Economic nationalism and crony capitalism in The Bahamas

Lessons for BTC from Bahamas Airways

by Simon



A recent editorial cartoon of MPs bearing a coffin labelled Bahamianization was cute as a caricature but unconvincing as commentary. The cartoon represents a polar extreme from the left. From the right is another polar extreme claiming that Bahamianization has been tried and has failed.

As usual, the truer picture is somewhere in the middle beyond the hyperbole and casual analysis. Certainly, we are not where we want to be, but to deny various advances since independence, of which both extremes are prone, betrays many examples of progress despite the distance we have to travel.

All of which begs the question: What constitutes Bahamianization? Like all strands of nationalism, notions of Bahamianization are often driven by romanticism, ideological purity tests, prejudice and fear. At its most extreme, nationalism can explode into jingoism, xenophobia and racism.

At the heart of nationalism is a sense of identity and belonging to a place and may include political, social and economic nationalism. The highly emotive debate about the future of BTC has triggered various waves of economic nationalism which concern issues of opportunity, ownership and empowerment.

INSTRUCTIVE

But if the issues are about the greater empowerment of and opportunities for Bahamians, the BTC question is not as simplistic as the ardent nationalists suggest. The aviation industry offers an instructive case study in economic nationalism.

In 1968 Cathay Pacific Airways agreed to a partnership with the Bahamas Government in the development of Bahamas Airways as our national airline. The Hong Kong-based carrier was given exclusive rights to a number of important routes while providing the country with deep pockets and expertise in the airline industry, as well as an extensive international travel network.

Cathay Pacific (CP) invested heavily in the aircraft, marketing and training needed to develop routes between The Bahamas and tourist markets like New York and other cities. Once profitable, CP agreed to sell a 25 percent stake to the Bahamas Government at the initial share price of Bahamas Airways, which would have resulted in a windfall profit for the country.

The Bahamas would have had a national flag carrier able to compete with the big American carriers. Today we own 100 percent of a carrier that cannot compete. Is this Bahamian pride and nationalism? With crocodile tears about nationalism, Sir Lynden unilaterally and underhandedly broke the agreement with Cathay Pacific whom he himself courted and brought to The Bahamas.

Our national airline would have been integrated into the global aviation network decades before the more recent wave of globalization, providing guaranteed airlift for our tourist market, business passengers and cargo.

Imagine the possibilities of The Bahamas as a regional hub for Bahamas Airways/Cathay Pacific with direct flights to Latin America years ago, flying directly to many cities in the U.S., expanding our access to European capitals and better linking the country to the Pacific and China.

Sir Lynden and others defended his about-face by saying that Bahamians should fully own the routes Bahamas Airways had been granted. In the event, his waving the nationalist’s banner was a cover for crony capitalism as he awarded the routes to a crony who failed to get his airline off the ground.

SCANDAL

The result was the collapse of the arrangement with Cathay Pacific, a blow to the credibility of the government with investors and a big scandal for the country. The crony airline became known as “the paper airline” and became a laughing-stock.

Sir Lynden’s decision on Bahamas Airways was one of the pivotal issues which provoked increasing dissatisfaction with his leadership, eventually resulting in the break from the PLP of the Dissident Eight and others.

The founders of the FNM and other nationalists who remained in the Pindling government had to take tough and pragmatic decisions early on in the greater national interest of making the Bahamian dream more accessible and advancing the promises of majority rule.

They overwhelmingly and correctly concluded that to expand tourism and economic access and opportunities for Bahamians, and in order to grow the Bahamian economy to fund priorities such as education, that the Cathay Pacific partnership was an exceptional deal for The Bahamas.

Sir Lynden’s decision was tragic. In significant ways it set the country back decades. While it may be difficult to calculate the lost opportunities and economic benefits to the country and the Public Treasury, we know what Bahamasair has cost taxpayers -- now approaching half a billion dollars.

For point of reference, our total national debt today is approximately $4.2 billion dollars. Over the years Bahamasair constantly flew off course with poor service and incompetent management, various scandals and rip-offs, political interference and featherbedding of supporters, as well as wasteful spending.

Four decades after the Bahamas Airways debacle, the country owns 100 percent of a national airline that has been a significant failure in many respects. Is this more preferable than a 25 per cent stake in an airline that would have been more profitable, that would not have cost the Public Treasury the mind-boggling sums expended on Bahamasair, and would have guaranteed airlift into our prime tourism markets?

Then there are the opportunity costs of millions which could have been invested in education, health care, the arts, infrastructure and other areas. In all probability our national debt would also have been lower and our public finances healthier.

RATIONAL

Such rational cost-benefits analysis does not hold the emotional appeal of thumping our chests, waving the national colours and proclaiming that we are the majority owners of our national airline. Still, Bahamian pride must be more than nostalgia, unthinking nationalism and outdated economic thinking.

Surely we cannot fully know what the future of Bahamas Airways would have been amidst the turmoil that has roiled the airline industry over the decades from oil shocks to mergers to intense competition.

What we do know is that Cathay Pacific is still a healthy and competitive airline and that many of Bahamasair’s domestic routes are now in the hands of private fully Bahamian-owned companies that are profitable. The model Bahamas Airways could have followed is a concentration on international routes leaving domestic routes to local carriers with, in some instances, government subsidies to less profitable inter-island routes.

Suppose that in the 1980s The Bahamas was again offered a partnership with an international carrier to buy a majority stake in Bahamasair, with an agreement similar to the proposed BTC and Cable & Wireless partnership?

The agreement would have entailed the Government maintaining a significant though not majority stake, veto power over key decisions and significant board seats. The new partnership would leverage the resources of the well-established airline including extensive capital investments and other resources made available to Bahamasair that it could not access on its own.

The new partnership would also help to integrate the new Bahamasair into a global travel network of expanded routes with significantly better economies of scale in a more competitive global airline industry. Eventually, shares would be also sold to the Bahamian public

If this was the deal on the table, what would those who oppose the new partnership between BTC and Cable & Wireless, have thought and argued? Clearly, one could not plausibly argue that the national interest would have been better served by insisting on a 51 percent stake.

Undoubtedly the airline and telecommunications industries are different. Yet, there are parallels between the Bahamas Airways story and the proposed new partnership for BTC.

March 18, 2011

bahamapundit

Bahamas Blog International

Branville McCartney - Member of Parliament for the Bamboo Town Constituency Resigns from the Governing Free National Movement (FNM) Party

Branville McCartney's facebook RESIGNATION NOTE: Due to personal convictions, today I have resigned from the Free National Movement. I remain your representative for the Bamboo Town Constituency and be assured that the level of true representation that you have become accustomed to will not change. I remain your humble employee. Bran.

Bamboo Town Branville McCartney on facebook

Monday March 21, 2011

The Bluewater Ventures Limited / Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) Privatization deal that came close to reality

Bluewater Unveiled

By CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
candia@nasguard.com


A look at the BTC deal that almost was

The veil of secrecy surrounding the group that almost purchased 49 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) under the Christie administration is being lifted.

According to a closely guarded document obtained by National Review, Bluewater is a privately held entity, which does not have audited statements or disclose financial statements publicly.

“However, at signing or immediately prior to signing the [letter of intent] we are prepared to disclose relevant financial information and give the relevant assurances on Bluewater’s acquisition vehicle, including its financial capacity to complete the transaction,” the company said in 2006.

The response came as part of the due diligence exercise carried out by the Privatization Committee under the Christie administration, which subsequently recommended to the government that negotiations should proceed with Bluewater.

Members of that committee included the financial secretary, the legal advisor to the Ministry of Finance, BTC union officials, private sector members and telecommunications consultants.

As the government gets closer to closing a deal with Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) to sell 51 percent of BTC, the Bluewater deal that almost came to be remains highly controversial.

Speaking at his party’s rally on Clifford Park Saturday night, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said if the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had its way BTC would have been sold off to Bluewater, which “had no experience in telecommunications. The company wasn’t even traded on the stock market.”

Ingraham said, “We still aren’t exactly sure who had their hands in that Bluewater pot or who the real players were behind a deal that would have purchased BTC on credit…”

Details of the deal that almost came to be are likely to be discussed in greater details in the BTC privatization debate, which gets underway in the House of Assembly today.

Ingraham has already promised to have more to say about Bluewater and what the Christie administration had planned.

In 2006, the privatization committee posed a number of questions to Bluewater, which were answered in detailed form in a document to the committee dated September 13, 2006.

One revelation made in that document is that Bluewater was formed to invest in and manage companies in the telecom and media industries.

According to the document, there was no plan for any layoffs. Between 2006 and 2011, average salary at BTC was projected to rise from $43,332 to $48,780.

Bluewater said in 2006 it would negotiate contracts with the existing management team between signing the letter of intent and closing the transaction.

