Focus is needed on reforming our parliamentary process... The legislature is one of three branches of government... Let’s start with a simple thing: schedule questions to the prime minister

Prime Minister's Questions needed in Parliament

thenassauguardian editorial



The phone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom involving the now closed tabloid News of the World (NoW) has dominated world news the past few weeks. It’s really the perfect scandal. It involves money, power, the media and politics. The only thing missing is sex. And who knows, as fast as this scandal is evolving, that may come too, soon.

The actions of NoW have led to police investigations, criminal charges and parliamentary inquires. British Prime Minister David Cameron has been under fire because he hired a former NoW editor, Andy Coulson, to be his director of communications. Coulson has stepped down from this post because of questions about his role regarding the scandal while at NoW.

The opposition Labour Party has questioned Cameron’s judgment in hiring Coulson. Opposition Leader Ed Milliband has challenged Cameron for weeks in the House of Commons on the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The weekly question period is a delight, and an important part of the democratic process. Every Wednesday the prime minister answers questions from the dispatch box beginning with questions from the opposition leader. These are wars during which the PM takes heat from his constitutional rival, giving the same back in return.

The questions are usually topical and the PM is pressed to answer even when he prefers not to. After the leader of the opposition is finished other MPs ask their questions. The question period lasts for about 30 minutes.

In the Westminster system PMs are the country’s CEO. As chairman of the cabinet, he is charged with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the government. Therefore, via Questions to the Prime Minister the government is held in the dock to account in Parliament for decisions made every week Parliament meets.

Alas, there is no system of questions to the prime minister in our parliament. There is almost no question system at all in practice. Opposition day is supposed to be every second Wednesday in the month when the House of Assembly meets.

On this occasion, the opposition is supposed to be able to pose questions. However, clever governing sides simply do not meet on this day and if the opposition does not push, there could be no opposition day for a long time.

It is sad that many of our politicians are so Third World in their mentality that a governing side would attempt not to have to answer questions and an opposition would be so pathetic that it would let its rights be violated.

Rules need to be adopted in Parliament to ensure that the PM has to take questions on a weekly basis as is done in the UK. If that is too much for our politicians then we could adopt a hybrid system through which questions are posed to the government in general on a weekly basis. The member most capable could answer those questions.

For this to work, though, both sides would have to respect the sacrosanctity of Parliament, its rules and conventions. Leaders should want to answer questions. Why? Well, because it proves that they are tough enough, smart enough and in charge enough to withstand any assault from rivals.

Conversely, the opposition should want to ask questions to prove it is better able to run the affairs of state and to weaken the position of the governing side.

The contrast of these two positions should create beautiful intellectual wars in the legislature. It is still a joy to watch old clips from Margaret Thatcher at the dispatch box taking questions from her rivals.

When independence was granted by the British to its colonies, there was a fear that many were not ready for self-governance. The concern was that an elite segment of some of these native societies simply wanted to be in charge knowing little of, and having even less respect for, the traditions and conventions of Westminster governance.

Our parliamentary process needs improvement. We simply touch on one thing that needs reform in this piece. Other problems include the non-existent committee system; members reading from texts they did not write rather than debating issues they studied; and the slow process of relevant legislation coming forward.

We condemn in the strongest terms the myopia of all of the majority rule and post-independence governments for not building a new parliament. The inadequate buildings currently being used are more than 200 years old. We need not explain again why they are inadequate. One needs only to visit to see why.

Focus is needed on reforming our parliamentary process. The legislature is one of three branches of government. Let’s start with a simple thing: schedule questions to the prime minister. If they can’t figure out how to do it, our politicians should just go online and print out a copy of the British process. It’s been going on for quite a while.

Jul 21, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney, leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) says: ...REPEATED efforts to address The Bahamas' immigration problems were "blocked" by "the man himself", Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham

Bran: why I quit my job at immigration



BY NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net



REPEATED efforts to address the country's immigration problems were "blocked" by "the man himself", Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, claimed Branville McCartney, leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).

Mr McCartney said he resigned as Minister of State for Immigration after Prime Minister Ingraham told him on "repeated" occasions that his efforts amounted to "grand-standing."

Mr Ingraham could not be reached for comment.

"When I resigned I said my hands are tied. We are being stagnated. My hands are tied. Those are the words I used. When you have persons telling you, 'no one told you to do this'; 'you did not get my permission to do that'. When you have persons ahead of you telling you that, what are you to do?" Mr McCartney asked.

"We do not have the political will to deal with this illegal immigration problem. We can deal with it, but we just need the political will. We won't eradicate it totally, but we can bring it down to a manageable level. The Free National Movement (FNM) does not have the political will to deal with it for some reason. Every time I tried to do things there was a problem," he said.

Mr McCartney said he had three key initiatives that were not supported in the FNM Cabinet. One initiative was a recommendation to amend the Immigration Act to make it an offence for Bahamians to "harbour illegals."

