McLean:Breaches make Cayman a banana republic
(CNS): Irregularities on Election Day and the question surrounding the possible disqualification of the two UDP Bodden Town MLAs was raised by both the elected member for East End, Arden McLean, and third elected member for George Town, Alden McLaughlin, in their first speeches for this parliamentary session in the Legislative Assembly from the opposition benches last week. Both former government ministers and PPM members said the issues regarding the breach of the constitution were of immense concern and McLean said such behaviour would make Cayman a banana republic.
Following the official ceremonial swearing in last Wednesday, 27 May, McLean told the Legislative Assembly of the MLAs that there was a cloud of suspicion and uncertainty regarding the Constitution. “I am concerned as it sets an unhealthy precedent,” he said. “I have the utmost respect for all people who are elected, but it is not about those people; it’s about the tenets of democracy etched in stone in the Constitution, which has guided this country since 1972 … If we allow breaches in our Constitution to go unchallenged, we will forever be a banana republic.”
He noted that the governor had made a public statement saying it was not his responsibility. “Obviously he has no responsibility for anything, it appears,” McLean added.
He said while people may say he is stirring something, he said it was necessary to speak on these issues regardless of who is affected. Mclean stated that he had witnessed a number of things in the general election and campaign that he considered foreign to the Cayman Islands, and while he understood the thrust of politics and the acrimony, he said we had to be extremely careful.
During his speech, his former Cabinet colleague, McLaughlin, said that two things had marred this election, including the question of the disqualification, but the opposition had decided not to challenge the constitutionality of the swearing in of the two Bodden Town members.
“We did that because we feel that as the losers in the democratic process, where there is a clear indication by the electorate that they wanted these two members, it is not the right thing for us to challenge, but we remain concerned,” he said. “It cannot be right for those who are the guardians of the Constitution and the law to simply avoid their duty to uphold the rule of law — they have no higher duty.”
He also specifically raised the accusation made against the George Town UDP candidates that they were handing out cards with voting instructions on them to people who went to the George Town Primary and Prospect polling stations. Producing a copy of the card he said he had born witness to certain activities which were untoward.
“I sat in my car and asked a supporter of ours to attend the UDP tent, where she was handed (this) card with the four UDP candidates and their numbers and she was encouraged to vote for these four,” he said. “This is a pre-printed card, a clear indication of an organised effort to influence voters. We have a duty as candidates … to be sure that this kind of behaviour does not creep in and undermine the election processes.”
He added, however, that he did not believe it necessarily impacted the vote but the matter was now in the hands of the police and the Elections Office.
Both Rolston Anglin and Cline Glidden responded to the two opposition members, with Anglin pointing to the mobile voting as the only thing that marred the democratic process, while Glidden warned McLean not to call Cayman a banana republic. “I know there is much talk and concern about the lack of respect internationally for the Cayman Islands,” Glidden said. “When we consider the challenges that will cause, it will go a long way if the elected representatives in this Legislative Assembly and that past ministers of the Legislative Assembly would refrain from … using such irresponsible statements or referring to the Cayman Islands as a banana republic.”
He said he hoped it was no more than sour grapes and bad feelings about the result. He said that other representatives in the House had not fully declared their interests in the register on time either (although this is not the constitutional question) and he said that he had been in the same position as them, but if people were to look back at the Hansard in the wake of the last election there was no whining and complaining.
Category: Headline News
The status grants were done by order in council…they are irriversable. Our government, UDP, PPM, or otherwise can do NOTHING to reverse these grants. What is done is done.
I’ve read the relevant section of the constitution (the new constitution as taken from http://www.gov.ky, but I am told the relevant section is unchanged from the current constitution). I keep coming to the same conclusion – that the two Bodden Town candidates were completely compliant with the disclosure clause. The clause states:
62.-(1) No person shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly who –.
To me, this clearly states that the disclosure should take place within the one month window immediately preceding the election. Everybody seems to be discussing it as though the disclosure should take place more than one month prior to the election, but that view is certainly not supported here. My opinion is that the section was intentionally drafted this way to prevent unreasonably early disclosure. For example, you would not want a candidate to declare interests 6 months before the election since it would not be fresh in the minds of the voters as they went to vote. In fact, there is no other time limit given. What would stop a candidate from saying "I disclosed my interest in a government contract in 1983 and therefore have complied with this section of the constitution". With the one month window for disclosure, all voters will have current information when they go to the polls to cast their votes.
If my interpretation is correct, then the obvious next question is which candidates declared more than one month prior to the election and are therefore in breach of 61 (2) (g) of the constitution? It’s my opinion that the Bodden Town candidates have done nothing wrong, and perhaps many other candidates have inadvertently breached the terms of the constitution. In either case, the intent of the clause was upheld by all candidates and the result of an election should not depend on such a technicality.
For the record, I am an expatriate who does not have the right to vote and I do not support either political party. To me this is a purely academic exercise. I welcome any further comments or insights.
