By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
tribune242
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
ON THE matter of squatter settlements, the government is being misleadingly vague about how much information it has on the squatter problem when in fact the government has been mining information on squatter settlements in an organized manner for years. The most recent data from a government study that was internally published in January 2011 indicates there are 38 documented squatter settlements in New Providence, for which only 10 are known to be on government land.
In the 26 cases where the land tenure is known, the overwhelming majority - 61 per cent - of these housing communities are located on private land. Between 2004 and 2010 several of these settlements were converted into housing sub-divisions. Pride Estates, Dignity Gardens, Mandarin Close Subdivision and Ross Davis Estates all stand where squatter settlements once existed.
In the case of Pride Estates, reliable sources have told me that Bahamian police officers and defence force officers who were squatting on the land counted themselves amongst the many who got land in the regularized subdivision. I say that because Bahamians love to put a colour, an accent and a status to squatters when very often they are speaking about those who they count amongst their own.
All in all, the total size of squatter settlements in New Providence, measured by structure count, is 940, according to well-placed Tribune sources. There was a net increase in the size of squatter settlements between 2004 and 2010, with the number of structures increasing by 407 and decreasing by 238. Well placed sources say the government knows exactly how many Bahamians and how many legal Haitians inhabit those dwellings. This would seem plausible based on the mere fact that immigration raids into squatter settlements target those who are illegal. This is not to dismiss the fact that residents with status are harassed, sometimes to a severe degree, during these operations.
Bahamian people have sanctioned the growth and development of squatter settlements by virtue of their own administrative negligence, and failure to establish a proper plan for the integration of its immigrant community. As a result, people, Bahamian and non-Bahamian, have established families and livelihoods in squatter settlements. Regardless of how one judges the living standards in these settlements, they are at the end of the day housing communities. And how irresponsible is it for Bahamian people to believe they have the unabated right to destroy these communities at any and all cost or expense. That is a recipe for social upheaval, which is what Bahamians continue to bring on themselves.
History and geography played a large role in the integrated society in which we now live, but we were also participants in the creation of this reality, and now we selfishly do not want to accept who we are. Every Bahamian family, including my own, has a story to tell over the past 38 years of independence and beyond of a Haitian national who they employed, a Guyanese national who they were taught by or a Jamaican national who wiped their backsides as a child. We should not be ashamed of that. How could we? "These people" formed our community; in many instances they became a part of our biological family. And now we want to raise hell because the immigrant community over the years integrated into the society as best as we allowed them to. Now we want to raise hell because people who were born and bred in the Bahamas want to call themselves Bahamian.
The people living in squatter settlements have developed communities as best they could in order to serve a Bahamian labour force that employs them. Now, Bahamians think of Haitians as our slave masters, those who once were good enough to cook our food, wash our clothes and nurse our suckling babies, but are not good enough to live in our houses, eat our food or cohabitate with our children.
The Haitian community has been pushed to the margins by the very people who gave birth to them, literally and figuratively. Many of the so-called upstanding Bahamian men in society, who have sweet-hearting down to a science, have children born of Haitian mothers roaming the streets with no clue of their heritage. These are the children we claim have no right to call themselves Bahamian?
In trying to have a balanced debate about the Haitian community and the problems we so readily ascribe to them I had to ask myself a question: Why is it that in the face of facts, evidence and rational arguments that prove many of the claims levelled against the Haitian community to be false and unfounded that Bahamians are still mulish, inflexible and unyielding in their beliefs?
I found my answer with Dr Amos Wilson, a man who ranks amongst the top black scholars in the modern world. He says it is because the individuals who hold these beliefs have a personal interest in the persistence of those beliefs. In other words, no manner of logic or evidence can dissuade them otherwise, because their beliefs are not based on logic or evidence. They are based on self-reinforcing tall tales. He was speaking about the general beliefs that persistently linger about the African race, but his thoughts are more than relevant in relation to our beliefs of the immigrant community.
Unfortunately, Haitians take the heat, but the Bahamian view of "the other" is all the same, except when it comes to those who arrive in private jets with their pockets fat and their suntan lotion in toe.
Some Bahamians have a strange concept of a pure blooded Bahamian or a real Bahamian that I simply cannot grasp. You would be hard pressed to find a Bahamian of any and every means over the age of 40 who does not have an immediate family connection to another Caribbean island, the United States or the old empire.