“We anticipate that as a part of their package executive management will receive equity participation in BTC,” Bluewater said.

“Bluewater also anticipates that all board members will receive industry standard board compensation packages.”

A PLAN FOR BTC

Bluewater outlined 25 key initiatives to target in the first two years of purchasing the BTC shares.

It committed to plugging revenue leakages; reducing discounts to prepaid vendors; reducing bad debt charges; charging for in-home wiring to recoup costs; tightening the pre-paid card distribution process; instituting a new sales incentive scheme; reducing fleet maintenance costs; reducing overtime expenses and reducing contract service costs by 20 percent.

The company said that in the first year of the BTC acquisition it expected $92.5 million to be spent in capital expenditure to focus on consumers and core networks.

Asked to provide the supporting details and data for Bluewater’s proposed debt to equity ratio and any plans for external financing, Bluewater said it “does not intend to leverage BTC, so the net debt to equity ratio does not change during our projections.”

It also said it expected “all free cash flow after capital expenditure to be dividended to shareholders. This excludes current cash on the balance sheet which will be left at the company for working capital purposes.”

Bluewater also advised that it expected the cost of management and consultant contracts to be covered by the employee costs and the consultant costs in the business plan.

“In addition, we anticipate setting aside 10 percent of the equity of BTC for employees,” said Bluewater in 2006.

Under current plans for BTC, which appear poised to go through, the government says it will, by the end of this year, sell nine percent or approximately $40 million of the shares in BTC to the Bahamian public.

Bluewater said in 2006 that it did not intend to transfer or sell any of BTC’s shares for three years or any longer period of time as agreed by the shareholders.

The Bluewater plan also called for an improvement of EBITDA margins from 26 percent in 2005 to 39 percent in 2008.

The company said the improvement in EBITDA would have been achieved through the streamlining of operations.

The 2006 document to the Privatization Committee added, “Bluewater also intends to offer better value to its customers through reductions in wireless and international long distance tariffs as laid out in our business plan.”

The company had planned to launch an IPTV offering in 2009.

This would have included more than 1,000 movies on-demand “available to watch exactly when you want”; interactive music channels; on-demand movies and TV that you can stop, rewind, pause or fast-forward.

IPTV revenues were projected to be more than $9 million by this year.

The deal that came close to reality also included a plan for improving telecommunication services on less developed Family Islands.

THE BLUEWATER PLAYERS

The Privatization Committee asked Bluewater to provide the propose management candidates for BTC.

Several board members were named.

One of them was Trinidad and Tobago native Roger Ames, who served as chairman and chief executive officer of Warner Music Group and president of Warner Music International between August 1999 and August 2004.

Carlos Espinal who in 2006 was CEO of TSTT, the national telephone company of Trinidad & Tobago, was named as another Bluewater executive.

Prior to joining TSTT in 2004, he spent eight years with Verizon as senior vice president international - Latin America.

During his time with Verizon, he worked as a turn-around specialist for Verizon’s Latin American and Caribbean businesses, Bluewater said.

John Gregg was listed in the document sent to the Privatization Committee as managing director of Bluewater. According to that 2006 document, he had 15 years of building companies in the media and telecom industry in Europe, the U.S. and Asia.

Another board member named was Andrew Sukawaty, who was named as the chairman and CEO of Inmarsat, which Bluewater said was the world leader in global satellite communications.

According to the document, Sukawaty served as president and CEO of Sprint PCS, one of America’s largest mobile phone providers. It said he grew Sprint from a start up to a company with 9.5 million subscribers and approximately $6.6 billion in revenue.

Bluewater also named several operational advisors, a finance team and a legal team.

The document said Bluewater’s principals intended to invest in BTC through a standalone Bahamian entity that would have been capitalized and controlled by Bluewater’s principals. It said Bluewater is an entity controlled by John Gregg.

DEFENDING THE DEAL

Today, Bluewater of course is a dead deal, but what the Christie administration had proposed continues to come up in the current privatization debate.

The Christie administration had agreed to sell a 49 percent stake in the national telecommunications provider for $260 million shortly before the May 2007 general election.

However, after the Free National Movement was returned to power, Ingraham vowed to review the deal, claiming that Christie and the former Cabinet were planning to sell BTC "on credit" and that Bluewater would enjoy too lengthy an exclusivity period as a monopoly in an industry that his administration was keen on liberalizing.

According to documents previously obtained by The Nassau Guardian, Bluewater had agreed to pay $220 million for BTC in cash at closing, $25 million at the end of the fifth year following closing and $15 million at the end of the sixth year.

Under the deal, Bluewater would have been granted mobile and landline licenses with five and six-year exclusive periods, respectively.

Speaking at a press conference at PLP headquarters on Farrington Road yesterday, Christie again defended the deal.

“By innuendos and suggestions he (Ingraham) started off immediately after he became prime minister to suggest that there was something crooked about our involvement in Bluewater,” Christie said.

“The Progressive Liberal Party structured an approach to privatization that relied on the integrity and leadership of the financial secretary (at the time) Mrs. Ruth Millar.

“To ensure that we were on safe grounds we placed the leaders of the management union of BTC and the workers, BCPOU (Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union), as full members of the negotiating team.

“That team, including the union leaders, would come into Cabinet and brief Cabinet. We took a transparent and accountable approach to it.”

Referring to the prime minister, Christie said, “…If he really wants to look for something, tell the Bahamian people whether or not there are deals in this BTC sale to Cable and Wireless.

“That’s where he should be looking at. The Progressive Liberal Party lost the elections. We can explain the positions we took.”

3/21/2011

thenassauguardian

2012 General Election Predictions (Part 2) - The Bahamas

Election predictions - part 2

By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com

THE odds are stacked against Zhivargo Laing in Marco City in the next general election.

Frankly, the race in this constituency appears to be between two unpopular candidates. Mr Laing, who may yet again have to move to another constituency (similar to the constant relocation of former PLP MP Paul Adderley) is said to have worn-out his welcome in his constituency. Constituents have complained that Mr Laing is out of touch with public sentiment and have objected to being seen or addressed in a patronizing, condescending manner by any politician. Mr Laing's constituents have complained about an air of perceived arrogance and expressed an interest in having Mr Laing spend more time actually listening (genuinely) to their concerns. The Marco City MP is a banana peel away from slipping into the political abyss. PLP nominee Greg Moss (lawyer) is likely to defeat him.

Brensil Rolle, the Garden Hills MP, will likely defeat Dr Kendal Major. Mr Rolle is apparently quite popular on the ground and considering the population shifts in the constituency--due to the recent construction and sale of houses in newly constructed housing subdivisions--he may have the advantage in an electoral showdown.

Vincent Peet, the MP for North Andros has been relatively quiet of late. Mr Peet is likely to retain his seat.

Melanie Griffin will politically sucker punch FNM challenger Joshua Sears. I am told that the boundary cuts will favour Sears, extending Yamacraw further eastward into large chunks of Brent Symonette's St Annes' constituency. However, because there are also plans afoot to relocate Phenton Neymour to the Exuma constituency, Mr Sears' name has been bandied about as a likely replacement for Mr Neymour in South Beach.

Lacklustre

If Phenton Neymour contests the South Beach seat, his teeth "will be on edge" having tested the sour grapes of what's said to be an impending defeat. Mr Neymour lacks the political horsepower to recapture the seat, as many residents express displeasure with his lackluster representation.

However, if Mr Neymour runs in Exuma, he could possibly edge out incumbent PLP MP Anthony Moss. Mr Moss is said to be unpopular in the Exuma Cays and has rendered a performance that is purportedly the reason for much voter discontent. Black Point residents--the second largest polling division--claim to have not seen Mr Moss since the last general election. Noticeably, Mr Neymour has made frequent trips into the Exuma constituency of late. Even more, of late Mr Neymour has also dropped the moniker he used to describe his constituents in Parliament--"the kings and queens of South Beach"--giving one the impression that perhaps the underlying notion now is that the Royal family of South Beach are preparing to dismiss their servant.

That said, Neymour's entrance into the Exuma race will leave the constituency too close to call--for now.

Notably, if Joshua Sears contests the South Beach seat as the standard bearer for the FNM, he has a more favourable chance of defeating Nurses Union president Cleola Hamilton (PLP), who has already been described by some residents as "charmless."

The Fox Hill seat could go either way. I'm told that the boundary cuts will now incorporate a polling division--out of Montagu and near to Step Street--in hopes of assisting challenger Dr Jacintha Higgs (a lady who wears the most enrapturing outfits) in gaining a foothold on the constituency and rendering current MP Fred Mitchell a seatless wonder. By all accounts, Mr Mitchell has been a visible, working MP, thereby leaving his opponent with a long, tough journey to the polls. My electoral crystal ball could not yet reveal a likely winner in this contest.

