St. Lucia STAR

No place like home for Olympic qualifier

David Pascal — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:20:38 +0000

It is not quite the Battle of Britain, but clearly there is a rift between a St Lucian high jumper who feels loyalty to country supersedes everything else. Here is his take on things when addressing a rather ticklish situation.
“I am a high jumper from St Lucia. I am ranked number one in the UK and I don’t think it sat very well on their chest knowing that someone who trains with a British coach in London, would be able to come here and possibly take a medal. I felt a bit of tension and neglect on their part and felt it was time for me to seek training and attention somewhere else. I started facing many many different hurdles and I didn’t feel comfortable with them.”
The opening quotation came from world ranked high jumper and one of three St Lucian qualifiers for the Summer Olympic Games in London, Darvin Edwards. As stated earlier, he did seek training somewhere else – his birthplace St Lucia. Like they always say “there is no place like home.”
Judging by his opening remarks, clearly there is a difference of opinion and conflict between Edwards and British officials when it comes to loyalty to country, something which he spoke passionately about, during a recent training session at the George Odlum Stadium/Hospital in Vieux Fort.
When asked were you ever torn between competing for St Lucia or England, Edwards without hesitation replied: “I never in my life thought about competing for England for the main sole reason I came from a very not too good background, growing among most of my friends in gangs and stuff like that. I myself participated in some activities which were not good for a young man. I also saw the opportunity for St Lucia to have a role model, someone the kids can look up to.”
Edwards reiterated that he always saw himself as a St Lucian high jumper and never considered being anything else. To him anything else would amount to high treason.
One would think this athlete would be a lot better off training in London, where the facilities would certainly be among the best and let’s face it, he would already be on Olympic soil.
Surprisingly, Edwards has a different opinion. “You know the funny thing is the facilities and the expertise here is as good as anywhere else for me because it suits me,” he said.
Edwards has surrounded himself with what he calls a passionate group of individuals and with the backing and support of St Lucians, feels he has a greater chance to succeed. Looking back his only regret is coming here later and not earlier.
His team which he affectionately calls “my group” consists of Kim Jackson (physiotherapist), Burke Leonce (assistant manager), Terry Finisterre (publicist), Andrew Magloire and Dane Magloire (personal trainer) and Gregory Lubin (technical coach).
This world ranked athlete couldn’t say enough about Lubin who in his own quiet way, has emerged as a high jump guru, having coached Levern Spencer and Edwards while they attended Entrepot Secondary School.
Edwards referred to Lubin as one of the most instrumental and inspirational people in his life. He also feels Lubin has never received the credit he truly deserves “for producing two of St Lucia’s outstanding athletes” who are both recipients of the
Sportsman and Sportswoman of the Year and headed to the Olympics.
As one would expect qualifying for the Olympics was the thrill of a lifetime but it does not stop there for this athlete.
“I was very happy but in my mind being very happy about qualifying was just one step” he told me. “I was more interested in thinking about the next step which was going to the World Championships, about making my name and letting people know who I am.
As it stands my main
focus is and will continue to be doing my best and even take a medal at the Olympics.”
St Lucia’s have a rare opportunity to see Olympic qualifier and Sportsman of the Year Darvin Edwards compete on home soil, at this weekend’s League Challenge at the George Odlum Stadium/Hospital.
During the course of this week, Edwards will be doing a presentation with Paradise Water who graciously offered to partner with him on his journey to London in 2012. Paradise Water is assisting with contributions in cash and kind.

Sportsman of the Year and Olympic qualifier Darvin Edwards during a training session at the George Odlum Stadium/Hospital.

Blackheart Knockout Tournament draw

Star Reporter — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:14:03 +0000

The much anticipated draw for teams participating in the 2012 Blackheart Knockout Football Tournament kicking off May 19 at the Beausejour Cricket Ground took place Tuesday evening at Bay Gardens Hotel.
The draw was in the form of a lottery style where the eight teams who advanced from the first round in last year’s tournament, will be matched up against the eight first round losers from last years’ tournament.
The Eight first round winners from last year are defending champions Anse La Raye, last year’s losing finalist Canaries, Dennery, Vieux Fort North, Desruisseaux, Soufriere, Mon Repos and Marchand.
The eight which went into the bag to be drawn were playoff qualifiers Roseau Valley and Laborie, Mabouya Valley, Micoud, South Castries, Gros Islet, Vieux Fort South and Central Castries.
All participating had a representative teams at the draw. Tuesday was the deadline day for registration which came with a $500 registration fee.
Teams are continuing with warm up matches for the tournament. Wednesday is a big day for tournament organizers with the staging of the final set of warm up promotional matches at the La Guerre Playing Field under lights, before the tournament kicks off on Saturday at the Beausejour Cricket Ground.
Three matches are scheduled for tomorrow evening at La Guerre. From 5:30 pm South Castries
take on Central Castries, at 7:00 pm Marchand plays Gros Islet and from 8:00 pm in the feature encounter,
Blackheart Knockout Tournament finalist for 2011 Anse La Raye and Canaries face each other.

Sponsors and officials at the recent Blackheart Knockout Football Tournament Launch at Bay Gardens Hotel.

