PAM and the Democrat and their allies and managers are vexed, angry, jealous and mortally afraid of the Hon. Dwyer Astaphan, whether he is Minister of Tourism or Minister of National Security. Whatever his capacity, the Hon. Minister is too hot for PAM and its kind to handle.
This is patently obvious when one considers the vast amount of time and resources spent by the members of the PAM camp on trying to demolish the Hon. Minister. It is all in the PAM camp, versus just one man.
The members of the PAM camp are angry because the Hon. Dwyer Astaphan put an end to the active political career of the “Fist Ever Prime Minister”. The senior members of the PAM party are envious of the Hon. Minister because of his intellect, his skills, his ability, and his record of unparalleled success.
One has only to look at Port Zante today and compare that with what was there (or not there) in 1995 when PAM left office. Te St. Kitts Marriott Royal Beach Resort is glowing testimony to the genius of the man.
PAM was never able to bring one sole, single major hotel to St. Kitts. The Hon. Minister brought the Marriott Hotel to St. Kitts in less than 10 years.
As Minister of National Security, the Hon. Dwyer Astaphan is doing much more than his utmost to reduce the level of crime and violence in the country. We also know that the Hon. Minister is fighting, not just against crime, but also against “principalities and powers and the forces of darkness” who are concerned with fomenting and encouraging crime for purely partisan political reasons.
Those who are busy behind the scenes fermenting and encouraging crime and violence do so, in the belief, that an escalation of the level of crime and lawlessness would adversely effect the populace and cause the people to turn away from supporting the Labour Party.
PAM cannot deny being mortally afraid of Minister Astaphan. Even PAM supporters in Nevis are attacking the Hon. Minister on VON. If PAM was not terribly afraid of Minister Astaphan, why would the party members and their political henchmen devote so much time, energy and effort to cursing the Minister and refuting contradicting, opposing and disputing, foolishly and futilely, whatever he says.
Nowadays, the PAMites are pushing forward zealously the idea of putting finger prints on Voter ID Cards. Let us be extremely careful and circumspect with this idea which is being vigorously promoted by PAM. I am convinced that PAM is trying to push something in, edgewise, that the party would be able to use later on as the basis for challenging the results of a General Election.
It must be remembered that it was the late Lee L. Moore Q.C., who first introduced the idea of Voter I.D. Cards way back in 1983. Lee Moore went further and pointed out to the PAM Ministers that the Police Headquarters on Cayon Street could provide such I.D. Cards, as I.D. Cards had been provided by the Police Force for foreign dignitaries, and so on, who had been visiting St. Kitts and Nevis to take part in our 1983 Independence Celebrations. The PAMites laughed Lee Moore to scorn.
How ludicrous, preposterous, deceitful and hypocritical for PAM to be now saying “Labour running from Fingerprints”. From 1983 until 1999, PAM ran away from fingerprints as well as from Voter I.D. Cards. During the period 1983 to 1999, PAM wanted to have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with Voter I.D. Cards or with Fingerprints.
The leaders of PAM ought to wake up and acknowledge that they live in a REAL world and that time has marched on. This is 2007, not 1983. The present government has a clear mandate to govern in the best interest of all sections of the people and of the entire country. PAM has no such mandate.
PAM’s only interests and concerns at this time, lie in devising schemes and plans to put the party back in power. Because a handful of politicians “Up de Hill”, who are itching to get in power, want something done in a certain way, that does not mean that the Government must throw caution and common sense to the wind and accede blindly and foolishly, even if some form of political pressure is applied.
The Labour Party is known for its record of extra-ordinary public service and its ability to provide enviable economic, social, electoral, political and constitutional progress and development for the populace.
Our Government is not to be criticized or condemned for not meeting PAM’s partisan advice, especially in circumstances where such advice is clearly seen to be self-serving, selfish or sectional.
General Elections were held in 1984, 1989, 1993 and 1995. At no time whatsoever before these Elections did PAM promise to introduce Voter I.D. Cards, with or without fingerprints. Voter I.D. Cards, with or without fingerprints, was never part of PAM’s strategy for Electoral Reform.
Our understanding is that in countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and the USA, finger prints are to be used as part of the process of identifying voters on Polling Day. We always try to take pattern from the bigger countries, but in this instant case we seem to be most unwilling. PAM seems bent on taking its own counsel and proceeding on its own way.
