Portuguese Nationals of Goan Origin : A solution

First appeared in the Goan Observer

The 2012 elections opened the proverbial pandora's box. A losing candidate decided to test the law with regard to her rival's citizenship status. The idea being that if the citizenship rule could be used to disqualify the winning candidate then automatically as the runner up she could get promoted. Am not sure if the election rules allow such a promotion but till date there is no clarity. Wonder what would have happened if the complaints were against the winning candidates belonging to the opposition.

The current status is that the government has decided to drop the dual status citizenship cases against all involved for lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is surely euphemism for “buddy we want to do nothing”. Strangely after searching ( if they did search) for evidence for three odd years and not finding any against 500 odd suspects, the Government decided to open a fresh case against another individual who has been a thorn in their flesh. Does the government feel that pursuing a single case they have a better chance of getting evidence. Most likely it is a case of vindictiveness, different strokes for different people.

Goans feel that it is their birthright to acquire a Portuguese citizenship or passport because the rules in Portugal permit it. Portugal has allowed citizens and their progeny of its former colonies to acquire Portugal citizenship. Unfortunately or fortunately this was not thought of or allowed by the crown, read UK. Most inhabitants of Pondicherry have also got this facility from their french rulers and till today they vote by postal ballot in french general elections, despite being “indian” citizens. Most likely they vote in Indian elections too. No one has bother to upset the apple cart so in Pondicherry every one lives happily.

Goa too enjoyed this comfortable situation where many registered their births and followed the process of acquiring Portugal Citizen ship with no intention of actually settling down in Portugal. In recent years, the European Union has made access to the UK relatively a cake walk with a Portuguse passport. This prompted many Goans to move to what they see as El Dorado, a place of milk and honey. They have flocked there and this number is increasing day by day. This means that people from outside Goa have rushed in as they see Goa as a land of milk and honey, about this another time, it is another story. While it is understandable if those going to find their pot of gold our youngsters fresh out of college and looking at more opportunity. However those leaving are not necessarily young and whose range of possibilities in a new land are severely limited in addition to the handicap of acclimatising to harsh winters. This is a challenge for any Government to try an stem this exodus. Again another story.

This window of opportunity is not going to last long with the UK most likely going to stop this free entry by opting out of the EU. With the terrorist attack in Paris, the EU itself is considering closing the borders and restricting free entry throughout the EU. Border checks will be back. So this will once again mean that Goans with Portuguese passports are only going to use it as a status symbol and not actually leave the shores. The current situation does not allow them to use it as a status symbol, least their neighbour files an FIR as a means to hit back due to some domestic dispute. Recall the latest FIR's in a lawyer v/s lawyer row.

What can the Government do now, now that the issue has been raised by a selfish politician (are there unselfish politicians, another story) for selfish ends. The issue has to addressed. The Governments ostrich type (head buried in the sand) response is not going to help. Also using the situation to keep rivals in check or MLA's from the party loyal is not a long term strategy. Clarity has to be first priority of the State government as the situation effects many.

First we have to acknowledge we have a problem. India does not allow dual citizenship and that will not change, not in a hurry for sure. The central Government has already made its stand clear. Once a person takes up another citizenship, he automatically ceases to be an Indian citizen, there is no question of applying to be deregistered. Currently we have knowingly or unknowingly many foreign nationals of Goan origin residing in Goa/India but enjoying illegally the benefits of an Indian citizen. The problem with enjoying these benefits illegally is that it makes the beneficiary vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

Let the Government of India, citizenship is a central subject. Our Defence Minister can take up the case on behalf of these foreign nationals of Goan origin residing in India. Offer a six month amnesty and at the same time create an awareness about what the person can and cannot do, eg: surrender voter id, passport ration card etc. Undertake a drive to allot Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card to such people so that they can now live peacefully without any issues like any normal Indian citizen but without voting rights or the ability to but agricultural land. Even if an amnesty is not feasible immediately, the NRI cell which is already in existence should and can be utilised to help those with Portugese passports to get an OCI card.

Another possibility is to give an option to those who did not realise the consequences of becoming Portuguese citizens, Show the how to apply again for Indian citizenship if they wish, fast track such cases. Obviously just throwing your Portuguese passport away will not be the best solution as it would make the person liable to future criminal prosecutions.

While holding the proverbial “Sword of Damocles” may have advantages in the short run, the Government of the day will surely reap many brownie points if they actually go out and assist this section of Goan society and pave the way for their continued peaceful living in Goa.

Defexpo: Why oppose

First Appeared in Goan Observer

Today in Goa there are many issues. We have the silly amendment deleting the coconut tree from the list of trees under the Tree Act, we have the IPB being used to bypass all rules and foist upon Goa projects which would otherwise not seen the light of day. We have the MOI issue awaiting a decision. Despite all these pressing matters we have decided that our time and enery is best spent opposing the Defexpo at Betul.

