letters

Lots of letters about lots of things from lots of places

In a republic...

In a republic, there are cornerstones for civility.

One is property rights, and a second is the rule of law.

Laws are established, and rules are followed so that everyone in a republic can act with dignity toward each other, knowing that if they do not, they will lose the respect of the others, and most likely be punished for their transactions.

In Panama, with the "rules-based" attempt to deny Dr. Miguel Antonio Bernal a place on the ballot for mayor, we see small-minded attempts to use, and abuse, the rule of law. This particular abuse weakens public support for "following rules" because it teaches each citizen, if it succeeds, that the rules, and therefore the laws, and therefore the lawyers, and therefore the entire judicial system, are corruptible, and if successful, corrupted.

Many citizens do learn by example. They may not learn by reading or writing, but they learn by seeing an event, and it's outcome.

They learn by both good, and especially by a bad, example.

This episode is a particularly bad example for the citizens of Panama to learn, to absorb, without its corrosive effects being multiplied hundreds of thousands of times, in each of its living citizens.

What next?

As a casual political observer my wife pointed out two aspects of the Martinelli campaign, which if not rescinded before the election could be a stunning change from politics as usual.

I could have misread the stories in recent months, but horror of horrors is it possible a local politician who happens to be a businessman is actually rooted in the 21st century?

1. He proposes that the entrepreneurial commuters in and out of Colon's Zona Libre who can't wait to duck back to Paitilla at night, be forced to partially foot the bill for a comprehensive infrastructure and social reformation of the city of Colon?

2. and... Did he actually puncture Chamber of Commerce happy talk and publicly state that Panama is not totally immune from the global recession and those with grandiose plans might need to scale back spending as they face the reality of a local economic downturn?

What's next? Real transparency in government? Truly amazing.

Torrijos has done a good job

I have been following your news paper for some time now. Especially the progress of the canal expansion, but most importantly the rapid transit system, and I must say that, President Torrjos will go down in history as one of the best, if not the best president Panama ever had.

Improving the transit system is an idea long over due, and if he can pull this off, he will surely prepare Panama for the 21st century and beyond. The old "diablo rojo" buses, with their mechanical problems, is just an embarrassment to such a beautiful place as Panama City. They are totally outdated and unsafe for the public.

His main project, improving the Panama Canal, is another great achievements that will be associated with his name. If the incoming administration can continue these projects, Panama will surely have a great future and prosperity to look forward to.

Martín has stood the test of time, in my view. My faith has been restored a little bit, by this government.

In June, Martín will be replaced by whoever wins the election. Let's hope he or she has the guts to continue the legacy of improvement. As I see it, that was the theme of this administration.

Continue the enlightening.

New IDs for resident aliens

What is the latest on the new law (June 2008) which would require resident aliens to obtain an updated identification card complete with photograph and digital fingerprinting? There were lots of e-mails back in June and July 2008 on the subject but I have seen nothing since. This would replace the current Panamanian cedula marked with an E. The only name I have seen who spoke at all on the subject was Tayra Barsallo, deputy director of the Direccion de Migracion. Has this been put on hold or is this still an immediate requirement? Back in June and July the e-mails said we would have one year to get this done.

Editor's note: By the letter of the law, resident foreigners were supposed to have those ID cards last August. However, it turns out that the Torrijos administration figured that Migracion would use equipment from another branch of government, didn't consult anyone about the practical matters of this, and found that it had passed a law that could not be implemented within the specified time. I don't know when they will get this problem resolved, but at least they are not yet arresting or deporting people for not having required ID cards that don't exist.

Someone appreciates it

Thank you Eric for keeping us in touch. Gracias por mantenernos en contacto con nuestro terruño.

First cargo ship, Northwest Passage?

I recently fell upon your article in the Panama Star dated February 19, where you mention that in 2008, "the Northwest Passage saw its first commercial cargo voyage". What cargo ship was that and what was its voyage ? There are already many ships ploying these Arctic waters for commercial purposes, but serving local destinations in the area, so I am really curious to know what commercial cargo ship crossed the NWP.

