ANSWERS NEEDED-PROBE CRICKET WORLD CUP, BE ACCOUNTABLE April 22, 2007

As the ICC Cricket World Cup winds down in the Caribbean and the various persons try to find cover for the appalling disaster that it really was. The media will not assist us in any way. They too will become caught up in the grand finale, which will mostly be a success. Barbados learned from the mistakes all around and is trying to portray to the world we did it better. There is nothing wrong with that, but we have to join the others in the Caribbean for a thorough post-Morten of this event. Surely no amount of celebration after the event in one territory can wipe away the shame, embarrassment, scandal and disgrace that CWC brought to the Caribbean. The citizens of Barbados and the wider Caribbean must demand a transparent and authentic report of CWC. Anything less will be a tragedy.

Rickey Singh’s analysis is spot on and we share it with you. (please see below)

Belling the CWC cat
Published on: 4/22/07. Analysis by RICKEY SINGH

WHILE THERE would be impressive national infrastructure facilities and standing regional security mechanisms as positive legacies of our hosting of Cricket World Cup 2007, the debit side of pain and suffered at cricket venues –on and off the cricket grounds – seem destined to linger and hurt us well into, and possibly beyond, Cricket World Cup Asia 2011.

By then, hopefully, we would have had the findings of an independent probe – perhaps conducted by the University of the West Indies – to determine why so much went wrong since our successful bid to host the historic event back in 1998.

Question is, “who will bell the proverbial cat?” in what remains a blame-shifting game involving principally the West Indies Cricket Board and its incorporated subsidiary, Cricket World Cup West Indies, and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) governments to objectively assess the extent to which the punishing tentacles of the International Cricket Council were spread over national sovereignty?

Could such a necessary probe properly be initiatiated by the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB)?

Or, must it really be, as some well-placed West Indians feel, the moral obligation of regional officials to boldly authorise such a probe?.

For the many West Indians who have had to endure humiliation at the nine cricket venues in the numerous restrictions for matches – including stadiums entrance and departure;
high-priced seating arrangements with many cases of embarassing unilateral changes; in taking of food and drinks (including size of bottled water), and the deprivation of traditional musical instruments for entertainment – it may be easy to pour blame on Local Organising Committees (LOCs).

Mia Mottley It’s not government’s fault

Also, for the level of control by the ICC/CWC Inc. over park-and ride sites that have led to indignities suffered by even some high state dignitaries in Barbados, as well as the denial of the National Council on Substance Abuse (NCSA) to place flyers on cars at such locationsin their education campaign against drunk-driving.

For their part, having resolved their own differences over the extent of CARICOM’s involvement in the bidding processes for CWC 2007, some CARICOM leaders are now sweetly saying that, “on hindsight”, they should have moved early to avoid some of the problems that thousands of cricket fans have encountered.

The leaders may well have gone wrong when they initially failed to adopt a policy of unanimity, as proposed by one Prime Minister – and with at least two others leading the objection – that was to result in the individual country biddings, instead of a unanimously agreed initiative to take care of all events, starting from the cermonial launch of the World Cup, to the final.

Already decided

In contrast, for World Cup 2011, the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) have already decided, on their own, according to media reports, on the proposed venues for the opening ceremony (Bangladesh); semi-finals (Pakistan and Sri Lanka) and the final (India).

More significantly, the region was faced with a virtual fait accompli by the time it was figured out – thanks to the militancy of a few of our own more vigilant and alert attorneys-general – why they should be adamant in demanding to receive a copy of the very vital Host Agreement (HA) entered into by the WICB/CWC Inc with the ICC, before engaging in further meetings on their own obligations.

That Host Agreement (HA ) was, unbelievably, being withheld until then, by WICB/CWC Inc. from CARICOM governments, whose commitment and support they had sought and obtained for hosting the ICC’s World Cup, until faced with refusal to continue the consultative process.

Chris Dehring The mastermind

The CWC’s chief excecutive officer, Chris Dehring, who has been the lead “negotiatior” with the ICC, recently felt compelled to go on the offensive, in the face of mounting complaints, with a defensive recitation of the sequencing of developments
for our hosting CWC 2007.

Dehring well knows of the demonstrated anger that led to the late handing over of vital agreements, starting with the HA, delivery of which had already been preceded with a
Master Rights Agreement between the ICC and Global Cricket Corporation (part of Rupert Murdoch’s business empire), for exclusive broadcasting and commercial rights, to which no changes could legally be made.

