Gibson tells the Carlton Francis story
tribune242 editorial:
DURING the Budget debate, Kennedy MP Kenyatta Gibson, in putting the case for legalising gambling, told the tragic story of the political churchman who sacrificed himself to support his church's anti-gambling beliefs.
The irony was that the church never assisted him or protested his fall. Instead it became a firm supporter of the very government that had condemned their brother. It was the government that had introduced the evil that Baptists claimed they abhorred. Baptist churchmen took the position that neither they, nor their members, would ever support a government that depended on gambling as a source of national income.
Mr Gibson was, of course, referring to the late Carlton Francis, once Minister of Finance in the Pindling government, who was also a lay preacher in the Baptist church. Although Mr Gibson did not name the denomination to which he referred, he was talking of the Baptists. Because of the large vote the church controls at election time, all governments have been loath to take them on over one of the strictest tenants of their faith. Gambling is a capital sin which the church claims it will not tolerate, nor permit the indulgence of its members.
We recall the election of '67 when the PLP came to power for the first time. Just days before Bahamians were to go to the polls, the PLP sent in a release for publication. If the UBP were returned to power, it said, it would mean the extension of casino gambling. This was not true. As a matter of fact it was an unfair lie, because Sir Roland Symonette, this country's first premier, who was a staunch Methodist, was personally opposed to gambling. No such plan was on his party's agenda.
However, it spooked the Baptist community and, of course, churchmen stepped up their political opposition. There was hardly time to deny the story because Bahamians were getting ready to go to the polls. It was only with a PLP government, said the release, that Bahamians could be assured that gambling would be kept out of this country.
The PLP, of course, won the day, but it was not long afterwards that casino gambling was introduced and flourished in the Bahamas. And it was only six years after the PLP came to power that Mr Francis was put in the awkward position of having to choose between his government and his conscience. The issue was gambling. Here the politician had to give way to the conscience of the Baptist preacher. He voted against his government on the gambling issue and in 1973 had to resign from the Pindling cabinet.
That was bad enough, but a vindictive prime minister never forgave him his mortal sin. Thrown on the political trash heap, Mr Francis was hounded from pillar to post. A respected teacher before he entered politics, he could not get a job at the College of the Bahamas. As a matter of fact, he found it difficult after that to make a living.
As he crossed the street at one of Sir Lynden's political meetings, the "Chief" looked down from his lofty dais, spotted his former finance minister and sneered that there went Carlton Francis, but all he could see was a three-piece suit. It was true, Mr Francis then dying of cancer, was a shell of his former self and all one could see was a baggy suit. The crowd jeered. It was cruel.
But where was his church, which had declared that it would never support a government that got its revenue from gambling? Mr Gibson said that in his research, he could not find that Mr Francis' church came to his support when, having been abandoned by his party, he decided to run for parliament from the South Beach constituency. Of course, with his party against him and no help from his church, he lost the contest.
Mr Gibson said that "the record will show that they abandoned him and quickly realigned themselves with the same political party which he had abandoned on their behalf."
And, said Mr Gibson, "to complicate this issue many leading Churchmen of the day then accepted positions of significance from the same political party which had expanded casino gambling. These princes and princesses now piously sat as secretary generals and parliamentarians in the political organization which had ushered in the very same expansion, which they previously had vociferously argued against...
"And so the question begs an answer," said Mr Gibson, "what did they do for the Prince of their Church, Carlton Elisha Francis who sided with his Church on the gambling issue and gave up his cabinet portfolio? Absolutely nothing. The man could not even get the pastorship of a recognizable Church in this denomination."
Mr Gibson revived this bit of history to advise Bahamians to hold their own counsel in what they believed was best for them and their families and not be guided by special interest groups.
In the debate on whether gambling -- the numbers game -- should be made legal, he said the "people have the inalienable right to choose for themselves."
Mr Gibson ended his presentation in the House with a quote from Mr Francis: "They who stand on the sand banks of history trying to hold back the tide will be swept up in the flood gates of insurrection."
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Zhivargo Laing - State Minister for Finance says the government presented a budget (2010/2011) that's designed to cope with a crisis if it occurs
Laing: Budget Prepares For The Future
By Kendea Jones:
More than a month after the Ingraham administration presented its 2010/2011 Budget, State Minister for Finance Zhivargo Laing is still fighting off a firestorm of criticisms, claiming that the government made the best move for the country. The new fiscal plan, which takes effect on Thursday, has a rash of cuts and tax increases.
For instance, come July 1, the government will introduce a 65 per cent rate for cars that are 2,000 ccs or fewer, a 75 per cent rate for cars between 2,000 and 2,500 and an 85 per cent rate for all other cars, except hybrids, which face the lower duty of 25 per cent.
According to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, this allows many fuel-efficient, four-cylinder vehicles to be covered under a rate of duty that is mid-way between the low and high rates.
"I think there were some adjustments made for the timing of when the cars will come in and some provisions made for persons who would have imported vehicles between the 26th June and July 1 when those rates take effect," Minister Laing explained.
"Commercial credits will be granted to auto dealers and a refund to individuals who would have imported vehicles during that period."
But according to the state minister, not only did the government present a budget that would sustain the country for the next 12 months but beyond that timeframe.
"The reality is that we presented the budget we did so that we could put ourselves in a position where we could cope with a crisis if it occurs," he said.
