Government Distributes Freedom of Information Bill For Feedback As Promised
October 9, 2008 · 125 Comments
Categories: Barbados · Barbados Government · Barbados News · Governance · Politics
Welcome To BU Blog
BU’s Sidebar
-
Barbados Underground- British Government’s Air Passenger Duty (APD) Causes Airline Cancellations‘Industry insiders are worried it could add to the 76 routes already cancelled since March last year.’ According to Ryanair’s chief executive, Michael O’Leary, ‘Gordon Brown’s tourism tax will see Britain lose over 10 million passengers, 10,000 airport jobs and more than UK Pounds 2.5 billion in tourism spend in the UK this year alone’. [...]
- We Support Paradise FMRecently there was an exchange on a BU blog which debated the merits and demerits of issuing a TV license to the Starcom Network. Perhaps there is another debate which Barbadians need to have as it relates to the tedium an applicant to the Barbados Broadcasting Authority (BBA) to procure a broadcasting license must ensure. We [...]
- HUMILITY AND SINCERITY…Just What The Doctor OrderedIt is amazing what a little humility and sincerity in public life can do. Even before and without the predictable gloom and doom intervention of the Leader of the Opposition, Barbadians were, quite understandably, concerned about the so-called Standard and Poors’ Downgrading and its implications and ramifications for our economy. Many of us cannot identify [ […]
- Rating Agency’s Report Vindicates Ms. MottleySubmitted by Sylvan Greenidge, former BLP Press Secretary Barbadians were recently given a very rare opportunity when the Prime Minister addressed the state of the economy in House of Assembly on Tuesday, November 17, 2009. His address followed an assessment done by one of the leading credit agencies, Standard & Poor’s and once again the comments [...] […]
- Is Islam A Religion Of Conquest?The remembrance of the 911 tragedy in September and the shooting by Army Doctor Nidal Malik Hasan has brought the suspicion of the Islam religion back on the front burner. As a people BU subscribes to the view that civilized human beings must be tolerant of others despite differences. Christianity is the dominant religion in [...]
- Children Go To School And Learn Well…Earlier this week CADRES compiled the 2009 Final Barbados National Survey On Corporal Punishment And Educational Issues Report which measured the opinions of Barbadians regarding the use of corporal punishment in schools and homes. The report has attracted the ire of the outspoken Garrison Secondary School educator Mathew Farley and others; who believe the p […]
- How Is The Barbados Economy Doing?In its most recent review, published on November 13, 2009, the Credit Rating Agency, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) affirmed Barbados’ investment grade international credit rating, but adjusted its outlook from stable to negative. The S&P report has generated much public comment and debate on the state and management of the Barbados economy, as the econo […]
- Medical Doctor Complicit In Torture Of 14 year-old by Guyana Police Disgraced His Profession, Should Be Prosecuted And Barred From Practicing MedicineIt has now come to light that the 14 year-old boy who was tortured by Guyana Police officers at the Leonora Police Station was while in Police custody examined by Dr. Mahendra Chand, at the Vreed-en-Hoop Police Station on October 29, 2009, shortly after the abuse occurred. Dr. Chand is a Government Medical Officer (GMO) [...]
- Remembering What WAS BajanSubmitted by Sapidillo There seem to have been many characters with the same nicknames in other neighbourhoods. A lady named Silvia; one day, she asked one of the boys on the pasture to run an errand for her; she offered him some soup. He said that Silvy taught that she was making dumplings and made [...]
- Should Barbados Be The Next Monaco?Recently one of Barbados’ leading developers responsible for obliterating the West Coastline of Barbados made the statement he has a vision for Barbados being transformed to a Monaco. In the month of November when Barbadians will be reminded of the Mirror Image speech, is this ‘our’ vision for Barbados and is it what our 500,000 [...]
- Government Makes Backroom Deal With David Commisong On The AmnestyBarbadians were informed through a People’s Empowerment Party propaganda piece in the Nation newspaper recently that the government has agreed to a modification to the amnesty conditions announced earlier this year. It is possible BU missed the official release from government on the change or was it a backroom deal made with a group calling [...]
- It Is Crunch TimeThere comes a time in the affairs of man when he must take the bull by the tail and face the situation – W. C. Fields The recent downgrade in the outlook of Barbados investment paper by Standards & Poors given our BBB rating continues to generate much debate in Barbados. What seems to [...]
- The Homosexual Debate Continues to Simmer In BarbadosThe next general election is over two years away if held when constitutionally due. The health of the economy, freedom of information, integrity legislation and immigration issues we suspect will feature prominently on the next general election platform. Another issue we suspect will be on the list is one of morality, specifically homosexuality. The members […]
- Nation Editorial Under The MicroscopeToday’s Nation editorial makes for interesting reading. On another blog BU made the point that our Fourth Estate needs to demonstrate a duty of care when reporting news. If it does not it will have the inevitable effect of diminishing the integrity of the profession. The topic of the editorial is worthy but the content [...]
- Who Will Show Barbadians The WAY?Once upon a time some of our leaders had the idea to come together and by pooling resources our region might benefit. The thrust of the leadership of what eventually evolved to CARICOM came from the Big Four, Trinidad, Jamaica, Guyana and Barbados. BU has often ruminated how Barbados was regarded as one of the [...]
- BANGO’s Closing Written Submission To The Fair Trading Commission In The Barbados Light & Power MatterSubmitted by BANGO In the matter of the application by the Barbados Light & Power Co. Ltd., the Commission held a Rate Hearing in which the Applicant put forward its case for a raise in rates. During the Hearing, the Applicants main theme was that it needed to show a greater rate of return from its [...]
- Issues Of The HeartThere is a potpourri of issues and ideas I would like to deal with this week. First up, the Rihanna Interview. I must admit the interviewer did a magnificent job of drawing out Rihanna on several sensitive and I would imagine painful issues, and for the most part I am convinced she spoke from the [...]
- Comprehensive Review Of Immigration Policy And Proposals For Legislative ReformThe long awaited Green Paper on Immigration has been made public. Let us have a look. The BU family has been at the forefront of comment around the need for immigration reform. Let us see if our government has been listening to the PEOPLE. Posted in Barbados, Barbados News, Barbados Press, Blogging, Caribbean, Caribbean News, Caricom, [...]
- Swine Flu (H1N1) Concerns ???Submitted by Georgie Porgie Posted in Blogging, Health, World News Tagged: H1N1, swineflu
- It Feels So Good!Recently BU posted two blogs about the Bajan brand. What can we tell about the Bajan brand if we are to judge by the following comment made by the UK’s latest lottery winner Les Scadding of £45.5m? The couple robustly insisted they would keep their feet on the ground and ‘think very carefully’ about what [...]
- British Government’s Air Passenger Duty (APD) Causes Airline Cancellations
-
-
125 responses so far ↓
The scout // October 9, 2008 at 6:17 AM
While the proposal looks good, I would have to really study the document before I make a definitive on it. As far as confidentiality is concerned, the old question comes up ” who will guard the guards? how would one be confident that information given would not be leaked out and a name attached?
Bimbro // October 9, 2008 at 6:46 AM
Well done, DLP. First promise achieved and no thanks to the naysayers!! Now, for scrutiny and hope that it achieves the standards which we expect of it! We look forward, too, to the promised ‘Integrity Legislation’ and its promised high aims and responsibilities!! Let’s make Barbados the first black, country of which we may be truly, proud!!
Bimbro // October 9, 2008 at 6:48 AM
Hopefully, BFP will now stop their cussing and join in the objective and elevated, scrutiny of this proposed legislation, which is so badly, required!!
Bimbro // October 9, 2008 at 6:50 AM
Not to mention ALL MPs and other knowledgable and responsible, people and authorities of B’dos!!
Global Voices Online » Barbados: Draft Freedom of Information Bill // October 9, 2008 at 7:00 AM
[...] government distributes the draft Freedom of Information Bill for feedback, prompting Barbados Underground to encourage citizens to read it and make suggestions: “This is what democracy is about, [...]
SNAKE // October 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Bimbro // October 9, 2008 at 6:48 am said …. “Hopefully, BFP will now stop their cussing and join in the objective and elevated, scrutiny of this proposed legislation, which is so badly, required!!”
I submit that were it not for the “cussing” this proposed legislation may never have seen the light of day.