Kenyatta Gibson, the bombastic-talking MP for Kennedy, is abandoning the constituency and running as the FNM's candidate in South Eleuthera. Although incumbent MP Oswald Ingraham is in his 70s, he could still vie for the seat or be replaced by one of eight applicants for the PLP nomination--a list that I am told includes local government chief councilor Hank Johnson.

Although Mr Gibson and his family purportedly have roots in the constituency, it is likely that he will be sent deeper into political oblivion following the next election. It appears that Mr Gibson walked the Parliamentary floor and will now be walking out of Parliament altogether!

Tommy Turnquest holds a slight edge over Arnold Forbes in the race for Mount Moriah. Although the Bahamas remains in a state of national "un-security", Mr Forbes' campaign may become anemic and lose traction due to reported business-related issues emanating from Canada.

Comeback

Bain and Grants Town is likely to remain in the PLP column, as Dr Bernard Nottage is expected to take out whoever the FNM nominee will be. At this juncture, party insiders inform me that the former area MP Gregory Williams is vying for the nomination in an attempt to make a political comeback; also reportedly seeking the nod is former candidate David Jordine and Rev CB Moss, who is said to be in talks with the FNM. Of course, Bain and Grants Town is a traditionally PLP seat.

PLP leader Perry Christie will most certainly humiliate his challenger in the Farm Road constituency.

The race for the Marathon constituency is setting up to be a slugfest. Of late, newcomer Jerome Fitzgerald has amped up his courtship of constituents by purchasing alarm systems and having them installed in their homes. Whilst incumbent Dr Earl Deveaux certainly has the upper hand, having spoken to constituents and political insiders from both of the major parties, I've concluded that the Marathon brawl is too close to call at this time.

The contest for North Eleuthera constituency--given the decision of House Speaker Alvin Smith not to stand for re-election--should be an exciting race to watch. Purported FNM candidate Theo Neilly--an airport manager and local government chief councilor--is slated to run against Spanish Wells native and fellow local government councilor Clay Sweeting. However, for the FNM, lawyer Richard Lightbourne's name has also been mentioned as a possible nominee. Here again, it's too far out to call this race, particularly since--at least on the national scene--both candidates are political neophytes. However, I am told that the contest for North Eleuthera is expected to be a costly affair, with lots of money changing hands.

The voters of Golden Isles will rebuke MP Charles Maynard in a runoff where challenger Michael Halkitis is expected to beat the incumbent MP like a piñata. A walloping could leave Mr Maynard having fits of post-election hysteria and, like the movie Sleepless in Seattle, he'll likely be Sleepless in Golden Isles.

During his term in office, Mr Maynard has struck me as a representative/minister who--unlike the movie--politically has no true grit.

With Kenyatta Gibson speedily running away to Eleuthera, the Kennedy seat will easily remain a PLP stronghold with newcomer Dion Smith trouncing all challengers.

PLP Deputy Leader and MP for Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador Philip "Brave" Davis will put a spanking on FNM challenger George Wilson. In the past, Mr Wilson unsuccessfully ran as an independent candidate in the same constituency.

There is also another angle that must be explored relative to Mr Davis' political future as he has been speculated as having an interest in relocating to the St Cecilia seat. PLP insiders inform me that if Mr Davis runs in St Cecilia, the party is likely to send former Police Commissioner BK Bonamy to vie for the Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador seat.

There is chatter that Verna Grant, FNM MP for Eight Mile Rock, is facing some serious opposition. Purportedly, Ms Grant is attempting to retain her nomination as former Senator Kay Forbes is said to be interested in displacing Ms Grant and running for the FNM in that seat. In what some say will be a tumultuous election season for her, Ms Grant is also expected to face vigorous challenges from potential PLP nominees such as Sandra Edgecombe (former principal at Eight Mile Rock High), Caleb Outten or a yet unnamed opponent. This time around, it appears that the polls could go either way.

High Rock MP Kenneth Russell (FNM) will rout the still unnamed PLP challenger in this largely FNM borough.

Lucaya MP Neko Grant will torpedo the electoral hopes of supposed PLP nominee Dr Lea Percentie.

The Pineridge seat is being contested by two five-star candidates. It is unfortunate that one of these men will have to politically cancel out the other.

Current MP Kwasi Thompson has been an outstanding representative, whilst challenger PLP Senator Dr Michael Darville--who has a medical practice in the constituency--also earned much praise from residents.

Frankly, the PLP should have nominated Dr Darville in the Marco City constituency, as he is not overwhelmingly favoured to beat Mr Thompson as opposed to the outright favourable rating in a race against Zhivargo Laing. That said, Dr Darville is a formidable candidate and, whilst Mr Thompson holds a slight edge at this time, the quality of the candidates vying for the voters support in this race could cause the pendulum to swing either way. This race will certainly be a nail biter, i.e. if Dr Darville is not transplanted to contest the Marco City seat.

PLP incumbent Frank Smith will face-off against likely FNM challenger Linda Treco in the St Thomas More constituency. By all accounts, Mr Smith has earned the ire of the Prime Minister, so it is expected that the full weight of the FNM's electoral machinery will be coming down upon him.

Reliable sources inform me that upcoming boundary cuts will place a portion of St Thomas More in Loretta Butler-Turner's Montagu constituency, arguing that because she won by more than 1000 votes in the last election, she can likely absorb some votes against her and still preserve a comfortable margin in another victorious run. Apparently, a portion of Fox Hill will likewise be absorbed into Brent Symonette's St Anne's constituency. I'm also told that Paradise Island will become a part of the new St Thomas More constituency.

Creditable

Pinewood, a PLP foothold, could once again return to the party's win column. Frankly, MP Byron Woodside has done a creditable job in the constituency. However, a loss may, among other factors, be due to changes within the voting block and the luck of the political draw as the constituency has had an extensive love affair with the PLP. The race for Pinewood will no doubt be close and quite competitive.

According to sources, the PLP intend to run attorney Damian Gomez in Pinewood.

Flip a coin and, quite similarly, the Elizabeth constituency can go either way although incumbent Ryan Pinder (PLP) is favoured--at this juncture--to retain his seat. That said, I've been clued-up by FNM insiders of the likely mapping out of a favourable boundary cut for challenger Dr Duane Sands--a cut which is set to incorporate "more FNM polling divisions" and cut-out a part of Elizabeth Estates.

Edison Key will retain his South Abaco seat.

Prime Minister and FNM leader Hubert Ingraham will crush all challengers--whether that is Ky Mills and/or Jackson McIntosh--in the race for the North Abaco seat. Frankly, the electoral hopes of Mr Ingraham's challengers are comparable to running in quick sand--struggling and sinking fast!

As we enter another general election season, Bahamians must begin to demand true and visionary leadership within their constituencies and on the national front.

The upcoming general election will certainly--as is seen every five years--be a political circus. Indeed, this will be a helluva election season, which will leave--upon its conclusion--more than a handful of sitting MPs and electoral hopefuls reaching for a crying towel.

March 19, 2011

2012 General Election Predictions (Part 1) - Bahamas

tribune242

2012 General Election Predictions - Bahamas

Election predictions - part 1
By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com



AS ELECTION draweth nigh, it is anticipated that drama will surely accompany the impending showdown. Indeed, as ham/turkey/dryer/washer season rolls around once more, I'm hopeful that a more edified electorate will reject political paternalism and demand change--demand that the substantive societal/national issues are addressed.

Thus far, whilst the FNM party seems slow-footed in announcing its slate of candidates, the electioneering has clearly begun as is evident by Opposition Leader Perry Christie and his Deputy's (Philip Davis) flurry of Family Island trips conducting what they refer to as a listening tour.

Frankly, as the electoral clock ticks away, there are a few sitting Members of Parliament who have virtually fallen off a cliff and have literally disappeared in their constituencies whilst others are visionless and/or have adopted an attitude of entitlement and intolerance. Undoubtedly, there will be fits of hysteria and much whimpering following this electoral cycle. There are quite a number of politicians who are said to be on the endangered species list--marching onward toward the political gallows.

It is expected that the newly-constituted Boundaries Commission will redraw some constituency boundaries using recent census and voter registration data to determine population shifts and, frankly, the favourable cuts for electoral success.

Notably, the FNM must also be concerned about its weakening presence in Grand Bahama which continues to suffer immense economic woes.

That said, I've decided to don my monk's garb and attempt to read the political tea leaves, making preliminary electoral projections relative to the political odds of the purported candidates contesting seats in the upcoming elections. One must be mindful that this preliminary tally--to be later followed up--comes as ratifications and candidate selection is ongoing and, moreover, boundaries have yet to be cut.

Mano-a-mano, for Dr Hubert Minnis (FNM) the electoral race against opponent Jerome Gomez (PLP) will be like running against a cupcake. Depending on how far Dr Minnis outruns him at the polls--and it seems that the gap will be wide--Mr Gomez may need a powerful telescope to even see his opponent.

