MEN IN BLACK AND ONE WOMAN

It was an excellent shot; perhaps for the first time we’ve had the opportunity to distinguish the power players on any platform in one place at one time. Noticeably absent was the other Minister. The Minister of Health and Social services was ambiguously missing from the composition of the team that represented “the Government in Photo.” They were obviously in one place all together for a funeral on the island of St. Kitts with a fellow colleague in mourning for a fallen loved one. The Anguilla delegation lead by The Honorable Chief Minister and his “men in black” represented the best image of a government in function on foreign soil. With the ongoing division and obvious disagreement in government, the question asked, could this be a division of the modern day wrecking crew that will destroy the island as we know it, or perhaps the great characters that would lead the country to better prosperity and a better future. None wants to extract the mood from the photograph, but certainly such unity is never displayed at home because the ongoing division in government continues between The honorable Minister for Health and Social affairs Mr. Edison Baird and the rest of the team, now leaving us all to believe that not even in death is Baird willing to join hands and unite. This sends a cold message of truth and defiance, a Minister obviously in subordination, more so, probably being distinguished as a man standing alone.

The occasion helped to put into perspective the government; no doubt the Honorable Chief relished the image, revealing a compact team of power players in quiet retreat on a mission of empathy. The facade conveyed a modest appearance of the most powerful personalities in Anguilla today. Apart from the youthful appearance of the group, the Honorable Chief himself resembles one of today’s youngsters dressed to kill with a very gentle smile reflecting comfort in his zone. Apart from clear acknowledgment of the only lady in picture, noticeable some distance in the background is the unelected, or to put it mildly according to another source, perhaps, “the electable,” but dominantly over shadowed with some prominence by the elected giants of the newest government of Anguilla in theater. While appears well composed, I’m sure well aware that all is not in good standing at home. Still to legislate, the stabilization levy and a range of new taxation that could very well pose some difficulty for the government when all measures are fully in place. The cry to government itself, is to give back some of its perks they now enjoy, a cry we know will go unanswered, being adamant that the salaries and benefits for the ministers and senior civil servants were not instituted by them, it was the work of a former government but obviously, the legislation left well in tack, which is a major cause for some of the difficulties the country now faces.

The obvious short trip, no doubt was a brief moment in quiet retreat on a different mission. But, in government the people’s business is the only business of government and therefore I’m sure the weightier matters of the country were foremost in mind. It would appear however, that the re-appointment of Stanly Reid as Deputy Governor of Anguilla was missed; another five years, affirming confidence in his duties by Governor Alistair Harrison. The combination has been executing the full range of constitutional authority by administering the country as the most executive branch under her Majesty powers. For most of the full term of this government (Men IN Black) there has been no congenial liaison between the apparent two branches, which is actually leading to fears that our government is relinquishing the capacity to govern effectively and deferring the roll to FCO and the office of the Governor and Deputy. It is the mind of the people; that The Honorable and respected Chief Minister exhibit a firm hand of leadership and bring to order all Ministries in his government in full execution of proper governance for the country. The Governor has clearly indicated that he is ready to work and because of the high order he executes, his representation cannot engage party politics or partisan matters. Therefore in his capacity and function, he obviously appears to grasp the attention and character of a performing executive with the look, as was shown on page seventeen of the Daily Herald on Wednesday March 23rd showing two men in executive form. This is the shot we need to see of our elected branch representing the people in full order.

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

"WHY LIBYA?"

Western allies continual air strikes on military targets in Libya greatly reduce Gaddafi's military force and influence many by evoking a debate on which is more important, Human Rights or Sovereignty, as others official Medias are arguing that the mean intention of such intervention is petroleum.

The purpose of sovereignty is to protect people's human and other rights. If any country cannot fulfill this function, it loses such purpose and existence as a country. Therefore, in order to protect the safety of the people in Libya, the United Nations (UN) has the responsibility to take appropriate actions.

When people's human rights are trampled, only international intervention (militarily or otherwise) can help. There are some however, who think sovereignty is supreme, and that it is part of the human rights… exhibiting strong nationalism. But should a country without human rights deserves sovereignty?

Any government being overthrown by a people's revolution is a direct result of its disrespect for human rights, opposition of the majority's wishes, and infuriation of the masses. And as such, under the United Nations’ purpose, any country without human rights would inevitably not have sovereignty.

Can one honestly believe that though a merciless regime like Gaddafi’s, the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1973 real intention is to give Libya to France, United Kingdom and the United States?

The sad reality is that the said UN Security Council comprises of member states who believe such, criticize its own actions, confuse its people's conception on sovereignty - with some even publicly denying the supremacy of human rights.

Sovereignty without human rights has no meaning, fake and is inhumane. The stability created by depriving people's human rights is false and temporary – and violates nature's order.

“AND IT CAME TO PASS!”

I was inundated by telephone calls and live comments from many persons over the weekend regarding the “mysterious blackout” of the broadcast of the Anguilla United Front public meeting last Thursday in South Hill opposite the residence of the Hon. Chief Minister. Such a “black out” also occurred (granted to a much lesser extent) at our first public meeting at the Landsome Bowl Cultural Center as well. There is a theory that one should not consider anything a coincidence --- but nevertheless many of us viewed the first “black out” as such. The “rumour mill” before our meeting on this second occasion predicted that it would be sabotaged on the airwaves --- so we are now left with little recourse but to take the matter seriously. It was indeed curious that just when the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers was getting into full swing with his presentation --- and before the main speaker, Mr. Curtis Richardson could launch his powerful “fire and brimstone” preacher style attack on his opponents and the issues --- our broadcast was hijacked. Surprisingly too is the fact that within ten minutes of the close of the meeting all stations were again up to full strength. Strong evidence, however, has presented itself that narrows the range of suspects and suggests that our musings should not be dismissed as sheer paranoia.

It was also not surprising that the main topic of discussion at the meeting was the proposed Interim Stabilization Levy that has been widely referred to as the “Destabilization Levy” since being so dubbed by our Party Chairman, Mr. Fritz Smith. Following the publication of my column last week and similar comments at an earlier public meeting by the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool --- the discussion of this topic on the various talk shows and other media has focused on putting in place a lower limit for the imposition of tax. These are issues that the Anguilla United Front takes credit for as well as the concerns we have raised about the hotel workers and the self-employed.

The hurried and poorly attended public consultations were not effective in drawing out important questions on the imposition of such a historic levy --- much more aptly described as an income tax. Indeed 14 attendees cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a representative group of the tax paying community on the island. By contrast, the discussion of the National Health Fund being proposed by the AUF government received long and widespread public consultation to ensure that all the issues related to its implementation were widely ventilated. It is my belief that Government needs to spend some more time exploring both its options for effective implementation as well as viable alternative revenue measures that could replace the proposed Levy. The Levy as presented is an income tax and should be treated as such.

The Bill before the House of Assembly for Interim Stabilization Levy Act (ISL) seems to grow in controversy as it is being looked at more “surgically” in the community by the various interest groups and pundits. The AUF Party has decided that it is impossible to support the Bill in its present form given the inequities and unfairness that exists within it. In fact, the more closely we look at the Bill, the more inclined we become to looking to other sources for revenue. It has further been expressed that this Government has leapt on to the proverbial “third rail” in pursuing this form of direct taxation. And the fact that during the election campaign the Government made loud promises about not imposing new tax measures has exacerbated the belief among many tax payers that they were deceived as well as the perception among others that this situation is a factor of Government’s incompetence.

I have been making the point that the Chief Minister and his colleagues spent too much time being confrontational rather than being willing to negotiate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. Several letters from the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) pleaded for such an approach to be adopted. It was only at the eleventh hour when there was certain threat of collapse that there was a mad rush to accommodate. It would be most instructive to hear how the British Government itself dealt with its own situation of having a budgetary deficit.

