"FACE THE FACTS!"

Mr. Statchel Fritz Warner - 1989 Anguilla National Alliance
(ANA) candidate for District 6, Road South, Anguilla

Constitutional reform was started by the AUF and it failed because the AUF was not interested. The AUF saying that the issue should be taken to the people and if the people vote yes, then set a time table is understandable because it fits into their stall, do nothing, maintain the status quo platform. If the AUF during its ten years in office had even once mentioned independence even by 2050 and said these are the steps needed it would have some crediblity on the issue. The AUF has done nothing visible to push the British toward Constitutional reform although it portrays itself is the British favoured children. The AUF from all accounts is happy being British.

AUM has taken on the issue of constitutional reform because it fits perfectly into its anti British rethoric. This constant fighting with the British is not to the benefit of Anguilla but serves as a distraction from other issues. Hubert is just interested in the politics of independence not in the fact that its a serious journey for the people of Anguilla. The belief that all problems will be solved once we get rid of the British is seriously flawed.

Anguilla continue to mix religion and politics and its a receipe for disaster. If the preachers and former preachers who are so actively involved in the political future of Anguilla really believe what they have been preaching over the years, they should step aside and wait for Jesus to bring his constitution. They would also know that the world will end before independence is granted, therefore they should just stop confusing the people. The future belongs to those of us who will be around after the preachers world ends.

It is sad to see the Government of Anguilla fighting with the British when there are other more urgent issues, rather than fighting with the British we should be using them to accomplish our goals, the way they used our ancestors to accomplish their goals and built their economy. We appear to genuinely lack an understanding of how the British empire works even after 45 year of invasion. The British are not as smart or evil as we gave them credit for. They are just another group of Europeans worried about their existence, just another failing economy.

In the final analysis independence will depend on the calibre of the politicians and the mentality of the people. In this regard based on stated positions and present behaviour of both leaders of the AUM and AUF, they will both best served the people of Anguilla as colonial underdogs. I would hate to see either of them as the leaders of an independent Anguilla, thankfully fate is only the side of the people of Anguilla......

By: Statchel Warner

“KUNTA KINTE COME FORWARD!”

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the First Baptist Church on its celebration of fifty years of Baptist Ministry on Anguilla. Many persons from my generation and before will remember the early years of Pastor Freeman Goodge’s Ministry on Anguilla. In those early days very few people referred to that Church as the “Baptist Church” but rather as “Goodge’s Church”. From those very humble beginnings in 1962 a number of Anguillians started their journey in the Christian faith and many of them have become pillars of the Baptist Ministry in all parts of the Caribbean and indeed the world. Probably one of the earliest followers, Pastor Cecil Richardson, gave a brief history of the Baptist Ministry on Anguilla to include the period during the Anguilla Revolution when it may have even been considered the spiritual and moral conscience of the movement.

It was also a pleasure to see one of the late Pastor Goodge’s sons, Pastor Gary Goodge bringing the first message but it was another product of the Goodge’s Ministry, Pastor Beltane Harrigan who brought the main message of the celebration with great animation to a very receptive congregation. The general focus of the entire celebration was on the next fifty years and the overwhelming importance of the Church in making a positive difference in Anguilla. All in all it was a very captivating worship experience and I commend Pastor Norril Gumbs on the leadership role he played in putting the event together.

My reflections after the service was on the manner in which Governments use the Church as a convenient institution to legitimize themselves and as a scapegoat at times for the problems in the wider community. When things get out of hand they complain that the Church is not taking up its responsibility and when things are good they seldom think about the important support the Church provides as a source of strength and stability in the community. There are even those persons who use the Church as a platform to launch their political ambitions --- and putting on the mantle of self-righteousness they portray themselves as bastions of integrity in our society. In the last election for example, one “man of the cloth” used his position in the Church as a means of winning support by evoking God’s condemnation on those who voted against his party. It was a most blasphemous act by a man who I had highly respected for his exceptional ability to deliver God’s Word. But in a way it illustrates the powerful impact of the Church in our communities as well as the importance of the Word rather than the Preacher to the challenges we face as an island state.

Don’t get me wrong! I fully support the doctrine which seemed to be the focus of the 50th Anniversary Celebration, namely, that the Church is that “unstoppable group” that must ensure that our nation is on the right course. However, it (the Church) should not be manipulated to advance the personal interests of unscrupulous individuals. It is always amuses me when the Chief Minister calls upon the Christian Council and the Evangelical Association whenever he is in some kind of trouble or wants to advance some aspect of his political agenda. However, he is also very quick to attack particular members of those bodies when they oppose any aspect of his style, approach, attitude or decisions.

The foregoing pattern of behaviour is also true of the Chief Minister’s supporters and advisors. They continue to pretend that they espouse lofty ideals and Christian principles in scorn of their opponents --- who they relegate to the category of subservient “house slaves”; cowardly lackey’s of the oppressors; and “alleged” criminals. Just because their opponents do not accept the style, approach, attitude and decisions of their Government. Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor felt it necessary to unleash a searing attack on the Anguilla United Front (AUF) because of its decision that, based on the course the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee was taking, its (AUF) members were disassociating themselves from the process, going forward. The AUF made its reasons very clear and its letter concluded with a carefully thought-out position:

“It is therefore clear to us that, inasmuch as full internal self-government is no longer an option at this point in time, there are two (2) other real options available to Anguilla and Anguillians,(i) enhancing/improving our existing relationship with the UK as a British Overseas Territory; or (ii) deciding on the issue of independence.

The AUF is therefore of the view that the course of action which the Government of Anguilla has embarked upon in relation to full internal self-government is ineffective and time consuming. We would suggest that the constitutional reform instead focus on the viability of options (i) and (ii) as aforementioned.

If, after appropriate consultation and education on the pros and cons of independence, our people decide to vote yes for independence, then the AUF will join with the Government of Anguilla in agreeing a timetable for independence and lend its full support to the educational process. For the record, however, it should be known that while we call for a referendum in order to ascertain the views of the people, the AUF does not support independence for Anguilla at this time but we are in full support of a well thought through educational process on the pros and cons of independence.”

It is this difference of opinion that caused Mrs. Gumbs-Connor to embark on that “subjective rant” and to which Mr. Marcel Fahie referred in his article in the Anguillian entitled: “Vitriol Unbecoming Of A Black Anguillian Empress”. I was grateful for Mr. Fahie’s analysis of her reaction --- a reaction that for a moment stunned me to the extent that I felt compelled to reread the AUF letter several times to ensure that no one had tampered with its contents before publication. And I particularly liked Mr. Fahie’s comment on Ms. Gumbs-Connor’s conduct when he wrote: “I also thought of the forceful and virulent reaction, of the extreme intolerance, shown by Mrs. Gumbs-Connor towards the AUF’s point of view set out in its letter to Rev. Dr. Niles. She should know that such hostility, attempted psychological black mail and bullying, if not resisted, create the environment from which dictatorship springs. Thanks to the voices of moderation and tolerance, extremes were avoided in the Anguilla Revolution. Reason tempered rashness in the early days and helped us to arrive at the place we find ourselves in today.” Because as Mr. Fahie concluded the AUF was only suggesting an “open and responsible discourse on our path to constitutional advancement and the attainment of greater self-determination.” It neither mentioned nor did it imply an attitude of subservience it simply recommended a “good governance” approach to the process.

