Guest Writer
Guest Writer's Latest Posts
The Coalition Ghost of an Election Past
Whenever I now hear talk of a coalition government I am haunted by the memory of the 2009 elections – in essence haunted by the ‘ghost of an election past’. I ask voters to re-read ‘A Christmas Carol’ and be reminded on election eve, as Scrooge was reminded in that famous tale by Charles Dickens, that our decisions in life, and at the polls, have consequences.
I recall a discussion with friends and family who insisted that in the aftermath of the 2009 election there would be a coalition government elected. The reasoning was that ‘people wanted a change’ and they ‘did not trust Mac and the UDP’, nor did they want a party system. So the conditions were supposedly ripe for a coalition of PPM candidates, maybe some UDP, and many independents. Sound familiar?
My response at the time was that come the day after election there would beeither a UDP government run by Mac or a PPM government. There would be no coalition government. The UDP supporters (at the time this included some who are now supporting or running as Independents, PNA, or C4C candidates) would vote straight, and either (a) the PPM would get sufficient support from the remaining majority electorate to form the government; or (b) voters who were seeking a coalition government would split their vote, leaving Mac and the UDP to win by default.
As we all know, the latter is what occurred, and in many cases UDP candidates just squeaked into the winners' row. A few more votes in George Town and Bodden Town for PPM candidates and the country may not have experienced the disaster and disgrace of the past few years.
In the days and weeks following the 2009 election I saw many people shaking their heads, wondering what happened? Well, what happened is that elections have consequences. There was little chance of any coalition formed by large numbers of independents being elected, yet many people voted for something that was unlikely and ended up with the government they did not want. Four years later we have a country in a mess. We can blame Mac and the UDP/PNA for the various scandals and horrible governance and waste of funds, etc, but collectively we can also take a look at our own actions on Election Day 2009 and take some responsibility as well.
Yes, elections have consequences. This time around the voters have many more ways to split their votes than they did in 2009. To add to the confusion, we have folks campaigning as independents but who behave like a political party and yet are campaigning on an anti-party platform. This in my view is not only dishonest but also increases the confusion of the electorate. I believe that in their hearts they must know that they are a party, even though in their heads they try to rationalise how they are not and at the same time they seek to convince the voters of the same.
Why does it matter, you may ask. It matters because they are ignoring the real issues and are trying to convince the electorate that reverting to a system where we voted for personalities first and foremost and then left it to them to form the government as they wished, to select the premier and to then determine amongst themselves what policies they will to carry out for the country. All done post election with the electorate having no voice in the matter. This is a retrograde step back to a broken system, in my view.
Remember, the C4C-supported candidates have not told us what they will do specifically and collectively when elected other than “put country first” – whatever that means. And I suspect it means different things to different people. For example, I have heard some C4C candidates say they are for a minimum wage and others say they are not. So on this one issue alone, how do I judge what they will collectively support if elected. Do they have agreed positions regarding the GT Dump, the GT Cruise Dock, the ForCayman Investment Alliance, environmental protection, education policies, combatting criminality, taking care of the elderly, etc? Indeed, what are their agreed joint positions on anything? If they have none then I have nothing to vote for.
If they have an agreed joint agenda and have not told us because to admit that would be admitting that they are a political party, then how will they get anything done, given the fact they do not have sufficient numbers to form a government? (This, assuming they get the majority of their seven candidates elected — in my view an unlikely event.) What I do know is that of the three ‘parties’ (C4C, UDP, PPM) with candidates in the race, only the PPM and the UDP have sufficient number of candidates running to potentially form the government should the votes fall their way (intentionally or by default). The C4C does not. So, if they have candidates elected, will they support the disastrous UDP led by Mac, or the UDP refugees (a.k.a. PNA) if they are all elected? Who will the C4C candidates support as premier and deputy premier? I have my suspicions.
Please understand, there are candidates amongst the C4C whom I know, like and respect. But there are also candidates in the PPM whom I also know, like and respect. Both groups have ‘independent thinkers’ with intelligent, good, and capable people. But in my view, that is where the similarity ends. Voters should, I believe, fully support the Progressives (PPM) candidates because:
(1) They are honest, capable, experienced, and will run a clean successful government;
(2) We know before the elections who the leaders will be. I trust Alden McLaughlin as premier and Moses Kirkconnell as deputy premier. They are both thoughtful and competent leaders. They are experienced in business and also in the affairs of governing the country and in working with the UK.