However, enormous the ICC pressure – in which Caribbean nationals of CWC Inc. shared – CARICOM leaders should have known that South Africa, host of the 2003 Cricket World Cup would honour the firm pledge of support with relevant technical assistance for CARICOM that had previously been publicly offered by President Thabo Mbeki for hosting the tournament.

The leaders even showed little or no interest when a very serious warning surfaced publicly in September 2005 from then chairman of CWC Inc. Rawle Brancker, Barbadian business executive and former West Indies cricketer, for a due diligence and forensic exercise into the management of CWC Inc.

It was a call preceded by ongoing disagreements at meetings involving the CEO’s Dehring and Brancker about the consequences of lack of proper accountability in host management/negotiating arrangements and the apparent free ride the ICC was enjoying in its demands for compliance.

Such demands were later to be discovered as being firmly secured among the non-negotiable provisions of the HA (Host Venue Agreement) and the all-embracing “Sunset Legislation” with its provisions governing ticketing, marketing and security arrangements.

In contrast to the explanation/defence CWC’s Dehring recently offered to the media, he was declaring to journalists back in September 2005 when questioned on Brancker’s criticisms and call for a management audit, that he had “no time for peripheral issues” since his focus was on “delivering the Cricket World Cup“.

Well, that “delivery” has taken place – with its mix of positive legacies and serious negative consequencies – as the WICB/CWC Inc’s top officials, like Ken Gordon WICB president), CEO Dehring and legal counsel Derek Jones would be aware – and involving worrying CARICOM leaders and ministers being forced to demand copies of vital documents that were being kept from them – whether by default or design.

In the ongoing post mortem on CWC 2007 and, required independent probe, it may be relevant for official attention to be paid to demands being made elsewhere, including that of Lord MacLaurin – former chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board – for a thorough, independent review of the structure and management of the ICC itself, to ensure, as he said, “that we really have the best people running world cricket. . .”

In echoing a similar sentiment, there are, without a doubt, endless thousands across the Caribbean anxious to extend such a call also to the WICB, as a priority, for the future development of West Indies cricket.

So, who will bell the cat?

REMOVE EXCHANGE CONTROLS – BARBADOS NOT READY April 22, 2007

1. The Removal of Exchange Controls

David Thompson states, “The Prime Minister main economic strategy outlined in the budget is the removal of all exchange controls with respect to CARICOM by the end of the year and the further removal in respect to the rest of the world to follow. By doing this he is making a significant gamble (quite similar to all those Barbadians who invested significant amounts of money in the local lottery with the hopes of winning the multimillion dollar jackpot). He is making the assumption that the freeing up of exchange controls and thereby increasing our financial openness would result in a greater flow of capital into our domestic economy, which would give, rise to increased domestic investment and economic growth. However, this is a very bold and risky assumption in which I have some fundamental problems.

The experience of the past two decades of many developing countries have has found this assumption to be false and many of those potential benefits desired have placed these countries at significant financial risk and collapse.

Firstly, there is ample historical evidence to suggest that periods of strong cross-border capital flows tend to be highly concentrated to a small number of recipient countries. The increase in capital inflows in recent times, for instance, was directed to only a small number of large, middle-income countries of Latin America and Asia. Thus, despite Barbados may liberalize its financial system to attract capital it may not benefit from any influx of foreign capital but what is likely to happen is that capital might flow out of the country seeking better investment opportunities. Recently we heard of some large local investors indicating that they are seeking new investments in other regional economies in appose to Barbados, this will unfortunately increasing become the trend. Thus instead of attracting capital we may find ourselves even more capital scarce.

Secondly, if we follow the Minister’s assumption that greater capital will flow into the country and will have a positive impact on domestic investment (an assumption that is very faulty), the impact of those investments on long-run growth in Barbados may be limited, if such inflows are used to finance speculative or low-quality domestic investments such as investments in the real estate sector. Over time low-productivity investments in the non-tradables sector may reduce the economy’s capacity to export and lead to growing external imbalances.

Thirdly, if the large capital inflows are in fact achieved induced by our greater financial openness this can have some significant undesirable macroeconomic effects, including rapid monetary expansion, due to the difficulty and cost of pursuing aggressive sterilization policies, further inflationary pressures, resulting from the effect of capital inflows on domestic spending, real exchange rate appreciation, and widening current account deficits. Under a flexible exchange rate, growing external deficits tend to bring about a currency depreciation, which may eventually lead to a realignment of relative prices and induce a self-correcting movements in trade flows. By contrast, under Barbados’ fixed exchange rate regime, losses in competitiveness and growing external imbalances can erode confidence in the viability and sustainability, of the exchange rate peg, thus precipitate a currency crisis and increased financial instability.

