PM Laments Election Costs
By Macushla N. Pinder
If Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham had his way, he would reform the way general elections play out in The Bahamas.
This he said would include shaving down the amount of money spent on the process.
"In order to make elections less expensive, I’d like for political parties to all agree and to make illegal the giving away of t-shirts at election time. It’s a very expensive proposition. It drives up costs," Mr. Ingraham told reporters yesterday.
"In other parts of the world like Barbados, people come in and buy the party’s shirt. They pay their $5 and $10 for it. In The Bahamas, we give out thousands and thousands and it’s very expensive."
The prime minister’s comment came during his response to campaign finance reform, an issue that always arises when another general election draws near.
During the 2002 election season, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) promised to address the matter, but nothing was ever made public in this regard.
The party at the time said, "The Constitution ought to provide that Parliament may prescribe by law for open and fairness in procedure for funding of parties at elections both local and national. There ought to be prescribed national limits on party political expenditure with appropriate penalties."
After the 2007 general election, former Prime Minister Perry Christie suggested that one of the reasons the Free National Movement won is because special interest groups and "hidden forces" heavily financed it.
But Prime Minister Ingraham yesterday told reporters he has no difficulty "whatsoever" disclosing the source of his funding.
He however pointed out that those countries that do have campaign finance laws have found them to be "very ineffective."
But places that do have campaign finance laws, they have found it to be very ineffective.
"What they spend on elections in the United States is unbelievable and they have campaign finance laws. You cannot legislate honesty. The dishonest would be dishonest no matter what you do," he said.
In addition to campaign finance laws, some Bahamians also believe that public debates heading into a general election should be a must.
Mr. Ingraham however disagrees.
"I think parties put forward their platforms and programmes and the public has the opportunity to choose," he said.
"There are debates that take place everyday. When we have the rally, we will have a debate. We will say what we have to say. The next side will say what they have to say. I don’t think one-off is going to help people help make their minds up one way or the other. I think we have a very effective system."
While keeping mum on when the next general election will take place, the prime minister assured Bahamians he would not be late in calling it.
"It will not be that my minister of immigration would be in Marsh Harbour, Abaco swearing in new citizens – Haitians, who were given citizenship – and they go next door to register to vote and the prime minister in Nassau announces that elections have been called," he said.
"I will not be doing that kind of foolishness."
March 17th, 2011
jonesbahamas
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.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest in our beloved Bahamas
'Political operatives' and the 'criminally-minded'
tribune242 editorial
POLICE Staff Association president Dwight Smith during an interview with the press after the February 23 demonstration on Bay Street urged politicians to stop politicising issues.
He was defending his Force from a politician's criticism of the worth of police reports, which were used in another case to decide the suitability of a person for a high office. Mr Smith was also smarting under the criticism of how "over prepared" police were when they arrived on Bay Street for the BTC demonstration. It would have been irresponsible - after a union leader had declared that a "small Egypt" was needed on Bay Street to protest the sale of BTC - if police had not come fully prepared -- with its canine unit and all. The unionist was accused of instigating social unrest, and so the police were ready.
Mr Smith pointed out that the type of persons he saw among the crowd that day made it necessary for the police to do their job to ensure the safety of protesters and observers. He said the police had difficulty with those participating in the protest who had "nothing to do with BTC," but were there "advancing political groups."
"We saw so many things that were going on. I, for one, wondered if we were dealing with a BTC situation or if we were dealing with a political situation. For the life of me I could not understand what was going on," Mr Smith told the press.
The demonstration was said to have been organised by the Committee to Save BTC, but PLP members made a strong appearance.
Mr Smith said downtown merchants called to complain about a group of young protesters who were dropped off in the George Street area. As they walked to the protest, merchants claimed they stopped in store after store "causing a disturbance."
"I walked there personally and saw them. I knew some of them and talked to them. I heard them say, if they did not get paid there is going to be problems. I had to encourage some of them to come out of the stores. They had no reason to go in the stores.
"They were just being disruptive," said Mr Smith.
"My view is there were only a handful of persons there who were really dealing with BTC. If you were to speak to some of those persons, they did not know why they were out there. They did not know what they were out there for. If we were to really do the due diligence, we'll find a lot of them did not understand what was going on," he said.
It was suggested that "political operatives" had paid many persons -- some if them referred to by the police as "criminally minded" -- to demonstrate on Bay Street. As the late Kendal Isaacs, QC, who refused his party's request to lead a demonstration, pointed out, he would have been responsible for any breach of the peace caused by the demonstrators. These "political operatives," and Rodney Moncur, who has called for 10,000 demonstrators, should reconsider the consequences. And to help them understand their responsibilities the police should enforce the law -- especially against persons who would have paid these demonstrators to create the disturbance.
