The proposed government mortgage relief program is now a very important national issue ...and it is imperative that we devise a national solution which is reasoned and considered... ...As corporate citizens, we at Circle Vision Financial Planning (CFAL) are simply interested in good economic policies ...which will further enhance the well-being of all citizens and permanent residents of The Bahamas

Economic View CFAL’s recommendations to the government on the mortgage relief program

CFAL Economic View

We have read with interest varying responses to leading international credit agency Moody’s warning to The Bahamas government on its proposed mortgage relief program.

Readers would recall in this column on April 3, 2012, we at CFAL expressed our concern with the then Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) proposal, as we had difficulty understanding the feasibility of the plan.  While we agreed with several of the recommendations, we also strongly disagreed with others.  This is what makes a market.  It is now the government’s program.

We wrote that “the center of the 2008 global crisis was the mortgage debacle, where the U.S. government through its government funded mortgage agencies provided funding for residential mortgages that in most cases the citizenry was not able to afford.  The end results, foreclosures and a depressed housing market, now headed into its fifth year.  As we all know, in the absence of a holistic economic plan, we continue to be dependent on the success or lack thereof of the U.S. economy.  The Bahamas is now experiencing what the U.S. experienced back in 2008 in the mortgage market as a result of lenient lending practices.  To fix the core of this problem, we need policies that are realistic, achievable, and measurable.”

We went on to say that: “While the idea of providing relief for persons having a difficult time in meeting their mortgage obligations is arguably a good one and one which we support, we have serious questions on some of the specifics outlined in the proposal as reported in The Guardian”.

We also noted that: “In a democracy it is not prudent for the government to mandate any financial institution to do anything; it is the shareholders, directors and management which decides on what course of action should be taken.  Governments and financial services regulators (Central Banks) sometimes resort to ‘moral suasion’ in a credit crisis in order to try and persuade financial institutions to provide relief to mortgage payers.  Alternatively, monetary policy initiatives by the Central Bank in the form of interest rate reductions are applied to solve the issue of mortgage delinquency.  That course of action, particularly with respect to our current predicament, is likely to be ineffective at best.  To date, we do not see the expected positive results.  We can point, however, to the long-term consequences.  It is our view that a holistic plan is needed.  A plan that examines the impact on all stakeholders to avoid unintended consequences.”

The burden

Since Moody’s comments, we read and heard on talk shows where many are recommending that the government simply cut interest rates.  They further state that all should bear the burden.  Well, why should all bear the cost?  “All” did not participate while many were not being prudent.

None of the economic and financial pundits speak to the cost and consequence of the reduction in interest rates.  Perhaps they do not know or choose to be intellectually dishonest in recognizing that it represents a transfer from savers to borrowers.

The recent cut in interest rates had serious consequences for many, including pensioners, National Insurance, insurance companies, the various government and private sector defined benefit pension plan schemes, savers and the Bahamian dollar.  In the United States and Europe, such a policy of artificially low interest rates is increasingly being referred to as “financial repression”.

These pundits continue to refer to the government savings on interest payments of about $25 million per year, but ignore the long-term increase to government debt and the cost associated with it.  We estimate a long-term increase in debt obligations of over $500 million.  The cost of government funding this deficit will outweigh the immediate savings.

As we have written numerous times in this column, “What the Bahamian people need are jobs”.  It’s the only way for us to manage the current and anticipated debt levels save for a significant increase in taxes which the government has indicated it does not intend to do in the short-term.

We believe the government will have to take a hard look at our taxation system as we have indicated on many occasions.  Merely dropping interest rates or guaranteeing interest payments will not cause lenders to extend credit especially since the creditworthiness of many borrowers was and still is slipping.  In the case of new or revised loans at the lower rate, the average monthly benefit will not make much of a difference to the borrower, particularly since it is the principal balance that is often too much for the borrower to bear.

In implementing a relief plan which we support, we urge our government to be mindful of the unintended consequences which can change mortgage funding in the future.  Will financial institutions continue to offer 30-year mortgages or refinancing programs if, for whatever reason, they cannot access collaterals after 15 or 20 years?  It’s not an easy decision.  We must tread carefully.

