Privatisation of BTC: from 1999 to 2011
By LARRY SMITH
"What I've found out about change is that when you propose it
people don't want it, when you are doing it it's hell, and afterwards
they think it's always been like that."
- former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
IN EARLY 2008, about 10 months after the last general election, the Ingraham government appointed a new privatisation committee (headed by bankers T. B. Donaldson and Julian Francis), with a mandate to find a buyer for the Bahamas Telecommunications Company as soon as possible.
This was a goal that had been pursued ever since the FNM first came to power in 1992. In fact, even before then the Pindling regime had been seeking to divest state assets that were draining the treasury. By the early 90s the PLP had decided to offload government-owned hotels. And believe it or not, they also had confidential talks with Cable & Wireless about a stake in BaTelCo.
Privatisation continued to be pursued by the PLP during its most recent term in office, from 2002 to 2007. Although the Christie administration eventually cancelled the auction launched by the FNM, they went on to start their own process, and agreed (just before the 2007 election) to sell BTC to Bluewater Ventures, a foreign firm with an uncertain ownership and no operating history.
But the incoming FNM government could find no evidence that a deal had been finalised, although Bluewater - in the shape of American executive John Gregg and PLP politico/lawyer Brave Davis - insisted that the Christie cabinet had shaken hands on an agreement. In mid-2008, the Ingraham administration relaunched the privatisation process, eventually paying Bluewater $1.9 million to cover its out-of-pocket costs.
THE FIRST PRIVATISATION
This was surely a damnable waste of money, but the reasoning behind it was clear. The policy had always been to sell a stake in BTC to a major strategic partner - a company with the technical expertise, operating record, and bulk purchasing power needed to take the corporation to another level. There was no interest in selling to someone who merely had the financial capacity to buy.
In 1999, during the first privatisation exercise, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that if the government simply transferred ownership of BTC to its employees, the corporation would go out of business as soon as it faced real competition. A strategic partner, he said, would enable BTC to compete and move forward in a transformed market.
"We seek to privatise BTC in the national interest," Ingraham said a decade ago, "and we have sought a phased approach to ensure minimal disruption." More recently he said: "We told Bahamians from day one that it was not possible to continue to have a monopoly in the telephone business and we established policies to prepare ourselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of people employed in the telecoms sector who were not so employed before we began to liberalise the market."
Before the government began downsizing BaTelCo in the mid-90s, the corporation had accumulated a workforce of 2100 to accomplish what experts said should require only a few hundred. And this padded payroll was clearly reflected in BaTelCo's dismal performance up to that point.
In 1992 the corporation's revenue was $120.3 million, with a net loss of $1.8 million that year. But after a 50 per cent reduction in staff (based on generous separation packages), BaTelCo's 2001 revenue was $226.4 million, producing a net profit of $57.3 million - almost as much as the corporation had earned over 10 years from 1982 to 1992.
THE CURRENT PROCESS
In 2008, the government appointed an advisory committee to oversee the new BTC sale process, under the chairmanship of State Finance Minister Zhivago Laing. This group would formulate the final recommendations to cabinet from information presented by the privatisation committee (headed by Donaldson and Francis). The leaders of both BTC unions were full members of the advisory committee.
The advisory committee authorised a new BTC auction in mid-2009, with the publication of a notice inviting bidders to register. Qualified parties were asked for technical proposals, and the best of these were invited to submit financial bids. The privatisation committee reviewed the bids and passed them on to the advisory committee for evaluation.
At the same time, major changes to the regulatory environment were being pursued to support market liberalisation. These included legislation to set up a new Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority to govern both broadcasting and telecommunications. In short, the government was totally reforming our antiquated communications laws.
According to the April 29, 2009 minutes of the advisory committee, Minister Laing said the new legislation was the result of "a vast amount of work and represented a new era for the Bahamas" that would bring clarity to what could, and could not, be done in the telecoms industry.
UNION ISSUES
At the July 13, 2009 meeting of the advisory committee, Minister Earl Deveaux recalled that during the first privatisation exercise, BTC workers rejected the decision and responded "in a way that brought great distress to the nation." He asked the union leaders for assurances that this would not be repeated. The BCPMU is the middle managers union. The BCPOU is the line staff union.
At that meeting BCPMU president William Carroll said the major issue for the unions in 1999 had been the separation packages, and that was why workers demonstrated. He added that treatment of staff should be one of the determinants for a successful bid, but went on to acknowledge that BTC employees now accepted the fact of imminent privatisation.
In response to a comment from BCPOU leader Bernard Evans that Bahamian buyers had been excluded from the process, Minister Laing said the search was for a strategic partner who would have the financial and technological resources to "take BTC to the level at which the government wanted it to be." That position did not necessarily exclude Bahamian proposals, but it was unlikely that a Bahamian group would fit the bill.
According to the minutes, Minister Carl Bethel said the government wanted a strong international connection, a company with experience in all areas of telecommunications and with the financial strength and operating platform to be able to support BTC's infrastructure and mission. He questioned whether any Bahamian entity possessed those qualities.
Minister Laing said that unlike the previous attempt, this time the government was not seeking to shape the product that was on offer, outside of its conviction that privatising BTC would be better for the country, for the economy, and ultimately for the workers. The government was reforming the regulatory environment and selling BTC as it exists today, and the role of the advisory committee was to determine the best buyer.
