New Education Minister says no change for EduTech

Some skeptics may say that the more things change the more they remain the same, but we say it is good to see that the BLP’s EduTech project will be continued by the new DLP administration.

Bajan Free Press commends the Minister of Education Ronald Jones for his firm and reassuring comments.

The education of our children and the future of our nation is too vital to be tampered with. Indeed, it should be seen as a “sacred cow” rather than any sacrificial “fatted calf“.

Bajan Free Press

http://www.nationnews.com/story/75407830567707.php 

Jones: Edu-Tech to stay
Published on: 1/30/08.

by BARRY ALLEYNE

THE NEW Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government has absolutely no plans of discarding the controversial Edu-Tech project. And, said Minister of Education Ronald Jones, they will be soon paying special attention to the recently closed Louis Lynch Secondary School.

He also hinted that the misplaced students from Louis Lynch would soon find a home. “I have not yet tackled that issue, but I expect to be updated on it very shortly,” the minister told the Press after a tour of St Leonard’s Boys’ School on Tuesday.

“We are looking at the rationalisation of numbers. Space is always an issue, but we are looking at new plants to help the question of security and discipline.

Edu-Tech came under immense scrutiny over the last decade when the DLP was in Opposition, but Jones said it would make no sense to discard it.

“I understand how information and communication technology can be integrated into what we do. I’ve never stated there would be an abandonment of Edu-Tech. I’m comfortable with the integration of technology into the teaching and learning environment,” he said.

In his first official function as Minister of Education, Jones met with St Leonard’s interim principal Desmond Browne, promising him the ministry would be paying special attention to the country’s lone all-boys secondary school.

In fact, Jones promised he would return to the school to speak to the roll of 1 034 boys. “I believe there is a message I can bring.”

“Our young men need role models who are strong and purposeful.”

The minister said it was fair to believe a number of new schools would eventually be built across the country in an effort to streamline the delivery of education.

He said Edu-Tech would be looked at and discussions would take place to get teachers more motivated and familiar with using technology.

He also said he planned to have very hands-on approach as minister.

Principal Browne also brought a myriad of problems to the minister’s attention, among them drainage which he said “had become quite problematic, at the end of even a brief shower”.

Browne added: “We have to motivate the students to think this is an ideal place for boys to learn certain skills.”

He noted that impetus would also be given to the school’s industrial arts programme, since it had been successful, but more entries were needed at the Caribbean Examinations Council level.

Browne said he also intended to bring a higher level of discipline to the boys, and would also target tardiness.

President of Sierra Leone lagging on Asset Declaration promise

Meet Ernest Bai Koroma, president of Sierra Leone and elected into office on 17 September 2007. When he became president of this West African nation four months ago he made two public promises to his people: zero tolerance for corruption, and that he would declare his assets. More than 100 days later, he has still not declared his assets, claiming that he is merely waiting for the “very very forthright young man” whom he appointed as head of the Anti-Corruption Commission to “review the legislation”, “prepare the draft”, and “revise the asset declaration form and make it legal”. On today’s edition of Network Africa, president Koroma gave the assurance that he would declare his assets “as soon as the new asset declaration form was ready”.

Visit the link below and click on Listen to the latest edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/

However, some of his citizens seem to be getting a bit impatient about it, as the article below reveals.

In the days and months ahead, it will be interesting to see, between president Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone and prime minister David Thompson of Barbados, which new government on which side of the Atlantic will be the first to declare their assets, and Bajan Free Press will therefore continue to monitor developments among our West African brothers and sisters just as much as we keep a very keen eye on what is happening on this little rock which we call home.

Bajan Free Press

http://standardtimespress.net/cgi-bin/artman/publish/article_2598.shtml

Assets Declaration! Mr. President Must Take The Lead
Posted by on Jan 22, 2008, 18:30

Political statements by politicians, leaders and presidents are considered as commitment and point of reference in making a thorough assessment of these people. A politician is as good as his words and as good as his performance. Although, Hegel, a political Philosopher once said that there is no morality in politics, that doesn’t mean a politician should not keep to his promises.

It is based on most of these promises that votes are cast and political victory achieved, but when these promises are not fulfilled or adhered to, the obvious conclusion is that politicians are a group of liars who are out to take from the people and give them nothing in return. It is against such background that politicians should be honest to the people. For gone are those days, according to John Locke when the people are living in a world of shadows, for it is not only a world full of deceptions, but one that is non-existent.

The real world is packed full of actions, surprises, shocks and many others, where one is not sandwiched by caves with light depicting human shadows. The government of President Ernest Koroma is not one that is tied or sandwiched in caves, but one made up of men and women with visible identities. That is why, in the estimation of the people who voted, the government in power should be able to keep to its promises in the interest of transparency and accountability.

When a government or organization operates in an opaque situation, disaster becomes imminent as the resources of the people are converted to the benefit of the politicians or organization. The expectation of the people is not to witness a government that employs fraudulent methods to take from the people. It should be borne in the minds of the politicians that they are servants of the people and not masters; therefore they should be able to make known to them what their assets are prior to their entrance into governance.

In view of this, the President should take the lead in declaring his assets to the people whose mandate to rule he now enjoys. Effective governance cannot be accomplished when the President refuses or euphemistically put, “forget to declare his assets”.

It would be recalled that sometime ago, the then Commissioner of the Anti Corruption Commission, Mr. Val Collier demanded from Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament a declaration exercise of their assets. The mere pronouncement of this exercise put the officials in a state of jittery and developed hatred from them of the then Commissioner. The unfortunate episode was that he did not take the lead in declaring his assets, prior to the pronouncement.

However, the current situation may be different in the sense that Mr. Abdul Tejan Cole has already washed his hands off from his private practice and law firm. This is giving a semblance of serious business in the making. It is a known fact that Mr. Abdul Tejan Cole is not a rich man but somebody very content with the little resources he was able to accumulate all these years. Certainly, Members of Parliament, Ministers, Commissioners and Heads of Parastatals are looking forward to see an example from the President who should come out and tell the people, especially the masses that while he was an Insurance executive whether he was able to acquire a house(s) and a number of other properties.

His financial background one would not wish to comment, but the fact remains undisputable that much is expected to be displayed by the President to satisfy the demands of the people.

If the President can boldly take the lead to break the myth and declare his assets; it would go down on record as the first President to declare his assets, but if on the other hand he decides to follow the footsteps of his predecessors, it would be a continuation of the bad precedent already set by leaders of this nation.

Morally, President Koroma would have no foundation or legitimate right to request from his juniors to declare their assets when he has not done so himself. He should be the pace setter this time round so that Sierra Leone would be a country where transparency and accountability takes premium and not a nation-state where the activities continue to be shrouded in secrecy and doubt.

The age of doubt and secrecy are long gone. The 21st century demands an open book, which everyone can read and make assessment of those in authority. Officials of the last government did ugly things such as enriching and acquiring so much wealth at the expense of the poor tax payers. Some operated and maintained up to this day foreign bank accounts, and other assets leaving the people in abject poverty. This government should operate in a more transparent manner for the benefit of the people and not the governors.

Politics should not be perceived as an avenue of money making or accumulation of property, but the right to serve the people and change their living standards. Mr. President, the earlier the better for you to declare your assets before time runs out, political promises must be fulfilled. Take the lead now for the benefit of your people and maintain your credibility.

St. Lucia anxious to join Caribbean Court of Justice

Bajan Free Press is delighted to receive this news from St. Lucia that the government there is “anxious” to join the Caribbean Court of Justice.

As far as we are concerned, there is no place for the British Privy Council in the affairs of independent Caribbean nations. These remaining vestiges of slavery and colonialism must be removed from our region.

The Father of Independence of Barbados summed it up most eloquently some 42 years ago…

“My government, I assure you, sir, will not be found loitering on colonial premises after closing time.” – Errol Barrow, Address to the Barbados Constitutional Conference in London, July 1966.

So come on St. Lucia and join Barbados and Guyana as we make our mark for maturity.

Bajan Free Press

http://www.cbc.bb/content/view/13947/45/

St Lucia to join CCJ
Friday, 25 January 2008
Prime Minister Stephenson King Thursday said his government is anxious to have the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) established as St Lucia’s final court as he attempted to clear the air on a previous statement made about the regional court.

In a press statement King explained that a recent comment made to the media in Dominica that the Privy Council had served St. Lucia well, has been interpreted by some to mean that St. Lucia is in no hurry to join the CCJ.