Just Curious, your problem seems to be that you are not actually quoting from our current Constitution (which does not contain 62 sections) but instead from the draft Constitution. It should have given you a clue that everyone is quoting section 19(1)(g) which reads as follows:
Reply to Submitted by Just Curious (not verified) on Wed, 06/03/2009 – 11:12
Just curious: "To me, this clearly states that the disclosure should take place within the one month window immediately preceding the election"
I actually heard someone else on the talk show with this point and he could not grasp the meaning of the wording either. The key word that you failed to highlight in your post is the word "Not."
….and has NOT, within the period of one month immediately preceding the date of an election in which he or she is a candidate, caused to be published a Government Notice setting out the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of any such firm or company, in it;
This means that the declaration should NOT take place during this time; meaning it should have taken place PRIOR to 30 days of the date of the election.
So indeed the two candidates were not compliant with the constitution. Hope this helps.
Thanks to RVT-D and Anonymous for your feedback. Anonymous seems to have sovled my problem since I was relying on the new draft constitution and that I had been told the relevant section had not changed. You are right, it is interesting that this section of text has changed in the new constitution – but I’m sure it will be discussed at length long before the next general election. Also a good point about the text clearly referring to candidates in the election, which cannot be established until nomination day. For RVT-D, there is a double negative in the wording in the new constitution in that (paraphrasing) "62 (1) No person shall be qualified who … (g) has a government contract and has not declared it". So I still maintain my position that under the new constitution (which clearly doesn’t apply in this case), the BT candidates would have been in compliance. It would be valid to declare such interests the day before the election, but I think it would be political suicide for the candidate who waited until the last available day. Thanks for your responses.
Arden lives in Bodden Town. Therefore I would assume that he’s a registered BT voter…. In other words he is eligible to challenge the seats of Mark and Dwayne. So Arden needs to ‘put up or shut up’. If he feels so strongly about this then he should challenge them himself rather than forcing the country to pay for anything else.
PPM needs to stop blaming the Governor and the AG for their inability to make difficult decisions! That’s all they do is blame others for their mistakes:
By NO MEANS am I a UDP supporter. The UDP ran one of the nastiest campaigns in Cayman’s history. But the PPM are just dispicable. Their arrogance and ineptitude will effect this country for years!
NO PPM supporter or member should even talk about challenging Mark or Dwayne unless their Leader Kurt Tibbets, Arden Mclean, Ozzie, Chuckie, Anthony step up and challenge it. The constitution states that they are all just as eligible and responsible for challenging Mark and Dwayne as the Attorney General.
I must say that as former PPM supporter I am ashamed of their lacsadacial mentality.
When the PPM won the election prior to this one they were going to do everything in their power to reverse the status grants, and then as quickly as they sat in their high seats in the LA they forgot to pursue the matter rigorously and deligently. What was worse, they abandoned their supporters and members. They never came out and officially told us what happened.
Do you think for one minute if this slue of mass status grants were done by the PPM ,that the UDP wouldn’t have pursued them to the fullest extent? I assure you that Mckeeva would have ammended those cabinet granted status to one individual and that individual would have the previlages of the grant only; not their off spring, spouses etc. He would have restricted those status grants that they would have no voting rights; limit the amount of businesses the individual owned; land and property as well.
What did the PPM do for us their supporters. NOTHING!! They abandoned us and left us perplexed about what had transpired and we had to hear from rumours on the street what had occurred which was the UK would not allow them to overturn the grants. That was such BULL, they had the full support of the majority of the Caymanian community supporting them, and that was all the reason they need to have these mass grants overturned or have restrictions applied to them. Because they did not follow proper protocal.
Therefore, I who was a big time supporter switched parties, I may not care too hoots about some of the UDP party members or elected members but I can assure you one thing, I am not going to sail on a ship with a captain with no guts. I want to know that I am on a ship with a captain who has the guts to steer us through the roughest storms and avoid the reefs at the same time. So to the former LOGB and his Ministers I am insulted by your behaviour, your stance and the fact that you abandoned us your major supporters.
I am now a UDP supporter and until they prove to me that they are steering our ship onto rocky ground I will continue to support them, or until a third party system is resurrected and challenges these two.
The UDP Government should put the PPM elected members to work too. We the people don’t want them to be sitting up there in their high chairs collecting $100K per annum and doing absolutely nothing. PUT THEM TO WORK! Maybe by the end of the four years they will switch parties too! (Oh my wishful thinking cap-nothing is impossible!)
God bless these islands, and annoint and bless our new leaders that they will do what is best for the people and the country always.
Thank you forpublishing my post.
How could the PPM challenge the status grants and reverse them when only God knows how many they submitted. Wouldn’t that be "cutting off your nose to spite your face"?
Excellent analogy! The PPM showed up with their lists for status grants too that is why they hardly ever mentioned it during their campaign. It was always their supporters who were sent to do that dirty job on the talk shows and in other media. Some of them got status for their helpers, in-laws (ask Alden about that) and other useful people them. They are such hippocrites.
I too would like to know how many statuses were granted while the PPM was in power?? Very good questions, and yes I agree that is why they didn’t bring in up during their campaign.
"I too would like to know how many statuses were granted while the PPM was in power?? Very good questions, and yes I agree that is why they didn’t bring in up during their campaign".
