“WHEN WILL IT BE OVER?”

An air of sadness consumed the Captain Clayton J. Lloyd International Airport yesterday April 4, 2011, as we witnessed the last flight of the American Eagle Super ATR out of Anguilla. The American Eagle Airline had provided for our travel and tourism needs for more than twenty-three years, beginning in November 1987. The service was a major achievement for international air access into Anguilla under the Sir Emile R. Gumbs’ Administration and at its peak the “American Eagle” was the main carrier for tourism arrivals from our important North American market. Every Ministry of Tourism since 1987 had to engage in discussions with American Airlines, the operator of American Eagle, to ensure that there was coordination between its schedule of flights and our marketing and promotion program.

Despite the fact that most successful businesses become preoccupied with the “bottom line” to determine the product and services they will provide --- it is fair to say that, for the most part, successive Tourism Boards and Governments of Anguilla were still able to develop an amicable working relationship with the key decision makers of American Airlines. Of course there were mutual interests operating in the relationship as well --- because Anguilla as a destination provided for a very high percentage of the “first class travelers” coming into the main San Juan hub. In other words, many of the passengers sitting in the front of the aircraft were bound for Anguilla. Obviously, a number of factors have resulted in the decision by American Airlines to withdraw its service to Anguilla, not the least among which must be the decrease in viable business to our destination. On this count one would wish to question whether there was any possibility for retaining some level of service, especially given the report that Nevis is still being served. However, given the paucity of facts on the issue, far be it from me to attempt cast judgment.

What I must say however, is that American Airlines has served our destination for over twenty-three years and even if there were times when we have had differences or may have felt that we were less than adequately served --- they did make a significant difference. And if nothing more, we can truly say that the staff worked diligently and faithfully for Anguilla, despite the challenges from time to time. It is in this light that I am forced to comment, since I did not see a single member of the Government present at the final take-off, at least to show appreciation and to wish, the now unemployed staff, well. And I sincerely hope that the glum faces I saw yesterday, even as I thanked them and wished them well, will receive some acknowledgement from Government that will cheer their hearts, as they face the challenges that will certainly attend them in this difficult period ahead.

That entire episode yesterday gave me cause for reflection. I recalled the period during the Airport Expansion Project when the Eagle flights had to be suspended for a considerable period of time due to the rehabilitation of the runway, thus causing the staff to be without a paycheck for that period. Accepting that it was neither the fault of the workers or American Airlines, our Government took up the responsibility to provide various forms of compensation for affected workers, including temporary jobs. This was in keeping with our pledge that everyone affected by the Expansion Project would be treated decently and with due respect to their inconveniences.

But the episode also caused me to shudder when I contemplated on how genuine efforts by our Government to compensate people in a decent and equitable manner for the way they were affected by the project --- resulted in dissatisfaction, resentment, jealousy, and most of all unfair and unfounded accusations of corruption. It also made me remember that just last week in the House of Assembly the Chief Minister was still making the same ridiculous statement that the British Government sabotaged his efforts to get the French to build a new airport for Anguilla in Brimigen. And as I continued to reflect I had to smile when the reality crossed my mind that some people build great monuments and construct magnificent edifices for other people to name.

But the Airport Expansion was not about short-term individual reactions it was about long-term national development issues. It is therefore sufficient for those of us who contributed to delivering the largest infrastructural project for Anguilla to see how it has evolved and how it has enhanced travel to our destination. In these terms, every time a private jet takes off or lands at the Capt. Clayton J. Lloyd International Airport --- we feel a sense of pride and accomplishment. And I am moved to remind those of you who were not present at the Official Opening of Airport Expansion on January 29, 2005 of that proud moment. I was given the privilege to be the Key Note Speaker at that auspicious occasion and I now present to you a glimpse of that moment along with the history and the landscape surrounding it in a slightly edited excerpt from that address as follows:

“For many years the previous Government of which I was a part had pursued the option of a “green field site” in Brimigen for airport development. While that former Chief Minister still holds on to the unrealistic belief that a private consortium out of Guadeloupe would build such an airport at no cost to the GOA, the reality is that such a choice would have cost the people of Anguilla over three hundred million US dollars at conservative estimates. But more significantly because a prerequisite for the project was that 5000 additional hotel rooms would need to be built in Anguilla over a five-year period ---- such an undertaking would have dramatically changed our tourism product and indeed the entire face of the Anguillian community as we know it today.

