Guest Writer
Guest Writer's Latest Posts
Non-cash corruption
Many of the headline-grabbing types of corruption that occur around the world seem to involve wads of cash changing hands, or bogus real estate consulting, or curious discounts on luxury condos, or at least a trip to an ATM in a gambling destination. However, some of the most dangerous corrupt acts don’t involve cash or bogus consulting or ATMs.
These non-cash corrupt acts are the ones that make it possible for corrupt politicians to increase their reach and the scope for their corrupt acts. Frequently these non-cash corrupt acts are carried out by public servants eager to gain the favour of corrupt politicians who they see as able to facilitate a fast-track for promotion or appointment. Other times these non-cash corrupt acts are carried out by public servants simply to cover up earlier corruption or illegality.
There are laws against corrupt acts by civil servants and other public servants that apply even when cash is not involved, but sadly, there does not seem to be sufficient interest in enforcing such laws. There are also laws and internal rules against civil servants breaking or ignoring the laws they are supposed to implement, but there does not seem to be significant interest in enforcing those laws and rules either. Too frequently the highest levels in the public service treat laws and internal rules as mere words that they have no need to apply or enforce.
Scruple-challenged public servants see that public service anti-corruption systems are weak. They also see that, contrary to what should happen, corrupt politicians are able to sweep a clear path to promotion for public servants willing to turn a blind eye to illegality, or to act outside the law. It is frequently corrupt public servants that sign cheques and documents that allow public money to be used for illegal purposes, that allow corrupt politicians to do things they shouldn’t do, and that allow corrupt politicians to interfere with and further degrade the public service.
Corrupt politicians and their public service cronies spread like a cancer, degrading public services and destroying the will of honest public servants to resist. The corrupt sub-culture built by corrupt politicians within public services protects its own and prevents the promotion or even continued employment of honest, hard-working public servants. Sadly, it can take as little as a single term for corrupt politicians to bring about significant changes in key public service positions, particularly if corrupt politicians are ruthless and those that are supposed to enforce the law and internal rules and to insure the integrity of the public service are weak, indifferent, or worse.
When those that are supposed to insure the integrity of a public service are weak, indifferent or worse, public servants see honest hard-working public servants who refuse to go along with corruption swept aside, demoted or sent on ‘garden leave’. Sadly, what public servants rarely if ever see is any person, whether in the form of a governor, or an anti-corruption commission, or any other authority, causing the investigation and prosecution of corrupt public servants involved in facilitating, aiding, abetting or covering up the illegal acts of political bosses.
Non-cash corruption leads to the understandable perception that disregard for the law is simply business as usual within a civil service and broader public service. All too frequently, it seems that the civil service and the broader public service do whatever they want, ignoring the law with apparent impunity, secure in their perception that the highest levels in the relevant civil service simply do not require compliance with the law. That must change.
The perception that significant parts of the public services operate outside the law, or are simply too disinterested, unmotivated or incestuously involved to sanction their own, no matter how many laws are broken, is understandable. Proper monitoring and investigation of unlawful behaviour within the public service is frequently not apparent. Thankfully the auditor general and his team look for specific elements of fraud and theft. Without that, it seems that there would be no relevant monitoring or investigation at all.
The complaints commissioner is currently prohibited from accepting complaints of unlawful behaviour within the public service from honest public servants. The police have their hands full dealing with criminals outside the public service, and in any event they simply are not trained to enforce those aspects of either the Public Finance and Management Law or the Public Service Management Law that are the staging areas for corrupt politicians and corrupt public servants.
There is the clear need for a small forensic investigation unit appointed by the governor that is comprised of people from outside the public service knowledgeable in the law applicable to the public service. That unit must be readily accessible to the public and honest public service employees, and must be completely independent of EVERY level of the civil service hierarchy. That unit must be mandated to receive complaints and to investigate all types of illegal acts within every part of the public service, and to share their findings with and to make reasoned recommendations to the governor (at least in the case of corruption or incompetence at the highest levels in the public service), the auditor general, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the director of public prosecutions. Given the millions now lost annually, the unit would be entirely self-financing simply based on the elimination of corrupt wastage of public funds.
There is also a need for very strong whistle-blower protection to protect honest public servants and other members of the public. At present there is no virtually protection from either corrupt politicians or indifferent or corrupt senior public servants. Weak or non-existent whistle-blower legislation is one of the reasons that corruption and indifference to the law now prospers. Some consideration of such legislation is apparently underway under the auspices of the Office of the Complaints Commissioner. That should be supported.
