Crises, corruption and constitutional reform

| 31/01/2025 | 55 Comments

Aristophanes Duckpond writes: Cayman is at a critical juncture. Caymanians face daily crises that our political processes have created or made worse. Change is needed. This Viewpoint sets out some of the linkages between and among the crises the majority of the electorate faces on a daily basis, political corruption and abuse, and defects in our legislation, including our Constitution.

This Viewpoint also sets out a 15-point proposal for fixing those defects and making it more likely that politicians will prioritise the interests of the electorate rather than their own interests.

We are all familiar with the crises confronting Caymanians and residents on a daily basis, including the constant increases in the cost of housing and everything else, out-of-control development, the destruction of our environment, the declining quality of life, the collapsing infrastructure, ridiculous commuting times, rising crime, imported poverty, the failing education system, the growing garrison-based dependence culture, and the already massive and rapidly increasing debt facing this and future generations. 

These crises have a common source. They are all to some extent, directly or indirectly the result of politicians and the special interests that own too many of them, abusing the power given to politicians by the electorate in order to pursue their own interests rather than the interests of the electorate. Any use of governmental power other than for the betterment of these Islands and the electorate is corrupt.

Corrupt politicians grow richer and more powerful by buying elections, then using their political power and defects in our Constitution and legislation to abolish or circumvent the laws that were designed to protect us from their abuse. Once elected, corrupt politicians and those that facilitate corruption are in a position to sell favourable decisions to the special interests at our expense.

Corrupt politicians don’t even need to be in the majority in Parliament. All that they need is a sufficient number of weak politicians who facilitate those that are corrupt by simply doing little or nothing to stop them, and too frequently, by agreeing to work with them to gain power and money for themselves.

We need constitutional change. We need our Constitution to obviate the corrupt abuse of power by politicians and to ensure that the interests of politicians are firmly and permanently tied to the interests of the electorate.

We need a Constitutional provision that will permanently tie the pay of our elected politicians to the income of average Caymanians. That is the only way that we can be assured that politicians will understand our situations and work in our interests.

We also need to eliminate the present situation in which politicians elected on the basis of a few bought votes in tiny constituencies can horse trade to create governments which only make politicians and the special interest groups richer while the rest of us become poorer in every way. We need a system in which our government is elected directly by the people without the possibility of political horse-trading leading to bought governments.

The constitutional change that we need will only occur if it is forced on politicians and the special interest groups that control them by a binding People-Initiated Referendum.

The following are my suggestions for Constitutional and other legislative provisions that will better align the interests of politicians with those of the electorate.

  1. Parliament would continue to have 19 members in total. Each elector would get two votes: one national vote and one district vote. Thirteen Members of Parliament would be elected by way of a national vote involving all electors on all three Cayman Islands. An additional six MPs would be district representatives elected by electors in each of the five districts on Grand Cayman, plus one MP who would be elected by the electors on the Sister Islands. 

    One of the advantages of a national vote is that it makes election buying more expensive and therefore less likely, particularly when campaign finance restrictions also exist.

  2. Cabinet would to be comprised of the seven MPs who secured the greatest number of votes in the national vote plus two non-voting official members (as is the case today). A majority of MPs would be required to approve the ministries assigned to the Cabinet members.

  3. Campaign finance restrictions designed to weaken the role of special interests would be locked into the Constitution. Election campaign and related contributions to any person seeking elected office, whether in cash or otherwise, would be fully documented and completely transparent, would only be permitted by registered electors, and would be limited to a maximum of $1,000 per contributor per election cycle.

    Contributions, whether in cash or otherwise, in excess of that maximum would be criminalised. Contributions in any form from entities other than registered voters, whether direct or indirect, would be criminalised.

  4. The total remuneration of elected MPs for all government-related activities would be set based on the median annual income of electors. By way of suggestion, the total remuneration of each Cabinet member, including all perks, should not exceed 2.5 times the median annual income of electors, and the total remuneration of other MPs, including all perks, should not exceed 2.0 times the median income of electors.

    Remuneration for ‘counsellors’ would be eliminated. Retired parliamentarians who have served at least 16 years in Parliament would be permitted an annual pension that should not exceed 1.0 times the median income of electors, and any such pension would vest only after the retired politician reached the age of 65 and undertook not to seek re-election. No more double dipping.

