Union leader promises a 'small Egypt'
tribune242 editorial
YESTERDAY the Government laid on the table of the House the much anticipated agreement to sell 51 per cent of Bahamas Telecommunications Company to Cable and Wireless Communications. The transaction is still subject to parliamentary and regulatory approvals.
Opposition leader Perry Christie quickly announced that his party will not support the sale. He said the Opposition was particularly "grieved that even though the decision was made to sell, the decision was made to sell 51 per cent." To him that was "an error of judgment on the part of this government and certainly does not serve the best interests of the people of the Bahamas."
We know that Mr Christie, a lawyer, probably does not have much practical experience in the business world, but when a purchaser is so hobbled in a sale -- as is Cable & Wireless -- the vendor has to relinquish something to keep him interested in the purchase. An early snag in the negotiations was C&W's need to slash 30 per cent of BTC's 1,150 work force to put the company in a position to compete in an open market. Obviously, Mr Ingraham, fighting desperately to save BTC jobs and making it clear that his government would not tolerate any forced redundancies, had to somehow "sweeten the pie" to keep C&W at the negotiating table. Many benefits, such as very generous pensions among other perks, had to be protected for current staff.
We presume 51 per cent and the three year period of exclusivity for its cellular service had to be the bait to clinch the deal.
And yet BTC employees are screaming that government is not thinking of the Bahamian people. Maybe they have a point there. An argument can be made that in his effort to protect BTC staff, he did indeed defer many of the benefits that the Bahamian people want now for another three years. This is to protect BTC staff and give them time to decide their future.
If this had been an ordinary sale -- or even if BTC workers had become the owners of the company -- reality would have set in very quickly. They would have become business men and women overnight, and about 300 staff would have had to have been made redundant immediately for the overburdened company to survive.
We presume that 51 per cent was the price that government had to pay to protect the jobs of many ungrateful staff.
Denise Wilson, BCPOU secretary general, declared that even though some Bahamians might not understand why unions are continuing to fight the sale, "it comes down to our rights." We understand only too well why they are fighting, they are not thinking of the country, or the Bahamians who pay their salaries, their focus is solely on themselves.
As for BCPOU president Bernard Evans, despite wanting us to believe that unionists are fighting the sale for the sake of future generations, he has vowed to turn this country into a "small Egypt." Those of us who have watched television these past two weeks know exactly what that means -- destruction. And after he has destroyed the nation, what does he plan to salvage from the ruins to pass on to his children?
He talks about showing the strength of the people.
Mr Evans is fooling himself if he thinks his minority, now trying to hold the government hostage, represents the will of the majority of Bahamians.
"I want to apologise right now publicly to all of our valued customers," said Mr Evans. "Be patient with us, but needless to say that services will be affected somewhat. Be patient with us, we are fighting for a cause we believe, we know, is bigger than BTC's members and employees. We are fighting for the future of our children."
Mr Evans forgets that Bahamians have been patient will their performance for too long now. The patience of most of us has run out.
Either the Bahamas is going to forge ahead for the sake of our children, or it is going to be held back in the cesspool of inefficiency.
After Mr Evans has turned us into another Egypt and jeopardised the jobs of all Bahamians, there won't be much left for another generation.
Nor have we any patience with an unreasonable people who reject an invitation to at least sit down and have a discussion with the Prime Minister.
What should be remembered is that Prime Minister Ingraham is the elected representative of the Bahamian people, not Mr Evans or union leaders.
February 09, 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 Prime Minister Ingraham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prime Minister Ingraham. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, October 25, 2010
Opposition Leader Perry Christie called on Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham to treat Baha Mar developer Sarkis Ismirlian as well as he treats Atlantis Boss Sol Kerzner
Christie: Baha Mar developer should get same treatment as Atlantis boss
tribune242
OPPOSITION LEADER Perry Christie called on Hubert Ingraham to treat Baha Mar developer Sarkis Ismirlian as well as he treats Atlantis Boss Sol Kerzner.
Speaking at the presentation of the PLP's position-paper on Baha Mar, Mr Christie said the two men are deserving of the same level of respect.
He said: "I do not know what Sarkis Ismirlian ever did to the prime minister to deserve the kind of humiliating treatment that has been meted out to him in public, time and time again, by Prime Minister Ingraham. It is wrong.
"Mr Ismirlian is deserving of respect, even when we have to disagree with him. It is high time, then, that the prime minister starts talking to Sarkis Ismirlian the same way he always talks to Sol Kerzner."