Slowly but surely for Sammy

Star Reporter — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:04:40 +0000

They may be missing several of their leading players, have been beaten in the warm-up game, written-off in the media and up against the number one rated Test team, but West Indies captain Darren Sammy has warned England not to underestimate his side’s chance ahead of the Test series beginning at Lord’s on Thursday.
West Indies’ Test record in recent years is grim. They have won only one of their previous 10 series – and that was against Bangladesh – and only two of their last 24 series stretching back to 2004. Indeed, since December 2003, West Indies have played 80 Tests, won just eight – including two against Bangladesh – and lost 45. It is not a record that inspires confidence.
But Sammy believes his side is progressing. While he accepts the results do not show it, he insists there have been encouraging signs in recent Test series. Notably, West Indies pushed India hard in Delhi before collapsing against Ravi Ashwin in their second innings and succumbing to a five-wicket loss. Similarly, they came to close to upsetting Australia in Bridgetown, only for another second innings batting collapse to eventually sentence them to a three-wicket defeat.
“The only thing that has not been happening is the victories,” Sammy told ESPNcricinfo. “We’ve been playing good, competitive cricket against strong sides like India and Australia and all our Tests have been going five days and down to the wire. Not many teams go to India and give India a run for their money, but we did that.
“Coming from where we are right now, we are not going to start winning straight away. We are taking baby steps to the ultimate goal. We are playing well and dominating teams throughout matches.
“The problem is that we keep losing key moments in matches. One bad session keeps costing us. Champion teams seize the moment but we keep having a bad session where we might lose five wickets in an hour. We just need to cut that out. Once we eliminate those bad sessions then we’ll make progress.”
Sammy also reminded England that the sides did not have to look back very far to the last team his side caused an upset. A young West Indies squad travelled to England to play two T20 internationals last September and, having lost the first game by 10 wickets, they hit back with a 25-run win to square the series. West Indies also won the last Test series between the sides in the Caribbean.
“We were a very inexperienced team in September,” Sammy said. “People said we were just on our way to Bangladesh, but we beat England.
“Every team that comes here, the media try and bring them down for England. So we know what to expect. We have to handle the distractions – be they the weather or the press – and concentrate on doing our best on the pitch. People don’t expect much from us, but we know that once we play to our potential we can compete very hard against England. If we can put runs on the board, we back our bowlers to take 20 wickets against England.”
If West Indies are to do that, it is crucial that they have their best attack available to them. As things stand there are slight injury doubts hanging against all three of their leading seamers – Kemar Roach (foot), Ravi Rampaul (neck) and Fidel Edwards (back) – though it looks as if all three should be fine. As Roach, who is eagerly anticipating his first Tests at Lord’s put it: “Everyone wants to be here; there’s nothing going to stop me playing.”
Sammy also said his entire side had been inspired by the documentary Fire in Babylon, which tells the story of West Indies’ domination of Test cricket in the 1970s and 80s. He drew parallels in the challenges facing his team and West Indies team of the early 70s.
“Fire in Babylon is my inspiration,” Sammy said. “I have watched it many times. I knew our history—but to see it again, to hear the passion in the voices of the players—it’s got to make you think about how important what we do is to the people of the Caribbean.
“All of the guys have seen it and been inspired. The guys are aware of how important West Indies cricket is to the fans. They appreciate the history and they carry the legacy. Some never knew about it – they knew the team had been great – but they didn’t understand what previous teams had gone through and what they had to endure. They didn’t understand about the challenges they had to rise above.
“We have different challenges now. We dominated the world for 17 years and conquered all teams. People got used to success. A lot is expected of all West Indies teams since then. It could be a burden – every fast bowler is compared to Ambrose or Walsh and every batsman is compared to Greenidge or Lara – but I prefer to see it as an inspiration. That’s the path we have to follow.
“Everyone in the Caribbean wants West Indies to do well. When we are playing well our brand of cricket is very entertaining. The turnout from the public in our last series—in Tests and ODIs and T20s—we’ve not seen that sort of support for our team in a long while. The reason is that they see the team competing. We’re not winning, but we’re playing with passion and if we do that, the victories should be just around the corner. We’re fighting, we’re showing passion: we understand what we have to do.”

New study links Relaxers to Fibroids

Star Reporter — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:39:08 +0000

A new study in the American Journal of Epidemiology has linked hair relaxers to uterine fibroids, as well as early puberty in young girls.
Scientists followed more than 23,000 pre-menopausal Black American women from 1997 to 2009 and found that the two- to three-times higher rate of fibroids among black women may be linked to chemical exposure through scalp lesions and burns resulting from relaxers. Women who got their first menstrual period before the age of 10 were also more likely to have uterine fibroids, and early menstruation may result from hair products black girls are using, according to a separate study published in the Annals of Epidemiology last summer.
Three hundred African American, African Caribbean, Hispanic, and White women in New York City were studied. The women’s first menstrual period varied anywhere from age 8 to age 19, but African Americans, who were more likely to use straightening and relaxers hair oils, also reached menarche earlier than other racial/ethnic groups.
The hair care industry isn’t regulated by the FDA.

Budget Review: From the pathways to the edge!

