Guest Writer
Guest Writer's Latest Posts
Realities & Rhetoric of One Man, One Vote
The decision to change a country’s voting system has far reaching political consequences that should not be taken lightly; and when we as citizens are asked to make critical decisions like this, it is important to make our choices based on facts, rather than emotion. The one man, one vote (OMOV) has become an emotive issue that is dividing our community.
Lines have been drawn on the basis of political orientation, and as one would expect in any political debate there are two sides – those that are for and those that are against. But behind all of the emotion and political rhetoric, what are the facts?
According to the advocates of OMOV/single-member constituencies, this system will guarantee better “equality, accountability and fairness” and it will introduce “a modern approach to political organization and voting systems to the Cayman Islands”.
These are noble objectives for any country; however, if we accept these ideals as the reason to change our electoral system, then what we are clearly saying is that the current system of voting that we have used to elect successive governments for the past 40 years was flawed, unequal, and unfair.
But is that really the case? Are we saying that the electoral system that elected such stalwarts and statesmen as Mr Cradock, Mr Jim Bodden, Miss Annie, Mr Benson and Captain Mabry is useless and outdated and now needs to be replaced? Are we saying that our current electoral system which required these members to cooperate and get along for the good of the country — whichever side they were on — is no longer useful and relevant to modern-day Cayman? If we vote 'yes' to the upcoming referendum, then we are clearly saying 'yes' to all of these questions.
While our current electoral system is not without its share of flaws, it can be amended and improved, but the current referendum does not provide us with that option. In fact, there are several different types of electoral systems that we could consider. Before we start tampering with something as important our electoral system, perhaps we should all read and gather our information from objective non-partisan sources, rather than acting on the basis of who shouts the loudest or who we like and don’t like.
Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “The real safeguard of democracy is education.” Therefore we should educate ourselves before voting on the referendum. There are several good books and research papers that can help guide us to make the right decision.
One such book is Behind the Ballot Box, A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems by Douglas J. Amy, (Praeger Publishing, 2000). This book is a useful guide for anyone who wants to learn more about voting systems and their political implications. It gives readers all the information and analytical tools they need to make an intelligent choice among voting systems. It provides a set of political criteria that can be used to judge voting systems. It gives detailed descriptions of all the common voting systems used in the United States and other Western democracies and provides an analysis of the various political advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of system. And most of all, it doesn’t have a viewpoint that is slanted by the PPM, UDP, CNS, Rooster or the OMOV proponents.
On the issue of single-member constituency (SMC), the author, Douglas J. Amy, agrees that SMC is good at ensuring that all local geographical areas have a voice in the legislature. On the other hand he also cautions that it tends to reinforce the two-party system, produce manufactured majorities, encourage gerrymandering, discourage voter turnout, create high levels of wasted votes, and deny fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women.
If academics like Amy can make these kind statements about the OMOV system, is this really a more “modern approach to political organization and voting"? Would this really represent an improvement in our democracy? How would independent candidates get elected in such a system?
Let’s now examine how the OMOV system would guarantee equality and fairness.
With the OMOV system the winners need not collect a majority of the votes, only more votes than their opponents. So, if candidate A receives 40% of the vote, candidate B receives 35%, and candidate C gets 25% then candidate A wins the seat. But this would mean that 55% of the electorate would not be represented by the candidate of their choice. How can this be considered “fair and equal?”
According to thefreedictionary.com, one man, one vote is a principle that was enunciated by the US Supreme Court in (Reynolds v. Sims,1964) which stated that all citizens, regardless of where they reside in a state, were entitled to equal legislative representation. The Supreme Court ruled that a state's apportionment plan for seats in both houses of a “bicameral state legislature” must allocate seats on a population basis so that the voting power of each voter be as equal as possible to that of any other voter.
Under our current electoral system we already have equal legislative representation – on the basis of district size; however, we do not yet have a bicameral legislature. Therefore, if the OMOV referendum is successful in July, will the next step be a move to make changes to our current Constitution to introduce a bicameral legislature? Is this the real hidden agenda behind the OMOV movement or is it just an unexpected outcome?
Whenever we make our decisions based on the facts it will reduce the likelihood of unexpected outcomes. So here are some more facts on the origins of the OMOV:
A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that “One Man, One Vote” is a slogan that has been used in many parts of the world in campaigns for “universal suffrage” and it is particularly prevalent in “less developed countries” during the “period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty”.
Is this the hidden political agenda behind the OMOV movement — to lead us on a fight for national sovereignty and towards decolonisation? While I do not believe that many of the supporters of the OMOV are necessarily advocates of decolonisation, there is a possibility that their enthusiasm is being manipulated by some who seek to achieve a higher agenda. We are opening a Pandora's Box, and I am not sure that enough research has yet been done to fully understand the pros and cons of this issue.
While no system is perfect, we certainly know what we have, but we sure don’t know what the heck we’re getting into!