The opening sentences of the Executive Summary of the UK 2010 Budget Report states as follows: “This budget sets out a five year plan to rebuild the British economy based on the Government’s values of responsibility, freedom and fairness. It shows how the Government will carry out Britain’s unavoidable deficit reduction plan in a way that strengthens and unites the country. This budget sets out the action the Government will take in three areas to rebalance the economy and provide the conditions for sustainable growth: a) deficit reduction; b) enterprise; and c) fairness.”

Firstly, in terms of deficit reduction the British Government proposed a rolling five-year plan to reduce the deficit as a necessary condition for sustained economic growth. You will recall that I have been saying that if the Government had been more cooperative on the political level they could have made strong arguments for a five-year rather than a three-year plan. Obviously, if Anguilla’s hope for recovery depends on a turnaround in the global financial situation should we not require as much time as the United Kingdom (UK) --- or more, to adjust our recurrent balance?

The second plank of the UK rebalancing program is enterprise. It speaks about the need to create the conditions for enterprise and sustainable growth. It also acknowledges that for “growth to be sustainable, it needs to be based on expansion in the private sector, not the public sector, and business across all regions and industries needs the right conditions to be able grow.” It then goes into a series of plans to promote business recognizing the importance of targeted incentives to encourage investment. This is the approach that our Government and in particular the Chief Minister fail to understand as a part of the strategy to revitalize the economy. Our recovery effort cannot only be public sector oriented. We must provide incentives to the private sector to enhance the climate for investment as well as maintain a partnership rather than an adversarial relationship with them. This is also a key strategy for the cyclical planning to restore fiscal balance.

The final plank in the strategy is fairness. The UK Government commits to “ensure that every part of the society makes a contribution to deficit reduction while supporting the most vulnerable.” I made the point last week about fairness and equity in the form of taxation. This is a very important factor in the successful implementation of any tax. Again in its hurry our Government has not been able to work through this very significant issue in the process. It is important that tax measures ensure that richest among us contribute the most to deficit rebalancing. As “the Levy” in particular was presented the lower middle-income workers are contributing a higher percentage of their earnings to the Government. This situation can never be considered fair or equitable.

It was in pursuit of this important fairness prerequisite that the AUF quickly put forward the proposal of a lower limit. We suggested that the lower limit should be below EC$2,000. We also suggested a graduated levy beginning from a 3% t 6% overall rate with perhaps a much lower limit and an even higher upper income limit. Immediately, the talk shows were swamped with persons trying to gain some political mileage out of either calling for a higher lower limit or a higher upper limit or both. In both cases no one presented a rationale for any limit or threshold they advanced.

As strong believers in statistical data in decision-making my AUF colleagues and I referred to the Country Poverty Assessment data to establish certain criteria for rationalizing the various limits or thresholds. Some key findings of the Poverty Assessment Report show a fall in poverty from 23% in 2002 to 5.8 % in 2009. Based on the figures the Poverty Line (PL) is estimated at EC$16,348 per person per annum or EC$1,362 per person per month. Extreme poverty, as measured by the indigence rate, also declined from 2% in 2002 to 0% in 2009. The Indigence Line is estimated at EC$2,602 per adult per annum or EC$217 per adult per month. I cannot help but comment here on the significant reduction in poverty in Anguilla during the period of prosperity under the AUF administration as well as the total absence of persons below the indigence level. This is factual testimony to the superlative efforts of the AUF to create a vibrant economy. While there is now considerable slippage in these levels based on the lack of success by the AUM to fulfill its promise of turning things around --- we must still rely on these slightly dated statistics for a proper rationalization of the lower limit.

But there is yet another useful statistic, namely, the Vulnerability Line (VL)! 17.7% of the population is below the Vulnerability Line and above the Poverty line. The Vulnerability line is EC$20,484 per person per annum or EC$1,707 per month. By adding the VL of 17.7% and the PL of 5.8% together we arrive at a percentage of 23.5% of the population being below the Vulnerability line. Were we then to use the Vulnerability line of EC$1,707 per month as the lower limit for the tax we could conceivably be exempting 25% of our population from the Levy. If we used the Poverty Line of EC$1,362 we would be exempting almost 6%. Choosing any one of these criteria to determine the lower limit of the levy would avoid an arbitrary choice of such a threshold. But what then would we use to determine the upper limit? Herein lies a further issue of fairness to be considered even before we considered the option of a graduated tax. One significant aspect of the graduated tax is to ensure that everyone in the society, excluding the indigent makes a contribution to the deficit reduction, however, small.

Nothing in the foregoing makes the case for an interim levy as being the best solution to the issue at hand --- deficit reduction. While I have not seen any estimate of the net yield of the levy I may be able to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the gross yield using the recent average total annual contributions to the Social Security Fund of approximately EC$25 million. The Levy being 60% of the Social Security Contribution rate could also yield around 60% of the total annual contributions that is around EC$15 million. But a number of questions arise:

• What will be the cost of administering the fund?

• How can we ensure fairness in the assessment process for the self-employed?

• How can we ensure equity through the compliance system between employees and the self-employed?

• What will be the life cycle of the interim levy?

• Will the service charge be taxed? And if so will it be at 3 or 6%?

It is because I am fully aware of the fact that the Government does not need the support of the Opposition to pass the Interim Stabilization Levy Act that my AUF colleagues and I have taken the time to point out these concerns. We will not support the Levy in its present form and have some real concerns as we continue to do our research whether it is the best option possible. Is it possible to raise the estimated EC$15 million dollars in gross yield from any other source?

In a brainstorming exercise three suggestions have been strongly advanced:

1. Why not simply increase the customs duty all around by 50% for a limited period of time renewable every three or six months as required by the House of Assembly to keep the Government honest?

2. Why not establish a sales tax or value added tax (VAT) at the retail level in the short term with critical exemptions that would allow for basic food and sanitary items for infants, the indigent and the aged?

3. Why not request an extension in the rebalancing period from three to five years and thereby reduce the level of tax measures required annually?

There are also a number of much farther-reaching concerns that have been triggered by this Bill. For example: i) At what point does taxing the self-employed slip into corporate income tax? ii) At what point may business transactions be audited through the bank in order to assess the self-employed? iii) What legal impediments will surface in the context of the various MOU’s; MOA’s and “IOU’s” out there? iv) According to one of my readers: “Will the term “interim” take on the usual government meaning “until we raise the percentage again”? v) Has the impact on the fledgling Financial Services Sector been adequately assessed?

It is obvious that this debate cannot be concluded by All Fool’s Day. But it appears that having wasted so much time the Government may have fewer choices. Public consultations need to include at least the three alternatives from the “brainstorming exercise” mentioned above. The importance of such an exercise is to reduce the risk of ordinary Anguillians being criminalized by the “IRS style penalties” that have been included in the Bill. In this context, persons like taxi drivers, fishermen, farmers, beauticians, barbers, street vendors, and so on who do not have formal accounting arrangements are especially vulnerable. Unlike Social Security and the proposed National Health Fund the calculable benefit from the “Levy” is not clear or easily explained to the majority of the tax paying community.

It seems that AUF leadership is being vindicated on a daily basis for what it has been saying about the lies, half-truths and innuendoes which this Government employed during the campaign to win the election and since coming to office to cover up their incompetence. Unfortunately many of their supporters feel deceived by the emphatic claims that were made in particular about “no taxes” and “plenty work”! Twelve months later after fighting everybody else they are now fighting among themselves and they still cannot deliver what they promised if elected.

