Guest Writer
Guest Writer's Latest Posts
No EIA on Shetty hospital
(CNS): There are no plans on the first phase of the major medical centre development by Dr Devi Shetty in East End for an Environmental Impact Assessment, CNS has learned. According to records released by the health ministry on 28 September following an FOI request, the ministry has confirmed that up to date no EIA has been done. Correspondence between the developer’s local partner, the ministry and the Department of Environment reveals that significant clearance of land in the area had been done without any consultation with local experts on the previously undisturbed habitat, which was described as ‘obscene’ by the DoE director.
Pictures that circulated recently showing the extent of the clearance of primary shrub habitat on previously untouched land triggered major concerns from the DoE about the failure of the developers to undertake an EIA before that work started. The clearance was undertaken at a time when neither the hospital nor a proposed supporting resort in the area had planning permission.
In her correspondence to the chief officer in the ministry with responsibility for the environment, released to CNS under the FOI law, DoE Director Gina Ebanks- Petrie expressed her frustration at what is apparently the increasing inability to do anything to protect the country’s dwindling habitats and endangered species. Pointing to what she describes as the “obscene amount” of clearance at the site, she noted that the DoE were not even asked about the planned removal of so much important habitat.
Following the director’s email, Jennifer Ahearn contacted the minister but there appears to have been no response from him to her email pointing out that there has been no dialogue with the developer about the need for an EIA.
On 9 August last year Ahearn invited Gene Thompson, one of the local developers, to meet with the Environmental Impact Assessment Board. In his response Thompson stated he would let the ministry know when the team was ready to “move forward” to meet the EAB. According to the FOI request, there appears to have been no further correspondence in mor than a year regarding any plans to mitigate what experts believe may be a devastating impact on the environment in the area.
At a recent meeting in Bodden Town to talk with potential workers for the development, Thompson confirmed to CNS that there were no plans at present to do a full scale EIA on phase one, which is a 140-bed hospital. Since then and following on from the correspondence between government and Thompson, CNS has learned that a significant amount of the clearance was undertaken on land still owned by local developer and investor, Joseph Imparato.
It is understood that he has plans to develop a resort and supporting infrastructure on the land around the hospital site to take advantage of what is expected to be an influx of people that will eventually work and visit the Health City. The DoE and the National Trust have both confirmed that the developer did not contact either organisation to assist, at the very least, in the rescue of important plant species before the clearance.
National Trust chair Carla Reid told CNS last week that when she called Thompson about the possibility of at least rescuing orchids and other critical plants from the site, he confirmed that the majority of clearance in the area so far has been undertaken by Imparato. He stated, however, that he would be willing to allow the Trust onto the hospital site in the coming weeks to remove some important species ahead of plans to clear that area in preparation for the start of construction.
This once undisturbed area of unique habitat will be transformed over the coming years as a result of the hospital project and the proposed resort. Aside from the myriad different species in the area, many of which are endangered, that are now under threat, the site is relatively close to the reserve set aside for the Blue Iguana Recovery Programme and was the type of habitat that those iguanas returned to the wild could have colonized.
Speaking to a Canadian environmental journalist this summer, Fred Burton said that not even counting the iguanas, this land is important shrubbery that contains hundreds of rare and threatened species. “A few weeks is all it will take to destroy it all and cover it with concrete,” the local conservation expert stated.
See e-mail correspondence released by the ministry over the clearance below.
Blog entry on blue iguanas on Radio Canada by environmental journalist visiting the Blue Iguana Recovery Programme at the time of the clearance on the Shetty/Imparato site.
Whittaker goes out swinging
(CNS): He may not have won but Charles Whittaker certainly went down swinging, having put on an inspired performance against Philadelphia native Gabriel Rosado last night at the Sands Resort Casino in Bethlehem, PA. Whittaker took the opening round with his jab and movement, controlling the distance and picking his shots carefully. Rosado stepped on the gas in the second, showing more confidence against Whittaker's calm offensive to make a close round. The fight really started to heat up in the fourth, with the young contender cutting off the ring and slipping Whittaker’s jabs to land right hands. The cayman contender kept on the defensive looking to land at long range and hook his way off the ropes.
