Anguilla Day Message - May 30 2011

Fellow Anguillians,

We are assembled on these grounds yet another time to celebrate our island home and the men and women who have contributed to its development in --- all its aspects. These celebrations mark the 44th Anniversary of the Anguilla Revolution --- a “punctuation mark” in the history of our country’s journey to where we are today. I use the term “punctuation mark” because Anguilla’s history did not begin or end with the Revolution --- but it is certainly better because of it. The Revolution was undoubtedly our finest hour.

There is much truth in the saying: “we are all dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants”. Indeed every single generation exists because of the skill, enterprise and sacrifices of those generations that preceded it. So truly speaking, today we should be celebrating Anguilla’s rich past even as we look to the future. In that context while I hail all those stalwarts in our community who will be receiving awards today as well as those who have been likewise acknowledged over the years --- it occurred to me that perhaps we should also pay tribute, posthumously, and not necessarily with awards, but with respectful mention of those Anguillians and groups of Anguillians who kept the flame alive, over the period before the Revolution, with their strong determination to “cherish the rock” through drought, famine, storms and diseases. Because they never abandoned their homeland in the height of adversity --- we can celebrate our homeland today.

It has been a good development that the Anguilla Day Awards now recognize the contributions of today’s stalwarts in our community inferring that we understand that the Anguilla Revolution is not over --- and that there is still a lot to be done and being done to make Anguilla “proud strong and free”. But it would be equally important if we now look back into our history and learn more about how we came to be who we are. Our rich culture and heritage must be our “true foundation” and the work of our historians like Don Mitchell, Colville Petty, David Carty, Dame Bernice Lake, Nat Hodge and others must be sought after, cherished and celebrated as they continue to memorialize highlights and high points of the Anguillian journey. Persons who come to live among us would then be more incline to then respect and adopt our Anguillianism rather than simply making it a flavour in their own culture.

The national pride to which we often allude would be strengthened by this demonstration of appreciation for the efforts of our forebears and the tendency to incivility and disrespect which seems to be creeping into our culture could be harnessed. Many of us tend to live in the moment, look for quick solutions, pursue instant personal gratification and therefore lose sight of the bigger picture. Our history teaches us that the Anguilla we have inherited was built on patience, sharing, and sacrifice. Today, many of us are inclined to ingratitude --- such that past deeds and kindnesses are dismissed by an attitude of “what have you done for me lately”.

Since last Anguilla Day, the situation in Anguilla has worsened. Our people have lost jobs, businesses are failing, bills are piling up, the banks have over-reached their generosity, and persons are losing homes, property and transportation. The economy continues to flounder and Government revenues are dwindling. The atmosphere is charged with a real sense of frustration and despair. These are ominous signs that things may get worse before they improve. And unfortunately, our Leaders seem to be at their wit’s end.

But the history of Anguilla has always been one of challenge. We have always survived by our wits and our stubborn determination to stay the course. There is no reason why we cannot do the same today. Just ten years ago the Anguilla United Front Government of which I am a part faced similar challenges --- but we drew on the strength and innovativeness that have driven our people over the centuries. We did not blame any one; we did not engage in confrontational exchanges; we did not denigrate our partners in the private sector, and; we did not fight among ourselves. We just did what Anguillians have always done “buckled down and got the job done”.

I am proud that during our tenure we contributed to the realization of the Anguillian dream and the vision of our forebears by real progress. Before this economic downturn we were able to deliver EC$ 70 million in road construction; 9 million in school construction; 13 million in seaport development; 50 million in training; 20 million in land acquisition for the future; 70 million in airport expansion and relocation; and 65 million in reserves just to name a few areas. That is a total of almost EC$300 million in direct public sector development. But in addition, we were able to attract almost a billion US dollars in foreign direct investment. Every single Anguillian shared in that prosperity.

Later today many of us will enjoy the “Around the Island Boat Race”. According to Mr. Bob Rogers very few of us will stop to think about how boat racing evolved as a part of our culture. According to Mr. Rogers, a celebrated stalwart of the Revolution, it was not because our people were idle and wanted something to do --- it was done as a response to the economic situation at that time. Our forebears needed fast boats that could travel between Anguilla and St Martin or Anguilla and St. Barths quickly and specifically overnight ----- or that could bring back the men folk quickly from Santo Domingo when the sugar cane crop was over. Fast boats facilitated their trade --- legal and/or otherwise. So what was a part of our struggle for survival --- has now become a part of our culture. Yet another reason why this rich past must be celebrated on Anguilla Day along side our revolutionary heroes and heroines and the outstanding citizens of today.

Our prescription for future success lies in leadership that adheres to the tried and proven approaches of our past. The Honourable James Ronald Webster, the father of the nation, said in his remarks on the National Day in his honor this year and I quote: “Seeking political office is an enormous national commitment. But only well-qualified persons in terms of education, dedication and integrity, and with the right leadership charisma, should be selected for public office at the highest level. This holds true whether it is by the ballot box or other forms of legal appointment”.

Through this powerful statement, Mr. Webster outlined the clear path to success for those who seek to aspire to becoming leaders of Anguilla. It is a path consistent with his earliest vision that he did not want us to become a “nation of waiters and bus boys”. The principles implicit in that statement remain the common thread that has sustained every generation of Anguillians. It is not about standing in line “head bowed” with the “begging bowl” at the community of nations --- but using our skill and intellect to achieve success.

By: The Hon. Mcniel Rogers, Leader of the Oposition on Anguilla.

POLITICAL SUICIDE

The 44th year of the Anguilla revolution quickly approaches. It finds Anguilla at a critical point in its development. The crisis is a mountain of debt, political ineptitude and a general lack of political vision or will. The problems surround every aspect of life on the island and they will not be solved by playing the blame game although it is important for the people to know the root of the problems. There are tough decisions that need to be made and making them at the moment is akin to political suicide especially in light of the myriad of promises made to the electorate over the years. I am sure the AUM administration realizes this and the AUF realized it and that is why they avoided making the tough decisions before the election. The abdication of the previous government to make the tough financial decisions when the economy first took a down turn was a shrewd political move but it has created a financial disaster. The criticism of the AUM and its promise to fix the economy within a short time of taking office was also a shrewd campaign promise but a promise that will undoubtedly damage its political credibility. The AUM has also spent way to much time fighting with the clueless and uncaring British.

The fact of the matter is that the size of the government is not in tune with the islands economic reality. The cuts in pay for the civil service only affects moral it does little address the financial situation. The size of the Government and its services needs to be reduced as quickly as possible. The politicians know it is political suicide and they are likely to resist it, with promises while praying that the economy quickly turns around. The economy will not turn around unless the burden of government is reduced to a manageable size. The size of government affects the level of taxation that individuals are expected to pay and it affects the participation of businesses within the economy. It is political suicide to cut the workforce and increase joblessness in the middle of the worst recession in history but it is necessary if Anguilla is going to recover. It is political suicide because the local businesses are so shaken by the recession that they will be unable to create sufficient jobs to fill the gaps created by a mass reduction in government jobs. It is political since based on the current global recession as the island is unlikely to find a worthwhile large project. It is also political suicide and national suicide to maintain the status quo. Over the years the Government has reduced the number of services it offers through a process of privatization and the creation of statutory bodies, yet despite these fancy accounting gimmicks the size of the civil service continued to grow. The current state of the economy demand not only the reversal of this trend, it demands an end to the practice of political patronage that fuels the growth of the civil service. I highly doubt that the AUM political style of popular politics will have the required backbone to tackle the problem just as the previous administration use of smoke and mirrors caused the problem at a time when the economy was in better shape financially.