So who are the real Bahamians? We have some people around here who are the descendants of other people who came here as "masters", procreated on Bahamian soil, passed on property and wealth gained under an illegal an illegitimate colonial system, and happened to stick around until we negotiated an independence. Are they the real Bahamians? Many of these people, who are the inheritors of ill-gotten wealth: are they the real Bahamians?
Between May 2007 and June 2010, the government approved 10,012 permits to reside, and another 22,839 permits between May 2002 and May 2007. Like it or not, the Bahamas has an enormous immigrant community, living and working legally in the country. In that same eight year time period, the government granted 3,227 citizenships; 2,747 permanent residency applications and 3,792 spousal permits. Bahamians need to wake up. We are a multicultural society and our misdirected hate is unnecessarily stirring social tension.
Our immigration policies are literally tearing families apart. I grew up with a friend whose professional parents lived here on a work permit. We grew up together from primary school all the way to high school. The government eventually naturalized her and her siblings but refused to do so with her parents, who had been contributing members of society for decades. My friend's parents were force to move back to their country of birth after establishing their roots in the Bahamas and growing their seeds in Bahamian soil. Many Bahamians would look at this case as an example of the successful implementation of our immigration policy. I say what a shame.
If I were a Bahamian-born child of Haitian parents, who were legally employed to a Bahamian family in the 1970s, and I came of age to apply for citizenship in the 1990s, and because of some procedure inefficiency, or some misplaced political cowardice, 20 years later I was still without citizenship, I would rightfully be upset and fully deserving of some due process. Why, if the government announced, it was going to take my file out of the filing cabinet and figure out what was the hold up, should Bahamians be outraged at that?
Had my grandfather not been a Progressive Liberal Party supporter in the early 1990s and my Jamaican-born mother not been a beloved teacher of many Bahamian children in the public school system, her application for citizenship might have been counted amongst those now infamous 1,300.
I am so sick of politicians manipulating information to stoke xenophobic fears for their own political advantage, and the nerve that they would do so in the name of their love for the Bahamas. Branville McCartney, who is under advisement by the one and only Loftus Roker, is currently milking all he can from the furor around the Ministry of Housing's activities in Mackey Yard and recent disclosures by Brent Symonette, Minister of Immigration.
After Mr McCartney claimed the government was attempting to "secretly regularize thousands of non-Bahamians on the run up to election," Mr Symonette refuted the claims and suggested that Mr McCartney was perhaps misled by the grapevine's reporting of a new initiative at the Department of Immigration.
That initiative he said was the government's employment of 12 people to investigate the status of some 1,300 applications that have been sitting dormant for years.
These applicants have nothing to do with the former residents of Mackey Yard, or the current subdivision being developed.
And yet, Mr McCartney, I suppose in his attempt to make aged political cheese, released his latest statement on the matter of "the 1,300" to say: "The DNA, along with scores of Bahamians across the length and breadth of the Bahamas, is increasingly troubled by the government of the Bahamas' attempt to secretly regularise thousands of non-Bahamians during an election season, while at the same time admittedly following the fashion of the Christie administration and its old 'land give-away' practices."
To use this government initiative, which will hopefully give hundreds of entitled applicants their due process, to advance the completely invented notion that the government is attempting to "secretly regularize thousands of non-Bahamians on the run up to election" is blatantly disingenuous. It is a political strategy taken out of the crudest of political play books being advanced by the so-called "different" political party.
There are sinister efforts at play, trying to tie the Department of Immigration's efforts to the alleged land sale at Mackey Yard.
No one is truly interested in an explanation, the facts of the matter, or doing their own investigation. The many people who are feigning outrage over the airways are simply satisfied with playing up the possibility in order to feed their own egos, their misplaced senses of superiority and righteousness, and to obtain a political advantage.
They are not interested in social unity; they are not interested in peace; they are not interested in taking responsibility as a society.
We live in a sick society, not because of immigrants, because of biggity Bahamians who hate themselves and don't want anyone to know about it.
That self-hate is the cancer that is eating us from the inside out.