Rosado didn’t ease up the pressure though, forcing his way in with a bodyshot and forcing Whittaker to stand and trade. A few right hands and left hooks broke through Whittaker’s guard while he returned with some flush counters. Rosado landed a big left hook at the end of the round.
The fifth round was definitely the most action packed. Both fighters came out with bad intentions to land big shots. A big right caught Whittaker clean to put him on the canvas for the first time in the fight. He beat the count but was in trouble, with Rosado piling on the pressure throwing bombs to finish the job. It didn’t look good, but two monstrous left hooks from Whittaker stunned Rosado right at the end of the round to turn things around.
Both fighters kept the fast pace into the sixth and seventh and a left hook by Rosado dropped Whittaker at the start of the seventh round. It looked like the fight could be over as he was slow to rise from the canvas, but gamely rose to put himself back in the fight.
Rosado kept the pressure up for the remaining of the fight, stalking Whittaker looking to cut off the ring, while Whittaker moved and countered, using his experience to punish Rosado for his mistakes. By the tenth Whittaker was low on gas and his legs were failing him. Rosado put Whittaker down for a third time before Charles rose give what he had left.
They traded toe to toe, with Whittaker landing some nice counters. He kept trying to get it back to a boxing match, moving back and pumping out the jab, but could not keep Rosado off him. Charles no longer had his legs under him and slumped to the floor for the fourth and final time with referee Steve Smoger calling an end to an exciting fight at 1:50 in the 10th round. Total punches according to Compubox were 96 landed of 394 for Whittaker against Rosado’s 160 of 472.
“It’s disappointing, you know,” Charles said in the post fight interview with NBC. “It comes with the territory. You lose some, you win some. I’m not ashamed. I’ve worked hard. I got here by being my own promoter and I think it was a great accomplishment for me getting here. I give God the glory and I give much love and respect to Gabriel Rosado. He’s a young, tough kid and I’ll be rooting for him.”
When asked about his future in boxing, he said, “Well, where do I go from here? I’ll go and sit down and talk to my people but, you know, like you say, I’m 38. To go back to the drawing board at this time, I don’t think I have that time and I’ll just concentrate on promoting boxing and working with the young kids back in the Cayman Islands. I wanna send my love out to the people of Philadelphia and, of course, the American public and also the people of the Cayman Islands. I wanna thank all my fans and foes alike. You know, it's been a good run. I’m not ashamed. I don’t have anything to be ashamed of. I worked hard and I give God the glory for bringing me this far.”
With this unofficial “retirement” speech, it sounds like this will be Whittaker’s last fight. And, as he said in his interview, he has nothing to be ashamed off. Ending his (38-13-2, 23 KOs) career with a bang, the 38 year old veteran gave it everything he had in an action-packed, back and forth fight to put on a great show.
Play review: “Rumours”
The Cayman Drama Society’s latest production, entitled “Rumors”, is a surefire laugh or two, ten or fifty! I was unfamiliar with the play written by Neil Simon prior to attending so I wasn’t sure what to expect. All I knew was the basic plot: several affluent couples gather in celebration of their hosts’ tenth anniversary. However, they soon discover there are no servants, the hostess is missing and the host – the deputy mayor of New York – has shot himself in the … earlobe?
In classic terms, this play is considered a farce. I would call it frantic! The play opens with Ken & Chris Gorman (played brilliantly by Michael McLaughlin & Kim Plude) already in the midst of the bizarre frenzy. Through a series of manic arguments and a hilarious phone conversation with the doctor, we quickly learn what has happened but no one, not even the characters themselves, actually know how or why it happened since the host has taken valium and passed out and the hostess is missing.
As guests arrive in couples one after another, we are introduced to a cross-section of kooky and superficial elitists, but it’s the contrast between their personas and the situation going on that really is the recipe for fun in this play.
Teri Lynne Bilewitch plays Claire Ganz with the quintessential ditzy snobbery of anNYC elite wife and I would be remiss if I did not mention her fabulous plumb gown. Her comic delivery and timing are spot on, perhaps only matched by her husband’s (played by Adam Cockerill) particularly in terms of his magnificent ability to deliver long streams of dialogue both quickly and perfectly. The two play-off each other extremely well, particularly in their “rumors” scene, where they speculate on the status of their hosts’ relationship. When they finally learn the truth from Ken & Chris, the four decide it’s imperative to protect their hosts’ stature from the impending arrival of more guests.