The problem with Anguilla’s model of development is that is based on perpetual quest of finding the next big project or the alienation of land. Successive politicians have done little to create a sustainable economy. The politicians over the years even those who consider themselves brilliant economic managers failed to create the links of sustainability. The government borrowed heavily to fund projects that are not profitable. The road to hell is not only paved with good intentions it is paved by people are nothing less than earnest incompetents.

The cost of doing business in Anguilla is too high and it needs to be quickly reduced however it’s difficult to reduce costs when the government is bloated. Anguilla is currently living in an economic bubble and the cost of its debt is likely hinder future economic growth. Looking at the current situation Anguillians can be thankful that monetary policy is made by an independent policy. If our government was responsible for making monetary policy there is a strong chance that the policies, lack of vision and the level of debt would have seriously devalued the currency and created hyper inflation.

The challenges facing Anguilla is unlikely to disappear anytime in the near future as the situation in the rest of the world will either remain the same or get worst. The first world countries including Britain and the USA are currently living in a state of denial and their policy fixes are either delaying or postponing the inevitable. Anguilla needs to quickly examine both its financial hemorrhage.

The difficult choices facing Anguilla will out last all of the current politicians, yet the danger is that neither Hubert nor Victor is capable of solving the problems. Their economic policies and world view is seriously flawed. When the economic flaws is merged with political considerations it is easy to understand that Hubert will not act unless he can cast all the blame and negatives consequences of his actions on the previous government and Victor wont act because it will require him to accept responsibility for past AUF failures. The burden of moving the economy forward therefore rest with the people.

The problem is not the British or the ability to show a penny, it’s the realization that if you carelessly step on a hoe, the handle will hit you in the face.

By: Statchel Warner

IS IT, “FULL INTERNAL SELF GOVERNMENT OR INDEPENDENCE?”

We are all sometimes extremely terrified when our honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hubert Hughes is designated to speak, not because of incapability, he is actually a very eloquent speaker, and often has performed exceptionally in public forum. The anguish comes from uncertainty of total equanimity. He was criticized heavily for an address last year where he actually glorified the Bradshaw’s regime of the ‘67 era which left much of his audience confused. As a result of the budgetary complexities the Island is experiencing, the honorable Chief Minister at some point actually side-step the gravity of the matter and decided to launch an attack on the British. This time wanted to send a clear and unmistakable message,”we freed Anguilla in “67, we will do it again in 2011. That was prior to him being aired on a regional news cast explaining his chaotic governing relationship with the British and declared “we have to determine whether we are going to start seriously to move towards independence or allow the British to increase their power.” He went on to further say “the economic crisis we are facing tells us that independence must be an open conversation for the people of Anguilla.”

It is believed that all Anguillians will willing engage in an open conversation about independence, and it is time this conversation begins in earnest and not be driven by emotional reaction to crisis situations of the country. The subject is legitimate, and deserves the highest level of consciousness the people can be persuaded to bring to the engagement. Everyone knows that Mr. Hughes views the British as outsiders in the affairs of the country, to bring that mind set to legitimately engage the British on the subject of independence will only result In more of the same confusion of positioning for command; where the British will eventually take the subject away from Hughes and present the people of Anguilla with an independent position on a “White Paper” once again. It must begin from a position of mutual respect for the subject, the people of Anguilla and the British Government, considering that this is the ultimate determination is the sovereignty of a people. But the Hughes Government, already having cynical posturing with the British, needs to soon declare a well defined position on present affairs and the future of the country; then let the debate begin. That declaration must not leap blindly in the advance solution of independence but must lay out a precursor of “Full Internal Self Government” where the country will work progressively toward declaring of Full Independent State in fifteen years.

When Ved Ganghi raised the 2011 Budget up high and declared “the Budget stands” something beyond political implications transpired. It galvanized the concept that the professionals with in the service are qualified to advance the country, which makes the Hughes’s Government the beneficiary of that capability, putting him in a strong position to engage the British. The Government must now formulate an agenda of substance and Vision and lay it on the desk of the Minister, with a summary; we’re ready to talk! That “Vision” must include those elements the country is now requiring for preparing its self for control of its own destiny and finding out the British position on adequate assistance moving forward. Some of those most important elements are: An adequate modernized airport, a full size modern commercial harbor, a modernized and enlarged Blowing Point Tourist Port, an appropriate and equitable tax regime and an attitude from the British that, “we will support the people of Anguilla in its quest for self governing.”

The position of “Self Determination” is one that all Anguilla people will rally around. This government has been losing support from the people since taking office and has also frustrated the British Government with antagonistic remarks and exaggerated statements! It is time to put into context some of these remarks and position the country and its people positivity. This Anguilla Day, Mr. Hughes must articulate his position; use the platform given to our political leaders annually, not just to lament about the past and point out irrelevance. We must use this most important National Day to utter statements of national consequence and position the island for the next step on our journey, all be it this year, the distinct call for the “independence of Anguilla.” So this Anguilla Day, the speech we want to here is how you validate your call for Independence, tell the people in full detail how you intend to take us on this journey and prepare a people for nation building. It is a matter how you articulate your vision! The people are looking forward to something stimulating and visionary. This may be your time, this may be your moment to lead or set in motion the next big thing for the country!!!!!

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“SHOW ME A PENNY!”

Last week I was unable to write my column due to tight travel schedules and other commitments, but I am grateful to Mr. Ashton Bradley for “pinch hitting” in my space with his article: “The honeymoon is over!” In his usual direct style, Mr. Bradley spoke to the need to “hold the Government to account” and to ask specific questions about its campaign promises and its capacity to fulfill them. I was particularly moved by his comment: “Today in Anguilla there is real cause for all of us to ponder our destiny. People are no longer asking the question: ‘How the country running boy?’ Instead they are asking: ‘Boy who running the country?” Of course the issue of who is running the country became very central as we heard and read “Eddie Baird’s Confessions” in his radio and television address in February of this year which he titled: “Who runs Anguilla?” And I must remind you exactly what Mr. Baird said with this direct quote from his speech as follows: “It is clear that these unelected persons are exercising considerable influence over Governmental affairs. The Chief Minister has little or no say in the actual running of the island. Their only need for him, it appears, is to give formality and legitimacy to their conduct. They are seeking an all out confrontation with the British Government on the issues of independence, the budget and related matters of good governance. The interests of these unelected people do not, in any way, coincide with the interests of the Anguillan people.”

Since that revealing address by the Minister of Social Development many Anguillians have become very confused about the functioning of the Government. In fact, there are those who are expressing shock that Mr. Baird still actually sits in Executive Council and holds on to his entire portfolio. That shock is further exacerbated by the fact that the Chief Minister and other Members of the Government continue to denigrate Mr. Baird on both private and public media and forums. It is therefore no less than amazing that the government seems to be acting as if all is well. To have such a situation existing at a time when there is need for unity of purpose both within and outside of Government would suggest that we are either operating on autopilot or that at some point mutiny will cast the “ship of state” on the rocks of political and economical disaster. Little wonder then that we now have a Government of reaction rather than action!

