How PLP colleagues stole Ed Moxey's ideas
tribune242 editorial
IN LEAFING through the Ed Moxey files in The Tribune's archives last night, we were not surprised to find that the Coconut Grove MP's own colleagues were trying to take credit for his cultural concept - Jumbey Village. In other words, they were trying to steal Mr Moxey's own brainchild from him.
We say not surprised because the PLP came to power with a strange personality quirk -- call it what you will, some at the time referred to it as a mammoth inferiority complex. However, they seemed to want to wipe the slate clean.
To hear them talk, Bahamian history started on January 10, 1967 when the Progressive Liberal Party defeated the United Bahamian Party and for the first time in the history of these islands ushered in majority rule. For this we give them full credit. Although for generations there were many Bahamians, and even English civil servants, whose courageous decisions helped change a people's thinking to prepare the way for the historic transfer of power, as far as the PLP were concerned the past - and the men and women who were a part of it - did not exist.
And so it was not surprising that they felt that Ed Moxey was getting too big for his boots and had to be chopped down, and his creation snatched from him.
But on that day in 1967, it was Lynden Oscar Pindling who was the chosen leader for the historic change. And, although, as many -- Mr Moxey included - maintained he soon lost his way, no one can take from him that single achievement.
However, the prevailing attitude among the PLP of that day was that nothing that happened before 1967 was of importance, and anything created afterwards naturally had to have been created by them.
And so, Mr Moxey should have seen the handwriting on the wall when he formed a cultural committee, invited community leaders, including Prime Minister Pindling, and outlined his ideas for a community created "of the people, by the people, for the people." The enthusiasm to get started was so overwhelming that a few weeks later Mr Pindling (as he then was) called on Mr Moxey to "make him part of the machinery". In good faith, an enthusiastic Ed Moxey offered the prime minister the position of Parliamentary Secretary Community Development. Mr Pindling's acceptance would be the eventual kiss of death for the project.
By 1974- with the building of Jumbey Village well on the way -- ominous storm clouds started to form. That year Jumbey Village was excluded from the Budget. The Coconut Grove MP said that government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village was the result of petty jealousy by individuals who felt that only they should be involved in certain national activities.
The fight was on with Tourism Minister Clement Maynard, whose Ministry was busy planning a festival site at Fort Charlotte on the same lines as Jumbey Village. This would have been the death knell for the Village and the last hope of attracting tourists with their dollars over the hill to patronise the struggling businessmen there. Mr Moxey was outraged. He said he knew nothing about the Fort Charlotte plans until he learned about the Goombay Festival -- also his idea that he envisioned for his people over the hill.
"The amazing thing," said Mr Moxey, "was that I was parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister at the time and he was honorary chairman of the Festival, but I knew nothing about it. My name was never mentioned and when I raised hell they tried to shut me up."
Mr Moxey challenged Mr Maynard's statement that Goombay was the corporate idea of a number of people. "This is a lie," he thundered. "It was entirely my idea.
"In a letter to Prime Minister Pindling on May 15, 1974, drawing his attention to a newspaper headline that read: "New Jumbey village planned for Fr Charlotte site," Mr Moxey wrote in part:
"This is a very serious matter which may have very serious repercussions. As you may recall, sir, the Minister and Ministry of Tourism stole the Goombay programme from me and my people and sold it to foreigners who are now doing a good job in keeping it to themselves, while the people for whom it was designed are going out of business and are on the verge of starvation. Now he seems hell bent in an attempt to take the Village concept to Bay Street.
"My heart and soul are tortured," the letter continued, "my people now suffer great pain because it would appear that you and your Minister have struck a death blow to their dreams and aspirations.
"Let me remind you, sir, that we have made tremendous sacrifices to bring you and your Government to power and God's eyes are on the sparrow.
"I do humbly pray," the letter concluded, "that you use your good office and influence to restore sanity to this nation 'Now', for which you are ultimately responsible."
The Fort Charlotte plans never succeeded and Jumbey Village crumbled back into the dust from which it came.
"The Price of Being a Man, the story of Ed Moxey and the undoing of Jumbey Village and the Quiet Revolution," written and narrated by Anthony Newbold, will be shown at 8pm Sunday on Cable Bahamas -- channel 12. It commemorates the 25th anniversary of destruction of Jumbey Village.