Next to arrive are Ernie & Cookie Cusack, played by Rick Glass & Angela Harris. Rick is a group psychologist and Cookie has a TV cooking show. Together they are pure perfection as the slightly bewildered if not gullible “older” couple”. When they are tricked into taking on all the food preparation for the party, they disappear into the kitchen and provide hilarious snippets of comic delight as the remaining guests fight their mini battles of speculation and cover-up.
Last to arrive are Glen & Cassie Cooper, played by stage newcomer Christopher Sherman & veteran Abby Le Cornu. Abby instantly commands audience attention when she enters the stage sporting a stunning red gown. However, her insecurity and aggression towards her husband quickly overshadow her beauty and we are drawn into their ongoing heated arguments. I personally could not stop laughing when Abby pulled out her quartz crystal, which she rubs sexily on her neck for calming relief while her embarrassed husband tries to cover her up.
The ridiculous situations presented with each set of characters introduced build upon each other like your favorite Seinfeld episode. By the time police finally enter the picture, not only do all the guests know the truth but several other mini crises of hilarity are already in full swing, like Ken losing his hearing and Cassie losing her crystal. And I have no doubt that Cockerill’s performance as the “host” at the end will “wow” the audience every single time.
“Rumors” is good fun and a great laugh. The director, Paul Njoka (who also plays Officer Walsh), did a fantastic job assembling the perfect cast with each actor truly embodying the nature of their kooky character. The lines are fast, due to the frantic nature of the situation, but both projection and annunciation are woven into the dialogue so well so you won’t miss one hilarious word.
“Rumors” runs Fridays to Sundays starting tonight at the Prospect Playhouse next to Red Bay Primary, with closing night Sunday, September 30th. Friday and Saturday shows start at 7:30pm and Sunday shows start at 5pm. Tickets are $25 for adults, $10 for students under 17 and can be purchased in advance by calling 949-5054.
The multi layered costs of addiction
This year’s theme for Recovery Month is "It’s Worth It". When you think about the cost of addiction, you may be forced to think about the amount of money people spend on their actual drug of choice. However, the cost of addiction goes much deeper than that. There are societal costs which rarely get factored into this equation.
These include some or all of thefollowing:
-
If people are unable to hold down steady employment, they or their family may turn to the government for assistance to help meet their needs. The Department of Children and Family Services, which is funded by the government, will bear this cost.
- If people are able to work, and engaging in substance use, their tendency to have reduced production, increased error rates and increased absenteeism incurs costs for the employer which are often, unfortunately, passed on to the public.
-
If people are committing offences to support their addiction and become caught up in the legal system, whether it is just the costs incurred due to court appearances and legal fees, or whether they find themselves on parole, probation or incarcerated, the judicial system, which is also funded by the government, will bear this cost. The cost of maintaining a person in prison has been cited to be in the region of $50,000-60,000 per year.
- Costs are also associated with the victims of the crime. For example, as a result of shop lifting, or robbery, business owners will pass the costs onto consumers in order to maintain their profit margins.
- If people have misused drugs for years their health will inevitably be compromised, and as many are indigent or without insurance, this cost will fall upon government’s health care system. Allied costs can be their absence from work which incurs costs to their employers through sick time and/or absenteeism. In the private sector, these costs are passed on to the consumer.
- Families can be destroyed because of addiction. The costs associated with this can have many layers. Non-using partners may need government assistance if they are unemployed, the partners and children may require counselling due to the emotional and psychological effects of living with addiction in the home, and then there are the emotional costs of all those who care but are unable to help.
- The cost to society with the loss of potentially valuable and contributing members is difficult to gauge, but it is obvious that the benefit from such persons would greatly exceed the value from one who, through their use of substances, has become a non-productive member.
When someone finally reaches out for help, recovery is not without cost either. The government funded agencies that provide services include: The Counselling Centre which provides outpatient treatment programmes, Caribbean Haven Residential Centre where residential treatment services are offered, and The Family Resource Centre which provides parenting, family, and adolescent support.
So yes, recovery has costs, many of which are financial. However, it is, in comparison to ongoing substance use, a short term and sometimes onetime cost.