  5. In order to minimise corruption, all payments and other benefits paid directly or indirectly to or for the direct or indirect benefit of any MP (including family and other related parties), whether in cash or otherwise, would be recorded in a publicly available register and made completely transparent. In this regard, beneficial ownership transparency in relation to land registry transactions involving politicians and politically exposed persons would be enhanced and made mandatory.

    No more free condos for politicians selling out the country.

  6. Contravention of any provision designed to prevent corruption involving a politician would carry a severe criminal penalty based on criminal prosecution standards plus a separately determined and applied inflation-adjusted civil penalty of at least a million dollars adjudicated on the basis of civil prosecution standards and payable by the corrupt person.

    Whistleblowers who provide evidence of political corruption leading to a judicial finding of civil liability in relation to corruption would be entitled to a payout of the entirety of the million dollar plus civil penalty imposed for civil political corruption. 

  7. All payments from public coffers to or for the direct or indirect benefit of elected MPs should be fully accounted for. The $5,000 per month of public money that is currently paid to MPs without any accountability should be stopped in order to limit the potential for vote buying paid for from public funds.

  8. All payments, whether in cash or in kind, by or on behalf of any MP directly or indirectly to or for the benefit of any elector should be recorded in a fully transparent public register and should be legally presumed to constitute criminal vote buying unless the contrary is proved.

  9. Cabinet authority should be limited to the setting, coordination and monitoring of government policy. That is the proper role for Cabinet.

  10. Cabinet should be prohibited from participating in any manner in negotiations and/or decisions regarding any contracts or arrangements with any private sector entity, any duty waivers or similar inducements, and also prohibited from participating in any other matter in which the exercise of a political decision could potentially be bought.

  11. Cabinet should be prohibited from acting as an appellate body in relation to the decisions of any statutory board or authority or in any other quasi-judicial capacity in any matter. At present members of Cabinet have far too much salable discretion and insufficient competence.

  12. No MP should have any direct or indirect involvement in the selection of board members of any statutory authority or government company, specifically and expressly including the Central Planning Authority and the Development Control Board. No member of any statutory authority or government company should have any direct or indirect economic interests in any business sector related to the activities of the board to which they are appointed.

    The total remuneration of board members on all statutory authorities and government companies, whether in cash or otherwise, should be completely transparent and should be on a per hour basis limited to a maximum equivalent to the hourly income of the average elector.

    No board member of any statutory authority or government company should be permitted to have any real, potential or perceived conflict of economic interest in relation to the decisions of any such statutory authority or government company on which they serve.

  13. All candidates for election to Parliament should be required to also submit at the time of submitting their nomination papers a detailed coherent manifesto setting out their qualifications, intended policies and intended legislative priorities if elected. Hopefully that would make it easier for the electorate to evaluate candidates.

  14. Legislation that has been captured by or is aligned with any special interest to any degree and now works against the interests of ordinary Caymanians, such as the Development and Planning Act and Regulations, should be repealed and replaced by legislation that works in the interests of all Caymanians.

  15. Members of Parliament should be required to take an oath of office prior to taking office, swearing to comply with the Constitution and all other laws in effect in the Cayman Islands with a further provision to the effect that breach of that oath would lead to termination of office and a permanent prohibition in relation to being elected to Parliament thereafter.

    At present, the Cabinet Code of Conduct only requires Cabinet Members to comply with laws that they think are relevant to them on any given day.

These suggestions are neither perfect nor the complete solution, but dialogue and much-needed change have to begin somewhere. 

I am sure that others will identify additional constitutional and legislative changes that are desperately needed in Cayman.  Please make your suggestions known.

Each of the above suggestions, and any others settled on by the sponsors of a people-initiated referendum (PIR), should form the basis for legally separate ‘stand-alone’ referendum questions that should be put to the electorate at the earliest opportunity. That will ensure that the electorate has choices and that the potential for improving our country is optimised.

Corrupt politicians and the special interests that own them will strenuously oppose all these ideas and any other measure that might make Cayman a better democracy. Honest politicians pursuing the interests of Caymanians have nothing to fear.

Hopefully, Caymanians and others who love Cayman and who understand how to design and implement a legally binding people-initiated referendum as set out in Section 70 of the Constitution will step forward to help build a better Cayman Islands in which politicians work for the benefit of all of us rather than just the special interests that currently dominate politics in Cayman.


