Heritage

Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation. Now, I hear that a new Biodiversity and Heritage Conservation Act is in circulation. A new Anguilla National Trust Act has been published to a limited number of persons.

It seems that the two of them will be bundled together and submitted to the House of Assembly by the end of September and enacted into law later this year.

As a package, they will give sweeping powers and responsibilities to the government's Department of the Environment.

We want to know, will the many valuable heritage possessions presently in private ownership be given over to this Department?

Will private museums, and efforts by civil society to promote heritage and culture, be made redundant?

Will government now do it all for us? And, we know how efficient and reliable government services are.

Is it true that the Anguilla National Trust Council will be severely truncated? Is it the plan to remove the Anguilla Archaeological and Historical Society from representation on the Council?

It is difficult for us in Anguilla to find out what is really going on in our government.

We do not have a Freedom of Information Act.

We do not have questions raised in parliament.

Other than the Dolphin case, we do not have public interest litigation.

We do not have transparent procurement practices in the public service.

We do not ask government to make available to us, the public, technical studies paid for by taxpayers.

We do not have committees of parliament investigating any issue.

We do not have commissions of inquiry.

We do not ask government to reveal how much public money is spent on fees for professional services.

Our voices are not raised against the curtailment of the people's right to information on how our money is being spent.

There is no wind of change blowing through the country.

National consciousness is not awakening. Civil society has not woken up from its slumbering.

There are no voices being raised in protest over any matter.

All this, just in comparison with the previous post on Trinidad below.

I have tried to get copies of the above Bills. I have been rebuffed. It seems that they are secret state papers. I may even have their titles incorrect. Only government favourites have access to this type of information. No independent voices are welcome in official circles. Only after government has discussed the Bills, and made their minds up about what exactly they will pass into law, will the drafts be shown to us for comment. What use is it to invite public comment when the officials have already made their minds up?

I am the secretary of the Anguilla Archaeological and Historical Society. Do you think that, just maybe, the Society might want to see a copy of what will seriously affect them? And, just maybe, give some useful input? Might we not have a claim, even, to be entitled?

No wonder no one responds to invitations to comment on draft legislation, except to occasionally explode into public protest, as happened recently with the Planning Bill and the Labour Bill.

The whole process of policy development and legislation in Anguilla is so flawed it would be laughable if it were not so serious a problem.

Chagos

UK Chagos Support Association. The UK Chagos Support Association has just circulated this notice. I thought you would want to know, in case any of you will be in London in late June.

“As you probably already know, the Foreign Office Appeal to the House of Lords begins on Monday 30th June. If anyone wants to show support for the Chagossians, they will be meeting up from 9.00 outside the Houses of Parliament to attend the hearing.”

One of the most egregious continuing abuses of colonial power in recent years appears to be about to receive the death blow. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Great ferment has recently been stirred up in Anguilla over the continuing existence of “orders in council”. Given that the abuse in question revolved around the use of an order in council to deport the citizens and residents of Diego Garcia to make space for a US military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean, I am sure that all of us in Anguilla will be following the argument with some anticipation.

Transparency

Trinidad and Tobago Transparency International. The following letter was sent by TTTI to the three major newspapers in Trinidad. Does it, I wonder, have any lessons for us here in Anguilla?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 June 2008

Dear Editor,

People’s right to know

The Trinidad and Tobago Transparency Institute (TTTI) has had cause in the past to voice its concerns over Government’s selective use of transparency in its approach to governance.

In 2001, Government inherited the Freedom of Information Act from the previous administration and, in the ensuing years, reduced its effectiveness by exempting from the Act first the Central Bank and then selected State-funded agencies. This was a major curtailment by Government of the people’s right to information and, at that time, very few Civil Society voices were raised in protest.

Next we saw Government’s habitual delays in answering questions raised in Parliament and, in some cases, either refusing to answer or giving very limited information. This trend continues today.

Government also attempted to limit citizens’ right to bring public interest litigation against the state by proposing revisions to the Judicial Review Act.

Public procurement practices are replete with examples of Government’s unwillingness to provide timely information to the public whose money is being spent. One example is the continued refusal by Government, in the face of many calls from TTTI and others, to make public the technical studies (paid for by taxpayers) which the Prime Minister and the Line Minister told Parliament recommended the adoption of the multi-billion dollar Rapid Rail System over other less expensive options.

More recently, Government sought to protect UDeCoTT from public scrutiny in the face of serious concerns voiced and allegations made by many respected persons and organisations in the society. Eventually, Government bowed to the pressure of those calls but still sought to control the process by opting for a Joint Selective Committee of Parliament and only later agreeing to the Commission of Enquiry called for.

The latest example of the lack of transparency was seen when Government refused to disclose in Parliament how much of taxpayers’ money was spent on fees for professional services on the dubious grounds of protecting the recipient’s rights to privacy.

