UNIONISTS WANT RIGHT TO BE LATE FOR WORK
tribune242 editorial
UNIONS seem to follow a pattern, they rattle their sabres at tourism's busiest time of the year, or when an election is nearing. The reasoning seems to be that these are the times when the boss is most vulnerable, so they toss him to the ground and pick his pockets.
True or false, that is the perception.
For several days now, there has been discontent at the airport. A strike for the busy new year's weekend was threatened. Although a strike did not materialise there was chaos at the airport yesterday. We know that at least one businessman cancelled plans to travel to the US over the weekend because of strike talk - union leaders refused to confirm or deny whether the strike was on or off. The businessman feared that if he left the country he might not be able to return for early morning meetings on Tuesday. There were probably others in the same situation. Of course, no one knows how many weekend visitors coming into the country might also have cancelled because of the uncertainty.
As one businessman close to the tourist industry commented yesterday: "Today's union leaders are a different breed, they have no interest in nation building."
It seems unconscionable that anyone would try to destroy new business coming into a country that has suffered such a long economic downturn. But that is just what all this "work-to-rule" and "strike" at the airport did over a weekend that promised good business for the country.
It is interesting to note that the union making the most noise, is a breakaway union, which as yet has no contract with the government. Union leaders are to meet with Labour Minister Dion Foulkes next week -- Tuesday, January 10 -- to negotiate their first contract.
When a Tribune reporter tried to get information on Friday as to whether the newly-formed Bahamas Customs, Immigration and Allied Workers Union (BCIAWU) intended to go through with its strike threat, all union vice-president Sloane Smith would say was: "I offer no information today on what may possibly be going on at the airport. I will not say there is a strike or there isn't a strike. Things are unfolding the way they should. That is all I am prepared to say."
In other words, the travelling public can go you-know-where as far as unionists are concerned. They forget that these are the tourists who put bread on their tables and when the tourists are gone so is the bread.
Members of the BCIAWU were once a part of John Pinder's Bahamas Public Services Union (BPSU), which does have a government contract. The BCIAWU is negotiating a contract for the first time.
They have listed several items that they want clarified and incorporated into their contract. "Employees are repeatedly being disciplined for lateness, although the contract states this should not occur more than four times per month," is one of their complaints. Obviously, they are referring to the BPSU contract, which the BCIAWU abandoned on breaking away from the BPSU. At the moment, they have no contract as a reference point.
We had to read this "lateness" demand several times, and still we cannot believe that persons interested in holding down a job are trying to negotiate slackness into their contract. It's an absolutely preposterous demand, which should be tossed out before any negotiations begin. Anyone interested in giving an honest day's work has no right to demand the right to be late for work.
Just imagine everyone in a department deciding to have a lie in on a Monday morning. There would be chaos in that department. The taxpayers of this country have the right to demand more. What man or woman in the private sector can arrive late on the job without a valid excuse, and when that so-called "valid excuse" starts to form a pattern, the man or woman is eventually written up, and if there is no improvement, he or she is fired.
That is the general problem with the public service -- there are many exceptions, of course-- but as a general rule too many are not serious. They are not serious about work and they are not serious about serving the public. However, they are very serious about their days off, their overtime, and being allowed to be late for work one day in every week of the year.
Four late days a month, translates into 48 late days a year. What private company would tolerate this? What taxpayer would expect to get away with such dumb shenanigans at his own place of business, yet he is expected to foot the bill for a public servant to have the right to do so. It's now time for the public to have a say in some of these contracts, after all they are the ones footing these bills.
We hope that the right to be late for work is removed completely from all contracts. The main trouble with the public service is that it lacks discipline. What we have found in our years in business is that what is granted as a generous consideration when built into a contract suddenly becomes a right. One can be certain that every week of each month a staff member will be late because it is now his right-- no reasons are needed for the lateness. How can a department head manage a department efficiently if he/she has to work with staff who have such "rights."
We still can't believe that union leaders would insult the public's intelligence by threatening to strike for such nonsense.
January 03, 2012
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 unions Bahamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unions Bahamas. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Should the government borrow money to pay public servants more or should it tax the rest of the country to pay this particular group?
Govt should say no to public servants
thenassauguardian editorial
How much of the public purse should public servants be entitled to? Compensation to these workers is already around 55 to 60 percent of the national budget. Now the president of the Bahamas Public Services Union John Pinder wants the government to lift the freeze it placed on public service promotions and increments, arguing that inflation is overwhelming the resources of public servants.
This comes nearly a year after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham announced the freeze in the 2010/2011 budget in May 2010.
Ingraham said public service promotions would be frozen, except in special cases, and that public service employment would also be frozen except in extenuating circumstances. At the time Ingraham said the government was making these adjustments to avoid job losses in the public service.
Pinder is right that inflation is a growing problem. The price of oil per barrel topped $113 yesterday. The entire country is bearing the burden of the increased cost of goods and services.
The solution to the problem, however, faced by public servants can’t simply be for the government to give them more compensation. Where would this money come from?
As we mentioned yesterday regarding the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on infrastructure work by the government, this money is borrowed. And it is borrowed at a time when the country’s debt to GDP ratio is rising. According to figures in the 2010/2011 mid-year budget document, that ratio has risen from 41 percent in 2006 to 56 percent in 2010.
Should the government borrow money to pay public servants more or should it tax the rest of the country to pay this particular group? The first move would be silly and the second unfair.
In the short term, Bahamians will have to conserve during this period of higher prices. In the long term, a policy is needed to introduce alternative energy sources that provide energy to the country at a lower cost than via the burning of fossil fuels.
It is wiser for Bahamians to save and spend wisely as opposed to the government borrowing money to pacify its employees.
The unions know that this is election time and at election time governments borrow and spend generously, seeking to gain votes. Therefore, the unions have started making demands on the treasury.
The cost of satisfying everyone in the short term will be risking the financial well being of the country in the long term.
4/28/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
How much of the public purse should public servants be entitled to? Compensation to these workers is already around 55 to 60 percent of the national budget. Now the president of the Bahamas Public Services Union John Pinder wants the government to lift the freeze it placed on public service promotions and increments, arguing that inflation is overwhelming the resources of public servants.
This comes nearly a year after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham announced the freeze in the 2010/2011 budget in May 2010.
Ingraham said public service promotions would be frozen, except in special cases, and that public service employment would also be frozen except in extenuating circumstances. At the time Ingraham said the government was making these adjustments to avoid job losses in the public service.
Pinder is right that inflation is a growing problem. The price of oil per barrel topped $113 yesterday. The entire country is bearing the burden of the increased cost of goods and services.
The solution to the problem, however, faced by public servants can’t simply be for the government to give them more compensation. Where would this money come from?
As we mentioned yesterday regarding the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on infrastructure work by the government, this money is borrowed. And it is borrowed at a time when the country’s debt to GDP ratio is rising. According to figures in the 2010/2011 mid-year budget document, that ratio has risen from 41 percent in 2006 to 56 percent in 2010.
Should the government borrow money to pay public servants more or should it tax the rest of the country to pay this particular group? The first move would be silly and the second unfair.
In the short term, Bahamians will have to conserve during this period of higher prices. In the long term, a policy is needed to introduce alternative energy sources that provide energy to the country at a lower cost than via the burning of fossil fuels.
It is wiser for Bahamians to save and spend wisely as opposed to the government borrowing money to pacify its employees.
The unions know that this is election time and at election time governments borrow and spend generously, seeking to gain votes. Therefore, the unions have started making demands on the treasury.
The cost of satisfying everyone in the short term will be risking the financial well being of the country in the long term.
4/28/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) has found no friend in the Perry Gladstone Christie lead Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)
Undoing the BTC deal
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Could it be done?
Officials of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) appear to have their work cut out for them.
In addition to delivering on all they and the government promised in the months and weeks leading up to the recent controversial closing of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization process, they must convince hundreds of BTC workers that CWC is not the enemy, but a caring employer and strategic partner in every sense.
That may be a tough task, but perhaps not an impossible one.
Accepting the defeat that has been handed to them, BTC union leaders have met with CWC representatives to try to iron out the best arrangements for their jittery members.
While it may reach agreement with the previously enraged unions, what is clear is that CWC has found no friend in the Progressive Liberal Party, and if its leader, Perry Gladstone Christie, delivers on what he promises if he wins the next general election, CWC could face more problems that it bargained for.
But that’s if Christie wins, and if he follows through on his warning to undo this deal.
The former prime minister issued the threat to CWC on several occasions, most recently a week ago as the company and the government were preparing to finalize the transaction.
“This is a bad deal,” Christie said.
“The deal stinks and the PLP remains committed to regaining this asset for the Bahamian people and allow the Bahamian public to have a full and public view of the entirety of this transaction.”
But while Christie is sure he would undo the deal, he apparently has not yet settled on how it would be achieved.
Each time he threatened to change the terms of the deal, we carried the warning, but there really was never any indication about what steps he would take to deliver on this promise if he forms the next government.
So National Review decided to ask him.
Christie revealed that he would seek advice from lawyers because it would have to be done legally, of course.
“The mechanics will have to be left to the kind of advice we will get on the matter,” he told us.
“I’m not prepared to comment on those matters.”
Three PLP parliamentarians who are lawyers also told us they are not prepared to speak behind the leader.
One of them said, “We won’t get our messages mixed up on this one.”
So what really would be Christie’s options on this?
Thomas Evans, QC, was not intimately involved in the BTC deal, but has vast knowledge of the law and commercial transactions.
“Because they are the government I suppose they can do whatever they choose,” said Evans, speaking generally about governments.
Evans recalled years back when he was in the Office of the Attorney General.
He was bold enough to write to the government and advise it could not do something.
“I was very quickly rebuffed and told ‘Look, we’re the government. We can do whatever we feel like doing’. That’s true, but there are consequences for certain things that they do.”
Evans pointed out that if one party reneges on an obligation that it assumes in entering a contract, then that violates and encroaches on the other party, and that other party is entitled to sue and recover damages for whatever loss is incurred as a result of the breach.
“So, while the government could go ahead and not perform an obligation which it assumed, there are consequences,” he repeated.
PENALTIES
Another lawyer close to the PLP suggested to us that one way in which a new Christie administration could force a deal change is by reducing the three-year exclusivity period for cellular service.
“CWC would have to determine how that would affect its commercial interest because the deal may no longer be viable,” noted the lawyer who did not want to be named.
“It may give them a commercial impetus to say rather than just paying us the penalty we want out of the entire deal.”
But that would call for hefty penalties.
In its agreement with CWC, the government has agreed “to pay to the purchaser such amount as is equal to the loss, expense, damage or other liability (calculated on the same basis as would be used for determining damages for breach of contract) incurred by the purchaser which arises as a result of a second cellular license being issued prior to the third anniversary of completion, and/or a second and third cellular license being issued prior to the fifth anniversary of completion.”
Under the agreement, the government has agreed to pay CWC $100 million if one or more additional cellular licenses are issued within the next year.
It would have to pay $80 million if one or more licences are issued within the next two years and it would have to pay $40 million if it issues one or more licenses within the next three years.
If the government issues a third cellular license after the third anniversary of the closing of the sale, but prior to the fifth anniversary of completion, it would be subject to a $20 million penalty.
So it would seem unlikely that the Christie administration might want to go this route, but given that Christie has not yet received advice from lawyers, that of course remains unclear.
Evans said if the government decides to go to Cable and Wireless asking for two percent of the shares back, it would likely have great difficulty “because you’ve got a deal.”
“Once a contract has been entered into between two parties it can’t be changed unless you have the consent of both parties,” he explained.
“It can’t be altered. One person can’t unilaterally alter the terms of the contract, even if you are the government.
“So, Cable and Wireless would say ‘Look, the deal I have is a deal. I acquired 51 percent. That’s what I wanted. I am not interested in 49 percent, and I’m just not going to agree.
“I don’t know that there’s any way that the government, even though they’re the government, would be able to compel Cable and Wireless to agree to surrender their two percent.”
Evans said the fact that a new party takes over the government doesn’t change the obligations that were assumed by the previous party because the government is the government.
“A party doesn’t make the government even though the constitution says that after an election the prime minister is the person who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament.
“To that extent there’s a measure of connection between the government and a political party. But the point I’m seeking to make is that the government is the government.”
TAX FRUSTRATIONS
When he spoke in the House of Assembly recently, Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, who served as a minister in the Christie Cabinet, noted that there are all sorts of creative ways in which a PLP government could pull the rug from under CWC.
Gibson — who served as president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) during initial attempts to privatize the then BaTelCo in the 1990s — expanded on those comments when he spoke with us for this piece.
“Obviously Cable and Wireless would have gotten what they consider to be an air-tight agreement from the government,” he said.
“And they are making it very difficult to introduce competition [any time soon] and they are making it difficult to have any other operator come in here, and making it difficult for a new government to be in a position to force them back to the table.
“As I said in Parliament, there are many ways that you can force a company like Cable and Wireless back to the table.
