Wednesday, 11 December 2013
Grenada has first female Certified Ringside Physician
Professional boxing is back in Cuba after some 53 years and Grenada was part of that historic event, being represented by International Boxing Association Certified Ringside Physician, Dr. Deborah-Ann Stephens-John.
Dr. Stephens-John is the first Grenadian as well as the first woman in the whole of the Western Hemisphere to hold this post in this field of international professional boxing.
The competition was on December 6 between Cuba and Russia in Havana, Cuba. Dr. Stephens-John is the leader of the team of Physicians who conducted the medicals on participants and examined the physical conditions of the ring and venue.
Grenada’s Ambassador to Cuba, Her Excellency Claris Charles, congratulated Dr. Stephens-John for being the pioneer in this area of professional boxing, going into a field that is traditionally male
dominated and projecting Grenada on the international landscape again. (LS)
Hard to predict end result of Caricom-DR dispute
Far from moving towards a resolution, the inter-regional dispute over a Constitutional Court ruling in the Dominican Republic has become polarised, with Caricom, the Dominican Republic and Haiti taking seemingly entrenched and antagonistic positions.
It had widely been expected that, with the help of Venezuelan mediation, a basis had been agreed on which to begin to address a tense situation that could make stateless large numbers of undocumented individuals mainly of Haitian origin living in the Dominican Republic; the precise number is disputed.
On 21 November, agreement had been reached to prioritise a dialogue between the two states and to de-emphasise the increasingly damaging regional and international debate over the issue. However, this collapsed within days of having been agreed when on 27 November the Dominican government decided to put an end, ‘for the time being’, to the planned discussions on the basis that Haiti had reneged on its commitment to prioritise dialogue.
On that date, the Dominican Minister of the Presidency, Gustavo Montalvo, announced his government’s decision not to attend a follow up meeting scheduled for 30 November in Caracas. He did so on the basis that it was felt that Haiti, by actively seeking and agreeing to a strongly worded statement produced by the Caricom Bureau on 26 November, had effectively broken the word and spirit of what had been agreed with Venezuelan support.
Mr Montalvo said: “We feel that (by doing so) the Haitian government has broken the agreement that we signed last week, in which a process of dialogue was prioritised by the two countries in order to seek solutions for any issues on our common agenda. Haiti has preferred to take another road.”
At the Caricom Bureau meeting, which brought together Trinidad’s Prime Minister, Kamla Persad Bissessar; her St Vincent counterpart, Dr Ralph Gonsalves; the President of Haiti, Michel Martelly; plus the CARICOM Secretary General, Irwin la Rocque, it was agreed to defer consideration of the Dominican application for membership of Caricom, where it currently has observer status.
In a statement, CARICOM condemned “the abhorrent and discriminatory ruling of September 23, 2013, of the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic on nationality which retroactively strips tens of thousands of Dominicans, mostly of Haitian descent, of citizenship, rendering them stateless and with no recourse to appeal”.
The Caricom Bureau also indicated that Caricom would review its relationship with the Dominican Republic in other fora, including Cariforum (Caricom plus the Dominican Republic, a construct largely related to the Economic Partnership Agreement with Europe); CELAC, the new political grouping which brings together all of the nations of the Americas other than the US and Canada; and in the OAS, which includes all nations of the Americas but in which Cuba does not participate.
Since then, in an effort to try to address the impact of the constitutional court ruling, which cannot be appealed, President Medina has signed a decree that establishes the terms and conditions for the legalisation of all foreigners living in the Dominican Republic with irregular status. The measure aims to simplify and expedite procedures and sets out what foreigners living in the country must demonstrate to regularise their situation. The Medina administration also announced that in the coming weeks it would publish a bill establishing a basis for special naturalisation that will be sent to Congress.
What is less well known is that the Dominican President’s position has come under pressure from within from ultra nationalist groups such as the National Network for Defense of Sovereignty, which are critical of outsiders seeking to intervene in matters of national sovereignty or touching the Dominican constitution.
