Undoing the BTC deal
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Could it be done?
Officials of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) appear to have their work cut out for them.
In addition to delivering on all they and the government promised in the months and weeks leading up to the recent controversial closing of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization process, they must convince hundreds of BTC workers that CWC is not the enemy, but a caring employer and strategic partner in every sense.
That may be a tough task, but perhaps not an impossible one.
Accepting the defeat that has been handed to them, BTC union leaders have met with CWC representatives to try to iron out the best arrangements for their jittery members.
While it may reach agreement with the previously enraged unions, what is clear is that CWC has found no friend in the Progressive Liberal Party, and if its leader, Perry Gladstone Christie, delivers on what he promises if he wins the next general election, CWC could face more problems that it bargained for.
But that’s if Christie wins, and if he follows through on his warning to undo this deal.
The former prime minister issued the threat to CWC on several occasions, most recently a week ago as the company and the government were preparing to finalize the transaction.
“This is a bad deal,” Christie said.
“The deal stinks and the PLP remains committed to regaining this asset for the Bahamian people and allow the Bahamian public to have a full and public view of the entirety of this transaction.”
But while Christie is sure he would undo the deal, he apparently has not yet settled on how it would be achieved.
Each time he threatened to change the terms of the deal, we carried the warning, but there really was never any indication about what steps he would take to deliver on this promise if he forms the next government.
So National Review decided to ask him.
Christie revealed that he would seek advice from lawyers because it would have to be done legally, of course.
“The mechanics will have to be left to the kind of advice we will get on the matter,” he told us.
“I’m not prepared to comment on those matters.”
Three PLP parliamentarians who are lawyers also told us they are not prepared to speak behind the leader.
One of them said, “We won’t get our messages mixed up on this one.”
So what really would be Christie’s options on this?
Thomas Evans, QC, was not intimately involved in the BTC deal, but has vast knowledge of the law and commercial transactions.
“Because they are the government I suppose they can do whatever they choose,” said Evans, speaking generally about governments.
Evans recalled years back when he was in the Office of the Attorney General.
He was bold enough to write to the government and advise it could not do something.
“I was very quickly rebuffed and told ‘Look, we’re the government. We can do whatever we feel like doing’. That’s true, but there are consequences for certain things that they do.”
Evans pointed out that if one party reneges on an obligation that it assumes in entering a contract, then that violates and encroaches on the other party, and that other party is entitled to sue and recover damages for whatever loss is incurred as a result of the breach.
“So, while the government could go ahead and not perform an obligation which it assumed, there are consequences,” he repeated.
PENALTIES
Another lawyer close to the PLP suggested to us that one way in which a new Christie administration could force a deal change is by reducing the three-year exclusivity period for cellular service.
“CWC would have to determine how that would affect its commercial interest because the deal may no longer be viable,” noted the lawyer who did not want to be named.
“It may give them a commercial impetus to say rather than just paying us the penalty we want out of the entire deal.”
But that would call for hefty penalties.
In its agreement with CWC, the government has agreed “to pay to the purchaser such amount as is equal to the loss, expense, damage or other liability (calculated on the same basis as would be used for determining damages for breach of contract) incurred by the purchaser which arises as a result of a second cellular license being issued prior to the third anniversary of completion, and/or a second and third cellular license being issued prior to the fifth anniversary of completion.”
Under the agreement, the government has agreed to pay CWC $100 million if one or more additional cellular licenses are issued within the next year.
It would have to pay $80 million if one or more licences are issued within the next two years and it would have to pay $40 million if it issues one or more licenses within the next three years.
If the government issues a third cellular license after the third anniversary of the closing of the sale, but prior to the fifth anniversary of completion, it would be subject to a $20 million penalty.
So it would seem unlikely that the Christie administration might want to go this route, but given that Christie has not yet received advice from lawyers, that of course remains unclear.
Evans said if the government decides to go to Cable and Wireless asking for two percent of the shares back, it would likely have great difficulty “because you’ve got a deal.”
“Once a contract has been entered into between two parties it can’t be changed unless you have the consent of both parties,” he explained.
“It can’t be altered. One person can’t unilaterally alter the terms of the contract, even if you are the government.
“So, Cable and Wireless would say ‘Look, the deal I have is a deal. I acquired 51 percent. That’s what I wanted. I am not interested in 49 percent, and I’m just not going to agree.
“I don’t know that there’s any way that the government, even though they’re the government, would be able to compel Cable and Wireless to agree to surrender their two percent.”
Evans said the fact that a new party takes over the government doesn’t change the obligations that were assumed by the previous party because the government is the government.
“A party doesn’t make the government even though the constitution says that after an election the prime minister is the person who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament.
“To that extent there’s a measure of connection between the government and a political party. But the point I’m seeking to make is that the government is the government.”
TAX FRUSTRATIONS
When he spoke in the House of Assembly recently, Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, who served as a minister in the Christie Cabinet, noted that there are all sorts of creative ways in which a PLP government could pull the rug from under CWC.
