Clyde Weatherhead's Latest Books 2020

January 2018:

A Month That Will Go Down in Infamy

As I prepare to take my rest for the night, I am drawn, almost compelled to record my comment on the dubious distinction that is now conferred on the current month, the first of 2018.

Today, the newspapers reported that after 2 overnight killings, the murder toll to date was now 59, a record for ANY MONTH in the history of our nation which is officially not at war.

When our history is written January 2018 will go down in infamy as the most murderous month ever in T&T’s history. Not even, slavery and indentureship, or the infamous brutal police and military attacks on protesting civilians in 1884, 1937, 1970, 1975 or otherwise were as brutal.

Our society is fast losing its humanity. Yet, we are invited to get ‘inside the festival’ enjoy the Carnival that is ‘Sweet fuh Days’ and wine and ‘splinters’ de place as a kind of mass narcotic to numb the horrific pain that engulfs our nation and society.

WHO WILL HALT THE SLAUGHTER?

I am hoping that in this 23^rd hour of the very day, that 59 has not turned into 60 or worse.

More importantly, like many others I am certain, I, too, must ask: Who will halt the slaughter?

Firstly, for a bit of perspective, I glance back at the murderous toll since 1997. In 21 years, we have lost 7,259 souls to an out-of-control homicidal tsunami that refuses to recede back into the ocean and leave our land in peace.

Yes, 7,259 people slaughtered in this nation which is not in Aleppo, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya or any of the current theatres of war on the face of the globe.

In 2011, our tiny 2 rocks on the world map was ranked 13^th in the scale of countries with the highest murder rate per 100,000 population. Where are we ranked now? Who cares?

A few days ago, the Prime Minister of this country has said “We are at 48 murders and I said to my wife that is a hell of a thing that I have a job where I am held responsible for the things that I have absolutely no involvement in or control over”.

Our Head of Government, who just over 2 years ago said in his party’s manifesto “crime remains the most serious problem affecting our citizens today…” blamed the” UNC-led regime” and their “record on crime” for this most serious problem affecting citizens.

Now, he declares the he has “absolutely no involvement in or control over” halting the slaughter.

In 2015, his PNM was promising all that “The new PNM Government will move swiftly” to do “unlike the incompetent UNC-led regime...”.

He had the answers then. His party promised that their new PNM Government was going to do this and going to do that to halt crime.

Now, after 553 more murders in the last 12 months and 30 days, the same head of the ‘new’ PNM Government disclaims Responsibility, Involvement and Control.

Were this not so tragic, it would be the stuff for the Comedy Cool Down Tents of 2018.

But, despite Pilate washing his hands only days after this astonishing declaration, the headlines screamed “ TTPS division heads summoned to meeting with PM” when “the murder toll stood at 52, with five days remaining in the month”.

So, which is it Mr. PM. You not involved or are you too involved in directing the Police in their work?

Perhaps, when they figure out who really is responsible, someone will finally act to halt the slaughter.

Not a word about the detection rates despite the heaping of praises by the PM and the PNM chorus on the police following one or two arrests connected with a couple of murders earlier in the month.

Not a word about DETECTION RATES despite the bravado and gun-talk by the top National Security Minister following the killing of a 15-year old schoolboy, Joshua Andrews, in Laventille.

Most definitely NOT A WORD ABOUT CONVICTION RATES despite the Attorney-General’s Claim of 20 more on death row in the last 12 months.

No one, not even the Prime Minister, is accounting to the people of this country after a month that will go down in infamy, for the failure of the Government and the State to deal with what they described in September 2015 as “the most serious problem affecting our citizens”.

The Government and the State have failed to give any guarantee to the Right of Citizens to Safety and Security.

They must not be allowed to disclaim responsibility.

They must be made to account for this failure.

They must be made to take up their responsibility for guaranteeing the Rights of Citizens.

The slaughter of 7,259 of our Citizens demands it. 

Celebrate the First Peoples Support Their Right-To-Be

On the First Peoples Holiday 2017:

Celebrating the First Peoples

Supporting Their Right-To-Be

Mabrika! Welcome!

This year we join with the First Peoples of this land in what has been declared a “One-Off” Holiday in their honour and celebration on October 13..