We note that some important independent voices have been raised against this latest curtailment of the people’s right to information on how their money is being spent. More Civil Society organisations should raise their voices in protest over this latest development. Government’s decision in this matter must be reversed because of its far-reaching implications.

TTTI senses that there is a wind of change blowing through this country and bringing with it more national consciousness. Civil Society seems to have awakened from its slumber hence the many voices being heard today in protest over the UDeCOTT matter, escalating crime, high food prices, failures in the education and health systems, infrastructure inadequacies etc

This awakening is good for our democracy but Civil Society must go further and insist on its right to information and it’s acceptance by Government as a partner in the governance of the country. Civil Society must also insist on its voice being heard and listened to and its suggestions acted upon by Government. Civil Society must demand a culture of consultation and a truly participatory democracy for our country and accept nothing less.

Yours truly,

Victor Hart,

Chairman.

Info For Craft Swap Partners

Ok, so I will be the next one to pirate this post so that I can share information with current and potential crafty swap partners from Craftster.org and around the web. I will even keep this topic updated if my abilities/wants change :)I'm addicted to creating: poppets, dolls & stuffies, polymer clay charms, jewellery, polyshrink pendants and art dolls, upcycling 100% wool sweaters into fab bags

Silly Season

Silly Season. That's what the press calls the month when all the important people go away on holiday. There is no news to report. So, they report silly stories like, “Man bites dog.” It is now only June, but it is silly season in Anguilla. There is nothing worth reporting in the newspapers. Nothing on the radio.

No one has emailed me with any new stories about maladministration in the public service. Nothing about any of the projects being about to fail due to wasteful management. Nothing about the test results on Anguilla's water table.

Was I mistaken, or did I hear on radio a boast from the new water corporation that we are going to abandon the use of desalinized sea water? Desalinized well-water will be cheaper, I heard. We have been consuming desalinized sea water for the past couple of years. Some sixty-five percent (65%) of it is said to be wasted. Illegal hook-ups that we do nothing to prosecute is part of the problem. Leaking joints due to faulty plumbing causes the rest.

Instead, we are going to use the water in Anguilla's water table. I thought we abandoned that resource years ago due to the pollution. Going back to that source will somehow cure the leaking joints?

Hopefully, the leachate problem has been solved. Either that, or, ten years after the change-over, increasing numbers of babies can be expected to be born with three legs and no brain. That won't be silly at all.

Favours

Is it Ever Acceptable for an Attorney to Ask a Minister to Do a Favour for a Client? I do not normally respond to jibes and insults. Any blogger who opens fire in the direction of others must expect to be fired back at. However, there was one comment posted on ‘Big Chief” that requires a response. The anonymous commentator, among other things, said,

“All of you, including Brent, have on occasions requested some Government Minister to address a problem you faced from the Civil Service Staff. To assist you in a situation not to your liking but which may have been in strict compliance with a Law or Regulation. You were all granted your assistance. Its no different now.
Why the sudden ‘Virtue’?”

It is a corrupt form of government that permits a Minister to bend the law for a favoured supporter. It is dangerous and corrupt for a lawyer to ask a Minister for a special favour. That is unacceptable conduct under any system of government. Ours is a small society. There are so many petty spites and hurts. There are so many cousins and supporters who come seeking a favour. It is a particularly pernicious and evil system in a society such as ours.

Our representatives are elected to the House of Assembly to represent all the people’s interests. They select the Executive branch of government from among themselves. The Executive branch develops national policy. They bring that policy to the members of the Legislature as a Bill or Motion. The Legislature debates the Bill, and passes it into law, or rejects it. The Judges adjudicate when there is a dispute between citizen and citizen, or citizen and government. The Public Service reads the law passed by the Legislature. They apply that law impartially and fairly to all citizens. They make no exception, except within the bounds set by the law. That is our Westminster-style Constitution at work in its ideal form.

No Minister is permitted to contact a public servant and tell him or her to make an exception for a favourite of the Minister. Nor, can a Minister ring up a public servant and tell him or her to treat one citizen more severely than another. We are supposed to have a system of government of laws, and not of men. That is how we ensure government works fairly and equitably.

What Brent was complaining about is that in Anguilla we do not have a system of government by law. He was suggesting that here, a particular favoured contractor can go to a Minister and get a work permit approved, when that work permit was disapproved of by the Labour Department officer who was only applying the government’s policy and the law.

We would not have a system of government by law and not of men if a foreign employer were to fire an Anguillian employee for stealing, and the Chief Minister could tell the employer that he either re-hires the employee or he loses his work permit. That is a system of government that Anguillians want to avoid.

That is the system of government they have in Antigua and Grenada and St Vincent. That is how VC Bird and Eric Gairy operated. We do not want it in Anguilla.

