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

By Brent Dean

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 majority. 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.

Mar 17, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Bishop Drexel Gomez’s participation at a recent Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rally raised important issues of the involvement of clerics in Bahamian politics... and the relationship between church and state

Clerics in politics

Front Porch

By Simon

The recent brouhaha over Bishop Drexel Gomez’s participation at a recent Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rally raised important issues of the involvement of clerics in politics, and the relationship between church and state, more of which at a later date.

Unfortunately, these and related issues were obscured by all manner of uncritical thinking.  This included slipshod editorializing by this journal in its March 8 edition entitled, “Reasonableness, family and politics”.

The editorial weighed into the debate with rushed judgement and little historical context seemingly making judgements based on a simplistic reading of the daily headlines rather than a closer reading of history.

The editorial was a textbook example of making poor analogies.  It attempted to support its sloppy conclusion by equating and forcing a false equivalence between the involvement of Rev. Frederick McAlpine in politics and the attendance of Delores Ingraham at political events on the one hand, with Bishop Gomez’s participation at the PLP rally on the other.

Regulated

Mrs. Ingraham’s attendance at such events is regulated by General Orders and long-held customs.  Moreover, she is not a cleric or a religious leader.  Further, this column has previously argued that clerics such as McAlpine should not be engaged in partisan politics for reasons similar for arguing that Bishop Gomez’s rally attendance was an error of judgement.

This newspaper reported that Bishop Gomez stated of his participation at the political event: “I was there simply because I was invited by my brother, who was having the formal opening of his headquarters in Nicholl’s [sic] Town.”

The Nassau Guardian reported, “He [Bishop Gomez] pointed out that he stayed clear of political statements when he addressed PLP supporters.”  The paper quoted the bishop: “I felt I was the most appropriate person to make the presentation, as the older member of the family and the person who has been in the public domain.”

Bishop Gomez continued: “I chose my comments very carefully.  I only spoke about my brother and our family.  I made no reference whatsoever to political issues or to political parties.  My intention was simply to introduce him to the people at the formal opening of his headquarters.”

The Guardian further reported:  “Bishop Gomez said he exercised two rights when he spoke at the political event.  The first being his constitutional right to speak in the public domain on public issues and the second being his religious right to comment on matters of justice and truth.”

It is not the bishop’s exercise of his right of freedom of speech that is being questioned.  The concern is the poor exercise of his judgement in speaking at a partisan political event.  Good judgement requires that one choose not only one’s words carefully, but also one’s appearances in both senses of the word.

Bishop Gomez also has a right to run for the House of Assembly, a right he is unlikely to exercise.  Anglican priest Fr. Addison Turnquest once ran for the FNM.  Though it was his constitutional right to do so, it was a poor exercise of judgement.

Duties

Constitutional rights come with duties.   This is captured in the adage that though a citizen has the right to speak, he or she does not have free reign to bogusly shout fire in a crowded theater.  Moreover, our rights are exercised within the context of other obligations and the demands of prudence and restraint.

A priest has the right to go out dressed in clerical garb to nightclubs, drinking and dancing into the wee hours.  But that priest risks giving confusion to the faithful and undermining his or her moral authority and the credibility of the wider communion he or she represents.

What The Guardian reported as Bishop Gomez’s defense of his two rights, “his right to speak in the public domain on public issues” and “his religious right to comment on matters of justice and truth” begs for clarity.

What exactly was the religious right exercised by Bishop Gomez at the PLP rally?  What matters of truth and justice did he address at the rally in light of his statement, “I only spoke about my brother and our family.  I made no reference whatsoever to political issues or to political parties.”

In pressing that he exercised his right to speak to matters of truth and justice, Bishop Gomez appears to be making an inference.  Is the inference that his brother’s candidacy as a member of the PLP will better advance the cause of truth and justice?  Is this not an endorsement of his brother and the PLP?

Is it Bishop Gomez’s contention that he in no way imagined that his remarks at the rally dressed as he was in clerical garb would carry any influence with voters in North Andros or The Bahamas in general?  Is it his contention that his appearance would be seen as nonpartisan, even neutral, amidst a general election campaign?

