By: The Turks and Caicos Sun News
Local businessman Albray Butterfield Jnr. Is strongly criticising Britain’s involvement in an economic bailout package for Portugal that has been approved by European Union (EU) finance ministers and which includes a £4.2 billion contribution from Britain.
“As a proud Turks and Caicos Islander, I find this latest revelation very offensive, prejudice and disrespectful,” Albray said in a short commentary to the SUN.
“The issue that I have found so offensive... is the outright blatant hypocrisy and prejudice displayed internationally by the UK Government towards the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI),” Albray said. “Since taking control of the TCI by the UK Government in 2009 (which at the time, was a long overdue and necessary intervention that I undeniably supported), the UK Government has allowed the citizens and the economy of the TCI to further suffer and fall deeper into bankruptcy by announcing to the world within days of taking over that: "...the UK Government will not be taking the British Tax Payers Money to bail-out the Turks and Caicos Islands..." -Mr. Colin Roberts of the UK FCO. (Which I might add is a UK Territory and a situation in which the OVERSEER’S /UK Government is part responsible for the social and economic state-of-affair the TCI found itself in 2009).”
Butterfield continued: “Fast forwarding to 2011, to now have exposed to the world that while the UK Government was saying NO to bailing-out the TCI (their own territory) for a measly and up to $400 million (if you include the prevention of TCI Bank Limited from collapsing, and a few much need infrastructure projects such as the construction of new public school buildings, etc), the UK Government was simultaneously negotiating with the IMF a £67.5 billion bail-out package for the country of Portugal (a non UK territory) of which the UK is contributing £4.2 billion towards Portugal's bail-out.”
The £67.75 billion package, subject to strict austerity measures agreed by Lisbon, is the second to commit the UK to financial guarantees which will only be called upon if Portugal defaults on the loans it raises thanks to the EU-IMF combined bailout deal.
Showing posts with label britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label britain. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tourism in Turks and Caicos under direct UK rule - the consequences
By: Chis Burke, originally posted on August 2 (written before the take over. It's prophetic)
As the Islands of Turks and Caicos settles amidst the welcomed departure of Michael Misick Turks and Caicos' former Premier, worries about Crown land deals threaten tourism on the Islands.
If Britain decides to take over the self-governed territory of Turks and Caicos Islands, which has been self-governed since 1973, they better be prepared to keep the status quo. Changing the constitution to take revenues from tourism would be akin to slavery in the sense that revenues would be taken directly from the islands' people who work hard for their economy.
Great Britain must step lightly if they plan to take self-government from Turks and Caicos. As it is, this step would not be favourable to the world or the people of Turks and Caicos. For one, the world has denounced colonialism. For second, the new government of 5 months is doing quite well, which takes away legitimacy for this draconian move by Great Britain.
Crown land is real estate or property owned by the government of Turks and Caicos Island. The government is the largest Crown landholder on the Islands. This makes Crown lands the government’s most valuable asset and this asset value has risen dramatically over recent years. For Britain to suddenly usurp that progress and capitalize on the revenues, will not sit well with the world.
Commercial land development is one of the main purposes of Crown land use and sale. The Crown Land Policy is formulated to "attract investments judged best for the interest of TCI," as prescribed by The Turks and Caicos Islands, Crown Land Policy.
While certain developers have purchased Crown land and are in various stages of developing the real property, Britain's rule could hold these developers hostage within their own multi-million dollar projects, years of planning and promises of employment for many locals.
At the core of the movement to welcome British rule is a small but outspoken group of "Belongers," residents who were born in Turks and Caicos Islands.
According to the Crown Land Policy, a Belonger who is at least 21 years old can qualify for a discount on Crown Land.
Under the former Misick cabinet, several land developers were sold Crown land as encouraged under the Crown Land Policy and did so under the color of government authority.
However, this outspoken group of Belongers have been lobbying British Parliament dating back years, protesting their right to own Crown Land and expressing their dissatisfaction of developers' owning Crown land property. However, their efforts are misguided.
Under the Open Tendering provision of the Crown Land Policy, the government, "will identify potential development site(s) on every island, consistent with its development strategy. These sites will be actively marketed to prospective developers ..."
At the very soul of Turks and Caicos economy is tourism, certainly development is a requisite part of that in every way.
Now that Misick is no longer Premier of Turks and Caicos, some Belongers are reported to be exploiting this political situation by encouraging British rule, presumably to make legal standing for the return of Crown land and to attempt to thwart sales of Crown land to land developers.
