Christianity: Save us!
by Richard Ho Lung
WE KNOW it can be done: Christ can save our island. Christianity can save our island. We are losing faith, because we are not one, not united. I am not talking about tolerating one another. I am talking about loving one another and working together in fulfilment of a vision presented to us by Christ.
What is this vision? It is set out by Christ: "I have come to preach the good news to the poor; to set the captives free." Justice and mercy will be exercised when Christ is here. If we really want to know the presence of Christ today in our world, in Jamaica, it is where the Church is doing the works of justice. From the times of the Old Testament to the times of Christ, and now in our world and in Jamaica, justice must be done if we want to give witness to the one true living God.
We must agree on certain points, the fundamentals of our faith. We must not waste time talking and debating whether gay marriages, abortion, euthanasia, this denomination or that, is right or wrong. All these issues are obviously misguided and can be answered by questioning: Does God want same-sex marriages; a mother to eliminate the child of her womb; old and sick people be euthanised?
We need to work with the poor and rejected ones; we need a Church of the poor. Even if Churches are wealthy or middle class, churches and schools must form the consciences and carry out activities of justice and mercy that give glory to God. God will be pleased; God will dispense all the riches of the earth to accomplish His kingdom here on earth, the salient characteristics being justice and mercy.
Powerful Christian faith
I believe the civil state needs us, and I believe our Christian faith is so powerful that it can change the attitudes of everyone, including politicians, if only we as Church really become God's kingdom here on earth. Psalm 72 verses 2 through 4 says:
"O God, give your judgment to the king ... that he may govern your people with justice, your oppressed with right judgment ... that he may defend the oppressed among the people, save the poor and crush the oppressor."
And Psalm 82 verses 3 and 4 asks God to:
"Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy; rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
But first and foremost that fundamental principle must be met: to serve justice and mercy to the poor, not only in word but in deed.
Too much talking, too many words; too many belaboured arguments and permissive foreign ways; too much mediocrity and middle-classness, have led us into a wilderness and confusion that are wrought by the devil himself.
Jamaica is still a Christian country, so let us be Christian! United we stand, divided we fall. First of all, we must love one another and work with one another for justice and mercy. Jamaica is a most unusual country. The spirits and souls of Jamaicans are strong and serious. Let us give an example to the world, as we have done in so many other endeavours.
Let us require once and for all a strong moral family life. Politicians are cowards in requiring marriage and fidelity with a punishment for those who are promiscuous and then themselves bear children out of wedlock. Men and women must stop living like animals on our streets. There must be a law that is seriously enacted on those who bear children outside of marriage. That should be so for all classes of people.
Strong moral Christian values must be taught once again by teachers in the schools regarding personal behaviour, sin and virtue, right and wrong, and an absolute sense of responsibility towards the poor.
There must be a right and wrong, punishment and reward, heaven and hell, justice and mercy, not only taught but exercised in family life and in the schools.
We must become a Church of the Beatitudes. I believe we are approaching the Age of the Beatitudes, wherein Christianity will be judged worthy and relevant to the life and benefit of modern man on the basis of how effectively she implements the works of mercy and justice among the most needy and marginalised - materially and spiritually - in our world. Time is running out: the Kingdom of God is at hand! Church, are you ready?
Feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com
December 22, 2011
jamaica-gleaner
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Money and Bahamian politics: What role will money play in The Bahamas’ 2012 general election
Money and politics
By Ian G. Strachan
Nassau, The Bahamas
What role will money play in The Bahamas’ 2012 general election? Does the party with the most money always win Bahamian elections? That is the feeling of many observers. Money will be spent, of course. Lots of it. But we will have absolutely no idea where this money comes from. And that is the way Hubert Ingraham and Perry Christie want it.
Is the U.S. government, through some company, funding one political party over the other in our election? Is the Chinese government bankrolling a party’s election campaign? Which Lyford Cay residents are backing political campaigns and which campaigns? Which private businessmen, Bahamian or expatriate, are making campaign contributions, and how much? Are numbers houses backing candidates? Drug lords? Which lawyers are ‘borrowing’ money from their local and international clients to finance political campaigns? And what will all this mean in terms of the new government’s choices when in office? How will we, the citizens ever know, truly know, how the decisions regarding our tax dollars, present and future, are being made and the extent to which campaign contributors are shaping those decisions?
The issue in other countries
Ronald Sanders, in a piece called “Caribbean electorates: Not for sale”, wrote recently that, “General elections in St. Lucia and Guyana on November 28 have raised serious questions about the financing of campaigns and the unfair use of state resources by governing political parties to gain an advantage over their opponents. In St. Lucia, it is alleged that a significant portion of the United Workers Party (UWP) campaign funds came from Taiwan. The UWP was the ruling party at the time of the elections and the then leader of the opposition and leader of the St. Lucia Labour Party (SLP), Kenny Anthony, had engaged in a public row with the Taiwanese Ambassador over his blatant interference in the electoral politics of the island. In Guyana, it is claimed that the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) outspent its three rivals by a sizeable margin in the elections campaign.”
Interestingly, in a 2010 case called Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling that essentially repealed mechanisms that had been put in place by the U.S. Congress and Senate to control the power of big money to shape U.S. elections, via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 among others. Even with those laws in place, the 2008 election of Barack Obama had been the most expensive in U.S. history. Obama’s campaign budget alone was three-quarters of a billion dollars. The figure is likely to reach a billion in 2012.