All of this adds more holy confusion than blessed assurance for the faithful and observers seeking to understand Bishop Gomez’s post-rally defense.  The bishop’s appearance at the rally in clerical garb added to the confusion for many.

Former Commissioner of Police Reginald Ferguson also had a brother in politics, Johnley Ferguson, who ran for the House of Assembly as a Free National Movement (FNM) candidate.  Assuming that the former commissioner was in that post when his brother was running, would it have been appropriate for the former, dressed in his police uniform, to address a FNM rally to speak about his brother?

Of course, there is a prohibition against such a thing in General Orders.  The reasons behind the prohibition are compelling.  Among them, the risk of undermining one’s authority and that of the institution one represents by giving the appearance of partisanship.

Doubtful

Would Bishop Gomez have spoken on behalf of his brother were he still the head of the Anglican Church in The Bahamas?  It is extremely doubtful that even as the retired head of the Anglican Church that the late Bishop Michael Eldon would have spoken at a political rally to introduce a family member.

Suppose current Anglican head Bishop Laish Boyd had a sibling running for office.  Would it be prudent for him to mount a partisan political platform in an election season to speak about that sibling and their family?

Bishop Gomez pleaded: “My intention was simply to introduce him to the people at the formal opening of his headquarters.”  In moral theology, as in normative ethics, one is judged by one’s intentions and actions either of which or both of which may be flawed depending on the case at hand.

The four cardinal virtues in the Christian tradition are prudence, justice, temperance and courage.   Prudence is the virtue which helps to guide or balance the other virtues.  A classic definition of prudence is the ability to “judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time”.  Restraint or temperance refers to “practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation”.

For many, Bishop Gomez exercised neither prudence nor restraint by speaking at a partisan political rally.  Before acting, a cleric must ask whether his or her actions will be an occasion of confusion for the faithful.

With the benefit of centuries of historical hindsight and chastened by its blurring of the lines between church and state, the Roman Catholic Church is clear about the restrictions on clerics and bishops involving themselves in the political process.

The likelihood of Archbishop Patrick Pinder even attending a political rally as the ordinary or as a retired archbishop of Nassau is next to nil.  Any Catholic priest who went on a political platform with or without his clerical collar to speak about his sibling would make that mistake only once, if ever.

Adding to the confusion, were Bishop Gomez’s comments after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham suggested that Opposition Leader Perry Christie apologize for the attendance of the bishop at the rally.  Though the prime minister’s comments were not addressed to him, it was the bishop who responded in language that can only be described as bellicose.

As other religious leaders are calling for more civil dialogue and restraint, Bishop Gomez blustered that the prime minister would lose a fight with him.  Is that the appropriate language and tone for the former head of the Anglican Diocese or for any religious leader?

In this entire matter Bishop Gomez has acquitted himself as a political partisan and combatant instead of as a moral leader.  Many Anglicans are alarmed at his conduct.  So too are many other people of good will and Christian faith.

frontporchguardian@gmail

bahamapundit.com

Mar 13, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamian History - - - The women suffrage movement in The Islands... ...then, and now: ...Women's struggles in The Bahamas

By JANET BOSTWICK:

 

 

IN THE general elections in the Colony of The Bahama Islands in 1949, Mr Rufus Ingraham, the Member of Parliament for Inagua for two years, lost his bid to be re-elected. His wife, Mrs Mary Ingraham, thought that his chances of winning would have been greatly enhanced if women of property were permitted to vote as men were allowed. She, together with Mrs Mabel Walker, the wife of Dr CR Walker, a Member of Parliament for the Southern District in New Providence, actively began to agitate for women to have the right to vote on the same terms as men.

Mrs Ingraham was a business woman. She owned properties and she was a storekeeper. Mrs Walker, an American, a university graduate, was a school teacher. They were good friends, both were members of The Elks Lodge and both lived on Hospital Lane in New Providence. Mrs Walker was chair of the Civil Liberties Committee of the Curfew Elks Lodge, Mrs Ingraham was a past Daughter Ruler and was also a leader in the Star of The East Lodge of Samaritans.

