“WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR IT?”

One of the statements often heard from the Chief Minister, other members of the present Government and their supporters while in Opposition was that the British Government was going to place Anguilla under higher supervision because of the conduct of the “United Front Boys”. Which is a phrase that Hubert irreverently used to describe the past Government. He also spoke about the need to have a commission of inquiry into the conduct of those Ministers. And “to crown it all off” one of his own Ministers, during his inaugural speech in the House of Assembly, spoke about a stench emanating from the very head of Anguilla United Front organization. A stench he likened to that of a rotten egg.

Just a few months after this Government’s first anniversary in Office it would appear as if higher supervision has come to Anguilla. In a Press Statement, His Excellency the Governor revealed that he had “reluctantly” decided to exercise his residual powers under the Constitution and, in the interest of national security, intervened into the conduct of the Minister of Home Affairs in the issuance of visa waivers to persons requiring such for travel to Anguilla. Ironically, the Minister in question is the same Minister who, in that show of piety and self-righteousness, had intimated that the past Government was rotten to the core. Even worse is the fact that the majority of his colleague Ministers did not accept the Governor’s strong and “evidenced-based” recommendations that the practice by the Minister should be suspended.

As a former Minister myself and as an Anguillian I am not happy for the Governor to reach a point where in his own discretion he feels he has no choice but to use his residual powers. But I must reluctantly submit that he gave the Chief Minister and his Minister several opportunities to deal with the matter discretely. The Governor’s concern with the Minister’s conduct was documented since the visit of the Minister for the Overseas Territories to Anguilla. And the Chief Minister openly refused to have any discussions with the Governor on these matters and on one occasion created a “smoke screen” by alleging that the Governor asked him to dissolve the House. Readers will also recall that the same “smoke screen” also served to incite talk about Revolution; Independence and uprisings in H. M. Prison.

The question must arise as to members of this Government’s understanding of their role as Ministers. In several pieces in my weekly columns, I have pointed out that the Chief Minister is leading by bad example. And that as a consequence there is a general lack of awareness by his Ministers as to what constitutes good governance; proper procedures and strict adherence to our laws and regulations. For the Chief Minister’s part it has become increasingly obvious that he believes that the rules apply to everyone but himself. This attitude now seems to characterize the behaviour of many of his Ministers. What is equally worrisome is that many of the Government’s supporters seem to be adopting a similar approach. In fact, if you were to listen to some of the talk show hosts sympathetic to the Government on this matter you would get the distinct impression that there is a serious injustice being perpetrated on an innocent Minister who in the words of his first cousin, the Chief Minister, is a decent individual.

It is not my intention, in this column, to stand in judgment of the Minister’s conduct. Neither is it my intention to question the Governor’s actions --- he has already made his position clear under the present Constitution. But I do feel duty bound to raise a few simple questions that may be instructive. First of all, did the visa processing arrangements for applicants from the jurisdictions in question break down to the extent that the Minister found it necessary to issue over three hundred visa waivers in less than twelve months? If that were the case why did the Minister not initiate discussions with the British Embassy in those jurisdictions to improve the arrangements?

Secondly, since travelers from most Caribbean countries are typically not tourists but rather persons looking for employment --- what jobs were these persons seeking in this depressed economy? On the other hand if the visa waivers were granted to genuine visitors how did the ratio of visitors from those jurisdictions increase so drastically since this Government came to Office?

Thirdly, if the Minister was made aware of the potential risks and the fact that a number of his waivers ended up in the hands of known criminals and persons with possible criminal intent --- why did he persist in this practice even after he was warned and after a number of his supporters including “men of the cloth” demonstrated to defend his innocence to charges of abuse of office levelled against him?

Fourthly, How does the Minister justify the issuance of five visa waivers to five young women between the ages of nineteen and twenty-two years of age to visit a single farmer living alone? Four of those visas were issued on the same day and one just a few weeks later! Were these five young women related to the farmer? Or were they just pen pals? It should be noted that the Minister issued these visa waivers even after he was informed that his conduct was under investigation.

