Caribarena Antigua The Best Caribbean News Portal

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 14:58

I just read that they have refused to give permission to their auditors(KPMG) to turn over their audited financial statements to the commission of inquiry.www.trinidadexpress.com/news/Lawyers_seek_to_block_CLICO_report_as_evidence-119452614.html Imagine where we would be today is SIC had been sold to CLICO because I have been told that the local office here cannot issue new policies.

..

**Gaston** » 2011-04-08 14:34

I was against the proposed bilateral sale to Clico and I am now against the bilateral sale to Sagicor or whomever. I support the coporatisation and listing of up to 49 percent of SIC's shares on the ECSE and its expansion into the OECS and beyond. If my position is still considered inconsistent, then perhaps its a function of your warped, devilish, brain which lacks the capacity to reason.

**The Devil's Left hand** » 2011-04-08 12:43

In response to Cool Ruler, MP Gaston Browne stated that "It is true that the ALP Government was harbouring the idea of diposing of State Insurance Coporation. I was one of the persons the late Dr. Bathley lobbied to block the sale and the position I am talking now is what I took then. This means that he was AGAINST the SALE or DIVESTMENT. How can that be consistent with his new position in favor of DIVESTMENT by way of PUBLIC SALE. Granny say that Liars Talk and Forget.

"

**Gaston Browne** » 2011-04-08 12:28

Well done. I think that the debate has been of a great standard and it is up to the UPP Government to objectively weigh the pros and the cons and make a final determination as to what is the best sustainably advantageous model to pursue. Assuming the UPP Government has not locked itself into the bilateral sale, then perhaps, they need to do some remodelling of the SIC divestment giving further consideration to the concerns and reccomendations of the people. PM Spencer, the issue has been fully ventilated, this is your opportunity to shine, assuming you have the capacity so to do.

**Dig It** » 2011-04-08 12:10

Skyewill, I am proud of you in your last post! I am glad to see you were able to look at both sides of the argument of SIC, and see this divestment needs room for improvement! A bless night to you SIR!

**Morris** » 2011-04-08 11:45

Another thing to consider is that while a state-owned company primarily serves the citizens of the state, the primary goal of a privately operated company is to make profit. It may make these profits at the expense of its customers without serving them properly. For example, it may choose the market which is most profitable to operate in and leave less wealthy customers without a service

**Morris** » 2011-04-08 11:44

Cons (Disadvantages)
• Government no longer receives profits (if it was previously profitable); therefore, the revenue accruing to the government from public sector enterprises becomes shortened as a result of divestment.
• Divestment may decrease safety due to greater profit incentives.
• In extremely unavoidable cases, staff down-sizing could result to workers lay-off, and then unemployment rises. This aptly results to more crimes and social vices because ‘an idle hand is a devil’s workshop’.
• Prices may actually rise if the service was previously subsidized by the government. This is a common experience after a successful divestment process. This becomes imperative in a bid to provide qualitative service, improve efficiency and profitability.
• Divestment alone may not lead to better quality or cost reduction in public service delivery.

**Morris** » 2011-04-08 11:43

Pros (Advantages)
• It stops loss-making public sector enterprises from adding to government debts.
• It gives new businesses access to investment capital that government cannot provide.
• It raises more money for government through taxing former public sector enterprises.
• Government can raise funds to pay off other debts fast because of relieve from financial burden of the public sector enterprises being divested.
• Profit incentive may deliver better outcomes, for example, staff down-sizing to increase efficiency, more staff motivation, and cheaper prices to be competitive.
• If floated on the stock exchange at a good price, investors can make a lot of money through increased business revenue, efficiency and profitability.
• It removes government’s monopolistic status and inability to be responsive to citizens' needs, resulting in inefficient, one-size-fits-a ll services.

**Morris** » 2011-04-08 11:41

With concerns of the growing deficit, it was very tempting for the government to consider divestment. One benefit of this is that the government would have more time to concentrate on public administration. This move would encourage private investors to put more money in the financial system and spark the economy towards progress. However, if the bottom line is the highest priority for the new owner (mystery bidder), then it is possible that the clients can experience poor quality service and rapidly rising rates.

**Skyewill** » 2011-04-08 10:14

Thanks for your kind consideration. One of my mothers Ms Cook think you are great. anyway I now see your point and I just believe SIC need more building befor it is sold. Keep doing the work for the people it your duty. Bless

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 10:06

Its amazing to see ABS carry the response to Gaston's statement from the divestment unit but they don't carry his original statement. I don't why persons would think of ABS as credible

..