In the medical world there is now a new paradigm which is not yet in use by the ‘average’ medical practitioner but thanks to the bloggers the field of alternative medicine is damaging the hold that pharmaceutical Companies have on doctors… who mean well most of the time… but who are only trained with a limited focus.
In the world of information, the blogs are a voice of the people and they very much are forcing politicians to be on their toes.
This is not a time to sit back and be self-congratulatory, but rather to keep carrying the fight.
David // October 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM
@Snake
We agree 100%.
While congratulating the government let us remember we were here before and floundered.
The People's Democratic Congress // October 9, 2008 at 8:20 AM
While we are satisfied that the government has decided to put on the internet a draft Freedom of Information Bill for possible scrutiny and input by internet users, what we must herein say is that even if there is a Freedom of Information Act that is enacted in the Parliament of this country and that is assented to by the Governor General of Barbados – the fact of the matter is that such – along with the passage and proclamation of Integrity Legislation in the country too – will MAINLY SERVE to bring about a lower level of ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY CULTURE in this country.
Thus, if a Freedom of Information Act becomes part of the laws of this land, that will mainly serve to make sure that the public has access to and could acquire certain types of governmental information and documentation NOT previously accessible or obtainable. But, by seeking to balance those legal and governmental aspects with individual and group rights to privacy, individual and group rights to confidentiality, with laws that protect banking and corporate secrecy, that protect individual and group rights to a fair trial, laws that protect national security and public morality and decency, etc. it would be clear that CONTROL of this type of information and documentation will still lie in the hands of the government, to a greater extent, and in the hands of any courts or tribunals that would have jurisdiction over proceedings determining disputes concerning Freedom of Information Laws or any facts that are concerned therewith, to a lesser extent.
So, right away one can see that there will be NO GREAT LEAP FORWARD in the governance and social responsibility affairs of this country. But, in order to achieve A GREAT LEAP FORWARD in the goverance and social responsibility of this country, there must be the election of a PDC Government that will make sure that a higher level of ACCOUNTABLITY, TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY IN GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY is achieved in Barbados by making sure that: -
1) Sovereign power lies in the hands of the people vis-a-vis constitutional changes that will provide for Constituents to debate and pass the laws of this country in Constituency Assemblies set up across the country;
2) A system of parochialism is enshrined in the constitutional afairs of this country, and which will allow for citizens living in the parishes of this country to elect parish councils that shall assist in the running of the affairs of those parishes;
3) A system of national coalition government is enshrined in the constitutional affairs of the country – and that will make sure that NOT ONLY parties are represented in it, BUT ALSO that non-party political groups and independents are also represented in it;
4) There is the setting up of a permanent Public Defense Subsidiary of the State that allows for any accused persons or plaintiffs to access and obtain state legal counsel in any criminal or civil matters in this country;
5) There is the outlawing of the practice whereby police (executive) prosecute criminal matters in the Magistrate Courts (judicial) of this country, in flagrant violation of the seperation of powers principle;
6) There is the creation of a Rapid Intervention Force that shall play an intervening role between people in Barbados and a newly reconstituted law enforcement agency in Barbados – National Investigation Bureau;
7) There is established a system of Triable on the Spot Offences Courts, which shall be headed by Recorders ( junior Judges) and which shall have responsibility for criminal and civil matters that will be started by aggrieved persons simply appearing before the courts and making certain allegations of injustice or personal injury, etc.,whereupon the recorders having heard the allegations will solely authorise the police to investigate the allegations and whereby on the basis of the progress of the cases will the ONLY persons to charge any persons or authorise litigation proceedings in Barbados;
8) There is the National Election of All Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Judges;
9) There is the Abolition of ALL Taxation in Barbados;
10) The Abolition of Interest Rates in the country; and,
11) The establishment of regime whereby ALL Institutional Loans for Productive Purposes shall be made Non-Repayable.
Surely, those and other far more important PDC Manifesto propositions shall when implemented by a future PDC Government help tremendously in the achievement of a far greater level of ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND INTEGRITY in this country than the ordinary enacted of Freedom of Information Laws and Integrity Legislation.
PDC
Wishing In Vain // October 9, 2008 at 9:04 AM
David, I am sure you and all the blp and DLP members, will all want to join with me in complimenting the New Government on its swift and decisive action in making this a reality, despite the rants of those over at BFP that seemed to hope that it would never see the light the New Government has delivered in a most timely manner, this is sensible level headed Government with A Very Capable Leader In person of The Hon Mr.David Thompson.
We are seeing real progress not only on matters such as infrastructure, we are seeing real and meaningful attention being paid to SOCIAL programs and care being shown to every sector of this Barbadian society.
This is the aspect of govenance that was so badly lacking under the former adminstration that Arthur and Mottley were overseers of, the need to see the value of the Barbadian people to the development of Barbados and to faciliate the Barbadian people to help develope our nation Barbados.
In a short ten months the Prime Minister and his cabinet have transformed the landscape of this island both socially and morally with innovative refreshing programs that have not attached an undue burden to the treasury.
My compliments to the Prime Minister The Hon Mr.David Thompson and his hard working team for putting Barbados first and foremost and bringing back respect to the office of Prime Minister and giving Barbadian people a new person centered and valued approach and empowering the Barbadian people.
Tell me Why // October 9, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Interesting piece of legislation, the only problem, Will it be followed? Remember we have all types all laws governing our actions but seems to catching cobweb. However, on a positive note, I am proud to see such laws and will spend time analysing them before commenting. WIV, I will check the sections of the laws you constantly runs afoul.
no name // October 9, 2008 at 10:35 AM
WIV,
This is not a reality yet. We have to study it, make it what it needs to be and then see that it is implemented.
Don’t forget that they were talking about Integrity Legislation since the 60’s and it has not happened yet. Not even a draft.
Wishing In Vain // October 9, 2008 at 10:58 AM
no name,
You can rest assured that this is not a Tom Adams nor an Owing Arthur run administration this is a new beginning with new fresh thoughts and actions and you can relax in the knowledge that it will be presented to the in draft form sooner than you can guess.
Let us remember that the former blp administration paid only lip servie to this matter but we are now seeing under a DLP Gov’t real and meaningful action being put into ation.
I sincerely want to thank the people of Barbados for their insight and their wisdom in evicting the corrupt bunch of the blp from offie and installing the new DLp to offie where we are now seeing real progress in terms of social, moral and respect being reestablished in this island.
Bimbro // October 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Who’s cussing the blogs, not me!! I’m simply saying that now’s the time to stop the cussing and start the working!! There’s a difference!!
SNAKE // October 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Don’t be ultrasensitive Bimbro! No
one said you were cussin’ de blog!
To PDC ~ can’t you paraphrase your submissions into 2 paragraphs? Then readers would read what you say.
All that verbiage turns folks away.
Bimbro // October 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Snake, it’s obvious that PDC has got no sense at all, he’s been advised about that more than once but keeps going in his blind, zombie-like way, ignoring what anybody says to him!!
There must b a word for such people but I can’t think of it, at the moment, bro!! Save ur breath!! He’s probably, also, too, stupid to realise that nobody will read that junk!!
SNAKE // October 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM
He likes to bloviate and he’s actually vertiginous. He should be more laconic. I’ll be interesting to see if he’ll remain so pervicacious with his fatuous style.
Fairplay // October 9, 2008 at 4:08 PM
I am in support of the freedom of information bill and integrity legislation but already persons are starting to move the goal posts by using but and if. The freedom of information bill was promised and now the discussions begin. The government will deliver on these promises because the electorate is not in any good mood for governments breaking promises that are within their control. You can argue that the cost of living is driven by external forces but what would the argument be about these two promises.
reality check // October 9, 2008 at 4:11 PM
“despite the rants of those over at BFP that seemed to hope that it would never see the light the New Government has delivered in a most timely manner”
swift and timely?
are you on medications?
BFP and the citizens of Barbados would like nothing better to see full ITAL and FIA and will give credit when credit is due.
If it weren’t for blogs like Keltruth that embarrased the PM at the UN there is a good chance the bureaucrats and politicians would still be drifting aimlessly along with zero accountability and communication.
It is only constant pressure of critical issues like this that result in real and fundamental change.
Now lets start reading the fine print and commenting instead of congratulating ourselves when only 5% of the job is done.
Where is the promised Ministerial code?
Respect is earned and maybe Thompson will get there slowly and surely. The last PM certainly left office without any respect .
