To the Editor
The Anguillian
Dear Editor:
It is difficult to decide whose performance over this Christmas season was worse: the Chief Minister Hubert Hughes’ Christmas message – in which he attacked and blamed others for the failures of his government – even more vile in tone than last year’s message;
OR
the performance of the Speaker, Barbara Webster-Bourne, who sided in an allegedly very partisan way with the AUM’s favorite Minister, Jerome Roberts, on a petty point of order he had raised to interrupt a presentation Edison Baird was making in the House of Assembly regarding the Interim Stabilization Levy.
First, Mr. Hughes’ typical self-serving message, which made passing reference to the spirit of Christmas, supposedly a time of good will toward man, went on to castigate former Governor Alistair Harrison and the UK in general, blaming them for all of the problems Anguilla has been having.
Interestingly, he shifted from those accusations to recite how Jerome Roberts, immediately after the election in 2010, strengthened the AUM when he crossed the floor. In his message, Hughes also described how he had to dismiss Edison Baird from the AUM, taking away his position as a Minister and, as a reward for switching parties, he gave that ministry (Minister of Home Affairs and Education) to Roberts, for which he had no experience or educational background. In his message, he called Baird a “stooge” for supposedly siding with the Governor on some matters. But applying insulting names to those who he believes have opposed him on an issue is just a normal part of his technique.
Now we turn to Roberts’ allegedly coordinated performance with the Speaker in the House of Assembly on 12th December 2013. (The transcript of what was said was reported in The Anguillian last week.) First, Roberts raised a point of order in the middle of a serious presentation by Baird about the Interim Stabilization Levy – a point of order that had nothing to do with the subject then under discussion.
The Speaker, who has anointed herself as being strictly impartial, still recognized Roberts and let him raise what was obviously a side issue, namely Roberts belief that Baird had incorrectly said at a political meeting that Roberts, when earlier asked who owned a certain pond, had replied that he did not know. Roberts wanted Baird to withdraw his statement. How this petty and wholly inconsequential issue was allowed to become part of the serious debate on taxes is a mystery only the Speaker can answer.
She supported Roberts’ request and told Baird he had to withdraw the statement he had made before he could proceed. Baird replied that he could not withdraw what he had said and that he had a video of Roberts which supported what he had said. As he attempted to resume his discussion on taxes, Roberts interrupted him again, reiterating his demand that Baird withdraw his earlier statement.
This time, the Speaker instructed Baird to withdraw what he had earlier said about what Roberts’ knowledge about a pond or she would not allow him to continue. (How would she know the truth of any of this?) Baird said he could not do that, and the Speaker then told him to sit down. Readers may recall that she had made the order to “sit down” against another member of the Opposition on an earlier occasion, and when that member declined to sit, she ordered him removed from the Assembly. Baird did sit down but thus could not finish his presentation. All this extraneous discussion over who knew what about a pond. Yet the Speaker still claims she treats all members impartially.
Bearing in mind the alleged coordinated interplay between Roberts and the Speaker, one might wonder if they had a discussion about this ahead of time.
“Perceptive Citizen”
