Ebola and The Bahamas: Proper Planning will Prevent Panic - says the Democratic National Alliance (DNA)

Amid rising concern regarding the Ebola health crisis, Government officials from around the globe are taking the necessary action to prepare their respective countries for a potential outbreak and protect their citizens. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of this Christie led administration. The Government of the Bahamas has taken too lax an approach to the handling of this disease which is now at our back door; and as with countless other national issues, our leaders have shown themselves ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.

The Democratic National Alliance, more than two weeks ago, called for the Ministry of Health, helmed by Dr. Perry Gomez, to begin a widespread education campaign on the effects of the disease and outline specifically, the government’s plans to prevent a possible outbreak. According to the Minister, the government has created what officials claim is a dynamic preparedness plan to protect the citizenry, a plan based on meetings with stakeholders from various sectors of government and private sector. For this, the DNA commends the Minister of Health for at least taking these very minimal steps, however MORE IS NEEDED.

Instead of providing clarity on the way forward, the Minister has left even more unanswered questions. His most recent update statement on the Ebola virus and its implications, was yet another wasted opportunity for the government who, instead of providing details of its plan and when implementation of said plan would occur, he simply regurgitated facts about the disease which could be acquired by a simple Google search. What we need are SPECIFICS! What we need are FACTS! What we need is ACCESS to the government’s plan!

The government’s failure to release that plan to the public is cause for concern and raises a number of Questions. For example, has the government identified secure isolation centers to house the potentially infected and If so, WHERE? This is of particular importance as many public healthcare clinics and facilities exist within the heart of residential communities which could spell disaster if exposure occurs. What are the protocols in the event of a confirmed case? Have healthcare professional been properly briefed regarding those protocols?

In a statement to the media last week the Chief Medical Officer revealed an even more frightening reality when he asserted there was only 3 days’ worth of medical supply to treat an infected individual, even though experts suggest that an infected patient can live up to 8 days after becoming symptomatic; coupled with the recent “loss” of millions of dollars in prescription medication from the Princess Margaret Hospital is even MORE ALARMING!

As the deadly virus continues to overwhelm isolation centers and public healthcare systems worldwide, scores of countries around the globe and even within this region have already implemented increased screening processes and travel bans to protect their borders; particularly as it relates to persons traveling from locales severely affected by the disease. Here in the Bahamas however, such options are only now being CONSIDERED by government officials locally even though thousands of visitors from around the world enter our borders by air and sea daily. For decades, our country’s porous borders have posed serious challenges in terms of immigration, drug and weapons smuggling and even human smuggling. Now, the threat of this lethal disease threatens to further aggravate an already contentious problem. Rather than take the proactive approach like our regional counterparts, this government seems comfortable relying on foreign nations to perform Ebola screenings.

According to statistics from the Center for Disease Control, the recent Ebola outbreak, categorized as the worst in the world’s history, has killed over four thousand, five hundred people with the number of new infections to grow exponentially by the end of the year. The disease, which has an incubation period of 2 to 21 days, means that an infected individual traveling through Europe or the United States may successfully pass through screenings in those countries only to become symptomatic and contagious once reaching our borders. Since January 2014 to September 2014, the Bahamas has had at least 66 persons who have traveled from West Africa to the Bahamas. Those figures alone reinforce the absolute need for enhanced screening and public education.

Enhanced screening protocols must ensure that travelers from affected countries be questioned at the border by a health care professional stationed there to determine the potential risk. Travelers must also be subject to physical screenings such as having their temperature taken – with an Infrared Thermometer to limit physical contact – and observation for other Symptoms of Ebola. Information packets containing facts about the disease and its symptoms should also be provided at the border so that travelers themselves are vigilant about their own health status.

These additional screenings are a layered approach and must be used with other public health measures to ensure that every precaution is being taken.

While it is important to refrain from inciting panic over the potential impact of the disease on the Bahamas, it is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT to educate the citizenry. In the absence of actual FACT and INFORMATION, only fear, uncertainty and misinformation remain. The government MUST not treat this issue as it has treated countless others. Shrouding their plans in secrecy will not keep Bahamians safe. ONLY ACTION WILL!