A friend of mind in a mock biblical expose' recited this satirical gem to me: “And Hubert took the Anguillian people to the top of Mount Rhetoric and said to them: All those AUF taxes will I remove from you if you dip your finger and vote for my party. But twelve months later the people’s taxes were increased many fold. And Hubert standing afar off cried out in a loud voice: “It isn’t me! --- It is those AUF and British devils! I will cast them out!” And it came to pass that there was weeping and gnashing of teeth even among those who believed in him!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
March 22, 2011

‘’WE’VE MADE OUR POINT’’

Would it be the assumption now, that since this government has lived out its first year in a wave of controversy and confusion, that (AUF) The Anguilla United Front would position its self for a unique leadership role? There is no indication of any surrender or retreat from AUM on any of the issues that has the country embroiled in unresolved problems, with The Governor and FCO. The year behind us was a most terrifying one for any new government, and the country it’s self. The former Honorable Chief Minister Osbourne Fleming said it very well on the podium during an AUF public meeting, naming out the various degrees of taxation now imposed on the people, and said that he choose to do this because it appears that no one is taking time to tell the people what’s coming. He went on to indicate that your EC dollar is now worth only 60 cents, reference to the diminished buying power of the people. Mr. Fleming also touched very briefly on what appeared to have been a policy matter of his government, indicating that it was never his intension to leave money in the treasury perhaps, clearing up a myth that the treasury is a holding system for country cash. Mr. Fleming indicated that it was the policy of his government to spend Anguilla’s money on its people, for educating youngsters and assisting where needed, he consider the idea that the treasury is for holding money a stupid one.

The Anguilla United Front (AUF) has now brought the most pertinent issue to the people in a series of public meetings, emphasizing that in fact the people of Anguilla were bamboozled into voting for a government that enticed them with false claims, pure lies and promises that were in fact broken within twelve months. Avid supporters of AUF, now indicates that “We’ve Made Our Point” and it’s is time for Mr. Banks and the AUF machine to help the country. They say AUF must go back to the drawing board and structure an organization, a political machine that would recapture the hearts and soul of the Anguilla people once again. There is no doubt that AUF loss at the polls in 2010 has emboldened AUM and their supporters in believing that damage was done to the party, in spite of the tremendous progress experienced over a full term of ten years.

The island is without objective government, which apparently stems from an unsecured competence level, and there is no sign that this will improve anytime soon, this has degraded the quality of the island in the mind of the region and makes our people look ridiculous and feel less assertive. For the past twelve months the government has not shown its ability to execute administrative authority to calm the people, who are disappointed because of the continuing chaos. It would appear that the AUM team is actually engaged in a practice run of governing, hoping that conditions would improve and they would be fortunate for a second term. They campaigned vigorously for the reins of power and they indeed should enjoy the fruits of their labor. There has been no strategic policy enactment so far to turn things around on the island except swamping us all with taxation, without a clear governing policy. The Secretary of State Mr. William Hague has however opened a door for dialogue on proper governance, which the AUM government should take the opportunity and synchronize. The Minister announced that, the overall vision for the Territories is for them to be vibrant, flourishing communities, while assuring that they can always depend on the UK for necessary support. It would appear that part of the Minister’s agenda is to motivate the territories to be proud citizens and not to leave their circumstances restrict their pride in their British Heritage, indicating that this is all part of a broader agenda, which includes self sufficiency and self determination in a competitive and unpredictable world, while assuring that they (the British) would strongly support those Territories in compliance.

Unlike our neighboring French and Dutch Territories who always express pride in their heritage, while dealing with their deficiencies, Anguilla openly despises the British; our Chief Minister is a lecturer on this subject. The Minister clearly wants to nurture better and more productive territories with a grown up mentality. We must deal with our issue, accept our British citizenship with pride, love our country, and be proud people. The Minister clearly has an agenda which would be a great challenge for this government who must level off the chaos they ensued, which tell me that help is wanted. AUF can bring clarity to these issues, having that vast experience in the affairs of the country. A careful analysis and dialogue with the people is necessary, which can be achieved through effective and balanced dialogue while informing and educating the public. Current radio talk shows and news broadcasts are not effectively informing the people they all carry a deep bias. The wave of taxation could instigate a major backlash and perhaps total upheaval when we all get hit individually and personally, tensions could fly. Indications of inequitable distribution of the measures must be explained. Our fishermen and gardeners must be aware that their once cherished handy work is now part of taxable industrial economics with penalties if none compliance. Government has not engaged in any extensive informative or awareness sessions, only public appeasement under the veil of a transparency campaign for the introduction of the measures, people need to know the truth about where the country is going.

By: ejharrisxm

"YOU BORN ON ALL FOOL'S DAY!"

The Anguilla United Front public meeting in South Hill last Thursday was "cut short" in the wake of news from the Island Harbour community that two of their fishermen had not returned from one of their usual fishing trips within the usual time frame. In an act of solidarity and genuine concern, all the speakers and most of the attendees journeyed to Island Harbour to support the impromptu vigil of family, friends and well-wishers who had assembled in prayerful hope for their return. Their prayers were swiftly answered and by two o'clock the following morning both souls had returned safely to their loved ones and to the community. It was gratifying to see the number of Anguillians who had come to support the community on shore as well as those fishermen and seafarers who participated voluntarily in the rescue effort at sea. It is my understanding that as a consequence of prompt initiatives by these persons in the community, official government agencies normally involved in such exercises were not required. This was yet another demonstration of Anguillians coming together in times of challenge.

One of the items that could not have been fully ventilated at that public meeting, because of its curtailment, was the Interim Stabilisation Levy Act (2011). It has now been scheduled for its first reading in the House of Assembly on Wednesday, March 16, 2011. In my column last week I raised a number of concerns about the Levy and questioned whether any serious consultations could take place at such a late stage. Having subsequently received a copy of the Act to provide for the imposition of the Levy I am all the more concerned that there is need for further discussion on this issue. The consistency of my concerns can be noted from my June 26, 2010, Article: "On a point of Order" in which I stated: "I need to learn more about the proposed Stabilization Levy. For example I assume that the proposal is that it be collected by the social security system in the implementation stage. However, I am also concerned that it appears to be simply going into the consolidated fund. I would like to see a fund of this kind being established for specific services to the public like health, education, sports, and community development etc., that is, a Social Services Levy. Especially in these times when we want to ensure that these areas have available resources so as to guarantee social stability. With the right answers and a proper rationalization of the amount, that is 3,4, or 5% --- I can understand this government's proposal for this temporary measure of imposing a Stabilization Levy."

Those comments were made in the context of the areas touched upon in the Chief Minister's supplementary Budget Address made in June 2010. I also spoke generally to the concept of taxation in the same article stating: "I would suggest that there should be at least four considerations in all tax measures, namely, they should be equitable and just, that is, fair to everyone; the collection process should be efficient and effective; the yield should be optimum, that is, the cost to collect the revenue should be low; and they should be supported by law. It also helps if the community deems that those taxes will be put to good use. And that is why targeted taxes or levies for specific services are so easily sold."

Upon receiving a copy of the Bill for the Interim Stabilisation Levy, my colleagues and I assembled to make an objective analysis taking into account the criteria I outlined in the aforementioned article as well as in subsequent discussions. In summary form here are some key facts:

· The first sentence of the bill provides for: "The imposition of a levy on income from employment..." For clarity: According to one of the senior officials from the Ministry of Finance "lets call a spade a spade --- a levy on income from employment is income tax!!!

· The tax rate is: 1) 6% of total wages, salaries, service charge, bonus, fees, allowances, commissions etc. up to a maximum of EC$7,000 per month paid: 3% by employees and 3% by employers excluding the Government, Government Agencies, NGO's and Churches incorporated in Anguilla. 2) 6% of earnings from self-employment persons up to EC$7,000 per month.