Solutions

We recommend the new government consider establishing a Long-Term Mortgage Relief Program (LTMRP), whereby a special purpose vehicle (SPV) is created for the expressed purpose of acquiring the distressed mortgages from financial institutions and issuing long-term bonds to fund the acquisition of the same.  A similar structure was used in the United States in the early 1990s to resolve the distressed mortgage and property assets of their Savings & Loan crisis.

We would recommend the government consider the following:

• Articulate clear guidelines on who would qualify for the mortgage relief program

• Relief on residential mortgages only up to a maximum of $500,000

• Purchase loans at a discount (i.e., 20-30 percent) from financial institutions with specific caveats

• Mortgage tenure up to 40 years

• Interest rates on restructured mortgages up to 5.50 percent (as indicated in plan)

• Cap interest spread on bonds issued to purchase the mortgages

• Annual audit by an independent accounting firm.

This would accomplish several things:

• Provide transparency to all

• The government doesn’t interfere in private contracts

• The government can restructure the loans with tenure up to 40-50 years with specific caveats.

The government should then issue fixed rate long-term bonds to fund the SPV.  This will lock in funding costs.  Natural buyers of these bonds will be pensioners, NIB, insurance companies and pension plans.

The government commitment will be defined with supporting assets (the mortgages) with monthly cash-flow which should be net positive for Moody’s and other rating agencies.  An example, if the government issued $75 million in bonds to purchase mortgages at a discount of 20 percent, the proposed interest of 5.50 percent would give the government some .50 basis points to service the mortgages, while having assets worth some $93.75 million.  The net cash cost to government would be a maximum of under $500,000 and the guarantee to support the loans.

Banks and other institutions would have stronger balance sheets, which would encourage them to increase lending to companies to create more jobs and opportunities.

This will reduce any semblance of moral hazard such as dictating the number of payments after which a lending institution will be unable to exercise its foreclosure provisions against a borrower.  What we don’t want is where financial institutions refrain from refinancing activities for fear of potential loss.

The program can be administered by the Bank of The Bahamas for a negotiated maximum cost, a 51 percent government entity to ensure its efficacy.

Reasoned response needed

We would strongly discourage the government from getting in the business of paying its citizens’ mortgage interest payments for any number of reasons, inclusive of moral hazard, perception of special favors to the disadvantage of others, increased debt and the potential to devalue our dollar, all of which can seriously cripple our economy.

We reiterate our comments that given the current economic climate as well as the projected growth trajectory, it is highly unlikely that The Bahamas could afford this expenditure except if we are able to grow the economy (provide more jobs) on the order of 10 percent per annum.

The proposed government mortgage relief program is now a very important national issue and it is imperative that we devise a national solution which is reasoned and considered.  As corporate citizens, we at CFAL are simply interested in good economic policies which will further enhance the well-being of all citizens and permanent residents of The Bahamas.

What we do not wish to see is capital being inadvertently driven away because of some ill-advised economic policy.  Whatever we think of the rating agencies, including Moody’s, their comments can cause our cost of capital to increase substantially in the future.

We should not dismiss their claims, but embrace them and articulate in a coherent manner the details of the proposed solution and chart a course in the best interest of The Bahamas, realizing that The Bahamas lives in a global environment.

• CFAL is a sister company of The Nassau Guardian under the AF Holdings Ltd. umbrella.  CFAL provides investment management, research, brokerage and pension services.  For comments, please contact CFAL at: column@cfal.com

May 23, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

If we want to encourage the best and the brightest citizens to enter into the elective political arena... we should seek to eliminate the observation of U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton that: “Elections are more often bought than won”

Campaign financing: A better way

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

“We need real campaign finance reform to loosen the grip of special interests on politics." - Tom Daschle

 

Every five years around election time, incessant lip service is paid to campaign financing.  It can only be lip service because after the ballots have been cast, counted and catalogued, the notion of campaign finance reform retires to hibernation – that is, until the next general election.  Therefore, this week, we would like to Consider This…what practical approaches can we realistically take regarding how we finance political campaigns in The Bahamas?