"We didn’t want to grow the debt in the midst of the crisis. So, we are looking to claw back some of the damage and put ourselves in the position that if a hurricane damages The Bahamas, we would be able to respond. If there is a crisis we would be able to do what is necessary to respond to it."
Minister Laing also again dispelled the notion that the government is broke as "ludicrous."
"The government couldn’t pay salaries if it did not have money. This is a question of putting the fiscal house in the position that you are able to operate in a sustainable manner; meaning that you are not doing something that is going to cause you to be unable to maneuver," he said.
"We are not doing something that is going to cause such a heavy load on future generations. The government is not going to spend widely today, as if there is no tomorrow. Anything can happen tomorrow."
The 2010/2011 Budget allocates some $1.55 billion for recurrent expenditure and more than $265 million for capital expenditure.
Government debt at the end of June 2011 is projected to stand at 49.2 percent of GDP, up from 47.3 percent a year earlier.
June 30th, 2010
jonesbahamas
By Kendea Jones:
More than a month after the Ingraham administration presented its 2010/2011 Budget, State Minister for Finance Zhivargo Laing is still fighting off a firestorm of criticisms, claiming that the government made the best move for the country. The new fiscal plan, which takes effect on Thursday, has a rash of cuts and tax increases.
For instance, come July 1, the government will introduce a 65 per cent rate for cars that are 2,000 ccs or fewer, a 75 per cent rate for cars between 2,000 and 2,500 and an 85 per cent rate for all other cars, except hybrids, which face the lower duty of 25 per cent.
According to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, this allows many fuel-efficient, four-cylinder vehicles to be covered under a rate of duty that is mid-way between the low and high rates.
"I think there were some adjustments made for the timing of when the cars will come in and some provisions made for persons who would have imported vehicles between the 26th June and July 1 when those rates take effect," Minister Laing explained.
"Commercial credits will be granted to auto dealers and a refund to individuals who would have imported vehicles during that period."
But according to the state minister, not only did the government present a budget that would sustain the country for the next 12 months but beyond that timeframe.
"The reality is that we presented the budget we did so that we could put ourselves in a position where we could cope with a crisis if it occurs," he said.
"We didn’t want to grow the debt in the midst of the crisis. So, we are looking to claw back some of the damage and put ourselves in the position that if a hurricane damages The Bahamas, we would be able to respond. If there is a crisis we would be able to do what is necessary to respond to it."
Minister Laing also again dispelled the notion that the government is broke as "ludicrous."
"The government couldn’t pay salaries if it did not have money. This is a question of putting the fiscal house in the position that you are able to operate in a sustainable manner; meaning that you are not doing something that is going to cause you to be unable to maneuver," he said.
"We are not doing something that is going to cause such a heavy load on future generations. The government is not going to spend widely today, as if there is no tomorrow. Anything can happen tomorrow."
The 2010/2011 Budget allocates some $1.55 billion for recurrent expenditure and more than $265 million for capital expenditure.
Government debt at the end of June 2011 is projected to stand at 49.2 percent of GDP, up from 47.3 percent a year earlier.
June 30th, 2010
jonesbahamas
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Kennedy MP Kenyatta Gibson: Bahamians must understand that to save their country they must be prepared to work together and make sacrifices
Not the time to mislead the people
tribune242 editorial:
KENNEDY MP Kenyatta Gibson, who came from the bosom of the PLP almost two years ago, first as an Independent MP, then as a full fledged FNM, had sound advice for his former political colleagues during the recent Budget debate.
"These are times," he said, "in which all Bahamians must understand that to save their country they must be prepared to work together and make sacrifices."
"To mislead the people into thinking that this belt tightening Budget is a result of the FNM Government's inefficiency or incompetence is an insult to the people's intelligence," he told the Opposition who have accused the Prime Minister of not protecting the Bahamas from the present world crisis.
We are all in this together. When Bahamians sit in front of their TV sets at night and see the people of the world losing their jobs and closing their businesses, and countries heading for bankruptcy, they must understand that the Bahamas cannot stop the world and get off -- they are a part of the whole. The biblical seven lean years are here and now.
"The current economic crisis in which we, like other countries in this region are plunged, can best be resolved and remedied where there is a conciliatory atmosphere of understanding and cooperation of all concerned," Mr Gibson said.
"But if we create rancour and doubt and self pity and make people feel that someone did something to them and we know this not to be true, then we are guilty of the sin of omission and falsehood and are not worthy to be called Leaders of the people."
Mr Gibson told the MPs that "we can rise above partisan politics, especially in times of national crisis and danger" and together "lift our country and our people to greater heights."
Today's Bahamians cannot pass today's troubles onto unborn generations, he said. "It is now our watch and together as one Bahamian people we have to fix it."
Mr Gibson pointed out that the FNM government did not cause the recent problems on Wall Street, nor did it dismantle Lehman Brothers, or create the US's sub prime mortgage debate. It didn't even drive up oil prices or cook the books of leading US banking institutions, nor did it defraud the SEC - all of which started the economic ball rolling downhill at an ever increasing pace. No one could stop the roll and so country after country -- the Bahamas included - was caught in its wake as it picked up momentum and dragged each one of them to the bottom. Each nation now has to pick itself up and climb to the top. Politicians who would divide and pull the people down at this time are an unwelcome and useless appendage. It would be best to dismiss them and move on alone.
Mr Gibson said that "these are the easily verifiable facts but some persons true to their form, would prefer not to lead but to mislead and misguide and misinform."