· Self-employed persons include: a.) Farmers, fishermen, taxi-drivers, street vendors & traders. b.) Self-employed plumbers, electricians, carpenters, barbers, beauticians, shoemakers. c.) Directors, owners, proprietors, of businesses including shops. d.) Lawyers, doctors, architects, dentists, consultants, chemists, engineers.

As it is now written and presented to members of the House for the first reading these are some particulars of the Bill that we highlighted for further consideration. I assume that by the time of writing there may be some amendments already made but for purposes of this column and to ensure that our concerns are noted we feel duty-bound to place them on record as follows:

· The law means that 6% will be deducted from the service charge of hotel and restaurant employees. Note: Social Security set up under the Hon. James Ronald Webster makes no deductions from service charge paid to hotel and restaurant employees.

· There is no time period stated in the Bill neither is there any date when this "interim levy" will come to an end. Note: We believe that the Law should be in place for a limited or prescribed period of time.

· The Government may reject any calculation of the levy submitted by employers and the self-employed and may then make its own assessment of the tax to be paid. Such assessments are protected from legal challenge and the onus/burden is on the employer or self-employed to disprove the Government's assessment.

· Harsh penalties are included in the law consisting of fines of up to EC$40,000 and imprisonment for up to two years or both.

· Likely outcome: This law will create additional bookkeeping costs for the self-employed to keep detailed records of their income and to calculate and pay the levy to the Government.

· The low and lower middle-income employees will bear the heavy burden of the levy. Definition: Our people who have the greatest difficulty to make ends meet in these difficult economic times. (I will explain this further later).

· While an upper income limit of EC$7,000 per month has been set on which the levy will be charged, no sympathy or consideration has been given to the lowest paid among our people, those earning less than EC$2,000 per month. Result: The least able will be forced to bear a heavier burden than the middle income and the highest paid in the economy. (I will also explain this further)

· General Comment: The interim Stabilization Levy Act may be neither interim nor stabilizing. It is indefinite in the period of its application, will be a heavy burden on poor people and greatly destabilizing to their lives. It amounts to unjust and unfair imposition the poorest among us for the benefit of those who are better off and better able to carry the tax burden that the levy will impose.

This and the other high level taxes have been a result of the Government's inaction, reluctance, indecisiveness and preoccupation with the blame game and conspiracy theories. If you look back at the Chief Minister's supplementary Budget Address in June 2010, he was at the time talking about a communication tax of 5%; a temporary increase in customs surcharge of 1% to 3% effective January 2011, and a stabilization levy of 5%. However, over the ensuing period he has been refusing to negotiate with the FCO, he has been ranting about independence, quarrelling with the Governor, "cussing out" developers and blaming the AUF for our financial and economic predicament. As a result over those nine months the communication tax has gone to 7%; the customs surcharge has gone to 6%; the levy has gone to 6%; and there has been an additional fuel tax of EC$2.00 per gallon.

Let me use a "man on the street analogy" to explain what has happen. If you were delinquent on your house loan at the bank and you were asked to come in and talk with your loan officer and over a period of nine months you refused to sit down and talk with him/her and you came up with a range of reasons including claiming that the loan officer does not like you or that your wife caused you to be delinquent because she is having an affair with the loan officer --- what do you think would happen? The Bank will threaten to take your house! And when you eventually decide to settle down and negotiate the amount of money you actually owe would have increased considerably. Likewise because the Government spent so much time bickering and blaming we now have to pay more in order to make up for the twelve months of lost revenue. That is why we are so hurriedly trying to impose such high taxes.

But there is also another side to that story. Had we gone to the bank earlier to negotiate we could also have been able to ask for more time to pay down the loan and consequently incur smaller payments. In my article of December 31, 2010: "We'll take a cup of kindness yet"I wrote: "The Chief Minister must settle down and explain the differences in the Anguilla situation and outline to the British Government the negative impacts of its recommendation on a small and extremely vulnerable state like Anguilla. But most importantly he must also be able to present a sound proposal as to how he intends to retire the deficit and restore fiscal and economic stability over the next three years. Such a proposal may even suggest that five rather than three years would be more feasible for returning to a balanced budget position." The point I am making is that in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation the British Government could have been persuaded to agree to five years or more rather than three to reach a balance budget situation. Such an agreement would have allowed for lower taxation levels in the short term and with a much more positive approach to growing the economy through targeted spending and increased private sector investment --- the possibility of an even quicker return to a balanced budget situation.

Returning to my strong view that the Stabilization Levy is inequitable let me explain as promised. It is now written in the Bill that an upper income limit for the tax has been set at EC$7,000. In this sense anyone who makes over that amount pays a lower percentage of his/her income. Put simply if you earn $14,000 you will actually only be paying 1.5% tax on your earnings because half of what you earn is tax-free. You are therefore paying a lesser percentage of your income in taxes than the lower income worker who is earning $3,000 per month --- that individual is paying 3% percent of his meager earnings to the taxman while the you are paying half that rate. While the idea of a cap or upper income limit may have some justification why not then devise some balance where a lower limit is established as well. There are two possible options: 1.) Create a lower limit where persons earning less than say $2,000 per month get an exemption or a reduced rate and increase the upper limit to say $9,000 or $10,000 per month. 2.) Create a graduated levy beginning from 3% to 6% overall rate with perhaps a much lower limit and an even higher upper income limit. This can be done while at the same time ensuring that the desired yield for the levy is achieved. In short while there is a need to generate more revenue we must ensure that we come up with creative adjustments to ensure a measure of fairness and equity.

Among the other issues I mentioned is workers' service charge which this Government and in particular the Parliamentary Secretary and the Elected Member for East End during their poor performance as a negotiators for the Cap Juluca IOU swore to protect. Hopefully, growing pressure from irate hospitality sector workers will force that concession. Already I have heard that "circus master" is on the move with explanations and excuses. The IRS style penalties contained in the Bill are also a cause for concern and particularly so in a "no direct taxation" culture. Compliance laws are important for ensuring fairness in any tax system but they should not lend themselves to creating criminality without due regard for the nature of the environment in which the system is to operate. In this context the self-employed will require special attention.

I must make the point again that what is being proposed here is a far cry from what the AUF was accused of implementing during the election campaign. There are two documents that the present government would be well advised to read. These documents were done with homegrown expertise not imported consultants. The first one was produced by the Ministry of Finance to address the 2000 - 2002 recession on March 14 2002 entitled: "Measures to restore fiscal stability in Anguilla over the period 2002 to 2004" it was a document which made the case with the British Government that the AUF administration had a plan to achieve fiscal stabilization with a strategy that was sensitive to the human consequences of the adjustment process. It not only worked --- it was also responsible for the period of prosperity that we enjoyed from then until 2008. The second document also produced by the Ministry of Finance to address the present global recession on June 5, 2009 is entitled: "Anguilla Fiscal and Economic Recovery Plan 2009 - 2011." The obstacles to the implementation of this plan are well-known --- not the least among which was the 2010 election and the deliberate efforts by the AUM to manipulate the issues to its advantage through lies and innuendo. While opposition groupings may feel vindicated by the present woes of the AUM and its inability to deal with the issues. It is sad that we still must suffer even more from their shameless political posturing.

But in the wider community where some persons genuinely believed that the AUM would make a difference --- bringing the Stabilization Levy in its present form into law on April 1, 2011 would clearly make it as our Party Chairman calls it a "Destabilization Levy". And the choice of the date for implementation being April 1st 2011 could lead many Opposition supporters to break out in that well-known derisive chant, chiding embarrassed AUM supporters: "You born on All Fools Day!"

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
March 15, 2011

THE MIND OF THE PEOPLE: THE WISDOM OF GOVERNMENT!!!!