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 08:41

Professor I suspect Hadeed wants to tap more into the market of persons who want a retirement home in Antigua. I agree with you that most locals can't afford the homes he plans to buy. If I am correct it then means we won't benefit from payroll taxes because these persons are retired. However at the end of the day, the majority of our taxes are on consumption so we should see some benefits there. Professor, please note that the MP did state that Nick Hadeed's plan is not the only one they are looking at because the MP stated “Our approach is to look at all of the options and not implement one to the exclusion of the other.” @Professor as for my stand, as long as this is not the only initiative, I am for any solution which will offer some immediate (Construction jobs) and long term returns (Property tax, more ABST and other consumption taxes). Let me suggest that the government follow though on promised programs to revitalize St. John's.

..

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 08:26

Beauty, I am thinking it would have to include all sources of not only expenditure but also revenue. Anyway I will readily admit I don't know and ask anyone who does for clarification. I agree with you with Social Sec and as Skywill and Morris have been saying, we need to start looking at other options when it comes to pensions which include the private sector. Imagine, 15 cents of ever dollar which goes into Social Security goes to administrative expenses. The body when it does invest whatever moneys remain is only able to add 4 cents yearly. Clearly this is a unsustainable situation. Perhaps a solution may lie in OECS integration where we could get these bodies to become one and cut down on some of the admin costs.

..

**Beauty** » 2011-04-08 07:48

From the estimates I also notice we have a Social Security which is not sustainable, why dont we look at this now before its totally broke, wake up politicians lets do the things that matters. Social Security needs a revamping and plenty revenue to keep up with the increasing claims and costs, maybe we should grant another amnesty, so they can start contributing to the system (I am laughing as I type this, not that I agree with it but it may be part of an option).

**Professor** » 2011-04-08 07:46

I am curious to know what is your position on the Nicholas Hadeed proposal for the government to just give them millions of dollars in tax exemptions, incentives and concessions. The rationale for the giveaway is that THE ECONOMY BENEFITS FROM THE HADEEDS GETTING RICHER .

It is alleged that MP Lxxxxl has been eating from the Hadeed table for some time now, so I was not surprised when I saw him in a mini skirt being a cheerleader for the government giveaway.

But what is even more interesting is the loudness of the silence comming from the ALP camp ... you know they have very close relations with the campaign financing arm of the Hadeed dynasty.

**Beauty** » 2011-04-08 07:45

Tenman, I am just wondering what are the tangible benefits of having SIC, thanks for the one you gave. We talk about locally owned etc but what do we really gain from having these companies as assets, when the politicians are doing as they like with the assets.

Tenman the SC's in the budget estimates are those who depend on the government for any subvention. The ones you listed do not depend on the government for any subvention at all since they generate all their funds to operate. I think once money is leaving the treasury, it should be reported in the estimates. I may be wrong but this is what I am thinking. However, even with this reasoning, I am not sure how Social Security is in the budget estimates.

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 07:00

Observer Overseas & Beauty: I really don't see how I can argue against the points you made. We keep hearing about the need for transparency yet in action we are basically told "none of your damn business". Many of these bodies are used as you stated to enrich certain persons. This was chronicled during the medical benefits hearing where MBS was concerned. Beauty did you notice that in the listed estimates which are online there was no mention of MBS, APUA, transport board to name just a few? The strange thing is even when we see numbers they are not even figures which have been subjected to an audit. However even after saying all I have, one of the main benefits of SIC is not only that its a local company but connected to that, the fact that its assets are also here. Unlike many other insurance companies which ran when we had a major catastrophe, SIC had to do what it was mandated to do.

..

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 06:48

Professor, I believe if its not managed properly, the outcome will be its competing against the private sector. Examine what happened with the school meals program because government decided it would built its own kitchen and staff it. Imagine the government doing this project and then suggest that it extend it beyond low income. I am also of the opinion that the government should package this project, suggested by the pimpernel, and see if it can make it private sector investor driven. They may even be able to do similar to what I am told they did with the car park and offer a sovereign guarantee so that a low interest loan can be garnered from China. If it cannot be private sector driven yes then the government will have to be the investor but I would suggest a lease period of 5 years and not 20. I detailed my idea in a response to the pimp's article. Professor if properly incentivized I would be willing to invest in the project so I can't see why others would shun doing the same

..