Share your vote!


How do you feel after reading this?
  • Fascinated
  • Happy
  • Sad
  • Angry
  • Bored
  • Afraid

Tags: ,

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (55)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Babushka Pupil says:

    Yes Cayman trivia the same one in Cayman brac “Treating” buying wotes and fridges stoves and gifts he has learnt well from his mentor from West Bay has he not ? What ashame not one election official seems to be concerned by this criminal activity.

    7
    1
  2. Cayman Trivia says:

    Which new party leader was a trusted consigliere of our ex dear leader and former speaker of the house ? Be careful Cayman voter don’t let them fool you !

    12
  3. Anonymous says:

    Our Constitution has requires our legislators to enact a law providing a framework for People-Initiated Referendums since 2009.

    The reason we still do not have such a Constitutionally mandated law is that our bought politicians and their pay masters are terrified of the proposals set out in this Viewpoint.

    7
    1
    • just the facts. says:

      The constitution has no such requirement.

      As reported in CNS, on 28 April 2021 the Privy Council confirmed “…that there is no need for the Cayman Islands to enact a general referendum law. The court has now confirmed that the right to participate in a ‘fair and effective people-initiated referendum’ can be fully protected by a referendum specific law without framework legislation. This means Parliament must enact separate pieces of legislation for each referendum, since the UK court did not see sufficient public interest in hearing the case.”

      The minutes to the constitution amendment talks with the UK show that this was the intention of those present.

    • Anonymous says:

      Where I am from, we use to say “If voting really made a difference, it would be forbidden”.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I would be happy to work with others to start a people-initiated referendum to improve our electoral system and make corruption less attractive to politicians. I have at least one friend who is willing to contribute time and some money as well. Would someone from the Cruise referendum project please post an outline of how to get started.

    5
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      @11:44am:
      The only viable way to make corruption less attractive to politicians is to elect politicians who are immune to corruption.

      In this territory in which serving Mammon is the unofficial National Pastime, new rules are not likely to have any significant impact. A new heart is what The People need.

  5. anon says:

    In the 50+ years I have lived here I do not recall a single politician being convicted of corruption. What does that tell us?.

    21
    2
  6. Anonymous says:

    Kind Sir; have you heard the phrase ‘the medicine is worse than the disease, and the patient will still die’? Cayman is very sick, and many of your remedies will make things worse.

    5
    20
  7. Anonymous says:

    Having read this very well written Viewpoint I opened the link below the article to a Viewpoint also written by Aristophanes in 2022.

    That 2022 Viewpoint warned that the PACT government’s amendment to the Anti-Corruption Act would make it much more difficult to convict corrupt politicians and that as a result corruption would increase. History has proven that to be true.

    Undoing the PACT governments pro-corruption amendment should be added to the proposed referendum.

    22
  8. Anonymous says:

    Whilst ever Cayman remains blighted with ineffective and impotent oversight and incompetent and inept investigatory bodies, corruption will operate with impunity.

    29
    1
  9. Anonymous says:

    Would the people who did such an excellent job with the port referendum please consider helping our country by developing another referendum to strengthen our electoral system along the lines suggested in this Viewpoint. We cannot continue the way we are going.

    22
    2
  10. Doc says:

    As an ancient Greek playwright, Aristophanes, I am sure you are aware that the word Democracy (rule by the people) is from the Greek language.
    Candidates for the legislature in ancient Greece were audited at the start of their (one year)term, and again at the end.
    If found to be financially corrupt at the end of their term, they were executed…

    23
  11. Anonymous says:

    Thank you to the author.

    Our democracy is broken and our institutions are corrupted. Nothing short of radical change to our Constitution and our electoral system offers any hope that things will get better.

    It is time for change!

    25
    • Anonymous says:

      i agree, but do we have someone with the gravitas and nerves of steel who can lead us out of this morass?

  12. Anonymous says:

    Recent events indicate that the current crop of politicians will never accept any Constitutional change that would limit their ability to sell decisions to special interests. A people-initiated referendum is the only way to change things. Hopefully that can be achieved over the next 4 years.

    24
    1
  13. Anonymous says:

    I appreciate Aristophenes saying that “These suggestions are neither perfect nor the complete solution, but dialogue and much-needed change have to begin somewhere.” Several of them can’t work (not that it wouldn’t be great if they could) but we will be better off for people considering these issues.