Speaking to reporters during an Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) summit last week, King said: “My government has always had the view, even when we were in opposition, that we should proceed cautiously with sub scri ption and participation in the CCJ … It simply means that as a new government there is need for cautious acceptance of the intention of the CCJ”.

However, in his statement released Thursday, King said St Lucia is anxious to have the CCJ constituted as the country’s final Court of Appeal but the constitution of St. Lucia provides for certain procedures to be followed, including parliamentary approval before this can be done.

“I wish to inform the public both here and abroad that my government has already commenced discussion on possible ways in which those constitutional requirements can be addressed so that the CCJ can become St. Lucia’s final Court of Appeal in civil and criminal matters in due course,” he noted.

King said that St. Lucia is already part of the CCJ and his government has taken no decision to the contrary.

“The fact is that St. Lucia has already signed on to the agreement establishing the CCJ which is based in Trinidad and Tobago.

“The CCJ functions as an international court with jurisdiction in relation to the interpretation of the treaty establishing the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and to decide on disputes that may arise between member states of CARICOM.

“This is the original jurisdiction of the CCJ, however, the institution does not yet have the second jurisdiction that is to serve as a final Court of Appeal in respect of civil and criminal matters. This implies that criminal appeals must still be referred to the Privy Council,” he noted.

King’s position, as outlined last week, had drawn condemnation from Opposition Leader Dr Kenny Anthony, whose administration was in office when the CCJ was established.

CMC

Laws Needed for Declaration of Political Donations and Expenses

There is no doubt that the election campaign leading up to 15 January 2008 was the most expensive one in the history of Barbados. We didn’t get the live debates but our eyes and ears were bombarded with a rich blitz of catchy radio jingles, posters, full page newspaper ads, t-shirts, cartoons, blogs, polls, television ads, concerts, YouTube videos, live webcasts of political meetings, huge billboards and tiny sticky notes. For this writer, my favourites were:

1. The BLP radio jingle “Bees Yes, Dems No… Tuh de polls, Leh we go!”

2. The hilarious DLP cartoon of Mia Mottley crushing Owen Arthur in the boxing ring.

3. The BLP TV ad of David Estwick shouting “We want POWA!”

4. The live webcast of political meetings on the BLP web site. (This deserves an entire article all on its own, so look out for it sometime soon.)

Election 2008 was truly a major leap forward in how election campaigns are conducted in Barbados. The experience was a very good one. The collective efforts of our two major political parties succeeded in getting the message out to people everywhere to come out and vote.

But one question remains unanswered… where did all this money come from?

There can be no doubt that MASSIVE amounts of money were spent by both the BLP and the DLP during the election campaign. Pollster Peter Wickham while speaking on one of the VOB radio call-in programs said that he estimated the rate of spending to be around $100,000 per day over a two week period. He furthermore voiced the opinion that the media houses in Barbados would never make public the amounts of money they received in advertising revenue from political ads.

The new DLP government has promised integrity legislation which would also include the declarations of assets by public officials, but that is not what this article is about. What Bajan Free Press believes Barbados needs now are laws which require all political parties to make publicly available not only every donation received but also every expense or payment made by political parties.

It is not sufficient to know that the BLP or DLP or PEP or PNC received $50 from John Doe on 27 January 2008 or $100,000 from XYZ Company Ltd. on 28 January 2008. We also need to know how the political parties SPENT the money they received. Then we would be able to see that the BLP paid $200 to Company A on 29 January 2008 for TV advertisements, and that the DLP paid $500 to Company B on 30 January 2008 for billboards, and that the PEP paid $1,000 to Company C on 31 January 2008 for posters. There should be one bank account set up for each political party, with the account numbers publicly known, allowing ordinary citizens to view the account details via the internet or even go into any commercial bank and pay a small fee to get a print out of all the transactions made between any two specified dates. With this high level of transparency we would be able to know who are the ones financing our political parties, and what are our political parties spending their money on. It would put an end to speculation such as whether or not Taiwan was donating money to the DLP, or what the $75,000 cheque written to Owen Arthur was used for, although under the new regulations all donations would have to be made into the bank account of the political party.

At present, we have no laws which enforce transparency and accountability, and this presents two big dangers. First there is nothing to alert the public about the buying of political influence by those with enough money to do so. Secondly, our politicians themselves are vulnerable to allegations which cannot be proven one way or another. One party alleges, another party denies, and at the end of the day we are none the wiser about the truthfulness of the allegations, in whole or in part. If politicians are truly the servants of the people, then they should not be allowed to hide anything from us. The introduction of legislation requiring the declaration of political donations and expenses by all political parties in Barbados would be a major leap forward for democracy in this country.

In May 2000, the Political Donations Act was passed by the parliament of Singapore, a progressive country with which we are often compared, even going back as far as Errol Barrow’s Mirror Image speech in 1986. We have added some information about the Singapore Political Donations Act as a model of what we should be aiming for at this stage in our country’s political development, and as usual we welcome any suggestions from our readers.

Bajan Free Press

http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=66

Introduction of the Political Donations Act

The Political Donations Act was passed by Parliament in May 2000. The Political Donations Act seeks to prevent foreign groups from interfering in domestic politics through donations to political associations, parliamentary election candidates and presidential election candidates. The Act prohibits political parties, organizations gazetted as political associations under the Act and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections from accepting donations from persons or bodies that are not permissible donors. It also requires political parties, organizations gazetted as political associations under the Act and election candidates to report large donations that they have received. The Act and its subsidiary legislation came into operation on 15 Feb 2001.

2nd Reading Speech by Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng

Date of Parliament Sitting: 22 May 2000

Political Donations Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

2. The Political Donations Bill seeks to prohibit donations to political parties, political associations, and candidates in parliamentary election or presidential elections by persons and bodies who are not permissible donors. It also requires political parties, associations and candidates to report large donations that they have received.

3. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an independent and sovereign country. Foreigners should not be allowed to interfere in our domestic politics. It is no more legitimate for foreigners to pay money to support a political association or candidate than it is for them to have the right to support the associations’ cause, or to vote for the candidate. Any Singaporean or organisation that allows himself or itself to be used by foreign elements, or collaborates or colludes with them to interfere in our internal affairs, is subverting the independence, integrity and sovereignty of the country. We must not allow this to happen. Politics in Singapore should be for Singaporeans only.

4. But Singapore is not immune to foreign interference. We have had to deal with interference in our domestic politics. In 1959, a Government Commission of Inquiry revealed that two sums of money totalling $700,000 were transferred from New York to Mr Chew Swee Kee, then Education Minister from the Singapore People’s Alliance, the ruling party led by Mr Lim Yew Hock, then Chief Minister. I think many young Singaporeans do not even know about this. The Inquiry revealed that the money was meant as a political gift to the Labour Front (and I quote the report) “for the purposes of fighting subversion in the colony” and “strengthening” the Labour Front “as an effective party and bulwark against communism.” Then in 1976, the Secretary-General of the People’s Front, Mr Leong Mun Kwai, who is still around today, revealed during Police’s investigations on the misappropriation of the People’s Front’s funds, that he was given financial assistance and made use of by a neighbouring intelligence service in a “black operation” against the interests of Singapore. A more recent case was in 1988, when a US diplomat interfered in Singapore’s domestic politics. The diplomat actively cultivated Mr Francis Seow. Mr Francis Seow was advised by the diplomat how to establish a more effective opposition in Parliament and to set about seriously to recruit more young professionals into the opposition. This is gross interference in Singapore’s domestic politics.

5. We should not condone such activities. Currently, we have no law prohibiting foreign funding of political parties, political associations and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections. This Bill seeks to put in place a legislative framework to prohibit such foreign funding.

6. Sir, Singapore is not the first country to introduce such legislation. Many countries, such as the United States, Canada, India, France, Japan, Germany, already have laws either prohibiting or regulating foreign political donations. Hong Kong and Taiwan also have similar laws. In South Korea, under their Political Fund Act, foreigners and foreign corporations, except foreign corporations and organisations under the control of nationals of the Republic of Korea, are not allowed to contribute political funds to any party. The UK also has recently introduced a “Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill”, which amongst others, aims to regulate political donations. It is therefore timely for Singapore to introduce controls against foreign funding. We have studied the various examples in other countries and generally adapted the UK Bill to suit our local context.

Overview

7. Let me now give an overview of what our Political Donations Bill would cover, before highlighting the main clauses of the Bill.