CABLE & WIRELESS
The BTC auction notice attracted six initial responses, and four were invited to submit bids. Only two were received by the December 11, 2009 deadline - from JPMorgan Chase's private equity arm and from Atlantic Tele-Network, a consortium that included Colina Financial Advisors. Neither was considered to have met the government's criteria.
According to minutes of the July 23, 2010 meeting, the advisory committee unanimously rejected both bids as "departing significantly in their requirements and expectations from the conditions acceptable to the government."
The committee was then informed by Julian Francis that, following its recent restructuring, Cable & Wireless had expressed an interest in BTC. While both union leaders had reservations about C&W in terms of employee relations, the advisory committee unanimously endorsed a recommendation to engage in talks with the company, which is a major regional and international telecoms operator.
In October of last year, the advisory committee met for the final time to consider the report of the working committee on its talks with Cable & Wireless. According to Julian Francis, a non-binding memorandum of understanding had been drafted that valued BTC at $400-450 million, based on a two-year exclusivity period.
"However, Cable & Wireless believes that an extension may be necessary for BTC to prepare for competition, which would be aggressive given the low threshold for investment under the new regulatory regime," Francis said. "In comparison, the Bluewater proposal was for a five-year exclusivity period for mobile, with each year being valued at between $60-70 million by the committee's advisors."
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Francis said the MOU called for Cable & Wireless to produce a five-year business plan acceptable to government before a deal could be closed. This plan would spell out Bahamian involvement in the management of BTC and Cable & Wireless' international operations.
Going forward, he said, the government wanted to have a veto over remuneration, staff cuts, the sale of assets and the location of operations. According to Francis, Cable & Wireless was "convinced that BTC should be run by a Bahamian and the government had indicated that management must remain in the Bahamas."
Both union leaders reiterated their focus on job protection, but Minister Deveaux pointed out that taxpayers wanted better service. Sir William Allen, the government's economic advisor, said technology would continue to erode whatever advantages BTC currently had, even if the market was not liberalised.
With respect to workforce restructuring, BCPOU leader Bernard Evans said "voluntary separation packages are an acceptable option once the terms are suitable." Minister Laing responded that there was room for standstill, with compulsory reductions tied to the end of the exclusivity period. Both union leaders agreed that a three or four year exclusivity period would be "more manageable" in this regard.
The advisory committee agreed to recommend only voluntary staff cuts prior to the end of the exclusivity period, and urged government to extend this period "to help with job preservation in the short term." In a closing note, the October minutes recorded that the committee's recommendations would be passed to government for a final decision, with Minister Laing satisfied that that "all major issues have been discussed and agreement reached."
On December 2, the government announced the signing of the memorandum of understanding, as recommended by the advisory committee, on the same day it was signed. Talks then began to develop more precise contract language to clarify all issues. The agreement included a three-year exclusivity period for mobile and a voluntary workforce restructuring.
POLITICAL RESISTANCE
But within days of that announcement, the two union leaders and the PLP had begun a drumbeat of opposition to the deal - which was already 13 years too late. "This is just not the right time," said BCPOU leader Evans. "We don't support Cable & Wireless - period." He insisted that separation packages offered to workers should be more than BTC employees got in 1999 (which cost the country some $90 million), and should be enough to last workers a lifetime.
According to the prime minister, "the PLP agreed just before the election to sell BTC to a foreigner, who some think was fronting for some of them. And they never told the public a single word that they agreed to sell BTC. The reality is that the union and the PLP are at one in their fight against this exercise. And you can figure out why the PLP, which agreed to sell to a one-man show, is now opposed to selling to a $2.5 billion publicly traded company that operates around the world.
As the minutes of the advisory committee show, the plain fact is that the union leaders were part and parcel of the entire privatisation process, and after seeking concessions from the government they signed off on the major components of the memorandum of understanding.
"We went out of our way to protect jobs at BTC to the public's disadvantage," the prime minister told a meeting in Grand Bahama recently. "As night follows day, rates are high because BTC has more people employed than they need, and they are seeking to protect what they have because there's plenty juice there for them."
As for the prospects of general strike similar to that which occurred in 1958, it seems clear that the BTC unions' action is a greedy attempt on the part of special interests to hold the nation to ransom rather than a struggle for democracy. And as for the question of Bahamian as opposed to foreign ownership, why hasn't this been raised before?
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
January 12, 2011
tribune242
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.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
FNMs against the Free National Movement (FNM) Government's Policy on the Proposed Sale of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC)
FNMs speaking out against party policy
thenassauguardian editorial
It was surprising to read published comments by two Free National Movement (FNM) members this week on the sale of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney said he would wait to see the memorandum of understanding the government signed with CWC, as well as the details of the proposed sale, before he gives his support in Parliament.
“I cannot make a decision without having the facts,” McCartney said to The Nassau Guardian on Tuesday. “I don’t have all of the facts.”
The government has promised to make all the details of the proposed deal public before it comes up for debate in the House of Assembly.
“Once all the facts are in hand, I’ll be able to make a decision as to whether or not it’s the right thing to do or otherwise,” McCartney added.
FNM Vice-chairman Darron Cash, who is a former party senator, wrote a long opinion piece that was published in The Guardian on Monday. In it, Cash set out why he strongly opposes the BTC sale to CWC.
“I disagree with the government’s proposed action. I believe it is wrong for the country,” said Cash.
“This decision sells the country short. It is a betrayal of future generations, and like a bad stock on BISX—in which you have little confidence—the government is selling the next generation (my generation) short.”
Cash then used more than 5,000 words to explain why he disagrees with the deal.
