The Bahamas and the illegal immigration debate: ...as a matter of urgency, The Bahamian government must ascertain the number of undocumented immigrants that exist in The Islands...

The immigration fiasco pt. 1

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

Many Bahamians were offended and outraged by the remarks made by President Michel Martelly of the Republic of Haiti during his recent visit to The Bahamas.  During his time here, Martelly paid courtesy calls on the governor general, the prime minister, the leader of the opposition and individuals of Haitian heritage, albeit not in that order.

Martelly’s visit came as a shock to the majority of Bahamians who had been unaware of his impending visit to The Bahamas.  Our prime minister indicated during a press conference held on February 11, 2012, four days after Martelly’s initial arrival that The Bahamas government had not invited Martelly, but rather he had been notified by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Saturday February 4, 2012, a non-working day, that Martelly intended to stop in The Bahamas en route to Mexico.  It was later confirmed that very day that Martelly would remain a day and a night in The Bahamas.  In fact, the president arrived in The Bahamas on the evening of February 7 and departed on February 8, 2012.

It seems fair to say that The Bahamas government erred by not officially informing the Bahamian people that Martelly would make an official visit to The Bahamas.  The president had left Haiti to visit Venezuela and Panama where he was expected to remain two days each in both countries from February 3 to February 7.  Martelly traveled to Venezuela to attend the 11th Summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and to Panama to discuss matters pertaining to Haitians living in Panama and the delivery of visas to Haitians by the Panamanian government.  It is reported that on short notice, Martelly decided to extend his travels to include the countries of The Bahamas and Curacao.

It is reported that the Haitian government issued a statement through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs informing the Haitian people of Martelly’s adjusted itinerary.  The question remains that if in fact our government had been aware of Martelly’s visit from Saturday February 4, why wasn’t the Bahamian public notified?  It is apparent that thousands of individuals of Haitian descent in The Bahamas had been duly informed as evidenced by the attendance at the Church of God’s auditorium.

During Martelly’s recent visit to Curacao, he was greeted at the airport by the prime minister of Curacao, Gerrit Schotte, and other dignitaries.  Subsequently the Haitian diplomatic envoy and Curacao dignitaries attended a meeting with persons of Haitian origin on the specific request of Martelly.  It is worth noting that nationals of Curacao were also present at the aforementioned gathering.  The national anthems of both countries were sung and Martelly made remarks in English when addressing the people of Curacao and in Creole when addressing the people of Haitian descent.  The actions of the Curacao government evidence an intention to unify relations between both countries as opposed to divide.  In light of the events that unfolded this week, it can be argued that the actions of The Bahamas government speak otherwise.  Bahamians would have been equally interested to hear the remarks of Martelly.

The normal course of protocol for an official visit from a head of state would have been to receive a formal written request from the Haitian Embassy in The Bahamas addressed to the chief of protocol suggesting dates for the visit, names of individuals with whom the head of state would like to meet and the purpose of the visit (i.e., the specific topics to be discussed).

The protocol department within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) would have determined availability and arranged the official itinerary of Martelly.  As mentioned, the details of President Martelly’s visit were confirmed on Saturday, February 4, 2012.  Martelly arrived in The Bahamas on Tuesday, February 7, 2012.  The Bahamas MOFA had the entire working days of the 6th and 7th to inform the Bahamian people of Martelly’s visit and his proposed itinerary, just as the Haitian MOFA did in Haiti.  Protocol and diplomacy appear to have escaped The Bahamas government on this matter which appears to have conducted protocol in reverse.

The reaction

The overwhelming consensus among Bahamians is that our prime minister’s response to the matter was unacceptable to say the least.  What is clear is that our prime minister appears to be out of touch with the concerns of his people.  Moreover, the silence of most members of Parliament on this issue leaves little to be desired in the face of the public discussion that has taken place on this matter.

The recent visit has sparked the age old conversation on illegal immigration in our country, particularly among Haitian nationals.  Haiti is a country that has been plagued by socio-economic and political instability.  The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the United States of America have primarily carried the burden of housing Haitian nationals in search of political asylum or refugee status.  There is no doubt that CARICOM members would welcome trade opportunities with Haiti that will be mutually beneficial for our nations.  A healthy and prosperous Haiti is in the best interest of all; The Bahamas included.

Nevertheless, the matter of illegal immigration in our country must be addressed by the government.  It is wrong for Bahamians and parliamentarians to gloss over this issue of illegal immigration and allege that Bahamians are discriminative, racist and prejudiced in an attempt to silence Bahamians on this matter.  Bahamians are generally welcoming people and recognize the contributions that foreigners make to build this country.  However, this fact cannot be confused with the importance of enforcing Bahamian laws on illegal immigration.  It is worth noting that other countries such as Jamaica and Barbados are also faced with the same challenges.

