Three weeks ago I got an abusive email in response to a blog of mine back in December headed “More Immigrants, Please”; the email’s subject-line was “More Natives”. The body of the email, following an obscene greeting, was as follows. All the emphases are as per the original; I haven’t changed a thing.
Caymanians are already OUTNUMBERED... how about some more NATIVE Caymanians? Huh?
It is MORE than clear to see that you are ALL ABOUT keeping and importing "More Immigrants...". You have ALWAYS been about the EXPATS/IMMIGRANTS and to HELL with the Natives and what opportunities are LEFT for them of our SMALL Island Nation. WHERE oh WHERE is your ADVOCACY for the Native Caymanian you Status-Granted Foreign Fucker??? Where is the JUST 'human rights' you so self-proclaim??
Do you NOT understand the ATROCITIES and VICIOUS CYCLE of what happens in almost EVERY country that has been OVER-RUN by your fucking Gods, the "IMMIGRANTS"??? Reminder - There is always UNREST and WAR that is the end result when the natives of those respective countries are disenfranchised, suppressed and pushed aside as the 'White Man' has done GLOBALLY for CENTURIES upon CENTURIES. When are fucking CALLOUSES like YOU going to STOP the CYCLE???
May I suggest you STOP trying to AIDE in our Country's DEMISE by keeping your BIASED advocacy to YOURSELF. I think our Governments are doing QUITE WELL with the demise process and DO NOT need your assistance.
Thank you very much,
One Angered Caymanian
Angered, indeed.
The writer has confused my being pro-immigrant (true) with being anti-native (false). It would have been more logical to blame the native-Caymanian politicians and their cronies for allowing so many immigrants into the Territory, and for promising the voters a return to high rates of growth for the local economy. As that December blog noted, if Cayman is to extend the benefits of its current prosperity to all Caymanians, it will need more immigrants. I would like the present Caymanian “have-nots” to share the wealth.
The fact that they are not doing so already is the fault of the native-Caymanian politicians- not of any “Status-Granted Foreign Fucker”, at all. For the have-nots to participate more fairly in Cayman’s prosperity, radical changes are needed in each of the education system, the immigration system, and the political system. Those systems are what are holding Cayman back. If the writer of this email agrees with me on that point, then he should have the guts to go public with a call for change. As long as he doesn’t favour the bullying of low-paid immigrants, I will back him. But if he is one of the bullies- and the tone of his email hints that he is- then we will never be on the same side.
I wonder if he has written to Dr Shetty and Mr Hon and Mr Dart, and told them what he thinks of their plans for Cayman’s future. In case he hasn’t, perhaps some reader of this blog would bring the email to those gentlemen’s attention. If Angered Caymanian is predicting “UNREST and WAR”, all existing and prospective investors had better be prepared. Unrest and war are not good news for businessmen.
The email’s address (which I won’t disclose, just now) suggests it was sent by or with the approval of some kind of Caymanian protest-blogsite. Interesting, if true. A friend of mine used to pretend to belong to “The Expat Militia”, an organisation that existed only in his mind. I sincerely hope we don’t have to form one for real, to counter an army of Angered Caymanians, bent on unrest and war! (I’m joking- I think...)
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Glass Ceilings, Again (protectionism in Cayman)
According to a website I came across the other day called Trading Economics, Cayman’s literacy was 99% in 1997, and no change has been registered since. It’s good to know that government’s Statistics Unit actually does produce some figures in exchange for its generous annual budgets, although one must wonder just how accurate its work is.
That 99% is of all residents aged 15 and over. Were they all literate in English, do you think? Or would Tagalog and Jamaican patwa warrant ticking the “yes” column? Or, is the 99% an out-and-out guess? Ah well, it looks good on the charts...
The dividing line between literate and illiterate is generously drawn at any time. How literate is “literate”? What exactly is “functional illiteracy”? It is hugely disappointing that Cayman’s educational authorities have been (apparently) so dismissive of the need to raise the standards of literacy in our Islands. And “need” is exactly the right word.
Our politicians’ position is that employers’ prejudices are responsible for the contentious glass ceilings that limit the promotions of true-born Caymanians. By their silence, the education authorities support that position. Whereas, in fact, it is the mindless protectionism of politicians and their cronies that creates the ceilings. If they truly cared about Caymanian children instead of the preservation of their bureaucratic empires, they would have abolished the ceilings long ago.
How? By working to a sensible definition of literacy- not the minimalist definition of persons “who can, with understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday life.” That’s not nearly enough. Cayman’s sophisticated offshore financial services industry requires a level of literacy that bears no relation to the levels in communities of subsistence farmers, for instance. Do our bureaucrats understand that? If so, why do they settle for the false comfort of the minimalist definition?
Cayman’s businessmen operate in the real world. The glass ceilings are put in place to block the advancement of persons whose literacy levels are inadequate for the jobs they are paid to do. And, regrettably, despite all the bitter complaints by Caymanians, the hated glass ceilings are too porous by half. Most customers of local businesses are regularly shocked by the number of barely literate individuals (in the context of the sophisticated language-skills expected in a rich little community like ours) who have somehow managed to burst through the ceilings.
For an alarming number of Caymanians in relatively high administrative positions, even such basic grammatical constructs as past participles are terra incognita (as, indeed, are such relatively common foreign-language terms as terra incognita). “I have learn the lesson”, we read; to which the only meaningful retort is, “no you ain’t!” Conjugating verbs is a minefield, too. “The boats is loss at sea.” “No they ain’t!” Spoken, “boats is loss” may grudgingly receive the benefit of any doubt; written, it is unforgivable. Yet mistakes of that kind are written every day, in letters and e-mails.
It’s a sad situation. Correct grammar and usage are second nature to those of us who were taught well. The credit belongs to our teachers; there is no inherent ability to speak or write well in any language. Those who do, have no right to look down on those whose language-skills are inferior. And yet it’s human nature that they do; and when barely literate clerks are in the presence of Offshore Clients, for instance, it matters.
Poor language-skills signal low intelligence, however unfair that is. It’s a cruel world. In a small and intimate community like ours, there is no reason why Caymanians need be handicapped in that way. Our education strategy must take the blame for the glass ceilings.
That 99% is of all residents aged 15 and over. Were they all literate in English, do you think? Or would Tagalog and Jamaican patwa warrant ticking the “yes” column? Or, is the 99% an out-and-out guess? Ah well, it looks good on the charts...
The dividing line between literate and illiterate is generously drawn at any time. How literate is “literate”? What exactly is “functional illiteracy”? It is hugely disappointing that Cayman’s educational authorities have been (apparently) so dismissive of the need to raise the standards of literacy in our Islands. And “need” is exactly the right word.
