Reprinted from Caribbean Net News
caribbeannetnews.com
COMMENTARY
Listeners outside Grenada to our various radio stations, during the past two weeks or so, must have been left wondering whether they were witnessing a re-birth of the PRG days -- when media propaganda was the main tool of communication and the order of the day.
The debate surrounding the NRL “Levy cum Income Tax,” that was due to come into effect on 1st January 2006, had become so intense and personal after the TUC had announced its members decision to resist the Levy by industrial action that those on centre stage in the dispute simply abandoned caution and discretion and went overboard, in my opinion.
Maybe it is that, because our current government is so close to mainland China and the very Cuba’s Castro that the PRG adored as the region’s saviour, resorting to the media propaganda tactics was no big thing.
But as the tongue-lashing and scandal-mongering unfolded, the effects intended became very ironical; and the accusations levelled at those opposed to the “Levy” seemed, in my view, to apply equally to those who were seeking the peoples’ sympathy by their propaganda tactics.
Whatever transpires, after all is said and done about the “Levy,” we have to continue living on these Isles as a people with very common interests and expectations; and living in relative peace and with due tolerance of others’ positions must be the best course for all of us to follow.
At the time of writing (Saturday a.m.), the outcome of last Wednesday’s meeting between government and the larger group of social partners was still pending, because the group had put forward certain proposals to both sides in the dispute, and Saturday afternoon was the deadline for their responses.
Whatever initial response was coming from the Government side did not seem very hopeful, because the TUC was mobilising its members to start the protest action by Monday 16th -- with a mass rally on budget day at Grand Anse; the same area where the Parliament will be sitting to hear the budget. Time will surely be telling.
At the same time the “Levy” issue was heating up to boiling point, the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament was sharpening his tool to deal with the disobedient seven opposition MPs, who had refused to answer his questionnaire about their nationality status.
Those MPs had all responded to his letter and the questionnaire that he had sent them after the wasted debate and resolution in the Lower House in December, by simply stating that they were Commonwealth citizens at the date of their nominations, and at the General Elections which brought them to Parliament.
The latest letter from the Speaker, Senator Lawrence Joseph, emphasised his demand that the questionnaire must be answered by them all in accordance with the questions being asked, and they had not done so.
He did not repeat his threat of suspension from Parliament, or the sanction of a Commissioner, but from the tone of that letter it was more than very obvious.
And his deadline for due obedience was Wednesday 18th January. So, who knows, with the kind of madness that takes place in these Isles in the name of politics, we may well be having a budget debate among the Government MPs by themselves, because the opposition MPs have been suspended for disobedience.
But while this “nationality saga” was being played out by the Speaker, two related incidents also made the news headlines.
The first was an announcement by the Special Advisor to Cabinet and the Attorney General, Mr. Hugh Wildman, that a constitutional motion was filed in the name of the Attorney General in the High Court.
The motion is challenging the nomination and election of Hon. Peter David as the MP for the Town of St George’s, and the respondents in the motion are Peter David, the Supervisor of Elections, Mr Victor Ashby, and Senator and Minister of Tourism, Brenda Hood, who lost the seat to Peter David in November, 2003.
That was what should have been done in the first place; instead useful time was wasted at heavy cost, and I am sure the taxpayers will be paying even more US dollars to some lawyer from Jamaica or Trinidad and Tobago to come here to represent the government.
The second incident was so funny that the Supervisor of Elections himself could hardly control his laughter.
There was Mr Ashby on TV, announcing that the registration of new voters was due to start on Monday 16th January to sometime in March or April.
To be qualified for registration as a voter, he said one must have his/her birth certificate to prove he/she is a Grenadian by birth, or proof that he/she is a Commonwealth citizen and resident in Grenada and is 18 years of age and over -- as per Section 32 (2) (a) (b) (c) of Grenada’s Constitution .
So Mr Wildman, as a Commonwealth citizen from Jamaica, could vote in and also contest an election, but Mr Peter David, a Grenadian as well as a Commonwealth citizen, cannot contest or be elected as an MP. Oh! Grenada, where are we heading?
