Statia civil society organisations petition for political status referendum on options of full political equality

Present partially integrated status of 'public entity' is seen as insufficient for the island's future evolution.

Call for constitutional referendum in Statia

Daily Herald

ST. EUSTATIUS--Brighter Path Foundation, Statia Roots Foundation and St. Eustatius Awareness and Development Movement have joined forces to petition the Island Government of St. Eustatius to organize a constitutional referendum before the evaluation of the island's public-entity status in 2015.

In the early 1990s, there were discussions within the former Netherlands Antilles regarding the constitutional future of the country. Referendums were then held on all five islands of the former Netherlands Antilles. The people of St. Eustatius opted to remain in the Netherlands Antilles.

 

However, discussions among the islands flared up once again, as the intended restructuring of the Netherlands Antilles did not take place. St. Maarten was the first to have its referendum in June 2000, which sparked the other islands to also have their referendum in 2005.

Voters in Statia again chose to maintain in The Netherlands Antilles. However, due to the fact that Statia was the only island that opted to remain within the Netherlands Antilles -a choice viewed by many as impossible- it was decided that Statia also would have direct constitutional ties with The Netherlands, as Saba and Bonaire had opted for.

The people of Statia did not have the opportunity to freely decide if they were in favour of direct constitutional ties with the Netherlands, the petitioners for a referendum stated in a press release.

To substantiate the need for a constitutional referendum, at least 1.5 per cent of the local population was recently interviewed regarding the status change. According to the preliminary results, two per cent of those surveyed indicated they would opt for the current status of public entity. Five per cent of those surveyed indicated that they would opt for full integration, while 29 per cent of those surveyed would opt for a country within the Dutch Kingdom. Eight per cent of those surveyed would opt for independence; 28 per cent of those surveyed indicated that they do not have enough information to make a conscious choice and 11 per cent of those surveyed would opt for another status, which was not defined in the survey, it was stated.

 

"In light of the abovementioned results, we have decided to petition the local government of St. Eustatius to organize a constitutional referendum. In addition to this, various constitutional experts have indicated that, due to the planned anchoring of the public-entity status within the Dutch constitution, the possibility exists that during the evaluation of the island's public-entity status in 2015, there might be but two constitutional options to choose from, namely to maintain the current status or become fully integrated within The Netherlands. We therefore believe that the time for action is now," stated Brighter Path Foundation President Xiomara Balentina.

Integration with full political rights, independence and free association are the three legitimate alternatives which constitute the internationally-recognized options of political equality under the United Nations' General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV). These options should be among the choices for the people of Statia to vote upon during a constitutional referendum, the proponents of a referendum stated.

Statians who want to support the call for a referendum can sign an online petition to be found at www.change.org/organizations/the_statian_community. The online petition can also be accessed via the How do you know you are a Statian Facebook page. The petition can also be signed at Lyn's Dream bakery and Peso's Supermarket.

 Also see: http://www.change.org

New Caledonia FLNKS opens office at Melanesian Spearhead Group Office Headquarters

Vanuatu Daily Post

 

 

FLNKS delegation members grateful for realization of goal

PORT VILA, Vanuatu – Members of the Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak Socialiste (FLNKS) Political Bureau of New Caledonia, the Kanak Community from Vanuatu and New Caledonia and the staff of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Secretariat witnessed the official Opening of the FLNKS Unit at the MSG Secretariat headquarters in Port Vila, Vanuatu by the Spokesperson of the FLNKS to the MSG, Mr. Victor Tutugoro and the Director General of the MSG Secretariat, Mr. Peter Forau last Tuesday.

Mr. Forau explained among other functions this Unit will allow the MSG Secretariat to provide policy advice on political developments in Kanaky/New Caledonia; monitor the implementation of the Noumea Accord; liaise with the FLNKS Political Bureau on MSG issues; coordinate and manage MSG constituent body meetings on FLNKS matters; manage high level technical and Ministerial Missions to New Caledonia; and network with member governments in developing work programs and other activities requiring participation by FLNKS officials.

It will also pave the way for some Kanaks to participate in the secondment program at the Secretariat and in member countries.

In response, the FLNKS representatives with great emotion expressed joy and happiness over the realization of the having a unit within the MSG Secretariat specifically to further work towards the full emancipation of the Kanak people.

Mr. Roch Wamytan, 1st Vice President of the Congress of New Caledonia who witnessed the unveiling of the new office at the MSG Secretariat stated that this gesture by the Leaders and the MSG Secretariat demonstrates the support by our MSG member countries and Secretariat.

"This is a test of our historical link and solidarity of our Melanesia and we thank the Leaders of the MSG and the Secretariat on behalf of the Kanak people," said Mr. Wamytan.

MSG DG Forau hailed the opening of the FLNKS unit a proud moment for Leaders and the membership of the MSG as the grouping continues to show its continuous partnership with the FLNKS.

He said the history of FLNKS joining MSG began with the formation of the organization which was established for the sole purpose of helping the Kanaks in their quest for political emancipation.

Consequently, the FLNKS joined the MSG. The second major development for FLNKS was when the MSG Secretariat recruited two Kanaks to work at the Secretariat, Mr. Jimmy Naouna and Ms. Rose Wete.

The Unit is manned by the FLNKS Political Officer, Mr. Naouna and located within the Governance and Sustainable Development Division of the Secretariat.

The MSG DG said the third major development for the MSG membership and FLNKS was through the raising of the FLNKS flags at all MSG Capitals at all MSG Leaders’ Summit, Foreign Ministers Meetings (FMM) and Senior Officials Meetings (SOM).