Our politicians’ position is that employers’ prejudices are responsible for the contentious glass ceilings that limit the promotions of true-born Caymanians. By their silence, the education authorities support that position. Whereas, in fact, it is the mindless protectionism of politicians and their cronies that creates the ceilings. If they truly cared about Caymanian children instead of the preservation of their bureaucratic empires, they would have abolished the ceilings long ago.
How? By working to a sensible definition of literacy- not the minimalist definition of persons “who can, with understanding, read and write a short, simple statement on their everyday life.” That’s not nearly enough. Cayman’s sophisticated offshore financial services industry requires a level of literacy that bears no relation to the levels in communities of subsistence farmers, for instance. Do our bureaucrats understand that? If so, why do they settle for the false comfort of the minimalist definition?
Cayman’s businessmen operate in the real world. The glass ceilings are put in place to block the advancement of persons whose literacy levels are inadequate for the jobs they are paid to do. And, regrettably, despite all the bitter complaints by Caymanians, the hated glass ceilings are too porous by half. Most customers of local businesses are regularly shocked by the number of barely literate individuals (in the context of the sophisticated language-skills expected in a rich little community like ours) who have somehow managed to burst through the ceilings.
For an alarming number of Caymanians in relatively high administrative positions, even such basic grammatical constructs as past participles are terra incognita (as, indeed, are such relatively common foreign-language terms as terra incognita). “I have learn the lesson”, we read; to which the only meaningful retort is, “no you ain’t!” Conjugating verbs is a minefield, too. “The boats is loss at sea.” “No they ain’t!” Spoken, “boats is loss” may grudgingly receive the benefit of any doubt; written, it is unforgivable. Yet mistakes of that kind are written every day, in letters and e-mails.
It’s a sad situation. Correct grammar and usage are second nature to those of us who were taught well. The credit belongs to our teachers; there is no inherent ability to speak or write well in any language. Those who do, have no right to look down on those whose language-skills are inferior. And yet it’s human nature that they do; and when barely literate clerks are in the presence of Offshore Clients, for instance, it matters.
Poor language-skills signal low intelligence, however unfair that is. It’s a cruel world. In a small and intimate community like ours, there is no reason why Caymanians need be handicapped in that way. Our education strategy must take the blame for the glass ceilings.
Friday, April 8, 2011
After You, Cecil... (Cayman's social tensions)
Last week, my Cayman Net News column noted that crime will always flourish in a society in which half the people don’t cooperate with the other half. On the same Friday, the Caymanian Compass’s editorial wondered whether it might be a bit dodgy to let non-Status expats sit on juries passing judgment on native Caymanians, “...given the current tensions between the two groups”.
Well! My, my! I can’t recall the Compass ever before acknowledging that tensions did exist between native Caymanians and expats. It’s a relief to see the paper finally coming out of the closet on the topic. It has always been an excellent small-town newspaper, but its editorials were always desperately wishy-washy, up until just a few months ago. Nobody of my acquaintance can fathom the reason for the change of attitude, but everybody welcomes it. Long may it last. The Net News is a less substantial newspaper, but its editorials have almost always been far superior to the Compass’s.
It used to be said about Cayman’s news reporting, in former times, “Brian covers it up and Desmond makes it up.” The joke may not even be half-true, any more.
Our communal tensions affect every facet of law enforcement. Most dangerously, they affect the Police’s ability to identify the bad guys. At the moment we have four unsolved bank robberies, the unsolved disappearance (abduction, we assume) of the Caymanian woman from the Dump office, and several unsolved savage assaults on Work Permit expats.
What is striking about the caseload is the division of concern in our little society- a division that exactly follows the fault-lines in the society. Expats are mostly concerned about expat victims, Caymanians are mostly concerned about Caymanian. Not always, but mostly. Posters on the Cayman News Service forums argue back and forth about the most likely ethnicity of the robbers. Caymanians want banks’ security guards to be armed; expats wonder how many Caymanians would put their lives on the line for four or five dollars an hour.
There is some reluctance to use the word “tribal” in relation to Cayman’s societal divisions; but what other word fits? If you count all the various expat ethnicities and national origins as a single tribe, then “tribal” it is. Our need, as a society, is not to unite the tribes; that’s not going to happen. One demand to “love us or leave us!” from a Caymanian, and one mention of “birthright entitlement!” from an expat, and the tension is exposed in all its ugliness.
But- that said- surely we ought to be able to agree which crimes to take seriously and which not, and to cooperate in tackling them. Police and Immigration would have to commit to acting in good faith. Would that be too much to ask? It’s actually the only positive option we have besides ceding the nights to the street criminals. There is no third option.
The division isn’t going to go away, so we must learn to live with it. It will be fascinating to see which party (i.e. which tribe) will make the first move towards the common ground. It could develop like one of those old music-hall comedy turns. After you, Cecil. No, no, after you, Claude. No, after you... and so on ad infinitum.
Well! My, my! I can’t recall the Compass ever before acknowledging that tensions did exist between native Caymanians and expats. It’s a relief to see the paper finally coming out of the closet on the topic. It has always been an excellent small-town newspaper, but its editorials were always desperately wishy-washy, up until just a few months ago. Nobody of my acquaintance can fathom the reason for the change of attitude, but everybody welcomes it. Long may it last. The Net News is a less substantial newspaper, but its editorials have almost always been far superior to the Compass’s.
It used to be said about Cayman’s news reporting, in former times, “Brian covers it up and Desmond makes it up.” The joke may not even be half-true, any more.
Our communal tensions affect every facet of law enforcement. Most dangerously, they affect the Police’s ability to identify the bad guys. At the moment we have four unsolved bank robberies, the unsolved disappearance (abduction, we assume) of the Caymanian woman from the Dump office, and several unsolved savage assaults on Work Permit expats.
What is striking about the caseload is the division of concern in our little society- a division that exactly follows the fault-lines in the society. Expats are mostly concerned about expat victims, Caymanians are mostly concerned about Caymanian. Not always, but mostly. Posters on the Cayman News Service forums argue back and forth about the most likely ethnicity of the robbers. Caymanians want banks’ security guards to be armed; expats wonder how many Caymanians would put their lives on the line for four or five dollars an hour.
There is some reluctance to use the word “tribal” in relation to Cayman’s societal divisions; but what other word fits? If you count all the various expat ethnicities and national origins as a single tribe, then “tribal” it is. Our need, as a society, is not to unite the tribes; that’s not going to happen. One demand to “love us or leave us!” from a Caymanian, and one mention of “birthright entitlement!” from an expat, and the tension is exposed in all its ugliness.
