The Prime Minister’s comments at the Chamber of Industry’s luncheon two days ago warrant some attention.
First, he said that the land-for-debt swap was a good thing, that it would help to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio to “well under 100%” (from the 200% of about a year ago) and create more fiscal space for economic and social programs. He also said that it wouldn’t block the Government’s national land development plan, and that, in any case, citizens would be allowed to buy lands that are involved in the swap.
Of course, the swap by itself won’t reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio below 100%. What will help to do that is the ‘haircut’ that creditors of the Government have taken, as well as improved efficiency in administration and in revenue collection and expenditure.
And while revenue collection is increased, it can impoverish taxpayers and further choke the economy if it is excessive, as has been happening here.
Accordingly, apart from excessive taxes, it’s not difficult to understand why neither the investors who suffered massive haircuts nor other investors will be looking to put their money in Government paper in this country, specifically in bonds, any time soon. Ask Unit Trust, TDC, the Brimstone Hill Fortress, the Social Security Board and some of our churches, all of which lost significant sums, how they feel.
Further, given the recent parliamentary and political shenanigans, the process of regaining and sustaining the confidence of reputable investors, outside of the economic citizenship program, will not be easy for this country for some time to come, and the challenge will be all the more difficult if Denzil Douglas remains in Government. Because once potential investors have done their due diligence, and the good ones always do, they’ll not want to gamble on him.
Indeed, with these recent shenanigans, the citizenship program itself could go ‘poof’ if the European Union and Canada unfavorably review their visa-free travel arrangement for our citizens, which means more blows for the economy and more fiscal danger.
Accordingly, while a debt-to-GDP ratio below 100% is far better than one of 200%, it provides little comfort to a people who are already being fiscally, economically, politically and spiritually asphyxiated.
Even worse, both today and later, if, in the process of having the Government debt reduced, the people are told that, in the first instance, 2 square miles of their 68-square-mile island are to be sold. I say “in
the first instance” because it’s well documented that since 2007, nearly 8 square miles of former sugar lands have been tied up in Government debt. That’s nearly 12% of the entire land mass of St. Kitts.
And it seems that as much land as is necessary to be sold in order to settle the Government’s $1 billion debt to the National Bank, will be sold. Yes, it may not reach anywhere near the 8 square miles, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s all bad, and just a matter of degree, rather than substance. Bad because we’ve fallen this low, and because there is money available (in the SIDF) to pay down the debt rather than to swap the land like this.
But Denzil Douglas doesn’t want it that way. He doesn’t want that money to be used to pay down the debt that he incurred; he prefers the people to lose their land.
In the meanwhile, I’m guessing that persons well positioned stand to make fortunes out of this, while the patrimony of the people gets raped.
For goodness’ sake, where, throughout the annals of time, has any country ever fallen so utterly and shamefully low as to be offering up 12% of its entire land mass to creditors in exchange for debt? That loss of land like that only happens in war, and the loss of the land means the loss of the war.
And while he was supposed to be protecting us and leading us to a safer, better place, he has instead turned his wrath on us and brought suffering and shame upon us.
In true military tradition, he should do the honourable thing and fall on his own sword. He has disgraced himself and us.
He then told the Chamber luncheon that not a square foot of land would be sold unless citizens of St. Kitts & Nevis are given first shot.
Which citizens did he mean? Michael Morton, Anthony Kelsick, or Charles Brisbane? David Lake, Victor Williams, or Franklin Brand? Robelto ‘Tango’ Holloman, Leroy Powell, or Carlton ‘Captain Licky’ and ‘Rastafarian-Without-Locks’ Dupont? Regiwell Francis, Dwyane ‘Zoomie’ DeCosta or Shelly Tota? Calypso Reggie, Konris, or ‘Rudder’?
Which of these citizens, especially in this perennial guava crop, can buy the lands, and, indeed, enough of the lands, to make a dent in the Government’s debt to the Bank?
Come on!
The citizens to whom he was referring were wealthy people who may have already bought into the economic citizenship program. But remember, these people are citizens only in dollars, not in sense, sensibility or sentiment. And what they intend to do with the lands is to turn gigantic profits by endlessly spinning and weaving more and more citizenships.
And in the process, you, your children and generations to come will continue being busboys, waiters, bartenders, room maids, accounts clerks and small players, cap in hand and hoping to get a job and a full week’s pay, instead of taking the commanding heights in a major way.
We should’ve been past that stage by now, transitioning to really empowering our people while welcoming friends from throughout the globe to work, build and enjoy St. Kitts & Nevis with us on more equitable and dignified terms. Instead, we’re recycling and repeating the shameful past and stalling the progress of our people.
