Guest Writer

Fighting crime

Premier McKeeva Bush: “While Cayman has experienced a spike in crime recently, it is still much more secure than many other places.  When all is said and done, we have much to be thankful for.” Whilst I agree with the general statement that “we have much to be thankful for”, I think that our premier is missing the point entirely. Watching the world fall apart and commenting that Cayman is falling apart more slowly, therefore we’re better off than most and it’s all relative, is quite plainly ridiculous.

We can all be thankful when we compare ourselves to others less fortunate, equally we can all become very disappointed when comparing ourselves to those better off – if you’re constantly having to compare yourself to others to find something to be thankful for, you’re in a very sorry state indeed.
We should maintain a standard that is acceptable and not let that standard slip just because others have let their standards slip further.

Let’s consider the facts:

We’ve spent $57 million this financial year on crime fighting.  I know some (perhaps most) of this has been spent on customs and immigration and border protection; however, I would be interested to see the breakdown on what may or may not have been spent in the fight against petty crime, which has increased exponentially – to say we’ve experienced a “spike in crime recently” is to seriously downplay the anarchy that is playing out on our streets on a daily basis.

As an example, I have taken to making a note of every vehicle on the road every day that has something wrong with the vehicle itself or with the person driving it. I drive approximately 10 miles to work every day and 10 miles home. During this 20 mile round trip, I spot at least 8 cars each day (and not the same ones every day) with broken tail lights, brake lights, persons notwearing seat belts, speeding, etc.  Just this year to date, had I been a policeman on duty on my route to work and back, I could have stopped and fined 368 persons (this doesn’t include any of the cars I have spotted on the weekends).  Even at $100 per fine, this raises funds (or perhaps pays a decent salary) in a very short space of time.

The point is, of course, that (it is hoped) the fines will run out as everyone starts to once more obey the law.  The only plausible theory as to why there has been an enormous increase in the lack of observance of the traffic law (and this is just one example of the many laws out there currently being disregarded) is that there doesn’t seem to be any fear of being caught.

I have spotted 3 police cars in TOTAL during the 46 (up to and including March 7th) working days of this year during my 20 mile daily round trip.

I know there are many good policemen and women out there doing their very best under very difficult circumstances. I just have no idea how in the past 20 years we’ve come from a society that used to take the purchase of bicycle licenses seriously (and the lack of having a license for your bicycle was an offense) to a society that doesn’t seem to take the purchase of vehicle licenses seriously.

Rudy Guiliani knew he was fighting a losing battle in New York by trying to focus on BIG crime whilst the petty criminals slowly but surely ate away at the fabric of society and slowly permeated every aspect of society.  So he asked his policemen to police the petty “criminals” – all those with broken tail lights, those running red lights, those not wearing seat belts.  I guarantee you will catch more than a few “innocent” people – perhaps single men or women who were unaware a brake light was out (it’s hard to know when you live alone and they have my sympathy) BUT, equally, I guarantee you’ll catch many petty criminals who simply don’t care and perhaps some of the more serious criminals who we know absolutely don’t care.

Rudy Guiliani said, “It’s about time law enforcement got as organized as organized crime” and I would agree – there needs to be method to our madness and not just the madness.

We need people to keep the laws of the road for fear of getting caught.

I strongly believe that this may only be the tip of the iceberg but it’s a start and we’ve got to start somewhere – diluting our resources by trying to solve everything at once is plainly not working so let’s look at the overall picture – choose an area to eradicate and start from there so that law and order once again permeates our society instead of anarchy.

We want to feel safe again – we want to feel protected – we don’t simply want to be “thankful because we still happen to be more secure than other places.”

Continue Reading

Who in their right mind thinks we need 15 MLAs?

Question: Why does a tiny country with a population of 50,000 need 15 elected representatives? Answer: It doesn’t! Maybe the public has lost count over the years. But, believe it or not, we currently have 15 MLAs who are paid nice salaries to represent the people. Why? That’s about seven too many. What is the need for all these seats? And, don’t forget, this is in addition to what is practically an army of permanent civil servants who get virtually all of the real work of running the country done.

A society with a population this size clearly does not need so many representatives. Couldn’t we manage as well or better with one paid politician per district? Or, if you prefer, zone the islands into five or six electoral districts based on population numbers and let each area choose one representative.