The doctor has been a stellar MP and a smooth political salesman who actually delivers. His challenger is likely to be politically manhandled in a horrifying loss that will expose him--politically--as a paper tiger.

Annihilate

PLP MP Obie Wilchcombe will politically annihilate purported FNM candidate Jeff Butler. Wilchcombe, an oratorically-gifted Parliamentarian, has been a superb MP and is likely to jettison Mr Butler--a grocery store owner--to the political dustbin.

PLP candidate Dr Danny Johnson is likely to be shell-shocked and in denial after being KO'd by Desmond Bannister in the Carmichael constituency. It is anticipated that Dr Johnson--son of the late MP Oscar Johnson, brother of former House Speaker Italia Johnson and son-in-law of the late former PM Sir Lynden Pindling--will mobilize the PLP's campaign machinery/resources in the area. That said, Dr Johnson is likely to have recurring nightmares following this election episode.

Contrary to recent speculation, Mr Bannister is set to run in Carmichael again although reliable sources inform me that due to purported variations of the electoral map-- that would be an attempt to cut-out strong polling divisions to save the politically unpopular Charles Maynard's seat--he considered a run in his home town, North Andros.

The reality is that if Mr Bannister--a strong candidate--loses, for the FNM, the domino effect would probably afflict the entire Southwestern area. Mr Bannister's electoral outcome could potentially coincide with the outcome of neighbouring seats. That said, he's expected to at least win his seat.

Former MP Leslie "Potcake" Miller will politically clobber incumbent Sidney Collie in Blue Hills.

This race is set to be a carnivorous affair. Constituents assert that Mr Collie has been a resounding disappointment, malignantly neglecting his constituency and performing abysmally.

Any expectancy of Mr Collie winning his seat is comparable to waiting for VAT 19 (liquor) to turn 20!

Naturally, both parties concede certain seats--for e.g. Long Island (usually FNM) and Englerston (traditionally PLP)--offering second tier candidates who are considered to be sacrificial lambs who make up the party's frontline numbers.

That said, the race for the Long Island/Ragged Island yields an exploitable mismatch as incumbent Larry Cartwright faces off against PLP newcomer Alex Storr--son of businessman Henry F Storr. Unfortunately for him, in Long Island, Mr Storr will suffer a humiliating loss.

Branville McCartney, depending on his political decisions, could likely retain his Bamboo Town seat.

As an FNM, and perhaps even if Mr McCartney becomes an independent, he would be a strong and favoured contender. However, if he joins a new party, he will suffer a political death.

Currently, Mr McCartney is in a very critical position politically, however he must rid himself of any notion that its normal to be "half-pregnant"--that is, either he's with the FNM or he's not.

Will Mr McCartney's move happen during the BTC debate? Were his recent comments/actions a precursor to what his true intentions are, that is, to separate himself from the pack and portray himself as a man with the gumption to stand against Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham? Is his decision predicated upon the position he takes with the BTC debate? In the wake of the Prime Minister's recent remarks relative to a snap election if all FNM MPs do not support the BTC sale in Parliament, is the ground now loosening under Mr McCartney?

I've been informed that the Clifton constituency will no longer exist. Moreover, as a result of this constituency being eliminated, I'm told that incumbent MP Kendal Wright will be offered a nomination to contest the Golden Gates seat. I'm told that because Mr Wright was raised in the Sunshine Park area of the constituency, he should be a "natural fit" to challenge incumbent MP Shane Gibson. Frankly, barring any other happenings, Wright--who is an uninspiring candidate--will lose to Shane Gibson, who is a political powerhouse in the area and has a diehard support base.

The MICAL constituency is being divided into the Inagua and Mayaguana constituency and Acklins, Crooked Island and Long Cay, respectively.

FNM Senator Dion "The Bruiser" Foulkes is set to triumph over his challenger in the new Inagua and Mayaguana constituency.

Nomination

I was told that the likely forerunner for the FNM nomination in Acklins, Crooked Island and Long Cay was Johnley Ferguson. However, that appears to be a moot point now that Mr Ferguson has signed a two year contract as a consultant with the Department of Lands and Surveys. Incumbent Alfred Gray is likely to put a shellacking on his opponent.

South Andros MP Picewell Forbes will be wielding a big, electoral tamarind switch for FNM challenger and COB lecturer Zendal Forbes. Although Picewell Forbers may encounter some difficulties if former MP Whitney Bastian nominates as an independent candidate, he's expected to retain the seat with Mr Z Forbes coming a distant third as an "also-ran" candidate.

FNM insiders assert that Carl Bethel has worn-out his welcome in Sea Breeze. However, his uncertain political fortune is dependent upon the candidate that the PLP settles on running against Mr Bethel.

Of late, Hope Strachan--Bethel's strongest challenger--has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Fort Charlotte MP Alfred Sears who has announced that he will not seek re-election.

However, if Ms Strachan remains in Sea Breeze, Carl Bethel will suffer a shellacking.

In 2007, Ms Strachan lost by 60-plus votes after campaigning in the constituency for a mere six weeks.

Mr Bethel appears out of touch with the electorate and, unfortunately, has a massive risk factor concerning his candidacy--that is, the perception that he's arrogant and egotistical.

Moreover, another scenario discussed is the possible nomination of lawyer Myles Laroda in Sea Breeze, apparently the PLP's compromise for snubbing him in South Beach. Frankly, Laroda would be defeated by Bethel. The PLP's best chance of capturing that seat is to leave Hope Strachan as the nominee. No doubt, the PLP would be smart to smack down any inkling to move Ms Strachan to the other side of town.

The Fort Charlotte district--no longer being contested by PLP MP Alfred Sears--should be a political duel.

Sources assert that the boundaries will extend further into Dr Minnis' Killarney constituency to facilitate a successful run by FNM candidate Vincent Vanderpool Wallace.

I'm also informed that the recently departed former NDP leader (now PLP) Dr Andre Rollins is also vying for the nod in Fort Charlotte. There are those who argue that Dr Rollins--a political journeyman--lacks the political capital to win a contest. The race for Fort Charlotte could go either way.

Brent Symonette will retain the St Annes seat. Mr Symonette, who won nearly 64 per cent of the votes cast in his constituency in the last general election, will handily dispatch any challengers (said to be Billy Nottage or another applicant).

Loretta Butler-Turner will banish her challenger to the political wilderness and roar down victory lane in the Montagu constituency.

Mrs Butler-Turner won by a margin of more than 68 per cent of the total votes cast in her constituency during the last general election--the largest margin that year.

FNM nominee for St Cecilia Karen Shepherd--the former president of the Women's Association--will be a victim of circumstance. In a traditionally PLP stronghold, Ms Shepherd is a rookie politician whose candidacy reminds me of a wilting candle.

I'm informed that Ms Shepherd requested to run in St Cecilia since her father James Shepherd--a member of the Dissident Eight--once represented the area.

However, from the looks of things, Ms Shepherd could perhaps begin writing her biography, with it perhaps reading "I also ran in St Cecilia, etcetera" and being filled out during her lifetime.

Glenys Hanna-Martin has a strong political wind at her back in the Englerston constituency. The constituency is also a traditional PLP stronghold.

March 18, 2011

2012 General Election Predictions (Part 2) - Bahamas

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

The threat of excessive public sector debt in The Bahamas...

The national debt

thenassauguardian editorial



Governments, international agencies, rating agencies and most businessmen regard the level of national debt to the size of the economy (GDP) as one of the most important economic indicators in assessing the current and future health of the economy.

The national debt consists of funds borrowed directly by the government plus any debt of the government corporations which have been guaranteed by the government.

Governments usually borrow funds when there is a need to undertake capital projects (office buildings, schools, roads, docks etc.) and the revenue from taxes is insufficient to cover the capital works.

The size of any economy determines the level of potential taxes that could be collected to meet government expenditure needs for, among other things, education, health, law enforcement, social welfare and of course, debt servicing of any loans taken out by the government.

Current and future living standards in any country are influenced by the amount of resources applied by governments, on a yearly basis, to education, health, national security, social welfare and other public sector areas.

In order to ensure that sufficient resources are available on a sustainable basis for those fundamental public sector functions, good fiscal management compels governments to restrain the growth in debt servicing to a level where it does not threaten to crowd-out and push aside the needs of the other important sectors of society.

In many third-world countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the public resources from tax revenues to finance public debt have exceeded the public resources allocations for education and health; a position considered by many as an undesirable path towards the lowering of living standards.

In an attempt to address poor policy choices by governments, international agencies such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and the IDB (Inter-American Development Bank) which provide economic advice on a global basis, urge governments to try and keep debt ratios (total national debt as a percentage of total national output or GDP) to a reasonable level.