(3) We know before the elections what the Progressives agreed positions are on all the major issues – and these positions are reasoned and sensible in my view. I do not have to wait to see what deals are done after the election behind closed doors.
(4) The Progressives have, in my view, the best combination of government experience and new blood. Also the best mix of experience and perspectives of any group in this race – whether to do with small and medium business, tourism, financial services, or social issues.
(5) They have sufficient numbers running to form a government and thus to carry out what they have promised. This is what they did in 2005 when they made necessary investments in the country that were long overdue and that were promised during the campaign.
Some readers may believe that my support of the Progressives is based mainly on the fact that I am a member of the PPM. But from where I sit, my support of the Progressives is made with my head and not just from my heart. In my view, given the events of 2009, and given the points noted above, a vote for the Progressives is a thinking person's vote.
I will go on record to say again that come Election Day the UDP supporters, whatever their makeup, will support Mac and all his UDP candidates without splitting their vote. I sat at the counting stations last time and saw this happen. If the majority of the remaining voters (PPM supporters or undecided) split their votes again in sufficient numbers and vote for some PPM, some UDP, some C4C and the odd real independent candidate, then we may again inadvertently elect Mac and his new UDP and they may form the government. God help us if this should happen.
In the Dickens story, Scrooge, noting the chains around the 'Ghost of Christmas Past', asks why he was so ‘fettered’. To which the Ghost replies:
“…I wear the chain I forged in life … I made it link-by-link, and yard-by-yard. I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Is its pattern strange to you?”
Fellow Caymanians, native or new, if come Election Day we do not heed the lessons of the past, if we do not vote thoughtfully and we again chase the ‘coalition ghost of an election past’ and split our votes, then please do not be surprised when we again become fettered in the chains of a Mac-led UDP government. This time with a Mac being tried in Grand Court while serving as premier. If this happens, then such a ‘chain’ would be of our own doing – placed on our backs of our own free will. But its pattern would not be strange – we saw it happen in 2009. Let's not do this again.
Think carefully about your vote. When you vote, don’t roll the dice and gamble on our future. Support the Progressives candidates on Election Day and vote for a sure result — known policies and known experienced leadership and an open, honest, transparent and accountable government.
Pseudo-Parties
Even though I believe in the party system I will only vote for Independents in this election. This is because no party has shown me they understand the fundamental nature of what it means to be a party. Theoretically, a political party is great because it has the ability to staff itself with different, but complimentary, types of people. This enables it to better govern the state of affairs.
Numerous organizations have researched this phenomenon of human differentiation. The Johnson O’Connor Research Center is one such organization. Another research organization follows from the work of Dr Meredith Belbin. What these research centres tell us is something we already know: that people are different. Some people are more analytical than others. They might make better scientists or investigators. Some people are more abstract-minded. These might make better poets or other artists. Some are more introspective. These might excel at writing and programming. Some thrive best working with people. These are the social influencers or what we call “people-persons”. No one of these ways is better than the other. In fact, they all exist to compliment one another. This is precisely what the Belbin organization attempts to teach: that organizations should have different but complimentary personality types within them.
The best organizations in the world understand this aspect of human nature. These organizations ensure they are staffed with the right mix of different types of people. If not done properly, the organization will be very inefficient. For example, can you imagine an organization filled completely with abstract thinkers? They would come up with a million great ideas and never start one of them. An organization filled with only people-persons would probably never do the paper work. And an organization full of introspective analysts would probably never open the front door for their customers. But if a company has the right mix of all these sorts of people, it can accomplish the various aspects of its mission efficiently and quite naturally.
In my opinion the UDP and PPM have failed to prove that they have taken the above into consideration. While I am sure they have surmised it, it appears that no concrete actions have been taking to fully implement it. For example, both party’s manifestos show no mention of the above. The manifestos only show they know the issues at hand, but anyone who has been following the news over the last couple of months knows the issues at hand. These parties seem to have not taken into consideration the different “types” of people needed to run a proper organization. And if they have, they have not shown us. Who, and how, are the people in your party fulfilling the various personality types needed in any successful organization? Who are your abstract thinkers needed to come up with creative ideas to solve complicated issues? Who are your analysts that will tackle the economic and financial problems? Who are the people-persons who will interact with society at large? A party filled completely with financial gurus gives me no confidence whatsoever, and neitherdoes a party full of people-persons. Parties must ensure they are staffed with different types of members in the strategic positions.