The road to implementation was not an easy one. The project was required at a time when the financial position of the Government was at its lowest point exacerbated by the world wide economic recession, the aftermath of Hurricane Lenny and eventually the fallout effects of 9/11. The first order of business therefore was to put our financial house in order and the Ministry of Finance set about doing so with the support of the entire Government. This entailed a comprehensive strategy for restoring fiscal stability in Anguilla. This was achieved to the extent that from the period 2002 to 2004 we were able to turn the fiscal situation around from an accumulated deficit on the recurrent budget of EC$20 million at the end of 2001 to a surplus of EC$22 million at the end of 2004.

A second challenge was to convince the British Government that our financing plan including borrowing was feasible, because they had already informed us that no grant assistance for the works component of the project would be forthcoming only for technical design and supervision. That contribution is less than ten percent of the overall project cost. 

But we persevered and because of our strong fiscal performance and persuasive arguments we got the approval of HMG to borrow up to fifteen million USD for the project. In this context, we must thank ScotiaBank and the European Development Fund for participating in a creative financing arrangement which at the end of the day will result in the GOA and people of Anguilla only having to repay five million USD for this project over a ten-year period. To put it clearly and simply ---- this project will in fact only cost the people of Anguilla five million USD in debt financing from local revenue sources.

A third challenge was the need for Government equity in the project. This presented much controversy as the Ministry of Finance decided that the only way to obtain such equity would be from the sale of some Government assets. Government not being a large landowner in Anguilla the only saleable assets were its shares in the Anglec utility. Again we got opposition from without and within but at the end of the day we prevailed and our assets yielded some sixteen million ECD which enabled us to meet our counterpart financing requirements acquire land and relocate residents out of the airport zone. Government now still owns more than forty percent of the utility. The remainder is for the most part in the hands of Anguillians and Anguillian institutions. 

A fourth challenge was dealing with residents and landowners whose properties were necessary for the airport expansion. I must thank those residents and landowners of the Forest, Rey Hill, Long Ground, Coritot, Statia Valley, George Hill, Little Harbour and Wallblake communities who were extremely cooperative in this national development effort. They were of course some individuals who had differences with the process and have exercised their right to object. One such matter is still in the judicial system and another being negotiated. While these still remain challenges we have been forced to be creative and despite the fact that our airport will cost us more to extend to the west ----- the need to re-profile has in a way been a blessing in disguise. We now have a runway facility that has less landing obstructions than the original design. Hopefully, in the future we can eventually achieve our desired length of 6000 feet.

A fifth challenge was to get maximum local participation in the construction of the project. Obviously the successful “tenderer” would want to get maximum returns from the contract and as such would want to control as much of the works as possible. Government therefore negotiated that local heavy equipment, trucks and labour would be utilized as far as possible. While this negotiation process had many hitches ---- at the end of the day I believe that local operators were reasonably satisfied. And though the early stages were trying, effective communication and dialogue between the Local Project Team, the Contractor and the Supervising Consultant brought all these issues to a satisfactory conclusion. 

A sixth challenge and perhaps the most trying were the people issues. The project manager and his team must be commended for the stressful task which they survived as they were exposed to attacks from both without and within. Including physical threats of a serious nature. The pressures came from area residents, truckers, heavy-equipment operators, relocated families, airline operators, airport concessionaires, hoteliers, government officials, the press and politicians. No one would have believed that this aspect of the project rather than the actual works would have been the most demanding. I believe however, that the team is now better equipped to move to the next major project, perhaps, our new seaport project in Coritot. 