Mr Christie went on to say that the Bahamas doesn't have "a hope in hell" of being taken seriously by investors, especially in very difficult times, if Mr Ingraham continues to change the "rules of engagement" with investors and continues to believes in "negotiation-by-press-conference".
He said: "You cannot be calling press conferences to tell investors what they must do in order to win your favour. You cannot be telling them one thing in private and then call a press conference to lay down a whole new set of conditions they have to meet, and then when they meet those conditions, you then call yet another press conference to lay down a whole new set of pre-conditions yet again. That is harmful our country's reputation. It is not a wise way to conduct diplomacy. Besides it is a fundamentally unfair way to treat those who are attempting in good faith to make a major investment in our country."
Mr Christie added that there is no use in Prime Minister Ingraham, who left for China on Friday, trying to negotiate a new deal with the Chinese government, which through the China Export-Import Bank is funding the Baha Mar deal, unless Mr Ismirlian and his group are at the same negotiating table.
"There needs to be a tripartite approach to this. Simple logic and plain, good sense demand it. Suppose the PM negotiates a new deal that the Ismirlians cannot or will not live with. What then? What would he have accomplished then? In that case, one foot forward would have been taken followed by two steps backward. That makes no kind of sense.
"I therefore call upon the PM to invite representatives of the Baha Mar Group to join his meeting with the Chinese in China. It is, after all, Baha Mar's project. It seems only sensible and logical and appropriate to have the project owners at the table too so that everything can be settled all at the same time.
Mr Christie went on to say that the Baha Mar project cannot be evaluated in isolation from the "extremely difficult economic circumstances" in which the country finds itself at the moment.
"This is the worst it has been in decades. The level of human suffering is intolerable and threatens the social stability of our country. Unemployment, in particular, is at a painfully high level. Capital inflows have been extremely sparse and spare in recent times, especially in the tourism sector.
"As a result, new employment opportunities for displaced workers, recent secondary school-leavers and college graduates are few and far between. These conditions of acute distress in our country oblige us to embrace the Baha Mar Project. It is, in a very real sense, the only new substantial ray of sunshine that has presented itself."
October 23, 2010
tribune242
tribune242
OPPOSITION LEADER Perry Christie called on Hubert Ingraham to treat Baha Mar developer Sarkis Ismirlian as well as he treats Atlantis Boss Sol Kerzner.
Speaking at the presentation of the PLP's position-paper on Baha Mar, Mr Christie said the two men are deserving of the same level of respect.
He said: "I do not know what Sarkis Ismirlian ever did to the prime minister to deserve the kind of humiliating treatment that has been meted out to him in public, time and time again, by Prime Minister Ingraham. It is wrong.
"Mr Ismirlian is deserving of respect, even when we have to disagree with him. It is high time, then, that the prime minister starts talking to Sarkis Ismirlian the same way he always talks to Sol Kerzner."
Mr Christie went on to say that the Bahamas doesn't have "a hope in hell" of being taken seriously by investors, especially in very difficult times, if Mr Ingraham continues to change the "rules of engagement" with investors and continues to believes in "negotiation-by-press-conference".
He said: "You cannot be calling press conferences to tell investors what they must do in order to win your favour. You cannot be telling them one thing in private and then call a press conference to lay down a whole new set of conditions they have to meet, and then when they meet those conditions, you then call yet another press conference to lay down a whole new set of pre-conditions yet again. That is harmful our country's reputation. It is not a wise way to conduct diplomacy. Besides it is a fundamentally unfair way to treat those who are attempting in good faith to make a major investment in our country."
Mr Christie added that there is no use in Prime Minister Ingraham, who left for China on Friday, trying to negotiate a new deal with the Chinese government, which through the China Export-Import Bank is funding the Baha Mar deal, unless Mr Ismirlian and his group are at the same negotiating table.
"There needs to be a tripartite approach to this. Simple logic and plain, good sense demand it. Suppose the PM negotiates a new deal that the Ismirlians cannot or will not live with. What then? What would he have accomplished then? In that case, one foot forward would have been taken followed by two steps backward. That makes no kind of sense.
"I therefore call upon the PM to invite representatives of the Baha Mar Group to join his meeting with the Chinese in China. It is, after all, Baha Mar's project. It seems only sensible and logical and appropriate to have the project owners at the table too so that everything can be settled all at the same time.
Mr Christie went on to say that the Baha Mar project cannot be evaluated in isolation from the "extremely difficult economic circumstances" in which the country finds itself at the moment.