As I recall the PPM changed the law so this could no longer happen. Clearly if the PPm had made grants the UDP would have been all over it in their campaign and you would not be asking this rather silly question.
Rubbish. To my knowledge none of the PPM MLA’s at the time of these grants submitted any name for the status grants. How could Alden get status for his in-laws when they are West Bayers of several generations?
I guess that it is hard to swallow that some people have more ethics than others.
"If you just stated that challenging this is not the right thing for you to do, then how do you expect to encourage anyone else in the country to challenge this! ie the AG, Governor or BT electorates."
I agree and the question still remains…….why isnt the opposition challenging this?
“It cannot be right for those who are the guardians of the Constitution and the law to simply avoid their duty to uphold the rule of law — they have no higher duty.”
Two wrongs dont make it right. Yes, the guardians of the Constitution and the law should uphold the rule of the law and clearly they have let us down. However, the Opposition’s main role is to question the government of the day and hold them accountable to the public. The Opposition should represent the people as they have no higher duty.
Ossie clearly stated that he was going to challenge it. So what happended? Anthony can also challenge it as a BT voter and candidate. I am sure the big money supporters behing PPM can financially support this worthy cause. I voted for PPM and unlike other voters I didnt split my votes, so I am highly disappointed to know that the people I have voted for do not want to step up to the plate for its people. I am not a BT voter but I am still very frustrated that there are PPM BT members who qualify to challenge this (financially and legally) and simply wont do it.
Again, if you are not going to do anything about it then please lets move on as you are adding insult to injury by talking about it.
I speak proper English. Cayman has become a banana republic. I am so sorry.
It is a disgrace that the election laws and the constitution are ignored but it does not surprise me. On Radio Cayman today Billy Adams spoke of numerous laws ignored surrounding the dolphin petting zoo, face it, in Cayman only the laws those in power want enforced get inforced…
I still feel that the Constitution specifically provides a remedy to a breach. The words "may challenge" is the remedy but not a requirement. If no voter or candidate feels strongly enough about it to challenge it and the BT electors voted the 2 candidates in anyway, as
Alden McLaughlin stated, then why should the Gov or AG challenge it? So that the country can spend all the money to come to the same conclusion? No way! You think the breach should be challenged, then stop whining and use the remedy and challenge it yourself or please SHUT UP! I am so sick of hearing about this. Especially from that man that is always on the talk shows with that annoying, slow way he speaks thinking he knows everything about the everything. He has said that he is impartial, yet he was the "agent" for some PPM candidates on their registrations as candidates. Please just stop your whining because you did not get what you wanted!! Such sour grapes.
Asfor the banana republic comments, some politicians should learn to speak proper English before they say something else is causing others to look at Cayman like a banana republic. Mr. Glidden is right on this issue so please stop denigrating Cayman like that.
Well ya gonna hear it again!!
The law was broken but the average Joe can not afford to remedy the situation because we don’t have the finances to do so. However not because you can’t act you shouldn’t let your disgust be known. You give me 1 million dollars and I would file those documents so fast the ink would still be wet.
As for the Banana Republic remark I would say it is a stretch but not by a lot. Let’s look at the slate as we sit here:
Now granted I don’t really see anyone doing a coup now but that removed we are acting like a Republic when our leaders break the law and everyone knows it from the Governor on down and NO ONE DOES ANYTHING!!!!
You know what the crazy thing is. If this process had been done right where a candidate was either deemed to be fit or not prior to the election and hence removed we would have totally different people seated. You tell me where you are going to go that someone is found to be unfit to be seated but can still run and by default get to win. WOW!!
Trust me on this if McCain or Obama was found to be unfit to hold office prior to the election he would NEVER win. No bi-election where he can run. He would have to sit and wait 4 years until the next election. Our system is messed up. How can you be fit to run but not be seated? How can laws be drafted so silly where they deal with one single process but speak separately about it qualifying and disqualifying people. Why does not the election law refer to the Constitution? Why are matters resolved after the election and not before? Wouldn’t that save court time and money?
This man speaks sense!
“We did that because we feel that as the losers in the democratic process,
where there is a clear indication by the electorate that they wanted these
two members, it is not the right thing for us to challenge but we remain concerned,”
This is a clear contradiction. It has been said all along that our constitution should
be upheld and that breach should be challened. Now
you are saying that there is a clear indication by the electorate that they wanted these
two members, it is not the right thing for us to challenge but we remain concerned.
If you are stating that it is not the “right thing for us to challenge” then why
do you kept passing the buck for someone else to challenge? Despite being
the leaders of our country, as a citizen this is your constitution too. If you just
stated that challenging this is not the right thing for you to do, then how do you
expect to encourage anyone else in the country to challenge this! ie the AG,
Governor or BT electorates.
This doesn’t make sense, if you are concerned then why didn’t you allow your
Bodden town members to challengethis like they wanted? You have already noted
that this is nothing personal with regards to the two elected persons. Your party
seems to have a hard time taking a stance.
I agree that when we don’t follow laws we do become like a lawless country or the "banana republic".