Many CARICOM countries already find it difficult to meet budget requirements with their limited resources and constrained revenue sources.  Many have shared in the burdens of Haiti’s socio-economic and political instability through increased illegal immigration.  Many have also provided aid and assistance to the government of Haiti over the years.

The Haitian presence

In The Bahamas, there is a gray area that is expanding and will continue to have a vast impact upon our socio-economic position if we do not address the matter with expediency.  There are so-called ‘shantytowns’ existing all over New Providence and throughout the Family Islands that successive governments have failed to clean up.  Allegedly illegal immigrants of Haitian descent occupy Bahamian land free of charge, their children attend Bahamian public schools and they also utilize healthcare services.  Bahamian taxpayers’ funds make it possible for government-run entities to function.  In this sense, Bahamians believe they have every right to speak on the matter of illegal immigration and the effects it has upon Bahamian society.

Separate and apart from migrants that came here illegally, there are a group of dispossessed individuals who are aware of the fact that they have a constitutional right and are being overlooked.  These individuals were born in The Bahamas and in most cases educated here.  We must do our best to regularize such individuals.  As long as the constitution provides the means, the constitutional right of this group of individuals should be honored without delay.  What The Bahamas government must be careful not to do is to impose upon the Bahamian people the extreme liberal policy that Martelly is suggesting regarding our constitution in light of our very own economic position.  To grant individuals born in The Bahamas to non-Bahamians citizenship upon birth will most certainly open the floodgates for increased migration to The Bahamas.  Such a policy could negatively impact the preservation of the indigenous Bahamian population, who like the remainder of the Caribbean generally have a lower birth rate than Haitians.  For instance, The Bahamas has a population of approximately 350,000; Barbados, 280,000; Jamaica, 2.8 million; Dominica, 72,000 and Curacao, 142,000.  All of these countries, who together house a growing population of Haitians descendants, have not jointly accumulated the total population of Haiti, which is estimated to be 9.7 million.

More importantly and as a matter of urgency, The Bahamas government must ascertain the number of undocumented immigrants that exist in the country.  The Netherland Antilles launched an immigration amnesty program called the “Brooks Tower Accord” that provided for undocumented aliens in the Netherland Antilles to register themselves, receive temporary permits and therefore legalize their status.  The registration lasted for six weeks from November 3 – December 15, 2009.  The agreement covered three categories.  Immigrants who arrived before December 31, 2001 fell in Category I were able to apply for a permit on their own merit.  Immigrants who arrived between January 1, 2002 to January 1 2006, fell in Category II and required their employers to apply on their behalf.  Finally, immigrants who arrived after January 1, 2006 were not guaranteed regularization and would more than likely have to leave the country or be repatriated.  Whereas there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the illegal immigration problem, our leaders should explore programs of this nature in formulating a solution and a strategy to the way forward.

Bahamians must continue to discuss this matter in the attempt to move our leaders to make significant progress on illegal immigration.  We have elected successive governments to protect our borders, among other things, and they have been found wanting on the issue of illegal immigration. One thing is certain, we must continue to monitor the socio-economic and political position of Haiti to provide assistance where necessary.

 

•Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

Feb 16, 2012

The immigration fiasco pt. 2

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Wikileaks and Bahamian Politics: ...former Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell is accused of being ‘complicit in visa fraud’ and ‘pressuring’ staff at the ministry to issue visas to ‘ineligible’ Chinese applicants during his term in office... according to a secret U.S. Embassy cable tabled in the Senate

Mitchell accused of corruption

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

A senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs official accused former Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell of being ‘complicit in visa fraud’ and ‘pressuring’ staff at the ministry to issue visas to ‘ineligible’ Chinese applicants during his term in office, according to a secret U.S. Embassy cable tabled in the Senate yesterday.

Bahamian Consular Affairs Chief Dorothea Lafleur also told an Embassy official that Mitchell was ‘likely receiving financial kickbacks for the visas that were issued’, though she said she had no hard proof of this, the cable said.  Leader of Government Business in the Senate Dion Foulkes tabled the cable, which was written on April 24, 2007, and published on the Internet by the whistleblower organization, WikiLeaks.

According to the cable, the U.S. Embassy’s consular chief met with Lafleur on April 12 at Lafleur’s invitation.

The cable said, “[Lafleur] accused Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell of complicity in pressuring consular officers to issue visas to patently ineligible applicants.

“She further alleged that Mitchell was involved in a fraudulent visa scam to bring in a large group of Chinese nationals.  According to Lafleur, Mitchell attempted to pressure consular officers to issue the visas and, when unsuccessful, attempted to bypass Bahamian consular law and division leadership.”

After Foulkes tabled the cable in the Senate, Mitchell released a statement, dismissing the allegations as fabrication from a disgruntled employee.

He said the fabrication is now being used in the government’s election smear campaign.  The former minister also told The Nassau Guardian he plans to sue Lafleur over the comments attributed to her in the cable.