The land at Betul would have been transferred to scamsters long ago by Babu under the guise of setting up a food park. At that time there were no protests? Now, the land is idle and if it can be used for a few days why not? The proposal to have the Defexpo at Betul was discussed at the GIDC board meeting. The details were sketchy at best. However, to my mind it was a good idea, better than giving it to some mega project which would take the land at a subsided rate and then transfer it to another at a hefty profit, a la Metastrips. As per the rules the metastrips land should revert to GIDC.

The Defexpo will draw businessmen who will spend money alot of on Hotels, Taxis and restaurants. They will also not do drugs or create a nuisance with loud music. Should it not be more preferable to the Sunburn or Supersonic festivals. No one suggested alternative sites or questioned why North Goa and not some other site in Bangalore etc. This despite the fact that there are fears of drugs and most of the visitors would surely be financially less well off than those who will come for the defexpo.

Ofcourse we know that the “fees” the EDM festival organisers pay is directly proportional to the opposition. Finally it happens, There were no jail threats issued to the protestors or those opposing the EDM's, so why did the Government decide to do it for the Defexp protestors is a mystery. Good sense has prevailed and the Government had changed tracks and is now having a Defexpo Education presentation to convince the opposition and address their concerns. This is better late than never.

While it is no one's case that Goa will directly benefit from orders generated at the defexpo given that the participants may be limited to just 2 or 3 companies. What is possible is that local players can meet those who are visiting and get subcontract jobs. Given that Goa Shipyard is in Goa, manufacturers of some components may prefer to subcontract to reduce transportation costs for some items. There is also a possibility that if the GSL orders are large enough and they can be given the order book position, some suppliers may decide to make locally to derive logistic advantages.

A large no of visitors will be foreigners, surely once they visit Goa, they may decide to return again with their families, so it can give a boost to tourism. To my mind, holding the defexpo has advantages which cannot be ignored. It is also a three day event and not something year round which would all for infrastructure to be set up.

The opposition is using the mistrust created in the minds of the population by the series of U turns taken by the ruling dispensation. So if people believe that the Defexpo is a precursor to something more sinister or having a hidden agenda, can they be blamed. The Government changed the tree Act to accommodate a booze manufacturing Company. The Government used a back door, the Investment Promotion Board to push through projects under the guise of eco tourism, by allowing change of land use prohibited under the TCP Act. They even passed a booze project which is not a thrust area as per the mandate of the IPB and that too in an orchard zone. The government of the day suffers from a trust deficit. Having the education presentation will be a step in repairing or building trust with the citizens, however a lot more will have to be done.

One will notice that Babu who is the sitting MLA is not very vocal, he is around but he is not leading from the front, that is being done by others, why? Simple. He has too many skeletons in his cupboard and so he has to be careful. Very careful. After all he was the one who wanted a food park in that land.

The other component that is driving the opposition to the Defexpo is the church. They are asking the faithful to oppose the Defexpo because they were not taken into confidence. Oh really now. Did the Church take into confidence its own flock when they alienated large tracks of land. Did they respond transparently to the questions of their flock or did they do what the Government tried, brazen it out. The church has lost it moral authority to question land deals, Vaxim is church property which is being converted for eco tourism using the backdoor called IPB. Does the Church feel responsible, can they stand with placards in Vaxim as they are doing in Betul. The church has to introspect hard inwards and then come out with all humility and accept it goofed up. They must agree that mistakes have been made in the past and in future more care will be taken and transparency will be the key. Then they will have the moral right to lead the flock against the unjust ways of the Government of the day.

There is lots of work to be done and lots of areas where we as citizens are being short changed, let us focus on those areas and not get distracted and waste our efforts on small things. Defexpo does not deserve to be opposed just for the sake of opposition.

The Reluctant Entrepreneur: Credit

FIrst appeared in Business Goa

Recently I went to a store where I go regularly to get consumables. This time I need some items which were more capital in nature. I asked the owner if he would accept my cheque. He said he does not accept cheques but I could go to the ATM next door and withdraw cash.. Since it was upward of 20K I was reluctant and two, I am ATM challenged. So I did the next best thing, I drove to another store, a few kilometers away, he accepted my cheque and concluded the business.

Is this not a dilemma entrepreneurs face day in and day out. Are there any easy answers? Is it dependent on an ability to take risk especially when the supplier has no way of checking credit worthiness of the customer quickly. In the above case on can say the the first supplier lost business, on the other hand what if the first supplier has burnt his hands giving credit. That would explain his reluctance to give credit or accept a cheque, he may have decided it is better not to give credit and lose the business (read profit) rather than give credit and lose money (read cost and profit).

Bad creditors add another dimension, ie heart burn. One has to keep calling them up, a non value adding activity. Relationships usually sour if the time taken to recover is more than what was committed. Very often we see a sign announcing credit is given to only those above 80 yrs accompanied by both parents. Does this mean “Credit” is a bad word?

