Holowesko denies conflict claim...
Responds to PLP’s claims about BTC board appointment
Professional money manager Mark Holowesko has strongly denied claims made by the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) that his recent appointment to the board of the newly-privatized Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) represents a conflict.
At the close of the deal with Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) early this month, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham announced that Holowesko, a principal of Holowesko Capital Partners, is one of the three members who will represent the government on the board.
In a recent press statement, the PLP attached general information from Franklin Templeton Investment Funds that lists Holowesko as a member of the board of directors.
Franklin Templeton Investments Portfolio Holdings — also included as part of the press release — shows that Franklin Templeton holds shares in Cable and Wireless Communications.
But Holowesko dismissed claims that he has been appointed to the BTC board to serve interests other than the government and the people of The Bahamas.
“I am not intimately involved in Cable and Wireless,” Holowesko told The Nassau Guardian.
“I own no shares in Cable and Wireless personally and I don’t know that I’ve ever bought any shares in Cable and Wireless for myself or the funds that I’m directly responsible for.”
But the PLP highlighted what it called an apparent conflict.
“At the time of the announcement of Mr. Holowesko to the board of BTC, no disclosure was made by the prime minister or Cable and Wireless of the apparent divided loyalty of Mr. Holowesko,” the PLP said.
“Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition demands to know in whose interest is Mr. Holowesko serving.
“Is Mr. Holowesko representing the interest of the Bahamian people as a government appointee to the board, or is he there as a representative of the company for which he is employed, or is it both?”
But Holowesko said there are several erroneous statements in the PLP’s release.
One of them, he said, is the suggestion that he is paid by Franklin Templeton Investments.
And he said none of the funds he manages holds shares in Cable and Wireless.
Holowesko said he was inquiring with the Franklin Templeton office in the United States about whether any of the funds on whose board he sits holds shares in Cable and Wireless.
“I am a director for a group of funds over in Europe for the Templeton SICAV funds,” he explained.
“Franklin Templeton Investments isn’t the correct legal name for it. Franklin Templeton is a company incorporated in America, which is an investment management company and they have mutual funds in Europe under a Luxembourg umbrella fund called SICAV fund and I am a board member of those funds.
“I’m not a director of Franklin Templeton, the investment management company. I’m a director of some of the funds that they run over in Europe. That’s an important distinction.
“Franklin Templeton funds may or may not own Cable and Wireless shares.”
Further explaining his role with the investment group, Holowesko said, “Franklin Templeton is a company that runs funds all over the world and the funds that I’m a director on, I’m making an educated guess, are about 20 or 30 percent of the mutual funds that they manage, so they’re not the US funds or the Canadian funds. They’re the European funds. Those funds may or may not own Cable and Wireless shares.”
Holowesko explained that as a director on the board of certain funds, he would have no specific knowledge of the day-to-day activities of them.
“I’m not involved in the day-to-day management of those funds. As a director we meet twice a year in London to basically review the operational activities of those funds,” he said.
“The day-to-day investment management of those funds is not under us as directors and I’m not an insider in terms of knowing what they buy and sell and when they buy and sell.
“I do get reports as a director at certain periods in terms of what the funds hold at that point in time, and whether or not those funds own shares in Cable and Wireless today I don’t know and I’ve asked the legal department of Franklin Templeton to let me know and I’ll have that response.”
Holowesko was contacted by The Nassau Guardian to respond to the PLP statement.
The opposition party said, “The nagging questions persist as to what role Holowesko is playing in this BTC, Cable and Wireless marriage.”
“Was Mr. Mark Holowesko involved in the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless, a company he is intimately involved in as an investor, from the beginning?
“If so, in what capacity? Who was he serving then and who is he serving now?”
But Holowesko said he played no role in bringing Cable and Wireless to the table for the BTC deal. In fact, he said he knows very little about the transaction.
“I have very little knowledge and I have had absolutely zero activity in the sale to Cable and Wireless,” he said.
“As a matter of fact when the prime minister asked me to go on the board, I said ‘one of my main concerns is I don’t know enough about this transaction. If you want me to go on the board you need to have somebody fill me in on this transaction.
“So it is completely and totally erroneous that I have any knowledge or any kind of involvement in this transaction. I have zero involvement in this transaction and I know very little about it.”
Holowesko said he has a meeting with government representatives on Thursday so he can learn more about the specifics of the CWC/BTC transaction and what will be expected of him as a board member.
Holowesko was also asked whether Franklin Templeton Investments is benefiting in any way from the BTC sale.
“I have no idea,” he said.
In its statement, the PLP also said it had been informed that the parent company of Cable and Wireless Communications, Temasek Holdings, is the majority shareholder of Singapore Telecommunications Limited.
“A major shareholder of SingTel is Templeton Global Advisors Limited which falls under the umbrella of Franklin Templeton Investments,” the PLP said.
“Temasek Holdings Limited’s 54 percent ownership of SingTel is under the control of the Government of Singapore.”
Holowesko explained: “Temasek is a company in Singapore which is 100 percent owned by the Singaporean government, which the Singaporean government uses as its vehicle for investing on behalf of the Singaporean people, and nobody owns shares in that company other than the government of Singapore. I have no interaction with that company.
“And how that company is somehow involved in Cable and Wireless I wouldn’t know, and to somehow imply that we have some sort of interest or I have some sort of interest in that company is like saying the average American has some sort of interest in the US Treasury. It’s silly.
“That’s just loony. Total fabrication.”
Company documents with information on Franklin Templeton Investment Funds’ board of directors has a brief reference to “Temasek”, but not the company.
The company address of one of the Franklin Templeton directors — Dr. J. B. Mark Mobius, executive chairman of Templeton’s Emerging Markets Group — is listed as “7 Temasek Boulevard” in Singapore.
Asked how he felt about the claims being made by the PLP, Holowesko, who is the son of Senate President Lyn Holowesko, said, “I’m not a politician. I’m a businessman and a family man. I’ve had family members in politics. I don’t like politics. I abhor politics.
“I find most of it to be a waste of time for these particular reasons that I’m involved in right now. This is time wasting. As far as I’m concerned it’s non-productive and I guess politicians like to do these sorts of things for a variety of reasons. And whatever reasons they have I guess it’s up to them.”
Holowesko said he was asked by the prime minister to be a member of the BTC board and he hopes to make a positive contribution on behalf of the government and the Bahamian people.
“From an investment perspective, I’ve been in the investment business since 1985. So I have a lot of investment experience,” he said.
“…From what I understand — and I’ll get more information [this] week — there’s some very specific things that Cable and Wireless is supposed to do as part of this purchase for The Bahamas and my role on that board is to ensure that they do those things first and foremost.”
The two other government members of the BTC board are Maria Ferere, a partner of FT Consultants Ltd., and Deidre Prescott, who works for the Bahamas Electricity Corporation and previously served as a director on the BTC board.
Four employees of LIME (CWC’s Caribbean arm) are also members of the new board, including LIME CEO David Shaw.
4/26/2011
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 sale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BTC sale. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
To Bahamians we say: Beware! This is silly season when the politicians seem to lose their mental balance...
tribune242 editorial
BAHAMAS Communications and Public Officers Union leader Bernard Evans might not have got his "little Egypt," or a last minute miracle to block the sale of BTC to Cable & Wireless, but he has a champion in Opposition Leader Perry Christie.
Mr Christie has put Cable and Wireless on notice that should his government be returned to power, he will deliver BTC back to the Bahamian people. He has promised that the "bad deal" entered into with the Ingraham government for the sale of the Bahamas' telecommunications system will be dismantled.
"Bad deal" -- these words are echoes from the past about another deal that the PLP also threatened to dismantle should its party become the government. But, when the PLP was returned to power in 2007 and had its opportunity for the dismantling operation, the bad deal had proven such a sweet deal for the Bahamas that grinning up and currying favour by the new leaders was the order of the day -- the promised dismantling and renegotiation of the deal was forgotten. The threats made 11 years before were quickly abandoned -- it was as though they were never spoken.
On the floor of the House in 1996 then St Michael's MP Paul Adderley had threatened Sol Kerzner that if the agreement that his Sun International had with the Bahamas government were not renegotiated, when the PLP became the government it would do it for him. "The terms of this deal, so far as the Bahamas is concerned, is a bad deal," shouted Mr Adderley.
History has proven that Kerzner's Paradise Island -- the country's largest private employer -- is what has saved the Bahamas' economic bacon for the past 15 years. The Kerzners arrived when the Bahamas was flat on its back -- failing tourist industry, empty Treasury, tarnished international reputation. Bahamians will remember that in those days we were an "island for sale" laid waste by a careless government and a greedy drug cartel. A disgusted electorate voted the PLP government of 25 years out of office and put the Ingraham government in.
The PLP government had secretly tried to sell the failed hotels on the international market. The Ingraham government came to power in 1992 and the following year entered into an agreement with the Kerzners for the development of Paradise Island. Atlantis became the catalyst that revitalised the country's tourist industry, and emboldened investors to take a second look at a country that was trying under a new government to clean up its act.
It was only then that the Bahamas started to move forward.
But the empty threats coming from the PLP benches in 1996 - are being repeated today against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless. So far it is the only bone that the PLP has found on which to chew for the 2012 election.
Fred Mitchell, a PLP senator in 1996, seemed on a mission at that time to cast doubt on the Atlantis operation - attacking everything from the Kerzners' South African roots, their hiring policies suggesting that Bahamians were being shut out of the project, to the belief that the Bahamianisation policy was being undermined. And, of course, Mr Mitchell even raised the alarm that the newly constructed bridge to Paradise was sinking. All wishful thoughts that had no base.
Dr Bernard Nottage complained at the time that the Ingraham government was giving Atlantis "improved infrastructure, roads, transportation and telecommunications facilities."
"But what are the Bahamian people getting?" he asked. The Bahamian people knew what they were getting, even though they were paying for it -- good jobs, improved infrastructure, good roads on which they travelled daily and much more. By now Dr Nottage should have the answers to his foolish questions of that era. Any improvement in infrastructure always benefits the whole country and everyone in it -- regardless of for whom it was intended.
The PLP poured scorn on the fact that Atlantis and its shareholders would earn good money. They forgot that when business flourishes so do the people. It is, therefore, good news for a country when it can report that its commercial establishments are strong. It is when they are weak that a country suffers high unemployment. To scoff at profits shows a lack of business sense, which is a serious failure in a country's leaders.
In our opinion Mr Christie's "buyer beware! cease and desist! do not proceed!" warning to Cable and Wireless is just so much political balderdash. What the future held for the Kerzner operation it also holds for the Cable & Wireless transaction. The main beneficiaries will be the Bahamas and its people.
It would be more than Mr Christie dare do with the Bahamas facing a $3.8 billion national debt to add to that debt by trying to dismantle the BTC/C&WC deal. If these are his plans it is up to the Bahamian people to make certain that his party is not returned to power.
Mr Christie, a procrastinator, who finds it difficult to make decisions at the best of times, would have nightmares over such an impossible exercise.
To Bahamians we say: Beware! This is silly season when the politicians seem to lose their mental balance -- so don't believe everything you hear in the marketplace.
April 04, 2011
tribune242 editorial
BAHAMAS Communications and Public Officers Union leader Bernard Evans might not have got his "little Egypt," or a last minute miracle to block the sale of BTC to Cable & Wireless, but he has a champion in Opposition Leader Perry Christie.
Mr Christie has put Cable and Wireless on notice that should his government be returned to power, he will deliver BTC back to the Bahamian people. He has promised that the "bad deal" entered into with the Ingraham government for the sale of the Bahamas' telecommunications system will be dismantled.
"Bad deal" -- these words are echoes from the past about another deal that the PLP also threatened to dismantle should its party become the government. But, when the PLP was returned to power in 2007 and had its opportunity for the dismantling operation, the bad deal had proven such a sweet deal for the Bahamas that grinning up and currying favour by the new leaders was the order of the day -- the promised dismantling and renegotiation of the deal was forgotten. The threats made 11 years before were quickly abandoned -- it was as though they were never spoken.
On the floor of the House in 1996 then St Michael's MP Paul Adderley had threatened Sol Kerzner that if the agreement that his Sun International had with the Bahamas government were not renegotiated, when the PLP became the government it would do it for him. "The terms of this deal, so far as the Bahamas is concerned, is a bad deal," shouted Mr Adderley.
History has proven that Kerzner's Paradise Island -- the country's largest private employer -- is what has saved the Bahamas' economic bacon for the past 15 years. The Kerzners arrived when the Bahamas was flat on its back -- failing tourist industry, empty Treasury, tarnished international reputation. Bahamians will remember that in those days we were an "island for sale" laid waste by a careless government and a greedy drug cartel. A disgusted electorate voted the PLP government of 25 years out of office and put the Ingraham government in.
The PLP government had secretly tried to sell the failed hotels on the international market. The Ingraham government came to power in 1992 and the following year entered into an agreement with the Kerzners for the development of Paradise Island. Atlantis became the catalyst that revitalised the country's tourist industry, and emboldened investors to take a second look at a country that was trying under a new government to clean up its act.
It was only then that the Bahamas started to move forward.
But the empty threats coming from the PLP benches in 1996 - are being repeated today against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless. So far it is the only bone that the PLP has found on which to chew for the 2012 election.
Fred Mitchell, a PLP senator in 1996, seemed on a mission at that time to cast doubt on the Atlantis operation - attacking everything from the Kerzners' South African roots, their hiring policies suggesting that Bahamians were being shut out of the project, to the belief that the Bahamianisation policy was being undermined. And, of course, Mr Mitchell even raised the alarm that the newly constructed bridge to Paradise was sinking. All wishful thoughts that had no base.