Gibson — who served as president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) during initial attempts to privatize the then BaTelCo in the 1990s — expanded on those comments when he spoke with us for this piece.
“Obviously Cable and Wireless would have gotten what they consider to be an air-tight agreement from the government,” he said.
“And they are making it very difficult to introduce competition [any time soon] and they are making it difficult to have any other operator come in here, and making it difficult for a new government to be in a position to force them back to the table.
“As I said in Parliament, there are many ways that you can force a company like Cable and Wireless back to the table.
“We can tax them on certain aspects of their income; tax them on certain areas of the different services that they provide. For instance, we could put a special tax on mobile services. They’re the only one who provide mobile services in The Bahamas.
“So we tax them 15, 20 or 30 percent on mobile services, so there are many ways.”
Gibson had another idea.
“If we’re in charge of URCA (the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority), we could have discussions with URCA and make sure that individuals at URCA, advise them, or encourage them not to allow them (CWC) to go up on rates to offset taxes that they would have on certain parts of income.”
But given that URCA is an independent regulator, that too appears unlikely.
Gibson said that at the end of the day “it is known that the Bahamian public wants nothing to do with Cable and Wireless and they want BTC back in the hands of Bahamians.”
He said Bahamians have been running BTC for decades and “at the end of the day they almost feel that we are going back 100 years”.
“Once certain members of any elite group decide that they want to purchase, whether it is a property or a company, it is very difficult to persuade them to give it back to the people that it belongs to,” Gibson said.
“So it’s important to put it back in the hands of the people.”
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
We also asked prominent attorney Brian Moree how Christie might be able to get BTC back in the hands of the people, if he is re-elected.
Moree, who had no involvement in the BTC deal, said given the very strong and very direct comments from Christie, one would assume that he has a legal basis for making those statements.
“It would be surprising that that position would be adopted unless they had the benefit of some advice to suggest that the transaction could be impeached or reversed if they were elected,” Moree said.
“Generally speaking, if you’re going to challenge a transaction of that sort retrospectively or after the event, one would have to look to see if there were any constitutional issues, which would be relevant and whether proceedings on the public law side of the court could be commenced, either by way of judicial review or some other process.”
Constitutional issues were raised by one respondent when URCA was considering the BTC/CWC deal.
That respondent asserted that the proposed exclusivity of the licensee is ultra vires the Constitution of The Bahamas.
The respondent stated that URCA cannot be party to an unconstitutional result and should require the applicants to address the question as to whether or not the exclusivity arrangement offends the Constitution.
URCA said it was aware of discussion of this issue by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Marpin Case2, a Dominican case in which the Judicial Committee held that a monopoly to control a means of communications can amount to a hindrance of freedom of expression, provided that it is proven that the restriction exceeds that which is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
URCA noted that the Committee in that case did not make any conclusive finding, but referred the issue back to the Dominican courts for a consideration of the particular facts in the context of the above test.
“In any event, constitutional issues, such as this, are highly complex and would properly involve significant judicial scrutiny of the facts surrounding the challenged decision. URCA is not the appropriate forum to consider matters of constitutionality of legislation in The Bahamas, and is therefore not competent to determine this point,” URCA said.
Supporters of Christie’s plan to take back a controlling interest in BTC point to similar action taken by Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow who in 2009 brought legislation to nationalize Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) in the public interest.
Barrow promised “fair and proper compensation” and said the move against BTL was not “some cowboy action, but something done in the full plentitude of, and compliance with, our constitution.”
INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Moree said a degree of responsibility must be attributed to people in public life who make statements concerning these serious matters.
“That is why I said that I assume persons have obtained legal advice to support the position which they have adopted,” he said.
“I’m not aware of that legal advice, so I would not want to speculate.”
While he did not speculate, Moree raised the issue of investor confidence.
“The Bahamas as a sovereign country [must] acknowledge that there has to be a continuity of governance regardless of which political party is in power at any point in time,” he said.
“And when persons are dealing with the Government of The Bahamas, they have to have a level of confidence that their dealings — assuming that they’re lawful and they’re proper and there has been no corruption — they need to have the confidence that if they deal with the government which happens to be the FNM one day, that their transactions aren’t going to be the subject of litigation if another party comes in...”
Gibson said the Christie government has no problem with foreign investors, but is concerned about safeguarding national assets.
“If you look around and you try to identify one single project that this FNM government would have brought to The Bahamas since coming to office in 2007, I don’t think you could do that,” Gibsons aid.
“All of the projects that they are sitting and smiling over right now were projects that were initiated under the Progressive Liberal Party administration.
“And so, we’re not anti-foreign investors. We are anti-Cable and Wireless.”
Gibson said many Bahamians would have welcomed AT&T or T-Mobile, but not as majority shareholders.
“We’re not talking about foreign investors; we’re talking about this specific deal with Cable and Wireless, which seems to be the greatest giveaway ever in the history of The Bahamas,” the MP said.
PLPs would no doubt point to the instances where the Ingraham administration, upon assuming office in 2007 undid some of the deals left in place by the Christie-led government.