That said, the Dominican case was initially not well explained until its Ambassador in Washington provided a detailed commentary separating fact from fiction. While the absence of any detailed rebuttal up to that point may have been because its Foreign Minister had been hospitalised, it enabled international NGOs to capture opinion.
What happens next is far from clear. Although the Dominican Republic has previously suggested that it has no desire to be isolated within the region in which it is located, it is likely that the emotional aspect of the rift will last, even if a basis can be found for a mediated settlement.
This has significant implications for regional integration and in relation to trade agreements with external partners, if for example, the construct of Cariforum were to cease, or if achieving any future consensus on hemispheric or international issues were to become hostage to an inter-regional dispute of the kind that has emerged.
The problem is that it is hard to see how Caricom, having backed Haiti on the basis of morality, will in future be able to repair what was already for almost all but a few trade negotiators, investors and traders, a distant relationship with the Dominican Republic; matters not helped by the fact that the media in the Anglophone and Hispanic Caribbean have little ability to report on the nuance of what is happening in each other’s part of the region.
The reality is that few in the Anglophone Caribbean know the Dominican Republic, understand its history, know much about its internal politics, have thought much about what it is to have a land border with the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, have shown any interest in understanding the Dominican electorate’s fears, or even know of the role being played by the Republic’s xenophobic ultra-nationalists.
Much the same holds true in reverse. Efforts by the Dominican Republic to improve relations with the countries of Caricom have been sporadic at best; there is little investment or trade with Caricom other than in relation to Trinidad; much of the negative thinking about the Anglophone Caribbean from the days of President Balaguer and before remains; and there is a broader, deep-rooted, culturally-based failure to try to understand Caricom and its history.
This is not to take one side or another, or to minimise the ways in which Haitians have been treated, including within their own country, but to attempt to take a longer view and to suggest that this dispute has broader, hard to predict consequences for both the Caribbean and Latin America.
(David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at david.jessop@caribbean-council.org. Previous columns can be found at www.caribbean-council.org)
Lowering the heat on CARICOM travel and trade
Full appreciation is due to Jamaica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, A J Nicholson, for taking the initiative to invite Trinidad and Tobago’s Foreign Minister Winston Dookeran for talks over travel and trade issues that had reached boiling point between the two Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries. Equally, Dookeran deserves credit for the level-headed, unassuming and sympathetic manner in which he treated the discussions with members of the Jamaica government and the private sector.
Between the two men they lowered the heat on these contentious issues that threatened to scorch relations between their two countries. In this sense, they were the right men in the right place
at a perilous time. Two different personalities might have poured oil on troubled waters for narrow political gain by playing-up to nationalistic sentiment.
They have been wise in agreeing that in respect of “entry and stay” in CARICOM member countries, immigration officers must be guided by what is now clearly “Community Law” as instituted by Heads of Government and given clarity by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
In the case of the 13 Jamaicans who were denied entry to Trinidad and Tobago on 19 November, the rules as set out by the CCJ were not followed. Now, both Nicholson and Dookeran have agreed that the CCJ ruling must be implemented, and the Chief Immigration Officers of CARICOM countries should convene a meeting to review instances of “profiling”. Both sides also agreed that “there is a need for further training of immigration officers to effectively facilitate the hassle-free travel of Community nationals”.
The news that Attorneys-General of the 15-nation Caribbean Community, or their representatives, have also been discussing the implementation of the CCJ ruling is a positive step. In the words of the Jamaica Prime Minister, Portia Simpson-Miller, treating CARICOM nationals at CARICOM airports properly “is a matter of dignity”. The efforts by Nicholson and Dookeran must now be translated into transparent machinery at the bilateral level, but all CARICOM countries must do the same.
