On my mind

In last week’s column, I wrote that House Bill 14-42—Rep. Ray A.N. Yumul’s “Alien Workers Act for 2004″—seemed to be anti-business, since it would require nonresident workers to return to their point of origin after their contract expired, thus forcing employers to go through all the expense of bringing in a new worker just to renew a contract.

But a reader noted that the bill is also employee-unfriendly. The reader wrote: “Banning transfers has the net effect of making these people indentured servants to their employer. When you or I are treated unfairly, we look for a new job, file a lawsuit or grievance, or something to that nature.” How can someone from the Philippines do this, the reader asked, if transfers are not allowed, and workers must leave the CNMI at the end of their contract? “They can’t afford to fly in and out of this place to carry out their claim when they make $3.05 an hour.”

“This bill uses immigration policy to limit lawsuits, and it lets employers abuse employees without the worker being able to change jobs. It is hardly business unfriendly. It keeps the worker in one place unable to shop their services to a better offer,” wrote the reader. It is a point well taken.

Thus it would appear the bill is unfriendly to employer and employee both. It seems equally unfriendly to government, inasmuch as the bill runs counter to several provisions of the labor regulation amendments being proposed by the Department of Labor and currently open for public comment. Several sections of the proposed amendments address provisions for transfers; the provisions for contract renewal are based on the assumption that workers are still on island.

It would appear Yumul’s bill was drawn up without any awareness of Department of Labor activities or concerns either. Sort of distressing to think a lawmaker could be so out of touch.

* * *

In follow-up to my comments on revenue reporting for the poker industry, I have since learned that government revenue is derived both from the simple existence of the machine – that is, a flat annual fee of $12,000 per machine (on Tinian and Rota the fee is somewhat less) is paid to the government – and from the moneys paid into the machine. The government “take” on that is 5 percent, in the form of business gross receipts tax – or BGRT.

A reader commented that, in assessing the cost-benefit ratio of poker machines, “While it is easy to calculate the revenues from the taxes assessed on each machine, and the GRT from those businesses, the fact is that almost all the money is from local players. If that money wasn’t used to play poker it would have been spent elsewhere in the community. It may be hard to figure out exactly where that money would be re-directed and filtered back to the community but nonetheless it would stay here and be spent here.”

“The garment industry revenues, on the other hand, represent money that comes into the CNMI from the outside, a real boon to the local GNP although of course, there are costs to subtract. Although I imagine the benefits outweigh the costs, you are right to ask for a cost-benefit analysis on that,” the reader continued.

* * *

I’ve admired stances taken by Senator Pete P. Reyes in the past, but the stance he is taking on the governor’s veto of three bills that were allegedly authored by the senator doesn’t fall into that category. Frankly, I think the senator, in this case, is paranoid. And conversely, while I haven’t supported the governor lately, in this case I do. I think his vetoes eminently logical and sensible.

No one would argue about the provision in Reyes’ bill, S.B.14-10, that Martin Luther King day be observed in the CNMI. But there is no good argument for the provision that the observance of President’s Day be eliminated to make way for it, as Reyes’ bill proposed. Particularly when there is such a much more obvious and appropriate candidate: Columbus Day. Columbus’ exploits have little direct bearing on the Marianas, whereas the values and accomplishments of the first U.S. President, George Washington, and its 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, have a great deal of relevance to the CNMI. This bill was rightly vetoed, and should stay vetoed.

There may be more controversy over Reyes’ S.B. 14-11, which provides for DNA testing in paternity suits. The bill was vetoed because no funding was provided in the bill for what is an expensive procedure. The veto strikes me as being fiscally responsible—on a small scale, in the overall scheme of things—but nonetheless an appropriately prudent move. The Senate has over-ridden the governor’s veto. Let us hope the House, which must also over-ride the veto, is more fiscally prudent.

The third bill, S.B. 14-13, would restrict the Marianas Visitors Authority from hiring nonresident workers. This too would seem fully deserving of veto. As the MVA becomes more involved with courting Chinese tourists, there is bound to be a need for staff with knowledge of and background in matters Chinese. Once again, the House should refuse to go along with the Senate, which has voted to over-ride the governor’s veto.

The governor has many shortcomings but I have a hard time believing that he would be so vindictive as to veto bills solely on the grounds that he disliked their sponsor. In the case of these vetoes, the governor had valid, reasonable, legitimate grounds for his action. The good senator should back off.

* * *

Short takes:

Though Hollywood hype is always suspect, its figures appear to show that the movie “Shrek 2″ is attracting larger audiences, earning more revenue, than even the most optimistic had hoped for. Why are they surprised? Thanks to good writers, good animators, good artists, and no doubt dozens of other contributing talents, “Shrek 2″ out-does its predecessor. It builds on the charm of the first one, and with the introduction of a totally captivating new character, is even more delightful, entertaining, and enjoyable than was the original “Shrek.”

The only bad part is that Hollywood might be tempted to create a “Shrek 3″, and “4,” and “5″—or fatuous imitative features—instead of taking to heart the lesson to which those figures testify: that there is a huge, under-served audience out there (which even says it would go see “Shrek 2″ again—as I intend to) that is eager for light-hearted, engaging, high-quality, violence- and smut-free entertainment imbued with positive moral values.

*

On a sterner note, there is a verse in the gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 18, verse 9, the relevant part of which reads, according to my St. James version, “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee….” Do you suppose that is what our illustrious president had in mind when he said he wanted the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq destroyed? What earthly good would that do? Will he destroy the others, in Afghanistan, in Cuba, and who knows where else, where abuse has also occurred? The Iraqi, the people of the U.S., the international community, do not need symbolism. What they need is intelligent actions, based on rational, coherent policies.

*

Speaking of which, what is there about the Washington (D.C.) administration that is so different from the leadership of other countries? According to an article in the International Herald Tribune earlier this week, the U.S. is now proposing to spend between $10 billion and $15 billion to create “virtual borders” around its perimeter in an effort to keep presumed “terrorists” out of the country. The project would use networks of databases and biometric sensors at sites where people apply for visas, so that by the time they reach the physical U.S. border, each visitor will already have been screened by a global web of databases.

Even though other countries are bordered by several unfriendly as well as friendly countries—while the continental U.S. is bordered on two sides by vast bodies of water, on its two other sides by friendly Canada and Mexico—one does not hear of plans of their building equivalent barriers. It seems counter-intuitive to spend billions of dollars to wall off U.S. borders instead of using them to build stronger ties with the rest of the world. Is it possible the U.S. could go bankrupt in its zeal to “terror-proof” its borders—an impossible task in any case?

* * *

(The writer is a librarian by profession, and a longterm resident of the CNMI. To contact her, send email to )