Fourthly, small developing economies such as Barbados are often rationed out of world capital markets. Barbados may indeed be able to borrow only in ‘good times’, whereas in ‘bad times’ the country may face credit constraints. Access may thus be pro-cyclical. Clearly, in such conditions, one of the alleged benefits of accessing world capital markets – the ability to borrow to smooth consumption in the face of temporary adverse shocks – is not probable. Pro-cyclicality may, in fact, have a perverse effect and increase macroeconomic instability. Furthermore, favourable shocks may attract large capital flows and encourage local consumption and spending at levels that are unsustainable in the long term, forcing the country to over-adjust when an adverse shock hits.

Fifthly, a the removal of our exchange control arrangements may also be conducive to a high degree of volatility in capital movements, a specific manifestation of this being large reversals in short-term flows, associated with speculative pressures on the domestic currency. The possibility of large reversals of short-term capital flows raises the risk that borrowers may face costly “liquidity runs”. The higher the level of our short-term debt is, relative to Barbados’ international reserves, the greater the risk such runs will occur. High levels of short-term liabilities intermediated by the financial system also create risks of bank runs and systemic financial crises.

I want to say that despite we may see an initial inflow of capital into the banking sector, if the financial sector continues to engage in its present lending practices, this will have very little benefits to the ordinary Bajan and small businesses and entrepreneurs. The local banks may continue to ration credit to small firms, which tend to operate in the non-tradables sector and concentrate instead on larger and stronger ones companies. If banks do indeed continue to follow a strategy of concentrating their lending operations only to the most creditworthy corporate (and, to a lesser extent, households) borrowers, their presence will be less likely to contribute to an overall increase in efficiency in the financial sector. More importantly, by leading to a higher degree of credit rationing to small business and entrepreneurs, they may have an adverse effect on output, employment, and income distribution in our economy. He finds support with his assertions with a letter to the editor. (see letter below)

Exchange controls aiding in fight against money laundering
Web Posted – Mon Apr 02 2007
I BELIEVE I am correct in saying that in the most recent budgetary proposals, the Prime Minister declared his intention to liberalise exchange controls so as to bring Barbados in line with its regional counterparts. Others, better qualified than I am, have commented on the implications this could have for Barbados fixed exchange rate, that is, the likelihood of a devaluation of the Barbados dollar. However, I wish to examine this matter from a different angle. The liberalisation of exchange controls will facilitate the free movement of capital. In essence, persons will be able to move money in and out of the country at will and without reference to the Central Bank of Barbados or anybody else. Such freedom is a dream for investors, as well as others who have an interest in the quick and easy movement of money. Governments the world over have had to erect elaborate structures in order to track money that is directed towards the financing of terrorism and to prevent or detect money laundering. For Barbados, one ally has been well appointed exchange control mechanisms.

The definition of money laundering used by Barbados includes a person who brings into or sends out of Barbados any money or other property that is proceeds of crime. This approach was used because it was recognised that for a country like Barbados, the devastating effects of money laundering were as likely to be felt through the cross border movement of money as in its domestic occurrence.

Barbados promotes itself as a regional financial hub, which it can do successfully, for as far as offshore financial centres go, Barbados has a sterling reputation. This reputation has been won through the excellent quality of the public servants who manage this sector and the transparent nature of most of our operations. Our checks and balances that facilitate legitimate business while making effective due diligence possible have been a strong selling point for this country, for this is the ideal mix for persons with a genuine interest in conducting legitimate business through an offshore jurisdiction. Our exchange control provisions have probably calmed the fears of many persons who may have otherwise laboured under the misinformation put out by First World jurisdictions with an interest in sullying our fine reputation.

These same exchange controls have allowed us to defend ourselves against the prying of external agencies such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, who would otherwise have found fault with our system.

The disappearance of exchange controls will mean that the small staff of the Financial Intelligence Unit will have little opportunity to prevent the movement of dirty money out of Barbados or identify clean funds that may be directed towards unwholesome purposes. The best they may be able to do is to say where the money went, and this may only be possible where there is no financial institution complicity in the illegal process.

This is not the forum for delving into the specifics of the many challenges that may be presented. Suffice it to say, the removal of exchange controls could make Barbados a considerably softer jurisdiction for successful money laundering and potential terrorism financing.

