Guest Writer

The tipping point?

Something has been bugging me for quite some time, but I really couldn’t put my finger on what exactly it was until recently when somebody told me about a favor they “called in” which resulted in this individual being able to short-cut the usual red tape to get results more quickly than if the standard procedure and process would have been followed.

So here we are complaining in one breath about the lack of regulations, rules and law enforcement, but bending the rules and ignoring the law when it suits has become a way of life for all of us. Many seem to even have refined the art of “short-cutting” or ignoring the law and pride themselves accordingly. The list of “short-cutting” or “law ignorance” is endless and runs rampant amongst all walks of life. Surely it would be nice to eat conch all year round (who needs a season?) and not be bothered with those pesky little speed signs or build a house however and wherever – why need planning approval and all that?

But are we prepared to deal with the consequences of making our own rules and only follow the law occasionally? It now seems evident more than ever that all the favor giving and taking and ignoring the laws has resulted in a lawless society (except if we are talking about murder or drug dealing, of course). Otherwise, we are truly spinning out of control.

No, I haven’t been living on the moon, and yes, I am aware that we have been provided with some shockingly embarrassing and sad examples when considering the majority of the current elected officials and some high ranking civil servants, but my letter is not really about them (plenty is written about this issue on a daily basis already). This letter is truly about US!

There have been so many loud calls for the laws to be upheld and processes to be followed, but are we also willing to do our part and follow those regulations and laws even on those days it may be inconvenient? Can we resist the lure of taking a short-cut and ignoring the law, especially when we are provided with so many examples in the public eye every day how to do it, or do we continue to throw it all away to immediately satisfy a want or need or for the short lived feeling of having gotten ahead? We obviously have reached a “tipping point” and decisions will need to be made.

A tipping point can be described as a point at which an object is displaced from a state of stable equilibrium into a new, different state. I guess it could be a better or a worse state. Clearly, we are not “objects” but we are obviously no longer in a stable equilibrium and we need to decide whether we want to revert to this stable equilibrium, or do we want to continue on the path we are on?

Surely, individually considered, the “offense” of harvesting conch outside the season or parking in a handicapped parking spot doesn’t stack high when compared to many of the other offenses taking place, but it does breed a certain disrespect for the laws, authorities and especially for each other. Chances are that our children are learning by our bad example to ignore the rules and law and therefore there doesn’t seem to be much hope for changes in the future.

Before people get upset, I want to clarify that I am not trying to say just because you are ignoring the speed limit you are a bad person or a criminal all around, but you are certainly not helping to make things any better, are you? Overall, it does make me wonder how time after time people continue to expect a different outcome if they are not prepared to change what they put in.

I am sure some of you are quick to point to the Government and several high ranking civil servants and some of the associated recent headlines. However, we need to reverse this mentality of “What is good for the goose is good for the gander” and consider any and every action taken and hopefully decide that the ethical high road is the better one to travel on. 

For example, a lot of folks were recently upset that the Government paved private driveways or business parking lots in the Brac.  I, however, believe we should have been upset with those individuals who accepted those favors to begin with as we all know by now we really can’t expect any morals from the current Government anyway. The majority of people quickly pointed to the Government and blamed them for this clearly wrong action, but what about those people who accepted those favors? Did anyone give them a little piece of their mind? The Government can’t give  favors if the favors are rejected or not accepted, but seemingly too many of us are still eagerly taking the favors and hand outs because it was seemingly free of charge – but was it really free of charge?

I don’t want to portray myself as a goodie-two-shoe person and in no way am I an expert on the laws of these Islands. Obviously, I haven’t lived the last 40 something years always taking the ethical high road, and I also have been caught speeding on occasions, but I am trying to have some basic knowledge of the various laws and if all fails, I apply an ethical principle my parents taught me 40 odd years ago:

“Would it still be ok to be doing something if everyone else who is living in these Islands would be doing the same”?