David // October 9, 2008 at 4:38 PM
We will not be so harsh as to berate the government on this issue as yet. PM Thompson we are certain understands that his party’s platform run on corruption and the promise to root it out along with the promise to implement the legislative framework to prevent will be scrutinized next election.
Let us stop the talk and download the document and begin to offer constructive feedback.
David // October 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Maybe we can start the ball rolling by asking for clarification on the following clause in the draft FOI:
6(2)This Act applies to the exclusion of the provisions of any other law that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of a record by a public authority to the extent that such provision is inconsistent with this Act.
We assume that there will be some conflict with the requirements of the FOI bill and the Official Secrets Act which governs the civil establishment in Barbados. We welcome a quick clarification on how these two bills will work side by side as far as our query goes.
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
@BU Family… For anyone who cares…
I have made a first pass across the document. Lots of red ink, but overall, I’m impressed.
I treat legal language as nothing but software; and through that lens it would crash on the first run. But that’s simply a matter of a bit of debugging (variables misdefined; variables not defined, code repeated, etc)…
I would encourage all of you to read, paragraph by paragraph, word by word, the document presented, and provide feedback.
(For example, how many of you noticed that on page 17 a subsection 2(A) and 2(B) is referenced, but no subsection 2 exists?)
I will be writing up a feedback document to the authorities on my observations, and will provide to the BU Family a link to my resultant document.
This is the *perfect* time for open analysis…
Kindest regards to all.
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 4:57 PM
@David…
Good catch… I Am Not A Lawyer (IANAL), and I have *no* idea what that language actually means.
Perhaps those amongst us who AAL can explain to us simpletons the ramifications of this particular paragraph?
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM
@David…
It just hit me… (I think…)
Paragraph 6.2 is saying that where another law prohibits the release of information this stands, *except* where “such prohibition is inconsistent with this Act”.
As in, this act actually takes precedence.
(Unless I’m misunderstanding the language. Again, I’m sure we’d all be *very* happy to hear from a true and trained legal mind on this.)
Tell me Why // October 9, 2008 at 5:06 PM
It could have been copied from another legislation and the person forget to connect the sections. Remember the first draft?
no name // October 9, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Someone please help me here.
How is it that other countries have tried and tested Freedom of Information, Integrity Legislation, Conflict of Interest Rules etc. and we talk like we need to start from scratch? Like we are the first country in the World to do this exercise?
Surely we can take the best parts of the Acts from other countries and change and add what we need to them.
Sounds like using the start from scratch method is going to make this take a very long time to get anything implemented.
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM
@Tell me Why, no name… Please work with us here… *Work* is the key word…
Yes, there’s lots of prior art, and frankly, that’s where we’re working from, but there’s still some work to be done *here*… We are a soverion nation, after all…
So let’s get to it… (It only involves a bit of reading…)
@All… I also take some issue with section 26 (page 20 and 21) which defines the forms of access…
Nowhere here do I see electronic access defined. In fact, 26.1.c suggests that if a piece of information is in visual or audible form, that it is to be made available to be viewed or heard…
How about being presented in an (open) digital format?
In the case of raw data, how about CSV or TSV formats?
We have a bit of work to do… But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water…
Juris // October 9, 2008 at 5:35 PM
David, section 6(2) means that if any other legislation prevents the disclosure of information by the Government, it is no longer in force to the extent that such provision conflicts with this Act. So if this Act says that government must release information and the other legislation says no, then this Act rules…the information must be released.
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 6:49 PM
@All…
You know, I have to take some great offence here… (And may cause some offence in the following…)
After nine months of us whining about the lack of Freedom of Information Legislation, we’re provided with a draft document, with the opportunity to speak to same…
But, Gods forbid, we’re asked to provide feedback, rather than being provided said on a silver platter…
And then we whine! “Waaa!!! You’re asking us to read!!!”
How pathetic are we? (Seriously.)
We always love to say how many of us can read. But can we analyse? Can we understand? Can we write? Can we think?
(Please forgive me for this, but…) PROOF IT!!! Step up to the plate, or quit (f’ing) complaining…
(Again, please forgive me for my above. But, at the same time, I ask you think about said above… And, hopefully, step up!)
The People's Democratic Congress // October 9, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Amid crisis, states forced to take “drastic action” – States slashing Budgets, axing jobs, halting major construction projects
With the economy in a slide, and the credit market seized up, states are slashing budgets, eliminating jobs, putting major construction projects on hold and nervously waiting to see whether their shriveled pension funds recover.
They are als oweighing lawsuits against Wall Streeet firms. And at least one state – California – may ask Washington to come to th rescue.
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Sigh…
@PDC: you are empirically able to write large volumes of language… That is only half (or less) of the required skill set…
Tell me, do you (or anyone else) see any issue with the proposed Freedom of Information Act, section 25?
Specifically: “…but in any case not later than three working days where the document already exists at the time of making the request and two weeks after the day on the request is received by or on behalf of the Ministry or prescribed authority, where the document does not yet exist or is not readily available”?
Here’s a hint: why would it take two weeks to tell someone that information is not available, but only three working days if it is?
no name // October 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Chris Halsall,
You need to be patient with us slower ones. Give us a little time.
Chris Halsall // October 9, 2008 at 10:33 PM
@no name et al…
My sincerest apologies…
Patients is not one of my strong points. I need to work on that…
PiedPiper // October 9, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Freedom of Information Acts are not all they are cracked up to be. A so-called progressive country such as Canada has had FOI in place for years but the government agencies make it so difficult to actually obtain information under the act that many give up in frustration. First you must pay for whatever information you are seeking and you will be given the royal run-a-round from one depeartment to another and finally you will wait months if not years. If you actually stay the course and persist, you may eventually receive heavily “blacked out” documents that reveal little or nothing.
Tell me Why // October 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM
This could be a good point PiedPiper. This could be an area to generate money from the applicant (see Part 1 Preliminary Sec 3(1).
Recently, ‘applicants’ seeking to get information on vehicle ownership is now being asked to pay a fee. Probably, this FOI could be the start of government’s system of generation new income. Something to ponder about Chris.
The People's Democratic Congress // October 10, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Amid crisis, states forced to take “drastic action” – States slashing budgets, axing jobs, halting major construction projects
With the economy on a slide and credit markets seized up, states are slashing budgets, eliminating jobs, putting major construction projects on hold and nervously waiting to see whether their shriveled pension funds recover.
They are also weighing lawsuits against Wall Street firms. And at least one state – California – may ask Washington to come to the rescue. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger warned he may have to beg the federal government for a short term loan to cover operating costs for schools, nursing homes and police if the nation’s most populous state is made to borrow a short termUS $ 7 billion on the credit market.
Dozens of states are expecting big drop offs in revenue and dispiriting pension-fund losses, and are making another round of emergency spending cuts on on top of deep cutbacks earlier in the year, when the economy began softening and the mortgage crisis started to unfold – Preceding extracts taken from an AP updated news story from MSNBC.COM, on October 9, 2008.
Meanwhile in Barbados, the political economic recessionary conditions continue to worsen, as the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance thumbs his fingers and mopes whilst being almost clueless as to the “right” fiscal and monetary measures that are more than ever before needed to rescue and stabilize the depressing economic and financial situation of the country.
Hence, rather than the Prime Minister jetting in and out of the country so often – it would have been better if he had taken enough time out from flying about the world, to stay at home and have a critical appraisal of what so-called economic and financial measures and policies are really urgently but properly needed to help make the present recession less severe than it is. But this seems an impossible task for the Prime Minister to do, esp. given that – for him – it is so difficult in Barbados to face the spectre of almost all of one’s party’s major manifesto pledges having long time ago gone up in flames, the more and more times have got very exceedingly hard for us – the masses and middle classes of people of Barbados.
Nevertheless, it would be foolhardy – at this or any future stage – for Mr. Thompson to be simply copying- as may still be his wont – the SICK, BANAL and BANKRUPT political economic methodologies of the Arthur Era in as much as such a period had seen Mr. Arthur refusing to lay off public sector workers in 2001, and had seen him rejecting advice from some quarters to substantially slash state expenditure for most of the time of his prime ministership, nevermind that some of the consequences of those and some other failed fiscal and monetary policies were that he – as Minister of Finance – had borrowed so excessively that the government debt had to skyrocket high; had incurred such fairly sizable fiscal deficits that such meant that the private sector was shut out from much needed finance; and had so much believed in implementing counter productive supply side measures – such as lowering INTEREST RATES and REDUCING TAXATION – that in the end these policies mainly had served to increase state thefts (overall TAXATION).