However, this Crown Land Policy is not likely to change under British rule and the Belongers are unwittingly putting the future of Turks and Caicos in limbo for a period of at least 2 years should Britain take over. The prospect of Britain's interference would most certainly cause a stalemate in development, hence tourism revenues for the people of Turks and Caicos, which would be an unfortunate short-sighted plan for Crown land grabbers.
Britain better think long hard before disrupting any development or tourism in Turks and Caicos. Resort development is the future of the Turks and Caicos economy for many generations to come.
As the Islands of Turks and Caicos settles amidst the welcomed departure of Michael Misick Turks and Caicos' former Premier, worries about Crown land deals threaten tourism on the Islands.
If Britain decides to take over the self-governed territory of Turks and Caicos Islands, which has been self-governed since 1973, they better be prepared to keep the status quo. Changing the constitution to take revenues from tourism would be akin to slavery in the sense that revenues would be taken directly from the islands' people who work hard for their economy.
Great Britain must step lightly if they plan to take self-government from Turks and Caicos. As it is, this step would not be favourable to the world or the people of Turks and Caicos. For one, the world has denounced colonialism. For second, the new government of 5 months is doing quite well, which takes away legitimacy for this draconian move by Great Britain.
Crown land is real estate or property owned by the government of Turks and Caicos Island. The government is the largest Crown landholder on the Islands. This makes Crown lands the government’s most valuable asset and this asset value has risen dramatically over recent years. For Britain to suddenly usurp that progress and capitalize on the revenues, will not sit well with the world.
Commercial land development is one of the main purposes of Crown land use and sale. The Crown Land Policy is formulated to "attract investments judged best for the interest of TCI," as prescribed by The Turks and Caicos Islands, Crown Land Policy.
While certain developers have purchased Crown land and are in various stages of developing the real property, Britain's rule could hold these developers hostage within their own multi-million dollar projects, years of planning and promises of employment for many locals.
At the core of the movement to welcome British rule is a small but outspoken group of "Belongers," residents who were born in Turks and Caicos Islands.
According to the Crown Land Policy, a Belonger who is at least 21 years old can qualify for a discount on Crown Land.
Under the former Misick cabinet, several land developers were sold Crown land as encouraged under the Crown Land Policy and did so under the color of government authority.
However, this outspoken group of Belongers have been lobbying British Parliament dating back years, protesting their right to own Crown Land and expressing their dissatisfaction of developers' owning Crown land property. However, their efforts are misguided.
Under the Open Tendering provision of the Crown Land Policy, the government, "will identify potential development site(s) on every island, consistent with its development strategy. These sites will be actively marketed to prospective developers ..."
At the very soul of Turks and Caicos economy is tourism, certainly development is a requisite part of that in every way.
Now that Misick is no longer Premier of Turks and Caicos, some Belongers are reported to be exploiting this political situation by encouraging British rule, presumably to make legal standing for the return of Crown land and to attempt to thwart sales of Crown land to land developers.
However, this Crown Land Policy is not likely to change under British rule and the Belongers are unwittingly putting the future of Turks and Caicos in limbo for a period of at least 2 years should Britain take over. The prospect of Britain's interference would most certainly cause a stalemate in development, hence tourism revenues for the people of Turks and Caicos, which would be an unfortunate short-sighted plan for Crown land grabbers.
Britain better think long hard before disrupting any development or tourism in Turks and Caicos. Resort development is the future of the Turks and Caicos economy for many generations to come.
Newly ousted Premier of Turks and Caicos: "our country is being invaded and re-colonized by the United Kingdom"
The Current Premier, Hon. Galmo Williams released the following statement to the press in anticipation of the coming suspension of the constitution.
“My fellow Turks and Caicos Islanders, my days in office as your Premier and as the Representative in Parliament for all the people of Long Bay Hills are almost over, as I have every reason to believe that the much talked about coup that the Government of the United Kingdom has been planning for the Turks and Caicos Islands is about to be executed, but I assure you that my days of service to my country, will never be over.
In my life time I will never hold a position higher or take an oath more sacred than that of your Premier, but know too, that there is no title I will wear more proudly than that of citizen of these our Turks and Caicos Islands.
Let me at the outset publicly thank both my Cabinet and my Parliamentary colleagues (on both sides of the isle) and the hundreds of civil servants and political appointees and others with whom I have served over the last several years and in particular since I became your Premier last March, for the dedication and competence they have brought to the service of our country. But let me however express my deepest gratitude and thanks to the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands (particularly the people of Long Bay Hills), because it was you who gave me this great opportunity to serve.