I imagine what these Islands would look like if EVERYONE would throw their garbage out the car window, or if EVERYONE would park their ‘for sale’ vehicles along the shoulder of public roads or if EVERYONE would expect and accept handouts and favors. I wonder what would happen if we all ignore the set-back requirements when building our home or if EVERYONE would rush to the planning department or immigration department asking that our applications are processed ahead of everyone else’s. I am sure many would be quick again to point out that if the Government would do better and if planning and immigration wouldn’t be so inefficient you would be inclined to follow proper process, or has planning and immigration perhaps gotten so inefficient because so many people are pushing for favors?

I admit, it is somewhat of a “chicken vs the egg” situation and it is frustrating to see how others seemingly get ahead by ignoring the laws or banking on favors, but where is it getting us all in the long run? Well, it has gotten us to where we are now. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like it. We want SOMEONE to uphold the law and rules, but any given day we are not prepared to follow them.

Perhaps if in doubt apply the principle I set out above, and I am certain that the majority of us would come to a conclusion that rules, regulations and laws do exist for a reason. (Well, in the majority of cases anyway – we all know there are always exceptions!) We cannot, however, expect that those rules, regulations and laws are just for others and not for us – even on those days when it is inconvenient. I am prepared to put in what I want to get out. Are you?

Continue Reading

The Faces of Corruption

The 2009 Constitution, which one very prominent politicianhas repeatedly indicated he did not support, created a Commission for Standards in Public Life tasked, “to support and enhance democracy in the Cayman Islands and to promote the highest standards of integrity and competence in public life in order to ensure the prevention of corruption or conflicts of interest.” Events since 2009 suggest that if this body exists in more than name, then it has a great deal of work to do.

It is time for an open and very public debate regarding the standards which our politicians will be required to meet by the electorate. Politicians simply cannot be allowed to set and enforce their own standards, particularly given what we has occurred in recent times. Our country is far too precious. We cannot allow it to be bartered for a container load of appliances or short haul flights on private jets.

Ideally, the Standards Commission would publish a discussion document setting out a detailed draft set of explicit standards and would then lead an open public debate on what standards politicians ought to live up to. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that there is any will to do so. Challenging the actions of politicians, corrupt or otherwise, requires personal strength. In an environment polluted by corruption, patronage, and threats, it also requires sufficient determination to face the potential retribution which corrupt politicians almost always threaten in order to maintain the flow of illicit benefits for which they and their cronies entered public life.

Despite the absence of an official debate, a debate is nevertheless taking place. Corruption and patronage are being challenged in the media, at family gatherings and on the marl road. Buffoonery and corruption are mocked in online commentaries. These challenges are coming from many sources. Young educated Caymanians are appalled at seeing their futures sold off. Middle aged Caymanians are tired of seeing their hard earned money wasted on extravagance, and older Caymanians remember when public minded individuals freely gave of their time to serve in the Legislative Assembly for no pay other than the chance to do what was right for their society. The challenges, at first ignored, are now being met by politicians and their hangers-on who feel that their private interests are threatened.

Not all politicians are corrupt, either in Cayman or elsewhere in the world. Wherever it happens in the world, overt corruption can be identified with relative ease by using no more than common sense. Suspect politicians, their apprentices, their handlers and their cronies seek the ability to manipulate public policy, public procurement and public largess for their own private gain. Any one of the following acts should ring alarm bells and send up red flags.

They spend public funds for the private benefit of themselves and their supporters, and then justify their actions by saying that some other politician of equally challenged morality did the same thing at some point in the past. They prevent sustainable development in favour of poorly thought out schemes which enrich politicians and their cronies in the short term. They are happy to offer up the environment for destruction for their 30 pieces of silver. They fabricate the existence of non-existent provisions in a constitution in order to justify their predatory excess spending from the public purse. They ignore the time honoured separation of the judicial, administrative and political branches of government in order to get whatever they or their cronies or handlers want. They make completely irrelevant comparisons with supposed past events to suggest that they are justified in ignoring the rules and ignoring the separation between public benefit and private benefit whenever paving something will get them a vote or two.