They used their contacts and influence in the Lodges to further their cause and according to Mrs Ingraham's account, as written in her letter to the Press on November 27, 1975, she was able to get the signatures of more than 500 persons with the assistance of the Rev Dr HW Brown, renowned senior Pastor of Bethel Baptist Church, Mr Wilfred Toote, Mrs Gladys Bailey and Mrs Ingraham and her five children.

That first petition was presented to Parliament and tabled by Dr CR Walker in 1952, the very same year that the United Nations Convention on Political Rights of Women was adopted by that august body. When suffrage talks began in the little colony of the Bahama Islands, suffrage had not yet been accepted as a desirable goal for nations of the world. Our women were therefore in the vanguard of progressive thinking, and this notwithstanding the fact that most of them had not been afforded high school level education.

Of even more signifigance is the fact that the first petition seeking women's suffrage was presented to Parliament before any political parties existed in The Bahamas. Mrs Ingraham stated that the suffrage movement was formed between 1951-52, and she was elected President.

What is definite is that in 1958, when the Petition for suffrage was again presented to the House of Assembly - this time by Sir Gerald Cash, Mrs Ingraham states that she was a UBP, but she had approached Sir Gerald, who was an Independent Member of Parliament, to present the petition. From the early beginning of the Movement, matriarchs of the PLP, such as Mrs JK Symonette and Ugenia Lockhart were active members. They, and later others, worked arduously to secure the vote because they felt that party would not be successful in winning the government unless women gained that right.

When Dr Doris Johnson returned to the Bahamas from University in 1958, she became involved with the suffrage movement. In September of that year, she and others established The National Women's Council, an umbrella organisation of many of the women's NGOS. That council, with Erma Grant Smith as its president and Lady Russell, wife of Sir Dudley Russell, as its vice-president, adopted the suffrage cause.

Mrs Erma Grant Smith was not known to have any party affiliation, and Lady Russell was a Caucasian, and a member of the leading class in Bahamian Society. I recall that her husband, Sir Dudley, was then chairman of the Public Service Commission. It was thought that she was a supporter of the UBP. In late 1958 and thereafter, the PLP officially championed the suffrage cause. And it is well known that Dame Doris Johnson presented the women suffragettes' case to the Parliament in her historic and dynamic address to that body on January 19, 1959.

I have given these brief facts to show that the suffrage movement reached across partisan lines, racial and social class divides. The movement was actually started by a black woman who, after party politics was introduced in the Bahamas, was a member of the UBP, it was embraced by the PLP, it was adopted by women without party affiliation, supported by women of different races and social standing, and it was championed by progressive men.

Sir Stafford Sands was not one of them. He had said that women would get the right to vote "over his dead body", and he wielded great influence over the decisions of the UBP. Yet, at the end of 1960, the UBP in a party meeting voted 63 to two in favour of extending the right to vote to women... and Sir Stafford was still alive!

Mary Ingraham had taken a stand which was diametrically opposed to the position of the political group which she supported and it appears that there were other women of her party which had done so. Of course, the PLP ladies had the full support and encouragement of their party.

The militancy and persistency of the women had paid off. They had been throughout the islands of the Bahamas, they had petitioned the Colonial Office, they had taken their case to the United Nations, they had obtained the assistance of international organisations. They had been relentless and they succeeded.

Such was the fight and the drive and the militancy and constancy and commitment and dedication of our pioneer women. How proud they did us!

In Dame Doris Johnson's address to Parliament in 1959, she addressed the main concern of the suffragettes, which was the right to vote, but also raised their concerns about:

(1) All male juries

(2) Sending delinquent girls of 8 to 11 years to jail

(3) Local government in the Out Islands; ie appointment of women members of local Boards and Committees

(4) No female Justices of the Peace

(5) Out Island Commissioners - no women invited to serve.

Women were granted the right to vote by legislation passed on 9th February, 1961.

But the battle was not over. Thereafter, women had to be persuaded and encouraged to register to vote, and then taught how to vote. Again, the matriarchs of the PLP did a most commendable job in this respect.