As a Caymanian, it is my fervent hope that strong whistle-blower protection and zero-tolerance for civil servants and other public servants ignoring or breaking the law are both implemented soon. Good governance requires such change, even if it is resisted by the highest levels in the public service.
Are you listening, governor?
Something Rotten in the State of Cayman…
“May you live in interesting times” is a Chinese curse, bestowed in the most inscrutable and understated manner in which the Chinese excel. In the case of the Cayman Islands, and for that matter the wider world, we are indeed living in interesting times. Here in Cayman, the former premier McKeeva Bush is most certainly living in interesting times, and one suspects that others may well be keeping a wary eye over their shoulder, lest their times become equally as interesting.
Many may be applauding the work done by RCIPS and, if rumour be believed, others in bringing about this state of affairs, but what of the Custodians themselves? Are their affairs in order, or are they also about to find themselves “Living in interesting times”?
This question begs asking because of the growing number of issues being highlighted by media, public and the Custodians themselves. As has already been highlighted in recent media publications, there is the ever rumbling issues surrounding Operation Tempura, the more recent case of the demoted inspector, and the as yet unresolved case of the junior officer alleging an assault against himself by a more senior officer. These three issues alone would suffice to bring about immense scrutiny of the Custodians in any other democratic society, but they are in effect only the tip of a very large iceberg.
There is the matter of the Police Law, gazetted in 2010, which makes requirements of the Custodians to put in place ‘rules of practice and conduct’ which would govern how they interact with the public they serve. These ‘rules’ have yet to make an appearance over two years down the line. As a result, cases will come before the Grand Court under the Bill of Rights questioning the treatment that persons have had from the Custodians. One can only wonder how this correlates with the UK, who coincidentally are signatories to a European Code of Police Ethics, and are required to abide by a very strict set of rules under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Could it be that these are merely unfortunate coincidences? Events that conspire to happen within a fairly short time period. Or is there something more insidious lurking beneath the smart uniformed exterior?
If one takes the time to speak to some of the many officers who take on the mantle of Custodian of the Peace, one rapidly realises that there are three distinctcultures thriving and striving within the service. There are the local Caymanian officers, many of whom feel let down and neglected by a service that sees them as a necessity, occasionally promoting one or two into positions of prominence to appear supportive and egalitarian. There are the officers from the other Caribbean jurisdictions, mainly Jamaica, who seem to suffer the brunt of the ‘strangers in a strange land' jibes from both Caymanian and British expat officers.
Finally, there are the British ex-pat officers, who themselves are a bit of a mixed bunch. There are those who have come to work hard and make a life for themselves (many of whom also suffer the same jibes as the Jamaican officers), those who view the job as an extended holiday in the sun with the added bonus of ticking that box in the CV, and those that have come to build their own little empires in the sun. The common trait amongst these is the general arrogance unique to the British of “Knowing what is best”.
This ‘three cultured nightmare’ is at the heart of what ails our Custodians. A continuous clash of culture and political brinkmanship played out within an organisation that should work as a team.
The most insidious and dangerous of these groups are the ‘Empire Builders’. Many of whom have come with a policing attitude born out of the 1970’s and 80’s in the United Kingdom; hierarchical, authoritarian and motivated to build their empire into their own image, with scant regard to the vibrant local culture and traditions because, after all, they “know what’s best”. These are the people who seem to be pulling strings and manipulating people and events to suit their own ends, and in so doing, are spreading disenfranchisement and disenchantment amongst our Custodians.
With election fever about to break out large here in Cayman, and with the very real prospect of new faces in the Legislative Assembly, perhaps the one question that should be being asked by all and sundry is “Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" Or, as the English might say, “Who watches the watchmen?”
Driver’s license renewal debacle
Updated with a happy ending — I have just heard the most absurd story about someone trying to renew their licence – from the horse’s mouth as it were so I know that this is true and not simply ‘marl road’. A friend’s licence expires on his birthday (as do most licences unless you’ve let it lapse for any reason). He is leaving the Island to go on holiday the day before his birthday and will be in another country on his birthday where he has a rental car booked.
Being a good responsible citizen and wishing to be as organized as possible, he went to the Vehicle Licensing department to renew his licence. Arriving at the desk, he was told that it is not possible to renew your licence before the date of expiry. Note his licence expires in only 1 week!