Unquestionably, politics has become an extremely expensive exercise.  When one considers the cost of political rallies, paraphernalia, including T-shirts and other garments now available, flags, posters, signage, printing of flyers, advertisements, including newspaper, radio and television broadcasts and commercials, the cost is staggering.  Let’s not forget the direct cost of personnel employed by political parties; the cost of constituency offices, sometimes four or five, particularly in the Family Islands; the cost of electricity, water, and telephones; the cost of food and beverages; of political consultants; and the printing of party platforms.  When these and other costs are considered, the real cost of staging a general election could very easily cost $250,000 per constituency or nearly $10 million per party.  So how are political parties expected to finance such a mammoth undertaking?

Using the public purse

It has become commonplace for the government of the day to use the power of the public purse to significantly finance its party’s political campaign.  We observed this practice when the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was in power; we witnessed it in the by-election in Elizabeth two years ago; and we are seeing it again in the current general election.  While this has been a common practice, the Free National Movement (FNM) government seems to have taken this phenomenon to new heights.

Shortly after announcing the general election of 2012, the government launched a record contract signing marathon.  The $12 million contract for the construction of a new clinic in North Abaco and a multimillion-dollar contract for a new hospital in Exuma are a few examples of this.

Last weekend, amidst great public fanfare at police headquarters, the prime minister awarded $1 million to charitable organizations.  Ironically, this is the same government that – only one year earlier – reduced the government’s subvention to such organizations during the annual budget debate in the House of Assembly.  This is the same government that discontinued the extremely effective YEAST program that provided a positive prototype for young Bahamian men at risk and the same government that canceled the effective and internationally celebrated urban renewal program established by the PLP.

No matter which party is in power, an intelligent and discerning public should look askance at the government of the day exploiting and abusing the public purse in order to win votes after elections have been called.

Campaign contributions

In The Bahamas, political campaigns are predominantly financed by contributions from persons, companies, and organizations that believe in the democratic process and want to ensure that the message of the political party that they support is widely and successfully disseminated.

In the absence of campaign finance laws, there are no restrictions on who can contribute to a political party and how much they can donate.  Accordingly, anyone -- Bahamians and foreigners – can contribute any amount to anyone at any time without any accountability whatsoever.  The real question that we must address for the future health of our democracy is whether this is a desirable practice?

It has become customary for political contributions to be made in private, sometimes on the condition of confidentiality and often in secrecy with only a select few members of the party knowledgeable regarding the source of the funds.

Campaign 2012 has seen a new development in political funding.  During the last few mass rallies, the prime minister has publicly appealed from the podium for campaign contributions, describing it as a further deepening of our democracy by allowing the public to become investors in his party.  While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, it is unprecedented and uncharacteristic.  We have never before seen this prime minister – or any other for that matter – beg for money from a public podium.

It therefore begs the question: why has he done so now, during what he says is his last campaign?  He alluded to the answer to this question on Thursday past at a mass rally on R. M. Bailey Park when he said that he will not tolerate anyone in his Cabinet who has financially benefited from conflicts of interest.

We believe that he made this appeal for financial contributions because, while the FNM is still well-funded by those wealthy interest groups who support him in order to continue reaping his government’s largess, some of his traditional sources of funding are less generous than they have been in the past.  This is possibly because he has cut some of his more financially well-connected candidates for reasons already stated and reiterated again from that podium last Thursday in a purposefully vague but very revealing way.

Campaign finance reform

Clearly, as the prime minister is opening party funding up to the masses in ways never seen before, the time has come to enact campaign financing legislation.  There are several things that can be done in order to impose strict controls for campaign fund-raising, primarily to level the playing field and to minimize disparate levels of funding campaigns by the various political parties.  Campaign financing legislation should also establish disclosure requirements with respect to funding and spending in elections.

Such a law could introduce statutory limits on contributions by individuals, organizations and companies, which would remove the influence of big money from politics and should also prohibit foreign influences from invading the local political process.