Dr Bernard Nottage complained at the time that the Ingraham government was giving Atlantis "improved infrastructure, roads, transportation and telecommunications facilities."
"But what are the Bahamian people getting?" he asked. The Bahamian people knew what they were getting, even though they were paying for it -- good jobs, improved infrastructure, good roads on which they travelled daily and much more. By now Dr Nottage should have the answers to his foolish questions of that era. Any improvement in infrastructure always benefits the whole country and everyone in it -- regardless of for whom it was intended.
The PLP poured scorn on the fact that Atlantis and its shareholders would earn good money. They forgot that when business flourishes so do the people. It is, therefore, good news for a country when it can report that its commercial establishments are strong. It is when they are weak that a country suffers high unemployment. To scoff at profits shows a lack of business sense, which is a serious failure in a country's leaders.
In our opinion Mr Christie's "buyer beware! cease and desist! do not proceed!" warning to Cable and Wireless is just so much political balderdash. What the future held for the Kerzner operation it also holds for the Cable & Wireless transaction. The main beneficiaries will be the Bahamas and its people.
It would be more than Mr Christie dare do with the Bahamas facing a $3.8 billion national debt to add to that debt by trying to dismantle the BTC/C&WC deal. If these are his plans it is up to the Bahamian people to make certain that his party is not returned to power.
Mr Christie, a procrastinator, who finds it difficult to make decisions at the best of times, would have nightmares over such an impossible exercise.
To Bahamians we say: Beware! This is silly season when the politicians seem to lose their mental balance -- so don't believe everything you hear in the marketplace.
April 04, 2011
tribune242 editorial
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
W. A. Branville McCartney - M.P. for Bamboo Town - Contribution on the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC) / Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC) Debate - 23rd, March 2011
Mr. Speaker, my aim is not to lecture, chastise, or insult the intelligence of any person in this Honourable House, and whereas, I may have only been a sitting member for a short time, I came in to this great place either knowing of and/or admiring many of these Honourable Men.
In fact, on many occasions, I remember silently thinking - in awe - what an honor and privilege it is to be sitting among the Members for North Abaco and Farm Road; indeed men who once spoke out emphatically on issues of truth, justice, and equality. So, in saying all that I have said before this, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that my words – in any way – will not be an affront to any person and I hope that persons do not take offense to them. I would want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that, it is as a result of the courage and boldness that I have seen in some of these Honourable Men over the years, particularly when confronting issues of national importance, I am now emboldened to speak the following.
When I made the decision to enter into politics, I made that decision based on what I saw taking place in my social environment. Among other things, crime was rampant and people were no longer feeling safe in their own environment; dysfunction was at an all time high among our young people and they were failing out of society in larger numbers than ever before; for various reasons, political leaders were continuing to dishonor their office and bring shame on our sovereign nation; while the average Bahamian worked and struggled, the nation was coming undone at its seams. And it seemed as if no one cared; while the people suffered, it appeared to be all politics as usual.
At the time, I thought about my young daughters and wondered if the Bahamas that I saw unfolding before my eyes was the same Bahamas that I wanted for them. I thought about my wife going about her business, not knowing if, at anytime, she would or could become another robbery or murder statistics. I felt compelled to step forward and offer myself as a change agent, not just for my family but for all Bahamians and Bahamian families who were feeling trapped and powerless in a society that was imploding all around us. I was motivated by the idea that I could possibly be one of a few who could be that difference, indeed the difference maker, when it came to shaping the future direction of what is, potentially, the greatest nation in the world. My intention was and is to “be the change I want to see in the world”.
The question for me was, however, how did we allow this situation to occur? I think many of us can remember the excitement that Bahamians from all walks of life felt on July 10, 1973 when the Black, Gold, and Agua Marine was hoisted for the first time to signifying that the Bahamas was a free and independent nation. With this new flag replacing the old Union Jack, no longer were we going to be considered second class citizens in our own society, in our own country. No longer would we be, as Sir Etienne Dupuch puts it in his Tribune Story, seen so “far behind to be conscious of a destiny.” Independence was the promise of a new destiny. And the courage and boldness of a few exceptional men gave all of us - all Bahamians – the courage to dream again. We all become enchanted by the thought of the economic prosperity and social mobility that independence would bring us. We were all enchanted, as a nation, with the promise of empowerment that was to come with independence – a kind of empowerment that was unconceivable before 1973. What a concept:
· Economic empowerment – the thought that we would each have sufficient wealth to take care of our own personal needs;
· Political empowerment – the right to have a voice and say in the way our society is organized and how decisions are made; and
· Societal empowerment – where we would be treated fairly and equally.
For the average Bahamian this was the vision.
Empowerment! What a vision.
We are here today at each other’s throats, not just because the people are angry and worked up at the impending sale of BTC, but we are here today because, some forty years after independence, after decades of dangling the carrot of empowerment before them - offering a pittance here and a pittance there - Bahamian people are disillusioned, fed up with, and angry at feeling disempowered in their own land. And whereas the proposed sale of BTC is the matter before us today, this same sale of the telecommunications corporation is only a symbol of the disenfranchisement and lack of vision that continues to be a slap in the face to the average Bahamian who bought into the dream of independence – a dream that many have given up on as only an illusion.
I hope that, by making my statements today, my intentions in advocating for Bahamian empowerment will not be misconstrued, as I would be remised and, somewhat disingenuous, in not acknowledging the benefits which foreign investors and foreign investments have brought our people and our nation. However, to spend a great deal of time elaborating on that would serve no real purpose at this time, particularly since it has been “thrown” in the face of Bahamian people from time in memoriam. The point of the matter however, at this stage, is that Bahamian people, after decades and decades of educating themselves in some of the finest colleges and universities that the world has to offer, with the hopes of proving themselves, should now – my God - have an opportunity to prove their worth – to the highest degree – in their own country.
If Cable and Wireless is as great as our leaders are purporting them to be, let the government take it hands out of BTC’s operations, open up the market, let Cable and Wireless, Verizon, Sprint, Digicel, and any other provider who wish to enter the market come in. Let them “duke” it out, and may the best man win. But at the end of the day, Bahamians would have to prove their value and their worth,their intelligence and their ingenuity, and if they fail at it, then so be it. But, again, why does Cable and
Wireless need a three year head start on the competition? Politics, nothing more than pure politics.
I will paraphrase a good friend of mine who said that “some of us in society have allowed, and continue to allow our political leaders to us the time proven strategy of divide and conquer to cast one as
the enemy of the other, pitting us imprudently against each other to achieve their goals, while at the same time preventing us from achieving the simple ones we have set for ourselves and have worked so tirelessly to see actualized as a people – the creation of a nation that is a reflection of our collective and intellectual wills.
“At some point, however,” this friend continues, “we must recognize that we are not the enemy of each other, and no matter what our station or position is within society, we are all categorized and classified as Bahamians, and it is under this umbrella that we must collectively assemble” and challenge the political status quo that, for decades, has denied us as a people the right to have the semblance of power that independence has promised us.
What we have seen outside these walls in the past few weeks and days is a challenge to that very same political status quo; what we have seen is a new awakening in a generation that has been disenfranchised for too long – a new people who are crying out to be rescued from, as Martin Luther King calls it, a false sense of inferiority and a feeling of nobodiness.
On January 30, 1997, in one of his last addresses as leader of the Progressive Liberal Party, Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling said his vision for the Bahamas is that it becomes:
· “a nation built on Christian principles and consisting of a citizenry dedicated to respecting and defending human rights, human dignity, and the equal value of all mankind; a nation committed to the reverence for God, the sanctity of the traditional family, equal opportunity, diligent work for the welfare of all its citizens.
· He says the future Bahamas should be “a nation where the people are the most precious resource over and above all natural and material resources, and the national prosperity is measured by the quality of the health, education, and social environment and self esteem of its people;
· He says it should be “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with self-worth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation;”
· But most importantly, he says that the Bahamas should be “a nation where economic diversity creates a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the people, thus producing an atmosphere of variety, healthy competition, and entrepreneurship.”
Now, I have heard all of the colorful commentary over the past few years and month, as people have sought to offer up their analysis and interpretations of me, my actions and my intentions.
Some have said that I am a show-boater and that I like to showboat or indeed grandstand; some who doubt my ability to lead say that I am unqualified, but as one gospel psalmist says, God may not call the most qualified, but he qualifies those whom he calls; and some add that I am a young upstart, and that I should wait for my time; but King says, time is always ripe to do right, and now is the time to make real the promises of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. And over the next few weeks and months, and even years, as I seek to continue serving the people of Bamboo Town and the Bahamas, I am sure that the colorful commentaries, criticisms, and characterizations will only intensify as the naysayers will naysay in their attempts to discredit me and send me to my political graveyard. But I can assure you here today, as I stand in opposition to the offering up of the majority holdings in the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation, no matter what commentaries are offered up about and against me, I promise the Bahamian people, from Grand Bahama in the north to Inagua in the south, Long Island to Rum Cay, from Baintown to Bamboo Town, from Ft. Charlotte to Ft. Fincastle, that God willing, I will continue to do what I entered politics in 2007 to do, and that is work to ensure that The Bahamas becomes a society free from the force of complacency brought on us by years and years of oppression, insensitivity, bitterness, and self-hate – a place where people can begin to feel a true sense of “somebodiness.”
Because, despite what some may say about us - despite what we have been fooled into believing about ourselves - we are a great people, and we have one of the greatest country in the world. As a matter of fact, Dr Miles Munroe always says and I agree, that ”The Bahamas is the place where God lives”.
That is why almost everyone in the world wants a piece of the Bahamian rock. But the time has come for us to stop giving ourselves away, particularly for cheaper cell phone rates! My Lord, my Lord.
Now, because I am reminded that our own dear Prime Minister is himself a transplant from the Progressive Liberal Party of old - (thank God for
radicalism, freedom of expression, and the freedom not to bandwagon) - and the illustrious leader of the opposition has remained a true stalwart, I say what I am about to say without fear of reprisal; In an attempt to get our country back on track, it is time for a revisiting of Sir Lynden’s vision for The Bahamas.
It is time for us to come up with strategies where, as a nation and people, we can continue to use and sustain a moderate tourism and financial product as revenue generators, while at the same time, find new ways to diversify our economy by creating a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the Bahamian people; our country is brimming with a whole generation of young people out there waiting to take up the call. I know!!!!! I speak with young people everyday!! I am a young person and the young people are listening and they will make the difference!!!!!!
We must begin to lay the framework for an economy that is less based on physical capital in favor of one that is more dependent on human capital, for as Ralph Massey says, “human capital is more important to the public welfare than is physical capital.”
We must move away from an economy that thrives primarily on imported goods and servitude, and create one which is more of a producer model, driven primarily on exported goods and services – in many forms – created by manufacturing innovation and invention.
We must have a plan for the mobilization of our land mass, where each island will be developed and advanced so as to play an integral part in the country’s well being.
We must see to it that education is harnessed and used as the tool by which Bahamians, using the ingenuity derived from a quality education, will be able to meet more of their own consumer needs, and at the same time, meet and fulfill the needs of many of the global neighbors, particularly those in other Caribbean nations.
We must clearly define our national needs and stop allowing others to come in from the outside to define them for us. The future model for The Bahamas must be one in which we have a clear vision of the direction that we want our country to go in, and – God forbid – in the absence of qualified Bahamians, we invite a qualified labor force in to assist us with the building of our national dreams – instead of us using our labor to continually build the dreams of others.
Only when we begin to move in these directions, valuing the people as the most precious resource, will we become “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with selfworth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation”
Again it is unfortunate that we have gotten to this day such a day in our history, and I am being put in a position such as this, but what is becoming evident all around us, once again quoting Martin Luther King, “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself;” this is what we are now experiencing at this momentous time in our history.
The uprising taking place in our country says that we as a people have come full circle in our quest for true independence. And we have lost faith in our chosen leaders to deliver on the promises made decades ago, even years ago.
Disappointingly, I bring my contribution on this debate to a close by quoting from the Honourable Member from North Abaco who once said, among other things, that his job, as leader, is to “anticipate the future as best as he can and to act in the people’s interest.” At that time in 1997, our Prime Minister said to the people of the nation, “because I believe that Bahamians ought to own the majority in Batelco, I shall never, never, ever sell the majority holding in Batelco to anyone other than Bahamians.”
He also said, “I have stated often that I do not want to be elected to office promising one thing, knowing I am going to do another, but neglecting to say what I am going to do, just to get elected.” What a difference 14 years makes. At the time, it was just a matter of trust.
Now, however, some 14 years later, it is regrettable that the promise of empowerment made to the people of the Bahamas - captured in the phrase “never, never, ever” - a promise that they were told that they could trust, is being flagrantly tossed aside as a miscalculation of the time; Time and time Bahamians have showed that they are a trusting people, willing to take any old thing at face value because they want to believe in truth and honesty.
But how many more broken political promises can an already broken people take before they say enough is enough?
I hope that when we see the marches and the demonstrations, and hear of resignations, and other forms of civil protests, we will not be so quick to deplore these marches and demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of protest without expressing similar, strong criticism for the
conditions that brought about the marches and the demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of civil protests.
