Guest Writer

The fatal flaw of our government

Our country is on a course to disaster. Political partisanship has divided us, crushed our economy, and bullied us all into feeling like we’ve lost the voice that allows us to hold our leaders accountable. This political partisanship is a result of our governments making decisions primarily for the benefit of their own parties, their party leaders, or special interest groups that support their parties rather than making decisions that are best for the people of our country as a whole.

There are many reasons why the party system has not worked well in Cayman – but the fatal flaw of our system is the fact that there are only two parties represented in government. So the party that elects the majority of members is given free rein to run the government without any checks or balances – and the members of the opposing party become irrelevant.

Under this system, our “two-party system” becomes a partisan dictatorship. Our premier and the majority party can propose radical policies – like new taxes to pay for their financial indiscretions – and the opposing party, or everyday citizens, are helpless in their opposition.

There has to be a better way of running our country. There must be a system of checks and balances that will force party leaders to justify their policies and decisions, build consensus outside of their own political allies, and be accountable for their actions at all times, not just on Election Day.

Holding government and all elected representatives accountable is the major driver in the creation of Coalition for Cayman. The public awareness efforts of C4C will help build the necessary national awareness about the need for less partisanship. But more importantly, C4C fills a critical void in reinforcing the vital role independent representatives play in bringing balance to our government and making sure that our leaders are putting the country and its people before politics.

So much is at stake in next year’s elections, and the political parties will do anything – say anything – to discredit the threat that C4C poses to their power.

Often a political party’s single goal is to take control (or maintain control) of the government for their own benefit, because anything short of that will leave them powerless and in their minds without a voice. Despite their most desperate messages, the current state of our country’s affairs speaks to the dangers of giving any one party too much control. We have seen the evidence of this over the last decade. 

Under both parties leadership, our country has incurred record debt – in fact, today every citizen of Cayman is responsible for $30,000 of our country’s national debt. Without checks and balances offered by independent leaders in our LA, the UDP has nearly spent our country into bankruptcy, and their excessive borrowing has forced us into noncompliance with our country’s public finance laws – creating an unnecessarily tense relationship with the UK.

Ironically, the UDP blames decisions made under PPM’s watch for the Cayman national debt – but the fact is both parties are responsible. Under a two-party system that lacks proper checks and balances, over the past decade the country’s national debt has increased more than 500%. And as a result, hardworking Caymanians are left to pay the price. Our citizens and small businesses are strapped with higher fees, and the higher cost of doing business has reduced the number of good-paying jobs. Higher debt has led to reduced government services, concerns over meeting future pension obligations, and the simple fact that right now our Country cannot afford even the most basic of infrastructure needs.

The simple truth is that unbridled party politics has contributed to a lower standard of living for every Caymanian and residents alike.

We can debate political philosophy, refute inaccuracies, and talk in theory all day long, but there is no denying that the current state of our government is dismal, and it is the result of a decade of free rein by both parties. And if we don’t change things now, we will lose our country forever.

The purpose of C4C is to bring an end to the divisive party system. We seek to endorse independent minded and objective candidates who will unite in the best interests of the country, behind good ideas, provide checks and balances that will stall bad policy, restore the concept of working together through consensus and to make sure that our leaders are accountable. Leaders who will always serve the best interest of our citizens and our country.

Continue Reading

Party Vs. Independent

The debate over what political configuration is best for the Cayman Islands has now evolved into a Party vs. Independent show-down between the Coalition for Cayman (C4C) and the two prominent parties, namely the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the Peoples Progressive Movement or "Progressives". The opponents of the party system have initiated a movement to drive out party politics by essentially endorsing what they refer to as independent candidates in the 2013 elections.

While it is the constitutional right of any group to campaign on what they consider to be the issues most important to the voters and wider population, it is important to consider the argument being made in order to assess whether or not the point being made accurately identifies the origin of the issues, or is there a more sinister and hidden agenda?

One should consider that individuals approached by the C4C have been promised more than just an endorsement; individuals have been promised financing, campaign support, access to political strategists and marketers among other things. It therefore my opinion that this level of involvement in a candidate’s campaign extends far beyond simple endorsement, and I would conclude that the C4C will also heavily influence the candidate's manifesto and position on the issues. This directly contradicts the very foundation of the C4C movement and is a characteristic of party politics and political parties.

The Constitution

Section 49 (2) of the Cayman Islands Constitution states: “Where a political party gains the majority of the seats of the elected members of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall appoint as Premier the elected member of the Assembly recommended by a majority of the elected members who are of that party.”

