Barbados Forging Ahead With Ethanol Plans Without Environmental Studies

Decision To Produce Ethanol Already Made

The powers that be have announced that Barbados “is forging ahead with its plans to restructure the sugar industry with emphasis on the use of ethanol for fuel” without completing even a basic study as to how this will impact our country’s environment, economy and social structures.

In other words – the decision to proceed has already been made, and we will now cobble together those studies, consultants, committees and industry partners that will solidly support the government’s decision.

And just who is going to make those decisions that will impact the entire country?

Only Those Who Stand To Profit Will Make Ethanol Decisions For The Country

“…According to Chief Agricultural Officer, Barton Clarke, an Implementation Committee comprising industry stakeholders is expected to sit down over the next two weeks to draft a plan of action for the industry.”

I see. Representatives of the sugar, oil and distilling industries will be making all the plans for Barbados. Oh sure, perhaps government civil servants will be there for the process – but will parliament have to vote on this implementation, where the factory will be built or what technologies will be used? Not to our knowledge.

So the “stakeholders” invited to the table do not include the people of Barbados. It sounds to me like very powerful entities have just been given a free hand to do as they wish. It is an old game… “Those who write the study, win.”

“We then have to identify the site where the new factory is going to go; we have to do the environmental impact assessments; go through the development process which includes Town and Country Planning; continue the research on fuel cane and we have to continue to engage the farmers in discussions about our developments,” he further explained.

Ethanol Production And Toxic Liquid Waste: Tons Per Day

Tons and tons and tons – tens of thousands of gallons – of liquid toxic waste will be produced daily should the ethanol factory go ahead. If the factory is located inland, how will this be transported to the coast? Trucks? Pipeline?

How Many Tanker Loads Of Toxic Waste On Our Roads Per Day?

And once the tanker-truck-loads of liquid toxic waste arrive at the coast, now what? Pipe it out to sea? How far? Who builds and maintains the pipe? What about coral reef damage? Fish? Water quality for swimming?

Ethanol Production A Zero Sum Energy Game

Several studies that we have seen indicate that the production and implementation of ethanol is a zero sum energy game. In other words, it takes so much electricity, water, fuel and such to produce ethanol that there is little energy gained from the process. The primary benefits of ethanol appear to be an ability to reduce reliance upon foreign oil, and less air pollution from ethanol-fueled vehicles.

Cost to the end-user (hey.. that’s you!) whether out of pocket or through tax subsidy, is higher than gasoline.

Large countries like Brazil and the United States can enjoy economies of scale not only in the production of sugars and in fuel distribution and usage – but they can also locate the factories and resulting pollution away from population centres.

So Where Shall We Build The Ethanol Factory? 

No question at all as to where the ethanol factory should be built. Only one place on the island would be suitable – the field right across the street from the office of Environment Minister Liz Thompson…



Source for this article: Caribbean – Barbados Ethanol Plan Picking Up Pace – Barbados Government Information Service



Filed under Barbados, Environment, Island Life, Offshore Investments, Politics & Corruption

27 responses to “Barbados Forging Ahead With Ethanol Plans Without Environmental Studies

  1. rightvwrong

    great reporting BFP!!!

    sounds exactly like the waterpark fiasco

    decisions made before proper analysis and economic and environmental studies not to mention, full and proper public transparency

    these things don’t get built without all kinds of agencies and individuals singing from the same page in the choir and if the people of Barbados are are having their pockets picked by bad economic and environmental decisions you can safely bet it is in the many millions of dollars

    where are all the studies? and which bureaucrats and polticians are hiding these reports from the public and why?

    who stands to benefit in terms of fees and largesse being passed around?

    Are the lending institutions part of this possible scam or are they being backstopped by government guarantees from reps who don’t care what the ecomomics are and are prepared to let their citizens take the hit?

    maybe your readership can fill in the blanks for us???

    I am dying to see who knows what!!!

    Let those who can fill in the blanks for us.

    Keep this story alive!!!


    On the surface this whole ethanol from sugar cane cane idea sounds like such a great development for our sugar industry . However i agree that alot more research should be done before going forward also other energy options should be investigated as well .

    Our government always seems so much in a hurry to throw my and other citiziens hard earned tax dollars down very dark bottomless holes. I guess they figure there is always more where that came from .Sometimes i feel this country is well on its way to Bankcorruptcy .

