I HAVE COME to recognize that something good can be fashioned from adversity. As a result, I usually seek out the positives from situations other people would be distraught over, and often find at least one worthy thing.
For example, take the taxing of travel and entertainment allowances by Government last November. Those allowances were always tax-free because they were used by employers to boost the salaries of many middle-income earners.
That money gave this group greater spending power to buy property and renovate homes. As such, they helped to keep the construction industry buoyant so that carpenters, masons, plumbers, electricians, tilers, painters, landscapers and food vendors could earn a decent living to, in turn, support their families.
Those tax-free allowances put more money in this group’s hands to buy vehicles to keep the hundreds working in the car companies, mechanic and body repair garages, car parts stores, insurance companies and petrol stations employed.
The aforesaid serves to show how by taxing those allowances, it not only cut deeply into the affected group’s pockets making it difficult for them to make ends meet, but how the action also negatively impacted many small, self-employed business people. Though this is a substantive point in itself, it is not the focus of this column.
Rather, my main point is that by taxing allowances, Government is forcing these people to survive on less take-home pay each month, between $227 and $517, at a time when their electricity, food, water, medicine and other day-to-day living costs have skyrocketed.
What could possibly be the silver lining in all of this, you ask?
It’s an opportunity for those affected by this action to learn how to separate their wants from their needs. They need to be more disciplined in their spending; they have to plan their expenditure better and can no longer be impulsive shoppers.
The lesson learnt from doing this would make them effective in managing their money more efficiently. And that is a good thing.
Likewise, I see a silver lining in this WikiLeaks scandal.
Too many Bajans just “run their mouths” and “carry news” – much of which is either false or heavily embellished – sometimes without thought of how their words will humiliate or hamper the ones spoken about.
Hopefully, these disclosures may serve to discourage those who engage in character assassination and idle chatter to realize that their deeds might one day come to light, and when it does, they would have to suffer the consequences.
People need to realize that whether a relationship is intimate, professional or casual, there is usually an unspoken understanding that what transpires between you, stays between you.
Even when we speak freely around our family and friends, often expressing our personal views on a variety of matters, the usual expectation is that what was said would not be repeated elsewhere.
The only time this accepted, unwritten rule does not apply is when one of the individuals involved indicates that they would have no objection if their comments were shared with a third party.
That apart, these cables, which were private dispatches between the United States Embassy officials here and the State Department in Washington, also reveal how leading personalities and important events here are perceived by American officials. For instance, Ambassador Mary Ourisman’s comments on the Democratic Labour Party (DLP).
In a December 12, 2007 cable, two weeks before the general election campaign, the former ambassador stated the then DLP Opposition was “trying to manufacture an illusion of impending democratic and financial breakdown”, while stating that Barbados was “enjoying economic growth and facing a prosperous future” under the Owen Arthur Government.
“In such an issue-free atmosphere, both campaigns have had to content themselves with making mountains out of molehills,” said Ourisman.
How dare she, some would say. But in this too, there is a lesson. That is, too many of the things politicians here squabble about publicly are really insignificant. On the other hand, substantive matters are either not discussed thoroughly, or are only briefly sparred over.
And the main casualty of this approach is usually good governance.
The comments of Ambassadors Mary Kramer and Ourisman, and Chargé d’Affaires Brent Hardt cut to the chase on matters.
We need too, as a people, to be honest enough with ourselves whenever issues arise to properly analyze the situation given the facts rather than toeing one or the other political party line and spouting their rhetoric.
Wake up people, start thinking for yourselves!