The Mind of the People: In a democracy the voice of the people is the voice of the nation, this is political terminology that still must be tested and proven in Anguilla. This period of taxation now being imposed could signal another state of depression on the country similar to that we’ve come to know about. According to our history taxation is one element that brought infuriating oppression on the people of Anguilla in the 1740’s. In one of my earlier writings I quoted from the locally produced book “Bless our Forebears by Colville Petty and we are reminded of a very difficult period in our history, when severe economic depression gave rise to a plan by the British Government to move our entire population to Demerara Guiana, it is said, that much of the conditions of that day was brought on by excessive taxation by the St. Kitts Government of which Anguilla was part of a forced union. The journey actually begun, but most Anguillians refused to go and chose rather to remain and preserve the rock, (as it was called when I grew up.) It is said that during that period of hardship Anguillians developed into a society of independent peasants (a class of people, farmers/ laborers of low social rank.) That stigma of “low social rank” followed us for generations; in fact, it was the 1967 revolt that brought our plight face to face with our future. The story says that the Anguillan character was developed from hardship and the people were made independent because of a difficult life. Much has not changed, our people, educated or not remains an independent, determined and resilient people today.

I felt pressed to write about “the mind of the people” because again we are tested. Our history of oppression should never be typically our way of life, phased in, phased out. Because of our determination, we have evolved with a strong sense of character, determined to face the future with pure realism. My sense of country brought me to acknowledge that being a small island government plays a very important role in our expectations and impending successes, and it is incumbent on us that we demand nothing less than appropriate governing. That brought me to my extended topic “the wisdom of government.” Our Government, and every one embracing the responsibility to govern must be cognizant of our past, our history must be guarded with vigilance and a prudent optimism that it may never be repeated. We must be driven by a conviction (certain confidence) and govern by a certain philosophy (viewpoint/values) not idealism, that leads to dictatorship.

The level of taxation now imposed could have a drastic negative impact on the country and could do much more damage than the intended resolution. The immediate cost to our living standard would be affected and without doubt our ability to continue on our path to a better quality of life is now impeded. We now suffer a very serious setback due to current conditions. Usually with this degree of hostility against momentum, an incentive package is propagated together with such devastating measures, to motivate the people and encourage growth. In spite of the bad news the country must move on, we simply cannot slip back into a state of depression and lose hope. Government has lost its way, and failed to even inform the people that the measures taken will work for them in some mysterious way, at least to say, take courage and let’s do this together in anticipation that in two years we would have stirred economic growth and we all would be better off. This is clearly a far cry from what was promised us all, it leaves the electorate without answers.

The Wisdom of Government: A review of the period 1994 –1999 governing period indicates that there was a pragmatic and sensible approach to government; ironically, that government was made up of a most unlikely combination today the Hughes-Banks Government. The review shows that this government brought innovation to the country, how we generate new capital, the transshipment procurement was a clear example; how we capitalize on sustainable investment and brought modernization in the area of the first properly paved roads and quality accommodation facilities to the island. Unfortunately after five years that government failed, there are still details unfolding of why this team disintegrated, but certainly a bitter rivalry ensued. The elections of 2000 resulted in Victor Banks being reelected; he returned to government and firmly established himself as a representative with a mind for the people. He continued the progressive approach to governing and continued the path away from the hardship we’ve known and on to a better life for all Anguillians.

Hughes obviously slipped back into the opposition benches and actually lost his primary focus of leadership, we saw a fragmented opposition. The United Front government became the country’s newest political force. A combination, Osborne Fleming and Victor Bank emerged as the predictable team that would show the ability to work together and governed for the common good of the people of Anguilla; for the first time in our history our country understood “the wisdom of government” and what that meant to the plight of a people. There is no doubt that the country changed for the better, we experienced a pattern of growth for a consistent eight years which changed the face of the country. Together they broke the spell of peasantry and hardship over Anguilla and put us on a path to prosperity. It is remarkable how people forget; even those with fair intellect were distracted and misguided in rejecting Victor Banks at the polls by unjustifiable reasoning of impropriety, rather than judging this man by the decency of his character and desire to serve his people. I am sure that by any standard Banks probably counted it a privilege to have served in government at any cost. A significant segment of the population feels that they brought more prosperity to Anguilla than all of our prior history and resulted in the most talked about governing period in the history of the island.

Anguillians are equal participants in the growth of our island; unlike other islands, we own a significant slice of our economy, from the banking sector to insurance, the hardware business to our supermarkets and stores. The small hotel and villa accommodations are mostly owned by our own people. We are full participants in our own economic plight; this was a key part of the economic structuring of the past government. Moreover, during that period we saw the Social Security system became a most robust entity with a very strong financial footing, we established the Community college and a medical school on the island. We probably have some of the most well built homes anywhere, and our communities are of a standard, well urbanized. We probably have a better road system than most of the islands around us and certainly have excelled from the desolate dry pit of the 1840s. For the first time in history we saw jet liners landed on our soil, our people were clinging to any available space on the airport fencing to get a glimpse. Our communities are well engaged and assorted; our visitors and expats live among us as part of us, they adjust and become part of our society, they join our local organizations and participate in our social life style. I know isolation, segregation and separation; there is little of that to complain about on Anguilla. The past Government laid a solid foundation to build upon.

At this junction in our history when we are again challenged, we must guard against gradual retreat and regress to our former state. A noteworthy group of our pioneering citizens have for some time been accusing our honorable Chief Minister of being still sympathetic to the cause of St. Kitts in the ’67 revolt, we must never forget the severe oppression meted out on us a people. Our government must be very sensitive to every moment in our history and guard against our state that we never again go back to that age of despair. Certainly, this time in our history must be guarded with care and attention; I contend that the mind of the Anguillian people must remain alert to our conditions and where we go from here. My concern is “the wisdom of government!” Are we going to protect the gains we’ve made throughout our history to this moment? Or are we going to squander the trust of a people so worthy of your confidence. Are we going to divide our character through political devices? Or console the masses with the wisdom of leadership, and direct our future to succeed. The spirit of this generation of young people was lifted far above the peasantry we knew, and was known by our forebears, they have no knowledge of such suffering and should never be expose to an era that’s behind us, I am sure they would never dear to imagine. They see the paradise known to our visitors only; we see our destiny ahead. Be careful to guard our freedom and the success we cherish. Our rise from peasantry to a land of plenty must be guarded; can we rise to the challenge, can we trust the wisdom of this government?

By: ejharrigansxm

“WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!”

The last two weeks have been fraught with examples of the incompetence of this Government and its supporters in dealing with the normal issues in the management of its affairs. One gets the distinct impression that, to put it colloquially, “dey don’t know wah dey doin.” For example, in my last column I spoke at length about the Parliamentary Secretary’s “boo-boo” in trying to make politics out of an issue that required non-partisan support as well as an understanding of proper protocol; last week the national holiday to celebrate the “father of the nation” was also undermined by a blatant disregard for protocol and this week the House of Assembly has been postponed supposedly to have public consultations on the implementation of the “interim” Stabilization Levy. A levy that is critical to the passing of the budget and is intended to be implemented in little over three weeks.

While I applaud the Ministry of Finance for the latter initiative --- I seriously doubt that any serious consultations can take place at this eleventh hour. As I recall the Leader of the Opposition raised a number of important questions on this matter during the budget debates not the least among which were the questions: a) How will this revenue be utilized? b) Will it be placed in the Consolidated Fund to be spent in any manner the Government wishes or will it be used for special purposes? c) Will this levy eventually become the National Health Fund Levy? d) How “interim” is “interim”, that is, how long will this levy be in place in its proposed form? e) How will it be implemented and collected equitably in cases where persons are self-employed? It is my understanding that during the presentation of the budget proposal agreement reached between Government and the FCO consultants a few weeks ago --- a few brief comments and questions of similar content were raised by some of the participants. However, in the real sense of the process of consultations, most of these queries were not adequately addressed. My question therefore is will this meeting on Tuesday, March 8th, 2011 suffice to clarify these concerns?