And finally, does the proliferation of visa waivers granted to persons from a particular Caribbean Country have any relationship to well-known campaign promises made to nationals from that same country that were eligible to vote?

The point of my observations is that on the basis of well-documented facts a reasonable conclusion can be drawn that the Minister was either deliberate or misguided in his actions. Like the Minister of Works he seems to be unaware of the limits of his authority and to be of the belief that he is not required to seek the advice of his technicians or follow proper procedures --- but feels that it is his role to dispense directives based on political motives and expediency. And what is even more surprising is that persons with legal training would try to defend the Minister’s misconduct by speaking about selective interventions suggesting that the past Government indulged in similar practices and the Governor did not adopt a similar response. The record would show, however, that the past Government during its entire tenure of Office did not grant a fraction of the amount of visa waivers under the signature of the Minister of Immigration. In fact, indigenous Anguillians and other belongers of Anguilla have been expressing grave concerns about the laxity of immigration practices during the last twelve months.

There are many persons who applaud the Governor’s handling of this matter because they regard the Minister’s actions as indefensible. There are also others who feel that the Governor did not go far enough mainly because they are not happy with the performance of the Government generally and see this as an opportunity to hasten its demise. And of course there are those who because of their affiliation with the Government have been led to believe that this is a part of another grand conspiracy by the Governor to destabilize their Government. One thing is certain, even strong supporters of the Government attest to the fact that there is no doubt that the Minister was not acting in accordance with the relevant Immigration and Passport Act and that his actions could have threatened our social stability.

I felt that I had to touch on the potential impact of the Minister’s conduct on social stability even in a period when our focus has been on economic and financial stability. The members of the Anguilla United Front have not been speaking out about the matter because we feel no reason to gloat on the Governor’s exercise of his residual powers. We feel that it is in fact a shame that an elected Minister of Government should need to be disciplined in this way because of conduct that shows irresponsible leadership and which betrays the loyalty that his supporters demonstrated even at the heavily guarded gates of the Governor’s Office. Furthermore, were I not to make some mention of this issue in my column I may also give the impression that our party does not acknowledge the relevance of such conduct to the constant decline in the state of our nation, socially and economically, since this Government has ascended to office.

Since I mentioned “economically”, let me of necessity return to the Interim Stabilization Levy Act (the Levy) that we have been discussing ad nauseam for the past six weeks or so. Our efforts on the various media, platforms and in the House of Assembly have not met with any success in getting the Government to rethink its position on the Levy even at this eleventh hour. In fact the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, in a final parliamentary move “wrote to the Clerk to the House of Assembly on Friday April 15th, requesting the Speaker to convene an urgent meeting of the House of Assembly to repeal the Interim Stabilization Levy Act recently passed in the House on March 24, 2011”. Such a meeting is to be held by Friday, April 29, 2011.

The views of the Leader of the Opposition in his letter to the Clerk were very clear: “it is impossible to implement the Levy in a manner that would be fair to all concerned --- efforts by the Government to discuss the implementation of the Levy have met with a great deal of public outcry because of real issues of inequity, fairness and compliance”. Both the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague, the Hon. Othlyn O. Vanterpool were strong opponents to the enactment of the Bill during the debates because they felt that “there was not sufficient public consultation and that generally the Levy was more burdensome on the lower and middle income earners. They also raised issues related to the compliance process and particularly as these relate to the self-employed”.

The motion for repeal of the Levy is very thorough in its presentation and reflects many of the issues that our party has raised over the past six weeks. It is our hope that the Leader of Government Business, the Hon. Chief Minister, will advise the Speaker to allow this urgent meeting to be held for the repeal of this Bill. In that eventuality, we would have used up the procedural options available to us for preventing the implementation of a Levy that is not fair to the most vulnerable of the taxpaying community. We sense, based on the fact that at least one of the members of Government did not vote on the Bill, that there is room for further consideration.