They present themselves in courts of justice to leave no doubt about which way those entrusted with decisions are to render their decisions.They ignore the requirements of procurement laws. They trade favours and give concessions which cost the public purse in exchange for money or property or contracts which provide private benefit. They appoint persons to public authorities and boards in a system of barter for private gain. They ignore elections laws and the provisions of their constitutions. They rail against freedom of the press and freedom of information which might expose corrupt practices. They threaten to use the authority they have been givento do public good, to change laws so as to silence journalists and deny the public access to information which may disclose corruption. They use public funds to provide cronies with high paying non-jobs as “advisors” and “consultants”. They pay for the expenses of their election campaigns by awarding “non-jobs” and “no real purpose” contracts paid for with tax dollars once they are elected. They use public funds to hire the relatives of supposedly neutral decision makers to do “non-jobs” in order to ensure that the media is stifled and that corruption is less likely to be exposed in the proceedings of democratic institutions. In short, corrupt politicians are a threat to every society and should be labelled and shunned as such.

Corruption is corruption wherever it may be found. A great deal of work has been done in identifying corrupt practices in democracies around the world. We have the option of looking at how corrupt practices and abuse of public office have been defined and dealt with in Commonwealth countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. We have the option of looking at the public work of international organisations such as Transparency International. We have clear statements from world leaders such as Kofi-Annan, former Secretary General, United Nations, who wrote that corruption "debases democracy, undermines the rule of law, distorts markets, stifles economic growth, and denies many their rightful share of economic resources …”

We also have the words of the current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who has written, “Corruption undermines democracy and the rule of law.  It leads to violations of human rights.  It erodes public trust in government. It can even kill.” We also have concrete examples of how non-corrupt politicians act, in relation to judicial proceeding and otherwise, in democracies around the world.

In the absence of any discussion document from the Standards Commission, set out below is one potential list of questions which hopefully will widen the public debate of what constitutes a corrupt political practice and who might be corrupt. Any politician engaged in corrupt practice is corrupt and should not be permitted to hold any public office. It is as simple as that. Keeping that in mind we need to ask ourselves the following;

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to steal, waste or otherwise use public funds for personal benefit?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to use public funds to directly or indirectly buy votes?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly interfere in judicial proceedings?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly sell or barter appointments to public authorities or public boards?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly provide duty, tax or other concessions which cost the public purse in exchange for direct or indirect personal gain?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly use public funds to manipulate notionally independent decision makers in our democratic institutions?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly intimidate or victimise civil servants who refuse to collaborate in corrupt or unethical activities?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly award “non-jobs” at public expense as payment for political support or work done in political campaigns?

Is it a corrupt practice for a politician to directly or indirectly accept kickbacks from developers or financial institutions granted favourable decisions or contracts by the political arm of government?

There are many other questions which also need to be explicitly asked and explicitly answered in order for the Cayman Islands to begin to prosper as a corruption free society. It is also likely that we will need to re-write some of our laws relating to corruption and abuse of public office as the ones our politicians have enacted offer too much latitude to the corrupt and insufficient punishment. We need to think of systemic political corruption as the form of organised crime which it is and we need to treat it the way such a cancer should be treated.

For far too long we have been naive in relation to what motivates some who aspire to political life, and we have been too willing to turn a blind eye when a politician "took a lil piece for his seff". It should be no wonder that some of them now think that they, the politicians and their cronies, are entitled to everything with the public being left with not even a "lil piece" of the benefits flowing through this country. The standard of politician we have been willing to accept has been far too low in the case of some, and we have not valued the honesty and integrity of other politicians enough.