"This is the worst it has been in decades. The level of human suffering is intolerable and threatens the social stability of our country. Unemployment, in particular, is at a painfully high level. Capital inflows have been extremely sparse and spare in recent times, especially in the tourism sector.
"As a result, new employment opportunities for displaced workers, recent secondary school-leavers and college graduates are few and far between. These conditions of acute distress in our country oblige us to embrace the Baha Mar Project. It is, in a very real sense, the only new substantial ray of sunshine that has presented itself."
October 23, 2010
tribune242
Monday, June 28, 2010
How serious is the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)?
How serious is the PLP?
tribune242 editorial:
COMMENTING on our June 17 editorial - posted on The Tribune's website and headed: "Is this a gimmick for press headlines?" - a reader asked:
"Is it so, as the PLP claim, that the PM ended the Budget debate midstream in the committee stage? If so (and it was on TV for all to see) then is that not an example of denying the Opposition the right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Bahamian people?
"You don't have to like the PLP and you surely have the right to be an FNM partisan. However, in order to have some level of credibility, don't defend obvious wrong."
We are not defending an obvious wrong, nor do we intend to defend an opposition's attitude of arrogant entitlement -- that rules were not made for them.
In all facets of life to achieve harmony precedents are established and rules and procedures are followed.
So too in parliamentary debates. The debate to which our web site commentator refers is governed by constitutional rules. The rule that Opposition Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell was trying to get around was one that does not allow amendment of a money bill that would change the state of the Treasury unless moved by a Cabinet Minister on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr Mitchell, not a cabinet minister, was obviously trying to exempt himself from acknowledging that this rule also governed the Opposition.
The Budget Communication was presented to the House on May 26 by Prime Minister Ingraham. The following week debate opened and all 41 House members -17 of them Opposition- spoke. At that time they could dissect and amend any part of the Budget they wanted. The Budget had to be completed before July 1- three days from now when it goes into effect. Well in advance of the debate government gave its timeline on how it proposed to proceed with the debate and projected when it should be completed. The Opposition had ample time to study the proposed Budget and if members had any policy issues they could have circulated draft amendments - including the one Mr Mitchell moved in the House -- for cabinet consideration. Obviously they did not do this.
After fully debating the Bill, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole with the Speaker retiring from the chamber and the chairman taking the chair.
The Opposition, not having the numbers to defeat any part of the Bill, obviously decided to filibuster, and the filibuster started during examination of the estimates and expenditure of recurrent accounts. According to the Bahamas constitution, no amendment can be made to a money bill except by a cabinet minister with the full consent of the cabinet. As our readers know, Mr Mitchell is not a cabinet minister, and if he were serious he should have submitted his amendment for cabinet consideration well before the start of the debate-- he certainly had enough time to do so.
Because of the seriousness of the economy, the object of this Budget was to cut costs. Instead, Mr Mitchell proposed that funeral payments be increased from the present $650 to $1,300 per person for at least 1000 persons.
Mr Ingraham, obviously realising the Opposition's plan to delay passing of the Budget, warned Mr Mitchell that if he went down that road, he (Mr Ingraham) would move for closure. There is no debate on closure.
Not heeding the warning, the Opposition put the amendment. It was voted down. PLP MP Melanie Griffin by that time was on her feet with another motion -- the Opposition's plan to slow procedure became even more obvious as it appeared that one Opposition amendment was to follow another. The chairman ignored her. Closure was put. The Opposition packed their bags and left. The government continued to move the associated Budget Bills. It went through the Capital budget. So for the PLP to give the impression that the Budget process ended and nothing else was dealt with after they walked out, is just not true. The Budget was completed and passed after their disappearance.
However, what is of interest is that the item to cut parliamentary salaries was very high on the estimates of recurrent expenditure -- as a matter of fact it was Head 3. By the time closure came members were already on Head 44. This was an item about which the Opposition had expressed great concern. Government suggested cutting MPs' salaries by 5 per cent. Opposition Leader Perry Christie disagreed. He said the Opposition wanted salaries cut by 10 per cent. But Head 3 came and went and not a squeak from the Opposition about cutting anything. Why didn't they attempt to move a resolution on this one?
When FNM MP Carl Bethel pointed out this oversight, Dr Bernard Nottage, replied that a separate resolution on salaries was further down on the agenda and that is when they had intended to make their move to have parliamentary salaries reduced to 10 per cent rather than the FNM's five per cent recommendation. They missed the opportunity at Head 3 of the Estimates and skipped out of the House before their anticipated moment came for them to make a big splash by shaving a further five per cent off their parliamentary salaries for the sake of the people.