So … just a couple of pertinent points that come to mind upon hearing his story:1) he will be in a foreign country on his birthday and unable to rent a vehicle because he will not have a valid drivers licence; and 2) were he to be in Cayman, he would technically be unable to drive to the department of vehicle licensing to renew his licence because once his licence expires, his insurance would not be valid
In addition, having asked to speak to the supervisor, he was told that although the supervisor was sympathetic, his hands were tied … the only solution being offered is to be fleeced of approximately $60 and purchasing an international driver's licence so that he will be covered whilst away. Especially in these difficult times, one can ill afford to pay additional (and one might consider unnecessary) expenses especially those that have not been budgeted for.
Interestingly, the Department of Vehicle Licensing has just introduced a per diem penalty fee for letting your licence lapse (I assume there is a grace period although I am not sure for how long) and as my friend is planning on being away from the Island for 6 weeks and in light of this new policy will now have to renew his licence when he returns. I wonder if the Department of Vehicle Licensing will then want to charge him a per diem penalty for letting his licence lapse …
A few questions that need to be answered:
• Who came up with this absurdly ridiculous change of procedure?
• How has it been allowed to be implemented into procedure (without some sensible input)?
• Does it not encourage people to be tardy in renewing their licences (therefore allowing more people to be driving uninsured on our roads)?
• Is it simply a way to raise more government revenue (i.e. by selling more international drivers licences and charging more ‘lapsed licence penalties’)?
So far, the best explanation (if you can call it that) is ‘we sympathise but our hands are tied’!
Update Monday 15 April
Having written last week about a friend I had who had difficulty renewing his licence, I wanted to provide a positive update.
Firstly to the detractors who got lost on the fact that my friend can afford to 1) go on holiday and 2) rent a car but ʻneeded to get a lifeʼ because he could obviously afford the $60 for an international drivers licence, Iʼd just like to say, youʼre missing the point. Itʼs completely irrelevant whether you can afford the $60 or not; itʼs a point of principle that you shouldnʼt have to pay an additional $60 ʻjust because you can afford itʼ, and Iʼm sure those who have commented adversely wouldnʼt want to be fleeced for $60 either whether they can afford it or not!
I was interested by one commenter who mentioned a parent who was previously resident who gets a visitors licence each year with no issues. I have a family member (who is Caymanian but hasnʼt lived here in 21 years) who is told heʼs not entitled to a visitors licence and must pay for the 21 years heʼs let his licence lapse (despite holding a valid licence from another country) so it seems there are a few gray areas!
For those who thought I was blaming the civil servants, especially those in the Department of Vehicle Licensing, you are very much mistaken. This was not a personal attack on any individuals or even any government department; this was an attack on the legislation that allowed for this situation to arise and I can now confirm that my information is sadly correct — this was not simply a matter of encountering the wrong civil servant on the wrong day.
That said, I have a positive update: I can confirm my friend now has his renewed drivers licence. This came about from enquiring with the powers that be but also from a serendipitous meeting with a friendly policeman. Having recounted the story of the licence renewal debacle to a policeman he met the day after the debacle, the policeman agreed it was an awkward piece of legislation but heʼd see what he could do to help rectify the situation and took my friends telephone number.
Well, hats off to the civil service because a short while after, my friend received a phone call telling him that if he returned to the Department of Vehicle Licensing and spoke with the same supervisor; they were expecting his return and as long as he was happy to surrender his existing licence and realise that it would expire on the day he surrendered itand not on his birthday (thereby essentially paying for the 1 week left on his licence twice), all would be well and he would indeed be issued with a new licence.
So, although in my humble opinion there is still a fault in the law because there doesnʼt seem to be a way around either paying for a (very) short period of time twice OR waiting until your licence expires and driving illegally and without insurance to get the licence renewed, I am pleased to report that this situation has been resolved and happy to let others know that all is not lost. Not only did my friend meet an excellent policeman who was keen to help when he was informed of the situation, BUT he was also greeted by very helpful people back at the Department of Vehicle Licensing who are well aware that the system is not perfect but they are in fact willing to work with the public in any way that they can.
A happy ending on this occasion.
Environment – Is that with an ‘E’?
So, we are but a few short weeks away from a free-for-all election at which nobody standing has so far even mentioned the ‘E’ word. That’s “e” for environment, or “ecology” if you’re being choosy. So, let’s start. If you are planning to represent us on May 22, or even if you are voting that day, please answer the following questions. These are not from some outlandish eco-freak – though I have been called that – they are questions that people all over the world are asking themselves just about every day as we lurch forward through the second decade of the 21st Century.