March 27, 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.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
This 2012 general election, you should vote... so that whatever historic result is announced that night (or in the days after), you can say, “I helped do that”
Let's just vote
It’s time for Bahamians to make their decision on the next government of The Bahamas
By Brent Dean
Guardian Associate Editor
brentldean@nasguard.com
When I left St. Anne’s School in 2007 after voting in the St. Anne’s constituency election, I knew how I would vote at the next general election, whenever it would be called, if a certain scenario persisted. The scenario I thought might continue has, and I will do in a few weeks what I thought I would do five years ago when I walked out of the voting booth.
For some voters the main issue or main issues are clearly defined. The rhetoric of campaigns cannot sway these voters away from fundamental ideals or an overwhelming concern. So for some of us, the pre-election jockeying has not been as interesting as it has been to others. We simply want to vote and see what the final result will be.
This is a landmark election for Bahamians. We could make a man prime minster for 20 years; restore another man who is nearly 70 to office; or vote for a third party and make it a “permanent” part of our political process. Of course, there is also the option that because there are three parties running in each constituency there might be no majority winner.
Though some play coy and suggest deciding on who to vote for is a complicated exercise, the choices are quite defined. And barring a miraculous, new grandiose promise we all would have to think over, little else is likely to emerge that will move a large bloc of voters. So rather than watching another constituency office opening, or seeing another TV ad or hearing one more wild accusation of corruption or malfeasance, it would be great if we could just hurry up and vote.
Those clear choices
This will be the largest voters’ register in Bahamian history. There are already about 170,000 registered voters. If it takes the full two months for an election to be called, who knows, there may be 180,000 people eligible to vote on Election Day.
Our choices are the Free National Movement (FNM) led by Hubert Ingraham; the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) led by Perry Christie; and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) led by Branville McCartney.
For those who want to vote for a leader, you have seen Ingraham govern for 15 years and Christie for five years. There is enough of a body of work there on each side for you to know what these men would do if given another chance to lead. Few leaders change in the twilight of their careers. Don’t vote for a leader assuming that he will be different than he was over the many years you observed him in public office.
If you think the country has done well under Ingraham’s rule and you like his policies and style, he’s your man. If you think Christie was a much better executive during his five years in office than Ingraham ever was when he was PM, then go gold.
Evaluating McCartney, however, takes a little more effort. He has not been a member of Parliament for five years. He has not been a party leader for one year. For those who choose him over the others I suspect the feeling exists that 20 years of Ingraham-Christie rule has been inadequate. A vote for McCartney, therefore, is hopeful, rebellious and exploratory.
While a vote for Bran may be all those things, a wasted vote it is not. There are no wasted votes in elections. Each voter has a right to cast a ballot for the best option available to that voter, and in doing so the people collectively choose who leads, who follows and who will have to try again. The objective of elections should not be just to be on the side of a winner, but rather for each of us to contribute our best opinions to selecting the best people to represent us as a governing side and as an opposition.
Now while some vote for leaders, others vote for candidates. Here it is necessary to determine the person best able to advance the interests of the community at the national and local levels. While there are only three people “seeking” the post of prime minister (I discount the marginal parties and their leaders from this calculation), in each constituency there will be three or more candidates. The numerous independents and marginal parties offering at the election create a host of options for voters.
The unregistered and the non-voter
With all these options out there to vote for, there are still some people who are unregistered. There are also some people who are registered who do not intend to vote. Now, there are some people who do not vote for religious reasons. Let’s exclude them from our discussion.
Of the others who are not casting ballots, there are individuals out there who are intellectually lazy. Rather than spending the time considering the issues, or the records of the candidates or parties, or examining the policy positions of the various factions, this group just complains.
They say this leader is not good enough; that party is not good enough; nothing will change if I vote. There are people in countries such as Cuba, China, North Korea and Zimbabwe who only dream of free, fair and consistent elections. Lazy voters, those who won’t take time to make a decision as to who to vote for, do not realize the significance of the opportunity they have.
A little effort, a little maturity, taking a little time to get off the social network gossiping, could easily lead to a voting conclusion. You don’t have to love the option to participate. It is fine to pick the best of the bunch, as a person or group on the ballot will lead your country and make decisions to impact your life and those of the people you love.
Election night
When it is all said and done history will be made at our next poll. One of our senior statesmen may be retired, or a young man and his new party may become historic figures. For now, Christie, Ingraham and McCartney are moving around with the swagger of stud lions. On election night, there is almost no scenario that would make all three of them happy. One or two will likely be devastated. One or two may not come out in public for some time.