The Citizens United ruling, which passed on a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, states that it is unconstitutional to deny corporations and unions the right to the First Amendment, or “free speech”, which includes the right to fund political campaign ads. This essentially treats corporations as people.
Former President Jimmy Carter called the ruling “one of the stupidest rulings ever consummated or perpetrated on the American people”. In an interview with Tavis Smiley in 2010, he went on to say, “It is a complete transformation or change of what our country has done ever since it was founded. That is, to try to put some restraint on the massive infusion of money into the political campaign. And also to have those who do make the contributions legally identified. You can make it in secret now... When I ran against Gerald Ford in 1976, he and I used public money. We used a $2 per person check off. $26 million total. And when I ran against Ronald Reagan four years later (1980), we did the same thing.”
President Barack Obama himself has been highly critical of the ruling, calling it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans”.
Obama said further, “They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who’s actually paying for the ads. Instead, a group can hide behind a name like ‘Citizens for a Better Future’, even if a more accurate name would be ‘Companies for Weaker Oversight’. These shadow groups are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections.
“Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians. Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don’t vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign. And all too often, no one will actually know who’s really behind those ads.”
The reality, however, is that despite receiving over 60 percent of his campaign funding from people who gave less than $1,000 each, Obama could not have won the 2008 election if not for “the tens of millions that lobbyists, PACs, corporations, Wall Street, and labor unions shove into a presidential candidate’s campaign coffers”. This is according to political analyst Earl Hutchinson, who concludes that “the bitter reality [is] that politics is a hard, dirty, cash-soaked game, and those with the most cash will always have the edge.”
A system open to abuse
No less than in the U.S., our politicians and our Parliament are bought and sold. We are not allowed to know who is doing the buying, but we know who is doing the selling.
The perverting power of money doesn’t end with general elections. Many, as our prime minister recently admitted (with tongue in cheek, I can only assume), are entering politics as a means of economic advancement.
“It is sad to see that we have moved to a place in our history when many who seek to offer themselves for election to the House are motivated by the desire to achieve personal success and not by a dedication of service to others – that is the general public," he said.
The fact is that the corrupt culture of our politics makes it very difficult for a politician to do otherwise. The people ‘shake down’ the representative at every opportunity. He/she is expected to be financial godfather for all his/her supporters and even for those who didn’t give support, not just in order to get elected, but throughout his/her term in office. This burden cannot possibly be sustained by an MP’s salary; particularly an MP with his/her own children to house, feed and educate. This opens the door to the temptation: MPs seek to repay themselves through unofficial means sometimes just to avoid bankruptcy. Even MPs who were financially successful before being elected run the risk of suffering financially when in office because their pay is miniscule when compared to what they made in private life. Accustomed to a certain standard of living and somewhat embittered by the constant begging of constituents, some politicians find ways to feather their nests by personally profiting from the awarding of contracts, etc. That is to say nothing of the men and women who conclude that there is no way for them to attain the lifestyle they desire period – unless they enter politics as a career and make it their business to take advantage of the largesse of the state.
Michael Parenti, noted American author of the book “Democracy for the Few”, asserts that “to curb the power of the moneyed interests and lobbyists, minor-party as well as major-party candidates should be provided with public financing. In addition, a strict cap should be placed on campaign spending by all candidates and supporters, with no loopholes allowed”.
Politicians can feel insulted; corporations and lobbyists may label it undemocratic, but transparency is the best safeguard of democracy that we can have.
Still other politicians have made so many enemies that they must ensure they are financially ‘set for life’ because their enemies, once in power, will make sure that neither they, nor their children, nor their children’s children will ever enjoy a single opportunity.
We know it’s happening but we can’t find the evidence very easily. The Public Disclosure Act of 1976 isn’t worth the paper it was written on.
Obviously this situation cries out for reform. The problem is the people who suffer most from this state of affairs (the general public) don’t understand that they suffer. They pay for this corruption in ways they don’t understand. In ways that far outweigh the measly bribes they are able to squeeze out of their elected representatives at election time and on the rare occasions they catch them on the street. Without enlightened leadership, the system will go on perpetuating itself.
• IAN STRACHAN is Associate Professor of English at The College of The Bahamas. You can write him at: strachantalk@gmail.com
Dec 19, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Our charming, peaceful Caribbean: Paradise temporarily lost
By Horace Williams
Like a string of beautiful emeralds, our charming Caribbean islands mesmerizingly hang around the neck of the American continent. Chiseled by British, French, Spanish and Dutch artisans, each gem became a uniquely precious diamond, or ruby, or prized pearl -- a true acme of perfection.
Our beautiful beaches were peaceful places, where majestic mountains magically rose out of the seductive sea. Secluded swimming and snorkeling in the warm waters beneath the rugged waterfalls made the majesty of the oceans merge into the beauty of the beach's stunning but solitary stretch of soft sand. This emerald gulf coast is a tropical paradise, where impressive waves are wonderfully woven into charming crystal whirlpools of welcoming warm water.