It is also worth mentioning that the PPM has only one woman running with them, and the UDP only has two. In a world where 50% of people are women, why am I voting for a party that has only 10% women? This again shows an imbalance in the parties.
I do not doubt the intentions of the UDP and PPM candidates. I respect most of what I see and hear from them and I believe that most of the candidates are well intentioned. My problem lies with their theoretical application of the party system. They seem to be forming parties based on the whim of circumstances and without proper reflection on the diverse nature of humanity.
In addition to explaining the issues, the parties should have shown that their members possessed the right amount of diverse but complimentary personalities to enable them to function like a proper organization. But they have not, and both manifestos do not address it. And because I do not respect that, I will vote Independent.
Now people may ask me, will the Independents be able to achieve what I am asking for? Will they able to form a human resource plan consisting of different but compatible individuals? The answer is probably not, because there is not enough time before election date for the Independents to achieve this. However, I see a diverse group of Independents running this year. Some are obviously all heart, some are obviously all brains, and some are obviously people-persons. They are diverse enough, qualified enough, intelligent enough, and genuine enough to put into office. If they were to get a majority foothold in office, I would like to think they would assess each other’s individual skills and assets and strategically form a proper functioning organization.
A further benefit of an Independent coalition will be that they will act more methodical than the previous administrations. This is because as politicians with little or no experience, they will have to go through a natural learning curve. This learning process will allow government to act cautiously and considerately with every move it makes, and this would be widely appreciated. They could pull the reins on the out-of-control galloping horse that is Cayman’s political/financial/social crisis, and slow her down to a trot.
But I dream. I do not seriously believe the Independents have a chance at gaining the majority foothold. I do not believe the Caymanian voter base will take the time to reflect on the disingenuousness of the parties, much less agree with what I have to say. I believe the C4C had a chance to usurp the PPM and UDP if only they endorsed more Independents and officially declared themselves a party. But they did not, and so I believe this election will fall to one of the official parties.
If you agree with me and would like to vote for Independents there is one last thing to be considered. And it has to do with the OMOV referendum. If you vote in WB, GT or BT, and voted YES on the referendum, you should only use one of your votes this election. Exercise your OMOV right! Remember it is a form of power to limit yourself to one vote. This may seem contradictory, but in doing so, you are denying other people your votes, and that is power. In the 2009 election, 95% of voters in GT, WB, and BT used all of their votes. This is absurd especially when over 70% of voters in these districts voted YES on the OMOV referendum. This tells me that people used all of their votes in 2009 only because they had them. That number should not be that high this year. Do not “waste” your votes by giving them to random people. You need only vote once. If you decide you do not want to give one of the parties a greater chance at getting into office, then vote for an Independent and do not vote for anybody else (unless it’s another Independent).
The ideal government
With 56 candidates running for 18 seats, it would appear that there are many choices in this election. The truth is, there is one very stark choice facing every voter in the Cayman Islands and that is a vote for a good and efficient government guided by integrity and accountability and bolstered by experience, reputation and the willingness to do what's right for the country.
After the last four years of rank mismanagement and charges of corruption, the county cannot afford another four years with even a single thread of the kind of leadership that took place since 2009.
There is everything at stake, not least the reputation of the country, the standards by which Cayman does business and the steps it will take to improve the economy and bring back prosperity.
So, what would an ideal government look like? Having considered all the candidates, here is my suggestion.
West Bay: Tara Rivers, Mervin Smith, Woody DaCosta, Rolston Anglin
George Town: Kurt Tibbetts, Alden McLaughlin, Roy McTaggart, Sharon Roulstone, Winston Connolly, Bo Miller
Bodden Town: Anthony Eden, Alva Suckoo, Charles Clifford, Ossie Bodden
Cayman Brac/Little Cayman: Moses Kirkconnell, Juliana O'Connor-Connolly
North Side: Ezzard Miller
East End: Arden McLean
The ideal Cabinet:
Ezzard Miller — Premier
Arden McLean — Deputy Premier
Ministers: Rolston Anglin, Roy McTaggart, Moses Kirkconnell, Alden McLaughlin, Charles Clifford
Marco Archer — Attorney General
Jude Scott — Financial Secretary
Cline Glidden — Speaker
This strikes a balance between experience, expertise and the principled kind of government on which Cayman was built.
It is also a balance of independents and party candidates, while picking the best people for Cabinet and leaving others available for understudying roles in the Legislative Assembly.