And so if they were really serious about increasing benefits for burying the indigent dead, and cutting their parliamentary salaries, all they had to do was follow the constitution and parliamentary rules. In other words there is no entitlement to bend the rules and no one is above the constitution -- not even the PLP.
Therefore we stand by our editorial of June 17 that in our opinion the PLP manoeuvres in the House were just gimmicks to attract headlines and impress the less informed.
June 27, 2010
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial:
COMMENTING on our June 17 editorial - posted on The Tribune's website and headed: "Is this a gimmick for press headlines?" - a reader asked:
"Is it so, as the PLP claim, that the PM ended the Budget debate midstream in the committee stage? If so (and it was on TV for all to see) then is that not an example of denying the Opposition the right to freedom of speech on behalf of the Bahamian people?
"You don't have to like the PLP and you surely have the right to be an FNM partisan. However, in order to have some level of credibility, don't defend obvious wrong."
We are not defending an obvious wrong, nor do we intend to defend an opposition's attitude of arrogant entitlement -- that rules were not made for them.
In all facets of life to achieve harmony precedents are established and rules and procedures are followed.
So too in parliamentary debates. The debate to which our web site commentator refers is governed by constitutional rules. The rule that Opposition Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell was trying to get around was one that does not allow amendment of a money bill that would change the state of the Treasury unless moved by a Cabinet Minister on the recommendation of the Cabinet. Mr Mitchell, not a cabinet minister, was obviously trying to exempt himself from acknowledging that this rule also governed the Opposition.
The Budget Communication was presented to the House on May 26 by Prime Minister Ingraham. The following week debate opened and all 41 House members -17 of them Opposition- spoke. At that time they could dissect and amend any part of the Budget they wanted. The Budget had to be completed before July 1- three days from now when it goes into effect. Well in advance of the debate government gave its timeline on how it proposed to proceed with the debate and projected when it should be completed. The Opposition had ample time to study the proposed Budget and if members had any policy issues they could have circulated draft amendments - including the one Mr Mitchell moved in the House -- for cabinet consideration. Obviously they did not do this.
After fully debating the Bill, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole with the Speaker retiring from the chamber and the chairman taking the chair.
The Opposition, not having the numbers to defeat any part of the Bill, obviously decided to filibuster, and the filibuster started during examination of the estimates and expenditure of recurrent accounts. According to the Bahamas constitution, no amendment can be made to a money bill except by a cabinet minister with the full consent of the cabinet. As our readers know, Mr Mitchell is not a cabinet minister, and if he were serious he should have submitted his amendment for cabinet consideration well before the start of the debate-- he certainly had enough time to do so.
Because of the seriousness of the economy, the object of this Budget was to cut costs. Instead, Mr Mitchell proposed that funeral payments be increased from the present $650 to $1,300 per person for at least 1000 persons.
Mr Ingraham, obviously realising the Opposition's plan to delay passing of the Budget, warned Mr Mitchell that if he went down that road, he (Mr Ingraham) would move for closure. There is no debate on closure.
Not heeding the warning, the Opposition put the amendment. It was voted down. PLP MP Melanie Griffin by that time was on her feet with another motion -- the Opposition's plan to slow procedure became even more obvious as it appeared that one Opposition amendment was to follow another. The chairman ignored her. Closure was put. The Opposition packed their bags and left. The government continued to move the associated Budget Bills. It went through the Capital budget. So for the PLP to give the impression that the Budget process ended and nothing else was dealt with after they walked out, is just not true. The Budget was completed and passed after their disappearance.
However, what is of interest is that the item to cut parliamentary salaries was very high on the estimates of recurrent expenditure -- as a matter of fact it was Head 3. By the time closure came members were already on Head 44. This was an item about which the Opposition had expressed great concern. Government suggested cutting MPs' salaries by 5 per cent. Opposition Leader Perry Christie disagreed. He said the Opposition wanted salaries cut by 10 per cent. But Head 3 came and went and not a squeak from the Opposition about cutting anything. Why didn't they attempt to move a resolution on this one?
When FNM MP Carl Bethel pointed out this oversight, Dr Bernard Nottage, replied that a separate resolution on salaries was further down on the agenda and that is when they had intended to make their move to have parliamentary salaries reduced to 10 per cent rather than the FNM's five per cent recommendation. They missed the opportunity at Head 3 of the Estimates and skipped out of the House before their anticipated moment came for them to make a big splash by shaving a further five per cent off their parliamentary salaries for the sake of the people.
