Bahamians are Suffering in The Bahamas, Prime Minister Davis!

An Open Letter to Prime Minister Davis on Bahamian Suffering 

The cost of running The Bahamas is placed entirely on the backs of those least able to afford it, the wage earners, the poorest of us.

Dear Mr. Davis, 

You have spent much time lately talking about inflation impacting the high cost of living here in The Bahamas.  It is striking to me that for the most part, you and the majority of your class are completely immune from the realities facing MOST Bahamians. 

Most Bahamians do not have the luxuries you do.  Perhaps you have earned these luxuries.  Yet, I would argue that living paycheck to paycheck, uncertain of what tomorrow will bring economically, should not be the fate of most Bahamians in 2023, in a relatively rich country. 

Yet, these are our realities, Mr. Davis, not yours.  So, how can you say you and your party truly “represent” us?  How can you say we are all in this together? 

Even more important, is what you are not saying regarding the dire situation The Bahamas faces as a whole; in the collapse of our standard of living, rising crime, a 100% debt to GDP ratio, millions of dollars leaving our coffers on a daily basis to pay off loans which were taken out solely to cover up the corruption, theft, inefficiency and incompetency of our political class. 

This is before we confront the very real and near term costs associated with climate change mitigation.  Let me be direct here, Mr. Davis, most of our social problems stem directly from the regressive and odious taxation policies here at home. 

I am claiming that, above all else that is going on in the world, our own taxation scheme is what is causing the pain and suffering here in The Bahamas.  You have not mentioned this, as far as I know. 

Instead, you focus on things we can do nothing about.  There are things we can do here and now that would be game changers for our standard of living and hopes for our children's future. 

All this talk of Duty, VAT, NIB contributions, rising fuel and electricity costs, business licenses, of hiring people to go around as “price controllers”, is utter nonsense.  These are diversionary tactics to hide the real villain. 

Trickle down economics, upon which the premise of our taxation scheme is predicated, has proven to be an utter intellectual fallacy.  This experiment has failed everywhere in the world.  Why do we still cling to this lie that if we don't tax the rich our economy will prosper and everyone will be better off? 

The cost of running The Bahamas is placed entirely on the backs of those least able to afford it, the wage earners, the poorest of us.  Here in The Bahamas, we have taxation exactly backwards.  Rich people can come to the Disney World of the Caribbean, our Bahamas, and live virtually tax free.  No tax on their income.  No tax on their business gains, no real property tax, to speak of.  Is this fair? 

All taxes placed on businesses, are passed along to the consumer, the poorest of us.  With this recent FTX scandal, what stood out to me was not the level of criminality involved.  What really struck me was how willing we were to take Sam Bankman Fried's ill-gotten money and use it for frivolous political contributions, sports stadiums, high end real estate, yet not use a penny of it to ease the burdens of most Bahamians. 

Before a Bahamian wage earner's money is touched by the Bahamian government, we need to agree upon and implement a fair, reasonable and Christian way of taxing our people.  A progressive income tax is one way.  Taxing those best able to pay. 

Arguing against this is can only work with those uneducated and ignorant of fiscal and Christian thinking.  Regressive taxation, as we have here, is in the same category as defending marital rape.  

Smart, educated Christian people simply can't defend these policies anymore.  To ignore the very real social costs of our present taxation system is unacceptable. 

Our rising crime is economic in nature.  Poverty, homelessness, poor nutrition, poor educational outcomes, mental health issues, and suicide are all directly tied to our declining financial security. 

I maintain that it is not just poor household decisions which are at the root of these ills, rather they are a direct result of our unchristian, and unfair taxation of our people, by the political ruling class.  Until you are honest Mr. Davis, about the true causes of human suffering here in The Bahamas, you will only be a politician, never a leader. 

A true leader of the people would wish for the best possible outcome for all of us, and speak the truth.  A true leader would not support policies that benefit a select few, as you do now, who get richer by the day. 

If we are all truly in this together, the present status quo is unacceptable. Period.  You do not have to be a PhD. in economics to see what is going on here. 

That you do not have in your administration, even one bold, moral and intellectually honest member willing to speak to this matter, says wonders.  From my perspective, neither the PLP or the FNM, nor any other fringe party, has any hope of leading our country into the future. 

For all the talk of Christianity in this country, I find it absolutely incredible that we continue, in a methodical and calculating way, to place such unchristian burdens on the backs of those the bible refers to as, the least of us.  We are not behaving as a Christian country. 

Let's quit pretending, and claiming that we are a Christian nation, until we get our odious taxation system in line with Christian values.  Mr. Davis, the Bahamian people are only asking for fairness and decency. 

For too long we have accepted the short end of the stick, all for the benefit of the well-to-do and rich class, whom we refuse to tax adequately and fairly.  Until we make this substantial change of how we raise taxes to run this country, and pay our politicians, I can see no progress in our country that benefits the majority of the Bahamian people.  Until we fix our broken tax scheme, our social and fiscal ills will continue to get worse. 

Porcupine

The one thing that is clear to me ...is that a government has five years to govern ...if the prime minister does not call early elections

The government must govern

Having watched the budget debate over the past few weeks, I was encouraged by the fact that there was some discussion which created dialogue not only amongst the parliamentarians, but also the citizenry. It was interesting to see issues such as the proposed web shop gaming regulation, value-added tax, concerns about transparency in the budget presentation, freedom of information, crime, etc., thoroughly ventilated by government and opposition parliamentarians.

Contrary to what some may think, it is healthy for parliamentarians to constructively comment on matters that may appear contentious even if the view put forward is divergent from the political party they support. What were even more interesting were the political innuendos that were generated from the rousing discourse.