He said the Free National Movement made similar claims back in 2007, which were unsupported after a police investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing in the ministry during his five years as minister.

The cable said Lafleur told the Embassy official that Mitchell directly ordered her to issue visas to 30 Chinese nationals whose applications were sponsored by then Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs.

Lafleur said she refused to issue the visas and after pressure from Mitchell she asked for further documentation on the applicants, according to the cable.

“She was informed by Mitchell and Stubbs that they all were high-level managers at large, multinational Chinese companies in China and were coming to The Bahamas at the invitation of Stubbs for business related travel,” the cable said.

According to the cable, after a week-long review, the Chinese Embassy told Lafleur that there was no record of any of the companies listed by Mitchell “with the exception of one company which they characterized as a small ‘mom and pop operation’ in China”.

“Lafleur again refused to issue the visas,” the cable added.

The document also said: “Lafleur claims that as a result of her refusals, Mitchell appointed another official above her in the Consular Affairs Office, who would have the authority to issue over Lafleur’s denials.

“This unlawful appointment provoked the entire consular division to go on strike.”

The Embassy official noted in the cable that the strike was widely reported in the news, but it was attributed to administrative issues in the consular division.

“Mitchell was forced to remove his appointee from the oversight position to end the strike,” the cable said.

“He then tried to get the Chinese visas approved by assigning issuing power to the Bahamian Embassy in Beijing, staffed by an ambassador.  That idea was squashed when the permanent secretary asked Consular Affairs about the idea, and was told that the ambassador had no consular training and that the UK Embassy in Beijing was more qualified by virtue of language and cultural familiarity to issue visas on behalf of The Bahamas.”

The cable said Lafleur also stated that Mitchell had sent another Bahamian to China to promote travel (and visas) to The Bahamas, but that person lacked diplomatic status there and had been removed from the country as a visa overstay.

“Asked why Mitchell would be personally interested in facilitating fraudulent visa issuance to Chinese nationals, Lafleur alleged that Mitchell received a portion of whatever fee the Chinese nationals paid for the visa,” the cable said.

“While lacking hard proof, Lafleur cited the lack of support for the visas from the Chinese Embassy and the involvement of the notorious Sidney Stubbs.”

The cable said Lafleur also expressed relief that Mitchell would not be returning as Foreign Minister.

“Citing internal sources, and noting that Mitchell had already completely cleaned out his office at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Lafleur said that regardless of which party wins the election, Minister Mitchell would not be returning.

“Lafleur noted that she favored the governing PLP in the upcoming election, as long as the PLP does not reappoint Mitchell as foreign minister.”

The cable said Lafleur's bribery allegation adds credence to allegations that have long been circulating in The Bahamas regarding Mitchell, and which are being used by the opposition (FNM) to discredit Mitchell, who faces a tight race against a formidable opposition candidate for his  parliamentary seat, the 2007 cable said.

“The allegation also fits with a number of events that took place and suspicions that have been suggested by Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacts,” it added.

“For example, a staff walkout did take place within recent months that was poorly understood and explained in the media.  Newspaper reports have, however, hit around the edges of this scandal, and Mitchell is squarely in the cross hairs of the Free National Movement and its anti-corruption ‘It is About Trust’ election theme.

“In fact, FNM leader [Hubert] Ingraham has privately pledged to devote whatever resources it takes to defeat Mitchell.  The fact that Mitchell now also appears to be a target of his own senior staff — even staff that supports his party's re-election — adds more credibility to the view that Mitchell may not keep his Foreign Affairs portfolio even if he and the PLP are able to win re-election.”

But in his statement yesterday, Mitchell said, “There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest any malfeasance by me in public office.  In fact, the record shows that with regard to both passport issuance and visa issuance I never issued any visa or passport to anyone or caused such an issuance. [The allegations] were discredited by a thorough police investigation, a management audit by the Public Service Commission and by the auditor general.”

During her contribution in the Senate yesterday, Leader of Opposition Business Allyson Maynard-Gibson said Foulkes’ comments were based on ‘Wikileaks gossip’.

She said there was an investigation into the allegations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the PLP was voted out of office in May 2007 and added that “no irregularities were found”.

Foulkes tabled the document not long after Maynard-Gibson asked him to.

Feb 16, 2012

thenassauguardian

Who will win the 2012 general election? ...Based on a review of the candidates and the reconstituted constituencies, as of today, we believe that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) will win 13 seats... the Free National Movement (FNM) will win 13 seats... the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) will win two seats... and 10 seats are toss ups

Who will win the next general election?

By Philip C. Galanis

(Author’s note: The general content of this column was presented by the author in an address to the Rotary Club of West Nassau at Graycliff Restaurant on Thursday, February 9, 2012.)

 

This week, as we rapidly approach the general election, we would like to Consider This...who will win the next general election?