And as we were witnessing the wrangle over the “Levy cum Income Tax” -- which the Minister for Finance was insisting had to be implemented before the budget reading on Friday 20th January -- the Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister, Hon. Patrick Manning, was again throwing some spanners into the Venezuelan PetroCaribe works, initiated by Hugo Chavez to supposedly assist CARICOM States with cheaper oil and gas.
Prime Minister Manning’s words were, among others, to the effect that Caribbean states will be cutting their own throats, if they allow themselves to fall prey to Chavez sinister moves, which are intended solely to score cheaper political points against President George Bush of the USA.
And Prime Minister Manning warned that it will not be so easy to resume getting supplies from Trinidad and Tobago, when the Hugo Chavez scheme fails -- as it is very likely to do.
I am wondering, therefore, whether the Finance Minister will be including the Chavez so-called financial bonanza in his Budget estimates for 2006?
And as we are coming face to face with the Caribbean Single Market (CSM), which is due to come on stream this month, I saw an interesting article on the Internet by Sir Ronald Sanders on the whole question of the USA and Latin American (including the Caribbean) economic and political relationship.
I have been making the point for years now, and especially since our own government, after the 1995/1999 election, was getting closer and closer to Fidel Castro and his anti-US regime, that we could very well be gambling away our very good and longstanding relationship with the USA, against the purely cosmetic appearance of being this big time independent and sovereign state that can do as it pleases.
The essence of the said article, in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and globalisation in general, is that the relationship between the USA and Latin America has been getting colder and colder for some time now, and has gotten much worse since Hugo Chavez came on the scene and formed an alliance with Castro.
As things stand now, the major Latin American countries -- along with Venezuela and Cuba leading the fray -- have declared their intention to confront the USA in the global marketplace. And this was surely brought home to President Bush when, in the recent Meeting of the Americas in South America, they all opposed the US bid to get the Free Trade Area of Americas (FTAA) off the ground and back on the agenda for discussion.
The relevance of that scenario to the Caribbean region is that our economic and fiscal and political problems are very, very, different from that of Latin America per se.
The CSM may give us a little clout, not much, but our closeness to the USA would definitely have increased the power of our voices in the global marketplace.
When one has friends in Washington and New York, your voice gets listened to elsewhere in the global village. But when your comrades are in Havana and Caracas, you do not need any more enemies.
And now that even our closest neighbour and family tree member in Port-of-Spain is putting us on notice about our reckless and downright foolish behaviour over the PetroCaribe scheme; we had better stop and take warning.
Our traditional friends, benefactors, and trading partners have always been in the British Isles and Europe and, while we are not getting the best favoured status treatment nowadays, our long-standing ties and traditions will always provide an open door to allow us to state our case.
If, in addition thereto, we also have a voice from the White House or Capitol Hill saying a word for us, our chances of being listened to are far better placed, than voices from Beijing, Caracas or Havana.
The complaints and serious concerns of our students in Beijing, Mexico and Cuba are low-key at present, for obvious reasons, but they are many and varied.
The atmosphere, the linkages, some may even say the customs and traditions, are changing in the global village and, as a result, new or apparently new on the surface at first glance, whiz kids and phenomenal successes are hitting the headlines every now and then -- and that is not unusual because the world and mankind are dynamic forces.
But if we take the time to stop awhile, think back a little, uncover some of the hidden lids and look beneath the surface, we may come up with telling surprises.
And in any case, and I submit in every case where the principles, the standards, the very sound traditions have stood the test of time, and made us the dignified and solidly honest and humble people we once were, then NOTHING material, no matter how packaged, must ever, or should ever have made us turn our backs on reality and the satisfactory benefits we have so long enjoyed.
Politics is about people, and their welfare and interest.
Political philosophy must be based on acquired maturity derived from the art of compromise. so that politicians must be flexible and prepared for change, if they are to function adequately, and achieve their stated goals.
But the changes, when they do come, however, must not be change for change sake, or for revenge, or to settle old vendettas, or to show who is the boss, or any such like.
Genuine, conciliatory, and meaningful changes -- without any fanfare and propaganda rhetoric -- must be for the people being served, and those will always speak for themselves.
In today’s Grenada, the question repeats itself time and time again, where are we heading?
Previous Page Print This Page.
Copyright© 2007 Caribbean Net News at www.caribbeannetnews.com All Rights Reserved
License is granted for free print and distribution.