During my time as Premier we have faced great challenges together, and we know that there will be greater challenges in our future, but I am convinced now more than ever that the Turks and Caicos Islands will successfully meet whatever challenge and uncertainty the future might bring, for as the grand children of slaves, left abandoned on these barren shores centuries ago, we, together with those who came later on, have turned these Islands into something that we can all be proud of, and indeed something that our once delinquent masters, have stated that they will do anything (“except a return to slavery”) to repossess.
Our government has brought more development to Turks and Caicos over the last six years than at any other time in our history. We have educated more of our people at university level than at any other time in our history. We have made more provisions for the health care and welfare of our people than at any other time in our history, and we have created for our country one of the most respected brands in the tourism industry the world over.
Despite these many accomplishments, however, this last year has been a challenging one for our country, one filled with set backs, but rather than cause me to loose heart, these setbacks over the last year has made me more certain than ever of the inner strength, the ingenuity and decency of our people, for, in this last year, we have watched our economy take tremendous body blows as the economy of the United
States to which it is linked, and indeed the world economy was brought to its knees. As we all know, these economic challenges could not have come at a worst time for of country, coming as it did at a time when our country was hit by two back to back devastating hurricanes, Hanna and Ike, in less than one week and coupled with this, we have also had to simultaneously withstand the negative impacts of a commission of inquiry.
And now, today, our country is being invaded and re-colonized by the United Kingdom, dismantling a duly elected government and legislature and replacing it with a one man dictatorship, akin to that of the old Red China, all in the name of good governance.
As the legitimately and duly elected leader of this country, I strongly object to the recommendations outlined in the Report of the Commission that the Governor now seeks to bring into force. I do not support permitting non-Belongers the right to vote, and I wish to go on record as stating that I am opposed to the recommendation of trial by judge alone rather then a trial by a jury of your peers. My government and I also object to the removal of the House of Assembly, thereby leaving the people of these Islands voiceless and without representation.
read entire press release:
http://www.tcfreepress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=13%3Afeatured-news&id=899%3Apremier-reacts-to-possible-suspension&Itemid=69
“My fellow Turks and Caicos Islanders, my days in office as your Premier and as the Representative in Parliament for all the people of Long Bay Hills are almost over, as I have every reason to believe that the much talked about coup that the Government of the United Kingdom has been planning for the Turks and Caicos Islands is about to be executed, but I assure you that my days of service to my country, will never be over.
In my life time I will never hold a position higher or take an oath more sacred than that of your Premier, but know too, that there is no title I will wear more proudly than that of citizen of these our Turks and Caicos Islands.
Let me at the outset publicly thank both my Cabinet and my Parliamentary colleagues (on both sides of the isle) and the hundreds of civil servants and political appointees and others with whom I have served over the last several years and in particular since I became your Premier last March, for the dedication and competence they have brought to the service of our country. But let me however express my deepest gratitude and thanks to the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands (particularly the people of Long Bay Hills), because it was you who gave me this great opportunity to serve.
During my time as Premier we have faced great challenges together, and we know that there will be greater challenges in our future, but I am convinced now more than ever that the Turks and Caicos Islands will successfully meet whatever challenge and uncertainty the future might bring, for as the grand children of slaves, left abandoned on these barren shores centuries ago, we, together with those who came later on, have turned these Islands into something that we can all be proud of, and indeed something that our once delinquent masters, have stated that they will do anything (“except a return to slavery”) to repossess.
Our government has brought more development to Turks and Caicos over the last six years than at any other time in our history. We have educated more of our people at university level than at any other time in our history. We have made more provisions for the health care and welfare of our people than at any other time in our history, and we have created for our country one of the most respected brands in the tourism industry the world over.
Despite these many accomplishments, however, this last year has been a challenging one for our country, one filled with set backs, but rather than cause me to loose heart, these setbacks over the last year has made me more certain than ever of the inner strength, the ingenuity and decency of our people, for, in this last year, we have watched our economy take tremendous body blows as the economy of the United
States to which it is linked, and indeed the world economy was brought to its knees. As we all know, these economic challenges could not have come at a worst time for of country, coming as it did at a time when our country was hit by two back to back devastating hurricanes, Hanna and Ike, in less than one week and coupled with this, we have also had to simultaneously withstand the negative impacts of a commission of inquiry.