Our comments are framed in the context of where we presently stand and our election forecasts will be amended before the general election, much like the frequently updated hurricane predictions we get each year.

For now, however, we believe that the elections are the PLP’s to lose.  There are easily verifiable facts that support the premise that the PLP should win.  They include:

1. The unsubstantiated claims by the FNM that, during its term in office, the PLP had its hands in the cookie jar.  To date, not one iota of credible evidence has been presented by anyone to support that claim.  A reasonable observer could therefore draw the conclusion that either there is no evidence to support this claim or that the accusations could affect other persons the government does not want to implicate.  These assertions suggest an advantage for the PLP because it seems to imply that the leader of the FNM is desperately reverting to innuendos and speculation left over from the 2007 campaign that he knows he still cannot – or will not – substantiate.

2. The PLP is fielding impressive candidates.  With few exceptions, the PLP candidates are untainted and scandal-free, so to paint the entire party with a scandalous brush no longer applies.

3. We should not lose sight of the fact that the FNM also has several persons who are not running again.  Can it be that Hubert Ingraham believes that the FNM cannot withstand the scrutiny and standard of integrity to which he is holding the PLP?  If there is a debate on scandals, there are some in the FNM who would be found wanting and we submit that Ingraham prefers not opening that Pandora’s box.

4. Ingraham’s autocratic and bellicose leadership style has grown tiresome.  He is a one-man band, whose approach is: his way or the highway.  Bahamians are tired of that leadership style, especially young Bahamians who are fast becoming the deciding factors in any general election.

5. The FNM has not introduced any major new projects since assuming office and has completed projects that were conceived, or started, by the PLP.

6. The rise of the national debt to a record $4.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion, or 40 percent, in five years.  The consequences of this are enormous and far-reaching, with the burden of debt stretching generationally.

7. Crime is at an all-time high with murder records in four of the last five years, topped by 127 murders in 2011 and 14 so far for 2012.

8. According to the Department of Statistics November Labour Force and Household Income Survey, the country’s unemployment rate is 15.9 percent.  New Providence’s unemployment rate of 15.1 percent and Grand Bahama’s 21.2 percent are abysmal.  Even more disconcerting is that youth unemployment has increased to a staggering 34 percent.

9. Home foreclosures are at record levels.  Even the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation has witnessed unprecedented foreclosures.

10. Thousands of Bahamians cannot afford to keep their electricity connected because they just don’t have the money to do so, sometimes having to choose feeding their families in the dark instead of going hungry with the lights on.  And some families can’t afford either.

11. Special interest groups seem to be the chosen few who are benefiting since the Great Recession started in 2008.  The vast majority of Bahamians have not been so fortunate.  To paraphrase Dickens, these are the best of times for the few and the worst of times for the many.

12. There has been a record number of business closures during the last five years.

13. Individuals and businesses have tremendous difficulty in accessing urgently needed capital for start-up or expansion purposes.

14. The abominably executed roadworks have put hundreds of Bahamians out of business and many workers on the streets.

15. Too many foreigners have been the beneficiaries of the FNM government, at the cost of many unemployed Bahamians who are capable and willing to work.  Foreigners have benefited from the enormous increase in the national debt which Bahamians will have to repay for generations to come.

16. Illegal immigration is out of control with the government bereft of any plans for its containment.

17. The Grand Bahama economy is comatose with no relief in sight for the neglected residents of that island.

18. The misery index has skyrocketed and the rapidly expanding numbers of impoverished Bahamians have lost any hope of maintaining their expected standard of living.  The Bahamian middle-class is rapidly vanishing.

Registered voters

A record number of 154,391 voters registered as of February 3, 2012 compared to 150,684 in 2007.  We predict that a record number of persons will vote in 2012.  As we witnessed in 1967, 1992, 2002 and 2007, Bahamians have a history of voting governments out of office instead of voting for a party to become the government.  Bahamians have registered in such large numbers because they are discouraged, disillusioned and disappointed and want the government to know it by sending a definitive message via their ballots.

The DNA factor

The DNA will mount an impressive challenge to the established parties and in some cases will be spoilers by determining the outcome for candidates who would not likely win unless there are three candidates.

If the DNA wins several seats, we could end up with a coalition government, which last occurred when there were 38 seats in Parliament.

Predictions for the elections

Based on a review of the candidates and the reconstituted constituencies, as of today, we believe that the PLP will win 13 seats, the FNM will win 13 seats, the DNA will win two seats, and 10 seats are toss ups.

Closing the deal

If the PLP is going to win, it must do several things:

1. This election must not be fought on the PLP’s 2002 – 2007 record.  This is Ingraham’s game plan and the PLP must not allow him to frame the debate along these lines.