July 25, 2011
tribune242
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The slave mentality in The Bahamas is alive and well... and the time has come for Bahamians to open their eyes... The indoctrination of Africans (Blacks) into mental slavery and European culture continues even today in the Bahamian society
Bahamians have a slave mentality
BY DEHAVILLAND MOSS
Crime is out of control; it’s the master’s fault, aka the government. Illegal immigration is out of control; it is the master’s fault, aka the government. The economy is bad; it’s the master’s fault, aka the government. The master will fix the problem. He knows best.
But what are “you” doing about it? We should know by now that the change starts with us. During the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Africans were illegally sold as slaves. Many of these Africans ended up in the Caribbean and thus were forced into a new way of life.
The indoctrination of Africans (Blacks) into mental slavery and European culture continues even today. The celebration of Guy Fawkes Day, Halloween and that “foreign is better” are just a few examples of the former in The Bahamas. We as Black Bahamians are mentally enslaved and even though we are free physically, we face some of the most dangerous times in our history. One hundred and seventy-seven years after the proclamation was read to free slaves in the British colonies, Bahamians still continue to have a slave mentality.
Slaves in The Bahamas worked on small plantations when compared to other Caribbean islands, and the treatment of Bahamian slaves was much better than their Caribbean counterparts. James Stephen, an abolitionist wrote, “the provisions and stock raised on the plantations did not provide the remuneration received by planters in other colonies, ‘but to slaves the effects were ease, plenty, health and the preservation and increase of their numbers, all in a degree, quite beyond example in any other part of the West Indies”. (Source from The Story of The Bahamas by Paul Albury, chapter 14, p126). In my view, this explains the basis of the way that we act toward our “Master” today.
Bahamian slaves accepted their master as a good person and viewed him favorably. Our Caribbean counterparts were treated more harshly than us and as a result they had a fundamental distrust of their master. Could this explain why they are more aggressive than us and the fact that our attitude is more laissez-faire?
Since 1967, in The Bahamas, the black master (government) replaced the white master (government). There was a changing of the guard, but most Bahamians have not seen the kind of progress that is to be expected. Black Bahamians in particular still do not possess the majority of the land; we still do not own a major hotel and we are still second-class citizens in our own country. We now have Black masters as our gatekeepers but they are continuing the historical trend of our demise, albeit in the same subtle nature. Yet we elect the same people over and over. When will the cerebral revolution come?
Look at the way that our country is run with little or no objection from Bahamians. The government sold BTC and there were only about 1,000 marchers on Bay Street. In fact, Minister of Labour Dion Foulkes literally squawked when asked about the effectiveness of the march for BTC. Lawyers illegally sold land owned by Arawak Homes to unsuspecting Bahamians. Due to the large scale of Bahamians who were defrauded, there should have been major campaigns initiated by Bahamians in protest of this. The government refuses to do all it can to help curb our crime and immigration problems and its policies have failed miserably, specifically over the last two decades. Additionally, government policies have caused the price of land in The Bahamas to soar so high that the average Bahamian can no longer afford to buy land (except for those in Mackey Yard); and yet Bahamians sit back and do nothing. Sadly, we still believe in the old slave adage that “Master (aka the government) knows best”.
Listening to the talk shows daily, concerns by Bahamians appear to be on the rise. They call in and seem to expect more accountability from the government representatives. This is a good thing and this type of activity on a wide scale can certainly help break this slave mentality that we continue to be suffering from. I feel proud as a Bahamian when callers suggest that the issues affecting us should be looked at for what they are worth. Forget party lines. For too long, we have been using our party biases and not looking at issues from a nationalistic point of view. We must realize that when our ancestors were enslaved, the underlying tone would have been to regain freedom for all in the British colonies and this bode well for all involved.
Bahamians by heart are not a fighting people when it comes to challenging “the master”. In fact, the only time I can say with certainty that Bahamians would come together and fight the master is when he “messes with their pay”. From the Burma Road Riot on June 1st, 1942 to the teacher’s general strike in the mid 80s, Bahamians came together in solidarity to protest wage disputes. In fact, before the Burma Road Riot, even the American workers who were earning higher wages were agitating for the Bahamian workers’ wages to be increased. Foreigners were given preferential treatment even back then. Does this sound familiar? In the case of the general teachers’ strike, the government of the day said that the Treasury was broke. Yet, after the teachers’ salary was increased, then Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling and his Cabinet increased the salary of all members of Parliament.