And now, today, our country is being invaded and re-colonized by the United Kingdom, dismantling a duly elected government and legislature and replacing it with a one man dictatorship, akin to that of the old Red China, all in the name of good governance.
As the legitimately and duly elected leader of this country, I strongly object to the recommendations outlined in the Report of the Commission that the Governor now seeks to bring into force. I do not support permitting non-Belongers the right to vote, and I wish to go on record as stating that I am opposed to the recommendation of trial by judge alone rather then a trial by a jury of your peers. My government and I also object to the removal of the House of Assembly, thereby leaving the people of these Islands voiceless and without representation.
read entire press release:
http://www.tcfreepress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=13%3Afeatured-news&id=899%3Apremier-reacts-to-possible-suspension&Itemid=69
Media transparency and integrity. Is news reporting based on objectivity or innuendo?
By: Candace Williams original post: August 11, 2009
Reporting by opinion and innuendo. This appears to be the order of the news business these days. We've come a long way from the time of real news reporting, as I think back fondly of the Bob Woodward era. It seems that the present-day media has strayed from reporting facts, pandering to ratings and news-breaking deadlines. Where is the justice in using the news media to exploit one's own ambition or agenda?
Whether or not we want to admit it as readers of news, one has to consider the thought or lack of thought behind the words of the person who wrote it and his/her supporting news agencies' views as well.
However, we also have to consider human nature. Different people at the exact same event can yield two entirely contradictory opinions of the facts. That is just one way that the news can be inaccurate. Personal experiences in our lives and our individual perspectives will create an innate bias. For example, if two people were shot in broad daylight by a gunman, then it is a fact that there were two and not three or four victims, yet the details of the occurrence might vary from one witness to the next, though they each saw the same exact incident.
It seems that even direct quotes cannot be assumed as “fact” if a writer uses the quote out of context or sets up the quote with a contradictory statement.
Accurate and responsible research is also a part of fair journalism. I recently came across an article that, upon reading, I noticed had a fact wrong right off the bat. This is what inspired me to write this article. I decided to research deeper into this article to investigate how news journalism can be flawed. The article that I refer to is indeed a main stream news article. The shame is that after I did my research examining the article, I found it to be flawed in so many ways that I couldn't help but ask if this was pure laziness or if the writer was supporting an agenda.
I took the article line by line to test the accuracy of the statements. What I found was an alarming realization, I could either discount, disprove or impeach almost all of the statements in the article. In fact, if I were editing this article, I would have to strike 80% of it, just out of sheer integrity of journalistic professionalism.
The story caught my eye initially because it reported that the British had assumed control of the Turks and Caicos Islands. After I read it, I screeched to a stop and I asked myself, "really?" I started to look up world news and I couldn't find anything in the news about British rule in Turks and Caicos other than wide-spread rumors. But a take-over had not occurred and certainly not as of when the article was written, on August 7. I was dumbfounded as to why a reporter would report that as news. That is quite a big deal. I was offended and taken aback as a reader when I learned that this was false.
I decided to look at this article to see what else I could find. First: the headline, "Developer Michael Douglas bought property from named in TCI investigation." The first problem is that this article has generally nothing to do with Michael Douglas and it tricks readers by using a celebrity name gratuitously. Secondly, the headline makes no sense, he bought it from whom?
So I took it a step further and read the next couple of lines, "Dr. Cem Kinay has emerged as one of the central figures in the massive inquiry into political corruption in TCI [Turks and Caicos Islands]." I looked this up for accuracy. The corruption charges were against Turks and Caicos' former Premier, not Dr. Cem Kinay. Dr. Cem Kinay is a developer from Turkey who pioneered the all-inclusive vacation concept and brought his vision to Turks and Caicos. Research revealed that Cem Kinay is not "the central figure" of the investigation, he was dragged into the inquiry for his purchase of land under the former government, which he did under their laws. Furthermore, his land purchase was approved by the attorney general. I did not check into the land purchases of the other developers, but this was the case with Cem Kinay. By all accounts, it appears that Dr. Kinay has an impeccable track record as a developer, philanthropist and physician.
Then, as previously referenced, there's the claim that the corruption investigation, "led to the British assuming control of the Caribbean archipelago." This is patently false and flawed and there can be no way to explain this mistake or falsehood.
