The Democratic Labour Party Promised Integrity Legislation In 100 Days, It Is Now 1000+ Days And Counting

To illustrate the more things change the more they remain the same BU has cited three quotes below uttered by the Late Prime Minister Rt. Hon. J. M.G. M. ADAMS, M.A which have been extracted from his introductory speech to the Integrity Legislation Debate (parliament) in November 1979.

During the last Session I moved a Resolution calling for the  introduction of integrity legislation for Ministers and Members of Parliament. After rnuch equivocation that Resolution was sent to a Select Committee. However, except for Mr. Speaker, no member of the then Government, the Democratic Labour Party, attended any meeting
of the Select Committee on integrity legislation and it failed to obtain a quorum. We therefore proposed in our Manifesto that we would pass legislation providing for; Members of Parliament, Senators and politically appointed members of Statutory Corporations to disclose their financial assets and liabilities on assuming office, periodically during office, and on termination. That was our commitment and this legislation is the result.

It is really a very simple principle that every year Ministers and Mernbers of Parliament, Senators should make a declaration of how much money they have, what property they own in and out of Barbados, and under certain conditions what property is owned by their spouse and children. Every year these declarations should be updated and examined by a Public Integrity Commission.

We have carried out an election pledge by introducing this Bill which seeks to preserve public confidence in the integrity and honesty of persons in public life. We know that we have to take the lead because the Opposition is opposed to it. I will not be so uncharitable as to say that the Opposition does not want this Bill passed because perhaps they are unwilling to make declarations and are therefore picking up something that is nothing, along with their anger, to excite the public in an unreasonable way.

Rt. Hon. J. M.G. M. ADAMS, M.A., (Prime Minister and Minister of  Finance and Planning), House of Assembly Debates

His Honour W. C. B. HINDS, J.P. (Speaker); Rt. – Hon. E. W. BARROW, U.D., (Leader of the Opposition); Mr. R. StC. WEEKES, J.P.; Hon. L. S. CRAIG, (Minister of Housing, Lands and the Environment); Rt. Hon. J. M.G. M. ADAMS, M.A., (Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Planning); Hon. C. L. BOLDEN, LL.B., (Minister
of Communications and Works); Mr. E. E. GREAVES, B. A., Ed.M.; Mr. D. A. C. SIMMONS, LL.M.; Hon. Miss B. A. MILLER, (Minister of Health and National Insurance); Hon. L. B. BRATHWAITE, (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs); Mr. J. G. ODLE, B.Sc., (Chairman of Committees); Mr. M. C. C. WARD; Mr. V. L. JOHNSON, M.A.; Hon. L. R. TULL, M.A., (Minister of Education and Culture); Mr. DeL. 0 . BRADSHAW; Mr. L.L. SISNETT; His Honour E. E. ALLEYNE, LL.M., (Deputy Speaker) and Dr. R. C. HAYNES, M.B., Ch.B., M.R.C.P.
(Edin .)

Members of Parliament present at the last debate on Integrity Legislation 30+ years ago

Although many of those party to the 79 debate are dead or infirmed several remain active. It is disappointing that former members of parliament Dame Billie Miller, Sir Henry Ford, Sir David Simmoms, Sir Louis Tull, Ezra Alleyne, Evelyn Greaves, Leroy Sisnett, Delisle Bradshaw should remain silent by not informing the current public debate on integrity legislation.

Given the challenge of implementing the legislation in small countries why not maintain the scope of the original legislation and expand after careful monitoring?

The DLP should inform the public why it refused to participate in the Joint Committee to consider the legislation. Both parties should explain why it has taken thirty years to read the legislation in parliament only for it to retire meekly to a Joint Select Committee of parliament.

  • So David IL and a FOI will eliminate those who are in politics “for the money”.
    They will just have to work like the rest of us and leave politics to those who have the character to truly serve their people and their country.


  • Carson C. Cadogan


    “The question is what do they have to hide?”

    This thread is so comical.

    A bunch of people hiding behind Monikers and screaming for transparency from others.

    You guys are more fun than a barrel of monkeys!


  • @ Carson C. Cadogan.

    I am not a politician. I do not make decisions on how taxpayers money is spent.

    I don’t do business with Government agencies.

    I can hide behind “Hants” because I am not a politician and don’t work on Government contracts.

    Just like you CCC I support the DLP but have seen the benefits of IL and FOI where I currently live.