Discerning readers of my column would have noticed that I have deliberately avoided going into detail about the tax measures imposed by the present AUM government over the past twelve months. First of all, this is a Government that during the recent election campaign spouted considerable rhetoric about taxation and borrowing and placed all blame for Anguilla’s financial and economic plight on the “willful errors” of the past Government with the complicity of the British Government. I use the term “willful” because during the same campaign the “serial liars” of the AUM party “fabricated” a number of conspiracy theories in an effort to win the election. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary from his infamous “black book” in “mock” investigatory style revealed what he claimed to be “already agreed taxation measures” set to be implemented immediately in the event that the Anguilla United Front should win the election. He also mentioned that there was a British Frigate in Sandy Ground waiting to ensure that such measures took place. It is little wonder then that a number of Anguillians out of genuine concern for the future took these “serial liars” at their word and voted to prevent the realization of their fearsome predictions.

Even after the AUM won the election they continued to spread this conspiracy to consolidate and legitimize their victory. On March 31, 2010, the Chief Minister in an address to the nation on his return from his talks in London said: “The Memoranda of Agreement in particular which the AUF signed in secret with the full knowledge of the Governor in Executive Council, has squandered Anguilla’s prime tourism beach resources to foreign land speculators, who among other things are allowed to invest in real estate, while giving away the taxes that were needed to propel the economy, meet the cost of financing social services, the cost of paying your civil servants and of maintaining Law and Order.” It is both ironic and unfortunate that even the beach resources that the Chief Minister spoke about and which the past Government sought to secure for the enjoyment of Anguillians at the Cap Juluca were given away in the naïve negotiations with officials of his own Government. In fact, if one were to consider the benefits that the people of Anguilla have lost in terms of the local management and the size and of the National Park; the exploitation of near-shore beach resources; the restrictions on areas for built-development, and; the options for local ownership in Cap Juluca --- one would tend to agree with Mr. Ashton Bradley’s conclusion that rather than changing the Cap Juluca Agreement from an MOA to an MOU they have in fact negotiated an IOU (I[sland] Owe You) rather than an MOU.

Members of the various constituencies in my mind have nothing to be ashamed of because they have been mislead by persons who they considered as trustworthy individuals. The truth is that on the very AUM campaign platform one of their regular speakers was a “man of the cloth” who declared with what appeared to be a “divinely inspired passion” that: “anyone who voted for the Anguilla United Front was in direct confrontation with God and would be punished!” And even now I have also reached the conclusion that a number of the elected officials of the AUM Government including the Elected Member for East End seem to blindly accept many of the lies perpetrated by the main “serial liars” of the AUM party as fact. For example, the APP Elected Member for East End proudly explained the difference between an MOU and an MOA in the House of Assembly as if he was quoting from a legal lexicon compiled by one, “Hubert Hughes, Professor-at-law”. And last evening in the absence of the Chief Minister and his Minister of Home Affairs, I was informed that the Elected Member for Valley South in a “stage managed” interview on an AUM talk show claimed that he learned from Ms. Dorothea Hodge, a political advisor to a former FCO Minister that the past Government and in particular the former Minister of Finance refused aid which was readily available from the British Government to do roads in certain villages in Anguilla. This statement being in concert with a number of lies told on the AUM campaign platform regarding information supposedly received from the same Ms. Dorothea Hodge.

My point is that if the inexperienced AUM elected officials can be misled by the “serial liars” of their own party --- it is quite conceivable that the wider electorate can also be fooled. In the case of the Elected Member for Valley South, it would be most unfortunate if he does not know that since March 2003, the Anguillian Government has not received any capital aid from the British Government. The terminology used is that we have graduated out of the capital aid program. On the other hand, if as he contends he was so informed by Ms. Hodge he either misunderstood what she said or Ms. Hodge may have misspoken on that issue. In either case it proves that it is very easy to find oneself trusting statements made by persons whom we have no reason to mistrust or who are deliberately trying to exploit that trust by deliberately trying to mislead us. Unfortunately, the dilemma of many persons during the last election campaign falls in either one or both of these categories.

I made the statement very often during the election campaign, having had the premonition that the AUM “serial liars” were exploiting the frustrations of the electorate sufficiently and could conceivably steal the election, that “ the AUM can fly an election campaign but cannot land a Government!” My statement was based on the unrealistic promises and outright lies that were being employed to achieve their objectives. Mr. Patrick Hanley, popularly known as “Sheriff” in a short posting on his “Facebook page” on June 17, 2010 made the following comment: “the past government operated on a policy of putting more money in the economy than it takes out by taxation, with the expectation that increased business activity will bring enough additional revenue to cover the shortfall, this policy has now proven to have failed, as we are now seeing record deficits with no short term resolution”.

The ongoing talk by the Chief Minister about “deficit financing” was a terminology that he (the CM) used as a flawed description of normal budgetary arrangements in all the Overseas Territories. As past Minister of Finance, I have never taken an unbalanced recurrent estimates budget to the House of Assembly. The first unbalanced budgets brought to the House of Assembly since 1983 were the budgets that this present Chief Minister and Minister of Finance brought to the House in April 2010, June 2010 and December 2010. Having said that, the impact of the global financial recession on our economy determined that such a solution was necessary but it also required negotiations with our partners in the private sector and the FCO in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. In fact, Mr. Hanley’s final admonition in his closing sentences rings true: “parties must lay aside their differences and work for the common good. More can be done and done more quickly, if everyone is on the same page instead of posturing for party advantage.”

But the point I wish to make about Mr. Hanley’s statement is that it is based on a false premise established by misinformation constantly being promulgated by the Chief Minister. Never in any of my presentations, neither formally nor informally, have I used the term “deficit financing”. To further substantiate this misinformation the Parliamentary Secretary, in a comment on the same posting made wrote: “the former Minister of Finance has long preached the values of deficit financing”. In the Ministries of Finance under my stewardship various components of capital expenditure were financed either by grants or borrowing. However, in the case of borrowing for capital development the repayment was always included in the recurrent estimates as part of recurrent expenditure. These arrangements do not fit the textbook definition of “deficit financing” from which Mr. Hanley quotes in response to a direct question from Mr. Fritz Smith on the same posting. Nor does it describe what has been happening in Anguilla over the past ten years. Estimates are what they are --- estimates! Given the vulnerability of the Anguillan economy to natural and external shocks such estimates are even less scientific and therefore allows any “pundit of economics” to come up with some theoretical framework to fit his/her arguments. These are the kinds of statements by the AUM party that take root and are spread about as factual by unwitting supporters and very often become the launching point for even more dangerous inaccuracies and lies.

All of the foregoing brings us to a very important point. Last week in my column I referred to the entire budgetary saga as “much ado about nothing!” But in truth and in fact the whole process has resulted in considerable costs. In my estimation the only presenter on the Government side of the House who seems to have any real understanding or more accurately, who is unwilling to participate in the conspiracy theories associated with the passage of the budget and the causes of our plight is the Elected Member for Road South, the Hon. Edison Baird. His views are quite unlike Mr. Hanley and others who have been persuaded by the Chief Minister’s lies about “deficit financing”. The nature of the Anguillian economy given the tax regime in place at this time; the paucity of our natural resources and the “openness” of our economy generally, Anguilla can only prosper by growing the economy and maintaining it at an optimal level in a favourable global environment. It is true that we must manage and control our spending and maximize our revenue collection but this cannot succeed without paying due attention to economic development.