What was remarkable is the women who did this work were housewives, storekeepers, some teachers, clerks et cetera. Not professional women, but women who were committed to ensuring victory at the polls for their party and thereby securing a better opportunity for the advancement of their children politically, socially and economically.

Women suffragettes showed us that, in order to bring about significant change, we must accept sometimes that the cause is bigger than the individual, than a party, than any of the things which divide and separate us and that much can be accomplished when we unite.

Unfortunately, after the vote was won, in the main, suffragettes rested on their laurels and were content to stand behind their male leaders. Many of the leading women of the Bahamas felt that politics was a man's job and women should be content to raise their families and, where possible, contribute to the income of the family.

In an interview with the press in November 1981, a similar view was expressed by Lady Caroline Butler, wife of our first Bahamian Governor General, when she stated that she did not believe that women should become actively and directly involved in politics, she felt that "politics takes a devil of a lot out of a person" and as a result a woman's family would be "shortchanged" by her involvement in politics.

She conceded that perhaps a woman with no family could be active in politics, if she was educated and willing to carry a "heavy burden".

This thinking was undoubtedly the informal position of the hierarchy of the PLP because otherwise its failure to have a woman elected to Parliament until some 25 years after women gained the right to vote is unexplainable. It is unfathomable why Dame Doris Johnson for example, was never nominated as a candidate in a seat which the PLP had a good chance of winning. It is of significance that the first PLP female member of Parliament was Mrs Rubyann Cooper Darling, the first woman to register to vote in 1962.

But the spirit of social activism was ignited in a cadre of younger women, who, at relatively young ages, banded together to agitate for changes effecting the national and personal lives of women. I speak of women who were members of the BPWA, and who under the leadership of the then relatively young Pauline Allen fought for the right for women to sit on juries, which was an issue presented by suffragettes in 1959, but which did not become a reality until years later.

Many of those women agitated for consumer protection measures, and gained the cessation of the practice of pricing over items imported and displayed in stores after new shipments were brought in at a higher price and also taught women shoppers to be aware of expiry dates, etcetera.

I speak of the women who banned together as WAR - Women Against Rape and took part in the largest demonstrations denouncing rape and brought about changes so that rapes were no longer published on the front pages of newspapers, and the identity of the victim and her family was concealed, and brought about changes where victims were taken into private screened areas away from the regular outpatients section of the hospital for medical examination, and wherever possible, a female police officer would take statements from the victim.

It was a time when social awareness and conscience were awakened on gender issues and when voices spoke out... being true to the legacy we had received from strong, principled and fearless women suffragettes.

There have been many changes. There are a very large number of female justices of the peace, family island administrators, members of local boards, district councils, national boards, commissions. Women are members of the medical, legal and judicial professions. They are members of Parliament. They have held the highest office in the nation. But there is still much to do.

As women, we have become complacent, materialistic and quiet. We have never been more educated, nor have we ever enjoyed greater levels of influence, yet this is hardly reflected in our involvement in seeking social justice and true equality.

In 1949, we were in the forefront of progressive thinking, agitating for empowerment of women before UN adopted that position. Now we are lagging behind. Some 20 or so years ago, the world body set a desired quota of 30 per cent for representation of women in parliament.

To achieve this, some countries have promulgated legislation making it mandatory. It is a goal to be working for, and it has been advised where laws do not mandate that minimum percentage, political parties should seek to offer 30 per cent female candidates.

The FNM is now actively seeking to address that and its leadership is seeking to move forward to the time when an equal number of FNM women and men will be offered to the electorate as candidates.

Last year, I said to a meeting of lawyers in Freeport, and I quote: "On October 6, 1992, the Bahamas ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women with certain reservations. The Bahamas did not adopt Article 2(a) which obligated it to 'embody the principle of the equality of men and women' in our Constitution; Article 9 which obligated it to grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality, and Article 16(h) which conferred the same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, etc, of property.

"We are now in a position to remove our reservation regarding property ownership since the passing of the Inheritance Act. We must yet retain our reservations in the other two instances because some 38 years after Independence, women of the Bahamas are still discriminated against in the supreme law of the land, our Constitution. For this, we cannot blame the government, we must blame ourselves.