Driving While Dumb
In my opinion we need to go a bit further in making our roads safer than just reducing drink driving. While DWI is a quite widely-touted risk factor relative to fatal accidents, it is a fact worth serious consideration that DWD (Driving While Dumb) is a very major risk factor relating to fatal traffic accidents. We need to get dumb drivers off Cayman's roads!
According to scientific research, there is an undisputed correlation between low intelligence and fatal automobile accident rates. Australian psychologist Brian O'Toole's research reveals that those who had scores in the Army General Classification Test manifesting IQs of between 80-85 had almost three times the death rate due to motor vehicle accidents than those who scored in the 100-115 range. The mortality figures were even more significant for lower IQ levels. Several other studies on the matter report similar results: dumb drivers are deadly drivers!
Now, if this is not a pressing mandate for making our land safer by ridding the roads of dumb drivers, I do not know what is!
It is just not safe to allow dumb people behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Period! We all know that there are lots of dumb drivers roun' yah. If you have any doubts, consider this: How many times while you are driving do you think to yourself, or even say out loud, "What the hell is that dumba$$ doing?" Or, you watch the antics of a particularly mentally deficient driver and blurt out, "Damn! Look at that fool! How stupid can you get? Jesus, there are a lot of idiots on the roads!" Case closed.
Yup! Lots of really dumb drivers here in Cayman. I would surmise that there are far more dumb drivers than drink drivers on our roads. Dumb drivers pose at least as great a risk as drinking drivers. I for one am tired of them. Tired, tired, tired. They have got to go! (Jeeze! I don't even want to think about the accident risk associated with dumb drinking drivers!)
Because of their sheer numbers, dumb drivers pose a far greater risk than do drink drivers. Here is a final bit of very compellling evidence that we have a huge number of dumb drivers amongst us: only a country with lots and lots and lots of very dumb people would see a maroon like MacBush elected as a leader.
A significant percentage of dullards in a given population makes for a correspondingly large number of idiots behind the wheel. With anti driving while dumb laws in place at least these imbeciles would not be able to drive themselves to the polls come election day. And no intelligent person would give 'em a ride to the voting station. I do not know about you, but I would feel a lot safer anyway.
Global warming could cost region $100 billion
(CNS): Latin America and the Caribbean face annual damages in the order of $100 billion by 2050 from diminishing agricultural yields, disappearing glaciers, flooding, droughts and other events triggered by a warming planet, according to the findings of a new report to be released at the Rio+20 summit. On the positive side, the cost of investments in adaptation to address these impacts is much smaller, in the order of one tenth the physical damages, according to the study jointly produced by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
However, the study also notes that forceful reductions in global emissions of greenhouse gases are needed to avert some of the potentially catastrophic longer term consequences of climate change, a release from the Inter-American Development Bank says. The report estimates that countries would need to invest an additional $110 billion per year over the next four decades to decrease per capita carbon emissions to levels consistent with global climate stabilization goals.
“Many climate-related changes are irreversible and will continue to impact the region over the long term,” said Walter Vergara, the IDB’s Division Chief of Climate Change and Sustainability and the lead researcher of the study, whose preliminary findings were presented today in Washington at an event jointly hosted by the IDB and the Center for American Progress (CAP). “To prevent further damages, adaptation is necessary but not enough. Bolder actions are needed to bend the emissions curve in the coming decades.”
Latin America and the Caribbean contribute only 11 percent of the emissions that cause global warming. However, countries are especially vulnerable to its effects, given the region’s dependence on natural resources, an infrastructure network that is susceptible to climate events, and the presence of bio-climate hotspots such as the Amazon basin, the Caribbean coral biome, coastal wetlands and fragile mountain eco-systems.
Estimated yearly damages in Latin America and the Caribbean caused by the physical impacts associated with the a rise of 2C degrees over pre-industrial levels are of the order of $100 billion by 2050, or about 2 percent of GDP at current values, according to the report titled “The Climate and Development Challenge for Latin America and the Caribbean: Options for Climate Resilient Low Carbon Development.”
The study cites climate impacts in areas such as agriculture, exposure to tropical diseases and changing rainfall patterns, among others. For instance, the report cites recent work estimating the loss of net agricultural exports in the region valued at between $30 billion and $52 billion in 2050.
Mexico and Brazil have the largest land distribution just above sea level, making those countries vulnerable to rising sea levels. A rise of one meter in the sea level could affect 6.700 kilometers of roads and cause extensive flooding and coastal damage. A 50 percent loss of the coral cover in the Caribbean from coral bleaching would cost at least $7 billion to the economies in the region.
The study notes that the adaptation costs are a small fraction of the costs of physical impacts, conservatively estimated at 0.2 percent of GDP for the region, at current values. In addition, adaptation efforts would have significant development benefits, from enhanced water and food security to improved air quality and less vehicle congestion, further reducing their net costs.
“Investments in adaptation are cost effective and have substantial co-benefits” said Luis Miguel Galindo, Chief of the Climate Change Unit of ECLAC, a key contributor to the study. “Also, some of these adaptation measures are very easy to implement and have significant positive impacts.”