I am extremely pleased as a Bahamian to see that our democracy is alive and well. We are evolving as a young, independent country to a point where the next generation is being vocal in all aspects of society. For the generations born post-independence, it should be recognized that protesting, arguments and divergent views did not just come into existence in the past few years. It was because of a generation of young people in the 1950s that was the catalyst for independence in 1973. The key issue here is that when we understand our history, the adage, “the more things change, the more they remain the same”, is so true in our little Bahamas.

Like any other developing country, The Bahamas has its fair share of challenges. It also has an electorate that expects instant solutions to all the problems. Quite frankly that forms the basis of a potentially disappointed electorate that wants things to happen, and to happen right now. Surely, that is a recipe for disaster as there has to be a methodical and deliberate approach to governance that affects solutions that will be meaningful and truly beneficial.

This is not just a theoretical view, but one grounded in reality. Regardless of what each of us thinks should be done with respect to every government decision that is made, it is our collective efforts that elected the government to do the job that they are doing and it is our responsibility to make our views known to them in a respectable and articulate manner.

We cannot justly criticize the government for decisions that are being made which will ultimately result in a better way forward for us, simply because we lack the intellectual capacity to suggest alternatives that are better than the decisions they are making.

The level of ignorance that some have with regard to good governance and informed decision making reaches a point that is higher than the all the dung the wild donkeys of Inagua can produce. The electorate has an obligation to make rational and reasonable recommendations to its members of Parliament.

It cannot be right that we elect our members of Parliament to make decisions on our behalf, criticize them, yet offer no logical set of solutions for consideration that is equal to or better than the positions they are taking.

Shared responsibility is what can occur when the citizens and the elected officials work to address the challenges and problems of a society.

While we may argue about the manner and form in which policies are implemented, the substance of the matter is equally important. Isn’t it ironic that the electorate, which enjoys the nice roads of New Providence today, is the same electorate that criticized the former administration and resoundingly voted them out of office in the 2012 elections?

Likewise the same electorate voted overwhelmingly in support of the current administration, yet many are quick to condemn the government for decisions it has made.

The one thing that is clear to me is that a government has five years to govern if the prime minister does not call early elections. If it is the case that the government has five years to govern, the electorate in all fairness must give the government a chance to govern so as to lawfully fulfill the promises as set out in their commitment on election day.

To take a critical approach before the government is able to achieve its objectives is not only illogical, but suggests that the electorate does not expect the government to fulfill its promises or it believes the government is disingenuous. Either way, it is not helpful for good governance. It should be clear that I am not advocating that we not have critical reviews and/or thoughts over decisions made or contemplated by the government. I am suggesting that we ought to be forward thinking and frank in our expectations and support of a government to govern.

In The Bahamas it is neither rational nor necessary to complain about the government when citizens do not advocate and speak to their members of Parliament. What part are you going to play in the struggles of our country? How are you going to assist the government to make a difference? If it is that you are of the view that just being opposite to every policy decision or administrative action will make for a better democracy, then that may be a role citizens may wish to take on. However, if you want to make a lasting impact by affecting policy today, ensure you communicate with members of Parliament. Citizen action is an essential component of a robust democracy.

The government was elected by the people with a clear and focused agenda. The budget debate always gives citizens and residents an opportunity to critically analyze the direction that the government intends for the country. Are there always areas of focus which can be better aligned to the needs of the country? Will the decisions taken be in our best interest? The answers to these questions are arguably subjective. Objectively, this is a little past the second year of the current administration and in spite of the various views, they must govern.

• John Carey served as a member of Parliament from 2002 to 2007.

June 20, 2014

thenassauguardian

...the financial terms that currently exist between Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) and the Bahamian government are “nonsense”

Govt urged to address oil terms

Senior oil sector source calls financial benefits ‘a give away’

By Alison Lowe
Guardian Business Editor
alison@nasguard.com

The government is being advised to move quickly to update the terms of its agreement with Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC), which have been dubbed by BPC itself, in addition to by local and international oil industry watchers, as extremely favorable to the company.

Earl Deveaux, former minister of the environment under the Ingraham administration, told Guardian Business that he agrees with BPC Chief Executive Officer Simon Potter’s assessment expressed at a recent London energy conference that the terms on which the government and BPC and its partners would share any oil revenues would appear to be “second to none” in the world for their generosity to the oil company.

Deveaux told Guardian Business that these terms and many other issues should be subject to greater public discussion.

In an address to the London Global Energy Conference on September 16, Potter said that the financial terms surrounding any potential oil discovery in The Bahamas are likely to be “music to people’s ears” given that they revolve around a “simple royalty” payment to the government of 12.5 percent, increasing to 25 percent if oil extraction reaches over 350,000 barrels a day.

Potter noted that the government could seek to change the terms, but highlighted that the Privy Council in London “ultimately remains the final court of appeal” in The Bahamas, suggesting that a legal challenge could be launched were the government to seek to change the terms.

Yesterday, a senior oil industry source in Trinidad and Tobago, which has long benefitted from its own highly-developed oil sector, told Guardian Business that the financial terms that currently exist between BPC and the government are “nonsense”.

“It would amount to a giveaway of the oil sector,” said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He noted that while Potter highlighted a zero income, corporate or capital gains tax environment in The Bahamas from which the oil company would also benefit, in Trinidad and Tobago royalty payments are accompanied by a production levy on gross income from crude oil, a supplemental petroleum tax based on oil prices that range from zero to 35 percent, a petroleum profits tax or corporation tax charged at 50 percent of gross revenues from all sources less deductible expenses and allowances, and an unemployment levy of five percent.

“Trinidad and Tobago has applied a high taxation regime and has been very successful in doing so,” said the source. “They should think about making changes sooner rather than later.”

Deveaux agreed it would benefit the government to address the financial terms in the short term, rather than waiting until BPC has secured its drilling partner, which it is seeking to partner with to undertake the exploratory well, or until after exploration occurs.