As I take my seat, I think it is quite obvious that I have no intentions of lending my support to the government’s plan to give over to Cable and Wireless a majority holding in the country’s telecommunications corporation. For the sake of a brighter future for our country, I hope that there will be others of my former colleagues who will be ready to rise above the fray and put aside political allegiances and alliances, to give our people - your people - a vote of confidence in their ability to be innovators, to be owners, and to be operators in a democratic, free market economy; I hope today that we will be affording them some semblance of pride and dignity by voting against this that is before us, and where and when they falter, be a source of encouragement for their betterment; I hope that some of my fellow colleagues will find the courage to show their individual character, and join me in attempting to begin the process of delivering to the Bahamian people the economical, political, and societal empowerment that they have so long been promised but denied.
It is not just me, not just those on the opposite side of the isle, and not just those demonstrating and protesting outside these walls who are making this request; if you have really looked around at our society in the last decade or so, you will have recognized that our entire society is, in some ways, crying out for a vote of confidence. Let us do what is right for a nation. I ask that you and other Bahamians join me and let us turn back the tides of injustice by saying NO to Cable and Wireless as majority owners in BTC.
Bahamas Blog International
In fact, on many occasions, I remember silently thinking - in awe - what an honor and privilege it is to be sitting among the Members for North Abaco and Farm Road; indeed men who once spoke out emphatically on issues of truth, justice, and equality. So, in saying all that I have said before this, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that my words – in any way – will not be an affront to any person and I hope that persons do not take offense to them. I would want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that, it is as a result of the courage and boldness that I have seen in some of these Honourable Men over the years, particularly when confronting issues of national importance, I am now emboldened to speak the following.
When I made the decision to enter into politics, I made that decision based on what I saw taking place in my social environment. Among other things, crime was rampant and people were no longer feeling safe in their own environment; dysfunction was at an all time high among our young people and they were failing out of society in larger numbers than ever before; for various reasons, political leaders were continuing to dishonor their office and bring shame on our sovereign nation; while the average Bahamian worked and struggled, the nation was coming undone at its seams. And it seemed as if no one cared; while the people suffered, it appeared to be all politics as usual.
At the time, I thought about my young daughters and wondered if the Bahamas that I saw unfolding before my eyes was the same Bahamas that I wanted for them. I thought about my wife going about her business, not knowing if, at anytime, she would or could become another robbery or murder statistics. I felt compelled to step forward and offer myself as a change agent, not just for my family but for all Bahamians and Bahamian families who were feeling trapped and powerless in a society that was imploding all around us. I was motivated by the idea that I could possibly be one of a few who could be that difference, indeed the difference maker, when it came to shaping the future direction of what is, potentially, the greatest nation in the world. My intention was and is to “be the change I want to see in the world”.
The question for me was, however, how did we allow this situation to occur? I think many of us can remember the excitement that Bahamians from all walks of life felt on July 10, 1973 when the Black, Gold, and Agua Marine was hoisted for the first time to signifying that the Bahamas was a free and independent nation. With this new flag replacing the old Union Jack, no longer were we going to be considered second class citizens in our own society, in our own country. No longer would we be, as Sir Etienne Dupuch puts it in his Tribune Story, seen so “far behind to be conscious of a destiny.” Independence was the promise of a new destiny. And the courage and boldness of a few exceptional men gave all of us - all Bahamians – the courage to dream again. We all become enchanted by the thought of the economic prosperity and social mobility that independence would bring us. We were all enchanted, as a nation, with the promise of empowerment that was to come with independence – a kind of empowerment that was unconceivable before 1973. What a concept:
· Economic empowerment – the thought that we would each have sufficient wealth to take care of our own personal needs;
· Political empowerment – the right to have a voice and say in the way our society is organized and how decisions are made; and
· Societal empowerment – where we would be treated fairly and equally.
For the average Bahamian this was the vision.
Empowerment! What a vision.
We are here today at each other’s throats, not just because the people are angry and worked up at the impending sale of BTC, but we are here today because, some forty years after independence, after decades of dangling the carrot of empowerment before them - offering a pittance here and a pittance there - Bahamian people are disillusioned, fed up with, and angry at feeling disempowered in their own land. And whereas the proposed sale of BTC is the matter before us today, this same sale of the telecommunications corporation is only a symbol of the disenfranchisement and lack of vision that continues to be a slap in the face to the average Bahamian who bought into the dream of independence – a dream that many have given up on as only an illusion.
I hope that, by making my statements today, my intentions in advocating for Bahamian empowerment will not be misconstrued, as I would be remised and, somewhat disingenuous, in not acknowledging the benefits which foreign investors and foreign investments have brought our people and our nation. However, to spend a great deal of time elaborating on that would serve no real purpose at this time, particularly since it has been “thrown” in the face of Bahamian people from time in memoriam. The point of the matter however, at this stage, is that Bahamian people, after decades and decades of educating themselves in some of the finest colleges and universities that the world has to offer, with the hopes of proving themselves, should now – my God - have an opportunity to prove their worth – to the highest degree – in their own country.
If Cable and Wireless is as great as our leaders are purporting them to be, let the government take it hands out of BTC’s operations, open up the market, let Cable and Wireless, Verizon, Sprint, Digicel, and any other provider who wish to enter the market come in. Let them “duke” it out, and may the best man win. But at the end of the day, Bahamians would have to prove their value and their worth,their intelligence and their ingenuity, and if they fail at it, then so be it. But, again, why does Cable and
Wireless need a three year head start on the competition? Politics, nothing more than pure politics.
I will paraphrase a good friend of mine who said that “some of us in society have allowed, and continue to allow our political leaders to us the time proven strategy of divide and conquer to cast one as
the enemy of the other, pitting us imprudently against each other to achieve their goals, while at the same time preventing us from achieving the simple ones we have set for ourselves and have worked so tirelessly to see actualized as a people – the creation of a nation that is a reflection of our collective and intellectual wills.
“At some point, however,” this friend continues, “we must recognize that we are not the enemy of each other, and no matter what our station or position is within society, we are all categorized and classified as Bahamians, and it is under this umbrella that we must collectively assemble” and challenge the political status quo that, for decades, has denied us as a people the right to have the semblance of power that independence has promised us.
What we have seen outside these walls in the past few weeks and days is a challenge to that very same political status quo; what we have seen is a new awakening in a generation that has been disenfranchised for too long – a new people who are crying out to be rescued from, as Martin Luther King calls it, a false sense of inferiority and a feeling of nobodiness.
On January 30, 1997, in one of his last addresses as leader of the Progressive Liberal Party, Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling said his vision for the Bahamas is that it becomes:
· “a nation built on Christian principles and consisting of a citizenry dedicated to respecting and defending human rights, human dignity, and the equal value of all mankind; a nation committed to the reverence for God, the sanctity of the traditional family, equal opportunity, diligent work for the welfare of all its citizens.
· He says the future Bahamas should be “a nation where the people are the most precious resource over and above all natural and material resources, and the national prosperity is measured by the quality of the health, education, and social environment and self esteem of its people;
· He says it should be “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with self-worth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation;”
· But most importantly, he says that the Bahamas should be “a nation where economic diversity creates a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the people, thus producing an atmosphere of variety, healthy competition, and entrepreneurship.”
Now, I have heard all of the colorful commentary over the past few years and month, as people have sought to offer up their analysis and interpretations of me, my actions and my intentions.
Some have said that I am a show-boater and that I like to showboat or indeed grandstand; some who doubt my ability to lead say that I am unqualified, but as one gospel psalmist says, God may not call the most qualified, but he qualifies those whom he calls; and some add that I am a young upstart, and that I should wait for my time; but King says, time is always ripe to do right, and now is the time to make real the promises of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. And over the next few weeks and months, and even years, as I seek to continue serving the people of Bamboo Town and the Bahamas, I am sure that the colorful commentaries, criticisms, and characterizations will only intensify as the naysayers will naysay in their attempts to discredit me and send me to my political graveyard. But I can assure you here today, as I stand in opposition to the offering up of the majority holdings in the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation, no matter what commentaries are offered up about and against me, I promise the Bahamian people, from Grand Bahama in the north to Inagua in the south, Long Island to Rum Cay, from Baintown to Bamboo Town, from Ft. Charlotte to Ft. Fincastle, that God willing, I will continue to do what I entered politics in 2007 to do, and that is work to ensure that The Bahamas becomes a society free from the force of complacency brought on us by years and years of oppression, insensitivity, bitterness, and self-hate – a place where people can begin to feel a true sense of “somebodiness.”
Because, despite what some may say about us - despite what we have been fooled into believing about ourselves - we are a great people, and we have one of the greatest country in the world. As a matter of fact, Dr Miles Munroe always says and I agree, that ”The Bahamas is the place where God lives”.
That is why almost everyone in the world wants a piece of the Bahamian rock. But the time has come for us to stop giving ourselves away, particularly for cheaper cell phone rates! My Lord, my Lord.
Now, because I am reminded that our own dear Prime Minister is himself a transplant from the Progressive Liberal Party of old - (thank God for
radicalism, freedom of expression, and the freedom not to bandwagon) - and the illustrious leader of the opposition has remained a true stalwart, I say what I am about to say without fear of reprisal; In an attempt to get our country back on track, it is time for a revisiting of Sir Lynden’s vision for The Bahamas.
It is time for us to come up with strategies where, as a nation and people, we can continue to use and sustain a moderate tourism and financial product as revenue generators, while at the same time, find new ways to diversify our economy by creating a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the Bahamian people; our country is brimming with a whole generation of young people out there waiting to take up the call. I know!!!!! I speak with young people everyday!! I am a young person and the young people are listening and they will make the difference!!!!!!
We must begin to lay the framework for an economy that is less based on physical capital in favor of one that is more dependent on human capital, for as Ralph Massey says, “human capital is more important to the public welfare than is physical capital.”
We must move away from an economy that thrives primarily on imported goods and servitude, and create one which is more of a producer model, driven primarily on exported goods and services – in many forms – created by manufacturing innovation and invention.
We must have a plan for the mobilization of our land mass, where each island will be developed and advanced so as to play an integral part in the country’s well being.
We must see to it that education is harnessed and used as the tool by which Bahamians, using the ingenuity derived from a quality education, will be able to meet more of their own consumer needs, and at the same time, meet and fulfill the needs of many of the global neighbors, particularly those in other Caribbean nations.
We must clearly define our national needs and stop allowing others to come in from the outside to define them for us. The future model for The Bahamas must be one in which we have a clear vision of the direction that we want our country to go in, and – God forbid – in the absence of qualified Bahamians, we invite a qualified labor force in to assist us with the building of our national dreams – instead of us using our labor to continually build the dreams of others.
Only when we begin to move in these directions, valuing the people as the most precious resource, will we become “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with selfworth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation”
Again it is unfortunate that we have gotten to this day such a day in our history, and I am being put in a position such as this, but what is becoming evident all around us, once again quoting Martin Luther King, “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself;” this is what we are now experiencing at this momentous time in our history.
The uprising taking place in our country says that we as a people have come full circle in our quest for true independence. And we have lost faith in our chosen leaders to deliver on the promises made decades ago, even years ago.
Disappointingly, I bring my contribution on this debate to a close by quoting from the Honourable Member from North Abaco who once said, among other things, that his job, as leader, is to “anticipate the future as best as he can and to act in the people’s interest.” At that time in 1997, our Prime Minister said to the people of the nation, “because I believe that Bahamians ought to own the majority in Batelco, I shall never, never, ever sell the majority holding in Batelco to anyone other than Bahamians.”
He also said, “I have stated often that I do not want to be elected to office promising one thing, knowing I am going to do another, but neglecting to say what I am going to do, just to get elected.” What a difference 14 years makes. At the time, it was just a matter of trust.
Now, however, some 14 years later, it is regrettable that the promise of empowerment made to the people of the Bahamas - captured in the phrase “never, never, ever” - a promise that they were told that they could trust, is being flagrantly tossed aside as a miscalculation of the time; Time and time Bahamians have showed that they are a trusting people, willing to take any old thing at face value because they want to believe in truth and honesty.
But how many more broken political promises can an already broken people take before they say enough is enough?
I hope that when we see the marches and the demonstrations, and hear of resignations, and other forms of civil protests, we will not be so quick to deplore these marches and demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of protest without expressing similar, strong criticism for the
conditions that brought about the marches and the demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of civil protests.
As I take my seat, I think it is quite obvious that I have no intentions of lending my support to the government’s plan to give over to Cable and Wireless a majority holding in the country’s telecommunications corporation. For the sake of a brighter future for our country, I hope that there will be others of my former colleagues who will be ready to rise above the fray and put aside political allegiances and alliances, to give our people - your people - a vote of confidence in their ability to be innovators, to be owners, and to be operators in a democratic, free market economy; I hope today that we will be affording them some semblance of pride and dignity by voting against this that is before us, and where and when they falter, be a source of encouragement for their betterment; I hope that some of my fellow colleagues will find the courage to show their individual character, and join me in attempting to begin the process of delivering to the Bahamian people the economical, political, and societal empowerment that they have so long been promised but denied.
It is not just me, not just those on the opposite side of the isle, and not just those demonstrating and protesting outside these walls who are making this request; if you have really looked around at our society in the last decade or so, you will have recognized that our entire society is, in some ways, crying out for a vote of confidence. Let us do what is right for a nation. I ask that you and other Bahamians join me and let us turn back the tides of injustice by saying NO to Cable and Wireless as majority owners in BTC.
Bahamas Blog International
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
Thursday, March 17, 2011
How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest in our beloved Bahamas
'Political operatives' and the 'criminally-minded'
tribune242 editorial
POLICE Staff Association president Dwight Smith during an interview with the press after the February 23 demonstration on Bay Street urged politicians to stop politicising issues.