8. The Bill aims to prohibit political parties, political associations and candidates from accepting donations from foreign sources by treating these as impermissible. Political parties, political associations and candidates are allowed to accept donations, so long as these come from permissible sources. Similar to the approach taken in the UK Bill, we have chosen to define who is a permissible source or who the permissible donors are because it is easier to define who is permissible rather than who is impermissible. Any donations other than those from the defined permissible sources would constitute impermissible donations. If political parties, associations or candidates receive any donations from impermissible sources, they would have to return the donation to the donor. If they are unable to do so, they would have to surrender the donation to the Government’s Consolidated Fund. Political parties and associations and candidates would also be required to report large donations, to ensure that they keep proper records of these donations.

Who does the prohibition cover?

9. There are three groups of people who will be covered by the prohibition against foreign funding. Firstly, all political parties, such as the People’s Action Party, the Singapore People’s Party, the Workers’ Party, and other political parties registered with the Registry of Societies will be covered by the definition of “political association” in clause 2 of the Bill. They would not be allowed to accept foreign donations.

10. Secondly, candidates of any parliamentary or presidential elections and their election agents would also be covered by the prohibition. The prohibition would apply to both candidates fielded by political parties as well as independent candidates. The prohibition against foreign funding applies whether or not the candidates are successfully returned.

11. It is clear why registered political parties and candidates should be covered by the prohibition – they contest in elections, and if elected, can influence the policies and political process in Parliament. They can even form the government if they have the majority in Parliament. The election agent is responsible for all campaign funds (under the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Acts) of the candidate. It is therefore logical that the election agent is also covered by the prohibition on foreign donations.

12. The third group covers any organisation, regardless of whether the organisation is registered as a society, a business or a company, so long as its objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, and it is gazetted as a political association under the Bill. To leave out such organisations from the Bill would present a loophole for foreign interests to interfere in our domestic politics. Although the organisation’s activities or objects may not be directed at procuring a candidate for election into Parliament or as President, it can accept foreign donations, promote a particular political platform and influence the political process, but in the interest of its foreign donor. This should not be allowed. The Straits Times, in a recent article on 13th May, “Regulating the flow of money in politics” highlighted an example where a political party in a foreign country is under investigation for allegedly “setting up non-profit organisations that channelled large contributions from foreign donors”. Also, in Business Times, on 10th May, and in fact, in today’s Straits Times, in reports focusing on the political donations laws in the US and other countries, highlighted the controversy on the use of “soft money” for purposes like “party-building” and “discussion of national policy issues”, which are not directly for election purposes. Indeed, to confine politics to just contesting in elections and electioneering for candidates would leave out organisations who accept or make use of money from foreign sources to seek to change our laws or policies, or decisions of the Government. We have little control over activities and spending by organisations unconnected with candidates or parties during an election. Foreign groups can, through such unconnected organisations, influence local politics. Surely, this cannot be allowed. Such organisations should therefore be subject to the prohibition from accepting foreign donations.

13. The expression “relates wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore” in the Bill is not new. This is adapted from our Films Act. Further, a similar expression – “wholly or mainly of a political nature”, can be found in the UK Broadcasting Act 1990, and has already been subject to interpretation by the UK Courts. As regards political activity, we would be taking into account whether:
(a) the activity is intended or would likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or
(b) the activity is, for example:

1. an election or a national referendum in Singapore;
2. a candidate or group of candidates in election;
3. an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or national referendum in Singapore;
4. the government or a previous government or the opposition to a Member of Parliament;
5. the current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore;
6. or a political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any such branch of such party or body.

To define “politics” and “relate wholly or mainly to politics” as referring to “elections or electioneering activities” only as proposed by some civil society groups is therefore too narrow. All we need to do is to read the Washington Post article as reported in the Straits Times of 18th May this year and in it, there are details on certain groups, although they claim that they are not electioneering, not campaigning for political party or activity or candidate, who are actually influencing the cause of the activities of the candidates or parties.

14. To ensure transparency, the Bill empowers the Minister to gazette such an organisation as a political association for the purpose of the new law and be subject to the prohibition against foreign funding. Such an approach ensures that organisations would be fully aware that, if they are gazetted as a political association, they are prohibited from accepting donations from impermissible sources. If they are not gazetted, then they are not required to follow the requirements of this Bill.

15. In deciding whether to gazette any organisation as a political association, the Minister would have to consider carefully all relevant factors, such as its objects and activities, its links with foreign organisations, and the support it receives from such foreign organisations.

Permissible donors

16. Under clauses 8 and 14 of the Bill, political associations and candidates are only allowed to accept donations from permissible sources.

17. All Singapore citizens, who are at least 21 years old, and all Singapore-controlled companies, are considered permissible donors. A Singapore-controlled company refers to a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, and the majority of its directors and members are citizens. All other sources would be considered foreign in nature and deemed impermissible.

18. Naturally, Singaporeans, who have attained the age of maturity of 21 years old and above, should be permissible donors. Singapore companies are allowed to make political donations, as they are our corporate citizens, and should have an interest in Singapore’s well being. After all, political stability is a key fundamental for economic growth, and provides the environment for businesses to flourish.

19. Unincorporated organisations are not permissible donors. Political associations and candidates therefore cannot accept donations from these organisations. Unincorporated associations include trade unions, societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations, businesses, professional firms and so on. Trade unions, societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations are set up for specific purposes. As it is now, most if not all of these associations are already prohibited from making political donations under their respective Acts or constitutions. Sole proprietors, partnerships and professional firms have no separate legal identities from their owners. That is to say, the profits and losses of the business are the profits and losses of the individual owners. Hence, if they wish to make donations, they should do so as individuals, as long as they are Singaporeans and are 21 years old and above.

Anonymous donations

20. The Bill allows a political association to accept anonymous donations of less than $5,000 in any one financial year of the association. Candidates can also accept up to a similar amount of anonymous donations during the period of 12 months prior to his declaration made before nomination day. This is to take into account that some well-wishers may wish to remain anonymous in making donations to political associations or candidates. We have chosen a reasonable limit of $5,000 to strike a balance between allowing well-wishers to make small anonymous donations and not opening up a loophole for significant foreign donations to slip through as anonymous donations.

What is a donation?

21. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill deal with the definition of donations and how the donations are valued. These provisions are adapted from the UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Donations are defined broadly to include all goods or services, such as any gifts of money or property, subscription and affiliation fees, loans, property, services and other facilities provided to the candidate or political association that are not on commercial terms. For example, if the goods or services are rendered to a political association at less than commercial rates, the value of the donation would be the difference between the actual cost to the association and the cost which the association would have incurred if it had been provided on commercial terms.

22. Donations would not include any notional benefits of airtime during lawful party political broadcasts, or any postage-free elections communications authorized by written law. These benefits are granted by or pursuant to our written laws, and would not be considered as donations.

23. Like the UK Bill, donations would also not include any voluntary services by an individual. It is neither practical nor feasible to put a value to voluntary services. For example, if an individual contributes, in his own time, professional services within his own sphere of expertise, such as accounting expertise, to a political party, this service would not be regarded as a donation. He could be self-employed, or he could take leave from his employer to provide his service to the political party. As long as he volunteers his services in his own time, it would not be regarded as a donation. However, if the individual is paid by his employer while providing services to a political party, the services would count as a donation by the employer to the political party. The value of the donation is the commercial rate of providing the services.

What should a political party or a candidate do upon receiving a donation?

24. Clauses 9 and 15 of the Bill require every political association or candidate or his election agent to take all reasonable steps to identify the donor and to determine whether the donor is a permissible donor before accepting any donation received.

25. If the donation is from an impermissible source, the political association, candidate or his election agent must return the donation to the foreign source. If that cannot be done, the donation must be returned to the person who transmitted the donation or to the bank, if the money was drawn from a bank. If that is also not possible, the donation must be surrendered to the Registrar of Political Donations.

26. If a political association receives an anonymous donation, it must ensure that it has not accepted $5,000 or more of such donations in the year in question. Any anonymous donations above the allowed limit must be returned either to the person who transmitted it or the bank, or in the last resort, surrender it to the Registrar. Similar provisions operate with regard to candidates and election agents receiving anonymous donations.

Reporting of Donations

27. Sir, the Bill provides for political associations and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections to submit a donation report and a declaration on political donations to the Registrar of Political Donations.

