What is the whole truth behind Bluewater?
tribune242 editorial
AFTER a 14-year search for a suitable strategic partner and a lengthy, often acrimonious debate over the past few days, BTC opens its doors today as a privately owned company. Cable & Wireless, with a sound international reputation and solid financing is the new owner. Bluewater Ventures Ltd, the choice of the PLP government, is now history leaving a trail of mystery in its wake.
When one examines details of the bids that were published, it is difficult to understand why Bluewater -- the only company not to produce financials -- was the PLP government's company of choice. Many things have been suggested. Finance Minister Zhivargo Laing considered it a "fronting" operation with Bahamians hidden in the background. Whatever it was, all that has been made public -- and much is still hidden-- suggests that it was a company hastily thrown together especially for this bidding process.
At the end of a heated exchange between Opposition leader Perry Christie, whose government pushed the Bluewater deal to a hasty conclusion, and Prime Minister Ingraham who eliminated Bluewater, Mr Ingraham accepted that Mr Christie's last gesture before he left office "was beneficial to the Bahamas."
As he put out the embers of his dying government, Mr Christie took up his pen and ended the Bluewater deal.
"I would recommend," he wrote, "that the matter not proceed any further at this time."
Mr Christie argued that as his government had been voted out of office, it was only right that the final decision on the future of BTC be left for the new government.
Reading from the records on Monday, April 30, 2007 --two days before the general election -- Mr Ingraham said the PLP Cabinet met with Prime Minister Christie's approval. Mr Christie himself was absent, and so the deputy prime minister was in the chair. Mr Obie Wilchcombe was also absent from that meeting. It was at that meeting that the decision was made to sell BTC to Bluewater.
When asked by a House member what he knew about the Bluewater transaction, Mr Ingraham said he knew of a meeting also held at the Ministry of Finance when then Minister Bradley Roberts, "Brave" Davis, lawyer for Bluewater, and a "man from Bluewater" returned to the room and said "we have a deal."
Mr Ingraham said that before the 2007 election he had announced at an FNM rally that the PLP government had sold what was then BaTelCo to Bluewater. His speculation was that at the end "they ran scared," which caused the last minute change of mind.
As our readers will recall the hand-over in 2007 from one government to the next did not go smoothly. Although the FNM became the government on May 2, it was not until May 4th that it was able to assume office.
In the meantime several ministers of the former PLP government, said Mr Ingraham, went around announcing that the Bluewater deal had been approved and recommended that the persons involved should go to the Cabinet office to get "the letter."
By then the Ingraham government was in charge. Mr Ingraham said that the Secretary to the Cabinet came to him one day to inform him that "some people" were at the office saying that they wanted "the letter" -- obviously the letter approving the sale of BaTelCo to Bluewater.
Mr Ingraham thanked Mr Christie for going to London to testify at the hearing when Bluewater was demanding to be indemnified for the loss of BaTelCo. In Bluewater's agreement with the PLP, the Ingraham government would have had to pay $2.5 million if the exclusivity clause in the agreement had been breached. To get out of the Bluewater deal, the $2.5 million penalty clause was negotiated down to $1.9 million.
Mr Ingraham argued that although Mr Christie did not attend the Cabinet meeting that approved the sale of BaTelCo to Bluewater, the fact that he had given Cabinet members permission to meet, and agreed who should chair the meeting, he could not then unilaterally rescind their decision without another meeting and discussion. Mr Christie argued that he did not change the deal, but decided that his government was at an end and suspended it.
Mr Ingraham knows, said an angered Opposition leader, that "this was a process that I was going to guarantee the integrity of -- if only because Brave Davis was the lawyer -- I was not going to allow this matter to compromise the integrity of my government under no circumstances."
In a heated moment, Mr Christie probably suggested more than he intended. Obviously, he was not happy with the deal. His behaviour at the end shows a great deal of doubt. Already he had started the hand washing process.
Bluewater was a deal made on behalf of the Bahamian people. They are entitled to know the facts -- especially why Bluewater was given so many preferential concessions.
We feel it the duty of the Ingraham government to lay the whole Bluewater transaction on the table of the House so that it will be available for public scrutiny.
March 28, 2011
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Showing posts with label Batelco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batelco. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
W. A. Branville McCartney - M.P. for Bamboo Town - Contribution on the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BTC) / Cable & Wireless Communications (CWC) Debate - 23rd, March 2011
Mr. Speaker, my aim is not to lecture, chastise, or insult the intelligence of any person in this Honourable House, and whereas, I may have only been a sitting member for a short time, I came in to this great place either knowing of and/or admiring many of these Honourable Men.
In fact, on many occasions, I remember silently thinking - in awe - what an honor and privilege it is to be sitting among the Members for North Abaco and Farm Road; indeed men who once spoke out emphatically on issues of truth, justice, and equality. So, in saying all that I have said before this, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that my words – in any way – will not be an affront to any person and I hope that persons do not take offense to them. I would want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that, it is as a result of the courage and boldness that I have seen in some of these Honourable Men over the years, particularly when confronting issues of national importance, I am now emboldened to speak the following.
When I made the decision to enter into politics, I made that decision based on what I saw taking place in my social environment. Among other things, crime was rampant and people were no longer feeling safe in their own environment; dysfunction was at an all time high among our young people and they were failing out of society in larger numbers than ever before; for various reasons, political leaders were continuing to dishonor their office and bring shame on our sovereign nation; while the average Bahamian worked and struggled, the nation was coming undone at its seams. And it seemed as if no one cared; while the people suffered, it appeared to be all politics as usual.
At the time, I thought about my young daughters and wondered if the Bahamas that I saw unfolding before my eyes was the same Bahamas that I wanted for them. I thought about my wife going about her business, not knowing if, at anytime, she would or could become another robbery or murder statistics. I felt compelled to step forward and offer myself as a change agent, not just for my family but for all Bahamians and Bahamian families who were feeling trapped and powerless in a society that was imploding all around us. I was motivated by the idea that I could possibly be one of a few who could be that difference, indeed the difference maker, when it came to shaping the future direction of what is, potentially, the greatest nation in the world. My intention was and is to “be the change I want to see in the world”.
The question for me was, however, how did we allow this situation to occur? I think many of us can remember the excitement that Bahamians from all walks of life felt on July 10, 1973 when the Black, Gold, and Agua Marine was hoisted for the first time to signifying that the Bahamas was a free and independent nation. With this new flag replacing the old Union Jack, no longer were we going to be considered second class citizens in our own society, in our own country. No longer would we be, as Sir Etienne Dupuch puts it in his Tribune Story, seen so “far behind to be conscious of a destiny.” Independence was the promise of a new destiny. And the courage and boldness of a few exceptional men gave all of us - all Bahamians – the courage to dream again. We all become enchanted by the thought of the economic prosperity and social mobility that independence would bring us. We were all enchanted, as a nation, with the promise of empowerment that was to come with independence – a kind of empowerment that was unconceivable before 1973. What a concept:
· Economic empowerment – the thought that we would each have sufficient wealth to take care of our own personal needs;
· Political empowerment – the right to have a voice and say in the way our society is organized and how decisions are made; and
· Societal empowerment – where we would be treated fairly and equally.
For the average Bahamian this was the vision.
Empowerment! What a vision.
