BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – IN an exclusive interview with SKNVibes, former Senior Minister in the St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party Administration Dr. Timothy Sylvester Harris spoke of his early childhood, his interest in politics, ministerial portfolios held and the formation of a Unity Government, among others.
The following are questions posed by this media house and answers given by Dr. Harris:
Question: Where were you born, to whom and when?
Answer: I was born in Tabernacle to Margret Harris, Kittitian, and Godfrey Nisbett a Nevisian. So I am a true son of the soil.
Question: What schools did you attend and what qualifications did you attain?
Answer: I attended the Tabernacle Primary School and then went on to the Cayon High School where I did my CXC and GCE ‘O’ Levels. I went next to the Sixth Form at the Basseterre High School and after that I pursued a BSc degree at the Cave Hill Campus, Barbados. I graduated in 1998 with First Class Honours. After that I worked for a while with the firm of S. L. Horsford’s and Company, both at Ocean Cold Storage and at Eskimo Foods then…Then I went on to do a Masters Degree in accounting at the University of the West Indies at the St. Augustine Campus in Trinidad. I graduated from that institution with a distinction in accounting and, as a result, was awarded a scholarship to pursue a PhD in accounting.
That PhD was pursued in Canada with four universities: McGill, Concordia, UQAM and HEC. I completed my studies there around 2001 and graduated then with a PhD in Administration, majoring in Accounting.
Question: Are you a religious person?
Answer: Yes, I am very religious. I have – for all of my life - been enrolled in some church or Sunday school. The family origin is Moravian. I myself have selected the New Testament Church in Tabernacle as my main place of worship, but I’ve been through Sunday school at Elm Chapel, at Moravian and so on.
Question: What are your hobbies?
Answer: I’ve been involved in cricket, draught, dominoes, etc. I’ve had active spectator interest. As you see, I’ve also taken up health walks and I’ve been doing that perhaps over the last five years. In my constituency we have a monthly programme of health walks where we walk from one end of the constituency to another on the last Saturday of each month.
Question: Are you a father?
Answer: I am a father of two girls: Lavern Harris who is pursuing a degree in medicine at the University of the West Indies and Shaiyan Harris who is a primary student of the Immaculate Conception Catholic School.
Question: How long have you been in politics and what motivated you to become involved?
Answer: Actively as a representative from 1993, but, before that, further involvement more on the father’s end of it where he had been Union Shop Steward, representative of the workers on the estate on which he worked. And he had also been a key activist of the party in terms of the political arm of the movement, the Labour Party. It was from there - for example - public meetings were being held. He was an indoor agent at elections and so on. So I grew up with the politics around…And then attending the union meetings – in a sense – was an important determinant which exposed me to workers’ issues…issues of life and experiences on the job for workers.
Question: What Ministerial portfolios have you held since becoming a minister of government?
Answer: The portfolio range has been wide and many. I started with the Ministry of Agriculture Lands and Housing as it was then (1995-2000), then I moved to Education, Labour, Social Security somewhere in 2001 Foreign Affairs and Education. In 2004 I was involved in Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Industry, Commerce and Consumer Affairs. And around 2008 I became involved in Finance, International Trade, Industry, Commerce and Consumer Affairs and then in the last I was Senior Minister of International Trade, Industry, Commerce, Consumer Affairs, Cooperatives, Agriculture, Marine Resources and Constituency Empowerment.
Question: Which one was your favourite and which would you say was the best within which you functioned?
Answer: All brought their different challenges and opportunities and, in some respects, brought a different experience. I certainly enjoyed them all – I would say. One of the most intense was Housing, because there was such a high demand for housing at that particular moment in time and during my stint we built 1 207 houses. It was the largest number of houses to be built by any administration during any term and in fact, across several terms. Because, hitherto, if you were to compare the past before that, you had – at most – between 500-800 homes built under the past administration for their full tenure, and in one term we built 1 207 houses. That record has not been matched at any time subsequent. So that took a lot of effort given the personalised nature of these things in terms of being able to impact upon people, their family situation, their property ownership, interest in the country, things that brought a lot of personal satisfaction, as it were, to be able to assist people and to pass them the keys to their own home.