The straw market deal, incidentally, which was undone by Ingraham, remains unresolved with some of the professionals who had agreements with the government still waiting to be paid.
Of course, there were no such agreements on the magnitude of the BTC deal, but those actions by the new government led to the popular ‘stop, review and cancel’ phrase tossed about by PLP politicians.
When they took over last week, CWC executives seemed unbothered by Christie’s threats.
“In terms of our operations with government, we have a number of operations with governments across the globe in which we have very successful relations with them,” said Gerard Borely, chief financial officer of LIME, CWC’s regional arm.
“And we have successful relationships with governments no matter who is in power. The reason for that is because we deliver value and service to our consumers and governments, value that they appreciate. And we expect that to continue to be [the case] here.”
4/11/2011
thenassauguardian
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.
Showing posts with label BTC deal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BTC deal. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The House of Assembly Passed the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) Privatization Resolutions
House approves BTC sale
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
PM accidentally voted against sale, then changed vote
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly yesterday with 22 MPs voting in support of the resolutions and 18 voting against. The process to sell 51 percent of BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) is now almost finished.
All members of the official opposition voted against the resolutions. Independent MP for Bamboo Town Branville McCartney also voted against the resolutions.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham initially made a mistake and he accidentally voted against the first privatization resolution. He was seemingly distracted, using his Blackberry phone, when his name was called to vote. Ingraham said, “No.”
When he realized the mistake, Ingraham quickly said, “Yes.”
His initial “no” vote led to loud cheers and laughter from opposition members.
When it came time to vote on the second resolution, Ingraham clearly said, “Yes.” This also led to laughter from the opposition, considering Ingraham’s initial mistake.
Both resolutions passed shortly after Ingraham wrapped up the debate yesterday evening.
“This is a historic day in the history of The Bahamas,” Ingraham said. “It is the culmination of a process that was started 14 years ago.”
In negotiating the BTC deal, he said the government was motivated by its desire to give Bahamians the best of what is available and to ensure that communications services are reliable and accessible.
Ingraham also accused the opposition of using the unions representing BTC employees as “pawns” in the fight against of sale of BTC to CWC.
Ingraham further criticized the leaders of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) — the BTC unions — for leading their members down “the wrong path.”
The unions have led protests and legal action seeking to block the sale to CWC.
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) MP for Fort Charlotte Alfred Sears took offense to Ingraham’s “pawns” statement. He said the unions are mature groups with responsible leaders who can make independent decisions.
The BCPOU and BCPMU were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
However, Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley said the unions lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
The unions appealed the decision, but lost that bid before the Court of Appeal Tuesday.
The unions will face significant legal bills as a result of the failed court action.
Ingraham encouraged the unions to engage with CWC.
“I appeal to the leadership, to the unions, to begin to engage in discussions with their new bosses. Because they are going to be the bosses in short order and it makes good sense for them to have discussions,” he said. “Do not allow anyone to mislead you into believing that we do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, had they listened to me they wouldn’t have been stuck with the thousands of dollars in court fees.”
The legislation associated with the BTC sale will next be debated in the Senate.
3/25/2011
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
PM accidentally voted against sale, then changed vote
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly yesterday with 22 MPs voting in support of the resolutions and 18 voting against. The process to sell 51 percent of BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) is now almost finished.
All members of the official opposition voted against the resolutions. Independent MP for Bamboo Town Branville McCartney also voted against the resolutions.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham initially made a mistake and he accidentally voted against the first privatization resolution. He was seemingly distracted, using his Blackberry phone, when his name was called to vote. Ingraham said, “No.”
When he realized the mistake, Ingraham quickly said, “Yes.”
His initial “no” vote led to loud cheers and laughter from opposition members.
When it came time to vote on the second resolution, Ingraham clearly said, “Yes.” This also led to laughter from the opposition, considering Ingraham’s initial mistake.
Both resolutions passed shortly after Ingraham wrapped up the debate yesterday evening.
“This is a historic day in the history of The Bahamas,” Ingraham said. “It is the culmination of a process that was started 14 years ago.”
In negotiating the BTC deal, he said the government was motivated by its desire to give Bahamians the best of what is available and to ensure that communications services are reliable and accessible.
Ingraham also accused the opposition of using the unions representing BTC employees as “pawns” in the fight against of sale of BTC to CWC.
Ingraham further criticized the leaders of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) — the BTC unions — for leading their members down “the wrong path.”
The unions have led protests and legal action seeking to block the sale to CWC.
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) MP for Fort Charlotte Alfred Sears took offense to Ingraham’s “pawns” statement. He said the unions are mature groups with responsible leaders who can make independent decisions.
The BCPOU and BCPMU were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
However, Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley said the unions lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
The unions appealed the decision, but lost that bid before the Court of Appeal Tuesday.
The unions will face significant legal bills as a result of the failed court action.
Ingraham encouraged the unions to engage with CWC.
“I appeal to the leadership, to the unions, to begin to engage in discussions with their new bosses. Because they are going to be the bosses in short order and it makes good sense for them to have discussions,” he said. “Do not allow anyone to mislead you into believing that we do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, had they listened to me they wouldn’t have been stuck with the thousands of dollars in court fees.”