“I would agree that the terms of the petroleum leases are very generous and I have no idea what he’s offered to his prospective investors, but if it reflects what the government has provided for in the lease I expect it would be among the most generous in the world.

“I’ve always maintained publicly and privately that if we were to ever go down the road of exploiting oil reserves in The Bahamas, we would have to sit down and renegotiate those things.”

“I think it is infinitely easier now for the government to undertake any contemplated change that it may wish than if it waited until an exploratory well is drilled or a commercial discovery is made.”

Deveaux said that he sees a broad-ranging discussion about many aspects of what it means for The Bahamas to develop an oil industry as necessary and lacking at present.

“There hasn’t been any discussion, and it’s unfortunate,” said Deveaux.

“We have plenty reasons to review the overall regime and legislation. It was done at the time when certain things were not a part of our reality. We didn’t have Exxon Valdez, the BP oil spill, deep sea drillings off Mexico or Brazil and we didn’t have prospect of rising sea levels from temperature increases. We have to factor in today’s realities, and there are compelling reasons to review it.

“I think the financial reasons are important (reasons to review the terms), but I don’t list them as any more important than others. I would be engaging BPC in discussions about how we would manage this resource for all the reasons I listed and how we would create capacity in The Bahamas.

“There’s the whole review of how natural resource contribution of The Bahamas’ environment is now comprised; We have fishing, recreational tourism, aragonite and pristine waters that have been the host of world wide research in a number of areas. How do you factor that in with a companion oil industry?”

In his address to the Global Energy Conference, Potter described efforts to “bring the (Bahamian) government along” with respect to the development of an oil sector.

This included describing the differences that would exist between any oil extraction that would occur in The Bahamas versus the operation that was undertaken in the Gulf of Mexico prior to the 2011 oil spill, in light of differences in the depth of the drilling, the rock formations in The Bahamas, and the equipment that would be used, among other factors.

The company has completed an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and has an environmental management plan currently being developed. The government has committed to updating oil sector regulations in short order, although it has not indicated if this would include any changes to the financial terms specified by Potter in his address.

Efforts to reach Minister of the Environment Kenred Dorsett were unsuccessful up to press time.

September 24, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas Real Estate Association (BREA) recommends to the Government that it reduce Stamp Duty on property deals by 2 percentage points “across the board” ...taking the rates back to where they were before the 2010-2011 Budget

Realtors Recommend Stamp Duty Cuts 'Across The Board'

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas Real Estate Association (BREA) has recommended to the Government that it reduce Stamp Duty on property deals by 2 percentage points “across the board”, taking the rates back to where they were before the 2010-2011 Budget.

Franon Wilson, BREA’s president, confirmed in a recent interview with Tribune Business that the Association had recommended to the Christie administration that it look beyond the cut in the top Stamp Duty rate, from 12 per cent to 10 per cent, which it brought in with the 2012-2013 Budget.

“That’s one of the things we recommended, yes,” Mr Wilson said, when asked by Tribune Business whether BREA had recommended that all Stamp Duty rates be reduced by two percentage points.

“One of the things we did invite the Government to consider was reducing that across the board, as what it would do for the $250,000-plus category it would do for all others as well.

“We’re grateful that at least one group will see a benefit, but that same excitement that group over $250,000 has would be shared locally with everyone else/.”

Still, Mr Wilson said BREA and its members welcomed “anything to reduce the cost of home ownership” and stimulate activity in the market.

Stamp Duty is effectively a one-time cost imposed on real estate transactions, and Mr Wilson said the cut in the top rate would boost activity in middle class Bahamian communities such as Twynam Heights.

The revised Stamp Duty structure involves a 4 per cent rate on property valued at $20,000 or less; 6 per cent for property valued between $20,000 and $50,000; 8 per cent for property valued at between $50,001 and $100,000; and 10 per cent for holdings greater than $100,000.

Mike Lightbourn, head of Coldwell Banker Lightbourn Realty, said that any Stamp Duty reduction was welcome, but the real estate industry needed to remember that the Government had to raise revenues somewhere.

Noting that the Government had given up much in Stamp Duty with the exemptions for first-time buyers on properties worth up to $500,000, Mr Lightbourn added: “The less taxes the better, but that’s one of the sources of revenue. Any time you don’t have to pay Stamp Duty, it all helps.”

William Wong, head of William Wong & Associates, said the Government should follow BREA’s recommendation and reduce Stamp Duty rates across all price brackets.

“I’m hoping they will take a look at it and make the necessary changes,” Mr Wong said.

July 04, 2012

Tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

What all Bahamians must remember is anything is possible at election time if the people are interested and open to making the change they desire... We vote in governments...We vote them out... No party or leader is guaranteed anything on election day... We must work hard during these upcoming weeks to ensure that the best government for The Bahamas is chosen

Voting time nears

thenassauguardian editorial

The parties are almost ready, and most of the country is too, for the next general election.  Though the prime minister has until May to call the vote, it is expected that he will do so before then.  Based on the work that has already been done, it would be reasonable to assume that an election will be held sometime between February and March.  If not, it would be soon after.  If you didn’t already know, we are now in election season.

Based on the registration numbers thus far, more Bahamians will be eligible to vote in 2012 than the 150,000 on the voting list in 2007.  Included in that eligible voter number are the bases of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM).  For whatever reasons, these people will vote for the party they are aligned to regardless of who it selects as candidates and regardless of who leads it.

The swing voters, who change their minds from time to time, will largely determine the next government.

For the swing voters who are undecided or confused, we offer a few simple suggestions to help in your evaluation process.

It would be wise to initially define what you think are the biggest problems facing the country.  Once this is done, examine the records of the parties on those issues.  The leaders of the PLP and the FNM have been around a long time.  They have clear track records on issues such as job creation and crime management.  It does not take much thinking or research to evaluate the performance of each of the main parties, and their leaders, on issues of national concern.