Rick Wayne — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:18:30 +0000

As tightly controlled as it was on Thursday and Friday, still the 2012 Budget debate was not without its moments of levity, one of which was contributed by the dapper MP for Castries East, Philip J. Pierre. A firm believer in the notion that circulating money, however acquired, is always good for the economy, Pierre was echoing the predictable supportive noises for “our esteemed and generous leader the finance minister” when a heckling opposition horsefly attracted his wrath.
“Have you read End This Depression Now?” he asked, predator eyes unsoftened
by his photochromic
lenses. “It’s by Paul Krugman. Do you know who Paul Krugman is? Do you?” For all the reverence in his tone, the MP might just as well have been citing the Sermon on the Mount.
Alas, with the NTN camera focused in close-up mode to his face, it was impossible from my living-room vantage to identify Pierre’s target. If his silence suggested anything, however, it was that he had never heard of the “17th most cited economist in the world.”
Pierre’s current economics poster-boy was cited yet again last Sunday, this time by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, while referring to Europe’s worsening economic problems and their widespread effects. “Economists like Paul Krugman urge: abandon
the austerity program, spend more and get budgets in order once the economy has recovered. The problem, in the mind of Keynesians like Krugman,” said Zakaria, “is that European elites, particularly in Germany, have embraced the wrong economic doctrine.”
It wasn’t so much that the “elites,” especially in Germany, have not embraced “some alternative view of economics,” Zakaria observed. “Most of them understand that cutting spending during a recession slows down the economy further. What they don’t believe is that any of the governments in question would ever get their budgets in order once the economy recovered. They believe that many of these countries in trouble have economies that are uncompetitive, hobbled by bad regulatory and tax frameworks and also by large and inefficient governments, with ever-increasing entitlements doled out to their citizens.” Many Germans and northern Europeans he had spoken to “seem to understand that,
economically, the smart
thing to do might be to spend now and to cut later. But many in Europe, in Germany especially, believe later will never come.”
Zakaria saw the crisis as an opportunity to start wholesale reform. “Markets have signaled that they will not lend to these governments unless they take measures to get their houses in order,” he said, “so this is the golden opportunity to get this reform process going.”
Additionally: “In reality governments spend in bad times and then spend more in good times. So the disagreement may not really be over economics but over politics. After all, politicians have gotten elected over the last four decades in the West by promising voters more benefits, more pensions and more health care. The question is: can they get elected offering less?”
Ah, yes, those election promises! Would the French have elected Francois Hollande but for his pledge to bring back from Afghanistan all of France’s 3,000 troops by year’s end, create 30,000 new public sector jobs while battling the German-led austerity approach to Europe’s fiscal problems?
Would the St. Lucia Labour Party, without its repeated promise of “jobs, jobs, jobs” and an expanded STEP just in time for Christmas? There was even a New-Year’s-Eve-type countdown to better days: ten, nine, eight, seven . . . remember?
Would the UWP be in office today, had it promised to pardon convicted drug offenders and decriminalize marijuana and prostitution—not to mention more jobs than had been offered in 2006? More important: Will the present government, in its determination not to pay the price the UWP had suffered last November, do whatever it takes to deliver on its own 2011 campaign promises?
During their Budget presentations last week, at least four government MPs read carefully selected passages from the SLP’s election manifesto relating to “better days” (now unscheduled!), the imminent if regrettable implementation of VAT and the coming of NICE and LEAP and YEP and SMILES for single mothers. Ah, but they stayed away from their Santa Claus promise to invest in the private sector—“immediately upon taking office”—$100 million for job creation.
Not that the private sector had been altogether forgotten upon the party’s return to office last November. The fundamental question was: “Given the comatose state of the economy”—and the concomitant problems of the private sector—“what strategy should the government employ to stimulate the economy?”
In the prime minister’s telling: “The reality we face is as follows. Tourism has held its own but . . . The agriculture sector has potential but . . . The manufacturing sector has survived but . . .”
But! But! But! Let us cut to the chase and agree with him that the fiscal situation had “deteriorated sharply in the recent past.” So now, what to do? Well, said the prime minister, there was always construction, “a highly labor absorptive sector and, given our post-Tomas realities and the need to improve and expand our housing stock, it presents a very attractive option for improving quality of life and economic reposition while creating jobs.”
Therefore, the government “will introduce measures to encourage investment in construction and housing aimed at creating further jobs and restoring our social and economic infrastructure.” The government will introduce a set of fiscal measures to improve its “revenue base, reduce the deficit and achieve fiscal strengthening.”
By “measures to encourage investment in construction and housing,” the government referred to a stimulus with four components, in the hope that “emphasis on construction will allow us to buy sufficient time and space” until the return of things to normal. If only life were made only of perfect storms!
“You may recall,” said the prime minister sticking to his Budget script, “the booming construction sector in 2006/2007 which resulted from the hosting of ICC Cricket World Cup matches in Saint Lucia. During that time unemployment was recorded at 14.6 percent, while the economic growth rate was one of the highest for that decade.” Perhaps, but what most Saint Lucians will undoubtedly recall was that the anticipated tens of thousands of big spenders never materialized. Which is not to say there were no benefits from the proffered World Cup incentives. There were, if for some more than others!
In all events 2006 was a far, far better time than today, at home and abroad. If back then many Saint Lucians profited the opportunity to expand and improve their premises, for whatever reasons, does that mean, stimulus or not, they will now rush to the bank for new-construction loans? The inescapable truth is that businesses are barely
able to hold on, suffering
as are most from the