  • @ac | July 27, 2011 at 6:31 AM | it doesn’t matter how many political parties we have it is the character of the politician that really counts . we the people must start with the first stage of getting to know their mindset before giving our approval. it is the countries lost or gain .it is our civil rigt and duty todo so.because after they are elected it is too late as is the case with IL.
    Such a simplistic view ac. How do you propose to get to know their mindsets? That is what election campaigning is suppose to do, but obviously they lie to us and deceive us everytime. But somebody has to run the country. What are you going to do if you don’t find enough candidates with mindsets that you approve of? Who’s going to run the country then?


  • Jack Spratt !
    What point are you trying to prove ?

    I was merely relaying information for discussion
    Where did I say I believed um ?


  • @ David

    No Hants, politicians in this part of the world at least are in it for the access it gives to money making and securing their power structures.

    ALL politicians A LL, ALL get into politics for POWER!!!!


  • Read your last line again, Ms Roach…is that BELIEVABLE? Does anyone know a Carson C Cadogan? I do not believe that is a real name!


  • @zack
    Before you form a simplistic opinion you should have read my earlier posting, There is nothing simplistic about that.

    The media in Barbados has been a disaster into uncovering which can been called unseemly behaviour by some of those who are seeking political office preferring rather to hid information from the public which would be helpful when the public go to cast a vote and this serves no purpose except to those whose interest it one should be allowed to manage the affairs of a country when their lives are subject to public scrutiny. The public should be made aware of their misdoings before we cast a vote .The vote is for the country and not for the politician because a person have a million degrees behind his name doesn’t make him trustworthy.


  • CCC actually stands for Cleverly Concealed Rabbit


  • @CCC

    This thread is so comical.
    A bunch of people hiding behind Monikers and screaming for transparency from others.
    There is a quote of unknown origin which goes as follows: “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”
    The same people whom you referenced are among the many that were actively campaigning against the BLP on these blogs. Evidently anonymity was fine then but not so great now that the target is the DLP for failing to live up to their campaign promise. Where do you think Thompson got the idea for FOI and Integrity legislation?

    That campaign promise is now a loaded gun against the DLP heads and the Electorate may pull the trigger next time.

    Will you be laughing then? He who laughs last laughs best.


  • @Sargeant

    As we understand a big problem for all governments is the lackadaisical effort coming out of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel (CPC) office.

    As a country we really need to get our hindquarters i gear.


  • If the electorate is calling for transparency – we ought to verify the name, address of the ‘speaker’ and to ensure that the ‘caller’ has nothing to hide whilst calling for every one else to be exposed.

    Tell me that we cannot understand what CCC is saying. If David is representing the electorate in calling for transparency and being adamant about his call … shouldn’t I know who David is and that he is a law abiding citizen of Barbados? And, should I not form my own opinion based on facts on David that I researched to affirm that he is who he says he is and is truly interested in my well-being and welfare.

    If you are calling for transparency … what I am seeing CCC asking or stating is … BE TRANSPARENT FIRST THEN with due respect and benevolence others will follow suit without compromise and fear.
    Can anyone in sound mind refute CCC’s comments. Note I say in sound mind.


  • @Home: “Can anyone in sound mind refute CCC’s comments. Note I say in sound mind.


    I can. As someone who always uses their real name when posting.

    CCC is speaking behind an alias. Much like you. In fact, there is reason to believe you and CCC are working together if you are not actually the same person.

    In my opinion, BU.David is doing a very good job of enabling free speech here in Barbados. Something which is sorely needed.

    Some don’t like that.

    Before you and CCC have the gall to demand BU.David to reveal himself, might you and yours have the balls to do so first?

    (@Audience: please understand that Barbados Underground (BU) operates under the sufferance of Word Press. By inference, they must be comfortable with what BU and BU.David is doing.)


  • David is not a member of government with the ready availability of being able to have his hands stuck in the public purse. So just why should he be asked to reveal his ID. Go fly a kite CCC, u dumb ass dlp asslicker!


  • @Chris. We were given the leverage to use anonymity. I believe that regardless of our postings we are all doing a good job in recognizing a subject and responding with emotion, however high we take our emotions. We are communicating our thoughts, feelings with emotion. That is a very good job.

    You accuse me. I think that that is your right to share your thoughts and you are given a forum to do so. Do I know whom you are, no I don’t. Neither do I know CCC – have no idea whom he is. I share his view whether in part or in whole I share his view.