    I feel in many cases people who actually know what they are talking about and don’t have ulterior motives should have much more to do with decision making . Just look at Greenland , Flyovers, and the general building development in Barbados . I believe things could be done alot better , lets not just follow what the ‘developed ‘ world is doing and copy them . Soon when the almighty tourist comes they won’t be able to recognise Barbados from back home . So why spend all that money to see the same ole same ole . Come on guys lets try to be much more innovative and imaginative , we have the advantage of being a ‘developing ‘ country so lets not make the same mistakes many of the ‘developed’ countries have made. Then all eyes will be on us for being a trendsetter and trailblazer and not some wanabe knockoff .

    By the way , keep up the great work BFP , what you offer has been needed a long time . Respect .

  3. Crusty

    BFP wrote:

    It sounds to me like very powerful entities have just been given a free hand to do as they wish. It is an old game… “Those who write the study, win.”


    Before one claims conspiracy on this topic, perhaps a few
    logical thoughts are in order to dispel some of the lack of
    knowledge and thus reduce the level of hysteria:

    1. Cane is already being grown or has been grown on
    the lands likely to be dedicated to ethanol production, so
    there is little or no net change in land use.

    2. Ethanol production requires separation of the sugar
    from the bagasse using the same mechanical technology
    as in current sugar production, so there is little or no net
    change in sugar production technology and thus no net
    change in emissions from the sugar production phase. It
    is possible that some starches in the bagasse might also
    be used in the subsequent ethanol production so there
    might be a net reduction in the quantity of bagasse.

    3. Conversion from sugar (sucrose) to ethanol is usually
    done in a fermentation and distillation process as in the
    production of rum, so while the details of the yeast chosen
    and vat pH, temperature, etc., might be different, there is
    likely to be little or no change in the waste stream content.

    Our present rum distilleries have a waste stream that can
    be dried for use as fertilizer or pumped into wells for
    absorption in exactly the same manner as household suck
    wells used all around the island. In fact, both techniques
    are used at present.

    A few years ago the annual Barbados sugar quota was
    about 50,000 tonnes and we had difficulty meeting it. I
    recall a report in the press that the quota this year was
    about 32,000 tonnes These figures are subject to correction.

    Using the higher figure and a theoretical conversion ratio of
    640 litres of ethanol per tonne of sucrose, the net annual
    ethanol production would be:

    50,000 x 640 = 32,000,000 litres of ethanol

    The specific gravity of ethanol is 0.789 so the mass of the
    produced output is:

    0.789 x 32,000,000 = 25,248,000 kilograms = 25,240 tonnes

    The solid waste stream consists of

    50,000 – 25,240 = 24,760 tonnes of bagasse.

    Much of the bagasse is burned at the factory to provide
    process heat.

    At a sucrose dilution ratio of 12% the process water and
    sludge amounts to about

    50,000 / 0.12 = 416,667 tonnes of liquid.

    This is mostly water so the volume will be about 416,667
    cubic metres that must be treated and disposed each year.

    I have seen one report stating the desalination plant at
    Brandons produces 30,000 cubic metres of potable water
    per day. So the 416,667 cubic metres of waste water
    represents less than 14 days water production from the
    desalination plant.

    Other writers with knowledge of water production and
    consumption could provide comparisons with other uses
    and make judgement on the suitability of this use.

    Hope that helps.


    Pure & Appi. Chem., Vol. 56, No. 7, pp. 833—844, 1984.

    Riaz Khan
    Philip Lyle Memorial Research Laboratory, Tate & Lyle PLC,
    Whiteknights P.O. Box 68, Reading, England


    Conversion of sucrose to ethanol by a process of fermentation
    is a well known technology. In a batch fermentation process
    sucrose is diluted to 12 to 15 per cent, treated with nitrogen
    and phosphate nutrient and then inoculated with yeast. The
    fermentation is complete within 36 h. Theoretical yield of
    anhydrous ethanol from one tonne of sucrose is 640 L1. In
    practice, however, due to some side reactions, the yield is
    80—90% of the theoretical yield (Ref. 65, 66). The total cost
    of ethanol production depends on the raw material cost,
    capital, labour and energy. It is economical for a sugar factory
    to have a distillery, because it comes with its own factory fuel

  4. ross

    Crusty, this thing sounds pretty simple. SO why a price tag of US$150 million?

  5. rightvwrong

    good discussions– aside from the critical environmental and process issues, where are the economic studies that should have been done???

    what is this going to cost—capital and operating—who is financing and why? Who is benefitting?

    you won’t see these discussions in our local media!!!