Hopefully as we go forward as a society, every person will look at each questionable action of a politician and will ask, “Why is this being done, and who is benefiting?” The more these questions are asked and the more forceful we are in letting politicians know that corrupt practices will not be tolerated, the less common corruption will be.  In 2 years or less we will have the opportunity to vote for politicians who have not shown themselves to be corrupt. In the time leading up to that election we need to shine as much light on corrupt practices as possible. That is the best hope for the long term future of this country.

Continue Reading

“Sacred vessel”?

Steve McField’s reported summation in the Dwayne Seymour case is so mind-boggling that, were it not for reading it online (on CNS), I would have sworn we were living in the dark ages. No, I am not talking about the hocus-pocus argument he presented that the crown had conspired against a hard working, successful Caymanian to facilitate a foreigner to "run around" with his wife.

Nor am I referring to all the hypocritical mumbo-jumbo he spewed that “as a Christian nation Cayman had higher morals … (Really? Than what? Or whom?)

As defence counsel, I’m sure Mr McField can go to any length, within the law, to vigorously represent his client and in so doing to discredit his courtroom opponents. But I simply cannot believe, or stomach, his argument that Dwayne Seymour’s (or any man’s, for that matter) wife is his “sacred vessel”.

Well, by Mr McField’s argument, it seems we are back in medieval times, yea, rather the dark ages, when it was quite OK to consider women as chattel – the property of their husbands, to be treated as they wished.

It is precisely because of beliefs and arguments such as Mr McField’s that women become victims of all sorts of abuse – mental, emotional and physical – at the hands of their husbands and male companions.

No, Mr McField, a wife, a woman, a girlfriend, is not a vessel, sacred or otherwise, for her husband, partner or boyfriend. She is her own person, possessed of reason and the ability and authority to decide her own life and the conduct of her relationship, whether in a marriage or any other form of partnership. She is not a vessel that is simply beholden to her husband, just because he provides or contributes to a house or car.

Those are material things that cannot, and should not, be measured against a woman’s humanity. Nor should her humanity be diminished by ridiculous and archaic notions such as the ones Mr McField spouted in his closing argument.

Mr McField made heavy weather of his client’s action against the man supposedly having an affair with his wife – by Mr McField’s account his client was only protecting his home and family.

Protection? Oh, no, Mr McField. That might be a nice argument in keeping with the demands of outrageous courtroom drama, but it does not wash in the real world. Men who choose to behave in certain (violent and aggressive) ways when confronted with infidelity, real or imagined, are simply acting out of anger and negative emotions fuelled by an oversupply of testosterone, because their almighty egos have been bruised.

The only thing they’re protecting is their fanciful notion that they own a woman and therefore she is not “allowed” to relate in any way to another man.

Thankfully, at least in this side of the world, we have moved beyond Mr McField’s rather archaic and sexist definition of a woman as a vessel of her husband. And yes, Mr McField, we women understand you have to go to the nth degree to fight for your client in the courtroom. But for God’s sake, don’t try to set women back with these medieval notions!

It’s the 21st century, after all and women have some hard-won rights. And as one very accomplished woman and advocate said many years ago, “Women’s rights are human rights.”

Continue Reading

The Quadruple Whammy of Fuel Taxes

The “pain at the pump” is being felt Island wide by all who live and visit here. This is the first “whammy” and the most obvious. To most of us, the excessively high cost of gasoline is a direct hit on our wallets. Mr Elio Solomon has recently said that he “feels” that the majority of people in Cayman accept the higher gas prices in order to support their country.

What Elio is missing is the fact that his way of thinking in economic terms will eventually destroy this country to the point where there is no country left to worry about. Here are three more ways that high gas prices hurt each of us and the country as a whole that Elio has overlooked.

The second “whammy” to our wallets comes in the form of opportunity losses to the economy. This means, the extra money spent on gas will not be spent elsewhere to help boost the economy. The third “whammy” comes in the form of higher prices at the local stores due to retailers having to pass their higher costs on to us.