We are here today at each other’s throats, not just because the people are angry and worked up at the impending sale of BTC, but we are here today because, some forty years after independence, after decades of dangling the carrot of empowerment before them - offering a pittance here and a pittance there - Bahamian people are disillusioned, fed up with, and angry at feeling disempowered in their own land. And whereas the proposed sale of BTC is the matter before us today, this same sale of the telecommunications corporation is only a symbol of the disenfranchisement and lack of vision that continues to be a slap in the face to the average Bahamian who bought into the dream of independence – a dream that many have given up on as only an illusion.
I hope that, by making my statements today, my intentions in advocating for Bahamian empowerment will not be misconstrued, as I would be remised and, somewhat disingenuous, in not acknowledging the benefits which foreign investors and foreign investments have brought our people and our nation. However, to spend a great deal of time elaborating on that would serve no real purpose at this time, particularly since it has been “thrown” in the face of Bahamian people from time in memoriam. The point of the matter however, at this stage, is that Bahamian people, after decades and decades of educating themselves in some of the finest colleges and universities that the world has to offer, with the hopes of proving themselves, should now – my God - have an opportunity to prove their worth – to the highest degree – in their own country.
If Cable and Wireless is as great as our leaders are purporting them to be, let the government take it hands out of BTC’s operations, open up the market, let Cable and Wireless, Verizon, Sprint, Digicel, and any other provider who wish to enter the market come in. Let them “duke” it out, and may the best man win. But at the end of the day, Bahamians would have to prove their value and their worth,their intelligence and their ingenuity, and if they fail at it, then so be it. But, again, why does Cable and
Wireless need a three year head start on the competition? Politics, nothing more than pure politics.
I will paraphrase a good friend of mine who said that “some of us in society have allowed, and continue to allow our political leaders to us the time proven strategy of divide and conquer to cast one as
the enemy of the other, pitting us imprudently against each other to achieve their goals, while at the same time preventing us from achieving the simple ones we have set for ourselves and have worked so tirelessly to see actualized as a people – the creation of a nation that is a reflection of our collective and intellectual wills.
“At some point, however,” this friend continues, “we must recognize that we are not the enemy of each other, and no matter what our station or position is within society, we are all categorized and classified as Bahamians, and it is under this umbrella that we must collectively assemble” and challenge the political status quo that, for decades, has denied us as a people the right to have the semblance of power that independence has promised us.
What we have seen outside these walls in the past few weeks and days is a challenge to that very same political status quo; what we have seen is a new awakening in a generation that has been disenfranchised for too long – a new people who are crying out to be rescued from, as Martin Luther King calls it, a false sense of inferiority and a feeling of nobodiness.
On January 30, 1997, in one of his last addresses as leader of the Progressive Liberal Party, Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling said his vision for the Bahamas is that it becomes:
· “a nation built on Christian principles and consisting of a citizenry dedicated to respecting and defending human rights, human dignity, and the equal value of all mankind; a nation committed to the reverence for God, the sanctity of the traditional family, equal opportunity, diligent work for the welfare of all its citizens.
· He says the future Bahamas should be “a nation where the people are the most precious resource over and above all natural and material resources, and the national prosperity is measured by the quality of the health, education, and social environment and self esteem of its people;
· He says it should be “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with self-worth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation;”
· But most importantly, he says that the Bahamas should be “a nation where economic diversity creates a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the people, thus producing an atmosphere of variety, healthy competition, and entrepreneurship.”
Now, I have heard all of the colorful commentary over the past few years and month, as people have sought to offer up their analysis and interpretations of me, my actions and my intentions.
Some have said that I am a show-boater and that I like to showboat or indeed grandstand; some who doubt my ability to lead say that I am unqualified, but as one gospel psalmist says, God may not call the most qualified, but he qualifies those whom he calls; and some add that I am a young upstart, and that I should wait for my time; but King says, time is always ripe to do right, and now is the time to make real the promises of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. And over the next few weeks and months, and even years, as I seek to continue serving the people of Bamboo Town and the Bahamas, I am sure that the colorful commentaries, criticisms, and characterizations will only intensify as the naysayers will naysay in their attempts to discredit me and send me to my political graveyard. But I can assure you here today, as I stand in opposition to the offering up of the majority holdings in the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation, no matter what commentaries are offered up about and against me, I promise the Bahamian people, from Grand Bahama in the north to Inagua in the south, Long Island to Rum Cay, from Baintown to Bamboo Town, from Ft. Charlotte to Ft. Fincastle, that God willing, I will continue to do what I entered politics in 2007 to do, and that is work to ensure that The Bahamas becomes a society free from the force of complacency brought on us by years and years of oppression, insensitivity, bitterness, and self-hate – a place where people can begin to feel a true sense of “somebodiness.”
Because, despite what some may say about us - despite what we have been fooled into believing about ourselves - we are a great people, and we have one of the greatest country in the world. As a matter of fact, Dr Miles Munroe always says and I agree, that ”The Bahamas is the place where God lives”.
That is why almost everyone in the world wants a piece of the Bahamian rock. But the time has come for us to stop giving ourselves away, particularly for cheaper cell phone rates! My Lord, my Lord.
Now, because I am reminded that our own dear Prime Minister is himself a transplant from the Progressive Liberal Party of old - (thank God for
radicalism, freedom of expression, and the freedom not to bandwagon) - and the illustrious leader of the opposition has remained a true stalwart, I say what I am about to say without fear of reprisal; In an attempt to get our country back on track, it is time for a revisiting of Sir Lynden’s vision for The Bahamas.
It is time for us to come up with strategies where, as a nation and people, we can continue to use and sustain a moderate tourism and financial product as revenue generators, while at the same time, find new ways to diversify our economy by creating a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the Bahamian people; our country is brimming with a whole generation of young people out there waiting to take up the call. I know!!!!! I speak with young people everyday!! I am a young person and the young people are listening and they will make the difference!!!!!!
We must begin to lay the framework for an economy that is less based on physical capital in favor of one that is more dependent on human capital, for as Ralph Massey says, “human capital is more important to the public welfare than is physical capital.”
We must move away from an economy that thrives primarily on imported goods and servitude, and create one which is more of a producer model, driven primarily on exported goods and services – in many forms – created by manufacturing innovation and invention.
We must have a plan for the mobilization of our land mass, where each island will be developed and advanced so as to play an integral part in the country’s well being.
We must see to it that education is harnessed and used as the tool by which Bahamians, using the ingenuity derived from a quality education, will be able to meet more of their own consumer needs, and at the same time, meet and fulfill the needs of many of the global neighbors, particularly those in other Caribbean nations.
We must clearly define our national needs and stop allowing others to come in from the outside to define them for us. The future model for The Bahamas must be one in which we have a clear vision of the direction that we want our country to go in, and – God forbid – in the absence of qualified Bahamians, we invite a qualified labor force in to assist us with the building of our national dreams – instead of us using our labor to continually build the dreams of others.
Only when we begin to move in these directions, valuing the people as the most precious resource, will we become “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with selfworth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation”
Again it is unfortunate that we have gotten to this day such a day in our history, and I am being put in a position such as this, but what is becoming evident all around us, once again quoting Martin Luther King, “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself;” this is what we are now experiencing at this momentous time in our history.
The uprising taking place in our country says that we as a people have come full circle in our quest for true independence. And we have lost faith in our chosen leaders to deliver on the promises made decades ago, even years ago.
Disappointingly, I bring my contribution on this debate to a close by quoting from the Honourable Member from North Abaco who once said, among other things, that his job, as leader, is to “anticipate the future as best as he can and to act in the people’s interest.” At that time in 1997, our Prime Minister said to the people of the nation, “because I believe that Bahamians ought to own the majority in Batelco, I shall never, never, ever sell the majority holding in Batelco to anyone other than Bahamians.”