In the case of developing countries such as The Bahamas, the level suggested is somewhere in the region of 40 percent.

Most countries, particularly those in the developing world, have fallen short of that objective.

Indeed, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago at 26 percent, many developing countries are in the high 80s (Barbados) or, in some cases the ratio exceeded 100 percent, (Jamaica at 123 percent for example), while the European countries have set the debt to GDP ratio at 60 percent as the desired level for their community. Our nearest neighbor and largest trading partner, the United States, has a debt to GDP ratio that stands at an unusually high level of 97 percent.

When a country’s debt to GDP is high, it implies that the country is struggling and could have difficulty servicing its debt.

Currently The Bahamas’ ratio is in the high 50s and growing.

It is not yet in troublesome territory but given the trend over the past few years and the growing commitments to further borrowing, including the Chinese loans and the associated capital needs of the utility companies, there is surely some cause for some concern.

The policy makers and other interested parties would need to closely monitor the debt situation to ensure that the nation’s economy remains healthy and that our living standards are not threatened by excessive public sector debt.

3/18/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham: I would not be late in calling the next general election

PM Laments Election Costs

By Macushla N. Pinder



If Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham had his way, he would reform the way general elections play out in The Bahamas.

This he said would include shaving down the amount of money spent on the process.

"In order to make elections less expensive, I’d like for political parties to all agree and to make illegal the giving away of t-shirts at election time. It’s a very expensive proposition. It drives up costs," Mr. Ingraham told reporters yesterday.

"In other parts of the world like Barbados, people come in and buy the party’s shirt. They pay their $5 and $10 for it. In The Bahamas, we give out thousands and thousands and it’s very expensive."

The prime minister’s comment came during his response to campaign finance reform, an issue that always arises when another general election draws near.

During the 2002 election season, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) promised to address the matter, but nothing was ever made public in this regard.

The party at the time said, "The Constitution ought to provide that Parliament may prescribe by law for open and fairness in procedure for funding of parties at elections both local and national. There ought to be prescribed national limits on party political expenditure with appropriate penalties."

After the 2007 general election, former Prime Minister Perry Christie suggested that one of the reasons the Free National Movement won is because special interest groups and "hidden forces" heavily financed it.

But Prime Minister Ingraham yesterday told reporters he has no difficulty "whatsoever" disclosing the source of his funding.

He however pointed out that those countries that do have campaign finance laws have found them to be "very ineffective."

But places that do have campaign finance laws, they have found it to be very ineffective.

"What they spend on elections in the United States is unbelievable and they have campaign finance laws. You cannot legislate honesty. The dishonest would be dishonest no matter what you do," he said.

In addition to campaign finance laws, some Bahamians also believe that public debates heading into a general election should be a must.

Mr. Ingraham however disagrees.

"I think parties put forward their platforms and programmes and the public has the opportunity to choose," he said.

"There are debates that take place everyday. When we have the rally, we will have a debate. We will say what we have to say. The next side will say what they have to say. I don’t think one-off is going to help people help make their minds up one way or the other. I think we have a very effective system."

While keeping mum on when the next general election will take place, the prime minister assured Bahamians he would not be late in calling it.

"It will not be that my minister of immigration would be in Marsh Harbour, Abaco swearing in new citizens – Haitians, who were given citizenship – and they go next door to register to vote and the prime minister in Nassau announces that elections have been called," he said.

"I will not be doing that kind of foolishness."

March 17th, 2011

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International

How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest in our beloved Bahamas

'Political operatives' and the 'criminally-minded'
tribune242 editorial

POLICE Staff Association president Dwight Smith during an interview with the press after the February 23 demonstration on Bay Street urged politicians to stop politicising issues.

He was defending his Force from a politician's criticism of the worth of police reports, which were used in another case to decide the suitability of a person for a high office.  Mr Smith was also smarting under the criticism of how "over prepared" police were when they arrived on Bay Street for the BTC demonstration.  It would have been irresponsible - after a union leader had declared that a "small Egypt" was needed on Bay Street to protest the sale of BTC - if police had not come fully prepared -- with its canine unit and all.  The unionist was accused of instigating social unrest, and so the police were ready.

Mr Smith pointed out that the type of persons he saw among the crowd that day made it necessary for the police to do their job to ensure the safety of protesters and observers.  He said the police had difficulty with those participating in the protest who had "nothing to do with BTC," but were there "advancing political groups."

"We saw so many things that were going on.  I, for one, wondered if we were dealing with a BTC situation or if we were dealing with a political situation.  For the life of me I could not understand what was going on," Mr Smith told the press.

The demonstration was said to have been organised by the Committee to Save BTC, but PLP members made a strong appearance.

Mr Smith said downtown merchants called to complain about a group of young protesters who were dropped off in the George Street area.  As they walked to the protest, merchants claimed they stopped in store after store "causing a disturbance."

"I walked there personally and saw them. I knew some of them and talked to them.  I heard them say, if they did not get paid there is going to be problems.  I had to encourage some of them to come out of the stores.  They had no reason to go in the stores.

"They were just being disruptive," said Mr Smith.

"My view is there were only a handful of persons there who were really dealing with BTC.  If you were to speak to some of those persons, they did not know why they were out there.  They did not know what they were out there for.If we were to really do the due diligence, we'll find a lot of them did not understand what was going on," he said.

It was suggested that "political operatives" had paid many persons -- some if them referred to by the police as "criminally minded" -- to demonstrate on Bay Street.  As the late Kendal Isaacs, QC, who refused his party's request to lead a demonstration, pointed out, he would have been responsible for any breach of the peace caused by the demonstrators.  These "political operatives," and Rodney Moncur, who has called for 10,000 demonstrators, should reconsider the consequences.  And to help them understand their responsibilities the police should enforce the law -- especially against persons who would have paid these demonstrators to create the disturbance.

How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest and then demand that they obey the law when their services are no longer needed?  We expect the police to protect residents against these very same people.  However, when caught by the law they will look to their political paymasters to save them from prison.

Reminds us of the PLP election when drug dealers were desperate that the PLP be returned to power.  Rightly or wrongly, true or false, there was the perception that this party was their guardian.  The call was passed down the line -- especially in Eleuthera -- to get the fast boats ready.  As soon as the PLP were elected the operators expected to be back in business.  Some were so bold that they talked openly to our reporters, calling names of their political protectors.

We recall the talks that Magistrate Hercules and the late Sir Etienne Dupuch had many years ago when they took their morning constitutional on Cayman's Five Mile Beach.  Magistrate Hercules, a tough, no nonsense magistrate, left the Bahamas after several years here.  His complaint was about the political interference he had to suffer when certain "criminally-minded persons" appeared before him. It was more than he could take.

If we expect the police to be effective in controlling crime, then this culture of using persons on the wrong side of the law when it suits certain purposes, must end.

March 16, 2011

tribune242 editorial

We recommend that Rodney Moncur and Company forget about the "10,000 strong" demonstration against the sale of Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)

Large or small -- paid demonstrations prove nothing
tribune242 editorial





THERE are those -- mainly BTC unionists and opposition politicians-- who maintain that the majority of Bahamians are against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.

In today's Tribune Dr Elwood Donaldson, a former cabinet minister in the Pindling government, said his group believes that the majority of Bahamians agree that selling BTC is a bad idea.   He claimed that such a sale would reverberate through history as the "greatest blunder" of any Bahamian government.

Rodney Moncur, another political activist, has called for 10,000 demonstrators to converge on Bay Street to object to the sale of the telecommunications company on the day that it is debated in parliament.   He has urged the PLP to show its sincerity by delivering 6,000 supporters to join the march.  So far in all the calls for demonstrators, these activists have been hard pressed to attract a crowd -- their largest showing has been about 500 persons.  Police have confirmed hearing some among that 500, who are "well known" to them, complain that if they were not paid there was going to be problems.

Now that it has been revealed that certain "political activists" have paid persons to go to Bay Street to make up the numbers for the crowd scene, it no longer matters whether 500 or 10,000 of them show up.   This does not answer the question of whether the majority of Bahamians are for or against the BTC sale.   All it shows is that a goodly number of bodies on Bay Street are there for their promised $85 to push, shove and shout, and give the police a hard time.   Already we hear squabbling among what the police have referred to as the "criminally-minded" complaining about not receiving money promised for their hour on Bay Street on February 23.  It is claimed that the going price was supposed to be $85, but some only collected $40 or $50 for their paid-for "demonstration."

From talking to persons, one-on-one, and studying the various independent polls, we are left with the impression that the majority of Bahamians -- even among unionists -- are looking forward to efficient telecommunications service and lower rates.  As several have said: "We can't wait for the day!"  They approve the sale. These persons have been paid nothing for their opinion.