We must follow the example of the bigger countries and learn from their history and experience. We must never follow a mere handful of people to do something that is foolish or childish.
People will glibly express the view that fingerprints should be in use in our Electoral System. But do we know whether such people have had the chance to collect and consider all the facts, and take into account all the implications and ramifications of the use of voter fingerprints on Voter I.D. Cards?
We should work out why so many big countries don’t use fingerprints at all and then decide what is best for us in the circumstance based on the costs and the benefits and the advantages and disadvantages.
Quite frankly, I agree with Minister Astaphan on the issue of the use of fingerprints. St. Kitts and Nevis are two small countries where, without much effort, one person can get to know everybody else who live in the same area or neighbourhood. If I live in New Pond Site, Dorset or Taylor’s Range, I can easily know all who live in the same vicinity with me.
The problem is not the lack of fingerprints on the Voter I.D. Cards, but how best to deal with the hosts of overseas people claiming to be eligible to be registered and to vote.
Anguilla, Montserrat and the BVI are all British Department Territories. Montserrat’s Elections are based on Proportional Representation. Anguilla uses the “First Past the Post” system for General Elections. Although Britain is responsible for those dependent Territories, Britain has not seen it fit to introduce Voter I.D. Cards with fingerprints.
On Polling Day a Poll Clerk or a Presiding Officer should be able to relate what is written on the I.D. Card to the person presenting himself or herself as a legitimate voter. The I.D. Card should, at least, provide full information on the following matters:-
1- Name; 2- Sex; 3- Height; 4- Race or Ethnic Origin; 5- Colour of Eyes; 6- Distinguishing mark or feature.
I am surprised that the PAMites are not demanding that each Polling Station be equipped with a Lie Detector (polygraph) to make sure that everything is as it ought to be. For with a fingerprint on an I.D. Card, nothing else is really necessary except the person’s name, not even a photograph; for the fingerprints of two separate individuals cannot be alike. Once the fingerprint on the person’s I.D. Card matches the person’s fingerprint on Master Control, and then it becomes obvious that the person is really who he or she says he or she is.
Let me once more place the matter of Voter I.D. Cards and fingerprints in the right perspective, less the PAM spin doctors, outright liars, and propagandists feel that they have succeeded in fooling and misleading the members of an intelligent, educated and well-informed public.
In 1983, PAM radically restructured our Electoral System by means that were less than honest, open, transparent, exemplary and acceptable. PAM’s main objective in 1983-84 was three-fold as follows:-
(i) To introduce a system of Continuous Voter Registration.
(ii) To make it possible for nationals living anywhere in St. Kitts-Nevis to register and vote anywhere in St. Kitts-Nevis.
(iii) To make it possible for nationals living permanently anywhere on planet earth to register and vote anywhere in St. Kitts-Nevis.
PAM knew all about Voter I.D. Cards in 1983 because the matter was brought up in the Assembly by the late Sir Lee L. Moore QC.
Sir Lee went on further to point out that the Police Department could provide suitable I.D Cards as that department had not so long ago provided I.D. Cards for overseas dignitaries who had visited St. Kitts and Nevis to participate in our 1983 Independence Celebrations. PAM had no use for what Lee Moore was saying.
In spite of the fact that PAM knew that Labour had been agitating for Voter I.D. Cards in 1983, the PAM Government conducted General Elections in 1984, 1989, 1993 and 1995 without the use of any form of identification for voters. It was only in 1999, just before the General Elections of 2000 that PAM became interested in Electoral Reform. But note please that even in 1999 PAM made no mention of fingerprints on I.D. Cards.
We all remember very well that just before the General Elections of 2004 and during the time that the ballots were being printed at the Government Printery on Church Street, the Treasurer of the PAM party tried his best to create a small riot on the premises of the Printery, when specimens of the said ballots were produced in Court during the Elections Petition Cases none of the allegations made against the ballots could be proved or substantiated.
The current issue of finger prints on Voter I.D. Cards, which is being raised by PAM, is a non-starter, a no-brainer and a “red herring”. It is just like the issue raised by the Treasurer of PAM concerning the ballots used for the 2004 General Elections.
PAM fears that the party will lose the next General Elections. The general public has already said that “a bad Labour Government is better than any PAM Government”. And you better believe that.