Obviously, first and foremost, do you understand that we are heading into a century of bigger storms, more volatile weather, ocean acidification, rapidly melting icecaps (amongst other things)? Then you must recognize that we are undergoing Climate Change hugely and rapidly and it will impact dramatically on our lives. What plans have you made to deal with this? One simple one would be to fund (through tax breaks, etc.) the implementation of alternative energy projects on an island-wide scale.
Next: Do you or don’t you understand that if we do not protect both our land and sea-based natural resources, then we will no longer be able to continue to live the way we do? If we choose, as we have been doing for the past 20 years, to value concrete more than we value the fragile ecosystems in which we live, then we will not be living here much longer. We are part of a very special ecosystem that we are rapidly destroying. We need it to be protected.
Countries throughout the rest of the world are putting these protective measures in place. Can you commit to doing the same – for the sake of your children and grandchildren?
With this in mind, do you recognize that tourism is one of the pillars of our economy? That being said, if you destroy that pillar, do you seriously expect that we will be able to be sustained by the financial industry when it is gone?
Do you enjoy eating fish – and do you want to continue to go on doing so? Then we need to put in place extended marine protected areas and replenishment zones. They work. Scientific research all over the world has proven this to be so.
And while we are at it, give back the maintenance and scientific control of our sea-based resources to the Marine Conservation Board (MRCB). Reverse the decision just made to move control to short-term thinking politicians who are too easily swayed to make decisions that affect our marine resources. Let Caymanians who take a long-term and scientific perspective of our marine ecosystems (the MRCB) make the decisions based on common sense and hard scientific data.
The list seems to be getting longer. Hmmmm. Well, I’ll finish for now with one lasting question that has been on my mind for 25 years:
Do you believe in recycling? Do you recognize that the world is running low on natural resources and that we need to recycle materials we no longer use? If so, then will you put into place island-wide recycling programs for all three islands that reduce the amount of waste we create every day and collect it then separate it, and then ship it to the nearest recycling plants – in the US or wherever is closer … And the added benefit will be the slow elimination of the need for more landfill sites.
Stay tuned for Part 2.
How not to ‘treat’ democracy
This year there seems tobe an attempt by authorities (and political motivation by some political opponents looking for a 'level playing field') to stamp out 'treating'. In short, treating means giving stuff to voters to influence their vote and this apparently has included food and beverages for some time. Both the giver and the recipient commit the offense.
No one knows why this was never enforced despite being widely discussed during the last election. But we can assume that the fact that this year there will be election observers combined with a more competitive election scene are the reasons for the sudden urge to issue strong 'warnings' on this provision for the first time.
The political activist group C4C has jumped on the bandwagon, launching ads against appliances and turkeys. This is all good. But specifically on the subject of food and beverages at public meetings, is this provision 'good' for democracy?
There is the very reasonable observation raised by bloggers, including a few on CNS, that no one is going to swear allegiance to a candidate based on a piece of jerk chicken or some fruit punch.
A law is a law is a law and obviously breaches of it cannot be ignored. But that does not stop us from questioning whether the law is in fact a good one. The treating provision cannot simply be assessed as 'good' because it discourages the giving of food for votes at a meeting. It also needs to be assessed from the perspective of whether it is practical to discourage thousands of voters from bothering to attend a public meeting where they can get information directly from candidates in order to make that very important decision on May 22nd. If that means providing a basic amenity, such as some food or a soda, so they are comfortable, then why is this practice (which has been around for the past 70 years, not just in the Caribbean but all around the world) so terribly 'offensive' to democracy?
Like it or not, the democratic process simply will not work if people are asked to be as uncomfortable as possible to participate. No one supports the giving of money, appliances or anything of other material value to voters. But organising a public meeting and providing refreshments does not seem unreasonable.
At this stage the law is set but the Elections Office and the sitting government should seriously consider taking some form of action to correct or amend the treating provision to enable food and drinks at public meetings, or they should be prepared to enforce the provision fully and change the face of local elections (including risking a reduction in public participation in the democratic process) in 2013.
Doing nothing is simply setting everyone up for failure. At this stage at least one group has broken the law and if we are enforcing it then they should technically suffer the consequences now without further delay. The Elections Office and other parties within the entire elections administration face a very serious credibility issue if they continue to say that food at public meetings "may" be considered as treating while allowing it to continue without enforcement.