The legislation associated with the BTC sale will next be debated in the Senate.
3/25/2011
thenassauguardian
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Perry Christie camp is certainly desperate to win an election
Election tactics to fool Bahamians in full swing
tribune242 editorial
DURING yesterday's rally Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union president Bernard Evans expressed the hope that "between now and the vote something will happen to derail the sale" of BTC to Cable & Wireless.
We are certain that the Bahamian woman who called a radio show yesterday morning to complain that she tried to pay her telephone bill but found no cashier on duty at any of the outlets-- except at the BTC Marathon office -- to assist her is anxious for the sale to go through. She is probably among the many Bahamians who -- unlike Mr Evans -- cannot wait for the company to be privatised so that persons like herself will get the standard of service they have every right to expect.
It is presumed that instead of manning their stations yesterday many of the missing staff were on Bay Street protesting the sale of BTC. Lower fees, better service and more choice in their public communications is what the public wants -- as far as many of them are concerned, it cannot come soon enough. Sunday night an internal e-mail, claiming to have been sent by Philip "Brave" Davis to six party members, mysteriously found its way to the desks of several newspaper editors and reporters.
With daily information being supplied by TV, Twitter, Face book and all the other new fangled means of information, Bahamians are sufficiently well informed not to buy into the PLP's propaganda blaming the Bahamas' economic downturn on the Ingraham government, rather than where it rightfully belongs -- the world economic crash.
"We have not been able to persuade the electorate that it is management and not the global economy that is causing the woes today..." said the e-mail. Party members have been advised to change their tactics. The e-mail claims that what is "resonating is the intentional delay and slothfulness to get things started that was left in place." We do not think that what the PLP like to call "stop, review and cancel" will resonant with Bahamians either if they fully understand what the Ingraham government has saved for them by going over all agreements left in place by the Christie government. When they realise what they would have lost had this not been done, we do not believe that even this propaganda slogan will resonate with anyone.
The Davis e-mail suggested that the chorus line to this week's debate about the sale has to be the five reasons why the "BTC deal stinks and this word has to be the chorus line to all contributions." Taking Mr Davis' advice yesterday, Fort Charlotte MP Alfred Sears during his contribution to the debate called for a Commission of Inquiry because the deal "does not pass the smell test."
The Christie camp is certainly desperate to win an election. They are clutching at any and every straw that passes their way to try to capture votes.
The e-mail advised the party stalwarts to be "dismissive" of the rally. This was a reference to Saturday night's FNM rally attended by a large, enthusiastic and orderly crowd. We presume that the directive was to ignore it, but one intrepid PLP MP broke ranks and suggested that the FNM were disappointed by the poor turnout to their rally. The police estimated that on Saturday night the rally drew a crowd of about 7,000-- hardly a poor turnout.
One bystander watching yesterday's demonstration outside the House believed the people should protest, but wondered if "anyone is listening." Why should anyone listen when reports persist that "party operatives" are paying many of them to be there.
We have been told by eyewitnesses that when the House broke for lunch around 1pm yesterday, a long line --"from the top to the bottom of the stairs" -- of demonstrators waited outside the Opposition's office door in the Bayparl building, demanding payment for doing what they claimed they were paid to do at the rally. "One of them urinated on the stairs, they were smoking grass, swearing and saying they wanted their money," an eyewitness said.
We then had reports of another disturbance at the PLP's Gambier headquarters last night when a fight broke out and police and an ambulance had to be called. Again, according to an eyewitness, it was claimed that a bus load of persons arrived demanding payment. How can anyone listen to demonstrators, a large number of whom are being paid by "party operatives" to swell the ranks. Obviously many of them neither understand nor care about the issues. Despite these alleged inducements, the turnout has been sparse, especially for an issue about which Opposition politicians claim the people are so passionate. Paid protesters do not reflect the opinion of the general public and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.
This tactic of paying this type of person-- some of whom the police say are "well known" to them -- to disturb the peace is dangerous. One only has to look at what eventually happened to politicians in Jamaica who played this game too long. Bruce Golding is a case in point.
It would be wise for Bahamian politicians -- especially after what must be to them an embarrassing episode -- to call a halt and change course. Bahamians want to know the truth for a change. They are tired of propaganda.
March 22, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
DURING yesterday's rally Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union president Bernard Evans expressed the hope that "between now and the vote something will happen to derail the sale" of BTC to Cable & Wireless.
We are certain that the Bahamian woman who called a radio show yesterday morning to complain that she tried to pay her telephone bill but found no cashier on duty at any of the outlets-- except at the BTC Marathon office -- to assist her is anxious for the sale to go through. She is probably among the many Bahamians who -- unlike Mr Evans -- cannot wait for the company to be privatised so that persons like herself will get the standard of service they have every right to expect.
It is presumed that instead of manning their stations yesterday many of the missing staff were on Bay Street protesting the sale of BTC. Lower fees, better service and more choice in their public communications is what the public wants -- as far as many of them are concerned, it cannot come soon enough. Sunday night an internal e-mail, claiming to have been sent by Philip "Brave" Davis to six party members, mysteriously found its way to the desks of several newspaper editors and reporters.