Once a person has attained recovery, all of the costs associated with the addiction begin to dissipate. Persons who were once a burden to society are now able to secure and maintain employment. They are no longer caught up in the judicial system; instead they are taking better care of their physical health and providing their own health care coverage.
So when we look at all of the costs associated with addiction and compare that with the cost of recovery, we can only come to one conclusion — Recovery…..Because It’s Worth It!
Lynn Robinson is Programme Coordinator at Caribbean Haven Residential Cente.
The Likeable Rogue
At a cocktail party of polite company, it might have even been at Government House, an English gentleman visiting on official business was overheard making a reference to the “likeable rogue”. Funnily enough he was apparently talking about our very own McKeeva Bush. Like him or hate him, you cannot dispute that he has a certain je ne sais quoi.
Historical figures, whether they go down in infamy or honour, often have a colourful history or storied background. Many have made great mistakes as well as accomplished significant deeds. There is often no definitive resolution of their place in history, and the debate continues generation after generation.
The picky head boy from Old Bush, as he often refers to himself, never completed high school, and began his political career under the tutelage of the older West Bay stalwarts. His focus was on the poor and underprivileged, concentrating on social issues, veteran benefits and youth sports. He was heavily involved in the Church and a Scouts leader long before he became an elected member of our legislature.
McKeeva was always a people person and loves mingling and having a laugh at social functions of all kinds, especially with his West Bay folks. Indeed this is one of his favourite pursuits, and some say, even higher on his list than jet setting off to Dubai. His love of socializing and his approachability has endeared him to many. It is difficult to box him in ideologically, as he displays both liberal and conservative political values, namely strong support of welfare and business at the same time.
On the flip side, he demonstrates his street credentials, often by his bullying tactics and by putting down people who challenge or even appear to question his motives or decisions, and it seems that these are ingrained instincts that he either enjoys or simply cannot overcome. His turn of phrase, use of colloquial terms, biblical quotes and humour often makes for interesting listening. He just loves to go “off script” and when his ire is up, the opposition trembles with anxiousness as to his next utterances. He is quite the orator and is our most charismatic leader by far. Lately he has also given some problems for the UK, but they have much experience in dealing with that sort of thing. Hopefully he still recognizes the value in our historical and beneficial relationship.
As Father of the House, as the current longest serving member of the Legislature, McKeeva clearly has considerable political acumen, which many have underestimated to their own political demise. His ability to also display magnanimity and offer opportunities to his enemies is particularly noteworthy, and he may even be starting to learn the immense strength and power in the appropriate use of restraint. We have some budding new potential leaders, many with dictatorial tendencies of their own, but sadly without the heart of the Likeable Rogue.
With the constitution of a bull and an indomitable will to fight on regardless of popular opinion, controversy, allegations, tremendous pressure or obstacle, he is also a man of great faith. I can think of no one else in Caribbean politics that could have survived the personal, economic and political challenges that he has faced, especially in this last term. He is the strong man of local politics.
What will be the lasting legacy of the Likeable Rogue? Only time will tell.
Invisible men
They are not action heroes, but their ability to maintain a well paid position in elected office during the past 3 and a half years by doing next to nothing is akin to a superhuman feat. These are the members of the Legislative Assembly that are rarely seen to be doing any of the people's work, submitting the occasional private members motion (if that) and generally taking it easy on the job.
To be clear, no one should confuse 'shouting louder' or seeming to have a strong presence on the floor of the LA with actually doing a good job for the people (we have some clear recent examples of how this is not the case). But Mr Dwayne Seymour, Capt Eugene Ebanks, Mr Kurt Tibbetts and Mr Anthony Eden have managed to let 3 and a half years pass without any demonstration that we are actually paying them to do anything. Aside from occasionally appearing on a local radio talk show (and only one of the above has done that) it is hard to understand why they are being paid. And rambling on on radio about 5 or 6 times in 3 years is hardly the beacon of an example of a good representative.
Everyone understands the difference in the influence of a back bencher versus a minister so I guess we should temper our expectations a bit. But that is no excuse for being virtually invisible, particularly in these times. If nothing else these gentlemen should proffer up their own ideas on the challenges and what they see as the solutions to address them.
One of the common responses to any criticism of such elected members is that they are actually doing "key political work" on the ground in their constituencies, for example going from house to house helping the elderly/needy etc.