I chose to attend the last of the several public consultations on the implementation of the Levy that took place at the St. Gerard’s Conference Center, on Friday April 15th, 2011. I selected that particular session because being “self-employed” this was one of the categories assigned to us and also because I strongly believe that this category had the most issues with compliance. I was not wrong. However, I also witnessed another side of unfairness, when I realized that after all the rhetoric and political bravado in the House of Assembly, the Comptroller of Inland Revenue was left “standing alone” for four days to defend the Levy to the entire community of the self-employed and employers. There was no Minister of Finance, no Permanent Secretary, Finance, no representative from the Attorney General’s Chambers, and no other Minister at the session to assist the Comptroller with the consultations. The Advisor to the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Jerome Roberts was in the audience during the period of my presence but did nothing more than assist in the conveyance of the microphone to persons making interventions --- and that he did only for a short time.

The unfairness of that consultation struck me as I recalled that during my tenure as Minister of Finance I sat in on every single consultation of my Ministry as well as other Ministries. In fact, I am now forced to remember those public consultations when, though I was not the Minister of Lands or Physical Planning, I had to bear the brunt of the attack by forces in the community opposed to the Physical Planning Bill. I was attacked to the extent that there was a petition for my recall as an elected representative as well as a march to the Governor’s Office to present it. In the face of overwhelming criticism --- where were those Ministers who voted for the Levy when the Comptroller needed their support?

Where are those demonstrators and petitioners who saw injustice in the creation of a national plan to protect the individual rights of all landowners within the context of the common good? Are they still around? Is the moral activism that attended the outrage expressed for the Indians now poised to protest the unfairness inherent in this destabilizing Levy? Should the motion by the Leader of the Opposition to repeal the Levy fail to be passed in the House of Assembly --- will those forces be prepared to demonstrate against the injustice against lower and middle income workers, the employers and the self employed from their own communities? All of the above lead to that frequently asked question around Anguilla today: “Who’s gonna pay for it?”

Victor F. Banks

Sachasses Estate

April 19, 2011

REPORTING THE NEWS!!!!

Professional news reporting is a primary means of educating and informing the people of Anguilla and putting to rest much of the miss information the island is accustomed to. It is true that in today’s rapid expansion in information and technology, upcoming generations are very actively engaged in the universal phenomenon of advancing technology. News on Anguilla has not innovated to any serious level of advancement even though we are probably out numbering the rest of the region in ownership of radio stations. It is tempting to go back, way back to the analogy that Anguillians take pleasure in copying their neighbors interests just because they can accumulate a little more debt to their credit. This is a new age and the mouth piece of broadcasting has an imperative impact on the human mind, their decisions and their advancement, that also goes to TV broadcasting and reporting as well. Our radio stations are a compilation of broadcast waves all doing the same things and saying the same things at different times of the day in a very simple competitive context. They all think alike, act alike.

What we have in our news and information gathering in Anguilla is the most insignificant dissemination and diffusion of any narrative to improve the audio or visual anecdote to upgrade the intelligence and practical understanding of what is indeed reality on the island. Our news broadcasts are actually, the reading of a well written and expressed essay which does not compel the attention of the audience unless it has to do with a bit of information that is already out there in some distorted form and their interest is to clear it up and hear whether the melee is true or not. It is time we elevate from that level of news broadcasting on Anguilla with an objective other than being purely political.

For those in the dissemination of information, and in the news business, here are some facts on reporting the news; there are two terminologies to news broadcasting which are defined as Hard news, Soft news. Hard news reports on important events require a direct lead, summarizing what happened, satisfying the immediate or urgent curiosity or your listeners, then elaborating on details and perhaps raising speculation on the overall significance of the event. Stories that aren’t quite as urgent or important can be approached differently; which is termed soft news. Soft news however requires what is called a delayed lead, which sets up the story in a way that has the listener in suspense wanting to find out what else the reporter has to say. The news must be reported in a factual objective manner. People want factual information. There are other kinds of news gathering to give content to better news reporting; there is opinion reporting and reviews. News reports often profile important peoples and things, trade and special interests articles also make interesting news editions.