With daily information being supplied by TV, Twitter, Face book and all the other new fangled means of information, Bahamians are sufficiently well informed not to buy into the PLP's propaganda blaming the Bahamas' economic downturn on the Ingraham government, rather than where it rightfully belongs -- the world economic crash.
"We have not been able to persuade the electorate that it is management and not the global economy that is causing the woes today..." said the e-mail. Party members have been advised to change their tactics. The e-mail claims that what is "resonating is the intentional delay and slothfulness to get things started that was left in place." We do not think that what the PLP like to call "stop, review and cancel" will resonant with Bahamians either if they fully understand what the Ingraham government has saved for them by going over all agreements left in place by the Christie government. When they realise what they would have lost had this not been done, we do not believe that even this propaganda slogan will resonate with anyone.
The Davis e-mail suggested that the chorus line to this week's debate about the sale has to be the five reasons why the "BTC deal stinks and this word has to be the chorus line to all contributions." Taking Mr Davis' advice yesterday, Fort Charlotte MP Alfred Sears during his contribution to the debate called for a Commission of Inquiry because the deal "does not pass the smell test."
The Christie camp is certainly desperate to win an election. They are clutching at any and every straw that passes their way to try to capture votes.
The e-mail advised the party stalwarts to be "dismissive" of the rally. This was a reference to Saturday night's FNM rally attended by a large, enthusiastic and orderly crowd. We presume that the directive was to ignore it, but one intrepid PLP MP broke ranks and suggested that the FNM were disappointed by the poor turnout to their rally. The police estimated that on Saturday night the rally drew a crowd of about 7,000-- hardly a poor turnout.
One bystander watching yesterday's demonstration outside the House believed the people should protest, but wondered if "anyone is listening." Why should anyone listen when reports persist that "party operatives" are paying many of them to be there.
We have been told by eyewitnesses that when the House broke for lunch around 1pm yesterday, a long line --"from the top to the bottom of the stairs" -- of demonstrators waited outside the Opposition's office door in the Bayparl building, demanding payment for doing what they claimed they were paid to do at the rally. "One of them urinated on the stairs, they were smoking grass, swearing and saying they wanted their money," an eyewitness said.
We then had reports of another disturbance at the PLP's Gambier headquarters last night when a fight broke out and police and an ambulance had to be called. Again, according to an eyewitness, it was claimed that a bus load of persons arrived demanding payment. How can anyone listen to demonstrators, a large number of whom are being paid by "party operatives" to swell the ranks. Obviously many of them neither understand nor care about the issues. Despite these alleged inducements, the turnout has been sparse, especially for an issue about which Opposition politicians claim the people are so passionate. Paid protesters do not reflect the opinion of the general public and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously.
This tactic of paying this type of person-- some of whom the police say are "well known" to them -- to disturb the peace is dangerous. One only has to look at what eventually happened to politicians in Jamaica who played this game too long. Bruce Golding is a case in point.
It would be wise for Bahamian politicians -- especially after what must be to them an embarrassing episode -- to call a halt and change course. Bahamians want to know the truth for a change. They are tired of propaganda.
March 22, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Saturday, February 12, 2011
We are absolutely convinced that the Bahamian people [private and public] should have been allowed to retain majority control of BTC
Those In Opposition to a Deal
The Bahama Journal Editorial
There are times in life when principle kicks in and when you do what you must do based on what conscience dictates.
Today we reiterate our opposition to what seems a deal well on its way toward being signed, sealed and delivered.
If things go as the current administration has planned, Cable and Wireless will – in short order – take possession of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation.
Clearly, then, this will not be the end of the matter concerning this corporation, Cable and Wireless and all of what went into making this deal a signed reality.
As the public has been told, there will be continuing opposition to the deal by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and from any number of unions.
Opposition Leader Perry Christie has already indicated that [in the event that his party prevails in the next general elections] he would renegotiate the terms of the BTC sale.
This is his and their right.
In addition, some of the unions are adamant that there should be no deal; with one union leader grandly proclaiming that he and his followers are preparing to make of Rawson Square and its environs some sort of Little Egypt.
While hyperbole might have its place in social life; we counsel caution when it comes to making pronouncements that might be construed as being of an incendiary nature.
There is today every likelihood that, this issue will continue to be debated, mulled and chewed over as part of whatever passes for debate preceding that date when the Bahamian people will vote in free and fair elections.
In and of itself, this is all part of the way we do things in a democratic, law-abiding nation; A deal is a deal and as some of us know, a deal becomes a very real deal once it is signed, sealed and delivered.
The details of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC) for the sale and privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) has [ finally] been revealed by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.
As we also know, the government is on tap to sell 51 per cent of BTC to CWC for $210 million. Barring some perfectly unforeseen occurrence, this deal will be consummated.
Whether it should be so completed is another question altogether, or as it might be put colloquially, this aspect of the matter is surely a horse of a different colour.