Either it is or it isn't treating and they know very well what the answer is because the law is clear. Ironically, their unwillingness to enforce the provision is a sure sign that they realise how impractical it is. And if that's the case, then take some action now to avoid the ridiculous situation that sets everyone up to commit a criminal offense by giving or drinking a free fruit punch by making a legislative or policy change to maintain some credibility in the Cayman Islands' democratic process.
Voter responsibility
The terrible driver that I was (and arguably still am) sat fuming at a T-junction when my instructor said something in the midst of our discussion that we will say, for the sake of simplicity, had focused on the various problems of the country. “We need these projects because we need jobs. I have to listen to people every day who are suffering and know that now, their neighbour most likely won’t give him some milk as they used to.”
“Isn’t that the true problem, then?” I replied, frustrated not with what he said, but in my confusion and paranoia of handling the vehicle without killing him, myself, or anyone for that matter.
At 21 years of age, I am part of a new generation of voters that everyone talks about, but few appear to be able to grasp the gravity of the situation we have been placed in. Unlike many of our parents, we have grown up in abundance. This doesn’t mean we have all had the privilege of wealth, the best education, have been fattened on fine food and liquors, or the like. We have grown up with untamed want, an insatiable desire for more – material and immaterial – a feeling that often can be confused with need.
What my driving instructor said to me reflected this. We say we ‘need’ projects, when in reality we need what those projects often promise and rarely deliver: stability, growth, the ability for a family to place food on the table, and a society that cares. The last is arguably the most important, as one may say that when a community can have pride, and hold compassion in their hearts for their peers, the false needs are irrelevant. This cannot be bought with money, this cannot be harvested with selfish ambition, and this cannot be sustained through actions that merely produce satisfactory immediate results.
Our country is small; it is fragile in economy and environment. Despite our few exploitable resources, our forefathers managed to make enough wise decisions that have made Cayman enviable in theeyes of many, despite our current stagnant growth and our cynicism. However, with that newfound wealth, we have turned our backs on what was so precious – a sense of community, of hard work, of endurance, and reverence for what little we have. In our pursuit of wealth, we have ignored our gifts. We have sold our flora and fauna for concrete condos that often lie empty.
Why is it we pay increasingly heavy duty on importing products instead of investing that money into production as an economical, local option providing individuals work and income? We pride ourselves on our tourism sector, yet have done so little to preserve our reefs and the wildlife that resides in our waters that people come to see. The younger generation has been thrown by the wayside, poorly equipped, to take on the burden of debt and social instability that our elders will leave us. We have been demanded to succeed despite the breakdown in the traditional family structure and the poor emphasis on education and self-improvement. We pride ourselves on our rich cultural and ethnic background, yet there is a growing hostility towards ‘foreigners’. Our problem, when looking at the smallest nuisances to the greater socio-economic problems we face, are not so different in that we are capable of finding answers; however we seem to have difficulty finding the right ones.
These elections are of paramount importance. We need to find the right answers. These may not be immediate, and to those voters and non-voters who are struggling, that is frustrating. Our politicians and would-be politicians struggle to approach an electorate who need answers now, a matter which is further complicated by island gossip, family loyalties, and personal ties. It is not that there exists no mode or method to salvage our shrinking middle class. We merely have not been brave enough to make decisions that challenge the status quo, and too often we try to emulate the mediocrities of the world around us rather than learning from past failures and thinking how can we surpass everyone else.
This is an age where almost anything is possible – if you are wise. That being said, our politicians can no longer tell us things will ‘soon’ get better and we can no longer align ourselves, due to personal reasons, to opportunists, the ignorant and the meek. If this is to be a democracy, we the people must prove we cannot be bought. We must prove that we will not be emotionally swayed. I say ‘we’ because, in what may be youthful naiveté, I believe that a community cannot be saved if we cannot think of ourselves as a community and collectively shoulder the blame.
No matter whom anyone supports, for whatever reason, it is OUR fault for allowing the failures of our leaders and for not being strong enough to stand up together. A country whose citizens sit, grumbling sourly, while watching their livelihoods destroyed deserves no pity. It is not a democracy, and one should not expect it to be as such if our democratic rights are not used positively.
This is not a matter of you and me, them and us. If we are to be respected, if we are to grow, if we are to thrive, we must each do our part. Ask questions. Look to facts, not empty words. Let us treat each other and ourselves with respect. If we are incapable of doing even that bare minimum, then those days when a neighbor could turn to another in a time of need will be gone. We will be further consumed by suspicion, malice and greed and we will have no one to blame but ourselves – and we have seen already what that can do.