Hard news is further described as, straightforward reporting of current events or situations, and usually begins with a concise summation of the event or situation, then expands coverage to include significant details. It quotes from people connected to the situation or event. Hard news item provides no more than the five elements essential to objective articles, with little or no amplification. You utilize the five Ws: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, AND WHY. Who; is the subject of your reporting! Lean, straightforward reporting gives clarity to the story and leaves the listener convinced. WHAT; represents the event initiated by the subject or in which the subject participates. WHEN and WHERE; supply more information regarding the event. WHY; may explain either the significance of the event or the motive of the subject. Listeners need the information by all five essential elements to fully appreciate the information they’re being given. If we are to assist the public with what’s a true story that are factual and spell bounding, the reporter must go and get the news, make contact with the story, and for the benefit of informing and educating the people “REPORT THE NEWS.”

What is amazing is that since this government took office there has been an abundance of news that has gone unreported, and therefore everything remains basically speculation and here say in the minds of the people. It is all left to the discretion of whom ever to offer up some details they want to. The basic guidelines and principles of news gathering and reporting are not applied and there is a serious lack of factual information to convince people of what is really happening on the island. The continuous conflict between the governor and the Chief Minister has gone unreported too long, now the conspiracy on one side or the other is broadening. Reporters need to go and get the news from those who are the news makers, get interactive and report the story for the benefit of educating the people and feeding them facts. When the Governor gives his story, there will be aspects he will refuse to go in, but the reporter has to get as close to the facts as possible. Then most certainly who ever the opponent is, will be glad to rebut and tell their side of the story, and the people will judge for themselves. With this current Visa waiver issue, there should be a distinct profile on the Minister and a factual report on the scandal. The facts, the logic, the story and the answers, all lie in professionally and accurately REPORTING THE NEWS!!!!!!!

By: Elliot J. Harrigan

PRESS RELEASE! PRESS RELEASE! PRESS RELEASE!

Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, Leader of the Opposition and Elected Member for Valley North, today wrote to the Clerk to the House of Assembly requesting the Speaker to convene an urgent meeting of the House of Assembly to repeal the Interim Stabilization Levy Act recently passed in the House on March 24 2011.

In his letter the Leader of the Opposition expressed the view that it would be “impossible to implement the Levy in a manner that would be fair to all concerned.” He also explained that “efforts by the Government to discuss the implementation of the Levy have met with a great deal of public outcry because of real issues of inequity, fairness and compliance”. He therefore suggested that the process for repealing the Levy should be completed before the first payments become due and payable by the end of April. The Speaker was therefore requested to convene a meeting on a convenient date before Friday April 29, 2011.

The Motion by the Leader of the Opposition reads as follows:-

WHEREAS the Interim Stabilisation Levy Bill was approved by the House of Assembly (HoA) on March 24 2011 with 2 members abstaining, 5 members supporting, 2 members opposing and 1 member of government not voting;

AND WHEREAS it is a stated policy of the Government of Anguilla to seek thorough and complete public consultation on proposed laws before they are debated in the HoA, as was the case with the Education Bill and the Domestic Violence Bill;

AND WHEREAS the Interim Stabilisation Levy Act seeks to impose a tax on the income of the persons working in Anguilla without having had adequate public consultation before the Bill was brought to the HoA for debate and approval;

AND WHEREAS the Comptroller of Inland Revenue referring to the Bill admitted in the Anguillian of Friday 8th April 2011 that “... even though the bill has been passed, there are still quite a lot of operational procedures that need to be worked out” and that “it was such a rush and we are still working out the nitty-gritty of the Bill...”;