For a very short time during March and April the Chief Minister was, to use his own words, “uncharacteristically silent”. In fact a number of his colleagues were quiet as well. But he came back with what he threatened would be the beginning of a series of lectures, with a long tirade about the Opposition’s campaign for the repeal of the Interim Stabilization Levy using the same “worn out” excuse of blaming the past Administration for our economic woes. His junior Ministers and Advisors have likewise adopted his approach and are in fact taking it a step further by condemning the Opposition’s right to express its views and to seek “first hand” information on matters affecting the workers of this country. It does not augur well for the future of the AUM that there appears to be a feeling among the “young upstarts” of the party that no one has the right to oppose the actions of the Government. One member on a recent talk show went so far as to imply that because I did not regain a seat in the House I do not have the right to speak on “the Levy” --- that is, the “bad tax” that we insist must be repealed. Again I will quote Mr. Bradley in the same article when he commented: “First and most sincerely it is necessary to say that any one of us who lives here and cares about the running of Anguilla have an inherent right to stand up and speak out at anytime. We do not have to wait until election time to cry for our beloved country or be ‘cowed’ by those who are afraid to act their conscience and who remain mute thereby betraying our country’s best interest.

A fundamental principle of a democracy is freedom of speech and the right to exercise it. That is why the AUF has a right to have public meetings stating its own policies as well as attacking the Government and pointing out the folly of its ways. Government is not just about blaming the party you defeated. It is about what principles and policies you are promoting now that you are in power. And it is in the interest of everyone to examine the Government for what it is worth.” It is that process of examination that is taking place in very discrete corners of this island where people gather, much concerned about the challenges that both individuals and companies have to manage, in a very unkind financial and economic environment.

Cable and Wireless will probably be smiling this month as they calculate the roaming charges that I incurred in response to the many persons calling me overseas last week regarding the closure of the Malliouhana Hotel and the Brown Hill Communications Centre last week. In one fell swoop over two hundred workers were made redundant because of business decisions these companies made in response to their financial situation. Obviously, these closures were as a result of several factors and so any attempt to pin them down to any particular one would be subjective and perhaps even malicious. While one may conclude that there is always that one additional straw that may break the “camel’s back” --- one should not place the blame for the “camel’s” dilemma on a particular straw. It is the entire burden that caused the “camel’s” demise not any particular item in the load. However, the person or persons loading the “camel” must have a sense of its carrying capacity. It is this very narrow distinction that becomes the focus of controversy when affected persons seek to find answers to their plight and naturally look to their political leaders, particularly those in Government, for some expression of hope or understanding in the face of an uncertain future. It therefore becomes leaders to be responsible, objective and fair in their handling of such matters or run the risk of worsening an environment already charged with frustration and despair. The Parliamentary Secretary’s unwarranted and overly defensive response to a posting on “Facebook” by the Chairman of the Anguilla United Front (AUF) is a good example of how young politicians may react when faced with the pressures of this period.

While it is not my intention to diminish the impact of any of the closures, I must single out the case of the Malliouhana Hotel. Unlike the Brown Hill Communication Centre that has been operating for less than three years, Malliouhana has been a feature of the Anguillian economy for almost thirty years, from construction to operation. That period represents an entire generation such that there are workers who would have had children and grandchildren over the period of their employment at the Hotel. It was one of the largest private sector foreign investment projects during the early 1980’s and became the signature property for the “low volume high value” product that defined Anguilla’s Tourism brand during that period. The owner Mr. Leon Roydon is considered the “granddaddy” of the Anguilla Hotel & Tourism Association and holds the respect of all management and staff; his suppliers and business associates; his colleagues in the industry and his returning guests. His contribution to Anguilla’s development extends beyond the wages paid to his employees and the services he purchases from the business community --- it includes his philanthropy to the wider community over the years as well. It is in this total context, that the closure of the Malliouhana Hotel must be regarded. It is indeed the end of an era of the personal style of management that he brought to the industry and the fatherly approach that he adopted towards Anguilla’s tourism sector as a whole.

While Mr. Roydon, the father, is no longer actively involved in the management of the Hotel it was firstly out of respect for his service to Anguilla that the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers; the Elected Representative for Island Harbour, Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool and myself visited the property on Thursday, May 19 to speak with Mr. Roydon, the son, about the situation. And secondly, we needed to get a first hand report of the circumstances from the proverbial “horses mouth” so as to make objective responses to the several workers who sought our advice and counsel. Our meeting was intended to be cordial and so it was. But the travails of Malliouhana over the past two years, in particular, weigh heavily on the ownership and the future success of the property. It was in this context that the decision was made to secure new ownership for the future and to “stop the bleeding” of continued losses in the short term. It was simply left for us to confirm that Mr. Roydon treated the workers in compliance with the law and to determine whether we could persuade any further generosity from him on behalf of employees, many who served Malliouhana faithfully for over twenty years.

Our visit to Malliouhana evoked the Government’s displeasure. Based on the comments of the Ministers and Advisors both on a talk show that same night and when they met with the workers last Saturday, they seemed anxious to convey the message that our visit was malicious and that we did not have the right to meet with the owners and workers because we were responsible for the circumstances leading up to the closure in the first place. But the truth of the matter is that workers at Malliouhana Hotel must be commended for their dedication and loyalty to the property over the years. They remained at their jobs even in the face of more lucrative offers. And the exceptional service culture has positively impacted the ratio of repeat guests and customers.

It was no surprise therefore when we discovered that owners of Malliouhana followed the letter of the law in terms of redundancy. Section 11 of the Fair Labour Standards Act speaks to the issue of pay in lieu of notice as follows: (a) an employee paid at intervals of less than 1 month who has --- (i) less than 1 year’s service, 1 week, (ii) 1 year or over and less that 5 years’ service, 2 weeks, and (iii) 5 years’ service and over, 4 weeks; (b) an employee paid at monthly intervals who has --- (i) less than one year’s service, 1 month, (ii) 1 year or over and under 5 years’ service, 2 months, and (iii) 5 years’ service and over, 3 months; but, where the employee concerned is at the professional, higher technical or managerial level the period of service shall not be less than 3 months irrespective of length of service. In terms of the letter of the law there seems to be an obvious inequitable situation between monthly employers and those long-term weekly employees who have been in steady employment for over five years. For example, someone paid weekly who has been working for as many as 20 years is entitled to 4 weeks’ salary upon redundancy while someone paid monthly who has been working for 5 years is entitled to 3 months (i.e. 12 weeks) salary. This is one of the situations that the past Government was seeking to correct through the Labour Code Bill (2005). The strong public opposition during those consultations resulted in the withdrawal of both the Labour Code Bill and the Physical Planning Bill. My recollection is particularly lucid because my efforts to progress these consultations, even though I was neither Minister of Labour nor Physical Planning, resulted in a vicious campaign for my recall as the Elected Member for Valley South. Part 7 of the proposed Bill introduced for the first time a section on “severance pay” that provided a formula for the calculation of compensation when ones employment is terminated. This meant that long serving employees would be entitled to prescribed levels of compensation upon termination that are equitable. It should be noted that “severance pay” is not synonymous with “pay in lieu of notice” it is in addition to, however, an adjustment was proposed to regularize this situation.