This should be viewed against the background of persistent rumours of a number of persons who may be wealthier than their known income could justify, and this is not limited to political figures. This should all be seen in the context of the absence of integrity legislation and the fact that such legislation, even where it exists, usually targets only public individuals.

A Transparency Interna-tional report rated Barbados highly in terms of the perception of corruption. That is good for Barbados, but we must bear in mind that it was a measure of perception and not reality. Further, it merely tells us that there is a perception that others are more corrupt than we are. If we had a good understanding of what happens in some other countries that we are rated above, we may understand that a superior rating to them may not be anything to write home about.

Guyson Mayers:

STATE ELECTION FINANCING TO BE OR NOT TO BE April 20, 2007

Political parties are not arms of the state. There can be no disagreement on this particular assertion. The state cannot, nevertheless, be oblivious of the commanding presence of political parties within the political model, which is practised within this country. Over the years political parties have been supported by their members as well as donors from the private sector, some to a greater and some to a lesser degree. In other jurisdictions the state funds political organisations based on some legislated formula. In several of these jurisdictions, the political parties are still supported by the private donor, but have to declare the extent and degree of that financing.

In the Barbados circumstance should political parties be beholden to the private sector where the principle of he who pays the piper calls the tune is quite prevalent. A model of campaign financing has to evolve, which would protect the integrity of our democracy. At the same time the manner in which political parties are financed gives one political party a distinct advantage over the others as they are able to roll out a promotional and public relations campaign, which is persuasive and significant. There must be a role for the state in this process. We invite your comments on this issue. (see commentary below)

Parties not another arm of state
www.nationnews.com

Published on: 4/19/07.

IN RECENT TIMES there has been some talk about the need for transparency in the conduct and financing of political campaigns. While desirable, the focus is also on public financing of essentially party politics.

This is taking on a global perspective. In the current climate, it is not surprising that taxpayers would be asked to underwrite private political campaigns for public service and privilege way beyond that enjoyed by the average citizen in his day-to-day life.

The United States is always cited as an example of public financing of presidential campaigns, but the rules and stringency attached to funding ensure full reporting and accountability. Further, the public is not unnecessarily circumscribed by restrictive libel laws in asking legitimate questions in the public interest.

In addition, there is no demarcation between one’s public and private life. They are all par for the course and are so inextricably merged that for the most part there is no distinction. One’s private life could pose a threat to national security and could impact one’s ability to manage effectively.

Recently in New Zealand, the issue of election funding also came under public scrutiny. Solutions suggested there include severely restricting private donations from both individuals and organisations, insisting on the disclosure of all donors and the curtailment of “interest” campaigning.

State funding of politics is becoming close to the heart of all socialist parties which believe government is the source of all good. They seem to have abandoned the idea of raising money, and believe business and private contributors naturally favour right-wing parties.

After serious funding scandals in 1990 and 2000, Canada brought in extensive reforms which will come into play during their next federal election, probably in 2011. The objective is to achieve transparency, equality – and therefore possible undue influence.

A similarly radical approach is being debated in Britain. If adopted, the new system would limit private donations, and the government would provide funding of 50p each year for every vote obtained in the previous election to keep the parties afloat.

The question is whether that method of funding would mean political parties become just another branch of the state. The fear is that with public funding of parties, most countries would now be on the slippery slope to state-sponsored politics.

The downside is that political parties will no longer be mass-membership organisations with roots deep in the community. And, according to some analysts, they have now become “small coteries of political careerists and time-servers”.

Political parties are prone to believing their organisational interest is identical to the public interest. It is not. The public interest lies in ensuring elections are contested as openly, intensely and freely as possible by people with their integrity intact.

It does a country no harm that parties have to pass the hat around at election time. Politics is public business. That does not mean parties must be state funded, but their finances must be transparent.

CARIBBEAN ECONOMIES WHIPLASHED FROM CWC April 17, 2007

The Democratic Labour Party hoped for the success of Cricket World Cup. It did this recognising the substantial investment, which the people of Barbados were making in cricket infrastructure and support structures. We knew that any mishap would have knocked our economy for six. We have spoken to this issue on previous posts, but needed to bring the commentary of the IMF to the readers view. The following article from the Barbados Advocate outlines the cause for concern among Barbadians.

IMF CWC WARNING
Web Posted – Tue Apr 17 2007
By Shawn Cumberbatch

CRICKET World Cup (CWC) 2007 could hit Caribbean economies for six. That is the warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which cautioned that the estimated $500 million in construction costs alone spent by Barbados and eight other host venues, were likely to score diluted economic benefits.