same fiscal problems that for some time now has been afflicting Greece, Italy, Spain and even in the great United States.
The local private sector, particularly manufacturing, starved of orders, can barely pay its basic expenses—whether suppliers of
imported raw material, or for water and electricity—let alone salaries for workers. With much regret some have been let go or required to take pay cuts. With many once thriving establishments dangerously behind on their mortgage payments, the banks are at this point
hardly in a mood to be generous. (By the way,
when the prime minister speaks of “the need to improve and expand our housing stock,” might he be referring to public housing?
Another hard truth: greatly reduced prices do not always mean higher sales figures. Never before have so many been up against the wall economically and risk-averse. The government’s intentions are undoubtedly good. But then, as I’ve had cause to remind readers before, good intentions pave the road to hell. Or so say those in a position to know!
The government obviously assumes that just because it is in this country at liberty to take more and more loans in the name of the people, regardless of interest rates or projects, the rest of us can do likewise. Actually our banks are not nearly as accommodating of the people’s needs as they are of government demands. STEP, SMILE, LEAP and the rest of the welfare-state projects featured in the prime minister’s Budget are not without merit. Still, they have to be paid for. And not from our politiians’ private accounts.
To return to Fareed Zakaria: “Everyone is looking at Europe these days as economic and political protests mount across the continent. The downward spiral has produced a great debate about the virtues of ‘austerity,’ the idea that governments with large budget deficits must reduce these deficits, mainly by cutting spending. If they don’t get their budgets in order, so the idea goes, they won’t be able to borrow money and will face a fiscal nightmare of ever-rising interest rates. The problem is that as these governments cut spending in very depressed economies, it has caused growth to slow even further—government workers who have been fired tend to buy fewer goods and services, for example—and all this means falling tax receipts and thus even bigger deficits.”
The opposing view is that the depressed countries Zakaria speaks of—Greece, Italy, France, Spain—countries with “very depressed economies, large and inefficient governments, with ever-increasing entitlements doled out to their citizens”—that is to say, countries like Saint Lucia!—“also raised taxes to try to balance their budgets, and the mixture of higher taxes and reduced spending is what further damaged these economies.”
As for the idea of spending now and cutting later, those who consider Paul Krugman “one of our most dishonest economists” observe that “after Obama’s massive spending increase in 2009 and 2010, those levels became the baseline from which future budgets are calculated.”
So again, the question: Is democracy the problem? Or is the problem one we have all known for a long time but will do nothing to cure: our politicians who notoriously will do and say whatever it takes to get elected, even if in consequence we all end up bankrupt? Consider this from the prime minister’s most recent Budget: “Unquestionably, government needs to build back confidence in the state and the ability of the state to act responsibly. Government must be able to pay its sovereign debts, protect the rule of law, ensure that revenues collected in the name of the people are spent as best as they can be spent, and promote investor confidence. These elements of good governance and confidence in a fair and caring state gives pride to its people, gives security to the investor, gives freedom of mind and energy to the youth, gives a level of trust to all actors, residents and non-residents. This is a social contract that we have signed and must deliver!”
Oh, but as Jack Grynberg knows only too well, it’s one thing to sign a contract and altogether something else when it comes to delivering on its promises.
Bearing in mind the prime minister’s somewhat shocking revelation that “71 cents of every dollar of recurrent expenses go to salaries, wages and debt,” the government’s last quoted undertaking sounds a lot like wishful thinking. As already successive finance ministers have reminded us over the years, our tax base is by far too small to accommodate the needs and aspirations of a population as large and
as deprived as ours. Add
to this near Sisyphean problem the circumstances of the world economy, and it is small wonder that our government’s expressed expectations from its latest Budget ring as hollow as only desperate politicians with their backs against the wall can sound.
Meanwhile, there are the lessons of France, Spain and Greece. As I write the debt-racked last named country has until Thursday to come up with a government or call new elections. As Bank of America/Merrill Lynch
wrote in a report released
last Friday: “If no
government is in place before June when the next installment of loan money from the European Union and International Monetary Fund is due, we estimate that Greece will run out of money sometime between the end of June and the beginning of July, at which point a return to the drachma would seem inevitable.”
While President Karalos Papoulias fights his uphill battle to get political leaders to form a new government, the head of Greece’s second largest party says he will not attend. The anti-austerity Syriza party that Alexis Tsipras leads campaigned against the tough restrictions on government spending that international leaders imposed in exchange for their financial backing. Now polls show two in five Greeks blame Tsipras for the current political deadlock. Last Sunday, following the poll, he
said the other parties
wanted Syriza to be “their partners in crime and we can’t do that.”
For her part, and despite growing pressure, German chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that European Union countries that have signed the fiscal pact for tighter budgetary policy must stay committed to the agreement. “Debt reduction and
boosting competitiveness need to go hand in hand,” she insists. “They are not contradictory; they belong together. Everyone must stick to the things we have agreed. Twenty-five countries have already signed the fiscal pact.”
A final quote from the prime minister: “This year’s Budget seeks to move us away from the pathways to the edge, while not in any way being austere. We can see the effects of austerity in Europe as we speak. We should ensure we do not cause ourselves to get to that point. We are confident that our socio-economic path is the right one in order for us to be more responsible for our affairs while maintaining social peace.”
From what pathways to what edge? The rainbow’s? Hopefully, the pneumonia we inevitably catch whenever the big countries sneeze will not be the killer variety. It wouldn’t be the first time a miracle has saved us!