Hubert Ingraham has run his FNM in a different manner than Perry Christie has run the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). PLPs have regularly criticized Christie and the party publicly.
Ingraham’s troops are not known for this behavior. From all accounts, Ingraham, like the late Sir Lynden Pindling, ensures order is maintained by inflicting painful political consequences for dissent. Christie’s followers seem to have little fear of him.
The FNM has had a tough time in the public relations war over the sale of BTC. The union movement, the opposition and some prominent church leaders have opposed the move.
That public relations fight becomes more difficult when FNMs join the public fight against the sale. When young party members question the party’s actions, or disagree with it, the party is weakened during a war.
The danger for the FNM is that these young members of the party can do more damage to it than the PLP.
The PLP has no credibility when it comes to the BTC debate. It too wanted to sell a major chunk of BTC to foreigners.
The PLP is only protesting the CWC sale in an attempt to cause trouble for the government in the run up to the next general election. The opposition is not concerned about the real debate that has emerged surrounding privatization policy and Bahamianization.
But when FNMs speak out publicly on the issue at the risk of being savaged by the party’s leadership, it appears as if the messenger attempting to convince the country of the wisdom of the CWC sale has turned on itself.
The FNM would be wise, for its sake, to conclude the BTC deal as soon as possible. More public dissent from within the governing party will not stop the deal, but it would weaken the FNM at a time when it is attempting to convince Bahamians it should serve another term in office.
1/13/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
It was surprising to read published comments by two Free National Movement (FNM) members this week on the sale of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney said he would wait to see the memorandum of understanding the government signed with CWC, as well as the details of the proposed sale, before he gives his support in Parliament.
“I cannot make a decision without having the facts,” McCartney said to The Nassau Guardian on Tuesday. “I don’t have all of the facts.”
The government has promised to make all the details of the proposed deal public before it comes up for debate in the House of Assembly.
“Once all the facts are in hand, I’ll be able to make a decision as to whether or not it’s the right thing to do or otherwise,” McCartney added.
FNM Vice-chairman Darron Cash, who is a former party senator, wrote a long opinion piece that was published in The Guardian on Monday. In it, Cash set out why he strongly opposes the BTC sale to CWC.
“I disagree with the government’s proposed action. I believe it is wrong for the country,” said Cash.
“This decision sells the country short. It is a betrayal of future generations, and like a bad stock on BISX—in which you have little confidence—the government is selling the next generation (my generation) short.”
Cash then used more than 5,000 words to explain why he disagrees with the deal.
Hubert Ingraham has run his FNM in a different manner than Perry Christie has run the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). PLPs have regularly criticized Christie and the party publicly.
Ingraham’s troops are not known for this behavior. From all accounts, Ingraham, like the late Sir Lynden Pindling, ensures order is maintained by inflicting painful political consequences for dissent. Christie’s followers seem to have little fear of him.
The FNM has had a tough time in the public relations war over the sale of BTC. The union movement, the opposition and some prominent church leaders have opposed the move.
That public relations fight becomes more difficult when FNMs join the public fight against the sale. When young party members question the party’s actions, or disagree with it, the party is weakened during a war.
The danger for the FNM is that these young members of the party can do more damage to it than the PLP.
The PLP has no credibility when it comes to the BTC debate. It too wanted to sell a major chunk of BTC to foreigners.
The PLP is only protesting the CWC sale in an attempt to cause trouble for the government in the run up to the next general election. The opposition is not concerned about the real debate that has emerged surrounding privatization policy and Bahamianization.
But when FNMs speak out publicly on the issue at the risk of being savaged by the party’s leadership, it appears as if the messenger attempting to convince the country of the wisdom of the CWC sale has turned on itself.
The FNM would be wise, for its sake, to conclude the BTC deal as soon as possible. More public dissent from within the governing party will not stop the deal, but it would weaken the FNM at a time when it is attempting to convince Bahamians it should serve another term in office.
1/13/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Friday, January 14, 2011
Specify the nature of the national security threat or withdraw the remarks ‘Tommy’ Turnquest
Please Specify the Threat
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Information reaching us notes that, this nation’s armed forces have been put on alert – with this alert being sounded because of some unspecified threat to the national security of the Bahamas.
We are also hearing it said that, the Hon. Orville A. T. ‘Tommy’ Turnquest believes that there is a credible threat to this nation’s security.
While we have our full share of doubts about this matter, we are today respectfully calling on the Minister of National Security to step forward; this with a view to specifying the nature of this threat or – in the alternate- withdraw these remarks.
Indeed, there is information coming in suggests that, the unions' fight to oust Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) as the purchaser of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) constitutes some kind of threat to this nation’s security; this according to the same Minister of National Security, the Hon. O.A.T. ‘Tommy’ Turnquest.
We cannot and will not believe this of the unions in question; and for sure, we agree with them when they say that, the charge made is unwarranted and unfair.
We are also somewhat discomfited by information coming in that suggests that the same Minister is on record as saying that, the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) and Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF) are on alert for any signs of a "threat" as a result of the sale of BTC to CWC.
This statement is at best gratuitous; since the police should always be on alert. The question here should more rightly be turned on the question, alert for what!?
Yet again, new information reaching us indicates that, “…when asked if the unions' fight against CWC represented a national threat, Turnquest said simply, "Absolutely."
This Minister either misspoke or is dreadfully misinformed.
And so today, we make the point – and here point blank – we do believe that workers and their representatives do have a right to protest any decision or proposal made by any administration in a free and sovereign Bahamas.