How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest and then demand that they obey the law when their services are no longer needed? We expect the police to protect residents against these very same people. However, when caught by the law they will look to their political paymasters to save them from prison.
Reminds us of the PLP election when drug dealers were desperate that the PLP be returned to power. Rightly or wrongly, true or false, there was the perception that this party was their guardian. The call was passed down the line -- especially in Eleuthera -- to get the fast boats ready. As soon as the PLP were elected the operators expected to be back in business. Some were so bold that they talked openly to our reporters, calling names of their political protectors.
We recall the talks that Magistrate Hercules and the late Sir Etienne Dupuch had many years ago when they took their morning constitutional on Cayman's Five Mile Beach. Magistrate Hercules, a tough, no nonsense magistrate, left the Bahamas after several years here. His complaint was about the political interference he had to suffer when certain "criminally-minded persons" appeared before him. It was more than he could take.
If we expect the police to be effective in controlling crime, then this culture of using persons on the wrong side of the law when it suits certain purposes, must end.
March 16, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
POLICE Staff Association president Dwight Smith during an interview with the press after the February 23 demonstration on Bay Street urged politicians to stop politicising issues.
He was defending his Force from a politician's criticism of the worth of police reports, which were used in another case to decide the suitability of a person for a high office. Mr Smith was also smarting under the criticism of how "over prepared" police were when they arrived on Bay Street for the BTC demonstration. It would have been irresponsible - after a union leader had declared that a "small Egypt" was needed on Bay Street to protest the sale of BTC - if police had not come fully prepared -- with its canine unit and all. The unionist was accused of instigating social unrest, and so the police were ready.
Mr Smith pointed out that the type of persons he saw among the crowd that day made it necessary for the police to do their job to ensure the safety of protesters and observers. He said the police had difficulty with those participating in the protest who had "nothing to do with BTC," but were there "advancing political groups."
"We saw so many things that were going on. I, for one, wondered if we were dealing with a BTC situation or if we were dealing with a political situation. For the life of me I could not understand what was going on," Mr Smith told the press.
The demonstration was said to have been organised by the Committee to Save BTC, but PLP members made a strong appearance.
Mr Smith said downtown merchants called to complain about a group of young protesters who were dropped off in the George Street area. As they walked to the protest, merchants claimed they stopped in store after store "causing a disturbance."
"I walked there personally and saw them. I knew some of them and talked to them. I heard them say, if they did not get paid there is going to be problems. I had to encourage some of them to come out of the stores. They had no reason to go in the stores.
"They were just being disruptive," said Mr Smith.
"My view is there were only a handful of persons there who were really dealing with BTC. If you were to speak to some of those persons, they did not know why they were out there. They did not know what they were out there for. If we were to really do the due diligence, we'll find a lot of them did not understand what was going on," he said.
It was suggested that "political operatives" had paid many persons -- some if them referred to by the police as "criminally minded" -- to demonstrate on Bay Street. As the late Kendal Isaacs, QC, who refused his party's request to lead a demonstration, pointed out, he would have been responsible for any breach of the peace caused by the demonstrators. These "political operatives," and Rodney Moncur, who has called for 10,000 demonstrators, should reconsider the consequences. And to help them understand their responsibilities the police should enforce the law -- especially against persons who would have paid these demonstrators to create the disturbance.
How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest and then demand that they obey the law when their services are no longer needed? We expect the police to protect residents against these very same people. However, when caught by the law they will look to their political paymasters to save them from prison.
Reminds us of the PLP election when drug dealers were desperate that the PLP be returned to power. Rightly or wrongly, true or false, there was the perception that this party was their guardian. The call was passed down the line -- especially in Eleuthera -- to get the fast boats ready. As soon as the PLP were elected the operators expected to be back in business. Some were so bold that they talked openly to our reporters, calling names of their political protectors.
We recall the talks that Magistrate Hercules and the late Sir Etienne Dupuch had many years ago when they took their morning constitutional on Cayman's Five Mile Beach. Magistrate Hercules, a tough, no nonsense magistrate, left the Bahamas after several years here. His complaint was about the political interference he had to suffer when certain "criminally-minded persons" appeared before him. It was more than he could take.
If we expect the police to be effective in controlling crime, then this culture of using persons on the wrong side of the law when it suits certain purposes, must end.