The final challenge that I will mention and one that still remains, is dealing with our many detractors as well as Anguilla’s 12,000 engineers. Comments abounded from all corners like: “ they gon have to buy a mountain from St. Martin to build that!” ; “ that gon flood out the Forest bottom and Statia Valley ” ; “the marl from the Coritot land fill is going to poison the people in the area” ; “the runway too short” ; They shoulda build the runway on columns” ; “It shoulda been in Brimigen”. Today it goes on. Several Anguillians are now becoming experts on the term “PCN”. A term that was non-existent in the Anguillian vernacular one week ago. Now the term “PCN” is inundating the airways and the political platforms. And by virtue of this newly found expertise the pundits are now declaring that the runway surface is inadequate for American Eagle and for private jets. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and although in Anguilla it is an astounding fact that physical evidence does not necessary lead to belief --- I am convinced that we are slowly but surely exposing the naysayers for who they are.

But, what of the future? When I spoke at the ground breaking ceremony of this project I promised that affected residents in the area would be treated decently over the duration of the project. I said that residents would be temporarily relocated; persons affected by dust from the project would be given air conditioning for the duration of the construction; cisterns affected would be drained, cleaned and replenished; we would pay for any cleaning services for homes affected by the dust; we would put screens in homes where required; we would pay affected entrepreneurs for loss of business etc. etc. To the chagrin and disappointment of our detractors we have kept our promises and the majority of the affected declare that government has been decent in the treatment that they dispensed.”

You may ask the question why did I quote so extensively from that presentation. Well, in addition to giving readers a glimpse of Anguilla in 2005 and the period leading up to it --- I also hoped to highlight how the Government of that period dealt with the challenges of that recession; negotiated with the British Government; formulated creative solutions for the effective project implementation; treated the persons affected by the project in an equitable manner, and; delivered one of the island’s largest infrastructural projects in time and within budget.

I believe that the details of that project stand in stark contrast to the manner in which things are happening in Anguilla today. The Government seems to be stumbling from error to error; blaming others rather than seeking solutions; bickering rather than negotiating; being politically spiteful rather than looking at the bigger picture. And all the while, hardships are increasing for the lower and middle-income workers; young men and women are frustrated and depressed to self-destruction, and; the government is ignoring the increasing inequities in our tax regime. Meanwhile the Chief Minister is posturing for the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC) in an interview captured on several regional media that “his Government needs to pursue independence”. As a very stressed young lady blurted out to me in a fleeting moment of obvious despair: “Tell me!” “When will it be over?”

Victor F. Banks

Sachasses Estate

April 5, 2011

WHY NOT GENUINELY BRITISH?

In an earlier writing I emphasized how the various territories around us in some ways remain in a colonial state, whether that is the French Islands, the Dutch, the American or British Territories as we know them. As remaining territories of colonial Imperialism having to do with the order of submission, we accept, because of the reflection of royalty, and grandeur. As British Territories, we have been handed down disdain and ridicule of the British from some of our fore fathers who claimed that as a colony we were never part of the Royal Order and never treated as real sons and daughters of royalty, unlike many of the other territories who were always integral parts of their kingdom, we were never included in the nobility and splendor that characterizes the English. Rather we became victims of scorn and literal abuse as British Citizens; therefore we grew up as a society struggling to survive and never became an integral part British Society.

As children, the Queen always meant something to us we enjoy her Birthday and other British ceremonial forms, always curious about royalty, but never came close. As a people, we have since excelled and become an independent society, people that think for ourselves and have demonstrated the willingness to achieve in spite of adversity whether through, Her Royal Highness or anyone Presidential, we achieve by all means necessary, and that makes us indigenous Anguillian, and “proud to be Anguillian.” However, we remain British Subjects, and a Territory under British rule. The emancipation of humanity has liberated people and brought a sense of pride to the human being, this kind of equality has brought justice, where otherwise oppression would still rule. Because of that attained liberty colonial powers of the past have now sort to reconcile that deficit in equality, and have given us better access to autonomy; and so the British too has given its territories some degree of access to better dialogue on the platform of equality in aspects of nationalism, and nation building. We now have a seat at the table, let’s take our place, be wise and be humble. It is time, perhaps time for us as a people to give up the resentment and dislike for our colonial master and show some love, show some respect this time in our history, and say, “WHY NOT GENUINELY BRITISH” and still truly Anguillian.

