagement or assistance , if our Government fails to appropriately engage in responsible dialogue. The initial responsibility lies with the people to ensure that government performs, and ensure that $1000.00 per day is worth something. It is proven over and over again that a single hotel property of any magnitude is not the answer to our economic soundness and we must plan the island for the future to secure our economic strength!!!!

This article will be continued with a perspective on how St. Maarten/ St. Martin features in the welfare and well being of Anguilla and why our economy remains weak and unsustainable, “a direct result of our tourism model!!!”

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!”

Last week we lost another one of our centenarians in the person of the late Mrs. Arina Melvina Webster. At the celebration of her life at the Mount Fortune Seventh Day Adventist Church on Sunday, a distinction was made that at 104 years of age she was the oldest Anguillian living in Anguilla --- a distinction which highlighted the fact that there is another Anguillian centenarian in the person of Mrs. Elma “Mealy” Gumbs who will celebrate her 106th Birthday on June 29th, God willing. “Mealy” Gumbs now lives in St Thomas with her daughter, Mrs. Edna Gumbs and I am sure that the more senior among us will remember her late famous husband the “Prophet”, Mr. George “Judge” Gumbs. We thank God for the lives of all of our senior citizens. With them resides the “institutional memory” of our Anguillian heritage, culture and traditions. Their lives have shaped our own. Hopefully, their families, friends and associates would have had the opportunity to avail themselves of information that can someday comprise our national treasure. May her soul rest in peace and may the other centenarians of our nation rally on with God’s grace and providence.

But as we look back to the past --- so too must we look forward to the future! The struggles which those centenarians faced in Anguilla at the turn of the twentieth century while different, still required the same excellences of character which must now support us in these the dawning years of the twenty-first century. Those centenarians experienced an Anguilla where the preoccupation was not with the complex issues of sovereignty but with the basic issues of survival. Not with utilities but with facilities. Not with luxuries but with necessities. Not only with family but also with community. These are some of the contradistinctions that aptly illustrate the changes that have taken place over one hundred years of Anguilla’s development not only economically and socially but politically as well. And as we reflect on what the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, in his Anguilla Day Address, refers to as a “punctuation mark” in our history, namely, the Anguilla Revolution --- we must feel a sense of destiny and responsibility to complete the vision of our forebears. In this context, the issue of self-determination becomes a haunting one.

The Anguilla National Youth Council’s (ANYC) forum on the topic: “Independence: Wha dah is?” provided an opportunity for a number of Anguillian personalities to speak to the important topic of “Self- Determination”. And having been honoured as one of the panelists on what was perhaps the beginning of a non-partisan process of education and discussion on Independence --- I felt extremely gratified. Despite the sparseness of the attendees in the auditorium I know that there was a considerable radio audience. The panel comprised of Mr. Don Mitchell, Mrs. Joyce Kentish-Egan, Mr. Iwandai Gumbs, Hon. Haydn Hughes and myself. In my view it was very close to what a balanced panel should be. There were clear differences of position by all concerned regarding the timetable and approach for Independence --- but there was common agreement that for Anguilla like every other state, Independence must be the ultimate goal. The views that I heard after the forum, however, brought home to me, even more forcefully, the fact that the majority of our people do not understand the issues related to an Independent Anguilla. If for no reason other than that lack of general information on the subject --- it is clear that Independence for Anguilla should not be pursued at the rapid pace being proposed by a number of the panelists and other persons in the community. In fact, in one of the editorials I saw after the forum it was reported that I was a proponent for Independence for Anguilla now! This along with an article by a well known commentator on regional issues, Sir Ronald Sanders, have prompted me to address the issue once again.

In my article of January 14th, 2011, “Lord have mercy! Send down Percy!” and again in my article of February 4th, 2011 “Lets hasten slowly!” I said: “People need to know what going into Independence will mean for the average Anguillian. What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages? Therefore in essence what the Chief Minister and his team should be doing is educating Anguillians rather than leading them into a fight literally blindfolded. Not knowing who they are fighting or what they are fighting for.” My position has not changed. Independence is a choice that we either have to make voluntarily or be forced to make because of circumstances we may not anticipate today. In any eventuality it is critical that such choices be made nationwide from a position of knowledge. While the path to Independence may be relatively clear it is a choice that, once taken, is not as easily reversed. Again this is a factor that demands that the process for choosing should be both painstaking and deliberate.

Over the last ten months the topic of Independence has taken centre stage perhaps for the wrong reasons. But whatever those reasons may be, it is a discussion that should never be avoided in a colonial arrangement. The expression of the people’s right of self-determination must never be fettered by even the most comfortable circumstances. However, that right should not be evoked on the basis of reaction to singular issues --- but to the wider concerns of national development and a clear understanding of where we are headed. I believe that Mr. Ashton Bradley put it in clear perspective when he said: “The road to Independence is not an ego trip nor is it a vendetta between one man and Her Majesty’s Government.” The pride associated with the achievement of independence is not sufficient a reason to commit our people to that choice --- they must have accurate information and knowledge of what they are embarking on. It is more than simply having the right to borrow or the ability to get handouts --- there must be a level of self-sufficiency and dignity associated with that status.

On the ANYC forum the statement was constantly made about having a seat at the table of decision-making. To at least two of the panelist this seemed to sum up a compelling argument for moving into independence immediately. Obviously, this approach slights the educational process and undermines the importance of having in place, at an early stage, a constitution with the appropriate checks and balances required to ensure the protection of all citizens. These panelists seemed to adopt Kwame Nkrumah’s philosophy: “Seek ye first the political kingdom and all else shall be added unto you.” However, it is worthy of note, that history reveals that Nkrumah was successful in propagating the seeds of independence and nationalism throughout the African Continent, but the absence of constitutional democracy with its appropriate checks and balances, lured him towards dictatorship, caused his overthrow, drove him to paranoia and eventually a lonely death in exile. The lesson here is that an independent state requires the same oversight, regulation and monitoring as any other colonial territory --- these provisions must be established and enshrined in the constitution on day one. It is that component of the process that will build a sense of confidence in the citizenry so that all our rights would be safeguarded after independence. There is little wonder then that the young people raised this question frequently at the forum.

I have dealt with this issue of independence time and time again in my column and along with my colleagues from the AUF we have made the important points repeatedly on several media. It was however most interesting that a spectator of the Anguillian experience, in the person of Sir Ronald Sanders, would have taken the time to speak to the issue of an Independent Anguilla within the CARICOM region. Sir Ronald is eminently qualified to comment on the call by the Chief Minister to become independent from Britain because of his long and distinguished career as a consultant, a writer, lecturer and diplomat in the Caribbean. His article makes a number of important points that support many of our views on the subject. I therefore feel that it would be instructive from the vantage point outside of Anguilla to get another opinion of what Independence at this juncture could mean for us.

The first point that Sir Ronald makes is that the Chief Minister’s timing for such a call is questionable. He says: “He is doing so in the worst economic times for Caribbean countries and during a period of great uncertainty in the world generally.”

As we continue to say, why are we talking about independence at a time when we are in the midst of a worldwide recession? How will this help us to create jobs and business opportunities in the short term?