This is a good thing. Democracy works when the powerful need and fear regular people. You will decide their fates. They are almost finished promising and pleading. What is to come is up to you.
With all power comes responsibility. This election, you should vote so that whatever historic result is announced that night (or in the days after), you can say, “I helped do that”.
We have a beautiful country that has some problems at this time in its history. That beautiful country needs you to help set it on a new course.
Mar 26, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Mr. Edmund Moxey says that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village resulted from petty jealousies of individuals ...who believed that only they should be involved in certain activities of national importance
The destruction of Jumbey village
tribune242 editorial
"NO, I can't believe it - that can't be true!" This was Coconut Grove MP's Ed Moxey's shocked reply in May 1974 when a news reporter called to ask what he thought of a report that government had planned to build a replica of his Jumbey Village at Fort Charlotte. If true, this meant that the tourist dollar would remain on Bay Street and not flow to little businessmen Over the Hill where it was sorely needed. Mr Moxey knew that any development of Fort Charlotte would be in direct competition with Jumbey Village.
The whole idea of Jumbey Village -- built in 1971 on the reclaimed City Dump -- was to create a community centre with arts, crafts, music, a school, library, clinic, and social centre. It was to be an area, created by an indigenous people who hoped through their cultural programmes and craft work to attract tourists with their dollars to the village. When Mr Moxey was elected to the House in 1967, his belief was that the PLP was dedicated to providing a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
In January 1975, Cat Island MP Oscar Johnson was to pour scorn on his government's "rich members who had forsaken over-the-hill" to dine on Cable Beach at the PLP's eighth anniversary celebrations. He reminded his party that over the hill was "the source of the PLP's strength." He warned that it could also be its eventual undoing.
In 1974, Mr Johnson told the PLP that 90 per cent of "black staff" working in the hotels lived over the hill, and from experience it was known that a "man with a toothache cannot smile." These were the areas, he said, that needed social change -- a change envisioned in the community concept of Jumbey Village.
That year, Mr Moxey and several (PLP) government members criticised their government in the House of Assembly because funds for the completion of Jumbey Village and the planned community youth programmes had not been included in the 1974 Budget. Nor was Jumbey Village included in the Ministry of Tourism's Goombay Summer programme -- a programme the Coconut Grove MP had suggested in 1972 should be held in Jumbey Village. His protest resulted in him receiving a personal letter from Prime Minister Pindling firing him as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Culture with responsibility for community development.
Mr Moxey said that government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village resulted from petty jealousies of individuals who believed that only they should be involved in certain activities of national importance.
In 1973, Mr Moxey had written a letter to then Deputy Prime Minister AD Hanna demanding a retraction and apology for statements Mr Hanna had made about him using slot machines for fund raising. Mr Moxey found his statements "maliciously designed to discredit me in the eyes of the public." Mr Moxey got no apology. Nor was his letter acknowledged.
And then a rumour was started.
"For months now," said Mr Moxey, "political elements have gone around in my constituency whispering about misconduct on my part when I was handling the birth of Jumbey Village. They talk about money. Well, the Ministry of Education and Culture investigated the matter and have found every single cent accounted for. The report was sent to Minister Livingston Coakley. For four months I have been asking him to release the report in order to clear up the matter. He has refused to do so."
Mr Moxey, like Carlton Francis after him, was a marked man. He had become too popular and, therefore, had to be consigned to the political graveyard. Jumbey Village eventually followed.
When government funds earmarked for the Village, but not fully used, were frozen, parents, teachers, and schoolchildren raised $90,000 to complete the museum.
"It would be a gross insult to them," Mr Moxey said, "to now duplicate a museum at Fort Charlotte."
Not to be left out, the late Wenfred "Sife" Heastie added his two cents to the debate. Mr Heastie was not only a staunch supporter and major financial contributor to the PLP, but he was also deputy prime minister A D Hanna's uncle.
"Ed," he said, "is the only man who did something personally in his district. He built a community centre and a day-care centre in his district and he built Jumbey Village out of the dump. They are jealous because the rest of them don't have a damn thing to show, except the new houses they moved into in the east and in the west."
He said the PLP government cut Jumbey Village from the development budget because "to get Ed Moxey out of the picture they have to let Jumbey Village die a natural death. If they cut off everything this will die and Ed will die. And to speed up matters, they're going to Fort Charlotte to build their own version of Jumbey Village."