Then I read the next couple of sentences, "Mr. Douglas and his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones bought the first luxury property at Dr. Kinay's unfinished $62-million Dellis Cay development before the alarm was raised about the islands' finances." I checked on this as well, and in fact the development is doing well and Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones are still very much happy holders of real estate on the island of Dellis Cay in Turks and Caicos, lest the author of the article insinuate a post purchase "alarm" that led to a pull out of the deal. Furthermore, it is unclear how this reporter came up with "$62-million" as the cost of the project. My research revealed that his $62 million quote is very dated and far apart from the actual cost, $500 million US dollars.
Of course, I had to keep going. I read the next couple of lines, "former Turks and Caicos Premier Michael Misick, who is also implicated in the financial irregularities." Michael Misick "also implicated" and "irregularities"? This is inaccurate and misleading at best. Michael Misick was the direct target of the investigation. A few of Misick's minsters were also investigated with Misick as the core target for corruption and not merely implicated for financial irregularities.
Then I read the next few lines and came across, "Dellis Cay is a 560-acre private island that Dr. Kinay hoped to develop." This statement also failed the accuracy test. This was proved to be a false and misleading statement by the writer's use of the word "hoped". My investigation revealed that the project is almost fully developed and is happily on target to open in mid-2010. It is not readily clear to me why the word "hoped" was used when the development is proven to be almost complete.
As far as the article is concerned, in my opinion it constitutes the worst form of innuendo with its use of inflammatory labels in willful disregard of the truth. It's a shame when journalists attempt to trade on innuendo to pursue an agenda or to lazily satisfy a deadline.
Sorry, still more. Then I read that an inquiry reported, "high probability of systemic corruption or other serious dishonesty by key politicians and businessmen in TCI." I took notice of the "high probability" which in fact the inquiry report concluded affirmative corruption by Michael Misick and certain members of his cabinet, not probably but conclusively. Then the author of the article lumps-in businessmen on the island with the sentence about corruption, that was worth looking into. The "businessmen" who were purportedly questioned by the inquiry were all from Europe, not Turks and Caicos. They were there to invest in the islands and develop vacation properties. There were no laws that were broken by these businessmen, at least the one who I investigated, Dr. Kinay. Reportedly, all transactions were legally entered into under the authority of the government. Therefore, this reporting bordered offensive to me because it was an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim that crossed a line of persuading public opinion. Furthermore, my research revealed that a judge went out of his way to order the businessmens' names removed from the inquiry report, namely Dr. Kinay.
As far as news is concerned, it is made more complicated when writers allow personal feelings and emotions to influence their news writing. Due to many personal factors, we can’t help but to be influenced in our thinking. Our different upbringings, cultural backgrounds, religion, ethical and moral education, and perhaps traumatic events in our lives may influence our judgment of facts. All of these factors can also play a roll in how we perceive events. This reminds me of a matter that occurred this year in California, wherein a main stream reporter wrote about a legal case unaware that the legal action involved a second main stream reporter. The next week, the offended second reporter wrote a completely false report in an attempt for revenge against the first reporter. The second reporter was caught red-handed. This was embarrassing to all news agencies and calls credibility into question, which is at the very heart of integrity.
But in this case, how does one reconcile subjective interpretation of events with statements that are patently false?
According to thefreedictionary.com, to be “objective” means: “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” (or) “Based on observable phenomena; presented factually”.
To be “subjective” is: “Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world” (or) “Particular to a given person; personal”.
When we deal with objectivity, we also have to look at the concepts of truth, fairness, balance and accuracy. These fundamental principles in the world of reporting can never stand apart from each other. When we allow our work to be subjective, biased and inaccurate then we damage not only our own credibility, but can also mislead and influence the views of whole nations, promote hatred between groups and even fuel hostility or destruction of one person's future or reputation.
Once a reporter gathers facts, it is his/her duty to report the facts in context ensuring fairness and accuracy. It cannot stand apart from fairness. The test of fairness is giving all facts involved an equal opportunity to stand alone, as I demonstrated above. There was probably not one statement that could stand alone in the article as fact in context.
Adding to the recipe of destruction, is specific media agency policies, its political alignments and objectives. It's difficult to discern agendas in reporting. When I watch MSNBC or Fox News, I am still shocked by the lack of objectivity and freedom of facts. Innuendo of other's characters is disguised as reporting. It is probably a good thing that most news watchers are savvy enough to distinguish MSNBC and Fox from real news. But is the public at large aware of violations of integrity in reporting?
“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Russian Author.