But- that said- surely we ought to be able to agree which crimes to take seriously and which not, and to cooperate in tackling them. Police and Immigration would have to commit to acting in good faith. Would that be too much to ask? It’s actually the only positive option we have besides ceding the nights to the street criminals. There is no third option.
The division isn’t going to go away, so we must learn to live with it. It will be fascinating to see which party (i.e. which tribe) will make the first move towards the common ground. It could develop like one of those old music-hall comedy turns. After you, Cecil. No, no, after you, Claude. No, after you... and so on ad infinitum.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Crime & Credibility (in Cayman)
It was disappointing to read Crimestoppers’ latest public appeal to trust the security of their TIPS Hotline. Poor old Crimestoppers, they just don’t get it. I don’t know a single soul - high social status or low, expat or Caymanian, male or female - who would call you with information about a crime. Maybe all my associates are crooks and scofflaws: well, who knows?
In any case, the Crimestoppers committee or directors or whatever they are, can’t be bothered to give us actual proof that the Hotline is secure. They are like the American tourist of legend who, in a foreign land where the natives speak no English, thinks that shouting louder will help him be understood. Look, Crimestopper people, it doesn’t prove the Hotline is secure by simply asserting it over and over again.
The Crimestoppers mean well, and their motive is honourable; but they are too credulous of assurances by their Miami agents about the phone calls. “Hello. My friend and I just robbed a bank. If I tell you his name, will you give me a thousand bucks and witness protection?” “Course we will, sir! That’s what we’re here for.”
The Police themselves have a credibility problem, and exhibit the same insouciance towards it. Where can we turn to? Who can protect us? Increasingly, the answer is: ourselves. Dogs, burglar bars, spray-cans of bleach, alarm systems...; we’re on the path to guns and gated compounds. And, if we lose faith in the willingness of the Prosecution Service to prosecute and the judges to punish, we will be on the path to vigilante vengeance.
Neighbourhood Watches have an uncertain reputation. How are householders supposed to distinguish between good guys and bad guys, driving by? How can we tell a dog barking at a trespasser from a dog barking at a leaf? When I have to get up in the middle of the night to yell at a neighbour’s dog, am I unwittingly helping a burglar? Any self-respecting burglar will probably shoot a barking dog and come back next night when the coast is clear.
Or poison it. Maybe all Cayman’s dog-poisonings are done by burglars- although sleepless neighbours may well be responsible for some, I guess. (No, Madam, I didn’t poison your dog. I don’t poison dogs. I’m just saying.)
If we of the general public have to rely on ourselves to protect ourselves, we will surely see the development of vigilante justice. Large private rewards are becoming more common than they were. So far, they are offered for “information leading to the conviction of...” but it’s only a short step from there to “information leading to the private identification of...” It can’t be too hard to find and hire an assassin locally.
Soon there will be irresistible pressure on MLAs to enact a “Castle Law” - as in “a man’s home is his castle”. It is a legal maxim first written in English by a respected judge four hundred years ago, and honoured in England until quite recent times.Some American states still honour it, allowing householders to fend off home invaders by whatever force is felt to be necessary - no questions asked.
Cayman is a British territory, with a British Police Force and senior Civil Servants beholden to a UK government that no longer respects the Castle Doctrine. However, British law does still honour the concept of “jury nullification”. That allows a jury to bring in a Not Guilty verdict in defiance of a law it disapproves of. We may get to see a local example of that, next time some householder shoots a burglar.
In any case, the Crimestoppers committee or directors or whatever they are, can’t be bothered to give us actual proof that the Hotline is secure. They are like the American tourist of legend who, in a foreign land where the natives speak no English, thinks that shouting louder will help him be understood. Look, Crimestopper people, it doesn’t prove the Hotline is secure by simply asserting it over and over again.
The Crimestoppers mean well, and their motive is honourable; but they are too credulous of assurances by their Miami agents about the phone calls. “Hello. My friend and I just robbed a bank. If I tell you his name, will you give me a thousand bucks and witness protection?” “Course we will, sir! That’s what we’re here for.”
The Police themselves have a credibility problem, and exhibit the same insouciance towards it. Where can we turn to? Who can protect us? Increasingly, the answer is: ourselves. Dogs, burglar bars, spray-cans of bleach, alarm systems...; we’re on the path to guns and gated compounds. And, if we lose faith in the willingness of the Prosecution Service to prosecute and the judges to punish, we will be on the path to vigilante vengeance.
Neighbourhood Watches have an uncertain reputation. How are householders supposed to distinguish between good guys and bad guys, driving by? How can we tell a dog barking at a trespasser from a dog barking at a leaf? When I have to get up in the middle of the night to yell at a neighbour’s dog, am I unwittingly helping a burglar? Any self-respecting burglar will probably shoot a barking dog and come back next night when the coast is clear.
Or poison it. Maybe all Cayman’s dog-poisonings are done by burglars- although sleepless neighbours may well be responsible for some, I guess. (No, Madam, I didn’t poison your dog. I don’t poison dogs. I’m just saying.)
If we of the general public have to rely on ourselves to protect ourselves, we will surely see the development of vigilante justice. Large private rewards are becoming more common than they were. So far, they are offered for “information leading to the conviction of...” but it’s only a short step from there to “information leading to the private identification of...” It can’t be too hard to find and hire an assassin locally.
Soon there will be irresistible pressure on MLAs to enact a “Castle Law” - as in “a man’s home is his castle”. It is a legal maxim first written in English by a respected judge four hundred years ago, and honoured in England until quite recent times.Some American states still honour it, allowing householders to fend off home invaders by whatever force is felt to be necessary - no questions asked.
Cayman is a British territory, with a British Police Force and senior Civil Servants beholden to a UK government that no longer respects the Castle Doctrine. However, British law does still honour the concept of “jury nullification”. That allows a jury to bring in a Not Guilty verdict in defiance of a law it disapproves of. We may get to see a local example of that, next time some householder shoots a burglar.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Honouring Cayman's women - or not
It’s a pity Cayman’s “Honouring Women Month” is so narrow in its application. It honours true-born Caymanian women well enough, but foreign women are left un-honoured - dishonoured by default. Our migrant domestic helpers are the most vulnerable people in Cayman, and among the most admirable, and should not be discriminated against in this way. Until due notice is taken of the need to ease the burden on them, the Month is nothing more than an exercise in humbug.