That was one of the most successful programmes delivered by the administration during the 17 years of involvement. Education, too, was special because it gave one an opportunity to interact with young people and do something to assist them in making a productive and responsible contribution to the development of the country.
Question: In many countries – if not all – the Minister of Agriculture also has responsibility for land. During your tenure as the Agriculture Minister, why was land not under your purview when you were asking farmers to produce more?
Answer: When I was Minister of Agriculture in the first term, the portfolio was structured as Agriculture, Lands and Housing, so lands was with me then. And we were able to – as it were – release land in a much more efficient way than is now the case. Land was taken from Agriculture under the watch of Cedric Liburd…I think during his second term of Agriculture Minister, and it was taken under Sustainable Development which is in the Office of the Prime Minister.
When I came back to it a second time, that practice had already been in place. It created serious constraint which you rightly alluded to because it meant that we did not have control over the critical factor in which the agricultural thrust was being hinged upon. Therefore, it meant that where lands were not specifically earmarked for agricultural purposes, and there was an interest shown by people in farming, they had to go through us and we had to go through the Ministry of Sustainable Development.
So you had two layers of bureaucracy which meant we could not be as responsive as required. So the timeliness of the response – of course – would be compromised as a result of that and the ability of the Ministry to react and act in a flexible manner. All those – of necessity – would become challenged in that particular arrangement. It’s something I think – in the future – one needs to look at, and I suspect in a new administration these things are going to be revisited.
Question: Some are of the view that you mismanaged the SSMC. Can you pronounce on this allegation?
Answer: Not at all! There is no factual basis to prove that. I went there in 1995. You would have to go through the Labour Party manifesto and you would see what the party said I was going to do, and my job was to implement the mandate that we had received.
We are aware SSMC at the time was losing money. It was the view of the incoming government that we ought to put greater effort into it…so we put all our efforts in trying to revitalise it. We managed to get the output up to near 40 000 because when we entered the output had been down, probably as low as 20 000-plus tones. So we sought to address that and addressing that required that we make certain substantial in the physical plant, in the vehicles, in the railway; all of those were heavily capital expenditure in terms of their cost. They therefore impacted upon the bottom line. But we were able to deliver increased output.
What went wrong was outside of our control, in that the revenues declines significantly as a result of market forces during that period and so the higher prices which were experienced in the prior period were not continuing. And while prices were declining, the input – the tractors, the tyres, the replacement stuff that you needed to facilitate the operation of the industry - those were going up.
So by 2000 we realised a decision had to be made regarding the industry’s future. The fact that we would have gone beyond that to 2005 before we made a decision, tells you that it was a complex decision to come by because it started with a different outlook when it came to the industry than we thought the other administration had.
In hindsight, one could really say that the industry – by that time – was truly on its way out. At the time the information we had did not suggest that. It was much later after I left that we got the first formal indication in writing that the Board of Directors felt that the industry ought to be looked at in terms of discontinuing it.
Question: It is said that whilst a Minister, you had shown favouritism by placing family members in top positions. How true is this allegation?
Answer: That is foolishness. In fact, I can’t recall that there was any member of my family in any significant position in relation to the Sugar Industry. This is where the things fall through because I can’t put anybody anywhere else. The most I can do is to make a recommendation to them. Some other minister had to take responsibility if they employ people who are under-serving of the job. So that is really hogwash, because if I am not responsible for that entity then it can’t be me.
As a person and as a representative, I make recommendations for people to get work all the time. It is for the person who that goes to, to make the judgment. My family are lawyers, accountants…they are eminently qualified people. One would have to make a specific change and one would have to see if those persons were qualified for the jobs which they have. Each of them that is working in the government ought to have satisfied the requirements of that work. They were not given any special favour!
Question: Do you have any regrets about being fired by Dr. Douglas?