Prime Minister Dr Kenny Anthony in the House of Assembly as the Budget debate opens.

Statistics department under fire! Opposition Leader says ‘I did not concoct economic growth figures’

Star Reporter — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:13:03 +0000

As the curtains came down on the Budget Debate, Member for Castries North, Stephenson King sought to defend his announcement last year of a 4.4 percent GDP growth while sharing his opinion of the Prime Minister’s Budget Address.
“I listened, I later examined, I clinically scrutinized but after much, I came back and realized after much scrutiny, that what we are being presented with is what I call a ‘des couché budget sans salaizon.’ In other words, it is a stale budget, a stale meal left overnight, warmed up but no meat, no beef, no chicken back, no mutton, nothing—all of which I believe are exempted,” said King.
Before he could move further, King could not hesitate to address, as he called it, “critical statements” made by Dr Kenny Anthony in his Budget Address.
“Mr Speaker, I will turn my attention to the issue raised in Section 3 on pages 3-7 of the Budget Address entitled, ‘Review of the Domestic Economy’ in which the Prime minister stated the performance of St Lucia’s economy has at best been anemic and captured an excerpt of my 2011 Budget presentation in quotations.
“The same section focuses on my statement made in my Budget presentation of April 2011; in which I said that the economy grew 4.4 percent in 2010 compared to an average of 3.2 percent in the OECS as a whole. The Minister for Finance, in referring to this statement says the former Minister of Finance, who happens to be me at the time, threw caution to the wind. To a listener, this suggests or imply that somehow I was irresponsible to report the figure given to me by the same technocrats who gave him the figures of today, which he quoted in his Budget presentation,” said King.
The former Prime Minister explained that if he had misled the country, he did not do so intentionally but was given figures by the Director of Statistics. King went on to say that he “has never concocted figures” presented to the House during his reign in Office.
“If the Honourable Prime Minister is honest, I would expect that in his rebuttal, he will respond to that statement. We don’t create the figures, we don’t put the figures together . . . the technocrats are the ones who put the figures together,” he said.
King further gave several scenarios of what may have possibly happened. Speaking about the ‘technocrats’ King said: “I believe it is intellectual dishonesty; whether it is the Prime Minister or the technocrats, either to mislead the Prime Minister or for the Prime Minister to mislead the nation in giving the impression to the nation that I gave figures created in my own mind to mislead them.”
King said he requested verification and confirmation of the figures before he could go public with it. He also stated that the figures were presented and discussed before a sub-committee of Cabinet on the economy. While not naming the individual, King said a gentleman that the current Prime Minister has praised much attended the meeting and presented the figures before the committee.
“We also asked that he return and verify the information from the sources from which that information came by. Two meetings
later, he returned to the meeting and informed with great confidence and conviction that the economy had indeed grow by 4.4 percent.”
King also argued that if the Prime Minister holds the Statistics Department with such high regard and even showered praises upon the people that manage the department, a department he says, that gave out wrong figures to mislead the nation, how then can he be certain that the figures the PM provided in his Budget presentation are correct?
The Leader of the Opposition eventually called on the Director of Statistics to defend the figures or provide an explanation publicly on the matter. He went on to add that should an investigation reveal that the 4.4 percentage growth announcement he had made last year is in fact incorrect, then the Director of Statistics should be fired because, according to King, he cannot be trusted in providing figures on the subject matter anymore.
But Dr Anthony replied in his rebuttal saying: “There can be no doubt, that the error in the growth rate for St Lucia will cause us and has caused us some embarrassment because, other institutions are aware of the growth rate that was announced and they are aware that subsequent analysis does not confirm that growth rate.”
While stating that the language used in the Budget address could not have been more harsh and hurtful, Dr Anthony explained that there was a reason for not going in that direction.
“I understand the pain and agony for the Member for Castries North where that is concerned because truth told; we are all politicians and we all have to rely on information and advice from public officers.
“Truth of the matter is though; the conventions require that even if we get the wrong advice and we go public with it, we have to take responsibility for it. That is why in a place like Japan, Ministers resign left, right and center.”
As he continued, the PM cautioned everyone in the House to be responsible for all of their actions as a politician and minister, while adding: “I too have learned the hard way; when you are standing before an enquiry or commission of enquiry or otherwise, you are alone. Even if you acted on the advice of public officers, of senior public officers when the time comes, they are not around to protect you.
“It was hurtful, hurtful to watch public officers disowning knowledge of decisions of this Government which was communicated to them, which they read about but the denunciation was restrained. My point is that when you see you act on that advice and the advice is faulty, I am afraid, you have to take responsibility.”
Before closing, Dr Anthony took the opportunity to comment on the call for the Director of Statistics to be fired saying that this is where he disagrees with the Leader of the Opposition. He went on to read a statement from a letter dated April 4th 2011 from the Director of Statistics as follows:
“While we bear some responsibility for ensuring the integrity of these data sources, we do not however, supervise or control their creation. In addition we do have some concerns on the quality of data on imports and we will continue to work on ensuring that these matters are addressed.
“In the event that there are any issues with our data sources or if we receive updated data or data we believe to be more
accurate, we reserve the right to revise the estimates of the GDP which we make accordingly.”

Former Prime Minister Stephenson King has called for a public statement from the statistics department on the information he received.