There is an irony to the very notion of a “One-Off” Holiday in a land dubbed ‘the place with the most public holidays on earth’ by some.

While we annually celebrate many of the peoples who have come to this land long after the First Peoples and we pay homage to their cultures on such public holidays, we have only now reached the point of recognising what some advertisements describe as “the first One-Off” First Peoples Holiday.

Imagine the first of the first-and-last Holiday of the peoples whose land we all now occupy.

Celebrate the First Peoples

This land, Caeiri (told us as Kairi) has been the home and domain of the First Peoples for more than 5000 years.

The Santa Rosa First Peoples Community, survives as the only organised area of Amerindian survival in this land. Several smaller groups of Amerindian descent can be found in other areas across the land.

In 1990, only 27 years ago, this organised community of First Peoples was formally recognised by Government.

 In 2015, the Community was granted a lease for 30 years in the first instance of 25 acres of land for the establishment of an Indigenous Heritage Village.

After being robbed of all the land of Caeiri by the ‘discoverers’ and colonizers and after surviving the genocidal elimination of almost their entire civilization, the only remaining organised community of First Peoples is “granted” a piece of their land for a ‘generous’ period of 30 years.

The declaration of a “One-Off” Holiday for these peoples, by those who now occupy their land only compounds the ‘gift’ of piece of land to the First Peoples. What irony!

Having ‘discovered’ and colonized this land, the Spanish ‘explorers’ set about the ‘civilizing’ and ‘Christianizing” of the Nepouyo, Loco no, Taino, Karina and Wairau ancestral tribes.

Using their encomiendas , the Spanish conquerors were rewarded the ‘gift’ of some indigenous people. The Missions were tasked with eliminating the indigenous belief systems and culture. The conquistadors proceeded with bible in one hand and sword in the other.

The process of bringing ‘civilization’ to these peoples was really their systematic elimination which did not achieve total annihilation only because of the staunch resistance and defence of their very lives and heritage.

Support Their Right-To-Be

The First Peoples, like those who were brought to their land later by the occupying colonizers, as chattel and other forced labour for their estates and factories, have only survived because they have cherished their Right-To-Be.

It is the fight for this Right to exist as a people that has ensured their presence today in this land and in all the lands snatched from the First Peoples by conquering explorers and Empire builders.

The story of our First Peoples is sadly so like that of the indigenous peoples of North and South America nearest to us and the other continents of the globe.

Despite the  of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous  Peoples, First Peoples continue to fight for their hereditary and other rights as nations; not to be reduced to curios or quaint reminders of a ‘savage’ past in museums.

Our Constitution does not recognise the indigenous peoples of this land and their rights as human beings are not guaranteed.

The Right-To-Be of indigenous peoples includes hereditary rights to sovereignty, to the protection of their heritage and culture as well as to determine their affairs.

The resistance and mere survival of the First Peoples of this land tells us that indigenous rights cannot be forfeited or eliminated, but must be respected and affirmed.

Whether a “One-Off” Holiday or ‘granting’ of a lease to land to the original inhabitants of this land, Caeiri, neither respects or affirms the Right-To-Be of the indigenous peoples.

Celebrating the Heritage of our First Peoples and Supporting their Right-To-Be requires both a national annual holiday and full ownership of the land of the Heritage Village at the very least.

The rest of us, as descendants of those brought here by the occupiers of the lands of the First Peoples or as descendants of the colonizers, we must all stand fully in support of the rights of the indigenous peoples, by supporting them in their fight for full recognition of their rights.

This “One-Off” Heritage Holiday must be a commitment to continuing support for and solidarity with the First Peoples and for the affirmation of their rights in our Constitution and law and to give full respect and recognition of the proud heritage of our indigenous peoples.

Asserting and guaranteeing their rights is an integral part of guaranteeing the rights of all others who make up this society in this land – Caeiri.

12 October 2017

The 2018 Budget – In Search of the New Paradigm

The 2018 Budget –

In Search of the New Paradigm

On October 2nd, for more than 3 hours, the nation sat through the 2018 Budget Speech.

For nearly a fortnight, the scene was carefully prepared. Through the talk shows and the columnists in the print media there was a constant bombardment about ‘the most serious economic challenge’ facing the nation.