Though adaptation is important, substantial investments are also required in order to drastically cut the region’s projected carbon emissions to levels consistent with global climate stabilization goals.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, Latin America and the Caribbean would contribute 9.3 tons per capita of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, up from the current 4.7 tons per capita. The report identifies pathways to bend the emission curve to two tons per capita, by promoting zero net emissions from deforestation and other land-use practices by 2030, combined with efforts to eliminate the carbon footprint in the power matrix and transport infrastructure by 2050, at an annual cost of $110 billion.
“Yes, spending $110 billion a year for a region that faces major development challenges is not an easy proposition,” said Pablo Gutman, the Director of Environmental Economics at the WWF. “However, this would also bring about major benefits such as improved food and energy security; people would have healthier lives in cleaner environments.”
“In the long term,” added Vergara, “this is the surest way to ensure Latin America and the Caribbean continues to prosper along a sustainable path.”
How many worms are in that can?
The role of senior civil servants, and in particular whether they are held accountable, is a question that always surfaces, especially during a crisis. Mr Duckworth’s recent response to a commentary regarding party politics contained a reference to the role of the Financial Secretary that in effect opens a can of worms that should be addressed.
I will assume that Mr Duckworth’s reference to “the Financial Secretary’s radical reassessment after the 2009 election” is not meant to intentionally open this can of worms. At the same time, his reference does remind me of the suggestion, usually made by the PPM, that the FS’ fiscal reassessment post-election was not just a case of an error or incompetence but that it may have been politically motivated. This has been suggested often enough publicly to address it here.
I will try not to make too much of a judgment here about the FS or his performance, but I'm not so convinced that his actions are as political as they are sometimes made out to be and here's why:
First, it should go without saying thatthe FS is accountable to the public. So, for example, when we witness financial mismanagement, poor government budget forecasts, a surplus pronouncement one day and deficit the next, some of that blame should be placed squarely on this senior official and his team.
But elected officials should also be held accountable for these mishaps and we should not buy the political cop-out that elected ministers have no control over the civil service.
Irrespective of the constitutional position that is used when they wish to run away from public criticism, ministers in particular do have a material element of day to day control over what goes on within their portfolio. They should not be allowed to claim victory and political points when an initiative goes well and yet say “we are not responsible” when things go wrong. The truth is if they are in control enough to claim credit then they are in control enough to also take the blame.
When we focus on the role of the FS post the 2009 election, we should also recall his role (and the role of other financial secretaries) in the years before the 2009 election as well. We might recall that for years we have accepted the practice of having unaudited financials used as the main document by which the public assesses how the country is doing (since the audited financials were usually anywhere from several months to a year behind).
We should also accept that the FS and his team have always carried out projections and that those projections have frankly not always been accurate. In other words, these errors are nothing new.
We should also remind ourselves that this is the same FS who gave the go-ahead, according to the PPM, for their projects and they had no reason to doubt his judgment then. And finally, the PPM should remind itself that for four years straight they accepted his work, for better or for worse, as being credible enough to approve the annual budget in the Legislative Assembly. Same goes now for the UDP.
If all we were saying was that the FS and his team made some serious errors and one of those errors was that they got the size of the deficit wrong in 2009, that would be a reasonable opinion for anyone to have. But what has been suggested (and strongly implied by the PPM on occasion) is that he first suggested a deficit of one size and then “all of a sudden” projected that the deficit would be 81 million post-election day (with the emphasis being on ‘post-election day’).
I, for one, have also lost confidence in these numbers, but we should also consider the direct role of elected officials because that contributes significantly to the problem. Here is how that part of the process works:
A group of politicians and several senior civil servants from the finance department get into a room to finalise the annual budget. The officials provide their reasons for the projections. The politicians come up with some other ways to earn revenue or claim to commit to reduce expenditures further (i.e. they don’t like the projections). The actual projections agreed are based on the unsubstantiated claims and proposed actions of the government as promised by the politicians. The senior officials and his team then get blamed for publishing an erratic budget.
If there is anything that shows just how elected officials can muddy the waters and their true influence/control (yes, I said control) over civil servants, it is the above example, which does reflect reality on many, many occasions. But what may surprise you is to find out how often this occurs and for how many years it has been going on.
All of this is to say this: feel free to criticise the FS and the current “system of financial management” all you want, but it is highly unlikely that the reasons for the financial debacle are mainly due to errors or incompetence of a few senior officials, or worse that they are simply politically motivated. This way of looking at things is equally alarming, whether we view the system under the PPM or the UDP. The FS and his team have been a constant in this process for both groups. In other words, whether you believe he is very competent or not that good, he has been the same. So who really then is to blame? Is it not the politicians themselves?
Whether it is the failure of our elected officials to heed warnings from senior civil servants or their political maneuvering to get the numbers they prefer, the truth behind this story has a lot more to do with the actions of the politicians (both present and past) than any of them would have us believe.
Ironically, if we were to start looking deeper into this issue we would likely need an accountant to help us assess the overwhelming number of worms in that can.