St Catherine reacts to Opposition Leader statement!

Elijah Anatole — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:01:00 +0000

Responding to statements made by former Prime Minister Stephenson King in the House of Assembly on Friday, Director of Statistics, Edwin St Catherine says the statements are rather unfortunate. Last week, during the Prime Minister’s Budget Presentation, he announced that the growth rate did not grow by 4.4 percent as was previously announced by King in 2011 but had grown by 0.6 percent.
This statement sparked a debate in the House on how the misinformation occurred causing the Leader of the Opposition to call for the Director of Statistics to be fired. Stephenson King stated in his presentation that he did not concoct the figures and that they came primarily from the Director.
In response, the Director spoke on RCI Midday news accusing King of making false statements in the House.
“Basically he said that I was very convincing that the information we provided at the time was accurate and that I gave them this information with a lot of conviction. That statement that he made was untrue.
“I think, unfortunately, the Opposition Leader was misled. In several technical meetings that I attended, I made my position on the numbers very clear. I indicated that we were having problems with a specific data source. Customs was having many challenges with brokers and also the capability to obtain data from Customs was very challenging and that is the procedure by which we generate the GDP,” he said.
St Catherine further stated that because of these challenges he wrote to the Prime Minister and informed them that there were concerns regarding the figures.
“. . . I wrote the Ministry of Finance indicating clearly that this was the concern with this letter and that they should proceed with caution with that information. I was astonished to hear from the former Prime Minister on this issue and the statements he was making. I thought they were very unfortunate. I believe him to be an honorable man and that he was, in my view, misled.”
More persons have joined the debate on the matter including the General Secretary for the Civil Service Association (CSA), David Demacque who says the CSA “deplores the bashing and the call to fire the Director of Statistics.”
Demacque indicated that there is a call for all public service officers to send letters and use the social media (Twitter and Facebook) to denounce statements made by the former PM in the House.
“Public officers, we believe should be concerned when a politician and in that case, the Leader of the Opposition use the shelter of the House of Assembly and the prerogatives that the House offers to threaten and malign public officers and in that case the Director of Statistics.
“The CSA believes it was a little bit ludicrous of the Leader of the Opposition to call for the Director of Statistics to be fired . . . it is another example of political interference in the public service and I believe the Leader of the Opposition should other than anybody else know that the only authority that can fire a public officer is the public service commission,” said Demacque.

Did someone wear GG’s shoes to Grynberg party?

Rick Wayne — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:59:08 +0000

Not surprising, last weekend’s STAR report that Martinus Francois is of a mind to initiate a judicial review of the arrangements between the government of Saint Lucia and Jack Grynberg’s company RSM Corporation generated a deluge of reader reaction.
Hardly unexpected were the several comments from Johnny Cochran wannabes, home-based and abroad, a number of which centered on Section 42 of Saint Lucia’s Interpretation Act, in particular this: “Where the function of the governor general under any enactment is to be exercised in accordance with the advice of a minister acting under the general authority of the cabinet, any instrument required to be issued in the exercise of that function under the Public Seal may be signified under the hand of the minister acting under the general authority of the cabinet, and such signification is sufficient for all purposes.”
One particular reader’s take on the above: “Check this,” he writes, and proceeds to restate the following: “‘Where a function of the GG under enactment is to be exercised in accordance with the advice of any minister acting under the general authority of the cabinet . . .’ That’s it. In accordance with the advice of a minister. The word ‘advice’ is the key. The GG had to be advised by the minister, whether she eventually signed or not. If she did not receive such ‘advice,’ then the signature on the agreement is unlawful. The point is that the governor general has the authority of Her Majesty the Queen, to be advised on all new laws to be enacted in Saint Lucia. Anything contrary is
unlawful, therefore null and void. Martinus will be victorious!”
An interesting take, but to my layman’s mind not quite on target. But first a question: What was the new law that the prime minister neglected to advise the governor general on? It seems to me, based on official documents I’ve carefully perused, that what the prime minister may have done was rewrite Article 3 of Grynberg’s draft agreement, which states as follows:
“As soon as possible,
but in no event later
than 90 days after the effective date, the company shall apply for, and the minister, under and in accordance with the Act, will grant to the company an exploration licence over the area described in Annex A and shown on the map in Annex B. This licence shall be substantially in the form of a draft licence set forth in Annex C.
“The exploration licence granted pursuant to Article 3 hereof shall be for an initial period of four years, commencing from the date of the grant of the licence and shall, subject to the Act, on application duly made by the company, be renewed for two further periods of two years each in accordance with the Act.”
The preceding coincides with the contractual arrangements between Grynberg and Grenada and between Grynberg and St Vincent and the Grenadines. Somehow, the final draft signed by Kenny Anthony, on behalf of the government of Saint Lucia, and by Grynberg on behalf of RSM Corporation, contains an Article 3 quite different from Grynberg’s original draft.
The retooled version says: “The government hereby grants the company an exploration licence
covering its interest in the agreement area for an initial term of four years from the effective date, subject, however, to the force majeure provisions of Article 24. Upon application duly made by the company, the exploration licence shall be renewed for two further periods of two years each.”
In the Saint Lucia contract, unlike in the contracts with Grenada and St Vincent, Article 3 makes no reference whatsoever to a licensing authority (according to Saint Lucia’s Minerals (Vesting) Act, the governor general). Neither does it speak of a 90-day period when the applicant must apply for an exploration licence.
It is instructive to note that in the Saint Lucia version of Article 3, the exploration licence covers the government’s interest in the agreement for “an initial term of four years, subject to the force majeure provisions of Article 24.” This does
not form part of the agreements with the named two other islands. Neither is it a part of the original draft agreement sent to Petrus Compton, for the AG’s perusal.
No matter, this is what he wrote to the prime minister on 1 February 2000, in connection with a “revised” version received on 28 January 2000. He had “reviewed the same with reference to the government of Grenada/RSM agreement and the original draft prepared for Saint Lucia. I am of the view that, having regard to the subject matter of this agreement, Saint Lucia would be better served by having a specialist petroleum lawyer review the same and advise. There are matters contained in the agreement which can only be properly appreciated by one familiar with the industry, its standards and practices. Notwithstanding this obvious deficiency within Chambers, I have made recommendations for change in the interest of Saint Lucia.”
So, did the attorney general recommend the changes to Article 3 of the Grynberg agreement?
Also interesting to note: barely six months after signing on, Grynberg took refuge behind the agreement’s force
majeure clause and suspended all operations until such time as alleged boundary disputes were satisfactorily settled. In the case of Grenada, he had invoked force majeure just two weeks after signing.
What then, are Martinus Francois’ chances for a satisfactory outcome of a judicial review? I hesitate to conjecture. After all, there is the fact that the Grynberg agreement was inked over a decade ago, in 2000. It remained a calculated secret until brought up by MP Richard Frederick during his 2009 Budget presentation, in the presence of the then opposition leader
Kenny Anthony, who
chose not to comment.
So, is there a statute of limitations related to
judicial reviews? If yes, what is it? Would it apply to when the agreement was first signed or when it was discovered?
Will it matter that until 2009 only three individuals knew of the agreement’s existence? Should it turn out that the prime minister crossed the line when he issued a licence that only the governor general is authorized to issue, what might the sanctions be? Can the judicial review, having found fault, declare the licence null and void? If yes, then bearing in mind Grynberg’s insistence that the agreement itself, based on its force majeure conditions, remains intact, will the famous Denver oilman
still be guaranteed on application a properly issued new licence?
By the way: A cabinet authorized minister may properly sign in lieu of the governor general, if such signing is related to an
action on the part of the governor general that
can be properly carried
out only “on the advice
of the prime minister.”
The authority given the
GG by the Minerals Act does not rely on the advice of the prime minister!
Finally: Will international adjudicators agree,
should a judicial review declare Grynberg’s
licence invalid? Would that get Saint Lucia off the hook? We will visit these possibilities next time!

