On January 24th in Town I encountered Patsy Hanley, at that moment, on her mobile congratulating Stedman Tross upon his party’s election victory. Around the same time Mark Brantley called me, who, earlier he had referred to as ‘an attack dog for the NRP’, to tell me that the CCM was not going ahead with the previous Administration’s plan for a fuel storage terminal. Readers will know that I wrote three articles pointing out the dangers of such an industrial complex, and he was very much aware of that.
This is the way we should proceed. Probably things are said in an election campaign which should not be said, but yesterday is yesterday. We now have to be concerned about today and the future. We cannot succeed if we are divided. If one ‘side’ holds out the hand of hostility how can we get co-operation in the interest of all? One party does not hold a monopoly in talent. Persons of ability, whichever way they vote, are the island’s most valuable assets. We all lose if any are discriminated against and excluded on grounds of political spite.
A book now in vogue, ‘Why Nations Fail’ is very clear that for an economy to grow in the best interests of all the population, you cannot have what is described as an ‘Extractive Elite’ with a coterie of supporters who will all expect to lose their contracts, payouts, privileges, handouts, special jobs etc. should their party lose power. The book shows that the tendency is, under these circumstances, that many will do anything, legal or illegal, to maintain their position, for they know that in their turn they will be totally excluded if their party falls from power. Because of my interest in the school meals programme I am told what is going on. Second hand, I hear that one of the cooks, perceived as an NRP supporter was accosted by a third party who said words to the effect that ‘You are in my job. I need it’. If we are to advance this attitude and practise has to go.
The new CCM Administration, having had as its watchword the ‘restoration of decency and good governance’ will have to deal wisely with the Nevlec revelations. It is shocking for the average consumer, some of whom are cut off by Nevlec for having small amounts overdue to be told by the new Administration that some entities appear to have been allowed to run up huge bills, so large that it is unlikely that there was any serious effort to collect. There is now an argument that Nevlec should not cut off any large debtor and thereby bankrupt them, that they should come to arrangements for repayment over months or years. It is also said that in 2006 the incoming NRP Administration found that some CCM supporters had large unpaid amounts at Nevlec. Since when did two wrongs make a right?
Shall we again find that upon the next party Government changeover an incoming NRP Administration presents accounts from Nevlec showing CCM favourites owing Nevlec vast amounts?
We, the public, want to know more precisely what sums are owed and by whom, for how long, and what efforts were made by Nevlec before the change of Administration to collect, and why these persons or entities were not cut off. Were terms negotiated or what? Or did the NIA owe amounts which should be offset against the Nevlec bills?
We do not want our representatives in office, whichever party they belong to, or we support, to give unwarranted credit to special supporters at our expense. We expect and demand that everyone be treated in the same fashion. We expect and demand that favouritism in whatever guise by both parties, end now and for all time.
It was a great relief to see the Press Release of February 6th which confirmed Mark Brantley’s call to me about the Fuel Storage Terminal. The announcement was, in terms; ‘Such a project is not compatible with the pursuit of high end Tourism. There are risks of accidents. The potential negative impact far outweighs any perceived benefits. The Administration cannot continue with the proposed facility…’ ‘The Messenger’ whoever he may be writing on Nevis Politics says ‘Mark Brantley will regret this. A move made to satisfy the white users that financed the CCM campaign. You folks are taking Nevis backwards. Tell this to the young man in Charlestown Square who keeps begging for a dollar when he could have been employed at this facility’. I can only conclude that Mr. Messenger has totally suspended his critical faculties. Let us see briefly some of the certainties, probabilities, and risks surrounding this project, in no special order:
1. No chance of an Aman Resort. The Aman group has an International reputation of the highest order.
2. Building the facility would involve giant earthmoving equipment and removal of thousands and thousands of tons of soil and spoil. Where would it be put?
3. 283 tons of poisonous benzene would evaporate into the atmosphere from the tankers at sea and the tanks on land., When the wind was from the South/South West Nevis would smell like an active gas station. Benzene is very water soluble so, if it rains when the wind is bringing evaporated petrol over Nevis, then that rain will contain cancer causing benzene. All who use a roof and cistern for their drinking water could no longer rely upon its safety.