He also said, “I have stated often that I do not want to be elected to office promising one thing, knowing I am going to do another, but neglecting to say what I am going to do, just to get elected.” What a difference 14 years makes. At the time, it was just a matter of trust.
Now, however, some 14 years later, it is regrettable that the promise of empowerment made to the people of the Bahamas - captured in the phrase “never, never, ever” - a promise that they were told that they could trust, is being flagrantly tossed aside as a miscalculation of the time; Time and time Bahamians have showed that they are a trusting people, willing to take any old thing at face value because they want to believe in truth and honesty.
But how many more broken political promises can an already broken people take before they say enough is enough?
I hope that when we see the marches and the demonstrations, and hear of resignations, and other forms of civil protests, we will not be so quick to deplore these marches and demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of protest without expressing similar, strong criticism for the
conditions that brought about the marches and the demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of civil protests.
As I take my seat, I think it is quite obvious that I have no intentions of lending my support to the government’s plan to give over to Cable and Wireless a majority holding in the country’s telecommunications corporation. For the sake of a brighter future for our country, I hope that there will be others of my former colleagues who will be ready to rise above the fray and put aside political allegiances and alliances, to give our people - your people - a vote of confidence in their ability to be innovators, to be owners, and to be operators in a democratic, free market economy; I hope today that we will be affording them some semblance of pride and dignity by voting against this that is before us, and where and when they falter, be a source of encouragement for their betterment; I hope that some of my fellow colleagues will find the courage to show their individual character, and join me in attempting to begin the process of delivering to the Bahamian people the economical, political, and societal empowerment that they have so long been promised but denied.
It is not just me, not just those on the opposite side of the isle, and not just those demonstrating and protesting outside these walls who are making this request; if you have really looked around at our society in the last decade or so, you will have recognized that our entire society is, in some ways, crying out for a vote of confidence. Let us do what is right for a nation. I ask that you and other Bahamians join me and let us turn back the tides of injustice by saying NO to Cable and Wireless as majority owners in BTC.
Bahamas Blog International
In fact, on many occasions, I remember silently thinking - in awe - what an honor and privilege it is to be sitting among the Members for North Abaco and Farm Road; indeed men who once spoke out emphatically on issues of truth, justice, and equality. So, in saying all that I have said before this, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that my words – in any way – will not be an affront to any person and I hope that persons do not take offense to them. I would want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that, it is as a result of the courage and boldness that I have seen in some of these Honourable Men over the years, particularly when confronting issues of national importance, I am now emboldened to speak the following.
When I made the decision to enter into politics, I made that decision based on what I saw taking place in my social environment. Among other things, crime was rampant and people were no longer feeling safe in their own environment; dysfunction was at an all time high among our young people and they were failing out of society in larger numbers than ever before; for various reasons, political leaders were continuing to dishonor their office and bring shame on our sovereign nation; while the average Bahamian worked and struggled, the nation was coming undone at its seams. And it seemed as if no one cared; while the people suffered, it appeared to be all politics as usual.
At the time, I thought about my young daughters and wondered if the Bahamas that I saw unfolding before my eyes was the same Bahamas that I wanted for them. I thought about my wife going about her business, not knowing if, at anytime, she would or could become another robbery or murder statistics. I felt compelled to step forward and offer myself as a change agent, not just for my family but for all Bahamians and Bahamian families who were feeling trapped and powerless in a society that was imploding all around us. I was motivated by the idea that I could possibly be one of a few who could be that difference, indeed the difference maker, when it came to shaping the future direction of what is, potentially, the greatest nation in the world. My intention was and is to “be the change I want to see in the world”.
The question for me was, however, how did we allow this situation to occur? I think many of us can remember the excitement that Bahamians from all walks of life felt on July 10, 1973 when the Black, Gold, and Agua Marine was hoisted for the first time to signifying that the Bahamas was a free and independent nation. With this new flag replacing the old Union Jack, no longer were we going to be considered second class citizens in our own society, in our own country. No longer would we be, as Sir Etienne Dupuch puts it in his Tribune Story, seen so “far behind to be conscious of a destiny.” Independence was the promise of a new destiny. And the courage and boldness of a few exceptional men gave all of us - all Bahamians – the courage to dream again. We all become enchanted by the thought of the economic prosperity and social mobility that independence would bring us. We were all enchanted, as a nation, with the promise of empowerment that was to come with independence – a kind of empowerment that was unconceivable before 1973. What a concept:
· Economic empowerment – the thought that we would each have sufficient wealth to take care of our own personal needs;
· Political empowerment – the right to have a voice and say in the way our society is organized and how decisions are made; and
· Societal empowerment – where we would be treated fairly and equally.
For the average Bahamian this was the vision.
Empowerment! What a vision.
We are here today at each other’s throats, not just because the people are angry and worked up at the impending sale of BTC, but we are here today because, some forty years after independence, after decades of dangling the carrot of empowerment before them - offering a pittance here and a pittance there - Bahamian people are disillusioned, fed up with, and angry at feeling disempowered in their own land. And whereas the proposed sale of BTC is the matter before us today, this same sale of the telecommunications corporation is only a symbol of the disenfranchisement and lack of vision that continues to be a slap in the face to the average Bahamian who bought into the dream of independence – a dream that many have given up on as only an illusion.
I hope that, by making my statements today, my intentions in advocating for Bahamian empowerment will not be misconstrued, as I would be remised and, somewhat disingenuous, in not acknowledging the benefits which foreign investors and foreign investments have brought our people and our nation. However, to spend a great deal of time elaborating on that would serve no real purpose at this time, particularly since it has been “thrown” in the face of Bahamian people from time in memoriam. The point of the matter however, at this stage, is that Bahamian people, after decades and decades of educating themselves in some of the finest colleges and universities that the world has to offer, with the hopes of proving themselves, should now – my God - have an opportunity to prove their worth – to the highest degree – in their own country.
If Cable and Wireless is as great as our leaders are purporting them to be, let the government take it hands out of BTC’s operations, open up the market, let Cable and Wireless, Verizon, Sprint, Digicel, and any other provider who wish to enter the market come in. Let them “duke” it out, and may the best man win. But at the end of the day, Bahamians would have to prove their value and their worth,their intelligence and their ingenuity, and if they fail at it, then so be it. But, again, why does Cable and
Wireless need a three year head start on the competition? Politics, nothing more than pure politics.
I will paraphrase a good friend of mine who said that “some of us in society have allowed, and continue to allow our political leaders to us the time proven strategy of divide and conquer to cast one as
the enemy of the other, pitting us imprudently against each other to achieve their goals, while at the same time preventing us from achieving the simple ones we have set for ourselves and have worked so tirelessly to see actualized as a people – the creation of a nation that is a reflection of our collective and intellectual wills.
“At some point, however,” this friend continues, “we must recognize that we are not the enemy of each other, and no matter what our station or position is within society, we are all categorized and classified as Bahamians, and it is under this umbrella that we must collectively assemble” and challenge the political status quo that, for decades, has denied us as a people the right to have the semblance of power that independence has promised us.
What we have seen outside these walls in the past few weeks and days is a challenge to that very same political status quo; what we have seen is a new awakening in a generation that has been disenfranchised for too long – a new people who are crying out to be rescued from, as Martin Luther King calls it, a false sense of inferiority and a feeling of nobodiness.