If our current bloated political machinery worked for free and actually got things done then sensible people might be able to overlook such a farce. But the present situation in the Cayman Islands is inexcusable. Currently we have a horde of mostly self-serving barbarians who are elected by handfuls of people. So what if Cayman’s political landscape has been carved up into imaginary kingdoms called “districts”. (That’s what they are called here, but anywhere else they would be called “neighborhoods”.) We can change how we elect leaders anytime we want to.

The people of Cayman need to reduce the number of their MLAs before Grand Cayman sinks into the sea from the weight of all the pompous nonsense produced by our fleet of MLAs. Aren’t we supposed to be a culture blessed with a natural strain of superior seamanship? Well, let’s jettison some dead weight, weigh anchor, and set sail for sanity. Erasing half or more of the current MLA positions would save money and time, and allow us to recapture some of our dignity.

Why does West Bay need four representatives, for example? West Bay is not that big, either in size, population or complexity. Let’s consider the record. Having four well-paid MLAs has not stopped that district’s slide into violent crime in recent years, has it? Why do we need four captains? Couldn’t one MLA fail at crime prevention solutions and other priorities just as well four have!

If we are going to be inefficient, corrupt (allegedly),and incompetent, why not do it in a thrifty and streamlined manner, with fewer MLAs to pay? With the amount of money wasted over the years on salaries, expenses, and crazy projects by unnecessary MLAs, we could build our own cruise ship dock and have money left over to feed every child a proper breakfast at school.

Not only would eliminating half the Legislative Assembly chairs currently filled by empty vessels be good for Cayman, it would also be consistent with our supposed political philosophy. Isn’t Cayman strongly conservative? Well, one of the pillars of conservatism is small government. So why aren't all our passionate right wingers interested in shrinking the size of Cayman's ridiculously oversized government? One does hear about whacking the jobs of low-level civil servants from time to time, but never a peep about the most damaging bloat of all. It is important to understand that unnecessary MLAs do harm far beyond their salaries and expenses. They write checks for nonsense ideas that the people have to pay for. Where is the always conservative leadership of the Chamber of Commerce on this? Their members love to pose like rock-solid conservatives on almost every issue but oddly don’t seem to have the inclination to speak up on this one.

It’s simple, people: Fewer MLAs means fewer grand projects that never amount to anything, less money spent, less paperwork, less embarrassment, and more sanity for the Cayman Islands.

Continue Reading

Why should we adopt Single Member Constituencies prior to the 2013 elections?

I would like to thank the residents of the Cayman Islands for their overwhelming support of the petition to trigger a referendum on the One Man One Vote question. Our group has been working very hard to not only gather signatures but also, more importantly, to educate those who require additional information prior to making a decision to sign, and to demonstrate that this movement was derived from a desire to see these islands adopt a system that guarantees equality, accountability and fairness.

There are those who will accuse us of being politically motivated, and in truth there are some aspiring and veteran politicians working side by side on this effort, but our underlying motivation is to introduce a modern approach to political organization and voting systems to the Cayman Islands. We are NOT motivated by self interest, and I would not personally align myself with a group or initiative which I did not believe had the best interests of the Cayman Islands at heart.

Now that the UDP and PPM have agreed that we need to either implement single member constituencies and or hold a referendum, leaving the choice to the voters, it is clear that the Cayman Islands are approaching the point when single member constituencies will become the political system of choice and the electorate will finally adopt a system which guarantees a much higher level of voter satisfaction and interaction with their representatives. One cannot dispute that we need more accountability from our elected officials and One Man One Vote, when implemented, will guarantee that representatives pay close attention to the needs of the public.

The ‘single member’ debate now centres on when would be the best time to hold a referendum and/or implement single member constituencies because a majority of Caymanians voted for a change to the political system when the new constitution was adopted a few years ago.

The individuals who are championing the push to hold a referendum on single member constituencies unanimously agree that the time has passed for the relevant question to be asked and for the country to move forward. We estimate that the cost to hold a referendum, will not be astronomical as is being suggested, and while this is an additional cost to the country, we feel it would be well worth the effort and cost to guarantee a political system based on the principles of equality and fairness. We have spent far more in order to gain much less and this will undoubtedly be a worthwhile investment.