However, once a demonstration ceases to be spontaneous, demonstrators' numbers don't count -- they no longer represent accurate opinions -- in fact they represent no opinion. Now that it is known they are paid, their numbers impress no one, and the organisers are made to look foolish.  It is just one big, noisy, bogus show. We hope that the organisers will be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever damage might be caused by what is certain to turn into a mob scene.

Paying persons to produce mob-scenes is nothing new. We remember one day early on in the first Ingraham administration, one of our press men asked to see us.  By now he was a man past middle age, a reformed gang member, who on occasion still hung out with "the boys."   The night before, he told us, Sir Lynden had been to visit the "boys", a demonstration was being organised for Bay Street and for a price he wanted help from the "boys."

We don't recall what the incident was about -- there were so many incidents in those days -- but the so-called protest took place. Having been tipped off by our staff member, we had reporters mingle among the crowd for interviews.

The demonstrators were asked why they were there and what the demonstration was all about. Not one of them knew.

This is the response that we get from most demonstrators -- either they don't know what the issues are, or they are highly inebriated and don't care about the issues, or their information is so garbled that they make themselves look foolish.  It makes one wonder about democracy and the one-man-one-vote theory.

We agree with Sir Winston Churchill when he said:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

We recommend that Mr Moncur - and whatever other political activists there are of like mind -- forget about the 10,000-strong demonstration.   Their crowds will prove nothing. Among them will be the undesirables who will harass shop keepers, as they did on February 23 when police had to be called in to order them out.  Among them, said one policeman, were persons "well known to us." All of us should know what that expression means in police jargon.

These organisers are playing Russian roulette when they have among their group such persons, who instead of being out on the streets should be awaiting their day in court behind bars.

March 15, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Chinese loans are cheap... and The Bahamas is borrowing... What's the catch?

The limitations of the Chinese love affair

thenassauguardian editorial




The Bahamas has fallen fully into the embrace of China. And the rising empire has been kind with its “gifts.”

The $2.6 billion Baha Mar project and the $70 million airport highway are being financed by China. Last week, the government announced that the China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. will build the North Abaco Port and by-pass road; a bridge between Little and Great Abaco; a port and by-pass highway in Exuma; and the Eleuthera Glass Window Bridge and approaching embankments.

The airport highway money is a part of the $1 billion in loans set aside for the Caribbean by China. The Bahamas has been allocated $150 million of that amount.

Chinese loans are cheap. And The Bahamas is borrowing. What is tied to Chinese money in the developing world, however, is Chinese labor. When China lends or invests in poor countries, it sends lots of Chinese workers to construct the projects it finances.

For poor countries struggling to attract investment or to solicit financing, there is little resolve to make demands of the rising power.

Here in The Bahamas, Sarkis Izmirlian and Baha Mar needed financing. Baha Mar received that financing from China and it also received 8,150 foreign workers (who mostly will be Chinese).

The government borrowed cheap money from China for the airport highway and it received 200 Chinese workers. How many hundreds of Chinese will be forced on The Bahamas to build the Family Island ports and infrastructure upgrades announced last week?

What Bahamians must understand is that when China lends, and it contracts its workers to do the work, a significant amount of the money borrowed goes back to China with the workers who build the project. They pay their workers with money we borrow.

In addition, The Bahamas gets the bill for the loan. Over the years, the interest and principal payments also go to China.

The Chinese also keep their workers on self-contained on-site camps when they are sent abroad. We barely even get them to visit our stores to spend the money we borrowed when they are working in our countries.

The Bahamas should embrace Chinese investment. Without Baha Mar, our near future would look less bright. But The Bahamas must be careful regarding the relationship it develops with China regarding the labor issue.

We lose a significant chuck of the value of these investments when our uneducated laborers are denied work because Chinese get these jobs.

China brilliantly creates unequal trade relationships. China’s manipulated currency has helped it suck a significant portion of manufacturing from the West. It then loans the cash it has made back to countries such as the United States to buy more of its products.

China is now the second largest economy in the world and in the near future it will displace the United States as the world largest economy.

Much debate is needed among our policymakers about the Bahamian-Chinese embrace. We must find ways to continue to attract Chinese money that comes with fewer Chinese workers attached.

We think Chinese investment should be welcomed. We also think a reasonable number of Chinese workers should be accepted. However, China building most of our infrastructure projects and commercial projects almost solely with Chinese labor is not acceptable.

If China does not budge to the representations of a small place such as this, or a small region such as ours, we then have to do some analysis to determine if it is wise to borrow as much from China as opposed to other commercial lenders who do not set similar labor requirements. This issue is not simple.

Bahamians have thus far been okay with China’s involvement in The Bahamas. But as the numbers of Chinese coming to country get larger and larger with each announced project, the attitude towards China in The Bahamas will change. When a country has a double-digit unemployment level, its citizens get upset when foreigners get lots of jobs in their country.

Our political parties must be careful with this relationship. More concessions on the labor issue are needed from a China that does not like to compromise.

3/15/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Kendal Isaacs: ...a reasonable, and responsible man

Why Sir Kendal refused to lead a demonstration

tribune242 editorial





SEVERAL years ago the late Sir Kendal Isaacs, then leader of the FNM, resisted the urging of his members to lead a peaceful protest outside the House of Assembly. We do not recall the occasion, but it was just after the conclusion of the Commission of Inquiry into drug smuggling when there was much political unrest in the country.

Sir Kendal, not only a reasonable, but a responsible man, said he would never take the responsibility of leading a demonstration. Why? Because, no one could control a crowd of people, especially if they should turn into a frenzied mob. He did not want to shoulder the inevitable tragic consequences of damage a violent mob could do. So there was no demonstration.

Speaking to party members at their Gambier headquarters last Tuesday, PLP Leader Perry Christie told supporters that come the 2012 election the PLP was committed to "play it straight." The party's campaign will be "aggressive" and "spirited", he promised, but would be conducted with "respect for, and adherence, to the elementary values of integrity, decency and dignity that are so sorely lacking in our country today."

Mr Christie said his party was going "to set the pace and set the tone because we are convinced that political morality, human decency and civility require us to do so."

Of course we saw none of this high-mindedness displayed when a crowd descended on Rawson Square on February 23, as police struggled to hold the barricades and shouts went up to "secure the House."

It was meant to be a peaceful union demonstration to save BTC from the clutches of C&W, but unionists were sidelined in a swirl of PLP supporters dressed in yellow "no turning back" shirts and a large contingent of PLP youth.

One policeman later commented that the first hand he saw touch a metal barricade to force it down was that of a man with a murder charge pending. Rumours were rife, resulting in National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest eventually confirming that, according to police reports, several violent criminals were also among the crowd protesting outside Parliament that day.

Mr Christie was quick to deny the rumours that many protesters were paid by the PLP to demonstrate. He said he certainly "paid no one." He also condemned Mr Turnquest for using "confidential police information" about criminal elements being a part of what was meant to be a "peaceful" demonstration, but turned out to be anything but peaceful. Of course, on such an occasion, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell had to get in his own snide remark about paid demonstrators. "Aside from that being untrue, so what if they were paid?" he asked, referring to the practice during the PLP's early protests in the 1960s.

"To mobilise people takes resources: food, buses, and communication, emergency care to name a few of the possible expenses.

"So let's not get distracted by that fact."

We don't intend to get distracted by that fact, nor were the police to be distracted. Upset by another remark made in another context by Mr Mitchell about police reports, Police Staff Association president Dwight Smith stepped in to confirm on Friday that criminally-minded people were overheard to say that they had been paid to participate in the February 23 protest. And, he added, it was undeniable that there were people in the crowd with potential criminal motives. Mr Smith urged politicians to stop policising issues. Police already had a difficult crime problem to deal with, they had no need for politicians to add to their responsibilities.

The leader of the Opposition's office is located in the Bayparl building, as are several other offices, including the Ministry of Tourism. Reports from eyewitnesses and eavesdroppers tell the following tale:

After the court gave its ruling on the Elizabeth Estate election case, a group of persons lined the stairs leading the door of the Opposition's office. Among them was a "gentleman" who is extremely well known to the police. The persons on the stairs made it known to everyone within earshot that they were there for their "f money!" Someone opened the Opposition door and gave them some money. They were not satisfied. "Listen," said their spokesman, "we did what you asked us to do, now we want our money!" They were shouting the names of two MPs. They demanded to see them. Mr Christie was not one of them.

About a week ago Wednesday, after the recent demonstration, a group of boys were again outside the same office, asking for a certain PLP politician -- again not Mr Christie. This time they were demanding their money for the part they had played in the Bay Street demonstration.

Persons who were there described a scene that suggested that these persons needed money to reimburse them for more than Mr Mitchell's necessary bus ride to get to the site of the action.