"How does it make you feel? If you feel as I do, belittled, abused, insulted, you make think it time to remember the legacy of the women's movement and use your power to bring about to change.

"Discrimination against women, as stated in the preamble to the CEDAW, is still an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, civil, economic and cultural life of their countries; it still hampers the growth of the prosperity of the society and the family and still makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity."

And it is shameful that we in this age and at this time accept it. It is an equal shame that we are prepared in this day and age to accept that a man may rape his wife and be immune to legal sanctions.

We who cried out against rape are painfully silent when our children are being abused and raped and murdered.

We are not agitating for laws and practices to afford us time to be at the schools at crucial times, like at the times to receive our children's reports, but we are fighting for employment contracts to give us time off on our birthdays!

We are not concerned with mentoring our young girls, or for you young people, girls younger than yourselves, and we leave them to emulate junglists!

Our foremothers were active in the Mother's Club, where they were concerned to find food, clothing and house furnishing for the less fortunate, they established schools for toddlers, they established the Silver Belles, where they provided wholesome extra curricula activities for young people, they were even ahead of international bodies in seeking equal voting rights for women, they used their lodges and their churches to pursue social justice and true equality, and to promote higher education, and their youth and young people were equally involved in these pursuits.

Charitable institutions, national service agencies and programmes are all pleading for volunteers, what are we doing?

Really ladies, our foremothers have bequeathed us a rich legacy. What legacy are we bequeathing to those who follow us?

* The first female member of parliament in Bahamian history, Janet Bostwick served in the House of Assembly from 1977 to 2002. She also served as Minister of Housing and Labour (1992-94), Minister of Justice and Immigration (1994-95) and Attorney General (1995-2001). In 1998, she became the first woman to act as Prime Minister of the Bahamas during the absence from the country of both the premier and his deputy.

 March 12, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

The “greatest land giveaway” of our time: ...the PLP’s 2006 joint venture deal with Boston-based developers the I-Group to sell off nearly 10,000 acres – 9,999 to be exact – including prime beachfront and waterfront Crown land in Mayaguana for the fire sale price of about $650 an acre

‘The great land giveaway’

An inside look at the Mayaguana land deal

Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

The problems that plagued the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) during its last five-year term in office are well known. The infamous Anna Nicole Smith saga, the notorious Cabinet “fight”, the Korean boat debacle and the general view that former Prime Minister Perry Christie had little control over his own ministers.

But perhaps what is perceived as one of the biggest – but lesser known – perceived blunders is what some have termed the “greatest land giveaway” of our time.

It was the PLP’s 2006 joint venture deal with Boston-based developers the I-Group to sell off nearly 10,000 acres – 9,999 to be exact – including prime beachfront and waterfront Crown land in Mayaguana for the fire sale price of about $650 an acre.

The deal in its original form would have boxed in the 350 natives of Mayaguana to the interior of the island, much like Native Americans relegated to a reservation, Hotel Corporation Chairman Michael Scott told The Guardian.

The investors also received a multitude of concessions, over and beyond those normally granted to these types of development projects, and the clause that allowed it to exit the agreement (force majeure clause) was excessive in its options, according to Scott.

It was heralded by those in the Christie administration as the new model for the Family Islands. The PLP argued that the agreement that handed over 9,999 acres of Crown land was a joint venture, and in no way represented a land “giveaway”.

The development was supposed to create 1,700 jobs during the first five years and contribute $116 million to the country’s GDP.

But by 2008, the I-Group, which had already received a portion of land under the original agreement (2,000-plus acres), had invoked the force majeure clause included in the deal, citing the global economic slowdown for failing to meet a number of milestones that would allow it to secure the remainder of the property.

Those milestones included the completion of the Mayaguana airport and associated facilities, the development of a subdivision and estate lots and utility projects, among others.

It also did not help that the relationship between the government – now the Free National Movement – and the I-Group had started to deteriorate. It is claimed that the I-Group openly supported the PLP in its failed re-election bid, and was less than welcoming to Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham when he paid a visit to the island to take a look at the project.