Should we now forgive our masters and embrace our status as British Citizens with pride? Or should we continue to seek justice from unknown sources? As Dependent Territories of Britain it is time we accept who we are and embrace our nationality with pride, teach our children likewise, so we begin to emerge with confidence, and be who we really are. In fact, it is time for us as a people to adorn ourselves with the Majesty that emanates for the Royal Kingdom, having access through our special status, while we strive to become ourselves. We must be humble, and with dignity for now, live out our imperial state with the hope that in due time we will be a nation unto ourselves when we embrace our independence in spirit and in truth, because it is within our rights as a people to become who we are. Should we then surrender the hatred and evil against the British Kingdom? Forgive them for the unkind treatment of the past as we look ahead to a new day where we accept our rights with honor? And “Why Not Genuinely British?” Why can’t we be genuinely British and enjoy that culture as part of our own life style. Be a gentleman or lady like; we’ll never be genuinely American or French or Dutch, so let’s be who we are and be proud. It is not totally uncomfortable to have a cup of tea, or be modestly polite, these are some of the qualities known to be British. So let’s just accept who we are as British Citizens under the flag, AND WHY NOT, “GENUINELY BRITISH, AND TRULY ANGUILLAN?

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

“CHANGE AND DECAY”

I had the rare opportunity to visit the Magistrate Court yesterday, March 28, 2011 to listen to a sitting on the longstanding matter with Mr. Kenswick Richardson, the Anguilla United Front (AUF) candidate in the last election for the seat in West End. Mr. Richardson had been charged with a total of thirteen offences related to the voter registration process and contrary to section 258 of the Criminal Code. This matter began with Mr. Richardson’s arrest without warrant on Wednesday, June 30th 2010. The matter caused much alarm among supporters of the AUF. And given the current practice of voter registration caused some fears among Anguilla United Movement (AUM) candidates and supporters as well.

In a Press Release of the same date the AUF, among other things, made the following statement: “Our colleague has been operating within the accepted practice of a process that provides a period for contesting any registration that does not meet the prescribed criteria for qualification. Every candidate, indeed, every citizen has the right to object to any name on the list. We believe that this procedure governs the eligibility of any citizen to vote in a general election. The present actions can have the effect of criminalizing the process.”

There was much discussion on the various talk shows among a number of pundits, many who seemed happy to savour in the misfortune of a political opponent. Yet there were those whose own practices during the registration process may have caused them to shudder quietly in hidden corners. Such that in my article of July 9, 2010 “Our Brother’s Beard is Burning” I focused on a talk show host who “waxed biblical” with reference to the matter --- using sound bites from our press release to which he interjected sarcastic and deprecating comments from time to time. And I further commented that: “among the callers were the typical ‘Pharisees’ who readily cast judgment on anyone and everyone to advance their own self-righteousness.”

I did experience a sense of vindication for the foregoing comments as I listened to the matter yesterday, literally nine months later. After having been advised by the Attorney General’s Chambers that it would not be offering any evidence in relation to the charges brought against Mr. Richardson, the Magistrate, with an overwhelming presence, advised Mr. Richardson that all thirteen charges against him were withdrawn. I must admit that as unaccustomed as I am to all levels of the Court System I found the proceedings and the matters surrounding them very intriguing indeed. I was also impressed with the “no nonsense” approach to the management of the Court and the respect it evoked from all present in the gallery; the witness stand and the bar. I therefore was forced to allow smile, as I reflected on vast the difference next door in “the highest court of the land” where the very laws governing this court were made.