By necessary implication, then, we are in total disagreement with the Minister of National Security when he intimates that, the unions’ current opposition to the BTC- Cable and Wireless deal for whatever reason represents a so-called threat to either national development or security.
Claiming that he and his colleagues know what they know – and that [furthermore] they are prepared for what they [now] know, the Hon. Tommy Turnquest darkly hints and claims that, they are also quite ready for any threat.
These obscure statements apparently have something or the other to do with demands and statements made by certain union leaders and their followers who are opposed to that deal in the works that seems set to give Cable and Wireless a 51% stake in BTC.
As far as we know and understand the extent to which Bahamians have rights in this country is to the effect that, they surely do have a right to movement, expression and to sharing such with their fellows here, there and all around the world.
These people also have a right to express their [peaceful] opposition to any stance taken by any government. And clearly, when workers vote, they have a right to turf one party out and invite another in.
This is part and parcel of how things are done in a democracy.
By the same token, the government of the day has a duty to do its best within the four corners of the law; all the while knowing that whenever they are so minded, the people can elect and select others to lead them.
Yet again, this is part and parcel of how things are done in a democracy.
Here we are certain that the Hon. Minister of National Security is fully aware of these facts of life in a land where sovereignty inheres in the people.
Clearly then, the ‘rights’ whereof we speak are rights that are guaranteed in the fundamental law of the land as that law is to be found in the Constitution; itself a creation of the Bahamian people –united in service and love.
While not saying what information the RBPF and RBDF have about the unions and their plans, or how the information is being acquired, the minister intimated that both of those entities have credible information.
This report merely begs the question – show us the evidence!
Clearly then, when any Minister suggests that, unions and their leaders might for whatever reason pose a threat to the national security of the Bahamian nation, they should feel honor-bound to back up this statement with facts that are easily verifiable.
Otherwise, he should now specify and substantiate the claim he has made – or do the next best thing.
January 13, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Information reaching us notes that, this nation’s armed forces have been put on alert – with this alert being sounded because of some unspecified threat to the national security of the Bahamas.
We are also hearing it said that, the Hon. Orville A. T. ‘Tommy’ Turnquest believes that there is a credible threat to this nation’s security.
While we have our full share of doubts about this matter, we are today respectfully calling on the Minister of National Security to step forward; this with a view to specifying the nature of this threat or – in the alternate- withdraw these remarks.
Indeed, there is information coming in suggests that, the unions' fight to oust Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) as the purchaser of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) constitutes some kind of threat to this nation’s security; this according to the same Minister of National Security, the Hon. O.A.T. ‘Tommy’ Turnquest.
We cannot and will not believe this of the unions in question; and for sure, we agree with them when they say that, the charge made is unwarranted and unfair.
We are also somewhat discomfited by information coming in that suggests that the same Minister is on record as saying that, the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) and Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF) are on alert for any signs of a "threat" as a result of the sale of BTC to CWC.
This statement is at best gratuitous; since the police should always be on alert. The question here should more rightly be turned on the question, alert for what!?
Yet again, new information reaching us indicates that, “…when asked if the unions' fight against CWC represented a national threat, Turnquest said simply, "Absolutely."
This Minister either misspoke or is dreadfully misinformed.
And so today, we make the point – and here point blank – we do believe that workers and their representatives do have a right to protest any decision or proposal made by any administration in a free and sovereign Bahamas.
By necessary implication, then, we are in total disagreement with the Minister of National Security when he intimates that, the unions’ current opposition to the BTC- Cable and Wireless deal for whatever reason represents a so-called threat to either national development or security.
Claiming that he and his colleagues know what they know – and that [furthermore] they are prepared for what they [now] know, the Hon. Tommy Turnquest darkly hints and claims that, they are also quite ready for any threat.
These obscure statements apparently have something or the other to do with demands and statements made by certain union leaders and their followers who are opposed to that deal in the works that seems set to give Cable and Wireless a 51% stake in BTC.
As far as we know and understand the extent to which Bahamians have rights in this country is to the effect that, they surely do have a right to movement, expression and to sharing such with their fellows here, there and all around the world.
These people also have a right to express their [peaceful] opposition to any stance taken by any government. And clearly, when workers vote, they have a right to turf one party out and invite another in.
This is part and parcel of how things are done in a democracy.
By the same token, the government of the day has a duty to do its best within the four corners of the law; all the while knowing that whenever they are so minded, the people can elect and select others to lead them.
Yet again, this is part and parcel of how things are done in a democracy.
Here we are certain that the Hon. Minister of National Security is fully aware of these facts of life in a land where sovereignty inheres in the people.
Clearly then, the ‘rights’ whereof we speak are rights that are guaranteed in the fundamental law of the land as that law is to be found in the Constitution; itself a creation of the Bahamian people –united in service and love.
While not saying what information the RBPF and RBDF have about the unions and their plans, or how the information is being acquired, the minister intimated that both of those entities have credible information.
This report merely begs the question – show us the evidence!
Clearly then, when any Minister suggests that, unions and their leaders might for whatever reason pose a threat to the national security of the Bahamian nation, they should feel honor-bound to back up this statement with facts that are easily verifiable.
Otherwise, he should now specify and substantiate the claim he has made – or do the next best thing.
January 13, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The love of foreigners over Bahamians by the PLP and FNM when it comes to the BTC privatization process...
Selling BTC a threat to national development
thenassauguardian editorial
National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest escalated the dispute between the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) unions and the government over the sale of the majority stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), when he described the unions’ protest as a national security threat.