In vindication of our position, the Chief Minister during and after his CARICOM meeting, made a number of statements in the regional and international media that clearly show that the Constitutional exercise is simply a tool to manipulate Anguillians into believing that independence is our only option.

In the Anguillian he is reported to have said: “Government is now undertaking a constitutional exercise to achieve full internal self-government --- if this is fails, he (Hughes) will pursue independence.”

In a release from Suriname he said: “the Governor of Anguilla is a virtual dictator and he manipulates every system to suit his whims and fancies.”

In the Amsterdam News in New York City he is quoted as having said: “Britain has made it clear that it has no plans to grant greater executive autonomy, like self-governance, to the island --- much less full independence, as some islanders seem to want --- because ‘they believe that we have an abundance of oil, gas and fish life. They have deemed Anguilla now to be a valuable asset that should not be let go of.”

Obviously the Chief Minister is painting a picture locally, regionally and internationally that Anguilla has no choice but to go into independence because the British have refused to give us full internal self-government; because the Governor is an evil dictator who is enslaving the people of Anguilla; and that Anguilla has to fight for Independence because the British wants to grab our oil, gas and fish resources for themselves. The totality of which are lies and half-truths that creates a false premise for rushing into independence. All of the above reinforces the concerns that the AUF expressed in its letter that we are being taken for a ride in the constitutional exercise.

But I would like Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor to react as promptly and with similar indignation to a letter from the Members of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee to the same Chairman (Rev. Dr. Niles) to whom our letter was addressed. The letter is captioned: “Procedural Impropriety of the Chairman of the Anguilla Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee”, and reads in part as follows:

“ A constitution, apparently coming from this Committee, has been released to the public without the approval of the Committee and without the knowledge and approval of the Chief Minister. This document cannot be retracted and has caused unnecessary confusion and embarrassment to the Committee. Your conduct amounts to procedural impropriety and has brought the reputation of the Committee into disrepute. The result of your behaviour is that the Committee members wish to distance ourselves from the document you produced to the public.

On March 07, 2012 the Committee met and decided that you have lost the confidence of the Committee and requests that you immediately recuse yourself as Chairman of the Committee. The Committee does not wish for you to take any further role in its proceedings. We demand that you present your resignation letter within 48 hours from the date of this letter. We also demand that you refrain from any contact with the public regarding the duties of this Committee.”

This letter was signed by all the Members of the Committee, namely, Mr. Whaldama “Ras Bee” Brooks; Mr. John Benjamin; Mr. Patrick “Sheriff” Hanley; Ms. Dawne Richardson; Mr. Brent Davis; and Ms. Quincia Gumbs.

I would beg readers to note that the document to which the Committee is referring is the same document that caused the AUF to recall its representative on the Committee. You will likewise note that a similar phrase to wit, “distance ourselves”, is being used. We used the phrase “disassociate ourselves”.

I am not getting into the question of who is right or wrong in the present dispute between the Committee and its Chairman --- but what I am saying is that the AUF representative on the Committee, Mrs. Cora Richardson-Hodge, would also have had good reason to be concerned about the process. One would therefore expect that perhaps either the entire Committee or the Chairman would now be the recipient of the same angry diatribe, to which the AUF was subjected, from Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor. In which regard one could reasonably pose the question: “Which of these two protagonists (the Committee or the Chairman) adequately does justice to the memory of those “Kunta Kinte’s” to whom “Josie” referred?” Will the true Kunta Kinte come forward!

By: Victor F. Banks

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

“TRY A LITTLE KINDNESS”

Mr. Victor F. Banks

Over the last few days there has been much ceremony and celebration on our island beginning on Friday March 2, 2012 with the birthday of the “father of the nation”, the Hon. James Ronald Webster and the Diamond Jubilee Anniversary of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. These were two separate events, but both marking significant landmarks in our journey as a people --- the blending of our colonial past with aspirations of nationhood. For a true student of history these are exciting times. Both the Hon. James Ronald Webster and Queen Elizabeth II were born in the same year and less than two months apart. They are obviously from different backgrounds and life experiences but they both feature prominently in the history of our island. Whereas one symbolizes the last vestiges of colonialism --- the other symbolizes the struggle for self- determination and the ultimate goal of full nationhood. 

Fortunately, the difference between our situation today and that of the early freedom fighters for Independence in Africa, India and other parts of the Third World, is that there is no impediment to us achieving nationhood --- if it is the expressed will of the people of Anguilla. That reality should strengthen our resolve to be painstaking in ensuring that we get it right and that we enter that new phase or our political development as a people who are fully aware of our responsibilities through an effective process of education. The politics of fear should not be the prod that goads us on but rather it should be our readiness to take on the responsibilities inherent in the choices we make that must instruct our progress. 

A lot has been said during the period leading up to this weekend of ceremony and celebration over the various media that concerns me. I went out dutifully to celebrate the birthday of the “father of the nation” and was most pleased to hear his statesmanlike presentation and witness his humble demeanour throughout the ceremony. And like many other Anguillians I was most pleased to greet him and get his autograph on my copy of his latest publication. 

My first concern however, stems from the fact that days before the usual Radio Talk Show hosts spent a lot of time involved in the politics of divisionism. Their position seemed to be that only elected persons on the Government side of the House of Assembly had the right to have a celebration on behalf of Mr. Webster’s birthday. Their reason being that the past AUF Government did not support a full holiday for the “father of the nation”. As a consequence they seem to have concluded that it is not a National holiday but rather an AUM holiday for Mr. Webster. 

Whatever the outcome of the difference of opinion on how Mr. Webster’s birthday should be celebrated --- the fact remains that it is a national holiday that is embraced by all Anguillians and as such it is to be celebrated by all Anguillians. It is also important to mention that it was never the view that Mr. Webster’s birthday should not be celebrated. It was always a matter of how to capture the essence of his contribution in a manner that was most educational and inspirational especially to the young people of this island, who as the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers pointed out in his address, have grandparents born in Anguilla who have no first hand recollection of that period of our history. Mr. Rogers also reemphasized the point that: “It (Mr. Webster’s Birthday) should not be just another day or weekend to go shopping in St Maarten. Should it ever become such --- we would have done a great disservice to your (Mr. Webster’s) legacy and that of the other stalwarts who were a part of that early band of “pioneers.” I believe that this statement is central to the controversy of how Mr. Webster’s Birthday should be celebrated. And rather than ignore the proverbial “800 pound gorilla in the room” let us be mindful of the several shades of opinion about leadership in the Revolutionary period that we must acknowledge rather than alienate. 

Such controversies about holidays for national leaders are not uncommon, neither are they intended to be disrespectful of those leaders in question. In fact, the ongoing controversy in several States in the U.S. A. over the holiday for their “father of the nation”, George Washington, was eventually resolved by renaming it “Presidents Day”, where not only George Washington but other Presidents and the office of the Presidency could be honored. Indeed the purpose of such days is to unify the nation rather than to divide it. The Chief Minister’s quip at the conclusion of his address about “not going to Sandy Ground” may therefore be considered especially divisive. The event at Sandy Ground put on by the AUF Road North Constituency Cell for Mr. Webster’s Birthday was just another venue of celebration. And I am sure that as the years go by there will be many other such ideas. 

