Lots and lots of PAMites and their allies and apologists have taken it upon themselves to hurl vituperation and abuse, ridicule and opprobrium upon the Hon. Dwyer Astaphan. The Hon. Minister does not deserve such treatment which is unfair, unjust and uncalled for.
Why does the Hon. Minister attract such wrong attention and such undeserved treatment, people ask? The answer which is two-fold is simple and it is clear.
The Hon. Dwyer Astaphan won the Central Basseterre seat in 1995 and by so doing ousted and dethroned the Nation's "First Ever Prime Minister", Dr. Simmonds. Who tell Dwyer Astaphan does that? By ousting Dr. Simmonds, Minister Astaphan committed the most grievous sin in PAM's entire panoply of sins.
Secondly, the Hon Dwyer Astaphan, as Minister of Tourism, was one of the most innovative and outstanding Ministers of Tourism in the entire English-speaking Caribbean. PAM, in its time, had three different Ministers of Tourism. Not one of them has ever been deemed worthy to touch the hem of Dwyer Astaphan's garment or to untie or undo the latchet of his shoes.
Minister Astaphan has now moved on to another Ministry, that of National Security. His detractors have not given up. They are in hot pursuit, tumbling over one another as they fight to see who can deliver the most blows, throw the most dirt and say the most ridiculous and preposterous things to harm the Hon. Minister. Grudge, envy and jealously are the qualities that keep the detractors of the Hon. Minister going.
The cream, they say, will always rise to the top. So nothing that PAM or its allies can say or do, short of physical violence, will prevent the Hon. Minister from rising to the top and providing leadership PAR EXCELLENCE in the nation's arduous fight against crime, violence and lawlessness.
Minister Astaphan has amply demonstrated to his countrymen his sincere and genuine commitment to principled and virtuous public service. He is not in the business of Politics for what he can get out of it. Twice or three times he has offered to bow out of active Politics.
I say publicly that I hope that he does not bow out of active politics until he has put in some more years. He has too much valuable public service to offer and the nation has too much to gain from his continuing involvement and success in active Politics.
It must not be forgotten when comparing (what an insult) Minister Astaphan to the PAM politicians, that a very Senior PAM Minister of Government in times past argued that his salary and allowances must be raised to a much higher level because he was able, at the time, to earn more money outside of government than he was earning in government.
The Hon. Dwyer Astaphan has never made a noise or a fuss for more salary, more money or greater allowances. The Minister is a gifted and experienced lawyer and surely he can make more money practising his law than being a Minister of Government.
I turn now to the question of CRIME. And I will use what used to happen in Northern Ireland and what is now happening in Iraq as examples. Criminal activity cannot be dealt with effectively, properly or adequately by the sole and only expedient of involving more law-enforcement officers, more soldiers, more equipment and more fire-power.
Surely in the case of St. Kitts and Nevis, more police officers, more soldiers, more vehicles, more equipment and more fire-power would help. But those things will help only so far and no further. What would help even much more than all those things is the willing and faithful commitment of all sectors and sections of the country in a joint effort against crime.
Crime is not a "Government Problem". It is a "Societal Problem". Therefore all sectors and sections of our communities ought to put hands together and march forward together in a concerted effort to eradicate all forms of serous criminal activity from within our country and our borders.
It is easy for some individuals, some groups, some organisations and some political parties to say "It is time for the Government to do something" or "The Government should do MORE". However, such statements signify a cop-out. It means that whoever it is who makes such statements does not consider it to be his social duty to assist with the solution of the problem. It is enough for him to sit on the sidelines and watch on while others try to solve the problem.
I can recall that in the 1970s, because of PAM's opposition to the National Provident Fund (NPF) and the Social Security Scheme (SSS) the party waged a relentless war too destroy the two Schemes and to prevent their successful operation.
PAM sent its errand boys all across the twin-islands of St. Kitts and Nevis to visit every work-site and business-place to tell the employers and their employees (workers) not to participate in NPF and Social Security as the employees (workers) have nothing to gain from participating in the Schemes.
The PAMites told the country that Social Security would not last as Bradshaw and Southwell were going "to tief dey money". Nothing at all like that has happened.
The PAM party did not want to see the workers benefit from Social Security in their old or retirement age. So the PAM party sent around its errand boys with orders to try to sabotage, destroy and bring down Social Security. The errand boys failed in their attempts.
Since the increase in the level of criminal activity in St. Kitts and Nevis, right-minded nationals have argued that PAM is wasting precious time. Rather than cursing, abusing and ridiculing Minster Astaphan, PAM should do what it did in the 1970s.