There should also be limits on large potential donors to prevent them from gaining extraordinary political access or favorable legislation or other concessions in return for their contributions.  Campaign finance laws should also provide for the capping of such funding and for the disclosure of sources of campaign contributions and expenditures.  It should also limit or prohibit government contractors from making contributions with respect to such elections.

Campaign financing legislation could even provide for matching funds by the government for all the candidates in order to ensure that the playing field truly is level and to enhance clean elections.

Finally, in order to more vigilantly protect the public purse, the law should strictly prohibit a government from signing any new contracts after general or by-elections are called.

Conclusion

Campaigns will become more expensive as time progresses.  As we mature politically, we should seek to ensure that political parties operate on a level playing field and remove the barriers to participation in the democratic process because of a lack of funding.  If we want to encourage the best and the brightest citizens to enter into the elective political arena, we should seek to eliminate the observation of U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton that: “Elections are more often bought than won”.

 

Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament.  Please send your comments to: pgalanis@gmail.com

Apr 23, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

There is nothing wrong with religious figures speaking at political events... ...They are citizens too ...and thus have the right to voice their concerns about the direction of their country

Reasonableness, family and politics

thenassauguardian

Retired Archbishop Drexel Gomez’s appearance at a Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) rally on Friday in North Andros has caused some controversy.  He is the former head of the Anglican Church in the West Indies.

Bishop Gomez appeared at the rally and spoke in support of his brother Dr. Perry Gomez, the PLP’s candidate for North Andros and the Berry Islands.  Dr. Gomez has led the fight in The Bahamas against HIV/AIDS as long-time director of the National AIDS Programme.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham raised the question about the appropriateness of Bishop Gomez addressing the political event while he addressed Free National Movement (FNM) supporters in Long Island on Monday night.

“And I saw the former archbishop of The Bahamas, Bishop Gomez, who was down there in his bishop's collar.  I do call upon Perry Christie to apologize for that.  He knows better,” said Ingraham.

“Many of you Anglicans who celebrate Lent time do not do such things.  In fact, I saw Father Sebastian Campbell in the newspaper complaining about us holding meetings during Lent.  Well what [do] you think about a bishop on the political podium during Lent?”

Bishop Gomez on Tuesday dismissed Ingraham’s call for Christie to apologize for allowing him to address the rally.

“I was there simply because I was invited by my brother, who was having the formal opening of his headquarters in Nicholl’s Town,” Bishop Gomez told The Nassau Guardian after being contacted for a comment.

He pointed out that he stayed clear of political statements when he addressed PLP supporters.

“I felt I was the most appropriate person to make the presentation, as the older member of the family and the person who has been in the public domain,” Bishop Gomez said.

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

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

Now as we proceed through the election cycle, there will be many questions raised about many things in the effort to advance political causes.  While it is good for us to have robust debates, we must be reasonable.

There is nothing wrong with religious figures speaking at political events.  They are citizens too and have the right to voice their concerns about the direction of the country.  We think, however, that it would be irresponsible for religious figures to go as far as ‘anointing’ a political party or candidate as ‘God’s choice’, consequently suggesting that opponents stand against divine will.

Reverend Frederick McAlpine is a FNM senator and in the past he regularly spoke at FNM rallies.  He is a charismatic speaker and is good at firing up the crowd.  There is nothing wrong with him doing this, just as there is nothing wrong with Bishop Gomez speaking in support of his younger brother.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with Delores Ingraham, wife of the prime minister, attending political events and standing on stage with her husband.  She is a public servant and is principal of C.C. Sweeting High School.  There is a prohibition against public servants being involved in frontline politics, but commonsense must be used in evaluating that standard.

We hope that as the political crossfire continues the combatants don’t reach for any old thing to bludgeon their opponents with.  Reasonableness should guide the process.

Mar 08, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Perry Christie says: A STRONG "voters' block" made up of naturalised citizens is one reason successive governments have not taken a strong stance against the illegal immigration dilemma

Governments 'fear Haitians who can now vote'



By TANEKA THOMPSON
Deputy Chief Reporter
tthompson@tribunemedia.net


A STRONG "voters' block" made up of naturalised citizens is one reason successive governments have not taken a strong stance against the illegal immigration dilemma, said Opposition Leader Perry Christie yesterday.