AND WHEREAS the Act only seeks to raise EC$9.7M annually in revenue, an amount that can be raised by more equitable measures;

AND WHEREAS the tax imposed by the said Act is inequitable giving the larger income earners in Anguilla the biggest relief, while causing the middle to lower income brackets to bear the greater impact of the Levy;

AND WHEREAS the said Levy will criminalised innocent Anguillians if they inadvertently breach the strict provisions of the Act;

AND WHEREAS the Act gives to Comptroller of Inland Revenue and other authorised officials the authority to assess ones earnings, which assessment may be done by examining the personal banks accounts of individuals;

AND WHEREAS there continues to be more questions than answers and significant “loopholes” relating to the Act as is evident from the open discussions with the public on the implementation of the Act;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Interim Stabilisation Levy Act be repealed and the GOA of Anguilla enter immediate negotiations with the British Government to arrive at a longer period of time in which to balance the budget, thus alleviating the need for such stringent and inequitable tax measures to be imposed on the people of Anguilla during this time of economic hardship;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Government of Anguilla in keeping with Anguilla Fiscal And Economic Recovery Plan, 2009 – 2011 establish a broad base Tax Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of Anguilla’s Tax regime by the end of June 2011.

The Leader of the Opposition and his colleague the Hon Othlyn Vanterpool, Elected Member for Island Harbour had expressed strong opposition to the enactment of the Bill during the debates in the House of Assembly. They both held the view that there was not sufficient public consultation and that generally the Levy was more burdensome on the lower and middle-income earners. They also raised issues related to the compliance process and particularly as these relate to the self- employed.

Mr. Rogers noted that the decision to call an urgent meeting of the House is entirely left to the discretion of the Speaker, but he expected in such matters she would be inclined to consult with the Leader of Government Business, the Hon. Chief Minister, to make such a determination. He further emphasized that a date for the meeting must be before the first payment under the Act is due and payable at the end of the month.

Anguilla United Front Information Department

Caribbean Commercial Center Suite 29

April 15 2011

“RISE! MOST NOBLE AND WORTHY KNIGHT!”

We were all saddened last weekend when we put to rest two young people who passed from this life amidst circumstances which must concern us all. I was moved by the comments made by Bishop Errol Brooks as he delivered the sermon at one of the funerals. Admonishing us not to stand in judgment, he said: “This death is like every other death!” At the risk of misinterpreting what the “Bishop” meant, I believe that he was saying that whether one dies from old age; a prolonged illness; a debilitating disease; an accident; murder, or; as a result of a mental aberration --- the effect is the same --- the manner of the death is unimportant --- we would have lost a loved one.

Like at every funeral ceremony there are different reasons why people attend. There are family, friends, associates, co-workers, classmates, neighbors, persons who empathize with the circumstances of the deceased in some way and unfortunately, and to be brutally honest, some persons who simply come, as we say in Anguilla, “to look news”. In that regard this weekend was no different. What was different, however, is a real sense that there are things taking place within our communities that need our attention. It can truly be characterized as a strong foreboding that demands that we question where our society is headed. What are the “demons” possessing the lives of so many among us --- young and old --- leading them to behave in ways that are most unfamiliar? What can we do to stem the spread of the negative influences; the alien doctrines and the nefarious practices that are taking root in our communities? What have we lost in the process of transitioning from a traditional to a modern society? How can we restore those “coping mechanisms” which were inherent in the social, cultural and spiritual upbringing of previous generations?

Our deepest condolences go out to those loved ones for whom this weekend must have been especially trying. Many of us have experienced similar losses over the years and fully appreciate the pain you may now be undergoing. It is not unusual that you may question: Why? What would this aborted life have become --- were the circumstances different? One source of comfort as a Christian community is our strong belief that it is all a part of God’s plan.