My second concern is with regards to the visit of Prince Edward and the statements made by a number of Talk Show Hosts and AUM supporters, as if to encourage civil disobedience and protest during that visit. It seemed as if many of these personalities have bought wholesale into the position advanced by the Chief Minister that we are in “an undeclared war” with the British Government. In the circumstances, one Talk Show Host went so far as to question the fact that a number of persons turned up in their Sunday best to worship with Prince Edward at St. Mary’s. A statement also went out on the airwaves that parents should not allow their children to take part in the parade. The point I am making is, that there is no need for incivility and discourteous behaviour in a situation where it serves no useful purpose for advancing the interests of the community --- and especially at a time when we should be teaching our youngsters to use less confrontational methods to deal with the conflicts in their lives and their relationships. 

Speaking of youngsters, the eve of the Birthday of the “father of the nation” was no deterrent to the murderous intentions of our youngsters who seem to have again embarked on a vicious cycle of gun/gang violence. Yet another time over the past months young men have fallen victim to deliberate and senseless shootings. As a community we should be asking the question what is the root cause of this problem? I believe that there is no singular reason for this rash of gun-violence and it therefore requires a multifaceted approach to developing a solution or group of solutions to contain and eradicate it. The lack of capacity by the Police Force to crack these cases in a timely manner contributes to a feeling of insecurity in the community as a whole but also emboldens these perpetrators to carry out their vicious acts without the fear of being caught and very often in the presence of witnesses. 

For an island which once used the marketing slogan: “tranquility wrapped in blue” we can no longer boast about being a “low crime” or “no crime” destination. There was a time when one of our flagship hotels boasted that it had no room keys --- today that is a real risk. While our tourism plant still remains relatively safe there are no guarantees that the present situation now in isolated parts of the community will not eventually spill over into other venues if left unchecked. The silence about these incidents in the various communities is sometimes rationalized by the view that if we talk publicly about it and it hits the international media --- it will destroy our tourism industry. While this may have some short-term merit --- the truth is that if we do not confront the problem and deal with it effectively our tourism product will be destroyed in the longer term anyway. 

But while the situation can impact the Tourism sector the impact on the society can be even more devastating. The victims of these senseless acts bring tremendous pain, suffering, financial strain and in the extreme circumstances grief to their families. The business sector, particularly the local entrepreneurs lose considerable income as their clientele begin to cut back on their social life and frequent other places usually owned by expatriate interests. Already a number of normally law-abiding citizens are considering the acquisition of firearms in most cases, because of police restrictions, illegally. The proliferation of guns can possibly lead to a very dangerous and volatile situation in the community. There is need for all out campaign against these conditions across the political spectrum. 

In this context, I have used this medium to highlight the dangers of this situation and appeal to the Government and the wider community to join us in this effort. It calls for resources, and committed persons to advance this cause --- but first of all we need a plan. Our party has begun the groundwork for such a document that can be used as a working paper for further discussions with the community and the Royal Anguilla Police Force. The Police Force cannot succeed in their efforts without community support --- it is an integral part of the investigatory process and we must formulate our plan around their expertise and resources. If our efforts do nothing more than boost awareness in the community of the nature of gang/gun violence it is my belief that we would have created a significant civilian watch group to assist the policing and investigatory process. 

But let us not speak about our young people involved in these incidents as if they are from another planet. They are our children, our brothers, our cousins, our nephews and our friends. They have been socialized in our systems with the tutelage of their parents, teachers and peers. Anything they have become is because somewhere in that chain of tutelage we may have dropped the ball in some way. They did not make themselves. So we all must take some responsibility. We share in the pain and grief of all those parents and siblings who have seen their loved ones maimed and murdered. And we empathize even with those of you whose offspring lie incarcerated in the prison system. Are they remorseful? Have they changed their lives? Will they ever become productive citizens again? 

And even as we speak of Colonialism, Independence, House Slaves, Field Slaves, Kunta Kinte, Massa, the Select Few, the Masses and Classes let take some time to show love and caring to the marginalized, the poor, the depressed, the abused and the angry in our society. It is time to try a little kindness even for our “brother standing down the road with a heavy load from the seeds he sowed!”

By: Victor F. Banks

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

“I REST MY CASE”

Mr. Victor F. Banks

On Friday, March 2nd, we will be officially celebrating the Birthday of the Hon. James Ronald Webster, the Father of the Nation. It is an event now in its third year and one which gives Anguillians an opportunity to pay homage to the great contribution that Mr. Webster made as the most central figure of our Revolution in 1967. While there may be several shades of opinion regarding the Revolution --- no one can dispute the fact that he was the most prominent figure in that effort and is the Leader who commanded the widest popular support during that period. 

It was because of his strong determination and unwavering resolve to free Anguilla from the shackles of the hostile Central Government led by Premier Robert L. Bradshaw at all costs, that Mr. Webster attracted the respect of his colleagues and most Anguillians. Undoubtedly, his brand of leadership was exactly what Anguilla needed at that juncture in our political history. Let me take the opportunity in my column to wish the Hon. James Ronald Webster a wonderful day and pray for continued blessings for many years to come. Happy Birthday Mr. Webster! 

I think that it is appropriate to use this time of celebration for reflection as well. And I will lift two excerpts from Mr. Webster’s Message in the 40th Anniversary Commemorative Magazine to introduce my short reflection. Mr. Webster wrote: “Since May 30th, 1967, Anguilla has undergone a fundamental reconstruction. Despite our ups and downs we were able to cope with the many adverse situations. Our respective Governments have made it possible for every young Anguillian to receive a quality education and maintain a brighter hope for tomorrow as the island moves forward.” It is obvious from this statement that Mr. Webster seemed satisfied in 2007 that our young people, the focus of the “ brand new Anguilla” that he and the other early pioneers set out to build, was on track. He confirms that fact in another statement along with an admonition. He wrote: “As we reflect on this milestone of 40 years, we can rejoice in the fact that we are living in a peaceful island and one of much charm and beauty. We must continue to build and strengthen our nation through love and loyalty and to share these great virtues with each other.” 

If I were to begin with the second quotation from Mr. Webster’s Message a number of issues come to mind. Among them the spate of senseless shootings and robberies that haunt this our “peaceful island” and to which he (Mr. Webster) so proudly referred. A number of victims are now suffering various forms of impairment: lower body paralysis; damaged organs; crippled limbs and other lasting injuries, both physical and mental. The victims are both young and old. Hardworking Anguillians who find themselves stricken at the hands of young perpetrators who would seek to deprive them of their honest earnings. And young men with bright prospects who must now face the future with challenging handicaps. These victims and their families cannot “rejoice in the fact that we are living in a peaceful island” 

Mr. Webster’s admonition included in the same quotation was that: “we must continue to build and strengthen our nation through love and loyalty and to share these great virtues with each other”. But when we try to make sense out of these incidents of violence we are left to question where that love has gone. And further to ask what has happened to us as a people, when the very children whose future Mr. Webster and the leaders of the revolutionary period fought to secure are maiming and killing each other for no apparent reason. 

Our prisons are now overcrowded with young men who have made violence a way of life, oblivious to the dreams of their grandparents in 1967 of a “nation proud strong and free” --- and of a heritage preserved for them by honest work and sacrifice. It is obvious that a great amount of anger consumes our young men. What else could possess them to commit such senseless act of violence against each other and other innocent people in the community? What can we do to advance the building and strengthening of our nation “through love and loyalty” --- and save our young men? These are real questions, which must occupy our thoughts even as we celebrate the Birthday of the Father of our Nation. A nation that once brandished guns to secure peace and freedom --- now finds its peace and freedom threatened by guns in the hands of young men with no regard whatsoever for the consequences of their actions. 