I cannot speak for Brent. I can only speak for myself. I practiced law in St Kitts between 1971 and 1976. I never approached a Minister and asked him to make an exception for a client.

I practised law in Anguilla between 1980 and my retirement in 1999. I had many clients who needed licences and permits. I helped them by advising them of their rights and of the procedures under our law. I made the application for them. Then, I left it to the Administration to apply their laws and policies. I expected them to be impartial and fair. I never once approached a Minister of Government for a favour of any kind.

Ministers of Government came to my office for legal services. I charged them a fee. I never performed free legal services for a single one of them. I would not have wanted them to think they owed me a favour.

I would be ashamed to think that a single present-day lawyer in Anguilla behaves otherwise.

The comment in question quoted above is not only not true, it reflects badly on whomsoever wrote it.

Shallowness

Tell the People the Truth! There is a joke among lawyers. It is supposedly advice on strategy being given by an old lawyer to a young one. It goes like this.

“When the law is against you, rely on the facts. When the facts are against you, rely on the law. When the facts and the law are against you, attack your opponent’s integrity.”

It is only partly a joke. It is a good description of the tactics frequently used by unscrupulous lawyers to confuse the adjudicator. The reason the tactic is used so often is that, transparent though it often is, unethical as it always is, it so often succeeds. Otherwise intelligent people fall for it over and over again. So, I was not surprised when someone anonymously posted a personal attack on me as a “comment” on my latest post below. He or she wrote in part,

“It is quite obvious that you are pro-colonialism. Are you suggesting that Anguilla will dissolve into chaos if Anguillians are Self-Governing? Is it that you believe that Osbourne Fleming, Victor Banks, Albert Hughes, Eddie Baird, McNeil Rogers, Kenneth Harrigan and Hubert Hughes are incapable, in any permutation, of governing Anguilla properly and in the Best interests of the People of Anguilla? Or is it that you are of the view that English people are more capable, by virtue of evolution, in the field of Governance?”

It is a rhetorical question, of course. It does not expect an answer. Its purpose is to attack the loyalty and patriotism of the author of this blog. Accusing a West Indian of being “pro-British” is one of the easiest ways of condemning him in an uncritical public mind. Persons who look at skin-colour and stop thinking may be easily persuaded to believe the worse. The misrepresentation of what I have been warning about needs no comment. It will be transparently clear to anyone who has been reading my posts.

The Westminster-style Constitution traditionally places a minimum of emphasis on creating and installing institutions and mechanisms to secure integrity, transparency and accountability. That system has been described in the past with some justification, because of its lack of checks and balances, as a dictatorship of the Prime Minister. No matter how gentlemanly our present representatives are, we do not know who our government will be in the future. We need a system that will guarantee our freedoms if our future leaders turn out to be not what we expected. We must have a system where increased power in the hands of our ministers is checked by procedures to correct any mischief that might occur. Those twin objectives would have been achieved if the recommendations of the Anguillians contained in the 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission had been implemented.

It is noticeable that the BVI and the TCI have negotiated, just last year, new Constitutions that significantly reduce the power of the FCO to interfere in internal matters and transfer to local institutions most of the powers previously enjoyed by the Governor. But, they neither demanded nor received “full internal self-government”. They are enjoying the benefits of a modern Constitution and a modern relationship with the British. No doubt, when they are ready, they will seek full political independence. But, they recognise they are not ready for it. Cayman Islands have just published their constitutional proposals. They do not demand full internal self-government. And, they are even richer and more financially self-reliant than we in Anguilla are.

The British have said that we must not come to them with a demand for full internal self-government unless we are prepared to accept a short timetable for independence. Our representatives have repeatedly told us that they are not interested in political independence at this time. But, they will demand full internal self-government for Anguilla. The two positions are at odds with each other. They are on a collision course. They are incompatible. Something will have to give. Either it will be the negotiating team that will settle for something less than their maximum demand. Or, it will be the British who will force us into an unplanned and unprepared-for independence. Either way, we lose.

In 2006 the Anguillians said that it was time to reduce the powers of the British in Anguilla, but that that must be accompanied by checks and balances. They did not recommend that we confront the British with a demand for full internal self-government. Will the same Anguillians be stampeded in 2008 into accepting full political independence under a Westminster-style Constitution before the necessary mechanisms for the protection of our life, liberty and property are put in place?

Will our leaders come to their senses and negotiate for what amounts in practice to full internal self-government, without waving that red flag in the face of the bull? That is what the people said they want.

We patiently await the draft of the promised Constitution. When we see that, we will know whether our leaders are honestly preparing to negotiate in our best interests. Or, we will see whether they are selling us a pig in a poke that will only increase their own powers over us.

Either way, I’ll be sure to tell you what I think.

No more shallow thinking, please.