Christopher Mortimer
Democratic National Alliance (DNA) Deputy Leader

The Bahamas General Election 2012: ...Reversal of Fortune

Election 2012: Reversal of fortune

By Arinthia S. Komolafe

The results of the recent general election prove that democracy is still alive and well in our nation.  In the words of the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling after having conceded defeat to Hubert Ingraham in the 1992 general election, “The people of this great little democracy have spoken in a most dignified and elegant manner.   And the voice of the people is the voice of God”.

In an earlier piece, we had referenced the Jamaican elections of December 2011 in which the ruling Jamaican Labour Party (JLP) was defeated by the People’s National Party (PNP).  In the run-up to that election just like The Bahamas elections, polls had indicated that the race was close and in a dead heat.   However, the reverse would occur as the PNP would command 49 of the 63 available seats with no seats going to independents or third parties.  The challenges faced by the JLP were similar to those faced by the Free National Movement (FNM) government and not surprisingly, the outcomes have proved to be identical.

A reflection on election 2012

At this point, it is too early to state with great certainty the cause of the FNM’s defeat in the 2012 general election.  There is no doubt that the general election was hotly contested even though the number of constituencies won by the parties may not show this fact.  Apart from the long established parties of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and the FNM, we saw the entrance of the newly formed Democratic National Alliance (DNA).

The DNA under the leadership of Branville McCartney capitalized on the obvious political divide of and the clamor for change by the Bahamian electorate.  However, as anticipated, votes for the DNA did not help the party win the government but rather served as spoiler of votes for the FNM and the PLP.  In the aftermath of the elections, certain political analysts have concluded that the presence of the DNA hurt the FNM more than it did the PLP based on the assumption that votes that were cast in favor of the DNA would have gone to the FNM.  This conclusion fails to explore the possibility that the DNA votes could have increased the number of PLP votes (and ultimately the number of PLP seats won) if in fact individuals voted against the FNM government and/or leadership.  However, in the absence of any scientific data to support these analyses, any subsequent conclusions are flawed.

In a public poll spearheaded by Public Domain, the results of the poll evidenced that there was an anti-government support with the FNM receiving 30.5 percent, the PLP 20.3 percent and DNA 16.5 percent.  Further, the exit polls conducted by The Tribune after the advanced polls showed the PLP ahead of the FNM significantly.  Preliminary data suggest that both the PLP and the FNM maintained their base while the DNA attained a portion of the independent and undecided votes.  It can also be argued that what separated the PLP from the FNM was that the PLP gained independent and undecided voters as well as disgruntled FNMs.

Same script, different cast

In 1992, Ingraham was successful in dethroning the most dominant political figure in Bahamian politics, the late Sir Lynden O. Pindling.  The administration had been plagued with socio-economic challenges due to effects of the drug era of the late 1970s through to the 1980s, a global recession, which at the time was termed the greatest since the Great Depression of the 1920s, and the rising cost of gas and food items.

Against this backdrop, Ingraham and the FNM campaigned against the PLP on the rising crime rate, an increasing national debt, illegal immigration and allegations of corruption and scandals.  Ingraham and the FNM promised a “government in the sunshine” that will usher in increased accountability and transparency in governance, better economic times and increased jobs, free enterprise and privatization of public entities and most notably the liberalization of the airwaves.

The Bahamian electorate, who at the time was suffering from high unemployment or underemployment and the rising cost of living, elected Ingraham and the FNM to office with the FNM defeating the PLP and claiming 32 of the 49 seats.  The FNM was subsequently granted a second mandate to govern during the general election of 1997 in a landslide victory in which the party won 34 of the 40 parliamentary seats.  Many remain of the view that Pindling’s failure to depart frontline politics and step down as leader of the opposition PLP also contributed to the resounding victory.

Two decades later, history has repeated itself.  Ingraham, faced with similar challenges that his mentor had back in 1992, was defeated resoundingly in a landslide victory by Christie in the 2012 general election.  The 2012 victory would also put to rest all questions as to whether Christie had what it took to defeat his most formidable political leader.  Just like his mentor, a decade and a half earlier, Ingraham would concede defeat in a gracious manner and would go further by announcing his immediate resignation as a member of Parliament and leader of the FNM.