Mr Gibson pointed out that James Smith, the current chairman of CFAL, was the main architect of Opposition Leader Perry Christie's economic policy when Mr Christie was prime minister (2002-2007). He is a man of "impeccable" credentials as an economist, Mr Gibson pointed out. No one would dispute that observation.
"PLP's from Inagua in the south," said Mr Gibson, "to Grand Bahama in the north have heralded his genius in budgetary exercise after budgetary exercise since 2002. After the Progressive Liberal Party's defeat in 2007, 'the word often came down' to the general public that the Progressive Liberal Party was supporting sentiments expressed by former Minister Smith."
Recognised as an expert on his subject, Mr Gibson, wondered why in this instance the PLP did not embrace Mr Smith's comments on the FNM's belt-tightening budget with "its usual eagerness and zeal."
According Mr Smith "both the public and private sectors need to appreciate that for the next few months, maybe even another year, it will be tough and everyone needs to tighten their belts. I think the budget reflected that tone."
Fidelity Bank's president Gregory Bethel, another respected member of the financial community, echoed Mr Smith's assessment. "These are the right moves," said Mr Bethel, "to get the country's economy back on tract."
Continued Mr Bethel: "The Prime Minister has set the tone. He said that this is a time for sacrifice, service and reform and the Bahamian people must understand that it is not business as usual. Everybody in our society must share in the sacrifice, share in the pain and share in the reform."
Said Mr Gibson: "This is our age, indeed our time, indeed our call to sacrifice for our country."
He pointed to David Cameron, Britain's new prime minister, as an example of how Mr Cameron used the UK's harsh economic environment to explain to the British people why his government had to introduce a similar austere budget as the rest of the world. Mr Cameron said that this was an opportunity to explain to the people the purpose behind the pain.
Mr Gibson told the Opposition that if they "call this a budget of pain, it must be characterised as pain for a noble cause. That cause being the continued viability of the nation."
For the Opposition to move in the opposite direction, especially at this moment of crisis, just means that they are headed towards the void of political oblivion.
June 29, 2010
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial:
KENNEDY MP Kenyatta Gibson, who came from the bosom of the PLP almost two years ago, first as an Independent MP, then as a full fledged FNM, had sound advice for his former political colleagues during the recent Budget debate.
"These are times," he said, "in which all Bahamians must understand that to save their country they must be prepared to work together and make sacrifices."
"To mislead the people into thinking that this belt tightening Budget is a result of the FNM Government's inefficiency or incompetence is an insult to the people's intelligence," he told the Opposition who have accused the Prime Minister of not protecting the Bahamas from the present world crisis.
We are all in this together. When Bahamians sit in front of their TV sets at night and see the people of the world losing their jobs and closing their businesses, and countries heading for bankruptcy, they must understand that the Bahamas cannot stop the world and get off -- they are a part of the whole. The biblical seven lean years are here and now.
"The current economic crisis in which we, like other countries in this region are plunged, can best be resolved and remedied where there is a conciliatory atmosphere of understanding and cooperation of all concerned," Mr Gibson said.
"But if we create rancour and doubt and self pity and make people feel that someone did something to them and we know this not to be true, then we are guilty of the sin of omission and falsehood and are not worthy to be called Leaders of the people."
Mr Gibson told the MPs that "we can rise above partisan politics, especially in times of national crisis and danger" and together "lift our country and our people to greater heights."
Today's Bahamians cannot pass today's troubles onto unborn generations, he said. "It is now our watch and together as one Bahamian people we have to fix it."
Mr Gibson pointed out that the FNM government did not cause the recent problems on Wall Street, nor did it dismantle Lehman Brothers, or create the US's sub prime mortgage debate. It didn't even drive up oil prices or cook the books of leading US banking institutions, nor did it defraud the SEC - all of which started the economic ball rolling downhill at an ever increasing pace. No one could stop the roll and so country after country -- the Bahamas included - was caught in its wake as it picked up momentum and dragged each one of them to the bottom. Each nation now has to pick itself up and climb to the top. Politicians who would divide and pull the people down at this time are an unwelcome and useless appendage. It would be best to dismiss them and move on alone.
Mr Gibson said that "these are the easily verifiable facts but some persons true to their form, would prefer not to lead but to mislead and misguide and misinform."
Mr Gibson pointed out that James Smith, the current chairman of CFAL, was the main architect of Opposition Leader Perry Christie's economic policy when Mr Christie was prime minister (2002-2007). He is a man of "impeccable" credentials as an economist, Mr Gibson pointed out. No one would dispute that observation.
"PLP's from Inagua in the south," said Mr Gibson, "to Grand Bahama in the north have heralded his genius in budgetary exercise after budgetary exercise since 2002. After the Progressive Liberal Party's defeat in 2007, 'the word often came down' to the general public that the Progressive Liberal Party was supporting sentiments expressed by former Minister Smith."
Recognised as an expert on his subject, Mr Gibson, wondered why in this instance the PLP did not embrace Mr Smith's comments on the FNM's belt-tightening budget with "its usual eagerness and zeal."
According Mr Smith "both the public and private sectors need to appreciate that for the next few months, maybe even another year, it will be tough and everyone needs to tighten their belts. I think the budget reflected that tone."
Fidelity Bank's president Gregory Bethel, another respected member of the financial community, echoed Mr Smith's assessment. "These are the right moves," said Mr Bethel, "to get the country's economy back on tract."
