Today I intended to write about the functioning, or rather, the non-functioning of the system that was set up by the Employment Rights Act to settle disputes, particularly claims for unfair dismissal. I wanted to point out that it is at best amateurish and that it is failing miserably to meet expectations. But I felt a tug that forced me to weigh in on the furore caused by the reported attempt by the Minister of Finance to remove the Governor of the Central Bank from office.
In the fullness of time, the courts will settle the legal aspects of the matter and I will patiently await that eventuality. However, at this point, I am more concerned about the potential loss of any residual investor confidence that might still be remaining after the series of seventeen downgrades of this country’s credit rating.
As a Barbadian, no matter your political persuasion, no one should be happy to see this embarrassing saga being played out in the public domain. Not so long ago, it was being said internationally that Barbados was punching above its weight. Now I seems that this country is reeling from some head blows inflicted as a result of the poor performance of the Government over the last nine years, and now this? Can Barbados take anymore?
In 2008 the Democratic Labour Party took on the burden of the government of this country as neophytes for the most part. Unfortunately, after nine years in office, they have steadfastly maintained that neophyte quality as though their nine years in office has taught them nothing. They have presided over the affairs of this country with a reverse Midas touch that seem to destroy everything in their wake. Now it seems that they have set their deadly aim on the Central Bank as the next institution targeted for destruction.
So far, the Minister of Finance has quite rightly not made a public statement on the matter. Instead, some of his colleagues have intervened with unhelpful remarks that only goes to confirm that Cabinet is in total disarray.
The Barbados Today of Friday, February 17, 2017 reported that Minister of Housing, Denis Kellman, while addressing a gathering of party faithful earlier that same day, suggested that the decision to fire the Governor of the Central Bank was for the “greater good”. He went on to suggest that while Worrell may have been successful so far in blocking all attempts to remove him, the Freundel Stuart Administration was not backing down. That report suggest that Minister Kellman is privy to the inner workings of the Ministry of Finance on this issue.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, in his all too familiar nonchalant approach to the affairs of state, was reported to have said something markedly different in the Daily Nation of February 21, 2017. He was quoted as saying:
“I am not in any position to comment on whether the Government’s confidence in the Governor of the Central Bank underwent any change, because I preside over the Cabinet of Barbados and at no time has the issue of the Governor’s relationship with the Government come up for consideration”.
He went on to state that he has not made himself privy to all that has been happening, and I accept that as the Prime Minister is an honourable man. But I think that I must ask: since the Prime Minister did not make himself privy to the happenings, Did someone make him privy? If the answer is “no”, it would certainly seem that the Prime Minister is definitely not in control of his Cabinet and worse yet, Kellman is more informed than he is. Perish the thought, say it isn’t so!
Our small economy cannot afford an economic policy that is not cornered by progressive taxation. The main earner of our foreign exchange tourism, is like fire or water: a good servant but very bad master. Without a striving construction industry with heavy emphasis on maintenance of properties , we cannot sustain our current expenditure. We are also haemoraging from a rapidly deteriorating infrastructure. Failure to maintain: roads, buses , water mains etc., will continue to sap funds and make it difficult to control expenditure. We have no large earnings from Agriculture or manufacturing, therefore we are not creating jobs at the rate to make the economy more resilient.
Neither the BLPor DLP wants to accept that we were never punching above our weight. We were actually cultivating very pretty gardens and lawns on the outside while electricity, water and poor flooring were present in the house itself. Arthur’s boast about a an excellent economy was like a fridge full of goodies with the door locked. That is why the BLP cannot say how they will solve the problem and why the DLP cannot solve the problem.
We barely escaped economic extinction in the past , our memories are short but we have gone to the IMF under both the BLP(Tom Adams) and the DLP (Erskine Sandiford) Now we are almost back there again. We have sent home public workers under both the BLP and DLP.
The model is about to collapse and we want to change everything while everything remains the same. The global economy has no uses for small island development outside of cheap labour and labour in our country is not and should not be cheap. We went through that already with the industrial parks, where we made products to be exported and scarcely made any foreign exchange. Our memories are short because back then we gave the investors ten year tax holidays and the workers were exploited. When the tax holidays expired they moved on. Today we have to do the same thing: give incentives to attract investors…same old soup . To my BLP and DLP friends , I beg you stop deafening us iwth your party positions, you are both guilty. It is time the pot stop calling the kettle black. We need a fresh start.
Correction
“We were actually cultivating very pretty gardens and lawns on the outside while electricity, water and poor flooring were present in the house ”
Should read
We were actually cultivating very pretty gardens and lawns on the outside while electricity, water and poor flooring were NOT present in the house.
Thanks.
Lawson,
It appears as if we are mixing up the three pillars of pensions. Are you talking about the state pension, the public sector occupational pension, or private pensions.
What is the life expectancy in Canada? I suspect that like in most advanced economies, it will be well in to the eighties. If so, I will be surprised that the state retirement age is 60 – meaning that someone leaving university at age 25, can work for 35 years, then spend a further 25 receiving a pension.
If it is an occupational pension, then the scheme retirement age could be aged 60, no problems there. You talk about the death of the beneficiary, but is that death in service, or death on retirement? I find a two-thirds pension (is that of salary or of pension) a bit much for someone who died in retirement.
All I can say is that Canadian actuaries must be brilliant at maths, or their fund managers are magicians.
Hal the retirement age is the 80 factor 50 years old and 30 years service and you will recieve a 60% indexed pension for life, if you go 35 years you get a 70 % pension for life this is the provincial retirement plan omers for municipal employees people that work for province, the federal employee plan is better. This is not a private plan, you are right 60 is not old and you can start a new career collecting from both your pension and new job , the survivor benefit of 66.6 % for life doesnt matter when you die before or after retirement I guess our guys are pretty smart we bought the rights to your chunnel
then we sent over carney to watch the money for us, see if he isnt getting a pension from home
Lawson,
Carney is out of his league. We have taken a second division manager and put him in the premier league.
what about the head of heathrow and the head of canary wharf how are they doing