The second point he makes is that Anguilla’s small size is a delimiting factor to begin with. He says: "if a tiny country like Anguilla is to seek independence, with all the costly requirements that come with such a bold step, it would have been better-off doing so within the framework of a Caribbean Single Market and Economy where it would benefit from economic integration, sharing in arrangements such as the Regional Security System operated by Barbados and the seven countries of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, joint regional trade negotiations as exists in CARICOM, and joint diplomatic representation with one or more CARICOM countries. Within a CARICOM framework, Anguilla’s independence from Britain would not leave it swimming alone in the ocean of international relations without even a meagre life belt.” During the ANYC forum, the question was raised as to how independent we can really be, given our small size and limited resources? Sir Ronald’s point addresses this concern, but it also raises another issue in the matter of an Independent Anguilla, that is, with whom should we align ourselves?

Sir Ronald makes the fourth point that deals with the idea of Anguilla “sitting at the table of decision-making.” He says: “Many independent Caribbean countries, much larger and better resourced than Anguilla, are finding it very difficult to survive as sovereign states. The cost of overseas representation, even if this were to be kept to the barest minimum, will add to Anguilla’s recurrent expenditure. …. There is also not much elasticity in the island’s capacity to increase its revenues.” Sir Ronald then goes on to elaborate on the vulnerability of our two main economic drivers, tourism and financial services. This is an important consideration because if the sources of our self-sufficiency are fragile how can we create a robust and sustainable economy as an independent nation.

The fifth point which Sir Ronald makes strikes at the very heart of the argument that many AUM supporters put up as the reason for going into independence, namely, so that we can borrow without requiring permission from the British. He says: “Borrowing on commercial terms will not be an easy option for a sovereign Anguilla government if it wishes to maintain existing physical infrastructure or build new capacity. Burnt by poor investment decisions that created the global financial crisis that began in 2008, financial institutions are now far more cautious than they were even in lending to governments. And, an independent Anguilla will not have the back-stop support of the British government that, in the past, gave comfort to institutions that lent money to governments of British colonies.” This is the exact opposite to what many “independence now” advocates purport. They seem to believe that once you go into independence you can borrow freely from anywhere. They do not understand that the same benchmarks and standards being imposed on us as a British Overseas Territory may be higher as an independent nation and lending institutions may become even more reluctant.

Sir Ronald makes a number of consequential points regarding losing British assistance for disease pandemics, disaster mitigation; drug trafficking; security and so on as well as the loss of British citizenship along which the concomitant privileges to live, study and work in Britain and the European Union. He then concludes that at this time the Chief Minister’s call to independence requires informed public consultation. He says: “Independence for Anguilla is, therefore, a tough call. It is one that the majority of the people of Anguilla must be free to determine once all the advantages and disadvantages are placed before them and they fully understand the choice they will have to make.” This point reinforces the importance of the education process that is central to ensuring that the right to self-determination is exercised through knowledge rather than ignorance.

Finally, Sir Ronald makes a suggestion that in these circumstances it is more pragmatic that we engage the British Government to negotiate a more improved system of governance that involves more say in matters that affect us as well as direct representation in the British Parliament.

But my presentation of Sir Ronald’s views is not intended to postpone the process of education on the issue of self-determination and independence --- rather it is to advance it. Our people must be exposed to all sides of this issue because in the final analysis it is for the people themselves to decide in a referendum, not the British Government, not the United Nations, not Ministers of Government or other Parliamentarians. The power of the people is enhanced by knowledge. And according to Sir Francis Bacon: Knowledge is power!

Victor F. Banks

Sachasses Estate

June 7th, 2011

“THE MIND OF THE BRITISH; VS ISLAND DIPLOMACY”

It is said that in a democracy “Government is of the people for the people.” The aspect of “Rule” is by essential necessity (imperative decree) through constitutional empowerment. Our state of affairs permits this insidious incursion in our process of democracy, but sometimes of great necessity when political leadership is driven by the lack of cognizance. So when the British Government took control of our budgetary situation it was perhaps an extreme exercise of power, but well within our constitutional framework. The enforcement of essential order via a written text brought to the attention of the Honorable Chief Minister how easily the British can deprive him of his electoral rights in exchange for “Imperative Rule” what I call, “The Mind of the British” Loose and unwise talk in any capacity is often like a noose around the neck of a drowning man, what will do the most damage, leave the man drown or broke his neck dragging him to shore? Words come back to bite you, unless you have diplomatic immunity; and that might as well be covered in the context of what I call “Island Diplomacy” just talk it, means nothing, of no consequence.

When our elected leaders speak in their capacity, it calls to attention the masses, but when our people are unaware or unconcerned, it lessens the importance of our political leadership. AUM Campaign targeted, and perhaps antagonized the British well before they entered office. All politics being local, much of that kind of talk is primarily for local consumption but reaches the distance. Diplomatic language is not a necessary tool in relation to our people at home but, must be practiced in adequate representation of the country. Much of the campaign against the British started in the villages on the political platform and Mr. Hughes felt justified in linking AUF and the British together as common opponents, and clearly views the British as intruders. A noteworthy and emphatic promise to the people of Anguilla was “I will make the British pay, because they were in collusion with AUF to destroyed Anguilla’s economy”. That was irresponsible talk, but didn’t matter to the British Government until Mr. Hughes became Chief Minister and they both must meet face to face. Mr. Hughes visited England on serious business quickly after sitting in office, but did not present an invoice; one may wonder what his tone was? And how did he transmit his frustration in diplomatic terms there?

The Honorable Chief Minister, having ousted AUF in the election, and especially Victor Banks, thought he had rid himself of a lingering obstacle, but until the Budget for 2011 got laid on his desk, it is clear that he had no idea of the levels his frustration would reach; Mr. Hughes intended to demonstrate, that being elected by the people he was empowered to rule. Being the most powerful man in the country, his ideology had begun to take shape and apparently his administrative directives crossed threads with that of the Governor and the executive council, which caused legitimate concerns of the literary capacity and or capability of his Ministerial body, especially since Baird was not functional, bringing the entire function of his government into question. It would seem that this is the real weak point in Hughes’s administration and is a legitimate tool for the Governor to insist on how the island should function as a British Overseas Territory, Anguilla now being a primary example.

Mr. Hughes sees himself as a strong political leader, and in some instances he is. He however, might have lost an opportunity to demonstrate this and perhaps made himself a trans-formative figure in Anguilla politics by cooperation, and becoming a Statesman in the mind of the British and The Dependent Territories. Instead he is being viewed as the rowdy political leader. What does that do for us as a country? It does appear, from the many statements made by FCO that the British has a plan for good Governance of the Territories, and Anguilla had been preferably singled out because of its economic potential. This is also according to the language of the Minister who visited the island demonstrating his good will, but in the absence of any level of diplomatic sense, the Minister was lectured by a panel of AUM supporters on the displeasure of the Hughes government. a very good sense of “Island diplomacy” which in fact may have caused some damage to the credibility of the island and perhaps have actually isolated the Hughes government from diplomatic pleasure with FCO.