In July, 1987 Jumbey Village cultural centre was torn down to make way for the proposed National Insurance Building.
Mr Moxey tells his story on a DVD -- soon to be released-- entitled "The Price of Being a Man -- the Quiet Revolution and the undoing of Jumbey Village".
March 26, 2012
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
"NO, I can't believe it - that can't be true!" This was Coconut Grove MP's Ed Moxey's shocked reply in May 1974 when a news reporter called to ask what he thought of a report that government had planned to build a replica of his Jumbey Village at Fort Charlotte. If true, this meant that the tourist dollar would remain on Bay Street and not flow to little businessmen Over the Hill where it was sorely needed. Mr Moxey knew that any development of Fort Charlotte would be in direct competition with Jumbey Village.
The whole idea of Jumbey Village -- built in 1971 on the reclaimed City Dump -- was to create a community centre with arts, crafts, music, a school, library, clinic, and social centre. It was to be an area, created by an indigenous people who hoped through their cultural programmes and craft work to attract tourists with their dollars to the village. When Mr Moxey was elected to the House in 1967, his belief was that the PLP was dedicated to providing a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."
In January 1975, Cat Island MP Oscar Johnson was to pour scorn on his government's "rich members who had forsaken over-the-hill" to dine on Cable Beach at the PLP's eighth anniversary celebrations. He reminded his party that over the hill was "the source of the PLP's strength." He warned that it could also be its eventual undoing.
In 1974, Mr Johnson told the PLP that 90 per cent of "black staff" working in the hotels lived over the hill, and from experience it was known that a "man with a toothache cannot smile." These were the areas, he said, that needed social change -- a change envisioned in the community concept of Jumbey Village.
That year, Mr Moxey and several (PLP) government members criticised their government in the House of Assembly because funds for the completion of Jumbey Village and the planned community youth programmes had not been included in the 1974 Budget. Nor was Jumbey Village included in the Ministry of Tourism's Goombay Summer programme -- a programme the Coconut Grove MP had suggested in 1972 should be held in Jumbey Village. His protest resulted in him receiving a personal letter from Prime Minister Pindling firing him as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Culture with responsibility for community development.
Mr Moxey said that government's efforts to "suppress" Jumbey Village resulted from petty jealousies of individuals who believed that only they should be involved in certain activities of national importance.
In 1973, Mr Moxey had written a letter to then Deputy Prime Minister AD Hanna demanding a retraction and apology for statements Mr Hanna had made about him using slot machines for fund raising. Mr Moxey found his statements "maliciously designed to discredit me in the eyes of the public." Mr Moxey got no apology. Nor was his letter acknowledged.
And then a rumour was started.
"For months now," said Mr Moxey, "political elements have gone around in my constituency whispering about misconduct on my part when I was handling the birth of Jumbey Village. They talk about money. Well, the Ministry of Education and Culture investigated the matter and have found every single cent accounted for. The report was sent to Minister Livingston Coakley. For four months I have been asking him to release the report in order to clear up the matter. He has refused to do so."
Mr Moxey, like Carlton Francis after him, was a marked man. He had become too popular and, therefore, had to be consigned to the political graveyard. Jumbey Village eventually followed.
When government funds earmarked for the Village, but not fully used, were frozen, parents, teachers, and schoolchildren raised $90,000 to complete the museum.
"It would be a gross insult to them," Mr Moxey said, "to now duplicate a museum at Fort Charlotte."
Not to be left out, the late Wenfred "Sife" Heastie added his two cents to the debate. Mr Heastie was not only a staunch supporter and major financial contributor to the PLP, but he was also deputy prime minister A D Hanna's uncle.
"Ed," he said, "is the only man who did something personally in his district. He built a community centre and a day-care centre in his district and he built Jumbey Village out of the dump. They are jealous because the rest of them don't have a damn thing to show, except the new houses they moved into in the east and in the west."
He said the PLP government cut Jumbey Village from the development budget because "to get Ed Moxey out of the picture they have to let Jumbey Village die a natural death. If they cut off everything this will die and Ed will die. And to speed up matters, they're going to Fort Charlotte to build their own version of Jumbey Village."
In July, 1987 Jumbey Village cultural centre was torn down to make way for the proposed National Insurance Building.
Mr Moxey tells his story on a DVD -- soon to be released-- entitled "The Price of Being a Man -- the Quiet Revolution and the undoing of Jumbey Village".