Britain is proposing to end its exemption of Cayman from the application of The United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), but unless discrimination against migrant domestics is ended, what would be the point? Our MLAs and Civil Servants shouldn’t need an International Convention to make them act humanely, anyway.
As we are all aware, foreign helpers aren’t granted equal protection under the law. Too many of them must reimburse their employers for their Work Permit fees. Too many are not covered by medical insurance. Too many are owed back wages, sometimes for several weeks. Requesting back wages is too often taken as insolence by their employers. Sometimes that “insolence” serves as an excuse to cancel their Work Permits, and to send them home without ever receiving their money.
How can prominent members of our community be so full of humbug as to celebrate the women of Cayman while pretending not to know about the exploitation of foreign domestics? By their silence, our rulers - both local and in London - give their consent to the exploitation. The celebrations are based on a lie. I’m sorry to say this, but Caymanian women should not celebrate any freedoms that exclude their sisters in indentured service - in actual servitude close to slavery, some of them. Let Caymanian men celebrate what they will or will not, in Honouring Women Month. Caymanian women should know better, and should have nothing to do with it.
Our public sector has a Department of Gender Affairs and a Women’s Resource Centre. What do they do to protect female domestics who come from Jamaica, Latin America, Philippines and other Caribbean islands? I haven’t heard of anything. By their silence, those Offices endorse the exploitation.
Our private sector has a Business & Professional Women’s Club. I don’t expect them to represent the interests of female domestics any more than I expect the Chamber of Commerce to do so. All the same, a modicum of compassion wouldn’t be amiss once in a while (during Honouring Women Month, for instance): a bit of recognition, perhaps.
Some years ago I resigned from our local Human Rights Committee because it wouldn’t do anything for the exploited migrants of Cayman, or for the Cuban boat people. (There are women on those boats too, you know. Do they deserve to be shoo’d away like stray hens, in Honouring Women Month?) What is wrong with our values, that we can allow our agents to act callously towards our fellow humans, day after day?
No wonder our new Human Rights Commission is a flop. No wonder its public-education program is stillborn; nobody can decide how to reconcile the anomalies. The Commission’s members either don’t know how to get the programme going, or don’t care. There must be people out here who could and would do it for them. Ah, but could we be trusted not to tread on political toes? That’s the main question, right? A cowardly Human Rights Commission is a disgrace. Unless its members find the courage to publicly oppose the exploitation of low-paid foreign workers - especially the women - they ought to quit. There is no merit in sitting around shuffling papers.
Britain is proposing to end its exemption of Cayman from the application of The United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), but unless discrimination against migrant domestics is ended, what would be the point? Our MLAs and Civil Servants shouldn’t need an International Convention to make them act humanely, anyway.
As we are all aware, foreign helpers aren’t granted equal protection under the law. Too many of them must reimburse their employers for their Work Permit fees. Too many are not covered by medical insurance. Too many are owed back wages, sometimes for several weeks. Requesting back wages is too often taken as insolence by their employers. Sometimes that “insolence” serves as an excuse to cancel their Work Permits, and to send them home without ever receiving their money.
How can prominent members of our community be so full of humbug as to celebrate the women of Cayman while pretending not to know about the exploitation of foreign domestics? By their silence, our rulers - both local and in London - give their consent to the exploitation. The celebrations are based on a lie. I’m sorry to say this, but Caymanian women should not celebrate any freedoms that exclude their sisters in indentured service - in actual servitude close to slavery, some of them. Let Caymanian men celebrate what they will or will not, in Honouring Women Month. Caymanian women should know better, and should have nothing to do with it.
Our public sector has a Department of Gender Affairs and a Women’s Resource Centre. What do they do to protect female domestics who come from Jamaica, Latin America, Philippines and other Caribbean islands? I haven’t heard of anything. By their silence, those Offices endorse the exploitation.
Our private sector has a Business & Professional Women’s Club. I don’t expect them to represent the interests of female domestics any more than I expect the Chamber of Commerce to do so. All the same, a modicum of compassion wouldn’t be amiss once in a while (during Honouring Women Month, for instance): a bit of recognition, perhaps.
Some years ago I resigned from our local Human Rights Committee because it wouldn’t do anything for the exploited migrants of Cayman, or for the Cuban boat people. (There are women on those boats too, you know. Do they deserve to be shoo’d away like stray hens, in Honouring Women Month?) What is wrong with our values, that we can allow our agents to act callously towards our fellow humans, day after day?
No wonder our new Human Rights Commission is a flop. No wonder its public-education program is stillborn; nobody can decide how to reconcile the anomalies. The Commission’s members either don’t know how to get the programme going, or don’t care. There must be people out here who could and would do it for them. Ah, but could we be trusted not to tread on political toes? That’s the main question, right? A cowardly Human Rights Commission is a disgrace. Unless its members find the courage to publicly oppose the exploitation of low-paid foreign workers - especially the women - they ought to quit. There is no merit in sitting around shuffling papers.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Loyalty to Cayman
Our Islands’ criminal gangs draw their members from extended families (clans) living in yards and other close neighbourhoods. The clans’ and their individual members’ loyalty to each other is far stronger than their loyalty to the wider community. They may be Caymanian patriots, but only up to a point; they won’t readily betray one of their own in response to appeals for witnesses to crimes.
I have every sympathy with their loyalty. I wouldn’t betray my son or grandchildren to their enemies, no matter what they had done. And I don’t expect any other loving parent to do what I wouldn’t do. To the families of the criminal underclass, The Enemy is the Police. Before Cayman’s law-enforcement authorities get any cooperation from that quarter, the families must somehow be persuaded to feel loyal to the broader community.
What about expat immigrants? How do we get them to cooperate? Well, it depends. It’s unrealistic to expect them to get chummy with overt xenophobes. For all expats, the Immigration authorities are The Enemy. Nothing positive would result from forcing expats to sit on committees alongside former Immigration Officers or members of Work Permit Boards. That would be like packing a Civil Rights committee with former Ku Klux Klan members. (There are a few expats who do willingly enjoy rubbing shoulders with known xenophobes, but they can be dismissed as stooges or cronies. I could name most of them, if I had to.)
Caymanians and expats have entirely different sets of prejudices. The Immigration authorities are anathema to most expats, however long they have lived here; and there is a close working relationship between Police and Immigration. So what Work Permit expat in his right mind would risk summary deportation by cooperating with the Police? I’m not talking about middle-class Englishmen, here. It’s the low-status Jamaicans, Filipinos, Latinos and Indians who are the most vulnerable.