On January 30, 1997, in one of his last addresses as leader of the Progressive Liberal Party, Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling said his vision for the Bahamas is that it becomes:
· “a nation built on Christian principles and consisting of a citizenry dedicated to respecting and defending human rights, human dignity, and the equal value of all mankind; a nation committed to the reverence for God, the sanctity of the traditional family, equal opportunity, diligent work for the welfare of all its citizens.
· He says the future Bahamas should be “a nation where the people are the most precious resource over and above all natural and material resources, and the national prosperity is measured by the quality of the health, education, and social environment and self esteem of its people;
· He says it should be “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with self-worth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation;”
· But most importantly, he says that the Bahamas should be “a nation where economic diversity creates a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the people, thus producing an atmosphere of variety, healthy competition, and entrepreneurship.”
Now, I have heard all of the colorful commentary over the past few years and month, as people have sought to offer up their analysis and interpretations of me, my actions and my intentions.
Some have said that I am a show-boater and that I like to showboat or indeed grandstand; some who doubt my ability to lead say that I am unqualified, but as one gospel psalmist says, God may not call the most qualified, but he qualifies those whom he calls; and some add that I am a young upstart, and that I should wait for my time; but King says, time is always ripe to do right, and now is the time to make real the promises of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. And over the next few weeks and months, and even years, as I seek to continue serving the people of Bamboo Town and the Bahamas, I am sure that the colorful commentaries, criticisms, and characterizations will only intensify as the naysayers will naysay in their attempts to discredit me and send me to my political graveyard. But I can assure you here today, as I stand in opposition to the offering up of the majority holdings in the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation, no matter what commentaries are offered up about and against me, I promise the Bahamian people, from Grand Bahama in the north to Inagua in the south, Long Island to Rum Cay, from Baintown to Bamboo Town, from Ft. Charlotte to Ft. Fincastle, that God willing, I will continue to do what I entered politics in 2007 to do, and that is work to ensure that The Bahamas becomes a society free from the force of complacency brought on us by years and years of oppression, insensitivity, bitterness, and self-hate – a place where people can begin to feel a true sense of “somebodiness.”
Because, despite what some may say about us - despite what we have been fooled into believing about ourselves - we are a great people, and we have one of the greatest country in the world. As a matter of fact, Dr Miles Munroe always says and I agree, that ”The Bahamas is the place where God lives”.
That is why almost everyone in the world wants a piece of the Bahamian rock. But the time has come for us to stop giving ourselves away, particularly for cheaper cell phone rates! My Lord, my Lord.
Now, because I am reminded that our own dear Prime Minister is himself a transplant from the Progressive Liberal Party of old - (thank God for
radicalism, freedom of expression, and the freedom not to bandwagon) - and the illustrious leader of the opposition has remained a true stalwart, I say what I am about to say without fear of reprisal; In an attempt to get our country back on track, it is time for a revisiting of Sir Lynden’s vision for The Bahamas.
It is time for us to come up with strategies where, as a nation and people, we can continue to use and sustain a moderate tourism and financial product as revenue generators, while at the same time, find new ways to diversify our economy by creating a broad spectrum of opportunities to challenge all the rich, creative talents, gifts, abilities, and ingenuity of the Bahamian people; our country is brimming with a whole generation of young people out there waiting to take up the call. I know!!!!! I speak with young people everyday!! I am a young person and the young people are listening and they will make the difference!!!!!!
We must begin to lay the framework for an economy that is less based on physical capital in favor of one that is more dependent on human capital, for as Ralph Massey says, “human capital is more important to the public welfare than is physical capital.”
We must move away from an economy that thrives primarily on imported goods and servitude, and create one which is more of a producer model, driven primarily on exported goods and services – in many forms – created by manufacturing innovation and invention.
We must have a plan for the mobilization of our land mass, where each island will be developed and advanced so as to play an integral part in the country’s well being.
We must see to it that education is harnessed and used as the tool by which Bahamians, using the ingenuity derived from a quality education, will be able to meet more of their own consumer needs, and at the same time, meet and fulfill the needs of many of the global neighbors, particularly those in other Caribbean nations.
We must clearly define our national needs and stop allowing others to come in from the outside to define them for us. The future model for The Bahamas must be one in which we have a clear vision of the direction that we want our country to go in, and – God forbid – in the absence of qualified Bahamians, we invite a qualified labor force in to assist us with the building of our national dreams – instead of us using our labor to continually build the dreams of others.
Only when we begin to move in these directions, valuing the people as the most precious resource, will we become “a nation where the individual and corporate productivity are synonymous with selfworth and where the love for work is esteemed as a national obligation”
Again it is unfortunate that we have gotten to this day such a day in our history, and I am being put in a position such as this, but what is becoming evident all around us, once again quoting Martin Luther King, “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself;” this is what we are now experiencing at this momentous time in our history.
The uprising taking place in our country says that we as a people have come full circle in our quest for true independence. And we have lost faith in our chosen leaders to deliver on the promises made decades ago, even years ago.
Disappointingly, I bring my contribution on this debate to a close by quoting from the Honourable Member from North Abaco who once said, among other things, that his job, as leader, is to “anticipate the future as best as he can and to act in the people’s interest.” At that time in 1997, our Prime Minister said to the people of the nation, “because I believe that Bahamians ought to own the majority in Batelco, I shall never, never, ever sell the majority holding in Batelco to anyone other than Bahamians.”
He also said, “I have stated often that I do not want to be elected to office promising one thing, knowing I am going to do another, but neglecting to say what I am going to do, just to get elected.” What a difference 14 years makes. At the time, it was just a matter of trust.
Now, however, some 14 years later, it is regrettable that the promise of empowerment made to the people of the Bahamas - captured in the phrase “never, never, ever” - a promise that they were told that they could trust, is being flagrantly tossed aside as a miscalculation of the time; Time and time Bahamians have showed that they are a trusting people, willing to take any old thing at face value because they want to believe in truth and honesty.
But how many more broken political promises can an already broken people take before they say enough is enough?
I hope that when we see the marches and the demonstrations, and hear of resignations, and other forms of civil protests, we will not be so quick to deplore these marches and demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of protest without expressing similar, strong criticism for the
conditions that brought about the marches and the demonstrations, and resignations, and other forms of civil protests.
As I take my seat, I think it is quite obvious that I have no intentions of lending my support to the government’s plan to give over to Cable and Wireless a majority holding in the country’s telecommunications corporation. For the sake of a brighter future for our country, I hope that there will be others of my former colleagues who will be ready to rise above the fray and put aside political allegiances and alliances, to give our people - your people - a vote of confidence in their ability to be innovators, to be owners, and to be operators in a democratic, free market economy; I hope today that we will be affording them some semblance of pride and dignity by voting against this that is before us, and where and when they falter, be a source of encouragement for their betterment; I hope that some of my fellow colleagues will find the courage to show their individual character, and join me in attempting to begin the process of delivering to the Bahamian people the economical, political, and societal empowerment that they have so long been promised but denied.
It is not just me, not just those on the opposite side of the isle, and not just those demonstrating and protesting outside these walls who are making this request; if you have really looked around at our society in the last decade or so, you will have recognized that our entire society is, in some ways, crying out for a vote of confidence. Let us do what is right for a nation. I ask that you and other Bahamians join me and let us turn back the tides of injustice by saying NO to Cable and Wireless as majority owners in BTC.
Bahamas Blog International
Friday, January 21, 2011
Allow Bahamians To Buy 100% of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company Limited (BTC) and Let Competition Reign!