So, just as those methodologies like lowering interest rates and lowering TAXATION HAD – when implemented in recent times of modest national economic growth – FAILED to help prevent the economic crisis in which we in Barbados find ourselves, so WILL the recently introduced DLP Governmental measures like slightly lowering the MINIMUM INTEREST PAYABLE ON DEPOSITS, begrudgingly PROVIDING FOR BETTER SECURITY AND FENCING AT SOME SCHOOLS and marginally REDUCING DIESEL AND GASOLENE COSTS, STARKLY FAIL – in these times of political ECONOMIC stagnation and decline – to inspire and help bring about for Barbados, firstly, the desired levels of INVESTMENT, PRODUCTION/PRODUCTIVITY and EXPORTS; secondly, the desired MAXIMUM NATIONAL COST OF LIVING AND BUSINESS LEVELS, and the desired levels of GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE and NATIONAL SAVINGS; and, thirdly, the desired levels of EMPLOYMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR CONSUMPTION, and IMPORTS – components that are altogether necessary to make sure that the national economic situation is turned around in Barbados.
PDC
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 4:05 AM
SNAKE // October 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
He likes to bloviate and he’s actually vertiginous. He should be more laconic. I’ll be interesting to see if he’ll remain so pervicacious with his fatuous style.
******************
Oh, Snake!! I like it bro, but I think uv overdone it a little there, with the showing-off, don’t u!!
Lorddddddddddddddddd!!!!
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 4:08 AM
The People’s Democratic Congress // October 9, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Amid crisis, states forced to take “drastic action” – States slashing Budgets, axing jobs, halting major construction projects
*********************
Hey, he learning!! There’s hope for us all yet, bros!!
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 4:10 AM
The People’s Democratic Congress // October 10, 2008 at 1:40 am
Amid crisis, states forced to take “drastic action
********************
Just seen this!! Retract earlier compliment and give-up!!
David // October 10, 2008 at 5:41 AM
Please lets stay focus please.
Barbadians have the opportunity to provide feedback on this important bill. As Barbadians we can bellyache and become embroiled in the negative or we can critically adjudge the FOI proposal to ensure we get the best bill possible.
We have read so many comments from people over the years talking about we need integrity and freedom of information legislation, now the time has come and we are starting to see that we may have just been hearing hot air.
It is not too late for average Barbadians to become involved.
To our friends over at BFP who are making a big deal about popular wording found in the document, this is not uncommon in documents widely use and maybe a red herring position. We respect the fact that our history on this issue does not engender a trustful relation with government but the PM’s administration has been in place for less than a year. They have assumed office at one of the most challenging times in world history, we must tread carefully on how we manage our priorities.
The People's Democratic Congress // October 10, 2008 at 8:17 AM
It is NOT just stocks that are taking a hammering, oil prices continue to plummet and have fallen to a one year low below US $ 83 barrel while currencies, especially the British Pound, have been sold heavily – Preceding extract taken from an updated AP news story – headlined World Markets tumble after huge US losses – on MSNBC.COM on October 10, 2008.
It is so clear that the world is heading for a serious and prolonged political economic financial crisis and which is going to be the near opposite equivalent in depth and scope to that sustained growth period that the world experienced during 1991 to 2008, well, except for that time in 2002, when countries had suffered significant political economic declines in the aftermath of the Sept 11 attacks.
Thus, according to the Daily Nation, Thursday, October 9, 2008, – and which reproduced the AP news story from which these ensuing comments were taken, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in a World Economic Outlook released yesterday, slashed growth projections for the global economy and predicted the United States – the epicentre of the financial meltown – would continue to lose traction. Moreover, in this original AP news story, the IMF now projects that the global economy, which grew by a hardy five per cent last year, will lose considerable speed, slowing to 3.9 per cent this year. It is forecast to weaken even more – to just three per cent – next year, marking the worst showing since 2002. ( In the past, the IMF has called global growth of three per cent or less the equivalent to a global recession).
With such being the case, and the fact that the global food and fuel crisis has -with the aid of the sub-prime mortgage crisis – severely metamorphosed into a serious global economic and financial crisis, will mean that where Barbados is concerned that the Governor of the Central Bank of Barbados’ outlook for real output growth for the rest of the year in the range of 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, has to be terribly revised downwards. Surely it has to be!!
Also, given that global and local political economic conditions continue to worsen dramatically daily, it must mean that if the so-called economic performance of the country in the first half of the year was estimated at 1.4 per cent – and that that stastistic was furnished at a time when things economic and financial were NOT so severe – then given that conditions have in fact really declined significantly since the Governor’s half year report in July, it must mean that real output growth for the last half of the year must be way below the 1.4 per cent figure and that the overall growth figure earlier furnished in the first quarter economic report of the Central Bank for the entire year must also be terribly revised downwards.
Finally, the fact is that Barbados is in the throes of a brutal economic crisis/ recessionary period NOT seen since 1991-2. For, as one goes through Bridgetown and other places in Barbados, one can see the evidence of the significant declines that are taking place in this country, with many retail stores, outdoor businesses, bars and restaurants, cottage industries and hair salons experiencing substantial declines in business and commercial activities.
Surely, we of the masses and middle classes must stop ELECTING DLP and BLP Governments in this country and must start electing PDC and other progressive parties into government in this country, if we wish NOT to go through these serious expansionary and contractionary business cycles!!
PDC
John // October 10, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Juris // October 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm
David, section 6(2) means that if any other legislation prevents the disclosure of information by the Government, it is no longer in force to the extent that such provision conflicts with this Act. So if this Act says that government must release information and the other legislation says no, then this Act rules…the information must be released.
+++++++++++++++++++
I admit I have not read the act but plan to do so but for those ahead of me here is a question based on the logic of “Yes Prime Minister”.
If the FOIA takes precedence over other acts then it must take precedence over the Official Secrets Act, OSA, not to be confused with O$A.
Since this is unlikely, then FOIA probably will have a clause specifically excluding information, official secrets, covered by OSA.
It then boils down to how secrets are defined by OSA.
If secrets are defined in such a way that they cover all goverment related information which it is prudent not to let the public know and thus to be kept secret, then FOIA will be trumped by OSA.
Quo vadis // October 10, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Have not read the proposed FOI bill yet but I will . A development that can help in FOI is the after cabinet press conferences. The new GOB started them then stopped. Why?
Cabinet meetings are important every time and we the people want to know what was discussed and decided. It is us who put the ministers there and it is our business they convene on.
Thompson held an after cabinet media breifing to inform of drop in energy prices last night. Reinstate the after cabinet press conferences PM. It speaks to FOI and at the same time says to the people they are intergral to the process and GOB cares that we get timely information.
Nothing beats an informed citizenry!
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 9:38 AM
@Quo vadis… you are going to be disappointed.
Section 32 (within part VI — Exempt Documents) specifically defines all documents and records of Cabinet as being exempted…
Wishing In Vain // October 10, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Responses to the Bill, whether electronic or hard copy, should be forwarded no later than Friday, 31st October 2008 to:
(i) freedomofinfobill@barbados.gov.bb
or
(ii) Permanent Secretary (Special Assignments)
Prime Minister’s Office Government Headquarters Bay Street St. Michael
or
(iii) Fax Number: 228-8234
The following Town Hall Meetings are also being held in order to provide additional opportunities for persons to provide feedback and inputs.
Wednesday, 15th October 2008 The Combermere School, Waterford, St. Michael
Wednesday, 22nd October 2008 The Alexandra School, Queen Street, St. Peter
Wednesday, 29th October 2008 The Deighton Griffith School, Kingsland, Christ Church
Wednesday, 5th November 2008 The Princess Margaret School, Six Roads, St. Philip
As we an see from the above there will be adequate opportunity to air your opinions at the meetings to come or by email or fax, so here is your chance to have an input into a newly drafted bill.
The only comments that will count are the ones that are made thru the official channels, please come forward and make a real contribution by attending the Town hall meetings and openly discuss the direction you want to see the draft take, the ball is in your court.