  6. rightvwrong

    here is a proper report for ethanol in Hawaii that is available for discussion by the public or at least one that has some information

    please note 3 ethanol plants cost about $104 million dollars

    so what report have we got to look at to make comparisons and ask questions?

    How many acres of sugar cane do we need? What land is already committed to the Europeean Union for sugar and when does that expire? What technology would we be using? What are the environmental issues and how have they been addressed ? Will we be using 100% ethanol vehicles or merely ethanol additives etc etc

    Are we going to leave these answers up to the same people who brought us Gems, Greenland and Caribbean Splash?

    no information and no rights

  7. Crusty

    First a correction to my previous post:

    I wrote:

    The solid waste stream consists of

    50,000 – 25,240 = 24,760 tonnes of bagasse.

    Much of the bagasse is burned at the factory to provide
    process heat.


    The solid waste stream consists of

    50,000 – 25,240 = 24,760 tonnes of RESIDUAL WASTE.

    This waste is in solution, consisting of suspended solids
    and liquid fermentation by-products (fusil oil, aldehydes, etc).

    Further explanation:

    The liquid waste stream numbers increase from 416,667
    tonnes to 416,667 + 24,760 = 441,427 tonnes. That is about
    a 6% increase and is unlikely to effect subsequent estimates
    due to variability in dilution ratio and conversion yield.

    The bagasse component of sugar cane is presumed to have
    been separated in point 2 of the original posting. It is assumed
    to be burned, providing process heat as per current practices.

    rightvwrong Says:
    August 14th, 2006 at 4:43 am

    here is a proper report for ethanol in Hawaii that is available for discussion by the public or at least one that has some information


    This report makes excellent DETAILED reading and would be a
    good model of how an economic impact assessment could be
    done for Barbados. There is nothing in the Hawaiian report that
    pertains to ENVIRONMENTAL impact so that issue is for another

    Some quick comments:

    1. The Hawaiian situation suggests three plants due to the
    current separation of sugar production from fuel consumption
    among the various islands of the Hawaiian archipelago. Only
    one plant would be needed for Barbados.

    2. 32,000,000 litres = 8,443,272 US gallons.

    So a single 10 million US gallon facility similar to the one
    proposed for Kauai appears to be suitable for Barbados.

    3. Estimated cost of the Kauai plant is US $ 25.3 million.

    4. The detailed spreadsheet figures for input costs are
    likely very different for Barbados. Material costs are higher
    in Barbados, electricity costs are higher, water costs are
    higher, … Without using the adjusted figures, extrapolation
    from the Kauai plant figures is pure guesswork.

    5. But US$ 150 million does seem a bit high.

    6. Ethanol is usually blended to a ratio of about 10% with
    existing gasoline. 100% ethanol fuel requires adjustment to
    the engine operating characteristics.

  8. Slow Stupid Average Bajan Citizen

    Crusty say 6. Ethanol is usually blended to a ratio of about 10% with
    existing gasoline. 100% ethanol fuel requires adjustment to
    the engine operating characteristics.

    Not just to the “Operating characteristics” crusty. 100% ethanol requires a whole new fuel system including gasoline tank, lines and seals because that ethanol eats through just about anything that is used to seal a gasoline system. There are also long term reliability issues with engine conversions although purpose-designed engines work fine with no shortening of service life. Has to do with cylinder head shapes, burn rates and tdc knock.

    just so you know, the idea that Bentley Davis will just tweak some settings on your engine one day and you can burn 100% ethanol the next is false.

  9. Dear Slow Stupid Average Barbadian,

    here is a very informative article on ethanol in Brazil and the fact that 9 out of 10 cars by 1983 were fueled by ethanol alone—we could always buy cars from them—flexible fuel alternatives or ethanol stand alones

    Where there is a will there is a way—particulaly with old Barbadian ingenuity

    we need to be vigilant that we have sufficeint sugar cane to justify the cost of the plant, that the plant is at the right price and that all the necessary economic and environmental studies are in place—ie that the money is judiciously and effectively spent and not put in the pockets of those that are entrusted with our future.

  10. BFP

    rightvwrong raises some good points, but I’m still curious as to why we should be happy to pay more for the ethanol than for gas? Would the money not be better spent on rapid transit?

    We can’t get enough Bajans willing to work the cane right now – so we bring in many immigrants every year to work the fields. We even import molasses to make Barbados Rum!

