The hallmark of our celebration of the Christmas season was a heightened spirit of community. This was evident by the many community Christmas trees which lit up the different villages. And there was merriment everywhere as people partied in their homes and night clubs. Some danced as if nobody was looking. Others danced liked they never danced before. And there was one pastor who really threw himself away as he wined to the popular song Wine Up On Mi Curry. It was his way of expressing the joy of Christmas.

The St Augustine’s Chorale expressed it through two beautifully rendered cantatas, Adore Him, at its church in East End on 22nd and 29th December 2002. The cantatas, under the directorship of the young and extremely talented Lennox Vanterpool, were spiritually uplifting. The Chorale is living up to its reputation as the best on the island.
Incidentally, while we in Anguilla were celebrating the birth of Christ, BBC One TV in the UK was carrying a programme, entitled The Virgin Mary, in which it was suggested that Mary may not have been a virgin and therefore may not have been conceived by the Holy Ghost. The programme put forward the view that she may have had a secret lover for whom she got pregnant; that she may have got Jesus as a result of being raped by a Roman soldier or that she was made pregnant by Joseph, to whom she was engaged.
We in Anguilla regard such views as hogwash. In fact, the lengths to which we go to celebrate Christmas is testament to our unshakeable belief that Jesus is the son of God and that Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost some 2000 years ago. And just like the wise men gave gifts to Jesus, we too have been giving gifts to our loved ones and friends and less fortunate.
Even our wise men in Government were in the spirit of giving gifts. Their gifts were contained in the 2003 Budget Address which the Honourable Minister of Finance, Victor Banks, delivered in the House of Assembly in December 2002. The most worthy of them was the news that no major tax increases would be imposed in 2003. This was a surprise gift because people were expecting the imposition of a whole range of new tax increases to bail Government out of the financial hole in which it finds itself. We are therefore thankful that our fears did not materialise. Our Ministers must have realised that the poor can’t take no more. Apart from increased court fees, a 1% increase on ad valorem duties on imported goods and a 5% environmental tax, I think we got off relatively well.

The case for an environmental tax is a good one. It is aimed at covering the costs of garbage collection and disposal and is justifiable. However, the fact that it has been placed on people’s electricity bills (5% of each bill) – on the amount of electricity they consume – has caused them to regard the tax as a penalty for the use of electricity. In addition, they are concerned that it will result in increased operating costs for all businesses.

It is no secret that in determining the most effective way of collecting the tax, Government opted for attaching it to electricity bills. But even though the arrangement may be the most effective it is potentially inflationary and could cause the economy, already known for its high prices, to overheat in the long run. Attaching the environmental tax to property (tax) may have been the better option.

With respect to the 1% increase on custom duties, there has been no public outcry against it primarily because the increase was marginal. This gives credence to the view expressed by Claudel Romney, the Second Nominated member, who observed that the problem with most taxes in Anguilla was that they had been left unchanged for too long and therefore any steep increases, to make them more realistic, were bound to cause public discontent. He went on to advise that if Government turned the tax “heat up slowly” people would be inclined to pay the increases without much protest.

However, the Honourable Leader of Opposition, Hubert Hughes, cautioned Government that it could not ask people “to pay more, when they [were] getting less” and that Anguilla “needed an economy to tax.” He was probably alluding to the island’s total dependence on the tourism industry.
I want to comment briefly on Victor’s claim that Anguillians do not like paying taxes. If that is so, it is not without reason. One, like people everywhere, they do not like steep rises in taxes. Two, they do not like putting money into the Treasury and then see it being spent recklessly. Three, they do not like our system of tax administration where only the little man pays and the big boys do not.

A lot of people are bitter with Government’s practice of putting plenty pressure on the little man to pay monies owing to it, while it allows the so called elite to get away scot-free. The poorer people are hounded down for a ten-dollar here, or a twenty-dollar there. According to Hubert, even the dead are sent bills – are hounded down – while the friends of Ministers who owe thousands are allowed to get away with murder. They do not pay. At the end of the day their debts are usually written off. This unjust situation needs to be addressed without delay. It stinks.

That aside, there are two positive aspects of the sitting of the House, during the Budget debate, which are worthy of commendation. One is the way the Speaker, Roy Rogers, conducted the proceedings. He did a very good job. He conducted the proceedings in a fair and evenhanded manner and I applaud him. Roy has matured greatly over the years and there is every sign of him becoming an excellent Speaker. He is rapidly winning the respect of the Anguillian public. May he continue in this vein in the interest of the growth and survival of democracy in Anguilla.

The other aspect to which I want to refer is the presentation made by Claudel Romney, the Second Nominated member. That, in my view, was his greatest contribution to the House since he first sat in it several years ago. Actually, it may well have been the best contribution to any debate by any Second Nominated member to date. The Second Nominated member is supposed to be non-partisan – is supposed to be neither Government nor Opposition – and is therefore expected to bring balance to debates in the House. That is precisely what Claudel did.
What I particularly liked about his presentation was that he applauded Government where he thought it was doing the right thing and then pointed out those areas where he thought it was doing the wrong thing. We need to see more of this in Anguilla. When a government is right applaud it. When it is wrong say so. But Claudel did stop there. He suggested solutions and alternative courses of action.