He said this visibility by the members of the MSG reflects the determination and support the members have for the full emancipation of the Kanak people, adding the formal opening of the Unit follows a decision by the MSG Special Leaders’ Summit in August 2012 to formally establish the Unit which was set up immediately in September 2012.

The FLNKS Unit is fully funded by contributions from member countries including additional assistance by the Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (PNG) through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) currently being finalized by the Secretariat and the PNG Government. The assistance will include AU$300,000 [US$312,300] for the Unit as well as provision of scholarships for young Kanaks to study in PNG; job attachments for Kanaks in the PNG Public Service and training for Kanaks in the PNG Public Service and Mining Sector.

The immediate priority for the Unit is to organize a joint United Nations/MSG Officials Mission to New Caledonia in 2013 and through the Government of New Caledonia, facilitating a meeting with UN Regional agencies based in the region.

Caribbean Rum Wars: Brewing Tax Battle Stirs Frustration With U.S.

By Larry Luxner

Photo: Lawrence Ruggeri

Caribbean ambassadors to the United States sat down with The Washington Diplomat at the Embassy of Trinidad and Tobago to discuss an ongoing row with Washington over rum. Pictured from top row left are Duly Brutus, permanent representative of Haiti to the Organization of American States; Ambassadors Deborah Mae Lovell of Antigua and Barbuda, Paul Altidor of Haiti, Sonia M. Johnny of St. Lucia, Hubert Charles of Dominica, Jacinth Lorna Henry-Martin of St. Kitts and Nevis, Nestor Mendez of Belize, La Celia A. Prince of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and from bottom row left, Bayney Karran of Guyana, Stephen Vasciannie of Jamaica, Neil Parsan of Trinidad and Tobago, Anibal de Castro of the Dominican Republic, and John Beale of Barbados.

Arguing about who bottles the best rum in the Caribbean is sort of like debating which country produces the tastiest gourmet coffee, or who exports the finest cigars.

Ever since the 17th century, when slaves on West Indies sugar plantations began fermenting molasses into rum, connoisseurs have pondered that question — with modern contenders for the "best rum" title ranging from Jamaica's award-winning Appleton Estate and Haiti's legendary Rhum Barbancourt to pricey Mount Gay Rum from Barbados and the three Bs of the Dominican Republic: Bermudez, Brugal and Barceló.

 

Within the 15-member Caribbean Community (CARICOM), however, few would dispute the biggest threat facing the rum industry today: Washington's generous excise-tax rebates that are used to subsidize rum production in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Read full article here.

 

 

 

French Polynesia re-inscription on United Nations agenda

United Nations General Assembly

 Sixty-seventh session
Agenda item 60

Implementation of the Declaration

 on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
and Peoples

United Nations A/67/L.56
General Assembly Distr.: Limited
7 February 2013
Original: English

Draft Resolution (English)

Self-determination of French Polynesia    (French)

The General Assembly,

Recalling the Charter of the United Nations, its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and its resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960,

Taking into account articles 3 and 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples[1] regarding the right of self-determination and the recommendation of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at its eleventh session on the implementation of basic fundamental human rights articulated in the Declaration, particularly the right to self-determination,[2]

Taking note of the resolution of the Assembly of French Polynesia, adopted in Papeete, Tahiti, on 18 August 2011, in which it expressed its will that French Polynesia be reinscribed on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and the decision taken by the Council of Ministers of the Government of French Polynesia on 15 June 2011 to call for the reinscription,

Welcoming the decision of the Heads of State or Government of Pacific States taken at the second “Engaging with the Pacific” regional meeting, held in Nadi, Fiji, on 1 and 2 September 2011, to support the reinscription of French Polynesia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Taking note of the communiqué of the second Polynesian Leaders Group meeting, held in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, on 25 August 2012, in which the Group affirmed its support for the reinscription of French Polynesia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Welcoming the decisions of the Pacific Islands Forum, taken at its meetings held in Apia, Samoa, from 5 to 7 August 2004, Auckland, New Zealand, on 7 and 8 September 2011, and Rarotonga, Cook Islands, from 28 to 30 August 2012, to support the principle of the right to self-determination of the people of French Polynesia,

Welcoming also the Final Document of the sixteenth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned countries, held in Tehran from 26 to 31 August 2012,[3] affirming the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self‑determination in accordance with Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV),

Noting that since 1977, successive unilateral changes made by the administering Power to the political status of the territory of French Polynesia have failed to provide for a full measure of self-government in accordance with the Charter and have been inconsistent with sustainable social and economic development,

Recalling that French Polynesia, as the former French Establishments in Oceania, was originally considered a Non-Self-Governing Territory in General Assembly resolution 66 (I) of 14 December 1946 but was unilaterally withdrawn from the list without regard for the resolution or consultation with the indigenous Ma’ohi people,

1. Affirms the inalienable right of the people of French Polynesia to self‑determination, including independence, in accordance with Chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), recognizes that French Polynesia remains a Non-Self-Governing Territory within the meaning of the Charter, and declares that an obligation exists under Article 73 e of the Charter on the part of the Government of France, as the administering Power of the Territory, to transmit information on French Polynesia;

2. Decides to reinscribe French Polynesia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories;

3. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to consider the question of French Polynesia at its next session and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session;

4. Calls upon the Government of France to intensify its dialogue with French Polynesia in order to finalize an accord of cooperation and to include, inter alia, a fair and effective self-determination process, under which the terms and timelines for an act of self-determination will be established, followed by the establishment of a cooperation framework in order to achieve sustainable social and economic development consistent with Article 73 d of the Charter;

5. Requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States, regional organizations and other relevant entities and to report to the General Assembly on the implementation of the present resolution at its sixty-eighth session.