Continued Mr Bethel: "The Prime Minister has set the tone. He said that this is a time for sacrifice, service and reform and the Bahamian people must understand that it is not business as usual. Everybody in our society must share in the sacrifice, share in the pain and share in the reform."
Said Mr Gibson: "This is our age, indeed our time, indeed our call to sacrifice for our country."
He pointed to David Cameron, Britain's new prime minister, as an example of how Mr Cameron used the UK's harsh economic environment to explain to the British people why his government had to introduce a similar austere budget as the rest of the world. Mr Cameron said that this was an opportunity to explain to the people the purpose behind the pain.
Mr Gibson told the Opposition that if they "call this a budget of pain, it must be characterised as pain for a noble cause. That cause being the continued viability of the nation."
For the Opposition to move in the opposite direction, especially at this moment of crisis, just means that they are headed towards the void of political oblivion.
June 29, 2010
tribune242 editorial
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
..."a significant concern" over the Government's plan to impose Stamp Duty on the sale of all court-ordered foreclosed properties
'Major concern' over planned 'foreclosure tax'
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor:
BAHAMIAN home buyers could have to significantly increase their equity down payments if a proposed Stamp Tax amendment goes through, the Clearing Banks Association (CBA) chairman warning that the sector had "a significant concern" over the Government's plan to impose Stamp Duty on the sale of all court-ordered foreclosed properties.
Paul McWeeney, who is also Bank of the Bahamas International's managing director, told Tribune Business that the change - part of the Budget amendments to the Stamp Act - could negatively impact the entire home buying process, and was causing significant concern to the major international banks, particularly in regard to large syndicated loans.
"It's a big issue we are trying to address with the Ministry of Finance," Mr McWeeney confirmed to this newspaper. "Prior to the amendment, or the proposed amendment, any sale of real estate as a court-ordered foreclosure was tax exempt.
"It is a significant element for us to be concerned with and make representations to the Minister of Finance to reconsider that amendment. I understand they are taking a look at it. It is a significant concern, especially for international banks in syndicated loans. The cost of doing it may be prohibitive. The CBA made representations to the Ministry of Finance and they are reviewing it."
Court-ordered foreclosures are ones where a Bahamian court orders that a bank, or any mortgage lender, can take possession of a property and sell it in accordance with the lien/charge it has over it. This power, and procedure, are commonly invoked when a borrower has long defaulted on their repayments, and there is no prospect of the lender recovering its money.
The international banks - Royal Bank of Canada/FINCO, FirstCaribbean International Bank (Bahamas) and Scotiabank (Bahamas) - were those who commonly used the court-ordered foreclosure route, and led large syndicated loans secured on underlying real estate.
Take, for instance, a $20 million loan secured on Bahamian real estate. Previously, a lender or lending syndicate could go through a court-ordered foreclosure, take possession of the property and sell it to a new buyer, recovering their loan without having to pay any Stamp Duty on the purchase.
The Government's proposed amendment, though, would see the banks now having to pay 12 per cent Stamp Duty (6 per cent if split with the buyer) to the Government, which would cost them either $2.4 million or $1.2 million.
What is being viewed as a revenue grab by the Government would, if approved, percolate and have ramifications for the entire Bahamian real estate and home buying market.
If they have to pay Stamp Duty upon selling a foreclosed property, a bank or banks may not recover the full amount on what is already a defaulted loan, forcing them to continue pursuing the defaulted borrower for the balance.
With the banks running the risk of being 'out of pocket' on a defaulted loan as a result of the new tax burden, Mr McWeeney suggested some might seek to mitigate the changed risk profile and increased loss possibilities by demanding higher equity down payments from borrowers, raising requirements from 5 per cent to 10, 15 even 20 per cent.
This will make home ownership costs more prohibitive, and could exclude an even greater number of Bahamians from the mortgage market.
"It almost imposes a penalty or impediment to that [court-ordered foreclosure] process," Mr McWeeney told Tribune Business, warning that it could "negatively affect" the Bahamian banking sector.
He added that not just banks but all mortgage lenders, such as insurance companies and cooperative societies, as well as potential new market entrants, stood to be impacted if the proposal was passed into law.
"It adds to the losses, the cost to take possession, and if you see it, you have to pay 12 per cent of the purchase price. It's a significant cost," Mr McWeeney warned.
"The international banks, with those future syndicated loans, I imagine the banks that design those may have serious concerns about these changes if they go through."
Another banker said of the Government's proposals: "We've got some pain to endure, and the willingness of banks to forgive and do all those things is very slim. It's a risk in the long-run when you need banks to fuel recovery. It's shortsightedness."
June 28, 2010
tribune242
By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor:
BAHAMIAN home buyers could have to significantly increase their equity down payments if a proposed Stamp Tax amendment goes through, the Clearing Banks Association (CBA) chairman warning that the sector had "a significant concern" over the Government's plan to impose Stamp Duty on the sale of all court-ordered foreclosed properties.
Paul McWeeney, who is also Bank of the Bahamas International's managing director, told Tribune Business that the change - part of the Budget amendments to the Stamp Act - could negatively impact the entire home buying process, and was causing significant concern to the major international banks, particularly in regard to large syndicated loans.
"It's a big issue we are trying to address with the Ministry of Finance," Mr McWeeney confirmed to this newspaper. "Prior to the amendment, or the proposed amendment, any sale of real estate as a court-ordered foreclosure was tax exempt.