28. By requiring a declaration to be submitted with a donation report, it would obviate the need for the political associations to list all donations, which would be administratively tedious. The declaration would state that the political association or candidate did not accept any foreign donations as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit, ie, less than $5,000. Political associations and candidates need to list only large donations of $10,000 or above in the donation report. This reporting requirement ensures that political associations and candidates keep proper records of the donations which they receive.

29. Let me elaborate on the reporting requirements.

Political Associations

30. Sir, clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill require political associations to submit a donation report and a declaration to the Registrar within 31 days from the close of its financial year. This is similar to current practice whereby political parties are already required under the Societies Act to submit their annual returns and statement of accounts to the Registrar of Societies within 31 days from the close of their financial year or the Annual General Meeting, if there is one.

31. The political association should list in the donation report all donations of $10,000 or more, whether it is a single donation, or a series of donations from the same source, which adds up to $10,000 or more during that financial year. For example, if the political association accepts three donations from the same individual donor, and the three donations add up to more than $10,000 in the financial year, the political association should also record this series of donations in the donation report.

32. The political association would also have to submit a declaration with the donation report that it has not received any donations from impermissible sources, as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit of $5,000.

33. The president, the secretary and the treasurer are responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the report. The president, the secretary and the treasurer are the key officers of a political association, and should therefore be responsible for the political donations. They have to ensure that the donation report and the declaration are submitted on time, and declare that the donation report is complete and accurate.

Candidates

34. Sir, clause 18 of the Bill requires every person who intends to take part in any parliamentary or Presidential election to submit to the Registrar a similar donation report and declaration. The donation report and declaration are to be made after the issue of the writ of election, and sent to the Registrar of Political Donations at least two clear days before Nomination Day.

35. The donation report and declaration by a prospective candidate are similar to those by a political association. That is, the prospective candidate must list in the donation report all single donations of $10,000 or more, and any series of donations from the same permissible source which adds up to $10,000 or more, for the year prior to his declaration. He would state in the accompanying declaration that the donation report is accurate and complete, and that he has not accepted donations from impermissible sources as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit of $5,000. Thereafter, the Registrar would issue a political donation certificate to the candidate.

36. The candidate is then required to submit the political donation certificate, together with his other papers required for nomination purposes, to the Returning Officer on Nomination Day. The nomination of his candidacy would only be accepted if he can present the political donation certificate together with his nomination papers and other legal requirements.

37. After the election, the candidate and his election agent would be required to submit to the Registrar within 31 days of the declaration of election results, a second donation report and declaration. This second report and declaration are similar to the first declaration and donation report, except that it covers the period from the time of the first report to the time of the second report. This second report is necessary, as in practice the candidate is likely to receive donations during this second period, when he is campaigning for the elections.

Donors

38. Clause 21 of the Bill requires donors of “multiple small donations” to political associations, which add up to $10,000 or more in a calendar year, to report to the Registrar. This is a counter-evasion measure. It helps the Registrar to keep track of small multiple donations that add up to a significant amount of $10,000 within a short period of one year. The reporting requirement will also lessen the tedious task of verifying such donations. A donor would not need to declare if the total donation is less than $10,000 in a calendar year. He also would not need to declare if he made a single donation, or a few donations, each of which is $10,000 or more. In this case, the political association should have captured these donations in the donation report. A similar requirement can also be found in the UK Bill.

Reports Not Open to Public Inspection

39. The donation reports submitted to the Registrar of Political Donations would not be open to the public. Allowing public inspection of the donation reports could inhibit permissible donors from donating to political associations or candidates.

40. As it is now, political parties, like all other registered societies, are required to submit annual returns and statement of accounts to the Registrar of Societies and these annual returns and statement of accounts are also not available for public inspection.

Offences

41. Let me now turn to the offences under the Bill.

42. Sir, under this Bill, accepting foreign donations per se would not be an offence. Instead, the foreign donations would just be forfeited if they are not or cannot be returned to the donor. Clauses 11 and 17 of the Bill enable the Public Prosecutor to apply to a District Court to order the forfeiture of a donation from an impermissible source which a political association or a candidate or his election agent has accepted. Clauses 11 and 17 also provide for appeals to the High Court against the decision of the District Court.

43. Each of the responsible officers of a political association or a candidate or his election agent would commit an offence if any of them makes a false declaration in relation to political donations. For example, if a political association accepts a foreign donation but the declaration accompanying the donation report declares otherwise, each of the responsible officers would have committed an offence of false declaration, unless he can show that he did not know and could not reasonably have known that the declaration was false. This is reasonable since the political association is in the best position to know the circumstances under which the donations were received.

44. If convicted of false declaration, then each of the responsible officers of the political association would be liable to a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or to both. Repeat offenders would face higher penalties – a fine not exceeding $20,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or to both.

45. Under the Bill, it would be an offence if political associations and candidates and their election agents do not submit the donation reports and declaration within the stipulated time, for example, for the political association, it would be within 31 days from the close of the association’s financial year. If convicted, each of the responsible officers of the political association would be liable to a fine of up to $2,000.

46. Clause 23 of the Bill makes it an offence for a person to facilitate the evasion of the restrictions on impermissible donations. For example, if an individual, who is a permissible donor, accepts money from an impermissible donor and donates the money to a political association to circumvent the prohibition, the person would have committed an offence. He would be liable upon conviction to a fine of not more than $3,000, or to imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or to both.

47. Clause 30 of the Bill makes it an offence to alter, suppress or destroy any document he is required to produce to the Registrar, with a view to evade the provisions of the Bill.

48. Clause 27 of the Bill empowers the Registrar to compound any offence under the Act. This provides the flexibility for the Registrar to offer composition of not more than $500 for the less serious offences. Offences which carry a mental element, such as false declaration of donations, facilitating in the evasion of the restrictions on impermissible donations, would not be made compoundable. As per normal practice, the compoundable offences would be prescribed by regulations.

Consequential Amendments

49. Finally, clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill make related amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act. A prospective candidate would have to deliver to the Returning Officer, together with his nomination papers on nomination day, a political donation certificate issued by the Registrar of Political Donations. If he fails to do so, his nomination would be rendered void and may be rejected.

Conclusion

50. Sir, this Bill aims to keep foreign interference out of our domestic political process. It does not prevent political associations and candidates from accepting donations, so long as the donations are from Singaporeans or Singapore-controlled companies.

51. In drafting the Bill, we have kept the framework as simple as possible. No doubt, the associations would have to put in some effort to account for the donations that they receive. But this small effort would go a long way in upholding the independence and integrity of our political process. I have made such a long speech to explain this because I think it is necessary for Members to have a clear understanding of the Bill.

52. Sir, I beg to move.

Last updated on 16 Jun 2007

New DLP Government says China Yes! Taiwan No!

The cloud of speculation over whether or not it there would be a time for change in Barbados’ foreign policy towards China and Taiwan has been lifted by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business Christopher Sinckler.

And the answer is… China Yes! Taiwan No!

Bajan Free Press

http://www.nationnews.com/story/290834155025612.php

One-China stand
Published on: 1/24/08.

by RICKEY SINGH

NO!

That’s the firm answer from Barbados to the possibility of any diplomatic tango between this country and Taiwan.

The Government of Prime Minister David Thompson is sticking with Barbados’ long established “One-China” policy and will maintain diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, established 31 years ago.

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Business Christopher Sinckler made this position clear in a brief interview with the DAILY NATION.

Questioned whether the recent cabled congratulations from the Taiwanese foreign ministry after the Democratic Labour Party’s (DLP) electoral victory on January 15 suggested a developing relationship with Taiwan that could result in diplomatic ties, Sinckler shot down such a possibility in one word – no.

The Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP) had made as one of its major political planks during the election campaign allegations of Taiwan’s funding of the DLP in exchange for establishing diplomatic ties with the administration in Taipei.

Thompson, however, denied any such funding deal with Taiwan, as raised by former Prime Minister and Barbados Labour Party leader Owen Arthur.

Thompson dismissed the allegation in advertisements and from campaign platforms as a “political red herring”.

Sinckler, a former head of the Barbadian-based Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC), a regional network of non-governmental organisations, was himself emphatic in distancing the DLP from any “deal with Taiwan”.

As general secretary of the DLP, he said in a televised pre-election panel discussion on CBC TV that at no time did any discussion take place for funding from Taiwan; no money was ever requested or received and no such arrangement was being contemplated.