The whispering wind whipped our scanty clothing like a fluttering flag on a weathered flagpole, and we could detect the aroma of tonight's dinner lazily drifting towards us in the cool crisp evening air. ...But something was changing. Yes, something was being altered. Our senses were adjusting to change... not necessarily for the better... and we were accommodating them. The evolution was slow but certain -- and steady.
We could feel it. Our friends say they could see it. The nation was touched by it. The neighbours -- they could taste it, and our pets... they could sense it. Yes it -- something -- was not right any longer. In my veins; in my blood; in my sub-conscious, I just knew that we, as a people, had lost our peaceful virginity. It was gone. Taken -- no, stolen -- from us. We were no longer the peaceful, innocent, cavalier, fun-loving people we once were. The devil had arrived by sea and by air. He had arrived in the guise of "progress," and his name was Lucifer.
He, and his relatives, had arrived each day, and we welcomed them. They multiplied. They were beginning to take over our lives. ....And we did not realize that we were slowly going down the highway of destruction. The guns came with them, and the knives did too. They were stealthily concealed in their luggage and the Customs officers were none the wiser... or were they? Slowly, we were drifting into a long, lost land, and did not even realize we were miraculously moving. God was speaking to us, and we did not listen. His words fell on deaf ears while we were hustling for the almighty dollar.
Today a man was mercilessly killed and a woman was fatally shot... at close range. Last month my sister was kidnapped, then murdered, her naked body found as it degenerated and disintegrated into manure for the hungry vegetation in the lonely forest. I cannot remember the last week we did not have a brutal murder in our peaceful Caribbean. I called up north, and I called down south, but the answer was the same. Violence had overtaken the land. My land. Our land. The gods wept, and the floods came, but we did not get the message.
It did not start this way though. It was subtle. It was faint and illusive. It was inconspicuous, indirect, indistinct and insulated, but profound. Half-truths and white-lies were told... but those, we just took for granted. Lies continued to be told like they were nobody's business -- but they were your business, and they definitely were my business. Rumours of banana boats not arriving and shipments suspended circulated, and the farmers were disheartened.
The earth shook, and thousands died. Someone was trying to get our attention, but the signal was not received. We did not heed. We did not hear -- the warning. Curfews were imposed, prisons were exposed, and a state of emergency was enforced. We looked at the telly and decided to copy. Lawlessness was the order of the day -- and the night.
Authority was disrespected. Election results... disregarded. Demonstrations, whether warranted or not, occurred. Fire-trucks were overturned and police officers were assaulted. Thank God, the law exercised restraint, but disorder ruled the day. Missiles were hurled at peace officers and the state's Parliamentary gates were battered beyond belief. ...And blood flowed.
But all of that was not enough! Fires were ignited and damage was caused. We were told that more fires were on the way, and that other acts of incivility would certainly follow. Then we heard it! I didn't want to believe it. That could not be true. But it was! Dem boys say that guerrilla warfare was coming to the land. Men were shot in their homes; others were attacked, while jewelry was stolen. Young and old disappeared -- kidnapped -- then their bodies found whenever... wherever. Criminal gangs roamed the land and turned our slice of paradise into a brittle and broken battle zone.
Wiki leaked, and leaked, and leaked and told us about prime ministers and opposition leaders, some of which made us proud... and some had us hanging our heads in absolute shame. In the courts, men were found guilty of lying. Our system of decency was drastically deteriorating. Defamation of character lawsuits were successful as the lies persisted, and my peaceful Caribbean seemed to be going to the dogs. ....And that was insulting to the dogs!
This culture of violence must not be encouraged, and something has to give.
...And it will, because we stood up against it.
We decided to do something about this sad, sick and sorry state of affairs. We will fight back. We must fight back. We must join forces to combat this violence and crime. This is totally unacceptable. We will turn back the hands of time!
From the Bahamas to Guyana, and Trinidad to Bermuda, we must unite to defeat this malady. Success starts with the decision that "we are not going to take this anymore." We are sick and tired -- of being sick and tired.
Let us join forces, put our heads together, and solve this problem for all of us. The criminals must not win... we will take our beautiful, peaceful Caribbean back.
December 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Like a string of beautiful emeralds, our charming Caribbean islands mesmerizingly hang around the neck of the American continent. Chiseled by British, French, Spanish and Dutch artisans, each gem became a uniquely precious diamond, or ruby, or prized pearl -- a true acme of perfection.
Our beautiful beaches were peaceful places, where majestic mountains magically rose out of the seductive sea. Secluded swimming and snorkeling in the warm waters beneath the rugged waterfalls made the majesty of the oceans merge into the beauty of the beach's stunning but solitary stretch of soft sand. This emerald gulf coast is a tropical paradise, where impressive waves are wonderfully woven into charming crystal whirlpools of welcoming warm water.The whispering wind whipped our scanty clothing like a fluttering flag on a weathered flagpole, and we could detect the aroma of tonight's dinner lazily drifting towards us in the cool crisp evening air. ...But something was changing. Yes, something was being altered. Our senses were adjusting to change... not necessarily for the better... and we were accommodating them. The evolution was slow but certain -- and steady.
We could feel it. Our friends say they could see it. The nation was touched by it. The neighbours -- they could taste it, and our pets... they could sense it. Yes it -- something -- was not right any longer. In my veins; in my blood; in my sub-conscious, I just knew that we, as a people, had lost our peaceful virginity. It was gone. Taken -- no, stolen -- from us. We were no longer the peaceful, innocent, cavalier, fun-loving people we once were. The devil had arrived by sea and by air. He had arrived in the guise of "progress," and his name was Lucifer.