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 9:42 AM
@John…
You are correct in your analysis. FOI does *not* override OSA.
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
@Tell me Why…
It is very common for Governments to charge a reasonable fee for paper documents. This is not a big concern. It is a simple economic limiter, preventing people from asking for so many documents that the Gov comes to a screeching halt as they do nothing but provide responses to requests.
However, one thing I am concerned about is that there is very little in this proposed Act to encourage the available documents to be made available for free on the Internet.
Having said this, there is *nothing* preventing anyone who’s paid for a document to then make it available for free over the Internet themselves. Like, say, a consumer advocacy group or a NGO…
Tell me Why // October 10, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Chris. I hope that ‘the commissioner’ of this FOI will issue numbers for ‘applicants’ instead of using bona fide names. (see page 8(e) and Part 3 (12:1) This caution of not using name will protect the applicant since the commissioner financial report must be submitted to the Minister and laid in both houses. Secondly, on Part 3 (14:10, the gender of the information officers is male.
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos. It’s a notable, victory or, at least, the latest stage in one!!
*****************
Pursuant to BFP’s comments today: The government just released the draft by posting it on the internet on the 9th. I haven’t seen anything in the papers – and the promised copies to be placed in the post office weren’t there today and probably won’t be tomorrow. There was no press release.
****************
It would seem that the DLP are still learning the correct, procedures of government and hopefully, will ensure that this kind of oversight, does n’t occur, again!!
******************
but nope, the government intends to have all public input wrapped up in three weeks.
***************
Another point of remiss, by the govt!! “Come on Thompson!! B’dos expects better”!!
**************************
Please join in the discussion. Our children are depending upon us.
**********************
A note of caution!! Few, people will possess the knowledge and expertise to criticise this document with the real, degree of scrutiny which it merits, consequently, Barbadians both at home and abroad are even more dependent upon the likes of such wise heads as the folks at both BU and BFP to give this Bill the truthful and serious scrutiny which it deserves!!
May the lord’s good counsels, guide you both!!
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM
@Tell me Why…
An *excellent* suggestion with regards to “request numbers”.
With regards to gender references in the language, yes, I caught that, and others. And while legal precedent says that “he” == “she”, I always prefer to see the language be gender neutral.
This is to be included in my response document, under a section entitled “The Pedantic”. (Seriously…)
no name // October 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The time seems ripe for journalists to take full advantage of what the blogs have to offer in getting this Act right.
David // October 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM
W listened to several GIS sponsored promos of the legislation on all the radio stations today for sure. The message was quite clear and detailed and unlike the EPA, CSME and other government initiatives Barbadians will only have themselves to blame if they don’t participate.
@No Name
So far we have not heard on moderator mention or discuss, for that matter we have not heard one caller do the same. We can only believe that like the BU household they are still eading the document.
Speaking Out And The Pitfalls « Barbados Underground // October 10, 2008 at 2:40 PM
[...] Library ← Government Distributes Freedom of Information Bill For Feedback As Promised [...]
Tell me Why // October 10, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Chris, I am still reading certain consequences that might be caused by the language within the FOI act
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM
@Tell me why…
With respect, such as what? Please be *very* specific. As in, please cite the section / subsection / specific language, and your resultant concerns…
The only serious “gottcha” I’ve found so far is 37.1 and 44.3, although all of Part VI (Except Documents) and VII (Review of Decisions) needs to be reviewed *very* carefully…
(As an aside, it is a common trick to giveth in the early part of a document, and taketh away in the later parts…)
(As another aside, I hope we’re all having fun here. Seriously! This is a rare opportunity!)
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 3:53 PM
@All…
This is a cross-post from BFP.
Can anyone tell me at what *time* the Town Hall Meetings are to take place?
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM
@BU Family…
I was trying to find the original language which was used as a basis of this proposed Act, in order to determine issues which arose as a result of same…
While the Belize Freedom of Information Act (CAP 13; 2000) contains many similar sections, I have reason to believe that the language before us is actually derived from another, older body of language. As in, the Belize Act and our proposed Act are sisters of another document.
http://www.governmentofbelize.gov.bz/download/cap013.pdf
I did also come across another document which appears to be of value:
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_information_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf
Lots of reading… Lots of Googling…
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 4:40 PM
@David… Please release my post… Thanks…
Tell me Why // October 10, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Chris, I heard it is 7 p.m for all venues.
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 6:33 PM
@Tell me Why… Thank you this…
But, If I May, from whom did you hear this?
And, a related question: when will we *all* be *officially* informed of same?
Thanks. And kindest regard to all…
Straight talk // October 10, 2008 at 7:12 PM
I just want to know why the government I helped elect on the promise of change, would even entertain the idea of exempt documents.
Exempt documents make up half of the bill.
Are the electorate too dumb to see them, or are our elected representatives too hi-fallutin to consider sharing with the hoi-polloi the information for which we are paying.
98% literacy ain’t enough to allow us to make our own decisions on the contentious issues facing us?
Every document submitted to cabinet is “exempt”?
Load of b** locks.
Does that include every environmental study, every Town Planning Assessment,
every change of use?
Freedom of Information is not a privilege it is an obligation granted by the electorate to be fulfilled by their elected representatives.
Tell us truthfully what you are doing in our name, or resign.
That is the bottom line for which we voted.
You asked for our vote, we gave it, we put you in positions of responsibility.
Do not now treat us as useful idiots, in your rise to power.
Remember before Jan 14th we knew you as you were, we know you now, nothing has changed except we have entrusted our country to you, ordinary men and women, then and now.
Treat all of us with respect, or pay the price of arrogance.
Especially in today’s environment all but the most sensitive government information should be posted on the web for all to consider.
Juris // October 10, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Chris and John,
Once later legislation is passed inconsistent with earlier legislation, then it impliedly repeals that earlier legislation, unless there is a statement to the contrary in the later legislation. In consequence, the FOIA does overrule the OSA to the extent that there is a conflict between the two.
Tell me Why // October 10, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Chris, on VOB
Chris Halsall // October 10, 2008 at 11:15 PM
@Tell me Why…
With all due respect, what the f’ is VOB?
When will the official time be given by way of an official channel?
Please forgive me for this, but as far as I know, VOB is *not* same.
Please correct me if I’m wrong…
Adrian Hinds // October 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Juris // October 10, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Chris and John,
Once later legislation is passed inconsistent with earlier legislation, then it impliedly repeals that earlier legislation, unless there is a statement to the contrary in the later legislation. In consequence, the FOIA does overrule the OSA to the extent that there is a conflict between the two.
===========================
John: The FOIA does over rule or in anyway interfer with “The official Secrecy Act of Barbados 1911 and 1920.
The OSA which many a civil servant has invoked on their own in an attempt to deny someone information, has to do with primarily national security, national trade etc. If you concentrate on the “exemptions” section of the propose FOIA you will see that the areas that OSA protects are exempted.
….Over all i think the propose FOIA is a good package. I did a basic comparison between this proposal and the FOIA of the USA 1966, FOIA of Austrailia 1992, FOIA of the UK 2000, and found it to contain the best practices of these documents.
If this act is pass i will expect that the objectors to it will use it’s exemption clause to continue to deny persons access to public documents as is the case when they invoke the OSA.
I have not seen any propose amendments contain in the FOIA, to the Barbados data protection act 2005 which suggest that nothing in this ACT is superceeded by the FOIA.
Adrian Hinds // October 11, 2008 at 12:29 AM
That should have been “FOIA” does NOT interfer
ROK // October 11, 2008 at 1:40 AM
I have not started to read the FOIA as yet, but it will be no different from the Belize Act or the Jamaica Act.
Over the past two years or so the NGO “Jamaicans for Justice” has been having some success with the enforcement of their Act. We have some lessons to learn from them.
Without even reading the Act, it is highly unlikely that any part of it will override the OSA but will more deal with information outside the OSA, which is cleverly held by authorities under the cover of the OSA, quite illegitimately, but for convenience of cover and to reinforce authority.
This is one of the reasons why the FOIA is so necessary as it defines the information that falls outside the OSA; hence the number of exempt clauses so as to retain the OSA as well as aspects of both security and sovereignty.
Adrian Hinds // October 11, 2008 at 1:56 AM
6(2)This Act applies to the exclusion of the provisions of any other law that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of a record by a public authority to the extent that such provision is inconsistent with this Act.