The false sense of complacency that the Chief Minister and his colleagues are spreading, by the prior sanction of the budget proposal by FCO, can be dangerous if the electorate believes that we have arrived. First of all, the costs to our economy have increased because we have waited so long bickering about the inevitable, namely, mutual and respectful negotiations with the British Government who must in the end “bail us out” if things get even worse. Secondly, the taxes that they are now imposing far exceed those that the Parliamentary Secretary quoted from his “infamous black book” as representing what the AUF and the FCO were plotting to implement. Thirdly, the Stabilization Levy; the gasoline tax, and the increased customs surcharge will seriously impact the investment sector and jobs. And finally, nothing will happen in this economy if Anguilla continues to be on the “red flag” listing of major private international financial agencies and institutions that have been “scared off” by the thoughtless and damaging rhetoric of the Chief Minister on worldwide media.

Already the Flag Temenos Project negotiations have foundered; the pace of the Solaire Project is not as represented by government; the Cap Juluca Expansion Project is in a holding pattern; there are rumours of political posturing on the proposal for a new project in the Blowing Point area, and; no new investments are appearing at this time in this particular “window of interest” for Anguilla. We are beset by an ever-increasing number of broken promises and incidences of bad governance in this government’s record. And to “top it all off”, supporters of this Government are now fighting among themselves. It was heartrending to hear one of the most vocal callers of the AUM talk show circuit complain that he was driven to tears and his heart ached last Saturday when he heard the position taken by one of their usually supportive talk show personalities. Which only goes to confirm the truth in the saying that: “What goes around [most certainly] comes around!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
March 8th, 2011



“ONE MAN”

Farther of the Nation!!!!

There is no better gesture suitable for the honor of James Ronald Webster than having the country stand still for a moment and recognize the leap ahead we’ve made because of “one man.” And no term more suiting as “Father of the nation” The term “one man” is a very sour note to the ears of a significant number of Anguillians because we recall a people of one mind, one determination, one conclusion. We all agree that the name Ronald Webster is most synonymous with the plight of this country and its rise to freedom. We all know, and recognize the personal sacrifice and anguish he suffered, not because of personal loses, lack of sleep or not enough family time as a regular family man. The mission he embraced was one of much more significance than those important chores of life, so he committed himself to the great task ahead, not to sound a warning but win the battle.

It is unclear who actually started the revolution, different accounts are given of different situations and various approaches to accomplishing the stated goal. What we know, as is recorded in the history books that James Ronald Webster was the undisputed leader of the Anguilla’s revolution of 1967. As we know, great minds talk idea, small minds discuss people, and so for our island to attain this success, one man was certainly not enough, he needed everyone else. Those that ran with the mantle and lead this country to victory effectively planned and executed our rise to freedom from literal oppression. We honor everyone with great respect from our hearts and our country says “thanks.” It is a principle from the beginning of time and is recorded in many of the great stories of the Bible age. One man led and one man consequently bears responsibility for leading. Moses led the children to the promise land, it was utterly impossible for this to occur, yet Moses; God’s point man in the wilderness was God’s man with the plan.

Brave and heroic initiatives are taken by conviction not necessarily by conversation. Most certainly, if the plan to liberate Anguilla was discussed and plotted with the masses no matter how honorably, this battle would still be ongoing, because effort was made prior to our time and failed. “Quote from Bless Our Forebears” The story tells of the difficulties Anguilla faced in the years 1840 – 1871 which heightened the resentment of the people to the forced union with St. Kitts. Queen Victoria was petitioned to dissolve the union and administer Anguilla as a British dependency (Direct Rule) Our ground was parched, our housed were raggedy. The book says the principle complaint was “a most galling and oppressive tax regime from St. Kitts; they tax our dogggs and all! We just couldn’t take it no more. The petitioners themselves observed, “That there is no land, so little known or cared for, and none so oppressed than Anguilla. Earlier on the book described the conditions in Anguilla in those days as “fit for little but goats.” Bradshaw and his group of Pin Heads / loony toons, long before his time did not help! Would not help, they never liked us. It was time, some one hundred and three years later; one man knew it was time, by his conviction, by the noble gift of being born on said despicable land mass which we all, as a people were supposed to be herded from to another plantation unknown, we defied the odds and rejected the order and stood with the rock, where even grass wouldn’t grow.

One man was enough to move a nation to act, an act some forty four years now, and excelling to tremendous heights, succeeding in our plight and prospering in our ways. Not even this region can yet understand the Anguillan story of ‘67 and account for what really happened. But obviously, we know! One thing that was way beyond our understanding was how the Lord feels about the liberation of Anguilla. At the honorable age of 85 years, still looking very well, standing strong and still well alert, still cognizant, still able to praise him, without doubt, we can say “God Bless Ronald Webster and God Bless Anguilla!!!!!”

By: eJ.harrisxm

“MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING!”

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Albena Lake Hodge Comprehensive School Debating Team for their splendid performance in the British Virgin Islands where they represented Anguilla proudly in this year’s Annual Leeward Islands Debating Competition over the weekend. While they did not bring back the gold --- they were strong finalists and fierce competitors to the very end. Obviously, the debaters did not achieve such excellence on their own --- congratulations are therefore in order for their teachers, parents, teammates, corporate sponsors and supporters as well. It was an all around stellar performance and we cherish their silver medal with a profound sense of patriotism. They deserve our praise both as a team and individually having captured the most best speaker awards.

I felt that the topics were both exciting and challenging and captured some of the more important issues affecting our region. It was indeed inspiring to hear the youth of this sub-region articulate so eloquently, during their presentations, various sides of the issues assigned to them. I felt, as I am sure did many other listeners, a great sense of hope for the future of our island and for the region as a whole. Obviously such events showcase the caliber of professionals and leaders that will secure and protect the heritage that successive generations have sacrificed to build and develop. If the performance of our team in the BVI is any measure of what we can expect as future leaders --- our island will be in good hands indeed. And speaking of legacy and heritage, I am honored to use this column to wish a happy and blessed birthday to the “father of our nation”, the Hon. James Ronald Webster for his outstanding and aptly celebrated contribution to this island we hold most dear. May continued health and happiness attend him for many more years to come.

The Anguilla United Front (AUF) decided to cancel its public meeting on Saturday to allow Anguillians to give our young people their undivided attention during the semi-finals on Saturday. It was therefore most rewarding that they won and went on to the finals the following day. But in the midst of this genuine and commendable gesture of solidarity by the AUF, a notorious “AUM supporter” made a most disappointing statement, characteristically loud and at public gathering place. He shouted that the real reason why the AUF cancelled their meeting was because “the AUM Government got their budget passed and therefore the Opposition (AUF) did not have anything to talk about!”. If that were in fact the case, the Parliamentary Secretary “the circus master” certainly corrected that situation with his usual disregard for procedure and proper governance.

I comment on the matter of the Parliamentary Secretary’s handling of the appointment of a Constitutional and Electoral Committee not only to highlight the matter of the premature issuance of a press release alone but also to demonstrate the continuing use of posturing and lies to make political points and as a consequence waste useful resources and lose valuable gains. For those of you who did not have the opportunity to hear or read the release from the Parliamentary Secretary it does the following things: - 1) Claims that the Chief Minister selected and commissioned a Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee. 2) Claims that the Chief Minister sent a letter to the new Chair of the Committee. 3) Indicates who is the new Chair of the Committee. 4) Lists a number of persons selected to serve on the Committee. 5) Indicates that the Executive Council would be duly informed and expected to give its blessings.