“We can tax them on certain aspects of their income; tax them on certain areas of the different services that they provide. For instance, we could put a special tax on mobile services. They’re the only one who provide mobile services in The Bahamas.
“So we tax them 15, 20 or 30 percent on mobile services, so there are many ways.”
Gibson had another idea.
“If we’re in charge of URCA (the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority), we could have discussions with URCA and make sure that individuals at URCA, advise them, or encourage them not to allow them (CWC) to go up on rates to offset taxes that they would have on certain parts of income.”
But given that URCA is an independent regulator, that too appears unlikely.
Gibson said that at the end of the day “it is known that the Bahamian public wants nothing to do with Cable and Wireless and they want BTC back in the hands of Bahamians.”
He said Bahamians have been running BTC for decades and “at the end of the day they almost feel that we are going back 100 years”.
“Once certain members of any elite group decide that they want to purchase, whether it is a property or a company, it is very difficult to persuade them to give it back to the people that it belongs to,” Gibson said.
“So it’s important to put it back in the hands of the people.”
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
We also asked prominent attorney Brian Moree how Christie might be able to get BTC back in the hands of the people, if he is re-elected.
Moree, who had no involvement in the BTC deal, said given the very strong and very direct comments from Christie, one would assume that he has a legal basis for making those statements.
“It would be surprising that that position would be adopted unless they had the benefit of some advice to suggest that the transaction could be impeached or reversed if they were elected,” Moree said.
“Generally speaking, if you’re going to challenge a transaction of that sort retrospectively or after the event, one would have to look to see if there were any constitutional issues, which would be relevant and whether proceedings on the public law side of the court could be commenced, either by way of judicial review or some other process.”
Constitutional issues were raised by one respondent when URCA was considering the BTC/CWC deal.
That respondent asserted that the proposed exclusivity of the licensee is ultra vires the Constitution of The Bahamas.
The respondent stated that URCA cannot be party to an unconstitutional result and should require the applicants to address the question as to whether or not the exclusivity arrangement offends the Constitution.
URCA said it was aware of discussion of this issue by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Marpin Case2, a Dominican case in which the Judicial Committee held that a monopoly to control a means of communications can amount to a hindrance of freedom of expression, provided that it is proven that the restriction exceeds that which is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
URCA noted that the Committee in that case did not make any conclusive finding, but referred the issue back to the Dominican courts for a consideration of the particular facts in the context of the above test.
“In any event, constitutional issues, such as this, are highly complex and would properly involve significant judicial scrutiny of the facts surrounding the challenged decision. URCA is not the appropriate forum to consider matters of constitutionality of legislation in The Bahamas, and is therefore not competent to determine this point,” URCA said.
Supporters of Christie’s plan to take back a controlling interest in BTC point to similar action taken by Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow who in 2009 brought legislation to nationalize Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) in the public interest.
Barrow promised “fair and proper compensation” and said the move against BTL was not “some cowboy action, but something done in the full plentitude of, and compliance with, our constitution.”
INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Moree said a degree of responsibility must be attributed to people in public life who make statements concerning these serious matters.
“That is why I said that I assume persons have obtained legal advice to support the position which they have adopted,” he said.
“I’m not aware of that legal advice, so I would not want to speculate.”
While he did not speculate, Moree raised the issue of investor confidence.
“The Bahamas as a sovereign country [must] acknowledge that there has to be a continuity of governance regardless of which political party is in power at any point in time,” he said.
“And when persons are dealing with the Government of The Bahamas, they have to have a level of confidence that their dealings — assuming that they’re lawful and they’re proper and there has been no corruption — they need to have the confidence that if they deal with the government which happens to be the FNM one day, that their transactions aren’t going to be the subject of litigation if another party comes in...”
Gibson said the Christie government has no problem with foreign investors, but is concerned about safeguarding national assets.
“If you look around and you try to identify one single project that this FNM government would have brought to The Bahamas since coming to office in 2007, I don’t think you could do that,” Gibsons aid.
“All of the projects that they are sitting and smiling over right now were projects that were initiated under the Progressive Liberal Party administration.
“And so, we’re not anti-foreign investors. We are anti-Cable and Wireless.”
Gibson said many Bahamians would have welcomed AT&T or T-Mobile, but not as majority shareholders.
“We’re not talking about foreign investors; we’re talking about this specific deal with Cable and Wireless, which seems to be the greatest giveaway ever in the history of The Bahamas,” the MP said.
PLPs would no doubt point to the instances where the Ingraham administration, upon assuming office in 2007 undid some of the deals left in place by the Christie-led government.
The straw market deal, incidentally, which was undone by Ingraham, remains unresolved with some of the professionals who had agreements with the government still waiting to be paid.
Of course, there were no such agreements on the magnitude of the BTC deal, but those actions by the new government led to the popular ‘stop, review and cancel’ phrase tossed about by PLP politicians.
When they took over last week, CWC executives seemed unbothered by Christie’s threats.
“In terms of our operations with government, we have a number of operations with governments across the globe in which we have very successful relations with them,” said Gerard Borely, chief financial officer of LIME, CWC’s regional arm.
“And we have successful relationships with governments no matter who is in power. The reason for that is because we deliver value and service to our consumers and governments, value that they appreciate. And we expect that to continue to be [the case] here.”
4/11/2011
thenassauguardian
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com
Could it be done?
Officials of Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) appear to have their work cut out for them.
In addition to delivering on all they and the government promised in the months and weeks leading up to the recent controversial closing of the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization process, they must convince hundreds of BTC workers that CWC is not the enemy, but a caring employer and strategic partner in every sense.
That may be a tough task, but perhaps not an impossible one.
Accepting the defeat that has been handed to them, BTC union leaders have met with CWC representatives to try to iron out the best arrangements for their jittery members.
While it may reach agreement with the previously enraged unions, what is clear is that CWC has found no friend in the Progressive Liberal Party, and if its leader, Perry Gladstone Christie, delivers on what he promises if he wins the next general election, CWC could face more problems that it bargained for.
But that’s if Christie wins, and if he follows through on his warning to undo this deal.
The former prime minister issued the threat to CWC on several occasions, most recently a week ago as the company and the government were preparing to finalize the transaction.
“This is a bad deal,” Christie said.
“The deal stinks and the PLP remains committed to regaining this asset for the Bahamian people and allow the Bahamian public to have a full and public view of the entirety of this transaction.”
But while Christie is sure he would undo the deal, he apparently has not yet settled on how it would be achieved.
Each time he threatened to change the terms of the deal, we carried the warning, but there really was never any indication about what steps he would take to deliver on this promise if he forms the next government.
So National Review decided to ask him.
Christie revealed that he would seek advice from lawyers because it would have to be done legally, of course.
“The mechanics will have to be left to the kind of advice we will get on the matter,” he told us.
“I’m not prepared to comment on those matters.”
Three PLP parliamentarians who are lawyers also told us they are not prepared to speak behind the leader.
One of them said, “We won’t get our messages mixed up on this one.”
So what really would be Christie’s options on this?
Thomas Evans, QC, was not intimately involved in the BTC deal, but has vast knowledge of the law and commercial transactions.
“Because they are the government I suppose they can do whatever they choose,” said Evans, speaking generally about governments.
Evans recalled years back when he was in the Office of the Attorney General.
He was bold enough to write to the government and advise it could not do something.
“I was very quickly rebuffed and told ‘Look, we’re the government. We can do whatever we feel like doing’. That’s true, but there are consequences for certain things that they do.”
Evans pointed out that if one party reneges on an obligation that it assumes in entering a contract, then that violates and encroaches on the other party, and that other party is entitled to sue and recover damages for whatever loss is incurred as a result of the breach.
“So, while the government could go ahead and not perform an obligation which it assumed, there are consequences,” he repeated.
PENALTIES
Another lawyer close to the PLP suggested to us that one way in which a new Christie administration could force a deal change is by reducing the three-year exclusivity period for cellular service.
“CWC would have to determine how that would affect its commercial interest because the deal may no longer be viable,” noted the lawyer who did not want to be named.
“It may give them a commercial impetus to say rather than just paying us the penalty we want out of the entire deal.”
But that would call for hefty penalties.
In its agreement with CWC, the government has agreed “to pay to the purchaser such amount as is equal to the loss, expense, damage or other liability (calculated on the same basis as would be used for determining damages for breach of contract) incurred by the purchaser which arises as a result of a second cellular license being issued prior to the third anniversary of completion, and/or a second and third cellular license being issued prior to the fifth anniversary of completion.”
Under the agreement, the government has agreed to pay CWC $100 million if one or more additional cellular licenses are issued within the next year.
It would have to pay $80 million if one or more licences are issued within the next two years and it would have to pay $40 million if it issues one or more licenses within the next three years.
If the government issues a third cellular license after the third anniversary of the closing of the sale, but prior to the fifth anniversary of completion, it would be subject to a $20 million penalty.
So it would seem unlikely that the Christie administration might want to go this route, but given that Christie has not yet received advice from lawyers, that of course remains unclear.
Evans said if the government decides to go to Cable and Wireless asking for two percent of the shares back, it would likely have great difficulty “because you’ve got a deal.”
“Once a contract has been entered into between two parties it can’t be changed unless you have the consent of both parties,” he explained.
“It can’t be altered. One person can’t unilaterally alter the terms of the contract, even if you are the government.
“So, Cable and Wireless would say ‘Look, the deal I have is a deal. I acquired 51 percent. That’s what I wanted. I am not interested in 49 percent, and I’m just not going to agree.
“I don’t know that there’s any way that the government, even though they’re the government, would be able to compel Cable and Wireless to agree to surrender their two percent.”
Evans said the fact that a new party takes over the government doesn’t change the obligations that were assumed by the previous party because the government is the government.
“A party doesn’t make the government even though the constitution says that after an election the prime minister is the person who is the leader of the party that has the majority in Parliament.
“To that extent there’s a measure of connection between the government and a political party. But the point I’m seeking to make is that the government is the government.”
TAX FRUSTRATIONS
When he spoke in the House of Assembly recently, Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson, who served as a minister in the Christie Cabinet, noted that there are all sorts of creative ways in which a PLP government could pull the rug from under CWC.
Gibson — who served as president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) during initial attempts to privatize the then BaTelCo in the 1990s — expanded on those comments when he spoke with us for this piece.
“Obviously Cable and Wireless would have gotten what they consider to be an air-tight agreement from the government,” he said.
“And they are making it very difficult to introduce competition [any time soon] and they are making it difficult to have any other operator come in here, and making it difficult for a new government to be in a position to force them back to the table.
“As I said in Parliament, there are many ways that you can force a company like Cable and Wireless back to the table.
“We can tax them on certain aspects of their income; tax them on certain areas of the different services that they provide. For instance, we could put a special tax on mobile services. They’re the only one who provide mobile services in The Bahamas.
“So we tax them 15, 20 or 30 percent on mobile services, so there are many ways.”
Gibson had another idea.
“If we’re in charge of URCA (the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority), we could have discussions with URCA and make sure that individuals at URCA, advise them, or encourage them not to allow them (CWC) to go up on rates to offset taxes that they would have on certain parts of income.”
But given that URCA is an independent regulator, that too appears unlikely.
Gibson said that at the end of the day “it is known that the Bahamian public wants nothing to do with Cable and Wireless and they want BTC back in the hands of Bahamians.”
He said Bahamians have been running BTC for decades and “at the end of the day they almost feel that we are going back 100 years”.
“Once certain members of any elite group decide that they want to purchase, whether it is a property or a company, it is very difficult to persuade them to give it back to the people that it belongs to,” Gibson said.
“So it’s important to put it back in the hands of the people.”
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
We also asked prominent attorney Brian Moree how Christie might be able to get BTC back in the hands of the people, if he is re-elected.
Moree, who had no involvement in the BTC deal, said given the very strong and very direct comments from Christie, one would assume that he has a legal basis for making those statements.
“It would be surprising that that position would be adopted unless they had the benefit of some advice to suggest that the transaction could be impeached or reversed if they were elected,” Moree said.
“Generally speaking, if you’re going to challenge a transaction of that sort retrospectively or after the event, one would have to look to see if there were any constitutional issues, which would be relevant and whether proceedings on the public law side of the court could be commenced, either by way of judicial review or some other process.”
Constitutional issues were raised by one respondent when URCA was considering the BTC/CWC deal.
That respondent asserted that the proposed exclusivity of the licensee is ultra vires the Constitution of The Bahamas.
The respondent stated that URCA cannot be party to an unconstitutional result and should require the applicants to address the question as to whether or not the exclusivity arrangement offends the Constitution.
URCA said it was aware of discussion of this issue by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Marpin Case2, a Dominican case in which the Judicial Committee held that a monopoly to control a means of communications can amount to a hindrance of freedom of expression, provided that it is proven that the restriction exceeds that which is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
URCA noted that the Committee in that case did not make any conclusive finding, but referred the issue back to the Dominican courts for a consideration of the particular facts in the context of the above test.