March 16, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
We recommend that Rodney Moncur and Company forget about the "10,000 strong" demonstration against the sale of Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)
Large or small -- paid demonstrations prove nothing
tribune242 editorial
THERE are those -- mainly BTC unionists and opposition politicians-- who maintain that the majority of Bahamians are against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
In today's Tribune Dr Elwood Donaldson, a former cabinet minister in the Pindling government, said his group believes that the majority of Bahamians agree that selling BTC is a bad idea. He claimed that such a sale would reverberate through history as the "greatest blunder" of any Bahamian government.
Rodney Moncur, another political activist, has called for 10,000 demonstrators to converge on Bay Street to object to the sale of the telecommunications company on the day that it is debated in parliament. He has urged the PLP to show its sincerity by delivering 6,000 supporters to join the march. So far in all the calls for demonstrators, these activists have been hard pressed to attract a crowd -- their largest showing has been about 500 persons. Police have confirmed hearing some among that 500, who are "well known" to them, complain that if they were not paid there was going to be problems.
Now that it has been revealed that certain "political activists" have paid persons to go to Bay Street to make up the numbers for the crowd scene, it no longer matters whether 500 or 10,000 of them show up. This does not answer the question of whether the majority of Bahamians are for or against the BTC sale. All it shows is that a goodly number of bodies on Bay Street are there for their promised $85 to push, shove and shout, and give the police a hard time. Already we hear squabbling among what the police have referred to as the "criminally-minded" complaining about not receiving money promised for their hour on Bay Street on February 23. It is claimed that the going price was supposed to be $85, but some only collected $40 or $50 for their paid-for "demonstration."
From talking to persons, one-on-one, and studying the various independent polls, we are left with the impression that the majority of Bahamians -- even among unionists -- are looking forward to efficient telecommunications service and lower rates. As several have said: "We can't wait for the day!" They approve the sale. These persons have been paid nothing for their opinion.
However, once a demonstration ceases to be spontaneous, demonstrators' numbers don't count -- they no longer represent accurate opinions -- in fact they represent no opinion. Now that it is known they are paid, their numbers impress no one, and the organisers are made to look foolish. It is just one big, noisy, bogus show. We hope that the organisers will be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever damage might be caused by what is certain to turn into a mob scene.
Paying persons to produce mob-scenes is nothing new. We remember one day early on in the first Ingraham administration, one of our press men asked to see us. By now he was a man past middle age, a reformed gang member, who on occasion still hung out with "the boys." The night before, he told us, Sir Lynden had been to visit the "boys", a demonstration was being organised for Bay Street and for a price he wanted help from the "boys."
We don't recall what the incident was about -- there were so many incidents in those days -- but the so-called protest took place. Having been tipped off by our staff member, we had reporters mingle among the crowd for interviews.
The demonstrators were asked why they were there and what the demonstration was all about. Not one of them knew.
This is the response that we get from most demonstrators -- either they don't know what the issues are, or they are highly inebriated and don't care about the issues, or their information is so garbled that they make themselves look foolish. It makes one wonder about democracy and the one-man-one-vote theory.
We agree with Sir Winston Churchill when he said:
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We recommend that Mr Moncur - and whatever other political activists there are of like mind -- forget about the 10,000-strong demonstration. Their crowds will prove nothing. Among them will be the undesirables who will harass shop keepers, as they did on February 23 when police had to be called in to order them out. Among them, said one policeman, were persons "well known to us." All of us should know what that expression means in police jargon.
These organisers are playing Russian roulette when they have among their group such persons, who instead of being out on the streets should be awaiting their day in court behind bars.
March 15, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
THERE are those -- mainly BTC unionists and opposition politicians-- who maintain that the majority of Bahamians are against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
In today's Tribune Dr Elwood Donaldson, a former cabinet minister in the Pindling government, said his group believes that the majority of Bahamians agree that selling BTC is a bad idea. He claimed that such a sale would reverberate through history as the "greatest blunder" of any Bahamian government.
Rodney Moncur, another political activist, has called for 10,000 demonstrators to converge on Bay Street to object to the sale of the telecommunications company on the day that it is debated in parliament. He has urged the PLP to show its sincerity by delivering 6,000 supporters to join the march. So far in all the calls for demonstrators, these activists have been hard pressed to attract a crowd -- their largest showing has been about 500 persons. Police have confirmed hearing some among that 500, who are "well known" to them, complain that if they were not paid there was going to be problems.