At the same time, there should be education in every CARICOM country about precisely what the CCJ ruling means – a task to which the CCJ itself should consider contributing. An impression appears to have been created that CARICOM nationals need only turn up at entry points in other CARICOM countries to be granted entry and the right to remain for six months. This is not necessarily so. Heads of Government did not agree to free movement of people across the borders of CARICOM countries as applies, for instance, among the 27 Member States of the European Union. What they agreed to is entitlement “to an automatic stay of six months upon arrival”, but subject to “the rights of Member States to refuse undesirable persons entry and to prevent persons from becoming a charge on public funds”.
The CCJ in its decision carefully explained that “in contradistinction to foreigners in general, nationals do have a right of entry to enter the territory of Member States unless they qualify for refusal under the two exceptions mentioned above”. It seems, therefore, that where it is clear that nationals do not have the means to keep themselves and there are no relatives or friends who have provided documentation taking responsibility for them during their stay, immigration authorities would be right in assuming that they could become charges on the public purse and so deny them entry, provided they are given a written explanation, the opportunity to call a lawyer or their Consul, and the right to appeal the decision.
The CCJ decision stops capricious or malicious denial of entry to CARICOM nationals by immigration authorities and provides rules by which any denial must be guided. Of course, it does not legislate that CARICOM nationals should be treated with “dignity” as the Jamaican Prime Minister rightly asserted should be part of the process. Treating people with dignity comes only from an appreciation of mankind’s common humanity, and an understanding that in the inter-Caribbean rivalry of past colonial governments and plantation owners, the people of the Caribbean were victims not beneficiaries. That rivalry was the rivalry of “masters” not slaves and servants. Rivalry and antagonism didn’t serve the interests of the Caribbean people then, and it doesn’t do so now.
Treating CARICOM nationals with dignity cannot be legislated, but it can be encouraged and taught. Since many immigration officers have been trained to treat foreign tourists with dignity and respect, perhaps the training should be extended to include the Caribbean people who share the same history, live in the same geographical space and depend on the co-operation and support of each other to forge a beneficial place for themselves in the international community.
On the trade issues between Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, it is less clear what has been agreed. But, at least the unhelpful proposal of a boycott by Jamaicans of Trinidad and Tobago products appears to have been quietened. Mr Nicholson is to visit Trinidad and Tobago early next year and maybe by then concrete ways of addressing the trade issue will have been worked out.
But, it is as well to note here that while for the three years 2010-2012, Jamaica had a balance of trade deficit with Trinidad and Tobago of US$2.3 billion, more than 80% of Jamaica’s imports was for mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials that the country would have had to import anyway – and probably at a higher price had it chosen to do so from other places. When the cost of mineral fuels and related materials are subtracted from the Jamaica trade deficit with Trinidad and Tobago, the figure for the three years 2010 to 2012 is US$329.3 million – still high but not as daunting as US$2.3 billion. Further economic co-operation between the two countries in production integration, mergers and investment would redound to the benefit of both, and to the wider CARICOM region.
Messrs Nicholson and Dookeran in their constructive discussions and in their search for solutions provided a whiff of the aroma that once permeated the Caribbean integration project and excited its people. They have given an example for others to follow.
P.S. Since writing this commentary I have seen the comments of the Trinidad and Tobago Minister of National Security and Immigration Gary Griffith that questioned the understandings on entry of CARICOM nationals reached by his government’s Foreign Minister with the Foreign Minister of Jamaica A J Nicholson. His remarks are unfortunate, particularly his cavalier statement that “T&T is not a mall, where anyone will be allowed entry.” They undermine the credibility not only of his government’s Foreign Minister, but also of his Prime Minister who authorised Dookeran’s visit to Jamaica to talk with Jamaica’s Foreign Minister and others with a view to finding agreed solutions to the issues of trade and travel. Mr Griffith has violated the principle of collective responsibility of Cabinet within his own government. However, judgement on whether he has actually undone the admirable efforts of Dookeran or simply vented his personal spleen, must now await the response of the Trinidad and Tobago government and its Prime Minister.