<<< Edmund Moxey's tortured heart and soul over the New Jumbey Village planned for Fort Charlotte>>>
March 26, 2012
tribune242 editorial
Sunday, March 25, 2012
A reflection on the political retirees' class of 2012... following the 2012 general election
A reflection on political retirement
The early months of 2012 have been dominated by the general election. It will be the eighth general election in an independent Bahamas. Of the seven we have had, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) won four and the Free National Movement (FNM) won three.
But before a single vote is cast this time around, we will say goodbye to some long-serving politicians. After the votes are counted we will say goodbye to even more of them.
For those who lose the nomination fights to come, and to those who lose the various constituency elections, a graceful exit would be a better conclusion to a long career than whining, complaining and hostility.
No one should assume that there is a career in politics. What should happen is men and women with talents and successes should offer themselves for public service for a period. The people then select the best of the best and those individuals should do their best to improve the community they serve.
No elected official should want to serve a lifetime in politics. In fact, for talented and successful people there should be an urge to go back to the private sector or to private life. So when that time comes, through the loss of an election or nomination fight, exhaustion or whatever other reason, saying goodbye should not be hard.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham seems to agree with this perspective. He summed it up well in the last sitting of the House of Assembly for 2011 on December 13.
“My hope is that those who seek public office will consider it a duty and responsibility to serve and not to gain a personal advantage,” said Ingraham.
“Conversely, individuals should come to accept that not being elected to Parliament will not be a disadvantage.
“They can expect to be treated fairly whether in or out of office. It is very important for a democracy to have as its underpinning that if you get elected and you are unelected that you can live in a society as any ordinary person.
“You can live [by] rules that are clearly established, that you can be employed, that your children can have access to whatever availabilities to society, and that no one will be out to get you because you have served in politics.
“And it is my hope that we will move along those lines in a more evident way.
“If we don’t evolve to that level, we will continue to produce governments with members who will fight tooth and nail to be in government because they fear being out of government.
“And you should never fear being out or in. You ought to do the best you can while you are in and when you are out, you ought to feel like you can live a normal life and be bound by the same rules you put in place while you are in.”
Being able to depart graciously also sets a good example for future generations. It demonstrates that power is something to be shared. Countries that are at war or in a constant state of upheaval are in such states because powerful factions cannot share power.
The political system is also renewed when new minds enter. Those who were born during the World War II years, and who were raised during the Cold War years, should now be seeking to leave politics, handing power over to those who came of age during the Internet years.
So for those who will be sent home from the political scene in 2012, be not afraid or saddened. You were never supposed to be there forever.
Mar 24, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
The birth and death of Jumbey Village: ...the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment... the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution
Backbenchers disillusioned by govt - Moxey
tribune242 editorialTHERE are those today who are convinced that if Ed Moxey's dream of a cultural community centre in the heartland of the Grove had been allowed to grow, the shipwrecked state over which we mourn today would not have had a chance to develop.
Jumbey Village was conceived by Mr Moxey as a cultural centre to unite a people as they struggled to improve their lot -- socially, culturally and economically. It was envisioned as a centre to be built by the people for themselves. They would have their school, library, social centre, clinics, sports, music, and arts and crafts from which they could sell their own creations. And, of course, they would be surrounded by music -- their own music. Mr Moxey, himself a musician, the son of the well known pianist, the late George "God Bless" Moxey, and his group would be one of the many participants. It was through the Jumbey Village movement that Timothy Gibson, the author of the Bahamas' national anthem, came into his own.
On Sunday, March 11, the showing of a documentary on Ed Moxey and the birth and death of Jumbey Village was premiered at the Performing Arts Theatre at the College of the Bahamas. It was the 26th anniversary of the destruction of Jumbey Village.
"The Price of being a man" is the story of Ed Moxey, Jumbey Village and the "quiet revolution."
"This then," said the commentator, "is the story of what might have been, and what in fact turned out to be Edmund Spencer Moxey's greatest triumph as well as his biggest disappointment, the creation of a place called Jumbey Village, and his struggle to secure the ideals that would have guaranteed the progress first envisioned as part of the quiet revolution. It is told as seen through his eyes, those who reported on it and in some instances, those who were involved in facilitating its creation and ultimately watching its destruction."