[1] Resolution 61/295, annex.
[2] E/2012/43, para. 39.
[3] A/67/506-S/2012/752, annex I.

State of the Island Address - Governor Eddie Baza Calvo of Guam

 

Madam Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, Archbishop Apuron, senators and mayors, distinguished guests, and most importantly, my fellow Guamanians,

The halfway mark: Our promises, and where we are today.

Tonight is a halfway mark where you get to grade me… not on what I say tonight, but on what we’ve done as a team. This is a midterm review of the promises Ray and I made to you, and where we are today.

The state of the island is in a new era of ascendancy

The state of the island is in a new era of ascendancy… finally making the long climb out of the valley and toward the heights. The stir within Guamanians is building, and requires our continued commitment to excellence.

Excellence v. mediocrity

 This drive toward excellence is perhaps what distinguishes the last two years. In the midst of everything that is happening… it can be very easy to forget the dismal state of our beginnings.

In the last two decades, how commonplace has it been to accept that our roads wouldn’t be paved? Or that tax refunds wouldn’t be paid for years? Or that corruption was just part of the game? Or that growing poverty was simply our lot in life?

When I look into the eyes of your children, I see 4,000 years of greatness… abandoned only for the past two decades by an immoral mediocrity that we could not accept. We are committed to making commonplace what was once considered extraordinary. It’s funny that we’ve celebrated the payment of refunds, transparency in your government, building of infrastructure. This is what you pay for! This is what you hired us to do! Yet, this has not been the story until recently.

Read full State of the Island Address here.

Cook Islands Negotiating Extension To Marine Boundaries

Radio New Zealand International

Expansion could lead to huge revenues 

from seabed mining rights

The Cook Islands has sent a delegation to the United Nations in New York to negotiate an extension of the country’s continental shelf, which would give it seabed mining rights potentially worth millions. The delegation headed by Foreign Affairs secretary Jim Gosselin will present the application to the UN authority on seabed exploration.

The Foreign Minister, Tom Marsters, says the Cook Islands first presented its case in 2009 and this will be the third visit to the authority.

If successful, it will add over 400,000 square kilometers of continental shelf, which could eventually be mined.

"Basically what we’re looking at is the future possibility of prospecting for deep sea minerals where at the moment we are basically asking for an extension of the continental shelf which extends beyond our exclusive economic zone (EEZ)."

Tom Marsters says they don’t expect any challenges to their application and is hopeful it will be the last time they have to present their case to the authority.

Value added tax not suitable for Turks & Caicos Islands - expert

House of Assembly votes to repeal VAT.

 British Governor hints he may ignore the decision of elected government and enact VAT anyway.

by Nanessa Narine

Turks and Caicos Weekly News 

VAT Not Suited For Turks and Caicos Islands - Expert Warns Against New Tax Regime

THE initial report on the effects of Value Added Tax (VAT), a study commissioned by the Turks and Caicos Independent Business Council (TCIBC) was leaked this week. Author, Richard Teather, warned that VAT is a "notoriously complex tax” and one that is not well suited to small island economies such as the TCI.

The report titled ‘VAT and the TCI an independent appraisal’ looks at the suitability of a VAT for the TCI and examines whether it would be better or worse than the range of current taxes that it is proposed to replace. It notes clearly that VAT is not expected to raise significant extra revenue, but merely to replace the revenue from those other taxes.

The report found that because VAT is charged on all (or nearly all) business transactions, but then is refunded to business customers, it is expected to be more administratively complex and expensive to operate than the simple, targeted taxes that it will replace.

In addition it will not tax any significant sectors of the TCI economy that are not already being taxed under import duties or other existing taxes (primarily the Accommodation Tax, the Communications Tax and the new Energy and Water Taxes).

Those sectors that are not currently taxed are either unsuited to VAT (financial services, government services) or are largely business services, so any VAT collected from the sector would be largely refunded to its business customers.

Teather maintained that VAT would be expected to increase administrative costs without spreading tax across any significant sectors that are currently untaxed.

He said, "VAT is a notoriously complex tax, and although some VATs are more complex than others a certain degree of complexity is unavoidable because tax is collected from every business and also refunded to every business within the system.

"To put this in perspective, the cost for the UK government of administering VAT is (for each pound collected) similar to the cost of corporation tax, and over twice the cost of collecting social security contributions.

"The costs of VAT administration for businesses are more difficult to measure, although one study by the UK Parliament found estimates that for small businesses the cost of VAT compliance was almost 1.5 per cent of turnover (that is merely the administrative costs, not the costs of the VAT itself), and that small businesses spent an average of 1.8 hours per week dealing with VAT administration.”

DEBUNKED

The report has debunked the reasoning pedalled by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Hugh McGarel Groves, in favour of implementing the new tax regime.

Last October, the CFO noted that the overall position is that VAT is a replacement tax intended to be revenue neutral with any cost rises kept to a minimum – hence the extensive list of exempt and zero-rated items. 

McGarel-Groves said VAT’s purpose is to provide the Government with a more stable and predictable income stream with which to better support spending priorities.

Earlier in June, he stressed that TCIG is not aiming to raise more revenue overall from VAT.

