For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
A Psalm of Life
MY first instinct this week is to comment on the response by National Housing Corporation Chairman Marilyn Rice-Bowen to the revocation of her appointment as Chairman. I will get there. But before I do, let me return to the important issue of the Pickering development in St.Lucy because I don’t think that as the intent, strategy and obviously desired outcome that former Prime Minister Owen Arthur longs for become much more pellucid we should let such an issue go.
It actually stands at the heart of the difference between the Barbados Labour Party and the Democratic Labour Party led by David Thompson at this time in our history. I have already pointed out that, in my view, the people who are spear-heading the St. Lucy development were never within the development strategy of the last BLP-government. The previous government never had any faith in the ability of ordinary barefoot Barbadians citizens to attract large investments or sustain them.
That is why, if you check it carefully, you will see that apart from some carefully stage-managed “interventions” and the publicity stunts of the son-of-a-shop-keeper to save Sam Lords Castle and Julie N’, precious little fundamentally changed. There was no depth of commitment. If you check the record, more large, established indigenous businesses in the distributive sector closed between 1994 and 2008 than at any time in our history.
Here, in relation to Pickering, there is a deeper motivation. One of the big criticisms of the DLP government by the BLP has been the fact that there has been a slowing of international investment in our economy. I believe that, in due course, David Thompson will emerge as a highly patriotic Barbadian who sought to return our country to some basic moral themes, including protecting our patrimony. He should not be afraid of any silly criticism today. Our children will venerate his – and their – belief that we need balanced economic and environmental development in our country that sustains our national social objectives and not the greedy money-grabbing insensitivity of those who live now-for-now.
It would very much suit Owen Arthur and his supine acolytes to be able to say that there has been no new foreign investment in Barbados since 2008! To have been able – particularly in relation to the Pickering project – to enlist the support of some strange allies in this quest is interesting, to say the least. The argument against Pickering’s developers is that they don’t have enough money to undertake the entire investment or even some of the initial parts of it. But wouldn’t that be true of Four Seasons? They ran into initial investment issues. Is this so unusual?
Why is one of Mr. Arthur’s biggest St. Peter boasts as a St. Peter Development project – still in its fledgling stage – called “Bacassa” on the market for sale internationally? And there are so many others – for which ground-breaking ceremonies were held – which have not succeeded so far because of a multiplicity of factors, mostly international in nature.
Isn’t it traditional for entrepreneurs and promoters of a project to come up with the design concepts, drawings, promotional material, financial projections, government approvals and so on and the attract investment? Did anyone promoting the Pickering project say they had all the money to complete it? What, then, was the objective of last Sunday’s offering in another section of the media which sought to disembowel the project?
I was proud as a young journalist many years ago to be part of the staff of that distinguished risk-taking institution in its fledgling years. I would never seek to diminish its impact on my life. That some black Barbadians got together and made an initial investment in the development of another media establishment was most salutary in our development at that period.
One of the boasts of that new business, highly risky in nature, was that it was not sure how it would finance the next edition, get it printed on time, overcome major early investment and operational hurdles.
Isn’t this the story of Mr. Goddard who walked from Martins Bay, St. John to Bridgetown and started an International family enterprise in the Caribbean and Latin America? I urge Mr. Arthur to use his fully tax-payer-funded luxurious office at Cave Hill to practise his profession, to study the financial development of Barbados Mutual (now Sagicor) or Barbados Shipping and Trading rather than use it to plot and announce Ms.Mottley’s demise (imminent though they say it is from that location)!
The story of limited start-up capital (although I know nothing of Pickering’s business plan) is the story of almost every new business. So why does it become a front-page revelation that a new investment is not fully funded? To discredit whom? And to give credit to whom? I have come to my own conclusion. I am sure you have too! Now to my second issue. I like Marilyn Rice-Bowen very much as an activist and woman who is making a contribution to our country. But as the fish gathered – to use a landmark political phrase that was ultimately the undoing of Sir Richard “Johnny” Cheltenham’s political career – on the issue of her being removed as Chairman of the NHC, I had to give the matter much more definitive consideration than was apparently due after her Press Statement. Mind you, the statement was empty, vapid and useless to her cause. What was her cause?
As a general rule, in a dispute or deteriorating relationship between a Minister and a Chairman that cannot be resolved – and I am told of several attempts to do this – the Chairman must go. It is the Minister, not the Chairman, who is ultimately accountable to the public. It is a strange political circumstance that as housing policy and development – the mere building affordable housing for Barbadians – has become such a success story under this young government, the Chairman of the corporation charged with the responsibility for this success is at loggerheads with the Minister. But as the shadows lengthened on the story, there are simple facts that, under better legal and political advisement, Ms. Rice-Bowen might have considered. The NHC Act gives much wider powers to the Minister of Housing than many other Acts establishing Statutory Corporations. This does not mean his powers are unlimited. Secondly, the former Chairman said she was speaking for the Board. But she has no solidarity! Not a single Board member has corroborated her stories! And third, the Joint Ventures purportedly between NHC and the private contractors are
overseen by a Cabinet Committee. The latter was to speed up the process of getting affordable housing to our citizens.
What rules, if any, were broken? What laws were violated? State the case, Ms. Rice-Bowen! Instead of that, the fish gathered in a most interesting way. Insurance brokerage contracts surfaced and all kinds of claims and counter-claims will emerge. But there seemed something quite orchestrated and remarkable about the sequence of events, the choreography, the fashion and the entire stage-management of Ms. Rice-Bowen’s show on Saturday. Things are truly not what they seem. As I said before, we will let the fish gather and return to this subject in the fullness of time.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.