And so if they were really serious about increasing benefits for burying the indigent dead, and cutting their parliamentary salaries, all they had to do was follow the constitution and parliamentary rules. In other words there is no entitlement to bend the rules and no one is above the constitution -- not even the PLP.
Therefore we stand by our editorial of June 17 that in our opinion the PLP manoeuvres in the House were just gimmicks to attract headlines and impress the less informed.
June 27, 2010
tribune242 editorial
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
It's all Prime Minister Ingraham's fault!
tribune242 editorial:
THERE ARE those in the PLP who are loath to believe that the necessity for the austerity Budget now under debate in the House of Assembly is the direct result of a world economic collapse - caused by human greed that got out of hand and, following the laws of nature, exploded.
No one heeded the Bible's advise to make certain to keep storehouses full during the seven fat years so that when the seven lean years of famine followed, a people would not perish. The world was giddy with success as the bubble continued to expand. Although there were signs that it could take no more pressure, no one -- except a handful of sceptics -- would concede that it would burst, certainly not as quickly and as dramatically as it did. And so no national leader -- Prime Minister Ingraham included -- was prepared. The Bahamas' continued success depended on the United States, which, to all appearances, was moving ahead with a fair wind in her sails.
The sudden collapse of the unregulated US banks started to bring the house down as every world bank scrambled for safe shelter.
Everyone -- Prime Minister Ingraham included -- had to decide how best to trim the nation's sails and fight to get the ship of state back on even keel.
Although the calamity was slowly creeping up on us, the final collapse came almost overnight as the world's economy started to go down like ten pins in a bowling alley.
Recently Greece crumbled and had to be bailed out by the eurozone countries and the IMF. It was hoped that a short reprieve would give her a chance to catch her financial breath. However, her people, unprepared for such dire news, took to the streets, creating even more confusion. Civil servants were striking in Spain because their salaries had been cut five per cent across the board. Note, although there is a freeze on salaries and promotions in the Bahamas' civil service, no one has lost his job. In other countries, the civil service was the first to be jettisoned.
The fight is now on to save the euro as the United States fears what a European monetary collapse could mean to its own future. No country is exempt from the shock -- except, of course, according to the PLP, Prime Minister Ingraham, whose lack of foresight is the cause of the Bahamas' calamity.
We were particularly surprised to hear St Thomas More MP Frank Smith (PLP) say in the House last week:
"Nowhere in this Budget does the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for having in anyway contributed to the mess in which the country finds itself. This Budget seeks to convince us that everything negative is due to 'global economic forces.' That lack of truth makes the Budget fundamentally dishonest. And, Mr. Speaker, if we are to accomplish any positive goals there is no greater need than for honesty from our Prime Minister."
The reason we are surprised to hear these words from Mr Smith is because his father-in-law, Franklyn Wilson, chairman of the Sunshine Group of Companies, certainly knows what an international economic downturn can mean to a single business in the Bahamas.
After much fanfare and an investment of some $35 million in construction on his company's Cotton Bay resort at Eleuthera, it was on July 22, 2008 that Mr Wilson had to admit that the whole project had been placed in a "holding pattern." The reason: It would be "unwise" at that time to build and open a Bahamas-based hotel due to the "global economic malaise."
In common with multiple other mixed-use resort projects throughout the Bahamas, said Mr Wilson, Cotton Bay had felt the full impact of the US economic downturn, in particular the financial system's credit/liquidity crunch.
This, he said, had made it almost impossible for any remaining purchasers of real estate in these developments to either obtain debt financing for their acquisition, or at the right interest rates.
No one suggested that Mr Wilson had made foolish business decisions to force the "holding pattern." Everyone accepted that it was a situation beyond his control, a situation -- like the present one -- that was off our shores. Maybe, Mr Smith should have a chat with his father-in-law to understand how we are really one big global family, which when one fails in a big way, the others suffer. However, I am told that Mr Wilson was himself heard to be almost repeating word for word what his son-in-law had said in the House. Maybe it would be a good time for him to sit down and have some quiet reflection with himself.
Of course, Mr Smith and his comrades, are blaming it all on what they call Mr Ingraham's "stop, review and cancel" policy of projects that they were dealing with -- but had not completed -- before they were voted out of office. If they had such faith in those projects then they should have seen them through. If they had not been so indecisive, and circumscribed by so many committees and so much talk, when Mr Ingraham took over the administration there would have been nothing for him to stop, review or cancel.