If the government had told BTC workers that they would be receiving pay cuts you would have seen a different outcome from the employees. Contract after contract can be given to foreign contractors without a whimper of dissatisfaction from Bahamians. Let me go on record as saying that I was utterly surprised that the present government was able to take overtime pay away from customs and immigration officers with virtually very little opposition from the Bahamas Public Service Union membership.
The recent debacle of the government in the Mackey Yard sub-division speaks again to our slave mentality. Here we are as Bahamians are just sitting back and allowing the government to do what it wants to. Let the “master” handle it is the conclusion of many Bahamians. There are Bahamians though, whose minds have bypassed this slave mentality, but these numbers are infinitesimal.
Just as the slave trade was supported by Africans themselves, who helped capture their own countryman for a few dollars, more we have replication going on in The Bahamas in 2011. Many in the remaining middle class in The Bahamas are utterly quiet as to the state of affairs because they are still getting their hefty salaries. They are still able to live their lives, buy what they want and travel when they want. In their eyes because they are not directly affected by these adverse policies, they choose to turn a blind eye. They are not speaking out and are allowing their “brothers” to be further humiliated and defrauded. In the same vain, thousands of people turned a blind eye to the slave master during the slave trade because they were thinking about self and not country.
The slave mentality in The Bahamas is alive and well and the time has come for Bahamians to open their eyes. We cannot just leave it in the hands of “the master” and hope and pray that the correct decisions will be made, and take for granted that we will always have bread to eat. Bahamians, we need to change our sorry, lethargic and lackadaisical attitude towards the myriad policy decisions that affect us. We will continue to suffer as a people in our own country if we don’t.
As Disraeli, the great English statesman said, “Nurture your mind with great thoughts for you will never go any higher than you think”.
Jul 20, 2011
thenassauguardian
BY DEHAVILLAND MOSS
Crime is out of control; it’s the master’s fault, aka the government. Illegal immigration is out of control; it is the master’s fault, aka the government. The economy is bad; it’s the master’s fault, aka the government. The master will fix the problem. He knows best.
But what are “you” doing about it? We should know by now that the change starts with us. During the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Africans were illegally sold as slaves. Many of these Africans ended up in the Caribbean and thus were forced into a new way of life.
The indoctrination of Africans (Blacks) into mental slavery and European culture continues even today. The celebration of Guy Fawkes Day, Halloween and that “foreign is better” are just a few examples of the former in The Bahamas. We as Black Bahamians are mentally enslaved and even though we are free physically, we face some of the most dangerous times in our history. One hundred and seventy-seven years after the proclamation was read to free slaves in the British colonies, Bahamians still continue to have a slave mentality.
Slaves in The Bahamas worked on small plantations when compared to other Caribbean islands, and the treatment of Bahamian slaves was much better than their Caribbean counterparts. James Stephen, an abolitionist wrote, “the provisions and stock raised on the plantations did not provide the remuneration received by planters in other colonies, ‘but to slaves the effects were ease, plenty, health and the preservation and increase of their numbers, all in a degree, quite beyond example in any other part of the West Indies”. (Source from The Story of The Bahamas by Paul Albury, chapter 14, p126). In my view, this explains the basis of the way that we act toward our “Master” today.
Bahamian slaves accepted their master as a good person and viewed him favorably. Our Caribbean counterparts were treated more harshly than us and as a result they had a fundamental distrust of their master. Could this explain why they are more aggressive than us and the fact that our attitude is more laissez-faire?
Since 1967, in The Bahamas, the black master (government) replaced the white master (government). There was a changing of the guard, but most Bahamians have not seen the kind of progress that is to be expected. Black Bahamians in particular still do not possess the majority of the land; we still do not own a major hotel and we are still second-class citizens in our own country. We now have Black masters as our gatekeepers but they are continuing the historical trend of our demise, albeit in the same subtle nature. Yet we elect the same people over and over. When will the cerebral revolution come?