**Beauty** » 2011-04-08 06:02

You are touching my point, thats why I asked how have we benefited from SIC over the years.

**Observer Overseas** » 2011-04-08 05:30

Everyone keeps talking about Government or the People "owning" entities such as SIC, APUA, CMC etc. But what does ownership mean in the context of these statutory bodies. As "owners" of SIC, do we get to see an annual report with financial statements, key decisions taken, members of the board of directors etc? The answer is NO. As a shareholder in Sagicor, I have a good idea how the company is doing on an ongoing basis. The same complaint applies to APUA. I know more about the electricity companies in Dominica, St. Lucia and Grenada than about APUA which is "owned" by "us". If you don't believe me take a look at their respective web sites. So if "ownership" does not provide any benefit or information about the organization to the "owners", what exactly does owership mean? The truth is SIC, APUA etc are owned by the [eople benefiting directly from their existence. THEY ARE NOT OWNED BY ME!!!!

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 05:01

Professor can you prove that statement that the UPP has tried to create small government? New ministries and departments have been formed under this government, @Beauty listed a few of them. Look at what has happened with fuel, we have created a new middle man to deal with purchasing fuel from Venezuela and attached some of its associated costs to the price of fuel at the pump. The wage bill which before 2004 was stated as bloated, now according to MP Lovell during on of his snake pit chats, has increased from 250 million in 2004 to now 408 million. Perhaps unlike you professor I believe a model which emphasis empowering the private sector has to be a major part of the solution. I will also state that if the private sector is not ready then yes the government should make the move but be prepared to get out the way when the private sector is ready.
..

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 04:49

Beauty, I agree with you that the bodies you listed need to ridden of because there is a duplication which is occurring. Someone just last week told me the problem is that government views its success by the number of bodies it creates and not about the value it creates.

..

**Professor** » 2011-04-08 04:21

Do you guys really believe that the lease to own strategy advanced by the Pimpernel puts the government in competition with landlords? The idea is about bringing hundreds if not thousands of working poor into the lower middle class. Think about it from the perspective of the working poor who can become a homeowner for less than the cost of rent.

The problem is that nobody in Antigua really cares about poor people, it's all about lip service. The Pimpernel proposal is such a good idea for the poor that the middle class and rich who live off the blood of the poor will begin to find fault.

**Cool Ruler** » 2011-04-08 04:07

The UPP is looking to divest SIC Gaston admitted that when they were in government they harbored the though of doing so, so it is safe to say that even if it is not accomplish by the UPP that the ALP may very well return to the investment hymn sheet should they be returned to power. After all the hew and cry we may very well look back a decade from now and say this divvestment was one of the best things to happen to SIC

**Fred** » 2011-04-08 03:52

This is democracy at work almost in its purest form. This type of debate is healthy for the maturity and development of our country. Opposition, poltiicians are paid to make this type of contribution. It is for the Goverment to accept or reject accordingly. I am satisfied that with this and other enagements that, at least Gaston is working for the tax payers dollars that is paid to him monthly.
So let the debate continue and comment on the merit or demerit of the ideas.

**Beauty** » 2011-04-08 03:15

While you are at it, can we dismantle the following statutory corporations and incorporate them in the relevant ministries;

1. Antigua Barbuda Tourism Authority
2. Antigua Barbuda Investment Authority
3. Antigua Agricultural Development Corporation
4. Antigua Barbuda Free Trade & Processing Zone

**Beauty** » 2011-04-08 02:58

How has SIC benefited the people of Antigua Barbuda over the years?

Two points I have here; 1. Other insurance companies in Antigua premiums are comparable to SIC insurance (Is it that the other companies are using SIC as benchmark? so without SIC, premiums will skyrocket?)and 2. SIC has not being paying in their profit into treasury annually in both the ALP and UPP governments. Please inform me how.

**Beauty** » 2011-04-08 02:52

Politicians are something else, both sides, they are so brilliant when in opposition but when they get in power, the brilliance goes out the door. I wish they would speak more realistic and stop fooling the people of the nation. UPP did it to us and now ALP is doing it, I have no confidence in the politicians we have. Both ALP and UPP have been tested and tried and more so ALP for a whopping 28 yrs.

**my way of helping** » 2011-04-08 02:18

Making SIC a public company is genius, fair and better for the people. It is always about the elite public and never about the general public.