Next door in the House of Assembly less than a week earlier, the Leader of Government business was presenting a most historic bill for an Act to provide for an Interim Stabilisation Levy (“the Levy”). While the Deputy Speaker was in excellent form in management of the Assembly --- one got the distinct impression that the gravity of the Bill before the House was not evident in the demeanour of the members on the Government side. First of all, the Leader of Government Business as Minister of Finance did not present any explanatory comments --- despite the fact that there was an extensive “objects and reasons” section attached to the Bill. It was clear that Chief Minister was prepared for a counter attack rather than a discussion on the merits of the bill. In fact his introduction of the Bill was simply words to the effect that the Bill was self-explanatory and that he would reserve any comments until his right of response. Those of us who are acquainted with the “modus operandi” of the Chief Minister over the years would readily come to the conclusion that he did not read the Bill. This fact became even more obvious in his response during which he did spent little time dealing with the substance of the important legislation he was expected to steer through the various readings and committee stages of the Assembly.

On the other hand the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers and his colleague the Hon. Othlyn Vanterpool sought to put the critical issues of the Bill in clear perspective. Their presentations reiterated the key issues which the AUF have been articulating on various fora and media over the past three weeks, namely, equity and fairness; efficient implementation; methodology for assessment of the self-employed; monitoring and compliances systems; service charge; the life cycle of the Act; public consultations, and so on. The issues that were raised by the Opposition pointed clearly to the lack of preparedness of Government to successfully implement the Levy even in the medium term. But they also brought into question the wisdom of using the particular tax measure at all.

The debate that followed the presentations by the Opposition from the Government side was defensive rather than responsive. They all with the exception of the Minister of Social Development, Hon. Edison Baird, used as their defense a line of attack on the past Government as rationale for the implementation of the tax. They claimed that the Levy was already put in place by the AUF Government before the elections; they claimed that were the AUF elected the taxes would be even higher; they claimed that they were forced to implement the Levy because the AUF had left the Treasury empty, and; the Chief Minister declared that it was forced upon him by the British Government and he sought to soften the impact by requiring a co-payments by the employers. No one responded to the questions raised by the Opposition regarding key issues associated with the implementation of the Levy.

What seems to have completely escaped this Government is that the issues raised by the Opposition are real. It is unfortunate that they are being raised by the Opposition and not by their own advisors. But that should not reduce their significance to determining the best solution for fulfilling the objective of returning to a balanced budget in three years. And the basic elements of an effective tax measure will not change no matter who is to be blamed for causing it to be required. It has become increasingly apparent that the Government is continuing to stumble along from one crisis to another with band-aid solutions to festering issues.

The continuing saga of multi-faceted conflicts between the Chief Minister and every single division of Government was again manifested by his invitation to a self-proclaimed constitutional expert and legal draftsperson to participate in the committee stage of the House. This action showed a blatant lack of respect for the expertise of the drafting division of the AG’s Chambers as well as the input of staff in the Ministry of Finance as well. The Acting Speaker sought to accommodate the Leader of Government Business to the extent that rules of procedure would allow --- but the aggressive nature of the invitee threatened to destroy the ancient landmarks of parliamentary procedure quite unlike the orderliness I had witnessed in the Magistrate’s court next door. And it was most interesting to observe that the Chief Minister who extended the invitation --- was not as supportive of the conduct of his guest as one would have expected. In the final analysis the Bill passed the House and through a clever move by the Leader of the Opposition to call for a division of the vote, it was revealed that a member on the Government side did not support the Bill. A process of elimination and deduction point squarely to the Parliamentary Secretary who has over the past weeks been trying to absolve himself from any political fallout associated with the Levy.

A well-place reporter posited an interesting twist on the implementation of the Levy during the AUF Press Conference yesterday (Monday). He suggested that the Government had absolutely no intentions of putting the Levy in place, once the Governor is authorized to assent to the budget. If there is any truth to this new twist the AUF and many Anguillians would be happy that the Levy is not implemented --- but as responsible citizens we would still need to question how the revenue shortfall anticipated by the need to implement the levy will be set aside. It makes absolutely no sense for the Government to be disingenuous in dealing with deficit reduction when such action could have an even more negative impact on the strategy for fiscal stability and economic recovery.