Look at the way that our country is run with little or no objection from Bahamians. The government sold BTC and there were only about 1,000 marchers on Bay Street. In fact, Minister of Labour Dion Foulkes literally squawked when asked about the effectiveness of the march for BTC. Lawyers illegally sold land owned by Arawak Homes to unsuspecting Bahamians. Due to the large scale of Bahamians who were defrauded, there should have been major campaigns initiated by Bahamians in protest of this. The government refuses to do all it can to help curb our crime and immigration problems and its policies have failed miserably, specifically over the last two decades. Additionally, government policies have caused the price of land in The Bahamas to soar so high that the average Bahamian can no longer afford to buy land (except for those in Mackey Yard); and yet Bahamians sit back and do nothing. Sadly, we still believe in the old slave adage that “Master (aka the government) knows best”.
Listening to the talk shows daily, concerns by Bahamians appear to be on the rise. They call in and seem to expect more accountability from the government representatives. This is a good thing and this type of activity on a wide scale can certainly help break this slave mentality that we continue to be suffering from. I feel proud as a Bahamian when callers suggest that the issues affecting us should be looked at for what they are worth. Forget party lines. For too long, we have been using our party biases and not looking at issues from a nationalistic point of view. We must realize that when our ancestors were enslaved, the underlying tone would have been to regain freedom for all in the British colonies and this bode well for all involved.
Bahamians by heart are not a fighting people when it comes to challenging “the master”. In fact, the only time I can say with certainty that Bahamians would come together and fight the master is when he “messes with their pay”. From the Burma Road Riot on June 1st, 1942 to the teacher’s general strike in the mid 80s, Bahamians came together in solidarity to protest wage disputes. In fact, before the Burma Road Riot, even the American workers who were earning higher wages were agitating for the Bahamian workers’ wages to be increased. Foreigners were given preferential treatment even back then. Does this sound familiar? In the case of the general teachers’ strike, the government of the day said that the Treasury was broke. Yet, after the teachers’ salary was increased, then Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling and his Cabinet increased the salary of all members of Parliament.
If the government had told BTC workers that they would be receiving pay cuts you would have seen a different outcome from the employees. Contract after contract can be given to foreign contractors without a whimper of dissatisfaction from Bahamians. Let me go on record as saying that I was utterly surprised that the present government was able to take overtime pay away from customs and immigration officers with virtually very little opposition from the Bahamas Public Service Union membership.
The recent debacle of the government in the Mackey Yard sub-division speaks again to our slave mentality. Here we are as Bahamians are just sitting back and allowing the government to do what it wants to. Let the “master” handle it is the conclusion of many Bahamians. There are Bahamians though, whose minds have bypassed this slave mentality, but these numbers are infinitesimal.
Just as the slave trade was supported by Africans themselves, who helped capture their own countryman for a few dollars, more we have replication going on in The Bahamas in 2011. Many in the remaining middle class in The Bahamas are utterly quiet as to the state of affairs because they are still getting their hefty salaries. They are still able to live their lives, buy what they want and travel when they want. In their eyes because they are not directly affected by these adverse policies, they choose to turn a blind eye. They are not speaking out and are allowing their “brothers” to be further humiliated and defrauded. In the same vain, thousands of people turned a blind eye to the slave master during the slave trade because they were thinking about self and not country.
The slave mentality in The Bahamas is alive and well and the time has come for Bahamians to open their eyes. We cannot just leave it in the hands of “the master” and hope and pray that the correct decisions will be made, and take for granted that we will always have bread to eat. Bahamians, we need to change our sorry, lethargic and lackadaisical attitude towards the myriad policy decisions that affect us. We will continue to suffer as a people in our own country if we don’t.
As Disraeli, the great English statesman said, “Nurture your mind with great thoughts for you will never go any higher than you think”.
Jul 20, 2011
thenassauguardian
Saturday, July 23, 2011
As bad as things are for the FNM, voters will not automatically flock to the PLP just for the hell of it... For the PLP to win, someone must find Perry Gladstone Christie and tell him, “Wake up.”
Where is Perry Gladstone Christie?
thenassauguardian editorial
Oppositions are supposed to oppose. The opposition leader is supposed to lead this charge. He is the prime minister’s constitutional rival. He is supposed to want that job so badly that he challenges the PM and his government on points of policy and achievement frequently in the public sphere. The public should see the fire in the eyes of the opposition leader.
Perry Gladstone Christie is not this type of opposition leader. He is rarely seen or heard when it comes to issues of national importance. Even in the Parliament, Christie has little presence. He often speaks outside of the prime time period and does not add anything new or challenging to the debate.