Of course, one can already anticipate the opposition to the suggestions for premier and deputy premier, but the fact is that these two gentlemen have proven in no uncertain terms where their hearts and minds lie when it comes to standing up for good governance and for the short, medium and long term interests of the country.
The rebuilding of Cayman — morally, socially and economically — over the next four years will require bold leadership that these two gentlemen can provide and they have the ability to unite the country and govern by consensus.
Working gun made with 3D printer
(BBC): The world's first gun made with 3D printer technology has been successfully fired in the US. The controversial group which created the firearm, Defense Distributed, plans to make the blueprints available online. The group has spent a year trying to create the firearm, which was successfully tested on Saturday at a firing range south of Austin, Texas. Anti-gun campaigners have criticised the project. Europe's law enforcement agency said it was monitoring developments. Victoria Baines, from Europol's cybercrime centre, said that at present criminals were more likely to pursue traditional routes to obtain firearms.
"But as time goes on and as this technology becomes more user friendly and more cost effective, it is possible that some of these risks will emerge," she added.
Defense Distributed is headed by Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student at the University of Texas. "I think a lot of people weren't expecting that this could be done," he said.
Lessons from history
‘Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.' That is as true in Cayman today as it ever has been anywhere. A few days ago an article appeared on CNS regarding an effort by the Deputy Governor to improve the quality of decision making by statutory boards through the introduction of mandatory training for board members. The Deputy Governor is to be commended for taking the initiative.
However, our own history teaches us that pretending that people are competent to do a job on the basis of mere attendance at a course is a mistake. That has not worked for our education system. We should not repeat that mistake in relation to our government boards.
British naval history also offers lessons that we should learn from. Some 350 years ago, at around the time that the first people started to arrive in Cayman, the Royal Navy faced a situation in which cronyism, patronage and corruption in its administration nearly destroyed it. Contracts were awarded on the basis of kickbacks, politicians looted public funds and utterly incompetent people were appointed to senior command positions on the basis of patronage and what they were willing to overlook. Sound familiar?
A significant part of the solution that allowed the Royal Navy to recover and become the stuff of legends, came about as a result of changes to procurement practices and changes in the way people were appointed and promoted in the Royal Navy. We in Cayman need to learn both those lessons. A tighter rein is apparently being imposed on the wasteful self-interested spending of the past few years. It is now time for the Deputy Governor to improve the quality of senior management in the civil service. He needs to change the way people are appointed and promoted in the civil service, and he needs to hold senior management in the civil service strictly accountable in relation to everything that is required of them.
The Royal Navy Board did away with some of the worst of corruption and cronyism by introducing a system of formal exams that required applicants for leadership positions to demonstrate a sound knowledge of the rules and competencies needed by each level of officer. No one was promoted unless they could objectively show such knowledge and competence. Examinations worked so well in the Admiralty that they were introduced as a requirement for all senior civil service positions in England in 1854. Larger former colonies like Hong Kong also adopted these procedures long ago as a way of limiting corruption and cronyism. It is unfortunate that neither TCI nor Cayman did the same.
Today there are more than enough honest, able and well educated Caymanians to fill the positions on our government boards. Whatever might have been the case decades ago, there are more than enough people who don’t have conflicts of interest. The individuals we need on our boards will not be put off by perhaps having to learn some additional material, and they will not be not afraid of exams intended to demonstrate that they understand the legal and ethical constraints that govern government boards. We need to require every potential board member, as well as every person currently sitting on any government board, to pass such an exam as a requirement for holding a board appointment. After board members are appointed, we need to hold them strictly accountable.
The same is true in the civil service. It is my belief that the vast majority of our civil servants are honest and hardworking. However, the widely held perception that we now have senior civil servants who either have no idea of what the law requires of them or don’t care what the law requires of them, is easily understood. There are no examinations of either knowledge or competence required for promotion within, or appointment to, the senior civil service. There are no audits of whether senior civil servants are complying with the law apart from the narrow accounting audits done by the Auditor General’s department, and sadly nothing seems to be done about senior civil servants who either don’t know or choose not to comply with the laws they are supposed to uphold and enforce.
No one should be allowed to be at the level of department head or higher in our civil service unless they have demonstrated by objective examination a knowledge of the law that governs what they can legally do. No one should be appointed or promoted to any civil service position at or above the level of deputy chief officer unless they have demonstrated an excellent working knowledge of the Public Service Management Law and the Public Management and Finance Law and the Constitution.
