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

Why Sir Kendal refused to lead a demonstration

tribune242 editorial





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 14, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

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

Branville McCartney’s Folly

by Simon


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

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

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

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

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

PERSPECTIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLLECTIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TUTORIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bahamapundit

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

Propaganda and the pending BTC privatisation

By LARRY SMITH



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

Send comments to

larry@tribunemedia.net

Or visit www.bahamapundit.com

March 09, 2011

tribune242

The Bahamas lacks legislation criminalizing participation in an organized criminal group

Adopting laws against organized crime
thenassauguardian editorial



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3/9/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Capital punishment serves no useful purpose

Ending the death penalty
thenassauguardian editorial



Execution remains the most severe punishment prescribed by the state for the crimes of murder and treason. The punishment of death is regularly issued in The Bahamas against those who commit murder. Treason prosecutions are virtually non-existent.

Despite the regularity of the issuance of the death sentence, executions are uncommon. There has not been a hanging in The Bahamas since David Mitchell was executed on January 6, 2000.

In the 1993 Pratt and Morgan ruling, Her Majesty’s Privy Council ruled that it would be cruel and inhuman to execute a murder convict more than five years after the death sentence was issued.

This ruling slowed the execution process. Murder trials take a long time to come up in this country and the appeals process after the death sentence is issued also takes years.

The country hanged 50 men since 1929, according to records kept at Her Majesty's Prison. Thirteen were hanged under the 25-year rule of the Pindling government (1967-1992); five of them were hanged under the first two Ingraham administrations (1992-2002); and the remainder were executed between 1929 and 1967.

In 2006, the Privy Council also issued a ruling stating that the section of the Penal Code requiring a sentence of death be passed on any defendant convicted of murder "should be construed as imposing a discretionary and not a mandatory sentence of death."

Five years after the first murder convict was sentenced to hang by a judge, using her discretion (then Supreme Court Justice Anita Allen), it appears that Maxo Tido will never be executed for the gruesome murder of a teenage girl.

His appeal against his conviction and sentence was scheduled to be heard by the Privy Council yesterday.

He was convicted on March 20, 2006 of the 2002 murder of 16-year-old Donnell Conover. In 12 days, it will be five years since Tido was sentenced to death and his matter was yesterday still in court.

The government has acknowledged that hangings are unlikely considering the five-year rule and the amount of time it takes for the appeals process to take place. However, despite this acknowledgment, capital punishment remains the legal punishment.

This commentary is not intended to offer an opinion on whether or not capital punishment is a fair or reasonable punishment. We have expressed our views on capital punishment in another editorial in this paper and remain steadfast that capital punishment is not an appropriate remedy. It serves no useful purpose.

What is clear is that even though it is the law of the land, it is virtually impossible for the death sentence to be carried out. Appeals against the sentence add to the backlog of cases before various courts. If the five-year rule remains, we need to end the death penalty for practical reasons.

The appeals waste time and money.

Anecdotally, the majority of Bahamians appear in favor of executions. This includes many of the powerful and vocal Christian clerics. Successive governments, it seems, fear even raising the issue of ending the death penalty.

As we all consider ways to reduce the number of matters before the court in order to make the criminal justice system more efficient, we must put this issue up for debate. Emotionalism is useless. The facts are the facts. Hangings, though desired by many, are unlikely to occur.

We must now at least start the discussion of the post-hanging period in The Bahamas. New laws are needed creating categories of murder. A proper definition of life in prison must also be brought forward along with a proper system of parole.

These are the issues that need to be debated when it comes to dealing with those who murder.

As long as the Privy Council rule remains in effect, murderers will appeal and appeal until the time for execution has past.

We must be realistic and accept that the days of execution in The Bahamas are over. Our laws ought to reflect this reality.

3/8/2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

This is no time for the unions to create further instability...

Not the time for union unrest
tribune242 editorial



ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.

This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.

A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.

Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."

But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.

Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."

Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.

And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.

But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."

"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.

Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.

As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.

Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.

When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.

Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.

These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.

Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.

"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.

This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.

It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.

March 08, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Cassius Stuart - Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) leader: The Bahamas is in "desperate need" of new leadership in order for significant progress to be made

BDM Leader: Country Needs New Leadership
By Sasha L. Lightbourne



As far as the Bahamas Democratic Movement (BDM) leader sees things, the country is in "desperate need" of new leadership in order for significant progress to be made.

In an interview with the Bahama Journal, Cassius Stuart said he is preparing to head "full steam" into the 2012 general elections as BDM leader.

"We are getting our candidates in order and raising funds to make sure that we are able to compete and properly contest this general election," he said.

"We realise that the Bahamian people are crying and craving something new. I think the leadership of our country needs to be shaken up. Not taking anything away from [Hubert] Ingraham and [Perry] Christie, but you reach to a point where you need to move on because you need an infusion of energy, vision, excitement and that will not come from Ingraham and Christie anymore."

Mr. Stuart believes the problem with black leadership is that no one knows how to step down.

"We don’t know how to transfer authority and power," he said.

"We have to die in office or someone has to pry it from our dead hands and we have to now look at leadership sensibly. Both [Ingraham and Christie] are in their 60s and have done tremendous jobs, been in Parliament for more than 35 years but now we need to move to let the next generation emerge so that a new infusion of ideas can embrace The Bahamas and sadly I don’t see that for the next five years."

The BDM leader explained that people such as himself, need to continue to find ways to say to the Bahamian people that the country needs new leadership.

"Whether the Bahamian people will embrace that, we will find out in 2012 but we are in desperate need of something new," Mr. Stuart said.

"When you look at Grand Bahama, there’s no vision there. The people are suffering because there is no economic activity going on. People are hurting and I am very sad that no government has come up with a solution for them because they deserve attention like we get in New Providence.

He said both governments, the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), have been producing "hopelessness and despair" in the nation’s second city.

"We need to encourage entrepreneurship and bring hope back to Grand Bahamians," he said.

As for his aspirations to become prime minister, Mr. Stuart said he never entered politics for that reason.

"My aspirations was to help the country," he said.

"I believe that I have something to lend to my country and that was one of the reasons why we formed the BDM, it was never for me to be prime minister - that was never my goal. My goal is how do we fix the crime problem and social issues?"

He further explained that he has invested "a countless amount of money" into his education so that he is able to lend some of what he has learnt to the country.

"I’ve invested so that I can add value to the country," the BDM leader said.

"My goal is not becoming prime minister, it’s how do we add value to the lives of Bahamians? My philosophy is this, if this ship sinks, it sinks for everybody but if it stays afloat then everybody is happy and if I can help it to stay afloat then that’s where I want to be."

March 7th, 2011

jonesbahamas

Bahamas Blog International