And now the latest report is that the Levy has been further reviewed in Executive Council and will come back to the House this week for additional amendments. If the scheduled implementation date of April 1st is still in effect, this could suggest an emergency meeting of the House by Thursday March 31st. Clearly, if the legislation is still being fine-tuned this must have serious implications for the efficacy of the other aspects of the implementation process. And the complex issues that were raised over the past two weeks in the House and on other fora still remain unanswered --- not the least among which is how can we achieve implementation across the entire spectrum of taxpayers? Do Ministers really understand what is required to optimize revenue yields and achieve a fair and equitable application of this Levy? This is not apparent in their behaviour. On the other hand, in all honesty, I do not believe that the UK Consultants who came to Anguilla truly appreciate the limited capability of this community to administer this form of direct taxation.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition made this emphatic statement in the House of Assembly: “Let’s face it this is income tax! It is not a Levy targeted to provide for a particular social service! The money collected will go directly into the consolidated fund!” The Government has stated that at the end of the twenty-one months it has estimated for its life cycle the Levy will then become a Levy for the National Health Fund. While such statements may bring comfort they do not necessarily coincide with real life experiences on taxation. As a proponent of the importance of “paying our own way” I am very supportive of an equitable tax regime. The underlying premise of that theme in my several speeches and addresses as Minister of Finance was that everyone should pay their fair share of the tax burden. And it was also an appeal to the independent spirit and pride of Anguillians that we should not allow ourselves to be dependent on handouts from donor countries, organizations and charitable groups and individuals to meet our basic needs --- we should participate in a tax regime that can do that. Such an attitude would be preparation for economic self-sufficiency --- a natural precursor to more political autonomy or independence. But in the context of the question of “how interim is the interim” Levy? I must refer to a quote from “The Fair Tax Book” as follows: “There is absolutely no limit to Government’s desire for your money. When it comes to politicians’ power of taxation, the only limit they recognize is the people’s willingness to tolerate the confiscation of their wealth. The amount of earnings that the government is willing to leave in your pocket is only the amount it cannot seize without promoting an outright rebellion.”

While this quotation may sound extreme it is during times of challenge when citizens are at their “wits end” to come up solutions to pervasive national issues like war, disease pandemics, recession, energy crises etc., that the most injurious measures are accepted without strong opposition. The citizenry are generally amenable to such measures when they believe that they are in the national interest. Just the other day obvious supporters of the Government cheered and applauded when the consultants indicated that increased tax measures must be put in place as an aspect of approving the budget. That audience was so frustrated by the propaganda spread by the Chief Minister and his cohorts about a British conspiracy --- not only to disallow the budget but also to sabotage development that they saw the approval of the budget as a victory and the increase tax measures as their patriotic responsibility. Many of them also unaware that one of those measures, like the Levy, would be unfairly skewed to the lower income earners. The inequitable burden of the recession on lower wage earners in this period of challenge gives real credence to Curtis Richardson’s lamentation that “the poor can’t take no more!” But perhaps even more ironic is the dismissive manner in which Chief Minister and his colleagues in the AUM Party, who profess their empathy for the working class people of this community, have been speeding the Levy, like a “runaway freight train” through the House of Assembly.

Like our party chairman, Mr. Fritz Smith, many persons have now adopted the term “destabilization levy” to describe this proposed legislation from a genuine concern that it would have that effect. And the AUM continues along in their politically motivated strategy of “hood winking” the so-called “working poor” and lower middle class workers appealing to their frustrations by abusing and punishing employers. Not realizing that incentives to employers secure jobs. And punitive tax measures can drive investors both local and expatriate out of the job creation market place. The point I am making is that in every aspect of implementing this levy “the lower wage earners” will suffer most. They will lose direct income from the levy and they can conceivably lose jobs if employers are forced to make cut backs in their operations. Is this the protection that the supporters of the AUM voted for? Or was it for a “no tax” government led by a modern day “Rumpelstiltskin” in the person of Hubert Benjamin Hughes who promised the working man that he would turn “straw into gold”.

According to Curtis Richardson the “poor certainly cannot take any more” of these empty promises and false hopes. They voted for change but to paraphrase the writer of the famous hymn “Abide with me!”: there is “Change and decay” all around to be seen! Indeed the only help we can depend on in this period must come from him “who changeth not!”

Victor F. Banks

Sachassess Estate

March 29, 2011

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