Ethnic Caymanians’ equivalent prejudice is Birthright Entitlement. Pretty much all ethnics believe in the entitlement in some degree or other. They think it’s fine that expats can’t vote until they’ve lived here for 15-20 years, and can’t be elected to the LA for 10-15 years after that. Even most liberal-minded Caymanians are content to allow their Islands to suffer from the politics of vanity and irresponsibility.
Sure, they wring their hands over the mess their representatives make of things; but at least the representatives are their tribal brethren. Not even McKeeva’s or Alden’s worst enemies would swap them for expats. Isn’t that something?
So what kind of coalition could possibly work between the uppity wogs and the local crew of God’s chosen islands? It’s a difficult question to answer. There is so much blood on the floor, so to speak. Forty years of an indentured-servitude system policed by the Immigration bully-boys are not easily forgotten or forgiven. They have left an enormous reservoir of resentment. If the FCO had deliberately set out to create an unbridgeable schism in our society (which it probably did do, in Britain’s national interests), then it can take pride in its success. A job well done, chaps.
Nevertheless... If true-born Caymanians were to swallow hard and allow all expats a stake in Cayman’s future, the battle against crime would be energised immediately. If expats were to swallow hard and settle for less than full civil rights, a deal might be possible. Both sides would have to give up some ground, and both sides would be unhappy about it. But the end objective is the elimination of street violence, and that requires some concessions - the FCO’s master-plan be damned.
I have every sympathy with their loyalty. I wouldn’t betray my son or grandchildren to their enemies, no matter what they had done. And I don’t expect any other loving parent to do what I wouldn’t do. To the families of the criminal underclass, The Enemy is the Police. Before Cayman’s law-enforcement authorities get any cooperation from that quarter, the families must somehow be persuaded to feel loyal to the broader community.
What about expat immigrants? How do we get them to cooperate? Well, it depends. It’s unrealistic to expect them to get chummy with overt xenophobes. For all expats, the Immigration authorities are The Enemy. Nothing positive would result from forcing expats to sit on committees alongside former Immigration Officers or members of Work Permit Boards. That would be like packing a Civil Rights committee with former Ku Klux Klan members. (There are a few expats who do willingly enjoy rubbing shoulders with known xenophobes, but they can be dismissed as stooges or cronies. I could name most of them, if I had to.)
Caymanians and expats have entirely different sets of prejudices. The Immigration authorities are anathema to most expats, however long they have lived here; and there is a close working relationship between Police and Immigration. So what Work Permit expat in his right mind would risk summary deportation by cooperating with the Police? I’m not talking about middle-class Englishmen, here. It’s the low-status Jamaicans, Filipinos, Latinos and Indians who are the most vulnerable.
Ethnic Caymanians’ equivalent prejudice is Birthright Entitlement. Pretty much all ethnics believe in the entitlement in some degree or other. They think it’s fine that expats can’t vote until they’ve lived here for 15-20 years, and can’t be elected to the LA for 10-15 years after that. Even most liberal-minded Caymanians are content to allow their Islands to suffer from the politics of vanity and irresponsibility.
Sure, they wring their hands over the mess their representatives make of things; but at least the representatives are their tribal brethren. Not even McKeeva’s or Alden’s worst enemies would swap them for expats. Isn’t that something?
So what kind of coalition could possibly work between the uppity wogs and the local crew of God’s chosen islands? It’s a difficult question to answer. There is so much blood on the floor, so to speak. Forty years of an indentured-servitude system policed by the Immigration bully-boys are not easily forgotten or forgiven. They have left an enormous reservoir of resentment. If the FCO had deliberately set out to create an unbridgeable schism in our society (which it probably did do, in Britain’s national interests), then it can take pride in its success. A job well done, chaps.
Nevertheless... If true-born Caymanians were to swallow hard and allow all expats a stake in Cayman’s future, the battle against crime would be energised immediately. If expats were to swallow hard and settle for less than full civil rights, a deal might be possible. Both sides would have to give up some ground, and both sides would be unhappy about it. But the end objective is the elimination of street violence, and that requires some concessions - the FCO’s master-plan be damned.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
More Expats Needed? (in Cayman)
When Cayman’s population fell by 4,000 or 6,000 or 10,000 or however many it was, the whole commercial sector suffered from the loss of customers. Every seller of goods and provider of services, every landlord, every car dealership- all were sorry to see them go. Only the hardcore xenophobes were pleased.
When our economic recovery begins, our population will slowly swell again. Some of the incomers will be former residents, and some will be new to Cayman. It will be interesting to see whether our Immigration authorities will change the Immigration Law before then, or keep it unchanged in order to boost the numbers to artificially high levels again.
There is no commercial need to replace all the workers who left. The migrants we have could comfortably take up the slack- if they were allowed to work more than one job at a time, and to switch employers. For practical reasons, that would mean issuing Work Permits in their own names, and that's not likely to happen. After all, both the private and public sectors have built their respective infrastructures in expectation of ever higher numbers of residents; they desperately want a return to the old growth rates.
I can’t see the Immigration people doing anything that would limit the number of expat residents. The Law has always accommodated (within the bounds of propriety- just!) the desire of ethnic Caymanians to own slaves. That’s why Work Permits are issued to employers, not to employees. Restricting migrants to one job each maximises the local population. You do the math.
The Immigration Law and all its amendments (and the Caymanian Protection Law before it) were written by and for the local merchant-class. For them it was win-win: slavery as near as dammit, and the maximum number of bodies to sell things to. Indentured foreign labour keeps wages low for low-skilled Caymanian workers too. That's win-win-win.
For the Immigration authorities, more Permits means more paper-shuffling, which in turn means a bigger bureaucratic empire. Furthermore, Immigration rules forbid unskilled migrants from bringing their domestic partners to Cayman. That's a fourth win, since male migrants constitute a ready market for the prostitutes (amateur and professional) imported and managed by some members of the empire itself. At least, so the marl road has it; and the marl road is fairly reliable on things like that. There was a time when the marl road actually carried the names of the recruiters who visited Central America in search of pretty young “helpers”, and who, uh, ran the necessary road-tests, so to speak.
An unwanted side-effect of the lawmakers' preference for unaccompanied migrants has always been the prevalence of marriages of convenience. Of course mixed-marriages don’t always last, but once a child is born of a union it is rare for the foreign spouse to be deported. Some mixed marriages are bigamous; not every foreign spouse declares the existence of a family back home. Some expats actually dump their expat spouses for Caymanian ones, and some of the second-marriages are suspiciously brief. Again, a child of the union is insurance against early deportation in the event of an early divorce.