2. The PLP must contest this election by fighting on three premises:

a) The state of the Bahamian economy.  The PLP should ask the voter: “Are you better off today than you were in May 2007?”  We believe the honest reply will be a resounding no!

b) The PLP must clearly articulate its vision for the future.  Voters have grown weary of hearing about the accomplishments of the past and want to hear about future plans for the nation and for the people.  The PLP must make this a campaign about ideas and vision and not about leadership and personalities.

c) The PLP must showcase the impressive talent of its team and richness of its ideas.  Above all, the PLP must convince the Bahamian people that they will not allow any single individual to dictate the course of policy formulation as the great debate regarding the development of a modern Bahamas continues.

Conclusion

As the election approaches, we will refine our predictions and be more definitive about those toss up seats.

•Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Feb 13, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamians of Haitian descent did not see anything wrong with Haitian President Michel Martelly’s message to Haitian-Bahamians and Haitians on his recent visit to The Bahamas

Young Haitian-Bahamians weigh in on Martelly controversy

By Krystel Rolle
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasgaurd.com

Two Bahamians of Haitian descent have weighed in on the raging debate over Haitian President Michel Martelly’s recent controversial statements, saying that his comments were “blown out of proportion” and “misunderstood”.

During an interview on the Star 106.5 FM radio program ‘Jeffrey’ on Monday evening, Manishka Desinor, 26, who was naturalized three years ago, and Allie Lafleur, 28, who was naturalized recently, said they did not see anything wrong with Martelly’s message to Haitian-Bahamians and Haitians last Tuesday.

As previously reported by The Nassau Guardian, in a meeting with over 6,000 Haitians and Haitian-Bahamians at the Church of God Auditorium on Joe Farrington Road, Martelly urged them to align themselves with the political party that will best serve their interests.

“I told them to organize themselves and identify in the upcoming elections who is on their side. That way they can become a force. By being [unified] in the elections they might have people taking care of them. . .this is the democratic way,” the Haitian president said.

His comments sparked outrage among some Bahamians.

But Desinor and Lafleur do not see why his comments caused such a ruckus.

“I don’t think [Bahamians] should be upset about that,” Lafleur said.

“It’s just a comment he’s making to the people. He’s not telling you who to vote for. I can understand if he’s telling you to vote for the PLP or the DNA, then yeah, you could be offended. But he isn’t saying go ahead and vote for [any party]. He’s telling you to vote for the party of your choice.”

Desinor agreed.

“I don’t think he meant to cause any harm or make Bahamians feel like he’s butting into our affairs,” she said, adding that the media misinterpreted Martelly’s statements.

But some members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) did see it that way.

In fact, DNA leader Branville McCartney called for Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham’s resignation, suggesting that the prime minister invited Martelly for political gain.

Ingraham has since refuted that claim.

PLP leader Perry Christie also took issue with Martelly’s statements, suggesting that the Haitian president was out of order.

But Lafleur said he thinks the PLP and the DNA are using the issue for political gain.

Desinor said she doesn’t know anyone in the Haitian community who intends to follow Martelly’s advice to form a voting bloc.

In fact, she said she is considering voting for an independent candidate.

Desinor became eligible to vote about three years ago when her application for citizenship was granted, a process that she said took three years.

Lafleur said he was naturalized 10 years after he applied.

Even though both Desinor and Lafleur’s parents are Haitians who illegally migrated to The Bahamas, the pair who were born in The Bahamas said they are just as much Bahamian as those born to Bahamian parents.

“I don’t consider myself a Haitian. I think of myself as a Bahamian,” Desinor said.

They both claimed that they have been discriminated against because of their parents’ nationality.

Desinor said that when she was growing up she felt “terrible and out of place; like I didn’t belong.”

While they don’t agree that people who were born here to Haitian parents are stateless, they admitted that it is frustrating not having Bahamian status upon birth.

“It’s stressful at times, knowing that you want to do things and you can not.  At 18 your life is at a standstill. You can’t do anything until your citizenship is approved,” Desinor said.

Feb 15, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The facts of Haitian President Michel Martelly visit to The Bahamas have been twisted out of all proportion... not only by the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader - Bran McCartney... but by Opposition leader Perry Christie and his Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) colleagues

The Haitian president not invited - just passing through

tribune242 editorial




DNA LEADER Bran McCartney has called for the immediate resignation of Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, accusing him of committing treason for allowing Haitian President Michel Martelly not only to overnight in the Bahamas, but to meet with his nationals while here.

"We are calling for the immediate resignation of Hubert Alexander Ingraham," DNA leader Bran McCartney told the press. "He has shamelessly disgraced our nation, his authority and this nation's ideals. He has insulted our people and his post as CEO of the Bahamas. He should indeed bow his head and be cast out, as it is clear he has denounced his citizenship in order to put another country's interest before his own."

What a fiery young man Mr McCartney has turned out to be. The more he talks, the more he confirms our opinion that we are dealing with a political novice who needs much more time to mature. At this critical stage of our country's development, this is not the type of ill-informed leadership that is needed. It almost sounds as though we have a budding dictator on our hands.

The facts of the Martelly visit have been twisted out of all proportion, not only by Mr McCartney, but by Opposition leader Perry Christie and his colleagues.

To listen to them, one would have thought that Mr Ingraham had given President Martelly a script from which to read. Mr Ingraham did not invite the president to Nassau. He did not tell him that before he could talk to his own people he had to first submit a script of what he intended to say to the Bahamas government, and if he dared misstep he would be kicked out of the country. This certainly is not the procedure expected of a democratic country.

Mr McCartney also condemned Mr Christie for being "too quiet on this issue of national importance". We would have expected Mr Christie, a seasoned politician, to have continued his silence on the matter knowing the protocol of such visits. But not Mr Christie, he could not be seen by his supporters as being weak and so was goaded on to make himself look foolish. After all, it was Mr Christie and his party that seemed to take more of a personal interest in the President's presence than did Mr Ingraham and his government.

For example, no FNM politicians attended the Joe Farrington Road meeting when President Martelly addressed his people. However, there certainly were PLP politicians present that night, among them MP Alfred Sears, former PLP attorney general, and Dr Andre Rollins, PLP candidate for Fort Charlotte. And so, until he could read the news the next day, neither Mr Ingraham, nor any of his cabinet, knew what the Haitian president had said to the estimated 7,000 persons crowded around him that night.

Mr Ingraham officially met the president in his office the next morning -- before he had had an opportunity to be briefed on what had taken place the evening before. However, Mr Christie later in the day not only knew what had been said -- to which he now so strongly objects -- but entertained Mr Martelly at his home with several of his PLP colleagues around him. If Mr Christie, or any of his colleagues, had disagreed with anything that had been said the night before, it was there and then that they should have had a discussion and cleared the air. But no, Mr Christie had to jump on the political bandwagon and condemn the visit. Did he really believe in what he was saying from a public platform, or was it only after being accused of being "too quiet" that he spoke up?

President Martelly neither asked, nor did he need permission to visit the Bahamas.
Contrary to Mr McCartney's statement, the Bahamas government did not invite Mr Martelly to the Bahamas. The President's government notified Foreign Affairs that Mr Martelly would be passing through the Bahamas on his way to Mexico. While here, he wanted to meet with the Prime Minister and the Governor General. These meetings took place.

Mr Ingraham said that Mr Martelly needed no permission to meet with his people.
He pointed out that the PLP went to London to meet with "Bahamian students in connection with the election that is coming up to encourage them to support the PLP because they have overseas voting. They went to Jamaica to do the same thing. They went to Miami, Atlanta and, I believe, New York, etc. Do you think they asked President Barack Obama whether they could come and do that? Of course not. Did they ask Prime Minister Cameron of Great Britain? No, they didn't. Why should the Haitian or the Jamaican or anybody else need to ask us permission to do so? We are a free country. We are a democracy. And just as we are able to go to other people's country and meet with our nationals at any time of our choosing, why shouldn't they have the same right to do so in The Bahamas?"

However, Mr Ingraham did give Mr McCartney some sound advice.

"One of the things that young politicians and old politicians ought to do," he said, "is to establish themselves as credible persons; that you take steps to verify things before you make pronouncements. You don't go and shoot your mouth off and make statements that are untrue and that can easily be verified in advance. Carelessness is not a good thing for a young politician, or indeed an old politician. I caution Mr McCartney not to continue telling lies."

February 13, 2012

tribune242 editorial

Caribbean Blog International

The Bahamian government must be dedicated to ongoing funding of education at all levels... ...Further, a corresponding factor is the need for our leaders to actively pursue the diversification of our economy... ...The lack of diversity within our economic model and the depressed economic environment in The Bahamas does not favor young and up-and-coming professionals, entrepreneurs and investors...

Where do we go from here? Pt. 2

By Arinthia S. Komolafe:

A major obstacle that youth and our emerging leaders face is the lack of adequate education and/or opportunities to pursue higher education.  During 2009-2010, a major topic of discussion was subsidies provided to learning institutions.  The government announced that it was decreasing its subsidy to independent schools by 20 percent.  Many were outraged by this move; not least the parents themselves who were already faced with rising education costs and would consequently rethink their desire to privately educate their children.  In some cases many were forced to enroll their children in the public school system.

Proponents of the subsidy argue that parents who choose to send their children to private school are paying double, as their taxpaying dollars are already used to fund public schools.  At the same time, they take additional funds out of their pockets to educate their children privately.  It is worth noting, however, that those opposed to such subsidies believe this reduces the amount of funds available to public schools who ultimately suffer among other things the plight of underpaid educators, understaffed schools, inadequate infrastructure or reduced supplies.

The government’s reasoning for subsidy reduction was that certain independent schools received higher subsidies in comparison to public schools.  However, this argument was perceived by some as skewed, as the government itself operates approximately 160 institutions and is responsible for operating expenses, wages and other costs.

Nevertheless, the most alarming revelation was the statement that all but three of the independent schools were in contravention of the education (grants in aid) regulations by not submitting the requisite returns of income and expenditure.  It is necessary to ascertain upon which basis the government decides the level of subsidy it disburses – bearing in mind that independent schools also receive grants from private donors and/or the denominations that they are affiliated with.

Although there is a strong case for maintaining these subsidies, increased accountability should be demanded from recipients of tax-payers’ funds.  It was recently stated that many of the independent schools have become compliant.  However, the public has not been advised of how many of the independent schools remain non-compliant.  Ironically, it’s difficult to imagine that the government would aggressively ensure compliance with these regulations, when the government itself appears to be acting ultra vires of the same by exceeding the limits apportioned to various classes of schools. It is therefore incumbent upon the government to make the necessary amendments to adjust for the increases and/or new recipients of grants.

Nevertheless, subsidies provided to independent schools, (which generally produce better national results compared to the public system) can provide a good foundation in primary and secondary education to afford more Bahamians an opportunity to pursue tertiary level education.  Statistics reveal that only 20 percent of The Bahamian labor force attain a university degree.  It should also be noted that these statistics include expatriates, therefore decreasing the ultimate rate for Bahamians. The statistics are not unconnected to the lack of opportunities to obtain higher education in a broad range of fields locally.  The inability to receive diverse higher education outside of a few concentrated areas in The Bahamas has led several Bahamian students to pursue education abroad.  In 2010, the government questioned the wisdom of maintaining current subsidies of approximately $4 million for 197 Bahamian students attending University of the West Indies (UWI).  The real question should have been the potential downside of removing the aforesaid subsidies.  Removal of subsidies of this nature at this time will decrease the opportunities for Bahamians to become qualified in fields such as medicine at a reduced cost until such time as they can do so locally.  It is sad to say that in 21st century Bahamas, Bahamians are still not able to qualify as doctors and engineers locally. Until such time as The College of The Bahamas has been converted to a university and provides science and technological services, the discussion should remain a moot point.

Debt and education

Flowing from this inability of Bahamians to be educated locally is the burden of debt acquired in pursuance of tertiary education abroad and hence the student debt loan crisis.  The government Guaranteed Loan Fund Program (GGLFP) was suspended by the current administration in 2009 at a time when many parents cannot afford tertiary education for their children in the absence of awarded scholarships.  As a result, persons unable to take advantage of the GGLFP are often left with no option but to obtain consumer loans from banks and other financial institutions where rates tend to be unfavorable.  Some aspiring students who cannot obtain loans are forced to depend on their parents who in turn resort to remortgaging their homes in order to give their offspring a chance to achieve the Bahamian Dream.

This week, Bloomberg reported a significant increase in student loan debts over the past three to four years.  The report was compiled from a survey of about 860 bankruptcy lawyers under the umbrella of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in the United States.  It was reported that student loan debt (both federal and private) in the United States is approaching $1 trillion and surpassed credit card debt for the first time in 2010.

In The Bahamas, it is estimated that some 5,000 applicants have benefited from the GGLFP since its inception in 2001.  At its debut, the program had nearly exhausted its $100 million statutory budget in less than two years, placing the sustainability of the fund at risk.  It is estimated that approximately $70 million of funds were in default before suspension of the program.  It was further stated at that time that the continuance of the program depended upon the defaulters repaying their outstanding debts.

The importance of planning for our children’s future via investments in educational funds and college funds cannot be overemphasized.  The program was plagued by multiple challenges that seemed to disadvantage the recipient of these loans.  The rate of interest, which had originally been subsidized at 50 percent by the government, was exorbitant and on the same level as that of mortgage loans.

It is worth noting that the subsidy has been reinstated in certain circumstances.  The payment terms were unfavorable and required recipients to pay large monthly payments in a short period of time, at times not taking into consideration other payment obligations of the recipient like additional student loans or car loans.  The lending institutions driven by profits, failed to take into consideration the proposed monthly payments in comparison to the earning capacity of the recipient.  As a result, the high monthly payments provided more of a burden for the recipient and/or guarantor who was accustomed to paying low interest payments that were presumably based upon their credit risk at the time the loan was approved.

The overall management of these student loans including the payment schedules, terms of payment, notification of past due payments and structuring of payments by financial institutions leaves much to be desired.  It could be argued that the poor management and minimal attention paid to this program by these institutions is because payment from the government is guaranteed in the event of defaults.  How much attention is given to the management of this program and other student loan programs to ensure that the interests of the students/borrowers are protected?

Huge monthly payments have in many cases exhausted a recipient’s debt-service ratio and have prevented many young professionals from qualifying for mortgage loans or funding for their entrepreneurial pursuits.  Consequently, many individuals are delayed from moving toward ownership in the Bahamian economy.  The extent of the challenges faced by young and up-and-coming professionals will more than likely be further exposed once the proposed credit bureau is fully implemented and operational.

Govt decision questionable

The Obama administration is proposing an overhaul of the student loan program in America by removing the current subsidies to private lending institutions.  The proposed term to forgive loans will be reduced from 25 to 20 years and the proposed monthly payments will be capped at 10 percent of the recipient’s discretionary income, representing a reduction from 15 percent.  Further, students with multiple loans will be given the option to consolidate and take advantage of lower interest rates.

A similar approach ought to be considered for existing defaulters and future reinstatement of the program in The Bahamas.  The government’s decision to suspend the program indefinitely and not address the student loan debt crisis is a flawed one.  This decision does not send a good message on government’s commitment to higher education of the youth in The Bahamas.  Further, the lending institutions must be engaged to re-evaluate their requirements and terms for student loans.  A universal amnesty period should be looked at for all outstanding recipients to pay a one-off minimal amount and restructure their loans, extend payment terms and effectively reduce monthly payments.

The government must be dedicated to ongoing funding of education at all levels.  Further, a corresponding factor is the need for our leaders to actively pursue the diversification of our economy.  The lack of diversity within our economic model and the depressed economic environment in The Bahamas does not favor young and up-and-coming professionals, entrepreneurs and investors.  These realities make the Bahamian Dream seem so unreachable, unattainable and at best a mirage.  A brain drain is certain to be a surety in our future, unless we place more emphasis upon education.  The question as to where we go from here is one that only the government and our leaders can answer through their policies, decisions and actions.

•Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@Komolafelaw.com

Feb 09, 2012

thenassauguardian

Where do we go from here? pt. 1

Caribbean Blog International

Haitian President Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly's visit to The Bahamas and the politics of Bahamian Politicians in regards to it

By Dennis Dames:



The recent visit by the president of Haiti, Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly to The Bahamas - has created the perfect non-issue for political parties that are grasping at straws. The Haitian President advised Bahamian voters of Haitian descent to simply vote for the party and candidates that best suit their interests – in the upcoming general election. It’s something that we all should do; it’s the essence of politics and elections in a democracy in my view.

So what’s the uproar all about? Well, they are looking for votes by hook or crook. So, one easy way to do it is to stir up the emotion of the Bahamian electorate on the illegal immigration issue; where unregulated Haitians are at the heart. Offering substantive suggestions on how we could deal effectively with our illegal immigration challenges are lacking on the part of political parties in The Bahamas; especially the opposition lot. Their prime perspective is to send all illegals home forthwith; nothing more – nothing less. It’s an impractical and unworkable solution laced with man’s inhumanity to man – in my opinion.

The fringe political party, Democratic National Alliance (DNA) and its politically crazy leader – Branville McCartney went to town with all kinds of nonsense regarding the Haitian President’s words to his people and Bahamian-Haitian voters. He said that the president’s remarks were a direct attack on Bahamian democracy and all Bahamians. McCartney further stated that “Sweet Micky” should respect the sovereignty of our democracy. What did Mr. Martelly do or say that we missed which instigated such empty sentiments by the leader of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA)?

Bradley Roberts, Chairman of the official opposition - Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) said that he thought that it was an insult to the Bahamian people that a foreigner would come to The Bahamas to instruct Bahamian citizens to vote one way or the other. When did president Martelly do this Mr. Roberts?

Others have said that the president of Haiti’s visit was ill-timed because of a general election being around the corner in The Bahamas.

The bottom-line is this: opposition parties in The Bahamas feel and know deep inside their hearts that Bahamian voters of Haitian descent will support the governing Free National Movement (FNM) in the greatest numbers in the approaching general election; because Haitian-Bahamians believe that the FNM is the political vehicle in The Bahamas that has their best interest at heart.

The other parties are strong on their anti-foreign and immigrant messages. Everyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear knows this. Do not blame Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly for the hate and divisions within the Bahamian society caused by Bahamian politicians who simply do not like outsiders.

The time has come for the Bahamian people to realize the enormous benefits of trade and cooperation with our neighbor to the south – Haiti. President Martelly spoke about creating jobs for his people so that they do not have to leave Haiti looking for the same; and he encouraged his compatriots in The Bahamas to return home to help build their poor nation.

The main purpose of the Haitian president’s visit to The Bahamas according to news reports was to promote Haiti as a nation ripe for investments and full of opportunities. He encouraged his people to unite with him to turn things around in Haiti for the durable better.

President Martelly brought hope to his people in The Bahamas, and Bahamians should see the wisdom and benefits of a Haiti on the move with increasing economic benefits to The Bahamas and its people.

This is something to rejoice about, and Bahamians should welcome a new era of success and prosperity with Haiti and its people.

Caribbean Blog International