Addressing gender gaps
The 2010 Census of Population and Housing revealed many gender gaps in the Cayman Islands. The most striking differences were found in the achievements and status of males and females in income, time usage, education, the work force and health. Males earned more money at every education level and across many occupations and industries.
In addition, females worked fewer hours in the paid economy and spent more time on unpaid caregiving and domestic work; males were less likely than females to be attending school or to hold educational qualifications; females were less likely to be unemployed but more likely to be outside of the labour force; occupational and industrial segregation showed that females and males are often taking different career paths; and females suffered from chronic non-communicable diseases at higher rates.
Gender gaps are evidence of gender inequality and demonstrate the loss of achievement within the Cayman Islands and the negative outcomes for individuals, families, the economy and our society as a whole. These gaps can also in turn contribute to larger social issues, including poverty, crime and violence.
Sex and gender
When discussing gender gaps, it is important to note that sex and gender do not mean the same thing. Sex refers to physical realities, while gender refers to economic, social and cultural attributes, roles and opportunities which determine what is expected, allowed and valued in a woman or man and girl or boy.
Characteristics, emotions and behaviours that people generally associate with being male or female – commonly referred to as “masculinity” and “femininity” – are learned from childhood. We behave in ways that others encourage and not in ways that others discourage based on ideas of what it means to be a boy or girl or a man or woman. We are also treated differently because of our sex.
Ideas that we have developed about gender are not fixed, as they evolve through social interactions and vary between cultures and over time. Understanding these terms allows us to separate differences that arise because of biology from those that result from social processes.
Stereotypes and discrimination
Our society has gender gaps not because of the different innate abilities of males and females but because we expect boys and girls and men and women to also have different desires, to behave differently and to be capable of different achievements. When we have expectations or feelings about people based on sex or gender, we may reinforce inequality without even realising it.
Discrimination on the basis of sex or gender (or both characteristics at the same time) can be direct, indirect or structural. It is direct when, for example, men and women receive different pay for the same work, or when boys aren’t given the same opportunities as girls in the classroom. It is indirect when an act, practice or policy that is applied to everyone puts a particular group at an unfair disadvantage. This could occur, for example, if an employer does not allow employees to take their lunch hour after 2:00PM without a valid business reason, because women are more likely to use their lunch hour to pick their children up from school in the afternoon.
Structural discrimination is even more complicated and occurs when a society's major 'structures' – such as the family, government, labour market or education system – consistently disadvantage a particular group through norms, policies and behaviours.
This may not be intentional, but when the outcomes for males or females are unjust there is structural discrimination that is separate from, but may be related to, any direct or indirect discrimination in which individuals or groups may engage.
Promoting gender equality
By taking a gender perspective and considering these different types of discrimination, we can start to understand the root causes of gender gaps and what types of interventions will close them. In some instances, legislation or policies may be required to prohibit specific discriminatory actions.
Government is committed to upholding the rights of males and females and protecting them from prejudice, discrimination and injustice. The Bill of Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities recognises that all people have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The Cayman Islands is also a signatory to international treaties and conventions that uphold these values.
The Legislative Assembly unanimously passed the Gender Equality Law, 2011, which seeks to eliminate discrimination in employment, training and recruitment on the basis of sex, marital status, pregnancy or gender. Other laws and regulations also prohibit certain kinds of direct and indirect discrimination and provide sanctions for offenders and remedies for victims.
However, it is often our attitudes that have the most power to ensure or prevent equality of opportunity in many areas. We all have thoughts about individuals based on characteristics like sex and gender that can cause us to act in ways that discourage or prevent them from reaching their full potential or pursuing their own desires. Stereotypes can also hold us back personally if we do not believe we can or should do or achieve certain things just because we happen to be male or female. In order to address structural discrimination and for our society to truly progress, we must all seek to understand how stereotypes and prejudices based on sex and gender affect us in our daily lives and resolve to overcome these biases.
What can you do to close gender gaps?
Ideas aboutour gender roles and capabilities are so ingrained that we often see them as “natural”. However, scientific and social research has consistently proven that while there are biological differences between males and females, the way that we are socialised by parents, caregivers, peers, teachers, the media and others is the biggest source of gender differences.