This amendment, he said, would place a greater burden of responsibility on land owners and landlords, as well as employers if they rented or leased to and employed illegal immigrants.

"That was something I had put forward and it was dismissed. That is not an offence in the Bahamas. I tried to put it by way of an amendment, but it was dismissed. The political will was not there. At the end of the day nothing came out of it," said Mr McCartney.

Asked if the amendment would open the way for discriminatory practices like Arizona-style profiling, Mr McCartney said, "No man."

"What is discriminatory if I say, I am not going to rent to you because you are here illegally. If you have a lease agreement, you can have that in there. You ought to confirm the status of your tenant. It is not discriminatory. I do not see how that comes into play. You ought to be in a position to say, 'Look, the law says I can be fined if I rent to someone illegally.' The onus ought to be on the landlords to make sure whoever they rent to is here legally," said Mr McCartney.

During his tenure at immigration, Mr McCartney said he also started a special unit to deal specifically with the problem of "shanty towns." The unit was cross-departmental, including representatives from the Ministry of Housing, the Attorney General's Office, Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Social Services, among others.

The unit was operational for under a year, leading up to Mr McCartney's resignation. During its time of operation, Mr McCartney said, he was "catching a lot of hell for it."

"The fact of the matter is, we started going into these shanty towns from a legal and humane basis, and we started the process of dealing with the elimination of these shanty towns. And then I was told I was grandstanding. My hands were tied. I subsequently resigned," said Mr McCartney.

At every step of the way, Mr McCartney said he met up "against a brick wall." It was no different, he said, when he launched a programme called "immigration watch" in 2009.

Although it was designed for implementation across the country, the programme targeted the southern end of New Providence, particularly the Marshall Road area, according to Mr McCartney, because that is where "a lot of boats come in."

Immigration watch was set up similar to a crime watch. Community members would assist the law enforcement agencies by participating in an "immigration watch." They would call the government agencies if they heard about illegal activity, or spotted incoming ships they believed were suspicious looking.

Mr McCartney said he was told "that is not a policy of the FNM and why am I doing that. I shortly after resigned. Everything I tried to do, they did not have the political will."

"I am not talking about doing it in an inhumane way. I am talking about doing it right. I am not talking about being discriminatory. I am talking about doing it right. Over and repeatedly I was told from the man himself that I was grand standing," said Mr McCartney.

July 20, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...questions of money in Bahamian politics — and questionable money in politics in The Bahamas still linger with a new election season upon us

Sir Lynden's Money Bill



By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com


A bill to govern money in politics that was drafted more than three decades ago under the Pindling administration was dead on arrival, National Review can reveal.

The comprehensive proposed act “to make provision for the registration of political parties; for the regulation and control of political contributions; for the public funding of elections and for other purposes incidental thereto and connected therewith” never made it to the halls of Parliament.

Perhaps it’s because there was no political will to do so.

Thirty-one years after the campaign finance bill was drafted, there are still calls from some politicians — and from other Bahamians — for a law to govern money in politics.

But there is still no political will to do so.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said earlier this year he does not believe that campaign financing laws are necessary, adding that the government cannot "legislate honesty."

However, Ingraham said he would have no difficulty whatsoever disclosing the sources of his political financing.

Ingraham said campaign finance laws are found to be very ineffective in countries where they are in place.

"The United States is a good example," he said.

"The campaign financing laws are very ineffective. What they spend on elections in the US is unbelievable and they have campaign finance laws. You cannot legislate honesty. The dishonest will be dishonest no matter what you do. That's why people still murder other people even though the law says 'thou should not kill'."

Under the Christie administration, while there was a stated commitment to such a law and even attention given to the issue by the much-touted constitutional review commission, there was no action on bringing legislation to Parliament.

After Prime Minister Ingraham revealed recently that Opposition Leader Perry Christie had neglected to forward recommendations for changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act months after being invited in writing to do so, Christie spoke with us about the kinds of changes he wished to see.

High on his list was a desire for a campaign finance law, perhaps similar to the 1980 bill he reportedly had knowledge of, but which continued to catch dust on a shelf.

“It is critical really to the integrity of elections,” said Christie recently, adding that the Progressive Liberal Party was looking at laws passed in the region “to ensure that we not only make sound recommendations, but recommendations that have been tested”.

He said the Ingraham administration ought to be addressing the issue of money in elections.
Asked why he never did, Christie expressed regret that other priorities meant that his administration never got around to bringing a bill to govern campaign finances.

“Everything evolves in a country and when I first came into office I actually spoke very strongly about a code of ethics, and I wanted to bring that into law and I didn’t do it,” he said.

“And so, you look back and you know that you had an opportunity to influence laws for the good and you regret, but that is what politics is all about — the priorities that we had; the pace of governance has put me in a position where you can look back and say ‘yeah I did a lot of things, but my goodness, I wish I had done that’.