A new agreement

While Ingraham was prepared to honor the deal in its original form, Scott said, some in the administration – including Tourism Minister Vincent Vanderpool-Wallace – insisted that too much was at stake to simply let the development proceed under the original terms.

Last month, the government signed off on an amended Heads of Agreement with the I-Group, which was willing to rework the original deal and has said it is happy with the new agreement. It returned nearly 6,000 acres, including significant wetlands, to the Bahamian people and severed the joint venture between the two parties.

The new agreement also brings concessions and exit options more in line with other Heads of Agreements for similar projects.

Scott was an instrumental part of the team that reworked the Heads of Agreement with the I-Group, over more than two years. It involved determining how much the investors had already “put into the ground”, through a survey conducted by Baker Tilly Gomez. During a recent sit-down with The Guardian, he charted the genesis and later revamping of the controversial deal, a deal he described as an “insult” to the Bahamian people.

“First of all, $600 an acre is a disgrace. Secondly, you’d have essentially prevented the natural population expansion of Mayaguana because you would have had people herding together in the less desirable interiors of the island. Mayaguanans would have become the minority in their own island,” he said.

Under a clause in the original Heads of Agreement, the developers were also going to get the exclusive right to grant licenses to any licensees brought into the development – a situation similar to the operating conditions of the now troubled Grand Bahama Port Authority.

“This is not hyperbole, but with the amount of land originally conceived to the project, with the concessions given, with the licensing authority afforded, you were essentially creating another Freeport. You’ve seen the enormous problems over the last couple of years with the (Grand Bahama) Port Authority. That’s been a disaster. We were in the process of creating another one,” Scott said.

Scott believes the former government also erred when it agreed to the multitude of concessions awarded to the I-Group.

“They were allowed to bring in, for 20 years from the date of the agreement, the importation free from all Customs duties of all materials, supplies and things of every kind of description and without limiting all equipment, building material supplies, replacement parts, spare parts, plant, vehicles, vessels, petroleum products. Then they would have had all the other exemptions from business license fees, stamp duty and real property tax for 20 years,” he said.

Scott explained that the original deal was ostensibly a joint venture between the government and MID – the holding company.

“In that holding company, the Hotel Corporation provided a chairman and two directors, [I-Group] provided two directors, but the real decision making entity was the operations company called Mayaguana Management Company. So they called the shots. They were funding it and managing decisions relating to the time frame and milestones of the development were being made by them, not us,” Scott said.

“This was a land giveaway dressed up as a joint venture. The ultimate power and control were given to the developers. The Bahamian people were passive investors through making available (nearly) 10,000 acres of land.”

‘Anchor projects’

Scott said that the revised Heads of Agreement reflects the FNM’s model for Family Island development, a plan which focuses on small boutique hotels that are a stark contrast to the massive, sprawling ‘anchor’ projects that the last PLP administration pushed.

"It's a much smaller scaled development," Tourism Minister Vincent Vanderpool-Wallace said last month. "They are starting with 2,912 acres. The original proposal was a joint venture with the government for 9,999 acres. We are taking a lot of the land back and the land we are taking back is prime waterfront land, prime land in the interior and that allows some of the settlements to expand in the future and so it has become a great win-win for all."

“When they slowed the project down, we thought that was an opportunity to appeal to them to try and scale it back in terms of scope. They agreed and have signed a reinstated and amended Heads of Agreement which gets back 5,825 acres."

The first phase of the Mayaguana development will involve the construction of an airstrip, an airport terminal, a marina and construction of a 25-room boutique hotel for an investment of between $24-$32 million.

The second phase entails the construction of a $50-$75 million high end luxury resort in Mayaguana.

The original development was expected to be $1.8 billion. It is unclear what the exact value of the new agreement will be.

Mar 12, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

...the New Providence Road Improvement Project could have been completed "six or seven years ago" if it weren't for the incompetence of the former Perry Christie led Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) administration

Christie government was slow to act


tribune242 editorial



SPEAKING at the opening of Golden Gates constituency office, Prime Minister Ingraham said that the New Providence Road Improvement Project could have been completed "six or seven years ago" if it weren't for the incompetence of the former PLP administration.