What must then be analyzed is leadership itself.  In the Westminster system in developing countries, significant power is concentrated in the hands of prime ministers.  The man you elect would need to be competent, fair, energetic and enough of a visionary to help lift the country from its current malaise.

Does the leader inspire you?  Do you think he cares about the country, or does he just want to be prime minister?  Will he listen to the people once he is elected?  Is the team around him competent?  These are just some of the questions that should be considered.

Now, we mentioned the PLP and FNM.  There is also a ‘third party’ in the race – that is, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA).  Its leader is a one-term member of Parliament.  What must be considered here is whether he and the members of his party are ready to govern.

We have discussed the macro-level of voting thus far, but another approach can be taken.  There will be 38 constituency races.  While many Bahamians vote for party or leader, it is just as reasonable to vote for the person you think best to represent you, your community and your interests.

Voting for party, leader or candidate is fine once the decision is a considered one.  Voters should not just place their Xs next to candidates from particular parties because of, for example, family history.

To those who are disheartened by the choices before us this electoral cycle, do not become apathetic.  Look closely before you decide not to vote.  If none of the main players interest you, consider the lesser ones.  Not voting should always be a last option.

What all Bahamians must remember is anything is possible at election time if the people are interested and open to making the change they desire.  We vote in governments.  We vote them out.  No party or leader is guaranteed anything on election day.  We must work hard during these upcoming weeks to ensure that the best government for The Bahamas is chosen.  And when this is done, we must work just as hard to ensure that the people who make up that government do what they were elected to do.

Jan 03, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

Focus is needed on reforming our parliamentary process... The legislature is one of three branches of government... Let’s start with a simple thing: schedule questions to the prime minister

Prime Minister's Questions needed in Parliament

thenassauguardian editorial



The phone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom involving the now closed tabloid News of the World (NoW) has dominated world news the past few weeks. It’s really the perfect scandal. It involves money, power, the media and politics. The only thing missing is sex. And who knows, as fast as this scandal is evolving, that may come too, soon.

The actions of NoW have led to police investigations, criminal charges and parliamentary inquires. British Prime Minister David Cameron has been under fire because he hired a former NoW editor, Andy Coulson, to be his director of communications. Coulson has stepped down from this post because of questions about his role regarding the scandal while at NoW.

The opposition Labour Party has questioned Cameron’s judgment in hiring Coulson. Opposition Leader Ed Milliband has challenged Cameron for weeks in the House of Commons on the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions.

The weekly question period is a delight, and an important part of the democratic process. Every Wednesday the prime minister answers questions from the dispatch box beginning with questions from the opposition leader. These are wars during which the PM takes heat from his constitutional rival, giving the same back in return.

The questions are usually topical and the PM is pressed to answer even when he prefers not to. After the leader of the opposition is finished other MPs ask their questions. The question period lasts for about 30 minutes.

In the Westminster system PMs are the country’s CEO. As chairman of the cabinet, he is charged with ultimate responsibility for the actions of the government. Therefore, via Questions to the Prime Minister the government is held in the dock to account in Parliament for decisions made every week Parliament meets.

Alas, there is no system of questions to the prime minister in our parliament. There is almost no question system at all in practice. Opposition day is supposed to be every second Wednesday in the month when the House of Assembly meets.

On this occasion, the opposition is supposed to be able to pose questions. However, clever governing sides simply do not meet on this day and if the opposition does not push, there could be no opposition day for a long time.

It is sad that many of our politicians are so Third World in their mentality that a governing side would attempt not to have to answer questions and an opposition would be so pathetic that it would let its rights be violated.

Rules need to be adopted in Parliament to ensure that the PM has to take questions on a weekly basis as is done in the UK. If that is too much for our politicians then we could adopt a hybrid system through which questions are posed to the government in general on a weekly basis. The member most capable could answer those questions.

For this to work, though, both sides would have to respect the sacrosanctity of Parliament, its rules and conventions. Leaders should want to answer questions. Why? Well, because it proves that they are tough enough, smart enough and in charge enough to withstand any assault from rivals.

Conversely, the opposition should want to ask questions to prove it is better able to run the affairs of state and to weaken the position of the governing side.

The contrast of these two positions should create beautiful intellectual wars in the legislature. It is still a joy to watch old clips from Margaret Thatcher at the dispatch box taking questions from her rivals.

When independence was granted by the British to its colonies, there was a fear that many were not ready for self-governance. The concern was that an elite segment of some of these native societies simply wanted to be in charge knowing little of, and having even less respect for, the traditions and conventions of Westminster governance.

Our parliamentary process needs improvement. We simply touch on one thing that needs reform in this piece. Other problems include the non-existent committee system; members reading from texts they did not write rather than debating issues they studied; and the slow process of relevant legislation coming forward.

We condemn in the strongest terms the myopia of all of the majority rule and post-independence governments for not building a new parliament. The inadequate buildings currently being used are more than 200 years old. We need not explain again why they are inadequate. One needs only to visit to see why.

Focus is needed on reforming our parliamentary process. The legislature is one of three branches of government. Let’s start with a simple thing: schedule questions to the prime minister. If they can’t figure out how to do it, our politicians should just go online and print out a copy of the British process. It’s been going on for quite a while.

Jul 21, 2011

thenassauguardian editorial

Caribbean Blog International

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

Bahamas Blog International

The Bahamas Infant Mortality Rate Increases

Official Opposition Leader, Hubert Ingraham raised alarm over The Bahamas Infant Mortality Rate increase by stating that efforts by his administration drove the infant mortality rate from more than 24 per thousand live births to below 12.

"We expected to bring it to single digits by 2004," he said.  "Instead, under this neglectful government it has risen again to 19 per thousand live births.  Why are we moving in reverse?"