March 14, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet is still unfathomable to many Bahamians

Branville McCartney’s Folly

by Simon


Former junior minister Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet under three years is still unfathomable to many Bahamians. Just as his statements since his return to the backbench have proven baffling and contradictory, his stated reasons for leaving remain inexplicable. He claims not to have left over a matter of policy.

In parliamentary systems such as ours, cabinet experience is not a prerequisite for serving as prime minister. Still, it provides one of the best training cum proving grounds for the office. Cabinet service is where a potential chief executive is observed and graded by multiple audiences, including the public at large.

In significant ways, ministers are more closely vetted by those who see them up- close, including civil servants and various national stakeholders. They are sized-up by their party faithful and opposition parties. There is relentless media scrutiny. Yet, there is a smaller though no less critical audience a future prime minister has to impress.

Cabinet is where the nation’s business is prioritized, and where fateful decisions are made affecting the country for generations. Only those who have sat in cabinet truly understand the burdens, the capacity to do so much good for so many, as well as the risk of doing great harm or not doing enough.

People with healthy egos and considerable ambition tend to sit in the cabinet, collaborating and competing. As they wrestle with endless decisions on a dizzying array of issues, they are constantly taking each other’s measure.

PERSPECTIVE

They assess each other as equals and identify who among them may be the best to serve as the first among equals or prime minister. They have a unique perspective. It is a perspective which considers many of the characteristics and skills needed in a potential prime minister at a particular stage in a country’s history.

Though the mild-mannered Clement Attlee did not possess the sizzling charisma of Winston Churchill, he was Labour’s choice to fight the 1945 British general election against the roaring lion who had just triumphantly led the United Kingdom through World War II.

Churchill and his Conservatives lost in a landslide to Atlee’s Labour Party which ushered in the most sweeping social and welfare reforms in British history, including the National Health Service.

Mr. Attlee obviously had to win public support. But before that he had to win the confidence of his party, parliamentary and cabinet colleagues, who were peers of great ambition, strong character and ability.

He had to be tested in terms of his judgement and ability to govern, steadiness under pressure and resilience, and what today we call multiple intelligences, including those of style and substance.

In the political realm, the former refers to one’s political and personal touch, the latter to intellectual capacity. That intellectual capacity includes an ability to appreciate the complexities of various issues, curiosity and a willingness to grow.

Having left the cabinet, the Bamboo Town MP seems more interested in making the case for himself as a future prime minister in the press. In so doing, he has removed himself from one of his toughest audiences as well as one of the best training grounds for prime minister.

There are newcomers who do not follow the traditional path to the ultimate political prize, though these tend to be the exception. And such exception demands exceptional politicians.

Barack Obama and David Cameron are young leaders who, despite relatively few years at the highest levels of national politics, proved exceptional enough to respectively become US President and British Prime Minister in record time.

In addition to impressing media, business and opinion leaders, both won over their political peers and party members and officials. Is Mr. McCartney casting himself in the likes of Messrs. Obama and Cameron? If so, he is not doing terribly well.

The country and his former cabinet colleagues know that he is ambitious. But that ambition does not appear to be tied to great purpose or ability. He has not offered the predicate for why he should be the nation’s chief executive.

In public statements and parliamentary interventions, Mr. McCartney has proven intellectually underwhelming and often glib, seemingly more comfortable with clichés and off the cuff remarks than substantive ideas or vision. Only his cabinet colleagues know how much -- or little -- he offered around the table.

COLLECTIVE

His contention that he left because of being underutilized and insufficiently challenged seems odd. Immigration is a substantial brief with considerable challenges. The rookie politician also had an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate his judgement on the numerous issues which confronted the cabinet as a part of the principle of collective responsibility.

Instead of hunkering down and wrestling with the not so sexy issues and nuts and bolts of government, Mr. McCartney abruptly left. It was an unusual decision given the enormous opportunity and privilege.

Some feel that Mr. McCartney has charisma or style, making him popular with various supporters. But popularity or friends on Facebook is not synonymous with real support. He has also been described by some as being adept at public relations.

A facility with staging events and working the press is not the same as having a compelling message that is considered and serious. In party councils and parliamentary meetings, Mr. McCartney’s colleagues are underwhelmed.

His interventions in the House are rambling, his debating skills are not the strongest and his policy analysis is typically weak. On various immigration matters he often seemed to play to the gallery and nativist instincts.

Significant numbers of illegal migrants have been repatriated to their countries before and after Mr. McCartney’s time at Immigration. Further, he did not stay long enough to institute many of the reforms needed in immigration policy, including modernizing the Department of Immigration.

Mr. McCartney decided to leave cabinet at a moment of considerable historical significance. Instead of staying to help make the many momentous decisions during some of the more difficult days of the recent global financial crisis and now a tentative recovery, he left his post.

He was not in the mix when many of the tough calls were made. He stayed on the margins and in the press mostly noting what his former colleagues had done wrong and at times suggesting what he would have done.

Some observers suggest that Mr. McCartney is stylizing himself after Hubert Ingraham, who made his mark by leaving Sir Lynden Pindling’s cabinet and then retiring his former leader. The historic and character parallels between Mr. Ingraham and Mr. McCartney are weak, with the latter lacking the former’s prodigious intellectual and political skills, not to mention the issue of motive in each case.

TUTORIAL

To better understand Mr. Ingraham’s skills and hone his own, Mr. McCartney would have been wiser had he stayed in his cabinet to learn up-close from the successful prime minister he wishes to succeed. From Hubert Ingraham he would have enjoyed an unparalleled tutorial in political and executive leadership.

Mr. Ingraham knows that he must prepare for the future leadership of his party and the country after he leaves office. Towards this end, he has publicly noted that he is providing opportunities for a new generation of leaders. One of those was Branville McCartney, who appears to believe that he is ready to be prime minister now.

Many politicians have been felled or had their plans disrupted because of overreach. As he proceeds, Mr. McCartney may want to seek the wise counsel of the Grecian tragedies as the counsel he is keeping is failing him -- miserably.

He might wish to recall the fate of Icarus, who tumbled from great heights to the ground because of unbridled ego and hubris. In addition to the Greeks, Mr. McCartney may wish to immerse himself in the workings of cabinet government.

He may come to better appreciate that in his desire to become first among equals in the cabinet, he needs to demonstrate that he is truly a team player and a peer committed to collective responsibility instead of overweening personal ambition.

Unlike Clement Atlee, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Hubert Ingraham, Mr. McCartney has not come near to convincing his peers and political colleagues that he has the gravitas needed to be prime minister.

In his march of folly, he may wish to remember that he is seeking to become the Bahamian prime minister in a system of collective responsibility, not president of a system such as that of the United States. Yet even in the latter system, one has to win the support of political colleagues, something Mr. McCartney has utterly failed to do.

bahamapundit

The agenda to derail the privatisation of Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) for political gain and to protect vested interests

Propaganda and the pending BTC privatisation

By LARRY SMITH



AND now class, today we are going to talk about propaganda. Does anyone know what the word means?

It derives from the Latin for propagate, which means to multiply, reproduce or transmit. In this case, we are talking about spreading information.

What kind of information? Well, that is often hard to say. The key point to remember is that the information being presented will have an agenda. And in order to judge the value and quality of the information, you need to determine what that agenda is.

In a nutshell, propaganda uses loaded messages to produce an emotional response in support of an often hidden objective. And ever since the 1930s (when German and Soviet propaganda promoted state-sponsored genocide) the term has acquired a strong negative meaning - for good reason.

Journalists are supposed to be trained to give their audiences a reasonably accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand. Advertisers use an overt form of propaganda to persuade people to buy their products or services. Public relations lies somewhere in between, often presenting itself as journalism in support of a proprietary theme, which is not necessarily nefarious.

What sets propaganda apart more than anything else is that it seeks to influence public opinion through deception and confusion, rather than by encouraging genuine understanding.

According to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

What points instantly spring to mind in the local context? No turning back (to white rule); stop, review and cancel (good economic initiatives); Hubert "the dictator" Ingraham; selling our birthright (to white foreigners), the plantation economy (enslaves blacks).

But it's not just about repetitive slander. As British wartime propagandist (and later cabinet minister) Richard Crossman said: "The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear."

This is what we are seeing today with the (currently) one-sided debate over the pending privatisation of BTC.

Let's look at the recent constructs of a massive conspiracy to corruptly engineer the sale of BTC against the interests and wishes of the Bahamian people. Evidence for this is said to rest on a series of conflicts of interest, and was recently given credence by retired Tribune journalist Nicky Kelly, who now writes a column for the Punch.

"One has to ask why the PM is so motivated to pursue a deal that is so suspect, and the machinations of its participants so obvious, that they exhaust credulity," Kelly wrote.

