Showing posts with label 2002 referendum Bahamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002 referendum Bahamas. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

...Bahamians should roundly defeat the upcoming referendum question on legalizing web shops

Vote no on referendum: PLP sells out the country

Front Porch


By Simon


On multiple grounds, Bahamians should roundly defeat the upcoming referendum question on legalizing web shops.  First, there is a stunning and insulting lack of transparency.

Moreover, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) that cried foul over a lack of process during the last referendum has been breathtakingly hypocritical and cynical in terms of the lack of process in its rush to give certain numbers houses an early Christmas gift.  This referendum involves both a perceived conflict of interest and a betrayal of the common good.

A part of the back-story of the PLP’s decision to hold a referendum solely on the question of legalizing the current criminal enterprise of selected web shops involves a bizarre statement recently made by Prime Minister Perry Christie.

When asked if his party accepted campaign donations from various illegal numbers houses for the recent general election, former prime minister and Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Hubert Ingraham said that while individual candidates may have, he did not accept such donations on behalf of the party.

By stunning contrast Christie said he didn’t know whether the PLP received donations from such illegal enterprises.  Bahamians will have to judge whether they find credible Christie and his stated ignorance on this matter.

 

Ignorance

What is incredible is that on a matter of which there is widespread suspicion of a conflict of interest by Christie and his party is that he has claimed ignorance on whether donations were received.

Imagine the British or Canadian prime minister claiming ignorance about potential donations from illegal sources in the run-up to a major vote in Parliament or a referendum.  He would be hounded by the press and perhaps hounded out of office.  But here in The Bahamas Christie is hiding behind a claim of ignorance.

The potential conflict of interest on the referendum question is as transparent as it appears massive.  This referendum is a defining moment in Christie’s legacy.  It spells the death-knell of the progressive spirit in the PLP, a party now fully in thrall to special interests and a self-serving oligarchy whose mantra is: PLPs first.

This is a shameful and disgraceful moment for the country, for the PLP and for Perry Christie, who will go down in Bahamian history for selling out the Bahamian people.

Are we to be treated to the same contempt for our intelligence and contempt for the national interest by Christie on the matter of oil drilling?  He has also failed to be transparent about his relationship with and the consulting fees he received from a company conducting oil drilling tests.

Having failed to expand constitutional rights for women in its last term, the first referendum held by the PLP, the party of corporatist interests, is one that will narrowly and overwhelmingly benefit special interests at the expense of a broader common good.

Women of The Bahamas be damned.  The question of legalizing windfall profits for illegal enterprises is more a priority for a referendum under the PLP than your rights.

 

Dictator

In its election charter, the PLP promised a referendum on a national lottery and gambling in general.  It has broken its promise citing a report by consultants which the Christie government has refused to make public.  If we have paid for this report, why can’t we see it?  This is the behavior of a dictator, not a democrat.

The message to the Bahamian people: Go to hell and drop dead.  Not only won’t we tell you what’s in the report.  We also don’t see a need to justify the limited nature of the question or why we changed our position.

In one of the most pathetic, insulting and dismissive statements ever made by a prime minister, Christie offered a litany of nonsense in his communication to the House on web shop gaming: “Firstly, I reiterate that my government and party will maintain a position of complete neutrality on the referendum question.  We will not campaign for or against either side to the question, nor will we offer any encouragement for either a yes vote or a no vote.  We are going to stay out of the fray and let the Bahamian people decide what they want without any cajoling or coaxing one way or the other.”

What utter hogwash!  How stunningly disingenuous!  By so narrowly defining what will be voted on and who may benefit, Christie’s PLP has dispensed with any pretense of neutrality.  And, then, he seeks to insult the intelligence of the Bahamian people by claiming neutrality.

There is the old joke of a wife looking through the keyhole of a hotel room, watching her husband and best friend disrobing and cooing at each other.  At the last minute before certain matters transpired, one of their undergarments is flung over the keyhole, so the wife never actually sees the deed done.  It is -- pun intended – a revealing story.

Christie’s non-transparent and pathetic statement continued: “I hasten to add, however, that not all existing web shops would be legalized.  Instead, it would only be those that are duly licensed in due course.”  Really?  Like whom, prime minister?  Anybody in particular, or might we take bets on who may be licensed?  Might you give us some examples?

Then there was this from the prime minister who is morphing from late-again to last minute: “The precise phraseology of the question that will be put to the electorate in the referendum will be announced well ahead of the referendum itself.”