The image of young Anguillians standing around listening to the comments and rebellious talk of adults congregating at an action spot during the Revolution brings back memories of the uncertainty of that period. It was, however, exciting for such youngsters for whom the whole affair was just another thrilling experience --- and more often than not, the opportunity to stay home from school. 

In this context, it was both nostalgic and inspirational to view a silent documentary of “Operation Sheepskin” --- “The Invasion of Anguilla” filmed in March 1969 by a videographer from the British team. I am grateful to one of my friends for sending me the link. And I encourage everyone who wants to get a sense of the passion and resolve of our people at that time, to linkup and view the film. 

I recognized many faces, forty-three years younger of course, including the likes of Bishop Errol Brooks, the late “Miss Joseph”, the late“John T”, Leslie E. Richardson, Pastor Davis Lloyd and many more persons among the throng of Anguillians who had come to the Court House to see for themselves what “these invaders” had in mind. It was serious business, smiles were rare, and the crowd of Anguillians were very much engaged and animated. 

Despite the lack of sound one can feel the emotion coming from the screen as the video rolls. And standing there, some very young bystanders, boys for the most part, completely absorbed in the proceedings; perhaps not even realizing that they were witnessing a bit of history in the making and the possibility of a brighter future for them. 

Of course, Mr. Webster was there in youthful vigor --- sometimes with the Bible in one hand and at other times with the Anguilla Flag. It is the picture of a Leader standing side by side with his people exuding confidence and hope. The whole film a compendium of images causing tears to “well-up” as one observes the unpretentious looks on the faces of Anguillians in their uncertainty with the outcome of this entire affair. It is a touching image and one which every child, student and adult should see. It would be a good thing to show this film to the “angry young men” that may even now be inspired by the positive images, which this documentary conjures up. 

Mr. Webster in the first quotation wrote: “Since May 30th, 1967, Anguilla has undergone a fundamental reconstruction. Despite our ups and downs we were able to cope with the many adverse situations. Our respective Governments have made it possible for every young Anguillian to receive a quality education and maintain a brighter hope for tomorrow as the island moves forward.” This statement of positive progress on the 40th Anniversary of the Anguilla Revolution contained in the Chief Minister’s Message is refreshing given our disappointment with some of our young men. But all is not lost! I believe that the recent Leeward Islands Debating Competition (LIDC) demonstrated the positive outcome of those opportunities that Mr. Webster spoke about in his Message. The Anguilla Debating Team “showed its stuff” in the 40th Anniversary of the LIDC, winning the Competition decisively against some very formidable Opponents from St Maarten, Montserrat and Antigua. 

At a time when our thoughts are occupied with the number of shootings in our island attributed to young men --- there is a tendency to put a negative label on the Youth as a body. In this context, many Anguillians have expressed great pride in the performance of our debating team. From the beginning to the end the debaters brought out the best of Anguilla and gave us all a reason to feel that our efforts have been put to good use and that the future of Anguilla is secured as these students make their way through tertiary education to positions of authority and prominence in our communities. But I believe that it goes even further because not only the Anguilla team but all the other teams and their supporters as well, have exhibited the highest level of decorum in their approach and professionalism in their presentations. In this sense it also augurs well for our region as a whole. 

There is no doubt that the Anguilla Debating Club is a “center of excellence” at the Albena Lake-Hodge Comprehensive School. A number of professionals in several fields of endeavour have come through the Club and are today either well settled in their careers or are still in the process of training. Kudos must go out to the many teachers, coaches and resources persons over the years that have worked diligently with them --- it goes to show that it is evolving into a community effort. But to the gladiators themselves who went to battle for their school and country belong the highest commendations. So, “big up!” to Deanna; Zipporah; Dayna; Mikeela, Senegal; and Jose’ you all made us proud! 

So as we reflect this week on the vision of the Father of the Nation on the occasion of his birthday, let us not be discouraged by the setbacks we now face --- there is still a lot of work to be done. We must stem the tide of violence in our communities with positive messages. Let us take Mr. Webster’s admonition to strengthen our nation through “love and loyalty” rather than “anger and hate” which seems to abound. 

The incivility that has become a feature of our behaviour at many levels cannot be helpful to this cause. We need to return to the tradition of mutual respect and civility that has characterized us as a people. Wherever we have traveled throughout the world to make an honest living we have demonstrated these qualities. Why should we be any less courteous and respectful at home? According to our victorious debating team: “I rest my case!”

By: Victor F. Banks

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

ANGUILLA'S CONSTITUTIONAL ILLUSIONS AND ANCHORING TRUTHS CONTINUE...

Letter to Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles

Mr. Fritz Smith - Chairman of the 

Anguilla United Front (AUF)

Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles

Chairman

The Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee

South Hill

Dear Dr Niles,

We are in possession of and have read the various provisions of the draft constitution which are in the process of being prepared as a result of the deliberations of the constitutional committee to date. Having read and discussed the said provisions, the Anguilla United Front Party (“the AUF”) is through this medium informing you that we have disassociated ourselves from this process and, our representative on the committee will not play any further role in the exercise, going forward. We have made this decision for the following reasons:

1. The draft provisions clearly indicate that the committee has deliberately ignored the current realities of the environment in which this exercise is taking place and are putting forward a document with the same amendments which the UK Government has already rejected for our sister Caribbean Overseas Territories as recent as eighteen (18) months ago. Every single UK Overseas Territory including Bermuda and the Cayman Islands have recognized and have accepted that the boundaries have been clearly established for the exercise of internal self-government. In this context, the present UK Coalition Government has made it clear in all of its position papers on the issue of full internal self-government that “the UK will not agree to a constitutional arrangement where we retain responsibilities without the necessary means to discharge them”. This is an exact quote from Mr. Simon Fraser, the FCO Permanent Under-Secretary at Government House, Old Ta, Anguilla on November 3, 2011. Based on this unambiguous statement by Mr Fraser, it is foreseeable that any constitution based on full internal self-government (and specifically any amendments which effectively reduce the powers of the Governor) at this point in time is likely not to be accepted by the UK Government. Our representative on your committee has indicated this view to you and other committee members in the past.

2. In recent statements Chief Minister Hughes has said that the committee is mandated to prepare a constitution geared to full internal self-government. While the AUF remains in favour of this option and in fact had discussions with the late Dame Bernice Lake on crafting a constitution to achieve this arrangement, given these clear boundaries set by the UK Government we believe that presenting such a document would be unnecessarily confrontational. The experience of the other Overseas Territories confirm this assessment. Further, the change in the UK Government in 2010 and the expressed position of the new coalition government in the UK clearly indicate that this is now not an option to which the UK Government will agree. 

3. The AUF believes that, based on the utterances of the Members of Government and more so of the Chief Minister, a rejection of the draft constitution based on full internal self-government by the UK Government, will lead to the usual and unnecessary confrontation between the Chief Minister and his colleagues and the UK Government. In addressing the issue of independence Mr Fraser has stated, “As we have often said, the British Government fully supports the principle of self-determination. Where independence is an option, as it is for Anguilla, and is the clearly and constitutionally expressed wish of the majority of the people of the Territory, the British Government will give every help to that Territory to achieve it”. Therefore, there need not be any tension with the UK Government in relation to independence.

4. It is therefore clear to us that, inasmuch as full internal self-government is no longer an option at this point in time, there are two (2) other real options available to Anguilla and Anguillians, 

(i) enhancing/improving our existing relationship with the UK as a British Overseas Territory; or 

(ii) deciding on the issue of independence.