"It is a significant element for us to be concerned with and make representations to the Minister of Finance to reconsider that amendment. I understand they are taking a look at it. It is a significant concern, especially for international banks in syndicated loans. The cost of doing it may be prohibitive. The CBA made representations to the Ministry of Finance and they are reviewing it."
Court-ordered foreclosures are ones where a Bahamian court orders that a bank, or any mortgage lender, can take possession of a property and sell it in accordance with the lien/charge it has over it. This power, and procedure, are commonly invoked when a borrower has long defaulted on their repayments, and there is no prospect of the lender recovering its money.
The international banks - Royal Bank of Canada/FINCO, FirstCaribbean International Bank (Bahamas) and Scotiabank (Bahamas) - were those who commonly used the court-ordered foreclosure route, and led large syndicated loans secured on underlying real estate.
Take, for instance, a $20 million loan secured on Bahamian real estate. Previously, a lender or lending syndicate could go through a court-ordered foreclosure, take possession of the property and sell it to a new buyer, recovering their loan without having to pay any Stamp Duty on the purchase.
The Government's proposed amendment, though, would see the banks now having to pay 12 per cent Stamp Duty (6 per cent if split with the buyer) to the Government, which would cost them either $2.4 million or $1.2 million.
What is being viewed as a revenue grab by the Government would, if approved, percolate and have ramifications for the entire Bahamian real estate and home buying market.
If they have to pay Stamp Duty upon selling a foreclosed property, a bank or banks may not recover the full amount on what is already a defaulted loan, forcing them to continue pursuing the defaulted borrower for the balance.
With the banks running the risk of being 'out of pocket' on a defaulted loan as a result of the new tax burden, Mr McWeeney suggested some might seek to mitigate the changed risk profile and increased loss possibilities by demanding higher equity down payments from borrowers, raising requirements from 5 per cent to 10, 15 even 20 per cent.
This will make home ownership costs more prohibitive, and could exclude an even greater number of Bahamians from the mortgage market.
"It almost imposes a penalty or impediment to that [court-ordered foreclosure] process," Mr McWeeney told Tribune Business, warning that it could "negatively affect" the Bahamian banking sector.
He added that not just banks but all mortgage lenders, such as insurance companies and cooperative societies, as well as potential new market entrants, stood to be impacted if the proposal was passed into law.
"It adds to the losses, the cost to take possession, and if you see it, you have to pay 12 per cent of the purchase price. It's a significant cost," Mr McWeeney warned.
"The international banks, with those future syndicated loans, I imagine the banks that design those may have serious concerns about these changes if they go through."
Another banker said of the Government's proposals: "We've got some pain to endure, and the willingness of banks to forgive and do all those things is very slim. It's a risk in the long-run when you need banks to fuel recovery. It's shortsightedness."
June 28, 2010
tribune242
Monday, June 28, 2010
How serious is the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)?
How serious is the PLP?
tribune242 editorial:
COMMENTING on our June 17 editorial - posted on The Tribune's website and headed: "Is this a gimmick for press headlines?" - a reader asked:
"Is it so, as the PLP claim, that the PM ended the Budget debate midstream in the committee stage? If so (and it was on TV for all to see) then is that not an example of denying the Opposition the right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Bahamian people?
"You don't have to like the PLP and you surely have the right to be an FNM partisan. However, in order to have some level of credibility, don't defend obvious wrong."
We are not defending an obvious wrong, nor do we intend to defend an opposition's attitude of arrogant entitlement -- that rules were not made for them.
In all facets of life to achieve harmony precedents are established and rules and procedures are followed.
So too in parliamentary debates. The debate to which our web site commentator refers is governed by constitutional rules. The rule that Opposition Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell was trying to get around was one that does not allow amendment of a money bill that would change the state of the Treasury unless moved by a Cabinet Minister on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr Mitchell, not a cabinet minister, was obviously trying to exempt himself from acknowledging that this rule also governed the Opposition.
The Budget Communication was presented to the House on May 26 by Prime Minister Ingraham. The following week debate opened and all 41 House members -17 of them Opposition- spoke. At that time they could dissect and amend any part of the Budget they wanted. The Budget had to be completed before July 1- three days from now when it goes into effect. Well in advance of the debate government gave its timeline on how it proposed to proceed with the debate and projected when it should be completed. The Opposition had ample time to study the proposed Budget and if members had any policy issues they could have circulated draft amendments - including the one Mr Mitchell moved in the House -- for cabinet consideration. Obviously they did not do this.
After fully debating the Bill, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole with the Speaker retiring from the chamber and the chairman taking the chair.
The Opposition, not having the numbers to defeat any part of the Bill, obviously decided to filibuster, and the filibuster started during examination of the estimates and expenditure of recurrent accounts. According to the Bahamas constitution, no amendment can be made to a money bill except by a cabinet minister with the full consent of the cabinet. As our readers know, Mr Mitchell is not a cabinet minister, and if he were serious he should have submitted his amendment for cabinet consideration well before the start of the debate-- he certainly had enough time to do so.
Because of the seriousness of the economy, the object of this Budget was to cut costs. Instead, Mr Mitchell proposed that funeral payments be increased from the present $650 to $1,300 per person for at least 1000 persons.
Mr Ingraham, obviously realising the Opposition's plan to delay passing of the Budget, warned Mr Mitchell that if he went down that road, he (Mr Ingraham) would move for closure. There is no debate on closure.
