Letter to the Editor
Constitutional Reform - A comingstorm?
Dear Sir:
I am sure it is not the intention of Mr.Rolston Anglin to play tag with another candidate for the GeneralElections nor to use your time or that of your readers unnecessarily.This would explain why he has not bothered to respond to certainstatements made about him and his approach to the issue of ConstitutionalModernisation.
However, once again, though most of the letter to which I willrefer does not warrant the grace of a response, it is best toclarify a number of misstatements contained in that letter, whichhave also been reiterated in public forums... lest they be furtherpursued for political expediency and to the detriment of the peopleof the Cayman Islands.
The letter in question is that entitled 'Tara Responds to Rolston'sResponse' and it appeared in your Cayman Net News Issue 28 of5th October, 2000.
Firstly, the writer of the letter, Miss Tara Rivers, states that"we have never stated that we support full internal selfgovernment." I have to say that Miss Rivers is toying withwords. The important word in her statement is "stated."HOWEVER, her initial letter to your fine publication implied,in more than one instance, that she and her team support a movetowards full internal self-government.
Indeed, she said that it was "utter nonsense" to suggestthat a move to full internal self-government would mean the settingof a date for independence. She is clearly implying thereforethat she thinks that full internal self-government is acceptablefor the Cayman Islands. She should not attempt to mislead thevoting public with an artful use of words.
She should understand that the voting public is smarter than thatand that there is nothing to be gained by playing with words inthe way that she is doing so. The voting public further understandsthat there are some people who can, as the saying goes 'talk upa storm' but when the time comes for action, do not have the where-with-allto carry-out the required task. Talk is cheap. We must thereforeensure that any candidates we consider for election are doersand not merely talkers.
I further understand that Miss Rivers' team may have now recognisedtheir mistaken interpretation of constitutional protocol and havenow decided to reform their position on full internal self-government.This is wise and they should be applauded on recognising theirmistakes and learning from them. They should however be HONESTabout their mistakes and simply say 'we were mistaken, we nowunderstand the true position, we wish to change our stance.' Thatwould only require a little humility.
Secondly, Miss Rivers refers to Team Better Balance as puttingforward a 'misleading statement of propaganda and political rhetoric.'My reply to this is, quite simply, that if Miss Rivers thinksthat Team Better Balance are wrong about the effects of a movetowards full internal self-government, then she should do someresearch and seek proper advice because the position is factualnot hypothetical.
I will refer Miss Rivers and her team to the Minutes of the LegislativeAssembly of the Cayman Islands for 7th and 8th August, 1972 andthe words of the then Governor, H. E. Mr. Kenneth R. Crook: "Whenthe people of the Cayman Islands feel themselves ready for a furthermove forward, their wishes can be fully considered. A ConstitutionalConference may be a good way to do it. I should perhaps add, forthe avoidance of doubt, that it is not normal to grant full internalself-government without at the same time setting a proximate datefor independence. But there should be plenty of room for advancebefore we reach that stage."
This is as clear as one can be, and though there is even moreevidence of the British Government setting out this position inone way or another, I think the point is now abundantly clearfor all to see!
Thirdly, I would also suggest to Miss Rivers that most candidatesand indeed many of the West Bay constituents are most certainlyaware of the position and voiced opinion of the Caymanian BarAssociation and the Cayman Islands Bankers Association, as wellas the stated position of a number of other noteworthy professionalorganisations, some of which the members of Team Better Balance,to the best of my knowledge, happen to be a members of.
I believe that Mr. Anglin's point in his original letter, whenhe referred to the 'Friday fiasco' affair stands on its own andthere was no need for him to cross-reference it with the positionsof the honourable associations mentioned. Perhaps it is she, andnot Mr. Anglin, (as she suggested), who is grasping for straws.It is not wise to embark on pointless arguments and I am not debatingthese matters for argument's sake, I am merely stating fact becausethe people of this country deserve to have the information putto them in a clear and accurate manner and not tainted by flightsof fancy which can be attributed to a blatant lack of the necessaryexperience and understanding.
Miss Rivers goes on to err again in this most recent letter, referringas follows to the change of laws during the 'Friday fiasco': "Letus not forget the FACT that the OECD initiative on harmful taxationstarted in 1996, four years ago, so EXCO had ample time to preparefor what they felt was inevitable."
Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I will state emphatically thatI am not agreeing with the manner in which the 'Friday fiasco'was conducted, nor am I purporting to agree with ExCo's slownessin responding to the OECD concerns, HOWEVER, let us call a spadea spade and not cast aspersions based on inaccurate assumptions.
THE REAL FACT IS that the 'Friday fiasco' was NOT a responseto the OECD concerns about harmful taxation. By the week in whichthe 'Friday fiasco' event took place, the EXCO ALREADY knew thatthe Cayman Islands had NOT been blacklisted by the OECD. The EXCOwas instead trying to head off a pending blacklisting from theFATF and the possibility of a negative advisory by FINCEN that,is FACT!
I am appalled that Miss Rivers has the audacity to suggest thatanother West Bay team "cannot offer any helpful change inthe way Government operates" when it is so abundantly clearthat her own team, or at least she, lacks clarity on fundamentallyimportant issues such as the constitution and financial regulation.
Miss Rivers says that Team Better Balance agrees with the conceptof full internal self-government. Indeed, in Mr. Anglin's letterto your newspaper, he stated that the CONCEPT (one would hopeMiss Rivers understands the difference between a concept and aproposal), was "palatable."
Undoubtedly, many Caymanians would agree that if there were nonegative repercussions, there are aspects of full internal self-governmentwhich would be acceptable. BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING WHICHINDICATES THAT TEAM BETTER BALANCE SUPPORTS ANY PROPOSAL FOR AMOVE TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE and thus while the CONCEPT of full internalself-government may be palatable, that Team is NOT proposing anymove towards full internal self-government since this will clearlymean having to set a date for independence.
Unlike Miss Rivers, it appears that Team Better Balance have beenconsistent throughout this entire debate! I trust that Miss Riversand her team will not return to any cheap attempts to misinterpretor misconstrue what is set out here in black and white.
By the way, no one has suggested that the reference to full internalself government meaning setting a date for independence was derivedfrom the 1971 Constitutional Review. It is therefore a waste ofeveryone's time for Miss Rivers to revisit her arguments on thisnon-point.
Finally, Miss Rivers has indicated that her team "supportsa move towards addressing the gaps that currently exist in theConstitution." Since Miss Rivers is so fond of attemptingto manipulate words, I would like to clarify that it is my understandingthat it is not accurate, in discussions of the Constitution, torefer to 'gaps' in the Constitution!
This is because, as a result of our English-based constitutionalfoundation, a fundamental tenet of our constitutional law is thatall our people are free to do all that which is not prohibitedby the law. This, apparently, is quite different and distinctfrom the position in the United States or many civil law jurisdictionssuch as France, Italy and Spain.
It is not therefore correct to write of "GAPS" in ourconstitution. Perhaps it would be better to say that it wouldbe good to see constitutional matters more "clearly set out"in the constitution. I believe that many political teams in WestBay have also said that they support constitutional modernisation,where appropriate and in full consultation with the people ofthe Cayman Islands.
On that point therefore Miss Rivers and her team appear to beseeing eye to eye with the rest of the constituency.
May God bless the people of the Cayman Islands.
L.D. Ebanks (Ms.)
A Concerned
West Bay voter!