If Anguillians choose to enhance/improve the existing relationship with the UK, then a revision of the Anguilla Constitution in the manner being currently drafted by the Committee becomes irrelevant. If, however, Anguillians choose to go independent (as evidenced by way of a referendum), then a new “independent” constitution will have to be prepared and taken to the people of Anguilla.

5. The current financial and fiscal condition of the country and the forecast for the near future must also be taken into account. In these times, the focus should be on restoring economic stability to Anguilla and doing so void of any controversy with the UK government over a draft constitution and independence for Anguilla. Such controversy could only serve to further destabilise our economy and damage our tourism product and investment opportunities, all of which have direct negative implications for our people.

Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles – Chairman of 

the Anguilla Constitutional and Electoral 

Reform Committee 

The AUF is therefore of the view that the course of action which the Government of Anguilla has embarked upon in relation to full internal self-government is ineffective and time consuming. We would suggest that the constitutional reform instead focus on the viability of options (i) and (ii) as aforementioned.

If, after appropriate consultation and education on the pros and cons of independence, our people decide to vote yes for independence, then the AUF will join with the Government of Anguilla in agreeing a time table for independence and lend its full support to the educational process. For the record, however, it should be known that while we call for a referendum in order to ascertain the views of the people, the AUF does not support independence for Anguilla at this time but we are in full support of a well thought through educational process on the pros and cons of independence. 

Please also be advised that our representative on the Committee has not accepted compensation for her appointment to the Committee. We would like suggest that said compensation be used for another worthy cause in Anguilla, such as the Anguilla Literary and Debating Society, which is now hosting the 40th Anniversary of the Leeward Islands Debating Competition.Yours sincerely

Mr. Fritz Smith - Chairman - Anguilla United Front (AUF) 

Cc. 
Honourable Chief Minister - Mr Hubert Hughes,

Honourable Minister of Home Affairs - Mr Walcott Richardson,

Honourable Minister of Social Development - Mr Edison Baird,

Honourable Minister of Infrastructure - Mr Evan Gumbs,

The Press

DEPUTY SPEAKER - PRESS RELEASE. RESPONSE TO SPEAKER ABUSE

Press Release

Deputy Speaker

Anguilla House of Assembly

Leroy Rogers

Hon. Leroy Rogers - Deputy speaker

On February 15th 2012 at a meeting of the House of Assembly I was viciously and wrongfully attacked by the Speaker of the House, Barbara Webster-Bourne from the Chair. All of us are aware that the House is a chamber where debates of national importance take place, and we expect from time to time the exuberance of members will result in tough discussions. However, one would expect that the Speaker, who is the referee of both sides, would uphold the rules of the House, be fair, be professional, do not misrepresent the facts, do not mislead the public, and refrain from attacking members.

Anguilla is a democratic country, and these principles must be upheld by the House, and particularly by the Speaker both in and out of the Chair. The actions of the Speaker should reflect the clear guidelines set out in the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the House, other Statutory Rules and Orders, and Parliamentary Conventions.

I was attacked personally from the Chair which has done nothing but reduce the office of Speaker to the level of a political attack dog. I was refused an opportunity to defend myself and set the record straight. It is a shame that members of the House do not have the privilege of responding to allegations made against them in the Anguilla House of Assembly by the Speaker. Each citizen has the right to defend himself accorded by the Constitution. It would seem that the Constitution applies everywhere except in the House of Assembly. This is what the operations of the House have come to in Anguilla; members are denied their right to respond as the Chair lauds its power in an undemocratic and unprofessional manner. It is being run like a dictatorship. So I have to resort to this medium to present the truth of the situation to the members of the house and the public.

If a Speaker is concerned about comments that were attributed to a member it is incumbent upon them to seek clarification from that member on the matter in a level-headed and professional way. 

Hon. Barbara Webster-Bourne - Speaker 

The Speaker used her privilege in the House to once again usurp the power of the Chair on February 15th, 2012. Under the agenda section entitled “Announcements by the Direction of the Speaker” she proceeded to level an allegation that I went “on public broadcasting media with respect to the last sitting of the Anguilla House of Assembly that took place on January 16th, 2012 in which the Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment Bill was debated in its second and third readings of which he said I had no right of opinion.”

Firstly, the allegation that I went to the media is absolutely wrong. I was contacted by Radio Anguilla, because of my experience and knowledge of the rules of the House, and was asked if the Speaker was right to be giving her opinion on whether a section of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment Bill should be further amended. This amendment was already on the floor being debated by members, in Committee Stage, and it related to the reduction of a fine to a lower level. I was informed by Radio Anguilla that the Speaker gave her opinion on reducing the fine and further indicated how she would vote on the matter.

I believe I have a right to educate the public on the procedures of the House, as I have done for almost twenty (20) years. My response to Radio Anguilla was that the Speaker’s role, among others, is to convene meetings, preside over the meetings, enforce the rules fairly, and not get involved in debate while Assembly is in session or in committee. My opinion, even after her tirade in the House, remains the same, and I will always give my opinion when asked.

In defence of her position that she has the right and authority to take part in debate in the House of Assembly the Speaker quoted Legislative Assembly Procedure Rules 1976 Section 55 (2) a, Section 2 (g), and Section 53 (2) of the Anguilla Constitutional Order 1982. She also indicated that based on these sections she can refuse or accept such amendments as put forth.

Anybody who uses these provisions to justify the Speaker’s position on this matter is either unaware of the details of the sections she quoted as giving her this authority, or is deliberately attempting to mislead the public in this matter by misinterpreting the said provisions.

In fact, I challenge the Speaker to release the advice of the Attorney General in its entirety with regard to the matter at hand. Through vague reference she implied that her position was supported by the Attorney General. In the furtherance of transparency I suggest that if indeed this is the case, then there should be no problem releasing the document.

Section 55 (2) g of the Rules of Procedure states: “The Speaker or presiding member may refuse to put an amendment which is in his opinion frivolous.” That is the extent of the Speaker’s involvement in the amendment. This amendment was not frivolous, it was not deemed by the Speaker to be frivolous; therefore it was up to the members to decide on the matter not the Speaker. Her opinion on this matter was not appropriate. It could be construed as being biased, and can never be justified.

Section 55 (2) a states: “In settling a bill in Committee any member may move an amendment or, without making a formal motion may suggest an amendment or, may ask for information respecting any part of the bill or any proposed amendment.” It is obvious that the Speaker is of the opinion that she is a member of the House of Assembly. She is not a member of the House, and her opinion that she is a member has been the crux of numerous issues and problems over the last two years.

Section 53 (2) of the Constitution states: “The Speaker or other member presiding shall not vote unless on any question the votes are divided equally, in which case he shall have and exercise a casting vote.” It is still amazing to me how this provision grants the Speaker authority and the right to enter debate and give an opinion on the amendment on the floor. At no time when this matter was in Committee was a vote called on the amendment which resulted in a tie. Only this eventuality would then necessitate a casting vote by the Speaker, and even then she should vote to maintain the status quo. This is the convention of using the casting vote. It is so designed because the Speaker is not a legislator and should not be making new law unanimously, but rather should give it a chance to be brought back to the House by the people’s representatives.

For the avoidance of doubt the Speaker is not a member of the House. The Anguilla Constitution in Section 35 (2) b, c and d sets out the members: two ex-officio members, namely Attorney-General and Deputy Governor, seven members elected by law, and two nominated members appointed by the Governor. There are no other members of the House. The office of Speaker is established under Section 35 (2) a of the Constitution which is totally different from a member as established in the section mentioned above. Section 50 (5) clearly indicates that the Speaker presides over the House. I challenge The Speaker to indicate the section of the Constitution where the Speaker is referred to as a member of the House. 