In one of its special publications for the campaign, Election Record of January 7, the BLP had charged under the headline Thompson Exposed, that “the Democratic Labour Party is funding its campaign with money from the government of Taiwan, on the condition that if it wins next week’s election, the Dems will break diplomatic relations with China . . .”.

Thompson makes right move on CSME

It was good to hear prime minister David Thompson speak out in support of CSME and advise Barbadians about the opportunities it offers.

The future of Barbados is inextricably linked to the future of the Caribbean region of which we are a part. Barbados has long been a leading player in the English-speaking Caribbean and there are significant benefits to be gained for this country and its people within a fully functional CSME.

Bajan Free Press

http://www.nationnews.com/story/342967839781842.php 

Thompson pushing CSME
Published on: 1/25/08.

PRIME MINISTER DAVID THOMPSON has given his commitment that the new Democratic Labour Party (DLP) Government will take a lead role in the move toward a CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).

And he wants the private sector to play a pivotal part in the process.

“The Single Market and Economy relies heavily on the private sector because it is essentially an economic agreement between member states,” the Prime Minister told businessmen attending the Barbados Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Savannah Hotel on Wednesday.

As such, he said, the private sector in Barbados needed to seize the opportunities that would come with the emergence of a Single Market and Economy.

“Just let Government know what you need to do this,” Thompson said. “I need to know from you what has been working and where we can improve as a nation that is open for regional business.”

In terms of trade, the Prime Minister recognised that reliable air transport remained a major challenge and was a “serious impediment” to all commercial activity.

In this regard, he said, Government, as a major shareholder in the regional air carrier LIAT, would do all in its power to address the problems faced by the airline.

That apart, he urged businessmen to work with Government to make the Single Economy a reality.

“As I understand it, the Heads of Government recently agreed to a 2015 deadline for the completion of the Single Economy within CARICOM,” he said.

“Many persons question these deadlines due to the continued postponements, but it is imperative for all to understand that CARICOM is composed
of sovereign states . . . which naturally assess their individual readiness before assuming complex obligations.”

But, he explained, in the changing global environment, the region had to put aside its differences and form a cohesive bloc. (CG)

http://www.cbc.bb/content/view/13923/10/

PM: Barbados will honour CARICOM commitments 
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Prime Minister David Thompson Wednesday hinted that his administration will not support a LIAT monopoly in air transportation as he assured regional neighbours that Barbados will honour all of its Caribbean Community (CARICOM) commitments.

Thompson, whose Democratic Labour Party (DLP) swept to power in last Tuesday’s general election, said the free movement of certain category of nationals under the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is becoming more difficult as a result of the air turbulence being experienced.

He said the difficulties being experienced in air transportation are proving to be a serious impediment to all commercial activity, especially tourism.

“It is difficult to reconcile our integration efforts with what is unfolding before us daily in terms of the costs of transportation and options for travel. As a private sector I am sure you have your own responses to an obvious heavy demand for a service which is short in supply and inefficient.

“As a major shareholder in the regional airline LIAT, my government will do all within its power to address the problems which persist in the regional airline industry but since travel is the lifeblood of CARICOM, we cannot put all of our eggs in one basket,” Thompson told members of the private sector.

The new Prime Minister, who assumes responsibility for the CSME in the CARICOM quasi-Cabinet, also told over 200 businessmen gathered for a Barbados Chamber of Commerce function that while the new government fully supports the regional integration movement it will seek to carefully analyse policies to ensure there are in the country’s interest.

“We intend to address each aspect of free movement of CARICOM nationals carefully to assure all concerned that both national and individual interests are taken into consideration.

“Barbados’ legal commitments under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas will continue to be honoured. This is a law-abiding country and it is expected that all visitors to our country will uphold our laws as well,” he told over

Telling the businessmen that “Barbados’ success is CARICOM’s success and CARICOM’s success is Barbados’ success”, the Prime Minister said local companies and entrepreneurs stand to reap benefits from a well-managed CSME once they apply themselves.

“It is often said that with the CSME comes added opportunities. It is for you to seize the opportunities before others do. I will go further and ask, what can your government do to help you access such opportunities? How can government best help you strengthen your capacity to benefit from CSME …

“We must act decisively. We have to display a maturity that grasps the opportunities as they arise and rejects outright those options which do not comply with our development agenda,” he added.

CMC

Errol Barrow Speech: Friends of All, Satellites of None

Bajan Free Press is pleased to present another speech by Errol Barrow, when the Father of our Independence addressed the United Nations in December 1966. It was from this speech that the famous phrase emerged: “We will be friends of all, satellites of none.”

Please see full speech below.

Bajan Free Press

Friends of All; Satellites of None

Address to the United Nations, on the occasion of the admission of Barbados to membership of the UN, December 1966.

Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Distinguished Delegates,

Humility must be the most appropriate feeling for the leader of a state admitted to membership of this illustrious assembly on the basis of sovereign equality.

The people of Barbados, even before their emergence into nationhood, have always tried, not without some success, to arrange their affairs in accordance with the principles of this Charter to which I have, in their name, subscribed their unstinted allegiance. Despite the limitation of their territory, the paucity of their numbers, the slenderness of their resources, the inhibiting atmosphere of three centuries of colonialism, they have provided for themselves stable political institutions and economic activities which will better stimulate their future development.

In their name, we wish to thank the governments of the Argentine, Britain, New Zealand, Nigeria and Uganda for their prompt and generous sponsorship of our country. We also thank the distinguished delegates here assembled for the warm and courteous greeting accorded to our delegation. We should like to record our profound appreciation to all the distinguished members of the Security Council for the alacrity with which they processed our application to make it possible for us to secure membership in the same year that we achieved nationhood.

The people of Barbados do not draw a dividing line between their internal affairs and their foreign policy. They strive in their domestic arrangements to create a just society for themselves. In their Constitution, they affirm respect for the Rule of Law; they also declare their intention to establish and maintain the kind of society which enables each citizen, to the full extent of his capacity, to play his part in the national life; they further resolve that their economic system, as it develops, must be equitably administered and enjoyed and that undeviating recognition should be paid to ability, integrity and merit.

In thus charting our domestic course, we can have no interest in a foreign policy which contradicts our national goals. On the contrary, we will support genuine efforts at world peace because our society is stable. We will strenuously assist the uprooting of vestigial imperialisms because our institutions are free. We will press for the rapid economic growth of all underdeveloped countries because we are busily engaged in building up our own. In fine, our foreign and domestic policies are the obverse and reverse sides of a single coin.

We have devised the kind of foreign policy which is consistent with our national situation and which is also based on the current realities of international politics.

We have no quarrels to pursue and we particularly insist that we do not regard any member states as our natural opponent. We shall not involve ourselves in sterile ideological wranglings because we are exponents not of the diplomacy of power, but of the diplomacy of peace and prosperity. We will not regard any great power as necessarily right in a given dispute unless we are convinced of this, yet at the same time we will not view the great powers with perennial suspicion merely on account of their size, their wealth, or their nuclear potential. We will be friends of all, satellites of none.

A disquieting feature of the world situation is the frequent allusion made to the alleged proliferation of small states in the Assembly. Attempts are made from time to time to devise schemes to give the larger countries more voting power in the Assembly. The principle of ‘one state one vote’ whereby all member states are equal under the Charter, is becoming unfashionable and the proponents of the new theory wish to render some states more equal than others.

The General Assembly should know that the Barbados Delegation will not support any formula based on such a preposterous bit of special pleading. To accept it even for the narrow purposes of discussion at any time, would be to connive at the negation of democratic principle. The whole basis on which this organisation rests, is that of equal sovereignty. If size, wealth or capacity to destroy mankind were the basis for membership, the organisation would not exist in its present form and its Security Council would consist of a mere handful of mutually suspicious countries.

It seems strange to small countries to find their equality challenged by these mutterings of discontent with the form of the Charter. Perhaps the mightier nations genuinely fear that their influence will be swamped in the majority of votes now recorded in this Assembly. This fear can only be real if the mighty are pursuing aims inimical to the interests of the smaller ones. So long as their own national interests and their international commitments can be identified with those of the small countries, they have no reason to fear the admission of small states to this Assembly. Democratic countries owe the stability of their institutions to the participation of the masses in the political life of their countries. In like manner, the emergence of small states into full sovereignty increases the chances of peace.

