Millions and the Case for Accountability
Twenty-three years after a campaign song associated with Quito Rymer — remembered as 'Millions and Millions and Millions and More' — helped shape the 2003 election, an independent candidate has renewed calls for stronger transparency and accountability in public spending. Reported by Guavaberry from a commentary published on GB Media House, the candidate lays out specific demands for scrutiny of multimillion-dollar contracts and urges changes to procurement, reporting and audit rules so taxpayer money is better protected.
Twenty-three years ago a song that demanded 'we need accountability' and 'we need transparency' became part of the British Virgin Islands campaign trail. The refrain, associated with local musician and political activist Quito Rymer and remembered as 'Millions and Millions and Millions and More,' was part of the soundtrack to the 2003 election in which the National Democratic Party defeated the Virgin Islands Party and formed government for the first time, according to Guavaberry.
That chorus is being recalled now because, as reported by Guavaberry from a commentary published on GB Media House, the basic questions it raised still resonate. An independent candidate argues the Territory continues to struggle with a political culture that treats public money as if it belongs to government rather than to taxpayers.
The commentary lays out a clear case for public scrutiny whenever millions are committed. When government spends large sums, the writer says, residents deserve answers: who approved the spending, who benefits, what was delivered, whether procurement was competitive, and whether value for money was achieved.
Consultant fees, travel, studies, investments and projects all need clear contracts, measurable deliverables and public reporting. The candidate is careful to say this is not a call to stop spending. Government must invest in roads, water, electricity, healthcare, schools and other essential services.
The point is to distinguish responsible investment from waste. 'Trust us' should not be an acceptable financial control when decisions put millions of taxpayers' dollars at risk, the piece argues (Guavaberry). The commentary also takes aim at partisanship in accountability. It notes that both the VIP and the NDP have governed and that transparency too often becomes a rallying cry only when a party is in opposition.
If it is public money, the candidate writes, it belongs to the public — period. Beyond questions and demands, the writer proposes changing the rules of the game. Stronger procurement rules, clearer reporting standards, independent audits and a political culture that treats transparency as a governing requirement are offered as remedies to persistent problems.
The stakes are immediate for BVI residents: large contracts and public investments affect debt levels, service delivery and government capacity to fund essential services. The candidate frames the appeal as nonpartisan and aimed at persuading voters that protecting the public purse should be every representative's duty, not an opposition tactic.
The commentary closes with a simple proposition: progress needs a plan, and that plan must begin with accountability. For many voters in the Virgin Islands, the question is no longer only how much is spent but what the spending produces for the community. This article incorporates details from Guavaberry's recent correction and reporting on the GB Media House commentary and restores the historical context linking the campaign song to the 2003 election.
Primary source: Guavaberry