The proposed Labour Code Bill still remains a draft today. And there is enough blame to go around. The representatives of the Government used their visit on Saturday to suggest to the workers that their inability to respond to their specific questions was due to the fact that the past Government did nothing about enacting the Labour Code during their ten years in Office. I do not believe that the workers at Malliouhana who are out of work with bills to pay have the tolerance for a “he said she said” “back and forth” argument about whose fault it is. They want solutions that can be implemented now. However, what the past Government can speak about is its record in dealing with such issues over the years without the Labour Code. For example; negotiating compensation for workers during the sale of Sonesta; compensation for workers during the sale and refurbishment of Cap Juluca; compensation for workers during the construction phase at Tenemos; compensation for airport workers during the Airport Expansion; and so on. We had built a solid partnership with investors that we could call upon in critical times. It is in this vein I would hope that rather than the junior Ministers and Advisors of the Government looking for scapegoats they should spend more time looking for creative solutions. They should be firming up the promises made by management regarding what will happen to workers in the event of a sale; who will be retained; who will receive bonus; how can we negotiation an extra month or an additional payment for weekly workers --- there is real work to be done. And certainly --- what can be so difficult about arranging a waiver of the Levy for redundancy payments.

Speaking about the Levy, I was approached by a self-employed worker the other day much disturbed about the fact that he was having difficulty in determining what band he should place himself for payment of the tax. He then turned to me in frustration and said: “Tell me something! Hubert Hughes pay he house tax yet?” I told him that I had no idea. He then retorted: “Well how come he ain’t pay during the past Government and he want we to pay under he Government?” Unable to answer his question I fell back into my Sunday School training and said to him: “Show me a penny!” He looked at me quizzically --- and just when I thought I had lost him he made an excellent comeback --- he said: “Hubert face aint on dat!”

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
May 24, 2011

“ABSENCE OF VISION”

Elections have consequence and any group that has not prepared themselves well enough, should not dear be given that opportunity to govern. Our people must now raise the bar and ensure that those choosing to seek the approval of the electorate to govern are prepared; we must know their intentions and what their interests are for the country. The people of Anguilla have always been known for the will to work and achieve, in fact it is been said that nowhere is it so evident that very young people own such large houses like Anguilla. It has been said that in the region, Anguillians own a most significant portion of their own thriving economy and wealth. Anguillians are often praised for their courage and drive to hold on to important facets of the economy of the country, where as other countries and their economies are totally driven by large co- operations and major businesses from the exterior. Anguilla has always had a good image looking on from St. Maarten’s perspective, and has often been praised for its economic model and independence on the interior. On many occasions, even in legislative meeting, St. Maarten officials have praised Anguilla for its economic model.

It is really not clear what our government is trying to achieve from the continuous lamenting on the doorsteps of St. Maarten Dutch and French. Since taking office several delegations have either left from Anguilla to St. Marten / St. Martin or from St. Maarten to Anguilla. We first wanted a French group to build us a brand new airport and deep water harbor, then to supply our electricity and water, and of course we got a fire engine from St. Martin on loan. We also want portions of the fish market in Marigot available to us. There is a list for the Dutch side as well; we want portions of Juliana Airport rearranged and secured for Anguilla immigration service with a separate lounge to accommodate the high priced tourists coming to Anguilla. We want extra immigration at the ferry port to clear Anguilla speed boats and perhaps a clear speed way to bring our high priced tourists direct. We also want to operate late night trips, as late as possible. This is only part of the list of wants. The delegation also declared that they perhaps want a super high way from the Dutch side direct to Anguilla to avoid the Cole Bay Hill, because our million dollar guests and complaining about St. Maarten’s traffic. Something is going on here that is not normal. In fact there is wild imagination at play, and a very fine line between tarnishing our national image and endeavoring to achieve a mile stone. Once, Anguilla had perceived itself as the United States of the Caribbean, a shining light in the region. Are we becoming the laughing stock?

“In the absence of a vision” people perish! Is this our plight? This is a pivotal moment in our history. This Government came into office hyped about the British, who was blamed for destroying the islands economy with AUF, and promising to make them pay. When the island experienced what is known now as the recent economic boom, all Anguillians felt that our time had come, and finally the hope of our fathers had dawn on us, we all enjoyed the good times. Things have changed; people are actually getting very desperate because of the turn-around. This is causing a back lash for all politicians. We have lost confidence in the political hierarchy. (Chain of command) We have lost respect for the present and the past. The voices I’m hearing right now are actually saying, “AUF started a good thing they were unable to finish” (they lost the election) they lead us out of the wilderness and left us to perish. AUM apparently is not even conscious of the wilderness, and for hell they don't know where to take us. Some people blame AUF for losing the elections and some people blame AUM for winning. What is evident now, is that the people have lost trust, at a time when the country needs strong leadership with a vision for the future, the people are losing hope. Anguilla thus far has managed to largely direct its own economic destiny which the people can be proud of, if there is a negative swing in our situation, strong leadership must provide direction for the country. The series of hits and misses so far have not strengthened the confidence of the people that this government knows what it is doing. There is no coordination and no consistency in their direction and absolutely no logic in some of the decisions made. Since taking office the people have not been presented with a cohesive plan that would direct the country for the next five years instead, we have been lead to believe that we would be an independent country at the next stop.

“Our people are not lazy, and we are not a people that look for hand outs” we are a people that thrive on achievement even if we fail to reach that glorious level of success. Here we are promoting ourselves as the most high quality destination in the region, clearly marketing ourselves as the better destination because of the high quality guests we cater for. St. Maarten is indebting its self, investing in its own infrastructure while we use our political ignorance, criticize our very own airport and refuses to touch it, like everything that has been accomplished in the past fifteen years, but we go to St, Maarten with our hands out for everything. Our Honorable Chief Minister declares that, "this meeting is the most important meeting in the history of his political life on Anguilla." The deputy Prime Minister of St. Maarten said, our arms are open to help! Key phrase being, “help us” tell us what you want. The Justice Minister said, we understand your problem! we are trying our best “to help” but we have some problems of our own, we got a major Union on our back and we have to fulfill a treaty with French St. Martin by accommodating their immigration at Juliana first, but we will try to accommodate. But what about the Price to the island, don’t our Chief Minister and his very large delegation think that there is a price attached for all of his wants, and at some point we’ll get an invoice?

While we respect and honor our political leaders, we need smart government! This is a fight to be won by those who refuse to give up, in spite of the monumental failures, as a people we have always won our battles through endeavor. Those who are charged with the plight of the people must show wisdom. There is sufficient lamenting and incoherency, the distrust is mounting, it is time government exhibited a clear path as to where they wish to take the country and how. And not in debt a people, and deprive us of our reputation in the” Absence of A vision.” We simply don’t know where this government is taking us and through which channel. We cannot stoop beneath our pride, and we cannot allow the gains of the past to be eroded. Government must make up its mind and lead this country, because,“in the absence of a vision, people are domed to perish”.