Future prospects, said the Washington D.C.-based financial institution, would hinge critically on the region’s ability to market itself as a tourism destination following the event, The IMF’s projections were contained in its just-released regional economic outlook for the Western Hemisphere.

In its analysis, the organisation said CWC had boosted private and public construction across the nine host countries, helped by generous tax concessions, external grants, and public borrowing.

It noted, however, that while the positive effects on the tourism sector could extend into the medium term, there is concern that the net effect of the CWC could well be negative in light of its heavy fiscal costs and already high public debt burdens in the region.

A brief examination of the growth and fiscal effects of the 2007 Cricket World Cup by IMF economist Padamja Khandelwal said the reason the economic benefits of the event would be watered down was because matches are spread across multiple countries, and are taking place in the midst of the peak winter tourist season when occupancy rates are already very high.

In general, Caribbean public investment has shown a relatively weak link with growth, suggesting the need to increase the efficiency of these outlays. Over the longer term, prospects for growth will hinge critically on the region’s ability to continue to market itself successfully as a tourist destination, to realise incremental revenues from the additional hotel rooms that have been constructed, and to address macro-economic vulnerabilities, including high levels of public debt, Khandelwal noted.

As CWC nears its closing stages, IMF officials said essentially, the net impact of it was unclear, especially in light of the associated fiscal costs to Caribbean countries. It pointed to studies of other states hosting large one-off sporting and cultural events (such as the 2003 CWC in South Africa and the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Korea/Japan), and said these places generally find a small net positive effect.

As an illustration of the bittersweet nature of the Caribbean hosting the sporting event, the IMF noted it had brought strong expansion in private sector construction to increase tourism capacity, something that was expected to continue into the medium term.

However, it added, because some private investors had received generous tax concessions in most countries for such investment, this will erode the tax base going forward.

According to the institution, it was clear Caribbean countries had banked on significant economic benefits from CWC, based on the expectations of selling close to 800 000 tickets, a two billion international television audience, and about 100 000 additional (non-Caribbean) visitors to travel to the region.

Preparations for the CWC have led to accelerated economic activity in the region, particularly since 2005, but have been costly in terms of direct government expenditure and provision of new tax concessions. Five new stadiums were built and others were upgraded, the IMF stated.

Some of the stadiums were financed by grants construction costs are estimated at US$250 million and additional public expenditures were incurred on infrastructure (roads, airports, hotels and marinas). Partly as a result of this expenditure, primary balances have deteriorated in most countries, and average public debt remained over 100 per cent of GDP at end-2006 in host countries.

 

HATCHET JOB ON MIDDLE CLASS April 17, 2007

www.nationnews.com

Published on: 4/17/07.

BARBADOS’ MIDDLE-INCOME GROUP is not prospering, but rather “withering away”.

Opposition politician Donville Inniss made this charge when three constituency branches of the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) met at St James Secondary School last Sunday.

“The Barbados Labour Party, under Owen Arthur, has done a lot to wither away the middle-income grouping in Barbados,” Inniss told the gathering of party supporters and members.

A high cost of living, heavy taxation as well as spiralling prices for land and houses were among the factors putting severe pressure on the middle-income group to the point where there was little disposable income after some bills were paid, Inniss argued.

“If that is what is happening to the middle-income grouping, you can imagine what is happening to those who are less fortunate,” he added.

“The gap between the haves and the have-nots in Barbados is getting wider and wider.”

Inniss, the DLP’s candidate for St James South, warned that “without that middle-income grouping, we have a recipe for disaster”.

Candidate for St James Central, George Hutson, said it was “appalling” how Government had allowed a developer to destroy mature mahogany trees and other plants at the old Paradise Hotel site in Batts Rock, St Michael.

He urged Government to move to save the wooded area to the north of Batts Rock from a similar fate by acquiring it and turning it into a national park.

He also called on Government to do something about its many “sick” buildings, including a number in Redman’s Village with asbestos roofs. (TY)

HEAD DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TAIL DOING April 17, 2007

It is amazing that the Commissioner of Police or it seemed Minister of Public Transport, Gline Clarke did not know that Jersey Barriers were being placed at Holborn Circle and along President Kennedy Drive. Who took the decision to have them installed? Was it the local organising Committee for Cricket World Cup or the man in the moon?