“...You always have regrets and so I’m not going to be distracted by the fact that we had the opportunity and we didn’t.”

THE 1980 BILL

George Smith, who was a member of the Pindling Cabinet in 1980, said he was aware of discussions Pindling had about the need for a campaign finance law. But he never knew a bill was actually drafted.

Not many people did apparently.

Under the 37-page bill obtained by National Review as part of its examination of the money in politics issue, a registrar of political parties would have been appointed.

That person would have been able to, at any reasonable time, enter the premises of a political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act to examine its books, papers and documents and would have been able to request such information as he may reasonably require to discharge his responsibilities.

If the bill had been passed, contributions to political parties, party branches and candidates could only be made by individuals, companies and trade unions.

No person or entity would have been able to make a contribution using money that did not belong to him, or that was given to him by another person or entity.

The bill also mandated that all moneys contributed to political parties, party branches and candidates in excess of $100 could only be made by a check having the name of the contributor legibly printed, signed by the contributor and drawn on an account in the contributor’s name or by a money order signed by the contributor.

The bill would have required contributions to be paid into the appropriate depository on record with the registrar of political parties.

It also mandated that any anonymous contribution valued in excess of $25 received shall not be used or expended, but shall be returned to the contributor if the contributor’s identity could be established, and if the contributor’s identity could not be established, the contribution would be turned over to the registrar and forwarded to the treasurer of The Bahamas.

Under the Act, if it had been passed, contributions by any person, company or trade union would have been limited to $10,000 per year to each party, and $1,000 to any registered party branch.

It also said that no political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act could directly or indirectly, knowingly accept contributions from any person normally resident outside The Bahamas or from any company that does not carry on business in The Bahamas or from any trade union that is not registered in The Bahamas.

The bill would have also mandated that all political party have a chief financial officer responsible for proper records, ensuring that contributions are placed in the appropriate depository and financial statements are filed with the registrar of political parties.
The chief financial officer would also have been responsible for ensuring that contributions consisting of goods or services were valued and recorded.

The bill also would have mandated that party borrowing from financial institutions were properly recorded.

Under the law, all moneys to be used for a political campaign by a candidate out of his or her own funds would be deemed to be a contribution.

In addition to covering a number of other key areas, including campaign advertising, the bill also outlined a number of offenses.

For example, any chief financial office of a political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act, who contravened any of the provisions would have been guilty and liable to a fine of $1,000.

Again, the bill was drafted in 1980.

Had it been passed by Parliament, no prosecution could be instituted without the consent in writing of the attorney general.

It still is unclear today why the bill was never brought to Parliament.

George Smith offered a view in this regard: “I guess it didn’t get on the front burner because the party was winning based on its performance. In many constituencies in the country, like in Exuma where I ran, though wealthy individuals ran against me I won handsomely, as did my colleague, Livingston Coakley,” he said.

“It wasn’t considered a priority. I think we were preoccupied with other things like social legislation, a works program, trying to expand the tourism plant. We were trying to expand agriculture and the fisheries industry, growing the economy with some diversification.”
Smith said political parties should win elections based on their philosophies, programs and quality of candidates.

“If we use that approach money would only matter when those things are not in the forefront of what a party is running on,” he said.

MONEY MATTERS

In politics as in life, money does matter.

I remember the first press conference hosted by Perry Christie after he lost the government in 2007.

The one question he tried to avoid was the one that should have been the most obvious: What do you believe led to your defeat?

After insisting that it was a matter that would require deep consideration, Christie said he believed the Progressive Liberal Party was outspent by Hubert Ingraham and his Free National Movement.

Indeed, political parties have scraped together substantial sums of money in their bid for power.

A 2003 U.S. diplomatic cable previously reported on by The Nassau Guardian said Tommy Turnquest, then leader of the FNM, revealed that his party would need to spend between $150,000 and $250,000 on a potential by-election in the then Holy Cross constituency.

In that same cable, obtained through WikiLeaks, former PLP MP and businessman Franklyn Wilson told a U.S. Embassy official that his party spent around $7 million on the 2002 general election campaign.

Because money donated in The Bahamas to political parties is donated with the understanding that the donors’ identities will not be publicly disclosed, political parties are under an ‘unofficial obligation’ to keep the sources of party financing secret, noted the cable.

The Americans either had a fascination with The Bahamas’ lack of campaign finance laws, or deep concerns about this, because they widely discussed the issue of money in politics in their cables to Washington, DC.

They noted in a 2004 cable: “Both of The Bahamas' two major political parties live in glass houses when it comes to campaign contributions.”

The cable traced the Mohammed Harajchi controversy — a situation in which political contributions backfired in a very nasty and public way.