Mr Deputy Governor, I call on you to help make this country a better place. At present, honest Caymanians are put off serving on boards because of the scandals that have been allowed to proliferate. That must end and public confidence must be restored. We don’t need prospective board members to show up and sleep through a mandatory course. We need board members who have demonstrated a thorough knowledge of what is required of them and are willing to work for the benefit of the country.
Mr Deputy Governor, I also call on you to end the malaise that is growing every day in the civil service. That will require some tough decisions on your part to excise the rot and show that the system is fair. You need to enforce the laws and the rules that are in already in place, and you need to require your subordinates to both follow and enforce those same laws and rules. You also need to implement a fair system of objective exams for promotion in the civil service and to ensure that promotion by political patronage and ‘blind eye’ appointments is ended and rooted out. It is simply too easy at present for politically influenced selection panels to select cronies.
The country is ready for those additional steps Mr Deputy Governor. Please step up.
Recycling Mount Trashmore and more
When will it dawn on the human race that the planet Earth has an ultimate recycling mechanism which will, in due course, remove all traces of the existence of humanity? I refer, of course, to the subduction zones of the tectonic plates that slide one piece of rock beneath another, and melt everything — metals, plastics, rock, even discarded flip-flops and plastic water bottles — in the magma beneath.
It cannot be beneath the wit of man in these days of precision guided weapons to place whatever needs to be disposed of at exactly the right place such that it will be digested in the earth’s maw. The precision is important: the speed of the Cascadia subduction zone, for example, off the pacific coast of North America, is currently estimated at 40mm per year, (Wikipedia) or about 15 inches in ten years, so any waste must be placed in close proximity. But, the subduction zone is about 800 miles long. So, if items were in, say, one foot thick bricks, one foot wide, over four million cubic feet of material could be removed from the planet surface in ten years at this site alone.
Subduction has been continuing at this particular site for an estimated 200 million years, so it is reasonable to assume that it will continue for the foreseeable future. There are many others (conveniently spaced?) around the globe. Who knows? Garbage may even lubricate the junction between the plates, and reduce the risk of earthquakes.
About now, the environmentalists and the politically correct will be going ballistic, as all subduction zones are under water. A lot of water: about eight to ten thousand feet. I am not suggesting that waste should simply be dumped at sea (enough countries do that already, hence the flip-flops and water bottles on the beach) or that this is a substitute for careful management of waste, and conservation of the limited resources available, or that it would be an easy solution. But it is not something that I have found considered elsewhere and is, at least theoretically, possible. I know of no other permanent earth-based solution. It has to be worth serious consideration and research – unless you have another answer? I appreciate that it could not be started next week, or probably next year, but I doubt that any meaningful effort will be made to deal with Mount Trashmore in that time-scale either.
It does also, however, presuppose that waste is actually managed at a waste management facility by someone who knows what they are doing. Everything arriving needs to be sorted, or even sorted before collection. Sorry about that: it’s not difficult though. Most civilized countries do it. Are useful car parts stripped out and sold from the written off wrecks? Thought not. Sell the bodywork and engine metal for recycling, and remove the major metal from the dump. Tyres? They can be ground up and used in the asphalt mix for road resurfacing. Or perhaps you would like to re-introduce a fashion for Whompers? Paper and wood products can be bundled together and recycled, or at least used as an energy source.
Hard core (a.k.a fill) commands a high price in Cayman, so should not be used in the dump to cover other waste. And then there are the plastics and medical waste. Medical waste probably has to be incinerated. Organic material will not leave any residue, but will generate CO2 (and water). Other residue would have to be lumped in with the plastics and encapsulated (I believe the Mafia used concrete) and then could be deposited in a subduction zone. So: no need for a new dump. Nothing more than a temporary stop at a waste processing plant somewhere. In the meantime, a start could be made on processing Mount Trashmore. After all, that’s what the present owners and all the rest of Cayman want, and none of it would need to end up in Bodden Town.
Provided no items are allowed to float to the surface, it would seem to be an infallible, if slow, permanent solution.
Two-by-Two, Cayman Style
In the year 2013, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the Cayman Islands, and said: "Behold Noah, once again the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save two of every living creature along with a few good humans." God gave Noah the blueprints, saying: "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for forty days and forty nights." Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah in his yard with his head in his hands, leaning on the unfinished hulk of Ark Two.
"Noah!" God roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Why have you not finished the Ark as I commanded?"
"Forgive me Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed since I built Ark One. To start with, Government said I needed a special building permit, which I cannot get because they say You are not qualified to design arks. For weeks I've been arguing with the Fire Inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. I told him it was going to rain for forty days and forty nights and You would be providing the sprinkling in case of fire, but that fell on deaf ears.
