Submitted by M*M*

Major Water Outage in Barbados on September 9th and 10th, 2010 and lack of sense of critical urgency by the Barbados Water Authority
Last week Thursday and Friday, we witnessed a major 2 day water outage in areas of St. Michael and Christ Church which affected numerous residents, businesses and schools amongst others in the affected area. Children were unable to attend school, people were unable to go to work and do their business (just ask the hotels who were hosting athletes and officials from the boxing tournament) and many businesses were unable to operate effectively. It was during a period of heavy rainfall and flooding in some areas…water, water everywhere yet not a drop to drink!
What has me puzzled is that after a 60% increase in water rates in 2009 (which we were told was to retool the BWA in terms of mains replacement program etc.), a visit and “reading of the riot act” by Prime Minister Thompson, the creation of and installation of an Executive Chairman in former Senator Arni Walters that there has been little improvement at the level of service delivery at the Barbados Water Authority. This is borne out by the numerous calls and complaints to the call-in programs and letters to the editor in our daily newspapers. After one burst was fixed, we were told that another one soon developed because of the pressure from turning back on the water too soon. Yes the mains are old – but wasn’t the 60% increase in water rates supposed to address this? If not, what is the increase being used to finance? This is unacceptable and the Barbados Water Authority is treating its customers in contempt.
We need the Barbados Water Authority (and the Minister responsible Dr Denis Lowe) to be accountable to the people of Barbados. The supply of water is an essential service – water is essential to life. My solution, if it were up to me, allow the Barbados Water Authority to come under the ambit of the Fair Trading Commission as soon as possible. This way it will be held to the same standards as the electric and telephone utility or face the adverse consequences of severe monetary (or other) penalties for poor service!!!!
CLICO BBD$314 Million Proposed Rescue by Government of Barbados
In light of the article published about Government’s proposed solution to depositors (of the EFPA) in CLICO Life to the value of BBD$314 million, I have a couple of questions.
Why is it that CLICO Life agents still sold this “investment” if the Office of Supervisor of Insurance said that it was not allowed? Are the CLICO Life agents to be held responsible for this act of selling the policies to numerous companies and organisations such as BARP (Barbados Association of Retired Persons) How will entities such as these recoup their monies if not covered by the proposed rescue plan of the Government? Will they have to sue CLICO Life for selling the EFPA without the Supervisor of Insurance’s approval or do they have to sue the Supervisor of Insurance for negligence in regulation and monitoring of CLICO Life? If this were the United States, some executive of that company would have already been facing jail time and the head of the regulatory body been facing a Congressional panel prior to being dismissed!!!!!!
This is significant as it encompasses not only Barbados, but many islands in the OECS region where their national pension funds and private pension funds have invested in this product.
Another factor to consider is the interest of 2% being offered under the proposed rescue plan is below the minimum savings rate. The least that should have been offered is the 2.5% Minimum savings rate. Many of these EFPA’s are held by retired persons who rely on the interest on this product to support their everyday living expenses. No doubt they will be placed in a position of undue burden and hardship with the reduced interest income.
I welcome some further disclosure and information on this proposed rescue plan for CLICO Life
Recent Discussion on Proposal to Allow Casino Gambling by Cruise Ships docked in the Bridgetown Port
The issue of casino gambling is once again rearing its head in Barbados. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and officials of the Barbados Port have all referred to it. Their argument is to allow cruise ships to be open for casino gambling while docked in the port as a means of earning much needed revenues and foreign exchange. I do not agree with this proposal.
Will it create jobs? Highly unlikely, the cruise ship staff will man the on board casino – not Barbadians. Another factor to consider is that cruise ships aren’t permanently in port, they leave after visiting for the day. Some of them do not even have weekly or bi-weekly itineraries including Barbados. Will tax inspectors be placed on cruise ships while they are in port to monitor the winnings of these transient cruisers in order to determine and collect the withholding taxes payable on winnings before they depart Barbados’s jurisdiction and it becomes more difficult to collect? At a time when the government is looking to reduce its current expenditure, this sounds like an increase in overtime payment for this extra duty.
To use the Bajan phrase “one-one blow does kill de old cow”, we are being faced with more and more gambling in this Barbadian society. Is this morally right? Should we sell our souls for the almighty dollar? What ever happened to good old hard-work. We have it emblazoned in our national motto of pride and industry but where is our pride? And are we showing any industry?
Do we recall the Barbados Turf Club and the $19 million in taxes from gambling that was supposed to be paid into the government but was written off in December 2008? These funds were effectively used for working capital by that organisation and they were unable to pay over the taxes collected from gambling (it would be remiss of me to say that over the years the Barbados Turf Club simply refused to pay over those taxes and allowed it to accumulate to the level it did before seeking a writeoff – certainly not those fine outstanding citizens of the BTC)
I think instead it would be more beneficial to Barbados if we focus on converting the cruise ship passenger to a longstay visitor as they have a higher spending level and is of more value to employment creation and sustenance in this country.
We often have great ideas in Barbados (remember the cellphone tax of the 2008 Budget) but there is usually a problem with implementation. I hope this isn’t the case with the proposal being considered for casino gambling on cruise ships while docked in the Bridgetown Port.
Is the award and allocation of NHC contracts the economic enfranchisement that was promised to the small contractors of Barbados
I have been sitting over the past couple weeks as this pot bubbled over on the former NHC Chairman’s allegations about the NHC/CLICO Constant affair and her dismissal and the non-disclosure by the Minister for Housing. Several questions have come to my mind. Why is the NHC purchasing prefab houses from construction companies when the prefab method of building does not employ our many skilled Barbadian artisans such as masons, carpenters, plumbers, tilers and cupboard makers who may be out of work at this time?
As a matter of fact, when the current government was on the campaign trail, and during the Prime Minister’s 2008 Budget speech, it was on the premise that 40% of all government procurement should go to small contractors and small businesses since they stimulate greater levels of employment in this country. Do we see this occurring in the NHC allocation of building works? Definitely not!!!! The argument being laid by the Minister responsible for Housing is that the small contractors do not have the wherewithal to finance the works given that the NHC is technically bankrupt. This is merely a red herring because once any financial institution can see evidence that the small contractor has been awarded a contract by the NHC, an agency of Government, funded by tax revenues and the Consolidated Fund, then they would be more than willing to advance the funds for the small contractor to begin work.
At this juncture, some small and medium sized contractors have already folded operations and many have been forced to lay off staff. In the meantime, the NHC projects are being built by large construction concerns via the prefab method which wouldn’t employ nearly as much Barbadians than traditional small contractors would. This could be significant in terms of prolonging unemployment in this country if allowed to continue. There is plenty profit markup that can be gained to contractors using the prefab housing method but what if this house construction work could be spread amongst a greater number of small contractors as opposed to one or two related companies owned by the same small group of people involved in the building of prefab houses. We all know the value of the construction sector to Barbados’s economy. Just look at recent Central Bank reports. Its contribution to the economy is really missed when it slows down and is non-existent.
Is this economic enfranchisements of the masses or what Dennis Kellman MP calls empowering and catering to the needs of the “too few”. What about the thrust towards entrepreneurship that is being touted by Minister Todd and Minister Estwick as the plank for employment creation in Barbados given that the ability of the Government to create jobs in the public service is limited? I trust that you will use your good offices as journalists to look into this matter





The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.