He was defending his Force from a politician's criticism of the worth of police reports, which were used in another case to decide the suitability of a person for a high office. Mr Smith was also smarting under the criticism of how "over prepared" police were when they arrived on Bay Street for the BTC demonstration. It would have been irresponsible - after a union leader had declared that a "small Egypt" was needed on Bay Street to protest the sale of BTC - if police had not come fully prepared -- with its canine unit and all. The unionist was accused of instigating social unrest, and so the police were ready.
Mr Smith pointed out that the type of persons he saw among the crowd that day made it necessary for the police to do their job to ensure the safety of protesters and observers. He said the police had difficulty with those participating in the protest who had "nothing to do with BTC," but were there "advancing political groups."
"We saw so many things that were going on. I, for one, wondered if we were dealing with a BTC situation or if we were dealing with a political situation. For the life of me I could not understand what was going on," Mr Smith told the press.
The demonstration was said to have been organised by the Committee to Save BTC, but PLP members made a strong appearance.
Mr Smith said downtown merchants called to complain about a group of young protesters who were dropped off in the George Street area. As they walked to the protest, merchants claimed they stopped in store after store "causing a disturbance."
"I walked there personally and saw them. I knew some of them and talked to them. I heard them say, if they did not get paid there is going to be problems. I had to encourage some of them to come out of the stores. They had no reason to go in the stores.
"They were just being disruptive," said Mr Smith.
"My view is there were only a handful of persons there who were really dealing with BTC. If you were to speak to some of those persons, they did not know why they were out there. They did not know what they were out there for. If we were to really do the due diligence, we'll find a lot of them did not understand what was going on," he said.
It was suggested that "political operatives" had paid many persons -- some if them referred to by the police as "criminally minded" -- to demonstrate on Bay Street. As the late Kendal Isaacs, QC, who refused his party's request to lead a demonstration, pointed out, he would have been responsible for any breach of the peace caused by the demonstrators. These "political operatives," and Rodney Moncur, who has called for 10,000 demonstrators, should reconsider the consequences. And to help them understand their responsibilities the police should enforce the law -- especially against persons who would have paid these demonstrators to create the disturbance.
How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest and then demand that they obey the law when their services are no longer needed? We expect the police to protect residents against these very same people. However, when caught by the law they will look to their political paymasters to save them from prison.
Reminds us of the PLP election when drug dealers were desperate that the PLP be returned to power. Rightly or wrongly, true or false, there was the perception that this party was their guardian. The call was passed down the line -- especially in Eleuthera -- to get the fast boats ready. As soon as the PLP were elected the operators expected to be back in business. Some were so bold that they talked openly to our reporters, calling names of their political protectors.
We recall the talks that Magistrate Hercules and the late Sir Etienne Dupuch had many years ago when they took their morning constitutional on Cayman's Five Mile Beach. Magistrate Hercules, a tough, no nonsense magistrate, left the Bahamas after several years here. His complaint was about the political interference he had to suffer when certain "criminally-minded persons" appeared before him. It was more than he could take.
If we expect the police to be effective in controlling crime, then this culture of using persons on the wrong side of the law when it suits certain purposes, must end.
March 16, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
POLICE Staff Association president Dwight Smith during an interview with the press after the February 23 demonstration on Bay Street urged politicians to stop politicising issues.
He was defending his Force from a politician's criticism of the worth of police reports, which were used in another case to decide the suitability of a person for a high office. Mr Smith was also smarting under the criticism of how "over prepared" police were when they arrived on Bay Street for the BTC demonstration. It would have been irresponsible - after a union leader had declared that a "small Egypt" was needed on Bay Street to protest the sale of BTC - if police had not come fully prepared -- with its canine unit and all. The unionist was accused of instigating social unrest, and so the police were ready.
Mr Smith pointed out that the type of persons he saw among the crowd that day made it necessary for the police to do their job to ensure the safety of protesters and observers. He said the police had difficulty with those participating in the protest who had "nothing to do with BTC," but were there "advancing political groups."
"We saw so many things that were going on. I, for one, wondered if we were dealing with a BTC situation or if we were dealing with a political situation. For the life of me I could not understand what was going on," Mr Smith told the press.
The demonstration was said to have been organised by the Committee to Save BTC, but PLP members made a strong appearance.
Mr Smith said downtown merchants called to complain about a group of young protesters who were dropped off in the George Street area. As they walked to the protest, merchants claimed they stopped in store after store "causing a disturbance."
"I walked there personally and saw them. I knew some of them and talked to them. I heard them say, if they did not get paid there is going to be problems. I had to encourage some of them to come out of the stores. They had no reason to go in the stores.
"They were just being disruptive," said Mr Smith.
"My view is there were only a handful of persons there who were really dealing with BTC. If you were to speak to some of those persons, they did not know why they were out there. They did not know what they were out there for. If we were to really do the due diligence, we'll find a lot of them did not understand what was going on," he said.
It was suggested that "political operatives" had paid many persons -- some if them referred to by the police as "criminally minded" -- to demonstrate on Bay Street. As the late Kendal Isaacs, QC, who refused his party's request to lead a demonstration, pointed out, he would have been responsible for any breach of the peace caused by the demonstrators. These "political operatives," and Rodney Moncur, who has called for 10,000 demonstrators, should reconsider the consequences. And to help them understand their responsibilities the police should enforce the law -- especially against persons who would have paid these demonstrators to create the disturbance.
How can so-called responsible persons encourage the "criminally-minded" to create social unrest and then demand that they obey the law when their services are no longer needed? We expect the police to protect residents against these very same people. However, when caught by the law they will look to their political paymasters to save them from prison.
Reminds us of the PLP election when drug dealers were desperate that the PLP be returned to power. Rightly or wrongly, true or false, there was the perception that this party was their guardian. The call was passed down the line -- especially in Eleuthera -- to get the fast boats ready. As soon as the PLP were elected the operators expected to be back in business. Some were so bold that they talked openly to our reporters, calling names of their political protectors.
We recall the talks that Magistrate Hercules and the late Sir Etienne Dupuch had many years ago when they took their morning constitutional on Cayman's Five Mile Beach. Magistrate Hercules, a tough, no nonsense magistrate, left the Bahamas after several years here. His complaint was about the political interference he had to suffer when certain "criminally-minded persons" appeared before him. It was more than he could take.
If we expect the police to be effective in controlling crime, then this culture of using persons on the wrong side of the law when it suits certain purposes, must end.
March 16, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
We recommend that Rodney Moncur and Company forget about the "10,000 strong" demonstration against the sale of Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)
Large or small -- paid demonstrations prove nothing
tribune242 editorial
THERE are those -- mainly BTC unionists and opposition politicians-- who maintain that the majority of Bahamians are against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
In today's Tribune Dr Elwood Donaldson, a former cabinet minister in the Pindling government, said his group believes that the majority of Bahamians agree that selling BTC is a bad idea. He claimed that such a sale would reverberate through history as the "greatest blunder" of any Bahamian government.
Rodney Moncur, another political activist, has called for 10,000 demonstrators to converge on Bay Street to object to the sale of the telecommunications company on the day that it is debated in parliament. He has urged the PLP to show its sincerity by delivering 6,000 supporters to join the march. So far in all the calls for demonstrators, these activists have been hard pressed to attract a crowd -- their largest showing has been about 500 persons. Police have confirmed hearing some among that 500, who are "well known" to them, complain that if they were not paid there was going to be problems.
Now that it has been revealed that certain "political activists" have paid persons to go to Bay Street to make up the numbers for the crowd scene, it no longer matters whether 500 or 10,000 of them show up. This does not answer the question of whether the majority of Bahamians are for or against the BTC sale. All it shows is that a goodly number of bodies on Bay Street are there for their promised $85 to push, shove and shout, and give the police a hard time. Already we hear squabbling among what the police have referred to as the "criminally-minded" complaining about not receiving money promised for their hour on Bay Street on February 23. It is claimed that the going price was supposed to be $85, but some only collected $40 or $50 for their paid-for "demonstration."
From talking to persons, one-on-one, and studying the various independent polls, we are left with the impression that the majority of Bahamians -- even among unionists -- are looking forward to efficient telecommunications service and lower rates. As several have said: "We can't wait for the day!" They approve the sale. These persons have been paid nothing for their opinion.
However, once a demonstration ceases to be spontaneous, demonstrators' numbers don't count -- they no longer represent accurate opinions -- in fact they represent no opinion. Now that it is known they are paid, their numbers impress no one, and the organisers are made to look foolish. It is just one big, noisy, bogus show. We hope that the organisers will be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever damage might be caused by what is certain to turn into a mob scene.
Paying persons to produce mob-scenes is nothing new. We remember one day early on in the first Ingraham administration, one of our press men asked to see us. By now he was a man past middle age, a reformed gang member, who on occasion still hung out with "the boys." The night before, he told us, Sir Lynden had been to visit the "boys", a demonstration was being organised for Bay Street and for a price he wanted help from the "boys."
We don't recall what the incident was about -- there were so many incidents in those days -- but the so-called protest took place. Having been tipped off by our staff member, we had reporters mingle among the crowd for interviews.
The demonstrators were asked why they were there and what the demonstration was all about. Not one of them knew.
This is the response that we get from most demonstrators -- either they don't know what the issues are, or they are highly inebriated and don't care about the issues, or their information is so garbled that they make themselves look foolish. It makes one wonder about democracy and the one-man-one-vote theory.
We agree with Sir Winston Churchill when he said:
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We recommend that Mr Moncur - and whatever other political activists there are of like mind -- forget about the 10,000-strong demonstration. Their crowds will prove nothing. Among them will be the undesirables who will harass shop keepers, as they did on February 23 when police had to be called in to order them out. Among them, said one policeman, were persons "well known to us." All of us should know what that expression means in police jargon.
These organisers are playing Russian roulette when they have among their group such persons, who instead of being out on the streets should be awaiting their day in court behind bars.
March 15, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
THERE are those -- mainly BTC unionists and opposition politicians-- who maintain that the majority of Bahamians are against the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
In today's Tribune Dr Elwood Donaldson, a former cabinet minister in the Pindling government, said his group believes that the majority of Bahamians agree that selling BTC is a bad idea. He claimed that such a sale would reverberate through history as the "greatest blunder" of any Bahamian government.
Rodney Moncur, another political activist, has called for 10,000 demonstrators to converge on Bay Street to object to the sale of the telecommunications company on the day that it is debated in parliament. He has urged the PLP to show its sincerity by delivering 6,000 supporters to join the march. So far in all the calls for demonstrators, these activists have been hard pressed to attract a crowd -- their largest showing has been about 500 persons. Police have confirmed hearing some among that 500, who are "well known" to them, complain that if they were not paid there was going to be problems.
Now that it has been revealed that certain "political activists" have paid persons to go to Bay Street to make up the numbers for the crowd scene, it no longer matters whether 500 or 10,000 of them show up. This does not answer the question of whether the majority of Bahamians are for or against the BTC sale. All it shows is that a goodly number of bodies on Bay Street are there for their promised $85 to push, shove and shout, and give the police a hard time. Already we hear squabbling among what the police have referred to as the "criminally-minded" complaining about not receiving money promised for their hour on Bay Street on February 23. It is claimed that the going price was supposed to be $85, but some only collected $40 or $50 for their paid-for "demonstration."
From talking to persons, one-on-one, and studying the various independent polls, we are left with the impression that the majority of Bahamians -- even among unionists -- are looking forward to efficient telecommunications service and lower rates. As several have said: "We can't wait for the day!" They approve the sale. These persons have been paid nothing for their opinion.
However, once a demonstration ceases to be spontaneous, demonstrators' numbers don't count -- they no longer represent accurate opinions -- in fact they represent no opinion. Now that it is known they are paid, their numbers impress no one, and the organisers are made to look foolish. It is just one big, noisy, bogus show. We hope that the organisers will be prepared to take full responsibility for whatever damage might be caused by what is certain to turn into a mob scene.
Paying persons to produce mob-scenes is nothing new. We remember one day early on in the first Ingraham administration, one of our press men asked to see us. By now he was a man past middle age, a reformed gang member, who on occasion still hung out with "the boys." The night before, he told us, Sir Lynden had been to visit the "boys", a demonstration was being organised for Bay Street and for a price he wanted help from the "boys."
We don't recall what the incident was about -- there were so many incidents in those days -- but the so-called protest took place. Having been tipped off by our staff member, we had reporters mingle among the crowd for interviews.
The demonstrators were asked why they were there and what the demonstration was all about. Not one of them knew.
This is the response that we get from most demonstrators -- either they don't know what the issues are, or they are highly inebriated and don't care about the issues, or their information is so garbled that they make themselves look foolish. It makes one wonder about democracy and the one-man-one-vote theory.
We agree with Sir Winston Churchill when he said:
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
We recommend that Mr Moncur - and whatever other political activists there are of like mind -- forget about the 10,000-strong demonstration. Their crowds will prove nothing. Among them will be the undesirables who will harass shop keepers, as they did on February 23 when police had to be called in to order them out. Among them, said one policeman, were persons "well known to us." All of us should know what that expression means in police jargon.
These organisers are playing Russian roulette when they have among their group such persons, who instead of being out on the streets should be awaiting their day in court behind bars.
March 15, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Saturday, March 12, 2011
The agenda to derail the privatisation of Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) for political gain and to protect vested interests
Propaganda and the pending BTC privatisation
By LARRY SMITH
AND now class, today we are going to talk about propaganda. Does anyone know what the word means?
It derives from the Latin for propagate, which means to multiply, reproduce or transmit. In this case, we are talking about spreading information.