Allowing Bush to fail us is failing ourselves
The ongoing farce of McKeeva Bush’s continued leadership in the face of three separate police investigations is now reaching the point of ridicule. In any other democratic country a leader facing such intense police scrutiny would have stepped aside months ago in order to allow investigations to be carried out swiftly and successfully and in order to prevent further damage to the reputation of the government and of the country itself.
But Bush’s petulant refusal to let go of his power even temporarily not only risks making Cayman a laughing stock, it also makes it very difficult to take his own political position seriously.
Who could seriously acknowledge Bush’s calls for fiscal prudence at the Caribbean Development Bank meeting, for example, in light of the knowledge that his own financial irregularities are under intense police scrutiny? Who will listen to a leader who urges others to exercise financial caution when the Stan Thomas letter, revealing his demand for a $350,000 payment which still remains to be properly explained, is in public circulation? Even if Bush’s claims that the payment was for ‘consulting fees’ are true, the proximity of his wife’s company’s involvement in the West Bay land deal seems too close for comfort for those who hope to see complete professionalism and impartiality from a political leader.
And when one reaches the point at which the highest elected official of the Cayman Islands goes publicly on record with a damaging, babbling and paranoid statement of aggression against the representative of the British government in Cayman, any voter must start to ask whether the price of keeping Mac in office isn’t becoming too high for that office to bear.
How great is the value of Bush’s questioned, debated and investigated leadership compared to the cost of irrevocably damaging the relationship between the premier’s office and the governor? Are we really so desperate to keep a man in office who we KNOW requested the release of an illegal shipment of dynamite despite a complete lack of proper licensing that we are prepared to watch him reduce the office of premier to little more than a public joke?
Bush’s insistence on remaining in office must inevitably damage the position of premier, as it has required him to make several weak attempts to swipe at the accusations against him, each one only resulting in making him look more desperate, as he tries to twist language and motive to conceal the truth rather than clarify matters. While Bush was quick to try to dismiss allegations surrounding the Stan Thomas letter by blaming his assistant, Richard Parchment for making a simple ‘mistake’, the sentence “I have ensured that all of the proposed re-zoning issues have been agreed and approved by Cabinet” is pretty hard to explain away as a misunderstanding.
Indeed, Bush’s subsequent letter, which he has provided as ‘proof’ that he immediately rectified the situation, reads “I need to clarify to save any misunderstanding that the bill sent to you today for the West Bay Seven Mile Beach purchase transaction is for consulting fees for work carried out and advice given by Windsor Development Corporation. The rezoning was done before and without Windsor participation.”
Yet it was not Windsor Development, but Bush himself, a member of Cabinet at the time as Leader of Government Business, who was in a position to influence the Cabinet decision on re-zoning. So whilst the claim that Windsor Development had no influence on the Cabinet may be technicallytrue, it is in fact completely beside the point and fails to address the issue of Bush’s influence at all. (Not to mention reports that a witness statement given to police casts doubt on Bush’s claims anyway.)
Of course, even if Bush’s claims about his involvement in the whole affair are completely accurate, they still present a worrying picture of a government minister deeply involved in and influencing local deals and land transactions in a way that many would consider inappropriate anyway. He told the Cayman Compass “My job was to convince Gil Freytag to sell the property to Stan Thomas,” with the Cayman Compass reporting that he added “there was another developer interested in buying the property, but he was able to convince Mr. Freytag to sell it to Mr. Thomas instead.”
Is this the level of influence and involvement we want an elected minister to be having in local business transactions? And can it possibly be ethical for him to be involved in this way when he also sat on the Cabinet which made the decisions about zoning to enable such schemes to go through, whether or not he claims to have acted impartially in this instance?
The deeper one looks at Bush’s administration and activities, and the more closely one investigates his attempts to deflect the allegations against him, the more doubtful it seems that he is the best person to lead Cayman forward in a fair, accountable and impartial manner.
What kind of political acumen and wisdom can we expect from a man who lashed out in an undignified and apoplectic fit to hurl utterly groundless accusations and conspiracy theories at the UK’s highest representative in the Cayman Islands? Even the very statement itself was highly embarrassing, with a confused and enraged Bush seeming to utterly contradict himself by both accusing Governor Taylor of having “done nothing for three years” and “doing nothing of substance” and yet simultaneously suggesting that he was “stealthily and insidiously” working against the success of Cayman.
The very idea is farcical, but what should concern voters far more is the arrogant selfishness with which Bush is prepared to throw around such damaging and unfounded accusations in order to defend his own precarious position, with utter disregard for the damage it could do to the office of premier and the relationship between the Cayman Islands and the UK.
In almost any other democratic country in the world Bush would by now have been forced to step aside before he drags the position of premier into the dust. No, there is no legislative requirement for him to do so as a result of his being the subject of police investigations, but this is probably not a constitutional decision so much as an assumption that a person in such high public position would naturally have the decency and respect for his office to do so voluntarily!