But the weekend was not only about reflections on those who passed this transitory existence --- it was also a time to celebrate the life journey of an individual still traveling on. An individual whose blessing of a long and healthy life may have allowed him to touch, in some way, the lives of even the very young people we put to rest on Saturday and Sunday. I am referring to the Service of Thanksgiving to celebrate the eighty-fifth year in the life of Mr. Albert Applebaum Richardson Lake, OBE. Affectionately known to us as “Mr. Lake” or simply “Lake”.

We should never neglect an opportunity to celebrate milestones in the lives of both persons and institutions that are of significance to our country’s national development. In my estimation, Mr. Albert Lake is both a person of great significance to, as well as a veritable institution in, the development of Anguilla. He is the epitome of the “Anguillian dream” and a monument to humility and instinctive intellect. It is for this reason that I am grateful for the opportunity provided for us by Mr. Lake’s family to show our appreciation for the manner in which he has touched all our lives as well as his huge contribution to every aspect of Anguillian life and community. And those of you who know Mr. Lake would know that he was not a willing participant in the staging of that event --- and that in fact the organizers would have had “their hands full” in getting him to show up, never mind the prospect of having him take an active part. In fact when the speeches, the toasts and the “cake cutting” were completed I had no idea when he disappeared from the main dining room.

In a most brilliant delivery at the Thanksgiving Service, his niece, Mrs. Donna Banks, vividly captured the essence of Mr. Lake’s life dealing cleverly with even the more delicate aspects of that journey in a very discreet --- yet precise manner. Perhaps one of the greatest testimonies in her presentation was when she said: “As God has blessed Lake so he has in turn blessed so many through his words of wisdom and benevolence. He has met people at their point of need and has stopped misfortune in the lives of many whether it was in the form of cash to pay a bill, assistance for medical attention, affordable land to build a home, credit to build a property or buy food, financing for education, donations to worthy causes and charitable contributions to schools, churches etc; burial of the dead shelter in a time of need; employment and relief from debt burdens. Lake has a heart of compassion and a spirit of wisdom and a discernment that will spot a scam and a schemer from afar”.

At the reception many other persons had the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Lake and to mention ways in which he had touched their lives personally --- as well as to speak of his contribution to Anguilla generally. And like in Ms. Banks’ presentation, the recurring themes of hard work, generosity and wisdom pervaded the several kudos heaped on him during the evening. Many times during the evening several speakers highlighted his almost legendary love for agriculture and livestock rearing. And it was especially noteworthy that everyone expressed the clear understanding that his contribution could not have been possible without the support of his dutiful wife, Mrs. Octavia Lake. As Donna puts it: “Lake is not self-made, for behind every wise and successful man stands a woman who says yes you can, and makes sure it is done!”

From my personal standpoint I can recount many aspects of my life and that of our family that have been touched by Mr. Lake. But that may only serve to portray my bias and as a consequence diminished the credibility of my assessment that he should be held in the highest esteem. Indeed, many younger Anguillians will not appreciate his invaluable contribution to our country if we only speak about what he did for us individually. I would suggest that his life itself is an example that should illustrate that from whatever humble beginnings we emanate --- we can rise to great heights by hard work, application and an enterprising spirit. Like many others in my lifetime I can recall Mr. Lake as a youngster walking through the village selling meat from a tray on his head. At that time he did not have a shop, he did not own a home, neither did he have any personal land. Today Mr. Lake has the most expansive places of business on the island and owns an abundance of real estate. He is undoubtedly the most successful homegrown entrepreneur. His very existence is an inspiration to the empowerment of our people, particularly our youth.