Answer: None at all! I basically feel free! I was fired for standing up for people and I will continue to do that. If I had to do it over again, I will do that because I believe – in relation to the land – it is really a travesty that the Labour Party that had fought so hard to bring land into the ownership of the people, that a leader of that movement would make the judgment call to transfer large amounts of land into the hands of wealthy foreign interests. Not only will they get land but they will end up getting our passports…our citizenship then would be thrown in as a mess of pottage to satisfy the lustful appetite of the leader who has made those judgment calls.
I would stand up in opposition to the Senators Bill because it is unfair and unjust that while so many people are suffering, while people are being sent home at 55 under a so-called austerity programme and programme of attrition, we are employing people who already have jobs to come in through the back door without seeking the support of the people of the country by going through the elected votes. So I have no regret in having stood up for the people!
Question: It is said that you would be contesting the next general elections. In light of a recent announcement made by Nigel Carty that yourself and Condor would be replaced as candidates for St. Christopher Seven and Three respectively, can you say under what banner would you be contesting the next general elections?
Answer: “There is no need for any identification of banner except that I am contesting the elections and I will be having a successful campaign and that my track record of standing up for the people of my constituency and standing up for the people will serve me well.
It is that I am going forward to be a representative of the people of Number Seven and I have the full support for that matter, and it doesn’t matter in the end what banner I run under, the people will be voting for Harris again. And once elected, a vote for Harris means a better day for the people of Number Seven. They are going to get effective representation, they are going to get a candidate who is prepared to speak truth to power no matter how powerful that power is, you are going to get a candidate who has experience in government and therefore can help any government of which I am a part to get up and running in an effective way.
A vote for Harris would be a vote for country, a vote for a new way of governance and a new style of leadership. A vote for Harris would mean that we would have somebody committed to ensure term limits for Prime Ministers. No more than two terms.
A vote for Harris would ensure we have somebody – having faced victimisation by Labour and by PAM - who understands victimisation and therefore will fight like hell to ensure that no person would be victimised because of their politics. It is about a better way of life for the people. That is what the next elections will be about; not by whom. People want the best candidate to represent them, the most able, the most competent. And put against any alternatives, I am very confident that Dr. Harris would be victorious and you could test that by poling, you could test that by conversation with the people of Number Seven.
Dr. Harris remains the best choice, the winning choice for the people of Number Seven. I’m of that…I will be offering myself again to the people.
Question: What barriers do you envisage in the formation of a Unity Government and solutions would you recommend for them?
Answer: I don’t envisage problem. I think when a country is in crisis people come together. Indeed, even without a crisis – it is Biblical – it is good for people to dwell together; you achieve more. And so that is what it is about. Once there is a will, there is a way.
I think there is a will now to move past the PAM and Labour thing and think about the country. When you are unemployed it doesn’t matter whether you are Labour or PAM, you are unemployed! Once there is no money in your pocket it doesn’t matter whether you are Labour or PAM. When you go into a supermarket and you can’t take up enough groceries for the week or the day, it doesn’t matter what your political situation is. So people have to now look at what it is they want from the government, because the government has a duty to make life better for the people and to do those things which ordinary people can’t do for themselves.
And that is what any Unity Government has to make priority; to come to the country with a platform. A platform which speaks to some of these things which we know are bad…the victimisation that is happening now under Labour, the victimisation of its own…the transfer of people from St. Kitts to Nevis because you think they are in Sam’s camp or in Tim’s camp, the movement of staff on account of perceived loyalty to ministers. Those things have to end! The secrecy around the SIDF, those things have to end!
We need a new programme now that would give people fulltime work and no short-term work to go through an election like PEP, because that is like YES with another name. Once the election goes through, then Dr. Douglas would abandon these things, they are not sustainable. So we have to have an agenda that will grow the country, because only by growing the country you are going to get long term jobs. There are too many people who haven’t worked for over a year in this country under Dr. Denzil Douglas’ leadership and that is what he must be concerned about, not his job but the jobs of the people who expect him to serve the national interests.
That is what the agenda will be, and those are the things the Unity Government will have to confront; the agenda for good governance and the agenda for development of the country.