Mixed reviews on St Lucia Jazz 2012!

Kayra Williams — Wed, 16 May 2012 19:15:50 +0000

Miraculously after days of rain the sun came out, and for the most part of the weekend there were clear skies over the St Lucia Jazz Festival. This year’s festival didn’t wind up being a wash-out as many feared. The show went on as scheduled and Friday’s line up included the Derek Yarde Project En Kweyol, Gypsy Kings and Ziggy Marley.
Gyspy Kings set the party atmosphere and had the audience up and dancing to a variety of music including “Bamboleo”, “Baila Me”, “Djobi Djoba” and other tunes. Ziggy Marley was the final performer for the night and the artiste paid tribute to his father, while singing a couple of his own hits including “Love is My Religion.”
Saturday held Alison Marquis Nonet featuring Andy Narell, Keri Hilson and Kirk Franklin, in that order. Keri Hilson’s fans loved every second of her performance that included hits like “Knock You Down,” “Promise in the Dark and “Pretty Girl Rock”.
“Had to watch my mouth tonight,” she tweeted after the show. “Kirk Franklin right after me, closing the show! I was on my ‘better’ behaviour!”
Kirk Franklin later tweeted back: “You were good! Great seeing you and looking up to you! May God bless your life.”
Kirk Franklin, always the super enthusiastic performer had the crowd singing praises, and it really was an inspiration performance to say the least. Some weren’t sure the Gospel segment fitted in with the Jazz Festival, but Franklin delivered. The crowd’s response was a resounding “yes” when he asked if they wanted him back next year.
With all his jumping and leaping on stage, it was no surprise when Franklin announced a wardrobe malfunction.
“Even though I’m embarrassed, it does feel good. . .” he said after announcing he’d split his pants! “You know what this cool breeze makes me wanna do? Can I sing one more song in my split pants?”
The crowd had no objections—no one had noticed in the first place, and the artiste went on with his band and back up singers with uplifting songs like, “I Smile” and the crowd sang along to catchy lyrics: “I almost gave up, but a power that I can’t explain, fell from heaven like a shower. . . I smile, even though I’m hurt see I smile, I know God is working so I smile.”
Melanie Fiona started things up on Sunday and shared love with her audience expressing: “Thank you for being out here with me in the sun, I appreciate it. St Lucia’s a beautiful country, and this festival has a great line up!”
The Canadian singer’s set included her smash hit, “It Kills Me”, “4 AM”, “Monday Morning” and “Give it to Me Right”.
Hers was a performance that set the tone for what was definitely the best day of St Lucia Jazz this year. Sunday’s line up also included The WESPE POU AYITI Project featuring Jean Caze, Richard Payne, Sonny Troupe & Joel Widmaier, Hugh Masekela, Toni Braxton and Diana Ross.
During her performance Toni Braxton spoke about being a ‘P.K’—a Preacher’s Kid, and talked about how she grew up singing in church. Her churchy upbringing was a far cry from what unfolded onstage, and Braxton teased the men in the audience particularly with her provocative outfits that had quite a number of jaws dropping. Braxton’s performance was a super interactive one and at one point she went into the audience, selected a male (more like grabbed this woman’s husband away, with permission of course!) to take on stage with her.
“You mind if I borrow him?” she asked, before whisking the willing participant onto the stage. Once there the artiste made a show of sitting the man down and finding herself a comfortable position on his lap, much to the crowd’s delight.
“Are you sure you’re not going to get in trouble for this after the show,” she asked the obviously thrilled audience member. “What’s your wife’s name?
For a few moments the man seemed dumbfounded, and couldn’t even remember his wife’s name! The audience was practically in stitches laughing at the obviously star struck middle-aged man.
Braxton invited and danced with quite a number of male audience members on stage and later invited one woman to come on stage to sing with her. The woman came onstage with her young son who couldn’t take his eyes off Braxton. We’re pretty sure he’s never going to forget the moment Toni Braxton kissed him on the forehead! One of the more memorable moment in her performance was a rendition of “Get Away Jordan” where all five Braxton sisters who were at the show (including two who were her back up dancers!) joined her on stage. We’re thinking perhaps that particular moment may be an upcoming segment for their Braxton Family Values reality show?
Show stopper Diana Ross was next on the main stage and she glammed things up to no end. The old school performer pleased the crowd with hits like “I’m Coming Out”, “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough”, “Upside Down”, “I Will Survive”, “Here I am” and range of other tunes that had everyone dancing, no matter their age. It was over and done with when Ross pulled out her huge, red-feathered boa, which added to her exquisite, sparkly red dress! Diana Ross was quite the diva if there ever was one, and seemed quite the appropriate replacement for Lionel Richie, if there ever could be one. Nevertheless, some in the crowd still expressed disappointment that Richie was off the line-up. If there was a show saver for the low moments of this year’s Jazz Festival it certainly was Diana Ross!