Not heeding the warning, the Opposition put the amendment. It was voted down. PLP MP Melanie Griffin by that time was on her feet with another motion -- the Opposition's plan to slow procedure became even more obvious as it appeared that one Opposition amendment was to follow another. The chairman ignored her. Closure was put. The Opposition packed their bags and left. The government continued to move the associated Budget Bills. It went through the Capital budget. So for the PLP to give the impression that the Budget process ended and nothing else was dealt with after they walked out, is just not true. The Budget was completed and passed after their disappearance.
However, what is of interest is that the item to cut parliamentary salaries was very high on the estimates of recurrent expenditure -- as a matter of fact it was Head 3. By the time closure came members were already on Head 44. This was an item about which the Opposition had expressed great concern. Government suggested cutting MPs' salaries by 5 per cent. Opposition Leader Perry Christie disagreed. He said the Opposition wanted salaries cut by 10 per cent. But Head 3 came and went and not a squeak from the Opposition about cutting anything. Why didn't they attempt to move a resolution on this one?
When FNM MP Carl Bethel pointed out this oversight, Dr Bernard Nottage, replied that a separate resolution on salaries was further down on the agenda and that is when they had intended to make their move to have parliamentary salaries reduced to 10 per cent rather than the FNM's five per cent recommendation. They missed the opportunity at Head 3 of the Estimates and skipped out of the House before their anticipated moment came for them to make a big splash by shaving a further five per cent off their parliamentary salaries for the sake of the people.
And so if they were really serious about increasing benefits for burying the indigent dead, and cutting their parliamentary salaries, all they had to do was follow the constitution and parliamentary rules. In other words there is no entitlement to bend the rules and no one is above the constitution -- not even the PLP.
Therefore we stand by our editorial of June 17 that in our opinion the PLP manoeuvres in the House were just gimmicks to attract headlines and impress the less informed.
June 27, 2010
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial:
COMMENTING on our June 17 editorial - posted on The Tribune's website and headed: "Is this a gimmick for press headlines?" - a reader asked:
"Is it so, as the PLP claim, that the PM ended the Budget debate midstream in the committee stage? If so (and it was on TV for all to see) then is that not an example of denying the Opposition the right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Bahamian people?
"You don't have to like the PLP and you surely have the right to be an FNM partisan. However, in order to have some level of credibility, don't defend obvious wrong."
We are not defending an obvious wrong, nor do we intend to defend an opposition's attitude of arrogant entitlement -- that rules were not made for them.
In all facets of life to achieve harmony precedents are established and rules and procedures are followed.
So too in parliamentary debates. The debate to which our web site commentator refers is governed by constitutional rules. The rule that Opposition Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell was trying to get around was one that does not allow amendment of a money bill that would change the state of the Treasury unless moved by a Cabinet Minister on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr Mitchell, not a cabinet minister, was obviously trying to exempt himself from acknowledging that this rule also governed the Opposition.
The Budget Communication was presented to the House on May 26 by Prime Minister Ingraham. The following week debate opened and all 41 House members -17 of them Opposition- spoke. At that time they could dissect and amend any part of the Budget they wanted. The Budget had to be completed before July 1- three days from now when it goes into effect. Well in advance of the debate government gave its timeline on how it proposed to proceed with the debate and projected when it should be completed. The Opposition had ample time to study the proposed Budget and if members had any policy issues they could have circulated draft amendments - including the one Mr Mitchell moved in the House -- for cabinet consideration. Obviously they did not do this.
After fully debating the Bill, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole with the Speaker retiring from the chamber and the chairman taking the chair.
The Opposition, not having the numbers to defeat any part of the Bill, obviously decided to filibuster, and the filibuster started during examination of the estimates and expenditure of recurrent accounts. According to the Bahamas constitution, no amendment can be made to a money bill except by a cabinet minister with the full consent of the cabinet. As our readers know, Mr Mitchell is not a cabinet minister, and if he were serious he should have submitted his amendment for cabinet consideration well before the start of the debate-- he certainly had enough time to do so.
Because of the seriousness of the economy, the object of this Budget was to cut costs. Instead, Mr Mitchell proposed that funeral payments be increased from the present $650 to $1,300 per person for at least 1000 persons.
Mr Ingraham, obviously realising the Opposition's plan to delay passing of the Budget, warned Mr Mitchell that if he went down that road, he (Mr Ingraham) would move for closure. There is no debate on closure.
Not heeding the warning, the Opposition put the amendment. It was voted down. PLP MP Melanie Griffin by that time was on her feet with another motion -- the Opposition's plan to slow procedure became even more obvious as it appeared that one Opposition amendment was to follow another. The chairman ignored her. Closure was put. The Opposition packed their bags and left. The government continued to move the associated Budget Bills. It went through the Capital budget. So for the PLP to give the impression that the Budget process ended and nothing else was dealt with after they walked out, is just not true. The Budget was completed and passed after their disappearance.
However, what is of interest is that the item to cut parliamentary salaries was very high on the estimates of recurrent expenditure -- as a matter of fact it was Head 3. By the time closure came members were already on Head 44. This was an item about which the Opposition had expressed great concern. Government suggested cutting MPs' salaries by 5 per cent. Opposition Leader Perry Christie disagreed. He said the Opposition wanted salaries cut by 10 per cent. But Head 3 came and went and not a squeak from the Opposition about cutting anything. Why didn't they attempt to move a resolution on this one?