For one thing, he said, the road works could have been continued in 2002 and completed for $56 million, instead of the now estimated $206 million.

"At that time," he said, "the price of oil, cement and plastic was lower, the price of oil was about $20 a barrel. Today, it's over $100 a barrel."

What happened to the road improvement project was unfortunate. If there had not been a change of government in 2002, the road project -- although it met with a major disaster midstream-- could possibly have been completed on time.

In 1994, the Ingraham government engaged a Canadian firm to prepare a transportation development plan for New Providence. This plan formed the basis of the IDB-funded New Providence Infrastructure Improvement Project.

Four companies were prequalified and submitted bids on June 9, 2000. Two of the bids did not comply with the requirements of the bidding document. The other two provided enough "information to enable an assessment of the adequacy of their proposals".

Government agreed to do business with Associated Asphalt, the lower of the two remaining bidders. It awarded Associated Asphalt (AA), a UK company, a $52.2 million lump sum contract to undertake the project. The contract contained no price escalation clause. At the time, the price of oil averaged US$20 and US$21 a barrel -- today it is more than $100 per barrel and rising.

AA was required to provide two bonds - an advance payment bond of $7.6 million and a performance bond of $7.8 million. The project was estimated to cost $66 million and was to be funded by a loan from IDB for $46.2 million with Government providing counterpart funding of $19.8 million. Work started on April 2, 2001 with a completion date of February 10, 2003.

Fifteen months into the contract, AA's parent company went into receivership. All work stopped. By then, the Charles Saunders Highway, the Milo Butler Highway and the Gladstone Road Realignment, valued at $11.4 million, had been completed. Excluding the advance payment of $7.6 million, the contractor was paid $8.3 million and was entitled to be paid for $2 million in unpaid certified invoices.

What would normally have happened was that the next lowest acceptable bidder-- a Netherlands company whose bid was about $8 million higher than AA-- should have stepped in to complete the job. However, the bondholder believed that the lowest bidder, a Canadian company, should be engaged instead. The Ingraham Government and IDB did not agree.

In the meantime, the PLP became the government. In November 2002 they cancelled AA's contract and demanded that the bondholder pay the sums owed under the performance bond and advance payment bond. The bond holder refused. The matter went to court. The Attorney General had to advise the PLP government that it could not sue on the performance guarantee bond because the final date on which a valid demand could have been made -- February 9, 2004 - had passed. The PLP government's failure to act in a timely manner had cost the country $7.8 million.

On July 15, 2005, the PLP government was again in the Supreme court demanding that the advance payment bond be paid. Again, the bondholder refused. This time, the bondsman claimed that then Works Minister Bradley Roberts in a meeting on October 2, 2002, attended by several company representatives and Kendal "Funkey" Demeritte, described in court documents as a "political assistant", had claimed that the FNM's award of the contract to AA was tainted. Mr Roberts suggested "political interference and corruption". The defence filed by the bondholder was that as Mr Roberts had said corruption in the transaction was under investigation -- although he had refused to disclose the details of the investigation--it had no intention of paying on an illegal contract. Again a loss to Bahamian tax payers.

However, when the Ingraham government was returned in 2007, the bondholder, agreed to discontinue relying on Mr Robert's unfounded allegations. It paid $5.25 million in settlement of both bonds.

In the meantime, time had been lost. Had the Netherlands firm been allowed to complete AA's contract, said Prime Minister Ingraham, the project would have been completed by mid-2005 "with substantial cost savings and the benefits to the economy and the benefits of the project would have been realised much sooner".

The country is now in the predicament it is in -- with escalating costs for roadworks -- because, as usual, the Christie government was slow to act.

March 13, 2012

tribune242 editorial

caribbean Blog International

The Bahamas has had four murder records in five years... ...Our politicians need not add hostility through public discourse in a nation that already has a violence problem

The tone of political rhetoric

thenassauguardian editorial

Over the last few weeks some very aggressive rhetoric has been exchanged between the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the Free National Movement (FNM).  During elections, debates should be fierce, but they should also be decent.

