WITH THE BUDGET DEBATE NOW?COMPLETED, it is indisputably clear the economy of Barbados has not yet moved from danger to any plain of safety. The lucid message is that the Government thinks it must still be steady as she goes, and that there can be no rocking of the boat by election giveaways, even if the fiscal deficit has been reduced.
Hence the value added tax remains at 17.5 per cent, and only minimal reduction has been made to the rates and impact of personal taxation for, according to the Government, to change course at this stage would be to defeat the gains already made in the past four years.
The Opposition’s position is that some remedial action could have been taken to ease the impact of the recession off the backs of individuals and companies operating and working here. We suspect that it is along these differences that the battle lines will be drawn for the upcoming election.
In our democracy it is important that opposing opinions are given full air time and we applaud this televised debate. We are mindful too of the good-natured bantering between politicians and opposing supporters – on either side of the divide.
It was good to see Minister of Health Donville Inniss joking and interacting with opposing supporters of the Barbados Labour Party, in a sign of continuing political maturity. It is this maturity upon which we have to rely when the heat of the election battles beckons, and the opposing political arguments are put with renewed vigour in the hustings.
The task for the people as they listened to the debate was whether they were minded to accept the arguments of Miss Mia Mottley, who forcefully put for their consideration, alternative approaches which she argued might have mitigated the cost of living, especially through the lowering of the rate of investment charged by a wholly-owned Government company when it sells energy to the lone power company.
While her arguments and policies were cogently argued, like Mr Chris Sinckler’s proposals, they must now come under the scrutiny of those whose professional and other experiences allow them to lend their expert focus on policy options.
Yet whatever else is said and done, there is already a clear and urgent need for a return of confidence to investors, both local and foreign. Nothing is likely to get the economy rolling and growing as quickly as the perception and reality that it has returned to a growth path and it is beginning to fire on most of its cylinders.
In this regard, we submit that the most urgent and concentrated effort be placed on ensuring the continued good health of our offshore sector. Some effort must be made to persuade those companies operating here from moving to other jurisdictions. This sector is much too important to be allowed to flounder.
We have to match and outstrip the competing jurisdictions by making sure our structures and ancillary services are so efficient that they do not act as a drag and disincentive to these companies whose contribution to the national revenue and to our foreign exchange efforts is so substantial.
Our country is at the crossroads, and small open economy that it is, without natural resources like oil and bauxite, we have to make every penny count.
We have to maximize the gains which we can make from tourism and offshore services, and make absolutely sure we respond to market needs in the highly competitive atmosphere of international finance.
In all of this debate, it must be made clear that as we move to stabilize the economy, we cannot do so at the expense of any specific part of the society, for the task of pulling our economy forward must be a shared responsibility.