Turnquest, in an interview with The Nassau Guardian, went further and stated that the security forces are on alert for any eventuality regarding the dispute. The BTC unions have threatened, with the support of the national trade union movement, a general strike.
Union leaders always threaten to strike when they don’t get their way. In order to carry out a successful strike, however, a majority of the workers represented by these leaders have to support the strike call. And these workers have to be prepared for pain and loss.
There is no evidence, thus far, proving that the members of these unions are prepared to go down this rough road.
The unions have been annoying to the government, but they have not been a national security threat. In fact, the union opposition has been somewhat weak.
There were only a few hundred people at the union march on Parliament in December – that number includes the members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and other splinter parties which participated. These unions represent tens of thousands of workers.
Only a few hundred people showed up at the union-organized ‘mass rally’ at R.M. Bailey Park on Monday night.
These unions can’t even bring out a good crowd.
The minister has engaged in hyperbole. And by invoking the security forces under his command – the Royal Bahamas Police Force and Royal Bahamas Defence Force – he appears menacing.
The government and its agencies should be on alert for mass disruptions rather than some nebulous national security threat. The unions are likely to continue with small-scale disruptions.
National security threats are actions that threaten the existence of a state. Strike calls by union leaders who cannot turn out their membership do not threaten the existence of The Bahamas.
The decision to sell a major Bahamian state asset to a foreign company, however, is a threat to the national development of the country.
The policy of all Bahamian governments should be to empower Bahamians. They should especially attempt to create more entrepreneurs and to further empower those already in business.
When Bahamians own enterprises, rather than foreigners, more money stays in the country and more Bahamians are usually hired to operate the business.
Furthermore, empowering Bahamians by making Bahamians owners of BTC would allow those Bahamians to then become players in the regional telecommunications industry. Policymakers should be aiming for Bahamians to someday take over telcos across the Caribbean.
Instead, the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) administrations want to sell a major chunk of this major state asset to foreigners.
A privatization policy is needed in The Bahamas. It should state that bidders for state assets either be Bahamian or they should be joint venture partnerships with Bahamians.
The love of foreigners over Bahamians when it comes to the BTC privatization process is the threat Bahamians should be concerned about when it comes to the PLP and the FNM.
1/12/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest escalated the dispute between the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) unions and the government over the sale of the majority stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), when he described the unions’ protest as a national security threat.
Turnquest, in an interview with The Nassau Guardian, went further and stated that the security forces are on alert for any eventuality regarding the dispute. The BTC unions have threatened, with the support of the national trade union movement, a general strike.
Union leaders always threaten to strike when they don’t get their way. In order to carry out a successful strike, however, a majority of the workers represented by these leaders have to support the strike call. And these workers have to be prepared for pain and loss.
There is no evidence, thus far, proving that the members of these unions are prepared to go down this rough road.
The unions have been annoying to the government, but they have not been a national security threat. In fact, the union opposition has been somewhat weak.
There were only a few hundred people at the union march on Parliament in December – that number includes the members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and other splinter parties which participated. These unions represent tens of thousands of workers.
Only a few hundred people showed up at the union-organized ‘mass rally’ at R.M. Bailey Park on Monday night.
These unions can’t even bring out a good crowd.
The minister has engaged in hyperbole. And by invoking the security forces under his command – the Royal Bahamas Police Force and Royal Bahamas Defence Force – he appears menacing.
The government and its agencies should be on alert for mass disruptions rather than some nebulous national security threat. The unions are likely to continue with small-scale disruptions.
National security threats are actions that threaten the existence of a state. Strike calls by union leaders who cannot turn out their membership do not threaten the existence of The Bahamas.
The decision to sell a major Bahamian state asset to a foreign company, however, is a threat to the national development of the country.
The policy of all Bahamian governments should be to empower Bahamians. They should especially attempt to create more entrepreneurs and to further empower those already in business.
When Bahamians own enterprises, rather than foreigners, more money stays in the country and more Bahamians are usually hired to operate the business.
Furthermore, empowering Bahamians by making Bahamians owners of BTC would allow those Bahamians to then become players in the regional telecommunications industry. Policymakers should be aiming for Bahamians to someday take over telcos across the Caribbean.
Instead, the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) administrations want to sell a major chunk of this major state asset to foreigners.
A privatization policy is needed in The Bahamas. It should state that bidders for state assets either be Bahamian or they should be joint venture partnerships with Bahamians.
The love of foreigners over Bahamians when it comes to the BTC privatization process is the threat Bahamians should be concerned about when it comes to the PLP and the FNM.
1/12/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The BTC Bad Deal with Cable & Wireless
In Adamant Opposition to a bad Deal
The Bahama Journal Editorial
There are times in life when conscience demands that we set aside petty calculation and yield to its dictates; such a time has come for this Journal as we call on the current administration to heed the voice of the Bahamian people.
This voice – as we have heard it as it echoes and resonates – demands that, all Bahamians who are patriots should rise – as if they were one man- in opposition to any deal that would deny the Bahamian people majority control of entities such as BTC.
Indeed, like so very many other Bahamians who disagree with the current administration’s on that matter which involves giving Cable and Wireless a 51% per cent stake in BTC; we do so based on our studied conclusion that this deal is not in the best interests of either BTC or the Bahamian people.
Contrariwise, we are today quite persuaded that, things would go very differently and much better for all parties concerned were the government minded to make no deal with anyone that does not leave the Bahamas and the Bahamian people in direct control of this entity.