He, and his relatives, had arrived each day, and we welcomed them. They multiplied. They were beginning to take over our lives. ....And we did not realize that we were slowly going down the highway of destruction. The guns came with them, and the knives did too. They were stealthily concealed in their luggage and the Customs officers were none the wiser... or were they? Slowly, we were drifting into a long, lost land, and did not even realize we were miraculously moving. God was speaking to us, and we did not listen. His words fell on deaf ears while we were hustling for the almighty dollar.
Today a man was mercilessly killed and a woman was fatally shot... at close range. Last month my sister was kidnapped, then murdered, her naked body found as it degenerated and disintegrated into manure for the hungry vegetation in the lonely forest. I cannot remember the last week we did not have a brutal murder in our peaceful Caribbean. I called up north, and I called down south, but the answer was the same. Violence had overtaken the land. My land. Our land. The gods wept, and the floods came, but we did not get the message.
It did not start this way though. It was subtle. It was faint and illusive. It was inconspicuous, indirect, indistinct and insulated, but profound. Half-truths and white-lies were told... but those, we just took for granted. Lies continued to be told like they were nobody's business -- but they were your business, and they definitely were my business. Rumours of banana boats not arriving and shipments suspended circulated, and the farmers were disheartened.
The earth shook, and thousands died. Someone was trying to get our attention, but the signal was not received. We did not heed. We did not hear -- the warning. Curfews were imposed, prisons were exposed, and a state of emergency was enforced. We looked at the telly and decided to copy. Lawlessness was the order of the day -- and the night.
Authority was disrespected. Election results... disregarded. Demonstrations, whether warranted or not, occurred. Fire-trucks were overturned and police officers were assaulted. Thank God, the law exercised restraint, but disorder ruled the day. Missiles were hurled at peace officers and the state's Parliamentary gates were battered beyond belief. ...And blood flowed.
But all of that was not enough! Fires were ignited and damage was caused. We were told that more fires were on the way, and that other acts of incivility would certainly follow. Then we heard it! I didn't want to believe it. That could not be true. But it was! Dem boys say that guerrilla warfare was coming to the land. Men were shot in their homes; others were attacked, while jewelry was stolen. Young and old disappeared -- kidnapped -- then their bodies found whenever... wherever. Criminal gangs roamed the land and turned our slice of paradise into a brittle and broken battle zone.
Wiki leaked, and leaked, and leaked and told us about prime ministers and opposition leaders, some of which made us proud... and some had us hanging our heads in absolute shame. In the courts, men were found guilty of lying. Our system of decency was drastically deteriorating. Defamation of character lawsuits were successful as the lies persisted, and my peaceful Caribbean seemed to be going to the dogs. ....And that was insulting to the dogs!
This culture of violence must not be encouraged, and something has to give.
...And it will, because we stood up against it.
We decided to do something about this sad, sick and sorry state of affairs. We will fight back. We must fight back. We must join forces to combat this violence and crime. This is totally unacceptable. We will turn back the hands of time!
From the Bahamas to Guyana, and Trinidad to Bermuda, we must unite to defeat this malady. Success starts with the decision that "we are not going to take this anymore." We are sick and tired -- of being sick and tired.
Let us join forces, put our heads together, and solve this problem for all of us. The criminals must not win... we will take our beautiful, peaceful Caribbean back.
December 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
The Paying Taxes 2012 report said an average Bahamian company paid, in taxes, a sum equivalent to 47.7 per cent of its annual commercial profits... Rick Lowe, operations manager at Nassau Motor Company (NMC) and a well-known fiscal hawk, said the findings added to his contention that The Bahamas was not a 'low tax jurisdiction' as it is repeatedly advertised
BAHAMAS' 48% TAX BURDEN IS 'SCARY'
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE Bahamas' long-cherished notion of being a 'low tax' jurisdiction has been called into question by a report that says companies pay taxes equivalent to almost 48 per cent of their annual profits, a private sector leader yesterday describing that number as "scary".
The Paying Taxes 2012 report, produced by the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) accounting firm, together with the World Bank and the latter's International Finance Corporation (IFC) arm, placed the Bahamas among the bottom third of nations - 134th out of 183 - when it came to the 'total tax rate'. This was defined as the ratio of a business's total annual tax burden to its commercial profits.
The report said an average Bahamian company paid, in taxes, a sum equivalent to 47.7 per cent of its annual commercial profits. This left Winston Rolle, the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation's (BCCEC) president, to call for a breakdown of the calculations, so that the private sector and government could see how the figure was derived.
"That's very surprising," Mr Rolle said of the Paying Taxes 2012 report's findings. "When you consider other countries, with their payroll and employee taxes, and you take a look at our National Insurance Board (NIB) with a 9.8 per cent contribution rate, that's relatively low compared to a number of other jurisdictions, who are now in the teens, so that's very surprising.
"That 48 per cent sounds like a really high number, and that's a scary number right now. My concern is that some businesses will jump all over that number to advocate for lower taxes.
