← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union
Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

Over the years, I have been complaining that the system of governance practiced in Barbados is merely a parody of the Westminster System that obtains in England. In a previous article, I wrote that we have all the trappings of a Westminster type democracy but they do not work as designed.

It is not my intention to disparage or in any way pull down an institution that history records as existing for over 376 years. I am concerned that the present occupants are not doing enough to make Parliament a place of which all Barbadians can be proud. To this end, I am calling on Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to do whatever is necessary to halt Parliament’s slide into irrelevance by ensuring that its rules and traditions are observed as intended. But it appears to me as though the Opposition could care less and is just biding its time until this DLP administration crashes and burns. Unfortunately that strategy might fail and it is the people of this country that will continue to suffer.

In my last column, I referred to the Minister of Finance waiving taxes under the Duties, Taxes and Other Payments (Exemption) Act. That act and the Interpretation Act require the minister to lay orders to waive or remit taxes in Parliament, “as soon as may be after they are made”. Only last week, while reading the Official Gazette, I came across one such order that should raise the hair on the back of the necks of all right-thinking members of this society, especially the members of the Opposition.

Official Gazette No. 102 dated December 14, 2015 carried a notice published as S.I. 2015 No. 90. It is an order made by the Minister of Finance designated as the Duties, Taxes and Other Payments (Exemption) (Cost-U-Less (Barbados) Inc.) Order, 2015. By now some of you might be saying that you don’t understand the fuss I’m making since the tax concessions to Cost-U-Less is old news.

Unfortunately, it is not. According to the notice in the Official Gazette, the Minister of Finance only made the order on December 4, 2015. My question therefore is: Under what authority were these tax concessions accessed by that company back in 2011. At best, this whole episode amounts to an insult on the intelligence of Barbadians. Paragraphs 7. (2) and 8 are instructive. They state:

7. (2) The exemptions referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 are granted on the condition that the project commences on or before June 1st, 2011 and is completed by 30th of November, 2012.

8. This Order shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of May, 2011.

By regularising these unnecessary, and so far unexplainable, tax give-aways four years after the fact, Government has ensured that parliamentary oversight of the minister’s actions would be an exercise in futility or rather a veritable mockery on the institution called the Parliament of Barbados.

The people of Barbados, through the Opposition, must demand answers from Government explaining why it was necessary to lavish tax concessions on a company to develop a shopping mall to house a supermarket, restaurants and other related amenities at Warrens. I well remember that a shopping complex was constructed at Carlton, Black Rock and I am yet to see any order giving tax concessions to that project.

Further, it would be interesting to see if Government could give credible explanations for paragraph 5 of the order, which states:

5. The Company is exempt from the payment of withholding tax payable under the Income Tax Act, Cap. 73 for a period of 15 years in respect of

(a) the interest and dividends paid by the Company to resident or non-resident shareholders or individuals who have given loans to the Company; and

(b) fees paid to non-residents who were contracted to provide management services, consultancy or technical skills for the construction of the project.

It would also be interesting to find out the identity of these favoured investors.

Government is proposing that this country become a republic, which basically is a government by the people for the people. Unless more information is forthcoming from Government about this deal, it would appear that we have a government by the people for their friends. That scenario is not a republican form of government; it would be corruption if found to be true.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

109 responses to “The Caswell Franklyn Column – Concessions to Cost-U-Less Should Raise Hair”


  1. The BU version of Caswell’s column veers away from what was posted in the Sunday Sun today.

  2. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Thanks David.

  3. are-we-there-yet Avatar
    are-we-there-yet

    Caswell;

    Well said.

    This is just another signpost documenting our slide to banana republicanism.

    It would be good to hear the views of the Opposition element of the political class to this matter. But I’m not holding my breath on that.

    This should be enough evidence, on its own, to convince thinking people that under no circumstances should Freundal Stuart be allowed to implement republicanism on the country without built in enforceable iron clad conditions to protect it from selfish short sighted politicos.

