Who Gon Guard De Guard?
By: James McCall
The recent furor over the renting of the Prime Minister’s private property to the Taiwanese Ambassador has been of particular interest to many, for a number of reasons.
When he was confronted by a member of the press and asked if the rumours were true, his only response was that it was a private matter. Wrong answer, if you asked me!
For all intents and purposes, ministers of government, of whom the Prime Minister is chief, are public figures and, as such, significant portions of their lives and activities are to be construed within that context. As I understand it, they, like Civil Servants, are forbidden to engage in private business that brings benefit to themselves. One needs to look no further than the not-too-recent situation involving former minister, Constance Mitcham who, as the government contends, was unlawfully engaged in a private endeavour when she performed legal services on behalf of the Development Bank of St Kitts and Nevis and the St Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla National Bank, whilst she was a minister of government. Such was the contention that her gratuity and pension were withheld for the better part of a decade after she demitted office.
Albeit ill-applied or misapplied, as it turned out to be, the government’s position/argument was, nonetheless, a legitimate one but there seemed to have been some mitigating circumstances in Ms. Mitcham’s case in that, as she continuously insisted, she had been asked and, by extension, authorised by the government of the day to perform those services. As the old hymn goes: “I need no other argument…I need no other plea”.
The issue here is that the ministers subsist largely at the expense of the public. They are entitled to some tasty allowances in addition to their salaries which, a short couple of years ago were increased by a whopping 30 percent. One of the most contentious aspects of their remuneration package is the fact that they can occupy their own homes, as they do, and be entitled to Housing Allowances that effectively pay their mortgages. Therefore, if a minister happens to purchase or build a home during his/her tenure and pays off for it whilst he/she is in office, it can be argued that the property, in large measure, was paid for by the public. This particular benefit to the ministers is said to be a perquisite that comes with the job but, at the end of the day the public purse is what gives the minister the privilege of living in his/her own house and getting paid to do so. Better still; if their houses are already paid for before they assume office, that allowance turns out to be gravy.
Someone rightly explained that these benefits are accorded the ministers so that the need to look elsewhere for ways and means of making ends meet would not become necessary.
Now, let me return to the Prime Minister’s rental arrangement. By virtue of his office, the Prime Minister is our chief diplomat and solely reserves the right to speak on this nation’s behalf, without anyone’s approval. Whereas it would be somewhat out of protocol for, say, the Minister of Justice to speak on Education and vice versa, the Prime Minister can speak on any subject because each minister serves at his discretion. When, for example, Minister Harris as Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks, he actually speaks on behalf of the Prime Minister, in accordance with the plans and policies of the government that the Prime Minister heads.
As a matter of fact, short of resigning, a minister cannot be selective in performing the roles assigned to him/her by the Prime Minister. By contrast, the Prime Minister, as he has demonstrated over the three General Elections his party has won since 1995, can determine what roles to assign to whichever cabinet member he chooses. For example, Education was once held by Minister Herbert, then by Minister Harris. Now it is Minister Condor who does the job. Minister Martin once controlled Health; today it is Minister Herbert. Minister Astaphan now oversees National Security which until the 2004 poll was the forte by the Prime Minister.
The point of all this is to establish that the Prime Minister wields enormous power. In addition, he is one through whom a tremendous amount of information passes on a regular basis. If, therefore, as the Taiwanese Ambassador explained in response to what he considered an offensive Democrat Newspaper article, he was experiencing discomfort from break-ins at his previous residence, it is not unreasonable to assume that that information would, in some form, have wended its way to our chief diplomat.
Now, let us assume that I am correct and that he did hear, whether firsthand or otherwise, that the Taiwanese Ambassador was looking for a place to call home; the question now becomes whether or not the matter ever made it into the public domain insofar as other property owners and realtors are concerned, before the Prime Minister or his representative(s) wrapped up the deal. This is what, in some jurisdictions, is called insider trading…when someone in the inner sanctum benefits --in financial terms-- from information that the general public is not yet aware of.
Our TV sets brought us the story of Martha Stewart who, in 2004, began serving a 5-month prison term, 5 months of house arrest and a two-year probationary period. Her sin was this; she sold some ImClone stock and “…avoided a loss of…” more than $45,000.00. The very next day, the Food and Drug Aadministration (FDA) announced that one of Imclone’s drugs, Erbitux, did not gain approval to go onto the market. And as the market goes, ImClone’s stock fell by 16%.
When asked by Federal investigators about whether or not she benefited from inside information, she lied. Her accomplices on the “inside” also felt the weight of the law, drawing prison terms and hefty, monetary fines. At issue was the fact that other persons –hapless victims as the turned out to be-- being unaware of the emerging development would have bought stock in ImClone and proceeded to lose money in the wake of the FDA’s announcement.
Of course, our laws are not even nearly as stringent as those in the United States. As a matter of fact our Integrity-in-Public-Life legislation has either died a natural death or will spring to life only when this administration reckons that its term is inevitably coming to an end and the handwriting on the wall declares: “Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin” (Daniel 5:25). At that point, the law would apply to whosoever assumes the reins of power and/or is a member of parliament.
However, even now, does anyone reasonably expect that there will be any investigation into the matter of the Prime Minister’s rental arrangement? For all intents and purposes, the investigative agencies are creatures of the government and are, therefore, beholden to the government. And just in case anyone might want to challenge this premise, ask yourself this question: has there ever been a case in the which a current minister of government’s alleged misdeed(s) was/were looked into by the police or Director of Public Prosecutions in St Kitts-Nevis?
Something got going in St. Vincent lately, where Prime Minister Gonsalves was accused of sexual misconduct by two persons. In both cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions called off the investigations. While one is not in any position to question the information that led to the DPP’s decision, one is concerned about the appearance of impropriety and favouritism towards the Prime Minister.
In our neck of the woods matters of this kind appear to be handled by the person who stands amongst the ministers, as chief. In the 1970s a young minister named Ivan DeGrasse was alleged to have gone to the USVI with a view to purchasing a boat, in a private endeavour. Premier Bradshaw dismissed him and, in a radio address that I heard, described the boat as “…an old coal burner…”. 15 years ago this month, on All Fools Day, Michael Oliver Powell, Deputy Prime Minister in the PAM/NRP administration, was dismissed by Prime Minister Simmonds who, to this day has never given the nation a reason.
The question that now confronts us is this; if anyone were to consider Prime Minister Douglas’ arrangement with the Taiwanese Ambassador to have been incorrect, improper or distasteful, who would deal with him? While it is his job to monitor the behaviour of his ministers, whose job is it to monitor him? To echo the words of one of my favourite songs, written and performed by one of my favourite calypsonians and one of the Prime Minister’s principal advisors, Linkon “Contenda” Maynard; “Who gon guard de guard?”. This is a serious question!