“In any event, constitutional issues, such as this, are highly complex and would properly involve significant judicial scrutiny of the facts surrounding the challenged decision. URCA is not the appropriate forum to consider matters of constitutionality of legislation in The Bahamas, and is therefore not competent to determine this point,” URCA said.
Supporters of Christie’s plan to take back a controlling interest in BTC point to similar action taken by Prime Minister of Belize Dean Barrow who in 2009 brought legislation to nationalize Belize Telemedia Limited (BTL) in the public interest.
Barrow promised “fair and proper compensation” and said the move against BTL was not “some cowboy action, but something done in the full plentitude of, and compliance with, our constitution.”
INVESTOR CONFIDENCE
Moree said a degree of responsibility must be attributed to people in public life who make statements concerning these serious matters.
“That is why I said that I assume persons have obtained legal advice to support the position which they have adopted,” he said.
“I’m not aware of that legal advice, so I would not want to speculate.”
While he did not speculate, Moree raised the issue of investor confidence.
“The Bahamas as a sovereign country [must] acknowledge that there has to be a continuity of governance regardless of which political party is in power at any point in time,” he said.
“And when persons are dealing with the Government of The Bahamas, they have to have a level of confidence that their dealings — assuming that they’re lawful and they’re proper and there has been no corruption — they need to have the confidence that if they deal with the government which happens to be the FNM one day, that their transactions aren’t going to be the subject of litigation if another party comes in...”
Gibson said the Christie government has no problem with foreign investors, but is concerned about safeguarding national assets.
“If you look around and you try to identify one single project that this FNM government would have brought to The Bahamas since coming to office in 2007, I don’t think you could do that,” Gibsons aid.
“All of the projects that they are sitting and smiling over right now were projects that were initiated under the Progressive Liberal Party administration.
“And so, we’re not anti-foreign investors. We are anti-Cable and Wireless.”
Gibson said many Bahamians would have welcomed AT&T or T-Mobile, but not as majority shareholders.
“We’re not talking about foreign investors; we’re talking about this specific deal with Cable and Wireless, which seems to be the greatest giveaway ever in the history of The Bahamas,” the MP said.
PLPs would no doubt point to the instances where the Ingraham administration, upon assuming office in 2007 undid some of the deals left in place by the Christie-led government.
The straw market deal, incidentally, which was undone by Ingraham, remains unresolved with some of the professionals who had agreements with the government still waiting to be paid.
Of course, there were no such agreements on the magnitude of the BTC deal, but those actions by the new government led to the popular ‘stop, review and cancel’ phrase tossed about by PLP politicians.
When they took over last week, CWC executives seemed unbothered by Christie’s threats.
“In terms of our operations with government, we have a number of operations with governments across the globe in which we have very successful relations with them,” said Gerard Borely, chief financial officer of LIME, CWC’s regional arm.
“And we have successful relationships with governments no matter who is in power. The reason for that is because we deliver value and service to our consumers and governments, value that they appreciate. And we expect that to continue to be [the case] here.”
4/11/2011
thenassauguardian
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The House of Assembly Passed the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) Privatization Resolutions
House approves BTC sale
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
PM accidentally voted against sale, then changed vote
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly yesterday with 22 MPs voting in support of the resolutions and 18 voting against. The process to sell 51 percent of BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) is now almost finished.
All members of the official opposition voted against the resolutions. Independent MP for Bamboo Town Branville McCartney also voted against the resolutions.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham initially made a mistake and he accidentally voted against the first privatization resolution. He was seemingly distracted, using his Blackberry phone, when his name was called to vote. Ingraham said, “No.”
When he realized the mistake, Ingraham quickly said, “Yes.”
His initial “no” vote led to loud cheers and laughter from opposition members.
When it came time to vote on the second resolution, Ingraham clearly said, “Yes.” This also led to laughter from the opposition, considering Ingraham’s initial mistake.
Both resolutions passed shortly after Ingraham wrapped up the debate yesterday evening.
“This is a historic day in the history of The Bahamas,” Ingraham said. “It is the culmination of a process that was started 14 years ago.”
In negotiating the BTC deal, he said the government was motivated by its desire to give Bahamians the best of what is available and to ensure that communications services are reliable and accessible.
Ingraham also accused the opposition of using the unions representing BTC employees as “pawns” in the fight against of sale of BTC to CWC.
Ingraham further criticized the leaders of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) — the BTC unions — for leading their members down “the wrong path.”
The unions have led protests and legal action seeking to block the sale to CWC.
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) MP for Fort Charlotte Alfred Sears took offense to Ingraham’s “pawns” statement. He said the unions are mature groups with responsible leaders who can make independent decisions.
The BCPOU and BCPMU were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
However, Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley said the unions lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
The unions appealed the decision, but lost that bid before the Court of Appeal Tuesday.
The unions will face significant legal bills as a result of the failed court action.
Ingraham encouraged the unions to engage with CWC.
“I appeal to the leadership, to the unions, to begin to engage in discussions with their new bosses. Because they are going to be the bosses in short order and it makes good sense for them to have discussions,” he said. “Do not allow anyone to mislead you into believing that we do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, had they listened to me they wouldn’t have been stuck with the thousands of dollars in court fees.”
The legislation associated with the BTC sale will next be debated in the Senate.
3/25/2011
thenassauguardian
By KRYSTEL ROLLE
Guardian Staff Reporter
krystel@nasguard.com
PM accidentally voted against sale, then changed vote
The Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) privatization resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly yesterday with 22 MPs voting in support of the resolutions and 18 voting against. The process to sell 51 percent of BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) is now almost finished.
All members of the official opposition voted against the resolutions. Independent MP for Bamboo Town Branville McCartney also voted against the resolutions.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham initially made a mistake and he accidentally voted against the first privatization resolution. He was seemingly distracted, using his Blackberry phone, when his name was called to vote. Ingraham said, “No.”
When he realized the mistake, Ingraham quickly said, “Yes.”
His initial “no” vote led to loud cheers and laughter from opposition members.
When it came time to vote on the second resolution, Ingraham clearly said, “Yes.” This also led to laughter from the opposition, considering Ingraham’s initial mistake.
Both resolutions passed shortly after Ingraham wrapped up the debate yesterday evening.
“This is a historic day in the history of The Bahamas,” Ingraham said. “It is the culmination of a process that was started 14 years ago.”
In negotiating the BTC deal, he said the government was motivated by its desire to give Bahamians the best of what is available and to ensure that communications services are reliable and accessible.
Ingraham also accused the opposition of using the unions representing BTC employees as “pawns” in the fight against of sale of BTC to CWC.
Ingraham further criticized the leaders of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) — the BTC unions — for leading their members down “the wrong path.”
The unions have led protests and legal action seeking to block the sale to CWC.
Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) MP for Fort Charlotte Alfred Sears took offense to Ingraham’s “pawns” statement. He said the unions are mature groups with responsible leaders who can make independent decisions.
The BCPOU and BCPMU were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
However, Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley said the unions lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
The unions appealed the decision, but lost that bid before the Court of Appeal Tuesday.
The unions will face significant legal bills as a result of the failed court action.
Ingraham encouraged the unions to engage with CWC.
“I appeal to the leadership, to the unions, to begin to engage in discussions with their new bosses. Because they are going to be the bosses in short order and it makes good sense for them to have discussions,” he said. “Do not allow anyone to mislead you into believing that we do not have your best interests at heart. In fact, had they listened to me they wouldn’t have been stuck with the thousands of dollars in court fees.”
The legislation associated with the BTC sale will next be debated in the Senate.
3/25/2011
thenassauguardian
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
This is no time for the unions to create further instability...
Not the time for union unrest
tribune242 editorial
ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.
This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.
A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.
Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."
But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.
Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."
Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.
And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.
But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."
"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.
Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.
As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.
Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.
When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.
Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.
These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.
Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.
"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.
This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.
It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.
March 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
ONE WOULD have thought that unions -- especially the hotel union in Freeport -- would have learned its lesson by now with the closure in 2004 of the Royal Oasis Golf Resort and Casino, putting more that 1,200 Bahamians out of work.
This hotel struggled under union pressure from the day the new owners bought it in 1999 to the day in 2004 when Hurricane Frances so badly damaged it that the owners decided not to reopen. It was clear that the disruptive behaviour of the unions played a major role in that decision.
A year before Hurricane Frances made the decision for everyone, Donald Archer, the hotel's senior vice president, broke his silence to complain about the poor level of service from certain staff about which guests were also complaining. He warned them that not only would a strike be illegal, but that "any responsible union would examine the current and future needs of its members, the fragile economic environment, the financial status of the company and global conditions." At the time the Iraq war was threatening.
Mr Archer warned at the time that more than 1,200 families would be affected by a strike "to say nothing of the impact on these families and the businesses that they patronise."
But what union leaders did not appreciate was how much they had hurt their membership who had a stake in the International Bazaar, which also faced closure. With the hotel closed, the Bazaar's patrons had disappeared.
Commenting on this in November 2005, we wrote: "This should teach the union a lesson that when it pushes its claims too far everything can collapse under the strain, taking even the union with it."
Seven years later the Royal Oasis Golf Resort remains closed.
And so we were surprised at the beginning of this year to hear of labour unrest at Our Lucaya resort, which everyone knew was struggling to keep its doors open in a world recession that was leaving millions jobless.
But apparently, Obie Ferguson, president of the Bahamas Hotel Managerial Association, saw a chink of light somewhere that no one else saw. In January he said that "now the economy is showing signs of recovery," he thought it "time to do what should be done."
"Workers rights," he said, "are as important as profits. We will take the necessary poll and then do what we have to do." Of course, the poll he was hinting at was a strike vote.
Hotel staff knew that the hotel was not doing well. As a matter fact there was no place on the globe that was not suffering from the world crash. However, in the Bahamas there are those among us -- including, if not especially, some politicians -- who think that the Bahamas is somehow not a part of the economically broken world, and that our people, despite our exorbitant public debt, should not have to lower their financial expectations.
As a matter of fact Prime Minister Ingraham thanked the Hutchison-Whampoa group for keeping Our Lucaya open, when others would have closed it. It was known that the hotel was subsiding the staff's payroll and could not afford more. Yet Mr Ferguson, the union man, continued his background rumblings. Last week it was announced that Our Lucaya had closed two of its three hotels. Instead of closing completely, it consolidated its operation on one property -- Breakers Cay --to save 800 jobs. However, to save the 800, 200 staff had to go.
Government is now working with the hotel to try to find employment for these 200, and to retrain some of them in other skills to qualify for other jobs.
When will Bahamians understand what is going on in the world, and appreciate the jobs they now have? This is not the time for government corporations -- some of whose staff are the best paid in the Bahamas -- to be talking of salary increases. Look at other countries and see how heavily they have reduced their public service to streamline their economies. It is acknowledged that our civil service is over stacked and could do with a heavy trim. But, government has as yet shown no inclination to do so.
Even the Cuban Workers Federation announced that half of its work force will lose their jobs by next year. The Cuban government currently employs 85 per cent of that island's workers.
These workers will have to either go back to the farms, find construction work, become self employed or join a cooperative.
Today's economic downturn is forcing Cuba closer to the free enterprise system.
"Our state can't keep maintaining... bloated payrolls," the Cuban Workers Federation told The Wall Street Journal.
This is something that local unions and many Bahamians have yet to grasp. Although we might not know it we are a part of the world and if any part of that world is injured, the whole unit will feel it. Already petroleum retailers want to raise their prices to offset the troubles driving prices up in the oil rich Middle East. The increase in oil will push up costs across the board. Businessmen have no control over these costs. Therefore, when they are forced to cut costs to keep their businesses operational -- the decision forced on the Our Lucaya owners will be forced on them. Staff become redundant.
It is no time in such a climate for the unions to create further instability -- in the end only its members will suffer.
March 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Thursday, February 24, 2011
...is there any hope of revolution in The Bahamas?
What can we learn from Haiti and Egypt?
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist, satirist.
I found this quote on the e-mail signature of Philip "Brave" Davis, deputy leader of the Progressive Liberal Party. Tribune editor in chief, Paco Nunez, once used the same quote as his e-mail signature.
I thought it unsurprising in the latter instance since Mr Nunez also has on his desk a quote from another American journalist, satirist H.L. Mencken that says a journalist is to a politician as a dog is to a lamp-post. But on Mr Davis' signature, I thought it was a classic case of something hidden in plain sight.
Like this timeless quote, Egypt this month lifted the veil on a fundamental nature of politics: it is dirty and deceptive; it is stubborn and it is life altering. What we also saw was an example of what is possible when people awaken, when they are slapped into consciousness and demand accountability from the public masqueraders.
Some Bahamians have already been swept up in the Egyptian revolutionary euphoria, but less their nobleness and naivety lead them astray, they should know, it takes a lot more than rhetoric to make a revolution.
As the Egyptian story unfolded over the past few days and weeks, there was something eerily familiar about the plot. That is because Egypt faced a test that Haiti last took in 2004, and we invigilated it from across the waters. How well Haiti passed is still up for debate, and as the dust settles on the Egyptian streets their results are being tallied.