Is this the St. Kitts & Nevis you want to spend the rest of your days in? Is this the St. Kitts & Nevis you want to leave for your children and grandchildren? If so, shame on you!
You all need to reflect on this, especially those of you who, whether as perpetrators or as blind followers, are part of the conspiracy that is betraying the fundamental principles and philosophy of Labour, and disrespecting and robbing the people of this country, especially the youth, of their dignity, their future and their patrimony, and also those of you who want to see the back of Denzil Douglas but are expressing reservations about actually voting for candidates who oppose him.
It’s either you want him at the helm of this country or not. Simple. If you want more of what you‘re getting, and if you think it’s the best thing for the country, then vote for him and his candidates. But if you don’t want more of what you’re getting, and if you can’t take any more of what you’re getting, then don’t just abstain, you need vote against him or any candidate standing under him. And a vote against him or any of his candidates is not a vote against Labour, because he is not, and never was, Labour, and this is not a Labour Party or a Labour Administration.
It’s a gang, just like the Cripps and the Bloods, and one that’s disgracefully buttressed by the nation’s security forces and by the other instruments and institutions of Government. And if you’re committed to ending gangs, then you need to end the existence of that gang too.
He also told the folks at the Chamber luncheon that there are three no confidence motions before the House. Really?
He also said that the notice came after the Budget Debate had been set down, and he expressed the view that the No Confidence Motion would have to fit into “the Calendar of the House” and come after the Budget Debate.
Why? Because a rule or convention says so? I’m not aware of any such rule or convention.
And what Calendar of the House is that? Come on! The Calendar is open.
Nor is there an administrative impediment to the Government going into the House to debate the motion. They found time to introduce and to debate the bill to increase the number of Senators on 21st November. They were motivated for that.
And on that day, they could sit in the House and adjourn to 7th December. They had time for that. And had the Speaker not taken ill, they’d have had time to complete the debate of the bill on 7th December.
They also had time to allot 3-4 days for the Budget debate from 11th December.
Yet, all of a sudden, with the Budget Debate now indefinitely postponed, the Government became miraculously unavailable for the same 3-4 days, or even one of the 3-4 days, to debate the No Confidence Motion. And the Calendar of the House is full.
If indeed, the Budget debate is as important as the Prime Minister says that it is, and it is critically important, why has he delayed it? What event can he convincingly and properly point to that would justify the delay of the Budget Debate? None.
Let me say this: as important as a Budget Debate is, it isn’t more important than a No Confidence Motion, because defeat of the Government in either case has the same results: the Prime Minister must resign within 72 hours, or advise the Governor-General to dissolve the House (in which case elections must be held within 90 days). And if the Prime Minister fails to do either, then the Governor General has no choice but to dismiss him.
So I hope that taxpayers’ money is not being used to pay any person who’s advising the Prime Minister that the Budget Debate is more important than a No Confidence Motion.
Further, the toughest question a Government can be made to answer outside of elections is a No Confidence Motion. Both events are core elements of democracy, and both must be conducted with integrity, and in a timely and efficient manner.
Sadly, we’ve seen the contamination of one of those two elements, and there’s every possibility of an effort to contaminate the other.
My inquiries have revealed no case in which there was a long period between the notice of a no confidence motion and the debate of that motion. Typically, the debate takes place within days or weeks. Not months.
Indeed, in our own Constitution, whereas the Government is expressly allowed up to the end of February/beginning of March in each year to present the Budget for that year (to cover, no doubt, for elections and other appropriate situations), there’s no such leeway for No Confidence Motions, which suggests that the framers of the Constitution regarded the No Confidence Motion as a matter of greater urgency than the Budget Debate.
And this, coupled with the settled convention under the British Parliamentary Rules (which, in this particular instant, do apply) that the Government allots a day as soon as practicable to accommodate the No Confidence Motion, demonstrates that such a Motion is a matter of the highest priority in a parliamentary democracy.
Accordingly, the people of this country must not accept anything less. And we must totally and actively reject Denzil Douglas’ attempt to delay the Motion.
And those of us who sit idly and passively by, as well as those of us who are unwilling to ask the hard questions and to take hard, principled positions are just as guilty as Denzil Douglas who, if he was allowed to get out of the corner in which he now finds himself, would continue to disrespect and frustrate the Constitution, the law, good governance, and democracy, and continue to oppress, suppress, repress and dispossess the people of this country.
The cat (which, by the way, is his boyhood nickname) has been cornered and he must be kept there.