Is this a joke?  Clearly, timeliness has never been one of Christie’s strengths.  Mere weeks before the referendum on a single question, and his administration can’t tell us the question.  And this from the party that criticized the FNM on process?

On the basis of process, and according to what the PLP self-servingly claimed at the last referendum, this question should be defeated.  The referendum has been rushed, the question is still not known mere weeks before the referendum, promised questions are left out, and there is insufficient time for well-organized and thorough forums for debate.

 

Obligation

More so, there is so much we don’t know in terms of the details of possible legislation, which the government has an obligation to address in greater detail before a referendum.  Christie and the PLP cannot be trusted on this front.

Christie also offered this false equivalence between how casinos and web shops should be taxed: “This would be in addition to the annual taxes that would be payable, based on the revenues of the licensed web shops, similar to the taxation structure that applies to casinos.”

He noted that the government expects between $15 million and $20 million in revenue from legalized numbers.  Yet, estimates from study of the industry by the Ministry of Finance prior to May 1, 2012, suggested in excess of $40 million annually.  Why have estimates seemingly been halved?

There are many other questions of public policy and social justice left unanswered by Christie, a number of which require urgent discussion prior to the referendum.  The debate has been joined by the general public, some churches and others, including the Democratic National Alliance, which released a clear position on the referendum.

Meanwhile and unfortunately, the opposition FNM has appeared bungling and inept.  Rashly and idiotically, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis pledged to vote yes on a gambling referendum months ago, before a question to be put to the electorate has been framed and finalized.

One Lorraine Gibson defended Minnis’ statement as his personal view.  This is the kind of silly defense that might be made by a green pre-law student or a naïve political activist.  On questions of such moment and import it is best for any leader to make a statement on behalf of his party.

The FNM needs to get its act together and issue an intelligent, vigorous and consistent position on one of the most important issues before the Bahamian people during the current administration’s tenure.  The country cannot afford a feckless government and prime minister as well as a feckless opposition and leader of the opposition.

November 06, 2012

thenassauguardian


bahamapundit.com

frontporchguardian@gmail.com

Friday, July 27, 2012

The decision by the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) to oppose the 2002 referendum to end constitutional discrimination against women was defended by Prime Minister Perry Christie

PM defends PLP’s position on failed 2002 referendum


By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com


Prime Minister Perry Christie yesterday defended a decision made by the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) to oppose a 2002 referendum meant to end constitutional discrimination against women.

The failed referendum, which was held in February 2002, was introduced by the Ingraham administration and included six questions. It was strongly opposed by the PLP, the opposition party at the time.

The new Christie administration on Wednesday committed to bringing another referendum to the public to alter portions of the constitution that discriminate against women.

When asked why his administration planned to hold the referendum when it opposed similar changes a decade ago, Christie said the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was not fundamentally against ending gender discrimination.

He said at the time the party sided with members of the religious community who said the government did not consult them about the proposed changes.

“We opposed last time on a specific ground,” Christie told reporters on the sidelines of a conclave for parliamentarians at the British Colonial Hilton.

“I went to the Seventh Day Adventist annual gathering. I remember the then leader of the Seventh Day Adventist [Church] saying they weren’t consulted and that because they weren’t consulted they couldn’t’ participate.

“I then checked and found out that all of the churches were saying they weren’t consulted, and I went to my colleagues and said, for the purposes of the lack of consultation, we must oppose this unless [then Prime Minister Hubert] Ingraham decides to stop it and consult, and he didn’t and that is how we got to do it.”

When asked by The Nassau Guardian if the PLP’s stance against the 2002 referendum was a setback to women, Christie said, ‘No.’

He added: “I think the PLP’s opposition to the referendum was that you should never do something against the will of the people, and the FNM was actually acting against the will of the people.

“It was not a question of a judgment as to the substance of it; it was a judgment of the process. We attacked the process and we were successful in attacking the process.

“Now the by-product of it was that you say it wasn’t passed. Yes, it wasn’t passed, but we were never motivated against any issue on the referendum.  We were motivated against the fact that it was being imposed on the Bahamian people against their will.”

On Wednesday, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell said that Article 26 and the preamble to Article 15 of the constitution would have to be changed if the referendum is passed.

Mitchell did not say exactly when the referendum would be held, but said the PLP intends to hold it before the end of its five-year term.

The government also plans to call a referendum on gambling before the end of the year.

During the election campaign, the PLP said it would also hold a referendum on oil drilling if it were voted into office.

July 27, 2012

thenassauguardian