No one has yet come forward and claimed specific responsibility for yet another blatant act of madness associated with Cricket World Cup, Now these barriers are to be used along the ABC highway from Garfield Sobers Round About to the Errol Barrow Roundabout at Graeme Hall. Yet they were deployed. How much did this mistake cost the LOC for CWC? When is the head going to know what the tail is doing? (see story below)

www.nationnews.com

POLICE HAVE KEPT THEIR WORD to ensure that traffic flow around Kensington Oval remains free when Cricket World Cup (CWC) matches are not being played.

Yesterday, remaining concrete crash barriers were removed from President Kennedy Drive in response to concerns by Commissioner of Police Darwin Dottin.

On the instructions of the Local Organising Committee (LOC), the barriers were erected across Fontabelle Road at the Holborn Circle junction and down the middle of President Kennedy Drive on Easter weekend.

Almost instantly, motorists and police traffic managers complained that the barriers at the junction were a major safety risk, while the entire placement presented unnecessary traffic hiccups when matches were not playing.

Following the intervention of Dottin and Minister of Public Works and Transport Gline Clarke, they have all been replaced by metal crowd control barriers, which are quickly shifted after matches to allow a free flow of traffic.

However, Clarke confirmed that the concrete (Jersey) barriers should soon be installed in their rightful place – along the stretch of the ABC Highway between the Garfield Sobers Roundabout in Wildey and the Errol Barrow Roundabout at Graeme Hall, known as the “Bermuda Triangle” and infamous for its deadly crashes.

Clarke revealed that a private firm had been contracted to construct the barriers, which were widely used in the United States, particularly on interstate highways to prevent head-on crashes.

The barriers were originally developed at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey (under the direction of the New Jersey State Highway Department) to divide multiple lanes on a highway.

They were designed specifically to minimise damage and reduce the likelihood of a car crossing into oncoming lanes in the event of a collision. During the common “shallow angle hits”, the Jersey barrier’s shape keeps metal damage on cars to a minimum by allowing the vehicle tyres to ride up on the lower sloped face. For higher impact angles, the Jersey barrier works in stages to minimise lifting and prevent a roll-over.

The barriers on the ABC Highway should be deployed before the current highway expansion project is completed. (RM)

BLP-MONEY FOR THE BOYS April 17, 2007

The Barbados Labour Party’s candidate for St. George South was the main contractor/project manager at the Vauxhall Senior Citizens Village. The people of Barbados Knows him as a Disk Jockey. He is just simply an entertainer, albeit using the music of others to do so. So it is with amusement and obvious trepidation that we learnt about his flirtation with construction. This obviously does not surprise us, since the Barbados labour party has been known to pull contractors out of their magicians’ hats.

To say that there was some shoddy work at that facility would be an understatement. At the conclusion of the project, investigation revealed that over 6oo faults were detected. A contractor worth his salt would have been able to minimize the number of mistakes in a project such as that. Every single building was riddled with faults. But Cupid Gill received his monies. The project remained closed for two years as the Ministry of Social Transformation had to get the faults corrected and then carry out major remedial work on every building. We still await the cost of the work done after the contractor supposedly completed his work. Money for the boys- the BLP mantra.

THE BLAME GAME-DEJA VU April 16, 2007

Iron-clad World Cup demands Rush now to clean up ‘mistakes’ Rickey Singh Monday, April 16th 2007