"My homeowners association claim that I've violated the subdivision by-laws by building the Ark in my back yard. The Civil Aviation Authority claims that I've exceeding the height limitations under a designated flight path.
"CUC demanded a shed load of money for the costs of moving power lines to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear none of it.
"Getting the wood was another problem, there was a Tree Preservation Order to contend with. And then there was the matter of protection given the Barn Owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists and powers-that-be that I needed the wood to save the owls — but no go!
"When I started gathering the animals, I was arrested for violating the Animals Law. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodations were too restrictive and it was cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space. I was given a fine and suspended sentence.
"As I was trying to heard the animals into the holding area, I made the mistake of including a pair of Blue Iguanas. I ended up in jail, again. This time I was held in jail illegally for a week before being charged. That was months ago and the case still has not proceeded because it keeps getting postponed due to the attorneys continually being absent from court.
"Then the Department of Environment ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until I submitted an environmental impact study on Your proposed flood."
Noah continued, now crying:
'"I am still trying to resolve a dispute with the Immigration Department on how many Caymanians I'm supposed to hire for my building crew. And the Labour Board refused my staffing plan again.
"The Immigration Department rejected the Work Permit applications of all the people who want to work for You because they say You don't have a Trade and Business License. And Lord, You being a non-Caymanian, they say You will need to form a corporation and get a Company Control License before you can get the business license.
"The Department of Family Services says I can't use my sons because it would be child labour. And now the Immigration Board says my ad advertising for workers with ark-building experience is too restrictive against Caymanians."
Through bitter tears Noah went on:
"Central Planning Authority issued several planning violation notices as my yard is not zoned for manufacturing. Then they issued a Stop Work Order.
"To make matters worse, the Customs Department — acting under advice from the Director of the Department of Environment — just seized the Ark, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species.
"All I can get from the Premier is that she says she has been 'praying about it', but I am pretty sure you don't listen to her anymore anyway."
Noah concluded between soft sobs:
"So, forgive me Lord, but it would take me at least 10 years to finish this ark."
Then Noah fell to his face, sobbing uncontrollably.
Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine and a rainbow stretched across the sky!
Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "Lord? You mean you're not going to destroy the world now?"
"No" replied the Almighty. " The Government beat me to it."
Who will be premier?
As the electorate gears up to go to the polls, there are only two certainties that we can count on. Thefirst is that if the PPM get a majority of seats, at least 10, then Mr Alden McLaughlin will lead the new government as premier. The second is that if the UDP wins a majority, then Mr McKeeva Bush will lead the next government. There are no other concrete certainties as the other groupings do not on their own have the numbers to form the government themselves.
The C4C stated last night at their political rally that under no circumstances would they support a party leader as premier. This was basically confirmed this morning again by an independent candidate on the radio talk show.
What does this mean for the voting public? It essentially means that if neither of the above two dominant parties wins an outright majority, the next premier of the Cayman islands (who will be expected to captain the good ship Cayman for the next four years) will be someone who does NOT have the direct endorsement of the people to assume the top job. This person will be chosen in the smoke filled room after all the secret negotiations have taken place, where people can be expected to offer their support for seats on cabinet, etc. Defections are also possible — and as they say, "politics make strange bedfellows".
A coalition government will mean the people have no idea who will emerge as premier until after the fact, with the only known factors being that it will not be a party leader and most likely no other party member either. The reasoning for the latter comment is that if, say, Mr Moses Kirkconnell was supported for premier by the coalition group, you have to assume he would naturally replace the current leader of the PPM as well, and according to the C4C, they could not support this either (party leader as premier) as it would essentially be an endorsement for the party system, which they publicly despise. The party member could, however, resign from the party to assume the role of premier in this scenario.
I am not affiliated with either party, but support certain individuals in them, but I also like the credentials of many of the C4C candidates. However, with the position of premier carrying so much power and influence under the new constitution, I am somewhat reluctant to cast my votes for independents, as I want to be casting my votes ultimately for the best choice for premier.
With only two known choices as stated above, I am hoping that a third candidate for premier will be put forward from the C4C/independent group so that i can feel more comfortable mixing my votes. Otherwise I will likely vote straight for a party with a specific premier choice.