Five days before Budget Day, when the essential allocations had already been completed and the various estimates of expenditure and revenue were tabulated, the Prime Minister organised a Forum titled “Spotlight on Trinidad and Tobago’s Financial Circumstance: The Road Ahead”.

The PM himself made it clear that “Today’s discussion is not meant to be a preparation for the Budget” and reminded everyone that “at the end of the day, the Government has, on behalf of the population, in all these difficult buffeting circumstances, we have to make decisions and move forward”.

This event was another instalment of the dramatic style adopted by this government of forecasting the worst ahead of each of its Budgets. The objective – to make the measures when actually presented appear to be “not so bad”.

So, the stage was set and the presentation came, decrying the ‘false economy’ and making promises of “Changing the paradigm”.

THE BARE BONES

At the end of all the talk, the Budget Speech introduced the essential provisions of the Appropriation (Financial Year - 2018) Bill, 2017 – the fiscal projections for fiscal 2018.

For ease of comparison, below are Budgets 2017 and 2018 as projected:

2017 BUDGET
Total Revenue ($B)	$47.441
Oil Revenue	$  2.575
Non-oil Revenue	$44.866
Total Expenditure	$53.475
National Security	$  7.625
Education and Training	$  7.222
Health	$  6.250
Public Utilities	$  3.293
Works and Transport	$  2.087
Rural Development and Local Government	$  1.919
Agriculture	$    .766
Housing	$    .664
Surplus/Deficit	$  6.034

2018 BUDGET
Total Revenue ($B)	$45.741
Oil Revenue	$  6.412
Non-oil Revenue	$32.910
Total Expenditure	$50.501
Education and Training	$  7.291
National Security	$  6.237
Health	$  6.028
Public Utilities	$  3.545
Works and Transport	$  3.091
Rural Development and Local Government	$  1.849
Housing	$   1.005
Agriculture	$    .545
Surplus/Deficit	$  4.760

Note the changes in priorities in Expenditure (allocations to Ministries) which are interesting in themselves. We shall relate that to the policies touted in the rest of the Budget Speech later.

The actual outcome for fiscal 2017 was:

2017 ACTUAL
Total Revenue ($B)	$37.836
Total Expenditure	$50.479
Surplus/Deficit	$12.644

So, last year Revenue was $10B less and Expenditure was $3B less. But, the Deficit was $6.6B more or twice the budgeted figure.

But, without sufficient explanation for the $10B shortfall in Revenue collected last year, although Oil Revenue collected was higher than budgeted, the Finance Minister presented his projections for fiscal 2018.

GOVERNMENT’S STRATEGY

The difficulties of the current economic situation marked by:

• ·         a contracting economy
• ·         precipitous decline in energy revenues related to the plunge in global energy prices
• ·         foreign exchange difficulties and pressures on the exchange rate of the TT currency
• ·         Continuing deficit budgeting
• ·         Mounting public debt, debt servicing costs and troubling Debt:GDP ratios
• ·         Declining foreign reserves and drawdowns on Heritage and Stabilisation Fund resources
• ·         Unchanged historical economic structure with over-reliance on single commodity production
• ·         Sluggish movement toward the development of new productive economic sectors capable of export and foreign exchange earnings

with other persistent problems in the background.

What then are the government’s strategic goals for addressing these issues?

Within the Budget Speech and otherwise the goals of the government’s strategy have been presented in various banner lines like – Avoiding the IMF and Maintaining Employment.

The 2018 Budget Speech was themed - Changing the Paradigm Putting the Economy on a Sustainable Path. Based on this caption, the Budget measures must be examined to see how and to what extent each or all of them take us in the direction of a sustainable economy.

What constitutes a sustainable economy? How is it to be structured? What macroeconomic indicators would suggest sustainability?

These are some of the indicators which must be defined for objective assessment of achieving such an economy.

However, none of this is addressed in any detail in the 2018 Budget Speech with the theme of putting us on the path of achieving sustainability in our economic affairs, which will make any real assessment of progress difficult, if not impossible.

EXAMINING SPECIFIC MEASURES

As with almost all previous Budget Speeches, the devil is in the detail or what is not said may be more critical that what is.

More importantly, are these measures aimed at putting us on the path of a sustainable economy or are they aimed at narrower goals – balancing the Budget, maintaining low inflation or currency exchange rates, reducing use of reserves or even narrower and more self-serving unstated ones?