When FNM MP Carl Bethel pointed out this oversight, Dr Bernard Nottage, replied that a separate resolution on salaries was further down on the agenda and that is when they had intended to make their move to have parliamentary salaries reduced to 10 per cent rather than the FNM's five per cent recommendation. They missed the opportunity at Head 3 of the Estimates and skipped out of the House before their anticipated moment came for them to make a big splash by shaving a further five per cent off their parliamentary salaries for the sake of the people.
And so if they were really serious about increasing benefits for burying the indigent dead, and cutting their parliamentary salaries, all they had to do was follow the constitution and parliamentary rules. In other words there is no entitlement to bend the rules and no one is above the constitution -- not even the PLP.
Therefore we stand by our editorial of June 17 that in our opinion the PLP manoeuvres in the House were just gimmicks to attract headlines and impress the less informed.
June 27, 2010
tribune242 editorial
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Dads in The Bahamas can now be taken to court to prove the parentage of children born out of wedlock
Dads to face court in new child laws
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
BAHAMIAN men can now be taken to court to prove the parentage of children born out of wedlock, based on new regulations that came on stream with the Child Protection Act in 2009.
The law could be of major use to children born out of wedlock if they knew their rights, according to Utah Taylor, founder of Find Your Parents Foundation, and host of Controversy TV.
Mr Taylor said a member of his non-profit foundation, who claims to have conclusive evidence of paternity, is currently battling for recognition from the person presumed to be his father.
"This is a high profile person. He went to the person and he said it is not possible. In another two days I am going to let him know about the law," said Mr Taylor.
The new regulations have not received the kind of attention they should have, according to Dr Sandra Dean Patterson, director of the Bahamas Crisis Centre, which is partly why the Crisis Centre launched its new monthly lecture series with a focus on fatherhood and the law.
"Before the new legislation a child born out of wedlock was what they called a 'nullius filius', which means a child of no man. It was just a child of the woman. But now with the legislation, a child born out of wedlock and a father of a child born out of wedlock can now be recognised in court as having status. If there is concern that the child is not being looked after the father can petition for custody," said Dr Patterson.
"It is a big problem. There are some fathers if they are not in a relationship with a woman they move on and they leave the children behind. It impacts boys more intensely, but girls too experience the effect of not having a father who is actively involved," she said.
If a child petitions the court for a declaration of paternity, the presumed father must prove he is not the father. The child could petition for the presumed person to submit to a paternity test, said Mr Taylor.
Although he was a presenter at the forum, he said he learned information that would have been useful in his own search for a father. It took him 34 years to find out who his biological father was.
"The law needs to be known. It should not be something just known to lawyers and politicians. The small man needs to know what is available to him. A single father needs to know he can petition the courts for parental control. All we know is we have to go to the courts to pay child support or maintenance," said Mr Taylor.
He said there are women who become "spiteful" because of the relationship problems and prevent fathers from having access to their children. He said some women demand child support or maintenance, but refuse to allow visitation rights.
"Fatherlessness and/or father hunger is recognized as a significant factor in the psyche and emotional functioning of boys and girls. We see this as creating a vacuum and a sense of incompleteness in many of our young people, contributing to boys' externalizing behaviour and their vulnerability to gangs and girls' vulnerability to older men and 'sugar daddies'," said a statement issued by the Crisis Centre.
Other presenters included Elsworth Johnson of the Eugene Dupuch Legal Aide Clinic and John Bostwick of Bostwick & Co.
The July lecture series is set to focus on the Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, which is a "ground breaking legislation", said Dr Patterson.
It provides a more comprehensive definition of domestic violence, and enables a broader range of groups to go before the courts for a domestic violence dispute: not just married couples, but those in intimate relationships, children, or anyone who is a victim of some kind of domestic violence.
The new law also allows the court to mandate perpetrators or partners to get help and mandates the police to take victims to the hospital.
June 26, 2010
tribune242
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
BAHAMIAN men can now be taken to court to prove the parentage of children born out of wedlock, based on new regulations that came on stream with the Child Protection Act in 2009.
The law could be of major use to children born out of wedlock if they knew their rights, according to Utah Taylor, founder of Find Your Parents Foundation, and host of Controversy TV.
Mr Taylor said a member of his non-profit foundation, who claims to have conclusive evidence of paternity, is currently battling for recognition from the person presumed to be his father.
"This is a high profile person. He went to the person and he said it is not possible. In another two days I am going to let him know about the law," said Mr Taylor.
The new regulations have not received the kind of attention they should have, according to Dr Sandra Dean Patterson, director of the Bahamas Crisis Centre, which is partly why the Crisis Centre launched its new monthly lecture series with a focus on fatherhood and the law.
"Before the new legislation a child born out of wedlock was what they called a 'nullius filius', which means a child of no man. It was just a child of the woman. But now with the legislation, a child born out of wedlock and a father of a child born out of wedlock can now be recognised in court as having status. If there is concern that the child is not being looked after the father can petition for custody," said Dr Patterson.
"It is a big problem. There are some fathers if they are not in a relationship with a woman they move on and they leave the children behind. It impacts boys more intensely, but girls too experience the effect of not having a father who is actively involved," she said.
If a child petitions the court for a declaration of paternity, the presumed father must prove he is not the father. The child could petition for the presumed person to submit to a paternity test, said Mr Taylor.