Without Bradley Roberts, who has a compulsion for sending press releases, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would have almost no public voice. Statements from Christie on matters of national importance come as frequently as Chickcharney sightings in the forests of Andros.
We all know that Christie has no interest in being opposition leader. He was stunned at being unseated as PM in 2007. Nonetheless, he has the role and should do more on the national stage to look like someone who should be PM again.
The Free National Movement (FNM) is in freefall. The roadwork in New Providence, crime, the Mackey Yard Haitian issue and the frequent power outages have made this a summer of discontent for much of the population.
With all this ammunition, Christie says little to nothing. Absence from commentary on national issues conveys apathy. And who wants to elect a leader who appears so disinterested that he says almost nothing.
Christie must remember that he and Hubert Ingraham no longer have a duopoly on power with the premiership going from one friend to the other. Others have entered the political arena and people are at least listening to them.
The default position previously was to vote for the ‘other’ party when the governing side ran out of gas. But with the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) menacing, Christie should realize that some anti-government votes will go that way if he keeps on looking like the missing leader.
A general election will be called in less than a year – in fact, sooner than that. A vibrant opposition leader would be doing interviews, on talk radio, hosting televised town meetings and much more to demonstrate his interest in the issues and to bring forward the solutions his government would implement.
Sadly, the few times when Christie makes an utterance he only talks about the past. If he is talking about crime he mentions his government’s old urban renewal program; if he talks about the economy he mentions the anchor project deals his government signed; if he talks about housing he mentions the homes built under his administration’s watch.
As bad as things are for the FNM, voters will not automatically flock to the PLP just for the hell of it. For the PLP to win, someone must find Perry Gladstone Christie and tell him, “Wake up.”
Jul 22, 2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
Oppositions are supposed to oppose. The opposition leader is supposed to lead this charge. He is the prime minister’s constitutional rival. He is supposed to want that job so badly that he challenges the PM and his government on points of policy and achievement frequently in the public sphere. The public should see the fire in the eyes of the opposition leader.
Perry Gladstone Christie is not this type of opposition leader. He is rarely seen or heard when it comes to issues of national importance. Even in the Parliament, Christie has little presence. He often speaks outside of the prime time period and does not add anything new or challenging to the debate.
Without Bradley Roberts, who has a compulsion for sending press releases, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would have almost no public voice. Statements from Christie on matters of national importance come as frequently as Chickcharney sightings in the forests of Andros.
We all know that Christie has no interest in being opposition leader. He was stunned at being unseated as PM in 2007. Nonetheless, he has the role and should do more on the national stage to look like someone who should be PM again.
The Free National Movement (FNM) is in freefall. The roadwork in New Providence, crime, the Mackey Yard Haitian issue and the frequent power outages have made this a summer of discontent for much of the population.
With all this ammunition, Christie says little to nothing. Absence from commentary on national issues conveys apathy. And who wants to elect a leader who appears so disinterested that he says almost nothing.
Christie must remember that he and Hubert Ingraham no longer have a duopoly on power with the premiership going from one friend to the other. Others have entered the political arena and people are at least listening to them.
The default position previously was to vote for the ‘other’ party when the governing side ran out of gas. But with the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) menacing, Christie should realize that some anti-government votes will go that way if he keeps on looking like the missing leader.
A general election will be called in less than a year – in fact, sooner than that. A vibrant opposition leader would be doing interviews, on talk radio, hosting televised town meetings and much more to demonstrate his interest in the issues and to bring forward the solutions his government would implement.
Sadly, the few times when Christie makes an utterance he only talks about the past. If he is talking about crime he mentions his government’s old urban renewal program; if he talks about the economy he mentions the anchor project deals his government signed; if he talks about housing he mentions the homes built under his administration’s watch.
As bad as things are for the FNM, voters will not automatically flock to the PLP just for the hell of it. For the PLP to win, someone must find Perry Gladstone Christie and tell him, “Wake up.”
Jul 22, 2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Friday, July 22, 2011
The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) party says: ...Bahamians are feeling more and more that persons who are in The Bahamas illegally seem to have more rights and privileges than they do
DNA 'furious' about illegal immigration problem
tribune242
THE Democratic National Alliance said it is furious that the illegal immigration problem has been allowed to grow to such an extent that Bahamians feel they are "second, third and even fourth class citizens in their own country".