Let us look at some of the measures: -

Sharing the Burden of Adjustment

Taxation –

• ·         Increases in Corporation Tax – 30%
• ·         Increase in Corporation Tax on Banks – 35%
• ·         Increased or new Royalty payments on Oil and Gas -
• ·         Increased License Fees for Private Hospitals – $25-100,00 up from $150
• ·         Increased duties and taxes in the Gaming establishments

PROS: These measures may bring increases in Government Revenue and narrow the fiscal gap.

CONS: These are illusory and are aimed at misleading workers who are currently on wage freeze and losing jobs and other vulnerable groups with impressions of “sharing the burden of adjustment”.

There is absolutely NO measure proposed or existing to prevent the Banks and Businesses from passing on the cost of the new taxes and fees on to the consumers and their already limited or fixed incomes.

Reducing Transfers and Subsidies

• ·         Fuel subsidy elimination
• ·         Harmonising duties on tyres

PROS: Eliminating the fuel subsidy reduces Government Revenue and may narrow the fiscal gap.

CONS: The first two measures will immediately lead to increases of transportation for all purposes. Regardless of the actual effect of these increases on actual transport costs, every kind of business in all goods and services will pass on disproportionate increases in prices to consumers. Increased utility costs will also negatively impact the consumers and fixed income earners

Improving Revenue Collection

• ·         Self-employed professionals need to pay their fair share
• ·         New target for establishing Revenue Authority

PROS: Expanding the tax net and improving collection administration may increase Government Revenue and may narrow the fiscal gap.

CONS: Taxation of the self-employed may be counter-productive for the promotion of Small and Medium businesses and may lead to increases in professional fees as costs may be passed on to consumers.

Reducing Expenditure

• Rate Increases for Utilities

PROS: Utility increases may reduce Subsidy costs and Government Expenditure.

CONS: Increased utility rates and transportation fares (PTSC mentioned) will negatively impact consumers and those on fixed incomes including the most vulnerable.

Housing Construction Incentive

• ·         Cash incentive or land to private developers for specified housing - $100,000 each unit

PROS: This may encourage some housing construction by the private sector and reduce Government Expenditure on housing.

CONS: The actual cost of the specified housing units will not be affected, so the cost of housing to new homeowners will not be reduced.

Diversifying The Economy

• ·         Export Promotion – facility at EximBank - US$100M
• ·         Business Development Incentive – Grant – 50 x $100,000
• ·         Agriculture Incentive – Grant – 20 x $100,000
• ·         Tourism – increased maximum reimbursement limits – 100%
• ·         Creative Industries – Artiste Portfolio Development Programme, Export Ready Academy, Production Assistance and Script Development Programme, Garment Production Facility and Tailoring Certification Programme

PROS: These facilities may assist the development of businesses in some of the targeted sectors and may contribute to export earnings or import reduction (agriculture).

CONS: Apart from broad sector identification and a broad export promotion (actually forex facility) to finance inputs, targets for export quantities and forex earnings are not established and may not lead to results that take our foreign exchange earnings to the point of replacement of energy sector earnings or revenues.

COMMENT

Most of these measures are short-term in nature and are not specifically targeted to decided production or export decided measurable goals either in terms of quantified exports or export earning or to segment GDP contribution target.

The only statements in the Budget Speech with a medium-term timeline appears under the heading Medium-Term Fiscal Policy and focuses on anticipated improvements in production and revenue in and from the Energy Sector.

This suggests that, despite all that is said about diversification, that necessary objective for a sustainable economy long into the future is not yet seriously focused on in terms of Government’s policy considerations.

The reliance on Oil and Gas is anticipated to continue.

Even where Tourism is discussed in the context of a new growth sector for the economy, massive reliance is placed on the single project of a Sandals Resort at the Golden Grove Estate in Tobago.

Nothing is said in this Budget Speech, apart from repeated references to anticipated benefits of this yet-to-be-concluded negotiation.

Only the cost of expanding electricity generation and establishing desalination facilities in Tobago in anticipation of increased utility requirements of the Resort are mentioned in the “other” financing by Government in Tobago.