Both stories, as well as the "pro-democracy movement" that is rippling across the Middle East, have lessons to teach us, about the nature of our politics and our people.
Government
The Indonesian people, who themselves are familiar with people's revolution responded to Egypt's news with cautious jubilation, advising the Egyptian people that the hard part had only just began. Revolution is a temporary moment. It is the gust of wind represented by the hurricane, and its seasonal occurrence is nowhere near as sure or firm. Egyptians now have the task of reconstructing a government and giving birth to the national dream.
Democracy is hard work and revolution does not guarantee evolution. Revolution is a critical spark, particularly needed to achieve quantum leaps, but it is unstable and it is transitory. Evolution is the process of growth and development in all things as they transition through the cycles of life and death.
The world wishes Egyptians well as they strive towards their highest ideal. They will need our best wishes and much more. Given history, and the nature of politics, success is a Sisyphean task, and no modern democracy has accomplished it successfully yet. Really: where in the world has democracy truly given birth to the national dream?
The truth is we live in an unsustainable way that is in direct conflict with our very desire for success, whether it is measured by democracy, freedom for all, the end of hunger and poverty, national unity, justice, racial equality, social equity, peace and stability, the pursuit of happiness, independence, whatever the dream.
Yet we must trod on in faith and do our best. Egypt showed us that people are capable, and sometimes driven, to exerting their people power to bring about a revolution. However, most times political electorates are like blind sheep being shepherded and the political directorate is like an abusive lover. In their natural state, and even after a revolution when the dust settles, people most often find themselves beholden to their leaders and powerless in the evolutionary process of governance and nation building.
Politicians
Last week I heard Fred Mitchell, Fox Hill Member of Parliament ask a group of supporters, how we would get young people like Andre Rollins, PLP freshman, National Development Party absconder, their "Egypt moment." That was not surprising to hear, politicians are notorious band-wagonists. But what of this "Egypt moment": what does Egypt and Haiti have to teach us?
First of all, people are rightly amused when they hear politicians talk about revolution. Egypt teaches us that the nature of a true people's revolution is that it is not given to the people. The people make and take the power. In the midst of the revolution political leaders are made virtually irrelevant.
The popular uprising in Egypt was not led by its political opposition. It was a youth movement, wielding people power. This made it infinitely more difficult for a negotiated solution to have emerged, because such a movement has no allegiance to the establishment and little respect for any authority, but its own vision of democracy and freedom. It was not surprising that the people refused to negotiate with President Mubarak. There was no trust in his authority.
Ironically, the military turned out to be the only institution that held public confidence. And it is the military now tasked with the responsibility of bringing about democratic reform, until constitutionally mandated elections are held.
Despite our faith in the electoral process and representational politics, political leadership is no substitute for people power or military power for that matter. We would definitely be telling a different story today if the popular uprising witnessed in Egypt was a movement born of the political opposition. Our next door neighbour Haiti shows us why.
In 2004 a CARICOM team, of which the Bahamas was a party, travelled to Haiti to meet with political actors and help negotiate a resolution to the political unrest threatening the country's stability. During the 2004 protest movement there were calls for President Jean Bertrand Aristide's resignation.
Supporters
Joshua Sears, director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said there was a stand off between opposition forces, who "decided Aristide had to go", and supporters wanting the constitutional process to be respected. President Aristide's term was to expire in 13 months.
"They couldn't wait 13 months; they wanted to kick him out. The situation had reached a point where the violence had increased; instability had overwhelmed institutions; there was a social breakdown of law and order. If the parties don't agree there is no chance of any kind of abatement of the violence and for the constitutional process to be respected," said Mr Sears.
Insight into the backdoor dealings raises so many questions about the uprising that threatened the nation's stability and the stability of those with interests. What really happened in Haiti seven years ago? Was it a true people's revolution? Was it a controlled opposition? Was it a political mob that had passed its breaking point?
Egypt showed us a modern day example of a true people's revolution. Haiti brewed a different stew: there were too many sticky political fingers in the pot. I am inclined to think, in the case of Haiti, the decisions made by the various political actors served political and economic ends more than the interests of the people. The three most often do not coincide.
I could be challenged that the uprising was not a true people's revolution, but here is why it feels right.
Political leaders make decisions based on their desire to win political competitions, most notably in the form of elections. Competition is the foundation of modern democracy, and the rules of politics are the same as the rules of a capitalist enterprise. It is a dog eat dog world and it literally is a fight to the top.
Why do you think the Free National Movement and the PLP when they have their political hats on are always fighting? Look at the rhetoric they use, the tactics they employ: the mass of supporters who turn out to political rallies appear as an unruly mob ready to go to war.
These people are beholden to their collective political identities for a number of reasons: pure intent, historical obligation, familial connection, miseducation, ignorance, and selfish interests. Politicians take advantage of them regardless of the reason, because the thing about politics is; the leadership has to be in control. They have to maintain the ability to manoeuvre the mob. So a popular uprising with loyalty to political leaders is in fact a controllable entity.
Naturally there is a breaking point for this type of opposition movement. It is kept in check by the nature and intent of its leaders and most times we can count on our leaders to use their power for the greater good of the few people they can't fully control, in other words affluent people or those with perceived influence.
Based on the nature of politics, I am inclined to believe Haiti's 2004 uprising was a political opposition capable of being led; that good men chose to do nothing allowing evil to prevail. Unlike President Mubarak who eventually caved to the will of the people and stepped down, President Aristide refused to be moved short of being kidnapped, which he said he was.
President Mubarak had seven months left on his term; Aristide had 13. In the case of Egypt, I am certain the people would have asked themselves: why should we respect the constitutional process, which should serve the will of the people, and wait seven months for an election, when for decades Mubarak has governed with little respect for the constitution or the people?
Somehow, President Mubarak must have been convinced that the protest movement was no small fraction or fringe group. It was an honest representation of the people's will. I would imagine President Aristide did not have those same feelings.
Still, President Aristide had many choices that could have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional process and respect for the will of the people. President Aristide insisted he serve out his term, as President Mubarak originally wished to do; he could have chosen to stepped down immediately as President Mubarak stalled in doing.
Unlike Mubarak, who had no choice of running in the next election because the public's trust was so corroded, President Aristide could have stepped downed voluntarily and offered himself again in the next election. A win that time around would have decidedly silenced the critics. He could also have asked to stay, but chosen to call an early election.
Power
Colin Powell once intimated that President Aristide had become arrogant and unreasonable with his allies, and probably his people, which endeared him to neither. I would not venture as far as to compare him with President Mubarak, but I am inclined to believe Aristide had on his mind holding power at all cost for the sake of his personal pride and dignity.
President Mubarak has demonstrated that while history will mark his inglorious departure as a personal failure, it will write an inspiring story of his country. Egypt, a Muslim land, is without a doubt the new beacon of hope for freedom. Egypt's final colonizers still govern its lands, but get this: the beacon of light has returned to Africa.
Haiti in 2004 had no such story to tell. With American and French fingers deep in the pot, and Caribbean interests contending for influence, Haiti had its internal politics to deal with and its external politics. Stability was more important than democracy for the Bahamian government, as well as the French and American governments. Instability would mean a migration influx for the Bahamas, and economic losses for the Americans and French.
So what happened? Aristide somehow ended up on an American government jet headed to the Central African Republic. Aristide's' ouster was the lowest common denominator of agreement between the greatest number of influential forces: external interests and the internal political opposition. One could say the people never determined Aristide's fate: their revolution was hijacked.
President Aristide went to Jamaica from the Central African Republic and then on to South Africa, where he was granted asylum. We will never know if he was really kidnapped by the United States or if he left voluntarily. I think it is probable he was pressured under the threat of being otherwise killed.
At the end of the day, our best hope for knowing what really happened is probably Wikileaks. Short of that it will be a perpetual, he said she said game between self-interested parties. What we do know is that President Aristide's stronghold was proven to be untenable, and his departure did not lead to national solidarity.
This brings us back to my starting point: politics is dirty, deceptive, stubborn and life altering. So much is placed in the hands of our political directorate, but in the midst of their game playing, their manoeuvring of economic interests, we can never be sure if they really do right by us. And yet we give them chance after chance after chance, never stopping to think that the usefulness of a politician has an expiry date.
Do our leaders do their best to make a positive impact in our lives or do they just do enough to stay in the game? Are they morally, spiritually or intellectually capable of knowing the difference?
These are questions for all of us to contemplate, because the actions and inaction of our leaders can change the course of history. The whole world felt the impact of America's warmongering President George W Bush.
There is no doubt, the political instability in Haiti has robbed its people of so many opportunities. For all of its natural wealth, the financial resources of its wealthy elite, its strong intellectual foundations, rich cultural heritage and prized historical legacy, Haiti should want for nothing.
Unfortunately this is not the case. And the turbulent conditions in Haiti combined with our own political game playing have thwarted attempts at building a meaningful relationship between next door neighbours.
I imagine there is some genuine interest, but as Mr Sears explained, it is not an easy road. The repeated interruption of democratic rule over the years has made relationship building, for example, a tightrope to walk.
"In one of the negotiations we had, I think it was with Jean-Robert Estimé, foreign affairs minister, when he left, two weeks later he was out of office. In fact, once we had to deal with six to seven foreign ministers in the space of four years; it was not easy," said Mr Sears.
Leader
Regime change, at almost any cost, has been ingrained in the way "they solve their problems," said Mr Sears. Virtually every political leader is dead or outside the country.
"These are intelligent people. They know continued instability is the consequence of unilateral interruptions of the democratic process. You never give the country a chance for those issues to be set aside. That is a dangerous phenomenon we have witnessed," he said.
With all the lessons we have to learn from Egypt, Haiti and global politics is there any hope of revolution in the Bahamas? I think the odds are against us and the status quo will be our accepted condition for some time to come.
After all, we recently had an Egypt opportunity, to use the phrase loosely, and we squandered it. I think it can be summed up in the story of the day the Prime Minister was driven from the House of Assembly burning tyres with no seatbelt on.
Barring the mass rally, the biggest demonstration of BTC unions was their march to Parliament Square. That was the day Parliament ended early; members of the governing party went fleeing and members of the opposition jumped on the bandwagon.
The actions of our leaders was predictable, but that day I watched in astonishment as the people cowered to the might of the state on two fronts. The people amassed in Parliament Square on the street to the west and on the bleachers to the north. They were cordoned off by police barricades and police officers. At one time, the frontliners made a move to push through the barricades and march to the House. They were successful, to a point.
When the "revolution" started, half of the people fled to the bleachers; they held their position in the comfort of their distance; they divided the opposition. Those were no Egyptian revolutionaries. The efforts of the frontliners was so concerted that had the people stuck together, they would have surly overpowered the flimsy cohort of police and made it to the House.
Sadly, they succeeded only in pushing through to the middle of the road. What they demonstrated was their lack of conviction and their powerlessness. A union member who had broken through the barricades, said: "They have y'all corralled like a bunch of animals. That is how they have you. Y'all look like a bunch of animals." It was true. The police knew this, and they also knew how incensory it would be if the people realized, so they told the protester to "stop that". They had their greatest momentum that day and they broke.
In Egypt the people were prepared to die for their cause and many of them did. Those who survived stepped into the shoes of the dead without hesitation: themselves prepared to go all the way. There was no shortage of conviction or cohesiveness.
The other telling incident that day had to do with union's action to the PLP opposition. When the House of Assembly was adjourned, PLP members of parliament congregated at the site of the demonstration. They did not cross the barricades to join the union members; instead, they hijacked the moment. They assembled their own impromptu press conference by the south side bleachers and sidelined the unions and all their members to put on their own show. Of course the media spotlight shifted to them, and after all of the sound bites and video footage was collected the PLP left. Again, that was expected.
Unions
The unions, they tried sheepishly to compete for the spotlight, shouting over their bullhorns to the corralled mass of sorts.
People tend to forget: the government is comprised of the ruling party and the opposition.
After all, an ineffective opposition makes for an ineffective government.
The PLP opposition is no real friend to the unions and they should have told them so.
Some of the present union leaders admit; had they been in power under the PLP administration, they would have opposed their "bad Blue Water deal" back then as well. But the unions allowed their movement to be hijacked on that day. Egyptian revolutionaries they are not.
In the weeks and months ahead, the world will see what Egypt makes of its revolutionary moment. In the meantime, I am sure, politicians and wannabe revolutionaries across the world will continue with their trite use of the Egyptian moment to further their personal objectives. The true revolutionaries, hopefully, will look beyond the rhetorical gimmicks for the real lessons of Egypt, Haiti and all of the movements, past and present.
February 21, 2011
tribune242 insight
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
"Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage."
- Ambrose Bierce, American journalist, satirist.
I found this quote on the e-mail signature of Philip "Brave" Davis, deputy leader of the Progressive Liberal Party. Tribune editor in chief, Paco Nunez, once used the same quote as his e-mail signature.