(The writer is a consultant, Senior Research Fellow at London University and former Caribbean Diplomat. Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com)
Rest in peace Mandela
“Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace.”
– Nelson Mandela
Since his passing on Thursday, December 5, tributes have poured in from around the world honouring the life and legacy of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. His life story is one that has inspired millions, and will continue to do so throughout the ages; the lessons that can be drawn from his experiences – and how he faced them – are manifold.
World leaders have paid tribute to Mandela, fondly known as Madiba. Many of them expressed that he was an inspiration to them; a personal hero.
South Africa’s President Zuma said, “Our nation has lost its greatest son. Our people have lost a father. Although we knew that this day would come, nothing can diminish our sense of a profound and enduring loss.”
Grenada’s Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell, in paying tribute, noted that “Mr. Mandela is arguably the greatest public figure of the 20th century; whose eternal legacy will be about the importance of forgiveness, reconciliation and respect for all people. Through shear moral conviction he transcended politics, and inspired people of every culture, everywhere.”
US President Obama said, “We will not likely see the likes of Nelson Mandela again. So it falls to us as best we can to forward the example that he set: to make decisions guided not by hate, but by love; to never discount the difference that one person can make; to strive for a future that is worthy of his sacrifice.”
The UK’s PM Cameron lamented, “A great light has gone out in the world. Nelson Mandela was a hero of our time… Nelson Mandela was a towering figure in our time; a legend in life and now in death – a true global hero.”
Despite the sadness the world feels right now, we can find some comfort in the fact that Nelson Mandela was one world shaper who was able to end his days naturally and in peace. In fact, when one considers the dangers he faced during his fight against the racist and oppressve system of apartheid, one must appreciate and be truly thankful that he was blessed to live to the ripe old age of 95.
He was the face and unifying symbol of a movement to bring down an embedded regime within his country – and not always by peaceful means. And whatever he achieved within South Africa would have a ripple effect across the world. He spent 27 years in prison doing hard labour. And when he was finally freed, he then took on the monumental task of ushering in a new era for South Africa as the first black President at the age of 71.
How many other leaders who represented the promise of major ideological or political change could count themselves so lucky? Certainly not Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X or John F. Kennedy Jr. These men were all cut down before they had the chance to naturally pass on their baton. History was left to wonder – what if?
Not so with Mandela. Rather than being lost to the world through violence or political machinations, he was able to depart this earth peacefully and surrounded by family.
One is not even tempted to ask ‘what if… he hadn’t spent 27 years locked away, how much more might he have achieved’, because it was this hardship which defined him as a symbol of freedom and conviction. It no doubt also had a profound effect on his character, moulding him into the man capable of the great dignity and grace for which he was revered.
Nelson Mandela may have succumbed to his mortality, but ultimately, he is immortal.
There can hardly be any doubt that he is resting in peace.
REVENUE GROWTH PLAN
By Linda Straker
Withholding a tax on lottery winnings, a tourism marketing levy and increasing user fees are among initiatives to be taken by the Grenada Government during the upcoming budgetary years as it embarks on efforts to increase its revenue.
Though they were mentioned during pre-Budget discussion, Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell, who is also the Finance Minister, announced the new measures on Tuesday when he delivered the 2014 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure at the Trade Centre.
Other measures aimed at raising revenue for Government will be the lowering of the income tax threshold to EC$36 000; increasing property tax; a reduction on manufacturers rebate; restoration of the standard VAT on selected construction materials; and the fees from the Citizenship by Investment Programme.
Dr. Mitchell, in his more than two hours speech, told the packed Trade Centre that in our system of democracy, citizens pay their taxes and the Government delivers vital services to citizens.