He said, "This is all about widening the tax base, creating more stability in government revenues and a fairer tax system, with no concessions offered on VAT and reduced import duty concessions (by reducing import duty rates).

"TCIG’s forward financial projections are showing an increase in TCIG's annual revenues post VAT implementation of $10m due to improved compliance and reduced tax leakage. Existing honest taxpayers would not be contributing to this extra $10m.”

McGarel-Groves maintained that there are benefits of VAT to a renewed TCI economy.

SMALL ISLAND DYNAMIC

 According to Teather, no small island country had VAT until 1989, and it was long thought that they were unsuited to it. He stated that this is because of a combination of two reasons.

Firstly in a small country, the costs of implementing a VAT system can be disproportionately high.

And in a small island economy, a high proportion of the economy is based on imports, which can be taxed by means of much simpler import duties, and with proportionately very little domestic value-added business that needs to be taxed by way of a VAT.

The tax expert said, "The natural and logical way to tax consumption in such economies would therefore be by way of import duties; they are easy to operate and relatively cheap to collect, and in a typical small island economy with relatively little domestic production a well-designed import duty combined with a few specific taxes will tax almost all consumption.”

The report noted that the biggest effect on consumers will be felt in the retail sector, as prices are increased by VAT.

It said, "It has been said that the effect will be minimal, because import duties will be reduced by a similar amount to the VAT rate.

"However this misses the crucial distinction between import duties and VAT; import duties are charged on the import value, whereas VAT is charged on the resale value. It is that difference that will make the cost to the consumer of VAT much higher than import duties.

"Retailers need to add an uplift to cover the costs of distribution and the various costs of operating, heating, lighting and staffing their stores, and so retail costs are typically a multiple of the raw cost of goods.

"There will also be VAT on locally produced goods, and on services. Although the overall effect on the economy and VAT revenues from these will not be great (see below), the impact on individual businesses and consumers will be greater.

"However the impact on locally produced goods and services will depend on which producers are large enough to be over the VAT threshold and so liable to charge VAT.

"Without that information, modelling the effect of VAT on different groups of consumers will be impossible.”

EFFICIENCY

Teather addressed the efficiency of the proposed new model, pointing out that it is not that a VAT cannot be implemented in a small island economy, but whether or not it would be efficient.

He said, "The main reason for the adoption of VAT by small island nations is external pressure to reduce import duties, rather than because VAT has advantages in itself for such islands.

"The growing trend in international trade is for compulsory reduction in import duties, whether via global trading groups such as the World Trade Organisation or regional bodies such as the European Union.

"In the case of small island countries, many have adopted or are considering adopting VAT because of regional international trade agreements such as the Pacific Islands Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER).

"In other cases, the small island’s proximity to an international trading bloc has forced it to adopt their import duty reduction programmes.”

However, the report noted too that even though some international agencies, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are wholly supportive of VAT, it is not necessarily in favour of VAT for small island nations.

Teather quoted the Deputy Director of the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF, Michael Keen, as saying, "The suitability of the VAT for small countries, and for small islands in particular, is an issue that arises with increasing frequency.”

The tax expert pointed out that whilst some Caribbean jurisdictions have indeed adopted a VAT, notably Grenada and Belize, have tried a VAT only to later abandon it.

Teather said, "Overall the expectation is that a VAT is likely to increase administrative costs for both government and business, because a few simple taxes will be replaced by a more complex one. On the revenue side, the analysis of the TCI economy suggests that additional revenues will be small.”

He made it clear that the existing taxes are few and simple.

The tax expert’s final report is expected to be made public soon.