That is, the PAM party should mount an anti-crime campaign using the medium of the Democrat newspaper, the political platform and the usual complement of errand boys. PAM can also decide that lawyers who are members of the PAM party distance themselves from persons who are suspected of, or who have been charged with, committing serious gun-related crimes.
PAM will never join in such a manner in the fight against crime. Most people are convinced that PAM is hoping that the crime situation would get worse, not better, as in PAM's view such a development would favour PAM and be detrimental to the Labour Party.
As the level of lawlessness and criminality increase in St. Kitts and Nevis all residents of our twin-islands would be affected adversely. An increase in the level of crimes and violence locally, though harmful, may not directly and immediately affect our Tourism Industry as the situation in St. Maarten has shown.
Everyday the St. Maarten newspaper, The Daily Herald, carries stories and reports of crime and lawlessness in the island. Yet in spite of such daily publication of crimes, such as murder and physical attacks, the volume of tourists entering St. Maarten by sea and by air, seems to be growing annually by leaps and bounds.
The Democrat newspaper is hoping that its weekly high-lighting of serious crimes committed on St. Kitts (not Nevis) would frighten away visitors to our island. But the Democrat may yet be wasting its time.
Members of the PAM hierarchy often refer to the events of 1993, as if there was never a 10th of June, 1967, on which night guns and bullets and high explosives were in use in addition to teargas.
PAMites also refer regularly to the events of 1993 as if the populace of St. Kitts rose up and threw sticks and stones, like crazy people, for no reason at all. The populace was simply registering its protest and disgust over the unfair manner in which PAM was fighting to hold on to the government after the inconclusive election results of 29th November 1993.
PAM won 4 seats at that election. The Labour Party won 4 seats, the CCM party 2 seats and the NRP 1 seat, Labour won the vast majority of the popular votes on St. Kitts. PAM joined up with the NRP to form a Coalition Government. So PAM formed a government with 5 elected members while the Opposition had 6 elected members.
The PAM/NRP Government of 1993 was an illegitimate, minority Government which had no place in our system of modern, liberal democracy. PAM stole the government in 1993. The people resisted that. PAM has since claimed that in 1993 the populace was wrong to resist such a move and that PAM was right to have stolen the government after the inconclusive General Elections of November 29, 1993. What self-serving nonsense.
PAM made two prior unsuccessful attempts to steal the government. On the last day of May 1967, PAM handed in a letter to His Excellency, the Governor, Sir Fred Phillips, demanding that the lawfully elected government of Premier Bradshaw resign. What impudence!
The Government did not resign and so on June 10th, 1967, a group of Anguillians, some American Mercenaries and a number of (PAM activists) political opponents of Premier Bradshaw all joined forces in an attempt to overthrow the lawfully elected Labour Government. The attempted coup was not successful due to the grace of Almighty God.
The 10th of June plot called for the destruction of New Town (East Basseterre) and the annihilation of the Defence Force Camp at Springfield (West Basseterre). Central Basseterre was to be taken care of by attacking the Basseterre Police Station from both the Lozack Road side and the Cayon Street side.
God was especially protective of Basseterre people on the night of June 10th, 1967. The cable which connected the high explosives set by the rebels near to Camp Headquarters at Springfield ran across the railway line back of Frys Village. A late-night train carrying sugar cane to the Sugar Factory rolled over the cable and severed it. Consequently the high explosives placed within the perimeter of the Camp could not be detonated. West Basseterre was saved. Thank God.
It is shameful and dishonest that PAM should portray the acts of Civil Disobedience of 1993 as the confused acts of irresponsible and violent people. No, that was not the case and PAM should put the full facts out on the table for all to see and understand.
What happened in 1993 is that PAM stole the government in broad daylight in front of the people. The people objected to and opposed what PAM had done. The form of objection and opposition used by the people is called Civil Disobedience.
The Civil Disobedience of 1993 came about because of the actions of a power-hungry political party, a most compliant Governor General and a flawed Constitution. If PAM was not so hungry and thirsty for power there would not been no acts of Civil Disobedience in 1993. The 1993 PAM/NRP Government consisted of five (5) elected members on the government side and six (6) elected members on the opposition side.
It is obvious, even to the dull and ignorant in our midst that after more than 40 years PAM has still been unable to present to the general public a proper, reasonable, sensible, logical and convincing account of the part that the party played in St. Kitts and in Anguilla, during the days leading up to and including the 10th of June 1967.