========================
Excluson = Items not covered
Provisions= legal clauses
Layman revision:
This act applies to ITEMS NOT COVERED in the LEGAL CLAUSES of any other law that prohibits or restricts the disclosure of a record by a public authority to the extent that such LEGAL CLAUSES are inconsistent with this act.
If the word EXCLUSION in the context of section 6(2) of the FOIA does not mean “ITEMS NOT COVERED” but means that the Provision itself must be excluded, then i would expect that amendements to The “INCONSISTENT” provisions of particular act to be mentioned in FOIA, and subsequently to have the particular act amended.
Now the FOIA act consist of it’s many “exemptions” and it is there that i believe that the provisions of ” The Barbados secrets act 1911-1921 are contained. Therefore i am contending that since no Amendments to the OSA is mentioned in the propose FOIA and further since, the FOIA exemptions sections contains the provisions of the OSA which i beleve deals with national security, i.e spying, etc, that these acts are not in conflict.
David // October 11, 2008 at 2:35 AM
PART VI:Exempt Documents:p.2
Forgive us if we are asking simple question but we are trying to communicate our concerns so that the BU family are able to follow and participate.
A bone of contention over the years has been the reluctance of successive governments to release or not release reports arising out of several public inquiries.
Will this conflict with the act?
Should all public inquiries be made public.
For those public inquiries which maybe thought to generate exempt documents should it be clearly articulated in the brief of the public inquiry commission?
Adrian Hinds // October 11, 2008 at 3:59 AM
David I think there is a difference between a Public enquiry and Commission of Enquiry. The FOIA speaks specifically to a commission of enquiry. At any rate i cannot find a Barbados Commission of Enquiry act like Jamaica has, which leads me to believe that everytime there has been a Commission of Enquiry it was by parliamentary resolution thereby making it and organ/tool of this body and as we know parliamentary business is exempted in FIOA. The fact that the final report of the various commissions of Enquiry i.e. St.Joseph hospital, Glendairy Prison fire, National commission on law and order, have to be submitted to parliament and i believe specifically to cabinet further suggest to me that Commission of Enquiries reports are concidered parliamentary documents.
David // October 11, 2008 at 4:30 AM
Thanks for the confirmation Adrian and this is our concern. Much of the public tension, concern, frustration or however you elect to describe it has been directed at the unwillingness of successive governments to release information arising from Public Inquiries.
We have the recent example of the St. Joseph Hospital Report which was an obvious manipulation motivated by political considerations. What is the purpose of having a FOI bill which can be circumvented by invoking parliamentary action?
Adrian Hinds // October 11, 2008 at 5:04 AM
A FOIA is absolutely necessary in a democracy but it will never be ahered to fully. Case in point is the US. A lot of things that we know about the Federal government is the result of a FOIA, things like the syphilis experiment on black men and countless FBI reports on an assortment of issues and incidents. Incidently also this act which was created in 1966 has had it’s share of unwilling government agencies not complying. There is a case of a Lawyer i believe having a request held for as long as 16 years.
BAFBFP // October 11, 2008 at 5:57 AM
This is a straight show down between BU and BFP for responses. Caw Bli’ Ya, look who’ gone clear. BFP get dusted… booo
Bimbro // October 11, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Some authorative, external scrutiny by some august, personage with substantial experience of enabling this kind of legislation before, or living in a country which already has some years exp. of it, would n’t go amiss!!
aka // October 11, 2008 at 8:23 AM
I found this at BFP addressed to BAFBFP…
BAFBFP
October 11, 2008 at 10:00 am
This is a straight show down between BU and BFP for responses. Caw Bli’ Ya, look who’ gone clear. BFP get dusted… booo
You and your censorship and everything else about you…….. booooooo
***************************
BFP says,
How wrong you are about there being some sort of contest between BU and BFP for comments or anything else. This is all about the future of Barbados. Some folks will discuss it here, some at BU, some at the dinner table and some at the rumshop. The more discussion there is everywhere, the better chance the people have of diverting the narrow interests that are trying to shape the debate and the legislation.
As to censorship here, yes we banned you and a handful of others because you wouldn’t stop posting about that which has just caused Mia Mottley to win a bundle of cash over across the pond and a few other unusual themes.
So if you have found a place at BU that lets you post that, and let’s you post your other causes (like your warped concept that hundreds of Americans in government and the military planned and participated in 9/11) – well, good for you.
But this is our blog – with almost 3 million visitors per year – and we don’t allow anyone to take over just because they are bombastic and post a lot of comments.
Good day, to you sir.
Juris // October 11, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Adrian, there is no Data Protection Act 2oo5 which is law in Barbados and you are wrong concerning the absence of a Commissions of Inquiry Act in Barbados. See Cap 112 of the Laws of Barbados. Finally, you appear to confuse the point about implied repeal. The later Act will override the former, UNLESS it contains some provision that it does not. Absent this, if there is conflict, the later Act prevails.
Green Monkey // October 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
BFP to BAFBFP:
Adrian Hinds // October 11, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Juris // October 11, 2008 at 10:47 am
Adrian, there is no Data Protection Act 2oo5 which is law in Barbados and you are wrong concerning the absence of a Commissions of Inquiry Act in Barbados. See Cap 112 of the Laws of Barbados. Finally, you appear to confuse the point about implied repeal. The later Act will override the former, UNLESS it contains some provision that it does not. Absent this, if there is conflict, the later Act prevails.
===========================
Juris thanks for the correction.
There is a Data protection act 2005 BILL that i have and that i erroneously thought had been passed into law.
I did search for the Commission of Enquiry act and came up with Jamaica’s. However i should have been looking for the Commission of Inquiry act and i would have found it. Enquiry vs. Inquiry. :) So Juris what is the process for convening a specific commission of Inquiry?
Implied repeal: I would think that something as entrenched as the OSA would not be subject to change or repeal by a mere implication. However in my layman look at the OSA there is a lot of generalizations as to what it restricts and i think that generalization has led to it been invoke willy nilly. The areas that it specifically speaks to is National security, and that is one area that is exempted in the propose FOIA.
Why don’t we take a look at it as see what it contains? That way we can compare it’s provisions against that of the FOIA and it’s exemptions.
http://www.caricomlaw.org/docs/Appendix%20-%20Official%20Secrets%20Act%201911.pdf
The English have a more update version i think is 1986, would this apply to Barbados?
David // October 11, 2008 at 7:00 PM
17.(1) Do we understand section 17 as it applys to documents/information which can be released under the FOI to mean:
For example the ABC Highway procurement process and the relevant documents which supported such would have to be made available after the FOI is proclaimed? The many plans, MOU, drawings, amendment to plans etc would have to be made available? Tell us that this is the case please!
W H I T I S H // October 11, 2008 at 11:31 PM
[i]Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos.[/i]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[b]What RUBBISH is that? Government does things now because of two blogs? You need to get your damn head examined. Some of you people have a warped sense of reality and an overrated sense of your own importance.[/b]
W H I T I S H // October 11, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What RUBBISH is that? Government does things now because of two blogs? You need to get your damn head examined. Some of you people have a warped sense of reality and an overrated sense of your own importance.
If I remember correctly, you live outside Barbados, right?
Ian Bourne // October 12, 2008 at 12:51 AM
My two cents, basic as possible -
Oct 31 is a ridiculous deadline for written submissions and conflicts with last Town Hall of Nov 5 – a full calendar month or two for proper assimilation is way better;
This document allows for a Minister to exempt files from Public Scrutiny, you can object to an Ombudsman that’s not there (Carl Ince retired and Clarke was acting and also pensioned, nobody new);
The same document refers to Govt and Minister/tr(ies) …. What about Private Sector? Are they too not beholden to Freedom of Info?
I go back to analysing this jokebird of a paper
Bimbro // October 12, 2008 at 3:19 AM
W H I T I S H // October 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Bimbro // October 10, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hearty, congratulations to BU and BFP for succeeding in persuading the Bim govt. to begin the process of enacting FOI legislation, in B’dos.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What RUBBISH is that? Government does things now because of two blogs? You need to get your damn head examined. Some of you people have a warped sense of reality and an overrated sense of your own importance.
If I remember correctly, you live outside Barbados, right?
*************************
Well, I think the blogs, themsleves might disagree with you but they can argue their own case!!