Even in this distinguished Assembly, it is not always, or not fully, appreciated that the tensions of the cold war have been lessened by the mere existence of nearly forty newly independent states in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. United Nations opinion is now more often to be found in Delhi, Addis Ababa and Port-of-Spain than it is in London, Moscow and Washington. No longer is there that unique and frightening confrontation of rival power blocs staring and scuffling with each other in the ruins of their respective policies. The independent countries of Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the other uncommitted countries are making, by their existence alone, an outstanding contribution to international stability.

If the larger countries wish to earn or to retain the confidence and respect of small nations, there will have to be a rapid change of values. They must no longer enjoy squatters’ rights in the volume and arrangement of world trade. New concepts of distribution and exchange will have to be worked out, because emergent countries will no longer be content to be hewers of wood and drawers of water while the wealth of the world flows past them into the coffers of some twenty countries.

In a world population of some 2,400,000,000, only 375,000,000 (or slightly less than one-sixth) enjoy the best standards of living. In another segment of the world population, some 425,000,000 (or slightly more than one-sixth) enjoy fairly tolerable standards of living. The remainder of mankind, some 1,600,000,000 souls in Asia, Africa, South Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, sweat out their lives in unremitting poverty, without the tools of modern production, with meagre educational facilities, with little expertise in the arts of public administration, with driblets of financial and technical assistance, with a population explosion and with a cataract of gratuitous advice on how to govern themselves.

The stark reality of the international situation is not the possibility of nuclear destruction, but the certainty of dissolution if this mass misery continues beyond this current decade. When 65 per cent of the world’s population can enjoy only 19 per cent of the world’s wealth, a diplomacy based on power cannot withstand the explosive anger of upheaval based on poverty. Two-thirds of the world’s people do not fear a nuclear holocaust because they literally have nothing to live for. The irony of their situation is that they hold the key to the world’s prosperity, but that the doors are bolted against them by the participants of prosperity.

This is the background, distinguished delegates, against which my small country enters upon its international obligations. It belongs to the submerged two-thirds of the world. It sees no hope for itself or for its companions in misery except in the efforts made in this Assembly to work out with speed, the new conditions of human progress. The Barbados delegation pays its tribute to the specialised agencies of this body for the solid contribution made both in the past and now, to human well-being in many parts of the globe. But this delegation nevertheless feels that the eradication of world poverty is a function which cannot be discharged by delegation, but must engage the United Nations at their highest levels.

The obligation laid on the Security Council to preserve world peace ought to be amplified by an equally solemn commitment to prevent world poverty. It is not a coincidence that the explosive areas of the world are precisely those areas in which ignorance and poverty most abound.

Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Distinguished Delegates,

The people of Barbados will support and uphold the efforts of this organisation to the limit of their moral and physical resources and would wish to record their profound gratitude to the Assembly for this first great privilege of expressing their hopes and aspirations for the unity and progress of mankind. They would best sum up their attitude to this moment of their history in the words of Mr. ‘Valiant for Truth’, and interesting character in John Bunyan’s famous book:

‘Though with much difficulty I have got hither,
‘Yet do I not repent me of the trouble I have taken.’

Too many Guyanese? How the Panama Canal transformed Barbados.

In recent years Barbados has seen an influx of Guyanese workers coming to this country. Some are here legally and some are here illegally. Some are black and some are Indian. With Barbados being a predominantly black majority country, the black Guyanese immigrant (like any black Caribbean person who travels to another Caribbean country) is not as easily noticeable as his (or her) lighter-skinned and straighter-haired fellow citizen. There can be no denial that the presence of these newcomers has created some level of unease and discomfort among the native Barbadian population. The view is frequently expressed that there are “too many Guyanese” in Barbados. It is hoped that a future article will focus on that issue, even if only to explain why the children of these immigrants will all become “true-true” Bajans. This article, however, is not about race relations in Barbados. It is about history… our Bajan history.

The reasons why there are so many Guyanese in Barbados today are largely economic. People will migrate to where the money is. And 100 years ago, in the same way that Guyanese are flocking to Barbados to look for work today, black Bajans were leaving this island in their numbers to work on the Panama Canal.

Did you know that between 1904 and 1914, one-third of the Barbadian population, or approximately 60,000 people, were estimated to be working in Panama?

Many young Barbadians (as well as some not so young) remain unaware of how the construction of the Panama Canal some 100 years ago transformed Barbados. There are still a number of older Bajans who remember those days. Please read the selected excerpts below to understand the linkage between the Panama Canal and the gradual but steady shift in economic control from whites to blacks in Barbados.

This is one story which must be told because we as a people must never forget where we came from, what we went through, and how we got what we have today.

Read your history below and think about it very carefully. And try and remember it whenever you see another Guyanese person trying to make a living in Barbados.

Bajan Free Press

Escritos Historicos de Panama

http://www.alonsoroy.com/aroy/book01_01_03.html

Construction took on a new impetus, as did the increase in the number of workers, which was estimated at 24,000 by end of 1906.

Of this number, which represented almost every nation in the world, the great majority were blacks from Barbados–contrary to the popular belief that the Jamaicans were the majority.

Bygone Barbados – Ann Watson Yates – ISBN: 976-8077-64-6

Thousands of Barbadians emigrated to work on the construction of the Panama Canal. Between 1904 and 1914, one-third of the Barbadian population, or approximately 60,000 people, were estimated to be working there. The Canal was constructed between 1880 and 1914 as a vital facility for increased international trade. The Canal saved ships from having to sail thousands of miles through treacherous seas around Cape Horn (the furthest point south on the South American continent.)

The workers were employed by the United States-controlled Isthmian Canal Commission and theirs was a life of hard work, most of it done with a pick and a shovel. The conditions were very poor, the workers suffered discrimination and a high death rate from accidents and disease, especially yellow fever. In spite of all this, they were able to earn higher wages than in Barbados, and some survived to return home with money to buy houses, land and businesses. This enabled their families to be independent of the plantation system, but more importantly it allowed many to qualify for the right to vote. The franchise which allowed this was based on property ownership and income, among other things, and these newly qualified people would start to change Barbadian politics forever.

Two-thirds of the workers did not return to Barbados; many settled in Cuba, the United States and Canada; some stayed in Panama where they form a unique addition to that population. The real work on the Canal started during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and on a visit to Barbados in 1913, he publicly thanked the Barbadians for their help in its construction, emphasizing the service it would render to mankind in general.

A History of Barbados – Hilary Beckles – ISBN: 0-521-35879-5

Panama Money and Migrants

Emigration had long been conceived by the worker as a major strategy for socio-economic betterment. The economic depression of the late nineteenth century, however, had the effect of expanding significantly that pool of potential migrants. But the emigration outlet that irrevocably changed Barbados and widened the horizons for the black Barbadian appeared in 1904. In that year, the United States renewed the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Panama. Labour was required, and Barbadian male workers having never experienced employment on a large scale in a non-agricultural sector, saw the opportunity to reject sugar planters and plantations, and pursue an autonomous path. When, in 1905, the Panama Canal Agency established a labour recruitment office in Bridgetown, it was obvious that persuasion was not necessary.

The initial reaction of sugar planters was that the surplus unemployed labour was being siphoned off the economy which could only lead to better labour relations. By the end of 1906, however, their vision had changed as the flow of migrants was unexpectedly large and eroding their labour supply. The steamers which sailed between Bridgetown and Colon had taken over 10,000 by the beginning of 1908, and by 1914, at least 20,000 men had been contracted and had departed for the canal. it was the largest wave of black migration in the colony’s history, and the impact upon economy and society was considerable. It has been estimated that the total number of non-contracted and contracted migrants amounted to 45,000, in spite of legislative attempts to contain it in 1904 and 1907. The censuses show that between 1911 and 1921 the island’s population fell from 171,983 to 156,312, a decrease of some 15,671. Though many factors contributed to this net reduction, there can be no doubt that the Panama emigration was the chief cause.

The migration opportunity was undoubtedly seen by blacks as a chance finally to cast off the yoke of plantation domination. J. Challenor Lynch, for instance, reported to the Legislative Council that before boarding, blacks would abuse whites and aggressively denounce them. It was also considered, by those who wanted to stay behind, as an instrument to strengthen their hand on the labour market in bargaining for better wages. Bonham Richardson has recalled that labourers would chant the following song during industrial disputes.

We want more wages, we want it now,

And if we don’t get it, we going to Panama

Yankees say they want we down there.

We want more wages, we want it now.