But neither have Bush’s political allies and funders shown the backbone required to force him to step out of the limelight – and this is where Caymanians are not only allowing Bush to fail them, but also failing themselves.
A lost opportunity?
The proponents of closing a portion of the West Bay Road have closed their eyes to the great opportunity that theextension of the Esterley Tibbetts Highway brings. I have never been directly involved in the tourism sector of our economy but over many years I have read and heard from those involved that our tourism product needs to be improved. This ETH extension would allow a significant improvement in my opinion.
We have a development company that apparently intends to develop multiple hotel properties. It is claimed that these properties will need direct “beach frontage” to be successful.
Other persons have already pointed out that this frontage is in no way any guarantee of success, as seen by the struggles of existing hotels, that are on much, much better direct beach frontage. This company also does not wish to wait for some future government to possibly extend the ETH through their land, thereby creating even more opportunities for the developer.
(As a side note, query whether the land for the road corridor should actually cost a future government anything because often the increase in the adjacent land value will compensate for the appropriation of the corridor, making it a win-win process.)
Once the ETH extension is complete the volume of traffic on WBR will drop significantly. This is the start of the opportunity. The reduction of the maximum speed on WBR to 25mph, which has been talked about for quite some time, would be the next step and drop the traffic volume further. This would then create a zone along the entire western side of the island, where our very valuable tourism clientele can live/play/visit in a family friendly environment.
The existing WBR can gradually be converted into an “avenue” with more shade — and colour — providing flora (maybe in sections of the existing middle lane), and with pedestrian crossing zones with lights or even lower speeds in high volume areas, and traffic-calming measures to automatically enforce the maximum speed, such as bumps,
as well as cycle lanes.
This would enable our tourism visitors (has anyone really considered the situation from their perspective?) to move about from WB to GT, while visiting all of the included amenities, without ever travelling on a fast multi-lane road where most of them are driving on the “wrong” side. Another benefit would be to have a route conducive to older resident drivers who, quite sensibly, might prefer not to deal with faster multiple lanes of traffic and roundabouts. Plus it leaves the WB/GT alternate route, which was always envisioned since SMB development began, in case of problems on the new main route.
This change of WBR use will also promote some increase of development on the east side of WBR. Potential developers would likely be more willing to invest since the guests of their properties would only have to deal with limited, slow-moving traffic for beach access, as would the hotels by the current development company.
Additional (light-controlled) pedestrian crossings could be added as incentives for new properties as needed. Local companies would also be able to offer new/more outdoor/healthy activities, such as bicycle/segway/walking tours, and the tour/water sports/taxi/bus transport companies could move around collecting customers in a smoother and safer environment.
Close your eyes and imagine some future tourists renting electric bicycles to visit the Turtle Farm or go shopping from a WBR condo/ hotel or even a cruise ship via this scenic avenue without any fear of fast moving traffic.
We are told that the ETH extension is to compensate for the WBR closure. I do not really agree with that scenario as the trade is not fair (plus additional issues brought up by others). If the closure proceeds, the country will forever have closed the door to the opportunites I have described.
Vehicular traffic will always have to use the ETH to get around this closed section and the idea of speed reduction on WBR loses its effect, especially if other developmentsrequest that same agreement. The properties on the closed section(s) will benefit greatly, but that is a selfish proposal when compared to the longer term benefits for sustaining/improving our overall tourism product.
The persons who should be heard from on this subject are the owners of the hotel/condominium/tour/water sports/restaurant/retail businesses that operate in this area. Let us hear if they consider that this closure proposal has any benefits to their existing or future product offering. What do they see happening to their business activity (in the non-closure areas) over the next 20 years if this proposal continues?
Development benefits are greatly desired but should not be restricted in their focus. They should be for the long term benefit of the entire country.
Reply to 101: Learning Lessons
101 is eager to ridicule our two political parties, to say there is nothing to choosebetween them and to throw both in the bin. I do not think 101 can be faulted for wanting to get rid of UDP government. It is clear to all of us that the UDP offers one thing only – Bush rule. We have all seen Bush rule in action, and there is no reason to think that it would improve if Bush were re-elected as premier.
On top of his failings as a ruler and the question whether we want a ruler or a government, there are strong suspicions of large-scale corruption, made worse by his explanation of the Thomas affair. So it would indeed be a grim day for the Cayman Islands if voters chose four more years of Bush rule.
On the other hand 101’s suggestion that a PPM government would be no better than Bush rule is facile and unworthy – if this is meant to be a realistic assessment of the situation. The explanation may be that the Viewpoint is really propaganda for an independent candidate.
In order to slam the PPM government of 2005-09, 101 repeats the UDP propaganda about financial mismanagement. This was the propaganda that won the election for Bush and his team in 2009. But I suspect 101 understands that the truth is not so simple. And I hope 101 recognises that it is important for the country’s future that the truth be understood and the lessons of the financial crisis learned.
The PPM government was elected in 2005 on a manifesto that made plain that it would give first priority to the country’s education system. Our existing system was suffering from neglect, it was inadequate and over-stretched, and this was having very serious long-term effects. The government set out to overhaul the system, change attitudes to education and provide the best facilities that the country could afford. Thus far I do not think anyone would fault the government.