It was quickly after the election was won that the FCO instructed the Government to reduce the figures of the Anguilla budget substantially for British approval. That was viewed by Hughes as marginalizing his government and restricting him from his full scope of work and exercise of governing discretion. But the Governor had been ordered by the British Government to tightly manage the process in order to ensure compliance to streamline expenditure and ensure a balanced budget

The Minister assured the Anguilla people however, that what is said or done by the Governor represents the views of Britain. After the election, many of us thought that the change of government was good for the island, even among AUF supporters the change was welcomed, which is now becoming of grave concern for everyone. In The early days, Mr. Hughes issued many challenges to the British and insults to the Governor, we thought this was just a matter of “the thrill of victory” and it would quickly be replaced by a common sense government, this has not happened, it appears now, that the initiative has been lost to direct the country! It is out of frustration came the call for independence, a call that may ring hollow because, in the mind of The British, the Hughes Government is now inherently damaged and cannot provide appropriate leadership for the people of Anguilla. We must now ask ourselves “is Island Diplomacy any match for the Mind of the British.”

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“WITH HEART AND SOUL”

The 44th Anniversary of the Anguilla Revolution and Anguilla Day passed with a bang. It culminated with the “Around the Island Boat Race” which I had the privilege to enjoy, in living color, from the deck of my friend’s powerboat, on the beautiful waters around Anguilla’s breathtaking coastline, amidst what can best be described as a “Carnival at Sea”. At no point in the race was there any question who would be the winner. The “Real Deal” led the pack from start to finish. The race was therefore relegated to a “contest for second place” as De Tree, the Sonic, the Stinger and the Miss Anguilla “battled it out” for that position, ending up second, third, fourth and fifth, respectively. As a novice to the sport, I could not help but marvel at the strategies employed by the various captains many of which seemed counter-intuitive. In fact, at one time I questioned the sanity of one of the captains who seemed to be headed for Crocus Bay rather than Sandy Ground. Later I was amazed to see that same boat engaged in the battle for the finish.

The large party boats, the Mr. Ray and the Captain Chrissie with their huge crowds and festive atmosphere gave the distinct impression that the recession was on holiday. And up to the time of writing I received no information regarding any negative incidents in connection with the weekend as a whole. Meaning that we are again blessed with another safe Anguilla Day!

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate all the honourees for 2011 whose contribution to our national development received the attention of the Awards Committee and the approval of Executive Council. In this connection, the Honourable Evans NcNiel Rogers made a very significant point in his Anguilla Day Address this year. He commented that: “It has been a good development that the Anguilla Day Awards now recognize the contributions of today’s stalwarts in our community inferring that we understand that the Anguilla Revolution is not over --- and that there is still a lot to be done and being done to make Anguilla ‘proud, strong and free’. But it would be equally important if we now look back into our history and learn more about how we came to be who we are. Our rich culture and heritage must be our “true foundation” and the work of our historians like Don Mitchell, Colville Petty, David Carty, Dame Bernice Lake, Nat Hodge and others must be sought after, cherished and celebrated as they continue to memorialize highlights and high points of the Anguillian journey.” Mr. Rogers focused his presentation on the need to celebrate Anguilla Day with reference to our complete history --- to include the struggles of our people before the Anguilla Revolution. He made the point that “every single generation exists and prospers because of the skill, enterprise and sacrifices of those that preceded it.”

The Governor in a very balanced presentation at the Ceremonial Parade also spoke directly to the need for unity. I must take the full excerpt from the Governor’s address because to do otherwise may dilute the quality and completeness of that exhortation. He said: “I would like to join the AUM manifesto’s call for national unity – not that we always agree with each other but that we always work together in a shared common purpose. That we avoid the easy path of attacking and blaming and take the sometimes more difficult path of co-operation! Co-operation between politicians, whatever their allegiance; co-operation between government and the private sector; co-operation that values the contribution made to this island by all who live in Anguilla, whatever their nationality or race! I certainly repeat the pledge made by Henry Bellingham during his visit that the British Government is ready to work in partnership with the Government and people of Anguilla. We need the path of co-operation and unity more than ever. The people of Anguilla need us all to show that unity, and to work together to lead our island through the present economic difficulties to better days and more prosperous times.”

This exhortation by the Governor, perhaps more than anything else, established a practical definition for the term “a government of national unity” which the Chief Minister and his supporters continue to talk about. The Chief Minister always uses the term in the context of the evils of “party politics”. In fact, he has been successful in getting a number of persons to accept the view that political parties are bad. When confronted with the reality that he also has a “political party” I have heard him say (with my own two ears) that he does not have a political party he has a “movement”. What can I say? The man is a genius! Again another play on words that he uses so effectively to befuddle some Anguillians --- like the imaginary difference between an MoU and an MoA. But the distinction that flows from the Governor’s address, intentionally or otherwise, is not a condemnation of political parties as the Chief Minister tries to propagate for his own interest --- it is, that despite our differences political, physical, religious, and so on, we can still work together to achieve common goals. He uses the term “co-operation” almost as a synonym for the “national unity” to which the Chief Minister refers. This in stark contrast to the viewpoint widely held by AUM members that “national unity” means the suppression of the right of members of the AUF to express their views on any forum, particularly, when they are critical of the Government. And as for Hubert, the term “government of national unity” means an island wide political arrangement in which he is the Chief Minister.

Again, intentionally or otherwise, the Governor also caused many of us to reflect on the fact that the Chief Minister stood for election in 1961 on behalf of Bradshaw’s Labour Party. He said: “there was always a minority who supported Bradshaw’s aim of forcing Anguilla into an unwanted federation, as a distinctly junior member. Anguillian candidates stood for election on behalf of Bradshaw’s Labour Party in 1957, 1961 and 1966 and were always soundly defeated. It is tempting to suggest that they did so for their own political advancement. ” The Chief Minister’s scandalous defense of Mr. Bradshaw last year at the Anguilla Day Ceremonial Parade could probably suggest a continuation of his allegiance to that party. But the key point I wish to make is that it is hypocritical for the Chief Minister to condemn political parties as a source of divisionism when he has been and remains a member of political parties for his entire career as a politician. The existence of political parties in Anguilla need not be considered a hindrance to co-operation on issues with a “shared common purpose”. In fact, political parties should enhance co-operation in the nation because they organize and coalesce the views of disparate groups under one umbrella --- often referred to as “a big tent”.

As a former trade unionist, the Chief Minister understands the importance of structure in the advancement of the interests of particular groups. The economies in our region during the colonial period were labour intensive and as a consequence when universal suffrage (the right to vote) was granted to all citizens of mature age --- labour unions became the foundation and even the building blocks for political parties of the day. The key here being the ability of the unions to organize the interests of its members as well as other marginal groups in the society. Whereas, Bradshaw’s Labour Party did not reflect the views of the majority of Anguillians on the issue of the tripartite federation, the minority interests on Anguilla found expression in Bradshaw’s Labour Party.

The Governor also used the occasion, intentionally or otherwise, to make the point, the AUF has been making time and time again, that the big “call to arms” to achieve independence is not necessary. So on the first Anguilla Day after the big hullaballoo about the need for Anguillians to rise up and fight for their independence like they did in 1967 and the call by the Chief Minister for the rest of the community to emulate the prisoners and commit acts of violence --- the Governor reinforces the absurdity of such action. He said: “the UK is committed to the principle of self-determination which allows the people of Anguilla to determine their own future. There is therefore no need to talk of a “struggle” for independence in the way that the people of Anguilla did have to struggle for separation from the federation that was proposed for them in the 1960s”. It is clear that the timing of Independence is up to us --- there has never been any documentation from any department or agency of the British Government that gives any indication that this is not so. What exists on our end is the lack agreement on the timetable. While there are those who propose independence now --- others see a more gradual approach which involves a process of education and preparation on several fronts. Independence is ours for the taking when the required majority decides that is what they want. There is no need to create “smoke screens” to evoke sympathy for political incompetence.