Every year since 1967 the PAMites have come up with one or another story in a series of "cock-and-bull" stories.
One year the PAMites talked about what Colonel HAC Howard said. The next year they mentioned what Sir Fred Phillips had to say.
Earlier on this year the PAMites promised that they would tell the "whole story". The "whole story" that PAM told can be found in the following articles published in the Democrat newspaper for the period June 16th-22nd, 2007. The articles are "Once and For All", "Statement by Alicia (AL) Herbert Powell", "Blood On Their Hands," and "Politics And Crime".
Not one of the four (4) articles previously mentioned made any specific reference to the part that PAM played in Anguilla and in St. Kitts during the days leading up to and including the 10th of June, 1967.
No mention at all is made of the fact that a number of well-known PAMites frequently travelled to Anguilla to learn the art of shooting at the rifle-range at Junks Hole. Nothing at all was said of the letter dated May 31st 1967, signed by Dr. William Herbert and Richard Canes that was handed to Sir Fred Phillips, Governor, demanding the resignation of the lawfully elected government of Premier Robert Bradshaw.
PAM allowed its lust for political power and its greed for money to take full control in 1967. How on earth, people have argued, could PAM demand that the Labour Government which was elected on the 25th of July 1966 with a 7 to 0 victory over PAM at he polls be asked to resign?
The "whole story" which PAM has so far not dared to tell the public is very short and simple. The story is that PAM was acting then, as now, as the proxy of the group that was against Labour and wanted to control the government as well as the economy of St. Kitts.
Having lost the July 1966 General Elections, and having failed to make Premier Bradshaw step-down, members of the PAM party collaborated with Anguillians and American mercenaries to bring down the Government of Premier Bradshaw by the means of the gun and the bullet. Not sticks and stones.
PAM ought to realise by this time now, the year 2007, that only the party's die-hards and fanatics are interested in the party's fanciful and far-fetched "cock-and-bull stories put out to explain away PAM's active involvement in the events of 10th of June.
We have learnt from History that kings in ancient days would chop off the heads of messengers who brought bad news. Mercifully for use today, PAM cannot chop off the heads of bringers of bad news. PAM curse and abuse
What PAM has done so far since 1967 is to avoid any and all conflicts, confrontations, disputes and contentions with the Anguillians over the details of the circumstances surrounding, and leading up to, the 10th of June, 1967.
Any Anguillian can publish in newspapers, journals, magazines, periodicals and books, with great impunity, the true story of the 10th of June, 1967. PAM's wrath and vengeance are reserved only for those Kittitians who dare to repeat what the Anguillians have already publicised.
I appeal to all Kittitians and Nevisians not to be fooled and misled by all the irrelevant, extraneous, deceitful, illogical and self-serving references being made to the current crime situation and the Scotland Yard Report on the Disappearance of the MAXI II. The two (2) issues have nothing at all to do with the events of the 10th of June (PAM DAY).
Let me emphasise. Neither the current crime situation, nor the loss at sea of the MAXI II disappeared in 1994, that is, 27 years after PAM DAY in 1967.
Certain leading PAMites keep repeating the same old story, year after year, that the Denzil Douglas Administration published an incomplete version of the Scotland Yard Report.
I presume therefore that the PAMites who have been making such false accusations are in possession of a copy of the full and complete Scotland Yard Report. I would only ask such PAMites to publish a genuine copy of the true Report in the Democrat or The Leewards Times newspaper for the information and edification of the general public.
If PAM is so innocent of any involvement in the 10th of June failed coup as the PAMites claim, then they should challenge, refute and dispute, publicly and openly, all that the Anguillians have been writing and saying, openly and publicly, since 1967.
When such is done there would be no need for PAM to prove its non-involvement by relying on what Sir Fred Phillips says or what Colonel H.A.C. Howard says.
Ronald Webster, the Father of the Anguilla Revolution praised and thanked PAM for the party's involvement in the events of June 10th, 1967, during an Anguilla Day ceremony at Burrowes Park, The Valley, Anguilla.
Neither Dr. Herbert nor Dr. Simmonds (they were both present as specially invited guests, rebuked Ronald Webster or challenged what he had said. PAM lost a golden opportunity, there and then, to point out to the entire world that PAM had nothing to do with the planning and execution of the failed coup of June10th, 1967 (PAM DAY).
One of the most pointed and significant things about PAM and the 10th of June is that no where and at no time whatsoever has PAM or the Democrat ever condemned the 10th of June terrorist attack, or excoriated those whom PAM say perpetrated the failed coup. Why?