In this view, a small group of unrelated people began moving chess pieces years ago to achieve the present result - the sale of half of BTC to Cable & Wireless Communications, within a regulatory environment developed and controlled by former CWC employees.

The inference is that the plot was hatched by CWC, with the support of leading Bahamian politicians and technical advisors, to save its future Caribbean business prospects. Or maybe it was the other way round, and our top politicos and bureaucrats simply planned to enrich themselves from CWC. In either case, the full background to the story is largely ignored and a massive corrupt scheme is offered as the obvious reality. The clear agenda is to derail the privatisation of BTC, both for political gain and to protect vested interests.

The full background to the story includes the fact that there were no less than three public bodies responsible for decision-making - the cabinet, the privatisation advisory committee, and the privatisation working committee. There were also two sets of financial advisors - KPMG Bahamas and CITI, a major international bank - as well as two legal advisors - Charles Russell, a British firm specialising in communications law (which also advised the Christie administration on regulatory reform), and local law firm Higgs & Johnson.

In short, there were significant checks and balances. And with so many separate groups of advisors it would be very difficult for a specific conflict of interest to flow through to a final sale. It also has to be acknowledged that the goal of liberalising the communications sector and finding a major strategic partner for BTC has been the accepted policy of both major parties for years - even more so in the case of the FNM, which launched the process in 1998.

And what about those conflicts of interest that have been selectively ignored by the conspiracy theorists. Conflicts like the participation of some of the major antagonists in the current debate in the earlier sale that was agreed by the Christie administration with Bluewater Ventures - a foreign firm with uncertain ownership and no operating history.

It has been suggested that some of them were heavily involved when that deal went down - together with some of the leaders of the same unions that are now so critical of the current process. What chess pieces were these players moving?

The Christie administration cancelled the original privatisation process launched by the FNM after rejecting existing bids, and then proceeded to negotiate solely with Bluewater from 2005 until the general election in May 2007. How is this any different from the Ingraham administration rejecting bids received in the current process, and then talking to CWC?

And let's not forget to take into account the stark contrast between Bluewater, an unknown private equity firm, and CWC, a major international telecoms provider with a long and publicly reported background in the field.

In fact, almost all of the bidders for BTC throughout this long and complicated process were private financiers who saw an opportunity to make money. Digicell and CWC are the most obvious telecoms buyers in the region, but Digicell (which decided not to bid in the last auction) is purely a cellular operator. CWC is one of the few entities that does everything BTC does throughout the region and has a strategic reason to invest for the long-term. And since CWC has been interested in the Bahamas for the last 15 years, how can it suddenly be suspicious when they step up to the plate?

It is easy to research a large global business like Cable & Wireless, which may have problems in some areas but a very healthy balance sheet overall. In fact, CWC is a leader in all regional markets except Jamaica where they are second. It should also be noted that, although declining to participate in the most recent auction due to an internal reorganisation, CWC eventually went through the same entry process as all other bidders.

As for the terms of the CWC agreement, it is a fact that all the bidders required BTC's unfunded pension deficit to be covered by government - including Bluewater. How can this now be "repugnant" to the PLP, when they agreed to pay off the full deficit and close the pension plan entirely. I would suggest that there is no business in the world where employees make zero contributions to their own pensions while the employer pays 20 per cent of salaries into a fund. This obviously has a huge impact on BTC's value.

It is also true that all the bidders - including Bluewater - demanded a management fee in their plans, something which some commentators find egregious. The rationale for the fee that was eventually agreed is that CWC brings a lot of added value to BTC in terms of technology and intellectual property, which will significantly benefit the other shareholder. This is normal practice where a minority partner is involved, and industry benchmarks are used to set the fee scale.

Clearly, connecting the dots selectively amounts to spouting propaganda. It does nothing to help people reach a genuine understanding of the issues. This is known as pinpointing the enemy - simplifying a complex situation by presenting a specific group or person as the enemy in a clear-cut choice between right and wrong. And the better informed you are, the less susceptible you will be to this type of propaganda.

One of the worst allegations in this saga was made recently by PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts (who was the minister responsible for BTC in the Christie administration). He accused current BTC chairman Julian Francis of a corrupt conflict of interest in awarding to Providence Advisors (a financial services company which Francis also chairs) a lucrative contract to manage part of the BTC pension fund.

"As a result of this contract that Julian Francis awarded to himself, he positioned himself and Providence Advisors Ltd to be paid in excess of $400,000 per annum for the past 3 years," Roberts said. "The PLP calls for Julian Francis' immediate resignation and for the police to commence investigations..."

The facts are that efforts to place BTC pension funds with local investment managers began in 2006 under the Christie administration, when Greg Bethel was BTC chairman and also president of Fidelity Bank & Trust - one of the firms chasing the business. Providence, headed by Kenwood Kerr, was also invited to bid, and was eventually approved (along with Fidelity and CFAL) in a process guided by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche.

The actual contract was not executed until after the 2007 general election, and Francis (who is not a Providence shareholder) had nothing to do with choosing the investment managers. And Providence's fees over the past two and a half years were less than $350,000.

Statements from political operatives and unsupported extrapolations by sympathetic or thoughtless journalists are not the only forms of propaganda we must watch out for. There are also those entities which pose as legitimate news media. While party newspapers or radio broadcasts may be easily identified and their information taken with a grain of salt, some propaganda outlets try to disguise their true nature to fool an audience into believing they are presenting valid information.

The current prime example locally is the online propaganda outlet known as Bahamas Press, which refuses to even acknowledge that it is financed, owned and operated by real people, although it classifies itself as a "leading news website." An anonymous responder claimed the site is owned "by the people of the Bahamas."

As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984, "the process (of mass-media deception) has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt."

Of course, now that I have waded into the propaganda swamp, I must be part of the conspiracy, right? Well, now you can make the call.

What do you think?

Send comments to

larry@tribunemedia.net

Or visit www.bahamapundit.com

March 09, 2011

tribune242

The Bahamas lacks legislation criminalizing participation in an organized criminal group

Adopting laws against organized crime
thenassauguardian editorial



The annual drug report prepared by the United States government usually provides interesting commentary on the state of drug trafficking to and through The Bahamas.

In the 2011 report, which was released last week, the U.S. government again made suggestions to the Bahamian government to reform the criminal justice system in this country.

“However, a need still exists to reduce the long delays in resolving extradition requests and other criminal cases as an existing trend of law enforcement successes have been undermined by an overburdened Bahamian legal system,” said the U.S. State Department in the report.

“As mentioned in previous annual reports, we continue to encourage The Bahamas to increase the resources and manpower available to prosecutors, judges, and magistrates.”

The Bahamas has acknowledged that its criminal justice system needs help. The government has set in motion a series of reforms aimed at reducing the backlog of cases before the court and speeding up the rate of prosecution in the country.

The U.S. made another suggestion in the report that should be considered.

The State Department noted that the country lacks legislation criminalizing participation in an organized criminal group.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) is a U.S. federal law that provides for long criminal sentences and civil penalties for actions performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

Simply put, those proven to be involved with an organized crime group are jailed for long terms.

The U.S. government has used these laws effectively against the mafia. In The Bahamas, no such law exists.

According to the drug report, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Operation Bahamas Turks and Caicos estimate that there are 12 to 15 major drug trafficking organizations operating in The Bahamas.

A RICO law in The Bahamas would provide another tool to local law enforcement to take down some of these drug gangs.

However, local police and prosecutors would need to learn to conduct more comprehensive investigations for such a law to work. Rather than arresting one criminal for one offense, investigators and prosecutors would need to build a case against entire organizations. Evidence would need to be marshaled chronicling the various crimes it commits. The actors in the criminal activity would then need to be defined and linked to the criminal organization.

Comprehensive indictments would follow and large numbers of criminals would be brought to court at the same time.

These investigations could take years. But when done well, they cripple or dismantle entire criminal organizations.

For such a thing to work, The Bahamas would also need to change its overall prosecutorial response to drug trafficking. Traffickers are currently prosecuted in Magistrates Court where the maximum sentence is five years in jail. Some smugglers have been found in possession of millions of dollars work of cocaine and they have only faced that five-year sentence, or less if they pleaded guilty.

The law needs to prosecute based on weight. Those found in possession of large quantities of drugs should face trial in the Supreme Court where serious penalties can be issued. RICO prosecutions, if adopted, would also take place in the Supreme Court.

Organized crime is a threat to democracy. Those who do not believe this need only look at Mexico. The cartels there are at war with the state. And in some jurisdictions in that country, the cartels are winning the war.

Since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched his war on the cartels in 2006, more than 30,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence.

The Bahamas must consider legislative tools such as the RICO law in the U.S. to assist in the local fight against narco-trafficking. We cannot just continue to hope that the U.S. requests the extradition of our major drug dealers. We must develop the capacity to lock them up for long periods of time in this country.

3/9/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International