Is It still Working?

By G.A. Dwyer Astaphan

They need to understand that as ‘wutless’, ungrateful, disingenuous and ‘grudge’ as they want to make me out to be, it’s not about me; it’s about the issues. And if they can’t win on the issues, then they can’t win the debate.

Further, if they were to check the amount of on-line hits that my articles are getting and if they knew the extent of the discussion being generated, then they might begin to appreciate that politicians and their spin doctors who are bent on abuse and character assassination are condemning themselves to imminent irrelevance, because people are fed up with that.

Now let’s move on.

You saw the “It’s Working” billboards throughout St. Kitts leading up to the elections. And you’ll recall a Government spokesman saying that they were part of the Tourism campaign for the country, and that they were financed by a private benefactor whose identity could not be disclosed.  

The truth is the billboards were not part of any Tourism campaign. They were part of the Labour Party’s campaign. Tourism was an excuse and a cover. The spokesman lied.

The law does not prohibit contributions to a politician or a political party, provided there is no bribery or other fishy stuff involved.

But the spokesman had a problem, because much of the work of erecting the billboards was done by Government workers, equipment and other resources, and on Government’s (that is to say, taxpayers’) time. So he lied.

Who was the benefactor? Could it have been a Swiss company called Henley & Partner (“Henley”), a financial, immigration and citizenship services provider (check out its website), or a person or persons in some way linked to, or known by, Henley?

Henley has an office in the Ursula Amory Building at the corner of Central and New Streets in Basseterre. I am told that it is staffed by two employees whose salaries and payroll benefits, as well as the office rent and other expenses, are paid by the Government. I hope that is not true.

Henley’s local affairs are guided by one of its partners, Mr. Wendell Lawrence, former Financial Secretary in the Federal Government, who is presently the Government’s Financial Adviser and also an Ambassador.

About four years ago (I’m not sure if Mr. Lawrence was Financial Secretary at the time), the Government signed an agreement with Henley granting it worldwide exclusive rights for five years to market citizenships by investment under the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF) program.

Under that program, foreigners who pass a strict due diligence test and satisfy other requirements can acquire citizenship in St. Kitts & Nevis by making a contribution to the SIDF fund from US$200,000.00 for a single applicant up to US$400,000.00 for an applicant with six or more dependants.

I have no problem with the concept, although I believe that the contribution amounts are somewhat low, and that generally the Government has been too loose and liberal in its interpretation of the rights in relation to economic citizenship. And a new look at the relevant law is urgently needed.

I also have a problem with the five-year worldwide exclusive deal, which, in my view, is not in the public interest.

However, to soften the blow somewhat, the Government agreed to allow professionals other than Henley to also introduce clients to the program. But that wasn’t enough.

Let me relay to you the explanation given to me as to how the arrangement works. My sources are credible, but to assist in getting to the absolute and total truth, and in the public interest, perhaps the media will look into the matter.

If Henley introduces a client, it collects a fee from the client. In addition, Henley gets 10% of the US$200,000.00 to US$400,000.00 that is payable to the Government.

Now, the fee from its client is okay, but why should Henley get US20-40 grand of the Government’s money for each application that it processes? How can that be right?

What service is Henley providing that can justify such a fee? Who in his right, reasonable and fair mind would make, or countenance, such a deal? Might there be more to this than meets the eye? Mind you, I’m asking, not accusing.

The SIDF citizenship program could have been marketed just as, perhaps more, effectively on a Government website, with reputable agents assigned to different regions of the world, or, better still, with reputable service providers throughout the world involved on an equal and open basis, and with promotion and marketing support from our overseas embassies, missions and consuls, and from and through friendly nations.

This is the internet age, and getting the relevant information on our products in this business to the attention of the service providers and, through them, to the market, is not particularly difficult. In addition, one of the greatest assets a jurisdiction can have is strong and broad support among service providers around the world.

Now if a service provider other than Henley introduces an applicant to the program, such service provider collects a fee from the applicant. That’s fine. But in that scenario, Henley also picks up 10% of the money that is paid to the Government. Again, how on earth can that be right? What’s that about?

Under this arrangement, Henley may have thus far collected as much as US$4 million, which really should have been going to the Government for the people.

After all, the SIDF was set up to assist with the transformation of the economy out of sugar, to provide critical help to get poor people out of poverty, and to help them adapt to the new economy.

So every cent collected through the program, except for reasonable and modest fees and other expenses, needs to be used to help in the transformation and stabilization process.

None of that money should be going to Henley or to anyone else. Let the professionals collect their fees from their clients.

The money certainly should not be used to finance a political party or to pay fees to that party’s advisers and strategists. That would be robbery far more callous, cynical and heinous than the one described in the law books.

But did it happen? I’m told that it did, and that in addition to financing the billboards, Henley (and or person or persons in some way linked to, or known by, Henley) helped with the (allegedly over US$1million) fee paid to the English group which provided the Labour Party with the slogan and political advice for the said elections.

It would be interesting to follow the money trail in such a situation.

Now that extra US$4 million, along with other SIDF money which was used for similar purposes, could have been used to provide more and better training of our people, and to help small entrepreneurs in getting started, or remaining in business, so that they might generate economic activity for themselves and create jobs.

It could have been a lifeline for the 260 people who have already been sent home from the YES program, the 100-plus who are going home from the Port, the 200 who will lose their work when Reed Data Services closes down later this year, the 55-year-olds who are being selected for retirement, and the hundreds of other people who could lose their jobs and their livelihoods over the next 12-24 months.

It could have been used to help with our hospitals, health centres, extreme health and medical cases that require overseas attention, solid waste disposal, schools, student scholarships, roads, Electricity Department, our security and safety agencies, with the maintenance and upgrade of Government buildings and other facilities, and so on.

It could have been used to help reverse the drop of 21% in stay-over arrivals in 2009, and the further drop of 13% thus far in 2010, so that, like Barbados, St. Lucia and St. Maarten, we might be seeing increases of over 20% from North America for these periods.

And we might have been able to put tourists in the 400-hotel-rooms in St. Kitts which are now occupied by students attending local universities, thereby cutting airlift costs, saving jobs and businesses, and bringing relief to the many homeowners who are having challenges renting their apartments, in addition to providing significant macroeconomic benefits. 

But, again, if the information is correct, that wasn’t to be, and the people of this country were robbed of their US$4 million and at the same time conned into jumping and prancing, and saying “It’s Working” and “Eeh Ah Wuk”.
 
Victims being encouraged to celebrate their own victimization.

He who mocks the poor, mocks God.

Was a con job/robbery really perpetrated against the people of this country? If so, did it work? And is It still Working?