Here we rush to assure the public that our difference with the current administration has next to nothing to do with any position that might seem to be –at least on first blush- barking up the same tree.
And so, while some who oppose the deal may be doing so because they fear some of its implications and ramifications, moving forward; we are where we are based on principle.
That principle has to do with our deeply held conviction that there are certain properties that should never be alienated to the control of any foreign entity; this based on our conclusion that tied up in these entities are values that cut to the very core of what it means to be both sovereign and self-respecting.
We are where we are on this issue based on our fervently held view that, there are properties that are so very valuable and so deeply enmeshed with this nation’s identity and security.
And clearly then, we are fulsome in our support of all those Bahamian nationalists who are not prepared to sit by and watch as BTC – as part of this nation’s patrimony – released into the hands of Cable and Wireless.
Here we hasten to add that, we are not opposed to foreign involvement in BTC or any other Bahamian owned entity; what we resent has to do with giving them the whip-hand that comes with the 51% share.
The BTC deal –as proposed and as debated throughout the length and breadth of the Bahamas – is one that has galvanized a tremendous amount of opposition.
Indeed, so loud and so resonant has the voice of the people been that today, we marvel that those who might yet make the difference have not heeded the call and plea for them to turn around and do what is right.
And as we are led to understand and appreciate what seems to be an emerging consensus, the Bahamian people are –for the most part- opposed to the deal that is set to be struck between BTC and Cable and Wireless.
Those people who oppose the deal [as currently proposed] seem to be of the view that the deal is a bad one.
We agree with them.
And not only do we agree with them, we telegraph our resolve to stand with all Bahamians who would seriously request of the current administration that, they can and should take a while before putting pen to paper on that now vexing matter involving BTC and Cable and Wireless.
But even as we are set on making this principled position known and noted, we are also aware of the fact that, the current administration seems set on its current path.
Here we also note that, no changes have been made to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and Cable & Wireless over BTC's impending sale.
We are also hearing say that, the government is on course to finalizing a contract with C&W which is expected to be signed this month; and that, the said sale should be completed by the middle of February.
But be that as it may – whether the deal with Cable and Wireless is consummated or not – we are opposed to it in its current form.
January 12, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
The Bahama Journal Editorial
There are times in life when conscience demands that we set aside petty calculation and yield to its dictates; such a time has come for this Journal as we call on the current administration to heed the voice of the Bahamian people.
This voice – as we have heard it as it echoes and resonates – demands that, all Bahamians who are patriots should rise – as if they were one man- in opposition to any deal that would deny the Bahamian people majority control of entities such as BTC.
Indeed, like so very many other Bahamians who disagree with the current administration’s on that matter which involves giving Cable and Wireless a 51% per cent stake in BTC; we do so based on our studied conclusion that this deal is not in the best interests of either BTC or the Bahamian people.
Contrariwise, we are today quite persuaded that, things would go very differently and much better for all parties concerned were the government minded to make no deal with anyone that does not leave the Bahamas and the Bahamian people in direct control of this entity.
Here we rush to assure the public that our difference with the current administration has next to nothing to do with any position that might seem to be –at least on first blush- barking up the same tree.
And so, while some who oppose the deal may be doing so because they fear some of its implications and ramifications, moving forward; we are where we are based on principle.
That principle has to do with our deeply held conviction that there are certain properties that should never be alienated to the control of any foreign entity; this based on our conclusion that tied up in these entities are values that cut to the very core of what it means to be both sovereign and self-respecting.
We are where we are on this issue based on our fervently held view that, there are properties that are so very valuable and so deeply enmeshed with this nation’s identity and security.
And clearly then, we are fulsome in our support of all those Bahamian nationalists who are not prepared to sit by and watch as BTC – as part of this nation’s patrimony – released into the hands of Cable and Wireless.
Here we hasten to add that, we are not opposed to foreign involvement in BTC or any other Bahamian owned entity; what we resent has to do with giving them the whip-hand that comes with the 51% share.
The BTC deal –as proposed and as debated throughout the length and breadth of the Bahamas – is one that has galvanized a tremendous amount of opposition.
Indeed, so loud and so resonant has the voice of the people been that today, we marvel that those who might yet make the difference have not heeded the call and plea for them to turn around and do what is right.
And as we are led to understand and appreciate what seems to be an emerging consensus, the Bahamian people are –for the most part- opposed to the deal that is set to be struck between BTC and Cable and Wireless.
Those people who oppose the deal [as currently proposed] seem to be of the view that the deal is a bad one.
We agree with them.
And not only do we agree with them, we telegraph our resolve to stand with all Bahamians who would seriously request of the current administration that, they can and should take a while before putting pen to paper on that now vexing matter involving BTC and Cable and Wireless.
But even as we are set on making this principled position known and noted, we are also aware of the fact that, the current administration seems set on its current path.
Here we also note that, no changes have been made to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and Cable & Wireless over BTC's impending sale.
We are also hearing say that, the government is on course to finalizing a contract with C&W which is expected to be signed this month; and that, the said sale should be completed by the middle of February.
But be that as it may – whether the deal with Cable and Wireless is consummated or not – we are opposed to it in its current form.
January 12, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Labor, Politics and Majority Rule
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Another Majority Rule anniversary has come and has gone.
And so, today we reference matters germane to labor, politics and Majority Rule in the Bahamas.
And for sure – even as this one recedes into the mists that come with memories effaced; another will arrive and some other Bahamians will venture that, the General Strike of 1958 did play a massively important role in the social transformation of the Bahamas.