There are those who will be cynical, because of a few mischievous stories about the manner in which Mr. Lake acquired his assets, particularly land. They remain what they are --- mischievous stories. No one has ever presented to me any concrete evidence that Mr. Lake did not negotiate with him/her in good faith. On the contrary, I have heard stories where he was extremely reluctant to acquire property from willing sellers who were in dire straits. This seems to be replayed today in these challenging times when so many persons facing issues with the banks seek out Mr. Lake to get a more favourable arrangement than that of having their property go on auction. Such cases are in the present period --- not rumours of yesteryear and they illustrate Mr. Lake’s continuing role as a bastion of stability in our community. And on the other side of that equation are the grateful stories of his willingness to sell to landless young people seeking to acquire land at affordable rates to build their first homes. He is a “one-man regulator” of the real estate market as he seeks to empower industrious and ambitious young Anguillians.

Mr. Lake has never stood in the way of any Government’s genuine intention to provide critical infrastructure needs for Anguilla. No Government has ever had to compulsorily acquire or even threaten to compulsorily acquire any land owned by Mr. Lake for which they had produced a realistic and viable development proposal/plan. And he has never been engaged in any long or protracted discussion over compensation or land exchanges. His motivation is always to facilitate national development and this attitude of making his land resources available is not only extended to Governments alone --- he also gives land at concessionary prices and as grants to NGOs and CBOs like churches, schools and other charitable groups. His philanthropy is not pretentious or selective it springs from a genuine desire to promote the overall wellbeing of Anguillians.

Hurricane Donna that struck Anguilla on September 4, 1960 saw the destruction of a large percentage of Anguilla’s housing stock. Before that time, hurricane resistant structures such as those that proliferate today were few --- and traditional building techniques though sturdy had given way to some shortcuts over the years. Mr. Lake as a young entrepreneur took the risk to import building materials in large quantities to address the rehabilitation and recovery effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Donna and his vision soon placed him ahead of C. Rey & Company (The Factory) as the leading provider of building materials and supplies on the island. From this initial step into the construction sector, Mr. Lake continued the tradition of financier, a role that every merchant in traditional Anguilla was called upon to play. He naturally became the catalyst for a new trend in home ownership that was facilitated by his willingness to provide credit arrangements to many young ambitious Anguillians desirous of building their own homes. In essence, Mr. Lake was the accessible island banker who knew all his customers by name and “nature”. He was consequently, at the centre of Anguilla’s foray into more sustainable housing --- a feature that has distinguished Anguilla from many islands in our region for many years.

The reports on the Anguilla Revolution often places Mr. Lake in opposition to many actions of that period --- but if truth be told Anguilla could not have survived without the stability which entrepreneurs like Mr. Lake provided. Mr. Lake in particular was able to procure supplies from several other sources when Anguilla faced a period of isolation from several regional and international shippers and suppliers. The hostile actions against Mr. Lake by ill-advised factions of the revolutionary movement did not deter him from expressing his views about the issues of that period even in the face of live bullets pummeling his family home during the cover of night. These incidents did not quell Mr. Lake’s determination to serve his country and despite the differences of opinion many in the top leadership of the Revolution maintained a special relationship with him and even sought his counsel. Indeed, the Anguilla Revolution could not have been successful without the role Mr. Lake played in creating an atmosphere of commercial stability.

Mr. Lake is a model citizen. He is law-abiding. He is courteous and respectful to everyone. He pays his fair share of the tax burden willingly --- and it is his wont to suggest measures for enhancing Government revenue and revenue collections. Mr. Lake has never been accused of trying to evade the payment of any duties or taxes. He is a firm believer in the doctrine of paying ones own way. And is known for being a man of his word in all aspects of his business dealings. He places a great premium on being civil --- on civility.

I could go on and repeat a lot of the things that have been said during Sunday’s celebration about Mr. Lake as a great man --- but this is not the purpose of allocating this issue of my weekly column to his honour. My objective is to establish the high esteem with which Mr. Lake should be held --- and to submit that it is our responsibility to ensure that the highest level of recognition within our system of merits is extended to him. Let me at the outset say that there are many other persons who deserve similar mention in other fields --- but in the field of commerce and industry Albert Applebaum Richardson Lake has no equal. He stands alone!

