CIP–Can We Still Fix It?

AN international financial services expert has delivered a rather unflattering review of St Lucia’s economic citizenship programme which went into effect in January. It is our hope that the government has seen this report and will study it with the intention of adopting corrective measures if that is still possible.

We must make the point, however, that the CIP has not got off to a good start and that is most sad considering the confidence that the government had expressed in the ability of the initiative to contribute handsomely to St Lucia’s economic development.

Sometime ago we drew to the attention of the government the feeling, at least in local circles, that the CIP machinery had been too blatantly politicized, and consequently tarnished even before it started. This is still our position but now, concerns about the CIP have now gone beyond local issues and the negative reviews that the programme is beginning to attract must cause both the government and the people of this country considerable concern.

It is a cruel twist of fate that a government which consistently boasts about its commitment to transparency and accountability in its governance structure, should now find itself at the receiving end of criticism over the CIP so early in the game.

One of the comments of Dr.Juerg Steffen, the chief operations officer of a financial services company based in Singapore that concerns us has to do with his reservations about the selection of marketing agents for the programme. Steffen went as far as saying that his own company was offered a marketing contract but declined the offer “because we will not risk damaging our reputation by being involved in the current set up of the programme.” This is a very serious indictment of the CIP.

More damning is Steffen’s allegation that our government had deliberately attempted to hide certain “vital aspects” of the programme from the public. In fact, he lamented the fact that the government had not given St Lucians the opportunity to be informed and take part in the debate before the CIP legislation was brought to parliament.

The lack of a proper public consultation on the CIP did not escape Steffen. It will be recalled that earlier on Richard Peterkin of the firm of Grant Thornton had expressed the view that a proper survey ought to have been carried out to determine how the average person felt about the programme. Later it would be revealed that not even the Chamber of Commerce, the biggest economic stakeholder in the country with a track record of more than a hundred years, had been consulted on the CIP before it came into force. We asked the question then and we ask it again: How could this be?

The time may have come for a new look to be taken at the CIP as currently constituted to address whatever short comings that have been identified, both locally and internationally, and can still be remedied. We are aware that in this election season, the government would not want to acknowledge that it had blundered on this initiative, for fear it might be conceding points to the opposition. But everyone knows that the United Workers Party has gone on record with its own reservations about the CIP, including the power of the Cabinet in appointing directors the potential use of funds generated by the programme and the claim that a lobbying firm engaged by the government on another matter had also been given an exclusive licence to market the CIP in the Middle East and Africa.

One thing, the government will have only itself to blame if CIP gets into difficulty on the basis of the issues raised here. It may or may not be around after the next election to clean up any mess that follows but someone better be prepared to do that job if the need arises.