First we have to accept CREDIT is part of the business system. How we handle, how much credit to give and for how long is dependent on experience and policy and can vary. There is a myth that supplier credit is the cheapest as there is usually no cost. Believing this myth everyone tries to maximise it by delaying payments which is not the best way to do business or build trust. Ask any defaulter, they will have a hard time getting suppliers to give them material, and if they do it will be at a higher price.

There is a big cost but unseen. Customers who misuse the credit system are most likely to get effected in times of shortages with the supplier preferring better paying customer. Suppliers factor the delayed payment and adjust prices accordingly. A customer who delays payment usually scarfices his ability to negotiate. More importantly the customer should expect his consignments to be delayed. In short supplier credit is not cheap.

We have seen suppliers support us during the times we had cash flow issues because in good times we ensured payments were made in time. Once the cashflows eased we would bring the payment schedule back on track. It actually works both ways. We believe in doing anything for our customers, and customers must do one thing for us, PAY IN TIME. This must be applied to the supply chain, there the company is a customer and supplier is looking for ontime payment.

The best way to do business in in cash. At the end of the day when you close your sales book there is no outstanding. The second best way is to give credit. Be clear of the payment terms you are offering. We used to give our dealers a credit limit based on monthly sales, what we forgot to add was “Rs30,000/- or 30 days which ever is earlier”. A few dealers when asked for payment would say but we have not crossed the limit even if the payment was outstanding more than 30 days. BE CLEAR

Customers agree to pay on a certain date. If there is a default, then next time the credit facility is withdrawn with the clear remark that earlier promise was not honoured. A PDC is another way to go. This is because the laws are now more in favour of the depositor in case of dishounour.

The chinese method which also acts as an instant credit check with an unknown customer is by offering a discount say 2% for cash payment in lieu of 30 days credit. This translates to an interest cost of 24%. If the the customer cannot go out and borrow @ less than 24% p.a (today interest rates vary from 12 to 18%) from those who know him, it means you were better off not giving him credit.

An entrepreneur must know that the decision to give or not to extend credit should not be made at the spur of the moment, it must be well thought out and must become “policy” for that Company. This ensures that employees know exactly how things work and what has to be done. Do not change the policy based on the size of the order. The owner who refused to accept my cheque had a policy in place and more importantly respected it, irrespective of who and how much.

Vanxim: Where is the tolerance of the Church

This first appeared in The Goan Everyday 3 Jan 2016 in response to a press release by the Church in Goa

I have been called mischievous over the years but never malicious. There is always a first time. The Catholic church has decided to label all those who asked questions on the Vanxim land sale as malicious and mischievous. Manohar Parrikar calls all those who question his pet projects as anti development, name calling seems to be a general pastime. The general tone of the unsigned press release is condescending at best but more importantly seems to suggest that it is the final word to nosey or noisy laity. Where is the “tolerance” the Archbishop spoke of the other day when addressing our netas during his annual Christmas address. Is the sermon only for our Netas and not for the clergy?

Wonder why the Archbishop uses the Diocesan Centre for Social Communications Media when people directly involved in these matters are the Financial Administrator and Secretary of the Section of Confraternities and Fabricas who should answer the queries of the people. Should not the statement should come from their respective offices?

The press release is a little different from the information posted on the Archbishop's website, it gives more insight but as usual not enough. The details of the Mamlatdar's order were not mentioned earlier. It means that because the Church felt their land would go to tenants at a cheap price of Rs 0.36/sqm they preferred to transfer their rights to others who could squeeze out a better deal. If aggrieved why was a legal challenge not mounted directly. Yet the same social justice ministry is up in arms pushing for Baina squatters to be accommodated. Surely by endorsing such positions the social justice ministry loses its moral right to

In the website, the land was sold to Gaunakar, in the press release he is referred to as “one Gaunekar” someone unknown. Really. Did the committee that chewed on his offer not consider for one moment, how an offer exactly equal to the one suggested by the valuer was received. Valuation is based on many factors, one being last sale deed of the piece of land nearby and only on the official declared price. Most land deals have a cash component. The church cannot take cash so the cheque portion should increase. No one sells their land at the price it is valued by valuers unless it it is a distress sale. The value is taken as a reference point. Every seller will attempt to get more. The simplest mechanism available was an auction. Maybe that was not feasible as secrecy was key.

The stated reason for the sale was because the Santa Monica Fund which owned the land needed funds for the ever growing maintenance needs of the Santa Monica Convent One of the worst reasons to sell land. Surely today the monastery requires funds for repairs which lands will be sold, how will the repairs be funded? Did the finance committee not think of this future requirement? Who are the worthies that make up this committee, are they financial or spiritual gurus? If the mega retreat center could be funded by donations of the faithful, so could Santa Monica be repaired by donations without selling land.