TCI News Now

Assembly votes to repeal VAT (L-R) Premier Rufus Ewing and opposition leader Sharlene Cartwright Robinson In a rare display of bi-partisanship, the TCI House of Assembly voted on Friday to repeal the controversial value added tax (VAT) legislation, due to take effect on April 1. The final vote was 16 in support of VAT repeal and 2 opposed. The news of the vote prompted an immediate and pointed repsonse by Governor Ric Todd emphasising the constitutional requirement that the governor must assent to a bill for it to become law in the TCI. “I have been informed about the decision of the House of Assembly today on the Turks and Caicos Islands Value Added Tax (Repeal) Bill 2013. Section 73 of the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution Order 2011 sets out the procedure under which a bill becomes law. I intend to discuss this matter with my colleagues in Cabinet on Wednesday, 6 February 2013,” Todd said. The repeal of VAT was introduced as a private member’s motion by leader of the opposition Sharlene Cartwright Robinson, who gave what nearly every member acknowledged was a stirring speech in support. Premier Rufus Ewing seconded the motion and spoke primarily about his government’s inability to do what he called the will of the people. “This is not democracy,” he said. This was the approach taken by elected and appointed members of the ruling Progressive National Party (PNP) who rose to support the repeal. Their argument was that VAT would increase the cost of living and was not appropriate for the TCI.  Mentioned only by one member was the ostensible reason for the tax -- the pay down of the $260 million loan guaranteed by Britain. This was later picked up by the member from South Caicos Norman Saunders, who said in his opinion the loan only needed to be $130 million.  The governor’s appointed member Lillian Misick spoke out strongly, saying that the premier’s arguments that democracy was not in force were flawed.  In responding to an assertion by Ewing that VAT was not legitimately enacted, in part, because it did not pass in the Consultative Forum with a majority vote, Misick, the former Forum chair, said, "He is wrong. VAT was in fact passed with a majority vote, which means that the premier is also wrong in saying that the governor ignored the advice of the members of the Forum." Misick also reminded the premier and the opposition leader that the new TCI constitution vests in the governor a prerogative to ignore not just the advice of his government, but any law enacted by it.  "Tthroughout the entire three years of the interim administration our local political leaders did little more than mislead our people with promises to do things they knew they had no authority or power to do," she said. After the lunch break, the members of opposition expressed their support of the repeal. One member asked why he had not heard from the government members what alternatives they were proposing to VAT. The members spoke of the numerous studies and reports, some from high level persons from the UK, all of which had recommended against the new tax. Late in the debate, the government’s minister of finance Washington Misick spoke at length against the tax on the basis that the tax had been imposed by Britain. He spoke out against the interim government and then listed his alternatives to the VAT tax, which basically were a one percent increase in the accommodation tax and a tax imposed on tourists involved in water-sports activities. This was a repeat of what Misick had announced earlier. In fact, he repeated his warning that the repeal of VAT will not be readily accepted by Britain and he was ready to submit to firing or prosecutions.  “We may have to engage in civil disobedience,” he said. No one from either side of the house spoke of cutting spending to create a budget surplus. However, the cost of the National Health Insurance Plan was mentioned by three opposition members. One of the last members to speak was former chief minister Derek Taylor, who reminded Washington Misick that when Misick was chief minister he had to engage in redundancies to balance his budget.  “This resulted in our leadership of the government in 1995 until 2003 a period when we expanded the economy,” said Taylor. VAT was approved by the then Consultative Forum and signed into law in July last year. Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has rejected all attempts by the recently elected PNP government to defer its implementation for at least six months, unless or until a viable alternative to VAT is proposed. VAT has been embraced by the FCO as the way out of the financial difficulties facing the TCI. Massive malfeasance in office and systemic corruption on the part of the former PNP government, coupled with debts and liabilities associated with the National Health Insurance Plan and two new hospital buildings, left the TCI some half billion dollars in debt, requiring Britain to guarantee a $260 million loan to prevent default and bankruptcy. Chief financial officer Hugh McGarel-Groves believes that VAT is the only way to bring the government from yearly deficits or break even to a surplus, which will not only cover the health costs but also service the remainder of the debts. However, McGarel-Groves has admitted VAT may raise the prices of taxable items by 3 to 4 percent. The politicians believe the costs to islanders will be much higher. *****     Brianca Johnson The House of Assembly vote places the people of the TCI head to head with the FCO. to  TCI News Now *********** The House of Assembly vote places the people of the TCI head to head with the powers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (“FCO”) and brute force. There is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that VAT is designed to destroy the TCI’s economy. The recent resolve of the parliament of the TCI to unanimously vote across party lines to denounce VAT is to be encouraged and has made the elected chamber more relevant in the TCI that it has ever been in recent times. This powerful vote cannot be regarded as ‘symbolic’ because it places the people of the TCI head to head with the powers of the FCO and toe to toe with those ‘powers’ behind the throne that seek to exploit our wealth and taxes.   The intellectual debate forming against VAT is a valid reaction to the invasion of constitutional force from the Governor’s office. Yet through this all a valid debate is forming. It is like we have been invaded and conquered “again” by the Romans, our country under siege and the conquerors for no valid reason have decided that we will pay for this conquest through higher taxes.   It is suggested that this conquest began well before the commission of enquiry, when the FCO tacitly and openly supported waste, theft and corruption while stating there was no evidence otherwise. Their support of the hospital deal and the $260 million aspect of this siege and taking of our taxes to pay for “this debt” mounted through the FCO condoning what was wrong. The new constitution gives them brute force in taking our monies to pay for these past and present misdeeds.   In all of this a pretext has been created for what they call a “steady and consistent supply of revenue” to pay for debt created by condoning and the blessing of all that was corrupt. The debate that has formed is valid and must continue. Yet there is no clearer clarion call for commonsense than the letter written by Jerzy Kolodziej in making the case that the planning for VAT and the disclosure of documents was half hearted and weak on the part of the chief financial officer (CFO).   “…. I would like to refer to the recent request for documents from the Appropriations Committee. The CFO refused to provide the documents in support of VAT. His claim was that they are confidential! Only after being informed that he could not lawfully conceal them, did he make a half hearted attempt and produced just two documents. These documents did not provide anything further than the reasoning that I have already mentioned.  Those documents did state reliance on another report, the Roe Report 2010. However, the Roe report does not recommend VAT as the only option. It also suggests that the existing taxation system might be the best option.  Hardly a definitive case. The Roe report did not evaluate the performance of VAT in the TCI. Clearly, no-one has! What is becoming certain is the arbitrary nature of the decision. A reckless and irrational decision that was taken by unelected officials on flimsy or non-existent evidence.” Courtesy of the tcijournal.com VAT will only destroy the TCI and further impair our ability to grow out of debt. It will discourage foreign investment and make the possibility of economic expansion far less. Ironically it is only through expanding our economy through greater investment incentives that will lead us out of this debt. Whilst no one wants to debate how we got into this debt and the causes such as the hospital deal, the only way we can get out of it is through seeking legal remedies to remove the hospital deal and resulting debt. Today the government and opposition elected officials are to be congratulated but the CFO, the Governor and the FCO cannot be let off scot free. Their careers and ability to destroy small island developing countries through ill thought out schemes must end. The bungling of TCI tax reform should follow them wherever they go. They cannot be allowed to rely on introducing VAT and using that as a stepping stone to career advancement.   More than anything else, we are being lied to by the Governor, CFO and FCO. The only evidence they have on VAT is that it will surely kill TCI’s economy. Yet why do they insist and persist? Mr Kolodziej states that: “Throughout this sorry affair the Governor and the CFO had been claiming that the justification for the decision were contained in these secret documents. Therefore the case for VAT has been predicated the most vulgar mistruths and dishonesty. To call this lie, this manipulation, this perversion of good governance, is wrong in your opinion. But if this matter were allowed to pass without contest what future is there? “   Mr CFO and Governor, you have taken it onto yourselves in the Constitution to do as you like. But is this a valid and legitimate exercise of these powers and as such simply to use them in brute force? I say no. In sum the vote by the TCI people, through their elected representatives, is a valid expression of “how we all feel” and it must be used as a tool to undermine the improper and invalid use of brute force in the TCI Constitution to make us all pay higher and for no valid reason. The debate from the private sector, the Providenciales Chamber of Commerce, the TCI Business Council and the community all are in sync with this powerfully valid vote by the people of the TCI. We do not want VAT and it can destroy us. In sum this is the reality of the anti VAT debate. Also see: A View From the Mud Hole: Is Democracy Dead or Alive in the TCI reference VAT?