Editor's note: It was the MV Camilla Desgagnes, which this past September brought cargo from Montreal through the passage to the northern communities of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak. Indeed, these communities have received commercial shipments by sea before, but always coming from the west rather than by what is commonly known as the Northwest Passage that goes between Greenland and Canada and then through the Arctic Ocean. Professor Lasserre does have a point, however: a more significant milestone is yet to come, the first commercial container ship from Asia to Europe or the East Coast of North America to use the Northwest Passage. That day is surely coming. Some scientists believe, however, that due to ice conditions the Arctic passage that may be most navigable might turn out to be through the Arctic Ocean across the top of Greenland rather than the Northwest Passage as it is commonly known.

The lock selection for the Panama Canal Expansion

Masterful marketing, which focuses on profit potential and avoids technical issues, has created the perception that --- when completed --- the Panama Canal Expansion will work well and business will grow robustly. That has resulted in a speculative boom in Panama.

However, on its present course, the expansion will lead to a catastrophically different outcome. Today’s project needlessly jeopardizes the canal’s economic future and threatens critical ecosystems. It also creates expectations it will fail to meet.

Bidding on lock design and construction has encountered repeated delays, as was predicted. Issues normally resolved when assessing lock proposals --- a typical first-step this world-important engineering project omitted --- have contributed to those delays, validating concerns voiced at the project’s outset.

Independent assessments predict that, unless changed, this one-lane expansion will severely restrict the canal’s growth potential, plus curtail the capacity of its original locks. Furthermore, Gatun Lake’s ecosystem, and marine-life in the coastal waters of both oceans, will be severely affected.

Organizations, like the Gatun Lake Defense Committee (Comité ProDefensa del Lago Gatún), assert that an expanded canal --- delivering even more service --- can be built for the same money without sacrificing one of the world’s most important man-made freshwater reserves. Unnecessarily polluting Panama’s main water resource with vast amounts of salt water entering through the planned locks would be criminal.

Advocated is to expand the canal using a lower-risk, two-lane system with better gravity-operated locks, with which these issues do not even arise.

Even locks similar to those of today’s canal --- that actually have a more effective water-saving capability than those planned --- would already triple capacity, instead of only doubling it. The most advanced two-lane locks, given their high efficiency, could more than quadruple cargo capacity.

All these locks are feasible for the project. They contain the same proven parts --- just arranged more effectively --- and operate following tried and tested techniques. The water of today’s canal is sufficient for the expanded canal because the original locks would be operated in their rarely-used most efficient mode in this integrated system. By using better locks, ships would be lifted in two steps instead of three and those locks could have larger chambers.

Switching locks can immeasurably improve the expansion, without creating major setbacks and without significantly altering cost.

The expansion’s stated objective is to add capacity and increase revenue. Yet, what is being pushed ahead is a very limiting plan of great disservice to the world community and to Panama, who ultimately fund this project and will suffer its consequences.

Skipping proper lock selection, then sticking to an arbitrary, ineffective, damaging, and high-risk lock choice suggests that the lure of immediate contracts and money overrides the importance of product quality.

This elicits uncomfortable reminders of short-term gain strategies that have played heavily in the world’s present financial collapse and of the lip service paid to sustainable development.

A rare opportunity to protect the environment while increasing profit, now and in the future, is at hand. Ignoring it cannot be an option.

The Gatun Lake Defense Committee advocates for a genuinely responsible and sustainable expansion of the Panama Canal, where its valuable resources are used effectively and left undamaged for the benefit of this and future generations.

The government in Guyana acts badly

I once again express utter consternation at the refusal of President Bharrat Jagdeo and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government of Guyana to pay pensions owed to late former President of Guyana, Hugh Desmond Hoyte, to his surviving 76-year-old widow and former First Lady of Guyana, Mrs. Joyce Hoyte.