“It is a contract. No country can run without taxes. Mr. Speaker, every taxpayer must pay his or her fair share,” he said, while explaining that his Government, which is presenting the second Budget since winning the February 19 General Election, will be using three approaches to encourage and enforce tax compliance. These will be adjustment to tax policy; stronger tax administration; and reduction of tax concessions.
Elaborating on the decision to increase Property Tax, Dr. Mitchell said that Grenada has one of the lowest property tax rates in the Caribbean and from January 2014, the property tax rates will be
increased, in some cases by 100%.
“Land: 0.2% from 0.1%; Building: 0.3% from 0.15%; Agriculture lands: which remain idle will attract a rate of 0.2% instead of 0%. It should be noted that the exemption of the first $100 000 on your building value will be maintained. Owners of very small parcels of land worth less than $20 000 will now pay a Minimum Tax of $40 instead of $20. Owners of land and building worth less than
$100 000, where the exemption applies, will now pay $60 instead of $30,” he said.
“Government has not increased the Property Tax rates for commercial and industrial purposes. This decision has been taken in recognition of the difficulties that the business community has experienced in recent years and Government’s strong desire to spur job creation,” he said, as he pointed out that with this rate adjustment, Government expects to collect an additional $8.0 million in property tax next year.
With regards to the Tourism Marketing Levy, the Finance Minister said that the Government and the tourism industry both agree on the urgent need to increase the marketing of Grenada as a destination of choice.
“In this regard, Government will introduce a Tourism Marketing Levy of US$5 per night for each stayover visitor. The funds collected from this Levy will be used exclusively for marketing Grenada and will be collected by Government and channelled to the Grenada Tourism Authority for the sole purpose of marketing Grenada,” he told the audience, which reflected a wide cross-section from the business community.
Two million is expected from Withholding Tax on Lottery Winnings from a 15% withholding tax and by registering and licensing slot machines and games of chance.
While no projected amount was given for Increased User Fees, he said that there are some user fees and licences that have not been revised for several years and as a general principle, Government will revise fees to better reflect the cost of these services.
“In this regard, umbrella legislation will be taken early in the new year to adjust fees for selected services,” he said.
However, Parliament recently approved an increase in a number of fees relating to the traffic regulations and for passengers boarding yachts from Grenada.
The 2014 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure provides for total expenditure, including principal repayments of EC$933 932 530. The overall budget can be summarised as follows: Recurrent Revenue: $471.1 million; Recurrent Expenditure: $487.0 million; Current Account Deficit: $15.9 million; Primary Deficit (after Grants): $44.0 million; Capital Expenditure: $262.0 million; Principal Repayments/Amortization: $185.0 million; and overall Deficit (after Grants): $139.4 million.
The seven largest allocations are:
1. Debt – $280.4 million (30% of total expenditure).
2. Ministry of Education and Human Resources – $110.2 million (11.8% of total expenditure).
3. Ministry of Youth and Sports – $70.1 million (7.5% of total expenditure).
4. Ministry of Health – $67.2 million (7.2% of total expenditure).
5. Ministry of Finance and Energy – $57.3 million (6.1% of total expenditure).
6. Pensions and Gratuities – $51.4 million (5.5% of total expenditure).
7. Ministry of Works – $50.4 million (5.4% of total expenditure).
Dr. Mitchell said that the Overall Deficit of $139.4 million or 6.2 per cent of GDP will be financed from domestic and external sources. A loan authorisation bill to raise $140 million in financing to support implementation of the 2014 Budget accompanies the 2014 Appropriation Bill. Most of the external financing will be direct support for Grenada’s Home-grown Programme.