TOBAGO

The allocation to Tobago is misrepresented in this Budget Speech as it is presented in the following manner:

·         budgetary allocation to the Tobago House of Assembly for fiscal 2018 is $2.1936 billion - 4.34% of the national Budget

·         a further $1.09 billion is allocated to facilitate work in Tobago by Government Ministries

·         giving approval to the Assembly to borrow money in 2018 to accelerate its development programme

This gives the impression that this is ‘the largest’ allocation ever given to Tobago. It is all optics which is quite deceptive.

The possibility of the THA itself taking on debt is touted. However, whether or how those debts will be accounted for in the national public debt profile or how their repayment will be financed is mentioned.

The actual allocation is $2.1936 billion.

Government expenditure in Tobago has always and remains a line item of the national Budget and is nothing new. In 2017, similar allocations for building of fire stations and other projects was also included.

However, not a word is mentioned of the cost or financing of expanded or improved air and sea ports to accommodate the increased airlift and sea transport that we are told that this Resort will generate.

THE UNMENTIONED ELEMENTS

There are some very important matters that are not given even cursory mention in the Budget Speech.

The Cost of the Sandals Resort

No figure presented or even mentioned for the cost of building the Sandals Resort which will be like the Hilton and Hyatt arrangements i.e. the construction and infrastructural costs are to be borne by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. But, not a word in the Budget Speech as if this is of no significance in this difficult economic situation.

The Effect of Deregulation of Maxi Taxis

No precise details of how the deregulation of the maxi taxi transport business will operate is given.

Nothing is said about what its effects will be on the use of the hubs, possible over-operation or under-provision on routes depending on viability may be avoided, levels of fares, etc.

Nothing is said of the possible effects on the incomes of present operators or service to the travelling public.

The one thing that is certain is that the importers and distributors of maxi taxis will benefit.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 Budget Speech reveals more in what it does not expressly say about the thinking and approach of the government to the deep-seated and fundamental economic issues facing this nation.

Despite:

• ·         the references to its National Development Strategy (2016 – 2030) which is its sole creation
• ·         the Vision 2030: National Performance Framework (2017 – 2020) which suggests that a long-term strategic approach is being implemented and evaluated
• ·         the convening of its talk-shop forum titled “Spotlight on Trinidad and Tobago’s Financial Circumstance: The Road Ahead” 5 days before
• ·         the continuous messaging about how critical the situation is and 2018 being a “Make or Break” year

this Budget Speech like the others for 2016 and 2017 tell us that the focus of the present administration is most self-serving and to create confusion about the present-day realities and the future.

There is nothing really new or creative presented.

Even the budgeted figures are almost a carbon copy of last year’s Budget.

The objective is very narrow and short-sighted.

As Imbert himself has put it “T&T has to get out of the deficit budget syndrome...” .

This Government is haunted by the ghost of 1986 and intent on not going to the IMF or appearing to be focused on keeping jobs.

What it really means is – We don’t want to end up like the NAR.

It is repeating the same positions presented in the last 2 Budgets, discussing the same projects like Sandals, Revenue Authority, sectors for diversification and so on.

It is disguising its policy failures like the Public-Private Partnership in Housing it touted last year in which the only project of significance was one with one of its close associates – Elias.

It is mystifying the underlying causes of the present recession and economic crisis and how these are linked to the very nature of our economic and political systems.

It is attempting to present itself as being capable of solving the fundamental problems and the immediate consequences of this chronically failed economic construct that cannot provide any sustainable development that is without repeated and deeper crises.

In short, using populist talk about “Sharing the Burden”, being “a Government (not) driven only by requests of big business” and making everybody pay their “fair share” to hide the real goal of ensuring the maintenance of the rates of profit for the monopolies at the expense of the majority.

What this Budget Speech shows is that the members of this society need to pay even greater attention to the realities of the situation and the real workings of the economy and politics.

The majority in the society must not continue to accept the empty talk about restructuring the economy while all that is proposed is the same old structure with dependence on oil and gas.

We can no longer accept the empty talk about developing agriculture which has been ruined over the years since Independence because of the singular focus and reliance on the hydrocarbon mono-commodity.

We can no longer accept that going from crisis to crisis based on the fortunes of “the energy price shock that we have been subjected to”; that the present and future is entirely out of our control.

We can no longer accept that our fortunes and those of our economy depend on the good or bad policies of one or other party in power or which of them is more or less corrupt.