Section 68 (2) of the Cayman Islands Constitution states: “The elected member of the Legislative Assembly recommended by a majority of the elected members of the Assembly who are members of any opposition political party whose numerical strength in the Assembly is greater than that of any other opposition political party … ”

Section 68 (7) of the Cayman Islands Constitution states: “In this section 'opposition political party' includes a group of members of the Legislative Assembly in opposition to the Government who are prepared to support one of their number as their leader.”

Subsequent sections deal with the possibility that no political party wins a majority of the seats, however the main point being made here is that the existence of political parties is acknowledged in our constitution, and it was this same constitution that received a 62% majority approval in 2009. It is clear therefore that the majority of Caymanians voted to adopt a constitution which accepted the existence of a party system.

It seems logical therefore that the C4C would announce their intention to change this aspect of our constitution should they win a majority in the upcoming elections, and I question their sincerity and have to wonder if they are simply using the anti-party sentiment to incense the voters who are undoubtedly UN-happy with the way the current UDP administration is managing the countries affairs.

It is easy to link every major disappointment and failure to the party system simply because the UDP is a party. If the C4C is serious about stamping out party politics they must kill it at the root and propose constitutional amendments. If these changes are not forthcoming, we are left to question whether or not they are sincere in their hatred for party politics or if they are simply ‘playing politics’.

Party Perspective

Political parties exist like any other organization that seeks to maintain an orderly, disciplined, coordinated and efficient work-force. Consider the average company and the many resources that are organized and working for that company to accomplish its strategic goals. If the company did not have employees who have signed an employment contract, who know what the organization's goals are and know what is expected of them, how successful would that company be?

Imagine if individuals (independents) simply showed up to work each day and did what they felt was necessary without consulting or agreeing to work together. Would that not be completely counter-productive and expensive? This illustrates what will likely happen should the country decide to elect 18 politically independent individuals who operate on 18 different agendas, each one believing that their agenda is more important than the others. Ask yourself, which agenda do we follow? Or do we follow 18 separate agendas based on the C4C philosophy?

Campaign Expenses

Section 67 of the Elections Law states the following:

Limitation on election expenses

67. (1) Election expenses shall not exceed the sum stipulated in subsection (2).

(2) The maximum amount of election expenses to be incurred in respect of a candidate at an election shall be –

(a) where the candidate does not belong to a political party, or there is no other candidate belonging to the same party at an election in an electoral district, thirty-five thousand dollars; and

(b) where the candidate is not the only candidate belonging to a party at the  election in an electoral district, thirty thousand dollars.

This results in an unfair advantage for C4C candidates who choose to operate in the same manner as a political party but by declaring that they are not a party they are able to increase the allowed expenses per candidate from $30,000 to $35,000 per candidate, and this will translate into an added benefit for the entire “group” of independents. 

Using political meetings as an example, it is a safe assumption that, just as we witnessed recently, the C4C will host public meetings consisting of the usual costly giveaways, food, lighting and sound, television and radio coverage etc. It would not be practical for each C4C endorsed candidate to host his or her own meeting but by not declaring that they are a party they are able to pool their campaign funding and extract a competitive advantage over the party candidates.

In Bodden Town for example, four C4C candidates will have a total $140,000 in potential expenses and the UDP and Progressive candidates will only have $120,000 for each party, despite the glaring similarities between their campaign machinery and the C4C machinery. I would therefore encourage the Elections Office to conduct their own assessment of this situation and assess whether or not the C4C would be in breach of the law by not registering themselves as a party.

Are Parties Really Bad?

Are political parties bad for Cayman? In order to answer this question one only has to examine the most significant pros and cons.

A political party operates based upon an agreed manifesto or agenda. Every single item listed in this document represents the important initiatives the party will focus on for the four years following the election. There can be no mistake what the party will introduce and the manifesto acts as a balanced score-card with which to grade the party's performance.

The party is elected based upon the public’s acceptance and desire to adopt the manifesto as a national plan for the next 4 years. In the case of independent candidates, each independent will bring forth his or her own manifesto and is elected based on his or her perceived ability to convince the elected government to adopt the manifesto and incorporate it into the national plan.

It is easy to see the difficulty in achieving this, especially if the parliament is made up of 18 independent members. Every single issue could be potentially debated and discussed with no overall consensus and position being achieved. This is a step backwards, and returns us to the days where every single motion in the House requires the mover to solicit support, often times making compromises and promises that the public is not aware of and which may actually be to the detriment of the country.

Party members spend many months developing and executing their strategy; they work as a team, and each member’s role is pre-determined. This is important because it eliminated the guess-work involved in forming the government and deciding who will become the premier. One only has to look back 3 or 4 election cycles to the days of independents, when the voters did not know who would be leading the country and forming the government until the election was over and the negotiating and horse-trading was completed.