    And now we are going to revive the cane industry for a zero-sum energy gain, and hundreds of millions spent. (And it will be hundreds of millions – we can’t even build a beach outhouse without going 400% over budget!)

  11. John

    The principle of seeking to reduce the importation of cars seems sounder in the long term than investing more and more money and resources in fueling the demand for them.

    Its easy to understand the need to reduce the fuel import bill but why not seek to build a rapid transit system which on the face of it will move more people more efficiently than cars and may accomplish the same objective more elegantly.

    Instead of widening the ABC highway, why not put back in the trainline from College savannah to Bridgetown and encourage persons to park and ride. The bed from the old one remains and working to get in a line, or support columns for a monorail will be far less disruptive than the works on the ABC highway.

    Also, extend the line up north along Highway 2a as well.

    Build the flyovers to get the train line (monorail for fancier tastes) over the ABC higway and into town. We used to have one such flyover near Howell’s Cross Road to get the train over the road. I think they used to call it a bridge.

    Bermuda limits cars to one per household. It also has a good transit system. They figured out that they live on a small island, we can too!!

    There is no need to think outside the box!! In fact in our situation, it is downright dangerous.

    It can be done if we want to do it. We don’t need to be stuck in any mold if we don’t want to.

    Learn from smart people.

  12. Crusty

    It’s hard to put down human self-interest. The automobile
    is SO popular because it increases personal mobility in a
    very direct way.

    If I have a car parked in front of my house I can move in
    comfort without walking down the road for several or many
    minutes, without waiting untold minutes (hours) for the bus
    to arrive, without being squeezed 1 of 20 in a van intended
    for 8 passengers, without the loud unappealing music, and
    without the long walk from dropoff to final destination. Not
    to mention I avoid the risks from overheating in the sun or
    getting wet in the rain (or freezing in other climates).

    The fact that so many of us think this way results in high
    personal capital expediture for the car, high continual
    running expenses, high congestion on the roads, longer
    travel times for everyone on the road, greater road
    repairs, greater noise and air pollution for road-edge
    residents, lower levels of population density, greater
    reduction in agricultural land after conversion to housing,
    and higher levels of population obesity due to limited
    exercise. All for an “asset” that gets used for half an
    hour twice a day, sits rotting in the sun for another 8
    hours, and has a lifetime of only 10 years or so before
    you have to buy another one.

    Did I miss anything?

    Ahhh, the joys of “taking the easy way out”.

  13. John


    My old puma is way past 20 years.

    Changing a car at 10 years seems like a waste.

    As far as the spending of time walking to a bus and then waiting, I suspect you spend as much time sitting in traffic.

    Clever people have figured out how to improve the rapid transit systems in their countries.

    I say again.

    Why not learn from clever people.

  14. Crusty

    John Says:
    August 16th, 2006 at 2:59 am

    Why not learn from clever people.


    Good idea. Do you know of specific examples other than Bermuda?

    The large metropolis rapid transit systems appear to be designed
    for much higher urban population densities and move hundreds
    of thousands of people each day. These cities still have automobile
    based traffic congestion.

    I wonder if the park and ride concept would work in Barbados.
    It would probably need road expansion for dedicated lanes or
    an alternative route, such as water ferry. The capital costs are
    high either way, but multiple ferries would cause less disruption
    to the existing infrastructure.

    100 passenger ferries on routes from Oistins and Holetown
    would remove 50+ cars from the road each trip and might see
    two loads each per rush hour, so that would be 200+ cars less
    in the city centre. With staggered office starting times it might
    be possible to double the figure to 400+ cars. Is that enough?

    Oistins has a suitable parking lot now.

    It still does not address the problem for people going to inland
    destinations such as Warrens.