The Iranian businessman claimed that he had been approached, either directly or via intermediaries, by ‘90 percent of the (Christie) Cabinet’ for campaign contributions, had helped to refurbish PLP headquarters, and had underwritten several PLP political rallies, among other things.

Harajchi denied that his contributions (allegedly $10 million) were designed to gain reinstatement of his bank's operating license, which had been revoked in 2001.

At a press conference, the PLP emphasized that it is neither illegal nor improper for political parties in The Bahamas to accept donations from individuals, and highlighted attention on Harajchi's confirmation that he had received no favor or promise in exchange for his financial donation.

In a 2006 cable, still on the subject of money in politics, an American diplomat wrote that it is “widely accepted” that the government’s extradition of convicted drug dealer Samuel ‘Ninety’ Knowles would lead to “withdrawal of an important source of election funding”.

“As one Cabinet minister observed, there are no controls or limits other than the conscience of the politician,” the diplomat wrote. “In addition, money can come from any source, including international donors.”

The cable said millions of dollars were allegedly obtained from “questionable sources” in the 2002 campaign.

Almost 10 years after that historic election, questions of money in politics — and questionable money in politics — still linger with a new election season upon us.

And while there are several key bills the Ingraham administration must bring if it is to fulfill legislative promises, a money bill like the secret 1980 document is not among them.

Jul 18, 2011

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party says that it is "gravely concerned" about the government's move to regularise 1,300 foreigners this close to a national election, as it could be seen as "nothing more than a political ploy aimed at securing votes, as they desperately seek to remain in power."

DNA leader hits out at the Immigration Department

tribune242

THE Democratic National Alliance has again hit out at the Department of Immigration - this time complaining that citizen classes left in place by DNA leader Branville McCartney are being "circumvented" in the regularisation of thousands of immigrants.

Mr McCartney, who served as minister of state for immigration under the FNM before breaking with the governing party, issued a statement yesterday saying the classes would have ensured applicants could speak English, recite the national anthem and pledge of allegiance, and had an appreciation of Bahamian culture, our national heroes and "various other vital aspects of our country."

However, in an earlier interview, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Immigration Brent Symonette said the classes stopped while Mr McCartney was still minister of state.

In any case, Mr Symonette said, the classes were only "a one-morning issue" and not a comprehensive programme that lasted weeks.

Nevertheless, the DNA says it is "gravely concerned" about the government's move to regularise 1,300 foreigners this close to a nation election, as it could be seen as "nothing more than a political ploy aimed at securing votes, as they desperately seek to remain in power."

The party said the claim that the government's only motivation is the fact that the immigrants' files have been languishing in filing cabinets for years, is an "insult to the intelligence of the average thinking Bahamian."

"Answers like these continue to give the impression that the government feels as if it can get any old thing past the Bahamian people, as it has been doing for many years."

The DNA challenged the government to put Bahamians first in their thought process, and - in the absence of the Freedom of Information Act that it promised to enact before the end of its term in office - give an account to the Bahamian people of how many non-Bahamians have been regularised in the past year.

July 19, 2011

tribune242

No banking system is currently risk free... That includes the Bahamian banking system... Although it, along with Canada, managed to survive the downturn of 2007/2008 reasonably well... As the Bahamian banking system is currently structured, it too, is subject to failure. The next international banking collapse, however, is likely to be massively larger and more severe

Protecting Bahamian banking system from next global collapse

By JOHN TOMLINSON

From a speech delivered

to the Nassau Institute

WITH the current threats to the state of world economies:

* Sovereign debt at levels unprecedented,

* Governments unable or unwilling to deal with levels of expenditure,

* Taxpayers beginning to revolt,

* Gold at an all-time high, and

* Highly destructive natural disasters on the increase, who knows what event is going to trigger the next collapse? We can only be confident that something will.

When it does, we can also be confident that American Banks will, once more, be found to be wanting.

They remain holding massive levels of sovereign debt.

Massive levels of toxic mortgages still remain on their books. A new avalanche of foreclosures is heading in their direction.

In Europe, Greece approaches another bail-out, Portugal is receiving one and other countries are on "watch."

The world is awash with debt: sovereign debt, corporate debt and personal debt are each at record and barely manageable levels.

No banking system is currently risk free. That includes the Bahamian banking system. Although it, along with Canada, managed to survive the downturn of 2007/2008 reasonably well, as the Bahamian banking system is currently structured, it too, is subject to failure. The next international banking collapse, however, is likely to be massively larger and more severe.

Can we protect our banks and our deposits? Yes, I believe so.

Before we attempt to look at solutions, however, I would like briefly to review the history of money and banking so that we may better understand what needs to be done.

Historical Perspective

God did not create money. Man did. Money is not some God-given inexplicable entity over which we have no control. Man created money in response to having settled on the land and making human beings dependent on exchange for survival. If there are problems with money we can and must sort it out ourselves.