Recent history even saw an agreement achieved and when the election-weary members went home to rest thinking they had a deal, several of their number decided to change the established agreement and set out to make a deal with the new opposition. The government then woke up to the news that their agreement had fallen apart as they slept and a new government was taking over. Independents bring uncertainty and instability and it appears that C4C is either oblivious of this danger or simply chooses to ignore it.

Splitting The Vote

Perhaps the most troubling of all differences is the effect that independent candidates will have on the outcome of the election. The UDP currently maintains a core group of supporters and these individuals can be expected to cast their votes for the UDP. There are other undecided anti-UDP voters who, for various reasons, will vote for either all independents or split their votes between the PPM and Independents. This splitting up of the non-UDP vote will result in the UDP getting more votes overall and they will win their seats simply because the C4C convinced them to split their votes between the PPM and C4C. It was exactly this scenario that played out in 2009 and we are doomed to see a repeat if the C4C continues its quest for political power. Their efforts would be better served supporting one of the two parties, effectively lending support and votes.

The C4C needs to be what it set out to be, which is an advocacy group not a political party. This simple fact seems to have escaped the public’s attention and the motives and aspirations of C4C are becoming more and more blurred and obscured by the rhetoric and superficial promises being made by the C4C. I am not sure they will stand up to the scrutiny and focus of the voters because, as they begin to reveal the inner workings of their organizations, the public will quickly realize that C4C operates just like a political party, and that their motives are not so pure and unselfish. 

Continue Reading

C for who?

Since the launch of the coalition for Cayman group, which calls itself C4C, there has been some interesting public reaction to the idea of the third group. On the one hand, the objective and purpose stated by the the group sounds reasonable, serving as a public awareness and advocacy group to "help" us better assess political candidates.

The problem with the launch is that we were also told by the opening MC on the night something to effect of "these people here behind me plan to address the issues in this country". It became very clear into the first plate of jerk chicken that the C4C was either an overly ambitious PAC/think tank or a very poorly disguised bunch of aspiring politicians.

I will leave it with you to decide which description suits best. But I would like to offer an opinion: the first and most important issue with the C4C is not whether the individuals are reasonable candidates, because 1 or 2 of those affiliated with the group are potentially qualified to run for office (subject to hearing and assessing them during the campaign of course).

The issue is one of trust, or rather lack of it. If, for example, the C4C is truly for country, it should take this stand irrespective of whether certain individuals are a member of or affiliated with a party. For example, wouldn't we see someone like a Moses Kirkconnell on stage with them? Or is it the case that "working with Moses" conflicts with the political aspirations of a member of the C4C?

Instead, what we have seen is a group that is, by definition, anti party. So is the C4C saying that a party of qualified and well intended individuals is bad for the country because of the organisational structure they have chosen? (I don't believe either party can be described this positively right now but that's besides the point.)

Before it wastes a lot of money or, more importantly, our time, the C4C should very quickly revisit the conflicting messages from its first night on the town. If being anti party and essentially trying to sneak support for a few ambitious candidates is the crux of the plan, then it should consider spending that money in other ways, for example, by creating a real think tank policy body that researches key issues and finds ways to distribute its analysis in a manner that is accessible to the wider public (and not just the elite).

A lot of people agree that the country has become more divided, that the economy has got worse and that both political parties have much to do with that. But to believe that simply switching one group for another just because the new group does not use the word 'party' in its name would be a huge mistake. That's like saying that McKeeva Bush has great respect for process and doing things in a competent manner, or that Alden Mclaughlin is a down to earth leader whose political executive rallies around him and is a man who loves to present issues and solutions in an articulate manner to the people.

The country desparately needs a change. And the C4C and similar groups have a great opportunity to help us get there. But it has had a terrible "soft launch" and it needs to tell us what it really is (and most of us would likely be happy if it just stuck to that story, whatever it is).

Finally, and importantly, it needs to very quickly tell us about its vision for the country with some hard specifics on what it feels needs to be done. We all know that the "plan" by both parties is to stuff a 50 page manifesto down our throats about two months before election day, which theywill pray we don't actually read.

If the C4C could address at least that issue then perhaps, just maybe, they could add value after all. And that would tell us what the last letter in C4C really stands for.

Continue Reading

Corruption & despair

What or who is the driving power the behind this Coalition for Cayman? The speakers at their recent rally did not offer themselves as potential contenders for seats in the 2013 election, neither did they speak of a leader. One is left to assume that T-shirts, food, and drinks were provided as part of an early rush of Christmas Cheer from Santa. I don’t think so. Santa does not practice giving at political rallies.