If the UDP’s position is that we should hold the referendum at the next election, resulting in a delayed implementation of some 4 years, and the PPM suggest that they will by-pass the referendum and simply implement single member constituencies if and when they control the Government, both parties are effectively saying that the country must wait 4 years before the benefits of having single members will be available to the voting public.

The question we should now be asking is can we afford to wait that long?

I would therefore encourage both parties to support our efforts and move to hold the referendum prior to the next general elections. We cannot afford to wait a further 4 years to introduce a voting system that is modern, fair and democratic. Countries such as the USA and UK adopted the system many years ago, and we are doing our people a disservice by delaying its implementation.

The argument that there is not sufficient time to educate the voters and hold a referendum prior to May 2013 is flawed. One Man One vote is less complex than the current system, and it is a poor assessment of the intelligence level of our electorate to suggest that we need in excess of 12 months to fully comprehend what is a more simple and straightforward way to hold elections. I do believe the Caymanian public is more sophisticated and educated than some opponents are suggesting.

There are also those who suggest that implementing single member districts will result in the residents of those districts making unreasonable requests, such as wanting stadiums and post offices, but in reality those claims are unfounded. What would motivate a voter to demand a hospital in a district where there in a hospital in the neighboring district? We are not suggesting that we erect fences and cordon off each district’s public services so that other surrounding districts will not be able to make use of them, and I suggest to you that common sense will prevail and the sharing of public services will continue based on feasibility and justified needs. It would be disingenuous to suggest that single member districts will encourage unbridled and unrestrained spending on unnecessary services.

The One Man One Vote initiative is critical to the future of democracy in the Cayman Islands; each and every resident of this country should ensure that they conduct their own research and attend the planned meetings to discuss the pros and cons of the suggested system. I, unlike others, have great faith in the intelligence of our people to make the right decisions and I have no doubt that in the end this effort will be successful.

Thank you all for your continued support, and let’s do what is right for the sake of our beloved country and ALL of the people who reside here.

Please contact us via email oneman.cayman@gmail.com for more information or to arrange to sign the petition. We will be publishing the location and times for several planned district meetings for those who would like to attend and sign the petition. 

Vote in the CNS poll:

If the petition for one man, one vote triggers a referendum, howsoon should this take place?

Continue Reading

The politics & democracy of ‘one man, one vote’

By now many people are aware that we are trying to collect approximately four thousand signatures to trigger a people initiated referendum to adopt the system of ‘one man, one vote’ in single-member constituencies for electing representatives across the Cayman Islands. Simply put, ‘one man, one vote’ means that a registered voter will be able to vote for only one candidate in their constituency during an election.

If sufficient signatures are collected to trigger the referendum and a majority of voters should vote in favour of the ‘one man, one vote' then candidates in the May 2013 general election will contest the 16 single-member constituencies across Grand Cayman. 

It was proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission in their 2010 report that George Town should have six single member constituencies, West Bay would retain their four, Bodden Town would increase from three to four with East End, North Side and Cayman Brac and Little Cayman remaining unchanged.  This may be contrasted with the current multi-member constituencies whereby each registered voter is able to cast a number of votes equal to the number of representatives in the Legislative Assembly allotted to their electoral district. For example, George Town currently has four representatives in the Legislative Assembly and each voter in George Town during the last election would have been allowed to cast four votes, one for each representative.

As with other issues, there are arguments for and against ‘one man, one vote’. Opponents believe that ‘one man, one vote’ in single-member constituencies will encourage our representatives to become even more myopic and further entrench the rivalry between communities for the allocation of scarce national resources. 

However, proponents of ‘one man one vote ’argue that it provides opportunities for better representation of a constituency as the single representative would have a much smaller number of constituents to represent, is more likely to have a better understanding of their needs, and therefore better able to advocate on their behalf in the Legislative Assembly. Additionally, the single representative would be more accountable than the current system of multiple representatives where each one is able to shift responsibility to another. The potential for the blame game is even greater where both parties are able to win seats in a multi-member constituency.

If the current petition is successful in triggering a referendum to determine whether the country should adopt a system of ‘one man, one vote’, and there is no reason to believe that it will not succeed, the Caymanian electorate will for the first time in decades elect their representatives based on the individual attributes of each candidate, and not because of the popularity of a running mate.