Cancer Society to benefit from Australia’s High Commission grant
The Healthy Caribbean Coalition (HCC) has been awarded a grant by the Australian High Commission Direct Aid Programme to fund a multi-country cervical cancer prevention initiative aimed at building the capacity of key Caribbean civil society actors to respond more effectively to the community-based needs for cervical cancer prevention, treatment and control.
 |
| Ambassador Ross Tysoe presenting the grant to Maisha Hutton, Manager of the Healthy Caribbean Coalition (HCC), joined by Professor Sir Trevor Hassell, President of the HCC (second from right); Gail Niles, HCC volunteer (far left); and Ian Pitts, HCC IT Co-ordinator (far right). |
The recipient organisations and countries are as follows: the Belize Cancer Society (BCS); the Dominica Cancer Society (DCS); the Grenada Cancer Society (GCS); the Cancer Institute of Guyana (CIG); and the Jamaica Cancer Society (JCS).
The Caribbean Civil Society Cervical Cancer Prevention Initiative (C4PI) seeks to improve the capacity of CSOs to positively impact the continuum of cervical cancer care and avert cervical cancer-related deaths.
The C4PI supports the PAHO “Regional Strategy and Plan of Action for Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control in Latin America and the Caribbean”, internationally and regionally agreed goal of 80 per cent coverage in cervical cancer screening by 2025, the WHO Best Buy Interventions, and the Declaration for Universal Access to Cervical Cancer Prevention.
Professor Sir Trevor Hassell, President of the HCC, in thanking Ambassador Tysoe, said: “This project exemplifies the role of the HCC as an organisation building the capacity of regional CSOs by adding value to their daily operations and directly impacting the achievement of their respective organisational missions.”
HCC Manager, Maisha Hutton, added: “The HCC is proud to assist member NGOs in this critical area of cervical cancer, through novel efforts aimed at reaching traditionally underserved women.”
A release from the HCC said that every year, over 500 000 women develop cervical cancer globally. In the Caribbean, 2 245 women die of cervical cancer each year; this translates to approximately six women dying every day – entirely unnecessarily. The Caribbean is among the top four highest sub-
regions in the world with respect to the incidence of cervical cancer and has the highest burden of HPV in the Americas.
Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of death among Caribbean women, with death rates several magnitudes higher than countries such as the USA. More than 95 per cent of cases of cervical cancer can be prevented. This requires widespread awareness, increased screening, and effective prevention and control measures that include Pap Tests, HPV testing, VIA (visual inspection using acetic acid) and vaccination against HPV. A C4PI project page is under construction and will be live soon, allowing you to follow progress under this initiative. (LS)
PM defends debushing and other safety net programmes
Prime Minister Dr. Keith Mitchell has described those who are calling for Government to stop the seasonal debushing and other social programmes as “mean and selfish” and not understanding the role that Government is playing by establishing the programmes.
Farmers’ representative in the Upper House of Parliament, Senator Keith Clouden, is among those who in recent times have called for Government to abolish some of the social programmes, in particular the seasonal road work for cleaning and clearing grass on the side of the roads. He described the seasonal jobs which provide temporary work for more than 1 200 persons during a six-week period as a “waste of Government funds”.
However, in presenting the 2014 Budget on Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that if there is wastage anywhere in Government, it must be addressed, but the voices taking issue with the social programmes are noticeably silent on waste and fraud due to abuse of concessions or sick leave due to general malaise or high levels of absenteeism or for that matter the government estates which are costing the State more than they are earning.
“My concern is that these attacks on our social programmes are not really about waste. Instead, they are about the less fortunate taking bread from the more fortunate. To put it bluntly, those who have some, must get more, and those who have nothing, must get nothing. Is that social justice? Absolutely not,” he said.
“Interestingly, those making these calls are employed and doing much better than those in the Debushing programme. What is more, many of them making these calls are benefiting from the resources of the State, either as employees or in the case of the private sector, as beneficiaries of tax concessions,” he said.
“Mr. Speaker, the people who make these calls are working all year compared to the debushers who get two fortnights a year to help them put food on the table and have some Christmas cheer. Have we become so mean and selfish that we cannot find it in our hearts to help these people? Does Government exist only to satisfy the needs of those who already have?” he asked. (LS)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)