The final point which I must lift from the Governor’s address is how he used the theme: “unity and cooperation at work” to point out that many of the complaints from the Chief Minister and his Ministers stem from bad governance. Intentionally or otherwise, he clearly used the principles espoused in the AUM manifesto to condemn them for the several occasions when they chose to avoid the cooperative discussion of Executive Council and the House of Assembly for advice given behind the scenes. The matter of the US$200 million loan and the planned hostile takeover of ANGLEC come to mind. While these issues have been discussed “ad nauseam”, what is interesting is the Governor’s example of “unity and cooperation at work”. He said: “More recently, after a few hiccoughs, the British and Anguillian Governments reached a co-operative agreement on this year’s budget – in which the British Government with their ultimate responsibility for the level of Anguilla’s borrowing respected the right of the Government of Anguilla and House of Assembly to introduce the revenue measures they considered appropriate, and to decide the right balance of expenditure and revenue measures.” It is interesting that the Governor should point to this as an example of “unity and cooperation at work” because this is an area which the Government considers a victory for their confrontational “style, approach and attitude”. In fact, the Chief Minister celebrates the statement made by the consultant that “this budget stands!” as a victory for his Government and actually made mention of it in his address at the JRW Park. It would be a blatant example of the Chief Minister’s naivety if he really believes that an independent consultant can make a statement that “this budget stands!” without the “complicity” of the FCO. And I would hope that listeners to the Governor’s comment quoted above would also understand what is meant when he said and I repeat: “the British Government …. respected the right of the Government of Anguilla and the House of Assembly to introduce revenue measures they considered appropriate.” It simply confirms that it is the Government of Anguilla that agreed the tax measures --- the British Government did not force them to put any particular tax in place. By the way, speaking of taxation I can now confirm for those persons who read my column last week that the Chief Minister paid up all the arrears on his property tax on January 6th 2011 and following his example the Minister of Works, Hon. Evan Gumbs also paid up his arrears in full on February 7th, 2011. Both these Ministers had refused to pay their property taxes for several years and for different reasons.

But perhaps the Chief Minister had the last laugh! After the experience last year many expected that he would deliver another lengthy presentation. However, even though he did not squander the glorious opportunity to attack and blame the “usual suspects”, the brevity of his presentation drew a tremendous applause of gratitude from the sparse crowd who braved that past experience to attend the Ceremonial Parade yet another time. However, I am certain that while he claimed to have been asked not to respond to the comments of the Governor and the Leader of the Opposition during their presentations, he will have his say at the next several available opportunities.

I took the opportunity that presented itself to clarify the nagging question regarding the correct wording for one of the verses in the chorus of the National Song since both composers were present to receive Anguilla Day Awards. My question to the composers Messrs. Alex & Ronnie Richardson was whether the verse should read: “with hearts and souls we’ll build a nation proud, strong and free” (which I am tired of hearing) or should it read “with heart and soul etc. etc.” Even though I knew I could “google” it --- I felt more gratified to hear the answer from the composer’s lips. The answer I received has strengthened my resolve to start a campaign to make sure that everyone sings the National Song correctly. And by next Anguilla Day let us all sing it out melodiously “with heart and soul”. A friend also pinched me that next year I might need to work on the correct tune.

Victor F. Banks

Sachasses Estate

May 31, 2011

Anguilla Day Message - May 30 2011

Fellow Anguillians,

We are assembled on these grounds yet another time to celebrate our island home and the men and women who have contributed to its development in --- all its aspects. These celebrations mark the 44th Anniversary of the Anguilla Revolution --- a “punctuation mark” in the history of our country’s journey to where we are today. I use the term “punctuation mark” because Anguilla’s history did not begin or end with the Revolution --- but it is certainly better because of it. The Revolution was undoubtedly our finest hour.

There is much truth in the saying: “we are all dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants”. Indeed every single generation exists because of the skill, enterprise and sacrifices of those generations that preceded it. So truly speaking, today we should be celebrating Anguilla’s rich past even as we look to the future. In that context while I hail all those stalwarts in our community who will be receiving awards today as well as those who have been likewise acknowledged over the years --- it occurred to me that perhaps we should also pay tribute, posthumously, and not necessarily with awards, but with respectful mention of those Anguillians and groups of Anguillians who kept the flame alive, over the period before the Revolution, with their strong determination to “cherish the rock” through drought, famine, storms and diseases. Because they never abandoned their homeland in the height of adversity --- we can celebrate our homeland today.

It has been a good development that the Anguilla Day Awards now recognize the contributions of today’s stalwarts in our community inferring that we understand that the Anguilla Revolution is not over --- and that there is still a lot to be done and being done to make Anguilla “proud strong and free”. But it would be equally important if we now look back into our history and learn more about how we came to be who we are. Our rich culture and heritage must be our “true foundation” and the work of our historians like Don Mitchell, Colville Petty, David Carty, Dame Bernice Lake, Nat Hodge and others must be sought after, cherished and celebrated as they continue to memorialize highlights and high points of the Anguillian journey. Persons who come to live among us would then be more incline to then respect and adopt our Anguillianism rather than simply making it a flavour in their own culture.

The national pride to which we often allude would be strengthened by this demonstration of appreciation for the efforts of our forebears and the tendency to incivility and disrespect which seems to be creeping into our culture could be harnessed. Many of us tend to live in the moment, look for quick solutions, pursue instant personal gratification and therefore lose sight of the bigger picture. Our history teaches us that the Anguilla we have inherited was built on patience, sharing, and sacrifice. Today, many of us are inclined to ingratitude --- such that past deeds and kindnesses are dismissed by an attitude of “what have you done for me lately”.

Since last Anguilla Day, the situation in Anguilla has worsened. Our people have lost jobs, businesses are failing, bills are piling up, the banks have over-reached their generosity, and persons are losing homes, property and transportation. The economy continues to flounder and Government revenues are dwindling. The atmosphere is charged with a real sense of frustration and despair. These are ominous signs that things may get worse before they improve. And unfortunately, our Leaders seem to be at their wit’s end.

But the history of Anguilla has always been one of challenge. We have always survived by our wits and our stubborn determination to stay the course. There is no reason why we cannot do the same today. Just ten years ago the Anguilla United Front Government of which I am a part faced similar challenges --- but we drew on the strength and innovativeness that have driven our people over the centuries. We did not blame any one; we did not engage in confrontational exchanges; we did not denigrate our partners in the private sector, and; we did not fight among ourselves. We just did what Anguillians have always done “buckled down and got the job done”.

I am proud that during our tenure we 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. Every single Anguillian shared in that prosperity.

Later today many of us will enjoy the “Around the Island Boat Race”. According to Mr. Bob Rogers very few of us will stop to think about how boat racing evolved as a part of our culture. According to Mr. Rogers, a celebrated stalwart of the Revolution, it was not because our people were idle and wanted something to do --- it was done as a response to the economic situation at that time. Our forebears needed fast boats that could travel between Anguilla and St Martin or Anguilla and St. Barths quickly and specifically overnight ----- or that could bring back the men folk quickly from Santo Domingo when the sugar cane crop was over. Fast boats facilitated their trade --- legal and/or otherwise. So what was a part of our struggle for survival --- has now become a part of our culture. Yet another reason why this rich past must be celebrated on Anguilla Day along side our revolutionary heroes and heroines and the outstanding citizens of today.