Therefore, attributes such as the character and integrity of the candidates, the capability, qualifications and relevant experience of newcomers, the track record of incumbents, each candidates ability to present credible and reasonable short and long term solutions to social and economic issues facing their constituents in particular and the country generally should be critical factors in determining the outcome of an election. In essence, what is it that qualifies a particular candidate to effectively represent the needs of that particular community and the country generally?

No one should believe that ‘one man, one vote’ will be a panacea for all time, however, it has the potential to raise the caliber of our representatives in the Legislative Assembly, but only if the Caymanian electorate believes that better representation is something they deserve to have and insist on having it to ensure a brighter future in the Cayman Islands.

If there is a referendum, and whether or not the electorate prefers ‘one man, one vote’ with single-member constituencies over the current system of multiple votes in multi-member constituencies, we should remain cognizant of the fact that it is not the electoral system that destroys a country and erodes investor confidence, rather it is crime, corruption, social unrest and mismanagement of the economy.

Marco Archer is an attorney-at-law with a local law firm

Vote in the CNS poll: 

If the petition for one man, one vote triggers a referendum, how soon should this take place?

Continue Reading

Too much profit in Cayman politics

Do you know of any Caymanian politicians who have significantly increased their personal wealth while “serving the people”? How do they manage to do that, anyway? It’s a fair question. How is it that we see people with very little personal wealth take office and then, after a few terms, seem to be far richer than their salary can account for? We can’t assume that they took bribes because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 

Many of these career politicians have businesses so maybe that explains it. In many cases, however, it’s clear to everyone that not all of them possess elite business minds capable of turning thousands of dollars into millions in a few years. So that doesn’t explain it.

A recent book by Peter Schweizer, “Throw Them All Out”, describes the blatant unethical and unfair practices of many elected politicians in the United States. Schweizer documents how members of both parties routinely become entrenched in power and then use their positions and connections to make lots of money for themselves. They do this in ways that ordinary citizens can’t. 

The most outrageous aspect of this is that the people who are responsible for writing the kinds of laws that would prevent such unfair profiting are the very people who are cashing in and don’t want anything to change. It’s a catch-22 only a politician could love. So they keep cashing in, not because they are smarter or luckier than everybody else, but because they share and receive privileged information and tailor laws to please those who can add to their bottom line in some way. If they behaved this way in the financial industry they would face criminal chargesand likely end up in prison. But in politics, it’s business as usual.

It sounds crazy but it’s true: Handing a politician $50 for a favor is called bribery and somebody is likely going to jail. But when a politician learns things in closed meetings and then immediately rushes out to buy or dump millions of dollars in stock accordingly, it’s all legit. The people’s interest, be damned, individual profit triumphs. Legal or not, it clearly is the path of a scoundrel and shouldn’t happen.

So what does America’s problem have to do with us? Everything, because the situation can only be much worse here! Who exposes it? Who fights it? Who cares? Cayman’s news media is far less aggressive and capable due to limits of manpower, resources and legal protection. And, sad to say, the Caymanian public seems reluctant or incapable of working up much outrage about politicians who abuse their office in selfish ways. Maybe they don’t recognize it or, if they do, feel it’s impossible to reform. Or maybe they are too busy trying to figure out how to become a “servant of the people” so they can get rich too.

If anyone has doubts about how political office in the Cayman Islands is often profitable far beyond base salary, just look at how hard people fight to win elections here. Why would any normal person do that? You would have to be kicked in the head twice by an old East End mule to willingly embrace such a demeaning circus. If anything, people should be reluctant and even fearful of taking on such a job with so much responsibility, so much public criticism and such a relatively small paycheck. We should see only the most intensely patriotic, unselfish and compassionate among us vying for office—with a few megalomaniacs here and there, of course. But, no, we see hordes of people charging full speed toward it as if they really do love begging for votes, making empty promises and reading legal documents. Isn’t it obvious what they are really chasing?

Still not convinced there is a mountain of shady money at the end of Cayman’s political rainbow? It’s common knowledge that some voters have been given washing machines, free home renovations, even had driveways paved leading up to past elections. Why? Why would candidates fork out so much money, so many goods and services in order to “serve the people” as an elected representative? It might be because they love the Cayman Islands, want to improve our schools, reduce crime and build up tourism. But it’s probably because they are aiming to use your votes for access to big bucks. 