"Puerto Rico in stalemate unless Congress acts" says expert

Miami Herald

by Emilio Pantojas-Garcia 

Senior Researcher and Professor of Sociology
University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras

 

On November 6, Puerto Ricans voted to elect a new government and to express their will on the island’s current status. Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States whose sovereignty resides in Congress. Law 600, the Federal Relations Act of 1952, governs relations between the island and the federal government.

 

This law is the juridical basis for the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Free Associated State in Spanish). Yet, as a possession the island continues to be an unincorporated territory that belongs to, but it is not a part of, the United States.

Since its inception, Commonwealth was conceived as a transitory form of governance on the way to statehood or independence. Supporters of both these alternatives call Commonwealth a form of colonialism.

There have been four plebiscites on the Puerto Rico status question. The first two (1967, 1993), were won by Commonwealth with a support of 60 and 49 percent of the vote, respectively. Statehood increased its support significantly from 39 to 46 percent, while independence received only 4 percent of the vote in 1993, after a boycott of the 1967 plebiscite by the Puerto Rican Independence Party.

In the 1998 and 2012 plebiscites, the ruling pro-statehood New Progressive Party (NPP) defined Commonwealth in ways not chosen by the supporters of this formula. Hence, statehood appeared as the favored alternative by pluralities of 47 in 1998 and 45 percent in 2012. The NPP, however, tried to present a distorted interpretation of the results giving the impression that statehood was favored by an overwhelming majority of 61 percent.

In this latest plebiscite, the ballot was divided in two sections. The first half asked the question: Commonwealth Yes or No. Commonwealth was defined as a territorial formula, which the Popular Democratic Party (its creators) did not agree with but voted for nonetheless. The second half of the ballot presented three alternatives: statehood, independence and “sovereign Commonwealth,” a version of Commonwealth not supported by the PPD.

The PPD leader, and now elected governor of Puerto Rico, asked Commonwealth supporters to vote “yes” in the first part of the ballot and leave the second half blank. The results showed a majority vote against Commonwealth in the first half of the ballot with 54 percent voting “No,” and 46 percent voting “Yes”. On the second half of the ballot statehood achieved a plurality majority of 45 percent; independence 4 percent; “sovereign Commonwealth” 24 percent; and 26 percent of the ballots were left blank, as requested by the PPD leader.

Although statehood received 824,238 votes, the largest number it has ever gotten, it did not surpass the 50 percent mark, if the blank votes are counted.

These results show that Puerto Ricans reject the current status and want a change but do not agree on an alternative. Statehood and pro-independence supporters claim that this disagreement stems from the fact that Congress refuses to provide definitions to those alternatives that it would consider acceptable. Until Congress provides clear definitions, Puerto Ricans will continue to engage in a futile debate, goes the argument.

The ball is now, as it has always been, in the Congress’ court, so to speak. The fact is that there have been over a half-dozen attempts to introduce legislation to allow Puerto Ricans to either reform Commonwealth or provide for a “binding” status plebiscite; none has ever been approved.

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush asked Congress to provide legislation to resolve the status question. Sen. Bennett Johnston led the process of drafting a bill and held hearings with the widest participation ever. The bill died in committee. President Obama promised to do the same. Congress needs to speak if it wishes to begin a process of resolution to the status question, otherwise the logjam will to continue.

Former Tahiti President Receives 4-Year Suspended Sentence

Flosse fined, sentenced for phantom jobs network during presidency

                         Radio New Zealand International

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (, Feb. 7, 2013) – The French Polynesian court of appeal has given a former president, Gaston Flosse, a four-year suspended jail sentence for corruption.

He has also been fined US$170,000 for running a network of so-called phantom jobs with the presidency in what has been the biggest case of its kind in French legal history.

The court has also ruled that he be deprived of his civic rights for three years, meaning he cannot contest any elections.

When he was first convicted last year, Flosse said he would take the case to Paris, should the appeal court today uphold the conviction.

A total of 42 people were given prison sentences and fines last year for being part of an illicitly funded system to advance the policies of his Tahoeraa Huiraatira Party dating back to the 1990s.

Last month, Gaston Flosse was given a five-year prison sentence for corruption for getting about US$2 million in kickbacks over 12 years for awarding public sector contracts to a French advertising executive.