Keri Hilson with fans

Joint Pain

Emma Anius — Wed, 16 May 2012 11:31:27 +0000

It Hurts to Move: Joint Pain

Written by: Emma Anius

Arthritis is described as an inflammation of a joint, usually accompanied by pain, swelling, and stiffness.

There are several forms of arthritis varying from bacterial arthritis, osteoarthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis. Some worse than others but they all have the same outcome: pain and discomfort.

The direct cause of arthritis is hard to pin point because there are several factors that often contribute to an individual developing this form of joint pain. Although there are some factors you are able to control and there are others that you have no control over.

Age is one of the factors to which we have no control over, as you age the cartilage becomes increasingly brittle and has less of a capacity to repair itself, this makes you more likely to develop arthritis. A previous injury is also another factor than can contribute to the cause of arthritis, this is because joint damage can cause irregularities in the normal smooth joint surface, eventually leading to arthritis, suffering from a joint infection or having multiple episodes of gout can also lead to the development of arthritis.

Keeping your weight down is one way to help prevent arthritis from happening. The load that the joint has to support is partly responsible for any damage that may occur to the joint, especially in the areas such as the hips and knees. Studies have shown that simply walking across level ground puts up to one-and-a-half times your body weight on your knees and on un-level ground it is a lot worse.

Each knee bears two to three times your body weight when you go up and down stairs, and four to five times your body weight when you squat to tie a shoelace or pick something up off the floor.

Fortunately there is something you can do to help keep the weight off, and help with the pain; starting an exercise regime would help you combat the effect that weight gain has on the body. Firstly, it helps keep the excess weight off which limits the chances of developing osteoarthritis, exercise also helps strengthen your thigh muscles which has been shown to help with load bearing of the knee.

As mentioned before exercising can help limit the chances of developing arthritis and it is also essential for those that have arthritis. Exercise increases strength and flexibility, reduces joint pain, and helps combat fatigue. When stiff and painful joints are already giving you trouble you don’t want to participate in any form of exercise due to the discomfort you experience and the fear of aggravating your joint. This is not the case, moderate exercise can actually ease your discomfort, and lack of exercise can make your joints even more stiff and painful. Keeping your muscles and surrounding tissue strong is crucial to maintaining support for your bones. Not exercising weakens those supporting muscles, creating more stress on your joints. When arthritis threatens to immobilize you, exercise keeps you moving.

Looking after you body is the key to healthy living

If you have no time to exercise or don’t know where to begin:

Beginner

Adductor lift x 10, push-ups x 10, tricep dips x 10, sit ups x 10, knee lifts x 10

Advanced

Adductor lift x 20, decline push-ups x 20, tricep dips x 15, sit ups x 30, knee lifts x 20

For help with the exercises go to www.facebook.com/cyanfitness and view the photos or come down to the Aquatics Centre Monday and Wednesday for the ‘Ultimate Carnival Workout’

Note: Emma Anius is a Personal Trainer for Cyan Fitness promoting a ‘healthy life and a better you.’

Email: emma@cyanfitness.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/cyanfitness