According to Mr Moxey "shortly after the 1967 election, many of the PLP, especially the backbenchers already had concerns about the direction in which the new government was heading." He said their first Speech from the Throne in the House of Assembly appeared to be a "continuation of the same old policies of the United Bahamian Party (UBP)." Of course, there was the exception of Sir Stafford's commission of a development plan for New Providence that "would have transformed over the hill, in particular the Grants Town community."
That plan, designed by Columbia University's School of Architecture, was completed and delivered shortly after the UBP was replaced by the PLP as the government of the Bahamas. Each member of the House at that time was given a copy. It is questionable whether any member ever looked at it. It was a golden opportunity lost for community development in New Providence.
Very shortly after the election, said Mr Moxey, he "became concerned about whether or not the Bahamian people would see the social, cultural and economic liberation promised by the PLP's 1967 victory at the polls."
Mr Moxey was so concerned that they would not that in June 1967 he called a meeting at his home for the PLP backbenchers. He did so, he said, because nothing had been said by their leaders about "educating the masses about how government worked and protecting their well being" or "cultivating and nurturing our cultural heritage and only some vague representation of social programmes."
According to Mr Moxey "the backbenchers to a man, all expressed disgruntlement with what they considered a deviation from the original goal of social, cultural and economic upliftment of the people, with ministers building little kingdoms unto themselves."
It was then that Mr Moxey predicted that the "country would end up on the rocks, or with very serious challenges."
Said the commentator: "There is no smoking gun, just a paper trail 21 miles long and 7 miles wide, stretching all the way back to 1969. A trail that exposes betrayals, pettiness, internecine warfare and what has been called deception of the highest order. It shows a government backtracking or just plain ignoring its own stated policy that 'community development must play a vital role in the development of this nation, specifically mentioned in the White Paper for Independence that 'community development centres will be progressively and systematically established in densely populated areas to cater for pre-natal and post-natal needs, Child Day-Care needs and the recreational needs of the people."
* Next we shall tell the brief, but tragic story of the birth and death of Jumbey Village.
March 23, 2012
In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations... It preceded both by many years... In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries
A people betrayed, says Ed Moxey, of the Pindling years
tribune242 editorial
THE PANACEA to all this country's social problems is Urban Renewal, PLP-style. The constant cry of the PLP is that the FNM came along, stole the PLP's idea, destroyed it and, in so doing, opened a Pandora's box of destruction for these islands. Everything, including escalating crime, both in the streets and in the schools, can be blamed on the elimination of the PLP's novel idea -- Urban Renewal.
For their part, the FNM maintains that although police patrols were removed from the school campus, the structure of urban renewal was not destroyed, but rather improved upon and broadened.
In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations. It preceded both by many years.
In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries.
In a conversation with Sir Stafford shortly after the UBP lost the government to the PLP in 1967, he assured us that he was leaving a financially healthy government. All the PLP had to do, he said, was to sit on their hands and let all his party's plans go through and the country would be in good shape. However, if they got itchy fingers and started tinkering, everything could collapse.
Sir Stafford Sands was a five-year planner. A brilliant, and well organised man, he always worked on a five-year plan. So when the PLP came in, they would have found that tourism conventions, and functions had been booked for five years into the future and the Public Treasury was financially sound. Sir Foley Newns, the able colonial British administrator, who had worked with Sir Stafford as Cabinet Secretary from 1963, was kept on by the PLP until 1971, just one year short of Sir Stafford's five-year programme. Slippage started after he left.
Sir Stafford, the Minister of Finance in Sir Roland Symonette's government, with the approval of his colleagues, commissioned a Development Plan of New Providence Island and the City of Nassau in the summer of 1966. Working through the United Nations, Columbia University's division of Urban Planning in its School of Architecture was engaged to do the work.
What resulted was a magnificent, detailed, beautifully presented transformation of this island -- down to where every underground pipe was to be laid. It also provided for population growth. It was unfortunate that it was completed and returned to the Bahamas in the spring of 1967 after the UBP had been voted out of office. However, every member of the House of Assembly received a copy. And there it died.
"If it had been implemented," said Mr Moxey in his documentary, "the plan would transform over the hill, in particular the Grants Town community, installing a sewer system, and laying out the city centre, in a way seen only in Grand Bahama and Mathew Town, Inagua. There would be green spaces and bike paths, and streets dedicated to the children of New Providence."