A pension is not a privilege or a gift. It constitutes an accumulation of monies which one regularly paid into a fund over the period of ones career, which must then, upon retirement, be paid back to that individual as retirement benefits. This is why pensions plans are regulated by law and is an "entitlement."

Therefore the refusal to pay Mrs. Hoyte her husband's pension is lawless. Such callousness lacks basic human decency and is unacceptable in a civilized society. It is an embarrassment for the Guyanese people. After all, what nation on earth refuses to pay its former First Lady --- a 76 year-old widow at that, her dead husband's retirement benefits to which she is lawfully entitled? Any government that does, deserves to have its moral fabric challenged and placed in disrepute.

Since President Hoyte demitted the presidency in 1992, the PPP government has refused to pay his presidential retirement benefits. Consequently, he had insisted to his staff that he would never go to the PPP begging for a lawful entitlement. Sadly, he died in 2002 without receiving his pension. But let there be no mistake --- I am in close communication with Mrs. Hoyte. I will fight for her with every once of energy in my being, without relenting, until she receives her money. For this cause, I call on all Guyanese to join with me.

Under extant laws, President Hoyte would have been entitled to a pension equal to seven-eights (7/8’s) of the current president’s salary. That is approximately G$800,000.00 per month. The other former First Ladies, Mrs. Janet Jagan and Mrs. Doreen Chung, currently receive their late husbands' pensions. So what makes Joyce Hoyte different? The fact that she is Afro-Guyanese?

I first raised this matter in the press on November 16, 2008. President Jagdeo, immediately thereafter, personally contacted Mrs. Hoyte and claimed to have been unaware of this issue. This assertion, in my opinion, seriously strains credulity, as this has been an ongoing issue between President Hoyte and the PPP government up to the time of his death.

This, notwithstanding, President Jagdeo assured Mrs. Hoyte that, upon his return from an overseas mission upon which he was then embarking, he would ensure its speedy resolution. However today, five months later, the matter remains resolved.

In my judgment, it has not been resolved because the PPP government has made a conscious decision not to pay Mrs. Hoyte, and opposition leader Mr. Robert Corbin has, by his calculated silence, countenanced and been complicit with the government’s action.

I am very disappointed in President Jagdeo. I am astonished that he appears to stand far from that moral plain that’s compels him to not only honor the sacrosanct obligations of the State, but out of self-respect, honor a promise to an old lady who just happens to be a dead president’s wife.

It is unconscionable and absurd for the government to attempt to spite a 76-year-old lady who has done nothing but live in privacy and peace. I ask President Jagdeo, how would you feel if you are treated in this matter when you leave the presidency?

Moreover, I previously called President Jagdeo and Police Commissioner Henry Green’s attention to the lack of adequate security at Mrs. Hoyte’s residence. Yet, nothing has been done. Mrs. Hoyte currently has one police guard at her home per shift. The day guard also serves as her driver. Whenever that driver is out on driving duties, the former First Lady’s and her property are left unprotected. Is this how the state proposes to repay her for her husband’s service to Guyana?

I can no longer tolerate this unwarranted victimization and mistreatment of the wife of the late president of Guyana, whom I served as a special assistant, at the hands of individuals who lack basic standards of human decency. I reject it, and so too must all Guyanese.

The mistreatment of Joyce Hoyte is not dissimilar from the disrespect and political and racial victimization to which President Jagdeo’s government has subjected the Afro-Guyanese population in Guyana. When Bharrat Jagdeo and his PPP party were elected to government, I did not see them taking their personal monies to the Guyana treasury. It is the people’s money that finances the treasury. And the law requires that the people’s money and resources be properly utilized and employed to meet the obligations of the state.

Mrs. Joyce Hoyte does not involve herself in partisan politics. She is a non-partisan symbol of the state and therefore deserves to be treated with respect and dignity by the government of the day. Therefore, I refuse to stand idly by while the Guyana government treats her with indignity.