Our prescription for future success lies in leadership that adheres to the tried and proven approaches of our past. The Honourable James Ronald Webster, the father of the nation, said in his remarks on the National Day in his honor this year and I quote: “Seeking political office is an enormous national commitment. But only well-qualified persons in terms of education, dedication and integrity, and with the right leadership charisma, should be selected for public office at the highest level. This holds true whether it is by the ballot box or other forms of legal appointment”.

Through this powerful statement, Mr. Webster outlined the clear path to success for those who seek to aspire to becoming leaders of Anguilla. It is a path consistent with his earliest vision that he did not want us to become a “nation of waiters and bus boys”. The principles implicit in that statement remain the common thread that has sustained every generation of Anguillians. It is not about standing in line “head bowed” with the “begging bowl” at the community of nations --- but using our skill and intellect to achieve success.

By: The Hon. Mcniel Rogers, Leader of the Oposition on Anguilla.

POLITICAL SUICIDE

The 44th year of the Anguilla revolution quickly approaches. It finds Anguilla at a critical point in its development. The crisis is a mountain of debt, political ineptitude and a general lack of political vision or will. The problems surround every aspect of life on the island and they will not be solved by playing the blame game although it is important for the people to know the root of the problems. There are tough decisions that need to be made and making them at the moment is akin to political suicide especially in light of the myriad of promises made to the electorate over the years. I am sure the AUM administration realizes this and the AUF realized it and that is why they avoided making the tough decisions before the election. The abdication of the previous government to make the tough financial decisions when the economy first took a down turn was a shrewd political move but it has created a financial disaster. The criticism of the AUM and its promise to fix the economy within a short time of taking office was also a shrewd campaign promise but a promise that will undoubtedly damage its political credibility. The AUM has also spent way to much time fighting with the clueless and uncaring British.

The fact of the matter is that the size of the government is not in tune with the islands economic reality. The cuts in pay for the civil service only affects moral it does little address the financial situation. The size of the Government and its services needs to be reduced as quickly as possible. The politicians know it is political suicide and they are likely to resist it, with promises while praying that the economy quickly turns around. The economy will not turn around unless the burden of government is reduced to a manageable size. The size of government affects the level of taxation that individuals are expected to pay and it affects the participation of businesses within the economy. It is political suicide to cut the workforce and increase joblessness in the middle of the worst recession in history but it is necessary if Anguilla is going to recover. It is political suicide because the local businesses are so shaken by the recession that they will be unable to create sufficient jobs to fill the gaps created by a mass reduction in government jobs. It is political since based on the current global recession as the island is unlikely to find a worthwhile large project. It is also political suicide and national suicide to maintain the status quo. Over the years the Government has reduced the number of services it offers through a process of privatization and the creation of statutory bodies, yet despite these fancy accounting gimmicks the size of the civil service continued to grow. The current state of the economy demand not only the reversal of this trend, it demands an end to the practice of political patronage that fuels the growth of the civil service. I highly doubt that the AUM political style of popular politics will have the required backbone to tackle the problem just as the previous administration use of smoke and mirrors caused the problem at a time when the economy was in better shape financially.

The problem with Anguilla’s model of development is that is based on perpetual quest of finding the next big project or the alienation of land. Successive politicians have done little to create a sustainable economy. The politicians over the years even those who consider themselves brilliant economic managers failed to create the links of sustainability. The government borrowed heavily to fund projects that are not profitable. The road to hell is not only paved with good intentions it is paved by people are nothing less than earnest incompetents.

The cost of doing business in Anguilla is too high and it needs to be quickly reduced however it’s difficult to reduce costs when the government is bloated. Anguilla is currently living in an economic bubble and the cost of its debt is likely hinder future economic growth. Looking at the current situation Anguillians can be thankful that monetary policy is made by an independent policy. If our government was responsible for making monetary policy there is a strong chance that the policies, lack of vision and the level of debt would have seriously devalued the currency and created hyper inflation.

The challenges facing Anguilla is unlikely to disappear anytime in the near future as the situation in the rest of the world will either remain the same or get worst. The first world countries including Britain and the USA are currently living in a state of denial and their policy fixes are either delaying or postponing the inevitable. Anguilla needs to quickly examine both its financial hemorrhage.

The difficult choices facing Anguilla will out last all of the current politicians, yet the danger is that neither Hubert nor Victor is capable of solving the problems. Their economic policies and world view is seriously flawed. When the economic flaws is merged with political considerations it is easy to understand that Hubert will not act unless he can cast all the blame and negatives consequences of his actions on the previous government and Victor wont act because it will require him to accept responsibility for past AUF failures. The burden of moving the economy forward therefore rest with the people.

The problem is not the British or the ability to show a penny, it’s the realization that if you carelessly step on a hoe, the handle will hit you in the face.

By: Statchel Warner

IS IT, “FULL INTERNAL SELF GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENCE?”

We are all sometimes extremely terrified when our honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hubert Hughes is designated to speak, not because of incapability, he is actually a very eloquent speaker, and often has performed exceptionally in public forum. The anguish comes from uncertainty of total equanimity. He was criticized heavily for an address last year where he actually glorified the Bradshaw’s regime of the ‘67 era which left much of his audience confused. As a result of the budgetary complexities the Island is experiencing, the honorable Chief Minister at some point actually side-step the gravity of the matter and decided to launch an attack on the British. This time wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message,”we freed Anguilla in “67, we will do it again in 2011. That was prior to him being aired on a regional news cast explaining his chaotic governing relationship with the British and declared “we have to determine whether we are going to start seriously to move towards independence or allow the British to increase their power.” He went on to further say “the economic crisis we are facing tells us that independence must be an open conversation for the people of Anguilla.”

It is believed that all Anguillians will willing engage in an open conversation about independence, and it is time this conversation begins in earnest and not be driven by emotional reaction to crisis situations of the country. The subject is legitimate, and deserves the highest level of consciousness the people can be persuaded to bring to the engagement. Everyone knows that Mr. Hughes views the British as outsiders in the affairs of the country, to bring that mind set to legitimately engage the British on the subject of independence will only result In more of the same confusion of positioning for command; where the British will eventually take the subject away from Hughes and present the people of Anguilla with an independent position on a “White Paper” once again. It must begin from a position of mutual respect for the subject, the people of Anguilla and the British Government, considering that this is the ultimate determination is the sovereignty of a people. But the Hughes Government, already having cynical posturing with the British, needs to soon declare a well defined position on present affairs and the future of the country; then let the debate begin. That declaration must not leap blindly in the advance solution of independence but must lay out a precursor of “Full Internal Self Government” where the country will work progressively toward declaring of Full Independent State in fifteen years.