It is my intention to initiate an application to Her Majesty The Queen for Mr. Lake to receive a Knighthood for his contribution to the development of our nation and the empowerment of our people; for his philanthropy to the many social causes that he has espoused; for his exemplary leadership; for his lifetime achievement that serves as a monument to the “Anguillian dream” for all young people, and; for his unswerving loyalty to the British Commonwealth as a whole and Anguilla in particular. In such an application I would expect that Mrs. Banks’ presentation on His “Life’s Journey”, this Article and other published testimonials will serve as supporting documentation. And I hope that very soon he may be privileged to hear the declaration: “Rise! Most noble and worthy Knight!” “Rise! Sir Albert!” … or words to that effect.

Victor F. Banks
Sachasses Estate
April 12, 2011

HONORABLE SIR, DID YOU KNOW??

Honorable Sir, You’ve been played a good ball? Is your team winning? The general consensus, that at the time of your election the mood of the country was right for change, the electorate, while hesitant and very reluctant gave you the right to rule. They placed their confidence in you to lead and be a guiding light. Your eye must be on the ball, and not to pick a fight. Play your game well; keep your rumble on, only time will tell. To be honorable is distinguishable; it bears on society by characterization and quality of representation on behalf of the nation. It is not an endorsement of ideology or political philosophy; it is bestowed by grace and humility on those fit to rule and discharge the reputable task of governing sensibly. As such one must be cognizant that any political office is temporary and the must be people first, such an office is only given to one they trust. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to execute your authority with wisdom and dignity, in the interest of all the people, with humility.

Honorable Sir, did you know, the people trust you to lead on matter of concern and prestige? Have you placed their priorities right and analyzed the challenges ahead? Or have you set your very own agenda instead; what about our sovereignty? Does that require the confidence and assurance that such an issue is handled with the utmost caution and importance, or honorable sir, do you think that such an issue that characterizes a people, a proud people should be kicked around on the airwaves without seriousness, distinction and such emotion? Are you saying independence is what we should aspire, or this is for real, because it’s your desire. It must be so, Honorable Sir, that this island deserves your best; you must be mindful that we are watching you, what you say and even how you beat your chest. We’ve heard you say, you’re now ready to lead the way. So just be smart, and be wise, even if despised, remember, as leader with a very strong will, we are asking you to lead with wisdom and skill.

Is it so, Honorable Sir, that you chose to lead with without compromises, but from the point of governing, is that wise? You must ensure that you are right before you lead the way to a fight, and consider your next move carefully, for the good of the country. Honorable Sir, there is no doubt, that the British is very cautious about what they pay, but what does it mean to engage those that say, you are a man who wants everything your way! Some say you are a man of war, did you know, we are a territory under the rule of British Law! Do we have an option today? Or to be lead by what you say. And, did you know that we are governed by our constitution which we hold so dear? Why not adhere to the rules and allow no one to live in fear. Why not partner up with the Governor, bring some calm to the country and consider the fight over permanently. The budget is now signed, that’s now a memory; show us some skill, diplomatically, lead like a man with a strong will to make things right, and not to be always picking a fight. But no, here you go again, you want independence, which you know won’t be so, not in your life for sure, Did you ever think, it’s not about you, it’s about us, Honorably Sir, it’s the people first!!!!!!

So, it is fair to say, being our man of honor, we love you anyway! Trust in God before you say a word. Then speak with influence, being a man of substance; keep the controversy down as you go along, eventually we would all see, how effective governance spurs democracy. Where is that impulse that personifies your state of mind, even in your budget debate we saw some decline. The British asked you to cut you spending levels, instead you opted to tax. Why couldn’t you just lower your income, and all those that seem so high, and make sure that everyone gets a piece of the pie, let’s make sure that we don’t create a poor class again, because some of these salaries seem insane! Some too high to be taxed overall, while some too low to be taxed at all. We all should give back and try to get Anguilla back on track.

By: Elliot J. Harrigan 

“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