All the temporary marriages, the bigamies, the children of convenience, the trafficking of hotties- all are directly attributable to the merchant-class of the '60s and '70s who set out to establish a semi-slavery society, reviving the indentured servitude that replaced slavery in Britain’s Caribbean colonies in the years after the Great Emancipation.
The system serves a contemptible purpose, and it is impossible not to despise all those who implement it. What a pity that we can’t find true-born Caymanians with the compassion to change the situation.
When our economic recovery begins, our population will slowly swell again. Some of the incomers will be former residents, and some will be new to Cayman. It will be interesting to see whether our Immigration authorities will change the Immigration Law before then, or keep it unchanged in order to boost the numbers to artificially high levels again.
There is no commercial need to replace all the workers who left. The migrants we have could comfortably take up the slack- if they were allowed to work more than one job at a time, and to switch employers. For practical reasons, that would mean issuing Work Permits in their own names, and that's not likely to happen. After all, both the private and public sectors have built their respective infrastructures in expectation of ever higher numbers of residents; they desperately want a return to the old growth rates.
I can’t see the Immigration people doing anything that would limit the number of expat residents. The Law has always accommodated (within the bounds of propriety- just!) the desire of ethnic Caymanians to own slaves. That’s why Work Permits are issued to employers, not to employees. Restricting migrants to one job each maximises the local population. You do the math.
The Immigration Law and all its amendments (and the Caymanian Protection Law before it) were written by and for the local merchant-class. For them it was win-win: slavery as near as dammit, and the maximum number of bodies to sell things to. Indentured foreign labour keeps wages low for low-skilled Caymanian workers too. That's win-win-win.
For the Immigration authorities, more Permits means more paper-shuffling, which in turn means a bigger bureaucratic empire. Furthermore, Immigration rules forbid unskilled migrants from bringing their domestic partners to Cayman. That's a fourth win, since male migrants constitute a ready market for the prostitutes (amateur and professional) imported and managed by some members of the empire itself. At least, so the marl road has it; and the marl road is fairly reliable on things like that. There was a time when the marl road actually carried the names of the recruiters who visited Central America in search of pretty young “helpers”, and who, uh, ran the necessary road-tests, so to speak.
An unwanted side-effect of the lawmakers' preference for unaccompanied migrants has always been the prevalence of marriages of convenience. Of course mixed-marriages don’t always last, but once a child is born of a union it is rare for the foreign spouse to be deported. Some mixed marriages are bigamous; not every foreign spouse declares the existence of a family back home. Some expats actually dump their expat spouses for Caymanian ones, and some of the second-marriages are suspiciously brief. Again, a child of the union is insurance against early deportation in the event of an early divorce.
All the temporary marriages, the bigamies, the children of convenience, the trafficking of hotties- all are directly attributable to the merchant-class of the '60s and '70s who set out to establish a semi-slavery society, reviving the indentured servitude that replaced slavery in Britain’s Caribbean colonies in the years after the Great Emancipation.
The system serves a contemptible purpose, and it is impossible not to despise all those who implement it. What a pity that we can’t find true-born Caymanians with the compassion to change the situation.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Bamboozled (apartheid in Cayman?)
Every year or two, our local politicians and their cronies go through the solemn ritual of examining Cayman’s foreign-labour rules and changing them. Oh dear, employers still don’t want to hire ethnic Caymanians because they’re not up to standard or because they are impossible to fire. Huh. Who do these employers think they are? We are the masters now. We will tell them who to hire and who not. And if our latest fiddling doesn’t work, we’ll come back in another year or two and do some more.
This quaint ritual has been going on since the first Caymanian Protection Law in 1973, nearly forty years ago. Hasn’t anybody in authority had the brains to wonder why it’s taking so long to get it right? Yes, yes, we can all point to true-born Caymanians who have made the grade. But some of them would have made it on their own, if the protection hadn’t been there. The trouble is, we don’t know which ones. It takes new immigrants a while to figure out whose promotions and appointments were deserved, and whose were made to appease the Work Permit authorities.
In any case, it’s reasonable to wonder: how come, after forty years of effort, tokenism and protection is still needed for ethnic Caymanians to succeed in business? What’s gone wrong? Does the failure reflect incompetence of a very high order, or was it all just a sham from the beginning?
Maybe it was a sham, you know. As I’ve written in this week’s CaymanNetNews, the United Nation’s CERD Convention (the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) requires all its member-states to ensure “the adequate development and protection” of all members of identifiable ethnic groups. The 15,000 or so true-born Caymanians are one such group; Britain has supposedly been developing and protecting them for the past forty years. The fact that so many of them are still not able to compete on equal terms with newcomers to the Islands is bizarre. Forty years? Fifteen thousand people? Are you kidding me? Nobody could be that incompetent.
But wait... The CERD Convention goes on to forbid UN member-states from continuing special privileges for any protected ethnic group beyond the moment when adequate development has been achieved. That would be apartheid, if you think about it; and many people at the UN do think about it sooner or later. So a cynic might suggest that Britain’s failure to achieve “adequate development” for Caymanians was a deliberate ploy to delay independence- not incompetence at all. Hmmm.
I have never believed the theory that Britain wants to get rid of Cayman. To me, it wouldn’t make sense for the FCO and its agencies to give up control of such a strategically valuable site in the Caribbean region. That would not be in Britain’s national interests.
Keeping the locals under-educated and under-developed would be a clever way to delay the evil day more or less indefinitely. I suspect that’s exactly what has happened. You’d think the UN might have twigged, sometime during that forty years; but apparently not. The native Caymanians themselves didn’t twig. If they had done, they might have demanded a decent education system instead of demeaning themselves by accepting the patronising protection that locks so many of them below the glass ceilings.
Over the years, the Caymanians have watched billions of dollars being wasted on state bureaucracies (Immigration, Education, Labour Office) that could and should have educated the people to the point where they could compete on equal terms with middle-class expats. Sorry, boys and girls: it looks very much as though you’ve been bamboozled all these years. Wakey, wakey!
This quaint ritual has been going on since the first Caymanian Protection Law in 1973, nearly forty years ago. Hasn’t anybody in authority had the brains to wonder why it’s taking so long to get it right? Yes, yes, we can all point to true-born Caymanians who have made the grade. But some of them would have made it on their own, if the protection hadn’t been there. The trouble is, we don’t know which ones. It takes new immigrants a while to figure out whose promotions and appointments were deserved, and whose were made to appease the Work Permit authorities.