When Ved Ganghi raised the 2011 Budget up high and declared “the Budget stands” something beyond political implications transpired. It galvanized the concept that the professionals with in the service are qualified to advance the country, which makes the Hughes’s Government the beneficiary of that capability, putting him in a strong position to engage the British. The Government must now formulate an agenda of substance and Vision and lay it on the desk of the Minister, with a summary; we’re ready to talk! That “Vision” must include those elements the country is now requiring for preparing its self for control of its own destiny and finding out the British position on adequate assistance moving forward. Some of those most important elements are: An adequate modernized airport, a full size modern commercial harbor, a modernized and enlarged Blowing Point Tourist Port, an appropriate and equitable tax regime and an attitude from the British that, “we will support the people of Anguilla in its quest for self governing.”

The position of “Self Determination” is one that all Anguilla people will rally around. This government has been losing support from the people since taking office and has also frustrated the British Government with antagonistic remarks and exaggerated statements! It is time to put into context some of these remarks and position the country and its people positivity. This Anguilla Day, Mr. Hughes must articulate his position; use the platform given to our political leaders annually, not just to lament about the past and point out irrelevance. We must use this most important National Day to utter statements of national consequence and position the island for the next step on our journey, all be it this year, the distinct call for the “independence of Anguilla.” So this Anguilla Day, the speech we want to here is how you validate your call for Independence, tell the people in full detail how you intend to take us on this journey and prepare a people for nation building. It is a matter how you articulate your vision! The people are looking forward to something stimulating and visionary. This may be your time, this may be your moment to lead or set in motion the next big thing for the country!!!!!

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“SHOW ME A PENNY!”

Last week I was unable to write my column due to tight travel schedules and other commitments, but I am grateful to Mr. Ashton Bradley for “pinch hitting” in my space with his article: “The honeymoon is over!” In his usual direct style, Mr. Bradley spoke to the need to “hold the Government to account” and to ask specific questions about its campaign promises and its capacity to fulfill them. I was particularly moved by his comment: “Today in Anguilla there is real cause for all of us to ponder our destiny. People are no longer asking the question: ‘How the country running boy?’ Instead they are asking: ‘Boy who running the country?” Of course the issue of who is running the country became very central as we heard and read “Eddie Baird’s Confessions” in his radio and television address in February of this year which he titled: “Who runs Anguilla?” And I must remind you exactly what Mr. Baird said with this direct quote from his speech as follows: “It is clear that these unelected persons are exercising considerable influence over Governmental affairs. The Chief Minister has little or no say in the actual running of the island. Their only need for him, it appears, is to give formality and legitimacy to their conduct. They are seeking an all out confrontation with the British Government on the issues of independence, the budget and related matters of good governance. The interests of these unelected people do not, in any way, coincide with the interests of the Anguillan people.”

Since that revealing address by the Minister of Social Development many Anguillians have become very confused about the functioning of the Government. In fact, there are those who are expressing shock that Mr. Baird still actually sits in Executive Council and holds on to his entire portfolio. That shock is further exacerbated by the fact that the Chief Minister and other Members of the Government continue to denigrate Mr. Baird on both private and public media and forums. It is therefore no less than amazing that the government seems to be acting as if all is well. To have such a situation existing at a time when there is need for unity of purpose both within and outside of Government would suggest that we are either operating on autopilot or that at some point mutiny will cast the “ship of state” on the rocks of political and economical disaster. Little wonder then that we now have a Government of reaction rather than action!

For a very short time during March and April the Chief Minister was, to use his own words, “uncharacteristically silent”. In fact a number of his colleagues were quiet as well. But he came back with what he threatened would be the beginning of a series of lectures, with a long tirade about the Opposition’s campaign for the repeal of the Interim Stabilization Levy using the same “worn out” excuse of blaming the past Administration for our economic woes. His junior Ministers and Advisors have likewise adopted his approach and are in fact taking it a step further by condemning the Opposition’s right to express its views and to seek “first hand” information on matters affecting the workers of this country. It does not augur well for the future of the AUM that there appears to be a feeling among the “young upstarts” of the party that no one has the right to oppose the actions of the Government. One member on a recent talk show went so far as to imply that because I did not regain a seat in the House I do not have the right to speak on “the Levy” --- that is, the “bad tax” that we insist must be repealed. Again I will quote Mr. Bradley in the same article when he commented: “First and most sincerely it is necessary to say that any one of us who lives here and cares about the running of Anguilla have an inherent right to stand up and speak out at anytime. We do not have to wait until election time to cry for our beloved country or be ‘cowed’ by those who are afraid to act their conscience and who remain mute thereby betraying our country’s best interest.

A fundamental principle of a democracy is freedom of speech and the right to exercise it. That is why the AUF has a right to have public meetings stating its own policies as well as attacking the Government and pointing out the folly of its ways. Government is not just about blaming the party you defeated. It is about what principles and policies you are promoting now that you are in power. And it is in the interest of everyone to examine the Government for what it is worth.” It is that process of examination that is taking place in very discrete corners of this island where people gather, much concerned about the challenges that both individuals and companies have to manage, in a very unkind financial and economic environment.

Cable and Wireless will probably be smiling this month as they calculate the roaming charges that I incurred in response to the many persons calling me overseas last week regarding the closure of the Malliouhana Hotel and the Brown Hill Communications Centre last week. In one fell swoop over two hundred workers were made redundant because of business decisions these companies made in response to their financial situation. Obviously, these closures were as a result of several factors and so any attempt to pin them down to any particular one would be subjective and perhaps even malicious. While one may conclude that there is always that one additional straw that may break the “camel’s back” --- one should not place the blame for the “camel’s” dilemma on a particular straw. It is the entire burden that caused the “camel’s” demise not any particular item in the load. However, the person or persons loading the “camel” must have a sense of its carrying capacity. It is this very narrow distinction that becomes the focus of controversy when affected persons seek to find answers to their plight and naturally look to their political leaders, particularly those in Government, for some expression of hope or understanding in the face of an uncertain future. It therefore becomes leaders to be responsible, objective and fair in their handling of such matters or run the risk of worsening an environment already charged with frustration and despair. The Parliamentary Secretary’s unwarranted and overly defensive response to a posting on “Facebook” by the Chairman of the Anguilla United Front (AUF) is a good example of how young politicians may react when faced with the pressures of this period.

While it is not my intention to diminish the impact of any of the closures, I must single out the case of the Malliouhana Hotel. Unlike the Brown Hill Communication Centre that has been operating for less than three years, Malliouhana has been a feature of the Anguillian economy for almost thirty years, from construction to operation. That period represents an entire generation such that there are workers who would have had children and grandchildren over the period of their employment at the Hotel. It was one of the largest private sector foreign investment projects during the early 1980’s and became the signature property for the “low volume high value” product that defined Anguilla’s Tourism brand during that period. The owner Mr. Leon Roydon is considered the “granddaddy” of the Anguilla Hotel & Tourism Association and holds the respect of all management and staff; his suppliers and business associates; his colleagues in the industry and his returning guests. His contribution to Anguilla’s development extends beyond the wages paid to his employees and the services he purchases from the business community --- it includes his philanthropy to the wider community over the years as well. It is in this total context, that the closure of the Malliouhana Hotel must be regarded. It is indeed the end of an era of the personal style of management that he brought to the industry and the fatherly approach that he adopted towards Anguilla’s tourism sector as a whole.