That works well in support of the next election campaign and to be fair I'm sure it also provides some assistance to members of the community. But is that what we are really paying upwards of CI$500,000 a year collectively to these 4 men to do?
It makes all the sense in the world that we tend to focus on cabinet members when scrutinizing the government. But in a time when finances are a challenge and we are about to add a further 3 seats to the Legislative Assembly because we are "under capacity", can we continue to affordthese invisible men?
Most of these individuals are 'nice' enough and I'm sure one or two of them have been more active on behalf of the people in past years, but we are not paying their salaries today for work done in the past. They can still speak with their constituents, present the government with a few private members motions, advocate for policies that can make Cayman a better place, arrange focus group discussions with members of the community, stand up and be counted during debates on important issues in the House and a lot more.
If you are ever interested in finding out the truth on how hard your representatives are working for you and country, have a look on the website of the Legislative Assembly to see how active they have been in debates, motions, and anything else that legislators should be doing. (I am hoping to summarise the findings in a viewpoint in the near future).
And its not just the invisible men that we should be concerned about. A step above them are a fewslightly more active backbenchers who get by with attending a few meetings each year, sit on 1 or 2 House committees (and missing many committee meetings when the media is not watching), refuse to read the documents they are supposed to speak to, and take 3 hour lunches in the common room that we pay for (in between fist fights and running their private businesses). All on our watch and tax dollars.
This is a mockery of accountability and one of those clear signals that as a country we need to demand more from politicians and wannabe legislators in the upcoming months. None of us can get away with this type of behaviour while earning a cool 10 to 12 thousand dollars per month. So why should we continue to let them off the hook?
60% of nothing
Some of our old laws are doing Cayman more harm than good. Our current hard economic times and high unemployment can’t all be blamed on the US economy and world recession. We have built blockades to progress right here on our own. Although our currency is tied to the US dollar at a fixed rate and we depend heavily on the US for our supply of tourists, investors and goods and services, we must also realize that in trying to protect ourselves from being overwhelmed from outsiders, we have written certain laws which have had the opposite effect and done ourselves a grave injustice economically.
Government has exhausted measures to increase revenue through taxes and fees and yet still searches for more ways to get a few more drops of milk from the cow. I would even suggest that if proper cost-cutting measures and downsizing of government took place that revenue would still be a primary concern.
Decades ago, protectionist laws were written which were intended to be beneficial to Caymanians and to give them a fair chance at making a decent living in their own country. Specifically, expats coming here to open businesses must have a Caymanian partner with 60% ownership and control of the company. Of course, very few expats were willing to take this gamble of giving a stranger in a foreign country total controlling interest in their ideas and hard work but some did take this gamble. For some it paid off but for most the relationship ended bitterly as you might expect. Also know that for this to be a legally formed 60/40 company, the Caymanian is obligated by law to come up with 60% of the funds needed to build stock and run the business. This law too is more often than not bypassed since the Caymanian doesn’t have that kind of money sitting around waiting for a foreigner to come along with a good idea.
We are seeing business closings now at an alarming rate. Some are of the 60/40 type while others are owned outright by Caymanians. I totally understand the sentiment and intentions of those who made these laws but now we can see that not only do they not work very well, they are unfair and often result in business failure or a block to inviting outsiders to attempt to open a business here.
I would suggest that this law be scrapped and replaced with a newer version which offers true opportunity for Caymanians and gives outsiders the incentive to want to come here and open businesses. The new law would state that an expat may come here and apply for a business license. Approval will be decided by a board on several levels. First and foremost, the new law will state that at least 60% of the business will be staffed by Caymanians at all times. Proper training by the business owners will be necessary in some cases to assure his workers are up to the standards needed by the company. The review board will also determine if the business is needed or wanted in the community or if it will be able to unfairly compete with and hurt existing local businesses. Healthy competition will be invited but on a level playing field which helps rather than hurts existing business. It would not be advantageous to have a Wal-Mart or Target come here and put all the smaller stores out of business. Discretion must be used as to which companies are allowed or refused in building the look and feel of our community.