IF YOU follow what some local, regional and international officials involved in our hosting of Cricket World Cup 2007 are now saying, you may think it was all a bad joke to have imposed exorbitant fees for tickets, treat musical instruments as weapons of terror, restrict drinks and food containers at matches, as well as the joy of jumping up with a big banner. Faced with recurring thousands of empty seats at many of the newly-built or refurbished stadia-Jamaica and Guyana being exceptions (and by late last week Barbados also), the International Cricket Council (ICC), West Indies Cricket Board and its subsidiary, Cricket World Cup West Indies Inc, have been wiping egg off their faces in desperately seeking to correct mistakes and raise the bar for cricket celebration. Amid much public relations-generated hype, prices for tickets were being reduced and made more accessible for purchase; and freedom has been permitted to enter, leave and return to a venue stadium during matches, subjected to normal security checks. Also, finally, the green light has come from those who have been dwelling in darkness about our cultural traditions for a variety of musical instruments to be allowed for the remaining matches for customary cricket merry-making. Officials of ICC/CWC Inc who have been blithely denying their own involvement in the pricing and marketing of tickets, and simply blaming Local Organising Committees (LOCs), would know of the iron-clad provisions in the ICC/CWC’s Host Venue Agreement (HVA) for which compliance was imperative to host the current historic event. Commercial Rights: For instance, the HVA signed between the ICC/CWC West Indies Inc and the LOCs state, in relation to non-negotiable “commercial rights”, that: “The LOC hereby acknowledges and agrees that IDI (ICC Development International), GCC (the Singapore-based Global Cricket Corporation Ltd) and Licensees are the owners, licensees or sub-licensees of all Commercial Rights and that neither CWC 2007 Inc nor the LOC shall be entitled to exploit any of the Commercial Rights.” Tickets and Hospitality: In terms of sale and allocation of tickets, the relevant clause of the HVA makes clear: “Any ticketing arrangements, including the sale and allocation of tickets, the allocation of complimentary tickets and the provision of hospitality for matches, as well as all ticket-related matters shall be determined by the CWC Inc 2007, after consultation with the LOC…” This provision exposes the hollowness of recent claims by the ICC’s Malcom Speed and CWC’s Chris Dehring of no responsibility for the high costs of tickets, while confirming what some LOC officials have stated-that the costs and marketing of tickets were part of the “collaborative effort” involving the ICC and CWC Inc. The host government themselves would have been privy to this arrangement and, of course, at all times, the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), as a member of the ICC. It is quite pertinent to also bear in mind, in assessing the extent of submission by the WICB/CWC Inc to the dictates of the ICC by a host country, the required “obligations”. For the current World Cup, “obligations” of an LOC means to be “irrevocably and unconditionally” committed to undertake the requirements as outlined in the HVA. “The LOC”, it states, “shall at all times comply with and abide by the reasonable directions and instructions of CWC 2007 Inc and/or IDI in relation to CWC 2007. In the event of a conflict between the directions and instructions of CWC Inc and the directions and instructions of IDI, those of CWC Inc SHALL PREVAIL (my emphasis)…” Even in appreciating it is a legal, binding agreement, its overriding concept and general tone point to a level of arrogance by the framers in following the dictates of the ICC/IDI to which the region submitted. Question is, at what stage did the LOCs and, by extension, host governments, choose to expediently suspend commitment to sovereignty in the “negotiating process”, overwhelmed by objective factors, to which they now expediently point? Namely, the “legacy” of the stadia, roads, hotels and other facilities now in place, plus a harvest of international media publicity. The Caribbean people would have been well aware of the “legacy” as the millions were being spent in preparation for hosting the tournament. They also knew that when the crunch came, they would have to share the financial burden. There is really no row over the positive features to have resulted from hosting the World Cup and the fact that, ultimately, there would be a price for all nationals of host countries to pay. Other agonising questions were also being raised last week about the future of West Indies cricket while its management and control remained in the hands of the WICB as currently structured. The president of the WICB, Ken Gordon, seems in no mood at present to follow Brian Lara into offering any apology. He has been quick to go on the defensive in response to an editorial in last Thursday’s Express that called on the WICB’s “entire leadership”-from the president and including coach Bennet King and co-ordinator Clive Lloyd-to “step down” for a fresh start for future development of West Indies cricket. But the cleansing process with hard decisions-involving all key stakeholders, including WICB directors; national associations, governments and CARICOM in general-now seems inevitable, once the post mortem is over on World Cup 2007.

TICKETS GIVEAWAY A PLENTY April 15, 2007

The story in the Nation newspaper caught our attention because of the sheer brazenness of the pronouncements made by the chief operation officer. The officer like so many of his colleagues caught with poor attendance at games was bold to assert that the LOC “decided to turn this challenge into an opportunity”. He was simply saying, we will let persons who were told that tickets were sold out months ago, and local and Caribbean patrons who were boycotting the games because of ridiculously high prices, into the Oval free of costs. This was just another way to mamaguy the general public and the international television audience that all was well. This effort is too little too late. The stadium was still very much below its capacity even with all the promotional hype and the lifting of several restrictions.

As Caribbean people we support cricket, but we cannot support the way these games were planned and the poor management of the process. Caribbean people will have to carry the debt burden for a long time.

Oval open to all
Published on: 4/15/07.

www.nationnews.com

The Barbados Local (LOC) Organizing Committee is throwing open the gates to Barbadians for today’s Cricket World Cup Super 8 match between Bangladesh and Ireland.

A Press release last night from the LOC stated that from 11 a.m. today cricket fans can come to Kensington Oval and watch the match, free of cost.