Infant Deaths Climbing

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

26 April 2006

Statistics from the Ministry of Health’s Information and Research Unit confirm a recent claim made by Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham that the country’s infant mortality rate is on the way up.

Mr. Ingraham raised alarm over the increase Monday night saying that efforts by his administration drove the infant mortality rate from more than 24 per thousand live births to below 12.

"We expected to bring it to single digits by 2004," he said.  "Instead, under this neglectful government it has risen again to 19 per thousand live births.

Why are we moving in reverse?"

The infant mortality rate is considered internationally to be a sound indicator of a nation’s health and development.

Information from the Ministry of Health, however, does not provide any evidence to show that the figure has risen to 19.  The most recent data available is for the year 2004 when the rate was 17.3 deaths per 1,000 births, up from 12.7 deaths per 1,000 in 2001.

Minister of Health Dr. Bernard Nottage was not available yesterday to comment on the matter, as Tuesday is a day when the Cabinet meets most of the day.  But in a press statement issued early yesterday, he responded to Mr. Ingraham’s claim by saying only that there is no connection between the infant mortality rate and a shortage of vaccines.

No other health official would return the Journal’s calls yesterday either, but the Journal was able to obtain a copy of what is reportedly the minutes of a meeting of health officials that took place on Friday.

In the minutes, a senior nursing officer stated that the meeting had been called to discuss the minister’s mandate to strategize ways to reduce the infant mortality rate and the maternal mortality rate "as both were on the rise".

Officials reportedly plan to convert the Blue Hill Road Clinic into a Child Health facility, while Flemming Street Clinic will be converted into a Women’s Health Clinic, run by midwives.

The senior nursing officer quoted in the minutes impressed upon the midwives that should the need arise, they should inform persons inquiring about the vaccine shortage that supply should be available in about two weeks.

She said that the midwives should explain that the government does not owe any money for vaccines, but that there was a misunderstanding between the Ministry of Health and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), which has since been cleared up.

In its statement to the press yesterday, the Ministry of Health acknowledged that there is a shortage of supply of the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine due to an error in the billing by its suppliers.

The ministry said through no fault of its own, the suppliers had failed to send an invoice for some $865 and held up the latest order when they did not receive payment.  It is this mistake, the ministry said, which was corrected as soon as it was discovered.

"I am happy to report, however, that an inventory has been carried out, which confirms that we do have in stock a supply of all vaccines, including MMR, although some individual clinics may not have supplies in their possession," Dr. Nottage reported in that statement.

"Additionally, there is a shortage of one of the components of the Pentavalent vaccine, and that is due to the fact that the manufacturer sent us supplies with differing expiration dates.  There is no shortage of Polio, Diphtheria, Pertussis or Tetanus vaccines, all of which are in adequate supplies."

Dr. Nottage indicated that his ministry had made arrangements to obtain those vaccines that were in short supply and expected the delivery of those vaccines yesterday, which should be available to the public today.

But as mentioned, the statement said very little about the infant mortality rate.

In the health meeting minutes, another senior nursing officer in response to queries from the midwives present regarding the shortage of family planning/contraceptive methods said that there were no monies available for the purchase of these methods.

She indicated that at present her unit had only one inject - able method and few oral methods available.  The senior nursing officer said she would seek permission to inform clients of the situation via mass media or by notices posted in the clinics to avoid a disclosure similar to that made by Mr. Ingraham regarding the vaccine shortage.

The Constitutional Commission: The Bahamas should be a Democratic Parliamentary Republic with the Head of State being The President

The Constitutional Commission Recommends that The English Monarch no Longer Be Head of State of The Bahamas and The Office of The Governor General Be Abolished

Abolish Governor General

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

23 March 2006

Saying that the time has come for a Bahamian head of state to be elected by both Houses of Parliament, the Constitutional Commission is recommending that the English monarch no longer be head of state of The Bahamas and the office of the governor general be abolished.

The Commission also says in its preliminary report presented to Prime Minister Perry Christie at his Cable Beach office on Wednesday that The Bahamas should be a democratic parliamentary republic with the head of state being the president.

"Executive powers shall continue to be exercised by the cabinet with the head of government being the prime minister," the report recommends.

It also says the head of state should be a citizen of The Bahamas.

The Commission found it "curious" that there is no requirement for the holder of the office of governor general to be a citizen of The Bahamas.

"Because of the method of appointment of the governor general, it hardly seems logical that the person appointed to this office would be a non-Bahamian," the report says.  "To remove all doubt it should be declared that the governor general or head of state be a Bahamian citizen."

The report says it is apparent that the position of head of state of The Bahamas is not seen in reality to be the Queen of Great Britain, who constitutionally is also the Queen of The Bahamas.

It adds, "People appear not to be troubled by the concept and are apparently satisfied to regard the governor general, although wrongly, to be the head of state of The Bahamas.  The reaction to the proposition that the queen is constitutionally queen of The Bahamas was usually met with silence."

The Commission notes on page 12 of its preliminary report that the abolition of the English monarch as head of state of the Bahamas is part of the evolutionary process toward a truly peoples government, not one of the Queen’s dominions, but part of the Commonwealth.

The report says, "The Commission would wish the Bahamian people to focus on whether the position of a foreign monarch and one that is shared with many other countries, is reconcilable with the founding provisions which state The Bahamas shall be a ‘sovereign’ democratic state.

"We cannot on the one hand assert ourselves as a sovereign country and a free and independent actor in international affairs while relying on the legal fiction of ‘Her Majesty in Parliament’ and ‘Her Majesty’s Government’ in the ‘speech from the throne’ to give legitimacy to our government."

Additionally, the report says it is conceded that in an increasingly interdependent world the concept of sovereignty as it denotes a self-sufficient national territory is waning; sovereignty must denote an independent legal entity, where some supreme body has virtually unlimited capacity to make laws.