I have no doubt that those who were promoted as the benefactors for the event are more than capable of the sponsorship, I am just not satisfied with their explanation or lack of a game plan. They say that both parties are the problem. They may be right. However, are all thirteen party members a problem? What about the two Independent members in the House?

Ezzard Miller has been consistent and diligent in his responsibility to his constituents, the only Member of Parliament to have a living breathing working district committee. As chair of the Public Accounts Committee he made progress, getting accounts up to date until the tardiness of members forced him to either resign or to stand watch over what was fast becoming an unproductive committee.

Arden McLean resigned cleanly from the PPM earlier this year. I have not heard any mudslinging from him regarding PPM and I hope he will continue to take the high road. I sincerely wish that some in the UDP could find the moral fortitude to follow his example. His term as minister earned him the nickname “Action Man”, a title he genuinely earned. Arden has been unyielding in Opposition and solid supporter of Ezzard Miller.

Alden McLaughlin did a good job in getting the schools started. It used up all his political capital, but history will be kinder to him than his present day detractors. Public opinion today, saying Alden is in jeopardy as leader, we will have to wait and see.

The UDP has really been a disappointment. The “Better way forward” in reality turned into our worst nightmare – criminal investigations, rumors of corrupt practices, obvious incompetence, and contempt for public opinion, to list the obvious, have become the hallmark of ineptitude.

So in rides C4C, searching for independent candidates, but they want nothing to do with Ezzard or Arden! These two, who fought the OMOV battle with little or no help from big money! The word is that Ezzard is against business (read “for Cayman”) and Arden can’t be led by the nose into a feeding trough.

Is it too far-fetched to visualize a scenario in which colossal capital is apprehensive that a government devoid of kleptocracy could come to power, and prohibit further economic genocide in Cayman? 

Continue Reading

Cayman Thanksgiving

Plans are in full swing for the second annual Cayman Thanksgiving with celebrations on the weekend of 30 November – 2 December 2012. Why Cayman Thanksgiving? Well the easiest answer is “Why not”?  After all, everyone who lives in the Cayman Islands is living in the 95th percentile in standard of living/quality of life in the world.  That does not mean that we live in a perfect paradise, or that we do not have people with genuine needs in our community.  In fact, there seems to be growing numbers of those who are being left behind.

However, no matter how bad things are, we still have so much to be thankful for.  We only have to turn on the news and see what real oppression, suffering and hardship look like.  Which one of us went to bed worrying about being dragged out of our homes and shot, or having our car shelled with mortars or our children’s school bombed?  Sadly, this is the reality for so many.  Famine, epidemics, civil war, out of control unemployment, no access to health, education or social welfare is just an average day for arguably the majority of the people in our world today.

When I sit and think about our history in Cayman, what our forefathers persevered through and the changes witnessed by my father’s and grandmother’s generations, there is no logical explanation for the economic miracle we have experienced in Cayman.  Cayman has been truly blessed and we have in turn been a blessing to so many from all around the world who have been able to come here and make a better life for themselves and their families.  That is something to celebrate and to give thanks for. 

Unfortunately many of us in Cayman quickly forget how fortunate we are.  When was the last time you asked someone how they were doing and they responded “Great!” ?   It almost seems that we gravitate towards the negative seeing that it dominates so much of our conversations, thoughts and actions.  It’s been observed somewhat tongue in cheek that basically two things bring people together in this community en masse – protests/demonstrations or funerals.  That is sadly quite indicative of the power of the negative in Cayman.  Sad or bad things get us going and fuel the passion in our lives. 

So the Cayman Thanksgiving proposition is quite simple actually.  Can we not agree in this community that for one day out of the year we won’t complain or row, or blog about our problems, or call in the radio shows to bemoan life’s woe’s?  Instead let’s do what Caymanians have always done best and pull out our pots and pans, cook up some good traditional food using locally grown produce, invite family and friends over, including someone who isn’t from Cayman, and let’s give thanks for life’s many blessings – starting with the passage of Hurricane Season.

That’s what Cayman Thanksgiving is all about. 

There is arguably no nation on earth who has as much to be thankful for as we do here in Cayman.  So it is our hope that from this point onward on the first Sunday in December we will unite – Caymanians, expats, visitors – and celebrate all that’s good in Cayman, starting with giving thanks. 

I invite everyone to learn more about Cayman Thanksgiving and about the plans for this weekend’s celebrations by visiting www.caymanthanksgiving.ky

Let’s give thanks together Cayman!  

Continue Reading

Parties and coalitions: what do you stand for?