"Everybody is going to complain that the cost of doing business is too high, but we need to understand what's in those numbers to numbers to make up 48 per cent. That one is clearly something to look at a little deeper. The initial response is: Where did that number come from?"
Still, Mr Rolle added: "I don't deny the cost of doing business in the Bahamas is high, but all things considered, when you look at other Caribbean countries, I don't know if we're significantly higher than other jurisdictions."
Others, though, felt the Paying Taxes 2012 report was close to the mark. Rick Lowe, operations manager at Nassau Motor Company (NMC) and a well-known fiscal hawk, said the findings added to his contention that the Bahamas was not a 'low tax jurisdiction' as it repeatedly advertised.
Pointing out that, via the Business Licence fee, companies were taxed regardless of whether they made a profit, Mr Lowe said of the 48 per cent figure: "I don't think it's out of the question. I've always maintained we are not a low tax jurisdiction."
While the Government typically referred to revenues being 'a low' 18-19 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), Mr Lowe said the reality facing the private sector was something quite different, and he preferred the PwC study.
The Bahamas, though, fared better elsewhere in the Paying Taxes 2012 report. It ranked 54th out of 183 nations on the ease of paying taxes, coming in at 63rd with just 18 tax payments by companies per year. And the Bahamas finished just 5th on time to comply.
"One of the key reasons we're in a good position compared to other jurisdictions is that the bulk of the taxes are in duties, and if you do not pay them you do not get the goods," Mr Rolle said. "That makes the process a relatively straightforward one."
He questioned, though, with the compliance timeframes were actually adhered to in practice.
December 16, 2011
tribune242
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE Bahamas' long-cherished notion of being a 'low tax' jurisdiction has been called into question by a report that says companies pay taxes equivalent to almost 48 per cent of their annual profits, a private sector leader yesterday describing that number as "scary".
The Paying Taxes 2012 report, produced by the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) accounting firm, together with the World Bank and the latter's International Finance Corporation (IFC) arm, placed the Bahamas among the bottom third of nations - 134th out of 183 - when it came to the 'total tax rate'. This was defined as the ratio of a business's total annual tax burden to its commercial profits.
The report said an average Bahamian company paid, in taxes, a sum equivalent to 47.7 per cent of its annual commercial profits. This left Winston Rolle, the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation's (BCCEC) president, to call for a breakdown of the calculations, so that the private sector and government could see how the figure was derived.
"That's very surprising," Mr Rolle said of the Paying Taxes 2012 report's findings. "When you consider other countries, with their payroll and employee taxes, and you take a look at our National Insurance Board (NIB) with a 9.8 per cent contribution rate, that's relatively low compared to a number of other jurisdictions, who are now in the teens, so that's very surprising.
"That 48 per cent sounds like a really high number, and that's a scary number right now. My concern is that some businesses will jump all over that number to advocate for lower taxes.
"Everybody is going to complain that the cost of doing business is too high, but we need to understand what's in those numbers to numbers to make up 48 per cent. That one is clearly something to look at a little deeper. The initial response is: Where did that number come from?"
Still, Mr Rolle added: "I don't deny the cost of doing business in the Bahamas is high, but all things considered, when you look at other Caribbean countries, I don't know if we're significantly higher than other jurisdictions."
Others, though, felt the Paying Taxes 2012 report was close to the mark. Rick Lowe, operations manager at Nassau Motor Company (NMC) and a well-known fiscal hawk, said the findings added to his contention that the Bahamas was not a 'low tax jurisdiction' as it repeatedly advertised.
Pointing out that, via the Business Licence fee, companies were taxed regardless of whether they made a profit, Mr Lowe said of the 48 per cent figure: "I don't think it's out of the question. I've always maintained we are not a low tax jurisdiction."
While the Government typically referred to revenues being 'a low' 18-19 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), Mr Lowe said the reality facing the private sector was something quite different, and he preferred the PwC study.
The Bahamas, though, fared better elsewhere in the Paying Taxes 2012 report. It ranked 54th out of 183 nations on the ease of paying taxes, coming in at 63rd with just 18 tax payments by companies per year. And the Bahamas finished just 5th on time to comply.
"One of the key reasons we're in a good position compared to other jurisdictions is that the bulk of the taxes are in duties, and if you do not pay them you do not get the goods," Mr Rolle said. "That makes the process a relatively straightforward one."
He questioned, though, with the compliance timeframes were actually adhered to in practice.
December 16, 2011
tribune242
Friday, December 16, 2011
Bahamas Government expands its National Prescription Drug Plan (NPDP)
Govt expands National Drug Plan
By Travis Cartwright-Carroll
Guardian Staff Reporter
Nassau, The Bahamas
A wider group of Bahamians will now benefit from the National Prescription Drug Plan (NPDP), Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham revealed in the House of Assembly Tuesday night.
Staff of Her Majesty’s Prisons, the industrial schools, members of the police force and the defence force, public service officers, and Bahamians 60 years of age and over in receipt of survivor’s benefit and survivor’s assistance will also be added.
Females receiving ante-natal care, care connected with child birth, post-natal care or any other medical care associated with pregnancy will also be added.
People in receipt of disablement benefit assessed at 100 percent under the National Insurance (Benefit and Assistance) Regulations, are also being added.
