by Colin Hyde

Before anyone got a chance to tell the UDP, you are the least credible here—you shouldn’t talk, the Minister of the Blue Economy opted to appeal to his party to give him a leave of absence. The PUP might be just as guilty as the minister, to accept his recusal. Johnny Briceño and his gang deserve a big zero. I happen to believe they didn’t tell the minister, ‘okay, you want to dodge the little heat from the UDP, you want to cut and run, well, you’ll have to do it without pay’. I bet that would have made the minister think twice.

Briefly rehashing the story (a hot Channel Five exclusive for the first few hours), there was some back and forth between the Minister of the Blue Economy and a lady lawyer, since revealed as Ms. Wendy Auxillou, about matters that include the never-too-far-from-the-conversation sex and prime land, and some bad blood that developed.

Delroy Cutkelvin boasted that their party had dealt with bad behavior when it raised its ugly head. Really, I recall their leader dropping to his knees and begging those in his party who were not getting all their money within the law, to ‘for God’s sake stop it!’ And it took considerable prompting from Taiwan, an inner circle UDP lady, and COLA and the BNTU to force the UDP into action over well-substantiated criminal activities and unfortunate associations of party leaders.

Bah, here we have the UDP at the fore, shouting for the minister to be suspended, to resign from the Cabinet, to leave politics. I haven’t heard the public outcry. There might have been one, if the UDP didn’t rush out there to protect us. This story didn’t get a chance to develop. I don’t like this hasty call from the UDP, for the minister to resign or be suspended.

Forgiven Shyne forgives not

Ouch, Shyne said the lady actually made allegations of rape in a statement she later rescinded. Don’t you think it was best he left that alone? He probably would have, if the Torah taught the lessons of Jesus the Christ, in this instance the one in Matthew 7:5.

The day the charge of sexual harassment or rape is made, the accused is in a very bad light. It’s a tight rope, because victims of that terrible assault do need all the encouragement to come forward. Hey, it’s an adult woman in the story here, not a child or youth. If the lady was confused in her mind, or just wanted to think things over when she was in a quiet mood, or even thought she was wholesale wrong in what she said, who are we, who weren’t there, to throw fuel—demand that she stick to what she reportedly implied?

This Mr. Barrow, man he’s, like, not thinking. There’s a story with a police commentary that he was accused of doing something physical to his wife, and she rescinded, and thus he was allowed to walk. It’s like, wow, you can speak, Braa?

Protective Vasquez didn’t allow rescind

Forget the ramifications for the leadership of the UDP; there’s something very wrong that Jules Vasquez did to Patrick Faber in that interview on Channel Seven. Okay, it’s old rehash, but something about that interview needs to be put right. Faber and his girlfriend got into something a little physical, and she reported him to the police. Apparently, she later rescinded, or tried to. Faber said his girlfriend accepted that she had had a temper outburst. Vasquez jumped up and hollered that Faber was violating his girlfriend.

Didn’t Vasquez hear Faber say that his girlfriend supported his being on the Vasquez show? Is this Mr. Vasquez a single man? Is he a mommy’s boy? If he is married, is his woman some kind of docile?

Faber might be at fault for not bringing a written note to show the principal. If he was lying, that would have come out soon enough, and he would have been twice damned. But let’s not go deeper into that story, or the why of the super protective Vasquez; I just want to say that I’ve been waiting some time for someone to tell him that he owes Faber and his girlfriend a huge apology, and well, because of the extracurricular of the Blue Economy minister and Wendy, I was reminded.

Macho man Pehreh says, who gives a blank about sex; it’s the favors

Pehreh said he had no concerns about the minister’s fling, that he confined himself to favors in payment for excitement and things like extortion and people fearing for life.

I’m not spilling anything here; Ms. Wendy and Minister Perez explained enough for us to put the unsaid pieces together. Ms. Wendy, a business woman, invested in the PUP political machinery, cash or labor, and one report is that she wanted title for a piece of land her mom has been living on for some years. Most likely the property is prime and it belongs to the people, but it could be a long-lapsed lease or a private parcel with years of unpaid taxes and an owner who has disappeared.

Aha, along the way there was what Pehreh said he didn’t give a blank about, and things played out. For some reason the minister couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver the title to the property, and things got a little sour.

Confining ourselves to some ramifications of trysts, we have seen the Americans try and oust a president for a frivolous escapade, and it is known there are serious implications if the dalliance involves foreign parties. I wouldn’t downplay the gravity of sexual matters in leadership. We have seen the Americans expend incredible amounts of energy to keep sensual Russian and Chinese women away from their presidents. Those men could bring great harm to their countries if they got too cozy with enemy women who are trained to ferret out secrets.

Espionage, secret dealings, isn’t such a big story in Belize, not since the, ehm, 1950s and ‘60s, and this minister/lawyer story is adult — older adults. I think Pehreh would allow San Pedro and Cay Caulker to put a price on the sex. The minister might have won votes, because out there they admired his family life. They can either wait for the next general election to deal with him, and if they are really angry about his behavior, they can push the recall initiative.

Republican or PD, in the capitalist state you curtail, can’t stop the favors

The story that will produce a guilty-as-charged verdict without waiting for any court is that about the minister’s office and the distribution of favors. We don’t know the details, but the way things have worked in Belize from yesterday to today is that the Blue Economy minister would call the Lands Minister and tell him/her about the needs of his/her constituent. I have heard a whole lot of hollering about this system, but I’m not sure how it would work otherwise.

On the up and up, the elected leaders are supposed to work for the best interest of the country. In the system at its most pure, the minister would be guided by technical personnel and would marry that with the reality of the people. Sometimes the minister delays implementing some counsel, and sometimes, rare times, the minister bucks the technocrats. For example, the Blue Economy was guided to raise the “pass tail” of lobsters from 4 to 4.5 ounces, but after clamor by fisherfolk the ministry held off; and if we go to the Coastal Road, the story I have is that the technocrats didn’t see the possibilities there, but the stubborn minister insisted that the people of Gales Point needed an easement to the north.

My fellow Belizeans, every sensible government in a capitalist system will try to steer the prized assets of the nation into the control of those who will use it to create wealth. Absolutely, we have to keep an eye on these ministers, to ensure that they are honorable in the handling of the spoils.

Some true oldsters might be able to give the details about how our colonial bosses ran the show when they had control. We know they have been praised in some quarters for the discipline they instilled and the honesty in government. But on the matter of the tools of production, the land, how come it ended up in the hands of so many absentees?

There are Belizeans who are enthusiastic about changing our Parliamentary Democracy system for the Republican system, like the one in the US. They say that would put an end to our spoils system. Well, it absolutely wouldn’t. The US has a vigorous group called lobbyists. This bit on Investopedia by Troy Segal, “Bribery vs Lobbying: What’s the Difference?” should blow up the innocence of these Republican agents. Segal said critics of lobbying say it is haha, hahaha, “bribery in a suit.” Hmm, he said there’s a separation, with bribery “considered an effort to buy power; paying to guarantee a certain result,” while lobbying is “considered an effort to influence power, often by offering contributions.” Hahaha, he noted that the difference between legal lobbying and illegal bribery could be opaque.