By Elliot J. Harrigan

    

LEVY INCREASES THE FLOW ON ANGUILLA

Brownhill closed down and gone because of the Levy; Koal Keel closed down because of the Levy; Ku closing down because on the Levy; Albert Lake about to layoff workers because of the Levy; John Proctor about to layoff workers because of the Levy; Malliouhana Hotel closing May 22 2011 because of the Levy where over 100 Anguillians will be out of work; Viceroy will be laying off workers and closing early because of the Levy; Cap Juluca will be laying off workers and closing early because of the Levy. Who will be next? The Chinese up their prices because of the Levy; and other local offices and businesses hiked their cost for goods and services because of the Levy.

And the government of Anguilla remains too incompetent to realise the destruction of the Levy.

Please call your district Representative and urge him to support the REPEAL of the Interm Stabilisation Levy Act, 2011.

The authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed; and when the reality is such that a government of Anguilla remains incompetent to fulfil that authority and becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the electorate to alter or abolish it.

“PROMISE MADE, NOT KEPT?"

An unfulfilled promise to a nation is like an unsettled law suit, where speculation gloom over who are the winners and losers and who shall receive the penalty of severity. But promise in the real world is the political equivalence to cutting your court size without sufficient material in store and often the new stock are shades different. Considering promise made, promise not kept to any child, who grows up with a severe default in gross disrespect for a parent who simply did not fulfill expectations of wild dreams, but dreams that would make an unsmiling difference in conduct and behavior. “Where is the Plan we were Promised?”

Government is doing its utmost to make a good first impression, now some months well into the elected term. I’m sure it brings some excitement to the Ministerial body to break ground; and we all hope that this leads to something positive for the island. Often the attempt to impress brings out default and helps to unveil the truth. Obviously, with the breaking of ground there must be a few speeches to allow well wishers and supporter some insight into the objective. If one follows the speeches well enough, in particular the developer Mr. Tom McInerney’s it would be clear that not even the plans for the Solaire project at Lockum are ready as yet, which is often the most primary work. This may mean most likely, that we are still a very long way from any productive work being done on this site. But the Government must be praised however for pushing the effort along, since the project was in motion and approved since 2005.

But it was with interest to see that Back to back, the Leader of the Opposition in the “House” and key figures of opposition AUF at a recent press conference lamenting the present chaos on the island over the introduction and implementation of the Interim Stabilization Levy Law and willingly offering Government their unsolicited assistance to find alternatives that would be less burdensome on the people of Anguilla. Obviously, the Government appears to be ignoring this most noble offer and is sharing some excitement, as the honorable Chief Minister digs his shovel in the ground in a ceremonial moment while key elements in government look on with great smiles. Winning an election is a major achievement for any group setting out to govern. When the votes are counted the burden of achievement is always a pivotal experience going forward and weighs heavily on the people that sit in office. This Government finds itself in parallel conditions where the absolute burden to achieve some degree of marginal success is a daily consideration, because people are looking forward to this and government must be deliberate and conclusive to accomplish anything meaningful. Unlike our past, where we had the wheels grinding forward, it was easy to simply grease those wheel so that the grind advances with ease; our present situation requires careful and deliberate action to put this great wheel of possibilities in grinding motion again.

People are skeptical, but Government has time on its hand and even if this project means a very slow turn, we are very appreciative. There are questions, that must be asked:

Have we entered a period of complicity? What about Baird and Haydn, are they in? Have this government laid down their arms against the Governor and FCO? Is the balance of power now in good proportion, is everyone now getting along?

A major step ahead for this government is to concede that its initial approach did not contribute to an atmosphere of responsible collusion and therefore provoked irritation between the Governor and the Government. It was a gradual built up to a breaking point when The Minister for The Overseas Territories demanded that the Chief Minister accept two professionals to oversee the Budget process. Anyone observing the madness which pursued would agree that this was an exercise of power and an attempt to bring this government under subjection, which effort accomplished its goal.

Now it is time to utilize the great advantage still with government; that is “time.” New elections are not anything that should be considered soon, unless through gross malfunction of mental capacity. Therefore time is a major asset and Government must begin to put in place principle decisions to stimulate the economy, Minimize the continued bank intrusion and acquiring of personal properties because every house that is lost in this economy represents several families and their various extensions, which undoubtedly would be a serious back lash on Government. Enforce at least one of the famous MOU’s of the many that has been signed since taking office. Make the document a viable and principle asset to the way forward, and make it a more doable tool than the MOA which appeared to have worked extremely well for the former government. There is still good will among the people for this government, indicated by the disciplined uneasiness and exercise of tolerance; but this time is coming if government doesn’t act and put that plan as promised on the table.

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“…. UNDER A BRITISH HEAVEN.”

It was gratifying to read the comments on the Interim Stabilization Levy Act expressed by the Mr. Franklin B. Connor OBE, one of the highest-ranking Anguillian public servants in “The Anguillian” last week. Mr. Connor served ultimately as Director of Finance but has acted as Deputy Governor and Governor on many occasions. Mr. Connor reinforced what the leadership of the Anguilla United Front (AUF) has been saying on various media and in the House of Assembly for more than eight weeks. While there are those who may regard the AUF commentary on the subject as sheer politics, Mr. Connor has never identified himself with any particular party, even when he ran as a candidate for the Road South seat in 1999 and 2000, he ran as an Independent. And last year during the selection process for the Second Nominated Member, in the House of Assembly, the Chief Minister and his colleagues in the AUM proposed Mr. Connor as their candidate.

It is not my style to be repetitious --- but I have noticed that no matter what facts we advance about the Chief Minister’s position on this issue --- he continues to persist with the same arguments. I therefore have taken the time to demonstrate that Mr. Connor is non-partisan and is in fact embraced by the Chief Minister as someone who is qualified and perhaps even impartial, politically. I will therefore highlight a few strong positions the AUF has been advancing and quote comments from Mr. Connor on those matters as follows:-

1. 1. We have been saying that the British Government did not force us neither did they force the present Chief Minister to impose the Levy or any other tax measure. Mr. Connor said: “In all my years working for Anguilla in Finance, and negotiating budgets with the British, never once did the British indicate to the Government what it should do to raise revenue. This Stabilization Levy is not imposed by the British”.

1. 2. We have been insisting, with the relevant supporting sections from the Anguilla Constitution, that the Levy was imposed by the Anguilla Government therefore it can also amend it or repeal it. Mr. Connor said: “There have been comments by Ministers of Government that it is not their doing and that it was done by the British Government. I think that the public should be aware that this is a false statement. The legislation is imposed by the Government of Anguilla and if they want to amend it, they can amend it; if they want to withdraw it, they can withdraw it. All the British Government is concerned about is that they don’t spend more than they earn.”

1. 3. We have been saying that the low and lower middle-income earners are bearing the brunt of the burden for the tax. Mr. Connor said: “In my view, the Government is trying to finance Government services, which are for the entire population, on the backs of the poor. …. you are taxing the people at the bottom to be able to pay the people at the top tax-free salaries. That is obviously wrong. As far as I see it, you are taxing the poor to pay the rich.”

1. 4. We have been saying that the assent of Secretary of State is the last part of the process of making laws and that the only time the Secretary of State would initiate the process is through the rare Order in Council. We have also refuted the Chief Minister’s claim that only the Governor and the Secretary of State can repeal the law. Mr. Connor said: “That obviously is ridiculous. The Honourable Chief Minister is a consummate politician. He has the ability to tell people what he wants them to believe. I have no doubt that he is telling the people what he wants them to believe. The truth is that the Anguilla Legislature can amend, can cancel, abolish rescind any legislation except legislation which has been written for and imposed by the British Government.”

