标签： Barbados

In a sweeping critique delivered before the House of Assembly, Opposition Leader Ralph Thorne launched a vehement condemnation of the Mia Mottley administration’s appointment practices, alleging systematic erosion of institutional independence within Barbados’ civil service and judiciary.

Thorne articulated profound concerns regarding the government’s propensity for installing departmental heads and even judicial figures on limited three to four-year contractual terms. He characterized this approach as a form of political interference that fundamentally compromises the autonomy of public servants. The practice, he contended, creates an environment where senior appointees prioritize contract renewal over providing impartial, objective counsel to political leadership.

While acknowledging the Public Service (Appointments) Bill as a ‘noble’ legislative measure that would secure permanent positions for over 2,000 civil servants—including 1,170 temporary workers—and facilitate more than 900 promotions, Thorne maintained that the public service remains in a state of significant turmoil. He suggested the timing of this legislation appeared strategically aligned with impending general elections rather than genuine administrative reform.

The opposition leader detailed widespread frustration throughout the public service hierarchy, attributing this discontent to the government’s policy of ‘planting’ contract-based personnel at senior departmental levels. Thorne emphasized that the historical integrity of Barbados’ civil service rested upon security of tenure, which enabled public officers to deliver independent advice without employment insecurity. He starkly contrasted traditional appointments ‘by status’ with the current administration’s contractual approach, which he believes undermines established public service traditions.

Thorne delivered a pointed reminder to civil servants that their employment exists independently of Cabinet members, stating ministers are not their employers but rather policy directors. He issued a direct caution to government ministers against operational interference within departments, urging them to ‘stay out of the people’s places of work.’

Expanding his critique beyond administrative structures, Thorne addressed systemic issues in education and law enforcement. He reported that teachers across the island experience severe burnout, noting educators frequently assume surrogate parental roles by providing lunch for students. Thorne challenged the government’s economic prosperity narrative, asserting that in a genuinely ‘buoyant’ economy with seventeen consecutive growth quarters, no child should attend school hungry.

Regarding law enforcement, Thorne acknowledged the government’s introduction of substantial detective allowances but warned this measure has created problematic divisions between detectives and uniformed officers within the Barbados Police Service, potentially undermining operational cohesion.

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley has delivered a national address to counter mounting public apprehension surrounding the proposed Economic Diversification and Growth Fund Bill. The legislation, authorizing allocation of up to $225 million from the Consolidated Fund, has generated significant debate regarding its implications for public finances and economic governance.

Facing criticism from legal experts and concerned citizens, Mottley acknowledged legitimate public anxiety while vigorously defending the bill’s necessity. “I recognize that economics involving public funds and employment can naturally breed mistrust,” stated Mottley, emphasizing her responsibility to provide clear explanations directly to citizens rather than dismissing their concerns.

The Prime Minister positioned the legislation as Barbados’ strategic adaptation to evolving global economic conditions, particularly international tax reforms that have eliminated traditional incentives like blanket tax holidays. “The old tools are gone,” Mottley declared. “They’re not coming back.”

Central to the government’s defense is the bill’s focus on measurable outcomes. Mottley specified stringent eligibility criteria requiring foreign companies to create minimum 100 jobs and meet specific foreign exchange thresholds. Contrary to claims of excluding local businesses, the Prime Minister clarified that Barbadian firms with international operations may equally qualify for support.

The proposed fund incorporates multiple accountability layers including administration by the Accountant General, audits by the Auditor General, and oversight from a broad-based advisory committee. Mottley guaranteed transparent handling of all funds: “Every cent that enters this fund and every red cent that is spent will be accounted for.”

Mottley framed the legislation as essential for Barbados’ economic resilience amid global instability, supply chain disruptions, and climate challenges. The fund aims to maintain investment attractiveness while ensuring companies contribute taxes at standard rates of 9% or 15% under global minimum tax rules.

Concluding her address, Mottley assured citizens: “Your government will not play fast and loose with Barbados’ fiscal stability nor with the well-being of Barbadians,” characterizing the bill as pursuing “real jobs for real people in the real world we’re living in.”

A significant political controversy has emerged in Barbados regarding the Economic Diversification and Growth Fund Bill, pitting legal experts against government officials in a heated debate over fiscal management and economic development.

Former senator and prominent attorney Tricia Watson has launched scathing criticism against the proposed legislation, characterizing it as fundamentally flawed and inadequate for managing public resources. Watson specifically condemned the bill’s vague terminology, particularly the undefined parameters of what constitutes ‘real and substantial economic presence’ and ‘real and substantial economic activity’ for qualifying companies. She emphasized that the legislation’s lack of precise definitions creates substantial loopholes that could enable misuse of public funds.

The controversial bill, which underwent parliamentary debate last week, proposes allocating $225 million from the Consolidated Fund over a three-year period, with annual disbursements of $75 million. Watson highlighted multiple deficiencies in the proposed framework, including insufficient oversight mechanisms, absence of financial disclosure requirements for applicant companies, and questionable provisions granting ministers authority to enter into funding agreements without standard contractual safeguards.

In a robust defense of the legislation, Minister of People Empowerment and Elder Affairs Kirk Humphrey presented the bill as essential for Barbados’ economic future. Humphrey outlined specific eligibility criteria, noting that companies must commit to creating at least 100 sustainable jobs for Barbadians maintained for a minimum of seven years. The Minister emphasized that funding would be contingent on measurable outcomes, including foreign exchange generation, tax compliance, and long-term operational commitment to Barbados.

Humphrey addressed concerns about ministerial authority by explaining that decisions would be guided by a multi-agency committee comprising key economic officials, including the Director of Finance and Economic Affairs, the Central Bank Governor, and CEOs of Invest Barbados and Export Barbados. He characterized the $225 million allocation as a targeted, time-bound investment designed to strengthen economic resilience rather than an open-ended commitment.

The debate has raised fundamental questions about balancing economic development needs with transparent governance practices, with both sides appealing to public interest while offering contrasting visions of responsible fiscal management.