It notes that although the existence and validity and rules in the country’s legal system are determined by reference to a written constitution, those laws still require the participation of the ‘Queen in Parliament’ to be properly enacted.

"This is inconsistent with being a completely independent legal entity," the report says.

The report reveals that during its consultations on every inhabited Bahamian island, except three cays in the Exumas, there were mixed feelings about the retention of the Queen of England as Queen of The Bahamas and head of state of The Bahamas.

It notes that there was a significant number of persons who expressed no opinion on the institution of monarchy; there were others who were of the opinion that the status quo should remain, while others were of the view that this link to the British Monarchy was inconsistent with Bahamian independence and sovereignty and should be severed while preserving membership with the Commonwealth of which queen is symbolic head.

The Commission recommends that the provision of the Constitution that permits the chief justice and the president of the senate to serve as acting head of state should be removed to avoid a conflict of interest.

Deputies should be appointed from among eminent citizens to fill any vacancies of that office, the report says.

Free National Movement (FNM) Leader, Senator Tommy Turnquest - Advises The Bahamas Government not to join the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME)

FNM Leader Advises Gov't Not To Join CSME

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

24th May 2005

Amid increased debate over the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME), Free National Movement Leader Senator Tommy Turnquest yesterday set the record straight on the FNM's position on the controversial agreement, saying it is not the same position held by the government.

Mr. Turnquest said it is the FNM's position that The Bahamas should not join the CSME.

He made the comment in an interview with The Bahama Journal on the heels of continued statements made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell that the FNM agrees with the government on how to proceed on CSME.

Minister Mitchell indicated recently in a statement that, "the position of the Official Opposition as communicated to the Minister is that they agree, and are at one with the government's position on CSME- provided reservations are obtained for The Bahamas not to participate in the free movement of people; the Caribbean Court of Justice at the appellate level, the single currency and monetary union and the Common External Tariff."

During an address last week to the Abaco Chamber of Commerce, the Minister said, "Both political parties agree with the approach that we have decided with regard to [the CSME].  You will see a lowering of the temperature on this over the next few weeks.  The arguments from the opponents have been exhausted.  You can see this with the lengths of the desperation and invention that are taking place."

But Mr. Turnquest said the Foreign Affairs Minister "ought to desist from saying what he's saying about the Free National Movement" regarding its position on CSME.

While he said that the FNM believes that the government should not sign the agreement, he also indicated that the party supports a referendum on the issue.

In addition, he said- should The Bahamas sign on; it should secure the mentioned reservations.  But Mr. Turnquest ‐ joining a growing chorus ‐ questioned how long the reservations would last.

"We want to be assured that the reservations at some point in the future don't just fall away and we find ourselves automatically becoming a part of this Caribbean union with those tenets being in place," Mr. Turnquest said.

But while on the Love 97 programme "Jones and Company" on Sunday, Minister Mitchell indicated that the reservations would last for as long as a Government of The Bahamas wishes them to.

Mr. Turnquest said yesterday that the FNM's position has "evolved to where we support the position that Bahamians have.  We ought to have a referendum on it."

He said, "There are some theorists or constitutional experts who say that our constitution does not allow for that type of referendum to be held.  We can amend our laws so that the people of The Bahamas have more of a say in this matter.

As far as I am concerned, the people ought to decide.

"I listened to Brian Moree on Jones and Co. [Sunday] when he said if you disagree with five fundamental positions like that, why then join and I wholeheartedly agree with him.  That's exactly what I'm saying."

Mr. Turnquest was asked whether The Bahamas should no longer be a part of Caricom.

"If they are not prepared to accept us as a part of it [then so be it], but I think they would be prepared to have us in terms of the cooperation and other aspects and they would benefit as would we.  I don't see that there are any great benefits to us signing and opting out of the major provisions," he said.

Asked on the show on Sunday if The Bahamas would be axed from Caricom if it does not sign the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, Minister Mitchell declined to give a direct answer.

He did say, however, that, "The great beauty of the Caricom movement is it isn't one of these hard and fast, black and white issues.  The fact is we do participate in all of the organs of the community at the moment, but it is just appropriate for us to be signatories to the treaty.  Everyone else in the community is a signatory to the treaty."

When asked by the show's host, Wendall Jones, whether The Bahamas should sign the treaty, he said, "I believe it should.  In fact, the government decided on the 21st of December last year that we ought to do that subject to obtaining the reservations which we have advanced in the public domain." 

Sidney Stubbs, Holy Cross Member of Parliament Legal Team Intends to Request An Annulment of The Bankruptcy Order Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson Issued Against Him

If the court grants an annulment, this essentially means that Mr. Sidney Stubbs would no longer be a bankrupt

No Appeal For Stubbs

 

 

 

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

16th December 2004

 

Attorneys for Holy Cross Member of Parliament Sidney Stubbs are heading back to court today and are expected to report to Chief Justice Sir Burton Hall that Mr. Stubbs has no appeal pending before the Privy Council.

Last month, Sir Burton dismissed an application to have Mr. Stubbs’s bankruptcy order set aside, but he reserved judgment on an alternative request for an annulment of that order until it could be confirmed whether the case was being appealed to the high court in London.

The Bahama Journal has learnt that Mr. Stubbs’s legal team now intends to pursue the request for an annulment of the bankruptcy order Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson issued against him on March 30.

If the court grants an annulment, this essentially means that Mr. Stubbs would no longer be a bankrupt.

The fact that he has no appeal to the Privy Council is likely to raise new arguments over the interpretation of the constitution.

Legal advisors have told the Bahama Journal that an application for an annulment does not technically constitute an appeal.

Some scholars interpret the constitution to mean that Mr. Stubbs can only remain in his seat as long as he has an appeal pending.