    24
  14. Anonymous says:

    I agree 100% that a new electoral system is necessary, and that we need national candidates, but preferred this proposal that would ADD 8 national level candidates while maintaining the current district representation, as well as giving people four votes for national candidates plus one for their district. https://chng.it/VQnVj2w46M

    Since the implementation of OMOV we have never had a stable government. Even the long-serving PPM government was propped up by independents. This leaves our government perenially hostage to one or two king-makers, whose departure would bring the entire government down.

    Since the most able and honest politicians are rewarded with more influence and responsibility, it follows that the least capable and least honest lose influence until the temptation to regain it by exploiting the position of kingmaker becomes unbearable. They then make demands of the government, which if not met, brings the government down or forces them to form a new coalition. This is a lose/lose proposition for the government and the country. (To be fair, the recent principled departures are an exception).

    This makes our government perennially unstable and creates de facto minority rule.

    A bigger parliament is therefore helpful because it allows for a larger majority. Currently the largest majority any government can hope for is one or two seats. Winning 58% of the seats would be considered an historic landslide in the US or the UK, here it gives a majority of only two seats. 58% of a 27 seat parliament would mean a majority of 5 seats, which would make it MUCH harder for low-influence MPs to hold the government over a barrel.

    It’s also a more pragmatic solution because it lets the current MPs run for their existing seats. If you take away 13 seats you’d have endless squabbling over district boundaries and unified opposition from the current MPs, each of whom would fear losing their seat.

    As for salaries, what you’re saying is that most of the current MPs don’t deserve their current salary. Agreed. But offering lower salaries (2.5 times the median income is only CI$115,000) will make it EVEN LESS ATTRACTIVE for the good people we want to stand. Furthermore, median income in Cayman is in line with the USA and moving the needle is important but very, very difficult. It would require dramatic improvement to the education system that could take 10-20 years.

    Well educated, competent and hard-working Caymanians will be earning anywhere from CI$100,000 – $300,000 in the private sector, or even in the civil service. They’re not going to sacrifice their careers and reputations to gamble on a run for office if the prize is a big pay cut. It’s also a corruption risk. Pay too little and MPs will spend their days looking for other ways to feather their nests.

    Tying MP’s salaries to their most recent salaries makes more sense. That way you don’t overpay people who couldn’t get a real job, but also attract the best and brightest Caymanians that we want running the country.

    Allowing them to serve part time also makes sense because if they’re back benchers, it’s not a full time job anyway. Let successful people keep their jobs and careers and show up to vote a few times a year.

    That way the total cost of a larger parliament should be no more than the current parliament.

    In terms of the size of cabinet, I agree the current system doesn’t work. But it won’t be made better by giving each Minister even more ministries to divide their time between. it’s hard to focus on improving education when you’re also responsible for Finance, Sport, Aviation etc etc.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I’d take your proposal over the current system any day. Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and I’m glad to see civil society in Cayman waking up to the fact that the current system doesn’t work for the country and needs to change.

    I pray it doesn’t take another four years of dysfunction for the rest of the public to wake up and smell the coffee. The problem is not the parties or the people, but the system that puts them there. Time to start over.

    32
    • Anonymous says:

      All very important points for the electorate to consider and I for one am very pleased that these important issues can be talked about!

      I agree with most of your points but I believe that a significant majority of our Members of Parliament must be elected nationally. We cannot afford to have parochial tiny constituency politics and the inevitable corruption that flows from it dominate our country.

      17
      • Anonymous says:

        I agree in theory, but the issue is getting there from where we are.

        You need something at least one (and ideally all) of the parties will support… because you need the support of their supporters.

        Anything that threatens the incumbency of current politicians is a non-starter.

        Again, we have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and devise something that vested interests can support.

        3
        2
        • Anonymous says:

          The port referendum project demonstrated that it is possible to bring about change even when it threatened the incumbency of may politicians and none of the Parliamentary groups wanted it.

          That is what we need now for Constitutional and electoral reform.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Cayman has a very important FATF inspection coming in 2026 that it cannot fail. Bad governance, money laundering, transshipment, and corruption are recurring failing points. Cayman Finance must rapidly come to understand that Cayman can’t fail anymore, if that industry is to stick around as the central pillar, providing 80% of CIG revenue. There can’t be any slack cut to MPs at this trough – get them out, or else.