4. There would be spills at the sea terminal of one size or another. They are unlikely to be measurable ‘in bottles’ as we were told by the promoters. After all the pumping system would operate at over two million gallons per hour!
5. The lady who calls in to Choice Radio telling Premier Parry what a wonderful job he is doing said that land prices near the facility would go up. She is wrong. The nearer the depot the greater the smell.
6. Potential investors in tourism would take their money where they did not have to contend with the risks for the fuel depot. That goes for house building retirees also.
7. Oil spills would drift to Pinneys Beach. A five diamond hotel cannot be located on an oil ravaged shore.
8. Regulation would be in the hands of the investor. We have no experts to monitor safety. Accidents would happen. No one would accept responsibility. Oil spills, toxic contamination of our underground water, poisoning of fish and coral, fires, explosions, damage to our health via evaporation into the air we are obliged to breathe, all of this you can be sure we would be left to absorb ourselves.
9. At some stage the project would fail. Patterns of business change. What is needed in 2013 may not be profitable in 2030. We would be left with giant rusting hulks still containing some toxic product.
Over the years many many more jobs will appear in tourism, construction and spin offs, than were said to be on offer at this fuel depot.
We need a credible opposition to our new Administration. When bad decisions are made or we are not being told what is being done in our names, that opposition has to produce a reasoned case showing where our leaders have gone wrong. Mr. Messenger has chosen to berate Mark Brantley for the Administration’s inevitable decision but has given no reason to refute the Press Release. This is not useful opposition. It is pointless.
Mr. Parry is now the opposition leader. In December 2005 I wrote an article quoting Robert Herrick (1591-1674)
‘In battles what disasters fall
The king he beares the blame of all’
This referred to a refusal by the then head of Nevis TV, Keith Scarborough to part with a tape of then opposition leader Joseph Parry, making a speech on the budget debate, when asked for same by 1. Dwight Cozier, and 2. Alastair Yearwood. I wrote ‘The Administration of Mr. Amory has, by this action asserted its right to discriminate against its political opponents and to throttle their right of freedom of expression. This is unlawful…’ It is on a par with the plea of Petitioner Brantley when he claimed that he had been discriminated against when NTV covered none of his CCM party’s meetings at the 2011 election. The Judge upheld the complaint.
The blame or responsibility, I argued in 2005, for Scarborough’s discriminatory refusal to hand over that tape lay with Premier Amory. Likewise, the responsibility for all that took place politically between 2006 and 2013 in the NIA whether he knew of it or not, rests with former Premier Parry.. I cannot say what his NRP will want him to do, but in recent British politics after an election the losing leader resigns his position – Brown, Hague, or is defeated in a contest for the post by a rival – Heath by Thatcher, Thatcher by Major. In Britain that leader is a Member of Parliament. In Nevis this is not so necessary. You do not have to approve all his methods to acknowledge that Mark Brantley, single-handedly revived the fortunes of the CCM. This was not done through Parliament but by being visible and vocal on the airwaves and the press. Do the NRP have an equivalent, or will one emerge? It is a low period for them at present, but politics is dynamic. Hard effective work and comment can bring respect.
A new Government has a honeymoon period, but after a time it can no longer attribute misfortunes to its predecessors. It makes its own decisions and has to live with them.
Although Mr. Amory is back at the Head of a CCM Administration, his team is different. I hope, that as newly constituted they will forgo the discrimination of the past and allow Nevis to move into a genuine democracy where the leaders are transparently working in the interests of all the people not just a supportive section. This what many hoped for in 2006. We need a change. Small mindedness is out. The debt and the state of the economy are paramount. It is not easy. Unpalatable advice will have to be considered.
*************************
DISCLAIMER
This article was posted in its entirety as received by SKNVibes.com. This media house does not correct any spelling or grammatical error within press releases and commentaries. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of SKNVibes.com, its sponsors or advertisers