But the MP’s legal team is expected to argue that what the constitution is in fact saying on this point is that he is entitled to the extension of time he has secured from parliament as long as he has the “right to appeal.”

This new development in the Stubbs legal debacle may spark renewed political debate over his fate and whether a by election is likely.

One political observer claimed that parliament was misled in September when it passed a resolution to grant Mr. Stubbs a six-month time extension to appeal the matter on the basis that he intended to appeal the ruling.

“You have time limits to lodge appeals and prosecute them and if the time has passed, and he has not lodged the appeal, that is the end of the matter,” the observer said.  “The moment he fails to lodge it in a timely manner under the constitution his seat became vacant.”

But government and Progressive Liberal Party officials who continue to express open support for Mr. Stubbs view the situation another way.

They believe that an annulment is enough to get Mr. Stubbs back in his seat when the House of Assembly convenes next month after its Christmas recess.

Mr. Stubbs has been out of the House for nine months now and has until March to have the matter cleared up.  It would be a full year since he would have been out of the House.

The MP has insisted that he continues to work in his constituency and has claimed that he still has the support of the majority of his constituents.

A group of them even went as far as filing a summons in the Supreme Court in support of Mr. Stubbs, but Sir Burton asked the constituents to desist from interfering with the judicial process and said what they did could amount to contempt of court.

Even though Mr. Stubbs has said that his former creditor, Gina Gonzalez, has been repaid all that is owed to her, he cannot return to parliament as long as he is still a bankrupt.

Mohammed Harajchi Attorney Intends to Set The Record Straight and Prove The Bahamas Deputy Prime Minister, Cynthia Pratt Wrong

Harajchi Associates To Slam DPM

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

24/08/2004

Deputy Prime Minister Cynthia Pratt today faces an onslaught from the Mohammed Harajchi camp, as the controversy involving donations made to the Progressive Liberal Party’s 2002 election campaign by the Iranian businessman continues.

Derek Ryan, Mr. Harajchi’s attorney, has called a press conference for today to specifically address the response made by the deputy prime minister to Mr. Harajchi’s claims that he gave her money to put burglar bars on her constituency office windows.

Minister Pratt has come out strongly, denying the accusations, accusing Mr. Harajchi of telling an untruth.

She has admitted that he made contributions to some of her constituents, but said Mr. Harajchi never made any contributions to her constituency office or any personal contributions to her.

But Mr. Ryan has said he intends to set the record straight in this regard and prove Minister Pratt wrong.

The deputy prime minister has also gone on record saying that she would support any effort to revoke the permanent residency of Mr. Harajchi and she has said she hopes this would be something the government will address.

“Anytime you are going to get to the place where you’re going to go out there and try to discredit the government of the day, you don’t deserve to have permanent residence,” she told the Journal last week. 

During a press conference nearly two weeks ago, Mr. Harajchi attacked members of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Perry Christie, pointing specifically to alleged donations to the deputy prime minister.

He also said that Minister of Works and Utilities Bradley Roberts asked a personal favour from him, a claim Minister Roberts has also vehemently blasted.

The latest move planned by associates of Mr. Harajchi has many people wondering when the saga is going to end.

Prime Minister Perry Christie, who returns to the capital today after a state visit to China, is sure to face questions on the growing controversy.

Before leaving, he responded to Mr. Harajchi’s claims and defended the integrity of members of his Cabinet.

“I have complete confidence in the integrity of all my ministers,” Mr. Christie said in his statement.  “I am satisfied that no minister of my Government has sought or received any illegal or improper financial assistance from Mr. Harajchi either before or after the 2002 General Election.” 

Mohammed Harajchi is Unsuitable to be a Permanent Resident of The Bahamas

DPM Wants Harajchi Out

Calls to Have Mohammed Harajchi’s Permanent Residency Status in The Bahamas Revoked...

Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

16/08/2004

Stressing that it was not her intention to speak behind the prime minister on the matter, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Security Cynthia Pratt said Sunday she would fully support any effort to revoke the permanent residency of Mohammed Harajchi.

The Iranian businessman started a firestorm last week when he personally attacked members of the Cabinet during a press conference at his Paradise Island home.

“I would support [the revocation of the permanent residency of] any person, anyone who attacks a government in the manner in which he is doing,” said Minister Pratt, who responded to a Bahama Journal question on the matter.

“I do not see him as an asset to the country.  That’s not just [during the tenure of] this government.  He was attacking the former government.  Any foreigner who comes into this country ought to have respect for the country.”

Minister Pratt said she is in full support of the prime minister’s comments on the matter late last week and did not want to appear out of step with the nation’s leader.

But she agreed to respond to questions on the issue.

“The government has to make a decision on this,” said Minister Pratt, shortly after returning from vacation in North Carolina.

“The government has to do what it has to do.  The government must also show it is in control of this county.  [Mr. Harajchi’s] intention is to destroy this government because he didn’t get his license (for Suisse Security Bank which was revoked three years ago).  That is the gist of the whole thing.  I am so disappointed that I have to feel this way because I held him in high esteem.”

Asked how she would respond to persons who may not support the revocation of Mr. Harajchi’s permanent residency, the deputy prime minister said, “I can’t worry about persons who would say it’s victimization.

“There are also persons who would say it is time for the government to do something about it.  It would show a sign of weakness if the government is afraid to address a problem.  You cannot attack a government in the manner in which he has done.  No foreigner is going to try to degrade me to my own people.  These are my people.  They know me.”

Asked whether the government will address the issue of Mr. Harajchi’s permanent residency directly, Minister Pratt said, “Certainly I expect it to.”

But she made it clear that it is an issue the government would have to deal with as a whole and she stressed that she did not want her personal views to interfere with whatever decisions Prime Minister Perry Christie and his government make on the matter.