As regards the deal that will be consummated, there is now agreement as regards how C&W will work with the government and the management of BTC to finalize a business plan for BTC; this as movement is made towards addressing its plan for the modernization of telecommunications throughout The Bahamas.
This deal should have been dealt with differently. In addition, we are absolutely convinced that the Bahamian people [private and public] should have been allowed to retain majority control of BTC.
We know that we are not alone in this view.
As we counseled on another occasion, "… all Bahamians who are patriots should rise – as if they were one man- in opposition to any deal that would deny the Bahamian people majority control of entities such as BTC…"
Indeed, like so very many other Bahamians who disagree with the current administration’s on that matter which involves giving Cable and Wireless a 51% per cent stake in BTC, we do so based on our studied conclusion that this deal is not in the best interests of either BTC or the Bahamian people.
We rush to assure the public that our difference with the current administration has next to nothing to do with any position that might seem to be –at least on first blush- barking up the same tree.
That other Bahamians are so minded only reminds us that, there are times in life when an administration can be out of touch with a socially [and perhaps, politically significant bloc of opinion.
While some who oppose the deal may be doing so because they fear some of its implications and ramifications, moving forward, we are where we are based on principle.
In the ultimate analysis, then, this is as good as any a basis on which we wish to stand firm.
Out of firmness comes character.
February 10, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
The Bahama Journal Editorial
There are times in life when principle kicks in and when you do what you must do based on what conscience dictates.
Today we reiterate our opposition to what seems a deal well on its way toward being signed, sealed and delivered.
If things go as the current administration has planned, Cable and Wireless will – in short order – take possession of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation.
Clearly, then, this will not be the end of the matter concerning this corporation, Cable and Wireless and all of what went into making this deal a signed reality.
As the public has been told, there will be continuing opposition to the deal by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and from any number of unions.
Opposition Leader Perry Christie has already indicated that [in the event that his party prevails in the next general elections] he would renegotiate the terms of the BTC sale.
This is his and their right.
In addition, some of the unions are adamant that there should be no deal; with one union leader grandly proclaiming that he and his followers are preparing to make of Rawson Square and its environs some sort of Little Egypt.
While hyperbole might have its place in social life; we counsel caution when it comes to making pronouncements that might be construed as being of an incendiary nature.
There is today every likelihood that, this issue will continue to be debated, mulled and chewed over as part of whatever passes for debate preceding that date when the Bahamian people will vote in free and fair elections.
In and of itself, this is all part of the way we do things in a democratic, law-abiding nation; A deal is a deal and as some of us know, a deal becomes a very real deal once it is signed, sealed and delivered.
The details of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC) for the sale and privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) has [ finally] been revealed by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham.
As we also know, the government is on tap to sell 51 per cent of BTC to CWC for $210 million. Barring some perfectly unforeseen occurrence, this deal will be consummated.
Whether it should be so completed is another question altogether, or as it might be put colloquially, this aspect of the matter is surely a horse of a different colour.
As regards the deal that will be consummated, there is now agreement as regards how C&W will work with the government and the management of BTC to finalize a business plan for BTC; this as movement is made towards addressing its plan for the modernization of telecommunications throughout The Bahamas.
This deal should have been dealt with differently. In addition, we are absolutely convinced that the Bahamian people [private and public] should have been allowed to retain majority control of BTC.
We know that we are not alone in this view.
As we counseled on another occasion, "… all Bahamians who are patriots should rise – as if they were one man- in opposition to any deal that would deny the Bahamian people majority control of entities such as BTC…"
Indeed, like so very many other Bahamians who disagree with the current administration’s on that matter which involves giving Cable and Wireless a 51% per cent stake in BTC, we do so based on our studied conclusion that this deal is not in the best interests of either BTC or the Bahamian people.
We rush to assure the public that our difference with the current administration has next to nothing to do with any position that might seem to be –at least on first blush- barking up the same tree.
That other Bahamians are so minded only reminds us that, there are times in life when an administration can be out of touch with a socially [and perhaps, politically significant bloc of opinion.
While some who oppose the deal may be doing so because they fear some of its implications and ramifications, moving forward, we are where we are based on principle.
In the ultimate analysis, then, this is as good as any a basis on which we wish to stand firm.
Out of firmness comes character.
February 10, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The BTC Bad Deal with Cable & Wireless
In Adamant Opposition to a bad Deal
The Bahama Journal Editorial
There are times in life when conscience demands that we set aside petty calculation and yield to its dictates; such a time has come for this Journal as we call on the current administration to heed the voice of the Bahamian people.
This voice – as we have heard it as it echoes and resonates – demands that, all Bahamians who are patriots should rise – as if they were one man- in opposition to any deal that would deny the Bahamian people majority control of entities such as BTC.
Indeed, like so very many other Bahamians who disagree with the current administration’s on that matter which involves giving Cable and Wireless a 51% per cent stake in BTC; we do so based on our studied conclusion that this deal is not in the best interests of either BTC or the Bahamian people.
