Negativism divides country

This letter is in response to the full page paid advertisement published by the PPM on page 3 of the Compass on Tuesday the 29th January, 2013. This letter is from me in my personal capacity and not as the chairman of the Coalition for Cayman.

The advertisement refers to a letter I wrote to your newspaper in June 2002 and tries to discredit both me and the Coalition specifically on the One Man One Vote issue but also generally. I do not understand how the Coalition can be linked to a letter written in 2002 when it was only organised in the latter part of 2012. Additionally, by using that letter to try and demonstrate inconsistency on my part, the PPM reveals a misunderstanding of its intent. The letter discussed moving from the current system where voters have different rights depending on which district they live in, to a system where voters have equal rights. The point being made was that OMOV is one way of doing that but there are other alternatives.

I personally continue to favour an alternative, which would have a majority of MLA’s appointed on a national basis but OMOV is still a significant improvement over the current system and is fair. The groundwork for OMOV has already been done, so it is relatively straightforward to implement. The majority view of the Coalition’s Executive Committee was that the voting public had shown strong support for OMOV in the referendum and as a result those in the position to do so should implement the wishes of the people.

Cayman is dealing with many challenges. We should be focusing our efforts and resources on solving those challenges as the best solutions come from the community as a whole. Negative attacks do not create employment or improve the lot of our citizens. They only divide at a time that we should be uniting to try and fix our Country.

James Bergstrom


  1. If OMOV was the ‘wish of the people’, the referendum would have passed. I’m not sure that your 2002 suggestion is the solution either, but rather than jumping on the OMOV bandwagon, I think the C4C would be better off exploring all other alternatives – quite how we’ve gotten this far in the debate without a single independent report on the pros and cons of all available options is beyond me.

Comments are closed.