What kind of information? Well, that is often hard to say. The key point to remember is that the information being presented will have an agenda. And in order to judge the value and quality of the information, you need to determine what that agenda is.
In a nutshell, propaganda uses loaded messages to produce an emotional response in support of an often hidden objective. And ever since the 1930s (when German and Soviet propaganda promoted state-sponsored genocide) the term has acquired a strong negative meaning - for good reason.
Journalists are supposed to be trained to give their audiences a reasonably accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand. Advertisers use an overt form of propaganda to persuade people to buy their products or services. Public relations lies somewhere in between, often presenting itself as journalism in support of a proprietary theme, which is not necessarily nefarious.
What sets propaganda apart more than anything else is that it seeks to influence public opinion through deception and confusion, rather than by encouraging genuine understanding.
According to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
What points instantly spring to mind in the local context? No turning back (to white rule); stop, review and cancel (good economic initiatives); Hubert "the dictator" Ingraham; selling our birthright (to white foreigners), the plantation economy (enslaves blacks).
But it's not just about repetitive slander. As British wartime propagandist (and later cabinet minister) Richard Crossman said: "The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear."
This is what we are seeing today with the (currently) one-sided debate over the pending privatisation of BTC.
Let's look at the recent constructs of a massive conspiracy to corruptly engineer the sale of BTC against the interests and wishes of the Bahamian people. Evidence for this is said to rest on a series of conflicts of interest, and was recently given credence by retired Tribune journalist Nicky Kelly, who now writes a column for the Punch.
"One has to ask why the PM is so motivated to pursue a deal that is so suspect, and the machinations of its participants so obvious, that they exhaust credulity," Kelly wrote.
In this view, a small group of unrelated people began moving chess pieces years ago to achieve the present result - the sale of half of BTC to Cable & Wireless Communications, within a regulatory environment developed and controlled by former CWC employees.
The inference is that the plot was hatched by CWC, with the support of leading Bahamian politicians and technical advisors, to save its future Caribbean business prospects. Or maybe it was the other way round, and our top politicos and bureaucrats simply planned to enrich themselves from CWC. In either case, the full background to the story is largely ignored and a massive corrupt scheme is offered as the obvious reality. The clear agenda is to derail the privatisation of BTC, both for political gain and to protect vested interests.
The full background to the story includes the fact that there were no less than three public bodies responsible for decision-making - the cabinet, the privatisation advisory committee, and the privatisation working committee. There were also two sets of financial advisors - KPMG Bahamas and CITI, a major international bank - as well as two legal advisors - Charles Russell, a British firm specialising in communications law (which also advised the Christie administration on regulatory reform), and local law firm Higgs & Johnson.
In short, there were significant checks and balances. And with so many separate groups of advisors it would be very difficult for a specific conflict of interest to flow through to a final sale. It also has to be acknowledged that the goal of liberalising the communications sector and finding a major strategic partner for BTC has been the accepted policy of both major parties for years - even more so in the case of the FNM, which launched the process in 1998.
And what about those conflicts of interest that have been selectively ignored by the conspiracy theorists. Conflicts like the participation of some of the major antagonists in the current debate in the earlier sale that was agreed by the Christie administration with Bluewater Ventures - a foreign firm with uncertain ownership and no operating history.
It has been suggested that some of them were heavily involved when that deal went down - together with some of the leaders of the same unions that are now so critical of the current process. What chess pieces were these players moving?
The Christie administration cancelled the original privatisation process launched by the FNM after rejecting existing bids, and then proceeded to negotiate solely with Bluewater from 2005 until the general election in May 2007. How is this any different from the Ingraham administration rejecting bids received in the current process, and then talking to CWC?
And let's not forget to take into account the stark contrast between Bluewater, an unknown private equity firm, and CWC, a major international telecoms provider with a long and publicly reported background in the field.
In fact, almost all of the bidders for BTC throughout this long and complicated process were private financiers who saw an opportunity to make money. Digicell and CWC are the most obvious telecoms buyers in the region, but Digicell (which decided not to bid in the last auction) is purely a cellular operator. CWC is one of the few entities that does everything BTC does throughout the region and has a strategic reason to invest for the long-term. And since CWC has been interested in the Bahamas for the last 15 years, how can it suddenly be suspicious when they step up to the plate?
It is easy to research a large global business like Cable & Wireless, which may have problems in some areas but a very healthy balance sheet overall. In fact, CWC is a leader in all regional markets except Jamaica where they are second. It should also be noted that, although declining to participate in the most recent auction due to an internal reorganisation, CWC eventually went through the same entry process as all other bidders.
As for the terms of the CWC agreement, it is a fact that all the bidders required BTC's unfunded pension deficit to be covered by government - including Bluewater. How can this now be "repugnant" to the PLP, when they agreed to pay off the full deficit and close the pension plan entirely. I would suggest that there is no business in the world where employees make zero contributions to their own pensions while the employer pays 20 per cent of salaries into a fund. This obviously has a huge impact on BTC's value.
It is also true that all the bidders - including Bluewater - demanded a management fee in their plans, something which some commentators find egregious. The rationale for the fee that was eventually agreed is that CWC brings a lot of added value to BTC in terms of technology and intellectual property, which will significantly benefit the other shareholder. This is normal practice where a minority partner is involved, and industry benchmarks are used to set the fee scale.
Clearly, connecting the dots selectively amounts to spouting propaganda. It does nothing to help people reach a genuine understanding of the issues. This is known as pinpointing the enemy - simplifying a complex situation by presenting a specific group or person as the enemy in a clear-cut choice between right and wrong. And the better informed you are, the less susceptible you will be to this type of propaganda.
One of the worst allegations in this saga was made recently by PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts (who was the minister responsible for BTC in the Christie administration). He accused current BTC chairman Julian Francis of a corrupt conflict of interest in awarding to Providence Advisors (a financial services company which Francis also chairs) a lucrative contract to manage part of the BTC pension fund.
"As a result of this contract that Julian Francis awarded to himself, he positioned himself and Providence Advisors Ltd to be paid in excess of $400,000 per annum for the past 3 years," Roberts said. "The PLP calls for Julian Francis' immediate resignation and for the police to commence investigations..."
The facts are that efforts to place BTC pension funds with local investment managers began in 2006 under the Christie administration, when Greg Bethel was BTC chairman and also president of Fidelity Bank & Trust - one of the firms chasing the business. Providence, headed by Kenwood Kerr, was also invited to bid, and was eventually approved (along with Fidelity and CFAL) in a process guided by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche.
The actual contract was not executed until after the 2007 general election, and Francis (who is not a Providence shareholder) had nothing to do with choosing the investment managers. And Providence's fees over the past two and a half years were less than $350,000.
Statements from political operatives and unsupported extrapolations by sympathetic or thoughtless journalists are not the only forms of propaganda we must watch out for. There are also those entities which pose as legitimate news media. While party newspapers or radio broadcasts may be easily identified and their information taken with a grain of salt, some propaganda outlets try to disguise their true nature to fool an audience into believing they are presenting valid information.
The current prime example locally is the online propaganda outlet known as Bahamas Press, which refuses to even acknowledge that it is financed, owned and operated by real people, although it classifies itself as a "leading news website." An anonymous responder claimed the site is owned "by the people of the Bahamas."
As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984, "the process (of mass-media deception) has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt."
Of course, now that I have waded into the propaganda swamp, I must be part of the conspiracy, right? Well, now you can make the call.
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
March 09, 2011
tribune242
By LARRY SMITH
AND now class, today we are going to talk about propaganda. Does anyone know what the word means?
It derives from the Latin for propagate, which means to multiply, reproduce or transmit. In this case, we are talking about spreading information.
What kind of information? Well, that is often hard to say. The key point to remember is that the information being presented will have an agenda. And in order to judge the value and quality of the information, you need to determine what that agenda is.
In a nutshell, propaganda uses loaded messages to produce an emotional response in support of an often hidden objective. And ever since the 1930s (when German and Soviet propaganda promoted state-sponsored genocide) the term has acquired a strong negative meaning - for good reason.
Journalists are supposed to be trained to give their audiences a reasonably accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand. Advertisers use an overt form of propaganda to persuade people to buy their products or services. Public relations lies somewhere in between, often presenting itself as journalism in support of a proprietary theme, which is not necessarily nefarious.
What sets propaganda apart more than anything else is that it seeks to influence public opinion through deception and confusion, rather than by encouraging genuine understanding.
According to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
What points instantly spring to mind in the local context? No turning back (to white rule); stop, review and cancel (good economic initiatives); Hubert "the dictator" Ingraham; selling our birthright (to white foreigners), the plantation economy (enslaves blacks).
But it's not just about repetitive slander. As British wartime propagandist (and later cabinet minister) Richard Crossman said: "The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear."
This is what we are seeing today with the (currently) one-sided debate over the pending privatisation of BTC.
Let's look at the recent constructs of a massive conspiracy to corruptly engineer the sale of BTC against the interests and wishes of the Bahamian people. Evidence for this is said to rest on a series of conflicts of interest, and was recently given credence by retired Tribune journalist Nicky Kelly, who now writes a column for the Punch.
"One has to ask why the PM is so motivated to pursue a deal that is so suspect, and the machinations of its participants so obvious, that they exhaust credulity," Kelly wrote.
In this view, a small group of unrelated people began moving chess pieces years ago to achieve the present result - the sale of half of BTC to Cable & Wireless Communications, within a regulatory environment developed and controlled by former CWC employees.
The inference is that the plot was hatched by CWC, with the support of leading Bahamian politicians and technical advisors, to save its future Caribbean business prospects. Or maybe it was the other way round, and our top politicos and bureaucrats simply planned to enrich themselves from CWC. In either case, the full background to the story is largely ignored and a massive corrupt scheme is offered as the obvious reality. The clear agenda is to derail the privatisation of BTC, both for political gain and to protect vested interests.
The full background to the story includes the fact that there were no less than three public bodies responsible for decision-making - the cabinet, the privatisation advisory committee, and the privatisation working committee. There were also two sets of financial advisors - KPMG Bahamas and CITI, a major international bank - as well as two legal advisors - Charles Russell, a British firm specialising in communications law (which also advised the Christie administration on regulatory reform), and local law firm Higgs & Johnson.
In short, there were significant checks and balances. And with so many separate groups of advisors it would be very difficult for a specific conflict of interest to flow through to a final sale. It also has to be acknowledged that the goal of liberalising the communications sector and finding a major strategic partner for BTC has been the accepted policy of both major parties for years - even more so in the case of the FNM, which launched the process in 1998.
And what about those conflicts of interest that have been selectively ignored by the conspiracy theorists. Conflicts like the participation of some of the major antagonists in the current debate in the earlier sale that was agreed by the Christie administration with Bluewater Ventures - a foreign firm with uncertain ownership and no operating history.
It has been suggested that some of them were heavily involved when that deal went down - together with some of the leaders of the same unions that are now so critical of the current process. What chess pieces were these players moving?
The Christie administration cancelled the original privatisation process launched by the FNM after rejecting existing bids, and then proceeded to negotiate solely with Bluewater from 2005 until the general election in May 2007. How is this any different from the Ingraham administration rejecting bids received in the current process, and then talking to CWC?
And let's not forget to take into account the stark contrast between Bluewater, an unknown private equity firm, and CWC, a major international telecoms provider with a long and publicly reported background in the field.
In fact, almost all of the bidders for BTC throughout this long and complicated process were private financiers who saw an opportunity to make money. Digicell and CWC are the most obvious telecoms buyers in the region, but Digicell (which decided not to bid in the last auction) is purely a cellular operator. CWC is one of the few entities that does everything BTC does throughout the region and has a strategic reason to invest for the long-term. And since CWC has been interested in the Bahamas for the last 15 years, how can it suddenly be suspicious when they step up to the plate?
It is easy to research a large global business like Cable & Wireless, which may have problems in some areas but a very healthy balance sheet overall. In fact, CWC is a leader in all regional markets except Jamaica where they are second. It should also be noted that, although declining to participate in the most recent auction due to an internal reorganisation, CWC eventually went through the same entry process as all other bidders.
As for the terms of the CWC agreement, it is a fact that all the bidders required BTC's unfunded pension deficit to be covered by government - including Bluewater. How can this now be "repugnant" to the PLP, when they agreed to pay off the full deficit and close the pension plan entirely. I would suggest that there is no business in the world where employees make zero contributions to their own pensions while the employer pays 20 per cent of salaries into a fund. This obviously has a huge impact on BTC's value.
It is also true that all the bidders - including Bluewater - demanded a management fee in their plans, something which some commentators find egregious. The rationale for the fee that was eventually agreed is that CWC brings a lot of added value to BTC in terms of technology and intellectual property, which will significantly benefit the other shareholder. This is normal practice where a minority partner is involved, and industry benchmarks are used to set the fee scale.
Clearly, connecting the dots selectively amounts to spouting propaganda. It does nothing to help people reach a genuine understanding of the issues. This is known as pinpointing the enemy - simplifying a complex situation by presenting a specific group or person as the enemy in a clear-cut choice between right and wrong. And the better informed you are, the less susceptible you will be to this type of propaganda.
One of the worst allegations in this saga was made recently by PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts (who was the minister responsible for BTC in the Christie administration). He accused current BTC chairman Julian Francis of a corrupt conflict of interest in awarding to Providence Advisors (a financial services company which Francis also chairs) a lucrative contract to manage part of the BTC pension fund.
"As a result of this contract that Julian Francis awarded to himself, he positioned himself and Providence Advisors Ltd to be paid in excess of $400,000 per annum for the past 3 years," Roberts said. "The PLP calls for Julian Francis' immediate resignation and for the police to commence investigations..."