I thought it unsurprising in the latter instance since Mr Nunez also has on his desk a quote from another American journalist, satirist H.L. Mencken that says a journalist is to a politician as a dog is to a lamp-post. But on Mr Davis' signature, I thought it was a classic case of something hidden in plain sight.
Like this timeless quote, Egypt this month lifted the veil on a fundamental nature of politics: it is dirty and deceptive; it is stubborn and it is life altering. What we also saw was an example of what is possible when people awaken, when they are slapped into consciousness and demand accountability from the public masqueraders.
Some Bahamians have already been swept up in the Egyptian revolutionary euphoria, but less their nobleness and naivety lead them astray, they should know, it takes a lot more than rhetoric to make a revolution.
As the Egyptian story unfolded over the past few days and weeks, there was something eerily familiar about the plot. That is because Egypt faced a test that Haiti last took in 2004, and we invigilated it from across the waters. How well Haiti passed is still up for debate, and as the dust settles on the Egyptian streets their results are being tallied.
Both stories, as well as the "pro-democracy movement" that is rippling across the Middle East, have lessons to teach us, about the nature of our politics and our people.
Government
The Indonesian people, who themselves are familiar with people's revolution responded to Egypt's news with cautious jubilation, advising the Egyptian people that the hard part had only just began. Revolution is a temporary moment. It is the gust of wind represented by the hurricane, and its seasonal occurrence is nowhere near as sure or firm. Egyptians now have the task of reconstructing a government and giving birth to the national dream.
Democracy is hard work and revolution does not guarantee evolution. Revolution is a critical spark, particularly needed to achieve quantum leaps, but it is unstable and it is transitory. Evolution is the process of growth and development in all things as they transition through the cycles of life and death.
The world wishes Egyptians well as they strive towards their highest ideal. They will need our best wishes and much more. Given history, and the nature of politics, success is a Sisyphean task, and no modern democracy has accomplished it successfully yet. Really: where in the world has democracy truly given birth to the national dream?
The truth is we live in an unsustainable way that is in direct conflict with our very desire for success, whether it is measured by democracy, freedom for all, the end of hunger and poverty, national unity, justice, racial equality, social equity, peace and stability, the pursuit of happiness, independence, whatever the dream.
Yet we must trod on in faith and do our best. Egypt showed us that people are capable, and sometimes driven, to exerting their people power to bring about a revolution. However, most times political electorates are like blind sheep being shepherded and the political directorate is like an abusive lover. In their natural state, and even after a revolution when the dust settles, people most often find themselves beholden to their leaders and powerless in the evolutionary process of governance and nation building.
Politicians
Last week I heard Fred Mitchell, Fox Hill Member of Parliament ask a group of supporters, how we would get young people like Andre Rollins, PLP freshman, National Development Party absconder, their "Egypt moment." That was not surprising to hear, politicians are notorious band-wagonists. But what of this "Egypt moment": what does Egypt and Haiti have to teach us?
First of all, people are rightly amused when they hear politicians talk about revolution. Egypt teaches us that the nature of a true people's revolution is that it is not given to the people. The people make and take the power. In the midst of the revolution political leaders are made virtually irrelevant.
The popular uprising in Egypt was not led by its political opposition. It was a youth movement, wielding people power. This made it infinitely more difficult for a negotiated solution to have emerged, because such a movement has no allegiance to the establishment and little respect for any authority, but its own vision of democracy and freedom. It was not surprising that the people refused to negotiate with President Mubarak. There was no trust in his authority.
Ironically, the military turned out to be the only institution that held public confidence. And it is the military now tasked with the responsibility of bringing about democratic reform, until constitutionally mandated elections are held.
Despite our faith in the electoral process and representational politics, political leadership is no substitute for people power or military power for that matter. We would definitely be telling a different story today if the popular uprising witnessed in Egypt was a movement born of the political opposition. Our next door neighbour Haiti shows us why.
In 2004 a CARICOM team, of which the Bahamas was a party, travelled to Haiti to meet with political actors and help negotiate a resolution to the political unrest threatening the country's stability. During the 2004 protest movement there were calls for President Jean Bertrand Aristide's resignation.
Supporters
Joshua Sears, director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said there was a stand off between opposition forces, who "decided Aristide had to go", and supporters wanting the constitutional process to be respected. President Aristide's term was to expire in 13 months.
"They couldn't wait 13 months; they wanted to kick him out. The situation had reached a point where the violence had increased; instability had overwhelmed institutions; there was a social breakdown of law and order. If the parties don't agree there is no chance of any kind of abatement of the violence and for the constitutional process to be respected," said Mr Sears.
Insight into the backdoor dealings raises so many questions about the uprising that threatened the nation's stability and the stability of those with interests. What really happened in Haiti seven years ago? Was it a true people's revolution? Was it a controlled opposition? Was it a political mob that had passed its breaking point?
Egypt showed us a modern day example of a true people's revolution. Haiti brewed a different stew: there were too many sticky political fingers in the pot. I am inclined to think, in the case of Haiti, the decisions made by the various political actors served political and economic ends more than the interests of the people. The three most often do not coincide.
I could be challenged that the uprising was not a true people's revolution, but here is why it feels right.
Political leaders make decisions based on their desire to win political competitions, most notably in the form of elections. Competition is the foundation of modern democracy, and the rules of politics are the same as the rules of a capitalist enterprise. It is a dog eat dog world and it literally is a fight to the top.
Why do you think the Free National Movement and the PLP when they have their political hats on are always fighting? Look at the rhetoric they use, the tactics they employ: the mass of supporters who turn out to political rallies appear as an unruly mob ready to go to war.
These people are beholden to their collective political identities for a number of reasons: pure intent, historical obligation, familial connection, miseducation, ignorance, and selfish interests. Politicians take advantage of them regardless of the reason, because the thing about politics is; the leadership has to be in control. They have to maintain the ability to manoeuvre the mob. So a popular uprising with loyalty to political leaders is in fact a controllable entity.
Naturally there is a breaking point for this type of opposition movement. It is kept in check by the nature and intent of its leaders and most times we can count on our leaders to use their power for the greater good of the few people they can't fully control, in other words affluent people or those with perceived influence.
Based on the nature of politics, I am inclined to believe Haiti's 2004 uprising was a political opposition capable of being led; that good men chose to do nothing allowing evil to prevail. Unlike President Mubarak who eventually caved to the will of the people and stepped down, President Aristide refused to be moved short of being kidnapped, which he said he was.
President Mubarak had seven months left on his term; Aristide had 13. In the case of Egypt, I am certain the people would have asked themselves: why should we respect the constitutional process, which should serve the will of the people, and wait seven months for an election, when for decades Mubarak has governed with little respect for the constitution or the people?
Somehow, President Mubarak must have been convinced that the protest movement was no small fraction or fringe group. It was an honest representation of the people's will. I would imagine President Aristide did not have those same feelings.
Still, President Aristide had many choices that could have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional process and respect for the will of the people. President Aristide insisted he serve out his term, as President Mubarak originally wished to do; he could have chosen to stepped down immediately as President Mubarak stalled in doing.
Unlike Mubarak, who had no choice of running in the next election because the public's trust was so corroded, President Aristide could have stepped downed voluntarily and offered himself again in the next election. A win that time around would have decidedly silenced the critics. He could also have asked to stay, but chosen to call an early election.
Power
Colin Powell once intimated that President Aristide had become arrogant and unreasonable with his allies, and probably his people, which endeared him to neither. I would not venture as far as to compare him with President Mubarak, but I am inclined to believe Aristide had on his mind holding power at all cost for the sake of his personal pride and dignity.
President Mubarak has demonstrated that while history will mark his inglorious departure as a personal failure, it will write an inspiring story of his country. Egypt, a Muslim land, is without a doubt the new beacon of hope for freedom. Egypt's final colonizers still govern its lands, but get this: the beacon of light has returned to Africa.
Haiti in 2004 had no such story to tell. With American and French fingers deep in the pot, and Caribbean interests contending for influence, Haiti had its internal politics to deal with and its external politics. Stability was more important than democracy for the Bahamian government, as well as the French and American governments. Instability would mean a migration influx for the Bahamas, and economic losses for the Americans and French.
So what happened? Aristide somehow ended up on an American government jet headed to the Central African Republic. Aristide's' ouster was the lowest common denominator of agreement between the greatest number of influential forces: external interests and the internal political opposition. One could say the people never determined Aristide's fate: their revolution was hijacked.
President Aristide went to Jamaica from the Central African Republic and then on to South Africa, where he was granted asylum. We will never know if he was really kidnapped by the United States or if he left voluntarily. I think it is probable he was pressured under the threat of being otherwise killed.
At the end of the day, our best hope for knowing what really happened is probably Wikileaks. Short of that it will be a perpetual, he said she said game between self-interested parties. What we do know is that President Aristide's stronghold was proven to be untenable, and his departure did not lead to national solidarity.
This brings us back to my starting point: politics is dirty, deceptive, stubborn and life altering. So much is placed in the hands of our political directorate, but in the midst of their game playing, their manoeuvring of economic interests, we can never be sure if they really do right by us. And yet we give them chance after chance after chance, never stopping to think that the usefulness of a politician has an expiry date.
Do our leaders do their best to make a positive impact in our lives or do they just do enough to stay in the game? Are they morally, spiritually or intellectually capable of knowing the difference?
These are questions for all of us to contemplate, because the actions and inaction of our leaders can change the course of history. The whole world felt the impact of America's warmongering President George W Bush.
There is no doubt, the political instability in Haiti has robbed its people of so many opportunities. For all of its natural wealth, the financial resources of its wealthy elite, its strong intellectual foundations, rich cultural heritage and prized historical legacy, Haiti should want for nothing.
Unfortunately this is not the case. And the turbulent conditions in Haiti combined with our own political game playing have thwarted attempts at building a meaningful relationship between next door neighbours.
I imagine there is some genuine interest, but as Mr Sears explained, it is not an easy road. The repeated interruption of democratic rule over the years has made relationship building, for example, a tightrope to walk.
"In one of the negotiations we had, I think it was with Jean-Robert Estimé, foreign affairs minister, when he left, two weeks later he was out of office. In fact, once we had to deal with six to seven foreign ministers in the space of four years; it was not easy," said Mr Sears.
Leader
Regime change, at almost any cost, has been ingrained in the way "they solve their problems," said Mr Sears. Virtually every political leader is dead or outside the country.
"These are intelligent people. They know continued instability is the consequence of unilateral interruptions of the democratic process. You never give the country a chance for those issues to be set aside. That is a dangerous phenomenon we have witnessed," he said.
With all the lessons we have to learn from Egypt, Haiti and global politics is there any hope of revolution in the Bahamas? I think the odds are against us and the status quo will be our accepted condition for some time to come.
After all, we recently had an Egypt opportunity, to use the phrase loosely, and we squandered it. I think it can be summed up in the story of the day the Prime Minister was driven from the House of Assembly burning tyres with no seatbelt on.
Barring the mass rally, the biggest demonstration of BTC unions was their march to Parliament Square. That was the day Parliament ended early; members of the governing party went fleeing and members of the opposition jumped on the bandwagon.
The actions of our leaders was predictable, but that day I watched in astonishment as the people cowered to the might of the state on two fronts. The people amassed in Parliament Square on the street to the west and on the bleachers to the north. They were cordoned off by police barricades and police officers. At one time, the frontliners made a move to push through the barricades and march to the House. They were successful, to a point.
When the "revolution" started, half of the people fled to the bleachers; they held their position in the comfort of their distance; they divided the opposition. Those were no Egyptian revolutionaries. The efforts of the frontliners was so concerted that had the people stuck together, they would have surly overpowered the flimsy cohort of police and made it to the House.
Sadly, they succeeded only in pushing through to the middle of the road. What they demonstrated was their lack of conviction and their powerlessness. A union member who had broken through the barricades, said: "They have y'all corralled like a bunch of animals. That is how they have you. Y'all look like a bunch of animals." It was true. The police knew this, and they also knew how incensory it would be if the people realized, so they told the protester to "stop that". They had their greatest momentum that day and they broke.
In Egypt the people were prepared to die for their cause and many of them did. Those who survived stepped into the shoes of the dead without hesitation: themselves prepared to go all the way. There was no shortage of conviction or cohesiveness.
The other telling incident that day had to do with union's action to the PLP opposition. When the House of Assembly was adjourned, PLP members of parliament congregated at the site of the demonstration. They did not cross the barricades to join the union members; instead, they hijacked the moment. They assembled their own impromptu press conference by the south side bleachers and sidelined the unions and all their members to put on their own show. Of course the media spotlight shifted to them, and after all of the sound bites and video footage was collected the PLP left. Again, that was expected.
Unions
The unions, they tried sheepishly to compete for the spotlight, shouting over their bullhorns to the corralled mass of sorts.
People tend to forget: the government is comprised of the ruling party and the opposition.
After all, an ineffective opposition makes for an ineffective government.