Mr Smith says that each and every day the PLP is preparing itself to bring a change of government. If their five years in power -- and these unfinished contracts, which Mr Ingraham wisely stopped, reviewed and in some cases cancelled -- are indicative of what this country can look forward to, then our advise is that the PLP should step aside. Their five years of poor performance has already been five years too many.
June 09, 2010
tribune242 editorial
THERE ARE those in the PLP who are loath to believe that the necessity for the austerity Budget now under debate in the House of Assembly is the direct result of a world economic collapse - caused by human greed that got out of hand and, following the laws of nature, exploded.
No one heeded the Bible's advise to make certain to keep storehouses full during the seven fat years so that when the seven lean years of famine followed, a people would not perish. The world was giddy with success as the bubble continued to expand. Although there were signs that it could take no more pressure, no one -- except a handful of sceptics -- would concede that it would burst, certainly not as quickly and as dramatically as it did. And so no national leader -- Prime Minister Ingraham included -- was prepared. The Bahamas' continued success depended on the United States, which, to all appearances, was moving ahead with a fair wind in her sails.
The sudden collapse of the unregulated US banks started to bring the house down as every world bank scrambled for safe shelter.
Everyone -- Prime Minister Ingraham included -- had to decide how best to trim the nation's sails and fight to get the ship of state back on even keel.
Although the calamity was slowly creeping up on us, the final collapse came almost overnight as the world's economy started to go down like ten pins in a bowling alley.
Recently Greece crumbled and had to be bailed out by the eurozone countries and the IMF. It was hoped that a short reprieve would give her a chance to catch her financial breath. However, her people, unprepared for such dire news, took to the streets, creating even more confusion. Civil servants were striking in Spain because their salaries had been cut five per cent across the board. Note, although there is a freeze on salaries and promotions in the Bahamas' civil service, no one has lost his job. In other countries, the civil service was the first to be jettisoned.
The fight is now on to save the euro as the United States fears what a European monetary collapse could mean to its own future. No country is exempt from the shock -- except, of course, according to the PLP, Prime Minister Ingraham, whose lack of foresight is the cause of the Bahamas' calamity.
We were particularly surprised to hear St Thomas More MP Frank Smith (PLP) say in the House last week:
"Nowhere in this Budget does the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for having in anyway contributed to the mess in which the country finds itself. This Budget seeks to convince us that everything negative is due to 'global economic forces.' That lack of truth makes the Budget fundamentally dishonest. And, Mr. Speaker, if we are to accomplish any positive goals there is no greater need than for honesty from our Prime Minister."
The reason we are surprised to hear these words from Mr Smith is because his father-in-law, Franklyn Wilson, chairman of the Sunshine Group of Companies, certainly knows what an international economic downturn can mean to a single business in the Bahamas.
After much fanfare and an investment of some $35 million in construction on his company's Cotton Bay resort at Eleuthera, it was on July 22, 2008 that Mr Wilson had to admit that the whole project had been placed in a "holding pattern." The reason: It would be "unwise" at that time to build and open a Bahamas-based hotel due to the "global economic malaise."
In common with multiple other mixed-use resort projects throughout the Bahamas, said Mr Wilson, Cotton Bay had felt the full impact of the US economic downturn, in particular the financial system's credit/liquidity crunch.
This, he said, had made it almost impossible for any remaining purchasers of real estate in these developments to either obtain debt financing for their acquisition, or at the right interest rates.
No one suggested that Mr Wilson had made foolish business decisions to force the "holding pattern." Everyone accepted that it was a situation beyond his control, a situation -- like the present one -- that was off our shores. Maybe, Mr Smith should have a chat with his father-in-law to understand how we are really one big global family, which when one fails in a big way, the others suffer. However, I am told that Mr Wilson was himself heard to be almost repeating word for word what his son-in-law had said in the House. Maybe it would be a good time for him to sit down and have some quiet reflection with himself.
Of course, Mr Smith and his comrades, are blaming it all on what they call Mr Ingraham's "stop, review and cancel" policy of projects that they were dealing with -- but had not completed -- before they were voted out of office. If they had such faith in those projects then they should have seen them through. If they had not been so indecisive, and circumscribed by so many committees and so much talk, when Mr Ingraham took over the administration there would have been nothing for him to stop, review or cancel.
Mr Smith says that each and every day the PLP is preparing itself to bring a change of government. If their five years in power -- and these unfinished contracts, which Mr Ingraham wisely stopped, reviewed and in some cases cancelled -- are indicative of what this country can look forward to, then our advise is that the PLP should step aside. Their five years of poor performance has already been five years too many.