The Progressive Liberal Party chief said when his party assumed office in 2002, it found an immigration policy in place that mandated that any immigrant who came to the Bahamas before 1985 would be afforded status but after 1985 government would be able to use its discretion on whether or not to regularise them. He said the PLP left this policy in place despite calls from the Haitian government to adjust this policy.

However, this policy has influenced subsequent immigration policy, he said.

"We have to recognise the pitfall of this in the execution of the policy. Once governments become frightened of the numbers of Haitians who have become Bahamians and who can vote. Therefore they have become an important voting block, so somewhere along the line the purity of the commitment to protect the Bahamas and its territorial waters is sort of merged to the fear of doing things that might cause you to lose an election.

". . .We allowed ourselves to be influenced too much by their presence as opposed to using our own commitment to convince and satisfy them that they are Bahamians, accepted as Bahamians, and that the programmes that we are offering them to close down illegal immigrants coming into our country are programmes as much in their favour as in any other Bahamian's favour.

"A will has to be developed," he said. "With developing it, there has to be an understanding on our part that the Haitian-Bahamian is in fact a Bahamian.

"And we must not be insecure in speaking to them as Bahamians and getting them to be a part of what we're doing because we're protecting the country for them.

"We are all in the same boat."

Mr Christie added that Bahamians have to realise that the country has been a melting pot of different nationalities for decades who must all be included in a national discussion on immigration policies.

He added that government must expend the same financial resources to the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, to allow it to properly man the country's borders, which was spent on the ongoing public infrastructure programmes.

"We have to do better, we have to do more and most certainly if God gives me the opportunity to form the next government of the Bahamas that is the kind of resolve that we will bring to governance and the kind of, I think, stiff application of policies that will take place," he added.

Mr Christie also took shots at Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest who, he said, disparaged him in the lead up to the 2002 election for not having a handle on the crime problem at the time.

"Now they rue the day they said that," said Mr Christie, noting the 87 murders recorded for the year and record breaking murder statistics which have happened under the Free National Movement's watch.

August 08, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...steps will be taken to commence a judicial review of the decision of Environment Minister Dr Earl Deveaux in his capacity as minister - to allow for the redevelopment of Bell Island in the manner which has been announced by him, his ministry and the Bahamas National Trust (BNT).

Judicial review to be sought over Bell Island decision
tribune242



A JUDICIAL review will be sought over the decision to allow for the redevelopment of Bell Island, according to a local attorney.

In a press release, attorney Keod Smith stated that steps will be taken to start a judicial review of the decision by Environment Minister Earl Deveaux to grant permission to dredge and excavate more than 12 acres of land and sea at the 349-acre island in the Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park.

Plans to dredge three areas to accommodate vessels up to 150 ft long, excavate a marina and redevelop a barge landing, were submitted by Islands of Discovery Ltd after Prince Karim Aga Khan bought the island last year.

The permits will allow developers to excavate 4.32 acres of upland area for the yacht basin, 2.56 acres of marine area for an outer channel, 4.28 acres of marine area for a barge landing and 1.9 acres of marine area for the outer area of the barge landing within 11 months.

Mr Smith said: "I have been authorised to say that steps will be taken to commence judicial review of the decision of Dr Deveaux in his capacity as minister to allow for the redevelopment of Bell Island in the manner which has been announced by him, his ministry and the BNT."

"The impact upon my clients, who are Bahamian citizens, is that the pristine nature of the park and the marine and land habitat of creatures inclusive of those that are endangered and/or under statutory protection will be put in jeopardy.

"This decision therefore will have a grave economic impact upon my clients and followed a process which we assert is both illegal and procedurally unfair."

Mr Smith did not name his clients, stating only that he was approached by concerned citizens who wanted to explore the legal options available to them.

December 01, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) supports the $2.6 billion Baha Mar project

PLP SUPPORTS BAHA MAR
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE
Guardian Senior Reporter
kdl@nasguard.com

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)Leader Perry Christie last night threw his party's support behind the $2.6 billion Baha Mar project, while accusing Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham of seeking to negotiate a new Cable Beach deal on his upcoming trip to China.