The mistake was in not making their own assessment of what the country could afford. The financial secretary gave the project his thumbs-up and there was no reason to doubt his assessment. Under the Constitution (then) it was the financial secretary’s responsibility to make the assessment, and he had the data and the expertise to make it. We still do not have reliable figures but we do know that the financial secretary made a radical reassessment after the 2009 election. And from his explanation to the LA it emerged that he had a very restrictive view of what his responsibility entailed. He just passed on figures given to him by others.
It does not matter now whether the FS was wrong about his responsibility. I am not talking about blame but about the lessons the financial crisis teaches us. One of the most important lessons is that in future the elected government must ensure that large projects are undertaken only with a reliable assessment of affordability – and of feasibility, cost, impact and benefit. Those who make the assessments and advise on financing must take responsibility for what they say; and the elected government must satisfy itself that the assessments and advice have been given properly and carefully, with due regard for margins of error.
I am not suggesting that the elected government should ignore what the civil servants are saying. Far from it. We have seen in recent years the mess that is created by a premier who thinks he knows best on all subjects.
This is only one of the lessons that the financial crisis should have taught us. Another, underlined by the Miller/Shaw report, is the absolute necessity of bringing the operating costs of government under effective oversight and control. This was the responsibility of the civil service itself. When the Cabinet was told there might be an operating deficit for ‘08/’09 it immediately put pressure on the civil service to cut costs. But with hindsight we can see that this was not enough. With the new Constitution the responsibility for government finances is in the hands of the minister for finance.
Another lesson is that raising taxes to make up the government deficit can do more harm than good. The key thing in a financial crisis is to support and encourage private business, especially our pillar industries, and to restore confidence. This was emphasised in the PPM’s 2009 manifesto. It is increasingly recognized by governments around the world as the global crisis continues.
I think it is fair to say that the Bush government has ignored all of the lessons. The premier sees such lessons and the ordinary principles of good governance as obstacles to be evaded when doing what he wants. So we have the embarrassment of the UK forcing our premier to sign an agreement to observe some fundamentals – not that there is any sign that he truly accepts any of them. He prefers confrontation.
In my opinion voters need to choose a team, one that could form a government with its leader as premier; and it should be a team that believes in good governance, shows that it understands the lessons of the financial crisis, and will restore confidence and the rule of law. That is the only way voters can obtain a government that will take care of them and the country.
The PPM is assembling such a team. That has been the main mission of the PPM since the first members came together ten years ago. The PPM team will certainly include new faces; it already has a new leader. I hope voters will examine the team and its manifesto with care before making their decision. Of course the performance and achievements of the previous PPM government should be scrutinized, but where mistakes were made the question should be whether the lessons have been learned.
101 exhorts voters to vote for individuals regardless of party affiliation, if any. This is how we voted in 2000, and it led to the first Bush government. A lot of people used some of their votes this way in 2009, and it gave us the second Bush government. Let us not make the same mistake in 2013. Another lesson.
Independent candidates should be pressed to say who they would vote for as the next premier. Voters should choose their government, not leave it to the MLAs to make deals and compromises to suit themselves.
Leadership reboot needed
There are 15 elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly in the Cayman Islands, earning total salaries of approximately CI$1.9 million per year. They were elected on the basis that they would use their incredible power and influence over the country's laws, policies and the indirect influence over the civil service to improve the standard of living of all residents in this country. They are also especially accountable politically to Caymanians.
These men and lady are presented to us as representing two political parties with the exception of the independent member from North Side.
From a policy/philosophical perspective it is near impossible to find any useful distinction between these two groups. At this stage all we know or candeduce as amateurs on the outside is the following: one uses the colours green and blue, seems to be slightly more into doing things to get the economy moving, seems susceptible to attracting allegations of corrupt practices (particularly at the very top), and has a chaotic/autocratic leadership style fused with lack of statesmanship most of the time.
The other group uses the colours red and blue, is responsible for one of the worse displays of financial mismanagement in the country's history in their last term in office, has a reputation for leading too passively, is notorious for its anti foreigner rhetoric, has respect for good governance, is not susceptible to allegations of corrupt practices and generally seems to conduct itself in a more respectable and statesmanlike manner.
The problem is that not much in the above (aside from the corruption susceptibility and statesmanship issue) gives us any compelling reason to choose one group over the other. Unfortunately it gets worse; there is certainly nothing in the differences mentioned above that indicates which group is capable of improving the current local economic situation in which the country finds itself.
The brief history goes something like this: the Red Team were swept into power largely on the basis that the Green Team were alleged to be corrupt based on media reports and the fact that the Green Team granted Cayman status to approximately 3,000 persons. All this played perfectly well into the hands of the Red Team, who are of course overly protectionist and certainly seem to be much better at good governance and diplomacy.