June 09, 2010
tribune242 editorial
Friday, December 4, 2009
How the Baha Mar project collapsed
PRIME MINISTER Ingraham's expressed doubts on March 5 last year when moving a Resolution in the House of Assembly to authorise the Treasurer to transfer certain lands and buildings to Baha Mar Cable Beach Resorts, was like manna falling from heaven.
It was the excuse Harrah's Entertainment's new owners were looking for to cover the fact that they were manoeuvring behind the scenes to pull out of the $2.6 billion Cable Beach deal, while smiling coyly and announcing to the public that all stations were "go."
At first Opposition leader Perry Christie had agreed with Mr Ingraham's questioning of Harrah's commitment to the deal. "It seems to me," said Mr Christie at the time, "that Harrah's were looking for a way out and they used the speech and the words of the Prime Minister as an excuse, or part excuse for the way out."
However, Mr Christie suddenly changed his tune. Did he realise that if he let Mr Ingraham off the hook, the spotlight of blame would be on him and his government for the inordinate delays in signing the Baha Mar agreement? It didn't take Mr Christie long to rewrite his script. He urged Mr Ingraham to accept the blame and "responsibility" for setting back, "if not killing the proposal." Mr Christie, while admitting that other factors contributed to Harrah's walk out, continued to put full blame on Mr Ingraham's "intemperate language" and injecting the fear that the land conveyances for the project were in doubt. This, said Mr Christie, were the "straws that broke the camel's back."
While accusing fingers were still being pointed at Mr Ingraham, later that year a drama was being played out in a court room in New York, when the deceit of Harrah's new owners was unmasked. It was revealed that three days before signing the Heads of Agreement with the Ingraham government and making a public announcement of its intention to go ahead with the project, Harrah's new owners were plotting to pull out of the deal. This meeting took place in January. Mr Ingraham did not speak in the House until March.
Tribune Business reported allegations that the move to withdraw from the Baha Mar joint venture was directly linked to the takeover of Harrah's by two US private equity giants, Apollo Management and Texas Pacific, which purchased the gaming giant for $27.8 billion, and assumed $10.7 billion in debt, on January 28, 2008 -- three days before the supplemental heads of agreement were signed between Baha Mar and Government. Caesars Bahamas consented to the deal.
In the court case, Baha Mar alleged that Harrah's and its new owners decided to withdraw from the project to aid the former's balance sheet position, but instead of notifying its partners it looked for an excuse to withdraw. This was in January, 2008. Mr Ingraham made his remarks in the House two months later -- March 5, 2008.
And so we are left with the first part of Caesar Bahamas Investment Companies' printed complaint to its intended joint partner -- Baha Mar Joint Venture Holdings -- that "the long delays in reaching agreement with the government and completing the assemblage of the relevant land rights have contributed to considerable doubt about whether the project can be financed at all given the continuously deteriorating debt markets. These delays also raise grave concerns about increased costs and risk and create apprehension about your ability to execute in a timely manner."
Baha Mar was unable to execute in a timely manner because, as Sarkis Izmirlian told prime minister Christie in a letter on January 25, 2006: "You had given me your personal assurance that you would ensure that the Government would move to expeditiously accomplish the above (which Mr Izmirlian listed) by the New Year. Yet this did not happen." And he concluded: "If we cannot achieve the early February timeframe for accomplishing the above, I will have to inform Harrah's and Starwood that, despite my best efforts these past three odd years, the Government of The Commonwealth of the Bahamas has failed me. I certainly do not want to be known as the developer (and I'm certain you don't want to be known as the Prime Minister) that lost Caesars and Starwood. Today, more than before, I need your unambiguous support, Mr Prime Minister." This letter was dated January 26, 2006. Harrah's new owners did not come on the scene until two years later -- January 28, 2008.
As Bahamas Business pointed out, if the supplemental Heads of Agreement had been concluded with the PLP government by March 1, 2007 as they should have been, "the Bahamas, Cable Beach and Baha Mar would not be in the mess they are now in." The deal would have been airtight before Mr Ingraham won the government and Mr Christie would have been assured of his own legacy.
If the contracts had been concluded in March, 2007, "then Harrah's would likely have been locked into the Baha Mar deal and the project would have been well underway." But they were not concluded on time. A year later new buyers were in the picture and had taken over the gambling giant, the global economic situation started to look grim, and what was once a "hot" deal had turned "cold."