We want change. But the new political group, Coalition for Cayman, must tell us what they are going to do to effect that change — and we don't want vague generalities as often spewed by Opposition Leader Alden McLaughlin or Premier McKeeva Bush. We want to hear exactly what your plans are. If you do not understand what we mean, here are examples:

Unemployment:

Our approach to solving unemployment will be a three-pronged approach:

1) We will work with immigration and labour to get Caymanians into jobs by ensuring businesses hire Caymanians who are capable over foreign workers. We will have a dedicated staff member in the labour department who will take applications for people who are applying to local companies for jobs they have advertised and have him/her coordinate with immigration to ensure that these companies are not getting work permits to fill these positions. Companies found to be abusing the system will be penalized by restrictions on staffing levels up to and including possible refusal of any new permits and if the matter persist refusal of renewals. Caymanians who are honest, hardworking, experienced andeducated need to be placed first.

2) From an educational standpoint we will take a deep look at the Cayman market to see where Caymanians can penetrate the market deeper and focus our efforts to ensure we have education plans in place to bring Caymanians along in these sectors. Things such as banking, trust management, insurance, law and other sectors need to have educational paths set up to ensure we can, in time, have Caymanians filling these positions.

3) From a business standpoint we will work harder to help Caymanians own their own business by cutting a lot of the red tape that stands in their way. We will set up a true business ownership system that involves:

Training — Teaching these potential business owners business skills like accounting, administration, marketing, contracts and more.
Financial — We will get with all banks the way we have with other programmes and offer backing to Caymanians who want to start their own business. These people will be selected during the programme based on abilities, business concept and the way they excel during the programme. We will employ a mentor programme where savvy business professionals can lend their services to mentoring your business-minded Caymanians succeed.

Other — Caymanians who are granted assistance will also get the following assistance so long as they maintain an 80% or higher proportion of Caymanians under their employment. These are: first three years business license free and 50% off the next 2 years, up to 60% off duties for first 2 years and dropping by 20% the next 3 years; assistance in annual financials from our staff for first 2 years.

Existing businesses can also gain advantages by hiring Caymanians and demonstrating their support for helping Caymanians progress in their businesses. We will offer discounts to duties or licensing fees to businesses who demonstrate an effort to help. This will be done on a case by case basis based on submissions and interviews.

Businesses who demonstrate excellence in staffing Caymanians, with 90% or more, and proof of progressing Caymanians can gain waivers of customs duties for up to three months or even free licensing, depending on which is more advantageous to the business.

Finances:

Tourism — We will rebrand the Cayman product to align more closely with the middle class family. We will lower the cost of flying to the Cayman Islands in an effort to increase seat sales. We will work with local businesses to lower the cost of hotels and activities to create a real attractive package for tourists considering where to vacation.

We will create a tourism coalition for promotion of the Cayman Islands.

We support and intend on implementing gambling in the Cayman Islands with limitations. Our view is that we will support Casinos as we believe it will increase Cayman tourism and also can help to bridge gaps in Cayman tourism product by having tournaments during the low season. Casinos will pay a premium plus percentage of winnings.

We do not support locals gambling in the casinos because we do not want local issues. Caymanians who wish to gamble could apply for a license to gamble that would cost some exorbitant amount that would demonstrate their ability to afford to gamble, perhaps a fee of CI$25,000 for a 5 years license.

We would license numbers sellers and collect 1% of winnings.

Banking –  We would reverse all increases in business fees over the past 4 years and offer discounts to all new business licenses for first two years. We will consult with the business sector to see what other efforts could be made to attract new business.

Expenses:

As we are creating new jobs, our goal will be to create a more lean and mean government. We will work with Immigration to move capable Caymanians from the civil service to the private sector. Our goal is for a 30% decrease in staff over the four year span.

First phase willbe to review the Public Management and Finance Law and its decentralisation of certain sectors and reverse this process. These staff would then be transitioned to private sector by working with private sector companies. We will create a plan that offers 50% off the employees' wages over the first three months, picked up by the Cayman government.

Second phase will be a department by department evaluation of people and processes to see where new technology or cuts in processes can create redundancies. These staff redundancies will go into the CS to PS systems. This process is partially explained in our unemployment section but later expanded on.

Final Phases will be a look at what services we are doing that could be outsourced or privatised completely. This could tie into starting of Caymanian businesses also.

The final thing is that we aim to have no serious capital expenditure during our first two years, which will be spent on revamping the Cayman Islands. After which, we will be very careful and see what is necessary.

How will this be paid for?

It will be paid for by several ways:

1) Lowering of cost of government by thinning of CS staff and other cost cutting measures.