The PLP opposition is no real friend to the unions and they should have told them so.
Some of the present union leaders admit; had they been in power under the PLP administration, they would have opposed their "bad Blue Water deal" back then as well. But the unions allowed their movement to be hijacked on that day. Egyptian revolutionaries they are not.
In the weeks and months ahead, the world will see what Egypt makes of its revolutionary moment. In the meantime, I am sure, politicians and wannabe revolutionaries across the world will continue with their trite use of the Egyptian moment to further their personal objectives. The true revolutionaries, hopefully, will look beyond the rhetorical gimmicks for the real lessons of Egypt, Haiti and all of the movements, past and present.
February 21, 2011
tribune242 insight
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
BTC unions lose court battle to block the sale of 51 % stake in Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC)... [Ordered to pay costs]
BTC unions lose court battle
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE
Guardian Senior Reporter
kdl@nasguard.com
Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley yesterday threw out a court action filed by Bahamas Telecommunications Company unions seeking to block the sale of a 51 percent stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
The Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
Attorney Maurice Glinton, who represented the unions, confirmed to The Nassau Guardian that they plan to appeal the decision. He could not say at the time when the necessary documents would be filed.
In his ruling, Adderley said the BCPOU and BCPMU and their trustees lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
“Hence the action is a nullity and so the granting of an injunction pending its hearing does not arise,” Adderley said.
“Alternatively, the evidence has not disclosed that any of their private legal rights are being infringed or threatened or need to be enforced or declared, as they have not established an interest recognized by law as being direct and substantial enough in the subject matter of the action to give them locus standi to commence the action to claim the remedies set forth in the writ.
“For the foregoing reasons, I strike out the writ and dismiss the action.”
Adderley also ordered that the unions pay costs in the matter.
In their writ, the unions contended that the government has no authority to sell BTC because an act of Parliament made the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BaTelCo) a self-owning and self-sustaining entity.
Their claim is that consequently the divested assets are now held by BTC in trust for BaTelCo.
Adderley said there is no express power in the Industrial Relations Act that gives unions the capacity or power to sue for declarations outside their statutory objects.
Adderley said even if they had the capacity to sue for the matters in question, he considered whether they had a legal interest to sue for the relief claimed.
Last week, the government signed a shareholder’s agreement and a share purchase agreement with CWC, and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham tabled the memorandum of understanding between the two entities in the House of Assembly along with related documents.
Yesterday, BCPOU President Bernard Evans said the ruling has in no way halted the union’s efforts to stop the sale of BTC.
“We never really rested all of our efforts on this court case, even though we knew we had good grounds and it is a landmark case. But we never wanted to leave any stone unturned. We will continue to do our stuff because this is not over by a long shot,” Evans said.
“We are going to fight this on all fronts. Whatever it takes, we are going to take our time and get to it.”
Evans shot down claims by the Free National Movement that the majority of Bahamians support the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
“I saw in the paper where the FNM government believe that they have the majority of the people, they keep putting us in the minority. Well the day of reckoning is coming when we will know who has the majority,” Evans said.
The deal between the government and CWC calls for the shares to be sold for $210 million, as well as a stamp duty of $7 million. Eventually, 25 percent of the shares in the company will be offered to Bahamians, the government has said.
2/15/2011
thenassauguardian
By KEVA LIGHTBOURNE
Guardian Senior Reporter
kdl@nasguard.com
Supreme Court Justice Neville Adderley yesterday threw out a court action filed by Bahamas Telecommunications Company unions seeking to block the sale of a 51 percent stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC).
The Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union (BCPOU) and the Bahamas Communications and Public Managers Union (BCPMU) were seeking an injunction to stop the government from selling BTC.
Attorney Maurice Glinton, who represented the unions, confirmed to The Nassau Guardian that they plan to appeal the decision. He could not say at the time when the necessary documents would be filed.
In his ruling, Adderley said the BCPOU and BCPMU and their trustees lacked the legal capacity to institute and maintain the action in their own names.
“Hence the action is a nullity and so the granting of an injunction pending its hearing does not arise,” Adderley said.
“Alternatively, the evidence has not disclosed that any of their private legal rights are being infringed or threatened or need to be enforced or declared, as they have not established an interest recognized by law as being direct and substantial enough in the subject matter of the action to give them locus standi to commence the action to claim the remedies set forth in the writ.
“For the foregoing reasons, I strike out the writ and dismiss the action.”
Adderley also ordered that the unions pay costs in the matter.
In their writ, the unions contended that the government has no authority to sell BTC because an act of Parliament made the Bahamas Telecommunications Corporation (BaTelCo) a self-owning and self-sustaining entity.
Their claim is that consequently the divested assets are now held by BTC in trust for BaTelCo.
Adderley said there is no express power in the Industrial Relations Act that gives unions the capacity or power to sue for declarations outside their statutory objects.
Adderley said even if they had the capacity to sue for the matters in question, he considered whether they had a legal interest to sue for the relief claimed.
Last week, the government signed a shareholder’s agreement and a share purchase agreement with CWC, and Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham tabled the memorandum of understanding between the two entities in the House of Assembly along with related documents.
Yesterday, BCPOU President Bernard Evans said the ruling has in no way halted the union’s efforts to stop the sale of BTC.
“We never really rested all of our efforts on this court case, even though we knew we had good grounds and it is a landmark case. But we never wanted to leave any stone unturned. We will continue to do our stuff because this is not over by a long shot,” Evans said.
“We are going to fight this on all fronts. Whatever it takes, we are going to take our time and get to it.”
Evans shot down claims by the Free National Movement that the majority of Bahamians support the sale of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
“I saw in the paper where the FNM government believe that they have the majority of the people, they keep putting us in the minority. Well the day of reckoning is coming when we will know who has the majority,” Evans said.
The deal between the government and CWC calls for the shares to be sold for $210 million, as well as a stamp duty of $7 million. Eventually, 25 percent of the shares in the company will be offered to Bahamians, the government has said.
2/15/2011
thenassauguardian
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
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The love of foreigners over Bahamians by the PLP and FNM when it comes to the BTC privatization process...
Selling BTC a threat to national development
thenassauguardian editorial
National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest escalated the dispute between the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) unions and the government over the sale of the majority stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), when he described the unions’ protest as a national security threat.
Turnquest, in an interview with The Nassau Guardian, went further and stated that the security forces are on alert for any eventuality regarding the dispute. The BTC unions have threatened, with the support of the national trade union movement, a general strike.
Union leaders always threaten to strike when they don’t get their way. In order to carry out a successful strike, however, a majority of the workers represented by these leaders have to support the strike call. And these workers have to be prepared for pain and loss.
There is no evidence, thus far, proving that the members of these unions are prepared to go down this rough road.
The unions have been annoying to the government, but they have not been a national security threat. In fact, the union opposition has been somewhat weak.
There were only a few hundred people at the union march on Parliament in December – that number includes the members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and other splinter parties which participated. These unions represent tens of thousands of workers.
Only a few hundred people showed up at the union-organized ‘mass rally’ at R.M. Bailey Park on Monday night.
These unions can’t even bring out a good crowd.
The minister has engaged in hyperbole. And by invoking the security forces under his command – the Royal Bahamas Police Force and Royal Bahamas Defence Force – he appears menacing.
The government and its agencies should be on alert for mass disruptions rather than some nebulous national security threat. The unions are likely to continue with small-scale disruptions.
National security threats are actions that threaten the existence of a state. Strike calls by union leaders who cannot turn out their membership do not threaten the existence of The Bahamas.
The decision to sell a major Bahamian state asset to a foreign company, however, is a threat to the national development of the country.
The policy of all Bahamian governments should be to empower Bahamians. They should especially attempt to create more entrepreneurs and to further empower those already in business.
When Bahamians own enterprises, rather than foreigners, more money stays in the country and more Bahamians are usually hired to operate the business.
Furthermore, empowering Bahamians by making Bahamians owners of BTC would allow those Bahamians to then become players in the regional telecommunications industry. Policymakers should be aiming for Bahamians to someday take over telcos across the Caribbean.
Instead, the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) administrations want to sell a major chunk of this major state asset to foreigners.
A privatization policy is needed in The Bahamas. It should state that bidders for state assets either be Bahamian or they should be joint venture partnerships with Bahamians.
The love of foreigners over Bahamians when it comes to the BTC privatization process is the threat Bahamians should be concerned about when it comes to the PLP and the FNM.
1/12/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
thenassauguardian editorial
National Security Minister Tommy Turnquest escalated the dispute between the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) unions and the government over the sale of the majority stake in BTC to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), when he described the unions’ protest as a national security threat.
Turnquest, in an interview with The Nassau Guardian, went further and stated that the security forces are on alert for any eventuality regarding the dispute. The BTC unions have threatened, with the support of the national trade union movement, a general strike.
Union leaders always threaten to strike when they don’t get their way. In order to carry out a successful strike, however, a majority of the workers represented by these leaders have to support the strike call. And these workers have to be prepared for pain and loss.
There is no evidence, thus far, proving that the members of these unions are prepared to go down this rough road.
The unions have been annoying to the government, but they have not been a national security threat. In fact, the union opposition has been somewhat weak.
There were only a few hundred people at the union march on Parliament in December – that number includes the members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and other splinter parties which participated. These unions represent tens of thousands of workers.
Only a few hundred people showed up at the union-organized ‘mass rally’ at R.M. Bailey Park on Monday night.
These unions can’t even bring out a good crowd.
The minister has engaged in hyperbole. And by invoking the security forces under his command – the Royal Bahamas Police Force and Royal Bahamas Defence Force – he appears menacing.
The government and its agencies should be on alert for mass disruptions rather than some nebulous national security threat. The unions are likely to continue with small-scale disruptions.
National security threats are actions that threaten the existence of a state. Strike calls by union leaders who cannot turn out their membership do not threaten the existence of The Bahamas.
The decision to sell a major Bahamian state asset to a foreign company, however, is a threat to the national development of the country.
The policy of all Bahamian governments should be to empower Bahamians. They should especially attempt to create more entrepreneurs and to further empower those already in business.
When Bahamians own enterprises, rather than foreigners, more money stays in the country and more Bahamians are usually hired to operate the business.
Furthermore, empowering Bahamians by making Bahamians owners of BTC would allow those Bahamians to then become players in the regional telecommunications industry. Policymakers should be aiming for Bahamians to someday take over telcos across the Caribbean.
Instead, the PLP and the Free National Movement (FNM) administrations want to sell a major chunk of this major state asset to foreigners.
A privatization policy is needed in The Bahamas. It should state that bidders for state assets either be Bahamian or they should be joint venture partnerships with Bahamians.
The love of foreigners over Bahamians when it comes to the BTC privatization process is the threat Bahamians should be concerned about when it comes to the PLP and the FNM.
1/12/2011
thenassauguardian editorial
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Echoes of a General Strike
The Bahama Journal Editorial
For better or worse, there are lessons that always come with the struggle for power; whether this battle has to do with who gets to determine how money is spent in a household, in an organization anywhere civil society, in a firm or at the state level.
Even more simply, politics is about who gets what, when, where and how; in addition, it is also about the definition of that party or individual whose will must be obeyed.
In other words, then, as in our own fledgling democracy; the question today arises concerning whether the governing party should, would or could yield to demands currently being made by some of this nation’s union leadership.
Among the instruments they say they have is that one that allows them to withdraw their labor and that of their membership in the event that the governing party does not yield to their demands.
We seriously doubt that, they have this level of support.
In addition, the fact remains that, this is just not the way things are done in today’s Bahamas.
Indeed, while unions and their membership do have the right to protest any policy they see fit; and even though they do have the right to take the government to court, they do not have any real right to hold any government hostage.
And for sure, it is a fact that the governing party has a mandate to lead and that –as such – they are called upon to lead. They also have promises to be kept.
Clearly, then, no right-thinking government should ever put itself in a position where it must endlessly consult with everyone; or for that matter, anyone else other than those given a similar mandate by the people.
This comes as a direct result of the free vote and expression of the people in free and fair elections.
Thereafter, the government leads and its Loyal Opposition opposes; with one party having its sway and the other its say.
We dare say that, anything else is a clear invitation to both foolishness and anarchy.
While we do believe all of what we are saying; we hasten to add that, no government worth its salt would ever so paint itself into a corner by alienating the masses of people who identify themselves as workers.
But by the same token, union leadership must always be mindful that while they are called to lead, this call must always be tempered by what is in the very best interests of their followers.
What makes this situation so very important is the fact that workers are voters. This means that whenever they wish, they can bring a government to grief and despair. These workers who are also voters know as well as anyone else that the choices they make can determine whether one side wins or the other loses.
This means that when workers become restive enough, their approval of this or that politician matters greatly.
Compounding the matter in the Bahamian case is the fact that the Bahamian labor force is compact, well organized, knows and feels its power.
Politicians who wish to be re-elected cannot ignore these people and their demands.
No politician worth his salt would ever dare express contempt or disdain for those voters who are workers.