A major development project had collapsed, because, according to Mr Izmirlian, the Christie government had not met the promised deadlines, and as a result had lost Caesars and Starwood. The Bahamas was out in the cold, and the jobs that both governments had depended on to keep the economy moving were no more.
December 04, 2009
tribune242
It was the excuse Harrah's Entertainment's new owners were looking for to cover the fact that they were manoeuvring behind the scenes to pull out of the $2.6 billion Cable Beach deal, while smiling coyly and announcing to the public that all stations were "go."
At first Opposition leader Perry Christie had agreed with Mr Ingraham's questioning of Harrah's commitment to the deal. "It seems to me," said Mr Christie at the time, "that Harrah's were looking for a way out and they used the speech and the words of the Prime Minister as an excuse, or part excuse for the way out."
However, Mr Christie suddenly changed his tune. Did he realise that if he let Mr Ingraham off the hook, the spotlight of blame would be on him and his government for the inordinate delays in signing the Baha Mar agreement? It didn't take Mr Christie long to rewrite his script. He urged Mr Ingraham to accept the blame and "responsibility" for setting back, "if not killing the proposal." Mr Christie, while admitting that other factors contributed to Harrah's walk out, continued to put full blame on Mr Ingraham's "intemperate language" and injecting the fear that the land conveyances for the project were in doubt. This, said Mr Christie, were the "straws that broke the camel's back."
While accusing fingers were still being pointed at Mr Ingraham, later that year a drama was being played out in a court room in New York, when the deceit of Harrah's new owners was unmasked. It was revealed that three days before signing the Heads of Agreement with the Ingraham government and making a public announcement of its intention to go ahead with the project, Harrah's new owners were plotting to pull out of the deal. This meeting took place in January. Mr Ingraham did not speak in the House until March.
Tribune Business reported allegations that the move to withdraw from the Baha Mar joint venture was directly linked to the takeover of Harrah's by two US private equity giants, Apollo Management and Texas Pacific, which purchased the gaming giant for $27.8 billion, and assumed $10.7 billion in debt, on January 28, 2008 -- three days before the supplemental heads of agreement were signed between Baha Mar and Government. Caesars Bahamas consented to the deal.
In the court case, Baha Mar alleged that Harrah's and its new owners decided to withdraw from the project to aid the former's balance sheet position, but instead of notifying its partners it looked for an excuse to withdraw. This was in January, 2008. Mr Ingraham made his remarks in the House two months later -- March 5, 2008.
And so we are left with the first part of Caesar Bahamas Investment Companies' printed complaint to its intended joint partner -- Baha Mar Joint Venture Holdings -- that "the long delays in reaching agreement with the government and completing the assemblage of the relevant land rights have contributed to considerable doubt about whether the project can be financed at all given the continuously deteriorating debt markets. These delays also raise grave concerns about increased costs and risk and create apprehension about your ability to execute in a timely manner."
Baha Mar was unable to execute in a timely manner because, as Sarkis Izmirlian told prime minister Christie in a letter on January 25, 2006: "You had given me your personal assurance that you would ensure that the Government would move to expeditiously accomplish the above (which Mr Izmirlian listed) by the New Year. Yet this did not happen." And he concluded: "If we cannot achieve the early February timeframe for accomplishing the above, I will have to inform Harrah's and Starwood that, despite my best efforts these past three odd years, the Government of The Commonwealth of the Bahamas has failed me. I certainly do not want to be known as the developer (and I'm certain you don't want to be known as the Prime Minister) that lost Caesars and Starwood. Today, more than before, I need your unambiguous support, Mr Prime Minister." This letter was dated January 26, 2006. Harrah's new owners did not come on the scene until two years later -- January 28, 2008.
As Bahamas Business pointed out, if the supplemental Heads of Agreement had been concluded with the PLP government by March 1, 2007 as they should have been, "the Bahamas, Cable Beach and Baha Mar would not be in the mess they are now in." The deal would have been airtight before Mr Ingraham won the government and Mr Christie would have been assured of his own legacy.
If the contracts had been concluded in March, 2007, "then Harrah's would likely have been locked into the Baha Mar deal and the project would have been well underway." But they were not concluded on time. A year later new buyers were in the picture and had taken over the gambling giant, the global economic situation started to look grim, and what was once a "hot" deal had turned "cold."
A major development project had collapsed, because, according to Mr Izmirlian, the Christie government had not met the promised deadlines, and as a result had lost Caesars and Starwood. The Bahamas was out in the cold, and the jobs that both governments had depended on to keep the economy moving were no more.
December 04, 2009
tribune242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)