The newly launched party issued statement yesterday saying it believes Bahamians deserve "better treatment" and called on the government to put its people first - in all things.
The DNA said: "The party, along with scores of Bahamians across the length and breadth of the Bahamas, is increasingly troubled by the government of the Bahamas' attempt to secretly regularise thousands of non-Bahamians during an elections season, while at the same time admittedly following the fashion of the Christie administration and its old 'land give-away' practices."
The party was referring to the announcement that the government is working to regularise 1,300 foreign nationals whose applications have been "gathering dust" for years.
The government also said it would sell the track of land known as Mackey Yard - formerly the site of a shanty town - to Bahamians, but that former Bahamian squatters would get first preference.
This has led to speculation that the government is regularising former Haitian squatters in order to sell them the land, in return for political support.
The FNM had denied this, pointing out that both initiatives follow established procedure and that the former PLP government actually regularised more foreigners during its last term than the present administration.
It was also announced that none of the former squatters have actually applied for the Mackey Yard land.
Nevertheless, according to the DNA, as a result of these initiatives, "Bahamians are feeling more and more that persons who are here illegally seem to have more rights and privileges than they do".
The party claimed the government allows illegals to:
* squat on land illegally
* use electricity illegally
* sell products without the proper business licenses
* set up businesses without permission
* build structures without permission
The DNA also called on the government to identify those who they intend to sell the Mackey Yard land to, state whether these persons are citizens by birth or recently regularised, and if they were regularised, when.
The party also asked the government to reveal how many Bahamians are waiting to buy land from the government, and say how long they have been on the waiting list.
DNA leader, Branville McCartney, said that during his time as minister of state for immigration, he tried to create a unit to humanely remove shanty towns.
"My hands were practically tied and I met stern objection to this initiative," Mr McCartney said. "I was told that I was grandstanding."
Mr McCartney told The Tribune yesterday this one of the reasons he quit the FNM.
July 21, 2011
tribune242
tribune242
THE Democratic National Alliance said it is furious that the illegal immigration problem has been allowed to grow to such an extent that Bahamians feel they are "second, third and even fourth class citizens in their own country".
The newly launched party issued statement yesterday saying it believes Bahamians deserve "better treatment" and called on the government to put its people first - in all things.
The DNA said: "The party, along with scores of Bahamians across the length and breadth of the Bahamas, is increasingly troubled by the government of the Bahamas' attempt to secretly regularise thousands of non-Bahamians during an elections season, while at the same time admittedly following the fashion of the Christie administration and its old 'land give-away' practices."
The party was referring to the announcement that the government is working to regularise 1,300 foreign nationals whose applications have been "gathering dust" for years.
The government also said it would sell the track of land known as Mackey Yard - formerly the site of a shanty town - to Bahamians, but that former Bahamian squatters would get first preference.
This has led to speculation that the government is regularising former Haitian squatters in order to sell them the land, in return for political support.
The FNM had denied this, pointing out that both initiatives follow established procedure and that the former PLP government actually regularised more foreigners during its last term than the present administration.
It was also announced that none of the former squatters have actually applied for the Mackey Yard land.
Nevertheless, according to the DNA, as a result of these initiatives, "Bahamians are feeling more and more that persons who are here illegally seem to have more rights and privileges than they do".
The party claimed the government allows illegals to:
* squat on land illegally
* use electricity illegally
* sell products without the proper business licenses
* set up businesses without permission
* build structures without permission
The DNA also called on the government to identify those who they intend to sell the Mackey Yard land to, state whether these persons are citizens by birth or recently regularised, and if they were regularised, when.
The party also asked the government to reveal how many Bahamians are waiting to buy land from the government, and say how long they have been on the waiting list.
DNA leader, Branville McCartney, said that during his time as minister of state for immigration, he tried to create a unit to humanely remove shanty towns.
"My hands were practically tied and I met stern objection to this initiative," Mr McCartney said. "I was told that I was grandstanding."
Mr McCartney told The Tribune yesterday this one of the reasons he quit the FNM.
July 21, 2011
tribune242
Thursday, July 21, 2011
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
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
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
...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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)