So now we have less money to buy products that costs more than ever. The fourth “whammy” is to the country as a whole. We depend on the outside world, specifically visitors and investors, for our source of operating funds. If the costs here are too high due to government taxing necessities, then this discourages investment and motivation for people to come here and support our economy. Taxes are a blockage to productivity and growth. Taxes are the instruments of uneducated leaders who think taxing the working man will make things better. What matters here are percentages. A few cents more per gallon at the pump represents a much greater percentage of the low wage earner’s income than that of wealthier persons and businesses.

The impact to the small guy is tremendous. It is the spending power of the working class that drives the economy. It is obvious that our current elected officials believe wealth trickles down. If this is the case then they are taxing the wealth at the wrong end, after it trickles down. The time to tax it is at the source before the trickling occurs. By keeping the cost of living down to the little guy the money will trickle back up to the top as goods and services are purchased.

Making Cayman more affordable for residents and visitors is how to help and support this country. If Elio is suggesting that taxation is the only measure we have to increase the needed revenue for government to operate, then he is overlooking the expense side of the equation. Revenues should be increased first by cost cutting. I assure you that tourists and residents would gladly suffer a few potholes or less roundabouts on our roads than to have taxes placed on fuel that increase the overall cost of living here. Cut the fat from government and only then consider taxes that harm the spending power of our people.

Elio is also suggesting that people be allowed early access to their pensionmoney in order to purchase housing. If they can’t afford a house without ruining their pensions then they won’t be able to afford the maintenance of home ownership and will end up penniless when retirement comes, thus adding a greater burden to society down the road. By allowing people to spend their pensions, he is borrowing from the future at our expense in order to try to bail out the present mess caused by high taxes and fees.

Tourism and investment in Cayman is the goose that lays our golden eggs. Our government is spending money at a faster rate than the goose can lay these eggs. There is only one poison that can kill the goose and the poison is taxes. Less tax means more geese. Get it?

Continue Reading

No confidence

The country has lost confidence in Mr Bush and the UDP Government. Even those who voted for him at the last election realize that he is failing the country. Some of his ex-supporters criticise him openly. Those who want to speak out on his behalf can find nothing good to say about his achievements, so they rant against his critics and opponents.

In this time of global economic crisis leading to global unrest, all countries have great need of wise democratic leadership. Many countries that lack such leadership are already suffering terribly, both internally and externally, and it will be years before they recover. In Cayman we have the same need for wise democratic leadership, but the last two years have been a sustained demonstration of unwise undemocratic government.

For a while it was right to give the new government a chance, though some of us thought we knew what to expect. But nowit is frighteningly clear that this government is taking the country down the wrong road. There is no longer a rational basis for thinking it may get better.

After the 2009 election voters hoped that Mr Bush would fix our economic troubles. That was the big election issue. He had blamed our troubles on the previous Government, and said that he was the man to fix them. Many were taken in. They wanted to believe that there was an easy answer to Cayman’s troubles, and they were willing to give Mr Bush a shot at it. But they have been sadly disappointed. He has done nothing. No one feels better off. Many are worse off. Much has been said, but nothing has been done, for the short or long term future of our economy. Only the ostriches still believe his story about the previous government being to blame.

In fact Mr Bush made things worse – by shouting that the country was bankrupt, by imposing ill-considered tax-hikes which he was not big enough to reverse, by failing to put together a sensible plan to deal with the problems and dangers explained in the Miller Report, by playing about with the country’s borrowings (which he has still not explained) and claiming to know more about arranging high finance than his own Ministry or the CTC.

It was only public pressure that prevented him selling the new government administration building. His fiddling with the schools project has served only to delay it and add to the cost. He does not understand that this is the crucial investment for our country’s future. And there is no bigger waste of public funds than leaving a part-built project unfinished – or a completed building unoccupied.

His fiddling with the cruise ship berthing project has got us nowhere. It has shown many of the signs we now recognize from the Cohen fiasco: Mr Bush thinking he knows best or preferring the private advice of friends, jetting off to take personal credit, then having to backtrack, and failing to dispel rumours of improper inducements. And the country pays the price.