One of the requirements for any fair market is an accurate measure of exchange value. We need to know what the fair value of the product of our own expenditure of energy is compared to the fair value of the product of someone else's energy.

Barter

In the first instance we judged through barter. Barter, of course, didn't work for every exchange and the need soon arose for a commonly accepted medium of exchange. Accuracy of the measurement of exchange value was - and remains - the key to fair exchanges.

Many products were tried. Some deteriorated over time and their exchange value diminished.

Eventually gold became accepted throughout the world as the most accurate and useful product or commodity to use.

1. It did not deteriorate over time.

2. It is homogeneous. Therefore, it can easily be divided into smaller portions of equal purity and used for exchanges of smaller exchange value.

3. It is scarce. Therefore it takes a great deal of human energy to find and refine.

In most matters gold has the attributes of a successful medium of exchange. That is why gold lasted for centuries as the most trusted and most accurate "money".

Security was another thing altogether. If you had one gold coin, you could carry it with you and sleep with it and protect it. Ten got a bit lumpy! One hundred became downright uncomfortable.

Even for one hundred gold coins, it might not have been practical to build a strong room or a strong box. People began to consider where to store their gold coins safely.

Goldsmiths had sufficient stocks of gold to be able to afford to build a strong room. They stored their gold on shelves in their strong rooms. Some of them had extra space on their shelves. Some people began to store their gold on the shelves of their local goldsmith and goldsmiths would charge them a storage fee.

The goldsmith would give each person who stored gold with them a receipt for the amount of gold stored and a form, upon which they would accept instructions to deliver that gold, or part of it, to someone else. Today, we call that form a cheque.

Those who stored their gold on the shelves of their goldsmith found it very convenient and believed it to be secure. The practice grew.

A shelf in those days was known as a 'bank'. The goldsmiths who stored gold for others eventually became known as 'bankers' and their businesses as 'banks'.

As their businesses grew and more and more people stored their coins with them and their shelves became fuller and fuller, bankers soon noticed that, as people brought new coins for storage and others withdrew their coins or issued cheques which the bankers honoured by giving coins to the payee, only the first few rows of coins moved. Some came and some went from these first few rows but the coins at the back remained on the shelves and did not move.

Coins

Bankers, driven by their own greed, soon began to take some of the gold coins which sat at the back and loaned them to earn themselves 'usury' or 'interest 'as we call it today. They reasoned that no-one would be the wiser and that they could return them before the people to whom they belonged might notice or claim them back.

The bankers who did this knew full well that what they were doing was wrong, fraudulent and illegal. They also knew that, if this treachery were to be discovered, they would no longer be trusted to store other people's gold.

Therefore they developed the practice of always behaving impeccably; always appearing to be circumspect and extremely prudent. This was the beginning of the need to maintain confidence in banks.

Of course, the reason it became necessary to maintain confidence in banks was that, upon examination, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to be confident. The banks were misrepresenting the amount of gold they had on their shelves and for which they had issued receipts.

What fraud? What misrepresentation? You may well ask. Well, the person who received the borrowed gold coin would have bought something with it and the seller would have received the borrowed gold coin in the exchange. The seller would have lodged this "borrowed" gold coin with the bank for safekeeping. The seller would then have received a new receipt for the "borrowed" gold coin. But, the original depositor would also still have his receipt for the same gold coin. Thus, the banker would have issued two receipts against the same gold coin.

That is a clear misrepresentation, and a clear fraud.

As the volume of deposits increased, bankers began to issue standard receipts. They would pre-print a number of receipts for, perhaps one, two, or three gold coins payable to the bearer. When one or more gold coins was deposited, bankers would give the depositor one of these pre-printed receipts with the precise number of gold coins already printed on it.

In the belief that these pre-printed receipts were fully backed and freely exchangeable for gold, people soon began to trade these receipts rather than the gold itself.

Of course, banks soon began to lend their paper notes as well as gold coins and when the recipient deposited the paper notes in the bank, the bank would issue them with a receipt for the paper money. Thus, banks would have issued three receipts against the original gold coin deposited. The fraud became larger. Today there are few limits to the amount of misrepresentation that is permitted. From the day the first banker loaned the first of his depositors' gold coins, it was impossible to reconcile the total of all receipts issued with the amount of gold available to honour them. The gold-backed monetary system was finally destroyed by this impossibility.

At each stage in this destructive process, gold itself was blamed by the bankers for being too restrictive on their ability to lend. The reality was that banks were too busy producing fraudulent receipts purporting to represent more gold than the banks or even Fort Knox actually held.

In 1811 and 1848, two judicial decisions in the UK legitimized this fraudulent practice by determining that the instant that a depositor puts money into a cheque account, title transfers from the depositor to the bank.

From that instant, the bank actually owns the money and can do with it as it sees fit. From that instant depositors became no more than unsecured creditors of banks and secured creditors now have first claim on the money in your cheque account!