At an hour-and-a-half news conference held at the PLP's Farrington Road headquarters, Christie stressed that the current economic conditions in the country call for the project to be embraced.

"It is in a very real sense, the only new substantial ray of sunshine that has presented itself. Nothing else holds out the kind of promise that Baha Mar does,"said Christie.

"It is not so much that it is the best big project that is available right now, the reality is that it is the only big project that is available to us right now. We do not have a choice. We do not have the luxury of choosing between the Baha Mar project and some other big project. Baha Mar is the only one that has the capacity right now to inject some desperately needed adrenaline into this anemic economy that is ailing us now."

Christie said it would be useless for Ingraham to negotiate a new deal with the Chinese without project developer Sarkis Izmirlian and his group at the same negotiating table.

"There needs to be a tripartite approach to this. Simple logic and plain, good sense demand it,"said the PLP leader.

"Suppose the prime minister negotiates a new deal that the Izmirlians cannot or will not live with? What then? What would he have accomplished then?" Christie asked." In that case, one foot forward would have been taken followed by two steps backward. That makes no kind of sense."

Ingraham is scheduled to leave for China today. He said earlier this week he would be meeting with China State Construction Engineering Corporation and the China Export-Import Bank to discuss the project the proposed contractor and financier of the project.

"I therefore call upon the prime minister to invite representatives of the Baha Mar group to join his meeting with the Chinese in China. It is, after all, Baha Mar's project. It seems only sensible and logical and appropriate to have the project owners at the table too so that everything can be settled all at the same time,"Christie said.

The opposition leader also criticized Ingraham for, what he described as, changing the requirements the developers must satisfy before the deal reaches Parliament.

"We don't have a hope in hell of being taken seriously by investors, especially in these very difficult times, if we continue to have a prime minister who keeps on changing the rules of engagement with investors, and who on top of that, believes in negotiation by press conferences,"Christie said.

"You cannot be calling press conferences to tell investors what they must do in order to win your favor. You cannot be telling them one thing in private and then call a press conference to lay down a whole new set of conditions."

Baha Mar's vision is to create a world-class resort destination, which represents the largest single-phase resort in the Caribbean.

Baha Mar has requested 8,150 work permits for the project. It is expected that the majority of the foreign workers helping to construct the project will be Chinese. The current deal requires that the core of the project be exclusively built by foreign labor.

The PLP's official 38-page position on Baha Mar was delivered by Bain and Grants Town MP Dr. Bernard Nottage.

While stating that the PLP supports the project, Dr. Nottage said they expect any deal would:

- Maximize the participation of Bahamian construction and related labor content, including both skilled and unskilled workers.

- Minimize the foreign construction labor content to that which is required for the successful completion and implementation of the project.

- Ensure training and skills transfer for Bahamian construction workers during the course of the entire project.

- Ensure that Bahamians are trained and available for permanent jobs in the operation of the resort.

- Ensure that there will be a myriad of opportunities for Bahamian entrepreneurs to benefit from in the resort when completed.

"The size and scope of this project represent the magnitude of what is needed to provide jobs for the vast number of Bahamian citizens who emerge onto the job market on an annual basis,"said Dr. Nottage.

10/22/2010

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas Independence: Rethinking the progress after 37 years

Rethinking the progress after 37 years
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Report
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:


WHEN the entire country stood at attention for the very first playing of the Bahamas national anthem and saluted the Bahamas flag for the first time in 1973, did these newly minted Bahamian citizens imagine the Bahamas as it would be in 2010? Thirty-seven years after independence, how would they answer the question: Have the gains achieved since independence translated into true progress?

Eighty-one-year-old Euterpie Thompson of Grants Town said for the first time ever she wished she could pick up her house and move somewhere else. She said she gets “no pleasure going out on the street.”

This year is the worst in her memory. She does not see how political representatives spend money in the community, and all she can see is “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”

Ninety-seven-year-old veteran straw vendor Doris Grant-Strachan said the Bahamas is worse today than it was during the time of independence.