Unfortunately when given the opportunity, the Red Team also did nothing for the economy, spewing out lots of anti foreigner sentiments along the way, essentially screwed up public finances, and did not produce a single set of financial statements during their four years in office.
In 2009 the Green Team were swept back into office, rightly pointing out the Red Team's deficiencies during their campaign, and promising to set things right.
It's been 3 years. And we are all still waiting for the fix to occur. Aside from the initial flurry in its first 9 or 10 months in office where, to its credit, the current government stabilized the financial fallout, it has done next to nothing to address the many issues that this country is facing. And worse, along the way it has managed to put itself (yes, you guessed it) right back into that "alleged corruption" space that it always seems to gravitate towards.
So where does that leave us?
While the so-called parties have not presented us with any meaningful ways to choose between them, we at least now know a bit more about their capabilities as a group from recent years. We do know that the Cayman Islands has not improved much over the past 11 years. We know that neither group wishes to truly look into the causes of our many social and economic problems. And it is also clear that neither group can avoid the temptation of distracting themselves (and us) with silly politics aimed only at maintaining their jobs at the next election and subjecting us to that CI$1.9 million salary bill that none of us can afford but are forced to pay nonetheless.
So we may not be any better off but at least we have got a bit wiser along the way. The upcoming 2013 election campaign will be swamped with red and green shirts, fridges, stoves, a little cash here and there (on the QT) and lots of promises. But what this country needs are individuals who genuinely can demonstrate that they understand the issues this country is facing and in no uncertain terms that they have solutions to address those issues. Anything less and the potential candidates are seeking only to steal upwards of CI$2.2 million dollars in wages from the people of this country (taking into account the three additional seats to come in 2013).
That is the standard by which we must hold them. We must ask them what they are going to do, why and how. If they don't wish to engage us with this brand of politics, accountability and style of discourse, we must continue to look for anyone, political party or not, who fits the bill. And if we don't like the answers they give we should move on to the next candidate.
The situation in this country at this stage is far too serious to entertain this red and green team game. We must forget not only the colour shirts borne by each party, but we must also avoid sticking our friends and family into these "party groupings", which is a practice that is slowly destroying our small community.
In the end, if we are not careful, the soon to be 18 representatives will gain a nice fat salary check and our lives will only continue to get worse. Of course, we can all turn to the blogs and each other to vent when that happens, but that won't address any of our issues.
It's time for a leadership change. A change that gets us at least closer to a group of leaders that want to do things properly, crafting solutions based on the best information and analysis, taking the tough decisions when they are the right ones for the country, conducting themselves like leaders of a country that is seen to be sophisticated (and not like a banana republic), and taking us into a new era to rebuild this country. Let's make this group of individuals the best we can, irrespective of their party affiliations. We control the ballot so this is definitely our choice, not theirs.
Woe is me
CNS' recent opinion piece which focuses on the role of Dart Management's vulture fund in Greece and the implications for Dart's activities in the Cayman Islands was a valuable commentary but only for what it revealed in the blogs that followed. The article itself carried some major flaws and certainly smacks of the entitlement/woe is me culture that encourages people to find someone else to blame for their standard of living.
Regretfully, there is this overwhelming need among many to always conclude that if someone and in particular a business person or investor is making a profit then they surely must be inflicting harm on others to get that result.
It's a common folly for this group that when everything else fails or frankly luck runs against them, they can always find some reason and ideally someone to blame for their "woes".
This cultural position basically says that Dart for example, is doing no more than to inflict harm on the Cayman Islands on his way to yet further profits. It's the kind of thinking and lack of understanding of how the real world operates that continues to serve as one of the major stumbling blocks towards an improved standard of living for too many people.
And anyone who dares raise this issue is quickly thrown into the ugly basket of evil persons who want nothing but to become more wealthy while refusing to give some of their hard earned wealth to the "needy".
Seriously?
Most investors are risk takers. Little is known of the failures of entrepreneurs globally or locally. When they take a risk, some of us assume that "they can afford to do so". Truth is very often they cannot, but their appetite for risk is greater than the average person. They can, and often do, lose their shirts on deals more times than one imagines. But ironically, it is this very risk taking/entrepreneurialnature that drives the local and global economy.
When they gain, we then say they must have hurt people in the process and are doing nothing or not enough (by our own self serving standards) for the country/community.
This hugely flawed position stems partially from a comparison of the magnitude of profits reaped by the investor against what that investor gives back to the community.
If a business donates say an average of 1 million each year to charitable causes and employs 300 to 400 Caymanians, the absolute size of its profits, assuming this is substantial, should not water down the true impact of that contribution to the community and employment. The fact that the investor may incur a profit of 100 million does not all of a sudden mean that those 300 jobs are not important, or that the millions donated to charitable causes has not helped literally hundreds of needy persons within the community.
And neither does it matter if said investor did this "out of the kindness of his heart" or as a result of pressure to be a good corporate citizen. All that matters is whether the investment was carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner, within the laws and if it has been of benefit to the country or community in question.