Education is one of the most important tools for ending structural discrimination by breaking stereotypes and prejudices. We can all strive to recognise stereotypes or prejudices we may have about the qualities or capabilities of males and females and what roles and personal choices are “suitable” for each sex. When we are more conscious of these assumptions, we can choose how we respond in our formal and informal relationships and decision-making processes. We can also advocate for ourselves and others by recognising and rejecting discrimination wherever it occurs.
When males and females have the same opportunities to achieve important goals and contribute their best efforts there are positive effects for women, men, children, families, the economy and society as a whole. These include decreased reliance on social services, more positive opportunities for all children, lessening negative effects of poor living conditions and poverty, greater productivity and economic growth. Gender equality ensures that individuals are treated fairly, development is human-centred and we are all advancing together.
Promote gender equality. Don’t stereotype.
Unanswered questions to get us started
We now have 58 candidates vying for one of the 18 available seats in the Legislative Assembly. For some the seat means a salary, for others it means social prestige and status and we all hope that for a few it actually means improving the welfare of citizens of this country. It's worth asking yourself: which reason best suits your current favourite candidate/ group?
For certain, we can tell from what we are hearing from some candidates that they don't actually appreciate that they are vying to be a 'Legislator' and that this means carefully considering policy problems, finding solutions with the help of technocrats and the wider public and using the art of politics to obtain support from fellow members of the LA so that real changes can be implemented.
For years we have heard of how 'honourable' it is for someone to sacrifice their otherwise comfortable lives so they can make a difference to ours. But what if all they are seeking is a bit of prestige in an area they have not 'conquered' before? What if they don't have what it takes to make a decent salary and the 10 to 12 thousand monthly benefit from being an MLA would simply be a great help to them right now?
The only way to truly understand where candidates stand is to talk to them or listen to their public statements very very carefully. A candidate who says "we need to invest in education" without telling you why and how is wasting your time with campaign rhetoric. If all a candidate can say about governance is that leaders need to be transparent and accountable, they might as well be telling you that Christmas comes in December or that it rains almost every Pirates Week.
But asking for details on just a few typical policy issues would be letting them off too easily. So we could ask them a few of the following as a quick start:
To PPM: how will you pay for the alternative to relocating the dump to Bodden Town and what are your SPECIFIC plans to get the economy moving? And why should we believe you will be better fiscal managers this time around?
To UDP: why were you not able to get one major project off the ground in 4 years and why could you not get through a single year without at least one major allegation of corruption?
To C4C endorsees: if you are 'anti group/party' as a matter of principle/policy, why now 'group' during the campaign in an effort to win? And if say 2 or 3 of you are successful, whatbinds you together as a team to promote the interest of Caymanians? (Saying you are fresh, honest or don't really need the salary are not sufficient responses). If you inadvertently came out as anti party/group due to C4C pressure (or just poor launch strategy), then please correct that position publicly now so we can all move on and then please answer the final question below.
To Frank/Lyndon/McKeeva/Kenny/Rolston: whether by association, perception or for real you are easily placed in the category of anti/deviant social behaviour. Why do you feel you are fit and proper to represent the people? And (to Dr Frank) how can a man of your stature be associated with a still yet unexplained (but widely reported and debated) gun shot incident?
To PNA members: you have a credibility issue to address publicly. You were part of a government that essentially failed, you now blame everything on 'Daddy' for forcing you to go along with everything. How can we be convinced that each of you individually will have the conviction and courage to lead as you are/were supposed to? Will you fail to act or 'man up' again or will you represent the people this time around?
To all non C4C independents: if you are truly independent tell us where you stand on: the ForCayman Alliance generally, the West Bay Road closure, the Legal Practitioners Bill, the rollover policy and fixing the government's fiscal imbalance. Then direct us to a source for the top 10 policies you will address/ introduce in your first 3 months (we assume you already have these written down somewhere since you don't have the burden of being slowed down by group/ party machinery).
Mount Trashmore – a mountain of resource?
In the many years that islanders have sought to resolve the environmental debacle that looms over the capital, various schemes have been proposed for dealing with Mount Trashmore; from shipping scrap metal to China, constructing a dry ski slope and setting up a new waste site at Bodden Town. The WISE website outlines a plethora of sustainable alternatives, which, if applied, amount to a comprehensive and sustainable waste management solution for the future whilst also proposing options for returning the George Town site to its natural, pre-rubbish dump state through landfill mining.
During the time that this debate has been raging there has been a complete revolution in conventional wisdom about waste management. Waste is becoming increasingly viewed as a revenue-generating resource rather than as something to be thrown away. New technologies are driving the change in perception as they have created the means to transform waste into a resource thereby creating the means for sustainable waste management and safe, clean landfill removal.