This offer is being made because even though about 22 000 tickets were sold for the match in anticipation of it being an India versus Pakistan clash, thousands of supporters from those countries cancelled their plans, leaving hundreds of seats available.

Chief executive officer of the Barbados LOC, Stephen Alleyne, said his committee had “decided to turn this challenge into an opportunity” by allowing people in free to fill the empty but paid-for seats.

He added: “While the expected clash between rivals Pakistan and India has not materialized, the fixture between Bangladesh and Ireland has the potential to be a competitive and exciting match.”

Alleyne also said it was important to remember these seats were paid for and it was necessary to ensure which ticket holders intended to access their seats. The open day would therefore commence from 11 a.m.

People who wish to attend from the first ball are still able to purchase from the remaining unsold match tickets.

Open day vouchers will be distributed at all Park-and-Ride sites and at the Pelican Ticket Centre.

 

DEMOCRACY UNDER THREAT April 15, 2007

TENNYSON C. BECKLES

www.barbadosadvocate.com

IN the last general elections less that half of the youths voted. This must have been a shocking reality check for those persons who fought so tirelessly for universal adult suffrage, and then to extend the right to vote to 18-year-olds. Obviously, the intention was to arm the masses with the tools of democracy, in the assurance that a democratic state was the answer to the predicament in which chattel slavery and imperialism had placed them. What, therefore, has given rise to this indifference to voting by the youth?

As I travel throughout Barbados participating in seminars, giving speeches, and attending political gatherings over the past three decades, I am convinced that these non-voting youths are not stupid (short-sighted maybe!). Rather, I am impressed with their intelligence, imagination, political ingenuity and creativity. I am also very impressed with the vibrancy and resilience of our party-based democracy. Consequently, I find myself wondering how we arrive at this unwarranted state of affairs, in which the youths are rejecting the thing that their parents regard as sacrosanct to their struggle for socio-economic equity. It is as if the youth are revolting against their parents, and instead of participating in politics, rendering their skills to the highest bidder, with deference to the claim that, in our wealth-driven system, the proper use of the vote is the guarantor against the vagaries of neo-imperialism.

However, the greatest problems plaguing democracy in Barbados are not only those of disillusionment and disaffection of the youth. Even greater threats to our democracy come in the form of the rise of three dominating, and anti-democratic practices. These three practices are promoted by the most influential forces in the country, and are rendering our first past the post, winner takes all, approach to democracy vacuous. The first practice is the corporatism of the economy, under the guise of free-market regulations. This practice has led to a callous elite dominated political economy in which the focus on the allocation of resources is turned from the optimization of the well-being of many to the maximization of profit. Accordingly, at the workplace, priority is given to increasing profit margins over workers conditions of employment; consequently, the tardiness in introducing minimum wage and safety and health legislation. At the level of government policy, we turn attention away from schools to prisons, from housing to stadia, and from health care to hi-tech entertainment centres.

The second prevailing practice that is frustrating the democratic process of our time is an aggressive attempt at political uni-polarisation and authoritarianism, of which the recent practice of including the Opposition Leader is but an extension. This new approach goes far beyond previous attempts by riding parties to neuter oppositions. It gives the incumbent government the green light to eliminate oppositions and set up a one-party state. Fashioned out of the practice of uni-polarisation are the dogma of the supreme ruler, and the adoption of a strategy of win elections at all cost. It activates a perennial resorting to immoral and base manner of winning the favour of electors, namely, using public funds to incite party loyalty.

The third prevailing practice in this historic moment is the escalation of political tribalism. This practice is rooted in the understandable paranoia of the incumbents towards demitting political office, and their traditional fear of surrendering power to opponents whom they do not trust. The cowardly attacks on opposition leadership are cannon fodder for the supporters of the ruling party. How ironic that vicious attack on David Thompson becomes at this crucial juncture of our development the justification of re-electing the Barbados Labour Party. Are we to believe that in a post Owen Arthur age there is not enough persons with the competence to provide political leadership? Our fundamental test lies in our continuing response to uni-polarisation.

In desperation, we might be inclined to conclude that the solution lies in joining the bandwagon. Thereby, allowing the one-party state to become a way of life, absorbing the discomfort that it renders like a traveler without a car in the midday sun. Not withstanding, our civic sense, public responsibility, belief and pride in what we have achieved so far; I demand that we do not buy into this uni-polarisation practice. For those without means, or influence, the Government is the hope in a life that is an uphill battle, and it is not very long before they concede to the practice of inclusion.