Whereas the drastic reduction of male labourers on the estates should have led to wage increases, planters were able to prevent this by employing women to do what had become ‘men’s work’ at wages below what men generally obtained. As a result, wage levels in the plantation sector did not increase. Black women, who took opportunities to remove themselves from some of the more physically arduous tasks on estates after the abolition of slavery, found that they were unable to refuse the wages which field labour offered and continued to be the dominant sex in field gangs, as well as in the factory.

But it was the remittances of money to Barbados from Panama, and the capital brought back by returnees, which were to have a profound impact upon the island. While in 1910, for example, the merchant community had advanced £80,000 to planters to assist their sugar industry, in the same year official sources show that black Barbadians brought and sent back £83,000. Though many migrants died in the canal zone (one respected estimate is 15.5 per cent), some of those who returned with capital were able to achieve considerable social and economic mobility. In 1906, 3,501 returnees declared £18,000, and in the following year 3,525 declared £26,291. Between 1906 and 1915, some 20,326 returnees declared a total of £171,641. The ex-field hands had hopes of buying land, opening shops, learning a craft or obtaining an education for clerical and business professions. There certainly was a startling appearance of village shops and corner stores in the suburbs that can be attributed to ‘Panama’ money.

Postal remittances sent from the Panama Canal Zone to Barbados, 1906-20

Year – No. of Postal Orders – £ Value

1906 – 3,613 – £7,509

1907 – 19,092 – £46,160

1908 – 26,360 – £63,210

1909 – 31,179 – £66,272

1910 – 31,059 – £62,280

1911 – 24,968 – £51,009

1912 – 28,394 – £56,042

1913 – 31,851 – £63,816

1914 – 22,619 – £39,586

1915 – 14,210 – £22,874

1916 – 11,241 – £17,539

1917 – 10,430 – £15,194

1918 – 8,777 – £12,680

1919 – 7,747 – £12,591

1920 – 5,782 – £9,173

Total – 277,322 – £545,935

Many planters, by sheer necessity, sold off their properties to ‘Panama men’ in small lots, and by 1930 the pattern of landownership had changed significantly. In 1897, for example, the Royal Commission was informed that there were only 8,500 proprietors who owned only 10,000 acres, while in 1929 the number of small proprietors had increased to 17,731. This was not approved of by the dominant white community. In 1910, for example, Dr. E. G. Pilgrim, Assemblyman for St. James, sold a large proportion of his estates at Carlton, Sion Hill, Reid Bay and Westmoreland in small lots to ‘Panama men’. For the first time, black were making significant inroads upon the land-ownership pattern of the island.

Under the influence of the sudden supply of money, land prices rose dramatically, and even in the outlying parishes the price of £125 per acre in 1925 was normal. At these prices only successful returnees could purchase land, and many struggling planters took timely opportunities to speculate on the land market by putting their marginal lands up for sale. By all criteria, most returnees had been able to attain a better quality of life, though for the majority of the labouring poor, conditions worsened during the 1920s, as the wartime boom in the sugar economy had collapsed by late 1920. Panama money, then, had an effect of heightening differences in the material and social standing of black workers; those who struggled to make a living saw the Panama men as symbols of success, and seemed prepared to confront the established order in ways they knew best, for the attainment of a more secure livelihood.

Black Self-Help Organisations

The injection of ‘Panama money’ into working-class communities allowed them, for the first time, to develop islandwide financial institutions, designed and managed by themselves. The friendly society movement was revived, transformed and popularised as the leading force within the financial culture of the labouring classes during the early twentieth century. Societies allowed workers, on the weekly payment of about ten to twelve pence, to insure for sick and death benefits. Located in rural villages and in the towns, their accounts were managed by treasurers who were bound by law to deposit all funds at the National Savings Banks.

Errol Barrow Mirror Image Speech

On Errol Barrow Day 2008, Bajan Free Press is pleased to present the famous Mirror Image Speech made by the late Errol Walton Barrow in 1986.

Those who are interested in reading more of Errol Barrow’s speeches can do so by reading the book Speeches By Errol Barrow, written by the late Guyanese journalist Yussuff Haniff who died in 1990. Bajan Free Press takes this opportunity to express deep gratitude to the late Yussuff Haniff for putting into writing the speeches of our Father of Independence.

Bajan Free Press strongly believes that Errol Barrow must be very pleased indeed to see Barbados as it is today, with the future of this country now in the hands of new 46-year-old Prime Minister David Thompson and new 42-year-old Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley. The rise to power of these young Barbadians is the crowning glory of everything Errol Barrow worked so hard to achieve in Barbados. He sowed the seeds of free education which we now see blooming in abundance all around us in 2008.

Thanks to the Skipper!

Bajan Free Press

“What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself?”

Address to a political rally 13 May, 1986, at which the Democratic Labour Party’s 27 candidates for the general elections of 28 May, 1986 were introduced.

What I wish to speak to you about very briefly here this evening is about you. About yourself.

I want to know what kind of mirror image do you have of yourself? That is what I am concerned about. What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself? Do you really like yourselves? Because you can never really like anybody unless you first like yourself. There are too many people in Barbados who despise themselves and their dislike of themselves reflects itself in their dislike of other people… people who live next door to them, members of their family, husbands, and wives, and the ox and the ass and the stranger within the gates.

I would like to say that in 1951, 1956, 1961 the Conservatives used to do a few favours for people.

A planter would send a man who had a little influence, let us say in Ellerton Village in St. George, send him down to Plantations Limited or Manning and Company and get some lumber to repair the old house, or if he had a cheap canvasser you would send him to Detco Motors and let him trust a new car. And those people would be motivated into giving their support to the Conservative candidate because of the favours which used to be given out to them.

But it really did not matter because the people who accepted that kind of help thought that they would be beholden to the rich people of this island, because the rich people were in a position to do personal favours for them. But what the rich people in Barbados did not realise is that they did not have money to do favours for everybody who had the right to vote after universal adult suffrage.

That was all right when you had 250 people voting in St. Thomas, and probably 178 voting in St. Andrew, and probably 311 voters in St. Lucy, but when you have 38,000 voting alone in St. Michael – voting for two candidates, not even John D. Rockefeller himself would be able to do enough favours for 38,000 people to persuade them to go and cast their votes and exercise their suffrage against the Labour Party’s interest, in favour of that wealthy person.

Which group in wealthiest in Barbados then? Who has the most money to spend? There has never been anybody in the history of Barbados with six million dollars at his disposal. The Tom Adams government had $600 million in each and every year at its disposal to bribe you with your own money, and then spit in your face.

So the Conservatives can now save their money. They are not going to France and Italy anymore because of terrorism, but they are going to Tampa, Florida, Vancouver, British Columbia and California, because they have people now who will spend the workers’ money to bribe the workers and they could save their money and thus go off and live like true politicians, while they use your money against you.

Now what has bothered me in this society is that every time after elections, people expect certain things to take place. And although the law says that he that giveth is as much guilty of bribery and corruption under the Corrupt Practices Act as he that receiveth, we know that even on polling day, people were given envelopes with $100 bills in them.

Philip Greaves and Asquith Phillips and I sat down trying to get people to bring affidavits, so that we could lock up some of them. Our own people, registered Democratic Labour Party people, said they were not prepared to go into court and swear.

So what kind of mirror image would you have of yourself? If there are corrupt ministers in Barbados tonight, you have made them corrupt.

I am not trying to make any excuses for you, but I realise what has happened in this society. You have people who are living on the brink of, and at, subsistence level. I look around and see people who have not done an honest day’s work in their whole lives driving around in MP cars, having an ostentatious standard of living, unlike my poor families in St. John, who the Welfare Officer gives $50 to feed a family of ten for a whole week.

What kind of mirror image can you have of yourself?

Let me tell you what I mean by ‘image you have of yourself’. You so much despair of this society that you queue up at Trident House (United States Consulate) day after day. Those of you who have read Julius Caesar would know the passage that says: ‘You have sat the live long day with patient expectation to see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome.’ And you have stood the live long day with great patient expectation for the man to tell you down there that you can’t get the visa to get on the 400 to New York next week.

Your greatest ambition is to try to prove to the people of the United States Consulate that you are only going up to visit your family, when you know very well that when you get up there, you los’ ‘way. And you are surprised when the people at the United States Embassy tell you that you do not have a strong reason to return to Barbados. And you are the only person dishonest enough with yourself to realise that you do not have a strong reason to return to Barbados, because Barbados has nothing to offer you. You are not being honest with yourself, but you tell the man down there, ‘Oh yes, I’m returning.’