About 13 years later, Arthur Hanna, then deputy prime minister, explained the reasons for the plans not being considered. He said it was because "there was no cost assessed for the implementation of the plan; no one was identified to pay the cost, and there was no suitable organisational administrative mechanism for translating the plans into reality".
On that statement alone -- exposing both incompetence and lack of imagination -- the PLP government should have been fired. A master plan had been put in the their laps, and they were waiting for a fairy godmother to show them how to use it.
The UBP government's urban renewal plan was introduced by Ed Moxey, a former member of the PLP Cabinet at that time, in his documentary, which had its premier showing on Sunday night in which he recorded his personal sacrifices to try to save Jumbey Village for the upliftment of his people. In the end, he lost the battle, but not his integrity -- although Sir Lynden also tried to take that from him. In his documentary Mr Moxey told how Sir Lynden had betrayed a trusting people, and the price that he personally had to pay for having an idea that dwarfed his party leader's myopic thinking.
Last night, Mr Moxey in speaking of Sir Stafford's plans, which preceded his own vision for Jumbey Village, had this to say:
"It is unfortunate that the Urban Renewal Study and programme initiated by Sir Stafford Sands for the black masses of Bahamians was trampled under the feet of our leaders and advocates of the Quiet Revolution in 1967.
"It is like I said 25 years ago, the revolution was betrayed and after 45 years of majority rule our people over the hill still live in substandard conditions using outside toilets and water pumps. Oh, my Lord, what a shame!"
Is this the unsound bridge that Opposition Leader Perry Christie has invited Bahamians to cross with him into the future? We hope not.
March 22, 2012
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
THE PANACEA to all this country's social problems is Urban Renewal, PLP-style. The constant cry of the PLP is that the FNM came along, stole the PLP's idea, destroyed it and, in so doing, opened a Pandora's box of destruction for these islands. Everything, including escalating crime, both in the streets and in the schools, can be blamed on the elimination of the PLP's novel idea -- Urban Renewal.
For their part, the FNM maintains that although police patrols were removed from the school campus, the structure of urban renewal was not destroyed, but rather improved upon and broadened.
In all honesty, the idea of urban renewal cannot be claimed as being the brainchild of either the Christie or Ingraham administrations. It preceded both by many years.
In fact, Urban Renewal in the broadest sense of the word was the brainchild of Sir Stafford Sands, the creator of this country's tourism and financial industries.
In a conversation with Sir Stafford shortly after the UBP lost the government to the PLP in 1967, he assured us that he was leaving a financially healthy government. All the PLP had to do, he said, was to sit on their hands and let all his party's plans go through and the country would be in good shape. However, if they got itchy fingers and started tinkering, everything could collapse.
Sir Stafford Sands was a five-year planner. A brilliant, and well organised man, he always worked on a five-year plan. So when the PLP came in, they would have found that tourism conventions, and functions had been booked for five years into the future and the Public Treasury was financially sound. Sir Foley Newns, the able colonial British administrator, who had worked with Sir Stafford as Cabinet Secretary from 1963, was kept on by the PLP until 1971, just one year short of Sir Stafford's five-year programme. Slippage started after he left.
Sir Stafford, the Minister of Finance in Sir Roland Symonette's government, with the approval of his colleagues, commissioned a Development Plan of New Providence Island and the City of Nassau in the summer of 1966. Working through the United Nations, Columbia University's division of Urban Planning in its School of Architecture was engaged to do the work.
What resulted was a magnificent, detailed, beautifully presented transformation of this island -- down to where every underground pipe was to be laid. It also provided for population growth. It was unfortunate that it was completed and returned to the Bahamas in the spring of 1967 after the UBP had been voted out of office. However, every member of the House of Assembly received a copy. And there it died.
"If it had been implemented," said Mr Moxey in his documentary, "the plan would transform over the hill, in particular the Grants Town community, installing a sewer system, and laying out the city centre, in a way seen only in Grand Bahama and Mathew Town, Inagua. There would be green spaces and bike paths, and streets dedicated to the children of New Providence."
About 13 years later, Arthur Hanna, then deputy prime minister, explained the reasons for the plans not being considered. He said it was because "there was no cost assessed for the implementation of the plan; no one was identified to pay the cost, and there was no suitable organisational administrative mechanism for translating the plans into reality".
On that statement alone -- exposing both incompetence and lack of imagination -- the PLP government should have been fired. A master plan had been put in the their laps, and they were waiting for a fairy godmother to show them how to use it.