    But we are a nation of BBs.


  4. It is worth a reminder an earlier BU blog:

    Who Are the Local Partners in Cost-U-Less?

    by David on April 27, 2013 in Blogging Edit

    We do not charge membership fees and believe we can offer low prices to Barbados shoppers, just as we have in our most recent store opening in the Cayman Islands, which was also a partnership with local business people NorthWest Company trading as Cost-U-Less July 2008 It has been almost five years from the time […]

    Leave a CommentContinue Reading →

  5. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    AWTY, With respect, you are using Republicanism as a “red herring”. How does a change to constitutional republicanism change for the worse what Caswell has highlighted here? He is commenting on an attitude that is abusing legality, not the system of governance under which it has occurred.

    @Caswell, Is the order subject to affirmative or negative resolution? Once it is laid in Parliament there is a role for the Opposition to comment.


  6. Caswell there is merit in identifying the redacted/deleted parts of your column for comment.

  7. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Jeff

    It is subject to negative resolution. Once it is laid, any member of the House or Senate can move to rescind the order. There is a short time period for doing so but I am not certain. If memory serves me correctly, I think it is thirty days.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  8. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    David

    Please explain, I do not see the merits. The last clause is conditional, if something is so then the accusation would follow. The first two paragraphs are essentially the same things that I have written before, in the piece about imitation democracy, and it was published.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  9. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    Caswell..is it legal to make such concessions retroactive. Ya mean ya’ll still don’t know the identities of the investors in cost u less, is that legal…..should at least some of their identities, except silent partners, be registered with corporate affairs at Warrens.


  10. We don’t want to spoil our hairstyles with any hair-raising activities. No bad hair days for us. Sad.

  11. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Well Well

    The act allows the minister to make the order retroactive but four years after the concessions have been used is a joke. Where was the authority for Customs to allow entry of the vehicles and construction material into the country duty free when all this importing was going on.

    Additionally, the exemption of income tax to persons who have made loans to the company is not a concession to Cost-U-Less; it is a concession to the individual investors and the law requires that their names be published in the order. The fact that they were not shows that the Government is hiding something that ought to be disclosed.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  12. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    @WW&C, The concessions themselves are not retroactive. They have already been effected. What the ministerial order does is to legalize the already exercised concessions. This is ordinarily legal…though untidy.

    Caswell engages the point as to whether the order was “as soon as may be after the concessions were made” .

  13. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    Sorry, Caswell, we crossed!

  14. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    Thanks Jeff.

  15. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    Thanks Caswell..I understand your concern.


  16. What it exposes Jeff is how our system can be manipulated (used advisedly) to obscure or, to Caswell’s point, make a parody of the Westminster system we purport to follow. Yes successive governments have retroactively made good on orders but we need to challenge this ‘routine’ at a time when transparency and efficiency must be the order the day.

  17. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar
    Jeff Cumberbatch

    We in the Faculty refer to it rather as the “Westminster-export-model”. Retroactivity, especially in this context, is not inherently a bad thing and is often necessary, but should be effected as soon as reasonably practicable. It is to be abhorred, however, when it takes away established rights.


  18. @Jeff

    Understood, this issue is linked to questions about transparency in government based on 1. Beneficial ownership of cost u less in Barbados and 2. a government giving concessions to a retail draining outlet at the start of a general election.

  19. are-we-there-yet Avatar

    The whole thing has an offensive odour clinging to it whether it is legal or not.

    My point linking the matter with our possibly imminent republican status is that any government that blatantly engages in such matters that predominantly redound to the benefit of themselves as a government and to identifiable individuals rather than to the country as a whole will progressively do worse and worse until it achieves absolute power. The portents are worse if there is no or little recourse to higher external authority.


  20. Why was cost-u-less given tax and duty concessions ?

    What differentiates them from other supermarkets selling similar products ?


  21. @Hants

    If memory serves it was the prospect of jobs being created.


  22. Can A1 supermarket demand duty free concessions on vehicles ?


  23. @David what about the prospects of jobs at A1 ?