Barack Obama, Puerto Rico y América Latina

Debe de inmediato hacer buena su promesa de promover un proceso limpio, serio y firme para resolver, de una vez y por todas, el dilema de nuestro estatus político colonial. Foto por: Detalle de Cartel XXIX Festival Claridad, Iván Figueroa

Visita la foto galería (1)

	Por Dirección de CLARIDAD

El presidente de Estados Unidos de América (EUA), Barack Obama, fue recientemente juramentado a su segundo término presidencial marcando, con su comodísima reelección, otro hito en la historia de ese país. Las festividades por el inicio de dicho segundo término fueron precisamente celebradas en el día conmemorativo de Martin Luther King, ese gigante de los derechos civiles de los negros y otras minorías, cuya extraordinaria y victoriosa lucha, y su vil asesinato en el 1968 a manos de un supremacista blanco, pavimentaron la ruta que posibilitó, cuarenta años más tarde, que un negro fuera electo presidente de la nación más poderosa del mundo, pero poseedora de una larga historia de enconadas divisiones raciales.

Nada más ese hecho le otorga a Obama un sitial de privilegio en su país. Pero él se ha empeñado en ser un presidente transformativo, que logre la movilización de la sociedad norteamericana -sus enormes recursos naturales, económicos y un capital humano abundante, diverso y heterogéneo, que cada vez reclama mayor participación, inclusión y equidad- y ponerlos al servicio de una visión abarcadora que consolide hacia el futuro el poderío de Estados Unidos y su sitial como primera potencia mundial. En ese proyecto anda tras un primer término marcado por la brutal oposición y entorpecimiento a su programa de gobierno por parte de un Partido Republicano abroquelado en la Cámara de Representantes y dominado por sus elementos más derechistas, irracionales y perversos. Pero Obama ha demostrado ser un político de gran astucia y tenacidad, utilizando su enorme poder y su considerable capacidad de comunicación para reclutar el apoyo masivo de amplios sectores de su pueblo, que le otorga una popularidad pocas veces lograda por un presidente en su segundo término, y le imprime vigor y militancia a una agenda que incluye soluciones de gran impacto en áreas como la salud, el desarrollo económico, la política energética, la protección del ambiente, el control de armas y la seguridad pública y los derechos de los trabajadores, los inmigrantes, las mujeres y la comunidad LGBTT, entre otros.

Pero lo mismo no puede decirse de su relación y la de su gobierno con Puerto Rico, una que niega toda postura de futuro para Estados Unidos, mientras este país se empeñe en colocarse a la retaguardia de la humanidad como uno de los últimos poderes coloniales del mundo. Un gobierno que enarbola los derechos civiles y humanos para todos, mientras mantiene a otro país subordinado en una relación claramente colonial y a un luchador por la libertad de ese país como prisionero político por más de 30 años, no puede llamarse progresista. Ésa es, sin más ni más, la situación de Estados Unidos frente a Puerto Rico en estos momentos.

Ajeno ya a las presiones de la reelección, y libre de sus muchas ataduras electorales, el Presidente de Estados Unidos tiene ahora la oportunidad de que su lema de campaña, Adelante, (en inglés, “Forward”) sea mucho más que un ejercicio meramente publicitario. Debe de inmediato hacer buena su promesa de promover un proceso limpio, serio y firme para resolver, de una vez y por todas, el dilema de nuestro estatus político colonial. En sus manos tiene como herramienta la reciente consulta, donde los electores puertorriqueños inequívocamente le dijeron NO al colonialismo y la estadidad.

Obama tiene también la oportunidad de demostrar con claridad sus proclamados principios ordenando la excarcelación inmediata del patriota puertorriqueño Oscar López Rivera, el más antiguo prisionero político de este hemisferio.

También si quiere, podría enmendar la torcida política de los sucesivos gobiernos de Estados Unidos hacia Cuba, incluyendo el suyo, levantar el inmisericorde bloqueo y liberar a los cuatro patriotas cubanos aún encarcelados en dicho país, sobre todo ahora ante la importante decisión del gobierno de Cuba de autorizar el libre tránsito internacional a todos sus ciudadanos, incluidos los opositores al gobierno de Cuba, cuyas actividades son financiadas por el gobierno de Estados Unidos.

Sin sus previas ataduras electorales, nada le impide a Obama promover una relación de verdadera igualdad y respeto con los países de América Latina, en un trato de tú a tú, reconociendo sus muchos avances económicos y sociales y demostrando respeto por sus derechos soberanos y su progreso democrático, y así intentar subsanar los siglos de agravios acumulados como resultado de la política imperial de Estados Unidos que consideraba a América Latina como su traspatio. Sin más dilación ni excusas, estas medidas deben ser incorporadas en la agenda del Presidente de Estados Unidos para este segundo término.

.

ANGUILLA’S 2013 BUDGET STILL AWAITING UK APPROVAL

"The colonial power continues to tell the democratically-elected government how to spend its own money by controlling the territory's budget. I guess that why they call us a non self-governing territory. "  -  an Anguillian student

Published by Anguillian  

British Governor Harrison

The 2013 budget of the Government of Anguilla was passed in the House of Assembly on December 18, 2012 but, to date, there is no word about approval from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.

Governor Alistair Harrison told reporters up to Friday, January 18,that he had not received any instructions from London “as to whether to assent to it.”

He further said: “I know a lot of work is being done in London. The Chief Minister has signed a provisional warrant which allows the [2012] budget to be rolled over… and I am hoping to get instructions as soon as possible to take the matter forward.”