Definitions: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Other Reference to Truth, Fairness, Accuracy and Balance:
http://www.midoceannews.bm/siftology.midoceannews/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d983cb30080006§ionId=60
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/the-truth-about-idea-who-is-deborah-blair-porter-1012167.html
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3648823-the-media-objective-fair-accurate-balanced-reporting-israelgaza-case-study
Reporting by opinion and innuendo. This appears to be the order of the news business these days. We've come a long way from the time of real news reporting, as I think back fondly of the Bob Woodward era. It seems that the present-day media has strayed from reporting facts, pandering to ratings and news-breaking deadlines. Where is the justice in using the news media to exploit one's own ambition or agenda?
Whether or not we want to admit it as readers of news, one has to consider the thought or lack of thought behind the words of the person who wrote it and his/her supporting news agencies' views as well.
However, we also have to consider human nature. Different people at the exact same event can yield two entirely contradictory opinions of the facts. That is just one way that the news can be inaccurate. Personal experiences in our lives and our individual perspectives will create an innate bias. For example, if two people were shot in broad daylight by a gunman, then it is a fact that there were two and not three or four victims, yet the details of the occurrence might vary from one witness to the next, though they each saw the same exact incident.
It seems that even direct quotes cannot be assumed as “fact” if a writer uses the quote out of context or sets up the quote with a contradictory statement.
Accurate and responsible research is also a part of fair journalism. I recently came across an article that, upon reading, I noticed had a fact wrong right off the bat. This is what inspired me to write this article. I decided to research deeper into this article to investigate how news journalism can be flawed. The article that I refer to is indeed a main stream news article. The shame is that after I did my research examining the article, I found it to be flawed in so many ways that I couldn't help but ask if this was pure laziness or if the writer was supporting an agenda.
I took the article line by line to test the accuracy of the statements. What I found was an alarming realization, I could either discount, disprove or impeach almost all of the statements in the article. In fact, if I were editing this article, I would have to strike 80% of it, just out of sheer integrity of journalistic professionalism.
The story caught my eye initially because it reported that the British had assumed control of the Turks and Caicos Islands. After I read it, I screeched to a stop and I asked myself, "really?" I started to look up world news and I couldn't find anything in the news about British rule in Turks and Caicos other than wide-spread rumors. But a take-over had not occurred and certainly not as of when the article was written, on August 7. I was dumbfounded as to why a reporter would report that as news. That is quite a big deal. I was offended and taken aback as a reader when I learned that this was false.
I decided to look at this article to see what else I could find. First: the headline, "Developer Michael Douglas bought property from named in TCI investigation." The first problem is that this article has generally nothing to do with Michael Douglas and it tricks readers by using a celebrity name gratuitously. Secondly, the headline makes no sense, he bought it from whom?
So I took it a step further and read the next couple of lines, "Dr. Cem Kinay has emerged as one of the central figures in the massive inquiry into political corruption in TCI [Turks and Caicos Islands]." I looked this up for accuracy. The corruption charges were against Turks and Caicos' former Premier, not Dr. Cem Kinay. Dr. Cem Kinay is a developer from Turkey who pioneered the all-inclusive vacation concept and brought his vision to Turks and Caicos. Research revealed that Cem Kinay is not "the central figure" of the investigation, he was dragged into the inquiry for his purchase of land under the former government, which he did under their laws. Furthermore, his land purchase was approved by the attorney general. I did not check into the land purchases of the other developers, but this was the case with Cem Kinay. By all accounts, it appears that Dr. Kinay has an impeccable track record as a developer, philanthropist and physician.
Then, as previously referenced, there's the claim that the corruption investigation, "led to the British assuming control of the Caribbean archipelago." This is patently false and flawed and there can be no way to explain this mistake or falsehood.
Then I read the next couple of sentences, "Mr. Douglas and his wife Catherine Zeta-Jones bought the first luxury property at Dr. Kinay's unfinished $62-million Dellis Cay development before the alarm was raised about the islands' finances." I checked on this as well, and in fact the development is doing well and Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones are still very much happy holders of real estate on the island of Dellis Cay in Turks and Caicos, lest the author of the article insinuate a post purchase "alarm" that led to a pull out of the deal. Furthermore, it is unclear how this reporter came up with "$62-million" as the cost of the project. My research revealed that his $62 million quote is very dated and far apart from the actual cost, $500 million US dollars.