Continue Reading

Cayman Spirit

Shortly after Dart Group arrived in Cayman and began buying large parcels of land in the mid 1990’s, such as where Camana Bay is located, it was widely believed that they wanted to dredge a channel in the North Sound in order to allow large yachts to access this property.  In fact, it was also believed they had a plan to cut a canal through the Barkers area and dredge along the west coast of the North Sound.

Many Caymanians were against any such plan and there was a public outcry against such a move.  This outcry became so strong that eventually McKeeva and his fellow elected members from West Bay decided to hold a public meeting at the West Bay town hall to discuss this topic.

Initially, McKeeva and his fellow representatives denied any approval had been granted for dredging in the North Sound.  This position continued until a member of the audience produced a copy of a signed approval which did indeed give permission for the dredging of a channel in the North Sound. 

From this meeting, and the general opposition to such a plan, McKeeva and the government of the day must have realized that Caymanians were not going to accept this decision and would take all steps to prevent it from moving forward.  The government backed off the proposal and nothing was heard about it again.

Now McKeeva is in government again and we find he has an agreement with Dart to close a portion of the West Bay Road.  This gives absolutely no benefit to Caymanians (who through the Crown, own the land) and only gives a great benefit to Dart by increasing the value of any project they may develop there.  Some say if this is done they will proceed to develop a project in this area.  Are they saying that if the Dart Group does not receive the approval to close this section of the road that they will do nothing with the property?  This is highly unlikely, and if it were so, it would only demonstrate a fear many Caymanians have, namely that Dart is putting itself in a position where we as a country will no longer be able to make decisions with the best interest of all Caymanians in mind if this contradicts what Dart wishes to do.

Many are saying the economy is poor at present and we should agree to this closure in order to create jobs.  If we are worried that by not agreeing we will risk Dart stopping all development, imagine the position we will be in when we have granted all they want now and the group has gained even more control over our national economy.  The more we give up in the name of creating a few jobs now, the more difficult it will be in the future to oppose other grandiose schemes such as dredging a channel in the North Sound.  The Dart Group seems to think we will be fooled when they trot out a Deloitte report supporting their point of view.  Surely most of us realize these reports do not represent the best interests of the Caymanian people as that is not who commissioned the study. 

It is easy to understand why many are concerned about opposing Dart as it has a well documented history of ruthlessly pursuing its goals even in the face of opposition from large countries, even the US.  How could a small country like ourselves stand against a Dart proposal if we felt it was wrong for our country?  This only emphasizes why we must stand firm against the proposed closure of a section of the West Bay road now.  If it is a risk for us tooppose Dart on this issue it will be impossible to oppose any future proposals it may put forward.

We can all agree that if Dart puts forward a proposal that Caymanians feel is beneficial to our Island we will be happy to support it.  However we must be able to oppose a proposal that we feel is detrimental to Caymanians and our country.  Caymanians have a proud history of standing against all odds when they believe something is not in the best interests of our country.

This happened recently when Mr Imparato was proposing a dock in East End.  A majority of Caymanians were against this proposal and spoke out.  Our government of the day did not seem to be listening but Caymanians made their concerns known and ultimately Mr Imparato changed his plans.  All credit goes to Mr Imparato for ultimately heeding the wishes of Caymanians even though he must have invested considerable time and funds in the planning of the project.  This may have something to do with the fact Mr Imparato actually spends considerable time here in Cayman and does interact with Caymanian society.  There are many examples in our history where Caymanians have stood for what they believed under great pressure and in hindsight the decisions have proven to be very sound.

Of major concern this time is whether we still have the backbone and numbers needed to stand for what we believe.  Over recent years, particularly in McKeeva administrations, the ratio of Caymanians raised here to Caymanians granted status has been changing significantly. Between the status grants and permanent residencies granted (a great Freedom of Information question would be ‘How many permanent residencies have been granted since May 2009?’) we may be losing our control over what happens in our Island.

This only makes it more important to oppose the closure of a section of the West bay Road now, as it detracts from and provides no benefits to Caymanians.  There are many other issues we need to stand firm against which are being proposed by this government.  These will be the topic of future viewpoints.  We need to be prepared to stand firm against anything we think is detrimental to our country even if our government of the day is not standing with us.

Continue Reading