Did you know that the money in your check account is not yours? Did you know that secured creditors of your bank have first claim on your deposits? Did you realize that banks are gambling with your budget money?

Since those dates, banks themselves have owned all the money in them. It is not your money anymore. The banks can do what they want with it.

The money-lending operation of banks is no longer a fraud - legally.

But, the mechanism has not changed and thus still produces the same misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation is a fundamental part of the onward lending of depositors' funds.

Here is the root cause of both risk and moral hazard in the banking system. It is this root cause we must attack to make banks completely safe.

What are some of the most serious side-effects of the onward lending of depositors' funds by the banks?

1. All of the money in the banks belongs to the banks - not to depositors.

That gives bankers enormous power. If you or your business needs money, banks can provide it - but, on their terms. If you don't meet their criteria you have no access to it.

2. One of their criteria is that you must already have sufficient other assets to repay any money borrowed easily, if necessary. Those without sufficient assets (the poor) are thus excluded from access to the bulk of the money-supply.

That's enough history. What is the position today?

1. No banks hold enough 'cash' to meet all withdrawals simultaneously.

In 2007/2008 the Western banking and monetary system faced massive collapse. Why? For the same reason the gold system collapsed. Every time banks issue new loans, they create new money. Today money is a digital figure. Banks credit the borrower's account with the amount of the loan. The total deposits increase and the money supply increases. But, the amount of 'cash' available to meet the now increased claims doesn't increase. No bank holds enough cash to meet all withdrawals at the same time. When a 'rush' occurs, banks look to 'lenders of last resort' to bail them out.

The quality of 'collateral' held by many banks in the US today remains suspect. Many banks continue to hold 'toxic' assets in the form of foreclosed mortgages at their original loan value. They have not been required 'to mark to market'. They can afford to continue to hold them because the Federal Reserve lends them money at the rate of 0.0025 per cent whilst banks lend it to the government at 3.5 per cent. These two combined, have hidden the real state of too many American banks for too long.

2. The system of Central Banks as lenders of last resort has failed.

Banks used to depend upon Central Banks as lenders of last resort to bail them out in the event of a rush. In 2007/2008 the Central Banks alone couldn't do it and the taxpayers had to bail them out.

Bankers have always lent to their point of imprudence in pursuit of maximum profit. This pursuit first destroyed the gold standard. Then it destroyed the Central Bank standard. Now they are dependent upon taxpayers. But, taxpayers are in revolt. Will they continue to bail out banks? I think not. I hope not.

3. The world is awash with debt.

Yet, there is a hue and cry to 'get banks to lend again'. We don't need more debt. The last thing we need is more debt. What we need is more investment. Equity investment can get the economy moving again without the drag of repayments. Repayments take capital back out of a company limiting its ability to grow and employ more people. Contrary to popular belief, banks do not provide capital. They provide debt and debt is a burden. Capital is not a burden. Capital is an asset.

4. The authorities are not trying to remove risk from the banking system. Bankers are too powerful - they control access to all the money and they provide governments with the loans with which governments buy voters. The authorities are not trying to remove risk. They are merely trying further to mitigate risk in the banking system as it is. They are not trying to remove moral hazard. They are merely trying further to mitigate moral hazard.

Both risk and moral hazard arise from the UK court decisions of 1811 and 1848. If you want your deposits in the Bahamian banking system to be safe, to be protected from the next banking and monetary collapse, both risk and moral hazard must be removed from the Bahamian banking system.

This will require a change of law which returns title of their deposits to Bahamian depositors. Ownership of the money in your cheque account must be returned to you.

5. The prospects for the US dollar are not looking good.

The Federal Reserve Bank continues to print money to support government overspending. The effects of the money already printed have not yet fully worked themselves through into wages and prices.

The money-supply thus continues to increase and, as banks begin to lend once again, the rate of increase will accelerate enormously. The value of the US dollar will then plummet to new and unprecedented lows.

Do we want the Bahamian dollar to plummet as well? I certainly hope not. The cost of living will skyrocket. The social and economic consequences are unthinkable.

If we wish to protect the Bahamian dollar, I believe we have little choice but to sever our present ties to the US dollar.

To make our banking and monetary system completely safe, the Bahamian government must also enact new legislation.

To make the UK banks safe, Lord Caithness put a Bill (that I had had drafted) into the House of Lords on January 30, 2008. That Bill was not enacted and expired at the end of the last parliament.

Had it been enacted and thus become law, the UK banks would not have failed.

In the new UK parliament, a new Bill has already been introduced to the House of Commons to return title to depositors and the Earl of Caithness is ready to introduce another Bill (to return title to the depositors) to the House of Lords following a debate on the banking system.

This new Bill will make a good template for legislation in the Bahamas.