While Mr. Roydon, the father, is no longer actively involved in the management of the Hotel it was firstly out of respect for his service to Anguilla that the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers; the Elected Representative for Island Harbour, Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool and myself visited the property on Thursday, May 19 to speak with Mr. Roydon, the son, about the situation. And secondly, we needed to get a first hand report of the circumstances from the proverbial “horses mouth” so as to make objective responses to the several workers who sought our advice and counsel. Our meeting was intended to be cordial and so it was. But the travails of Malliouhana over the past two years, in particular, weigh heavily on the ownership and the future success of the property. It was in this context that the decision was made to secure new ownership for the future and to “stop the bleeding” of continued losses in the short term. It was simply left for us to confirm that Mr. Roydon treated the workers in compliance with the law and to determine whether we could persuade any further generosity from him on behalf of employees, many who served Malliouhana faithfully for over twenty years.

Our visit to Malliouhana evoked the Government’s displeasure. Based on the comments of the Ministers and Advisors both on a talk show that same night and when they met with the workers last Saturday, they seemed anxious to convey the message that our visit was malicious and that we did not have the right to meet with the owners and workers because we were responsible for the circumstances leading up to the closure in the first place. But the truth of the matter is that workers at Malliouhana Hotel must be commended for their dedication and loyalty to the property over the years. They remained at their jobs even in the face of more lucrative offers. And the exceptional service culture has positively impacted the ratio of repeat guests and customers.

It was no surprise therefore when we discovered that owners of Malliouhana followed the letter of the law in terms of redundancy. Section 11 of the Fair Labour Standards Act speaks to the issue of pay in lieu of notice as follows: (a) an employee paid at intervals of less than 1 month who has --- (i) less than 1 year’s service, 1 week, (ii) 1 year or over and less that 5 years’ service, 2 weeks, and (iii) 5 years’ service and over, 4 weeks; (b) an employee paid at monthly intervals who has --- (i) less than one year’s service, 1 month, (ii) 1 year or over and under 5 years’ service, 2 months, and (iii) 5 years’ service and over, 3 months; but, where the employee concerned is at the professional, higher technical or managerial level the period of service shall not be less than 3 months irrespective of length of service. In terms of the letter of the law there seems to be an obvious inequitable situation between monthly employers and those long-term weekly employees who have been in steady employment for over five years. For example, someone paid weekly who has been working for as many as 20 years is entitled to 4 weeks’ salary upon redundancy while someone paid monthly who has been working for 5 years is entitled to 3 months (i.e. 12 weeks) salary. This is one of the situations that the past Government was seeking to correct through the Labour Code Bill (2005). The strong public opposition during those consultations resulted in the withdrawal of both the Labour Code Bill and the Physical Planning Bill. My recollection is particularly lucid because my efforts to progress these consultations, even though I was neither Minister of Labour nor Physical Planning, resulted in a vicious campaign for my recall as the Elected Member for Valley South. Part 7 of the proposed Bill introduced for the first time a section on “severance pay” that provided a formula for the calculation of compensation when ones employment is terminated. This meant that long serving employees would be entitled to prescribed levels of compensation upon termination that are equitable. It should be noted that “severance pay” is not synonymous with “pay in lieu of notice” it is in addition to, however, an adjustment was proposed to regularize this situation.

The proposed Labour Code Bill still remains a draft today. And there is enough blame to go around. The representatives of the Government used their visit on Saturday to suggest to the workers that their inability to respond to their specific questions was due to the fact that the past Government did nothing about enacting the Labour Code during their ten years in Office. I do not believe that the workers at Malliouhana who are out of work with bills to pay have the tolerance for a “he said she said” “back and forth” argument about whose fault it is. They want solutions that can be implemented now. However, what the past Government can speak about is its record in dealing with such issues over the years without the Labour Code. For example; negotiating compensation for workers during the sale of Sonesta; compensation for workers during the sale and refurbishment of Cap Juluca; compensation for workers during the construction phase at Tenemos; compensation for airport workers during the Airport Expansion; and so on. We had built a solid partnership with investors that we could call upon in critical times. It is in this vein I would hope that rather than the junior Ministers and Advisors of the Government looking for scapegoats they should spend more time looking for creative solutions. They should be firming up the promises made by management regarding what will happen to workers in the event of a sale; who will be retained; who will receive bonus; how can we negotiation an extra month or an additional payment for weekly workers --- there is real work to be done. And certainly --- what can be so difficult about arranging a waiver of the Levy for redundancy payments.

Speaking about the Levy, I was approached by a self-employed worker the other day much disturbed about the fact that he was having difficulty in determining what band he should place himself for payment of the tax. He then turned to me in frustration and said: “Tell me something! Hubert Hughes pay he house tax yet?” I told him that I had no idea. He then retorted: “Well how come he ain’t pay during the past Government and he want we to pay under he Government?” Unable to answer his question I fell back into my Sunday School training and said to him: “Show me a penny!” He looked at me quizzically --- and just when I thought I had lost him he made an excellent comeback --- he said: “Hubert face aint on dat!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
May 24, 2011

“ABSENCE OF VISION”

Elections have consequence and any group that has not prepared themselves well enough, should not dear be given that opportunity to govern. Our people must now raise the bar and ensure that those choosing to seek the approval of the electorate to govern are prepared; we must know their intentions and what their interests are for the country. The people of Anguilla have always been known for the will to work and achieve, in fact it is been said that nowhere is it so evident that very young people own such large houses like Anguilla. It has been said that in the region, Anguillians own a most significant portion of their own thriving economy and wealth. Anguillians are often praised for their courage and drive to hold on to important facets of the economy of the country, where as other countries and their economies are totally driven by large co- operations and major businesses from the exterior. Anguilla has always had a good image looking on from St. Maarten’s perspective, and has often been praised for its economic model and independence on the interior. On many occasions, even in legislative meeting, St. Maarten officials have praised Anguilla for its economic model.

It is really not clear what our government is trying to achieve from the continuous lamenting on the doorsteps of St. Maarten Dutch and French. Since taking office several delegations have either left from Anguilla to St. Marten / St. Martin or from St. Maarten to Anguilla. We first wanted a French group to build us a brand new airport and deep water harbor, then to supply our electricity and water, and of course we got a fire engine from St. Martin on loan. We also want portions of the fish market in Marigot available to us. There is a list for the Dutch side as well; we want portions of Juliana Airport rearranged and secured for Anguilla immigration service with a separate lounge to accommodate the high priced tourists coming to Anguilla. We want extra immigration at the ferry port to clear Anguilla speed boats and perhaps a clear speed way to bring our high priced tourists direct. We also want to operate late night trips, as late as possible. This is only part of the list of wants. The delegation also declared that they perhaps want a super high way from the Dutch side direct to Anguilla to avoid the Cole Bay Hill, because our million dollar guests and complaining about St. Maarten’s traffic. Something is going on here that is not normal. In fact there is wild imagination at play, and a very fine line between tarnishing our national image and endeavoring to achieve a mile stone. Once, Anguilla had perceived itself as the United States of the Caribbean, a shining light in the region. Are we becoming the laughing stock?