We must make our own analysis, understand the workings of the economy and the economic systems and what we need to do about it to bring about a future that is certain and an economy that can meet the needs of our population.

We must demand an end to the charade of ‘consultation’ like that fake Forum which the Prime Minister himself made it clear would change nothing in the Budget which was already decided.

This Budget Speech must remind us that we must be able to argue things out, to understand why things are going as they are and by our analysis and developing our own solutions make ourselves capable of fully participating in the decision-making process and setting the agenda for the economy and the entire society in the interest of the majority and not the minority 1 per cent.

Our very lives and future depend on doing that.

A Temporary Land Tax?

A Temporary Land Tax?

-         Tax at All Costs

A recent newspaper report drew attention to a Cabinet Note, dated September 7, 2017 proposing a new Temporary Land Tax to be imposed during October 2017 – September 2019.

WHY THIS LAND TAX?

So, Government is creating this NEW Land Tax:

A.    To temporarily fill a hole in the Government’s Revenue-Expenditure account.

B.     To fill the gap existing because the Property Tax created in 2009 cannot be implemented until 2020. The valuation of properties for which a May deadline was given, “is expected to last beyond 2018”.

This new flat rate tax is not connected to Rental or Capital Value.

It is nothing more than a desperate measure to increase revenues at the expense of all land owners.

It is a plaster on the sore of the crisis gripping the economy and Government’s disastrous financial position.

FROM LAND & BUILDING TAX TO LAND TAX

Land & Building Tax was 2 taxes in one – Land Tax and Building Tax.

In 2009, the PNM Manning administration repealed and replaced the Land & Building Taxes with the Property Tax.

In 2017, the PNM Rowley administration, unable to implement the Property Tax, is dragging the country back to a Land Tax but with a twist.

To see the effect of this new punitive Land Tax, it is useful to compare the Land Tax that was last paid on land, under Land & Building Taxes in 2009 with the Land Tax to be paid in 2018 and 2019.

The first table shows the rates of Land Tax payable under the Land & Building Tax which is the last tax on property we paid in 2009.

L&B Land Tax Rates

On lands 10 acres or less	$10.00 per acre or part thereof
On lands over 10 acres – 100 acres	$10.00/acre on the first 10 acres $15.00/acre on each acre up to 100 acres $20.00/acre on each additional acre or part thereof

NEW Land Tax Rates

residential land:

Size of Land	2009 Land Tax	2018-19 Land Tax
1 lot – 5,000 sq ft or less	$10	$350
5001-10,000 sq ft	$10	$750
10,001 – 43,560 sq ft	$10	$1,500
1 acre	$10	$2,000
3 acres	$30	$3,000
5 acres	$50	$4,000

agricultural land:

Size of Land	2009 Land Tax	2018-19 Land Tax
1 lot – 5,000 sq ft or less	$10	$300
1 acre	$10	$500
3 acres	$30	$750
5 acres	$50	$1,000
10 acres	$100	$1,500

commercial land:

Size of Land	2009 Land Tax	2018-19 Land Tax
1 lot – 5,000 sq ft or less	$10	$4500
1 acre	$10	$15,000
3 acres	$30	$20,000
5 acres	$50	$30,000
10 acres	$100	$40,000

Taking the example of a single lot of land (5,000 sq. ft), for residential land the increase is $340 or 3400% and for commercial land the increase is $4490 or 44,900%.

Looking at agricultural land, for 1 acre of land, t increase is $290 or 2900% and for 10 acres, the increase is $1,400 or 1,400%.

With the current economic conditions, these increased taxes on land will be sold by Government as being “not burdensome”, “reasonable”, etc.

What has to be kept in mind is that this Tax does not include the value of either the land or houses or other buildings that may be on the land which will be used to set the tax when the Property Tax is imposed in 2020.

This temporary Land Tax is being imposed because the illegal Property Tax cannot immediately and amendments to the Property Tax Act 2009 and the already amended Valuation of Land Act will have to be passed.

While Government will waive the Property Tax for 2 years, their waiver is another fake as they will impose the Temporary Land Tax anyway.

The Property Tax, which they have been trying to implement since 2015, and which they could not, will be imposed with its full weight as an unreasonable and unfair tax on all properties in 2020.