“I don’t think the country has gotten better. Too much stealing, killing. To me it is worse; since independence things have gotten worse. Children are going astray from small,” said Mrs Grant-Strachan.

People often dismiss the elderly in their recollection of the “good old days” as little more than nostalgic meandering, but given the level of crime and violence, the socio-economic inequality, the materialism, and the modern value systems that characterise the Bahamas today, perhaps there is credence to their claims.

When Sir Lynden Pindling spoke to the House of Assembly in March 1972, to present the green paper on independence, he said: “Only through independence will the country be able to fulfil its development ideals, completing the transition from traditional society to social and economic modernity.”

Former Bahamian Ambassador and agro-consultant Godfrey Eneas said in his recollection of the independence movement there was a fundamental concern about the social injustices and the economic inequities in Bahamian society at the time. He believes the founding fathers were concerned about “trying to level the socio-economic field.”

As to the level of progress towards achieving that vision, Mr Eneas said the country has experienced a lot of transformation, some good, some not so good.

“We are a society which responds to events. We are not in a position to dictate the course of anything. We are extremely vulnerable to the vagaries of industrialised societies, principally the United States. Because of our dependency on these societies; dependency on tourism as an economic engine; dependency on food, (computer) technology; on even how we think about ourselves, all of these factors have impacted the Bahamian since independence, hence the need for a new sense of self,” said Mr Eneas, who is also the author of, “The New Caribbean: A Region in Transition”, and “Agriculture In the Bahamas (1492-1992).”

Classist:

“Rather than a society which denotes ones standing based on race, we have now become more of a classist society. But yet we still have social mobility: one can be born anywhere and aspire or achieve a position of importance,” said Mr Eneas.

Mrs Grant-Strachan said some black people fueled the class divisions by seeking to disassociate themselves from the “poor black people.”

“The black people were trying to be like the white people, some of them. They would fight against their own people. They were mean to their own colour, so they could get more wealthy. They didn’t treat them nice at all,” said Mrs Grant-Strachan.

“I believe they looked up to the white people, because most black people was working for the whites. They would rather be with the white man, because you are black and poor. When these black people got a raise, when you had nothing and happen to get something, I am telling you, some of them were mean. If they had places on rent, or so much money in the bank that time they were big shot, you can’t talk to them, although you black and they black,” she said.

Mr Eneas said he did not subscribe to that belief, and thought it was only applicable to “some people who did not have any training, who were not socialised properly.”

“We have become a very materialistic society. I think that has impacted our view of one another. We see people in terms of what they own; whether they have a big house, big car and that is what people aspire to be instead of looking at the content of one’s character. So in terms of values we have digressed. Economically we have gotten better,” he said.

The country is better off in terms of women’s rights and economic growth, but “a lot of people have displaced values because of material gains,” said Loretta Butler-Turner, granddaughter of founding father Sir Milo Butler, and Minister of State for Social Development in the Free National Movement government.

“You have to weigh it. Whatever we do must be balanced. Bahamians have been people historically who have always measured things materially, from the days of pirates. We have always been geographically positioned where we have always had access to false buoyancy in our economy. So many times when we (compare) our GDP to our Caribbean nations we say we are better off, because we have more money, but when you look intellectually, we are seen to be not so intellectually inclined in the Caribbean,” said Mrs Butler-Turner.

On July 10, 1973, Mrs Butler-Turner said she was a 12-year-old girl. She transitioned from adolescence to adulthood in the two post-independence decades, and has “very vivid recollections” of the era, including the drug trafficking that defined that period. This was also a period of population growth and urbanisation. Mrs Butler-Turner worked closely in her family’s funeral business, and recalls the Bahamas going through “some very difficult years.”

Mrs Butler-Turner said she can identify with the sentiment that “we are not better off”, because as the country transitioned into economic modernity it brought about materialism and social degradation. Even still, she believes it is possible for people to “have very principled values and live a very good life without being compromised by materialism.”

“I still maintain we have made progress on many levels, but ... we need our value systems reinstated. It is the value systems that are out of whack that makes us such a materialistic country. Pre-independence we had much stronger moral values. Post independence we have lost some of those values to economic and material gains. That is my summation. People have to decide which one they prefer. Personally, I probably prefer pre-independence. I think we were more human in spirit,” she said.