Insisting that fingerprints be included on the Voter I.D. Cards along with other security features is unnecessary, illogical and unreasonable. A finger print alone, plus the voter’s name is all that is needed to give effect to PAM’s clamour for the integrity of the electoral process.
PAM is not advancing that line of argument at all. PAM is insisting on all the other security features in addition to the inclusion of fingerprints as well.
But since there is no perfect system on planet earth, a man who wants to cheat, will always find ways and means to cheat, regardless of the system being used.
The duty of our government therefore is to put in place an Electoral System which has the blessing and the support of the vast majority of the electorate, and in addition, one which is universally acceptable to every British Commonwealth Country and every member country of CARICOM as well. The n-going process of Electoral Reform is geared towards putting just such a system in place.
PAM will shout and PAM will curse and PAM will demonstrate. PAM is a party for demonstrations since 1965. PAM will demonstrate if Dr. Denzil Douglas sneezes too hard. PAM will pout and go into a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat whenever the party does not get the opportunity to have its own way.
The argument raised by PAM for the inclusion of fingerprints on Voter I.D. Cards is based on the fact that Antigua has done so. But my experience tells me that we ought not to follow the example set by Antigua.
We followed Antigua once and abolished Personal Income Tax and that brought great distress upon our people, especially when the PAM Government increased taxes all around and imposed a novel and regressive form of Income Tax called Social Services Levy.
Naturally we ought to remember that no other country besides St. Kitts and Nevis followed the example set by Antigua. The new Prime Minister of the country, the Hon. Baldwin Spencer, mercifully reversed the system to some extent after he went into office.
PAM is arguing further that unless fingerprints are included on the Voter I.D. Card now, any General Election held in St. Kitts and Nevis from now on would be flawed. This, of course, means two things: Firstly, that all the General Elections held so far in St. Kitts and Nevis were flawed, simply because no fingerprints were used.
Secondly, this means that all General Elections have been flawed when held in such countries as the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia, South Africa and such other places where fingerprints are not used on Voter I.D. Cards.
If Elections have been held in the past, wherever, without the use of fingerprints and such elections were never condemned as being flawed, why then should an Election in St. Kits and Nevis (without fingerprints on I.D. Cards) scheduled for the year 2009 be pre-judged as flawed?
Does this mean then that all the Elections held under PAM from 1984 to 1995 were flawed? Remember there were no I.D. Cards and no fingerprints under the PAM hegemony.
PAM does not play the game of politics by the same rules by which it is played by the Labour Party. In 1983 PAM introduced into the Assembly a Bill to radically restructure our Electoral System. The Bill was introduced and passed the same day. There were no Town Hall Meetings, no public discussions and no consultations with stake-holders.
Lee L. Moore Q.C., proposed to the PAM Government during the debate in the Assembly, the use of Voter I.D. Cards which could be provided by the Police Department. Lee Moore’s proposal was rejected and ignored.
But not this: the Labour Party conducted no marches, no demonstrations, no public protest, no strikes, and no sick-outs; nothing at all. But now, because the Labour Government does not see eye to eye wit the PAM Party over the use of fingerprints on Voter I.D. Cards, the leaders of PAM are most willing and anxious to organise public marches, protests and demonstrations.
I wish to commend and congratulate our Government for embarking upon a course of Electoral Reform that is second to none and is infinitely superior to the course used by PAM in 1983. PAM’s present day antics and contortions do not really resonate well with the vast majority of the people who vote in this country. The people remember the events of 1983 and wonder how PAM could be so brazen, bold-face and shameless.
Our government is doing the right and proper thing and ought not to allow itself to be bogged down or side-tracked by PAM’s “Mickey Mouse” behaviour. There are enough security features on the proposed Voter I.D. Cards without the inclusion of fingerprints.
The PAM Party does not seek to promote the public’s welfare or its best interests. PAM is about me, my members and friends, my family and my financiers. PAM is also about trouble, confusion, treachery, self-interest and botheration. All those who are supporting PAM on the issue of the use of fingerprints are doing so, not on the basis of reason, logic or commonsense; or because they love to see an Election which is “free and fair and free from fear”; but because they do not favour the Labour Party.
In the case of Electoral Reform, we should view everything put forward by PAM with great suspicion and with even greater apprehension and alarm.