    38
    • Diogenes of Cayman says:

      Hard to take anything you are asserting here seriously when you claim that 80% of the Government’s revenue is from Financial services

      In reality that number is projected to be 40% for 2025 following the fee increases for this year, even if you take into account work permit fees associated with financial service jobs that total number combined with the fees does not crack 45% of total revenues

      You can illustrate a point without wholesale creation of fake numbers – how can people expect to have serious discussions about the future of Cayman when people are just spouting off random numbers with no merit and not basis in reality?

      1
      12
      • Anonymous says:

        I think the difference between your numbers is just whether you’re counting only direct revenue or everything attributable to it.

        The direct revenue (just from company and partnership fees) is indeed projected to be about $400m (40%) in 2025. That doesn’t include work permit fees though, or any apportionment of duty. If you include an apportionment of both of those it is over 50%.

        That still ignores wider impacts including the multiplier effect (government uses the money it collects from financial services to pay civil servants who pay duty on homes and goods) or the induced impacts in other sectors. For example, many of our “visitors” are clients, intermediaries and family members of financial services firms and their employees. They spend money and pay airport taxes and import duties on purchases. They even buy property and pay stamp duty.

        These clients, employees and visitors related to financial services help sustain our hotels and restaurants which improves our tourism product and helps them attract regular tourists.

        Technology firms and jobs are attracted by the lack of direct tax and the excellent amenities and infrastructure compared to other Caribbean islands – directly attributable to the fees paid by the financial sector. Those firms pay work permit fees, duty, govt license fees etc. It’s not directly attributable to financial services but it wouldn’t have been collected without it.

        No matter which dollar of government revenue you looked at, it would almost certainly have a link back to the financial industry, either directly or indirectly.

        I think we would ignore those indirect impacts in our decision making at our peril.

        16
      • Anonymous says:

        @3:50:

        Bloody hell, man! Who wants truth? Hyperbole and exaggeration are far more beguiling and appealing to the many coprophagics roun’ yah.

    • Anonymous says:

      Private sector and public sector need to ensure that their actions don’t give rise to non-compliant criticism. Wonder what will happen.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The politicians don’t even try to hide the fact their bought.

    26
    • Anonymous says:

      ‘they’re’ as in ‘they are’. They are too prehistoric and been too secure for too long in ‘their’ wallets and egos, they are done and panicking, they may have to pay their own bills!

      12
  17. Anonymous says:

    It’s all irrelevant when your electorate is so short-sighted and easily swayed by an idiot in a sharp suit who thinks they are gods gift.

    31
    1
    • Anonymous says:

      Especially when electorate paying for the sharp suit!

      14
    • Anonymous says:

      The issue is that inept/corrupt politicians are able to fool some of the people all of the time and the people they’re able to fool are the friends, family members and patrons in their tiny district.

      It would be much harder for them to fool enough people to get elected in a national vote.

      That means we’re probably doomed to have mostly muppets in the districts. National candidates ought to be more ministerial material.

      If that doesn’t work, it is direct rule or bust. (Bust, most likely).

  18. Realist says:

    This is an excellent and necessary article. The analysis is clear, the concerns are valid, and the argument for constitutional reform is compelling. But identifying the problem is only the first step — what matters now is action.

    Without focused, sustained pressure, the entrenched dysfunction described here will persist. The CPR Cayman movement offers a precedent. That campaign, born from opposition to the disastrous cruise port plan, achieved what few thought possible: forcing a referendum and proving that organised, grassroots civic engagement can challenge the political establishment. But the cruise port issue was never just about a dock; it was a symptom of the deeper structural failures this article highlights — unaccountable leadership, corrupt decision-making, and a system resistant to public influence.

    Those who built CPR Cayman should now consider repurposing their platform — or, if legally unfeasible, leading a new initiative with the same determination. The mechanisms they mastered — public engagement, legal strategy, and political pressure — are precisely what’s needed to push for systemic change. Constitutional reform cannot remain an abstract ideal. The path forward is clear: a well-organised, citizen-led campaign, leveraging the tools of direct democracy, can make it happen.