If I had to answer that question now I would be in trouble, because under this dispensation for the past ten years, I never had a strong reason to come back here.

But I want to tell you this, that I believe I am as much Barbadian as they are and I do not like my country being run down the way it has been run down since 1976, and that is the reason why I return.

When I went to Mexico, I had to make a decision, and I returned; I went to the Pacific and I had to make a decision and I returned. I had a strong reason. My reason is that I did not want to see my country go down the drain but you who are not in politics, don’t have a strong reason. Tell me one good strong reason you have to return to Barbados.

Your mirror image of yourself is that your ambition in life is to try and get away from this country. And we could call ourselves an independent nation? When all we want to do is go and scrub somebody’s floors and run somebody’s elevator or work in somebody’s store or drive somebody’s taxi in a country where you catching your royal when the winter sets in?

What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself? Let me tell you what kind of mirror image I have of you, or what the Democratic Labour Party has of you. The Democratic Labour Party has an image that the people of Barbados would be able to run their own affairs, to pay for the cost of running their own country, to have an education system which is as good as what can be attained in any industrialised country, anywhere in the world.

It is only now that you are reading that in the state of Texas, the government of that state has asked to make the teachers pass an examination – you know what kind of examination? To see if they can read and write!

The gentleman of the Texas teachers’ union came on the news and he said that he was proud of the result because only eight per cent of the teachers couldn’t read and write!

If (President Ronald) Reagan had to take the test, I wonder if he would pass. But this is the man that you all say in the newspapers, how great he is for bombing the people in Libya and killing little children. I am no (Libyan leader Mu’ammar) Qathafi supporter. I don’t know Qathafi and I never had any desire to go to Libya. But this is the man that you all go up at the airport and put down a red carpet for, and he is the President of a country in which in one of the more advanced and biggest states eight per cent of the teachers cannot read and write, and he feels that they are better than we. And you feel that we should run up there and bow.

What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself? Why don’t you sit down there and start trying to put people on the moon, too? Instead of using $100 million to develop the potential of the young scientists that we have, and the young doctors that we have, we spend it putting up an expression of a monumental edifice behind the Cathedral and call it a Central Bank Building, because we think that people develop by ostentation, by showing off, and not by developing people.

But when a government steals from people in the way of consumption taxes and takes that money and spends it on their own high lifestyles, and unnecessary buildings, then that government not only has contempt for you, but what is most unfortunate, you have contempt for yourself, because you allow them to do it.

And you get the Prime Minister of the country saying that his ambition is to have the same kind of lifestyle as the people in the United States enjoy. I wonder what kind of lifestyle he is enjoying now? And then his successor goes outside of Barbados and says we are drifting away in Barbados from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, and we are easing into a presidential system; that we want a presidential system, so that, like Reagan, they can go and bomb. They can go and bomb the mental people in the hospital in Grenada and the little children in Benghazi, in Tripoli? Is that what we want a presidential system for?

We don’t have a Presidential system yet. But you have people who are employed and paid with your taxes who could buy a boat and give it to an Englishman to smuggle arms into Barbados. I can give you the name and the place and everything you want.

We don’t have a presidential system, but you can have people removing money from a Canadian Imperial Bank account and people who are in charge of institutions in this island, and in transferring it to the Barbados National Bank without the authority of the people from whose account teh money was being withdrawn. I know it is so, because I told (Prime Minister Bernard) St. John who said it was and that man has not been locked up yet.

I told him then that you should never appoint a person to a responsible statutory corporation in this island who is accustomed to forging people’s signatures. And then he went outside and came back and never said a word. And you allow that to go on in Barbados.

And there are people in high places in this island who conspired to allow that to happen, because the gentleman was fined $1,000 for so doing, and not by the law courts, but by a private group of people who got together and said, ‘You committed forgery; we are going to fine you $1,000.’ So you circumvent the Director of Public Prosecution, and you hold your own dumb-head court martial and then you present him with a big bowl and congratulate him on his achievements.

What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself if you allow this kind of thing to happen?

What kind of mirror image do you have of yourself when you allow the mothers of this nation to be beasts of burden in the sugarcane fields? In Mexico where people suffer under a lower standard of living than in Barbados, they use donkeys to freight canes out of the fields.

In Antigua, they use a small railway; but here the mothers of the nation with sons at Harrison College, the Alleyne School and daughters at Queen’s College, St. Michael and Alexandra – they are used as beasts of burden and there is no shelter in any of those cane fields. I have talked time and time again to the Barbados Workers’ Union about this and you allow that to continue. What kind of image do you have of yourself?

I suggested, and I was inspired by the work done by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, who was (British) Foreign Minister, who went to work at eight – I don’t mean 8 o’clock in the morning, I mean eight years of age – and those dock workers in London used to turn up during the winter and summer from 5 o’clock in the morning waiting for a ship, and if a ship didn’t come in for three weeks or three months, they wouldn’t get any pay. And Ernest Bevin introduced the guaranteed week for dock workers. I set up a commission of enquiry into the sugar industry and made the examination of the guaranteed week for agricultural workers one of the terms of reference of that commission, and the commission reported that nobody gave any evidence before them in support of this recommendation.

What kind of mirror image do the people of the Workers’ Union, of whom we have members, have, even of you or themselves? And I had to wait until there was a dispute in the sugar industry and we had television and get on a blackboard and say, well these will be the wages from next week and on Tuesday I went into the House (of Assembly) and introduced the guaranteed wages for agricultural workers.

Why should only one man have a mirror image of you that you do not want to have of yourself? What kind of society are we striving for? There is no point in striving for Utopia, but you do not realise your potential.

You have heard the opportunities which our members have taken to improve themselves by going to certain institutions and so on – not that we believe that people with good education are the only people who can be in politics. The very fact that a man has made the effort and taken the time to improve himself shows that he has the kind of calibre which would make him a useful representative of the people.

I lived in a little country when I was young, the Virgin Islands. It was just bought from Denmark by the United States of America. My father was a Chancellor. I was too young to go when he was transferred. So when I was three months old, I went.

There is no unemployment in that country. They don’t manage their affairs as well as we did in the past. They don’t receive any big lot of grants and loans and that kind of thing, even from the United States.

They have to bring in workers. They have the largest oil refinery in the western hemisphere run by a man called Hess. But that is a small country. But there is another small country which is run by a friend of mine. That country has 210 square miles; it is 40 square miles bigger than Barbados. If you took the Parish of St. Philip and put it right in the little curve by Bathsheba that would be the size of the country of Singapore of Lee Kwan Yew.

But you know the difference between Barbados and that country? First, Barbados has 250,000 people. You know how many people Singapore has on 40 more square miles? Over two-and-a-half-million, on an island just a little larger than Barbados.

They don’t have sugar plantations; they don’t have enough land to plant more than a few orchids on. It is one of the orchid centres of the world. They grow orchids in Singapore. They don’t have enough land to plant a breadfruit tree in the backyard and nearly every Barbadian, even in the metropolitan area of Bridgetown, have some kind of fruit tree in the backyard.

Sixty per cent of those three million persons have been housed by the government of Singapore. They don’t have oil for ministers to steal. They don’t have any beaches like we do here. There are people here in this audience, Barbadians who have served in Singapore, who can tell you about Singapore. There is no unemployment in Singapore.

They have developed an education system but they are teaching people things that are relevant to the 21st century. They are not teaching people how to weed by the road. They are in the advance of the information age.

But you know the difference between you and them? They have got a mirror image of themselves. They are not looking to get on any plane to go to San Francisco. Too far away. The government does not encourage them to emigrate unless they are going to develop business for Singapore.

They have a mirror image of themselves. They have self-respect. They have a desire to move their country forward by their own devices. They are not waiting for anybody to come and give them handouts. And there is no unemployment.

Is that the mirror image that you have of yourselves? Anyhow, ladies and gentlemen, I done.

Welcome to Bajan Free Press!

Welcome to Bajan Free Press!

This blog is dedicated to serious and mature discussion on Bajan politics and news. Feel free to add your comments and air your views.

The main purpose of this blog is to educate readers about the political and social development of Barbados. Our focus is on upholding high quality and professional standards because we want only the best for Barbados.

A happy Errol Barrow Day to all our readers and to all Barbadians everywhere!

Bajan Free Press.