  15. The White Rabbit

    Ethanol is actually less than a zero sum game if you factor in the energy cost of producing, shipping etc of all the machinery used in the handling of the grounds and the canes (tractors, trucks), plus the natural gas burned to make the nitrogen fertilizer used to get acceptable yields, and on and on and on. The real problem is that when using ethanol one is still burning a hydrocarbon in an internal combustion engine, which will still produce carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and various compounds of nitrogen, all pollutants and greenhouse gases. The often stated position that it is at least not fossil in nature is only partly correct (one will still likely burn dino-diesel to power the tractors and trucks used in production, as will be the natural gas burned to create nitorgen-based fertilizer). The entire project is a stop-gap measure, the main benefit of which will be to ease the outflow of cash as foreign exchange, which benefit might actually produce fuel at a lower total cost than petroleum-based fuels imported from afar.
    Given that we are all talking more or less futuristically, it remains this writer’s suggestion that the energy answer lies 90 miles to our west in the hot rocks of the real Caribbean islands. Geothermal energy is a technology as well-known as fermentation to produce ethanol for cars. It is essentially pollution-free, the direct energy input is essentially free of cost, and the extant geothermal plants have been extremely reliable and long-lasting. If, a big if, hydrogen technology ever comes on stream then the Caribbean would be well placed to become a net exporter of energy. In the interim, simply going after and using geothermal energy in the west would reduce our power costs in the mid-term, free us from Big Oil, and provide a certain necessary incentive to begin replacing the polluting petro in our lives with pollution-free electro.

  16. Crusty

    The White Rabbit Says:
    August 16th, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    the energy answer lies 90 miles to our west in the hot rocks of the real Caribbean islands. Geothermal energy …


    While it might be good for the CSME, how does that help Barbados?

    Should we then buy our hydrogen from St. Vincent after the
    Vincentians produce it by electrolysis of sea water?

    Or should we invest in an underwater electical power cable?
    I have read of that being done across shorter stretches of water.

  17. John


    Barbados is a small island developing state. For examples, try other small island developing states.

    New Zealand
    The UK????

    When I get a chance, i’ll do a search and see what I find and get back to your question.

  18. Crusty

    This just published on The Australian Newpaper website:

    Beattie pledges cheaper fuel with ethanol,20867,20158516-601,00.html


    Instead, the Government has introduced a 10 per cent cap on blending
    ethanol with petrol and is encouraging fuel companies to add between
    89 million and 124 litres of ethanol to meet an eventual goal of 350
    million litres.

    end quote


    Australia has a population of about 20 million people, that is 77
    times the population of Barbados. A similar ratio for per capita
    fuel consumption suggests 350 / 77 = 4.5 million litres of ethanol
    production each year would be enough for Barbados.

    That would be about half the size of the Hawaian plant and
    would use about half of Barbados’ sugar production capacity.

    So there would still be “branded” sugar available for locals
    and tourists to buy.

  19. John

    Crusty, White Rabbit

    Don’t you think the water issue is more of an immediate challenge than energy and foreign exchange?

    The more land we sell to get foreign exchange, and do “developments” the less chance we have of escaping the necessity of having to treat our water, which up till now, we have had no need to, well apart from the socalled desal plant.

    Maybe if there is a net water gain in the production of sugar cane, it may make more sense to grow the cane to solve the water issue and create biomass to get energy.

    Just a thought.

  20. Bajan George

    Isn’t it true that the grain required to fill a 25-gallon tank (with ethanol) would feed one person for a year?

    Is this how we want to allocate our valuable agricultural lands? Hawaii is 2500 miles from the nearest fuel source, this isn’t true of Barbados. Because Barbados is relatively small, maybe the long-term transport plan should include heavier emphasis on electric/hybrid technology, evolving into 100% electric over the next 25 years?

    Bajan George

  21. Slow Stupid Average Bajan Citizen

    A friend saw the movie “who killed the electric car” in Los Anagles at some film festival. She said it should be run on CBC for a week and it would change the mindset of the whole country.

  22. slow learner

    I will attemp to say what everyone is thinking but seems afraid to say. Ethanol production in a 2×3 island is nonsense.
    I will ask a few questions and hope that some guru will enlighten slow learners like myself.
    1. Given the no. of vehicles on the road, what will be the volume of ethanol needed to achieve a 10% ratio to gasoline?
    2. How many tons of cane will be needed to satisfy this?
    3. What is the conversion rate of cane to ethonol?
    4. How many acres of land will be required to produce this cane?
    5. What is the cost of building a factory to produce the ethanol?
    6. What will be the annual operating cost of this factory?
    7. What is the cost of purchasing ethanol from Brasil( including shipping) and storage?

    These questions need answers before we talk about Environment Impact studies.

    I have been around long enough to remember, Confith Project, that was supposed to supply animal feed from sugarcane. I also remember hearing about the manufacture of “wood” from sugarcane.
    Both projects had noble intentions but were still born, maybe this will be a miscarriage as well.

  23. Crusty

    To slow learner: I’m not sure who you are listening to, but
    I’m not aware that writers here are afraid to voice their
    opinions. And in my opinion at least, ethanol production on
    this 2×3 island is NOT nonsense.