1. 5. We said that the self-employed are not properly dealt with in the legislation and that that situation can present issues of compliance and lead to their criminalization. Mr. Connor said: “It is extremely unclear in the legislation how you can calculate the tax on the self-employed and other people who have to spend money to earn money. … how do you calculate the tax on a taxi-driver or a fisherman? In the case of the fisherman on some days he has to spend just as much in fuel and other accessories, to get the fish to sell. What does he pay on his net or his gross? Similarly the taxi-driver has to buy tyres and gas to earn his fare. What does he pay on his total income? Or does he pay on the difference between what he spent to earn that money or on what he actually earned?”

 Like Mr. Connor we have been calling the Levy a “bad law”. We think it is a bad law because it is unfair and inequitable. We believe that it goes beyond politics and we have been inviting the Chief Minister to join with the Parliamentary Opposition to negotiate the repeal process for the Act. And like Mr. Connor we feel that the inequity and unfairness are blatant enough to make a strong case to the Secretary of State as to why it should be repealed. Mr. Connor went even further with the statement that: “I would be surprised if people in London, like the Secretary of State, looking at it in terms of its unfairness of application to Anguilla, would not exercise his power of disallowance.”

Even though we have not expressed that thought as strongly as Mr. Connor does, we in the AUF have included such an approach to the Secretary of State as a part of our strategy for repealing the Act. In fact the letter to the Minister for the Overseas Territories has already been drafted since the Chief Minister in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition bluntly rejected our overtures to work together for the repeal of the Act. Those of you who had the chance to read Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers’ letter to the Chief Minister as printed in “The Anguillian” would be extremely disappointed in the Chief Minister’s response. Let me quote that response in its entirety: “Dear Hon. Rogers, Interim Stabilization Levy. Your letter of today’s date has just been referred to me and I have read it with interest. As you should be well aware, your letter should be addressed to His Excellency, the Governor. Sincerely, Hubert B. Hughes, Chief Minister.”

Whether out of honest ignorance or willful guile, the Chief Minister continues to act as if the Secretary of State runs the Anguilla Legislature. He continues to abdicate his responsibility as Leader of Government Business to the Secretary of State through the Governor. Can it be that the Chief Minister does not really understand his role or like Minister Baird said in “His Confessions: “he has little or no say in the running of the island”.

In this context, it was amusing that the Chief Minister gave the opening address at the Anguilla Finance (AF) Strategy Planning Conference last weekend at Paradise Cove Hotel. I say amusing, because this is an area where the Governor and the Secretary of State clearly have reserve powers --- yet the same Chief Minister who is willing to abdicate his responsibility to the Secretary of State on a matter within his purview, is posturing with brave words about how he will take more responsibility for making favourable laws for the sector. I have no doubt that the Government recognizes the need to develop more streams of revenue from its Financial Services Sector but it must first take the time to understand that it is not about “laying down the gauntlet” for another battle with the British --- it is about understanding the industry and using our advantages to our benefit. Whether we like it or not this is one sector where the umbrella of the British Flag maybe an advantage. But we must also appreciate that the British Government are our competitors. We must therefore strike the right balance to get the best out of the relationship.

I would not allow that foregoing observation, however, to undermine the positive spirit of the AF Conference. There was a feeling in the atmosphere that all segments of the industry were “working together for the common good”. And a real sense that this is the last time --- no turning back! Having been involved in the sector for almost thirty years in several capacities this would not be the first beginning I have shared --- but on this occasion I feel that everything is in place. Because of that “gut feeling” I suggested that this is the time we have been waiting for, we have the modern legislation; we have state of the art technology; we have sound regulatory systems; we have homegrown and well-honed skills to exploit the industry; we are compliant with all of the global initiatives on transparency and openness, and we have the momentum. This is an exciting situation and augurs well for the success of this initiative.

The new initiative is also important because to quote Lynwood Bell in his letter to the Editor of The Anguillian: “much new business could be generated in Anguilla. Yet it would require no more major expenditures, no more hotel rooms, no bigger airports; no more flights, no more restaurants, other physical infrastructure to exploit it.” The significance of this comment is that especially at this time when the Government needs to develop new streams of revenue the Financial Services Sector is well placed to be exploited because there is no need for expensive infrastructure to do so. To achieve this, a viable marketing strategy will need to be developed and this is precisely what is being proposed.

The discussion at the AF Strategy Conference also addressed the issue of taxation and a suggestion was made by one of the presenters that the implementation of taxes locally would benefit the image of Anguilla as an offshore investment jurisdiction. That statement only goes to show the number of different perspectives that can exist within the industry. However, the fact that our frontline competitors continue to try to find more and more creative ways to maintain a zero tax status suggests that it may be foolhardy to do otherwise and thereby lose what may appear to be an advantage to already established jurisdictions. It is in this context, that the Government should be taking account of a number of policy decisions it is making. Taxation is certainly one of these but also issues like multi-year work permits, foreign exchange restrictions, constitutional status and so on are critical to our success as a jurisdiction as well.

Towards the end of the Conference I found it important to make an intervention to include the issue of regulation and overregulation. During the entire period of my involvement in the sector as a government minister we promoted Anguilla as a well -regulated jurisdiction. We marketed ourselves as a jurisdiction that was not open to all comers but welcoming to reputable clients. While the enthusiasm of this initiative must continue we must never lose that focus --- other jurisdictions have been fortunate to avoid major scandals despite their shortcomings in this area but we cannot leave anything to chance. At the same time we should not over-regulate either and impose structures that are inimical to enhancing the success of our jurisdiction as a “sought-after” provider of “top of the heap” financial services. Again the issue of balance comes in.

In this context, I took the time to warn participants that very often some regulators adopt the approach that Financial Services Department exists to provide regulatory services. This was an area of controversy during the early days of the establishment of the Financial Services Commission. There was a serious drive to make the Commercial Registry a part of the Commission. Several debates and discussions up to the then Minister for the Overseas Territories resulted in the view of the Ministry of Finance prevailing. It is a natural tendency that persons responsible for enforcement and compliance would wish to make their job easy --- but this should not be at the expense of thwarting the growth of an industry. We should be in Financial Services to create business, drive revenues and build an economy. We must take note of and pay attention to the motives of the OECD countries, the G20 grouping, and other international agencies involved in regulation --- but we should not allow ourselves to be overrun. Again this is a delicate balance --- and there will be always something.

I have been hearing a “shoo-shoo” that once again the issue of placing the Commercial Registry in the Financial Services Commission has come up. We should not lose this positive advantage that we fought so hard to achieve. There is absolutely no good reason why this should be the case --- in fact there are several good reasons why it should not be the case. The foremost reason is that such an arrangement would be tantamount to the Registry regulating itself. Such an incestuous arrangement could never be in the interest of the sound regulatory environment we wish to promote. So as we come together to promote the common good let us not lose sight of our common interests as participants in this industry. The British government is our partner. It ensures that we remain a well-regulated jurisdiction --- the responsibility for building the industry remains with us. A number of practitioners have suggested that Anguilla would probably benefit from using the “moniker”: “British Anguilla”. The view being that being a British Overseas Territory brings considerable advantage. But at the end of the day we are the ones to decide how we advance our industry --- it does not matter whether or not it is “under a British heaven!”