Already benefiting under the first phase of the plan are NIB pensioners, NIB invalids, Bahamian citizens over 65 years of age who are not eligible to receive a NIB pension, children under 18 years of age and students under 25 years of age.
“This amendment is designed and intended to ensure that all of the persons who are listed in the resolution...will receive the same benefit as everybody else,” Ingraham said.
He continued: “It is providing law to all of those persons to receive this medication for these prescribed illnesses without payment.”
The government enacted the drug plan in 2009. The NPDP is designed to assist the Bahamian public with medications generally prescribed to treat 11 chronic conditions: arthritis, asthma, breast cancer, depression (major), diabetes, glaucoma, high cholesterol, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, prostate cancer and psychosis.
Ingraham noted, however, that the list has been expanded to cover more chronic diseases, but he did not list the additions.
Dec 15, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Politics in The Bahamas post-Perry Christie: ...it appears that politically, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) will be at a bloody crossroad... Moving forward, the party must not—in the words of Sam Tenanhaus—become “trapped in postures of frozen light, clenched in the rigor mortis of a defunct ideology.”
Who's it gonna be?
The leadership showdown is turning into a 'bloody crossroad'By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE leadership showdown in the PLP will feature a line up of contenders, pretenders and a number of wannabes vying for the leadership who couldn’t convincingly serve as effective backups to Bozo the clown. In a post-Perry Christie era, one can imagine the probable leadership candidates scampering across a convention floor, all fervently seeking the support of the party’s ever ballooning contingent of stalwart councilors. No doubt, there will be a few aspirants employing Brutus’ tactics and stabbing each other in the backs with sharpened political knives.
When the leadership melee kicks off, one expects to see lots of finger-jabbing and colorful political vernacular.
Post-Christie, it appears that politically, the PLP will be at a bloody crossroad. Moving forward, the party must not—in the words of Sam Tenanhaus—become “trapped in postures of frozen light, clenched in the rigor mortis of a defunct ideology.”
In 2007, Bahamians expressed disillusionment with the PLP’s scandalous reign and lack of vision and voted them out of office after one term. Today, there remains some members on the party’s frontline who are among the walking wounded of our political culture and who should not be re-nominated.
A future leader of the PLP must be able to espouse a new and innovative approach to governance, one that would deepen the populace’s trust in accountable governance. A future leader must be capable of proffering a vision for empowering Bahamians, enforce ethical codes of conduct (MPs/ministers) and present a conscientious national development platform to the electorate.
Frankly, people are weary of the old ways of the PLP, top heavy with stalwart councilors who vote in lock step like assembly line drones and cultivate an atmosphere of personality cults. The supremacy of stalwart councilors within the PLP has perhaps singlehandedly retarded the advancement of the party.
Lame-duck legion
At present, there are a few in the PLP who are merely an assemblage of reprobates, head bangers and morons. Likewise, the PLP is also home to a lame duck legion of political pretenders who should not even offer in 2012, weighed against vying for the party’s leadership and seeking to possibly lead our country!
A new leader must maintain, and perhaps reconfigure, the party for it to continue on as a legitimate and credible political force. Indeed, delegates choosing a new leader must select someone who has the ability to rid the party of political dead weight and revivify the party, and the masses, once Mr Christie bids farewell to the political frontline. The prospective leader must not merely have a wide-eyed infatuation with power!
Former Prime Minister Perry Christie is a political titan who appears to be an experienced and principled gentleman. However, he lost the 2007 general election because he appeared dithery and lost control of the reins of his Cabinet.
So, who could succeed the Mr Christie?
Dr Bernard Nottage is in the twilight of his political career, with this election perhaps being his swan song—though he’s expected to retain his seat. Dr Nottage is politically astute and charismatic, a political journeyman with firm managerial skills and, since his ventures with the defunct CDR, the party’s most prominent prodigal son.
Now a senior citizen—in truth and in political terms—the leadership window for Dr Nottage is seemingly slamming shut. The good doctor has apparently peaked and will not see the Promised Land (leadership). By 2017, Nottage will likely be an outgoing figure.
Philip ‘Brave’ Davis, the deputy leader, has neither razzle nor dazzle. Davis was once thought of as merely a flimsy, smiling back-bencher who appeared inclined to quietly stand in the background. He has since repackaged himself.
Mr Davis does appear to be a one-dimensional politician who has no Cabinet experience and no notable political achievement/experience on his resume. Sources assert that he is a down-to-earth chap who didn’t have an opportunity to attend college and instead pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
Relative to public speaking, his oratorical delivery is about as explosive as a soaking wet fire cracker. If Davis’ leadership campaign is based wholly upon his oratorical ability to electrify a crowd and project his vision, his stock could be lower than the Zimbabwean dollar. I must admit that Davis’ parliamentary performance on Tuesday, during the debate on the Boundary Commission’s report, showed that at least he’s a work in progress.
Previously, Mr Davis—in the deputy leader race—ran a multifaceted campaign that was impressive as he employed much of the modern political/marketing strategies used in American political campaigns.
So, has Davis shown that he is a true successor to Mr Christie? Does he have the political appeal to win the electorate’s hearts and votes? Or, could he, like many others before him, peak at deputy leader?