Asked whether the Government’s delay in signing the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility had any bearing on the approval of the budget, the Governor replied: “I think the aim of the FFR is more long-term than the budget. The idea is to put the finances of a given Overseas Territory onto a sustainable long-term footing…That has already been done in a number of Overseas Territories such as the Caymans – the most recent. That very much addresses the longer term. The budget just addresses one year.”

Pressed as to whether he would sign the budget if the Chief Minister doesn’t sign the FFR, the Governor responded: “I haven’t received any instructions as to whether to sign the budget and therefore I can’t comment on what the circumstances would be…”

He said that the FFR agreement had been under discussion for the past eighteen months. A draft was sent to the Government of Anguilla in April 2011. The Government responded in September 2012 and officials in Anguilla and London were still having discussions on the matter.

“I think it is important to recognise that the FFR,which may very well be renamed, is a much broader document than simply replacing the Borrowing Guidelines,” Governor Harrison added. “It covers borrowing, but it also covers the overall approach to finances and other matters that the Chief Minister and the UK Government have been working on and talking about. The Chief Minister told Mark Simmonds when he was here that he wanted to sign the FFR but there are some issues that still need to be resolved…”

Cayman Islands, a British dependency, hit by U.S. withholding tax

By Michael Klein 

mklein@cfp.ky

A number of Cayman Islands merchants who accept American Express credit cards have fallen foul of new United States tax regulations, which require them to submit their US tax status to credit card providers and other payment processors.

Section 6050W of the US Internal Revenue Code requires merchant acquiring entities in the US like American Express to document the status of any US or foreign business they settle transactions with.

Photo by worldatlas.com

The merchant businesses that failed to provide the information before 31 December, 2012, are subject to a 28 per cent US federal backup withholding tax on their payments. Under the law, payment processors have to withhold the tax and transfer it to the US Internal Revenue Service.

Ristorante Papagallo in West Bay is one of the businesses that have already seen a withholding tax deduction on transactions using American Express. Vico Testori, Papagallo’s manager, said in January American Express had deducted 28 per cent of the gross amount paid with its credit cards but he had never received any communication from the credit card provider.

“They never sent the forms. We were not aware of the issue at all. It just came up when we did the reconciliations, we noted that there was money missing.”

Mr. Testori said he had also not received anything from his bank, Cayman National Bank. “They were told by American Express, that American Express would deal with it,” he said.

Although section 6050W the US tax code is aimed at American taxpayers, who have to provide their taxpayer identification number, foreign merchants using the payment services are subject to the regulation if their establishment has a physical address or bank account in the US, or if it processes transactions in US dollars, as it is the case with credit cards.

To comply with the regulation, Cayman businesses that accept US credit cards have to complete US tax form W-8BEN to certify their status as a non-US merchant and submit it to their payment processing provider.

Not all merchants have determined yet whether any withholding tax has been deducted from the American Express payments. Giuseppe Gatta, manager of the Lighthouse Restaurant, said the business’s accountant is double checking the financials but he is aware that colleagues in the industry have been affected.

He said the first time he was made aware of the issue was on 18 January, nearly three weeks after the deadline, when his bank Butterfield forwarded an e-mail from American Express to him. “Butterfield said this is an Amex notification which they have provided directly. Directly to whom? Not to me,” Mr. Gatta said.

Another local business that has seen taxes withheld from transactions using American Express is Avis, even though the company had disclosed its tax status. Lee Foster, manager of Avis, said his company had submitted the form in October 2012, two months ahead of the deadline, after American Express had contacted the merchant.

He said in his case American Express was very vigilant about the issue because a regional manager for the payment card provider came to Grand Cayman to collect the required documentation.

“We were well within the time frame to submit the W-8BEN form. I believe it’s a glitch,” he said.

Asked whether he expects to get the money back from the IRS, Mr. Foster said, “I certainly expect to get this money back from American Express.”

Bruce Sigsworth, senior supervisor, merchant services with Butterfield Bank, said it appears the issue is limited to American Express customers, because other US payment card processors like VISA, MasterCard or Discover have requested the needed information from merchants upon registration.

Mr. Sigsworth confirmed that, to his knowledge, none of Butterfield’s customer merchants have seen any withholding tax deductions so far.

“We have got a call from Cayman National and they told us that they had seen deductions. They do their own processing, so I don’t know if they were not in the loop with Amex and got notified. We did get notified,” he said.

Cayman National Bank declined to comment on the issue and the number of its customers affected by US withholding tax deductions on American Express transactions.

Cayman banks such as Butterfield and Cayman National are only intermediaries in the payment process, Mr. Sigsworth explained, saying the relationship is between American Express and the merchant who accepts the credit card.

The bank noted that American Express went out directly to Butterfield client merchants “some time last year”, because most merchants called the bank “for security reasons to find out that the information was legit”, Mr. Sigsworth said.

The e-mail sent out by Butterfield on 18 January had been passed on to the bank by one of its clients who had received it from another merchant.

“We decided to send it to all our customers just in case because it included a contact number for American Express, which Amex has directed us to tell our merchants to call to see whether they are compliant or not.”

He added, “We have been in contact with Amex to find out which of our merchants will have to fill out the form, but they were not able to [say].”

Both Papagallo and the Lighthouse have stopped accepting American Express credit cards for the time being.

Avis will make a decision by Wednesday evening whether it will continue to use American Express. “We want to give our partners an opportunity to come to the table,” Mr. Foster said.

American Express had not responded to an invitation for comment by press time.