By Dennis Dames
About eleven years ago, my wife, along with hundreds of BaTelCo employees, accepted the company’s severance package; the deal was, according to my understanding, to prepare the entity for privatization.
That was sometime in 1999. This is now 2011, and the people’s government of the day has selected a candidate to purchase a 51% stake in the ailing BTC. The masses should be delighted about the good news; but ruckus has clouded the issue at hand and the nation has become bitterly divided over this simple matter.
Okay, let Bahamians buy the entire BTC (100%) and liberalize the market forthwith. Let competition reign!
No one in this 21st century Bahamas should have a problem with that. After selling BTC to Bahamians and giving other Bahamians a chance to compete with it, I wonder what the noise in the market would be then.
Let’s go that route, and give the consumers an immediate choice as to which telecommunication company that they would prefer doing business with; just like the local radio stations that we choose to patronize.
We have had a fax-line problem at our office lately, and it took five different technicians from BTC, on five separate visits to remedy the problem. What a national disgrace!
This is what the unions are fighting to keep; pure incompetence alive at the public’s expense.
It’s time for The Bahamas government to divorce itself of this ineptitude 100% as far as BTC is concerned. So, sell it to Bahamians with money to burn and liberalize the market simultaneously for other Bahamians to capitalize on BTC’s uselessness.
I can’t wait to see the unions demonstrate against Bahamians and competition. Then we shall see their real motives clearly; and that is to protect their lot of backward comrades.
Bahamas Blog International
About eleven years ago, my wife, along with hundreds of BaTelCo employees, accepted the company’s severance package; the deal was, according to my understanding, to prepare the entity for privatization.
That was sometime in 1999. This is now 2011, and the people’s government of the day has selected a candidate to purchase a 51% stake in the ailing BTC. The masses should be delighted about the good news; but ruckus has clouded the issue at hand and the nation has become bitterly divided over this simple matter.
Okay, let Bahamians buy the entire BTC (100%) and liberalize the market forthwith. Let competition reign!
No one in this 21st century Bahamas should have a problem with that. After selling BTC to Bahamians and giving other Bahamians a chance to compete with it, I wonder what the noise in the market would be then.
Let’s go that route, and give the consumers an immediate choice as to which telecommunication company that they would prefer doing business with; just like the local radio stations that we choose to patronize.
We have had a fax-line problem at our office lately, and it took five different technicians from BTC, on five separate visits to remedy the problem. What a national disgrace!
This is what the unions are fighting to keep; pure incompetence alive at the public’s expense.
It’s time for The Bahamas government to divorce itself of this ineptitude 100% as far as BTC is concerned. So, sell it to Bahamians with money to burn and liberalize the market simultaneously for other Bahamians to capitalize on BTC’s uselessness.
I can’t wait to see the unions demonstrate against Bahamians and competition. Then we shall see their real motives clearly; and that is to protect their lot of backward comrades.
Bahamas Blog International
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) Privatisation: 1999 to 2011
Privatisation of BTC: from 1999 to 2011
By LARRY SMITH
"What I've found out about change is that when you propose it
people don't want it, when you are doing it it's hell, and afterwards
they think it's always been like that."
- former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
IN EARLY 2008, about 10 months after the last general election, the Ingraham government appointed a new privatisation committee (headed by bankers T. B. Donaldson and Julian Francis), with a mandate to find a buyer for the Bahamas Telecommunications Company as soon as possible.
This was a goal that had been pursued ever since the FNM first came to power in 1992. In fact, even before then the Pindling regime had been seeking to divest state assets that were draining the treasury. By the early 90s the PLP had decided to offload government-owned hotels. And believe it or not, they also had confidential talks with Cable & Wireless about a stake in BaTelCo.
Privatisation continued to be pursued by the PLP during its most recent term in office, from 2002 to 2007. Although the Christie administration eventually cancelled the auction launched by the FNM, they went on to start their own process, and agreed (just before the 2007 election) to sell BTC to Bluewater Ventures, a foreign firm with an uncertain ownership and no operating history.
But the incoming FNM government could find no evidence that a deal had been finalised, although Bluewater - in the shape of American executive John Gregg and PLP politico/lawyer Brave Davis - insisted that the Christie cabinet had shaken hands on an agreement. In mid-2008, the Ingraham administration relaunched the privatisation process, eventually paying Bluewater $1.9 million to cover its out-of-pocket costs.
THE FIRST PRIVATISATION
This was surely a damnable waste of money, but the reasoning behind it was clear. The policy had always been to sell a stake in BTC to a major strategic partner - a company with the technical expertise, operating record, and bulk purchasing power needed to take the corporation to another level. There was no interest in selling to someone who merely had the financial capacity to buy.
In 1999, during the first privatisation exercise, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that if the government simply transferred ownership of BTC to its employees, the corporation would go out of business as soon as it faced real competition. A strategic partner, he said, would enable BTC to compete and move forward in a transformed market.
"We seek to privatise BTC in the national interest," Ingraham said a decade ago, "and we have sought a phased approach to ensure minimal disruption." More recently he said: "We told Bahamians from day one that it was not possible to continue to have a monopoly in the telephone business and we established policies to prepare ourselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of people employed in the telecoms sector who were not so employed before we began to liberalise the market."
Before the government began downsizing BaTelCo in the mid-90s, the corporation had accumulated a workforce of 2100 to accomplish what experts said should require only a few hundred. And this padded payroll was clearly reflected in BaTelCo's dismal performance up to that point.
In 1992 the corporation's revenue was $120.3 million, with a net loss of $1.8 million that year. But after a 50 per cent reduction in staff (based on generous separation packages), BaTelCo's 2001 revenue was $226.4 million, producing a net profit of $57.3 million - almost as much as the corporation had earned over 10 years from 1982 to 1992.
THE CURRENT PROCESS
In 2008, the government appointed an advisory committee to oversee the new BTC sale process, under the chairmanship of State Finance Minister Zhivago Laing. This group would formulate the final recommendations to cabinet from information presented by the privatisation committee (headed by Donaldson and Francis). The leaders of both BTC unions were full members of the advisory committee.
The advisory committee authorised a new BTC auction in mid-2009, with the publication of a notice inviting bidders to register. Qualified parties were asked for technical proposals, and the best of these were invited to submit financial bids. The privatisation committee reviewed the bids and passed them on to the advisory committee for evaluation.
At the same time, major changes to the regulatory environment were being pursued to support market liberalisation. These included legislation to set up a new Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority to govern both broadcasting and telecommunications. In short, the government was totally reforming our antiquated communications laws.
According to the April 29, 2009 minutes of the advisory committee, Minister Laing said the new legislation was the result of "a vast amount of work and represented a new era for the Bahamas" that would bring clarity to what could, and could not, be done in the telecoms industry.
UNION ISSUES
At the July 13, 2009 meeting of the advisory committee, Minister Earl Deveaux recalled that during the first privatisation exercise, BTC workers rejected the decision and responded "in a way that brought great distress to the nation." He asked the union leaders for assurances that this would not be repeated. The BCPMU is the middle managers union. The BCPOU is the line staff union.
At that meeting BCPMU president William Carroll said the major issue for the unions in 1999 had been the separation packages, and that was why workers demonstrated. He added that treatment of staff should be one of the determinants for a successful bid, but went on to acknowledge that BTC employees now accepted the fact of imminent privatisation.
In response to a comment from BCPOU leader Bernard Evans that Bahamian buyers had been excluded from the process, Minister Laing said the search was for a strategic partner who would have the financial and technological resources to "take BTC to the level at which the government wanted it to be." That position did not necessarily exclude Bahamian proposals, but it was unlikely that a Bahamian group would fit the bill.