And so we would argue that those who now go in search of the mainspring governing action in those days might first wish to look at the leadership cadre behind the General Strike; there they would find Randol F. Fawkes [labor’s main man and champion of the so-called grass roots]; Clifford Darling, a taxi-driver [and therefore an owner in his own right of his means of production] and Lynden O. Pindling [as Parliamentary Leader of the then-nascent Progressive Liberal Party].
Fast forward to the social history available to most Bahamians and you would find that, it was the Progressive Liberal Party – with the help of a distinguished cadre of intellectuals and other political savvy men and women [with some of them like Clement Maynard, labor leaders in their own right]; that was able to command the support of the so-called “Majority”.
We would also venture that the role played by Clifford Darling and his men was the maneuver that did more than any other tactic to show the resolve of the Bahamian people not only in the specifics that had triggered the strike, but also in the broader struggle for full adult suffrage in the Bahamas.
And yet again, any fair reading of the social history of the past fifty-plus years would show that it was Pindling’s fate and that of his party to take the mantle and become the pioneers of development in a Bahamas that had entered history’s stream in a truly big way when the case of the Bahamas [that is its case for freedom] was argued before the United Nations.
This was like Black Tuesday of April 27th. 1965 uniquely Pindling’s.
As the record attests, Pindling and his Progressive Liberal Party went on to a series of victories that took them and the people they led to both so-called Majority Rule and Independence.
Evidently, they also faced some major challenges.
Highest on that list would be the damage done by the illicit trade in drugs throughout the Bahamian archipelago; the corrosive effects this trade had - and which it continues to have on social life in our country.
Notwithstanding this challenge and a host of others, there is no doubting the conclusion that the Bahamas built by Pindling endures. In this regard, it is nothing short of exemplary that the man who is today Chief and the man who would be Chief are both distinguished political alumni of the late and truly great Sir Lynden O. Pindling.
And so we would argue that if there is a legacy of 1958 that resounds even now; the resonance is to be found in the ascendancy of the Progressive Liberal Party in the years subsequent.
But even as we make these brief points concerning the General Strike of 1958, the eclipse of Fawkes and his supporters, the subsequent ascendancy of Pindling and the PLP, we also note that, despite their advances and that of the nation itself – there has always been an underclass of workers who have not benefited as much as they might have at one time or the other dreamed.
In addition, there are clearly any number of so-called ‘small’ businesses that have not been able to consolidate themselves in the all the years since the achievement of so-called Majority Rule.
This is not as surprising as it might – on first blush- appear; this because regardless of intention, no government no matter how well-intentioned, can make someone [or better still anyone] succeed in business.
And as an old saying puts it, money goes where money lies – and so it has and so will it continue.
But for sure – even as the evidence mounts that this is so, there remains a persistent cry to the effect that this or that group is being oppressed by another.
This is evidence of the highest order that the real struggle in our country and others has to do with the struggle between classes and the masses; and not that between the so-called ‘races’.
Indeed, such is the current state of political play in the Bahamas that both of this nation’s political parties now vie for the support of practically the same people; and thus the current slide towards a politics of tribalism and personal destruction.
January 11, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Another Majority Rule anniversary has come and has gone.
And so, today we reference matters germane to labor, politics and Majority Rule in the Bahamas.
And for sure – even as this one recedes into the mists that come with memories effaced; another will arrive and some other Bahamians will venture that, the General Strike of 1958 did play a massively important role in the social transformation of the Bahamas.
And so we would argue that those who now go in search of the mainspring governing action in those days might first wish to look at the leadership cadre behind the General Strike; there they would find Randol F. Fawkes [labor’s main man and champion of the so-called grass roots]; Clifford Darling, a taxi-driver [and therefore an owner in his own right of his means of production] and Lynden O. Pindling [as Parliamentary Leader of the then-nascent Progressive Liberal Party].
Fast forward to the social history available to most Bahamians and you would find that, it was the Progressive Liberal Party – with the help of a distinguished cadre of intellectuals and other political savvy men and women [with some of them like Clement Maynard, labor leaders in their own right]; that was able to command the support of the so-called “Majority”.
We would also venture that the role played by Clifford Darling and his men was the maneuver that did more than any other tactic to show the resolve of the Bahamian people not only in the specifics that had triggered the strike, but also in the broader struggle for full adult suffrage in the Bahamas.
And yet again, any fair reading of the social history of the past fifty-plus years would show that it was Pindling’s fate and that of his party to take the mantle and become the pioneers of development in a Bahamas that had entered history’s stream in a truly big way when the case of the Bahamas [that is its case for freedom] was argued before the United Nations.
This was like Black Tuesday of April 27th. 1965 uniquely Pindling’s.
As the record attests, Pindling and his Progressive Liberal Party went on to a series of victories that took them and the people they led to both so-called Majority Rule and Independence.
Evidently, they also faced some major challenges.
Highest on that list would be the damage done by the illicit trade in drugs throughout the Bahamian archipelago; the corrosive effects this trade had - and which it continues to have on social life in our country.
Notwithstanding this challenge and a host of others, there is no doubting the conclusion that the Bahamas built by Pindling endures. In this regard, it is nothing short of exemplary that the man who is today Chief and the man who would be Chief are both distinguished political alumni of the late and truly great Sir Lynden O. Pindling.
And so we would argue that if there is a legacy of 1958 that resounds even now; the resonance is to be found in the ascendancy of the Progressive Liberal Party in the years subsequent.