Obie Wilchcombe, who was Sir Lynden Pindling’s understudy, is a dynamic and charismatic orator. Mr Wilchcombe would be a real contender in the leadership showdown. Wilchcombe is the only member of the PLP frontline who has served as party chairman, senator, MP, leader of Opposition business and minister. Frankly, he is one of the odds-on favourites to succeed Mr Christie.
Mr Wilchcombe has the public appeal and tenure to mount a successful campaign and has been an outstanding MP. He is known as a “ground hog” during political campaigns.
Fred Mitchell is not to be politically underestimated and will no doubt throw his hat into the impending leadership skirmish. Mitchell is perceived to be quite intelligent and, by many accounts, has been a superb MP. However, his detractors see him as a divisive and polarizing figure who would have to revamp his image to truly capture the overwhelming support of party delegates.
Alfred Sears, whose imminent political departure will leave the PLP without a strong leadership contender, is one of the smoother operators in the political firmament. Although his performance as Education Minister/Attorney General was solidly mediocre, he appears to be a highly intelligent and competent man of integrity who is widely respected and well-liked. Sears is seemingly a straight-shooter and the PLP should encourage him to remain on the frontline.
Shane Gibson is a long shot. Before he staggered from one blunder to another as a Cabinet minister, Gibson was seen as a young turk who could’ve succeeded Mr Christie as party leader. Today, whilst he’s purportedly a good-natured chap who is loved by his constituents, Mr Gibson is seen as a political non-event and a pariah figure within the party.
Is it true that earlier this year Mr Gibson had talks with the PM and inquired about joining the FNM?
Frank Smith is a firebrand and rank outsider who would be politically sucker punched in any leadership race. Mr Smith will likely be banished to the political wilderness after the 2012 election.
Younger leader
Post-Christie, could the leadership clash see the emergence of a leader from a younger generation of PLPs who do not currently sit in the House of Assembly?
I have gained much respect for Raynard Rigby since he spoke candidly and rationally offered constructive criticism of his party in the wake of its 2007 defeat. Cousin Raynard noted that he objected to the requirement—as party chairman—that he defend public scandals that he privately objected to; addressed campaign shortfalls and chided the party for running a poorly organized campaign; and called for the PLP to engage in mature discourse and accept criticism as not anti-PLP, but merely a differing opinion.
Formerly a clueless and bombastic talker, “cous” has rebranded himself, should be courted for a nomination and distinguished as a young turk on the fast track to leadership.
Jerome Fitzgerald admittedly boasts some electric qualities. However, Fitzgerald has become known for partisan histrionics and sometimes appears overly combative. That said, he is a political newcomer who has a rather cerebral deportment and appears to have the country’s best interest at heart.
Published on Saturday, December 3, 2011, in the column Young Man’s View, in The Tribune’s ‘The Big T’
Bahamas Blog International
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
How about a modest act of decency to one very flawed former Panamanian dictator?
by Larry Birns, COHA Director
General Manuel Noriega’s return to Panama on Sunday, after serving 22 years of imprisonment abroad, poses serious questions for the Panamanian system of justice, the rectitude of Washington’s treatment of Noriega during his long period of incarceration, and the future fate of the 77-year-old former dictator.
The Noriega case is surrounded by gross hypocrisy, a failure to tell the full truth concerning the nature of the US-Panamanian relations during the period of Noriega’s rule of the country from 1983-1989, and the exact details of the ties existing at the time between Washington and Panama City.
At the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, we have long been intrigued by the links between the two hemispheric entities. From the days of Noriega’s attendance at the Peruvian National Academy as a young cadet -- Panama did not have such an institution of its own -- to shortly before the establishment of intelligence connections between the youthful Noriega and the colossus to the north, Noriega’s flawed relationship with Washington has been a matter of conjecture. What we had here was a cursed knot binding the two countries together.
It is probable that Noriega’s privileged place on the US payroll would have lasted to this day if Roberto Eisenmann, a distinguished Panamanian democratic figure, had not fled to the country at the risk of his life after being identified as a mortal foe of the Panamanian strongman. Eisenmann tirelessly patrolled the corridors of power in Washington, spreading anti-Noriega gospel. Finally, through much of the 1980s, Eisenmann lobbied the US Senate until he was successful in having that body pass a resolution cutting off all assistance to Panama because of Noriega’s human rights violations and his connections to drug-trafficking and money laundering.
But President George H.W. Bush did not readily acquiesce to the anti-Noriega template being pushed at this point by the Senate. Noriega had been an effective CIA asset, plying Washington with accurate on-the-ground information in the Washington-backed contra campaign against the Sandinistas and in the Salvadoran government’s ugly war against the FMLN guerrillas.
Noriega had allowed US airplanes to take off from Howard Air Force Base to fly over Nicaragua and El Salvador to photograph and select potential targets for US-backed local forces, as well as critical intelligence information on Cuba and on Russian activity in the Caribbean basin. On a visit to Panama in the 1980s, Bush was reportedly briefed on local realities. When Bush became president and the Senate was taking a strong embargo stand against Noriega, the US president eventually yielded to the interventionists in Washington who were calling for military action against Panama. Even though Bush would have preferred to have tried to maintain the formerly valuable US ties with Noriega, this had become all but impossible. This was particularly the case after the late Senator Ted Kennedy and other Senate liberals like Senators Dodd and Leahy were calling for decisive actions against the cynical Panamanian dictator.