    Please see: https://www.caymancompass.com/2019/12/02/the-anti-port-movement-how-a-small-campaign-snowballed-to-force-a-referendum/

    Congratulations again on an excellent analysis.

    28
    1
  19. Anonymous says:

    A bit utopian, but the extent to which the MLAs seem in a hurry to allow the destruction of their country for so many bags of silver is heartbreaking.

    40
  20. Anonymous says:

    An aid to transparency and accountability might be to require the minister responsible for any new major policy or expenditure to make public a one-page business case and sign their name to it.

    26
  21. Anonymous says:

    Great ideas! My suggestion would be to do like they do in the US for SEC violations. That would mean setting the civil penalty for corruption or attempted corruption at something like a million dollars on the lower end and three times the profit sought or the loss avoided by means of corruption on the high end.

    23
  22. Anonymous says:

    While we are making legislative changes we should also stop the stupidity of lawsuits between statutory authorities and government departments that are costing us millions each year.

    19
    3
  23. Anonymous says:

    Not a bad list. We’ll never get any of it though.

    I hate that I’ve joined with the cynics, but we’re screwed.

    19
    3
  24. Anonymous says:

    I love the idea of corrupt politicians and special interests having to pay millions of dollars to honest people who turn them in for prosecution. That would be a deterrent.

    27
    • Anonymous says:

      There is encouraging precedent for whistleblowers to be incentivised through financial rewards by offering a percentage of recovered funds or statutory payouts. For example:

      – U.S. SEC Whistleblower Program: Offers 10-30% of sanctions exceeding $1 million for reporting securities fraud.

      – IRS Whistleblower Office: Pays up to 30% of recovered unpaid taxes for exposing tax fraud.

      – False Claims Act (Qui Tam lawsuits, U.S.): Allows whistleblowers to claim 15-30% of government fraud recoveries.

      Such rewards encourage disclosures, deter wrongdoing, and compensate whistleblowers for personal and career risks.

      14
      • Anonymous says:

        @2:01:

        “IRS Whistleblower Office: Pays up to 30% of recovered unpaid taxes for exposing tax fraud.”
        You have opened an interesting fork here.
        Are all the “paper Americans” in Cayman aware of these facts:
        –Birthright Citizenship: A child born in the U.S. generally acquires U.S. citizenship at birth, even if their parents are foreign nationals and only stayed in the USA long enough to give birth and returned home shortly thereafter, even if that child never again sets foot on U.S. soil.
        –Worldwide Taxation: The IRS requires all U.S. citizens to file taxes on global income, regardless of country of residency.
        –Filing Requirements: If income (regardless of the source) exceeds the annual filing threshold, they must file a U.S. tax return. They may also need to report foreign (Cayman) bank accounts (per FBAR) or assets (per FATCA).
        –Renunciation: The only way to legally exit U.S. tax obligations is to renounce U.S. citizenship (**requires being at least 18 and paying an exit tax in some cases).

        In short, unless the America-born totally Caymanian child formally renounces U.S. citizenship after turning 18, they are liable for U.S. tax filing and reporting requirements.

  25. Anonymous says:

    If we did as this Viewpoint suggests I suspect that two thirds of those currently elected would not even stand for election and that may be a very good thing.

    39
  26. keep it coming says:

    all of the points made in your missive are valid and worthy of consideration. It is unfortunate that your ideas are coming on the eve of an election and probably will not be even read by a large number of the voting public. May I suggest you seek to send your thoughts to each person who has declared for candidacy , which at least may form part of their internal dialogue on the way forward. kudos.

    24
  27. Anonymous says:

    Secret bureaucracy, it’s just a lie
    The devil’s henchmen, in suit and tie
    A sacred brotherhood, an ancient rite
    Politicians and the double lives they hide

    Violate your rights, no more equality
    Surrender freedom, your Social Security
    We the people face unconstitutional lies
    In greed we trust, in revolution we die

    Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves
    The land of liberty needs a regime change
    Until you no longer know right from wrong
    The constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on

    13
  28. Veritas says:

    Nice article – little/none of it will be acted on. Most of the electorate cannot even understand the words let alone the implications. But, I agree with the main points being discussed.

    29
    2
    • Da-wa-u-get says:

      most of the electorate will not even read the Viewpoint and many can’t!
      Unfortunately, their preferred Candidate doesn’t mind that fact!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.