According to the minutes, Minister Carl Bethel said the government wanted a strong international connection, a company with experience in all areas of telecommunications and with the financial strength and operating platform to be able to support BTC's infrastructure and mission. He questioned whether any Bahamian entity possessed those qualities.
Minister Laing said that unlike the previous attempt, this time the government was not seeking to shape the product that was on offer, outside of its conviction that privatising BTC would be better for the country, for the economy, and ultimately for the workers. The government was reforming the regulatory environment and selling BTC as it exists today, and the role of the advisory committee was to determine the best buyer.
CABLE & WIRELESS
The BTC auction notice attracted six initial responses, and four were invited to submit bids. Only two were received by the December 11, 2009 deadline - from JPMorgan Chase's private equity arm and from Atlantic Tele-Network, a consortium that included Colina Financial Advisors. Neither was considered to have met the government's criteria.
According to minutes of the July 23, 2010 meeting, the advisory committee unanimously rejected both bids as "departing significantly in their requirements and expectations from the conditions acceptable to the government."
The committee was then informed by Julian Francis that, following its recent restructuring, Cable & Wireless had expressed an interest in BTC. While both union leaders had reservations about C&W in terms of employee relations, the advisory committee unanimously endorsed a recommendation to engage in talks with the company, which is a major regional and international telecoms operator.
In October of last year, the advisory committee met for the final time to consider the report of the working committee on its talks with Cable & Wireless. According to Julian Francis, a non-binding memorandum of understanding had been drafted that valued BTC at $400-450 million, based on a two-year exclusivity period.
"However, Cable & Wireless believes that an extension may be necessary for BTC to prepare for competition, which would be aggressive given the low threshold for investment under the new regulatory regime," Francis said. "In comparison, the Bluewater proposal was for a five-year exclusivity period for mobile, with each year being valued at between $60-70 million by the committee's advisors."
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Francis said the MOU called for Cable & Wireless to produce a five-year business plan acceptable to government before a deal could be closed. This plan would spell out Bahamian involvement in the management of BTC and Cable & Wireless' international operations.
Going forward, he said, the government wanted to have a veto over remuneration, staff cuts, the sale of assets and the location of operations. According to Francis, Cable & Wireless was "convinced that BTC should be run by a Bahamian and the government had indicated that management must remain in the Bahamas."
Both union leaders reiterated their focus on job protection, but Minister Deveaux pointed out that taxpayers wanted better service. Sir William Allen, the government's economic advisor, said technology would continue to erode whatever advantages BTC currently had, even if the market was not liberalised.
With respect to workforce restructuring, BCPOU leader Bernard Evans said "voluntary separation packages are an acceptable option once the terms are suitable." Minister Laing responded that there was room for standstill, with compulsory reductions tied to the end of the exclusivity period. Both union leaders agreed that a three or four year exclusivity period would be "more manageable" in this regard.
The advisory committee agreed to recommend only voluntary staff cuts prior to the end of the exclusivity period, and urged government to extend this period "to help with job preservation in the short term." In a closing note, the October minutes recorded that the committee's recommendations would be passed to government for a final decision, with Minister Laing satisfied that that "all major issues have been discussed and agreement reached."
On December 2, the government announced the signing of the memorandum of understanding, as recommended by the advisory committee, on the same day it was signed. Talks then began to develop more precise contract language to clarify all issues. The agreement included a three-year exclusivity period for mobile and a voluntary workforce restructuring.
POLITICAL RESISTANCE
But within days of that announcement, the two union leaders and the PLP had begun a drumbeat of opposition to the deal - which was already 13 years too late. "This is just not the right time," said BCPOU leader Evans. "We don't support Cable & Wireless - period." He insisted that separation packages offered to workers should be more than BTC employees got in 1999 (which cost the country some $90 million), and should be enough to last workers a lifetime.
According to the prime minister, "the PLP agreed just before the election to sell BTC to a foreigner, who some think was fronting for some of them. And they never told the public a single word that they agreed to sell BTC. The reality is that the union and the PLP are at one in their fight against this exercise. And you can figure out why the PLP, which agreed to sell to a one-man show, is now opposed to selling to a $2.5 billion publicly traded company that operates around the world.
As the minutes of the advisory committee show, the plain fact is that the union leaders were part and parcel of the entire privatisation process, and after seeking concessions from the government they signed off on the major components of the memorandum of understanding.
"We went out of our way to protect jobs at BTC to the public's disadvantage," the prime minister told a meeting in Grand Bahama recently. "As night follows day, rates are high because BTC has more people employed than they need, and they are seeking to protect what they have because there's plenty juice there for them."
As for the prospects of general strike similar to that which occurred in 1958, it seems clear that the BTC unions' action is a greedy attempt on the part of special interests to hold the nation to ransom rather than a struggle for democracy. And as for the question of Bahamian as opposed to foreign ownership, why hasn't this been raised before?
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
January 12, 2011
tribune242
By LARRY SMITH
"What I've found out about change is that when you propose it
people don't want it, when you are doing it it's hell, and afterwards
they think it's always been like that."
- former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
IN EARLY 2008, about 10 months after the last general election, the Ingraham government appointed a new privatisation committee (headed by bankers T. B. Donaldson and Julian Francis), with a mandate to find a buyer for the Bahamas Telecommunications Company as soon as possible.
This was a goal that had been pursued ever since the FNM first came to power in 1992. In fact, even before then the Pindling regime had been seeking to divest state assets that were draining the treasury. By the early 90s the PLP had decided to offload government-owned hotels. And believe it or not, they also had confidential talks with Cable & Wireless about a stake in BaTelCo.
Privatisation continued to be pursued by the PLP during its most recent term in office, from 2002 to 2007. Although the Christie administration eventually cancelled the auction launched by the FNM, they went on to start their own process, and agreed (just before the 2007 election) to sell BTC to Bluewater Ventures, a foreign firm with an uncertain ownership and no operating history.
But the incoming FNM government could find no evidence that a deal had been finalised, although Bluewater - in the shape of American executive John Gregg and PLP politico/lawyer Brave Davis - insisted that the Christie cabinet had shaken hands on an agreement. In mid-2008, the Ingraham administration relaunched the privatisation process, eventually paying Bluewater $1.9 million to cover its out-of-pocket costs.
THE FIRST PRIVATISATION
This was surely a damnable waste of money, but the reasoning behind it was clear. The policy had always been to sell a stake in BTC to a major strategic partner - a company with the technical expertise, operating record, and bulk purchasing power needed to take the corporation to another level. There was no interest in selling to someone who merely had the financial capacity to buy.
In 1999, during the first privatisation exercise, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said that if the government simply transferred ownership of BTC to its employees, the corporation would go out of business as soon as it faced real competition. A strategic partner, he said, would enable BTC to compete and move forward in a transformed market.
"We seek to privatise BTC in the national interest," Ingraham said a decade ago, "and we have sought a phased approach to ensure minimal disruption." More recently he said: "We told Bahamians from day one that it was not possible to continue to have a monopoly in the telephone business and we established policies to prepare ourselves. There are hundreds and hundreds of people employed in the telecoms sector who were not so employed before we began to liberalise the market."
Before the government began downsizing BaTelCo in the mid-90s, the corporation had accumulated a workforce of 2100 to accomplish what experts said should require only a few hundred. And this padded payroll was clearly reflected in BaTelCo's dismal performance up to that point.