Witness betrayed by robbers
(CNS): The crown’s key witness and co-conspirator in the Cayman National Bank robbery last June appeared in Grand Court last week and told a 12 person jury how he and the five men currently on trial for the daylight heist pulled off the crime. Marlon Hudson Dillon explained that he had pleaded guilty and confessed to the crime because he felt betrayed by his friends, who had used his car as a getaway vehicle, which led to his arrest. He expressed genuine remorse and said he had cooperated with the RCIPS because he knew that what he did was wrong when he and the five accused held up the bank and stole over $500,000.
Dillon is a protected witness and the crown’s principal source of evidence against the five defendants, who have all denied being part of the robbery. He told the court that a female bank manager at the CNB branch in 2011 had initially asked Ryan Edwards, one of the defendants, to commit the robbery because she had wanted to buy a house. Although the police arrested a female employee following the daylight robbery, she was never charged with any crime.
Dillon said, however, that it was with her help that Edwards had organized the heist, along with co-accused David Tamassa. Dillon said he knew four of the five defendants and had spent a considerable amount of time with them at Tamassa's house and other places.
While giving his evidence, Dillon revealed that the robbers were unable to execute the heist in 2011 because Edwards had asked a CNB security guard what he thought about robbing the bank. Hearing this, Tamassa became enraged, telling Edwards that his actions were unnecessary and foolish because everything was organized with the female bank manager. As the guard had most likely told his boss, it would not be very intelligent of them to carry on with the plans.
In the days leading up to what turned out to be the rescheduled robbery, Dillon received many phone calls from his friend Andre Burton, another one of the defendants, as well as Tamassa, asking him to meet them. But on the Tuesday before the robbery he had been at work and refused to answer any calls. Then the next day, which was the day before the robbery, he took his wife out as it was their day off from work.
At around 8 o'clock on Thursday 28 June, Dillon said he got out of bed and went to visit his friends who were still trying to contact him.
"I was worried because David kept trying to get me out of my yard," he told the court. When he arrived at Tamassa's home, he said, George Mignot, another co-defendant, was there and the men said that they were going to commit the Cayman National Bank robbery that day.
Dillon explained that Tamassa had given Burton the role of getaway driver in a white Honda Civic, which would meet the robbers behind Grand Pavilion after the heist. George Mignot along with Dillon would enter the bank with Ryan Edwards and commit the robbery.
"He told me not to worry about anything and that everything was already organized," Dillon said.
As he gave his evidence to the court, Dillon said he and Mignot left Tamassa’s house in West Bay to pick up Burton from South Sound. They then drove to Safe Haven Drive, where Dillon saw a man parked in a white panel van, who he learned was Rennie Cole, the fifth man now on trial, along with Edwards, who was in the driver’s seat of a white Toyota Windham.
Dillon told the court that he had never met or seen Cole before that day but was made to understand that he would be the "bait" and distract the security guard while he, Edwards and Mignot ran into the bank.
"Me and George got out of my Chevrolet Equinox and I left my key in the ignition and Andre in my passenger seat," he said, explaining that they then got into the Windham.
The jury also heard that whilst at Safe Haven Drive, Edwards told the men that he had spoken to the female bank manager who was helping them and she had given him directions into the vault as well as pressured him to hurry up because she could not delay the armoured truck due to transport the vault money to the main branch at Elgin Avenue.
Dillon told the court that he was uncomfortable with doing the robbery and asked Edwards to call it off as they drove to the Buckingham Square branch. "He told me I have to do the robbery because I know the plans for robbing the bank and if I don't do it I would be able to snitch," Dillon told the court.
He said that it was at that point he knew he was about to be involved and was in fear of his life because Mignot was sitting next to him with what was reported to be Tamassa’s shotgun in his lap. Edwards had a handgun nearby, which Dillon identified as belonging to Tamassa's friend, and Dillon told the crown counsel that he could not see a way out of it.
Dillon also admitted that he had not gone equipped for a robbery and that Edwards had provided him with construction gear, including a dust mask to cover his face, as his fellow robbers had done. He added that they followed behind Cole in the white panel van the entire way up to the bank. The plan on arrival was to run into the bank as soon as Cole had walked in as the bait, Dillon revealed.
At some time after 9am they arrived and Mignot ran in behind Cole and commanded the customers, staff and security guard to lay on the ground while Dillon got money from the tellers and Edwards jumped over the counters and robbed the vault. The court heard that Edwards had become stuck behind a door when he was trying to get back into the customer lobby and Mignot was telling them to hurry because the guards were calling out.