The deputy prime minister said she believes that Mr. Harajchi is unsuitable to be a permanent resident of The Bahamas.

“Anytime you are going to get to the place where you’re going to go out there and try to discredit the government of the day, you don’t deserve to have permanent residence,” she added.

Her reaction was prompted by claims made by Mr. Harajchi last Wednesday that he gave her money to put security bars on her constituency windows.

It was a claim Minister Pratt vehemently denied.

 

“I don’t know what Mr. Harajchi’s problem is, but all I have to say is a lie can be proven.  The truth will always be the truth.  Nobody in this country has ever questioned my integrity.  Never,” Minister Pratt said in her initial response on the matter Thursday evening.

“Obviously it seems that he is on a mission to try to smear the leaders of the government.  That is clear to me and so being a part of the government, he is trying to get the people of this country to discredit me, but let me tell you, he is barking up the wrong tree.  God forbid.  My Bible tells me that a lying tongue shall be stopped.”

The deputy prime minister added that this is not the first time Mr. Harajchi has attempted to destroy her good name.

“His paper (the Confidential Source) has told lies upon lies against me,” she said, “for absolutely nothing.”

Minister Pratt joined a growing number of people who believe that Mr. Harajchi’s permanent residency should be revoked.

Last week, Chief Executive Officer of Jones Communications Wendall Jones also made his feelings on the matter public after Mr. Harajchi launched a personal attack on him, claiming that he financially supported Mr. Jones in setting up his company.

“He is an unfit person to be a permanent resident of The Bahamas and as far as I am concerned anybody who is prepared to go to the lengths that he is going to destroy the good name and reputation of officials of the Government of the Bahamas should have his permanent residency revoked,” Mr. Jones said.

While the idea is said to have growing support in the government, one inside government source told the Journal that it is unlikely.  The source noted that the right way to address any potential defamatory statements is before the courts. 

Mohammed Harajchi Makes Serious Allegations Against The Bahamas Government of Prime Minister Perry Christie

Harajchi’s Accounts Face Scrutiny

Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

13/08/2004

Iranian businessman Mohammed Harajchi could be called upon to produce his bank accounts after making serious allegations against the government of Prime Minister Perry Christie.

In a statement issued yesterday, Mr. Christie said, “Unless Mr. Harajchi publicly denies that he contributed money towards the renovation of my home, I reserve the option to bring about a forensic examination of Mr. Harajchi’s accounts and records so that his nasty, baseless insinuation can be exposed for the complete fabrication that it is.”

Mr. Christie said it distresses him that when asked at a press conference at his Paradise Island home on Wednesday whether he had donated $500,000 towards the renovation of his (the prime minister’s) residence, Mr. Harajchi, rather than denying that he had, said that the press should “go and ask me”.

“Well, let me say without being asked that Mr. Harajchi did not contribute so much as a single cent toward the renovation of my house,” Mr. Christie said.

“The renovations were financed entirely from the financial resources of my wife and myself without any contribution from Mr. Harajchi whatsoever.  As the public is aware, integrity in public life is the cornerstone of my personal and political ethos.  I have been in public life for more than 30 years and in the whole of that time there has never been, until now, even so much as a whisper or impropriety against me.”

He said, “Mr. Harajchi has never given any financial assistance of any kind to me or my family at any time whatsoever and no such assistance has every been sought.

Mr. Christie also said it is an “absolute lie” that Mr. Harajchi contributed $10 million to the Progressive Liberal Party during the 2002 general election campaign.

“I note that Mr. Mohammed Harajchi has referred to me as an honorable man,” the prime minister said in the two-page statement issued to the media.  “I regret that I cannot say the same of him.

“It is clear that he expected my government to pervert the course of justice and give him back his bank licence.  That my government did not do so it is the single, solitary reason [why] Mr. Harajchi has been on a relentless campaign of vengeance against my government for all but the first month or two of my administration.”

The prime minister, who was reportedly irate over Mr. Harajchi’s allegations, also defended the integrity of his Cabinet Ministers.

At a press conference on Wednesday, Mr. Harajchi personally attacked several ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Security Cynthia Pratt and Minister of Works and Utilities Bradley Roberts.

Mr. Christie said in his statement, “I have complete confidence in the integrity of all my ministers.  I am satisfied that no minister of my Government has sought or received any illegal or improper financial assistance from Mr. Harajchi either before or after the 2002 General Election.

“I reject, without qualification, Mr. Harajchi’s attempt to smear the good name and reputation of my ministers all of whom, I am satisfied, serve our nation with integrity and honour.”

In addition, the prime minister said, “At no time, either before the 2002 General Election or after, did I ever promise Mr. Harajchi that steps would be taken to restore his bank licence, that is to say, the licence of Suisse Security Bank that had been revoked by the former administration nor did I ever say anything to Mr. Harajchi that could have led him to draw any inference that I would do so.”

He added, “On the contrary, I told Mr. Harajchi that no responsible government would ever seek to interfere in a matter before the courts as that was the forum in which the dispute over the revocation of his licence had come to rest- that is where the matter would have to be resolved.”

The prime minister also said, “I am abundantly satisfied that the financial contributions made to the PLP’s election campaign by Mr. Harajchi were completely proper and lawful in all respects and that no promises of any advantage or preferential consideration of any kind were made to him in exchange for those contributions or as a result of those contributions.

“My party is presently conducting an accounting of monies received from Mr. Harajchi but I can state with complete confidence that Mr. Harajchi’s claim that it was $10 million is an absolute lie.  It was nowhere near this amount.  It was but a fraction of this amount.  Details of our accounting will be made public once completed.  Ordinarily we would not disclose the source of campaign contributions, but as Mr. Harajchi has made this a public issue we are obliged to present the detailed facts concerning his contributions as indeed we will do as soon as possible.”