Although he was a presenter at the forum, he said he learned information that would have been useful in his own search for a father. It took him 34 years to find out who his biological father was.
"The law needs to be known. It should not be something just known to lawyers and politicians. The small man needs to know what is available to him. A single father needs to know he can petition the courts for parental control. All we know is we have to go to the courts to pay child support or maintenance," said Mr Taylor.
He said there are women who become "spiteful" because of the relationship problems and prevent fathers from having access to their children. He said some women demand child support or maintenance, but refuse to allow visitation rights.
"Fatherlessness and/or father hunger is recognized as a significant factor in the psyche and emotional functioning of boys and girls. We see this as creating a vacuum and a sense of incompleteness in many of our young people, contributing to boys' externalizing behaviour and their vulnerability to gangs and girls' vulnerability to older men and 'sugar daddies'," said a statement issued by the Crisis Centre.
Other presenters included Elsworth Johnson of the Eugene Dupuch Legal Aide Clinic and John Bostwick of Bostwick & Co.
The July lecture series is set to focus on the Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act, which is a "ground breaking legislation", said Dr Patterson.
It provides a more comprehensive definition of domestic violence, and enables a broader range of groups to go before the courts for a domestic violence dispute: not just married couples, but those in intimate relationships, children, or anyone who is a victim of some kind of domestic violence.
The new law also allows the court to mandate perpetrators or partners to get help and mandates the police to take victims to the hospital.
June 26, 2010
tribune242
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs) have no restrictive effects on international financial institutions in The Bahamas to date
'Scarier' financial industry threats may be to come
By CHESTER ROBARDS
Business Reporter
crobards@tribunemedia.net:
THERE has been "no effect" on the Bahamian financial services sector yet from the more than-20 Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA) signed recently, Arner Bank and Trust's general manager said yesterday, although he warned that "scarier" challenges were to come.
However, on a brighter note, he said TIEAs signed by the Bahamas in its bid to escape the G-20/OECD 'blacklist' threat had as yet had no restrictive effects on international financial institutions in the Bahamas.
Mr Thain warned, though, that the OECD could tighten the noose in the future, saying: "What will come in the future is scarier."
Speaking at a Bahamas Organisation of Compliance Officers' (BACO) Money Laundering Reporting Officer Day, Mr Thain said Switzerland's banks were at present feeling US demands for tax information on their clients.
He added that such pressure on Swiss banks could bode well for the Bahamas as a jurisdiction, only if it does not concede to the kind of pressure being imposed on Switzerland by its G-20 neighbours.
Mr Thain said it was likely that TIEAs will not be aggressively used by the countries the Bahamas signs up with, but this nation should continue to adhere to G-20/OECD demand without putting its reputationat risk.
"The Bahamas' Swiss operations 9bank subsidiaries] could become more important if the Bahamas can be strong in how we handle this," he said. "We will see inflows from Switzerland, as they are giving up too much."
Mr Thain added that the Bahamas can use opportunities like these to help the banking sector replant its roots and grow after so much evolution in such a short time.
Rowena Bethel, legal counsel for the Ministry of Finance, told BACO members that the Bahamas was gearing up for the Phase One peer review process required by the OECD to ensure it has met the tax information standards required by the body.
The peer review is scheduled to begin on July 1 and will last for up to six months.
In terms of how the Bahamas has done on its regulatory regimes and compliance as a country, she said: "We are looked at as a model."
June 25, 2010
tribune242
By CHESTER ROBARDS
Business Reporter
crobards@tribunemedia.net:
THERE has been "no effect" on the Bahamian financial services sector yet from the more than-20 Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA) signed recently, Arner Bank and Trust's general manager said yesterday, although he warned that "scarier" challenges were to come.
David Thain, who is also chairman of the Association of International Banks and Trusts (AIBT), said he was convinced much more intrusive initiatives will be churned out by G-20/OECD countries in the future, making previous efforts pale by comparison.
However, on a brighter note, he said TIEAs signed by the Bahamas in its bid to escape the G-20/OECD 'blacklist' threat had as yet had no restrictive effects on international financial institutions in the Bahamas.
Mr Thain warned, though, that the OECD could tighten the noose in the future, saying: "What will come in the future is scarier."
Speaking at a Bahamas Organisation of Compliance Officers' (BACO) Money Laundering Reporting Officer Day, Mr Thain said Switzerland's banks were at present feeling US demands for tax information on their clients.
He added that such pressure on Swiss banks could bode well for the Bahamas as a jurisdiction, only if it does not concede to the kind of pressure being imposed on Switzerland by its G-20 neighbours.
Mr Thain said it was likely that TIEAs will not be aggressively used by the countries the Bahamas signs up with, but this nation should continue to adhere to G-20/OECD demand without putting its reputationat risk.
"The Bahamas' Swiss operations 9bank subsidiaries] could become more important if the Bahamas can be strong in how we handle this," he said. "We will see inflows from Switzerland, as they are giving up too much."
Mr Thain added that the Bahamas can use opportunities like these to help the banking sector replant its roots and grow after so much evolution in such a short time.
Rowena Bethel, legal counsel for the Ministry of Finance, told BACO members that the Bahamas was gearing up for the Phase One peer review process required by the OECD to ensure it has met the tax information standards required by the body.
The peer review is scheduled to begin on July 1 and will last for up to six months.
In terms of how the Bahamas has done on its regulatory regimes and compliance as a country, she said: "We are looked at as a model."
June 25, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)