In 1992 the corporation's revenue was $120.3 million, with a net loss of $1.8 million that year. But after a 50 per cent reduction in staff (based on generous separation packages), BaTelCo's 2001 revenue was $226.4 million, producing a net profit of $57.3 million - almost as much as the corporation had earned over 10 years from 1982 to 1992.
THE CURRENT PROCESS
In 2008, the government appointed an advisory committee to oversee the new BTC sale process, under the chairmanship of State Finance Minister Zhivago Laing. This group would formulate the final recommendations to cabinet from information presented by the privatisation committee (headed by Donaldson and Francis). The leaders of both BTC unions were full members of the advisory committee.
The advisory committee authorised a new BTC auction in mid-2009, with the publication of a notice inviting bidders to register. Qualified parties were asked for technical proposals, and the best of these were invited to submit financial bids. The privatisation committee reviewed the bids and passed them on to the advisory committee for evaluation.
At the same time, major changes to the regulatory environment were being pursued to support market liberalisation. These included legislation to set up a new Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority to govern both broadcasting and telecommunications. In short, the government was totally reforming our antiquated communications laws.
According to the April 29, 2009 minutes of the advisory committee, Minister Laing said the new legislation was the result of "a vast amount of work and represented a new era for the Bahamas" that would bring clarity to what could, and could not, be done in the telecoms industry.
UNION ISSUES
At the July 13, 2009 meeting of the advisory committee, Minister Earl Deveaux recalled that during the first privatisation exercise, BTC workers rejected the decision and responded "in a way that brought great distress to the nation." He asked the union leaders for assurances that this would not be repeated. The BCPMU is the middle managers union. The BCPOU is the line staff union.
At that meeting BCPMU president William Carroll said the major issue for the unions in 1999 had been the separation packages, and that was why workers demonstrated. He added that treatment of staff should be one of the determinants for a successful bid, but went on to acknowledge that BTC employees now accepted the fact of imminent privatisation.
In response to a comment from BCPOU leader Bernard Evans that Bahamian buyers had been excluded from the process, Minister Laing said the search was for a strategic partner who would have the financial and technological resources to "take BTC to the level at which the government wanted it to be." That position did not necessarily exclude Bahamian proposals, but it was unlikely that a Bahamian group would fit the bill.
According to the minutes, Minister Carl Bethel said the government wanted a strong international connection, a company with experience in all areas of telecommunications and with the financial strength and operating platform to be able to support BTC's infrastructure and mission. He questioned whether any Bahamian entity possessed those qualities.
Minister Laing said that unlike the previous attempt, this time the government was not seeking to shape the product that was on offer, outside of its conviction that privatising BTC would be better for the country, for the economy, and ultimately for the workers. The government was reforming the regulatory environment and selling BTC as it exists today, and the role of the advisory committee was to determine the best buyer.
CABLE & WIRELESS
The BTC auction notice attracted six initial responses, and four were invited to submit bids. Only two were received by the December 11, 2009 deadline - from JPMorgan Chase's private equity arm and from Atlantic Tele-Network, a consortium that included Colina Financial Advisors. Neither was considered to have met the government's criteria.
According to minutes of the July 23, 2010 meeting, the advisory committee unanimously rejected both bids as "departing significantly in their requirements and expectations from the conditions acceptable to the government."
The committee was then informed by Julian Francis that, following its recent restructuring, Cable & Wireless had expressed an interest in BTC. While both union leaders had reservations about C&W in terms of employee relations, the advisory committee unanimously endorsed a recommendation to engage in talks with the company, which is a major regional and international telecoms operator.
In October of last year, the advisory committee met for the final time to consider the report of the working committee on its talks with Cable & Wireless. According to Julian Francis, a non-binding memorandum of understanding had been drafted that valued BTC at $400-450 million, based on a two-year exclusivity period.
"However, Cable & Wireless believes that an extension may be necessary for BTC to prepare for competition, which would be aggressive given the low threshold for investment under the new regulatory regime," Francis said. "In comparison, the Bluewater proposal was for a five-year exclusivity period for mobile, with each year being valued at between $60-70 million by the committee's advisors."
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Francis said the MOU called for Cable & Wireless to produce a five-year business plan acceptable to government before a deal could be closed. This plan would spell out Bahamian involvement in the management of BTC and Cable & Wireless' international operations.
Going forward, he said, the government wanted to have a veto over remuneration, staff cuts, the sale of assets and the location of operations. According to Francis, Cable & Wireless was "convinced that BTC should be run by a Bahamian and the government had indicated that management must remain in the Bahamas."
Both union leaders reiterated their focus on job protection, but Minister Deveaux pointed out that taxpayers wanted better service. Sir William Allen, the government's economic advisor, said technology would continue to erode whatever advantages BTC currently had, even if the market was not liberalised.
With respect to workforce restructuring, BCPOU leader Bernard Evans said "voluntary separation packages are an acceptable option once the terms are suitable." Minister Laing responded that there was room for standstill, with compulsory reductions tied to the end of the exclusivity period. Both union leaders agreed that a three or four year exclusivity period would be "more manageable" in this regard.
The advisory committee agreed to recommend only voluntary staff cuts prior to the end of the exclusivity period, and urged government to extend this period "to help with job preservation in the short term." In a closing note, the October minutes recorded that the committee's recommendations would be passed to government for a final decision, with Minister Laing satisfied that that "all major issues have been discussed and agreement reached."
On December 2, the government announced the signing of the memorandum of understanding, as recommended by the advisory committee, on the same day it was signed. Talks then began to develop more precise contract language to clarify all issues. The agreement included a three-year exclusivity period for mobile and a voluntary workforce restructuring.
POLITICAL RESISTANCE
But within days of that announcement, the two union leaders and the PLP had begun a drumbeat of opposition to the deal - which was already 13 years too late. "This is just not the right time," said BCPOU leader Evans. "We don't support Cable & Wireless - period." He insisted that separation packages offered to workers should be more than BTC employees got in 1999 (which cost the country some $90 million), and should be enough to last workers a lifetime.
According to the prime minister, "the PLP agreed just before the election to sell BTC to a foreigner, who some think was fronting for some of them. And they never told the public a single word that they agreed to sell BTC. The reality is that the union and the PLP are at one in their fight against this exercise. And you can figure out why the PLP, which agreed to sell to a one-man show, is now opposed to selling to a $2.5 billion publicly traded company that operates around the world.
As the minutes of the advisory committee show, the plain fact is that the union leaders were part and parcel of the entire privatisation process, and after seeking concessions from the government they signed off on the major components of the memorandum of understanding.
"We went out of our way to protect jobs at BTC to the public's disadvantage," the prime minister told a meeting in Grand Bahama recently. "As night follows day, rates are high because BTC has more people employed than they need, and they are seeking to protect what they have because there's plenty juice there for them."
As for the prospects of general strike similar to that which occurred in 1958, it seems clear that the BTC unions' action is a greedy attempt on the part of special interests to hold the nation to ransom rather than a struggle for democracy. And as for the question of Bahamian as opposed to foreign ownership, why hasn't this been raised before?
What do you think?
Send comments to
larry@tribunemedia.net
Or visit www.bahamapundit.com
January 12, 2011
tribune242
Monday, December 13, 2010
Voices Killarney poll shows that many support the proposed BTC sale
Constituency poll shows many support proposed BTC sale
tribune242
A recent poll taken in the Killarney constituency shows that there are many Bahamians who support the government’s intention to sell a 51 per cent stake in The Bahamas Telecommunications Company to the British telecommunication company Cable and Wireless Communications (C&WC).