In the first place this corporation should not be sold. I ask that these minister remember this and when we younger people get into office to serve the people of the united islands, i beg we correct and handle the situation. assets will all be seize if one sign of corruption.

Th e people come first, make it public, give all of us a bite of the apple. share it, so we can eat it, if you will not listen to us about not selling it.

**Fred** » 2011-04-08 02:14

Well said professor. Joan's argument is specious, it is rhertorical and illogical. She needs to respond to the numerous points made by Browne and let us know how the Government's position differs, what is doable from what is not and justify why the Goveernment's proposed private sale is best for the people. Anything less will be unacceptable. By the way, where is Lovell? I would hate to know that with the technical support of the Divestment Unit, The Ministry of Finance and the IFC and other consultants that he doesn't think he can handle one man (Browne), one this issue. Stand UP Lovell, we need to hear from you.

**Dig It** » 2011-04-08 02:00

No name, as I stated to Tenman, my reference to school meal was to show the government's disregard to unfair competition with other businesses. I know it is off the topic (hopefully this would be the last post discussing it), and didn't intend to make it the topic of the day. I surely wasn't try to spin anything (I am not a politician or lawyer)! I do agree with you that we should "Let the politician do the spinning!" Thanks for that suggestion!

**Dig It** » 2011-04-08 01:49

Tenman, there is no doubt that the government always want to eat their cake too, and eat it as much as possible. In that, I know my reference to school meal is off the topic of the day but I was only showing their ways of showing unfair competition against businesses (heartless I should say). Like you, I don't believe the government should be competing against "persons who rent homes/apartment s." That surely need to clarify out there.

**Dig It** » 2011-04-08 01:47

Tenman, the economist, Sir Alister McIntyre, who I don't agree with all the time, said "privatization" is a good option, in these times, based on his experience. However, he said on the matter of SIC that “In the specific case of the divestment of Antigua & Barbuda’s State Insurance Corporation, I believe it is important that the insurance industry be well managed and regulated. Government should not be involved in doing both." http://antiguapressreleases.com/siralister-mcintyre-agrees-government-should-not-be-both-competitor-and-regulator-0
Tenman, we the issue with the government rejecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac argument by the opposition, in which the Divestment Unit said "there is no conflict between government being the owner of State Insurance Corporation [SIC] and also a regulator of the insurance business." http://www.ab.gov.ag/gov_v4/article_details.php?id=1185&category=38

**UPP Supporter** » 2011-04-08 01:46

Why Amb. Underwood had to answer Brown? You are making our government look stupid. Follow the lead and wisdom of Minister Harold Lovell and stop your foolishness. Brown is not an easy guy to deal with and all you are doing is to make him look like an intellectual giant. My advice to you and my other brothers and sisters is to disengage, we are losing the battle. Just keep quiet and do what you have to do. Let them bark!

**Gaston** » 2011-04-08 01:41

Skyewill, your are right on point with the socio-economic benefits of a locally owned and controlled State Insurance. The transformation to a publicly traded company will increase those benefits exponentially. For example, net profits after repatriation ( to the foreign minority holders) will inccrease exponentially. The minority holders equity will assist to the company to grow exponentially but the lion's share of the benefits will be enjoyed by Antiguans and Barbudans. Antiguan entities will also be empowered to purchase shares in a publicy traded SIC which will be easily negotiable compared to shares in a private, closely held SIC. We should empower State to grow into a major regional and susbequently global player. This is the type of vision we need to pursue in order to build a succesful, globally competitive Antigua & Barbuda.

**Professor** » 2011-04-08 01:30

I realize that you subscribe to the republican (US) small (limited) government idea, which is a form of what the UPP government is trying and realizing that it will not work here. The reason is that Antigua has a very small private sector, so the government is forced to provide the majority of the employment for the people to survive. The UPP government must have learned by now that taxes alone cannot run a government that employs the majority of the people on the island.

With that being the case, the government needs to actively participate in diverse commercial activities to acquire the revenues it needs to run the country or it will be forced to tax the people to death.

The government cannot wait on the private sector to absorb its surplus workers, it has to get its hands dirty and create the businesses that will absorb them.