Now that it has been revealed that certain "political activists" have paid persons to go to Bay Street to make up the numbers for the crowd scene, it no longer matters whether 500 or 10,000 of them show up. This does not answer the question of whether the majority of Bahamians are for or against the BTC sale. All it shows is that a goodly number of bodies on Bay Street are there for their promised $85 to push, shove and shout, and give the police a hard time. Already we hear squabbling among what the police have referred to as the "criminally-minded" complaining about not receiving money promised for their hour on Bay Street on February 23. It is claimed that the going price was supposed to be $85, but some only collected $40 or $50 for their paid-for "demonstration."
From talking to persons, one-on-one, and studying the various independent polls, we are left with the impression that the majority of Bahamians -- even among unionists -- are looking forward to efficient telecommunications service and lower rates. As several have said: "We can't wait for the day!" They approve the sale. These persons have been paid nothing for their opinion.
However, once a demonstration ceases to be spontaneous, demonstrators' numbers don't count -- they no longer represent accurate opinions -- in fact they represent no opinion. Now that it is known they are paid, their numbers impress no one, and the organisers are made to look foolish. It is just one big, noisy, bogus show. We hope that the organisers will be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever damage might be caused by what is certain to turn into a mob scene.
Paying persons to produce mob-scenes is nothing new. We remember one day early on in the first Ingraham administration, one of our press men asked to see us. By now he was a man past middle age, a reformed gang member, who on occasion still hung out with "the boys." The night before, he told us, Sir Lynden had been to visit the "boys", a demonstration was being organised for Bay Street and for a price he wanted help from the "boys."
We don't recall what the incident was about -- there were so many incidents in those days -- but the so-called protest took place. Having been tipped off by our staff member, we had reporters mingle among the crowd for interviews.
The demonstrators were asked why they were there and what the demonstration was all about. Not one of them knew.
This is the response that we get from most demonstrators -- either they don't know what the issues are, or they are highly inebriated and don't care about the issues, or their information is so garbled that they make themselves look foolish. It makes one wonder about democracy and the one-man-one-vote theory.
We agree with Sir Winston Churchill when he said:
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We recommend that Mr Moncur - and whatever other political activists there are of like mind -- forget about the 10,000-strong demonstration. Their crowds will prove nothing. Among them will be the undesirables who will harass shop keepers, as they did on February 23 when police had to be called in to order them out. Among them, said one policeman, were persons "well known to us." All of us should know what that expression means in police jargon.
These organisers are playing Russian roulette when they have among their group such persons, who instead of being out on the streets should be awaiting their day in court behind bars.
March 15, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Chinese loans are cheap... and The Bahamas is borrowing... What's the catch?
The limitations of the Chinese love affair
thenassauguardian editorial
The Bahamas has fallen fully into the embrace of China. And the rising empire has been kind with its “gifts.”
The $2.6 billion Baha Mar project and the $70 million airport highway are being financed by China. Last week, the government announced that the China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. will build the North Abaco Port and by-pass road; a bridge between Little and Great Abaco; a port and by-pass highway in Exuma; and the Eleuthera Glass Window Bridge and approaching embankments.
The airport highway money is a part of the $1 billion in loans set aside for the Caribbean by China. The Bahamas has been allocated $150 million of that amount.
Chinese loans are cheap. And The Bahamas is borrowing. What is tied to Chinese money in the developing world, however, is Chinese labor. When China lends or invests in poor countries, it sends lots of Chinese workers to construct the projects it finances.
For poor countries struggling to attract investment or to solicit financing, there is little resolve to make demands of the rising power.
Here in The Bahamas, Sarkis Izmirlian and Baha Mar needed financing. Baha Mar received that financing from China and it also received 8,150 foreign workers (who mostly will be Chinese).
The government borrowed cheap money from China for the airport highway and it received 200 Chinese workers. How many hundreds of Chinese will be forced on The Bahamas to build the Family Island ports and infrastructure upgrades announced last week?
What Bahamians must understand is that when China lends, and it contracts its workers to do the work, a significant amount of the money borrowed goes back to China with the workers who build the project. They pay their workers with money we borrow.
In addition, The Bahamas gets the bill for the loan. Over the years, the interest and principal payments also go to China.
The Chinese also keep their workers on self-contained on-site camps when they are sent abroad. We barely even get them to visit our stores to spend the money we borrowed when they are working in our countries.
The Bahamas should embrace Chinese investment. Without Baha Mar, our near future would look less bright. But The Bahamas must be careful regarding the relationship it develops with China regarding the labor issue.
We lose a significant chuck of the value of these investments when our uneducated laborers are denied work because Chinese get these jobs.