A recent poll conducted on “Voices Killarney,” an online news letter from the constituency office of Dr Hubert Minnis revealed that 67 people who participated in the poll supported the BTC deal while 50 persons opposed the deal. The poll, which was conducted on December 10 and 11, also revealed that six persons who participated in the poll were undecided.
Among those who supported the sale one person commented, “I think the sale is an excellent idea. C&W are in the Caribbean Islands. Although we are considered ahead of them economically their telephone technology is far ahead of us.” Another posted, “The union just needs to get over it. It is ludicrous that a union dictates who the government sells any corporation to. The government is elected by the people to conduct work on behalf of the people so I believe that every government would make decisions that are in the best interest of the country. Those people at Batelco are lazy and are afraid of privatization.”
Another person in support of the sale commented, “The sale of Batelco is long overdue. We are paying far too much for out dated systems and service that is not customer-oriented. I have been trying to find out for over one year how my land line was turned over in the name of my tenant and they were allowed to transfer my phone line when they gave up the lease on my property. They have also not been able to satisfy me with what has happened to my security deposit. The prices are too high, the service is poor and I think we need to up grade.”
Among those who opposed the decision one person commented, “I agree that staff numbers need to be reduced and employees simply more efficient to cut operation costs. However, if it must be sold, it should be sold to Bahamians with the capital and vision to further advance the company with the latest technologies available in phone and Internet services.”
Another stated, “Batelco belongs to the people of the Bahamas and should not be sold. Bahamians should own and run Batelco.” “I feel that it was a very bad decision because they sold such a great portion of the company for such little money. BTC makes a lot of money just in one year. In two years time BTC would have already made over that amount, so it really made no sense selling for so little,” another person commented.
Among those who were undecided, one stated, “Notwithstanding that the sale is inevitable and probably necessary. I'm curious to know what criteria was laid out to qualify as a purchaser. Does C&W meet the criteria, if they do and other companies also did, what were the track records of the other companies when compared to C&W? Why must we sell 51 per cent as opposed to 49 per cent. Why not consider a group of Bahamians as opposed to foreigners?”
December 13, 2010
tribune242
tribune242
A recent poll taken in the Killarney constituency shows that there are many Bahamians who support the government’s intention to sell a 51 per cent stake in The Bahamas Telecommunications Company to the British telecommunication company Cable and Wireless Communications (C&WC).
A recent poll conducted on “Voices Killarney,” an online news letter from the constituency office of Dr Hubert Minnis revealed that 67 people who participated in the poll supported the BTC deal while 50 persons opposed the deal. The poll, which was conducted on December 10 and 11, also revealed that six persons who participated in the poll were undecided.
Among those who supported the sale one person commented, “I think the sale is an excellent idea. C&W are in the Caribbean Islands. Although we are considered ahead of them economically their telephone technology is far ahead of us.” Another posted, “The union just needs to get over it. It is ludicrous that a union dictates who the government sells any corporation to. The government is elected by the people to conduct work on behalf of the people so I believe that every government would make decisions that are in the best interest of the country. Those people at Batelco are lazy and are afraid of privatization.”
Another person in support of the sale commented, “The sale of Batelco is long overdue. We are paying far too much for out dated systems and service that is not customer-oriented. I have been trying to find out for over one year how my land line was turned over in the name of my tenant and they were allowed to transfer my phone line when they gave up the lease on my property. They have also not been able to satisfy me with what has happened to my security deposit. The prices are too high, the service is poor and I think we need to up grade.”
Among those who opposed the decision one person commented, “I agree that staff numbers need to be reduced and employees simply more efficient to cut operation costs. However, if it must be sold, it should be sold to Bahamians with the capital and vision to further advance the company with the latest technologies available in phone and Internet services.”
Another stated, “Batelco belongs to the people of the Bahamas and should not be sold. Bahamians should own and run Batelco.” “I feel that it was a very bad decision because they sold such a great portion of the company for such little money. BTC makes a lot of money just in one year. In two years time BTC would have already made over that amount, so it really made no sense selling for so little,” another person commented.
Among those who were undecided, one stated, “Notwithstanding that the sale is inevitable and probably necessary. I'm curious to know what criteria was laid out to qualify as a purchaser. Does C&W meet the criteria, if they do and other companies also did, what were the track records of the other companies when compared to C&W? Why must we sell 51 per cent as opposed to 49 per cent. Why not consider a group of Bahamians as opposed to foreigners?”
December 13, 2010
tribune242
Friday, February 6, 2004
New Offer For Bahamas Telecommunications Company - BTC
New Offer For BTC
06/02/2004
The final bidder pushed out of the race to purchase a minority ownership in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company is preparing a new offer to make to the government, the Journal has learnt.
But the Tenders Commission is not now open to any new proposals, as it has started another phase of privatisation, which would take on another form from the effort initiated more than five years ago.
Still, Blue Telecommunications plans to approach the government with a more fine-tuned and "more convincing" plan.
Company officials are hopeful that the government would at least be willing to entertain them.
The group's President Lindbergh Smith on Thursday was not prepared to speak to such reports. But he did hint that his company is still interested in having a stake in BTC. "The Minister of State for Finance alluded to the fact that BTC still has to be privatised," Mr. Smith told the Journal. "As a Bahamian, I am encouraged by the fact that the government is still committed to privatisation."
Financial Secretary Ruth Millar, who chairs the Tenders Commission, has told the Journal that the government has given the Commission a new mandate to review other options for privatisation of the telephone company. But Mrs. Millar declined to say much else.
One source close to the Commission said Thursday that it is "utter nonsense" for Blue to still be working toward a plan for BTC.
"Their plan was rejected because it was not in the best interest of BTC or The Bahamas," he said. "The Commission has been instructed to end that entire phase."
In rejecting Blue, the Commission revealed that there were serious concerns regarding the company's financial structure.
Blue reportedly planned to help pay for its stake in BTC by using the phone company's assets to borrow.
But a Blue official has since denied this saying that was, "totally untrue. That was not so. It was totally speculation that was pushed by some of the members of the Commission who do not favour privatising BTC."
According to the official, it was Blue's original plan to borrow on the assets of the company.
"The government was not comfortable with that and wanted a clearer transaction," he explained.
He said that in its revised plan, Blue was prepared to do an all-cash transaction. While Blue is reportedly preparing its comeback, BahamaTel Consortium, which was headed by Tom Bain, has given up on BTC altogether.
Shortly after the government rejected the BahamaTel offer due to what Mrs. Millar called a deficient business plan, Mr. Bain told the Journal that his group had come to the end of the line.
State Minister for Finance James Smith has said that the government is "shifting gears" as it relates to the privatisation of BTC.
In the meantime, he said BTC has to "continue to do things to develop and expand its managerial capabilities, develop its staff, while at the same time look for efficient ways of government having to divest its interests."
The plan of the former government was to privatise the then Batelco and give it time to prepare for competition before opening the market.
But with that process failed, the new government is looking more toward liberalization of the telecommunications sector with its Telecommunications Sector Policy reportedly being revamped.
The idea now is reportedly to prepare BTC for the onslaught of competition that is surely to come in the near future.
Speaking at the Bahamas Business Outlook seminar on January 20, Minister Smith said the privatisation process "ought not to be abandoned since a privatised BTC would not only provide additional funds to government for debt reduction in 2004, but should also provide increased capacity for expanding technology including high speed data transmission capabilities which are essential to the e-commerce development effort."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)