Of course, I had to keep going. I read the next couple of lines, "former Turks and Caicos Premier Michael Misick, who is also implicated in the financial irregularities." Michael Misick "also implicated" and "irregularities"? This is inaccurate and misleading at best. Michael Misick was the direct target of the investigation. A few of Misick's minsters were also investigated with Misick as the core target for corruption and not merely implicated for financial irregularities.
Then I read the next few lines and came across, "Dellis Cay is a 560-acre private island that Dr. Kinay hoped to develop." This statement also failed the accuracy test. This was proved to be a false and misleading statement by the writer's use of the word "hoped". My investigation revealed that the project is almost fully developed and is happily on target to open in mid-2010. It is not readily clear to me why the word "hoped" was used when the development is proven to be almost complete.
As far as the article is concerned, in my opinion it constitutes the worst form of innuendo with its use of inflammatory labels in willful disregard of the truth. It's a shame when journalists attempt to trade on innuendo to pursue an agenda or to lazily satisfy a deadline.
Sorry, still more. Then I read that an inquiry reported, "high probability of systemic corruption or other serious dishonesty by key politicians and businessmen in TCI." I took notice of the "high probability" which in fact the inquiry report concluded affirmative corruption by Michael Misick and certain members of his cabinet, not probably but conclusively. Then the author of the article lumps-in businessmen on the island with the sentence about corruption, that was worth looking into. The "businessmen" who were purportedly questioned by the inquiry were all from Europe, not Turks and Caicos. They were there to invest in the islands and develop vacation properties. There were no laws that were broken by these businessmen, at least the one who I investigated, Dr. Kinay. Reportedly, all transactions were legally entered into under the authority of the government. Therefore, this reporting bordered offensive to me because it was an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim that crossed a line of persuading public opinion. Furthermore, my research revealed that a judge went out of his way to order the businessmens' names removed from the inquiry report, namely Dr. Kinay.
As far as news is concerned, it is made more complicated when writers allow personal feelings and emotions to influence their news writing. Due to many personal factors, we can’t help but to be influenced in our thinking. Our different upbringings, cultural backgrounds, religion, ethical and moral education, and perhaps traumatic events in our lives may influence our judgment of facts. All of these factors can also play a roll in how we perceive events. This reminds me of a matter that occurred this year in California, wherein a main stream reporter wrote about a legal case unaware that the legal action involved a second main stream reporter. The next week, the offended second reporter wrote a completely false report in an attempt for revenge against the first reporter. The second reporter was caught red-handed. This was embarrassing to all news agencies and calls credibility into question, which is at the very heart of integrity.
But in this case, how does one reconcile subjective interpretation of events with statements that are patently false?
According to thefreedictionary.com, to be “objective” means: “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” (or) “Based on observable phenomena; presented factually”.
To be “subjective” is: “Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world” (or) “Particular to a given person; personal”.
When we deal with objectivity, we also have to look at the concepts of truth, fairness, balance and accuracy. These fundamental principles in the world of reporting can never stand apart from each other. When we allow our work to be subjective, biased and inaccurate then we damage not only our own credibility, but can also mislead and influence the views of whole nations, promote hatred between groups and even fuel hostility or destruction of one person's future or reputation.
Once a reporter gathers facts, it is his/her duty to report the facts in context ensuring fairness and accuracy. It cannot stand apart from fairness. The test of fairness is giving all facts involved an equal opportunity to stand alone, as I demonstrated above. There was probably not one statement that could stand alone in the article as fact in context.
Adding to the recipe of destruction, is specific media agency policies, its political alignments and objectives. It's difficult to discern agendas in reporting. When I watch MSNBC or Fox News, I am still shocked by the lack of objectivity and freedom of facts. Innuendo of other's characters is disguised as reporting. It is probably a good thing that most news watchers are savvy enough to distinguish MSNBC and Fox from real news. But is the public at large aware of violations of integrity in reporting?
“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Russian Author.
Definitions: http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Other Reference to Truth, Fairness, Accuracy and Balance:
http://www.midoceannews.bm/siftology.midoceannews/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d983cb30080006§ionId=60
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/the-truth-about-idea-who-is-deborah-blair-porter-1012167.html
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3648823-the-media-objective-fair-accurate-balanced-reporting-israelgaza-case-study
Friday, August 7, 2009
Crown land in Turks and Caicos, British rule threatens tourism and development
As the Islands of Turks and Caicos settles amidst the welcomed departure of Michael Misick, Turks and Caicos' former Premier, worries about Crown land deals threaten tourism on the Islands. Colonialism is dying, but it's not dead and Britain has clear designs to take over the self-governed territory of Turks and Caicos Islands.