In any case, it’s reasonable to wonder: how come, after forty years of effort, tokenism and protection is still needed for ethnic Caymanians to succeed in business? What’s gone wrong? Does the failure reflect incompetence of a very high order, or was it all just a sham from the beginning?
Maybe it was a sham, you know. As I’ve written in this week’s CaymanNetNews, the United Nation’s CERD Convention (the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) requires all its member-states to ensure “the adequate development and protection” of all members of identifiable ethnic groups. The 15,000 or so true-born Caymanians are one such group; Britain has supposedly been developing and protecting them for the past forty years. The fact that so many of them are still not able to compete on equal terms with newcomers to the Islands is bizarre. Forty years? Fifteen thousand people? Are you kidding me? Nobody could be that incompetent.
But wait... The CERD Convention goes on to forbid UN member-states from continuing special privileges for any protected ethnic group beyond the moment when adequate development has been achieved. That would be apartheid, if you think about it; and many people at the UN do think about it sooner or later. So a cynic might suggest that Britain’s failure to achieve “adequate development” for Caymanians was a deliberate ploy to delay independence- not incompetence at all. Hmmm.
I have never believed the theory that Britain wants to get rid of Cayman. To me, it wouldn’t make sense for the FCO and its agencies to give up control of such a strategically valuable site in the Caribbean region. That would not be in Britain’s national interests.
Keeping the locals under-educated and under-developed would be a clever way to delay the evil day more or less indefinitely. I suspect that’s exactly what has happened. You’d think the UN might have twigged, sometime during that forty years; but apparently not. The native Caymanians themselves didn’t twig. If they had done, they might have demanded a decent education system instead of demeaning themselves by accepting the patronising protection that locks so many of them below the glass ceilings.
Over the years, the Caymanians have watched billions of dollars being wasted on state bureaucracies (Immigration, Education, Labour Office) that could and should have educated the people to the point where they could compete on equal terms with middle-class expats. Sorry, boys and girls: it looks very much as though you’ve been bamboozled all these years. Wakey, wakey!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Tribal Jostling (exploiting migrants in Cayman)
My column in this weekend’s Cayman Net News explains the 2009 election results in terms of how and why the PPM got tossed out of office so unexpectedly. The topic was prompted by the sudden burst of rhetoric from the PPM after nearly two years of sulking.
I quoted the standard axiom of politics, that Oppositions don’t win general elections so much as Governments lose them. It’s way too early to get caught up in the excitement (?) of the 2013 campaign, but can we discern any of the issues yet? Well, no, because there never are any issues in Cayman elections. Our two Parties don’t differ in their policies, only in the personalities of their spokesmen and representatives. Both Parties subscribe to semi-Marxist economic ideas and to a semi-fascist approach towards bond-service for migrant workers.
Both Parties rank Caymanian bloodline as a superior qualification for job-seekers at all levels, over ability or aptitude. Some occupations are actually reserved for ethnic Caymanians, again regardless of ability or aptitude. Most prominent among these are the offices of MLA and managers of the indentured-service system. No immigrants need apply for those or dozens of other reserved jobs. They are not reckoned to be loyal enough to the interests of the bloodline Caymanian community.
This set-up wasn’t designed (by the British FCO) to last forever- but, yet, it has lasted for more than a full generation after the influx of immigrants that began in the mid-1970s. The FCO’s embarrassment threshold has been raised quite a lot in recent decades. Its clerks are no longer fazed by faint intimations of slavery- namely, in the exploitation of low-paid indentured-servants recruited from thousands of miles away. Compared with what goes on in the British-controlled enclaves in the Middle East, the exploitation is small beer.
Yet, to innocents whose souls are not dead to humanitarian feelings, the exploitation is offensive. Of course, the offence is leagues away from slavery; it is semi-slavery only in its worst manifestations. However, it does sit uncomfortably with the FCO’s championing of international standards of human rights. Ah well... colonial masters are allowed to be hypocritical; that’s one of the privileges.
Regrettably, neither of our political Parties wants a free labour market in Cayman. Party doctrine requires the state control of labour, and that’s what we get. During boom times, an economy can afford to pay for the inefficiencies of bond-service; but in less prosperous times, not so much. None of our MLAs or their cronies have any real concept of those inefficiencies or of how to remove them. Some of our immigrants do. The office of MLA needs to be opened up to immigrants, if our Islands are to progress beyond the present silly tribal jostling.
It doesn’t seem to bother our MLAs that they are figures of amusement to so many neutral observers. There is no dignity in the narcissism of village Napoleons, after all. It isn’t conducive to good governance to exalt vanity above talent. The FCO’s tolerance can only be explained by reference to the secret national interests of the mother country. You would think those interests could survive the addition of two or three foreign immigrants to the list of candidates for the 2013 general election; but maybe not.
They would receive the standard death threats, of course; but foreign-born candidates in our beauty pageants - Miss This or Miss That - often receive similar threats, and nothing much ever comes of those.
I quoted the standard axiom of politics, that Oppositions don’t win general elections so much as Governments lose them. It’s way too early to get caught up in the excitement (?) of the 2013 campaign, but can we discern any of the issues yet? Well, no, because there never are any issues in Cayman elections. Our two Parties don’t differ in their policies, only in the personalities of their spokesmen and representatives. Both Parties subscribe to semi-Marxist economic ideas and to a semi-fascist approach towards bond-service for migrant workers.
Both Parties rank Caymanian bloodline as a superior qualification for job-seekers at all levels, over ability or aptitude. Some occupations are actually reserved for ethnic Caymanians, again regardless of ability or aptitude. Most prominent among these are the offices of MLA and managers of the indentured-service system. No immigrants need apply for those or dozens of other reserved jobs. They are not reckoned to be loyal enough to the interests of the bloodline Caymanian community.
This set-up wasn’t designed (by the British FCO) to last forever- but, yet, it has lasted for more than a full generation after the influx of immigrants that began in the mid-1970s. The FCO’s embarrassment threshold has been raised quite a lot in recent decades. Its clerks are no longer fazed by faint intimations of slavery- namely, in the exploitation of low-paid indentured-servants recruited from thousands of miles away. Compared with what goes on in the British-controlled enclaves in the Middle East, the exploitation is small beer.
Yet, to innocents whose souls are not dead to humanitarian feelings, the exploitation is offensive. Of course, the offence is leagues away from slavery; it is semi-slavery only in its worst manifestations. However, it does sit uncomfortably with the FCO’s championing of international standards of human rights. Ah well... colonial masters are allowed to be hypocritical; that’s one of the privileges.