  24. @Hants

    The upgraded version of your question is if whether T&T’s Moutet will attract concessions for the property he intends to develop in Warrens. A stones throw away from cost u less.

  25. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar

    AWTY, you must rid yourself of the notion that because the Queen is our head of state that she may constitutionally exercise any authority over local affairs. I know that this is a pet fancy of some, but long ago the matter was determined that “although this may be so in theory, it has no basis in practical reality”!

  26. Caswell Franklyn Avatar

    Corruption I tell you plain and simple. Somebody should be jailed for this.

    Sent from my iPad

    >


  27. @Jeff

    Your comment to are we there yet further exposes the pretend (Caswell says parody of our system of government). The role of the GG to appoint a judge or give legal standing to a law is a rubber stamp. Wha a waste of an office.

  28. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar

    Not to appoint a judge, David, except in the sense of administering the oath of office. But your substantive point is well made.

  29. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch January 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    “AWTY, you must rid yourself of the notion that because the Queen is our head of state that she may constitutionally exercise any authority over local affairs. I know that this is a pet fancy of some, but long ago the matter was determined that “although this may be so in theory, it has no basis in practical reality!”

    So why exchange one figurehead for a next?
    What are the benefits in such an exchange of costly pomp, pageantry and ceremony other than giving total control to a bunch of corrupt misfits who show all tendencies of behaving towards their own people much worse than their previous slaver masters? If we cannot even get basic straightforward long-promised provisions such as FOI and Integrity legislation enacted and running do you really feel things would be any better democratically under a republic with that bunch crap ‘over-lording’ the people?


  30. @Jeff

    In a future column as an ‘adjunct’ to your Republic offerings you should delineate those circumstances a GG acts on sole discretion under the current setup.

  31. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    There goes that reality slapping everyone in the face again. David….that is all any of it is….a rubber stamp.

    Caswell….when anything goes wrong, just as with Harlequin, outside investigative agencies have the resources to follow the money and find out who these anonymous owners are, whom DBLP governments are protecting from the taxpayers.

  32. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar

    Will do, David. I might even do it for BU specifically!

  33. Jeff Cumberbatch Avatar

    @ Miller,

    Republicanism is not, and cannot be regarded as, the answer to our current and future woes as a scrunting third world mini-state. As I wrote sometime ago, the arguments in favor of it cannot resonate in a materialist context either. No need to fear, though, its eventuation here is as unlikely as the return of the dinosaur. My argument in favour is a mere intellectual exercise.


  34. CAIPO only lists the directors, which are the Canadian Company. Shareholders and other ‘investors’ are not listed. I was told that one can apply to the Company Secretary in writing who is legally bound to disclose the names of the shareholders in writing. However, when they don’t, the only recourse is the Courts. Good luck wi’ dat! More clandestine means might reveal the necessary documents giving the names of the shareholders, as opposed to naming by rumour and gossip.


  35. Given that Hoteliers were given the same concessions and tax breaks as Sandals it stands to reason that Supermarket owners should also be given the same concessions as Cost-u less.

    If not why not?

  36. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Jeff Cumberbatch January 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    “No need to fear, though, its eventuation here is as unlikely as the return of the dinosaur. My argument in favour is a mere intellectual exercise.”

    I disagree. Not on the idea of fear since I already have one foot in the grave. But its eventuation being a “mere intellectual exercise”.

    Very soon Barbados will be confronted with a Constitutional dilemma. After the highly probable abdication or eventual passing of the ruling monarch (Her Majesty will be 90 this year, Deo volente) the Constitution and certain monarch-related images, symbols and titles will have to be changed to reflect this change in the gender of the person in charge of the regnum.

    What are Barbadians going to do? Slavishly continue as if Her Majesty Elizabeth is still around similar to how the educational system and many social mores still reflect the Queen Victorian era?
    Why not show the maturity that 50 years of “self-rule” ought to have inculcated and take the proverbial bull by the horns?
    Why not be proactive and seek the people’s approval and blessing to go for full republican status with the people’s support to amend the Constitution to demonstrate another bold step towards political maturity and a deepening of the democratic process?