In the financial industry there have been good and bad developments, but the good ones are due to the efforts and outlay of the industry itself, and many hours of hard work by a score or more of unsung individuals. Tourism figures improve slowly, but again no thanks to Mr Bush or his government.

Mr Bush has said repeatedly that he will revive the economy; he even gave himself a deadline for announcing and implementing his plan. But everyone now sees that this was just talk. He hasno plan – only the hope that the global economy will recover in time to save his political neck.

He has announced several projects for diversifying the economy, a few of which do sound interesting. But he has made his usual mistake of trying to take credit for a project without giving information about it, without caring about the worries it creates, and without having an assessment of its feasibility, cost, or effect – on the economy or the environment. Nonetheless he struts about saying that he will make it happen. And then he is surprised and aggressive when people ask questions. He seems to think that people should stay quiet and trust him. But he has not earned trust. People do not even trust him, or his colleagues, to keep their hands out of the cookie jar. And nothing has happened.

Mr Bush’s view of democracy, accountability and the Constitution has been clear for many years for all to see. It is quite simple: he believes that power should be in the hands of one unaccountable person – himself. To mention only the most recent demonstrations: he is against one man one vote; he wants to roll back freedom of information; he will not publish, or expose to audit, the accounts of the Portfolio of Finance that would show the true state of government finances when he came to power in 2009.

Some suggest that the answer is a people-initiated referendum to remove Mr Bush from office, or the whole government.But that is a misunderstanding of the new Constitution. It allows referendums to impose decisions on the government, but not to change the Premier or the government. The people cannot themselves change the Premier or the government between elections, only the MLAs can do so. The people can only put pressure on MLAs to do the right thing. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has brought the motion of no confidence.

A motion of no confidence is a serious measure. It is not a political plaything to be fired off whenever the Government makes itself unpopular. But today Mr Bush is not just unpopular. He has had two years, and he has proved again that he is unfit to lead this country – at a time when the country has particular need for wise democratic leadership. Everyone wonders what will be his next foolish, embarrassing and harmful announcement.

We are seeing a replay of Mr Bush’s first UDP government in 2001-5 in which he demonstrated his unfitness as leader; he achieved absolutely nothing of value despite all the talk about decisiveness; and he showed how divisive a leader can be, creating and deepening divisions in our community which are still with us. His colleagues and backbenchers in the UDP, who had originally thought they would keep him under control (and had constitutional power to do so), proved to be incapable. Reluctant to give up power, or to risk it, they stuck with Mr Bush until near the end of his term, before breaking away. Of that so-called “united” team only Juliana O’Connor-Connolly and the three West Bayers stayed with Mr Bush. The others were right to break away, but they should have done so much, much sooner.

So now the question is whether Mr Bush’s colleagues and backbenchers in the present UDP government will do the same as those in the last UDP government. They can be in no doubt about the unfitness of Mr Bush to lead the country, or about their own inability to keep him under control. Will they put the country’s interests first? Or will they hang on to power? That is the question.

It is a vital question for the country. It is the reason why the motion of no confidence was necessary – to confront Mr Bush’s colleagues and backbenchers with the question, to expose them to public pressure, and to compel them to make a public decision for which they personally and individually will be held to account. Let us hope that the pressure is strong, and that the break-up comes now, before more harm is done.

Continue Reading

Cruise berthing blunders

I have watched with interest and disappointment as the UDP Government has moved from blunder to blunder on the cruise berthing project. The first blunder with this project was when the UDP abandoned the cruise berthing and cargo port project plans that I had started to implement.

The second blunder was when the UDP entered into an agreement with DECCO to establish cruise berthing facilities without a mechanism to secure formal commitments from the cruise lines and the Premier’s simultaneous announcement that there would be no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) done. The third blunder was when they abruptly terminated the agreement with DECCO after negotiations reportedly “broke down”.