Contrariwise, we are today quite persuaded that, things would go very differently and much better for all parties concerned were the government minded to make no deal with anyone that does not leave the Bahamas and the Bahamian people in direct control of this entity.
Here we rush to assure the public that our difference with the current administration has next to nothing to do with any position that might seem to be –at least on first blush- barking up the same tree.
And so, while some who oppose the deal may be doing so because they fear some of its implications and ramifications, moving forward; we are where we are based on principle.
That principle has to do with our deeply held conviction that there are certain properties that should never be alienated to the control of any foreign entity; this based on our conclusion that tied up in these entities are values that cut to the very core of what it means to be both sovereign and self-respecting.
We are where we are on this issue based on our fervently held view that, there are properties that are so very valuable and so deeply enmeshed with this nation’s identity and security.
And clearly then, we are fulsome in our support of all those Bahamian nationalists who are not prepared to sit by and watch as BTC – as part of this nation’s patrimony – released into the hands of Cable and Wireless.
Here we hasten to add that, we are not opposed to foreign involvement in BTC or any other Bahamian owned entity; what we resent has to do with giving them the whip-hand that comes with the 51% share.
The BTC deal –as proposed and as debated throughout the length and breadth of the Bahamas – is one that has galvanized a tremendous amount of opposition.
Indeed, so loud and so resonant has the voice of the people been that today, we marvel that those who might yet make the difference have not heeded the call and plea for them to turn around and do what is right.
And as we are led to understand and appreciate what seems to be an emerging consensus, the Bahamian people are –for the most part- opposed to the deal that is set to be struck between BTC and Cable and Wireless.
Those people who oppose the deal [as currently proposed] seem to be of the view that the deal is a bad one.
We agree with them.
And not only do we agree with them, we telegraph our resolve to stand with all Bahamians who would seriously request of the current administration that, they can and should take a while before putting pen to paper on that now vexing matter involving BTC and Cable and Wireless.
But even as we are set on making this principled position known and noted, we are also aware of the fact that, the current administration seems set on its current path.
Here we also note that, no changes have been made to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and Cable & Wireless over BTC's impending sale.
We are also hearing say that, the government is on course to finalizing a contract with C&W which is expected to be signed this month; and that, the said sale should be completed by the middle of February.
But be that as it may – whether the deal with Cable and Wireless is consummated or not – we are opposed to it in its current form.
January 12, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
The Bahama Journal Editorial
There are times in life when conscience demands that we set aside petty calculation and yield to its dictates; such a time has come for this Journal as we call on the current administration to heed the voice of the Bahamian people.
This voice – as we have heard it as it echoes and resonates – demands that, all Bahamians who are patriots should rise – as if they were one man- in opposition to any deal that would deny the Bahamian people majority control of entities such as BTC.
Indeed, like so very many other Bahamians who disagree with the current administration’s on that matter which involves giving Cable and Wireless a 51% per cent stake in BTC; we do so based on our studied conclusion that this deal is not in the best interests of either BTC or the Bahamian people.
Contrariwise, we are today quite persuaded that, things would go very differently and much better for all parties concerned were the government minded to make no deal with anyone that does not leave the Bahamas and the Bahamian people in direct control of this entity.
Here we rush to assure the public that our difference with the current administration has next to nothing to do with any position that might seem to be –at least on first blush- barking up the same tree.
And so, while some who oppose the deal may be doing so because they fear some of its implications and ramifications, moving forward; we are where we are based on principle.
That principle has to do with our deeply held conviction that there are certain properties that should never be alienated to the control of any foreign entity; this based on our conclusion that tied up in these entities are values that cut to the very core of what it means to be both sovereign and self-respecting.
We are where we are on this issue based on our fervently held view that, there are properties that are so very valuable and so deeply enmeshed with this nation’s identity and security.
And clearly then, we are fulsome in our support of all those Bahamian nationalists who are not prepared to sit by and watch as BTC – as part of this nation’s patrimony – released into the hands of Cable and Wireless.
Here we hasten to add that, we are not opposed to foreign involvement in BTC or any other Bahamian owned entity; what we resent has to do with giving them the whip-hand that comes with the 51% share.
The BTC deal –as proposed and as debated throughout the length and breadth of the Bahamas – is one that has galvanized a tremendous amount of opposition.
Indeed, so loud and so resonant has the voice of the people been that today, we marvel that those who might yet make the difference have not heeded the call and plea for them to turn around and do what is right.
And as we are led to understand and appreciate what seems to be an emerging consensus, the Bahamian people are –for the most part- opposed to the deal that is set to be struck between BTC and Cable and Wireless.
Those people who oppose the deal [as currently proposed] seem to be of the view that the deal is a bad one.
We agree with them.
And not only do we agree with them, we telegraph our resolve to stand with all Bahamians who would seriously request of the current administration that, they can and should take a while before putting pen to paper on that now vexing matter involving BTC and Cable and Wireless.
But even as we are set on making this principled position known and noted, we are also aware of the fact that, the current administration seems set on its current path.
Here we also note that, no changes have been made to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and Cable & Wireless over BTC's impending sale.