The facts are that efforts to place BTC pension funds with local investment managers began in 2006 under the Christie administration, when Greg Bethel was BTC chairman and also president of Fidelity Bank & Trust - one of the firms chasing the business. Providence, headed by Kenwood Kerr, was also invited to bid, and was eventually approved (along with Fidelity and CFAL) in a process guided by the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche.
The actual contract was not executed until after the 2007 general election, and Francis (who is not a Providence shareholder) had nothing to do with choosing the investment managers. And Providence's fees over the past two and a half years were less than $350,000.
Statements from political operatives and unsupported extrapolations by sympathetic or thoughtless journalists are not the only forms of propaganda we must watch out for. There are also those entities which pose as legitimate news media. While party newspapers or radio broadcasts may be easily identified and their information taken with a grain of salt, some propaganda outlets try to disguise their true nature to fool an audience into believing they are presenting valid information.
The current prime example locally is the online propaganda outlet known as Bahamas Press, which refuses to even acknowledge that it is financed, owned and operated by real people, although it classifies itself as a "leading news website." An anonymous responder claimed the site is owned "by the people of the Bahamas."
As George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984, "the process (of mass-media deception) has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt."
Of course, now that I have waded into the propaganda swamp, I must be part of the conspiracy, right? Well, now you can make the call.
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
March 09, 2011
tribune242
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Odd Protest against the Sale of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)
Protest against the sale of the BTC is odd
By RICK LOWE
ACCORDING to news reports, 800 to 1,000 people blocked Bay Street last week to protest the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless/LIME and it all seems odd.
Some people were saying that rights are being violated by selling BTC. But what rights are being violated?
Yes, sometimes Mr. Ingraham can be brash, but does that mean he is uncaring, a dictator, or corrupt, or violating rights as alleged? It's doubtful.
Using emotive language and trying to rile people up as some are doing could violate rights for sure.
What the protesters are missing is BTC is not owned by Bahamians. That's an illusion. A political construct. It is owned by the Bahamas Government.
Over the years successive governments have led us down the garden path by wasting and borrowing beyond the country's ability to sustain, and the sale of BTC might help keep the Bahamian dollar stable and reduce some of the debt that we all have to pay one way or the other.
The Opposition seems shameless on this one, after trying to sell BTC themselves under similar circumstances to a company called Bluewater, now it would seem that some are trying to incite people.
Another turnabout by the Opposition was the Constitutional Referendum of 2002. Both parties agreed in principle in the House of Assembly, then one campaigned against it, confusing the electorate.
The latest reason not to sell is there are complaints about LIME posted on the Internet.
If you research every company in the world online it seems you will find bad comments. We survey some of our clients, and last quarter we had an 84 per cent approval rating (our goal is 85 per cent), but the one client that complained, really complained, bringing the results of all the good comments lower. Is that what is happening with CWC? We also find that often it's people with complaints that fill the survey out. Those that had no issues, do not take the time to respond.
Are there similar complaints about BTC going around on the Internet?
Could the government have been more open? No doubt. Both the FNM or PLP governments over the years could have been more open. Promises of a Freedom of Information Act have been made by each of them. Let's see who passes it into law. That might help with government transparency in the future.
There were apparently no dissenenters before BTC was sold, at least publicly. So why the dissent now? The government corporations should be sold if for nothing more than to get politics and politicians out of it.
All this protesting is odd. When you dig a little deeper unseemly politics appear to be at work?
March 01, 2011
tribune242
By RICK LOWE
ACCORDING to news reports, 800 to 1,000 people blocked Bay Street last week to protest the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless/LIME and it all seems odd.
Some people were saying that rights are being violated by selling BTC. But what rights are being violated?
Yes, sometimes Mr. Ingraham can be brash, but does that mean he is uncaring, a dictator, or corrupt, or violating rights as alleged? It's doubtful.
Using emotive language and trying to rile people up as some are doing could violate rights for sure.
What the protesters are missing is BTC is not owned by Bahamians. That's an illusion. A political construct. It is owned by the Bahamas Government.
Over the years successive governments have led us down the garden path by wasting and borrowing beyond the country's ability to sustain, and the sale of BTC might help keep the Bahamian dollar stable and reduce some of the debt that we all have to pay one way or the other.
The Opposition seems shameless on this one, after trying to sell BTC themselves under similar circumstances to a company called Bluewater, now it would seem that some are trying to incite people.
Another turnabout by the Opposition was the Constitutional Referendum of 2002. Both parties agreed in principle in the House of Assembly, then one campaigned against it, confusing the electorate.
The latest reason not to sell is there are complaints about LIME posted on the Internet.
If you research every company in the world online it seems you will find bad comments. We survey some of our clients, and last quarter we had an 84 per cent approval rating (our goal is 85 per cent), but the one client that complained, really complained, bringing the results of all the good comments lower. Is that what is happening with CWC? We also find that often it's people with complaints that fill the survey out. Those that had no issues, do not take the time to respond.
Are there similar complaints about BTC going around on the Internet?
Could the government have been more open? No doubt. Both the FNM or PLP governments over the years could have been more open. Promises of a Freedom of Information Act have been made by each of them. Let's see who passes it into law. That might help with government transparency in the future.
There were apparently no dissenenters before BTC was sold, at least publicly. So why the dissent now? The government corporations should be sold if for nothing more than to get politics and politicians out of it.
All this protesting is odd. When you dig a little deeper unseemly politics appear to be at work?
March 01, 2011
tribune242
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) cries shame on The Bahamas government for accepting an offer that is clearly below market value for the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)
BTC political row worsens
By CANDIA DAMES
The Nassau Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Parties hit out over $210M deal
The sparring over the government’s decision to sell 51 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) has intensified, with the two major political parties arguing over whether the majority of Bahamians support the deal.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) said yesterday that its parliamentary caucus has embarked on a thorough and comprehensive review of the BTC and CWC transaction, and will be releasing regular positions on each component of the transaction.
“The PLP has clear and unequivocal objections to the commercial terms of this transaction, and more specifically the purchase price and consideration the government, and the Bahamian people, will realize from the sale of this prized national asset,” the party said in a statement.
The government has agreed to sell 51 percent of the shares of BTC to CWC for $210 million plus taxes.
“However, when one looks more closely at the terms of the transaction as set out in the share purchase agreement, it is clear The Bahamas government is receiving far less than $210 million, and it is equally clear that whatever the government eventually receives is far less than the value of 51 percent of BTC,” the PLP claimed.
“The Bahamas government is obligated to leave at least $15 million in cash in the company. Furthermore, The Bahamas government is obligated to fund pension liabilities in the amount of $39 million. Taking into account these obligations of the Bahamian government, the most the government will receive is $156 million for 51 percent of BTC.
“The PLP objects to this and cries shame on the government for accepting an offer that is clearly below market value for BTC. In fact, the Financial Times pointed out that the $210 million purchase price was below the industry average; certainly $156 million is significantly below market price for 51 percent of BTC.”
Meanwhile, an argument has intensified over the level of support the government has on the privatization issue.
An earlier statement released by Elizabeth MP Ryan Pinder on behalf of the PLP said the party takes exception to the Free National Movement’s practice of “misleading the Bahamian public on the support for the BTC sale to Cable and Wireless.”
“The PLP proposes that the majority of Bahamians are against this specific sale of BTC. The PLP has committed itself to a series of statements and position pieces that will clearly note our objections to the BTC sale, focused on different objections,” Pinder said.
“The PLP is also committed in these releases to educating Bahamians as to the shortfalls of this proposed sale of BTC. The PLP demands that the FNM be honest and straightforward with the Bahamian people on this give away of the people's asset, BTC.”
But the FNM shot back in a statement last night, saying as support for the opposition’s position on the partnership to create a new BTC with Cable and Wireless continues to erode, it has begun to panic and continues to ignore the voices of the majority of Bahamians.
“The opposition says that it ‘proposes that the majority of Bahamians are against this specific sale of BTC’. Rather than proposing, the FNM has taken note of two surveys over the past two weeks which have shown the surge of support for the creation of a new BTC. One survey was conducted by a private group (Consumer Voices Bahamas) the other by one of the dailies,” the FNM said.
The FNM noted that in The Nassau Guardian’s online survey 4,563 people responded. The question was whether respondents supported the PLP’s decision to reject the deal.
“It appears that the voices of these thousands of Bahamians and many others are of no consequence to the PLP, which now seeks to substitute its own faltering position for that of the majority of Bahamians,” the FNM said.
But Pinder said in his statement that a previous FNM release and associated polls “misrepresented” the views of Bahamians.
“The unscientific polls focused on whether privatization was a good idea, and not [the] real issue that concerns the majority of Bahamians, which is whether this sale to Cable and Wireless under the proposed terms tabled in the House of Assembly last week is a good deal,” he said.
The FNM insisted however that support for the deal continues to grow among Bahamians.
“We believe that after the House of Assembly debate on BTC’s future, that many more Bahamians will support the new partnership, as misinformation and incorrect information are countered with the facts, which will shed more light on the fiction promoted by certain narrow interests,” the FNM said.
2/16/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
The Nassau Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Parties hit out over $210M deal
The sparring over the government’s decision to sell 51 percent of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) has intensified, with the two major political parties arguing over whether the majority of Bahamians support the deal.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) said yesterday that its parliamentary caucus has embarked on a thorough and comprehensive review of the BTC and CWC transaction, and will be releasing regular positions on each component of the transaction.
“The PLP has clear and unequivocal objections to the commercial terms of this transaction, and more specifically the purchase price and consideration the government, and the Bahamian people, will realize from the sale of this prized national asset,” the party said in a statement.
The government has agreed to sell 51 percent of the shares of BTC to CWC for $210 million plus taxes.
“However, when one looks more closely at the terms of the transaction as set out in the share purchase agreement, it is clear The Bahamas government is receiving far less than $210 million, and it is equally clear that whatever the government eventually receives is far less than the value of 51 percent of BTC,” the PLP claimed.
“The Bahamas government is obligated to leave at least $15 million in cash in the company. Furthermore, The Bahamas government is obligated to fund pension liabilities in the amount of $39 million. Taking into account these obligations of the Bahamian government, the most the government will receive is $156 million for 51 percent of BTC.
“The PLP objects to this and cries shame on the government for accepting an offer that is clearly below market value for BTC. In fact, the Financial Times pointed out that the $210 million purchase price was below the industry average; certainly $156 million is significantly below market price for 51 percent of BTC.”
Meanwhile, an argument has intensified over the level of support the government has on the privatization issue.
An earlier statement released by Elizabeth MP Ryan Pinder on behalf of the PLP said the party takes exception to the Free National Movement’s practice of “misleading the Bahamian public on the support for the BTC sale to Cable and Wireless.”
“The PLP proposes that the majority of Bahamians are against this specific sale of BTC. The PLP has committed itself to a series of statements and position pieces that will clearly note our objections to the BTC sale, focused on different objections,” Pinder said.
“The PLP is also committed in these releases to educating Bahamians as to the shortfalls of this proposed sale of BTC. The PLP demands that the FNM be honest and straightforward with the Bahamian people on this give away of the people's asset, BTC.”
But the FNM shot back in a statement last night, saying as support for the opposition’s position on the partnership to create a new BTC with Cable and Wireless continues to erode, it has begun to panic and continues to ignore the voices of the majority of Bahamians.
“The opposition says that it ‘proposes that the majority of Bahamians are against this specific sale of BTC’. Rather than proposing, the FNM has taken note of two surveys over the past two weeks which have shown the surge of support for the creation of a new BTC. One survey was conducted by a private group (Consumer Voices Bahamas) the other by one of the dailies,” the FNM said.
The FNM noted that in The Nassau Guardian’s online survey 4,563 people responded. The question was whether respondents supported the PLP’s decision to reject the deal.
“It appears that the voices of these thousands of Bahamians and many others are of no consequence to the PLP, which now seeks to substitute its own faltering position for that of the majority of Bahamians,” the FNM said.
But Pinder said in his statement that a previous FNM release and associated polls “misrepresented” the views of Bahamians.
“The unscientific polls focused on whether privatization was a good idea, and not [the] real issue that concerns the majority of Bahamians, which is whether this sale to Cable and Wireless under the proposed terms tabled in the House of Assembly last week is a good deal,” he said.
The FNM insisted however that support for the deal continues to grow among Bahamians.
“We believe that after the House of Assembly debate on BTC’s future, that many more Bahamians will support the new partnership, as misinformation and incorrect information are countered with the facts, which will shed more light on the fiction promoted by certain narrow interests,” the FNM said.
2/16/2011
thenassauguardian
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
BTC unions lose court battle to block the sale of 51 % stake in Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC)... [Ordered to pay costs]
BTC unions lose court battle
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE
Guardian Senior Reporter
kdl@nasguard.com
Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley yesterday threw out a court action filed by Bahamas Telecommunications Company unions seeking to block the sale of a 51 percent stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
The Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
Attorney Maurice Glinton, who represented the unions, confirmed to The Nassau Guardian that they plan to appeal the decision. He could not say at the time when the necessary documents would be filed.
In his ruling, Adderley said the BCPOU and BCPMU and their trustees lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
“Hence the action is a nullity and so the granting of an injunction pending its hearing does not arise,” Adderley said.
“Alternatively, the evidence has not disclosed that any of their private legal rights are being infringed or threatened or need to be enforced or declared, as they have not established an interest recognized by law as being direct and substantial enough in the subject matter of the action to give them locus standi to commence the action to claim the remedies set forth in the writ.