The fourth blunder was Mr Cline Glidden’s immediate announcement that they had moved to the next best proposal and that they were about to enter into an agreement with GLF Construction Corporation (GLF) to build this project. Mr. Glidden said that they would be using the EIA which DECCO had apparently previously commissioned but which has to this date not been made public. This was followed by DECCO stating that they would provide the EIA to government but would have to first be compensated for it.

The fifth blunder was Premier McKeeva Bush’s announcement at the 2011 Cayman Business Outlook that the mysterious “Chinese” were prepared to do the cruise berthing facilities if GLF failed. And the sixth blunder was the recent announcement from Premier McKeeva Bush that he had terminated the agreement with GLF.

These series of blunders have denied our country the much needed cruise berthing facilities, which will have a significantnegative economic impact for our country beginning with a 25% decrease in cruise tourism in 2011.

It would be easy for me to sit back and simply say “I told you so” but as a country we need to extricate ourselves from this mess that the UDP Government has put us in and look for solutions to this problem.

I warned this UDP Government in 2009 that if they abandoned the plans and EIA which I started implementing, the country would be facing a 1 to 2 year delay with this project. Mr Cline Glidden’s response to me at the time was “no” as he said that they would be starting construction in the first quarter of 2010. Now here we are in the 2nd quarter of 2011 and not only do we have no construction started but, according to recent statements from the Premier, for the second time in less than one year we have terminated an agreement with yet another proposed developer.
So not only is there no agreement in place to establish cruise berthing facilities but there is no certainty as to who will be doing this project and when.

It defies logic that the Premier would terminate the agreement with GLF almost immediately after GLF advised the government that they could mobilize for this project within 6 weeks and simultaneously demonstrated that they have the financing in place with a reputable financial institution. It is not possible for the Premier to select yet another developer/financier, have them mobilize and on the ground in less than six weeks. Therefore it begs the question: why did Premier McKeeva Bush make this decision ? I suppose the answer to that question will become clear in due course. That decision by the Premier is suspicious at best and will ultimately need to be investigated further in due course. The decision suggests that one party isn’t getting what they expected from this agreement but we will explore that further as more information surfaces.

Having said that, I believe that politicians must seek to work together in the interests of our country, especially on projects which we agree on. This is one such project and I have publicly offered my assistance before. I also understand that it can never be in our collective best interests for any government to fail. The bottom line is that if the government succeeds, the country succeeds and we all succeed. If the government fails, we all fail. Those who are in opposition to the government who believe that we should continue to allow the government to fail as a strategy to win the next election are making a fundamental mistake and have miscalculated where we are economically at this point. They would be well advised to focus on saving our country because the next election might not matter very much if we don’t.

I can say that, based on my experience with projects of this nature, we cannot, unfortunately, move from where we are now to an agreement with yet a third proposed developer and achieve cruise berthing facilities in less than two years. This means that the initial blunder by the UDP to abandon a well thought out cruise and cargo policy and plan is going to result in a 4 year delay with this project and a continued decline of our cruise industry unless we are prepared to be creative and act now.

Is there an interim solution while we await berthing facilities? Yes, I believe there is, so here are my thoughts. The UDP Government must immediately formally invite the cruise lines back to the table and ensure their participation. This project cannot and must not be undertaken without their commitment to deliver a specific annual minimum number of passengers during the term of this agreement, which will likely be 20 years. The risk is far too great without such a commitment. This is why the agreement which I signed with Atlantic Star Limited to establish cruise berthing and cargo facilities allowed for negotiations with third parties to help finance this project and those discussions had indeed begun with the cruise lines.

The majority of the cruise lines are owned by either Carnival or Royal Caribbean although many operate under different brands. Because this is the case, Carnival and Royal Caribbean are keen to see cruise berthing facilities established in Cayman because we are still a popular destination with their passengers. Unfortunately, Royal Caribbean’s Oasis Class mega ships cannot be tendered and will by-pass the Cayman Islands on their western Caribbean itinerary. This problem is made worse by Royal Caribbean’s decision to redeploy to other regions some of their smaller ships that previously called on Cayman.