(COHA director Larry Birns had been invited to Panama by General Noriega just before the U.S. invasion was launched. In his communiqué to Birns, he described him as his “honorable enemy.” Birns is believed to have been the last American citizen to meet with Noriega before the US attack was launched.)
So what to do with General Noriega now that he is arriving back to his country after having served more than 22 years in US and French jails? It would clearly be cruel and unusual punishment to be sent to some bleak Panamanian jail at the age of 77, no matter how accented by interior decoration. In keeping with Panamanian law, the international community should call upon Panamanian authorities to place the Panamanian outcast under nothing more than house arrest, rather than requiring him to face another 20 years of incarceration or even more.
The US knowingly and cynically used Noriega even though it was fully apprised regarding his links to drug traffickers and money launderers. Incidentally, Noriega, while being portrayed back in Washington as a large-scale drug trafficker, was actually a relatively modest operator. And the US falsely told the American people that the elimination of Noriega would all but end the drug trafficking surge, a notion which was and is patently untrue.
Today, under president Ricardo Martinelli, Panama is even more corrupt than it was under Noriega, yet President Obama did not even bother to mention this fact when he aggressively campaigned for the passage of the bilateral trade agreement with that country.
COHA calls for compassion. House arrest is the proper sentence to mete out to a man who was but one of countless US officials and Central American operators who worked outside the law and would never qualify for a red badge of courage.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org
December 14, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
General Manuel Noriega’s return to Panama on Sunday, after serving 22 years of imprisonment abroad, poses serious questions for the Panamanian system of justice, the rectitude of Washington’s treatment of Noriega during his long period of incarceration, and the future fate of the 77-year-old former dictator.
The Noriega case is surrounded by gross hypocrisy, a failure to tell the full truth concerning the nature of the US-Panamanian relations during the period of Noriega’s rule of the country from 1983-1989, and the exact details of the ties existing at the time between Washington and Panama City.
At the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, we have long been intrigued by the links between the two hemispheric entities. From the days of Noriega’s attendance at the Peruvian National Academy as a young cadet -- Panama did not have such an institution of its own -- to shortly before the establishment of intelligence connections between the youthful Noriega and the colossus to the north, Noriega’s flawed relationship with Washington has been a matter of conjecture. What we had here was a cursed knot binding the two countries together.
It is probable that Noriega’s privileged place on the US payroll would have lasted to this day if Roberto Eisenmann, a distinguished Panamanian democratic figure, had not fled to the country at the risk of his life after being identified as a mortal foe of the Panamanian strongman. Eisenmann tirelessly patrolled the corridors of power in Washington, spreading anti-Noriega gospel. Finally, through much of the 1980s, Eisenmann lobbied the US Senate until he was successful in having that body pass a resolution cutting off all assistance to Panama because of Noriega’s human rights violations and his connections to drug-trafficking and money laundering.
But President George H.W. Bush did not readily acquiesce to the anti-Noriega template being pushed at this point by the Senate. Noriega had been an effective CIA asset, plying Washington with accurate on-the-ground information in the Washington-backed contra campaign against the Sandinistas and in the Salvadoran government’s ugly war against the FMLN guerrillas.
Noriega had allowed US airplanes to take off from Howard Air Force Base to fly over Nicaragua and El Salvador to photograph and select potential targets for US-backed local forces, as well as critical intelligence information on Cuba and on Russian activity in the Caribbean basin. On a visit to Panama in the 1980s, Bush was reportedly briefed on local realities. When Bush became president and the Senate was taking a strong embargo stand against Noriega, the US president eventually yielded to the interventionists in Washington who were calling for military action against Panama. Even though Bush would have preferred to have tried to maintain the formerly valuable US ties with Noriega, this had become all but impossible. This was particularly the case after the late Senator Ted Kennedy and other Senate liberals like Senators Dodd and Leahy were calling for decisive actions against the cynical Panamanian dictator.
(COHA director Larry Birns had been invited to Panama by General Noriega just before the U.S. invasion was launched. In his communiqué to Birns, he described him as his “honorable enemy.” Birns is believed to have been the last American citizen to meet with Noriega before the US attack was launched.)
So what to do with General Noriega now that he is arriving back to his country after having served more than 22 years in US and French jails? It would clearly be cruel and unusual punishment to be sent to some bleak Panamanian jail at the age of 77, no matter how accented by interior decoration. In keeping with Panamanian law, the international community should call upon Panamanian authorities to place the Panamanian outcast under nothing more than house arrest, rather than requiring him to face another 20 years of incarceration or even more.
The US knowingly and cynically used Noriega even though it was fully apprised regarding his links to drug traffickers and money launderers. Incidentally, Noriega, while being portrayed back in Washington as a large-scale drug trafficker, was actually a relatively modest operator. And the US falsely told the American people that the elimination of Noriega would all but end the drug trafficking surge, a notion which was and is patently untrue.
Today, under president Ricardo Martinelli, Panama is even more corrupt than it was under Noriega, yet President Obama did not even bother to mention this fact when he aggressively campaigned for the passage of the bilateral trade agreement with that country.
COHA calls for compassion. House arrest is the proper sentence to mete out to a man who was but one of countless US officials and Central American operators who worked outside the law and would never qualify for a red badge of courage.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org
December 14, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)