“For the foregoing reasons, I strike out the writ and dismiss the action.”
Adderley also ordered that the unions pay costs in the matter.
In their writ, the unions contended that the government has no authority to sell BTC because an act of Parliament made the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BaTelCo) a self-owning and self-sustaining entity.
Their claim is that consequently the divested assets are now held by BTC in trust for BaTelCo.
Adderley said there is no express power in the Industrial Relations Act that gives unions the capacity or power to sue for declarations outside their statutory objects.
Adderley said even if they had the capacity to sue for the matters in question, he considered whether they had a legal interest to sue for the relief claimed.
Last week, the government signed a shareholder’s agreement and a share purchase agreement with CWC, and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham tabled the memorandum of understanding between the two entities in the House of Assembly along with related documents.
Yesterday, BCPOU President Bernard Evans said the ruling has in no way halted the union’s efforts to stop the sale of BTC.
“We never really rested all of our efforts on this court case, even though we knew we had good grounds and it is a landmark case. But we never wanted to leave any stone unturned. We will continue to do our stuff because this is not over by a long shot,” Evans said.
“We are going to fight this on all fronts. Whatever it takes, we are going to take our time and get to it.”
Evans shot down claims by the Free National Movement that the majority of Bahamians support the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
“I saw in the paper where the FNM government believe that they have the majority of the people, they keep putting us in the minority. Well the day of reckoning is coming when we will know who has the majority,” Evans said.
The deal between the government and CWC calls for the shares to be sold for $210 million, as well as a stamp duty of $7 million. Eventually, 25 percent of the shares in the company will be offered to Bahamians, the government has said.
2/15/2011
thenassauguardian
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE
Guardian Senior Reporter
kdl@nasguard.com
Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley yesterday threw out a court action filed by Bahamas Telecommunications Company unions seeking to block the sale of a 51 percent stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
The Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
Attorney Maurice Glinton, who represented the unions, confirmed to The Nassau Guardian that they plan to appeal the decision. He could not say at the time when the necessary documents would be filed.
In his ruling, Adderley said the BCPOU and BCPMU and their trustees lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
“Hence the action is a nullity and so the granting of an injunction pending its hearing does not arise,” Adderley said.
“Alternatively, the evidence has not disclosed that any of their private legal rights are being infringed or threatened or need to be enforced or declared, as they have not established an interest recognized by law as being direct and substantial enough in the subject matter of the action to give them locus standi to commence the action to claim the remedies set forth in the writ.
“For the foregoing reasons, I strike out the writ and dismiss the action.”
Adderley also ordered that the unions pay costs in the matter.
In their writ, the unions contended that the government has no authority to sell BTC because an act of Parliament made the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BaTelCo) a self-owning and self-sustaining entity.
Their claim is that consequently the divested assets are now held by BTC in trust for BaTelCo.
Adderley said there is no express power in the Industrial Relations Act that gives unions the capacity or power to sue for declarations outside their statutory objects.
Adderley said even if they had the capacity to sue for the matters in question, he considered whether they had a legal interest to sue for the relief claimed.
Last week, the government signed a shareholder’s agreement and a share purchase agreement with CWC, and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham tabled the memorandum of understanding between the two entities in the House of Assembly along with related documents.
Yesterday, BCPOU President Bernard Evans said the ruling has in no way halted the union’s efforts to stop the sale of BTC.
“We never really rested all of our efforts on this court case, even though we knew we had good grounds and it is a landmark case. But we never wanted to leave any stone unturned. We will continue to do our stuff because this is not over by a long shot,” Evans said.
“We are going to fight this on all fronts. Whatever it takes, we are going to take our time and get to it.”
Evans shot down claims by the Free National Movement that the majority of Bahamians support the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
“I saw in the paper where the FNM government believe that they have the majority of the people, they keep putting us in the minority. Well the day of reckoning is coming when we will know who has the majority,” Evans said.
The deal between the government and CWC calls for the shares to be sold for $210 million, as well as a stamp duty of $7 million. Eventually, 25 percent of the shares in the company will be offered to Bahamians, the government has said.
2/15/2011
thenassauguardian
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
Friday, February 11, 2011
What's the exact amount (net) that represents the proceeds of the sale of Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC)?
What are we getting and what were we paid for BTC?
thenassauguardian editorial
The deal is done. It is finished. The Bahamas Telecommunications Company or at least the majority of BTC, 51 percent, has been sold to Cable & Wireless Communications and The Bahamas will soon be a part of the LIME telecommunications network.
On the surface, it would appear that for dispensing with 51 percent of BTC, Bahamians could expect to receive, over time, the following features which presumably the existing Bahamian management and staff of BTC are unwilling or unable to deliver:
• expanded services for smart phones (Blackberry, iPhones) at “reasonable” prices and faster mobile services to deliver music and television to handsets;
• increase in the number of places Bahamians can go to receive phone services;
• purchase pre-connected phones at retail outlets;
• standard prices for daily cellular services and no more long distance charges for calls made locally;
• better roaming and faster broadband services;
• more connectivity for the Family Islands and more efficient services for small- and medium-sized businesses;
• easier to understand billing services and up to 36 percent reduction in costs per minute over the next three years; and
• spending on community projects including support for Junkanoo; a “center for excellence”; opportunities for Bahamians to work in the rest of the Caribbean (movement of labor has arrived); and increased services to our major economic sectors, tourism and banking.
In addition to the improved services on our existing network, CWC will reportedly pay to the government $210 million plus another $7 million in stamp duties for 51 percent of BTC.
Should we deduct from that figure the unknown amount of net cash value in excess of $15 million at the date of sale that CWC is allowed to take out of BTC?
Should we also deduct the $39 million that the government (Bahamian taxpayer) has agreed to place in the “Feeder Trust” which would presumably cover the shortfall in BTC’s existing pension plan?
It would be useful and enormously transparent if someone would let the public know the exact amount (net) that represents the proceeds of the sale of BTC.
And while you are at it, let us know how the Treasury will fare in future without the $96 million in dividends paid to it by BTC in 2009, if we are to accept a recent report published in the local press.
We would be among the first to agree that there is a need to improve the services performance of BTC but we find it difficult to accept that the above list of services cannot be provided by the Bahamian workforce.
We find it equally difficult to accept that the best way to improve services would be to sell the majority of shares to a regional carrier which, in addition to collecting two percent of total revenue for its intellectual property (despite being the majority owner) would most likely make all major decisions involving the local company in its far-away regional headquarters in the Caribbean. A regional carrier would most likely remit much-needed foreign exchange out of the country in the form of dividends and profits.
And above all, we most certainly hope that our Caribbean friends, who may hold equity (shares) in LIME are not indirectly holding shares in BTC before Bahamian residents are allowed to do so.
2/10/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
The deal is done. It is finished. The Bahamas Telecommunications Company or at least the majority of BTC, 51 percent, has been sold to Cable & Wireless Communications and The Bahamas will soon be a part of the LIME telecommunications network.
On the surface, it would appear that for dispensing with 51 percent of BTC, Bahamians could expect to receive, over time, the following features which presumably the existing Bahamian management and staff of BTC are unwilling or unable to deliver:
• expanded services for smart phones (Blackberry, iPhones) at “reasonable” prices and faster mobile services to deliver music and television to handsets;
• increase in the number of places Bahamians can go to receive phone services;
• purchase pre-connected phones at retail outlets;
• standard prices for daily cellular services and no more long distance charges for calls made locally;
• better roaming and faster broadband services;
• more connectivity for the Family Islands and more efficient services for small- and medium-sized businesses;
• easier to understand billing services and up to 36 percent reduction in costs per minute over the next three years; and
• spending on community projects including support for Junkanoo; a “center for excellence”; opportunities for Bahamians to work in the rest of the Caribbean (movement of labor has arrived); and increased services to our major economic sectors, tourism and banking.
In addition to the improved services on our existing network, CWC will reportedly pay to the government $210 million plus another $7 million in stamp duties for 51 percent of BTC.
Should we deduct from that figure the unknown amount of net cash value in excess of $15 million at the date of sale that CWC is allowed to take out of BTC?
Should we also deduct the $39 million that the government (Bahamian taxpayer) has agreed to place in the “Feeder Trust” which would presumably cover the shortfall in BTC’s existing pension plan?
It would be useful and enormously transparent if someone would let the public know the exact amount (net) that represents the proceeds of the sale of BTC.
And while you are at it, let us know how the Treasury will fare in future without the $96 million in dividends paid to it by BTC in 2009, if we are to accept a recent report published in the local press.
We would be among the first to agree that there is a need to improve the services performance of BTC but we find it difficult to accept that the above list of services cannot be provided by the Bahamian workforce.
We find it equally difficult to accept that the best way to improve services would be to sell the majority of shares to a regional carrier which, in addition to collecting two percent of total revenue for its intellectual property (despite being the majority owner) would most likely make all major decisions involving the local company in its far-away regional headquarters in the Caribbean. A regional carrier would most likely remit much-needed foreign exchange out of the country in the form of dividends and profits.
And above all, we most certainly hope that our Caribbean friends, who may hold equity (shares) in LIME are not indirectly holding shares in BTC before Bahamian residents are allowed to do so.
2/10/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Friday, February 4, 2011
Majority in poll supports the privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC)
Majority in poll back BTC privatisation
tribune242
THE majority of the persons polled in a recent exercise by Consumer Voices Bahamas said they are in support of the privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation.
On January 28, CVB representatives standing on the corner of Bay and Parliament Streets polled 236 persons ranging in age from 16 to 75.
According to a press statement from the group, the majority of those polled supported privatisation.
"One hundred and twenty three persons, or 52 per cent, support the sale. Ninety six individuals, or 41 per cent, do not support the sale. Seventeen individuals, or 7 percent, are undecided about the sale.
"There was also a question on the quality of service at BTC. Sixty per cent of all respondents polled are displeased with the current services BTC offers," the statement read.
According to CVB, some of the most of the comments reflected a "desire for cheaper long distance rates, reduced texting rates, less dropped calls, as well as improved customer service and better service for the Family Islands. Many respondents also want more features and a 4G network.
"The CVB surveys will be ongoing and will be conducted in various areas so that we can continue to hear from the consumer," the statement read.
February 04, 2011
tribune242
tribune242
THE majority of the persons polled in a recent exercise by Consumer Voices Bahamas said they are in support of the privatisation of the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation.
On January 28, CVB representatives standing on the corner of Bay and Parliament Streets polled 236 persons ranging in age from 16 to 75.
According to a press statement from the group, the majority of those polled supported privatisation.
"One hundred and twenty three persons, or 52 per cent, support the sale. Ninety six individuals, or 41 per cent, do not support the sale. Seventeen individuals, or 7 percent, are undecided about the sale.
"There was also a question on the quality of service at BTC. Sixty per cent of all respondents polled are displeased with the current services BTC offers," the statement read.
According to CVB, some of the most of the comments reflected a "desire for cheaper long distance rates, reduced texting rates, less dropped calls, as well as improved customer service and better service for the Family Islands. Many respondents also want more features and a 4G network.
"The CVB surveys will be ongoing and will be conducted in various areas so that we can continue to hear from the consumer," the statement read.
February 04, 2011
tribune242
Saturday, January 15, 2011
FNMs against the Free National Movement (FNM) Government's Policy on the Proposed Sale of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC)
FNMs speaking out against party policy
thenassauguardian editorial
It was surprising to read published comments by two Free National Movement (FNM) members this week on the sale of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney said he would wait to see the memorandum of understanding the government signed with CWC, as well as the details of the proposed sale, before he gives his support in Parliament.
“I cannot make a decision without having the facts,” McCartney said to The Nassau Guardian on Tuesday. “I don’t have all of the facts.”
The government has promised to make all the details of the proposed deal public before it comes up for debate in the House of Assembly.
“Once all the facts are in hand, I’ll be able to make a decision as to whether or not it’s the right thing to do or otherwise,” McCartney added.
FNM Vice-chairman Darron Cash, who is a former party senator, wrote a long opinion piece that was published in The Guardian on Monday. In it, Cash set out why he strongly opposes the BTC sale to CWC.
“I disagree with the government’s proposed action. I believe it is wrong for the country,” said Cash.
“This decision sells the country short. It is a betrayal of future generations, and like a bad stock on BISX—in which you have little confidence—the government is selling the next generation (my generation) short.”
Cash then used more than 5,000 words to explain why he disagrees with the deal.
Hubert Ingraham has run his FNM in a different manner than Perry Christie has run the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). PLPs have regularly criticized Christie and the party publicly.
Ingraham’s troops are not known for this behavior. From all accounts, Ingraham, like the late Sir Lynden Pindling, ensures order is maintained by inflicting painful political consequences for dissent. Christie’s followers seem to have little fear of him.
The FNM has had a tough time in the public relations war over the sale of BTC. The union movement, the opposition and some prominent church leaders have opposed the move.
That public relations fight becomes more difficult when FNMs join the public fight against the sale. When young party members question the party’s actions, or disagree with it, the party is weakened during a war.
The danger for the FNM is that these young members of the party can do more damage to it than the PLP.
The PLP has no credibility when it comes to the BTC debate. It too wanted to sell a major chunk of BTC to foreigners.
The PLP is only protesting the CWC sale in an attempt to cause trouble for the government in the run up to the next general election. The opposition is not concerned about the real debate that has emerged surrounding privatization policy and Bahamianization.
But when FNMs speak out publicly on the issue at the risk of being savaged by the party’s leadership, it appears as if the messenger attempting to convince the country of the wisdom of the CWC sale has turned on itself.