Passage of a Bahamian Bill to return title to depositors will reverse in the Bahamas the effects of those mistaken judgments made in 1811 and 1848 in the UK. Then, your cheque account deposits will once more belong to you. It will be your money - not the bank's money. Banks will then have a fiduciary responsibility to you. They will not be able to lend your money. Only you can do that.

You will, of course, have to pay for the services of storing and distributing your money. Storing your money has never been free. You have paid for it through inflation. As I hope I have demonstrated, the largest producer of inflation is, in fact, the onward lending of depositors' funds. That will stop. The only inflation produced after that will be from government printing of money.

The current rate of inflation is in excess of 3 per cent per annum. No bank will charge you that to store your money for you. Most likely, you will be paying 1 per cent or less.

You are currently paying distribution fees. That will continue.

Banks will not be able to lend your deposits. They will need to set up funds in which you may buy shares or units. These funds will then make investments. They will invest the money you transfer to them when you buy shares or units. Instead of the banks investing their money, you will be investing yours.

You will be entitled to your share of the investment profits that banks have been making and keeping for themselves.

Your money will come out of your cheque account and enter the cheque account of the fund in which you invested. Total deposits will not change. Under the new legislation, each bank will be required to maintain its own cheque account. Then, when you pay bank fees, that payment will leave your account and enter the account of the bank.

Total deposits will not change. The Bahamian dollar will not be being debased and the money supply will be able to be accurately measured and controlled.

Once the government has enacted this new legislation and banks may no longer lend depositors' funds, there can be no inflation in the Bahamian banking system and monetary system unless the central bank prints new money.

What this means

1. The Bahamian banking system will then become the strongest banking system in the world.

2. There will be no circumstances under which the Bahamas will need to call upon the IMF to bail it out. The Bahamas could then withdraw from the IMF. Not many are aware that under the rules of the IMF members may not back their currencies with gold.

3. The Bahamas could return to the gold standard if it so wished.

As a result, the Bahamian currency could become in demand as a reserve currency - it certainly would be sought as a 'safe haven'. The financial services sector would boom. Investment in the Bahamas would increase significantly.

Other currencies will continue to depreciate. The Bahamian dollar will not.

* The price of all imports will decrease. The price of foodstuffs, gasoline, medicines and other basics will fall and wages will purchase more. Everyone will feel better - as if they have had a wage increase.

* Existing foreign currency debt would be repayable with fewer and fewer Bahamian dollars.

* Exports will become more expensive - and that includes the costs to tourists. Tourism will need to focus more and more on higher-income tourism. They will demand better services and thus we will have to train our workforce accordingly. Canada had to make similar adjustments when its currency jumped 50 per cent rather abruptly.

The alternate is less appetizing. The thought of remaining tied to the US dollar and allowing the Bahamian dollar to join the US dollar as it heads toward oblivion is very frightening indeed.

After having enacting the required legislation, there will still be an imbalance that will need to be addressed. At the moment of conversion of the Bahamian banking system, the banks will still not have sufficient cash to meet withdrawal.

We in the Bahamas are very fortunate because the Central Bank of the Bahamas has been very careful in its supervision of banks here, and this shortage of 'cash' can be easily resolved.

At the end of last year, the banks had deposits of B$1,205,033,000 in cheque accounts. They held cash of B$113,117,000 plus deposits with the Central bank of B$518,706,000. This left them short by B$631,833,000.

Banks also hold B$1,093,244 of Treasuries and other Bahamian Government securities.

If the Bahamian Government bought back B$631, 833,000 of those securities for cash, the banks would then hold B$1,205,033,000 in deposits for depositors and B$1,205,033,000 in cash.

Bahamian banks would then be 100 per cent free from risk and 100 per cent free from moral hazard? They would be fully safe, whatever happened to the banking system of the rest of the world.

In addition, The government would save $30 million per year on interest costs and the banking sector would increase its profits by $33 million.

In summary:

1. The world banking system is likely to suffer a much larger collapse than that of 2007/2008. Therefore, we ought to take the necessary steps now to strengthen the Bahamian banking system.

2. The banking system needs to be fully protected because we use it to store our money - the money we set aside to meet our family and our business budgets. We need it stored safely - both free from theft and free from loss of purchasing power.

3. We can and should strengthen and protect the Bahamian banking system by passing new legislation which returns title of their deposits to depositors and liquidating sufficient bank investments to ensure that banks hold sufficient 'cash' to return every deposit simultaneously.

4. The Bahamian dollar is currently tied to the US dollar. The US dollar has been falling in value and, as a result, so too has the Bahamian dollar. I believe the US dollar is set to fall precipitously. Do we wish to allow the Bahamian dollar also to fall precipitously? I do not. I hope you too, do not. I hope the government does not.

5. The Bahamas can withdraw from the IMF.

6. The Bahamas could return to the gold standard.

7. Economic growth could then continue in the Bahamas regardless of the state of the rest of the world.

All of the above is achievable if we can encourage the government to pass legislation to return title of their deposits to depositors.

