The unbanked and new notes

THE EDITOR: The changeover from paper-based $100 notes to polymer has come with utter administrative chaos and some pertinent revelations both about banks and the Government’s clear lack of concern.

The Newsday editorial of December 12 is accurate: “...the introduction of the new $100 bill has raised a lamentable degree of confusion…There’s a long list of bugbears…The ‘unbanked’ who, whether for religious, ideological or whatever reason, may now find themselves in the crosshairs of a new, more stringent regime of financial regulation including declarations of sources of income.”

One bank will not accept sou-sou funds as an explanation for the source of income. Karen Darbasie, chief executive officer of state bank First Citizens and president of the Bankers Association, is reported to have said, “If your source of funds is a sou-sou, you will not be allowed to deposit your stash of old $100 bills into your bank account or exchange them for the new polymer bills” (Express, December 12).

Clearly the banking system seems intent on criminalising our financial traditions, while the Government is just looking on.

The changeover has forced both the general public and the administration to face squarely the role of banks in TT, just as it happened in the days of the Black Power Revolution of 1970.

The information is that 65 per cent of the Caribbean population is unbanked, meaning that our societies are predominantly cash-based. And a further 20 per cent are underbanked, meaning that they underutilise the financial services that do exist.

We have to face the reality that in our cash-based society people like DJs, small proprietors and yes, barbers, can legitimately have thousands of unbanked dollars in their hands at any given time. Then there are also Muslims who want to follow the tenets of their religion.

It is well known that a large percentage of the TT population do not trust the banks or their facilities like ATMs. Many people prefer not to deal with cheques and credit cards. They feel that the banks themselves are fraudulent and insecure institutions.

They also state that the banks incur too many charges. On January 20, 2017, the Joint Select Committee on Finance and Legal Affairs inquired into commercial banking fees in TT. The report stated, “The committee’s decision to examine this issue was propelled by what it perceived was an increasing level of public disenchantment regarding the amount of fees which were being imposed by commercial banks.”

The managements of the banks are also guilty of a lack of compassion. Last week, a 94-year-old man told me he had to walk a block and a half to urinate because the bank had no toilet facility. I had previously written to my bank about its indifference to the aged because I have seen how it treats pensioners at month-end.

The print media have also cited examples:

Renuka Singh (Guardian, December 12), “At the banks in downtown Port of Spain yesterday, customers complained about the process including complaints about the charge to even deposit money in the bank. People also complained about the poor service and accommodation for the elderly,”

Express editorial (December 10), “For those whose business dealings have already evolved to a near paperless existence, the change-over from paper to polymer registers little more than a blip in their lifestyles.

“What the long lines reveal, however, is the complex relationship that many have with the banking system and the large number of people who exist outside of it.

“Together, these offer an eye-opening glimpse into a reality not captured in official statistics and therefore offers a unique opportunity for capturing an element of the economy at a more granular level.”

No doubt the changeover from paper to polymer has more implications than have been contemplated. The state of the unbanked rests.

AIYEGORO OME

Mt Lambert