The FNM would be wise, for its sake, to conclude the BTC deal as soon as possible. More public dissent from within the governing party will not stop the deal, but it would weaken the FNM at a time when it is attempting to convince Bahamians it should serve another term in office.
1/13/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
It was surprising to read published comments by two Free National Movement (FNM) members this week on the sale of the majority stake in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
Bamboo Town MP Branville McCartney said he would wait to see the memorandum of understanding the government signed with CWC, as well as the details of the proposed sale, before he gives his support in Parliament.
“I cannot make a decision without having the facts,” McCartney said to The Nassau Guardian on Tuesday. “I don’t have all of the facts.”
The government has promised to make all the details of the proposed deal public before it comes up for debate in the House of Assembly.
“Once all the facts are in hand, I’ll be able to make a decision as to whether or not it’s the right thing to do or otherwise,” McCartney added.
FNM Vice-chairman Darron Cash, who is a former party senator, wrote a long opinion piece that was published in The Guardian on Monday. In it, Cash set out why he strongly opposes the BTC sale to CWC.
“I disagree with the government’s proposed action. I believe it is wrong for the country,” said Cash.
“This decision sells the country short. It is a betrayal of future generations, and like a bad stock on BISX—in which you have little confidence—the government is selling the next generation (my generation) short.”
Cash then used more than 5,000 words to explain why he disagrees with the deal.
Hubert Ingraham has run his FNM in a different manner than Perry Christie has run the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP). PLPs have regularly criticized Christie and the party publicly.
Ingraham’s troops are not known for this behavior. From all accounts, Ingraham, like the late Sir Lynden Pindling, ensures order is maintained by inflicting painful political consequences for dissent. Christie’s followers seem to have little fear of him.
The FNM has had a tough time in the public relations war over the sale of BTC. The union movement, the opposition and some prominent church leaders have opposed the move.
That public relations fight becomes more difficult when FNMs join the public fight against the sale. When young party members question the party’s actions, or disagree with it, the party is weakened during a war.
The danger for the FNM is that these young members of the party can do more damage to it than the PLP.
The PLP has no credibility when it comes to the BTC debate. It too wanted to sell a major chunk of BTC to foreigners.
The PLP is only protesting the CWC sale in an attempt to cause trouble for the government in the run up to the next general election. The opposition is not concerned about the real debate that has emerged surrounding privatization policy and Bahamianization.
But when FNMs speak out publicly on the issue at the risk of being savaged by the party’s leadership, it appears as if the messenger attempting to convince the country of the wisdom of the CWC sale has turned on itself.
The FNM would be wise, for its sake, to conclude the BTC deal as soon as possible. More public dissent from within the governing party will not stop the deal, but it would weaken the FNM at a time when it is attempting to convince Bahamians it should serve another term in office.
1/13/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Monday, January 10, 2011
Will the BTC protests really turn into a mass public movement, a la 1958, and in turn - into a political jackpot for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)?
The BTC protest - a political circus
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
After today, it will be even harder than before to keep a straight face when someone tries to tell me there's no political agenda at work in the protest against the sale of BTC.
It might have been possible to overlook the PLP cronies sprinkled throughout the union-led Rawson Square protest before Christmas, or ignore the interesting coincidence of a Trade Union Congress vice president and vocal BTC-sale opponent being chosen as a PLP candidate.
But it would have taken a far larger dose of self-delusion than I am capable of administering to miss the implications of the National Congress of Trade Unions (NCTU) deciding that today, as it commemorates the 1958 general strike, it will also begin recruiting voters for the first time in its history.
I know this is a first, because when the press release was issued on Friday announcing that the NCTU - an umbrella organisation covering a number of unions including the two representing BTC staff - was calling for all its members to descend on the Parliamentary Registration Department at noon on Monday, it struck me as so strange that I sought an explanation.
"Why a voter registration drive?" - a seemingly simple question. It nevertheless met with such a bewildered reaction at NCTU HQ, you'd have thought I'd stumbled on a state secret.
The first person I spoke to declined to offer an answer. The second, very cagey and clearly suspicious, responded, "Because of the anniversary of general strike," as if the one followed logically on from the other.
She seemed very sure this was the reason, repeating her mantra regardless of how I tried to rephrase or qualify the question.
Eventually, she offered the slightly more helpful, "Because of Majority Rule" - which, granted, does seem a better reason to promote the spirit of representative democracy. Except that, as she admitted when asked, the NCTU had never once before, in the organisation's 16-year life, urged its members or affiliates to register as voters.
"Why now?" I asked, but she merely mumbled some blurb to the effect that since they were already planning to commemorate Majority Rule and the General Strike today, they figured, "Might as well add something else to the mix."
It has nothing to do with BTC or the PLP, she insisted.
Now, maybe I'm just a cynic, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that the choice of that specific "something else" while the labour movement is right in the middle of a busy schedule of angry town hall meetings and confrontational press statements - all directed at the government over the BTC sale and all supported by the opposition - was entirely without ulterior motives.
My opinion, I feel, is supported by the fact that the registration drive is being hitched to so emotive an issue as the celebrated General Strike, with all its connotations of taking a stand against injustice, the power of solidarity to overcome adversity and so on.
Then, there's the fact that so many unionists have already sought to tie the protests against BTC to the General Strike, some even threatening a reenactment of the event which paralysed Nassau for around three weeks.
Also, consider that the man who actually announced the voter registration drive on Friday, the NCTU's secretary general Robert Farquharson, is a big fan of the events of 1958, recently conducting a lecture series on their importance and raising the spectre of a repeat performance in 2008 when he threatened a national walkout of 45,000 union members over the BTC privatisation process.
This is the same Robert Farquharson who was lately president of the BCPOU, the union now protesting on behalf of the disgruntled BTC workers.
The same Robert Farquharson who, though vociferously opposed to the government's deal with Cable and Wireless, said nothing when the PLP revealed their earlier deal to sell the company to an unnamed group of foreigners - a decision his successor Bernard Evans distanced himself from, saying he doesn't think any foreign entity should own BTC and that he couldn't speak for Mr Farquharson's actions.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Mr F is taking instructions from the PLP, or trying to drive voters into their waiting arms in the hopes of some political reward. He, like the other union leaders who've declared against the deal, understand the challenge it represents to their powerful and lucrative positions, and probably feel their potential to recruit for the opposition is nothing more than a threatening stick to wave in front of the government right now.
As an old BCPOU man, the NCTU secretary general will be well aware of this potential. After all, his predecessor as president of that union is now the PLP MP for Golden Gates, Shane Gibson, who led a series of high profile, politically-loaded union protests toward the end of the FNM's first stint in power.
Shane Gibson is also one of the point men on the PLP's BTC controversy-stirring team. He and his cohorts are well aware of the possible benefits of hitching their political cart to the anti-Cable and Wireless bandwagon, and I'd be willing to bet that the seed of this new enthusiasm for "voter registration" was subtly planted in the minds of NCTU members following one of the opposition's strategy sessions.
But will it pay off? Will the BTC protests really turn into a mass public movement, a la 1958, and in turn into a political jackpot for the PLP?
My money is on 'No'.
The reason is, while both the General Strike and today's BTC squabble began as protests by a small group of workers trying to protect their own interests - in the earlier case, taxi drivers - the reaction of the public has not been the same.
Today, the people don't seem to view most BTC workers the helpless victims of ruthless economic and political overlords, but rather highly over-paid, chronically underachieving wasters who have held the rest of us hostage with their incompetence and poor service for far too long.
Consider the fact that only about 300 people showed up at the recent NCTU-TUC Rawson Square demonstration, despite the presence of a large number of labour leaders from a wide array of unions, and that the BCPOU's public town hall meeting last week was attended by only a few hundred people.
As there are 1,200 BTC employees in total, it would seem the union leaders can't even get their own members, let alone the general public, involved in the crusade.
It seems this theory will be tested tonight, as the unions plan to hold a mass anti-BTC sale rally at RM Bailey Park and have invited all members of the public to attend.
We shall see what level of support these union leaders really enjoy - that is, once the crowd estimates have been down-sized to factor in the PLP supporters likely to be bused in to make up the numbers, political rally style.
What do you think?
Email: pnunez@tribunemedia.net
January 10, 2011
Tribune242 Insight
By PACO NUNEZ
Tribune News Editor
After today, it will be even harder than before to keep a straight face when someone tries to tell me there's no political agenda at work in the protest against the sale of BTC.
It might have been possible to overlook the PLP cronies sprinkled throughout the union-led Rawson Square protest before Christmas, or ignore the interesting coincidence of a Trade Union Congress vice president and vocal BTC-sale opponent being chosen as a PLP candidate.
But it would have taken a far larger dose of self-delusion than I am capable of administering to miss the implications of the National Congress of Trade Unions (NCTU) deciding that today, as it commemorates the 1958 general strike, it will also begin recruiting voters for the first time in its history.
I know this is a first, because when the press release was issued on Friday announcing that the NCTU - an umbrella organisation covering a number of unions including the two representing BTC staff - was calling for all its members to descend on the Parliamentary Registration Department at noon on Monday, it struck me as so strange that I sought an explanation.
"Why a voter registration drive?" - a seemingly simple question. It nevertheless met with such a bewildered reaction at NCTU HQ, you'd have thought I'd stumbled on a state secret.
The first person I spoke to declined to offer an answer. The second, very cagey and clearly suspicious, responded, "Because of the anniversary of general strike," as if the one followed logically on from the other.
She seemed very sure this was the reason, repeating her mantra regardless of how I tried to rephrase or qualify the question.
Eventually, she offered the slightly more helpful, "Because of Majority Rule" - which, granted, does seem a better reason to promote the spirit of representative democracy. Except that, as she admitted when asked, the NCTU had never once before, in the organisation's 16-year life, urged its members or affiliates to register as voters.
"Why now?" I asked, but she merely mumbled some blurb to the effect that since they were already planning to commemorate Majority Rule and the General Strike today, they figured, "Might as well add something else to the mix."
It has nothing to do with BTC or the PLP, she insisted.
Now, maybe I'm just a cynic, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that the choice of that specific "something else" while the labour movement is right in the middle of a busy schedule of angry town hall meetings and confrontational press statements - all directed at the government over the BTC sale and all supported by the opposition - was entirely without ulterior motives.
My opinion, I feel, is supported by the fact that the registration drive is being hitched to so emotive an issue as the celebrated General Strike, with all its connotations of taking a stand against injustice, the power of solidarity to overcome adversity and so on.
Then, there's the fact that so many unionists have already sought to tie the protests against BTC to the General Strike, some even threatening a reenactment of the event which paralysed Nassau for around three weeks.
Also, consider that the man who actually announced the voter registration drive on Friday, the NCTU's secretary general Robert Farquharson, is a big fan of the events of 1958, recently conducting a lecture series on their importance and raising the spectre of a repeat performance in 2008 when he threatened a national walkout of 45,000 union members over the BTC privatisation process.
This is the same Robert Farquharson who was lately president of the BCPOU, the union now protesting on behalf of the disgruntled BTC workers.
The same Robert Farquharson who, though vociferously opposed to the government's deal with Cable and Wireless, said nothing when the PLP revealed their earlier deal to sell the company to an unnamed group of foreigners - a decision his successor Bernard Evans distanced himself from, saying he doesn't think any foreign entity should own BTC and that he couldn't speak for Mr Farquharson's actions.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Mr F is taking instructions from the PLP, or trying to drive voters into their waiting arms in the hopes of some political reward. He, like the other union leaders who've declared against the deal, understand the challenge it represents to their powerful and lucrative positions, and probably feel their potential to recruit for the opposition is nothing more than a threatening stick to wave in front of the government right now.
As an old BCPOU man, the NCTU secretary general will be well aware of this potential. After all, his predecessor as president of that union is now the PLP MP for Golden Gates, Shane Gibson, who led a series of high profile, politically-loaded union protests toward the end of the FNM's first stint in power.
Shane Gibson is also one of the point men on the PLP's BTC controversy-stirring team. He and his cohorts are well aware of the possible benefits of hitching their political cart to the anti-Cable and Wireless bandwagon, and I'd be willing to bet that the seed of this new enthusiasm for "voter registration" was subtly planted in the minds of NCTU members following one of the opposition's strategy sessions.
But will it pay off? Will the BTC protests really turn into a mass public movement, a la 1958, and in turn into a political jackpot for the PLP?
My money is on 'No'.
The reason is, while both the General Strike and today's BTC squabble began as protests by a small group of workers trying to protect their own interests - in the earlier case, taxi drivers - the reaction of the public has not been the same.
Today, the people don't seem to view most BTC workers the helpless victims of ruthless economic and political overlords, but rather highly over-paid, chronically underachieving wasters who have held the rest of us hostage with their incompetence and poor service for far too long.
Consider the fact that only about 300 people showed up at the recent NCTU-TUC Rawson Square demonstration, despite the presence of a large number of labour leaders from a wide array of unions, and that the BCPOU's public town hall meeting last week was attended by only a few hundred people.
As there are 1,200 BTC employees in total, it would seem the union leaders can't even get their own members, let alone the general public, involved in the crusade.
It seems this theory will be tested tonight, as the unions plan to hold a mass anti-BTC sale rally at RM Bailey Park and have invited all members of the public to attend.
We shall see what level of support these union leaders really enjoy - that is, once the crowd estimates have been down-sized to factor in the PLP supporters likely to be bused in to make up the numbers, political rally style.
What do you think?
Email: pnunez@tribunemedia.net
January 10, 2011
Tribune242 Insight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)