BWWR // October 12, 2008 at 4:04 AM
It will take a while for the kinks to be ironed out in this document – some years, in fact – and also some time for all the infrastructure to be put in place for it to be effectively administered. As flaws become apparent, there will be amendments by this and later governments. There will be many slip-ups and some abuses – but there were in other countries with similar legislation. There are some points on which I have reservations, but I may be wrong to do so and I will wait and see. ALL THAT ASIDE, it is a start and congratulations are due. I just want to see where it goes now and how it is enforced.
Sir Benwood Dick // October 12, 2008 at 5:55 AM
Green Monkey,
Quite interesting, thank you.
The markets are doing such erratic movements, that it is evident that someone or some group is doing something.
Problem is, how to turn it around, as everything is in fact overvalued anyway?
Reality is that the only way to PARTIALLY immunise ourselves is to grow our own food and provide enough water supplies and energy supplies locally as much as possible.
The ONLY way.
Sir Benwood Dick // October 12, 2008 at 6:00 AM
By the way, you notice that the US Govenrment is taling of buying shares in banks, effective nationalisation.
This would fit in with the scenarios you describe i.e. control by plan.
Or, at the very least, will be control as a result of recent occurences, regardless of plan.
Whatever happens, the world is about to change forever.
If control remains, that in itself is major change.
Even in a best case scenario, if the ‘control’ was given back to shareholders eventually, the banking and economic sectors will be much smaller and more conservative than many, many years.
Major change, some do not yet realise the situation facing us.
Peace.
BAFBFP // October 12, 2008 at 9:10 AM
BAFBFP to BFP
BAFBFP to BFP
Are you reading me?…
If you are well you have clearly lost your way, assuming of course that you were on one in the first place. You Banned me and people like BIMBRO for expressing opinions that differ to yours, on your so called ‘Free Press’ and yah toss in a choice insult to boot.
What f**k**g hypocrites you are. It amazes me that all the other bloggers do not quickly up on your arrogance.
Dey probably are suffering from a misguided sense of loyalty.
Tell me Why // October 12, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Oct 31 is a ridiculous deadline for written submissions and conflicts with last Town Hall of Nov 5 – a full calendar month or two for proper assimilation is way better;
……………………………………………………..
Remember this final document must be out before November 30, 2008. Just think Kensington Oval.
Juris // October 12, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Hi, Adrian,
No, the English Act would not automatically apply since they cannot pass law for us anymore. I appreciate your point about the OSA though, if it excludes natinal security documents and the FOIA does too, then there is no change from the pre-FOIA position with regard to these documents.
Green Monkey // October 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Sir Benwood Dick said:
I strongly agree, but of course that goes against the grain of the all the pro-globalisation talk and spin that we have been subjected to over the years. Unfortunately the potential down side of globalisation does not get nearly the amount of press as its alleged benefits.
However, economies might in some ways be compared to watertight doors on a ship. When a ship is holed below the water line, the watertight doors around that compartment can be sealed preventing the entire ship from flooding and it stays afloat.
If the watertight doors leak or have been disabled to prevent them from being kept closed and sealed, the water floods throughout he ship and it goes to the bottom.
Likewise as the world’s economies become more and more intertwined eventually, it appears, with the ultimate goal of merging all into one de facto world economy bad economic practices or economic failure and troubles in one country is more likely to have its harmful effects spread around to other countries as well.
But you can bet that as it all shakes out we’ll be informed by the same brainiacs that brought us the current mess that the solution is not to slow down the pace of globalisation or to consider alternative economic models, but to give more authority and control of this one world economy to what would potentially (and, I believe, is intended to) become a one world government.
However, going back to my analogy of the watertight doors in a ship but in a slightly different context, if a government in country X or country Y becomes corrupt and an overbearing dictatorship and persecutor of its own people, under the current system there are other countries people can flee to as refugees and can look to for leadership in defending human rights and freedoms.
Now what happens when the one world government becomes corrupt or a dictatorship making it their priority to protect the rights and property of a very wealthy minority against the teeming hoards who are clamoring for a bigger share of the pie. To which country will the one world’s peons and torture victims flee when they are being shot, tortured or thrown into gulags and prison camps?
Adrian Hinds // October 13, 2008 at 12:08 PM
We should pay more attention to geopolitical events, than listen to the comments of persons with known agendas.
The G7 met over the weekend to come up with a plan. They also met with Russia to further solidify whatever agreements they would come up with. Rather than reach agreements, The US has decided on a different approach so did the British. As much we would like to believe that we have a globalize world, the response to this global crisis has seen response at the national level. Some are even saying that Nationalism has trump Globalization. I always knew that “Home drums beat first”
Adrian Hinds // October 13, 2008 at 1:04 PM
@Bourne:
Bourne i agree with you. I had no idea that there is no current Ombudsman. Also since it was drawn to my attention that the Data protection act 2005 Bill was not pass into law, i have a huge problem with the passing of a FOIA without some form of a privatcy act. The right to know with regards to goverment should not include the right to know my personal information that is in the hands of the government. The right to know should not trample on the right to personal privacy. I think they need to revive the Data protection bill, a FOIA should not be pass without it.
Straight talk // October 13, 2008 at 2:12 PM
If the current US economy was judged by the same imposed standards as was Sandiford’s they would be now in contravention of the IMF strictures and subject to the same sanctions as applied to other non-compliant states.
It has been reported that Bush has already agreed to an IMF examination of the true state of the US economy – but not until 2010.
Not that it would make that much difference, as I believe the IMF, WTO, World Bank and probably the UN itself, are puppets of a more sinister guiding hand.
The gloves will come off after the Nov. elections, and the true appalling state of western economies will be exposed as a problem for Obama, the chosen one, to sink or swim.
I wish him luck, and the foresight to understand the true manipulations of his erstwhile backers.
Wishing In Vain // October 15, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I attended and only a hand full of people attended the meeting this evening, it may have had more to do with the weather conditions than the purpose of the meeting.
Tell me Why // October 16, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I attended and only a hand full of people attended the meeting this evening, it may have had more to do with the weather conditions than the purpose of the meeting.
……………………………………………………….
You said that to say …what………..,,,,,,,,,,….eriee silence
David // October 16, 2008 at 6:56 AM
The truth is we not surprise that there was a handful of people.Adrian H has been saying it for some time. Barbadians have taken for granted the ‘democracy’ which we try to enjoy. Barbadians have not grasped that we have to participate in our democracy every time we get.
BAFBFP // October 16, 2008 at 9:28 AM
But David I didn’t see you dere neither… nor Cliverton nor na body from BFP. … wallas … I ain’t even see Chinee den….
Wishing In Vain // October 16, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I fully agree with you David that Demoracy is a work in progress.
I know that had the blp had the wisdom or the willingness to create this document I would be the first to attend to see what they were designing to cover up but maybe just maybe the people of Barbados are adjusting to a more open, free, and just society than existed under the Owing / mottley rein and are not as concerned about the likelyhood that their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression or their freedom of association is under treat any longer.
With a new thinking and caring DLP Gov’t in place, led my our PRIME MINISTER THE HON MR DAVID THOMPSON the fears have been relived and lifted.
The blp were going down a slippery sliding path to the removal of our freedoms and our rights and the change of gov’t has corrected this issue.
ROK // October 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM
David
We have not yet recovered from the lack of tolerance for free expression. That will take some time.
In the NGO movement, we are seeing a new mobilisation but still very slow to get off the ground. There is a kind of tip-toeing into the arena. People still looking over their backs but it will take some time to get accustomed to seeing nobody or no threat when they look back.
Pat // October 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM
My concern will be with the administration.
There will be those who will file frivolous requests. Those who will file weekly, or monthly requests. Those who will tie up the beauracracy just for the fun of it. I am thinking of BFP and Keltruth.
What I have done,(many people do not know how to file a good specific request) to get back at a s*** disturber was to send him everything on the particular subject. I mean everything. Even photocopies of pages from our note books where we recorded discussions at meetings. He ended up getting four (4), four-cubic foot cardboard boxes. Nothing was collated, nothing was stapled, nothing was in order, but he got everything we had. Even 5, 6, and seven year old information. Me thinks, he is still sorting to this day.
This was a man, who did some consulting work for us and thought he should be our only consultant on a particular subject. He was caught during a lunch hour snooping and reading documents on a colleague’s desk. He had no business in our office during that time.
Bajans will have to be stringent if not tough.