Former PLP Cabinet Minister Leslie Miller has called for a ‘truce’ between the PLP and FNM during the remainder of the election season.  Miller has made public jokes about State Minister for Social Development Loretta Butler-Turner’s weight and accusations directed at National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest that Turnquest said have offended his wife and family.

Turnquest has uttered homosexual innuendo about PLPs and also used words like rape and prostitution.  The FNM’s candidate for North Andros and the Berry Islands Desmond Bannister said the PLP had a bunch of geriatrics at its recent North Andros event.  Among those sitting up front were former Governor General A. D. Hanna, Dame Marguerite Pindling and retired Archbishop Drexel Gomez.

Politics is not for the weak and timid.  To enter the political arena one needs to be able to withstand attacks of all types.  Some of these attacks pertain to ideas, some to past conduct, some to the conduct of friends and relatives, some to relationships.

It is fair and reasonable for political adversaries to scrutinize the records of opponents.  In fact, such scrutiny by opponents and the media is essential to the functioning of our democracy.  The party that wins the general election will exercise executive control of the government.  The electorate should be presented with relevant information by the media and other parties so it can make the best possible decision.

A line should be drawn, though, at personal attacks that have nothing to do with governance, politics or policy.  Calling someone fat, for example, should not be part of the process.  Similarly, suggesting that people are gay, to disparage them, should not be how we campaign.  It is not illegal to be gay or fat in The Bahamas.

Furthermore, candidates definitely should not accuse opponents of crimes of violence they have no proof of.  Such an act should be condemned by all sides and should not be repeated from any political platform.

The nastier the personal attacks get, the more hostile the relationship gets between Bahamians on the various sides of the political divide.  If the rhetoric between the sides gets violent in nature, it is possible for supporters to take those verbal sentiments and to transform them into deeds and actions.

For the most part, there has been little violence in Bahamian politics.  This is something to be proud of.  It indicates that as a people we are able to disagree aggressively without needing to inflict physical harm on each other.

We should all work to keep our politics this way – aggressive but not unduly hostile.  In doing so we keep our country stable.  The Bahamas has had four murder records in five years.  Our politicians need not add hostility through public discourse in a nation that already has a violence problem.

Mar 12, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham: ..."I can't comprehend why a married woman is discriminated against ...and a single woman is not when it comes to the passing of their nationality... ...and for as long as I am in public life, I will ensure The Bahamas is full of equality between the sexes."

PM: 'It is our duty to ensure equality'


By SANCHESKA BROWN
Tribune Staff Reporter
sbrown@tribunemedia.net


PRIME Minister Hubert Ingraham said it is the government's honour and duty to ensure all women in the Bahamas have the same opportunities as men.

Speaking at his luncheon with the nine FNM females candidates to mark International Women's Day (IWD), Mr Ingraham said while the Bahamas has come a long way in terms of women's rights, there is still a long way to go.

"I have always believed that women should be equal to men in all aspects.

"In fact, quite frankly when we are born in this world we have roughly an equal number of males and females and there ought to be no discrimination against women in any form whatsoever.

"In government and in politics I have sought to advance the cause. We still have a couple challenges to overcome but we have made tremendous progress over the years," he said.

"I want to say to my female candidates that we fully expect to advance the cause of women further in the Bahamas and eventually there will be no difference in law or the constitution between a male or a female.

"I can't comprehend why my son should have an advantage over my daughter. That is totally unacceptable.

"I can't comprehend why a married woman is discriminated against and a single woman is not when it comes to the passing of their nationality and for as long as I am in public life, I will ensure the Bahamas is full of equality between the sexes."

Minister of State for Social Services, Loretta Butler Turner, echoed the Prime Minister's remarks.

"In terms of the furtherance of women and their rights, we still have inequalities and things we have to achieve. We have great inequalities even when it comes to pay and when it comes to males and females and so I think that all those matters need to be addressed," she said.

"As a married woman, if I had had my child outside this country to a foreign man I couldn't pass citizenship on to my child and that is a huge disadvantage for Bahamian women. So we are basically second-class citizens in our own country when you look at the rights of men."

International Women's Day, originally called International Working Women's Day, is marked on March 8 every year.

March 09, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International