China brilliantly creates unequal trade relationships. China’s manipulated currency has helped it suck a significant portion of manufacturing from the West. It then loans the cash it has made back to countries such as the United States to buy more of its products.
China is now the second largest economy in the world and in the near future it will displace the United States as the world largest economy.
Much debate is needed among our policymakers about the Bahamian-Chinese embrace. We must find ways to continue to attract Chinese money that comes with fewer Chinese workers attached.
We think Chinese investment should be welcomed. We also think a reasonable number of Chinese workers should be accepted. However, China building most of our infrastructure projects and commercial projects almost solely with Chinese labor is not acceptable.
If China does not budge to the representations of a small place such as this, or a small region such as ours, we then have to do some analysis to determine if it is wise to borrow as much from China as opposed to other commercial lenders who do not set similar labor requirements. This issue is not simple.
Bahamians have thus far been okay with China’s involvement in The Bahamas. But as the numbers of Chinese coming to country get larger and larger with each announced project, the attitude towards China in The Bahamas will change. When a country has a double-digit unemployment level, its citizens get upset when foreigners get lots of jobs in their country.
Our political parties must be careful with this relationship. More concessions on the labor issue are needed from a China that does not like to compromise.
3/15/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
The Bahamas has fallen fully into the embrace of China. And the rising empire has been kind with its “gifts.”
The $2.6 billion Baha Mar project and the $70 million airport highway are being financed by China. Last week, the government announced that the China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. will build the North Abaco Port and by-pass road; a bridge between Little and Great Abaco; a port and by-pass highway in Exuma; and the Eleuthera Glass Window Bridge and approaching embankments.
The airport highway money is a part of the $1 billion in loans set aside for the Caribbean by China. The Bahamas has been allocated $150 million of that amount.
Chinese loans are cheap. And The Bahamas is borrowing. What is tied to Chinese money in the developing world, however, is Chinese labor. When China lends or invests in poor countries, it sends lots of Chinese workers to construct the projects it finances.
For poor countries struggling to attract investment or to solicit financing, there is little resolve to make demands of the rising power.
Here in The Bahamas, Sarkis Izmirlian and Baha Mar needed financing. Baha Mar received that financing from China and it also received 8,150 foreign workers (who mostly will be Chinese).
The government borrowed cheap money from China for the airport highway and it received 200 Chinese workers. How many hundreds of Chinese will be forced on The Bahamas to build the Family Island ports and infrastructure upgrades announced last week?
What Bahamians must understand is that when China lends, and it contracts its workers to do the work, a significant amount of the money borrowed goes back to China with the workers who build the project. They pay their workers with money we borrow.
In addition, The Bahamas gets the bill for the loan. Over the years, the interest and principal payments also go to China.
The Chinese also keep their workers on self-contained on-site camps when they are sent abroad. We barely even get them to visit our stores to spend the money we borrowed when they are working in our countries.
The Bahamas should embrace Chinese investment. Without Baha Mar, our near future would look less bright. But The Bahamas must be careful regarding the relationship it develops with China regarding the labor issue.
We lose a significant chuck of the value of these investments when our uneducated laborers are denied work because Chinese get these jobs.
China brilliantly creates unequal trade relationships. China’s manipulated currency has helped it suck a significant portion of manufacturing from the West. It then loans the cash it has made back to countries such as the United States to buy more of its products.
China is now the second largest economy in the world and in the near future it will displace the United States as the world largest economy.
Much debate is needed among our policymakers about the Bahamian-Chinese embrace. We must find ways to continue to attract Chinese money that comes with fewer Chinese workers attached.
We think Chinese investment should be welcomed. We also think a reasonable number of Chinese workers should be accepted. However, China building most of our infrastructure projects and commercial projects almost solely with Chinese labor is not acceptable.
If China does not budge to the representations of a small place such as this, or a small region such as ours, we then have to do some analysis to determine if it is wise to borrow as much from China as opposed to other commercial lenders who do not set similar labor requirements. This issue is not simple.
Bahamians have thus far been okay with China’s involvement in The Bahamas. But as the numbers of Chinese coming to country get larger and larger with each announced project, the attitude towards China in The Bahamas will change. When a country has a double-digit unemployment level, its citizens get upset when foreigners get lots of jobs in their country.
Our political parties must be careful with this relationship. More concessions on the labor issue are needed from a China that does not like to compromise.
3/15/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Monday, March 14, 2011
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
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
Sunday, March 13, 2011
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
Saturday, March 12, 2011
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)