By: Victor F. Banks

Sachasses Estate

May 10, 2011

“QUIET RETREAT”

Anyone, with even little intuitive state of mind and has been observing events on Anguilla since February 2010 even from a distance, would conclude that we have instinctively missed the opportunity to lead an economic resurgence for the future. We know that things will not remain as is, and at some point the economic situation of the country would change and would take a positive turn. This is why I said in an earlier article that in spite of the challenges we face today, we must look ahead. In spite of the unprecedented measures taken which have introduce a income tax on the island, and a series of new tax measures to improve present budgetary shortfalls; we have done nothing to inspire the future. We obviously have a fight on our hands just to bring the island into perspective, but we must look ahead.

After what was clearly a downward spiral from a definite period of expansion of our economy during the years 2000 through 2008, a period in our history that gave us hope, when we felt that finally Anguilla had emerged from the depth of hardship and joined a progressive trend in the region. It was short lived, and the blame for the fall was placed squarely on the AUF Government, who maneuvered the success in the first place. Some loyalists to our current Honorable Chief Minister Mr. Hughes claim that it was him who actually engineered the imminent rise in economic success, leading up to the first decade of the 2000’s. Stemming from the fact, that if we claim that a major aspect of our achievement during that period is the modern road system we enjoy today, certainly the first few miles of high quality asphalt roads were done by the AUM government during the period 1995 / 2000. But Mr. Hughes failed to contain a rivalry in his Government and lost a pivotal asset, that’s when the former Honorable Finance Minister Mr. Victor Banks stood against his collision Government with Hughes and break away.

No doubt, this administration, a second Hughes Government thought they would just continue where they left off in 2000, but this team appears to lack a real sense of mobility and is more of an imaginary outfit, not showing a strong sense of direction, nor showing the kind of capability the country needs right now and is therefore unable to trigger the desirable action the people of Anguilla anticipated when they were elected. Reading the blogs sometime ago one user posted a provocative line which obviously got some attention, quote; “Hubert said “Evan and Jerome are useless.” One can perhaps imagine such a statement, even if not in plain public hearing. One may recall that while the former Honorable Chief Minister Mr. Osborne Fleming upon retiring his political career during the 2010 campaign challenged Mr. Hughes to join him in retirement, Mr. Hughes saw a very clear chance of becoming the next Chief Minister of Anguilla; heading towards two years in, Mr. Hughes has not shown the enthusiasm or the energy he is known for. The question is asked if this term around, the challenges are proving to be just too much, considering that his last tour of duty as Chief Minister was some fifteen years ago.

Going back to that line extracted from the blog, a simply cry for help! The Honorable Edison Baird made this cry even more compelling when he identified a faction in AUM as an influential arm wielding significant power in government as “Unelected and Unelectable. Without doubt this has affected the internal framework of AUM and caused a drawback creating an obvious void for all to see. We have a government now mostly muted and appears lacking in influence at a time when we need a most effective administration. The honorable Parliamentary Secretary Mr. Hadyn Hughes himself who had been absorbing a good portion of executive authority willingly abdicated by the Honorable Chief Minister, who perhaps felt it was in good hands; but after hearing directly from the Health Minister, it appears that he has retreated somewhat and made himself less visible, causing some to believe that Baird’s deep expression of discontent has indeed caused him to reconsider his active engagement. This perhaps has also caused him to consider a real run to succeed his father and become the next influential Political leader of the island. It now appears that even the honorable Chief Minister, and those singled out by the Heath Minister’s have ambiguously gone into “Quiet Retreat!”

By Elliot J. Harrigan

“THEN LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

Over the past four days there was a mixture of events that were topics for conversation around Anguilla, one was a wedding --- a new beginning and the other a funeral --- the end of era. It is ironic that a royal love story should swiftly lose its headline billing to the death of a terrorist. And while these events seemed to be diametrically opposite --- romance and crime --- they both brought joy to the hearts of many of the same audiences. I must therefore take the time to briefly speak about both of these news items in the context of Anguilla.

 

As an Overseas Territory with a special and longstanding relationship with the Government and People of the United Kingdom, the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton was an event that required our expressions of goodwill and some symbol of our presence as a people. That symbol could certainly have been the presence of our Chief Minister or his representative. Of particular significance is the fact that Prince William could conceivably be the next King of England being second in line to his father. Our Chief Minister’s lame excuse for not attending the Royal Wedding may therefore be construed as an affront to a future head of the Commonwealth that we will be always be part of --- whether we become Independent or remain an Overseas Territory.

 

Last week’s editorial in the Anguillian got the issue right when it stated: “there comes a time when a leader must show some statesmanship regardless of the circumstances in which he finds himself”. Our elected representatives attend such social functions not because of their personal regard for “the inviter” --- but rather in deference to the office they hold and the people they represent. So regardless of the war of words that the Chief Minister has been waging with the British Government --- he must realize that there are a number of Anguillians, including persons who supported him, who are fiercely loyal to and strongly appreciative of Her Majesty the Queen and her Government. And you may have noticed that British Officials have always exhibited the highest levels of decorum in their responses to the Chief Minister even in the face of his most vicious and unfair attacks.

 

I believe that the Chief Minister was probably posturing to impress his supporters and others by acting as if he is being responsible or frugal with Government finances. The fact is though, that he may have lost a great deal of good will for just a few thousand pounds sterling. Or to bring it closer home such negative publicity could neutralize any positive publicity we may have received from the airing of the “the Bachelor” show on worldwide television. And by the way, it still remains a secret how much money the Government spent on the filming of that episode on Anguilla. That also was a love story!

 

On the other hand, the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden was not a love story --- it was the culmination of a huge effort to hunt down a terrorist who was “responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children.” Like every other country involved in the travel and tourism trade, Anguilla suffered from the impact of Bin Laden’s attack on the World Trade Center when he used commercial airlines loaded with innocent travelers as manned missiles. The world came to a standstill as it tried to come to grips with the realization that the level of inhumanity in the methods employed by terrorists in the cause of a perverted justice had risen to a new high. And that travel worldwide would never be the same. It was that action by Bin Laden that led to a decline in Tourist arrivals to our region for more than a year after the 9/11 attacks.

 

Amidst the joy and celebration with the capture and killing of the architect of worldwide terrorist operations there is the uncertainty as to how this action will contribute to the elimination of Al Queda, the organization that he controlled and employed to execute his terror attacks around the world. Such uncertainty highlights the challenges facing small economies like Anguilla as they struggle to survive in an environment where the products and services we sell to the rest of the world are dependent on issues of safety and security. Our tourism is impacted by concerns for safe travel and the viability of our financial services sector is constrained by a global perception that our financial centers may be used as channels for the funding of terrorist organizations. And while the death of Bin Laden may have brought some closure to the many relatives and friends of the victims of his reign of terror --- we still must face the reality of the seeds of evil that he planted in his disciples around the world.

