Editorial – January 9, 2014
It must be clear to all by now that while they have no regrets, and while those who at the end of the elections were already believing or wishing failure of the new Government, that the People’s Democratic Movement party was far from comparable to most other new parties ready to ‘hit the ground running.’ It was not a government in waiting, like the ABLP in Antigua and Barbuda.
That statement is by no means one to make excuses or to give reasons for the silence or in the alternative some kind a report on the condition of our governance as it stood or now stands.
What no one can explain is whether or not the PDM party itself realises how easily they rolled into power almost without a fight, although their ‘opponents’, (the word deliberately chosen), up to now are claiming that the campaign was a bitter one. That really does not deserve a comment, but it is perhaps the ease with which power was attained that may have dulled or blinded the senses as to the task at hand. We have certainly, though in a limited way, previously noted some things that have gone awry, the problem being however that the hopes, rather than plans, were not based on real knowledge of the situation.
Evidence of this is the utterances made particularly by the leader of Government business (a new phrase that came to light in the latter stages of the previous government’s misguided reign) has not yet shown the kind of understanding that is expected to formulate a position forward. That exasperates the ‘problem’.
After three months, this editor is still waiting for a report (quite different from the rhetoric) to the nation where we can learn and question our leaders progress as to how they plan to move forward. We need to know who is informing them and whether or not they have delved into the processes, the plans that have brought this island to the point of being no better off that it was 12 – 15 years ago, when we turned the century. What do they know!
Are they familiar with the many months of planning that went into the procurement of a Sustainable Development Plan (SDP) (that awful scheme), the Strategic Growth Plan (SGP), the MOU and the various reviews on these; the Montserrat Development Corporation (MDC) Business Case and Intervention Summary, Minister Mitchell and Duncan’s pronouncements and all that follow, all which brought us to a point of asking the question, that DFID has asked and we have asked? These DFID will advise did not come about in any willy-nilly fashion, whether coerced, duped or otherwise. There have actually been conflicts in claim to ownership.
What is Plan B? This question was posed almost immediately after the now ‘infamous’ MOU, a testament to how we or some of us particularly our leaders believe they can actually sign their agreement knowing they are unable to meet or have no intentions in meeting their side of the commitments. What should also be clear, the SGP etc. were not about Little Bay and Carrs Bay only. It was all of Montserrat.
Six months after that signing in November 2012, a report MoU REFORMS: MID-TERM REVIEW stated under the heading The Review Team recommends that:
MDC steps up its efforts to attract large-scale private sector interest in the Master Plan.
MDC builds on its phased approach to Little Bay development by putting more emphasis on considering alternative approaches, including lower key ones.
The existing Master Plan vision should not be the sole and unique blueprint it is working to. In other words, what if no major investors are interested in the “cornerstone” elements Master Plan (the six star hotel, residences and marina)? What if DFID does not agree in principle to the large port / breakwater since the economic / financial cases do not justify it? What is Plan B?
We invite that you read our Editorial of May 2, 2014, where we suggested to Government action that might have saved them the loss of the elections. The caption is: “Modify the SGP as suggested by DFID since September, 2012. DFID had said as early as then: “MDC should start to develop alternative approaches to Little Bay development, considering various options and scenarios for levels of private sector interest in Little Bay. This calls for strong co-ordination with port plans and other options being developed for Carr’s Bay.”
Even then DFID was again referring to the SGP as ‘ambitious’, but we either do not understand language or are just disdainful of our benefactors The result after, DFID keeping their promise against our non-commitment abilities, called things to a halt.
TMR begged, “Yes, scrap the new master plan, develop the 5-star resort in Rendezvous, and begin the future of Montserrat, while getting jobs underway. The previous plan modified was never considered as ambitious, and the mistakes are before us.”
In that Editorial we questioned certain statements made by the MDC and suggested that there were even possible lies being reported to DFID. But we should remember they had a representative on the ground. Well that’s a story/case in itself. And there is more!
DFID further encouraged and recommended that Montserrat consults with the St. Helena Government (SHG) who had been consulted with in the same terms as Montserrat were, to learn how they have managed success.
DFID said also in November 2012: “St. Helena Government (SHG) has recently implemented a very complex set of policy reforms – a condition of UK Ministerial agreement to build an airport…the Review Team encourages GoM to contact SHG to learn lessons from SHG’s own experience in this area. SHG had to undertake an equally if not more extensive policy reform agenda as a condition of securing airport construction.”
A year and a half later, we reported last year, the shameful stark contrast in February 2014 budgetary report between Montserrat and St. Helena.