2) Addition of other revenue measures such as gambling; increases to government coffers due to more ticket taxes due to higher levels of visitors; taxes at hotels, duties from food and beverage duties.

We will also be open to other methods of making money that does not impact the cost of living. Our focus will be on lowering the cost of living here in the Cayman Islands while creating employment for Caymanians and foreign help.

We feel that if we can attain this we will reduce the stress on social services, lower crime levels, create local prosperity, stabilize the business atmosphere and place the Cayman Islands as a preferential place to do business, not only in the Caribbean but on a global level.

I would also say this: while I am not pro-PPM or pro-UDP. I would say that I would attempt to circumvent all processes put in place by UDP to restart them in a more transparent manner. This would include the Bodden Town Dump, the West Bay Road closure and the cruise berthing project.

I believe there needs to be complete transparency in these processes.

The government will work with any business, but always in the best interest of the people of the Cayman Islands. No major asset will be sold unless 90% of the Legislative Assembly votes 'yes' on matters that affect country owned assets.

———————————————————————————————————————-

Now this is where I stand and what I hoped we would see from these people looking at representing the Cayman Islands in its Legislative Assembly.

I have hope for this "group" that their interests truly are for people of the Cayman Islands. I have said before that I would like to see some sort of "grouping" of like-minded independents formed to counter the UDP/PPM machinery, but I must say we have to take a 'wait and see' approach to this version to see if it is more a veil of intentions than a truly neutral coalition.

What we need to know from them is where they stand on issues, not just a whole bunch of generalities attacking parties, because while I understand that parties give power to people they would not normally have, it's the people that are truly the problem.

This same thing goes for PPM. It's one thing to say we are not UDP but it's a next thing to say, "Here is what we will do should we be elected …"

As for the UDP, I'm not sure what you are going to do. You are in a ship with so many holes and not nearly enough things to clog them. You are going down so fast and the sad part is, you do not even see it.

I have stated, I believe emphatically, my opposition to the UDP party and its way of running a country. I believe their tax to spend approach has taken a recession and blown it into a much larger problem, which it will take years for us to reverse. How do you reduce CIG spending by 200 million a year? This is what needs to be done.

The tax to spend approach has created two main problems:

1) Direct cost of living to the people of the Cayman Islands, which leadsto less money to spend at local businesses.

2) Local businesses increased cost combined with lesser income has caused many to close or cut staff, which has increased unemployment. This has also lowered CIG revenues.

My knowledge of economics has told me that the worst thing you can do in a recession is to increase cost to businesses or people in the way of taxes. You need to stimulate business activity by lowering business cost and/or creating incentives for businesses to offer specials.

Taxing does far more damage than it does good. The only thing it does that is good is to increase government coffers, but if this is not used to stimulate growth and only used to fund travel or other things of this nature, it will lead to a downturn in the economy.

So I challenge all parties to start telling the people where they are on many issues and what plans they have to make Cayman better for the people and businesses of the Cayman Islands.

Continue Reading

Coalition for Change or Cliches?

We need change. That is perhaps the most over-utilized, though greatly misunderstood understatement of the past three and a half years. Yet it is an honest sentiment, expressed in earnest by a disillusioned, worried and at times even despairing citizenry. Given the circumstances, it should be no surprise that any person or group who proclaims to stand for change and for improvement will perk up eagerly listening ears and even command the attention of a people who wait with baited breath for “they” who will personify this illusive “change”.

It was with such hope that hundreds made their way to the AL Thompson parking lot on Monday night to see and hear for themselves what exactly this Coalition for Cayman was all about and how they proposed change.

Two hours, six speeches, three servings of chicken, one t-shirt and two miniature flags later, there are still many who feel as lost and confused as they were upon arrival.

Taking the Coalition at its word that it is interested in hearing feedback, here are some of the key things that stood out as problematic:

A call for change; a throwback to the status quo. Anyone who is hoping for a crowd knows the age old motto “If you feed them, they will come”. T-shirts and other paraphernalia also provide additional enticement to attend an event. After all, who doesn’t like a “gimme! gimme!”? Yet if we are claiming to want change, why not start it off right from the get-go and do without the trappings altogether? Strip down to your core and stand on the strength of your message. If it is strong, it will not need the window dressing.

More disturbing than the internal debate which being offered a miniature flag evoked (Will accepting this mean agreement with a message that is yet to be delivered and a cause yet to be unveiled? Will a refusal be taken as lack of commitment to my country and people?) was the tradeoff for the t-shirt: sign up for the cause and get a free T.  Following blindly without full understanding of the issues, arguments and other important factors is what has gotten us in this mess, is it not? How then is it not contradictory to ask people to join something that has yet to be explained, much less properly digested and understood? No member or volunteer who was helping out at the booth could satisfactorily explain what were considered “important issues” by the Coalition and many times the “they’ll explain it in the speeches” came up as an answer.