Claudel’s contribution was most enlightening and I think the other members of the House learnt a lot from him. He certainly opened Government’s eyes to some of its shortcomings. He advised the House that in our long-term planning – “in the public decisions we make” – Government should involve a wider cross-section of the Anguillian people. He said that its failure to utilise expertise available locally may have caused it to give away too much to some projects, and for that reason he did not “like the way some projects were done.” He warned that we cannot continue to give away our behind and then use our ribs. (That was a paraphrase of an old Caribbean proverb which says, “Never give away your --- and ---- through your ribs.”) Claudel called for “true partnership” between Government and the private sector in an effort to find solutions to the island’s economic problems.

By the way, while the Honourable Kenneth Harrigan predicted that a “new breeze” of prosperity would blow over Anguilla in 2003, Claudel reminded the House not to make such rosy forecasts because the signs of war in the Middle East were indeed ominous.
About the planned extension of the Wallblake Airport, he felt that Government should have evaluated different sites for the building of a new airport. In his view, there exists the possibility that in 15 years, or so, an extended Wallblake may be incapable of meeting the island’s needs.
Claudel definitely recognised the lack of proper planning on Government’s part. Even if he did not, Kenneth highlighted the deficiency when he told the House that he and the Chief Minister got to “jimmy fix” things for Island Harbour and East End and that the other members got to “jimmy fix” things for their constituencies. It was in the context of “jimmy fixing” that the Honourable Eric Reid mentioned that the Cedar Village road in his constituency needed paving. He said it was so bad that it had caused every pregnant woman who used it to have a miscarriage.
Notwithstanding the foregoing positives of the meeting of the House of Assembly, the Anguillian people are terribly displeased with the overall level and quality of its debates. The debates are appalling and cause many to question the seriousness of our political leaders when it comes to addressing the real issues which confront this country. They have long concluded that
there is too much frivolousness in the House, particularly during the constant exchanges between the Chief Minister (Osbourne Fleming) and the Leader of the Opposition (Hubert Hughes). During the Budget debate they joked about everything including boats, like the Plover C, and Osbourne’s looks. Hubert said, “He ain’t so ugly!”

In the course of these exchanges, Osbourne often gets the worse because he cannot punch lower than Hubert. For example, when Hubert told Osbourne that he joked too much, his response was that joking was the reason why he was enjoying such good health. Hubert then asked him what good health he was talking about when he (Osbourne) was constantly telling him (Hubert) about how sick he was. Having said that Hubert exclaimed: “I still love the Chief Minister! I can’t help it!” And again: “I love the Chief Minister and I think he loves me too!”
But what Osbourne has not yet realised is that despite Hubert’s expressions of love and affection, he regards his (Osbourne’s) playfulness in the House as indicative of lack of preparedness to lead a government. I say this because I recall Hubert saying over one of the radio stations some months ago that “every time you see the Chief Minister, you see thirty two teeth but no serious government.” Actually, he told House that Osbourne “can’t run government from a restaurant,” where he usually has breakfast.
The Budget debate also saw some low punching when Hubert threw something about “Guyanese” at Kenneth and the Government-side responded by throwing something about “the Santo Domingans” at Hubert. And things got real nasty when Victor held up some writings, visible only to the members on the Opposition side, alleging misconduct in Hubert’s private life. I am aware that Hubert is no political angel but what Victor did was an affront to the dignity of the House.
It was against that background that the Speaker appealed to members to conduct themselves in a way that would make them good role models. He admonished: “The youngsters are looking at us. Let us set an example for the young people of Anguilla.” The Speaker was well aware that members’ frequent refusal to obey his calls “for order in the House” showed a gross lack of respect for authority and that it was essentially the lack of respect for authority in the homes and elsewhere in society which was one of the root causes of many of the social problems confronting Anguilla.

Our Chief Minister has tried to brush aside the Speaker’s concerns by saying that the House was not a church and that, furthermore, legislators in Houses in other Caribbean islands behaved a lot worse than those in Anguilla. We all agree that the House is not a church. It is the place where laws for the good governance, and good conduct, of our country are made and must be treated with dignity. And it is rather distasteful having the House chaplain open every meeting with a prayer and then have members disrespect the same God whose guidance they seek.

As regards comparing the conduct of our House with that in others Caribbean islands, let me say that those Houses are very poor examples to follow because most of them are filled with political gangsters who break every rule in the book in order to stay in power. The majority of them only leave office when an undertaker moves them out on a stretcher and take them to a funeral home. They would never do like our own Sir Emile who left office to enjoy the rest of his life in peace. They have a different political culture which we dare not try to transplant here.
I said all that to tell our Chief Minister that our political leaders have an obligation to set the moral tone for the country. This is particularly the case because social decay usually starts at the top. I say further that the fulfillment of that obligation should commence in the House of Assembly which, according to Tim Hodge, “is the place where the will of the people of Anguilla are expressed and where the direction of our country is decided. It is the place where the highest level of accountability exists.” But the way our leaders conduct its business and themselves seems to give credence to the saying that politicians are like diapers. They should both be changed frequently and for the same reason.

If there are no discernible improvements in the way the people’s business is looked after, and if the void in moral leadership widens, there will have to be a change of diapers.

Colville Petty, MBE

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News