Once this is accomplished and the banks are fully protected, we will still have to remain vigilant and pro-active to ensure that an open and free market is developed and maintained.

This is a necessary precondition for all the remaining economic benefits to occur.

July 18, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Brent Symonette says: Complicated deportation processes, fraudulent immigration documents and Bahamians harboring illegal migrants are just a few of the issues that continue to plague the Department of Immigration...

Brent Symonette highlights persistent immigration woes



JUAN McCARTNEY
Guardian Senior Reporter
thenassauguardian
juan@nasguard.com

Complicated deportation processes, fraudulent immigration documents and Bahamians harboring illegal migrants are just a few of the issues that continue to plague the Department of Immigration, Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Brent Symonette has said.

Symonette said when the 2010-2011 budgetary period closed at the end of June, the Carmichael Road Detention Center was populated by “a number of nationals” who are difficult to repatriate.

“In one case I think we had to pay $6,000 [or so] for the ticket to send that person home,” Symonette said at a press conference Thursday.

“We have a budget of $1,000,000 [or so]. Obviously a large percentage of that is [to repatriate] persons in the immediate area in the Caribbean. But we are seeing a number of Nigerians [and] a number of persons from the African continent coming in.

“[And those people] are very difficult to get home because they have to get visas for the countries that they pass through.”

Symonette said repatriating people to Cuba is also “a difficult issue.”

“If you’ve been outside Cuba more than 11 months, there comes some difficulty [with] deporting persons back to Cuba,” he said.

Symonette said even though the population at the detention center is relatively low at the moment, there is still a lot to be done to get those detainees home.

He also said that forged papers are continually submitted to immigration officials.

“I came across a file (Wednesday) with a letter written in [a particular] year that looked neater than this paper that was done (Wednesday),” said Symonette as he pointed to an actual immigration file.

“The stamps even felt wet. It’s a serious issue. Immigration reports them to police and then the police take over.”

He also noted that immigration officials continue to find Bahamians helping illegal immigrants evade the law.

“We may have to look at the laws regarding harboring of illegals and start charging people who harbor illegal immigrants,” he said.

Jul 16, 2011

thenassauguardian

Brent Symonette says comments made by Branville McCartney - leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), about "clandestine operations" at the Department of Immigration were "irresponsible"

DPM: Bran's comments were 'irresponsible'


By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net



GOVERNMENT officials are refuting claims made by the Democratic National Alliance about "clandestine operations" at the Department of Immigration.

Acting Prime Minister Brent Symonette said comments made by Branville McCartney, leader of the DNA, were "irresponsible."

Mr McCartney, a former minister of state for immigration, claimed that "disgruntled employees" in his former office told his party that around 2,000 illegal immigrants are to be "secretly" regularised as Bahamian citizens.

However, Mr Symonette told The Tribune this could not be further from the truth.

He said citizenship applications are being processed based on the same procedures used by Mr McCartney during his time at the ministry, although much of the process has since been digitised.

Applicants go through a detailed vetting process, where they are usually required to produce birth certificates, health records and school records. They are required to participate in interviews, usually several.

Ultimately, the Cabinet, serving as the board of immigration, gives the final authorisation during a monthly immigration meeting, said Mr Symonette. The basic process is the same for citizenship and permanent residency applications, except in the case of spousal applications, which do not have to go to Cabinet.

"Nothing has changed in the process since Branville McCartney was minister of state. He did not change the process. I haven't changed his process. I met the process there before when I was minister in 1992. That is the process," said Mr Symonette.

"Any issue or question that it was done secretly, clandestinely, or whatever word, is totally irresponsible. I have outlined the process. The leader of the DNA made no attempt as a senior minister, as far as I am aware, to change that process. He met it there and he left it there," he said.

The only recent change that may be causing confusion for the DNA, Mr Symonette said, is a new initiative at the department aimed at processing some 1,300 applications for citizenship and permanent residency that have been catching dust for decades.

A special project team was employed to deal with these back-logged cases, while the permanent staff continues to process current applications.

As for the swearing in ceremony conducted for successful applicants, Mr Symonette said that ceremony is not public. It is attended by senior government officials and family members.

In New Providence, he said the ceremony takes place in the "swearing in room." In Grand Bahama, he said, it takes place in the Prime Minister's office, and in Abaco, he said, it takes place in a Marsh Harbour court house.

In all cases, Mr Symonette said, applicants seeking citizenship are required to demonstrate knowledge of the Bahamas, including the pledge of allegiance, national anthem and national symbols, during the interview stage.

He said there was a class covering this information started under McCartney's watch, but which "ceased while he was still minister of state."

"They were a one-morning issue. I don't want to give the impression you came in on Saturday for weeks," added Mr Symonette.

July 15, 2011

tribune242