    I also share you view that BU is doing a good job does that make me Christopher Halsall now? Chris you actually agree with CCC seeing that you are asking me to have balls you are implying that David does not have any balls but you do by using your real name.

    So much for supporting David. My mother says when your own dog bites you you are well bitten.

    Wouldn’t we all have used our real names had David ‘…DONE SO FIRST.’

    We all know that the letters to the newspapers are anonymous (most of them).


  • Christopher Hatsall
    It must be recognised that it wasn’t David who declared 100 days in office will see IL abd FOI enacted. The DLP under then leader, the late David Thompson was adament about this while campaigning and voters believed him, maybe now that he is dead there is a change of heart within the hearts of the elected DLP MP’s but certainly not in the hearts of the voting public. The DLP, under Mr Stuart MUST explain to the voting public why IL and FOI has been placed on the backburner and only brought forward just before elections and the heat lowered under it. I want the DLP to know they are dealing with intelligent people.It seems the only defense the DLP has is to let loose their yardfowls with their gutter politics


  • @Home: “So much for supporting David. My mother says when your own dog bites you you are well bitten.

    Are you familiar with The Economist?

    It is a British newspaper published since 1843, and currently published weekly and available throughout the world.

    All its writers are anonymous.

    And yet it is taken very seriously….


  • Established in 1843 to campaign on one of the great political issues of the day, The Economist remains, in the second half of its second century, true to the principles of its founder. James Wilson, a hat maker from the small Scottish town of Hawick, believed in free trade, internationalism and minimum interference by government, especially in the affairs of the market. Though the protectionist Corn Laws which inspired Wilson to start The Economist were repealed in 1846, the newspaper has lived on, never abandoning its commitment to the classical 19th-century Liberal ideas of its founder.

    Who owns The Economist? Since 1928, half the shares have been owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson, the other half by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The editor’s independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees, which formally appoints him and without whose permission he cannot be removed.

    Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor “not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle.”

    Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor “not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle.”

    The paper, however, had to wait nearly half a century before getting another remarkable editor. He came in 1922, in the shape of Walter Layton, whose achievement, in the words of The Economist’s historian, Ruth Dudley Edwards*, was to have the paper “read widely in the corridors of power abroad as well as at home”, even if critics said it was “slightly on the dull side of solid”.


  • @Home…

    So then, based on your immediate above, are you arguing that The Economist is not taken seriously world wide here and now?

    Seriously, I would appreciate a sincere answer….


  • Good jobCCC. You again have masterfullychanged the topic at hand preffering to put the focus on yourself and the gullible on BU have fallen for it. onlyyou CCC! only You!


  • @de hood

    Good to see you around, hope the aches and pains are under control?


  • We don’t all live in Black Rock ! If anyone really believes that this present DLP government will pass transparency,integrity and FOI legislation they are obviously ignorant of the tactics our politicians,both of the DLP and the BLP,have used and will continue to use so as to ensure every elected politician is able to feather his/her own nest .They operate on the principle “today,it’s your turn,tomorrow it’ll be my turn so let’s not rock the boat !” One may ask the question,why has this government waited until almost the end of its mandate to talk about such legislation .They know full well it’ll never see the light of day ! It’s the same old story !


  • dehood was wondering what had happen to you. ? glad to hear from you!


  • Hi David,
    If you checked your register you would realise that I ain’t ‘bin nowhere. 🙂

    Still here looking on, begging the Good BBE to ease the suffering l’il bit. 🙂
    Thanx for the heads-up anyway.

    I still hey, sweetie. But wuh ‘appen wid my “owner” Bonny? Haven’t seen her on for a long time? Any idea?


  • Light Love (LiLo)

    aaahh !


  • @ Chris

    Based on your information sharing BU is taken serious and it is an important part of our growth and development. Nothing to dispute on the integrity of BU. George (real) and Caswell (real name) confirm and reassures that we can have great and greater insight via BU.

    That is not the issue. We read of the Editor of The Economist by name. Bajan Reporter has a name, BArbados Free Press, its Editor gave his name. The Editor and the founder of The Economist is known and the successor of the Economist is known.

    Honestly, I have learnt alot through this forum. I can speak publicly about what I read here without fear of BU amending postings. BU has its credibility – what it does not have is the integrity of an Editor who is saying do as I say and not as I do. I support BU ‘the blog’ and I appreciate the person (male or female) that started and continues to allow freedom of expression – may I add, however vile the expression.