**Gaston Browne** » 2011-04-08 01:29

Joan missed the point. The comparison was made to bring to the attention of the divestment unit that the Transformation of State to a publicy traded company to create opportunties beyond the shores of Antigua & Barbuda and to mitigate the risks, including the single country risks, is not rocket science. The Sagicor model which emanated out of Bdos and could be copied in the transformation of State. If State is not ready, (which I do not accept) then utilise the tens of millions in profits to build its capacity until it is ready for a public listing. Joan the speculation of failure is not a compelling reason for the divestment. However, the opportunity for expansion is certainly a reason to list State Insurance starting with the ECSE.

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 01:21

Professor, this is what happens when decisions are made, perhaps out of desperation, and persons are then sent to justify it. The government needs to just be clear and admit that the most important driver in all of this is not to make SIC stronger but for the government to quickly get some much needed funds. Try and recall that the IMF statements point out the fact that government is missing its revenue targets.

..

**No Name** » 2011-04-08 01:15

Thanks for the point raised about Government having no problem in running a school meal program, competing directly with the private sector. We should stick with the issues and research and put the pros and cons in perpective. Let the politician do the spinning.

**Professor** » 2011-04-08 01:10

The specious argument that "The situation with State Insurance Corporation (SIC) is not comparable to the one that existed at Sagicor. The same solution could not, therefore, be applied at SIC." is a non-starter, because it suggests that SIC would have to be in a similar position to Sagicor to benefit from going public, and that is patently false and beside the point. Whether SIC will become more successful if it goes public does not depend in any way on how similar its position is to Sagicor. DUH!

To say that SIC is not ready to diversify its business risk regionally or globally is the precise reason why it should not yet be divested. The right approach is to prune and fertilize SIC in order to put it into a competitive position to undertake the process of expanding into regional and global markets just like Sagicor did.

It is obvious that these arguments are merely justifications to be wrong and strong ... Divesting SIC is a BAD IDEA whether you do it the government's way or the Gaston's way.

**tenman** » 2011-04-08 00:43

Dig It, I need you to clarify the statement "How can this be a “competitive advantage” when the government is both regulator and competitor" for me. I ask because as I know it, this is the government argument for divestment. They do not wish to be regulator and market participant. I have to agree though that this message is not reflective in their actions in other spheres like the school meals program. Yesterday we discussed the pimp's suggestion and we also need to ensure it does not lead to government competing against persons who rent homes/apartment s. The key perhaps is for government to provide incentives and allow a private sector group to run with the suggested project.

..

**Dig It** » 2011-04-07 23:47

The Divestment Unit said the transition from public to private “allows SIC to benefit from being transformed into a stronger organisation which has the potential to be a regional or, possibly, global insurance company based purely on competitive advantage and not on government intervention.” Really??? How can this be a “competitive advantage” when the government is both regulator and competitor? I am not an economist but some of them would agree that the government should not be both! It seems like they always want to double-dip or have their cake and eat it too! Yet, what can you say? They didn’t even have a problem running a government-kitc hen from the School Meals Programme! My friend, Patriot, if you are not for this divestment move, just tell Lovell and the rest of them to go to h**l, and show your true patriotism!

**Dig It** » 2011-04-07 23:16

Joan “Patriot” Underwood, you talked about how many years Sagicor operates in the Caribbean region and the world, but you failed to mention that “In 2002, after 162 years as the Barbados Mutual Life Assurance Society, the company demutualised with overwhelming support of its policyholders, and Sagicor Financial Corporation was formed as a publicly listed holding company.” The key words are “overwhelming support of its policyholders.” Do the people of A & B even have a say on the “best value” of SIC? Let them decide if we should go public-traded company or run to a strategic partner! I am sure they would prefer the former! Like The Scarlet said in yesterday’s article “UPP’s “wrong and strong” approach to governance, coupled with its proven unwillingness to learn and grow, must not be allowed to continue to hurt thousands of innocent poor people who depend on government for survival.” Patriot, instead, the people are left out in the dark with the on-going negotiations with the bidder or bidders!

**Skyewill** » 2011-04-07 22:28

If the not being able to handle and manage SIC is a problem imagine how we are going to create an Antiguan University? Which by the way is a lot more complicated? Browne’s idea will leave Antiguans out of the picture. I am for keeping SIC and improve on it. it currently is a great benifit for the people. I'ts products are unique and inexpensive giving the people good value for our money. Besides after the sale to the already selected investor and that money is spent, then what?