    Your questions 1,2, 3, and 4 are addressed in my posts on
    14 August. Questions 5 and 6 are partially addressed by the
    Hawaiian island study referenced above. On question 7, we
    must observe that import substitution is a major reason for
    local ethanol production, so importing from Brazil is not an
    option likely to be considered for Barbados.

    This evening (Monday, 21 August 2006) CBC broadcast a half
    hour documentary produced by the Government Information
    Service on the current plans for the sugar industry reform in

    Some of the highlights:

    1. Planned production of 40,000,000 litres of ethanol per year.

    100,000 cars driven 12,000 kilometres per year and getting
    fuel efficiencies of 20 litres per 100 kilomtres would require
    240,000,000 litres of fuel, of which 24,000,000 could be ethanol.
    So the proposed production is consistent with local needs.

    2. Planned production of 10,000 tonnes of branded sugar per
    year for export and up to 5,000 tonnes for local consumption.

    3. Higher product yield with new varieties of cane with the
    unstated implication that land requirements would not change,

    4. Additional bagasse usage in electrical energy production
    (I don’t remember the figures quoted).

    These figures are consistent with those put forward in earlier

  24. John


    The 100,000 cars planned for in ethanol is down from the 115,000 cars the powers that be say is causing the delays on the ABC highway.

    They actually used a different number of cars for the flyovers compared with ethanol. If they plan to reduce the number of cars by almost 15%, we can cut importation of fuel by 10% easily without adding ethanol to fuel. That is based on their own numbers.

    We can probably even save on the flyovers!!

    All that’s missing is the plan to reduce the number of cars!! In an island surrounded by sea (as are all islands) it can’t be difficult to restrict imports of cars!!!

    Even this lot can figure this out.

    Did the programme on CBC call any figures for the cost of the factory?

    Is it still 6 times the cost of the equivalent factory in Hawaii, US$150M here vs $104M for the three at twice the capacity?

    Seems to be some glaring inconsistencies exist in the numbers.

    Maybe I just got it wrong.

    By the way, in addition to highways, some of which are 6 lanes, Singapore also has trains and subways.

    The area of the island is not much more than Barbados yet it supports a population of 4 million.

    Back to my old refrain, we need to learn from clever people. There are some in the world, we just have to look outside the box at what others do.

    We just need to keep thinking inside the box and don’t get too fancy. But nothing is wrong from looking outside now and again.

  25. Crusty

    John Says:
    August 22nd, 2006 at 3:48 am

    The 100,000 cars planned for in ethanol is down from the 115,000 cars the powers that be say is causing the delays on the ABC highway.

    They actually used a different number of cars for the flyovers compared with ethanol. If they plan to reduce the number of cars by almost 15%, we can cut importation of fuel by 10% easily without adding ethanol to fuel. That is based on their own numbers.


    The number of cars was not given in the GIS presentation.
    I used 100,000 cars for the sake of easy arithmetic to
    show the 40 million litres of planned production was
    reasonable. The focus of the show was on the sugar
    industry, not on cars and how to reduce their impact.

    I did not hear any factory construction costs although it
    was said that a new sugar mill would be built.

    Singapore might not be such a good example. The 4 million
    population provides a tax base that can support much
    higher public spending on infrastructure than is possible in
    Barbados. Chinese culture has a number of features that
    make it notably successful: strong commercial focus, close
    family ties, willingness to invest off-shore, willingness to
    work very hard in one generation to support the next.
    Ask yourself if foreigners say such things about Bajans.

    Lee Kwan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore,
    oversaw an autocratic government that pushed through
    many things that other, more democratic governents
    would have difficulty achieving. Did you know they have
    legislated penalties for spitting on the street?

    Quoting from

    The government believes that some 3% to 5% of the population
    of four million people are “dirty” – those who do not observe
    personal or public hygiene. To clean up after this group, Singapore
    employs a battalion of about 10,000 cleaners, both in the public and
    private sectors every day, said Environment Minister Lim Swee Say.


    An upbeat travel guide at
    makes further comments on this and other restrictions while also
    praising the positive consequences.

    So how does one do the social engineering needed to make Bajan
    culture resemble Singapore Chinese?

  26. Pingback: Barbados Government Kills Sugar For Ethanol Scam - “Thank You Barbados Free Press. Without Your Revelations…” « Barbados Free Press

  27. lohn kingston

    I appreciate your help but plese be more specific