Regrettably, neither of our political Parties wants a free labour market in Cayman. Party doctrine requires the state control of labour, and that’s what we get. During boom times, an economy can afford to pay for the inefficiencies of bond-service; but in less prosperous times, not so much. None of our MLAs or their cronies have any real concept of those inefficiencies or of how to remove them. Some of our immigrants do. The office of MLA needs to be opened up to immigrants, if our Islands are to progress beyond the present silly tribal jostling.
It doesn’t seem to bother our MLAs that they are figures of amusement to so many neutral observers. There is no dignity in the narcissism of village Napoleons, after all. It isn’t conducive to good governance to exalt vanity above talent. The FCO’s tolerance can only be explained by reference to the secret national interests of the mother country. You would think those interests could survive the addition of two or three foreign immigrants to the list of candidates for the 2013 general election; but maybe not.
They would receive the standard death threats, of course; but foreign-born candidates in our beauty pageants - Miss This or Miss That - often receive similar threats, and nothing much ever comes of those.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Intolerable Criminality (violence in Cayman)
The three muggings of tourists reported last week stirred one or two of our MLAs into action, or at least the rhetoric of action. The Police were embarrassed, because it is their responsibility to protect our community from street criminals. Private tourism-service providers were disappointed, as were merchants and householders.
“Something must be done!” We all cried. Well, something always needs to be done, doesn’t it? Recommendations are flying left, right and centre. TV cameras at street corners, fingerprintings and ID cards for migrants working in the private sector, biometric IDs for overseas visitors, assassination squads, armed vigilantes, helicopters, more policemen, tougher policemen... We have a grandly named National Security Council to make recommendations for the long-term. Better schooling, better parenting, better policing, bigger prisons, tougher prisons... Anybody could write the NSC’s report between the first and second coffee of the day.
The NSC is a bit of a joke, so far – just politicians and their chums. Nobody outside the magic circle knows what they do when they meet, if they do meet. Will its members have the guts to recommend decriminalising the local consumption of recreational drugs? That will show how useful (or useless) the NCS is. Will they have the wit to devise a detailed strategy to improve the quality of parenting, especially among native Caymanians? The prevalence of home-grown young thugs is a predictable consequence of bad parenting.
In a rich and tiny place like ours there has never been a shortage of money to pay for parental training. Even in this current economic decline, government has more money than it knows what to do with; the waste of Public Revenue is as irresponsible as ever. The problem has always been that politicians and voters have preferred government’s revenues to be spent on subsidies and bureaucratic boondoggles like Cayman Airways, the Turtle Farm and the Department of Tourism. In effect, those ventures have been judged to be more important than pre-empting the growth of those home-grown thugs. Say wha’? How could any sane person make such a cockamamie choice?
Yet even now, in light of all the muggings and burglaries, the choice would probably be confirmed. If a referendum were held on whether to re-allocate the money spent on those subsidies and boondoggles, I doubt the vote would favour re-allocation. McKeeva deplores the incidence of street-crime as “intolerable”, but does he really mean it? I don’t think he does. I think it’s political rhetoric. He is a canny politician, and he is confident that his constituents would never vote to allow Cayman Airways and the other boondoggles to go to the wall. They would rather tolerate the crimes.
Some people do think local crime-levels are intolerable – both violent crimes and non-violent crimes such as corruption and theft. But most of us are immigrants who would happily throw CAL & the DOT under the bus, in exchange for crime-prevention measures. We have a different order of priorities. We also tend not to give non-violent crimes the free pass that native Caymanians give them. To us, corruption is equally unacceptable. We know that the culture of bloodline entitlement is a perversion, and that corruption in small things leads inevitably to corruption in large things.
Let’s face it: criminal violence is a tough way to make a living. Most muggers would far rather steal money from the comfort of air-conditioned offices, if they could choose. Who wouldn’t? Mugging and burglary are risky activities; you can get killed doing that. Corrupt individuals are excellent role models for street criminals. It doesn’t make sense for us to distinguish between the two.
“Something must be done!” We all cried. Well, something always needs to be done, doesn’t it? Recommendations are flying left, right and centre. TV cameras at street corners, fingerprintings and ID cards for migrants working in the private sector, biometric IDs for overseas visitors, assassination squads, armed vigilantes, helicopters, more policemen, tougher policemen... We have a grandly named National Security Council to make recommendations for the long-term. Better schooling, better parenting, better policing, bigger prisons, tougher prisons... Anybody could write the NSC’s report between the first and second coffee of the day.
The NSC is a bit of a joke, so far – just politicians and their chums. Nobody outside the magic circle knows what they do when they meet, if they do meet. Will its members have the guts to recommend decriminalising the local consumption of recreational drugs? That will show how useful (or useless) the NCS is. Will they have the wit to devise a detailed strategy to improve the quality of parenting, especially among native Caymanians? The prevalence of home-grown young thugs is a predictable consequence of bad parenting.
In a rich and tiny place like ours there has never been a shortage of money to pay for parental training. Even in this current economic decline, government has more money than it knows what to do with; the waste of Public Revenue is as irresponsible as ever. The problem has always been that politicians and voters have preferred government’s revenues to be spent on subsidies and bureaucratic boondoggles like Cayman Airways, the Turtle Farm and the Department of Tourism. In effect, those ventures have been judged to be more important than pre-empting the growth of those home-grown thugs. Say wha’? How could any sane person make such a cockamamie choice?
Yet even now, in light of all the muggings and burglaries, the choice would probably be confirmed. If a referendum were held on whether to re-allocate the money spent on those subsidies and boondoggles, I doubt the vote would favour re-allocation. McKeeva deplores the incidence of street-crime as “intolerable”, but does he really mean it? I don’t think he does. I think it’s political rhetoric. He is a canny politician, and he is confident that his constituents would never vote to allow Cayman Airways and the other boondoggles to go to the wall. They would rather tolerate the crimes.
Some people do think local crime-levels are intolerable – both violent crimes and non-violent crimes such as corruption and theft. But most of us are immigrants who would happily throw CAL & the DOT under the bus, in exchange for crime-prevention measures. We have a different order of priorities. We also tend not to give non-violent crimes the free pass that native Caymanians give them. To us, corruption is equally unacceptable. We know that the culture of bloodline entitlement is a perversion, and that corruption in small things leads inevitably to corruption in large things.
Let’s face it: criminal violence is a tough way to make a living. Most muggers would far rather steal money from the comfort of air-conditioned offices, if they could choose. Who wouldn’t? Mugging and burglary are risky activities; you can get killed doing that. Corrupt individuals are excellent role models for street criminals. It doesn’t make sense for us to distinguish between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)