**Skyewill** » 2011-04-07 22:25

Maybe you can’t manage it but I am sure that brighter minds will develop in the future that may do a better job and have more of a can do attitude. We need more of our quasi-official organization to be profitable in a non profit way so they can pass on the excess income to the treasurer and offset the tax burden and reduce the cost of living. Imagine if WIC and APUA would upgrade the business and provide more and better services bring in between 30 – 50 Million a year! There is your money for better schools without raising taxes or over a 10 year period build better roads in St. Johns or renovate the Police HQ, so our heroes in silver and black can have a gym and daycare, cafeteria etc. We could upgrade the fire department and take care of our elderly. Social Security can now have its investment partner and unemployment insurance becomes possible so we can stop the babble coming out of the Ministry of Labor.

**Skyewill** » 2011-04-07 22:24

The Divestment Unit is correct SIC & Sagicor is very different and beside Browne did not lay out a plan he laid out talking points and some of those points is a good argument for keeping SIC not selling it. I knew that 1 reason the government is selling is they cannot manage the organization. It will reduce operating expenses and less management. As a Developing nation having an insurance company have many great benefits to include insuring government property and employees and provide the country with competitive pricing. While selling SIC maybe a good thing in the future it not a good thing now. We need all the income we can get without taxing the poor people of this country. In fact to say you are selling something that is profitable because you can't manage it is an oxymoronic. The government acts as if it is forever.

**lethal.** » 2011-04-07 21:28

shake them up, make some souls miserable. give them something to baffle their brains, ooops, sorry you can't baffle what they dont have. he he he .

**Niaomi** » 2011-04-07 18:17

The desperation of Harold Lovell and his UPP gang, to sell off profitable state entities is a disgrace to all Antiguans and Barbudans. His mismanagement of the economy after Errol Cort had put it in some form of credible direction is mind boggling! A testament to Lovells leadership at the Minsitry of Finance will be the imposition of IMF demands, the lay off of hundreds of government workers, the shut down of businesses, the enrichment of political friends and business associates, high oil prices, high inflation and low national morale. These are some of the things in Minsiter Lovells resume, that we should remember when considering him to be the next Prime Minister of this country.

**James** » 2011-04-07 18:03

Chairman of the UPP Harold Lovell and Chairman of the ALP Gaston Browne, were having an excellent public debate on a Nationally important topic, that is State Insurance. Both men exchanged ideas, and both men had credible points of view. It is now of utter dissapointment, that now its Lovells turn to respond to Brownes obviously well thought through proposal, with great merit, that he has run for cover behind his political friend, Joan Underwood's divestment unit! why has Lovell thrown them into the dabate to respond to Browne? Is Lovell, the self proclaimed heir to the UPP throne in the next general election, NOT man enough to speak for himself on this and other economically sensitive subject? or is he simply a pretender to the throne with more sound but no substance!

**Tomas** » 2011-04-07 17:48

Lovell's failure to produce a direct reply to Chairman Gaston Browne, is an example of the "lack of courage" of the man who wants to be Prime Minister! Letting the Divestment uUnit merely state its opposition to Brownes proposals is not a legitimate defense of the actions the government want to take with SIC. Where are the facts and figures (Lovells new mouth piece) divestment unit? Mr browne is talking about taking the company to the next level with MAJORITY LOCAL STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT! You are talking about selling out to the highest political bidder, who will bring benefits to particular persons! Get real or get out of office!

Title	Answers
ANY INFO ON HOLIDAY LETTINGS AT BARRYMORE BEACH CLUB RUNNAWAY BAY	0
first caribbean international bank	0
how can i get in touch with Dilana R. the professional singer?	0
Who was antigua's first Govenor General	1
WHICH ONE OF THE BIRD IS DEAD	1

Title	Answers	Hits
Was there a police report filed by Royal Caribbean Vision of the seas for the man, wife and 11 yr old child removed from the ship on December 20th, 2012 ? He allegedly attacked a man with a service dog on the ship and was set on the dock that day with hi	0	30033
PWD in shambles, what is the purpose of their position? I'm tired of these people in the dept who jsut come eac day to make you feel uncomfortable because of their miserable lives. someone needs to look into this.	0	14621
What is the world's largest airline?	2	5338
What is the amount ZDK owes for electricity ?	1	3687
any audio or video of Minister Farrakhan speech at the Multi-purpose Centre?	1	3593

50 Comments In This Article

Add comment

Follow us on Facebook

Popular Questions

Ask Your Question

Spotlight on Opinon

Latest Business News

Most Read This Month In Business

Search Directory

Directory Listings

App

CARIBARENA