We make this obvious point as we try to make sense of what seems increased restiveness on the part of very many public sector workers.
On occasion, their main gripe seems to concern money. At other times, workers and their representatives seem to be preoccupied with matters germane to respect.
In addition, there are times like the ones in which we live where some union leaders seem to have reached that point where – like politicians in their guise as law-makers – they would pontificate on matters germane to policy.
Here they are embarked –as it were – on a journey without maps; and here we are reminded that, history does not repeat itself.
We make this point as we reflect on some of what is today being said about how today’s political climate is seemingly reminiscent of that era in the late 1950’s when there was both call and response to the idea of a General Strike.
That great call was made by Randol F. Fawkes, Clifford Darling and Lynden O. Pindling.
Out of this great struggle has come a modern Bahamas where the rights of workers are enshrined in the law.
This we do in free and fair elections.
All else is anathema.
In the final analysis, then, law-making and policy should be left where the Constitution places them – squarely and fully in the hands of this nation’s parliamentarians.
That is why we boast so much about the longevity of parliamentary democracy in the Bahamas.
January 06, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
For better or worse, there are lessons that always come with the struggle for power; whether this battle has to do with who gets to determine how money is spent in a household, in an organization anywhere civil society, in a firm or at the state level.
Even more simply, politics is about who gets what, when, where and how; in addition, it is also about the definition of that party or individual whose will must be obeyed.
In other words, then, as in our own fledgling democracy; the question today arises concerning whether the governing party should, would or could yield to demands currently being made by some of this nation’s union leadership.
Among the instruments they say they have is that one that allows them to withdraw their labor and that of their membership in the event that the governing party does not yield to their demands.
We seriously doubt that, they have this level of support.
In addition, the fact remains that, this is just not the way things are done in today’s Bahamas.
Indeed, while unions and their membership do have the right to protest any policy they see fit; and even though they do have the right to take the government to court, they do not have any real right to hold any government hostage.
And for sure, it is a fact that the governing party has a mandate to lead and that –as such – they are called upon to lead. They also have promises to be kept.
Clearly, then, no right-thinking government should ever put itself in a position where it must endlessly consult with everyone; or for that matter, anyone else other than those given a similar mandate by the people.
This comes as a direct result of the free vote and expression of the people in free and fair elections.
Thereafter, the government leads and its Loyal Opposition opposes; with one party having its sway and the other its say.
We dare say that, anything else is a clear invitation to both foolishness and anarchy.
While we do believe all of what we are saying; we hasten to add that, no government worth its salt would ever so paint itself into a corner by alienating the masses of people who identify themselves as workers.
But by the same token, union leadership must always be mindful that while they are called to lead, this call must always be tempered by what is in the very best interests of their followers.
What makes this situation so very important is the fact that workers are voters. This means that whenever they wish, they can bring a government to grief and despair. These workers who are also voters know as well as anyone else that the choices they make can determine whether one side wins or the other loses.
This means that when workers become restive enough, their approval of this or that politician matters greatly.
Compounding the matter in the Bahamian case is the fact that the Bahamian labor force is compact, well organized, knows and feels its power.
Politicians who wish to be re-elected cannot ignore these people and their demands.
No politician worth his salt would ever dare express contempt or disdain for those voters who are workers.
We make this obvious point as we try to make sense of what seems increased restiveness on the part of very many public sector workers.
On occasion, their main gripe seems to concern money. At other times, workers and their representatives seem to be preoccupied with matters germane to respect.
In addition, there are times like the ones in which we live where some union leaders seem to have reached that point where – like politicians in their guise as law-makers – they would pontificate on matters germane to policy.
Here they are embarked –as it were – on a journey without maps; and here we are reminded that, history does not repeat itself.
We make this point as we reflect on some of what is today being said about how today’s political climate is seemingly reminiscent of that era in the late 1950’s when there was both call and response to the idea of a General Strike.
That great call was made by Randol F. Fawkes, Clifford Darling and Lynden O. Pindling.
Out of this great struggle has come a modern Bahamas where the rights of workers are enshrined in the law.
This we do in free and fair elections.
All else is anathema.
In the final analysis, then, law-making and policy should be left where the Constitution places them – squarely and fully in the hands of this nation’s parliamentarians.
That is why we boast so much about the longevity of parliamentary democracy in the Bahamas.
January 06, 2011
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Bluewater versus Cable & Wireless - and the Privatisation of Bahamas Telecommunications Company Limited (BTC)
When did the unions purchase BTC?
tribune242 editorial
TODAY MANY Bahamians are confused. They would like to know when the unions purchased the public's telecommunications company, which would give them the right to say whether the company can be sold and to whom.
As far as the public is aware those making the noise in the public square are employees of a publicly owned company with a contract of service that can be terminated by either side to that contract. In other words a union's only argument should be about the employment of its members and the terms of that employment, certainly not about the ownership of the company. However, if unionists believe they have an entitlement -- over an above their contract of service -- then they should bring their papers and publicly prove their point. Otherwise, it is the government -- not the unions-- that was elected to represent the Bahamian people. And it is the people, represented by their MPs in parliament, who will have the final say on the sale of BTC.
Bernard Evans, president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union, who has taken the union's fight to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has claimed the government was in violation of an ILO convention which calls for the government to engage workers in a "transparent manner to discuss issues of life-changing effect."
How can the union leader support this complaint when he was on the BTC privatisation committee where the matter was discussed and recommendations made to government, and when the Prime Minister himself met with union executives and invited them to meet for discussions with the proposed new owner's chief executive officer? It is understood that at the meeting with the Prime Minister, although the union leaders expressed their displeasure at Cable and Wireless as the new owners, they at least agreed to meet with the company's CEO for a discussion.
David Shaw, CEO of Cable and Wireless, flew in specially for that discussion. The union sent its regrets.
They complain that no one will talk with them, that they do not know what is going on, that what is being done to them is "wicked and intentional" because government never truly wanted them to be "a participant in that discussion." How can there be a discussion if one side to that discussion refuses to come to the table? How can doubts and fears be discussed and removed if a reasonable discussion cannot take place? Bullying tactics will not succeed. The louder they shout in the public square, the more support they lose by a large segment of the population, already dissatisfied with BTC's service.
Mr Evans has accused the government of trying to "muddy" the waters by comparing the PLP's terms of agreement to sell BTC to Bluewater with the terms offered to Cable & Wireless. He claims it is a "non-issue" for the unions and hardly worthy of comment.
Unfortunately, it is not a non-issue and is most worthy of comment, because with the Christie government, it was the union that also agreed to the Bluewater deal. Apparently, the union had no problem with this untried and untested foreigner named Bluewater, nor did it protest the terms of that agreement. Whenever it is referred to by Mr Christie he is careful to make it clear that the union was on board, and until now the union has not protested.
The main dispute is that the PLP offered Bluewater 49 per cent of the company, while the FNM offered Cable and Wireless 51 per cent. Now let's examine the meaning of the two offers in practical terms.
In the Bluewater agreement, management and control of BTC was to be given to Bluewater without it having paid for the majority interest. Bluewater was also given control of the board because it had a greater number of directors on it. It also had complete control of the day-to-day management because it had sole authority to select the company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). In other words Bluewater with its 49 per cent would have effectively secured majority control of BTC without having paid for it.
On the other hand Cable and Wireless (CWC) paid for its 51 per cent majority. On closing the net cash benefit to the government from the CWC deal will be at least $202 million, whereas the net value of the Bluewater transaction on closing would have been $150 million, and not the $260 million as claimed by the politicians.
Bluewater was granted an exclusivity period of six years for both mobile and fixed line services while CWC's exclusivity period for mobile service is three years, and the fixed line no longer applies as it has already been liberalised.
And so when the facts are examined, not only is government financially better off selling to CWC, but CWC has had to pay for its control of the company, whereas the Bluewater deal -- agreed by the Christie government, and one can assume by the union because of its silence at the time -- received exactly the same control of the company for which it would have paid no extra -- and for which it would have been paying in instalments over a six-year period, instead of cash. The bottom line was that Bluewater with its 49 per cent got complete control of the company without paying any extra, while CWC with its 51 per cent also got complete control of the company, but at a price.
December 17, 2010
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
TODAY MANY Bahamians are confused. They would like to know when the unions purchased the public's telecommunications company, which would give them the right to say whether the company can be sold and to whom.
As far as the public is aware those making the noise in the public square are employees of a publicly owned company with a contract of service that can be terminated by either side to that contract. In other words a union's only argument should be about the employment of its members and the terms of that employment, certainly not about the ownership of the company. However, if unionists believe they have an entitlement -- over an above their contract of service -- then they should bring their papers and publicly prove their point. Otherwise, it is the government -- not the unions-- that was elected to represent the Bahamian people. And it is the people, represented by their MPs in parliament, who will have the final say on the sale of BTC.
Bernard Evans, president of the Bahamas Communications and Public Officers Union, who has taken the union's fight to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), has claimed the government was in violation of an ILO convention which calls for the government to engage workers in a "transparent manner to discuss issues of life-changing effect."
How can the union leader support this complaint when he was on the BTC privatisation committee where the matter was discussed and recommendations made to government, and when the Prime Minister himself met with union executives and invited them to meet for discussions with the proposed new owner's chief executive officer? It is understood that at the meeting with the Prime Minister, although the union leaders expressed their displeasure at Cable and Wireless as the new owners, they at least agreed to meet with the company's CEO for a discussion.
David Shaw, CEO of Cable and Wireless, flew in specially for that discussion. The union sent its regrets.
They complain that no one will talk with them, that they do not know what is going on, that what is being done to them is "wicked and intentional" because government never truly wanted them to be "a participant in that discussion." How can there be a discussion if one side to that discussion refuses to come to the table? How can doubts and fears be discussed and removed if a reasonable discussion cannot take place? Bullying tactics will not succeed. The louder they shout in the public square, the more support they lose by a large segment of the population, already dissatisfied with BTC's service.
Mr Evans has accused the government of trying to "muddy" the waters by comparing the PLP's terms of agreement to sell BTC to Bluewater with the terms offered to Cable & Wireless. He claims it is a "non-issue" for the unions and hardly worthy of comment.
Unfortunately, it is not a non-issue and is most worthy of comment, because with the Christie government, it was the union that also agreed to the Bluewater deal. Apparently, the union had no problem with this untried and untested foreigner named Bluewater, nor did it protest the terms of that agreement. Whenever it is referred to by Mr Christie he is careful to make it clear that the union was on board, and until now the union has not protested.
The main dispute is that the PLP offered Bluewater 49 per cent of the company, while the FNM offered Cable and Wireless 51 per cent. Now let's examine the meaning of the two offers in practical terms.
In the Bluewater agreement, management and control of BTC was to be given to Bluewater without it having paid for the majority interest. Bluewater was also given control of the board because it had a greater number of directors on it. It also had complete control of the day-to-day management because it had sole authority to select the company's Chief Executive Officer (CEO). In other words Bluewater with its 49 per cent would have effectively secured majority control of BTC without having paid for it.
On the other hand Cable and Wireless (CWC) paid for its 51 per cent majority. On closing the net cash benefit to the government from the CWC deal will be at least $202 million, whereas the net value of the Bluewater transaction on closing would have been $150 million, and not the $260 million as claimed by the politicians.
Bluewater was granted an exclusivity period of six years for both mobile and fixed line services while CWC's exclusivity period for mobile service is three years, and the fixed line no longer applies as it has already been liberalised.
And so when the facts are examined, not only is government financially better off selling to CWC, but CWC has had to pay for its control of the company, whereas the Bluewater deal -- agreed by the Christie government, and one can assume by the union because of its silence at the time -- received exactly the same control of the company for which it would have paid no extra -- and for which it would have been paying in instalments over a six-year period, instead of cash. The bottom line was that Bluewater with its 49 per cent got complete control of the company without paying any extra, while CWC with its 51 per cent also got complete control of the company, but at a price.
December 17, 2010
tribune242 editorial
Friday, December 17, 2010
Say, Sway and Raw Power
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Available evidence suggests that, the Progressive Liberal Party and a number of unions are apparently finding themselves united as regards certain aspects of that deal that would –if approved- provide Cable and Wireless a fifty one per cent stake in BTC.
On the other hand, the governing party seems to be suggesting that they have been blind-sided by union leadership and that, in addition, they are adamant that, the Bahamian people are getting a good deal, moving forward.
These are the bones of contention between the governing party, its Opposition and the unions.
Evidently, politics matters.
And here, as we revert to some of what the Opposition is saying, we note where they say that, “…The PLP holds fast to the belief that the sale of BTC to C&W is a ‘national issue’ and not a political issue as there is a general concurrence on the Privatization of BTC.