In the role as presiding officer the Speaker should always be neutral and treat both sides of the House fairly. It is important that the Speaker must also be perceived to be neutral. To achieve this he or she must relinquish all political offices, should not be attending or chairing party meetings, should not be taking directions from the political directorate, refrain from supporting the opinion of one side over the other (even in giving opinions on amendments on the floor), should not let one side ramble and interject irrelevant matters into the debate while shutting down the other side, and must defend the rights of the minority. It is important to note that if these are not done then a Speaker will not be perceived as being neutral and independent.

A Speaker is the Speaker of the whole House: Government, Opposition, Nominated and Ex-Officio Members. A Speaker must divorce himself/herself from political influences. A Speaker should study and understand the rules, practices, conventions, principles, laws and constitutional provisions that pertain to the office of Speaker and the operations of the House of Assembly, and enforce them fairly. 

The Speaker made a reference to my tenure as Speaker of the House of Assembly. I can categorically state that during my tenure I did not refuse to sign bills that were duly passed by the House, I did not withdraw bills from the floor without the consent of the members of the House, and I never ignored advice from the Attorney General with regard to proper parliamentary procedure and conventions. In fact, all of my actions while I was Speaker can withstand judicial scrutiny in any jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. 

I would encourage any Speaker to be familiar with Erskine May’s “Parliamentary Practice” published in 1844, with its latest edition of June 30th, 2011 now available. It is sometimes called the Parliamentary Bible for the entire family of Commonwealth parliaments.

I am not afraid to voice my countervailing position to either the Speaker or the political operatives who have engaged me on this matter since the last sitting of the House of Assembly. I served as Speaker of the Anguilla house of Assembly for 11 years, I served as a member of the executive committee of the international Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for 3 years, and I served as President of the regional branch of the commonwealth Parliamentary association (CPA). I gained invaluable knowledge and exposure from these experiences. I will educate the Public whenever and wherever I am called on to do so.

Leroy C. Rogers

Second Nominated Member

Deputy Speaker

Anguilla House of Assembly

cc: Speaker

All members of the house

Media

“ANOTHER JOY RIDE?”

Mr. Victor F. Banks - The Anguilla United Front Party Leader

Last week on an interview on ATV Television Channel Three there was a very revealing exchange between the Host of the Show, Mr. Wycliffe Richardson and the Chief Minister, Hon. Hubert B. Hughes. Here is the actual text of that exchange for your information and amusement: 

Host (Wycliffe Richardson): “Chief Minister you have made a number of pronouncements both in the House of Assembly, even in today’s session, and other media about the past Minister of Finance, Victor Banks, basically that he is corrupt or has been involved in corrupt practices. Do you on this second anniversary of your election ---- of your Anguilla United Movement Party stand by those statements you made in the past and continue to make about Mr. Banks.” 

Mr. Hubert Hughes: “Sir, Statements are made by all sorts and conditions of people --- as far as I am concerned when I make a statement I sometimes don’t even recall what I have said. I said what I say at the appropriate time and place and I do not intend to repeat any of the statements on this forum” 

I would like to “tip my hat” to Mr. Richardson not so much in terms of the question he asked --- but definitely in terms of his demeanour when Mr. Hughes responded. Mr. Richardson just simply went on to the next question “without batting an eyelid.” However, Mr. Hughes’s answer is instructive because he confirms exactly what I have been saying for the past twelve years, namely, that he and his colleagues continue to be cowardly in the manner in which they slander and denigrate members of our Party (the AUF). They use the anonymity of the Blogs with fictitious names and they use the shelter of “parliamentary privilege” in the House of Assembly (HoA) to carry out their dastardly acts of character assassination and slander. Quite recently, they seem to have been coached by their legal advisors to use the term “alleged” so as to cover up the most baseless accusations against our members. 

I continue to say that I will not use the anonymity of the blogs or the shelter of the House of Assembly to say what I have to say about Mr. Hughes and his colleagues. My comments will be made on public media of all kind; under my own name; in my own voice; and in my own column. I can do so confidently because I will only tell the truth. I have challenged Mr. Hughes legally, on at least two occasions, and I was awarded both damages and costs. He has had to pay financially for his “lying ways” but now he seems to believe that this (the HoA) is the way he can continue to tell lies, make false accusations, and slander his opponents without fear of legal action. 

His response on the ATV interview is a clear indictment of his lack of honesty and integrity, when he states that he does not even recall the statements that he makes about people. And the fact that he admits that he is selective about the forums on which he is prepared to make certain statements --- is proof that he deliberately chooses where he can tell lies with impunity. The truth is the defense against charges of libel and slander. I have been writing my column for almost two years and have fearlessly attacked the members of the Government for their indiscretions and misconduct --- I have yet to be challenged by any of them for libel or slander --- my defense is that I will only speak truth to the media and on the political platforms. This Government has made “lies, slander and false witness” a “best practice” in their approach to politics --- and seem to become “unhinged” when their opponents use the truth against them. 

In keeping with this attitude of providing the facts as a “best practice” for the Anguilla United Front (AUF) last week I asked the following question in my article “And the beat goes on!”: “The Government has informed us that it is intended that the “Levy” will come to an end on 31st December 2012 at which time a National Health Insurance System will be introduced. What is the Government doing to adequately provide for such a transition if such is still being considered?” 

I asked that question out of concern for the absence of any real public dialogue on the issue of the National Health Fund which was at an advanced stage of discussion under the AUF administration before the global economic crisis struck. In my role as one of the lead Ministers in the discussions National Health Fund, I had commissioned my Senior Advisor, Mr. Marcel Fahie to present a discussion paper on “Targeted Financing for the Social Sector” which he produced on May 11, 2007. It was a comprehensive paper that not only dealt with the National Health Fund but which contemplated the need to go beyond that to a Social Development Fund. Its objective was to “spread the burden of universal health coverage among those able to pay and create a social development fund to provide earmarked revenue to finance the Government’s program in response to the social challenges facing Anguilla.” 

One of the key aspects of our approach to the implementation of the National Health Fund was that it must not fail. In that context, we decided to be painstaking in our implementation process and get it right the first time. When I asked the question in my column, it came out of a real concern that the Government could again find itself in a position where it could end up with “a rush job” --- plagued with problems like the infamous Interim Stabilization Levy. I therefore wanted to highlight it as a major agenda item for this new Government in the remainder of its term. But “lo and behold!” as if in response to my question I hear that the Government is sending a five person team including Hon Chief Minister Hubert Hughes, Hon. Jerome Roberts, Board Members Alkins Rogers and Pastor Hugo Brooks, and Maglan Richardson, Deputy Director, to visit the TCI to look at their National Health Insurance Plan with a view to implementing a similar plan here in 2013. A team from the Social Security Board, together with its Actuary, made a similar visit about a year ago. I expect that the Actuary will join the team in the TCI, again. 