In his evidence, Dillon said that he took Edwards' overflowing money bag along with his own and began to flee from the bank with his friends, only to be blocked by the delayed armoured truck driver. The men then fled the scene on foot along the Esterly Tibbetts Highway to meet with the getaway driver that should have been in the white Honda Civic, only to find Dillon's registered red Chevrolet Equinox.
Dillon said it was then that he dropped the bag of cash and asked what was going on but Edwards placed a gun to his chest and told him, "Let's go!" the witness said. "My heart comes to my mouth when I saw my Chevy Equinox was used as the getaway car," Dillon told the court, adding that he felt betrayed. He believed his friend was truly going to shoot him that morning and was in fear of his life.
The men drove to Burton's home with the guns and the money and Dillon left his co-conspirators before he went to his own home, where he changed his clothes, hid US$100,000 in a drawstring bag along with Mignot's baseball cap, and then hid himself in his neighbour's shed out of fear.
Dillon then revealed that he had received a call from Tamassa instructing him to tell the police he'd been abducted if he was caught. When he was arrested, Dillon followed the plan and told the police that four men had abducted him and threatened to kill him but after further interviews he admitted his involvement in the robbery and eventually pleaded guilty to the crime.
As a crown witness Dillon has remained in protective custody and is expected to be sentenced after the on-going trial, which continues in Grand Court one.
The story of two wise men
Cayman politics has a way of dishing out some interesting developments; like former enemies joining up to form a cabinet once elected, a coup orchestrated by one's own deputy to name a few. But the situation relating to the existing representatives in East End and North Side must be one of the most intriguing, at least in terms of political strategy and this country's democracy.
So we all starting on the same page: it's now official that neither representative will face any meaningful opposition from any of the main political groupings. That's either some very brilliant political maneuvering by both gentlemen or a complete mis-cue by the UDP, PPM and C4C ( sorry C4C but we will keep you in that basket for now until you start showing us your 'advocacy group' qualities).
Ezzard and Arden may not even have to spend half of the CI$35,000 allowed by the elections law because they already knew six months before the general elections that they would most likely get a free ride to the LA.
The UDP made its intention to support John Mclean Jr in East End sometime in 2011, but even with UDP support, he will not likely be an effective opponent for Mr Arden Mclean. Of course we are used to the UDP declaring one thing and doing another, or prematurely uttering things that bear no resemblance to reality.
The PPM's political strategy, however, is the one that deserves further inspection. After declaring that they would field a full slate of candidates, the country's main opposition group is now saying essentially that they will 'work' with the two wise men.
But if Alden thinks that it will be easy forming a partnership with the two independents to secure the numbers to sit at McKeeva's old desk, he should reconsider. There is very little chance that Ezzard or Arden will be comfortable in a cabinet (which they will most certainly negotiate as part of a coalition) with Alden Mclaughlin as leader.
In fact it is more likely (and blatantly obvious to some) that the wise men are angling for one of them to lead any form of coalition the morning after the general elections. So if some of us are hoping that the PPM will be successful in making a change in government, we may be setting ourselves up to be let down by the Progressives yet again.
The strategy on the part of the eastern independents makes a lot of sense: there is every likelihood that neither party will secure enough seats outright to form a government, so why not hang out on the side with two secure seats and hopefully find one or two others to join them, making the third group an extremely powerful bargaining tool after all the votes are in?
The problem for the PPM and the issue faced by voters is that it appears that Mr Miller and Mr Mclean have policy positions that are different to that of the Progressives. The two independents, for example, are far more apprehensive towards the ForCayman Alliance and other initiatives than the PPM has ever expressed (to the extent that it has … because, to be honest, it has been very quiet on most key policy matters).
So how will Alden deal with that issue with us the people? Is he saying that once the people elects his party on the basis of his current 'maybe, maybe not' approach to policy, that he will then bring on board the Miller/Mclean duo, who not only will push for a major shift in what he has promised to the people, but who will certainly demand senior positions in his cabinet?
Alden needs to make it clear to voters how he intends to deal with this issue. He is on record regretting that it may have been a mistake to not run candidates in West Bay for the past two terms. Next month he may end up regretting the same with respect to East End and Northside. In terms of political strategy the two wise men seem to hold all the cards at the moment and there is nothing on the horizon to suggest that this will change.
As for us, the people, it's worth considering (and at this stage I won't make judgement either way) how we would feel if, say, Ezzard Miller were the next Cayman Islands Premier or if Mr Arden Mclean becomes roads and infrastructure minister again.