The CNS viewpoint on Dart's vulture fund not only encouraged this type of "woe is me and people that make money are obviously harming others" thinking, but it also made a huge leap in logic in implying that we must now also be cautious of Dart's investment in this country.
Dart has not loaned money to this country, which is essentially what the organisation did indirectly in Greece and Argentina.
Instead its investment is what's regarded and welcomed as 'real investment' in the Cayman Islands, bricks and mortar type stuff which lead to true employment of hundreds of individuals who get real salaries and purchase physical goods or services in the country.
And yet I heard someone say a few months ago on a local talk show: "If Dart cared so much about this country, why then doesn't he just give some of his wealth to the country. He has made enough money; he doesn't need to make anymore."
There is so much wrong with that way of thinking that there is not enough space here to elaborate further.
However, one thing worth considering is the impact of this way of thinking on the youth of the Cayman Islands.
We teach the youth to pursue an education and that this is essential to a successful career path, and that they should try to enjoy what they do for a living. At the same time they are brought up a country where there is a prevalent culture of pointing at the expat, foreign or investor as their glass ceiling, the reason for a lack of opportunity. There is no denying that some of these so-styled glass ceiling issues exist, but the extent of this blame game is sold at such an incredibly ludicrous level to the youth that there is little point arming them with a good education when their minds and attitudes have been so severely poisoned with this nonsense.
It's time promote the true realities: that the Cayman Islands are part of a global and competitive economy, that the really great opportunities are there only for those who work both hard and smart, that if our youth are not prepared to survive globally they will certainly not survive locally (because global standards are already here and in practice), and that most of these 'bogeyman investors' that mean no good to our country are just law abiding entrepreneurs seeking the highest possible reward for the risks that they take.
There seems to be an increasing culture of blaming everyone else, and if Caymanians continue to swim in this "woe is me culture" they will most certainly never secure the control over this economy that they desire.
Battered wives must make their own decision to leave
(CNS): As distressing as it is to see women put up with being abused by their husbands and partners, it is the role of those who care for them when they run from their abusers to help them get on with their lives in a non-judgmental way. Battered women must make their owndecision to leave their abuser and this means, on average, running away from their husband or partner seven times before they finally see the light, according to Cayman Islands Crisis Centre Director Ania Milanowska-Sedgley. She said that with domestic violence one thing was sure – it always got worse, not better, until the victim left for good.
Speaking on the subject of domestic violence at last week’s Nurses Conference held at the Marriott Beach Resort, Milanowska-Sedgley said that globally, one in four women are either beaten or forced into sex by an abuser, who is often a member of their own family. 85 per cent of domestic violence victims are women and every day three women are murdered in America by either their husband or partner.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the US, beating all other causes, such as car accidents and muggings, combined. 25 to 45 per cent of women who are abused are pregnant at the time of the abuse and domestic violence costs America US$5.8 billion annually, with US$1.4 billion of that being spent directly on medical costs.
People who were abused come from all sorts of backgrounds, she said. They were all ages, ethnicities and economic backgrounds and all had suffered at the hands of an abuser who was looking for power over them. Milanowska-Sedgley outlined the types of abuse that was considered domestic violence and this not only included physical abuse but also sexual, emotional, psychological and financial.
She said that abusers often criticized the victim in public, put them down and insulted them to lower their self-esteem. Often they would appear gentle and kind to their victim in public and save the abuse for when they got home. They may withhold finances from their partner or wife or restrict access to family and friends in anotherway of abusing their victims, she explained. Women were made to feel that they had no choice in this type of activity and that the abuser had total control over their lives.
Milanowska-Sedgley outlined many reasons that abused women gave to validate why they had not left the abusive relationship, and even though it was hard to bear witnessing the suffering that the women had endured, she said it was important for those who cared for such women to allow them to make their own decisions as to when they would finally leave their partner or husband.
Women might say that they feared the unknown if they left their partner, that becoming a single parent was too much to bear, that their husband or partner promised they would reform and was also considerate after the abuse. She went on to say that women sometimes thought their husband was sick and it was their duty to help him, as a wife. A lack of self-esteem sometimes prevented women from leaving, as did a lack of financial support without their partner or husband. Some women believed that they would be perceived as failures by society or their families if they left their husbands. Some women, particularly ex-patriots, kept the abuse from their families back home and pretended that it did not exist for fear of bringing shame on their families.
Some women had religious beliefs that prevented them from leaving their abuser, thinking it was all part of “God’s plan”.
The Cayman Islands Crisis Centre has room for 18 abused women and they are never turned away, even if they have left their partners multiple times to be helped at the Centre.
“Women are never turned away because seeing them repeatedly means they are one step closer to being free from the abuse,” Milanowska-Sedgley said. “It takes women on average seven times to leave their husband or partner before they leave him for good … Abuse only gets worse if the victim does not do something about it.”
While the Crisis Centre was a female-only refuge, she said that men in Cayman were also abused by their partners or wives and even though men did call the centrefor advice, there was not a place of refuge on island for them to go to. Milanowska-Sedgley acknowledged that there was little support for men in this regard.