What the issuance of this release has uncovered are a number of denials from many persons as to the authenticity of the claims in the document as well as the total disregard for proper procedure by the Parliamentary Secretary. Starting with the point number one above, that the Chief Minister selected and commissioned a Committee --- it has been reported that the Chief Minister denies any involvement in the selection of the Committee. Such denials are typical of the Chief Minister --- but if we may refer to the behaviour reported by Minister Baird in “his confessions”, namely, that the Parliamentary Secretary (Parlsec) selected a Board in the CM’s Ministry without consulting him ---it is highly possible that he did not do so on this occasion either.

On the second point the Parlsec claims that the Chief Minister sent a letter to the new Chairman of the Committee and in the third point he names the new Chairman. Both the Chief Minister and the designated new Chairman have been reported to deny any knowledge of any of these claims. First of all, the person in question reportedly said that he was not informed of being made Chairman of any such Committee. However, upon hearing the release he called the Chief Minister who also disavowed granting any authorization for such correspondence to be sent to him.

On the fourth point the Parlsec lists the persons who were selected to serve on the committee. Of the eight persons he claims were selected, five have denied being consulted; three of those have been very vocal in expressing their displeasure; two of which have committed those sentiments to paper.

And on the final point, the Parlsec states in a most indecorous fashion that “the Executive Council will be duly informed” of what, based on the foregoing, seems to be a committee selected by him. Again giving credence to Minster Baird’s statement in his “confessions” that “the Parliamentary Secretary is unashamedly exploiting his familial relationship with the Chief Minister to wield unprecedented levels of power over a range of matters. He started out pretending to be the Chief Minister; he is now pretending to be the Government”.

Some comments from the two “nominees” (for lack of a more appropriate terminology) who put their objections to paper are worthy of mention. The private sector lawyer who responded to the Parlsec’s release makes the following important points: a) her being named as part of the committee was brought to her attention via the media; b) at no time was she asked whether she was willing and able to be a member of the committee; c) that the simple act of consultation shows respect for those whose assistance is sought and creates a climate of goodwill and cooperation.

The public service lawyer makes equally important points regarding the nature of the release in particularly in the context of proper procedures in governance. She points out that:- i) to say that the Executive Council will be duly informed is alarming given the gravity of Constitutional and Electoral Reform; ii) the Executive Council first authorizes and then must give final approval for the process before any committee or commission on Constitutional reform can be launched; iii) a public servant should not be a part of any committee where the proper procedures have not been followed; and iv) the process the Parlsec followed “sets the cart before the horse” and does not represent good governance.

I have repeatedly stated in several of my columns that the Chief Minister is leading by bad example. I have also given examples of the “serial lying” which pervades the AUM governance style. This latest “boo-boo” by the Parlsec is an example “par excellence” of all of the above. It is obvious that when the Chief Minister sidestepped the requirement for EXCO approval in the matter of the voting of ANGLEC shares and when he admittedly willfully disregarded the need to obtain EXCO and Legislative authorization for borrowing two hundred million US dollars, these are bad examples that lead to the kind of misconduct exhibited by the Parlsec and the other inexperienced elected members of his team. On the other hand when one cannot verify who in fact selected the Committee because of contradicting stories from the Chief Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary --- you begin to realize the level of lies and half truths which dominates their political style.

But the Parlsec goes on further to show that he still has not grasped the essence of his error or perhaps his deliberate arrogance based on the content of his second release which is intended to be an apology. In that release he says nothing about the need for EXCO authorization for the launching of such a committee; he only apologizes profusely to the private sector lawyer while slighting over the other nominees including the public service lawyer; he still does not demonstrate an understanding of the disrespect implicit in simply assuming ones availability, and finally; having made the error of not informing persons of their appointments in the public media he proceeds yet again to compound that situation by a lame apology also in the public media. The appropriate thing to do would have been to make a public statement withdrawing the release --- send personal letters of apology to all the persons involved then further inquiring into their availability and willingness to serve on the committee.

The other part to this disaster is the raw politics. First of all the past government managed two processes of Constitutional and Electoral Reform one led by former Speaker of the House of Assembly, Mr. David Carty and the other led by former Justice I. Don Mitchell. The findings of those groups came as a result of wide public consultations. Those findings were well documented and are in the process of compilation. Members of the present Government were involved in those discussions. The contextual framework for the reforms was based on the principle of full internal self-government. In essence what remains is basically the technical aspects of the compilation and drafting processes. And based on the AUF and AUM manifestos, in particular, there are no substantial differences on the main issues. Any posturing or politicking on the process will as a consequence cause us to lose valuable ground and waste valuable resources, unless of course, it is the intention of the Government to now draft an Independence Constitution as the Chief Minister has stated in the international media.

The other part of the “raw politics” is the fact that the Opposition was not invited to recommend anyone to the Committee. This has been a usual practice in all previous reform committees. While one can see the motive in the selection of Members nominated to serve on the Committee its composition does not reflect a clear presence of persons associated with the main Opposition Party. It does not, to quote one of the lawyers selected, “create a climate of goodwill and cooperation”. Indeed it speaks to blatant partisanship that this Government vows it detests and promotes divisionism that it claims to abhor.

So let me encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to muzzle his enthusiasm and put the issue of Constitutional and Electoral Reform in its proper perspective. During the former administration these were matters that encouraged wide public discussion and sought non-partisan support. To play politics and posture with this process would be infantile. A document that is to evolve into the Supreme Law of the land should not be treated like a child’s play thing. It must be considered a document for all the people by the people. Not a “winner take all” game of marbles.

And getting back to the witless “AUM loudmouth” who declared that: “the budget is passed so the AUF has nothing to talk about” --- he needs to be “told” of my comments, obviously hidden from persons like himself, in the bowels of my column in the Anguillian Newspaper. In my January 21, 2011 article I quoted from a New Years address by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers because his views also reflect my own: “The situation in Anguilla calls for an atmosphere of patience, understanding, peace, partnership and mutual respect between ourselves and Britain. Not threats of revolution, violence and bloodshed. ………… We need to look beyond the charges and denials of the past year in particular, to better days of collaborative partnership and the forward movement of Anguilla from its current state of affairs …… we need to engage the British Government in a civil, intellectual, respectful and mutual dialogue as it pertains to all aspects of the Anguillian situation. This I am afraid, will not be accomplished with the style, attitude and approach of our present Chief Minister.”

What we were saying in a nutshell was that the entire charade by the Chief Minister and his cohorts was uncalled for! What was required is to settle down and engage the British Government --- and the entire matter with the budget would be quickly put aside. Thus giving us the opportunity to move on to the many more challenging issues confronting us. The fact is we have lost valuable time by refusing to dialogue, by coming up with all kinds of nonsensical conspiracy theories and vacuous threats. Discerning Anguillians would have noticed that amidst the CM’s rants neither the Governor nor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Officials have shown us any form of disrespect, insolent conduct or any form of retaliation. Even at the ludicrous march to the Governor’s Office where insolence and rudeness was blaringly evident ---- the Governor was extremely calm and courteous. Is the Chief Minister and his supporter’s incivility becoming an aspect of Anguillian politics? I sincerely hope not!

Again to those trusting AUM supporters who cheered obviously in relief at the forum that the saga of the budget seemed to be over, I do hope you recognize that our responsibility as citizens has just begun. We must now ask the serious questions: “ Will the unfair attacks on private investors (foreign and local) by the CM now stop? Will loose talk about an AUF/British conspiracy now end? Will the thoughtless cries for independence now be silenced? Will freedom of expression now be considered a right of all Anguillians regardless of party affiliations? Will the AUM talk show callers and hosts now wipe the tears from their eyes? When will the lies, innuendos and slander cease to be a part of the AUM governance style?

The fact that the budget has “passed”, or to put it more accurately received the prior sanction of the FCO, through simple dialogue and courteous engagement --- only goes to show in the words of Sir William Shakespeare that there was indeed “much ado about nothing!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
March 1, 2011