The UBP government's urban renewal plan was introduced by Ed Moxey, a former member of the PLP Cabinet at that time, in his documentary, which had its premier showing on Sunday night in which he recorded his personal sacrifices to try to save Jumbey Village for the upliftment of his people. In the end, he lost the battle, but not his integrity -- although Sir Lynden also tried to take that from him. In his documentary Mr Moxey told how Sir Lynden had betrayed a trusting people, and the price that he personally had to pay for having an idea that dwarfed his party leader's myopic thinking.
Last night, Mr Moxey in speaking of Sir Stafford's plans, which preceded his own vision for Jumbey Village, had this to say:
"It is unfortunate that the Urban Renewal Study and programme initiated by Sir Stafford Sands for the black masses of Bahamians was trampled under the feet of our leaders and advocates of the Quiet Revolution in 1967.
"It is like I said 25 years ago, the revolution was betrayed and after 45 years of majority rule our people over the hill still live in substandard conditions using outside toilets and water pumps. Oh, my Lord, what a shame!"
Is this the unsound bridge that Opposition Leader Perry Christie has invited Bahamians to cross with him into the future? We hope not.
March 22, 2012
BACKBENCHERS DISILLUSIONED BY GOVT - MOXEY
tribune242 editorial
Friday, March 23, 2012
The Bahamian relationship with the Haitians who migrate here is complicated... Haitians have come to The Bahamas since the creation of the Republic of Haiti in 1804... With the collapse of Jean Claude Duvalier’s regime in the mid-1980s, however, those flows increased ...as Haiti’s poor looked for new lives in new places
Embracing multiculturalism
The comments of Haitian President Michel Martelly to Haitian-Bahamians when he recently visited The Bahamas led to much debate. Martelly advised Bahamians of Haitian descent to form a voting bloc, and to vote for the party that has their best interests at heart. His remarks exposed raw emotions on the immigration issue in our country.
The modern Bahamas is a nation created through migration. The Amerindians Christopher Columbus met here 520 years ago are no more. Europeans and Africans displaced those people when permanent contact was made between the old and new worlds.
Today’s Bahamas is even more ethnically and culturally dynamic. People from the Middle East, China and India also call this country home. They bring their experiences to our cultural mix, expanding The Bahamas.
The Bahamian relationship with the Haitians who migrate here is complicated. Haitians have come to The Bahamas since the creation of the Republic of Haiti in 1804. With the collapse of Jean Claude Duvalier’s regime in the mid-1980s, however, those flows increased as Haiti’s poor looked for new lives in new places.
Some Bahamians resent the large number of poor Haitians who have come here looking for a second chance. Some Haitians are upset at the discriminatory treatment they have received from some Bahamians.
Martelly should not have gotten involved in Bahamian politics while visiting. Staying out of local politics while on foreign trips is a convention of diplomacy, but his intrusion into Bahamian politics is no excuse for bigotry and xenophobia.
The Government of The Bahamas has as a responsibility of carrying out the laws of the country. It should provide our border protection officers with all the resources needed to prevent people from illegally entering Bahamian territory. Foreigners who come here illegally should be repatriated in accordance with the law.
But what must be remembered is that those who are given citizenship are Bahamians once that decision is made. They should be afforded the same rights and privileges as other Bahamians.
We can debate who should be given permanent residence as opposed to citizenship. Countries have the authority to set residency standards based on the consensus of the times. However, we should not disparage those given status or argue that they are lesser citizens if citizenship was granted.
In deciding to become part of our community these new Bahamians bring different ideas, languages, traditions, foods and energies to our already multicultural society. And as a culturally richer community, we should work together to solve common problems.
Haitian-Bahamians should not close themselves off and form exclusive political blocs to defend themselves. Haitian-Bahamians should, like all other Bahamians, examine the various political parties and candidates and determine who is best to advance The Bahamas.
Conversely, “native” Bahamians should not fear the inclusion of new people into our commonwealth. What should exist is an immigration policy that can reasonably control who comes to The Bahamas. We should seek to recruit people from around the world – in the numbers we think reasonable – to add skills to our country. In doing so, we as a nation become stronger.
When governments are unable to police the flow of people to a territory, the established community becomes suspicious. Hence, it is important for clear immigration policy to exist and resources to be provided to help ensure the policy is enforced.
We hope the passions cool on this issue. Ethnic rivalry has made many countries unstable and has led to conflict and war.
Mar 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)