“In the absence of a vision” people perish! Is this our plight? This is a pivotal moment in our history. This Government came into office hyped about the British, who was blamed for destroying the islands economy with AUF, and promising to make them pay. When the island experienced what is known now as the recent economic boom, all Anguillians felt that our time had come, and finally the hope of our fathers had dawn on us, we all enjoyed the good times. Things have changed; people are actually getting very desperate because of the turn-around. This is causing a back lash for all politicians. We have lost confidence in the political hierarchy. (Chain of command) We have lost respect for the present and the past. The voices I’m hearing right now are actually saying, “AUF started a good thing they were unable to finish” (they lost the election) they lead us out of the wilderness and left us to perish. AUM apparently is not even conscious of the wilderness, and for hell they don't know where to take us. Some people blame AUF for losing the elections and some people blame AUM for winning. What is evident now, is that the people have lost trust, at a time when the country needs strong leadership with a vision for the future, the people are losing hope. Anguilla thus far has managed to largely direct its own economic destiny which the people can be proud of, if there is a negative swing in our situation, strong leadership must provide direction for the country. The series of hits and misses so far have not strengthened the confidence of the people that this government knows what it is doing. There is no coordination and no consistency in their direction and absolutely no logic in some of the decisions made. Since taking office the people have not been presented with a cohesive plan that would direct the country for the next five years instead, we have been lead to believe that we would be an independent country at the next stop.

“Our people are not lazy, and we are not a people that look for hand outs” we are a people that thrive on achievement even if we fail to reach that glorious level of success. Here we are promoting ourselves as the most high quality destination in the region, clearly marketing ourselves as the better destination because of the high quality guests we cater for. St. Maarten is indebting its self, investing in its own infrastructure while we use our political ignorance, criticize our very own airport and refuses to touch it, like everything that has been accomplished in the past fifteen years, but we go to St, Maarten with our hands out for everything. Our Honorable Chief Minister declares that, "this meeting is the most important meeting in the history of his political life on Anguilla." The deputy Prime Minister of St. Maarten said, our arms are open to help! Key phrase being, “help us” tell us what you want. The Justice Minister said, we understand your problem! we are trying our best “to help” but we have some problems of our own, we got a major Union on our back and we have to fulfill a treaty with French St. Martin by accommodating their immigration at Juliana first, but we will try to accommodate. But what about the Price to the island, don’t our Chief Minister and his very large delegation think that there is a price attached for all of his wants, and at some point we’ll get an invoice?

While we respect and honor our political leaders, we need smart government! This is a fight to be won by those who refuse to give up, in spite of the monumental failures, as a people we have always won our battles through endeavor. Those who are charged with the plight of the people must show wisdom. There is sufficient lamenting and incoherency, the distrust is mounting, it is time government exhibited a clear path as to where they wish to take the country and how. And not in debt a people, and deprive us of our reputation in the” Absence of A vision.” We simply don’t know where this government is taking us and through which channel. We cannot stoop beneath our pride, and we cannot allow the gains of the past to be eroded. Government must make up its mind and lead this country, because,“in the absence of a vision, people are domed to perish”.

By Elliot J. Harrigan

    

LEVY INCREASES THE FLOW ON ANGUILLA

Brownhill closed down and gone because of the Levy; Koal Keel closed down because of the Levy; Ku closing down because on the Levy; Albert Lake about to layoff workers because of the Levy; John Proctor about to layoff workers because of the Levy; Malliouhana Hotel closing May 22 2011 because of the Levy where over 100 Anguillians will be out of work; Viceroy will be laying off workers and closing early because of the Levy; Cap Juluca will be laying off workers and closing early because of the Levy. Who will be next? The Chinese up their prices because of the Levy; and other local offices and businesses hiked their cost for goods and services because of the Levy.

And the government of Anguilla remains too incompetent to realise the destruction of the Levy.

Please call your district Representative and urge him to support the REPEAL of the Interm Stabilisation Levy Act, 2011.

The authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed; and when the reality is such that a government of Anguilla remains incompetent to fulfil that authority and becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the electorate to alter or abolish it.

“PROMISE MADE, NOT KEPT?"

An unfulfilled promise to a nation is like an unsettled law suit, where speculation gloom over who are the winners and losers and who shall receive the penalty of severity. But promise in the real world is the political equivalence to cutting your court size without sufficient material in store and often the new stock are shades different. Considering promise made, promise not kept to any child, who grows up with a severe default in gross disrespect for a parent who simply did not fulfill expectations of wild dreams, but dreams that would make an unsmiling difference in conduct and behavior. “Where is the Plan we were Promised?”

Government is doing its utmost to make a good first impression, now some months well into the elected term. I’m sure it brings some excitement to the Ministerial body to break ground; and we all hope that this leads to something positive for the island. Often the attempt to impress brings out default and helps to unveil the truth. Obviously, with the breaking of ground there must be a few speeches to allow well wishers and supporter some insight into the objective. If one follows the speeches well enough, in particular the developer Mr. Tom McInerney’s it would be clear that not even the plans for the Solaire project at Lockum are ready as yet, which is often the most primary work. This may mean most likely, that we are still a very long way from any productive work being done on this site. But the Government must be praised however for pushing the effort along, since the project was in motion and approved since 2005.

But it was with interest to see that Back to back, the Leader of the Opposition in the “House” and key figures of opposition AUF at a recent press conference lamenting the present chaos on the island over the introduction and implementation of the Interim Stabilization Levy Law and willingly offering Government their unsolicited assistance to find alternatives that would be less burdensome on the people of Anguilla. Obviously, the Government appears to be ignoring this most noble offer and is sharing some excitement, as the honorable Chief Minister digs his shovel in the ground in a ceremonial moment while key elements in government look on with great smiles. Winning an election is a major achievement for any group setting out to govern. When the votes are counted the burden of achievement is always a pivotal experience going forward and weighs heavily on the people that sit in office. This Government finds itself in parallel conditions where the absolute burden to achieve some degree of marginal success is a daily consideration, because people are looking forward to this and government must be deliberate and conclusive to accomplish anything meaningful. Unlike our past, where we had the wheels grinding forward, it was easy to simply grease those wheel so that the grind advances with ease; our present situation requires careful and deliberate action to put this great wheel of possibilities in grinding motion again.

People are skeptical, but Government has time on its hand and even if this project means a very slow turn, we are very appreciative. There are questions, that must be asked:

Have we entered a period of complicity? What about Baird and Haydn, are they in? Have this government laid down their arms against the Governor and FCO? Is the balance of power now in good proportion, is everyone now getting along?

A major step ahead for this government is to concede that its initial approach did not contribute to an atmosphere of responsible collusion and therefore provoked irritation between the Governor and the Government. It was a gradual built up to a breaking point when The Minister for The Overseas Territories demanded that the Chief Minister accept two professionals to oversee the Budget process. Anyone observing the madness which pursued would agree that this was an exercise of power and an attempt to bring this government under subjection, which effort accomplished its goal.

Now it is time to utilize the great advantage still with government; that is “time.” New elections are not anything that should be considered soon, unless through gross malfunction of mental capacity. Therefore time is a major asset and Government must begin to put in place principle decisions to stimulate the economy, Minimize the continued bank intrusion and acquiring of personal properties because every house that is lost in this economy represents several families and their various extensions, which undoubtedly would be a serious back lash on Government. Enforce at least one of the famous MOU’s of the many that has been signed since taking office. Make the document a viable and principle asset to the way forward, and make it a more doable tool than the MOA which appeared to have worked extremely well for the former government. There is still good will among the people for this government, indicated by the disciplined uneasiness and exercise of tolerance; but this time is coming if government doesn’t act and put that plan as promised on the table.

By: Elliot J. Harrigan