If the UDP government is prepared to, in good faith, invite the cruise lines back to the table as a party to the new negotiations and demonstrate some stability with moving this project forward, we may be in a position as an interim solution to convince Carnival and Royal Caribbean to prop up our cruise arrival numbers via increased port calls from their various sub-brands which still operate some of the smaller ships on the western Caribbean itinerary.

Because cruise lines plan and begin to book their itineraries 18-24 months in advance of a cruise, the UDP Government must act now if we are to have a chance of saving our 2012 cruise tourism winter season.

Finally, I believe that those who are responsible for this mess must be held accountable. Until we embrace real accountability in our country for failures such as these, not very much will change at the policy table.

In closing, I encourage all tourism service providers, including public transport operators, to begin preparations for what will unfortunately be our most challenging cruise tourism summer season to date. Examine your business practices and operations to determine where you can make adjustments in your expenditure to offset the inevitable loss of revenue that will come during the upcoming summer months.

Charles E. Clifford is the former tourism, environment, investment & commerce minister. He lost his Bodden Town seat in the May 2009 elections and resigned from the opposition party a year later. Clifford has, however, remained active in the political arena and has expressed a desire to create an alternative to the current political parties at the next election. 

Continue Reading

Are we able to blog for the better?

As a series of town hall meetings kicks off across the islands and information is piped into every orifice of our collective being, the blaring question remains unanswered: will there ever be a new generation of Caymanians able to change our islands for the better? Anyone who absorbs the information of the day, and now by the hour, will understand the notions that swirl around our heads.

We are a 21st community stuck with 19th century leadership. The rhetoric is so stale, so uninspired that we are all becoming apathetic to its scalding presence.

There is an outward shell of discontent, confusion and anger present daily on our social network mediums; CNS and Compass blogs have become the marl road of the past, Facebook has replaced our village shop step debates, and the community outreach of our churches are now featured in the Tweets from the vibrating and ever adapting façade of our varied and plentiful social watering holes.

But our leadership, the actions of our governance remains cripplingly “off-line”, unable to adjust or even demonstrate its adaptability to what is now a community of better educated, adequately exposed and questioning minds with far reaching intellects. The young people of today are not like the young people of the past. There is a greater confidence to challenge, to question, and assess opinions and information that can foster a community of independent yet connected social thinkers.

Our leadership embarrasses us and it shows and is evident daily in our use of social media to connect with our respective social communities. We crave anonymity in our blogs, not because we are scared but because we are embarrassed as our leadership no longer represents who we want to be or who we would want our children to emulate. It’s a sour pill to swallow, to be truthful and honest, but democracy with its worst clothing only produces the leadership which a community allows.

If you can ever brave the air of monastic egoism and enter our parliament on a day in session, the odour of mediocrity is over powering. On critical examination, the reason is easily identified for the state of our affairs. With the exception of a few, the majority of our elected officials have never ever achieved any success, social or economic, outside of their locally rewarding and increasingly isolating political careers.

We are naturally dammed with the consequences we now all suffer. Out the window has gone the notion of achievement paramount, service first, and self last. As we watch the luxury cars file out of the LA parking lot, some MLAs driving others being driven, one cannot help but feel disturbed, as the same individuals out of elected office present a much more humble demeanour and much more shallow pockets.

We have a massive problem here, as we have created a Tammy Fae and Jim Baker type PTL (“pay the leader”) culture. Do we have the strength to reverse our mistake, accept responsibility that we, the voters, have encouraged and allowed our democracy to develop in this direction? Or will we continue to turn a blind eye, hide our true dismay and accept the consequences, which a disillusioned society brings?

We need leaders who can inspire us to be respectful of our past, grateful of our present and hopeful of our future. Not just those who can only reflect to us the failures of our collective sense of shock and sorrow for what we have allowed ourselves to become.
 

Continue Reading