By G.A. Dwyer Astaphan
A book entitled ‘Public Money, Private Greed’ was published in Canada in 1984. It was about the abuse of power, privilege, trust and public money. It specifically told the story of the activities of some of Canada’s most ruthless financial fraudsters of all time.
Well, some of those fraudsters reached St. Kitts and were doing a scam operation here in the 1980’s under the name ‘The International Bank’, with the blessings of the Government of the day and with the involvement of members of that Government’s high cabal.
But it was forced to shut down after one of Canada’s top newspapers, the ‘Globe & Mail’, sent its ace investigative reporter, Peter Moon, to St. Kitts. And by the time he was done with them, the Bank closed and the fraudsters fled, leaving the good name and reputation of our nation wounded.
I had gotten the criminal records of the fraudsters from a contact of mine in Canada. And as a concerned and responsible citizen of St. Kitts & Nevis, I had discreetly shown them to the then Prime Minister and Attorney General (separately) well before the Globe & Mail got into the picture.
And within days of having done so, my life was threatened.
To this day, I don’t blame either gentleman for the death threats, because I don’t believe that either would have countenanced such action.
But they would’ve had to share the information with other individuals; and I believe that someone else who cared more about the International Bank than about the people of St. Kitts & Nevis was upset with me. Very upset.
Well, let’s fast forward to the present. But before we do, let me say this: when a person levels criticism at Denzil Douglas, the Labour Party leader and Prime Minster of St. Kitts & Nevis, that person is not responded to with sober, analytical rebuttals which try to dismantle his or her argument. Instead, he or she is labelled by those who hew wood and carry water for Denzil Douglas as having something personal against him.
That in itself says a lot about them and about him; none of it good. And it is reason enough for citizens, and others who care, to be concerned about human rights and democracy in our nation.
Meanwhile, let me tell you what is ‘personal’.
If a person in a position of trust uses his (or her) authority and resources made available to him under that trust as his own, then that is ‘personal’.
If a passport scam goes unpunished because of the personalities involved, then that’s ‘personal’.
Likewise if a cabal member or a lackey owes Customs, Inland Revenue, Electricity or a Government Corporation hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars, and nobody can do a thing about it.
If a citizen has to wait for over 23 years to be compensated for his 440 acres of land that has been acquired by the Government, then that’s personal.
If an honest, hard-working, local woman is chased off the streets where she has tried to make a living, while others are left alone, and, worse yet, others from foreign lands come here and set up shop on Fort Street and on Bay Road, then that’s personal.
If a relative or friend is caught red-handed smuggling or stealing and is not at least suspended from his or her Government job, then that’s personal. And if there is no trial, then that is more than personal.
If an invoice to the Government (to be paid by taxpayers’ money) is inflated to accommodate the payment of a friend’s creditor who is threatening to take action and open up a massive can of worms, then that’s personal.
If a person is approved for a duty-free vehicle, not on the basis of accepted criteria, but because of friendship, then that is ‘personal’ too.
If people notice where foreign diplomats are living, then maybe that could be personal. And if the homes in which they’re living were upgraded and outfitted duty-free, then that could be personal too.
And if after 15 years, a Prime Minister still shows no appetite for Integrity in Public Life law which, inter alia, would compel him to report on his net worth (and likewise for others in leadership), then that is personal.
Let us move on.
A member of the Douglas cabal has been granted the exclusive contract to sell 191 homes to be built for Social Security, and he got himself a duty free SUV in the mix as well.
(By the way, what’s with all of these exclusive contracts?)
A Board Member tried to justify the arrangement by saying that Social Security did not want the confusion of having to deal with so many real estate agents. What crap!
The truth is that these guys want to set up a high cabal member so that, over time, he could earn as much as $10 million in commissions, not to mention another possible $10 million if he has to get fees from other sources.
And nothing is wrong with him making all the money that he can, provided that the public interest is not compromised.
The people of this nation need to see the contract. They will see it! And they will see other contracts too!
They are fast realizing that the Government belongs to them, and they’re minded to take it back. That is what Government of the people, for the people, and by the people means. And what democracy is all about.
Now, Social Security also belongs to the people of this nation. And every real estate agent in St. Kitts & Nevis should have been be given a fair and equal chance to introduce buyers to the project, and to collect commissions when sales are completed. Instead of waiting for the exclusive agent to show that he is not a greedy man by bringing them into his loop, and letting them share their commissions with him.
How outrageous, obnoxious, offensive and arrogant can one deal be?
So, while, in my opinion, this should be a perfect case of ‘the more the merrier’ and ‘the more the fairer’, we are seeing, instead, yet another ugly example of ‘Public Money, Private Greed’.
And do you know that since making a couple of references to this matter, In have been receiving some strange, even sinister, ‘messages’?
The last message I got was: “Tell Dwyer he better shut he mouth and leff de ting ‘lone, if he know wha’ good for him.”
What is this? Threatened in the 1980’s under Simmonds, and now being threatened in the 2000’s under Douglas? Threatened under PAM and threatened under Labour?
Except that this is no Labour Government. In fact, many, if not most, of the members of the Douglas cabal are former so-called PAM activists and self-serving opportunists and mercenaries who, together with some money-hawk ‘I-Specialists’ parading as Labour activists, have hijacked and desecrated the Labour Party and the Labour Movement as a whole.
One of them, when he was flying the PAM flag truculently, had successfully obstructed Lee Moore from having a lawfully convened public meeting in Sandy Point in the 1980’s. And the Police did not intervene to assist Moore.
Another was Head of Special Branch under Simmonds at the time when the same Lee Moore was taken out of the Court and arrested, then released on bail, then arrested again, all in the same day. Arrested twice in one day!
A third was active for PAM in Constituency 4, a fourth and a fifth were viewed as potential candidates for PAM, while a sixth tried unsuccessfully to become PAM’s leader after the Kennedy Simmonds’ exit.
Watch them well. As soon as Douglas goes, they won’t be ‘Labour’ any more.
Those of us who were monitoring things back then will never forget how these same opportunists and mercenaries who are now in the Douglas cabal chuckled with glee (some discreetly, others not) when Lee Moore was arrested twice on that day, and also when Fitzroy Bryant was locked up for a weekend (also in the 1980’s), for no reason other than to humiliate them and demoralize their supporters.
They and the Labour ‘I-Specialists’ were moulded into a team to be led by Denzil Douglas. They wanted to take over the country, and their first step was to take control of a political party. Either party, PAM or Labour, would do.
They felt that Labour was easier pickings than PAM, because Lee Moore, having already lost his seat in the 1984 elections, could be knocked off more easily than Kennedy Simmonds, a sitting Prime Minister still enjoying good support.
Further, they didn’t see too much of a threat from Fitzroy Bryant, especially because of “the Bryant Clause” in the Constitution. A clause which, you will note, helps to define the smallness, the vindictiveness and the callousness of Denzil Douglas, because for 15 years in office he never demonstrated the desire to repeal it. Indeed, he liked it in the 1980’s and he would like it even more after he got his hands on power.
So the hijackers targeted the Labour Party and proceeded against Moore. It is important to note that they were at least as instrumental as PAM was in causing Moore to lose his bid to regain the seat in the 1989 elections. His defeat at the polls would allow the hijackers to label him as a loser of three consecutive elections as Labour’s leader, and to make it easier to dump him and install Douglas.
Which is exactly what happened, and six years later Douglas became Prime Minister.
At that time, in 1995, and for some time after, many people, including myself, dared to hope and to believe that the era of ‘Public Money, Private Greed’ was behind us.
But as more and more of us, and others looking in from the outside, came to realize, and are coming to realize, we were wrong.