This 60% requirement for Caymanian workers acts with the same intention of the original protection law but instead of giving one Caymanian controlling interest in a company he knows nothing about, we now accomplish two very important things. First, we have removed the blockade which kept foreigners from wanting to come here to open a business, and second, we now have the assurance of many more jobs for ordinary Caymanians. They will be trained where training is needed and they will be able to make a decent living. The added bonus is that there would be an increase in the number of work permits by virtue of more existing businesses, which is one of the pillars of government revenue.
We all say that the civil service is bloated and far too big for the size of government we need. The best way to downsize the civil service is to make it more lucrative financially to work in the private sector. With an open door business policy, there will be high demand for locals in the private sector in order to meet the 60% rule for Caymanian employees. There will be competition for local labor and wages will be higher by demand for the best employees. Civil servants will migrate to the private sector for better wages and benefits.
Another way to see this is to look at the US – Mexican border problem. Mexicans cross illegally into the US in search of jobs. You can be sure that if Mexico suddenly was creating more jobs than the US that illegal immigration would flow in the opposite direction. Mexicans would cross back to their homeland and build a wall to keep the US citizens from crossing illegally into their country in search of work.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. This pretty much says it all about the current 60/40 rule. We are trying to catch flies with vinegar and it doesn’t work. Let’s remove this barrier to economic growth and try some honey to see how that works.
Restaurant reviews – an honest appraisal?
Have you ever walked out of a Cayman restaurant unsatisfied thinking you won’t be back in a hurry or not back at all? And yet in the review you read last week everything sounded perfect – why is that? Are Cayman restaurants offering value for money or is it just puffery? Living on such a small island, the reason could be that restaurant reviewers don’t want to offend anyone or don’t know much about food or the owners are well connected to the owners of the publication.
This does not improve the situation or do restaurant goers any favours. I’ve been living here for 8 years and I’ve never read a bad review, or even a slightly critical review, about any restaurant in any publication. Every review is always overflowing with praise for the food and the service. After a while, you come to believe, rightly or wrongly, that there are no objective restaurant critiques in Cayman.
I think people would sooner just appreciate an honest review than visit the restaurant with high expectations and walk out disappointed. You never read about the eggs that get served half cooked, the burnt lamb dinner, the server with the “well that’s how we serve it” attitude or the 15% gratuity that gets added onto your bill for take-out. Because restaurant reviews keep being written with it all sounding peachy, maybe some restaurant owners are not motivated to innovate or to raise their standards.
When a restaurant opens its doors typically the food tastes great, the service is excellent. But how long does it last? As time goes by things start slipping – the food doesn’t taste fresh, the staff are less motivated. Could it be that staff get bored cooking and serving the same thing over and over again? Or that the owner and investor has put too much emphasis on décor and not enough on food quality or staffing? Making renovations and changing a restaurant layout is not going to make the food taste better. And why do we find that restaurants don’t change their menus very often? The “mahi mahi” special might be new to the tourist but not very exciting for locals.
Perhaps some restaurants should focus on a decentchef, trained servers and fresh ingredients. To illustrate my point, whilst on a diving vacation in Sinai, I had dinner at the Sinai Star in El Fanar. The restaurant had plastic chairs, plastic tables and not much of anything else. But, they served a huge tray of fresh seafood for 5 quid and people were lining up out the door.
Another good experience was when I visited the island of Rhodes in Greece. Through trial and error, I now tend to avoid restaurants on a main square right in the middle of the hustle and bustle but am willing to walk a little further along the backstreets in search of a quieter restaurant setting. After a 5 minute stroll I found a lovely family run restaurant with outside seating and a grape vine overhead. I ordered something simple – a Greek salad and fried calamari. To this day, this was one of the best olive, feta and calamari meals I’ve ever eaten. When the owner came over to my table to ask if all was OK, I asked him where he’d found the olives. He replied that it took him about two years to find the quality he was looking for.
Certainly, there are a few restaurants in Grand Cayman that have a high standard and maintain that over time. We locals all know who they are. But this is my wish list for 95% of the other restaurants on this island:
1. Change up the menu once in a while
2. Bring in some talented overseas chefs with fresh ideas
3. Have special theme evenings
And perhaps just once we could read an honest review!