The only payment she currently receives is a presidential widow’s pension of approximately, G$100,000.00 per month, form the Parliament. That may just be enough to cover her electricity bill. Under the law she is entitled to a housekeeper, a gardener and adequate security. Currently, she receives none of the above. Why?

The government of Guyana owes Mrs. Hoyte her husband’s pension from 1992 to date. I call on President Jagdeo to put aside petty partisan politics and pay Mrs. Joyce Hoyte her husband’s pension to which she is lawfully entitled.

Hypocritically correct

Amendment X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Hypocrisy and politicians! There is nothing new in this love-match made by Cupid’s arrow of self-interest, right? Wrong, in the current flurry of state legislatures passing or considering resolutions asserting state sovereignty, many politicians are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

With close to 30 states having approved or currently considering resolutions of sovereignty, it is noteworthy how many Republicans are now standing up to be counted as defenders of the Constitution, especially after their silence during the Bush administration’s eight-year-assault on the Bill of Rights. And what of the Democrats who were formerly vehement critics of Bush’s actions? They have suddenly gone silent as the Obama administration continues many of Bush’s policies they once opposed. Hypocrisy and partisan politics, of course, but above this is a more fundamental issue involving the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

After the Constitution was ratified by state conventions, the constitutional debate continued with the submission of a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton argued against such a bill, asserting that the people had not surrendered their rights in ratifying the Constitution, so such protections were unnecessary. “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Furthermore, Hamilton feared that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected.

Opposed to Hamilton’s argument, Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as ambassador to France, supported such a bill. He wrote to James Madison, the author of the Constitution: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”

Madison was, like Hamilton, concerned that enumerating such rights could “enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution.” Consequently, he submitted the following draft of the Ninth Amendment to the Congress: “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”

Madison further elaborated on these rights in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights: “It has been said, by way of objection to a Bill of Rights. …that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the power enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained; that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a Bill of Rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.”

Today, after the Bush administration’s restrictions of constitutional rights through the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential Decision Directive 51, with Republican and Democratic congressional acquiescence, the rights debate has devolved to the States. Consequently, the Tenth Amendment has moved to center stage.

Ratified on 15 December 1791, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the national government to the States or the people. Based on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation where “each state retains its sovereignty,” it restates the Constitution’s principle of federalism, and in supporting states rights, it makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.

Previously, states rights was used to justify two indelible moral stains on the national character: slavery and segregation. However, today the issues include Second Amendment gun rights, unfunded mandates and demands from Washington, DC on how to spend stimulus money, national identification cards, and a presidential declaration of martial law, among others.

While most of the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution did not grant the national government any power that it did not expressly mention, most American political leaders since the Civil War have opined that the Constitution grants the national government the authority to do more or less anything that is not expressly prohibited by the first eight amendments. And with the contemporary submission of Congress to the executive, the debate is now between the states and the executive.

The present debate is constitutionally necessary and long overdue. As the debate unfolds, hopefully not into a full-blown constitutional crisis --- the last one resulted in the Civil War --- partisan politics and party loyalties will undoubtedly be the surface politics on the television screen and talk radio. Will the public realize that the Constitution is not what George W. Bush called “just a goddamned piece of paper?” Since the Republican and Democratic Congresses have been missing in action, it’s time for the states to reclaim Jefferson’s “half a loaf.”

Violence against the Awa

We of the Colombia Support Network are outraged by the recent attacks upon the Awa indigenous communities in Nariño Department in southwest Colombia. More than 20 peaceful Awa indigenous have been kidnapped and then murdered reportedly by FARC guerrillas, in what a FARC spokesman has attempted to justify as retaliation for the Awa providing information to the Colombian Army concerning the whereabouts and the activities of FARC units in the vicinity of the Awa settlements. The Awa are caught between opposing forces in the Colombian conflict. As units of the Army, paramilitaries and FARC guerrillas move through the area where the Awa live and work, they each demand support from the Awa. If that support is not provided, they will harm those indigenous who refuse to provide it. If they do provide support of any kind, they are targeted by the opposing forces.