We are also hearing say that, the government is on course to finalizing a contract with C&W which is expected to be signed this month; and that, the said sale should be completed by the middle of February.
But be that as it may – whether the deal with Cable and Wireless is consummated or not – we are opposed to it in its current form.
January 12, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Monday, December 13, 2010
Voices Killarney poll shows that many support the proposed BTC sale
Constituency poll shows many support proposed BTC sale
tribune242
A recent poll taken in the Killarney constituency shows that there are many Bahamians who support the government’s intention to sell a 51 per cent stake in The Bahamas Telecommunications Company to the British telecommunication company Cable and Wireless Communications (C&WC).
A recent poll conducted on “Voices Killarney,” an online news letter from the constituency office of Dr Hubert Minnis revealed that 67 people who participated in the poll supported the BTC deal while 50 persons opposed the deal. The poll, which was conducted on December 10 and 11, also revealed that six persons who participated in the poll were undecided.
Among those who supported the sale one person commented, “I think the sale is an excellent idea. C&W are in the Caribbean Islands. Although we are considered ahead of them economically their telephone technology is far ahead of us.” Another posted, “The union just needs to get over it. It is ludicrous that a union dictates who the government sells any corporation to. The government is elected by the people to conduct work on behalf of the people so I believe that every government would make decisions that are in the best interest of the country. Those people at Batelco are lazy and are afraid of privatization.”
Another person in support of the sale commented, “The sale of Batelco is long overdue. We are paying far too much for out dated systems and service that is not customer-oriented. I have been trying to find out for over one year how my land line was turned over in the name of my tenant and they were allowed to transfer my phone line when they gave up the lease on my property. They have also not been able to satisfy me with what has happened to my security deposit. The prices are too high, the service is poor and I think we need to up grade.”
Among those who opposed the decision one person commented, “I agree that staff numbers need to be reduced and employees simply more efficient to cut operation costs. However, if it must be sold, it should be sold to Bahamians with the capital and vision to further advance the company with the latest technologies available in phone and Internet services.”
Another stated, “Batelco belongs to the people of the Bahamas and should not be sold. Bahamians should own and run Batelco.” “I feel that it was a very bad decision because they sold such a great portion of the company for such little money. BTC makes a lot of money just in one year. In two years time BTC would have already made over that amount, so it really made no sense selling for so little,” another person commented.
Among those who were undecided, one stated, “Notwithstanding that the sale is inevitable and probably necessary. I'm curious to know what criteria was laid out to qualify as a purchaser. Does C&W meet the criteria, if they do and other companies also did, what were the track records of the other companies when compared to C&W? Why must we sell 51 per cent as opposed to 49 per cent. Why not consider a group of Bahamians as opposed to foreigners?”
December 13, 2010
tribune242
tribune242
A recent poll taken in the Killarney constituency shows that there are many Bahamians who support the government’s intention to sell a 51 per cent stake in The Bahamas Telecommunications Company to the British telecommunication company Cable and Wireless Communications (C&WC).
A recent poll conducted on “Voices Killarney,” an online news letter from the constituency office of Dr Hubert Minnis revealed that 67 people who participated in the poll supported the BTC deal while 50 persons opposed the deal. The poll, which was conducted on December 10 and 11, also revealed that six persons who participated in the poll were undecided.
Among those who supported the sale one person commented, “I think the sale is an excellent idea. C&W are in the Caribbean Islands. Although we are considered ahead of them economically their telephone technology is far ahead of us.” Another posted, “The union just needs to get over it. It is ludicrous that a union dictates who the government sells any corporation to. The government is elected by the people to conduct work on behalf of the people so I believe that every government would make decisions that are in the best interest of the country. Those people at Batelco are lazy and are afraid of privatization.”
Another person in support of the sale commented, “The sale of Batelco is long overdue. We are paying far too much for out dated systems and service that is not customer-oriented. I have been trying to find out for over one year how my land line was turned over in the name of my tenant and they were allowed to transfer my phone line when they gave up the lease on my property. They have also not been able to satisfy me with what has happened to my security deposit. The prices are too high, the service is poor and I think we need to up grade.”
Among those who opposed the decision one person commented, “I agree that staff numbers need to be reduced and employees simply more efficient to cut operation costs. However, if it must be sold, it should be sold to Bahamians with the capital and vision to further advance the company with the latest technologies available in phone and Internet services.”
Another stated, “Batelco belongs to the people of the Bahamas and should not be sold. Bahamians should own and run Batelco.” “I feel that it was a very bad decision because they sold such a great portion of the company for such little money. BTC makes a lot of money just in one year. In two years time BTC would have already made over that amount, so it really made no sense selling for so little,” another person commented.
Among those who were undecided, one stated, “Notwithstanding that the sale is inevitable and probably necessary. I'm curious to know what criteria was laid out to qualify as a purchaser. Does C&W meet the criteria, if they do and other companies also did, what were the track records of the other companies when compared to C&W? Why must we sell 51 per cent as opposed to 49 per cent. Why not consider a group of Bahamians as opposed to foreigners?”
December 13, 2010
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)