    The issue is, if I am asking and agitating as an Editor, for transparency I should also declare whom I am. That is the issue. Besides that, David can well leave the forum open for the agitation to come from John Public because he will not be practicing what he preaches and therefore will lose integrity although we are informed by his blog and engage in sound, logical discussion. Chris, that is the issue.

    Again Chris I appreciate your sharing.


  • @Home

    With respect, BS.


  • Carson C. Cadogan


    Only you can’t see the irony of your position!

    Right on brother.


  • Carson C. Cadogan


    I am merely pointing out how ludicrious DAVID’s stance really is. That’s all. An anonymous blog owner demanding TRANSPARENCY from those in the House of Assembly.

    How stupid can one get?


  • David does not grant Government contracts.

    David does not allocate taxpayers money to projects and events.

    David does not vote on the spending of taxpayers money.

    BU is a blog (not a newspaper) owned by David and can do wha he like, but those of you who really want to know his real name can find it at


  • @ David

    Now we know the type of person that you are. You can at your whim and fancy publish comments and person names on your blog, talk about every public person under the son, your blog which sometimes have some 800 responses and YOU cannot tell the people who you are so that they can refer to YOU the person, born and christened like other public officials. However, we are to support YOU a person and YOUR (who is a person) point of view as a leader.

    Yes, your view on my comments is disrespectful until YOU show us, like I did through facts, why David of BU should not reveal his christened name(s) and business profile. Tell us using facts like I did. I did not use emotion, I used facts. If you cannot do that then hand over the blog to Caswell Franklyn who took the beating, the lashing, the flood waters and fire and brimstone, from all and sundry. Mind you, AND HE IS STILL STANDING!!!

    Caswell, regardless of what some say of him is a man of integrity, because of his transparency. Give him the blog. He can and will withstand the wrath of all of us. And HE will STAND.

    @Caswell I know that after the storm there is calm, so I know that blessings are in between each storm. We know that it ain’t over yet.

    @David respond with integrity Brother.

    I have not used your derogative terms, stay clean on this one, even though I respect you the person regardless of your ‘vile’ expressions – Say something Brother – your response ‘ain’ saying nutten.’ You have the chance to say something now as PM of this blog who called for the PM of Barbados to respond to national issues – say something on your own Integrity Legislation and call for transparency.

    @ CCC keep up the good work. As a people we all can agree to disagree and when you ask for transparency I agree it should start with the person who is asking.


  • @Home

    Your comment serves to inspire, to explain, when DLP and BLP start the process of attacking BU we take it as a compliment.

    It also reinforces the view that the BLP and DLP are both cut from the same clothe, just like Ralphie stated.


  • for those interested in transparency : according to Barbados Today, tourism officals have not release details of the contractual arrangements with Rihanna and the Minister is expecting a few hundred thousand dollars shortfall for the concert itself. Why is this information is not available to the public ? It is our money . I dont expect information prior to and during negiotations but as there is a 3 year deal and to kick start very soon , what is the score ? This not the first time this particular minister has been evasive..GOL comes to mind .. it may all be good but we should have access to this information. and btw information released at this particular time should be scrutinised; let’s see if it is just “a few hundred thousand” .


  • @CCC
    The irony of it all is that for all an sundry purposes the owner of the blog is being attacked unfairly. for one he is not a a high level or low level cabinet minister overseeing the affairs of the country and as of now not mentioned to the BU family his interest in such.SO what is the point of asking him to reveal his personnel information since that information is his to do whatever he pleases with until a time when he is asked to do so because of an interest in governmental affairs or subpoenaed by a court. Right now a ploy has been hatched to take the real focus away from the ministers of government and attacked the messenger ! so far it seems to be working, Can you CCC and others say what does David’s transparency have to do in any way to running the affairs of the country and would it in anyway serve to be of benefit to the people . This is all a smoke screen and a shot across the bow in a futile attempt to silence those who needs to know the backgrounds working of our politician. Until David becomes one of them . He should continue to plead the “Right to remain silent.”


  • The best way for C C C to defend is to attack, but he playing twenty/20 cricket, he’s swinging wild and careless. Incedentally, it is almost six months since this government rushed the change of the Act through Parliament to allow for Marston Gibson to become C.J, don’t this government think the public should have an answer why it has taken so long for an appointment of a C.J?


  • Sir David, Sir Charles, Sir Kyffin, lead the way in showing your love of Barbados and motivate others to follow:


Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s