Landfill sites can now be mined for their valuable recyclates because rubbish dumps and historic waste streams contain concentrations of valuable materials such as metals that will be processed and recycled. That which cannot be recycled can be converted into renewable power and heat using advanced conversion technologies. These new technologies ensure that the maximum value is extracted from this residual material enabling the return of landfill sites to their natural state for development of community use. Indeed, Advanced Plasma Power (APP) is pioneering such a landfill mining project in Belgium and such an approach could be applied to Trashmore.
Taking this view of waste is a complete paradigm shift. Rather than treating waste as a problem to be disposed of, and relying on rapidly-depleting sources of fossil fuels to meet our mounting energy needs, advanced conversion technologies can convert municipal, commercial and industrial waste into clean, sustainable energy. Advanced gasification plants are very compact and are designed to sit unobtrusively on the edge of towns taking the waste that the town generates and providing vital, proximate and cost effective resources in return. Visual and environmental impact are kept to a minimum.
APP’s Gasplasma process is a game changer for managing waste in the built environment as it produces no waste outputs and has low emissions. APP’s plasma conversion delivers such a clean, high quality syngas that it can be used directly in efficient gas engines and gas turbines to generate power. The process generates no waste outputs as any ash is vitrified into an environmentallystable and saleable construction product – Plasmarok®.
Furthermore, the output from the plants need not be limited to power; APP is also pioneering the way in developing next generation waste to fuel plants. The clean gas produced by the process can also be used to substitute natural gas or other fuel gas.
Aligning waste policy with renewable energy policy will allow a sustainable and cost-effective alternative to current practices. In the case of the Cayman Islands the benefits are even more profound. The ever-growing toxic mound leeches into the water and the surrounding environs, threatening the environment, tourism and possibly even human health. The solution really needn’t be that complicated.
Rolf Stein is Chief Executive of Advanced Plasma Power
Social injustice and political corruption
Cayman’s news media houses are finally reaping the fruits of our political discontent which they cleverly helped to sow over the past four years. And politics with their assistance has again been turned into a game played only by the rich and their proxies. The cliché of freedom of information and freedom of speech is again only relevant if the candidates can pay them to be read, heard or seen.
This is a tremendous advantage for the established political parties although many have called for their death and burial. With the financial assistance of their elite friendship, networks the Coalition for Cayman or Cash or the Rich is generating more cash topay newspapers, radio talk shows and the TV than the UDP or PPM.
The vast amount of money spent by these new politicians to achieve ideological dominance of the political stage, while necessary charities like the Human Society and Meals on Wheels go without, makes it very clear that their concern in this election is for nothing other than political power. For, the manner in which endorsed candidates of the C4C are seeking election makes it clear that their goals are not to create real opportunities for the middle classes or protect the wages and rights of our construction, hotel and other wage earners but to gain further social and economic dominance.
The C4C, rather than respecting the amounts of money the Election Law permits each candidate to spend, is evading the law without shame by making huge purchases of everything needed just ahead of Nomination Day. It is therefore no wonder that the new political pundits in the ranks of the independents can call for the death of the political system. Perhaps, after discovering more modern means of election spending avoidance or evasion and political insincerity, the C4C should become more transparent by changing their slogan from Country First, to “We First”.
Certainly our political culture is not being improved by these new politicians. We see the same food and drinks and other enticements being served to the people. And if getting the attention of the public in order to get your message out is the main strategy of any politician, then the political party system, called by whatever name, is very much necessary and alive and perhaps the C4C may soon tell us that they are a political party after all.
Politics is not fair and it is the game of the rich not the poor. Therefore, we can suspect that change managed by the C4C following the May elections will not allow the poor and young in this country to gain improvements to our police system, justice system, rehabilitation or employment systems. Our youth will still be divided between those that are said to be social and those deemed anti-social and the anti-social ones will be policed in the style Jamaica has been policed for decades.
My last hope, however, is that although not registered because they did not know anyone in the political system who expresses their views and concerns, our youth will now rise up and use their cultural talents and collectivized identities to help me push the New Vision Movement, which demands an end to social and economic discrimination, marginalization, and condemnation. The New Vision Movement puts the people first by demanding a rethinking of laws, which serve to criminalize our people while providing great social and economic opportunities for foreigners in our judiciary, police, and prison and rehabilitation systems.