Chris Halsall // October 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM
@Pat… Thank you for your immediate above…
This is one of the heuristical risks of FOIAs…
As always, the rights of the “people” must be balanced with the interests of same. This is a tricky balancing act…
My personal (and, I’m quite sure, *many* others’) concern is, how does one ensure that legitimate requests can be satisfied, without bringing the Government to a standstill for someone’s amusement or vengeance?
And, abstracting one or two layers, is this an intractable problem? I personally think not, but it all comes down to the “code” and the “execution” of same.
Straight talk // October 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I suppose, Pat, from your comment that your section felt under some kind of pressure from this seeker of info, and therefore made it as difficult as possible for him to retrieve the information he was looking for.
Your experience highlights the culture FOI is trying to change,
If the public require proper information from their civil servants, they should be assisted, not obstructed from gaining full access.
Ian Bourne // October 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM
I have a report on the meeting on my Blog for those interested and I see from above comments that WIV is more than 1 person, since I do not recall seeing Peter Wickham?
Chris Halsall // October 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM
@Straight talk… I bow to you… An *excellent* question…
@Pat… Based on ST’s above, how much did the “s*** disturber” pay for the “four (4), four-cubic foot cardboard boxes” of “[un]collated, [un]stapled, [un]order[ed]” documents?
And, equally important, how long did it take to deliver same to same?
These are, IMHO, relevant and important questions.
May we… Actually, no… We *do* live in interesting times… (Once again, this is actually an ancient Chinese curse…)
David // October 16, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Our interpretation of Pat’s matter of fact comment is that she has identified how the abuse of the FOI can place an administrative burden on the government. The constructive thing to do would be to discuss how such abuse might be countered.
Chris Halsall // October 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
@BU.David… I agree with you completely…
However, I still think my two specific questions to Pat (prodded by ST) are relevant to *our* situation.
As in, the specific costs for access to “documents” is not defined in the proposed Act.
It would be valuable (no joke intended) to learn if the “s*** disturber” instance Pat is familiar with paid for the privilege of getting everything they asked for (on a per-page basis), or if it was a “gratis”.
[An attempt at humour:] Are we there yet?
Pat // October 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM
@Chris Halsall
I dont remember, but the first 20 pages are free.
@Straight Talk
He got full access. The problem was that he did not know how much information we had. We knew who the person was because he had filed several similar requests and it was his subject of interest.
Sometimes if the request is not clear, The Commissioner will send it back with request for clarification. Sometimes we asked for clarification and/or specifics, if we think a bona fide tax payer is off in left field, or is unaware of the breadth and scope of a subject/issue. In this way we can narrow the search. There is also an appeal/complaint process.
In the case above we did not request clarification. We rallied the troops and got together all we had. This particlar individual was intent on keeping us busy, so we could not get on with our jobs. We just turned the tables.
Pat // October 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM
@Chris Halsall
When a request is made the applicant has to submit $5 with the request. This is partly to ensure one is serious. However, the money is returned if under 20 pages. Over that you are billed per page, bit it is not designed to fill the Treasury, just to offset the copying costs.
Chris Halsall // October 16, 2008 at 7:36 PM
@Pat… Truly, thank you for your responses…
Two questions:
1. What currency are you speaking of?
2. With regards to your aforementioned “s*** disturber” instance, were they delivered their request results by way of:
2.1. a Cash on Delivery (COD) invoice?
2.2. notified of their exposure before delivery?
2.3. …or… was this a “gift of the Crown”?
Thank you again for your insights and answers.
BAFBFP // October 16, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Pat I hope that you refusin’ US. I feel that Chris got a lot to off load….
Ian Bourne
I hear that you wanted to get in contact with me. So let me contact you. How do I do that?
By the way thanks for the heads up on the town hall meet. I really could not make it… under the weather (back pains ya know, not so young na more). I will be there for the second one next week tho’.
Pat // October 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM
@Chris
Canadian $;
By invoice through the ATIP office. Each department (Ministry) has an Access to Information and Privacy Office. This office receives all requests from the Commissioner, ATIP and forwards them to the relevant responsibility centre. We work with the ATIP office within our ministries and forward them the information. They censor according to the acts under which they work – ATIP, Secrets, Security, etc. They also mail the information and send invoices. They can also charge for excessive work and the customer has to pay postage for more than 20 pages.
Payment is usually due in 30 days, the same the government allows for its suppliers.
We also restrict information that is still under discussion or where final decisions are being contemplated, or where early release could have a detrimental effect to the expected outcomes. This information would be forwarded at a later date. We set the timeframe for this (that is the information holder, be it the desk officer, senior analyst, director, etc.).
The only gift from the crown is the first 20 pages.
We can also delay by telling the ATIP office that we have to source information from other sectors other than our own, or from regional offices, etc.
The public usually have no problems getting information in a timely manner. After a while you get to understand the writing style of journalists and broadcast media and the files/issues they would be interested in.
Sometimes it is is a very fine line between public embarassment for your minister and you the lead on the issue and the rights of the press to publish.
You have to judge on a case by case basis. If necessary also prepare briefing notes for the Minister in case s*** hits the fan.
Pat // October 16, 2008 at 9:37 PM
@ Chris
I forgot to mention, but you probably picked it up, the information providers are not supposed to know the identity of the person requesting said information. That is confidential, ALWAYS.
All names are censored in information sent out, as well as any information that could easily identify anyone. That explains lots of the blacked out passages that Straight Talk referred to earlier. It is not necessarily that the information itself is censored but the fact that if included a civil servant or minister could be identified.
Pat // October 16, 2008 at 9:50 PM
@Chris
By the way, people learn the hard way not to mess with this Bajan! hehehe
Chris Halsall // October 16, 2008 at 10:35 PM
@Pat. Thank you again for your above.
Although I have to be honest, and say I don’t entirely understand your immediate above.
I asked you questions for general clarification on how things are done away, and you answered. Again, thanks. (Ha ha?)
Chris Halsall // October 16, 2008 at 10:43 PM
@Pat… Sorry, I’m really slow at the moment (haven’t slept for 36 hours…) I just got your above… hehehe…
David // October 18, 2008 at 5:00 PM
@Ian Bourne
Thanks for representing the blogs.
BAFBFP // October 18, 2008 at 5:59 PM
David I want you to represent the blogs next time. Wha you say..?
Ian Bourne // October 18, 2008 at 9:09 PM
I felt a bit guilty speaking others’ words, which is why I made sure to acknowledge everyone in my report
Ruel Daniels // October 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Congratulations Barbados and Barbadians. You are showing the rotten mouth critics in Guyana who love to point a finger at others that you have evolved way beyone the level they are at, in terms of your willingness to mold an open and truly democratic society.
In contrast, the corrupt Guyana Government passed a law that gives it the right to spy on its citizens. Guyanese are heading backwardly, propelled so by a regime unqualified to rule over a diverse population. A regime that supports a drive to Hindutava in Guyana, and the sublimation of its black population to the role of dalits.
Pat // October 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM
I dont think it makes a difference who speaks on behalf of the blogs, just so long as the input is submitted. Besides, Ian Bourne is not ‘incognito’.
BAFBFP // October 21, 2008 at 12:38 AM
How could he be? Seen the size of that man’s gut recently?
ROK // October 21, 2008 at 12:53 PM
David
Informing the BU family of some guidelines for a Freedom of Information Act. Check the Speaking Up Blog at:
http://bangospeaks.blogspot.com
No Way FOI // October 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM
No matter what they put as law, the govmnt will never obey their own law. They don’t respect the rule of the law.
Pat // October 21, 2008 at 7:49 PM
No Way FOI
The government will not be administering the Act and nothing has to go before or be approved by Ministers. It is all run by the Commissioner and beauracracy.
Civil servants will get necessary training on the Act and information that HAS to be divulged. It is out of the ‘government’ (politicians) hands. The Commissioner should be independent of government.
no name // October 29, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Freedom of Information my eye!
Does Haloute own land the Government of Barbados acquired for a public purpose from private individuals?
Ian Bourne // October 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Just out of curiosity BAFBFP, what does my appearance or your getting personal have to do with the topic? Your continuous display of ur lack of intelligent discourse provides other speakers a non-stop source of comedy…
@everyone else – I was not able to attend the last 2 as I am now back at work; did anyone go 2 S’town or Deighton Griffith?
Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.