Crown land is real estate or property owned by the government of Turks and Caicos Island. The government is the largest Crown landholder on the Islands. This makes Crown lands the government’s most valuable asset and this asset value has risen dramatically over recent years.
Commercial land development is one of the main purposes of Crown land use and sale. The Crown Land Policy is formulated to "attract investments judged best for the interest of TCI," as prescribed by The Turks and Caicos Islands, Crown Land Policy.
While certain developers have purchased Crown land and are in various stages of developing the real property, Britain's rule could hold these developers hostage within their own multi-million dollar projects, years of planning and promises of employment for many locals.
At the core of the movement to welcome British rule is a small but outspoken group of "Belongers," residents who were born in Turks and Caicos Islands.
According to the Crown Land Policy, a Belonger who is at least 21 years old can qualify for a discount on Crown Land.
Under the former Misick cabinet, several land developers were sold Crown land as encouraged under the Crown Land Policy and did so under the color of government authority.
However, this outspoken group of Belongers have been lobbying British Parliament dating back years, protesting their right to own Crown Land and expressing their dissatisfaction of developers' owning Crown land property. However, their efforts are misguided.
Under the Open Tendering provision of the Crown Land Policy, the government, "will identify potential development site(s) on every island, consistent with its development strategy. These sites will be actively marketed to prospective developers ..."
At the very soul of Turks and Caicos economy is tourism, certainly development is a requisite part of that in every way.
Now that Misick is no longer Premier of Turks and Caicos, some Belongers are reported to be exploiting this political situation by encouraging British rule, presumably to make legal standing for the return of Crown land and to attempt to thwart sales of Crown land to land developers.
However, this Crown Land Policy is not likely to change under British rule and the Belongers are unwittingly putting the future of Turks and Caicos in limbo for a period of at least 2 years should Britain take over. The prospect of Britain's interference would most certainly cause a stalemate in development, hence tourism revenues for the people of Turks and Caicos, which would be an unfortunate short-sighted plan for Crown land grabbers.
Without advancement of tourism and tourism revenues, Turks and Caicos will regress; this at a time when Turks and Caicos might be the only economy on the upswing. Again, the economic upswing is thanks to tourism dollars and resulting jobs.
Crown land is real estate or property owned by the government of Turks and Caicos Island. The government is the largest Crown landholder on the Islands. This makes Crown lands the government’s most valuable asset and this asset value has risen dramatically over recent years.
Commercial land development is one of the main purposes of Crown land use and sale. The Crown Land Policy is formulated to "attract investments judged best for the interest of TCI," as prescribed by The Turks and Caicos Islands, Crown Land Policy.
While certain developers have purchased Crown land and are in various stages of developing the real property, Britain's rule could hold these developers hostage within their own multi-million dollar projects, years of planning and promises of employment for many locals.
At the core of the movement to welcome British rule is a small but outspoken group of "Belongers," residents who were born in Turks and Caicos Islands.
According to the Crown Land Policy, a Belonger who is at least 21 years old can qualify for a discount on Crown Land.
Under the former Misick cabinet, several land developers were sold Crown land as encouraged under the Crown Land Policy and did so under the color of government authority.
However, this outspoken group of Belongers have been lobbying British Parliament dating back years, protesting their right to own Crown Land and expressing their dissatisfaction of developers' owning Crown land property. However, their efforts are misguided.
Under the Open Tendering provision of the Crown Land Policy, the government, "will identify potential development site(s) on every island, consistent with its development strategy. These sites will be actively marketed to prospective developers ..."
At the very soul of Turks and Caicos economy is tourism, certainly development is a requisite part of that in every way.
Now that Misick is no longer Premier of Turks and Caicos, some Belongers are reported to be exploiting this political situation by encouraging British rule, presumably to make legal standing for the return of Crown land and to attempt to thwart sales of Crown land to land developers.
However, this Crown Land Policy is not likely to change under British rule and the Belongers are unwittingly putting the future of Turks and Caicos in limbo for a period of at least 2 years should Britain take over. The prospect of Britain's interference would most certainly cause a stalemate in development, hence tourism revenues for the people of Turks and Caicos, which would be an unfortunate short-sighted plan for Crown land grabbers.
Without advancement of tourism and tourism revenues, Turks and Caicos will regress; this at a time when Turks and Caicos might be the only economy on the upswing. Again, the economic upswing is thanks to tourism dollars and resulting jobs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)