I don’t want to cast any aspersions of the composition of the team but it does comprise mainly persons associated with the Social Security System as if to suggest that this will be another Social Security Project. This is not what the National Health Fund should be all about --- two very important components are missing, namely, the Health Authority and technocrats from the Ministry of Finance. While the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) struggle to meet commitments made to InterHealth Canada to pay for the territory’s new hospitals, and the Social Security Board there (called the National Insurance Board or NIB) fights to keep the funds it says are reserved for pensions and other commitments from being reassigned for other purposes, the Anguilla Social Security Board appears to be running full speed in the opposite direction, with Chief Minister Hubert Hughes and his colleague the Hon. Jerome Roberts in tow. The current events in the TCI make one wonder as to the wisdom of these visits and the dangers the proposals that this team appear to have in mind can pose to the survival of the Anguilla Social Security Fund. 

As we speak the Interim Government of the TCI has been pursuing a claim for a transfer of US$10 million from the TCI National Insurance Board (NIB) to pay into the Health Insurance Plan. According to the TCI Sun, Chairman for the NIB Ervine Quelch told a news conference on Thursday, February 16, that Governor Ric Todd’s announcement in October last year to transfer the funds, which would eventually be given to the National Health Insurance Board (NHIB), took the Board by surprise. This move has been resisted by the NIB, which says the $10 million that the Governor wants to force the Board to give to Government should be saved for possible future shortfalls in pension funds. Last week the NIB began legal action to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation authorizing the transfer. This is the tangled web that Anguilla’s experts have dived into. 

When the past (AUF) administration was pursuing the implementation of the National Health Fund in Anguilla, plans were well advanced with an Act being passed and a Shadow Board in place. Those plans called for the Social Security Board to play certain administrative roles, such as collection of contributions and accounting. However, there was to be absolutely no inter-mingling of the two funds. There was to be no possibility of transfers from the Social Security Fund to the National Health Fund. This was based upon the best actuarial advice to ensure that funds allocated to pay future pensions are not diverted into more current health expenditures. However, the self-proclaimed experts who have taken over the administration of the Social Security System in Anguilla seem “hell-bent” on doing exactly the opposite, thus putting the entire sustainability of the Social Security Fund at risk. Since these costs are apparently being borne by the Social Security Board, it is apparent that the Board is going directly down that dangerous path. 

Anguillians must be vigilant to ensure that this does not happen. All of us would wish to have a more efficient mechanism of funding our health system, but we can never allow our Social Security System to be put at risk to achieve this. We must ensure that monies being put aside now for future pensions, are used for that purpose only! 

One can only wonder what are the views of the Hon. Minister of Health, Edison Baird who is actually charged with the implementation of the National Health Fund under the Act? Or even whether his opinion matters at all, since he has been excluded from the delegation? Based on the way things are being done these days it may even be fair to ask, is this activity sanctioned by the Executive Council? 

What is also very worrying is the fact that this Government seems to be seeking a lot of guidance from the Turks and Caicos Islands these days. I understand that once more an “expert from TCI is coming in to talk to us about Independence at a time when they are struggling with “higher supervision” as a result in a breakdown in their governance system. We support our brothers and sisters in TCI in their struggle but we need to question the applicability of their solutions to the issues we face. During the period of our Administration the reverse was the case. Our Social Security System was considered a model for the region including TCI; pioneers in our banking sector were traveling to TCI regularly to advise on indigenous banking; the TCI Government was exploring our system of transshipment of aluminum to the EU; the TCI Government were looking at our Tourism Investment Committee as a “best practice” in Tourism; the TCI Government were looking at how we implemented the “earned pension” plan in our public service; and so on. Should the Chief Minister be leading a delegation to TCI at this time to adopt their model of a National Health Insurance Board without having a clear idea of the issues involved and at a time when they themselves are facing a crisis? 

Like I did almost two years ago when the Chief Minister and his Ministers and advisers were using the Social Security Board as a means of attacking the Indigenous Banks; taking over ANGLEC; and pledging the fund against a questionable US$200 million loan --- I believe that it is my duty to bring to the attention of beneficiaries of and contributors to the Social Security Fund, namely, almost every Anguillian and Resident of Anguilla, the potential danger of this cavalier approach to dealing with this very complex issue. 

As I said earlier, the National Health Fund once implemented cannot fail! And it would be a shame to know that this administration in its eagerness to amend the mistakes of the Interim Stabilzation Levy is now planning to embark on a course of action, which can reverse the thirty-year old success story of the Social Security System of Anguilla. We must never allow this great legacy of the Father of the Nation as well as the Father of our Social Security System, the Hon. James Ronald Webster, to come to naught and his vision of social justice for his people be blindsided by this reckless venture. The question has been raised as to whether this trip is really designed to take a critical look at the National Health Insurance Fund in the Turks and Caicos Islands --- or is it just another joy ride!

By: Victor F. Banks

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

PRESS STATEMENT BY HON. CHIEF MINISTER, HUBERT B. HUGHES ON 17/2/2012 3:00 PM

Good afternoon

Hon Chief Minister and Minister for Finance,
Economic Development, Investment and Tourism 

I am aware that many Anguillians and visitors alike have been concerned about the state of affairs at Cap Juluca over the past months. In particular, I am aware that staff have become very anxious at statements being made about the future of the hotel.

The Government of Anguilla has been following events at Cap Juluca before the appointment of the Liquidator in early November of last year, and Executive Council has made it clear on many occasions, notably our statement of 7 November 2011, that our over-riding priority is to keep Cap Juluca open as a going concern. This remains our main objective.

Government is acutely aware of the prominence Cap Juluca holds as an important part of our tourism product, its importance to the economy of Anguilla, and its profound significance to its employees and by extension their family and dependents.

Against that background we have encouraged the various parties to reach an agreement on the best way forward, and set deadlines for progress to be made. Unfortunately agreement has not been reached.

We have therefore written to the parties and have requested that they make presentations to Executive Council on Friday 24 February, 2012. The parties will come to EXCO, individually or in groups, to set out their plans for the resort. The Government will then be in a position to decide on the best way forward shortly after those presentations are made. The Liquidator has informed us that that he will be able to keep the resort open until this process is complete. 

The Government of Anguilla has been working with many developers over the last two years to resurrect defunct properties, steady existing ones and start some new projects. These efforts are geared towards ensuring that our tourism product and plant are in good stead well into the future. This approach will also ensure that when the global economy rebounds the island will be in a good position to reap early dividends from the global travel market. 

A failed Cap Juluca would strike a devastating blow to our tourism product and would remove from the market what has been one of Anguilla’s most endearing properties for over a quarter century. In addition, it will fuel the perception of failure already ignited by the closure of another long-standing prominent property. Failure is not a word synonymous with Anguilla or its history. 

Government is of the opinion that the main objective of the stakeholders must be to place Cap Juluca on a secure footing that allows it to pay back its loans, meet its recurrent commitments, fund future development, provide value for its investors, secure the jobs of hundreds of residents, and to continue to contribute to our economic development.

The untenable ownership situation at the resort cannot continue for many reasons. Chief among them are: (1) the property is in dire need of capital injection, (2) to continue trading for the benefit of investors, GOA, employees, guests and the community at large the property needs a supportive and nurturing environment, and (3) Cap Juluca needs to be reestablished as one of the dominant tourism properties in Anguilla. None of these three objectives can be met if ownership issues are not resolved in short measure.

It is to be noted, however, that the Government continues to reserve its right to act unilaterally in the interests of Anguilla on this matter and we will do everything within our power to ensure that no jobs are lost and Cap Juluca continues to operate. To the Julucans, I say, continue to give that great service and rest assured that your Government will continue to work for you. 

God bless you and may God continue to bless Anguilla

“AND THE BEAT GOES ON!”