 

I believe that the vulnerability of our island to negative fallout from events like the wedding and the funeral requires that we live by our wits. Anguilla cannot afford to squander any opportunity to advance our standing in the eyes of the outside world from whence we derive investments and customers neither can we destroy or neglect any advantage we have to be competitive as we seek to build a viable economy for our people. It is for this reason we must continue to evaluate the decisions we make as a Government to determine how they impact key assets we have as well as formulate strategies to create an environment conducive to optimizing the return from those assets for our national development.

 

This is the context in which we must consider the impact of the Levy on local and foreign investment generally in Anguilla but particularly in the area of our fledgling financial services sector. I am aware that while I write, practitioners are already in the process of putting together a new “Anguilla Finance” organization with a view to marketing the industry and will be conducting a Strategy Planning Conference this weekend to look at critical issues related to its future direction. Actions taken by the Government with regards the Levy are likely to change the quality of the product we have been selling since we ventured into the area of Financial Services more than thirty years ago.

 

Anguilla has always promoted itself as a tax free jurisdiction and in recent years to keep pace with the changing regulatory environment we have signed a number of Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA’s) which have had the effect of making us compliant with the requirements for operating in the global financial marketplace. The question will certainly be asked whether this action by the Government is the “thin end of the wedge” for the introduction of other forms of income tax? And because of the paucity of information on the Levy will Anguilla really be able to boast that it is a tax-free jurisdiction?

 

For many years since we began to modernize our legislation; introduce “leading edge” technology in our Commercial Registry and strengthen our regulatory system, the present Chief Minister, while in opposition, was constantly complaining that we were being obstructed by the British Government from creating a robust Financial Services sector and in doing so he has always pointed to the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. That would be his standard line whenever a Bill relating to financial services was brought to House. His statements were usually general rather than specific, but they did highlight the important need for balance in regulation to avoid the possibility of regulating our industry out of business. In other words he appeared to recognize the importance of being competitive in the industry. Indeed, as the “new kid on the block” it is important that our jurisdiction stays ahead of the game.

 

In the present period, however, it would appear that the Chief Minister is not paying attention to the damage the Levy, his Government supported in the House of Assembly, can cause to our jurisdiction. And unlike his readiness to renegotiate MOU’s and MOA’s that are legally binding he seems reluctant to begin the process of repeal of this bad tax --- and a surprising readiness to accept the flawed opinion that only the Secretary of State can repeal a Law. We must be aware that the same islands BVI, Cayman and Bermuda have zero tax arrangements for their industries. In this context, the Chief Minister may be well advised to consider that he may be guilty of creating the same obstructions to the development of the financial services sector on Anguilla if he refuses to heed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers and repeal the Levy. In this competitive environment for the providers of financial services we can ill-afford to allow anything to affect this important plank of our national economy.

 

While I remain hopeful that reason will prevail as several interest groups explain to the Chief Minister and his Government the serious consequences of some of the actions they have been taking --- I was seriously disappointed to hear the Chief Minister’s response to the Leader of the Opposition’s explanation of why he was wrong to conclude that he could not initiate the process for the repeal of the Interim Stabilization Levy Act. The Chief Minister delivered a very dull and rambling presentation in which rather than dealing with the issue --- he resorted to his usual diatribe about the Governor, the British Government and the Anguilla United Front (AUF), accusing them of willfully conspiring to oppress the people of Anguilla. And as he mumbled through a letter from the former Minister of the Overseas Territories to me on January 18th, 2010 --- I was reminded of the Eunuch of Ethiopia when asked by Phillip the Apostle if he understood what he was reading replied: “How can I except I have someone explains it to me”. He definitely did not understand that the Minister did not suggest any tax measures; the past Government did not agree to any tax measures; and the fact that the then Chief Minister did not reply to his letter is a clear indication of a serious difference of opinion on the financial situation which was clearly outlined in the Chief Minister’s letter of September 14, 2009. A letter that the Chief Minister has and I hope he will be willing to read in its entirety at his next presentation. I also noted that he interpreted the civility of the letter between the Minister and myself as being “chummy” or friendly. Again a clear indication that he does not understand that one can make strong points without being rude and/or disrespectful.

 

Indeed, the Chief Minister needed someone to explain that letter as well as his discussion about the budget and budget deficits. Mr. Hughes continues to perpetrate the lie that the AUF Government took deficit budgets to the House of Assembly. Let me use his tactic of repetition but in this case of the truth rather than his lies --- and repeat that since Anguilla was taken off grant-in-aid in 1983 no deficit budget that has gone to the House until the AUM’s three budgets over the last twelve months. And further his statement that there were ten years of deficit budgets since the Anguilla United Front came to Office in 2000 is either a blatant lie or a demonstration of his total ignorance of the budgetary process. The first recurrent deficit since 2002 was a deficit of 2.9 million in 2008 when the recession struck. Indeed, how could we accumulate fiscal reserves of over sixty five million if we did not have a surplus on the recurrent accounts? Obviously, Mr. Hughes needs someone to explain to him the difference between overall balance and recurrent balance. The overall balance includes long-term loans and the debt service for which, is calculated as part of the recurrent expenditure and as a consequence should not be “double counted”.

 

Let me make it simple for the Chief Minister to understand, even though he boasts that he has never borrowed from a bank in his life. (Quite unlike most of us!) “Chief Minister & Minister of Finance! One does not calculate ones total house loan and/or total car loan in ones expenditure for the year it was received! One writes them off over the period of the loan! Similarly, if the Government takes out a loan to do a major infrastructure project it is not included in the recurrent budget as an expense!”

 

And I am sick and tired of hearing the Chief Minister repeat ad nauseam that he met a deficit of $70 million when he came to office and reduced it by $21 million in two months. In fact, I have heard one of his talk show lawyers repeat the same nonsense just the other day. First of all how was it possible for the Chief Minister to reduce the deficit in two months if he never raised enough revenue in any of those months to meet his recurrent expenditures? Could he reduce his recurrent expenditure by $21 million to achieve this? Obviously not, his expenditure was already cut to the bone. But the Chief Minister either needs to understand the truth --- or tell the truth. Like the past Government he was able to finance his deficit by borrowing. Unlike the past government, however, he borrowed excessively from the Social Security Board and used the reserves the AUF had lodged in the European Development Fund. But the reality to which Mr. Hughes must admit is that we are in the midst of a recession and like the AUF if he were to leave Office tomorrow he would bequeath to the next Government the same challenges he now faces as the recession continues to hold.

 

What has come out of the entire behaviour of the Chief Minister as he tries to convince the electorate that the issues outlined by the Opposition are malicious and do not apply --- is that Hubert is out of touch with the reality of the situation and the dire straits in which many Anguillians find themselves. To quote the Leader of the Opposition in his welcome statement to Minister Bellingham: “unemployment is increasing; salaries and benefits are being reduced; no new jobs are being created; and the banks are exceeding their generosity with delinquent customers such that repossessions and foreclosures are both frequent and imminent.”

 

What about this reality does the Chief Minister not understand as he continues to believe that criticizing the Governor, the FCO and the AUF will solve our problems? It reminds me of the statement attributed to the French Queen Marie-Antoinette during the eighteen century. When told that her subjects were in dire straits and without bread she responded quite casually and insensitively: “then let them eat cake!”

 

Victor F. Banks

Sachasses Estate

May 3, 2011