Stafford wins silver in Tobago
(CINSA): Cameron Stafford, 20, claimed a silver medal in the 20th Annual Caribbean Squash Championships in Trinidad, which ended Saturday. Part of a delegation of two representatives from the Cayman Islands, Stafford, who was ranked 5/8, dispatched the number 2 seed, Richard Chin of Guyana, in the quarterfinals. Having reached the semis, Stafford had already made a personal best at these games, advancing past the quarterfinals stage. In a nail-biting semi-final match against close friend Micah Franklin of Bermuda, Stafford, who was down by 2 games, roared back to triumph over the Bermudian in 5 games, winning 3-2.
In the finals, however, Stafford's ‘seeding busting’ came to an end as the tournament’s defending champion, Chris Binnie from Jamaica, overpowered Stafford in straight games to claim his gold medal for the third time. Stafford lost 11/7, 11/6, 11/4 but achieved his all-time highest Caribbean ranking in his career at #2.
Stafford is set to play in his next professional event in Caracas, Venezuela, in September against World #27 of Colombia, Miguel Angel Rodriguez. Stafford also hopes to step up his game by commencing an altitude training programme in Cartagena, Colombia, with former Caribbean and Canadian Squash National Champion, Maxim Weithers from Guyana.
2012 proved to be a successful year for Caymanian Squash. Julian Jervis claimed the first of many Caribbean Junior Championship titles in Kingston, Jamaica. And formidable Caymanian squash players, Eilidh Bridgeman and Kristina Myren rank at #3 and #4 respectively in the Caribbean Junior Rankings for U19.
Ending of an ‘error’
It's been 3 years and 3 months (who’s counting) since the UDP was elected to office. We now know that there has been next to no improvement in the Cayman Islands economy and it's fair to say that there has been very little improvement in the standard of living for most of the electorate. It’s impossible to give the UDP another term in office based on that simplistic assessment alone. But they have given us a lot more ammunition to make our decision:
1. Three investigations into the country’s political leader (formal charges or court deliberations are irrelevant; no responsible elected official at this level should find him/herself in that position).
2. Many examples of over-riding the proper process for selection of contracts with very damning results.
3. Not a single example of a major economic initiative achieved despite dozens of promises since 2009. Not one off the ground. If the proper process had been followed we would certainly have had at least one of those projects contributing to the economy by now. Unfortunately, many of us have speculated openly and with good reason, that there was a lot more to these delays and switching of the winning bidder than the ‘bureaucratic harassment’ charge put forward.
4. 'Gasboy Gate'. Wasted resources at CINICO. Use of our tax dollars to pave private areas. A very poorly conceived, and managed ‘Nation Builders Fund’. Absolutely reckless and chaotic management of the Port project, the largest infrastructure project to be considered in the country for more than 2 decades.
5. The worse budget crisis in the country's history, characterized by inexcusable failure to deliver the budget on time, damaging "tax on tax off" announcements, accompanied by rants against the UK/Governor unbecoming of the most senior political office in the land.
Instead of owning up to some of the above what we will likely see over the coming months is further political rambling aimed at justifying where we are today, blaming the previous administration, the FCO, red tape and the dog next door.
The most surprising thing of all that the UDP does not seem to understand is that these types of responses are not effective politically, if one pays attention to what people are ‘saying on the street’. The electorate has become more and more sophisticated over time, and expecting that much more from their leaders. Just because you give someone a fridge or a few dollars during one of your walks or their visit to your home (accompanied by the usual political wink for the family votes) does not mean that they don’t have reasonable expectations of their leaders.
And yet the end of an era for the UDP may not be so much due to the failures listed above as it is due to their biggest political failure since 2009; that of simply watching everything topple on their political leader’s every to and fro without even a peep of caution to him or an outcry from any of the other members.
The end of an era for the UDP is not somuch due to the overwhelming influence of one man but the immensely and embarrassing weakness of his fellow elected followers.
They have failed to stand up for what is right as representatives of the people (as opposed to their own political ambitions which they mistakenly see as being tied to the coat tails of the big man). Failed to demonstrate principles and ideals, with a sense of professionalism (some of them even with very high levels of formal education), failed to steer their leader in the right direction, if for nothing else, for their own political survival.
There is not much time left, but one or two of them of them may just be able to rescue themselves if they can prove to the electorate that they are worthy of a second chance. In the meantime, far too many of us can only bemoan the fact that we made a serious error in giving them the privilege to serve us in 2009.