“To this end the primary spokespersons outside the Halls of Parliament have been primarily the Party’s Chairman, the Leader and Deputy Leader. This position by the PLP has been clearly demonstrated with the ongoing Senate Debates, as opposition members, despite attempts to be censored, continue to hammer the Government for not making public the details of the Memorandum of Understanding on the BTC / C&W Deal…”
The PLP concludes on this note of warning, explaining that, “…the government continues to stubbornly proceed with this bad deal despite mounting national opposition by the People of the Bahamas. Considering the above factors, the PLP again call on the Prime Minister to make public the details of the sale by releasing the Memorandum of Understanding on the BTC / C&W Deal without further delay. More importantly, we call on the government to listen to the majority of the People and cancel the Government’s plans to sell BTC to Cable & Wireless…”
And so, the battle lines have been drawn.
Evidently, these battle lines recapitulate parameters that have proven decisive in times past – with workers and others ranged in alliance with one party or the other.
Only time will tell how this struggle will eventuate.
But even as we wait for time’s verdict, we can say with some high degree of confidence that, the struggle is on; and that, those who oppose the BTC deal are seemingly on the offensive; with their quarry – the governing Free National Movement now pulling out the stops in order to better sell the deal they thought they had in the bag.
But notwithstanding those aspects of this matter that turn on the use of raw power by some in the halls of parliament, we are today somewhat discomfited by some of the tactics used by the Speaker in the Assembly; particularly where it seems as if he ignored the right of Her Majesty’s Opposition to speak, once notice of adjournment was announced.
While –like others- we have no way of divining what could have motivated him to act as he did; suffice it to say that he left us and quite a number of other right-thinking persons with the sense that he was acting in the immediate political interests of the ruling party in the Assembly.
While we would like to think otherwise, the evidence directs us the clear conclusion that, Mr. Speaker erred when he acted as he did this Wednesday past.
But be that as it may, we hope that –in time- Mr. Speaker would have the good grace to explain himself to each and every member of that august assembly; this in order to convince them that he was not biased in his recent decision making.
Now while we are quite aware of some of those other aspects of this matter that now provide the Opposition with so much political fodder; we are still adamant that, they should have been given an opportunity to speak.
In addition, we would have much preferred that things had gone in such a way so that, those who lead and those who would lead might have had an opportunity to say Merry Christmas to each other and to send similar greetings to their constituents.
And clearly, we do believe that, the Opposition should have been given an opportunity – on the notice of adjournment to speak.
This is a time honored tradition in any number of countries that would hew to the democratic way of doing things; where while governments might have their sway, those in Opposition should have their say.
Evidently, while this nostrum might be heeded in other jurisdictions, there seems to be some difficulty with it as parliamentarians dicker and debate the matter concerning the proposed ‘sale’ of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
And so today, we regret the way things have happened in the Assembly; and as they might have done, we wish them all a Merry Christmas.
December 17, 2010
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Available evidence suggests that, the Progressive Liberal Party and a number of unions are apparently finding themselves united as regards certain aspects of that deal that would –if approved- provide Cable and Wireless a fifty one per cent stake in BTC.
On the other hand, the governing party seems to be suggesting that they have been blind-sided by union leadership and that, in addition, they are adamant that, the Bahamian people are getting a good deal, moving forward.
These are the bones of contention between the governing party, its Opposition and the unions.
Evidently, politics matters.
And here, as we revert to some of what the Opposition is saying, we note where they say that, “…The PLP holds fast to the belief that the sale of BTC to C&W is a ‘national issue’ and not a political issue as there is a general concurrence on the Privatization of BTC.
“To this end the primary spokespersons outside the Halls of Parliament have been primarily the Party’s Chairman, the Leader and Deputy Leader. This position by the PLP has been clearly demonstrated with the ongoing Senate Debates, as opposition members, despite attempts to be censored, continue to hammer the Government for not making public the details of the Memorandum of Understanding on the BTC / C&W Deal…”
The PLP concludes on this note of warning, explaining that, “…the government continues to stubbornly proceed with this bad deal despite mounting national opposition by the People of the Bahamas. Considering the above factors, the PLP again call on the Prime Minister to make public the details of the sale by releasing the Memorandum of Understanding on the BTC / C&W Deal without further delay. More importantly, we call on the government to listen to the majority of the People and cancel the Government’s plans to sell BTC to Cable & Wireless…”
And so, the battle lines have been drawn.
Evidently, these battle lines recapitulate parameters that have proven decisive in times past – with workers and others ranged in alliance with one party or the other.
Only time will tell how this struggle will eventuate.
But even as we wait for time’s verdict, we can say with some high degree of confidence that, the struggle is on; and that, those who oppose the BTC deal are seemingly on the offensive; with their quarry – the governing Free National Movement now pulling out the stops in order to better sell the deal they thought they had in the bag.
But notwithstanding those aspects of this matter that turn on the use of raw power by some in the halls of parliament, we are today somewhat discomfited by some of the tactics used by the Speaker in the Assembly; particularly where it seems as if he ignored the right of Her Majesty’s Opposition to speak, once notice of adjournment was announced.
While –like others- we have no way of divining what could have motivated him to act as he did; suffice it to say that he left us and quite a number of other right-thinking persons with the sense that he was acting in the immediate political interests of the ruling party in the Assembly.
While we would like to think otherwise, the evidence directs us the clear conclusion that, Mr. Speaker erred when he acted as he did this Wednesday past.
But be that as it may, we hope that –in time- Mr. Speaker would have the good grace to explain himself to each and every member of that august assembly; this in order to convince them that he was not biased in his recent decision making.
Now while we are quite aware of some of those other aspects of this matter that now provide the Opposition with so much political fodder; we are still adamant that, they should have been given an opportunity to speak.
In addition, we would have much preferred that things had gone in such a way so that, those who lead and those who would lead might have had an opportunity to say Merry Christmas to each other and to send similar greetings to their constituents.
And clearly, we do believe that, the Opposition should have been given an opportunity – on the notice of adjournment to speak.
This is a time honored tradition in any number of countries that would hew to the democratic way of doing things; where while governments might have their sway, those in Opposition should have their say.
Evidently, while this nostrum might be heeded in other jurisdictions, there seems to be some difficulty with it as parliamentarians dicker and debate the matter concerning the proposed ‘sale’ of BTC to Cable and Wireless.
And so today, we regret the way things have happened in the Assembly; and as they might have done, we wish them all a Merry Christmas.
December 17, 2010
The Bahama Journal Editorial
Monday, June 28, 2004
Bahamian Leaders Have Always Misread Bahamian Consumers During Boom Times, thus Creating a False Sense of Security and Achievement
An itemized list of the most recent payments shows that virtually no aspect of a consumer’s life is untaxed in The Bahamas
The price of food escalates with each trip to the grocery store in The Bahamas
Consumer’s Corner
CONSUMERS AND ‘KING SOL KERZNER OF ATLANTIS’
By Charles Fawkes
Nassau, The Bahamas
06/04
HOUSE OF LABOUR: With all of the good news coming from ‘King Sol Kerzner of Atlantis’ and his court comprising of no less than the cabinet of Prime Minister Perry Christie, Bahamians can only see the continuation of the Bahamian dream. Despite this glowing dream presented by Perry Christie and King Kerzner there is always the chance that a nightmare could just be around the corner. Our leaders have always misread Bahamian consumers during boom times thus creating a false sense of security and achievement.
The recent upsurge in violent crime not withstanding, Bahamians are naturally easygoing peace loving people who would prefer negotiation to confrontation, forgiveness over revenge, and would rather cultivate a friend than create an enemy. So much so that the common saying is that rather than taking his revenge a Bahamian would elect to “leave you to God”.
If however, you interpret these traits as a sign of weakness you do so at your own peril. Because, there is a limit to his tolerance – a point beyond which he will not go and his resolve and determination at that point will match anyone’s.
It seems that it is this component of the Bahamian consumer’s personality that is the most difficult for the foreign managers and investors of all resorts properties to comprehend. They consistently misread the consumers, take liberties and make demands that are totally unacceptable. They eventually force the consumers and their unions to draw a line in the sand, which the foreign managers/investors still continue to challenge.
Examples in our history of management’s misreading the Bahamian personality are innumerable. The two classic examples in Bahamian labor history are The Burma Road Riots of 1942 and the General Strike, triggered by the taxi drivers in 1958. Although in these crises the foreign entities were aided and abetted by the Bahamian White establishment at the time, the underlying principles that were at stake then are the same today.
There is no other area where the consumer’s rights are more under siege than in our largest industry – the Hotel Industry. And with a political climate more conductive to their design we do not expect much change from the foreign managers/investors for the foreseeable future. It behooves therefore, Bahamian consumers and their unions to be vigilant and resist all efforts to divide their ranks from within and from without.
Quite often it is not money issues that trigger the consumers to draw the metaphorical line in the sand. Many times it is the consumer’s dignity; honor and respect that they feel are challenged and trodden upon.
For years as an opposition leader, Perry Christie led a party with no programs, no clear-cut ideology. All these years, he offered the Bahamian people a hollowed shell, nothing concrete- offering just a dream for sale. The dream was well designed, carefully packaged and put on the political market. Most of the Bahamian consumers bought it.
It is just a dream of good houses, fancy cars, quality education, quality living and control of their country. Like any product, the dream has its price. The Price is high. The consumers will have to reject their identity as a class and merge their destinies with that of a new set of oppressors like the Kerzner’s, a set of oppressors who want economic power for themselves and not in the interest of the consuming class.
This is a strange price, because most of the consumers who buy the dream will pay for it with sweat and blood.
The dream however will be kept alive by the Christie’s of this world and thousands of Bahamians will one day wake up to the harsh brutal light of reality.
The bills will come due on the Bahamian dream under Christie’s leadership, just as they came due under Pindling and Ingraham’s dream.
An itemized list of the most recent payments shows that virtually no aspect of a consumer’s life is untaxed. Some of the costs are direct and immediate. The price of food escalates with each trip to the grocery store. A larger percentage each week of a consumer’s wages must go just to maintaining the physical strength to get to the job (if you have a job). If you don’t have a job, you may be invited to learn to eat air.
And forget about buying a house! For the very-greedy financers there simply are not enough profits to be made from the long, agonizing repayment of mortgages; thus, the banks have jumped the interest rates so high that home ownership is virtually forbidden.
Effective medical care is equally expensive and even more restricted. A consumer without an insurance or money may suffer on a hospital’s steps for want of medical attention.
The children of consumers are finishing twelve or more years of school semi-literate, ignorant of their own history and lacking any consciousness.
Denied the necessities of life, unprotected by the government which was supposed to be “of, by and for the people” - but is more clearly than ever the basic weapon for controlling the consuming class, many consumers will turn to the unions as the only organizations which may have the power to save them.
These consumers will find the unions so hobbled by law, so limited by poor leadership that they are mere ghosts of the muscular, vital fighting forces of the fifties. When they critically examine the right wing parties, they will find nothing worth accepting, they will realize that all of the noise and sweet talk amongst this group of misleaders are just the death rattle of an ebbing era in Bahamian politics.
Continuing this dream under the current setup will mean:
· Unemployment above 10.8%!
· Low wages and long hours!
· Rising Inflation!
· Poor housing!
· Dangerously poor sanitation!
· High rents and greedy landlords!
· Inadequate water supply!
· Poor education!
· Poor medical care!
· Corrupt and incompetent officials!
· Political repression and victimization!
· Foreign control of the best land!
· Exorbitant prices for imported necessities
· No development of agriculture!
· No taxes on the rich or foreign investors!
· Crime, Drugs, Prostitution and Rape!
However, we don’t have to put up with it forever. We don’t have to endure the lies and corruption. We can put an end to foreign domination of our country. We can set our youth free from crime and unemployment. We can liberate our women from prostitution. We can have full employment at decent wages. Our land and our resources do not have to be controlled by foreign interests. Our children can have the education they deserve. Our families can have decent housing and the finest in medical cares. Other nations have already put an end to exploitation and oppression. And we can build a just and humane society in the Bahamas also.
Building this kind of society will mean true freedom of speech and religion and true freedom of the press. Today real freedom belongs only to those few who have the money to control the press and make themselves heard. But under a new Bahamas, freedom can belong to all and will not be for sale to the few.
It will mean that all people will control the wealth of our country. The profits that are now going to a few wealthy Bahamians and foreign investors could be available to meet the need of the people. Instead of mansions and yachts for millionaires, we can have good housing; education and medial care for all.
It will mean an end to unemployment. Today we have unemployment because those who own everything don’t think they can make enough profit by investing in projects that will provide jobs for all. But under a new Bahamas, we will need the labor of everyone to meet public needs.
It could mean genuine democracy. Wealth will not be able to buy political power. Those with access to wealth will be taxed, and the wealth will be used for the public good. Those who hold public office will be working and the people, through the right of referendum and recall, will control them. There could be effective local government in every neighbourhood on every island. And those who serve in government will be paid a workman’s wage not the exorbitant salaries of today.
Charles Fawkes is President of the National Consumer Association and organizer for the Commonwealth Group of Unions, Inside Labour Columnist for the Bahama Journal, Editor of the Headline News, The ConsumerGuard and The Workers’ Vanguard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)