Commentary
The White Paper:
Time for the Truth
Now that General Elections 2000 is over,let me congratulate all of the elected members who won a seatby honest means.
Let me, also, congratulate my fellow candidates who ran thought-provoking,clean campaigns. There is obviously a lot of work to be done,and it appears that the people of the Cayman Islands will be moreobservant and vocal with their praise and criticisms of the Governmentin the 21st Century.
One observation which I made in my political campaign is thatthere is very little room left for 'discussion' regarding theWhite Paper proposal (i.e. that the White Paper is not a discussionpaper for the Cayman Islands Government).
This is clearly evidenced in the foreword by the Foreign and CommonwealthSecretary which says: "Soon after becoming Foreign SecretaryI announced a thorough review of the relationship between Britainand what were then called the Dependent Territories. The reviewhas been a recognition of the importance which the Governmentplaces on that relationship, and a sign of our determination toget it in the best possible shape for the future.
"During the review we have consulted widely. We have spokenwith governments, opposition leaders and governors of the OverseasTerritories. We have taken advice from the Parliamentary SelectCommittees and others.
"The review is now complete....We are looking forward tocontinuing our dialogue with the governments and peoples of theOverseas Territories. Working together to implement the proposalsin this White Paper, I believe we can lay the basis for a modernpartnership."
It is most unfortunate that our local Government never gave theCaymanian people the opportunity to have any input in the reviewand what became the White Paper proposal, although the Governmentwas given ample opportunity by the UK to do so.
Some of you may be wondering: "What do I mean by that?"Well, in a nutshell, there was a review of all the Dependent Territoriesconducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament,which began in 1997, almost immediately after the new Labour Partycame into power.
Between 1997-1998, the Dependent Territories, including the CaymanIslands, were given the opportunity to submit feedback on theissue of citizenship, constitutional status and nomenclature,in addition to anything else we wished to raise.
Most other territories, except the Cayman Islands, took full advantageand submitted thorough reports after having extensive consultationwith the people of their respective territories. On the otherhand, the Cayman Islands government submitted three letters (onNovember 5, 1997, December 29, 1997, and January 8, 1998), amountingto a half page and signed by members of the National Team Government(many of whom are apart of this present government).
The Legislative Assembly tried to appease the public by settingup a Select Committee on the White Paper in June 1998, AFTER thewritten submissions had been signed and sent to the UK. And tothis date, no official report of the Select Committee has beenforthcoming, although the White Paper has been published sinceMarch 1999 and already been implemented.
On the issue of the Constitution, in the written responses, theNational Team MLAs said: "We feel that the present constitutionalstatus should remain as it is, in keeping with the wishes of thevast majority of the people of the Cayman Islands who overwhelminglyconfirmed their support for the status quo in the 1992 and 1996General Elections."
First of all. this statement is fundamentally flawed because,in 1993, when the National Team Government and Legislative Assemblycame to power, they changed the Constitution, appointing Ministersof Executive Council and increasing the number of elected membersrepresented from four to five (yet they deliberately left outa Bill of Rights).
That means that the status quo was different in 1996 than it wasin 1992. So, to make a judgement based on the outcome of the electionswithout consulting the people directly was inappropriate. Nonetheless,it was interesting to hear, during the recent political campaign,that certain persons who signed this letter agreeing that thereshould be no change to the Constitution were quick to jump onthe band wagon claiming that there is need for constitutionalmodernization.
It leads me to believe that because the Constitution became apolitical issue (and rightly so), and because the Caymanian peoplewere very vocal about the need to have certain constitutionalchanges, these same politicians had no other choice but to accedeto the people's wishes, despite their written commitment otherwise.This sudden change of heart by certain elected politicians mayalso have been influenced by the fact that the Governor has madeit clear that there will be a constitutional review early nextyear.
I must point out here that we should also beware of any politicianwho attempts to scare or brainwash the people into thinking thatconstitutional change means independence. Unfortunately, thosescare tactics seemed to have dominated this election (especiallyin the district of West Bay).
What we need is for elected members to be forthright and honestwith the people regarding these matters, because, in the 21stCentury, Caymanians will no longer stand for the lies and hypocrisy;and we are learning fast to call a spade a spade.
Another issue which I spoke directly about in my political campaign,and it now appears to be coming to pass, is the fact that theUnited Kingdom intends to force the Cayman Islands to lift theban on homosexuality.
In the early part of 2000, the now Minister of Tourism held apublic meeting to discuss the White Paper. At that meeting, heclearly stated that he does not support the lifting of the banon Homosexuality. He claimed this was based on the wishes of thevast majority. Now that the British Parliament is giving us nochoice, my question to him is: "What do you, Mr Minister,and the rest of the Government, intend to do about it?
Was he just paying lip-service to a sensitive issue, in an attemptto gain votes and nothing else? The people of the Cayman Islandsdeserve to know the government's official position on this matter.
As concerned citizens, let us not sit back on our heels expectingthat the Government will take care of things. The elected politicianshave a responsibility to represent our interests, and we havea responsibility to let our interests and concerns be known.
We also have a responsibility to make sure that the elected politiciansdo what they are supposed to do, in our best interest, and therefore,we must continue to put pressure on them to do so.
May God richly bless you and your families in the coming Christmasand holiday season!
Tara Rivers,
West Bay