The materialism that spread post-independence, may have been fed by the “sense of entitlement” people associated with independence. Some people say there was an expectation that independence would herald in a Robert Mugabe like transfer of wealth that would create socio-economic equality between whites and blacks.

A white Bahamian recalled mowing his lawn one day leading up to the independence celebration. He said a black man stopped in front of his wall and was staring at him. When he inquired about what was going on, the onlooker said “I was just looking at houses I wanted after the election.” The home owner said, “If you want this house you better come mow the lawn.”

Housekeeper:

Another white Bahamian recalled that her housekeeper ordinarily came to work dressed very conservatively. The day after the 1967 general election, she came to work wearing “bright red capri pants expecting to take over the house.”

Mrs Butler-Turner said “a sense of entitlement” could have been brought on unwittingly by the black government of the day, who sought to bring about socio-economic equality. She feels it may have been misleading for some to think that independence meant “we are going to be able to take everything over.”

“There was a feeling that everything that was controlled by the minority would come under the control of the masses with independence, not understanding it still boils down to whether we are prepared to work for what we have,” said Mrs Butler-Turner.

“My recollection was that we were unequal to our rulers before independence. After independence, we were not just going to become equal but entitled. It made a lot of people, who even may not have been prepared intellectually, feel like they had a sense of entitlement.

“Bahamians everywhere felt the floodgates were going to be open without truly understanding it was going to take a lot of hard work to achieve their dreams,” she said.

The question of how we measure progress is important to consider, according to Mrs Butler-Turner. She said the ancient scriptures offer a perspective on success, when they state: “What does it prophet a man if he inherits the world and loses his soul.”

The average Bahamian in their 50s or 60s who grew up in Grants Town, Bain Town, Farm Road, or Englerston had a very different experience growing up in those areas than Bahamians today. That is not the romantic memories of old people, past the age of promise. That is the living memory of many people in the working class, the black middle and upper class community, the political class and the elderly.

“People may have lacked certain material things but there was pride.

“It was reflected in the level of civility, the work ethic, the value system, the way people kept their houses, cleaned their yards,” said Mr Eneas.

Ms Thompson of Grants Town suggests that people today live beyond their means. She said mothers are too young and are having too many children. Ms Thompson had five children and her mother had twelve. Asked to explain why it was okay then and not now, she said: “Not all the time you have the means to take care of children.”

She said her mother with 12 children had “less in a way, money wise,” but “there was no scarcity.” She said they could find fruits all the time: tamarind, cane, mango, bananas, sapodilla. She said her mother owned land in the Family Islands and worked the fields, planting pigeon peas, corn and beans.

She said things are also “more backwards” for women in certain ways, specifically as it relates to reproductive rights.

She said women have to “spend money and do so much” to simply give birth. Four of her five children were born at home. Today, health regulations require women to give birth in the hospital or a registered birthing centre.

“Once you have trained nurses, nothing wrong with giving birth at home,” said Ms Thompson. Home births also have cultural significance in traditional African communities.

In the past 37 years, the influence of urbanisation has had a negative impact on the Bahamas, bringing with it social problems “in terms of the violence and the abuse, and the drug and alcohol addictions,” according to Mr Eneas. He said 85 per cent of the population live between Grand Bahama and New Providence. To this day, he said, “we still haven’t addressed (the urban crisis); there are still people who live in squalor.”

“We have a society where both parents are working; where the large majority are single mothers, and so the way children are brought up today is very different from the way my parents were brought up or your father was brought up. That has impacted us tremendously,” he said.

What are the lessons to be learned from the cries of the elderly, who have the perspective that comes with age. What can the past teach us about our present predicament, and where we are headed.

In an effort to create an independent Bahamas, did we chart a course for true progress or did we just change the face of the same colonial system?

The reality is, some in the modern Bahamas would say black people are free, women are liberated and we have money in our pockets, so who cares.

The question is, do you?

July 11, 2010

tribune242

Bahamas Blog International