But even as we make these brief points concerning the General Strike of 1958, the eclipse of Fawkes and his supporters, the subsequent ascendancy of Pindling and the PLP, we also note that, despite their advances and that of the nation itself – there has always been an underclass of workers who have not benefited as much as they might have at one time or the other dreamed.
In addition, there are clearly any number of so-called ‘small’ businesses that have not been able to consolidate themselves in the all the years since the achievement of so-called Majority Rule.
This is not as surprising as it might – on first blush- appear; this because regardless of intention, no government no matter how well-intentioned, can make someone [or better still anyone] succeed in business.
And as an old saying puts it, money goes where money lies – and so it has and so will it continue.
But for sure – even as the evidence mounts that this is so, there remains a persistent cry to the effect that this or that group is being oppressed by another.
This is evidence of the highest order that the real struggle in our country and others has to do with the struggle between classes and the masses; and not that between the so-called ‘races’.
Indeed, such is the current state of political play in the Bahamas that both of this nation’s political parties now vie for the support of practically the same people; and thus the current slide towards a politics of tribalism and personal destruction.
January 11, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Monday, January 10, 2011
Majority Rule is a concept that has long been lost in the everyday Bahamian way of life
Who says the majority rules?
thenassauguardian editorial
Today is being observed as Majority Rule Day in The Bahamas.
Historically, the day represents the emergence of a local, black Bahamian government, with the responsibility of helping Bahamians govern their own affairs and their future, as The Bahamas began its trek to Independence.
Now in its 44th year, Majority Rule Day continues to be observed as a day that honors those who contributed to The Bahamas we know today. However, mention the words “Majority Rule Day” to the average Bahamian and ask them what it is about and more than 85 percent will look at you like a deer staring into headlights.
Ask the average young person (between the ages of 15-25) and more than 90 percent will think you’re speaking a foreign language.
Not enough Bahamian history is being taught. Most Bahamians don’t know their history, and for the most part, many could care less.
But that’s another story for another time.
As far as celebrating Majority Rule Day is concerned, some feel it is pointless, considering the fact that The Bahamas finds itself in a contradiction from a socio-economic point-of-view. We live in a society where the minority rules the majority.
The rich minority controls and dictates the lifestyle of the majority of the poor Bahamians. We live in a society where “the rich gets richer” and the poor remains poor.
In addition, the idea of “government for and by the people” is not based in reality.
The Bahamian Parliament, which is supposed to represent and fight for the rights of Bahamians, seemingly pass laws that burden the average Bahamian and gives more power to the wealthy among us.
Majority Rule is a concept that has long been lost in the everyday Bahamian way of life. What it stood for in the past, seems to have less relevance and meaning today.
One of the co-founders of Majority Rule Day, former Governor General Arthur D. Hanna, noted that Majority Rule Day was an uphill battle “in that we couldn’t get a level playing field.
“The government of the day (United Bahamian Party - UBP) wanted to hold on to power, therefore, they had all kinds of tricks. One was how they dealt with constituencies.”
On the surface, it seems ironic that many of today’s governments have used the same “tricks” during elections in The Bahamas, but when one considers the fact that some of our leaders of today learned from those of the past, then we can understand certain similarities.
The concept which our forefathers fought for, does not hold the same significance today. So, we celebrate a day that has somehow lost its meaning and its focus, which is the Bahamian people.
We celebrate a day where the majority does not rule, but rather where the minority rules the majority.
1/10/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
Today is being observed as Majority Rule Day in The Bahamas.
Historically, the day represents the emergence of a local, black Bahamian government, with the responsibility of helping Bahamians govern their own affairs and their future, as The Bahamas began its trek to Independence.
Now in its 44th year, Majority Rule Day continues to be observed as a day that honors those who contributed to The Bahamas we know today. However, mention the words “Majority Rule Day” to the average Bahamian and ask them what it is about and more than 85 percent will look at you like a deer staring into headlights.
Ask the average young person (between the ages of 15-25) and more than 90 percent will think you’re speaking a foreign language.
Not enough Bahamian history is being taught. Most Bahamians don’t know their history, and for the most part, many could care less.
But that’s another story for another time.
As far as celebrating Majority Rule Day is concerned, some feel it is pointless, considering the fact that The Bahamas finds itself in a contradiction from a socio-economic point-of-view. We live in a society where the minority rules the majority.
The rich minority controls and dictates the lifestyle of the majority of the poor Bahamians. We live in a society where “the rich gets richer” and the poor remains poor.
In addition, the idea of “government for and by the people” is not based in reality.
The Bahamian Parliament, which is supposed to represent and fight for the rights of Bahamians, seemingly pass laws that burden the average Bahamian and gives more power to the wealthy among us.
Majority Rule is a concept that has long been lost in the everyday Bahamian way of life. What it stood for in the past, seems to have less relevance and meaning today.
One of the co-founders of Majority Rule Day, former Governor General Arthur D. Hanna, noted that Majority Rule Day was an uphill battle “in that we couldn’t get a level playing field.
“The government of the day (United Bahamian Party - UBP) wanted to hold on to power, therefore, they had all kinds of tricks. One was how they dealt with constituencies.”
On the surface, it seems ironic that many of today’s governments have used the same “tricks” during elections in The Bahamas, but when one considers the fact that some of our leaders of today learned from those of the past, then we can understand certain similarities.
The concept which our forefathers fought for, does not hold the same significance today. So, we celebrate a day that has somehow lost its meaning and its focus, which is the Bahamian people.
We celebrate a day where the majority does not rule, but rather where the minority rules the majority.
1/10/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)