  37. @ millertheanunnaki,

    Good point. Why would we want to replace the Queen’s image with a tampon.

    “The depth of their intimacy became clear in 1992 when the so-called “Camillagate” tape surfaced, in which Charles was caught saying he longed to be Camilla’s tampon.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/feb/10/monarchy.constitution1


  38. The only reason to give exclusive concessions to a foreign exchange draining company in the distribution business is to get a kickback. A small child could see this. And what is Mia saying? I admire your courage Caswell and I am grateful for it.

  39. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    Lol….Hants, I remember Charles the Tampon wanted to be inserted into Camilla “the Rottweiler”.

    Those were Diana’s words….lol

  40. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    Haha….Mia more than likely wants her cut too, hence the silence?


  41. millertheanunnaki January 24, 2016 at 12:08 PM #

    I suspect that you are correct and that like a thief in the night we will become a republic without fanfare at the first opportunity which could easily be the vacating of the seat made of scottish wood.

    Jeff has a point that how we would like to see the transition will never occur.

  42. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  43. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    David

    I am sorry, I copied and pasted the order but it did not show up in the comments. I will send it to you under separate cover. Please post it for me.

  44. Well Well & Consequences Avatar
    Well Well & Consequences

    These politicians just do whateverr theyblike whenever they like, misrepresenting the people’s best interest. What is so desperately important now that could not have been done back in 2011….what new scam is in the works and has to be back dated.


  45. The opposition just as privy to the same foolishness and just as inept.They might be willing to reverse the slide but they are just as guilty as the incumbent.As always , vote independent , vote alternative , spoil the vote or stay to ass home.


  46. @Hants January 24, 2016 at 12:24 PM “Why would we want to replace the Queen’s image with a tampon.”

    Cuh dear Hants man. Give poor Charlie a break.

    In 1992 he was young, hot blooded, his hormones were raging. He was in love.

    You know how it is.

    You been there.

    Me too.

    Now we are all grey haired, sober, older, wiser…


  47. Do you all understand that this government does whatever the hell it likes? It does not listen to a fellow! They have not been called wild boys for nothing.

    Remember the rant from Donville Inniss………..We dont want to hear nothing from wunnah, any ideas wunnah got, keep to wunnah selves, wunnah had 14 years, now is we time, we gine do things we way.

    Anytime the Opposition speaks, the opposition is power hungry……..look how the yardfowls come on BU and call us doom and gloomers…….so what’s the alternative?

    Remember when this government appointed Arnie Walters as executive GM at BWA? The Opposition said that was illegal, the law does not allow for such a position, did they listen?

    Remember when the Opposition pointed out that it was illegal to sell diesel at the Transport Board to ZR’s……..did they listen?

    Does anyone believe that anything anyone says matters to them? Look at the most glaring and outrageous breach of all that is moral and decent………the case of the crooked speaker? When the Opposition voiced their concern……what did the worse PM this country ever have, do? He told the crook to get a lawyer and then they all put together the money and saved his sorry backside.

    They dont give a damn what anyone thinks or says!


  48. Isn’t it strange the lengths these morons would go to so that it can legalise the duty free concessions it gave to Cost U Less?

    Up to this day, the concessions that they promised the hoteliers which were to be in line with the 40 years of freeness they gave to Sandals………….the local hoteliers have not received a fraction of anything.

    I wonder why! These morons are giving the people who have money a washpan of freeness…no taxes and the clown put the taxes on us the poor taxpayers……we have to bear the burden while those who are wealthy are getting 40 years free of paying a dime in taxes.

    And we are the freest black nation?????


  49. When will all and sundry understand that this governance is what will obtain irrespetive as to who is in power…..this is what we have sowed and this is what we shall reap………….we like it so.

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

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading