BAHAMAS SUFFERS 90% FARMER DROP OVER 40 YEARS
By NATARIO McKENZIE
Tribune Business Reporter
nmckenzie@tribunemedia.net
THERE has been a 90 per cent decrease in Bahamian farmer numbers over the last 40 years, it was disclosed yesterday, with insurance said to be one of the "major concerns" for the industry locally.
Sekani Nash, production manager at Lucayan Tropical, in an interview with Tribune Business yesterday, said the Bahamas was often impacted by hurricanes and, while farmers spend a lot of money in the ground, there was not always a guaranteed return.
Mr Nash told Tribune Business: "Farmers spend a lot of money in the ground, and it's not always a guaranteed return on that. To have even minimal insurance, that would cover at least the cost of seeds if something goes wrong. Here, if you put something in the ground, you give a good prayer to God and hope for the best. It's definitely a major challenge.
"The industry is just not at the level where that is a necessity now, even though it should be. The industry itself is still too small for insurers to say they can see a profit in it for them; that is the unfortunate part. Only until we grow the industry will anything change. Right now we are just under 1,000 farms in the Bahamas compared to the 1960s, when there were about 10,000. Over the last 40 years there has been a 90 per cent decrease in the industry itself."
In a recent interview with Tribune Business, Minister of Agriculture and Marine Resources, Larry Cartwright, said the Government was still moving forward with plans for a contributory disaster relief insurance programme for farmers, with the assistance of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
Mr Nash questioned whether the Government was truly committed to reducing agricultural imports. "The unfortunate reality is how far will the Government go to increase agricultural imports when they make money off the imports," he said.
"No matter how much lip service they spend, it's only lip service. It seems like they are only going to do enough to keep it where it is. Imports is where the Government makes its money, and registered farms get tax breaks on bringing in certain equipment."
Mr Nash said that as a young farmer, land availability was also a great concern. "As a young farmer, one of the greatest concerns is land availability," he added.
"The Government has made land available, but as a young farmer even if I was to get land from the Government, then I have to find money, someone who would believe in my idea for me to run a farm.
"There is no lease to own. Land is the one collateral that is like gold in any business. To have someone lease you land and you still don't have any collateral makes it difficult for you as a farmer starting out."
Mr Nash noted that distribution was a major challenge for farmers in the Family Islands, as products usually take days to get to stores and, ultimately, loose their freshness.
He said that over the last five years, Bahamians seem to become more supportive of locally grown products, but admitted that "it's still not where it should be".
March 02, 2012
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.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) seeks all Bahamian votes in the 2012 general election
by The Official Democratic National Alliance
Today’s headline by the Tribune, “Now DNA Seeks Haitian Votes” is very misleading to the Bahamian public, as it suggests an erroneous statement that the Party is underhandedly courting “the Haitian vote.” It would be wise to note that Haitians can only vote in Haiti. Bahamians vote in the Bahamas.
The Democratic National Alliance (DNA), with no other political party present, met with some Bahamian leaders of Haitian descent recently and we discussed the DNA’s policy on immigration, which was not altered from what was presented last year at a public DNA town meeting on immigration, on the Party’s website (www.mydnaparty.org) or as was presented recently at the DNA’s People’s Summit 2012.
It was a fruitful meeting and the DNA believes that it successfully explained to all in attendance that a DNA-government intends to adhere to the law, present a referendum to modernize the country’s regularization laws and remove political hindrances and corruption from the Department of Immigration. At no time did the meeting transform into a plea for votes. Our only focus was to reiterate to the group that the DNA would enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. In addition to:
· Use the most sophisticated technology to ensure that our borders are effectively patrolled.
· Bring the vexing illegal immigration problem in The Bahamas under control through intergovernmental cooperation and in accordance with international Human Rights Laws.
· Review the status of immigrants that have been in The Bahamas for long periods of time and are productive members of society with a view to regularization in accordance with current laws.
· Move with haste to consider the applications of persons entitled to apply for residency/citizenship.
· Move to regularize the status of children born abroad to Bahamian women by way for referendum.
We stand by our decision to denounce President Michel Martelly’s comments during his visit to the Bahamas as divisive and explosive, mainly because all voters are Bahamians and therefore their interests should reflect this country and not that of another. Further, the Free National Movement (FNM) should not have allowed President Martelly to make a state visit to the Bahamas during this charged political season. We feel that his visit was an election ploy engineered by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and the FNM, which backfired.
The DNA recognizes the vast contribution that Bahamians of Haitian origin continue to make to the Bahamian economy. We will work hand in hand with all Bahamians, no matter their origin, but we believe that a government has the unassailable responsibility to enforce the laws of the country.
February 29, 2012
mydnaparty.org
Today’s headline by the Tribune, “Now DNA Seeks Haitian Votes” is very misleading to the Bahamian public, as it suggests an erroneous statement that the Party is underhandedly courting “the Haitian vote.” It would be wise to note that Haitians can only vote in Haiti. Bahamians vote in the Bahamas.
The Democratic National Alliance (DNA), with no other political party present, met with some Bahamian leaders of Haitian descent recently and we discussed the DNA’s policy on immigration, which was not altered from what was presented last year at a public DNA town meeting on immigration, on the Party’s website (www.mydnaparty.org) or as was presented recently at the DNA’s People’s Summit 2012.
It was a fruitful meeting and the DNA believes that it successfully explained to all in attendance that a DNA-government intends to adhere to the law, present a referendum to modernize the country’s regularization laws and remove political hindrances and corruption from the Department of Immigration. At no time did the meeting transform into a plea for votes. Our only focus was to reiterate to the group that the DNA would enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. In addition to:
· Use the most sophisticated technology to ensure that our borders are effectively patrolled.
· Bring the vexing illegal immigration problem in The Bahamas under control through intergovernmental cooperation and in accordance with international Human Rights Laws.
· Review the status of immigrants that have been in The Bahamas for long periods of time and are productive members of society with a view to regularization in accordance with current laws.
· Move with haste to consider the applications of persons entitled to apply for residency/citizenship.
· Move to regularize the status of children born abroad to Bahamian women by way for referendum.
We stand by our decision to denounce President Michel Martelly’s comments during his visit to the Bahamas as divisive and explosive, mainly because all voters are Bahamians and therefore their interests should reflect this country and not that of another. Further, the Free National Movement (FNM) should not have allowed President Martelly to make a state visit to the Bahamas during this charged political season. We feel that his visit was an election ploy engineered by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and the FNM, which backfired.
The DNA recognizes the vast contribution that Bahamians of Haitian origin continue to make to the Bahamian economy. We will work hand in hand with all Bahamians, no matter their origin, but we believe that a government has the unassailable responsibility to enforce the laws of the country.
February 29, 2012
mydnaparty.org
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The most likely result of the 2012 general election, is that either the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) or the Free National Movement (FNM) will win and form the next government of The Bahamas... ...and the other major party will be the official opposition
The reaction of the election loser
There are two ‘unconventional’ scenarios that could result in the next general election if the third party – the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) – wins a few seats. There could be a minority government if no party wins a majority, but one is able to convince the governor general that it could govern. The other option is a coalition government could result. We say unconventional because those types of governments do not occur frequently in The Bahamas.
The most likely scenario, though, is that either the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) or the Free National Movement (FNM) will win and form the government, and the other major party will be the official opposition.
It will be interesting to witness the reaction of the leader of the losing major party. Perry Christie appears determined to be prime minister again to prove he is good enough to serve multiple terms, just as Sir Lynden Pindling and Hubert Ingraham have.
If the PLP loses the election, with the FNM winning 20 seats and it securing a close number like 18 seats, it is unclear if the 68-year-old Christie would go anywhere. Such a majority is unstable. As we have seen this parliamentary term with the resignation of Malcolm Adderley from the House of Assembly and Kenyatta Gibson crossing over from the PLP to the FNM, margins of one are unlikely to lead to longevity for a government.
Consequently, Christie is likely to fight on and attempt to negotiate his way to the fall of the Ingraham government, or to his own majority by luring away marginal FNMs.
If the PLP loses decisively and the FNM secures a strong majority, Christie would have been twice defeated and by an increased margin. No PLP could force him to leave, but the party elite would pressure him to go. Whether he would go or not is up to Christie. He has appointed a ring of protectors (stalwarts) to ensure he cannot be beaten in a leadership race.
Ingraham is a more complicated character. If he loses 20 seats to 18 seats, he too might make an attempt to lure several PLPs to secure a major. If such an effort is unsuccessful, he would likely leave. If the FNM is beaten soundly by the PLP, we think he would go graciously and quickly.
The difference in this regard is that Ingraham appears to be more content with his legacy. He defeated Sir Lynden; he won back-to-back terms; he won reelection after his party lost an election. Politically, there is not much else for him to do.
The reaction of the losing leader will be significant for the losing party. If a party loses and is able to transition quickly to new energetic younger leadership, the eyes of the country would be on the new leader of the opposition. He or she would have a fair chance at being the next prime minister if the time in opposition is used to demonstrate that the party has a new, bold vision for the country.
However, if the losing leader fights a divisive battle to stay after being rejected in his mid to late 60s, the party and leader might miss the message the electorate conveyed and suffer a worse fate the next time around.
We won’t have to speculate on the future for too much longer. Voting time is near.
Feb 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
On February 27, 2002 — exactly 10 years ago today — Bahamians went to the polls in the country’s first referendum... ...A decade after that vote, The Bahamas is still behind many in the so-called civilized world in some respects... ...By voting "no" Bahamians ensured that the country remained in the archaic position of having discriminatory language in its Constitution
A cause for change
Bahamas should revisit issues in failed 2002 referendum
By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
There’s an interesting saying in the tropical Southeastern Asian country of Burma: A woman can be equal to a man in all ways, but she must first die and come back as a man. In the 21st century, it would appear that this very saying could be applied right here in The Bahamas.
On February 27, 2002 — exactly 10 years ago today — Bahamians went to the polls in the country’s first referendum.
They were asked by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to vote to change the Constitution to eradicate language that made men superior to women.
But in results that Ingraham later admitted "shocked and shamed" him, an overwhelming majority of the voters — women included — voted against the historic change. It was an interesting outcome indeed for a people who have for a long time prided themselves on being among the most progressive in the Western Hemisphere, at least as far as civil liberties are concerned.
A decade after that vote, The Bahamas is still behind many in the so-called civilized world in some respects. By voting "no" Bahamians ensured that the country remained in the archaic position of having discriminatory language in its Constitution.
The results also appeared contradictory to the fact that The Bahamas’ record on the treatment of women and the role of women in society has been a commendable one.
The prime minister’s commitment to improving equality of the sexes was a plank in his campaign platform in 1997.
Ingraham noted in 2002 that for far too long, the Constitution has held double standards; a state of affairs that for too many years deprived the children of Bahamian women, married to foreign nationals, of citizenship; and denied the foreign-born spouses of Bahamian women the right to be registered as Bahamians, a right granted by the Constitution to the spouses of Bahamian men.
There is a classic example of a family negatively impacted by that constitutional provision. The late Dr. Mary Ritchie, a Bahamian woman, married a Trinidadian and they moved to The Bahamas before independence in 1973. The couple’s children who were born before independence automatically became Bahamians. But their children born after 1973 had to obtain work permits to be legally employed there.
Timothy Donaldson, a former Bahamian senator and the country’s former ambassador to the United States, said he has always been "incensed and ashamed" by the constitutional language in this regard. Donaldson was an advisor to the Pindling government during the constitutional negotiations in London.
"To me it’s just not right," Donaldson said. He explained that the thinking of then Prime Minister Pindling was that the provision would ensure that Haitians would not eventually take over The Bahamas which at the time had a population of only about 220,000 and today has a population of well over 300,000.
The country has long been burdened by an ongoing influx of Haitians who come to the country in rickety sea crafts, fleeing the unstable political regime in their poverty-stricken nation.
The Haitian presence in The Bahamas has continued to expand over the decades.
Between 1970 and 2010 births to Haitian mothers in The Bahamas nearly doubled, jumping from 7.2 percent to 13.7 percent, according to a new report released by The Department of Statistics.
"Pindling said ‘These Haitians produce like rats’," Donaldson said. "He said they’re going to produce all those children and at some point in time, the Haitians will outnumber Bahamians. But when you make a law geared at just one particular group of people, it’s certainly not a good policy."
The inequality clause is an entrenched provision of the Constitution. These provisions deal with the fundamental rights and freedoms of people as citizens, establishment and powers of Parliament, the cabinet and judiciary. Entrenched provisions can only be changed by 3/4 vote in Parliament, which happened in 2002, and a majority vote by the people in a referendum, which did not happen. To add provisions to the Bahamian Constitution also requires a referendum. The 2002 referendum sought to both change provisions and add clauses to the Constitution which was written in 1972.
Parliamentary exchange
The inequality issue, undoubtedly the most contentious, was not the only question posed to the Bahamian electorate in the referendum: Initially, the following questions were crafted by legislators.
1 - Do you approve of a Teaching Service Commission?
2 - Do you approve of an Independent Parliamentary Commissioner?
3 - Do you approve of the creation of an Independent Boundaries Commission?
4 - Do you approve amending the Constitution to increase the normal retirement age of judges from 67 to 72 for the Supreme Court, and up to 75 for the Court of Appeal justices? and,
5 - Do you approve amending The Constitution to permit the foreign spouse of a Bahamian citizen to reside and work in The Bahamas for the first five years of marriage, and thereafter entitled to citizenship?
6 - Do you agree that all forms of discrimination against women, their children and spouses should be removed from the Constitution and that no person should be discriminated against on the grounds of gender?
Ingraham made the announcement in the House of Assembly on December 6, 2001, informing members that it was the government’s intention to have the referendum on the same day as the next general election so that The Bahamas could "kill two birds with one stone".
"Election time is the time when you are likely to get the maximum number of persons to participate in the process," he said, "and so it is our intent to hold a referendum on the same day as the election."
On December 6, 2001, Ingraham drew attention to the discrimination question and gave it an early highlight as the key issue in the upcoming referendum.
"The one dealing with discrimination against women is fundamental and we propose to move that and as I understand it, there is consensus in the House in support of that particular amendment," Ingraham said. He told Parliament that he had in hand letters from the leader of the opposition, Perry Christie, and the only third party member in the House at the time, Dr. Bernard Nottage, that registered their support.
By the afternoon of December 20, 38 of the 40 members of the House voted on a sweeping amendment to the Constitution to abolish discrimination against women, their children and spouses.
"At last, 28 years following our independence, we are acting to remove from the supreme law of our land constitutionally-mandated discriminatory provisions against 50 percent of the population of The Bahamas," the prime minister said. "This is heavy stuff."
On January 16, members of the House of Assembly — with the exception of Dr. Nottage — approved the package of constitutional bills. Before his vote, Christie had this to say:
“We are headed for general elections. Those of us in the opposition have a view of what is fair. If we regard the process [of the referendum] as unfair, then this is what will happen. We will criticize and go to the country on the basis that this is an illegitimate course of action being advocated and you should not participate or you should vote no.”
A failed process
A month of public debates on the approaching referendum gave way to Referendum Day. What appeared to be a valiant and noble effort by the government to bring The Bahamas in compliance with international conventions that it endorsed, turned into a national debacle.
On all five questions, the majority of voters voted no
• Creation of an independent election boundaries commission.
Valid "Yes" 30,903
Valid "No" Votes: 57,291
• Creation of an Independent Parliamentary Commissioner.
Valid "Yes" 30,418
Valid "No" Votes: 57,815
• Gender discriminating language will be removed from the constitution and if children born to Bahamian mothers and foreign fathers will have Bahamian citizenship.
Valid "Yes" 29,906
Valid "No" Votes: 58,055
• The retirement age of judges will change from 60 to 65 years of age and 68 to 72 for appellate court judges.
Valid "Yes" 25,018
Valid "No" Votes: 60,838
• The creation of a commission to monitor the standards of teachers nationally.
Valid "Yes" 32,892
Valid "No" Votes: 55,627
For the opposition, the resounding no votes amounted to a great victory. The Progressive Liberal Party celebrated the win as if it were celebrating election victory.
“The clear and unmistakable signal that the Bahamian people telegraphed yesterday is that they do not want any government messing with “their things” unless they, the people, are fully included in the process of constitutional reform from start to finish — and that the process of constitutional reform must never be rushed,” Christie said the morning after the vote.
The day after, Prime Minister Ingraham — who had called the referendum his last major agenda as leader of the country — stunned many Bahamians when he said he was “ashamed” that Bahamians rejected his proposed amendments to the Constitution. He also told reporters that he was “mistaken” when he declared that the party that won the referendum would win the general election.
“I have no regrets whatsoever,” he said. “People are perfectly entitled to accept or reject any proposition put to them and they rejected this proposition. I accept that this is their entitlement. I move on. I am ashamed, but I accept it. That is the will of the people.”
When he returned as prime minister in 2007, I asked Ingraham at his first press conference after his re-election whether he was minded to re-visit the 2002 referendum questions.
Ingraham said there will be no more referenda under his watch.
But the prime minister has been known to change his mind.
In 2010, he advised that if re-elected his administration would hold a referendum so Bahamians could decide whether they want gambling legalized.
Whatever government is elected this year ought to take another look at the discriminatory questions in our Constitution.
Perhaps in a less politically charged atmosphere, we could finally succeed in making the necessary changes.
Feb 27, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
The Bahamas Lottery says: It's time to legalise lottery betting in The Bahamas
ONE would have to be a hermit in a cave not to be aware of the fact that wagering on the numbers is a national pastime. It's widely available throughout almost all parts of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
Tickets for the lotteries in the USA are also widely available. I understand that a wager on the numbers can be made online. Anyway I suspect that most of the readers of this column probably know more about the subject than I do.
The question that therefore arises is why have not these activities been legalized with the result that they would make a contribution to the revenue. There is no doubt that the revenue is needed. There is also no doubt that the majority of Bahamians find these activities acceptable. There should also be little doubt that the authorities tolerate these activities because they take place in the open and are not stopped. We should also remember that throughout history governments have failed whenever they have tried to legislate morality.
Conventional wisdom informs us that should any government move to legalize the numbers or lottery business there would be an outcry from most churches. Notwithstanding the fact that their members participate in these activities. The solution maybe to put the question to a referendum so as to avoid it being a political football. It is really a social issue. We should also remember that a law which is ignored by most citizens and which the authorities, over an extended period of time, have chosen to ignore as well, has no moral authority. Possibly it may not have any legal authority because I suspect it is illegal to only selectively enforce any law.
The time has come to legalize these activities. The people have spoken with their wagers. If that is not a case of the people putting their money where their mouth is, I don't know what is.
February 24, 2012
tribune242
Tickets for the lotteries in the USA are also widely available. I understand that a wager on the numbers can be made online. Anyway I suspect that most of the readers of this column probably know more about the subject than I do.
The question that therefore arises is why have not these activities been legalized with the result that they would make a contribution to the revenue. There is no doubt that the revenue is needed. There is also no doubt that the majority of Bahamians find these activities acceptable. There should also be little doubt that the authorities tolerate these activities because they take place in the open and are not stopped. We should also remember that throughout history governments have failed whenever they have tried to legislate morality.
Conventional wisdom informs us that should any government move to legalize the numbers or lottery business there would be an outcry from most churches. Notwithstanding the fact that their members participate in these activities. The solution maybe to put the question to a referendum so as to avoid it being a political football. It is really a social issue. We should also remember that a law which is ignored by most citizens and which the authorities, over an extended period of time, have chosen to ignore as well, has no moral authority. Possibly it may not have any legal authority because I suspect it is illegal to only selectively enforce any law.
The time has come to legalize these activities. The people have spoken with their wagers. If that is not a case of the people putting their money where their mouth is, I don't know what is.
February 24, 2012
tribune242
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Youth unemployment, which is pegged at 34 percent in The Bahamas, is especially a cause for concern if only because many of the young people have not yet had the opportunity to join the labor force... and as such, are being denied access to gainful employment... which is considered by many social scientists as the traditional route to the process of social integration
Youth unemployment
The most recent Labour Force Survey, which was released by the Department of Statistics, contained some insightful but at the same time alarming information on the current state of unemployment in The Bahamas.
Apart from the distressingly high unemployment rate of nearly 16 percent overall and the continuing challenges to the Grand Bahamian economy, with an unemployment rate of 21.2 percent, the data on youth unemployment is perhaps the most disturbing.
Youth unemployment, which is pegged at 34 percent, is especially a cause for concern if only because many of the young people have not yet had the opportunity to join the labor force and as such, are being denied access to gainful employment which is considered by many social scientists as the traditional route to the process of social integration.
High youth unemployment is not peculiar to The Bahamas; indeed it is now recognized as a global phenomenon which is adversely impacting both developed and developing economies. Several studies on the subject have suggested that prolonged periods of unemployment among young people tend to lead to a reduction in self-esteem, diminished levels of well-being and a sense of isolation from peer groups.
Over time, youth unemployment could become problematic to the larger society since young people without the means to provide for their basic needs may not only engage in anti-social behavior, they may withdraw entirely from the labor force and by so doing, further reduce the future developmental potential of the economy.
The marginalization and social exclusion of the youth, according to some studies, are even more pronounced during a recession in that young workers are usually the first to be laid off or downsized when firms begin cost-cutting exercises. And those who remain in the labor force are disproportionately represented in the'informal'sector where they have no formal contract of employment, no guarantee of regular work and in some instances, little or no rights under labor laws. The more educated among the youth are often forced to'trade down'or accept employment far below their qualifications, and for the most part, that group is underemployed and often becomes resentful of the society or the environment in which they find themselves.
Many countries, both developing and developed have attempted to address the problem in a variety of ways including providing direct incentives to labor intensive sectors and/or establishing schemes to promote self-employment.
Both initiatives, although useful, are not the solution in isolation and ought to be part of a more comprehensive youth employment strategy which has at the centerpiece, sustained macro-economic growth for the entire economy.
To be sure, the self-employment initiative pre-supposes a widespread possession of the entrepreneurial spirit and acumen which clearly is not present in everyone, nor is it something that can be taught. It has to be recognized that the future growth and development of any society is dependent on the efficiency with which it employs its factors of production: land, capital, labor and entrepreneurial know-how. Of all the factors, it is labor that has to be continuously introduced, engaged, trained and developed at an early stage in order to be most productive.
In other words, we have to regard our youth as an asset that has to be fully integrated into the productive process and good public policy demands that young people be given priority. According to the United Nations, instead of seeing them as tomorrow's leaders, we ought to regard them as today's partners.
Feb 25, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
...when the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) talk about projects stalled for review by the Free National Movement (FNM) government, the voter has to carefully examine the facts to find out exactly why they did not go ahead... ...They will soon learn that none of them was delayed or cancelled by the FNM
PLP's projects had to be completed by FNM
tribune242 editorial
THE PLP are singing their old refrain again to lull voters back to sleep.
If it's not crime increasing because police officers have been removed from the school yard, and Urban Renewal PLP-style has been revamped, then it's the collapsing economy. Apparently, the Bahamas' economy has gone into recession, not because international banks have collapsed and poor old Greece can't meet its debts, threatening to drag an already nervous world down with it, but because the FNM government, on being returned to government in 2007, made the Bahamas' recession worse "by stopping, reviewing, and cancelling PLP projects".
On the flip-side of that coin is the question: Why didn't the PLP give these projects the green light to go ahead before being turned out of office? According to their logic, the Bahamas would have had a booming economy if their projects had gone ahead. So what went wrong? Why did they drag their feet when they neared the finish line? If all of these projects had been buzzing ahead when the FNM became the government, then Bahamians would have been working. But, no, for some reason, there were contracts that just needed a signature to get them started. It was left to the FNM on coming to office to complete the paper work, put the shovel in the ground, and move them on.
The investments that did not go ahead had nothing to do with any FNM "stop, review and cancel" programme, but rather with the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008, leaving many investors strapped for cash. Several of these investments bit the dust because of this - the GINN project in Freeport eventually being one of them. The Ritz Carlton hotel for Rose Island was another stalled investment that never got off the drawing board. As was Royal Island near Spanish Wells, a Marriott Hotel and the Rockford Lighthouse Point project in Eleuthera. All this because investment cash had dried up -- nothing to do with the Ingraham government.
Apparently, the Urgo Hotels continue discussions with a view to moving forward in Eleuthera.
We recall the night many years ago when the late Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling stood on a platform in Freeport and laughed at Hubert Ingraham's humble beginnings, dismissing him as merely a "delivery boy".
Immediately, The Tribune picked up the slight and turned it into a triumph. Aha! we chortled. That is just what the Bahamas has been waiting for -- a delivery boy. And we predicted that this was one delivery boy who would deliver. And, by Jove, he did. Even now, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has had to deliver many of the investment plans that were left unsigned on prime minister Perry Christie's desk when he was voted from office.
In a statement in the House shortly afterwards, Prime Minister Ingraham said the Christie government had claimed it had brought $20 billion of direct foreign investment into the country during its five years in office.
"We have looked for it," said Mr Ingraham, "but cannot find it."
He said his government found a number of Heads of Agreement completed for a number of projects by the Christie government, but it was the FNM that had to table several of them in the House. Mr Ingraham said that with the exception of the Phase III expansion of Kerzner International and a billion dollars in land sales to international persons (GINN, Kerzner and the Abaco Club), the FNM was unable to find the billions the PLP claimed it brought in.
Negotiations for a proposed development of a PGA Village in Cat Island was also in suspension when the PLP left office. The negotiations were completed by the FNM shortly after its return to office.
We understand that expectations were high that the project would move forward notwithstanding the economic downturn because its principals were very well funded. Mr Ingraham even attended a ground breaking ceremony in Cat Island. While planning and design work continues and some preliminary work commenced on the layout of the golf course, the project has not moved forward as expected.
And so when the PLP talk about projects stalled for review by the FNM government, the voter has to carefully examine the facts to find out exactly why they did not go ahead. They will soon learn that none of them was delayed or cancelled by the FNM.
February 24, 2012
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
THE PLP are singing their old refrain again to lull voters back to sleep.
If it's not crime increasing because police officers have been removed from the school yard, and Urban Renewal PLP-style has been revamped, then it's the collapsing economy. Apparently, the Bahamas' economy has gone into recession, not because international banks have collapsed and poor old Greece can't meet its debts, threatening to drag an already nervous world down with it, but because the FNM government, on being returned to government in 2007, made the Bahamas' recession worse "by stopping, reviewing, and cancelling PLP projects".
On the flip-side of that coin is the question: Why didn't the PLP give these projects the green light to go ahead before being turned out of office? According to their logic, the Bahamas would have had a booming economy if their projects had gone ahead. So what went wrong? Why did they drag their feet when they neared the finish line? If all of these projects had been buzzing ahead when the FNM became the government, then Bahamians would have been working. But, no, for some reason, there were contracts that just needed a signature to get them started. It was left to the FNM on coming to office to complete the paper work, put the shovel in the ground, and move them on.
The investments that did not go ahead had nothing to do with any FNM "stop, review and cancel" programme, but rather with the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008, leaving many investors strapped for cash. Several of these investments bit the dust because of this - the GINN project in Freeport eventually being one of them. The Ritz Carlton hotel for Rose Island was another stalled investment that never got off the drawing board. As was Royal Island near Spanish Wells, a Marriott Hotel and the Rockford Lighthouse Point project in Eleuthera. All this because investment cash had dried up -- nothing to do with the Ingraham government.
Apparently, the Urgo Hotels continue discussions with a view to moving forward in Eleuthera.
We recall the night many years ago when the late Prime Minister Sir Lynden Pindling stood on a platform in Freeport and laughed at Hubert Ingraham's humble beginnings, dismissing him as merely a "delivery boy".
Immediately, The Tribune picked up the slight and turned it into a triumph. Aha! we chortled. That is just what the Bahamas has been waiting for -- a delivery boy. And we predicted that this was one delivery boy who would deliver. And, by Jove, he did. Even now, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has had to deliver many of the investment plans that were left unsigned on prime minister Perry Christie's desk when he was voted from office.
In a statement in the House shortly afterwards, Prime Minister Ingraham said the Christie government had claimed it had brought $20 billion of direct foreign investment into the country during its five years in office.
"We have looked for it," said Mr Ingraham, "but cannot find it."
He said his government found a number of Heads of Agreement completed for a number of projects by the Christie government, but it was the FNM that had to table several of them in the House. Mr Ingraham said that with the exception of the Phase III expansion of Kerzner International and a billion dollars in land sales to international persons (GINN, Kerzner and the Abaco Club), the FNM was unable to find the billions the PLP claimed it brought in.
Negotiations for a proposed development of a PGA Village in Cat Island was also in suspension when the PLP left office. The negotiations were completed by the FNM shortly after its return to office.
We understand that expectations were high that the project would move forward notwithstanding the economic downturn because its principals were very well funded. Mr Ingraham even attended a ground breaking ceremony in Cat Island. While planning and design work continues and some preliminary work commenced on the layout of the golf course, the project has not moved forward as expected.
And so when the PLP talk about projects stalled for review by the FNM government, the voter has to carefully examine the facts to find out exactly why they did not go ahead. They will soon learn that none of them was delayed or cancelled by the FNM.
February 24, 2012
tribune242 editorial
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)