It is important to differentiate between asking people to sign up to “learn more” versus signing up to “join” the cause. While many would gladly do the first so as to be kept abreast of developments and possibly gain a better understanding in the process, by now we should all be weary of signing our names on the dotted line as supporters or helpers or members of a group that we do not fully understand.

… add a dash of “God fearing” political mileage. Over the course of the past three and a half years we, Christians and non-Christians alike, have witnessed first-hand how the manipulation of Christianity by the political leadership has made a mockery of Christian faith. We have seen Christianity reduced to the smoke and mirrors that diverts attention to the real crises at hand. We have experienced the slippery slope where political rallies are reminiscent of Sunday service, and appealing to one’s religious beliefs is just another tactic to stir up emotion and evade accountability. That has been the way it is. Change is taking back our faith from the political arena altogether.

Ignoring the baby elephant’s memory. It was not quite four years ago when the very venue that so patriotically declared “Country First” on Monday night was strewn in green and blue, and over the munching of even more free food, the waving of glossy pamphlets, and the excited “Amens” emanating from the crowd, the fervor of those who now make up our government was heard over the speakers as they proclaimed "A Better Way Forward".  Yet, though that very fact was commented upon anonymously on websites like CNS and even whispered among participants conspiratorially, it was ignored outright at the event.

Of course, individuals in a democracy are able to freely change their minds as often as they want, to support anyone whom they choose, or withdraw support for whatever reason is right for them.  However, be not shocked that failing to acknowledge history or to attempt to explain the more visible ‘change(s) of heart’ with broad statements like “disillusionment with the party system” is just not good enough for those who have real doubts and who worry that those who are at the forefront are a mere facelift for the proverbial ‘establishment’.

Speaking of the elephant in the parking lot … Running for office is not an easy thing, especially not here in Cayman. From the potential for being “blacklisted” for expressed views if not elected, to the real taxing effect on one’s family, and numerous other reasons which we don’t fully acknowledge or speak of, putting oneself out there as a candidate takes a lot of courage.

Yes, we understand that Coalition for Cayman will not be “fielding” candidates as such but will instead “endorse” those whom it feels will put “country first” when making decisions. However, and again, it has to be stated that it was a missed opportunity to completely ignore the question that is still on most people’s minds: which of those persons associated with this Coalition intends to run for office?

Playing coy when a decision has been made, as is the perception with several persons identified as members of the Coalition, is doing the potential candidate and the people a disservice. It’s a game. It’s more of the same. It’s exhausting.

Lastly (ironically) deciphering “Country First”. “Country First” is a brilliant slogan, most recently used by US Presidential candidate John McCain in the 2008 US elections. In fact, USA Today reported on it at the time, claiming that “[p]olitically, the Country First theme has the advantage of focusing voters on the country rather than on a party led by an unpopular president.”

“Country First” is strong enough to evoke deep, sentimental meaning for the collective and just vague enough to mean different things to different people. What does it mean to put “Country First” as understood by the Coalition for Cayman?

Those who stand behind the ForCayman Investment Alliance’s proposal see their claim for job creation for hundreds of Caymanians over a “mere road diversion” as putting “Country First”.  The Concerned Citizens group from West Bay believes that fighting to preserve our heritage and stop our government from “selling our country to the highest bidder” is putting “Country First”.
The point is this: we’ve tried cryptic for the past three and a half years and it didn’t take. Don’t play to empty, misguided shows of patriotism.

The one thing that was clear from the meeting was that party politics was blamed as the main (possibly sole) reason for our failings as a nation. That is an over simplification of what is a much more complex problem which has deep historical and cultural roots that we romanticize or overlook altogether.  Love them or hate them, the fact of the matter is that parties are made up of people, and those people make choices. To blame "party politics" for the direction of our country, our inability to hold leaders accountable, and even for the breakdown of communication at the family dinner table is to take away the responsibility from the individuals and cast it into the nameless, faceless collective.

Any individual who freely joins a collective – be it a party, team, coalition, union, organisation, religious group, etc – and who turns over his/her right to think for him/herself, chooses to believe that which he/she is being told without question or thought, and who feels unable or is unwilling to disagree and voice his/her opinion for the sake of unity, personal stake or gain, or reputation is making a choice. 

If we want change, we must stop making excuses and take personal responsibility for all our choices, from accepting that refrigerator/job/scholarship, to toeing the party line and following like sheep, to the tick of the box inside that voting booth.