It is now exactly two years since the Anguilla United Movement (AUM) Government ascended to Office under the leadership of the Hon. Chief Minister, Hubert B. Hughes. It came to office during a time when the region was just “coming to grips” with the impacts of the global economic crisis and the smaller islands, especially vulnerable to all kinds of external shocks, were grappling with solutions for what they expected to be a short-term situation. The Government was “fresh” from an election campaign where they took advantage of the dire economic conditions by suggesting that it was totally the result of the policies and actions of the past Anguilla United Front (AUF) Government. They embellished their case by using lies, half-truths and innuendos. According to the Minister of Social Development, the Hon. Edison Baird in his “Confessions” entitled “Who runs Anguilla”: “It was our finest hour!” Those finest hours have now become a “millstone” around the necks of Anguillians and other residents on the island. 

Don’t get me wrong! The global economic situation is not of the Government’s making. However, they have not fulfilled their promises in areas where they should have been able to do so mainly because they have spent so much time making excuses rather than finding solutions; “adopting a strategy of confrontation rather than conflict resolution”; “indulging in political victimization rather than promoting national consolidation”; speaking out against nepotism and patronage while embracing it in its worst forms; running the government from the talk shows rather than from the Executive Council; preaching unity while practicing divisionism; extolling the virtues of good governance while ignoring its fundamental principles as enshrined in our constitution, rules, regulations and laws; and using lies, half-truths, “scapegoats” and “smoke screens” of all kinds to mask their incompetence and inability to deal with the critical challenges facing Anguilla at this time. 

As I mentioned last week I remain impressed with the level of restraint exercised by the Chief Minister and in fact the entire Government over the past three weeks even while we hear rumours about the situation at Cap Juluca. We hope that the biblical image of “a lamb being dumb before its shearer” is not applicable in this case --- because there are many employees, contractors and suppliers who need to be assured that Government is being properly advised on the handling of this matter. And I will use this medium yet another time to assure the Chief Minister of our (the AUF’s) full support of a well-thought-out strategy to bring about a positive outcome to this challenging issue. I therefore hope that Government’s silence is not a sign of surrender --- but a sign of a more “studied approach”. 

I challenged the Government in my first column for this year entitled: “Hope in 2012”. I wrote: “Next year will be a milestone year for the Anguilla United Movement Government. On August 15, 2012 the Government would have been in Office for half of its term. On October 15, 2012 the Chief Minister will be blessed to celebrate his eightieth birthday (subsequently I have been informed that it will be his 79th). We therefore hope that this year will make a difference in the way the Government sees its legacy. Halfway through its term of office and led by a Leader who must now be concerned about posterity it would be most appropriate and welcomed if the Government would now focus on delivering on the promises they made to the people of Anguilla. We hope that the Government will have a sense of history in 2012!” 

Firstly, my feeling of hope was based on the thesis that the unrelenting pressures on the economy could only be dealt with by a new approach and that it was high time for the Government to recognize that after almost two years in the driver’s seat the “blame game” has lost its credibility. Secondly, that a Chief Minister who had never had a successful term of his own making would want to make his mark, especially since it is the first time that a party, which he led, won a clear majority in the Anguilla House of Assembly. 

The opening days of 2012, however promised more of the same as the Chief Minister continued his usual conspiracy theories about the budget process and later clearly showed his insensitivity to the real issues facing Anguillians by using his office to expedite his own personal financial interests. I am of course referring, particularly, to the EC$40,000 payment he (The CM) facilitated for himself through EXCO for the payment of a fifteen year old phone bill that he claimed to have “run up” in twenty-eight months from his home with official calls he made while he was Chief Minister in 1994 to 2000. 

Those two incidents, namely, the “hullabaloo” over the late assent of the budget and EC$40,000 questionable payment to himself, reinforce two points that I have been making for the last two years. Firstly, either the Chief Minister does not understand his role in the governance process or he is deliberately using the Governor and the British Government as “scapegoats” to advance his independence agenda. Secondly, that the Chief Minister does not believe that the rules and procedures apply to him. Given his rigid defense of both these incidents over the various media using the same conspiratorial and confrontational approach, it is obvious that the Chief Minister is unlikely to change his approach in 2012. 

Let me raise some concerns and issues that remain unresolved over the last two years that the Government needs to fix as it enters its third year in office. I will also include some new ones that are emerging as well. The list is not exhaustive but will give you an idea of the need for the Government to begin to take charge and perform the functions for which they were elected as follows: 

• The issues of the Board and Management of Social Security remain unresolved. The Director of Social Security was publicly ridiculed and abused in the House of Assembly by the Chief Minister/Minister responsible for Social Security and he now seems to have no real function; Staff members are complaining of victimization; and morale is at an all time low.

• Interference in the management and policy issues of ANGLEC continue to frustrate the company’s efforts to operate as an independent entity regulated by Government.

• Nepotism and Cronyism seem to be used as a means of controlling various Boards and Committees without any real concern for the competencies required.

• The Management and Staff of Radio Anguilla, are reported to have been reprimanded by the Chief Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs, for making their services available and accessible to groups, individuals and other entities that may not be supportive of the views of the AUM Government.

• The Interim Stabilization Levy is still proving to be a “bad law”! When will the Government resolve the issues of fairness and equity in its application and amend the “IRS style” penalties, which continue to terrorize and criminalize Anguillians?

• The Government has informed us that it is intended that the “Levy” will come to an end on 31st December 2012 at which time a National Health Insurance System will be introduced. What is the Government doing to adequately provide for such a transition if such is still being considered?

• It was agreed in 2008/2009 that reductions made to Public Servant’s salaries would be reimbursed when the economy turns around. What is the Government doing to reach a principled agreement with public servants given the need to rationalize this commitment in the context of the sustained nature of the global economic crisis?

• The Government has been pushing about the issue of Independence. They see Independence as the answer to our present woes both administrative and economic. Will the Government call a referendum after adequate consultations to determine the views of the people, rather than waste precious time and resources in meaningless posturing at a time when we should be focusing on bread and butter issues?

• The Chief Minister is unable to maintain a united government given the existence of a “rogue minister” in the person of the Minister of Social Development, Hon. Edison Baird. Will there be any reconciliation this year so as to create harmony within his (the CM’s) government?

• Will there be any additional taxation measures imposed in 2012? Will the Chief Minister continue to contend that present and future taxes are British taxes?

• Will there be further public consultations on the Constitution this year?

• Will any of the several projects for which MoU’s have been concluded over the past two years start any time soon? And will the difference between MoUs and MoAs be explained to Anguillians?

• Will the Education Bill be passed this year?

• Will the issues associated with crimes against persons, firearms, drugs and gang violence, be articulated more forcefully by the elected and nominated members of the Government rather than just the Police Force and the Health Authority?

• Will the AUM Government, its advisors and vocal supporters curtail the level of incivility and discourteous conduct that they continue to exhibit on the airwaves?

I have discussed many of these issues with a number of Anguillians and other residents as they relate to the remainder of the AUM term of Office. And I have in fact left out some very significant matters because they relate to ongoing Court cases and other sensitive negotiations. It would be irresponsible to bring them into the public domain just to make political points. But the most wide spread reaction from many of the respondents; is a total lack of confidence in the ability of members this AUM Government to make the necessary adjustments to their style, attitude and approach --- in order to arrive at positive outcomes. One good friend in an obvious expression of despair wrote to me: “And the beat goes on! ---- Where will it ever end?”

By Victor F. Banks

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