The Awa have a right to live peacefully on their lands without threats from any of the armed actors. The Army, the paramilitaries and the guerrillas must not interfere with these basic rights. The FARC have violated the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and of human rights. Their murder of defenseless Awa is execrable and utterly unjustifiable.

We call upon the FARC immediately to end their threats, kidnappings and murder of Awa indigenous, and to refrain from incursions into Awa lands. They should submit those who ordered kidnappings and murders of members of the Awa communities to public authorities for prosecution. And we call upon the Colombian government to pursue and dismantle the illegal paramilitaries operating in the Nariño region and throughout much of Colombia, and to end Army and Police collaboration with the paramilitaries. And we further call upon the Colombian government to halt the Army's threats and violence against the Awa and to guarantee these indigenous communities the rights granted to them by the Colombian Constitution of 1991.

Rex Freeman

My name is Dwight Collins, a Jamaican national, and I am a member of Mark Boswell's / Evelyn Reid's VRG.

As a member of the VRG, I also became a member of the Continental trust and Credit Union (CTCU). I also have invested some money with the couple on a Pine Ridge Estate real estate project on lands to the NE of Panama City (40 minutes away), a development run by their company called Rancho Real SA.

My transactions with the couple had no complaints until January of this year when I requested that some of my funds be wired to my bank in Jamaica. In fact it has been five weeks now since said request and nothing yet. The reason given by Mark and Evelyn (both of whom I have spoken to separately over the phone) is that they are currently separated. Evelyn claims that Mark has had another woman since August last year, yet I have had transaction successfully done up until January. She also claims that Mark has removed her administrator privileges from CTCU (a predominantly online operation) so that she cannot access my request and therefore cannot process it. Mark claims that Evelyn has removed him from the relevant bank accounts so that he cannot process my request yet.

All this foolishness prompted me to search their names of the internet and I came up with your articles.

I would appreciate some advice from you as to how to approach this situation, more so, to terminate my relationship with the two with full recovery of my funds invested/deposited.

Editor's note: If this account is true, it would not surprise me. I would be even less surprised if to the extent that this is a second- or third-hand account, Mr. Collins wasn't being told the truth. I really don't have any useful advice for people who swallowed “Rex Freeman's” bait and want to get their money back. I personally expect that by this time next year, Mark Boswell alias Rex Freeman won't be in Panama.

Water in Maria Chiquita

My husband and I purchased our casa on the beach in Maria Chiquita in 2002. We thought that we had found paradise, until in the last three years we have had no water in our village. They may have it in the middle of the town, but not down on the beach toward where the tourist center used to be. We are one of the few that pay for water, but nothing.

Now here it is again, I am planning on coming down the 12th of March, but we have no water at my house. This is the same as last spring and summer. It is a shame that I cannot come and use my house that i pay for because of this reason --- not to say anything about the poor people and children that live there daily without any water.

Water is a necessity of life. People are sick in Maria Chiquita because of this. The government wants to bring tourists and people to retire in Panama, but why would they with these conditions?

I need help in this matter. Not everyone has the ability to bring water in. We need a new aqueduct system immediately. I have always wanted to retire in Panama and call it my home, but now I am not sure. Please advise what I can do, with whom I can meet, or anything I can do to help not only myself, but also the people of Maria Chiquita.

Editor's note: In a normal society, the IDAAN water and sewer utility people would be the ones with whom you would want to meet. I am not being facetious or trying to incite anything, but I will note that in the Panamanian political culture people in these sorts of situations tend to block a key road until someone in authority listens, or pretends to listen, to their complaints. One would expect that the people who head the government would care about what residents, particularly those who vote, care about them and their political party. It doesn't seem to be that way this year, maybe because it appears like a blowout defeat for the ruling PRD no matter what they do.