We may not be a large group, but there are a number of us voters who want more than the clichés, more than the slogans, more than dressing. We want real discussions about the issues. We want to challenge the old guard. We want to work towards the cultural changes – for that is what will be required, as uncomfortable as it makes us – which will turn this into a truly *participatory* democracy where our people are *educated* on the issues, *mindful* of their power, and *unafraid* to fulfill their civic duties. 

Continue Reading

Expanding & rebalancing our electoral & tax systems

As we head towards the 2013 election, it is opportune to consider how our present electoral system (regardless of the number of MLA’s, the number of districts and the number of votes per voter — subjects for another day) fits with the way our Government raises (and spends) its revenue.

The short answer is that there is a growing misfit. We have a worrying misalignment of revenue generators and revenue spenders. This is a very significant headwind to getting improved performance, responsibility and accountability in our elected Government. I believe that the situation could be much improved by expanding the electoral roll and by rebalancing Government’s revenue sources.

Taxation should be fair and non-discriminatory, should cause the least disruption to the economy and should be efficient to collect and enforce. It is also broadly accepted that those who pay taxes should have representation. This in turn means they should have the right to vote for (or against) the people who represent them and impose and spend the taxes. This is how civil society can properly determine the services it wants from its government and is willing to pay for and can better restrain the instinctive “tax (or borrow) and spend” habits of its politicians and bureaucrats. These principles should apply no less where the taxation is indirect as is the case in Cayman.

The qualifications to be a voter here are that the person must be Caymanian, aged at least 18 and resident in Cayman (and have been resident in Cayman for two out of the previous four years). 

It is now not usually possible to become Caymanian without also being a BOT citizen. A person who is a BOT citizen may apply to be Caymanian after they have resided in Cayman for at least 15 years. Alternatively, they may do so 5 years after they received their BOT citizenship. This citizenship can be applied for after 5 years residence, one of which must be “free of restriction”, i.e. full permanent residency (PR) (not a work permit) is a prerequisite. For this purpose, full PR now typically requires 8 years residence with a work permit (less if you secure it as an investor/person of independent means). So a total outsider, arriving in Cayman today on a work permit, could in theory apply to become Caymanian after about 13 years (there are a number of other (quicker) ways to be or to become a Caymanian, through descent, marriage, etc). That seems far too long for someone  who has made Cayman their home, is contributing to the community and to Government revenue, to wait to vote.

We can see the result in the size of the electoral roll. As of 1st October 2012, there are 15,292 voters representing about 36% of the total adult population of around 43,000 (there are around 12,000 minors). In the 2009 elections 12,287 people voted, i.e., around 80% of those registered at the time. The result is that around 29% of residents over the age of 18, i.e., less than one third, voted to elect the Government that decides how to raise revenue and how to spend it. This seems badly out of kilter.

We should seriously consider expanding those eligible to vote either by reducing the time it takes to become Caymanian or by including those who are not (yet) Caymanian, but have PR. There are about 5,000 adults with PR. Permitting them to vote would significantly enhance the voice of the revenue generators and their ability to sensibly influence both who gets elected and how these representatives decide that revenue is to be to be raised and spent.

In addition to expanding the electoral roll, we should also broaden and rebalance our revenue base. It is becoming increasingly clear that our principal revenue sources (tourism and financial services) are too narrowly based and risk being maxed out, and regardless of how much excessive public spending and waste can be reduced (subjects for another day). And there is a serious risk of diminishing returns … our tourist visitors and financial services users will “vote” with their feet and go elsewhere, on the basis we are simply too expensive and there is better value elsewhere. So we need to exercise serious restraint in increasing anti-competitive fees on these two key revenue generators. Indeed, we should strive to reduce these fees in order to encourage more activity in these areas.

It is also vital that we develop alternative (not simply additional) and sustainable revenue sources and, most importantly, those that include a greater contribution from the sections of our society (whether Caymanian or not) that are not currently contributing an appropriate (“fair”) share of the costs of running the Islands, yet nevertheless enjoy the significant benefits. Although still an anathema to many, the logical road leads to a sensibly and sensitively structured community service (SCS) charge tied to real estate. I stress that this SCS should replace/reduce existing fees and charges, not simply be on top of them.

If we take the steps described above, we will have a much greater proportion of our society with real “skin in the game” and thus with a much greater incentive and ability to reject the siren calls of politicians who promise more spending, to scrutinize closely calls from politicians for more taxes to pay for that spending and to secure effective performance and accountability from our politicians and public servants.

This viewpoint is based on an address given to the Rotary Club of Grand Cayman Sunrise on 31October 2012.

Continue Reading