Christie’s legacy term

The following words of Pindling after the PLP’s defeat in 1997 echo through time, “Today’s generation may not be so kind, but we chose to build on the past rather than destroy it.  We chose consensus and compromise over confrontation and conflict.”  The Christie administration should be guided by these words.  Christie, who has been favored to lead the final leg of the three-man political era of Pindling, Ingraham and Christie, must build upon his accomplishments and the success of his predecessors.  He must chart the course this term to build upon the legacy he started during his first term in office.  Christie is presented with an opportunity to not only cement the legacy of his predecessors but also to solidify his own lasting legacy for successive generations of Bahamians.   A definitive decision on gambling, an effective immigration policy, the expansion of access to quality education, true urban development and expansion and diversification of our economy are realistic feats that can be achieved in one term of office.

George Mackey in one of his pieces stated the following: “By the time the PLP was voted out of office on August 19, 1992, most of the planks of its initial platform, designed to address the many social and political ills that had led to its formation, had already been virtually completed.  In essence, the platform of the Quiet Revolution had run its course.  What the enlightened masses required was another vision, one that had as its primary objective their economic empowerment”.

This objective remains the same four and a half decades after the PLP started its journey in 1967.  Christie must create the environment for economic empowerment of our people.

We the Bahamian people on our part must give credit where credit is due to leaders who have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve our nation.  Our politics has divided us so much that we choose to focus on the failures of our leaders rather than their successes.  Now more than ever, we must be united and committed to building a stronger and better Bahamas that will once again make its mark on the world stage.  We must put our colors aside in the interest of current and future generations of Bahamians.

• Arinthia S. Komolafe is an attorney-at-law.  Comments can be directed at: arinthia.komolafe@komolafelaw.com

May 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

Haitian President Michel Martelly’s encouragement to Haitian-Bahamians to vote in a bloc for the party that best serves their interests in the upcoming general election in The Bahamas has sparked outrage among Bahamians

Outrage at Haitian leader’s remarks

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Haitian President Michel Martelly’s encouragement to Haitian-Bahamians to vote in a bloc for the party that best serves their interests sparked outrage yesterday from political observers, who called the comments ‘insulting’ interference in the country’s political system.

Some members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), the Free National Movement (FNM) and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) said Martelly’s comments were inappropriate.   Some observers also said they were ill-timed, considering the fact that the next election is so close.

It was also suggested by some yesterday that newly-regularized Bahamians might heed Martelly’s advice and be inclined to vote for the FNM.

“I thought it was an insult to the Bahamian people that a foreigner would come here and instruct Bahamian citizens to vote one way or the other,” said PLP Chairman Bradley Roberts.

Roberts, who was briefly a former immigration minister in the Christie administration, pointed out that only Bahamian citizens can vote in elections.  He said they should therefore vote for the party that best serves the country, not a particular sect or group.

His sentiments in this regard were echoed by Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell and former PLP MP and senator Philip Galanis.

“People vote for their best interests, they don’t in my view vote as a bloc.   Every Bahamian who is voting will vote for the party that is in the best interest of The Bahamas,” said Mitchell.

He said, however, that the PLP was assured by the Haitian Embassy that the comments were not meant to be inflammatory.

However, Galanis said Haitian-Bahamians who were eligible for citizenship and regularized by the government over the past five years may see Martelly’s words as an endorsement of the FNM.

“It was totally inappropriate for him to make those statements in the run-up to the next election because there were so many persons who just received citizenship by the FNM, and they may take that as [a cue to say] that’s who they should vote for,” said Galanis.

The government granted citizenship to nearly 2,600 people in the four-and-a-half years it has been in power, Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette revealed earlier this week, but he did not indicate how many were of Haitian descent.

Yesterday, the Democratic National Alliance said Martelly’s comments were not suitable considering the heightened political season.

DNA Leader Branville McCartney said the president’s remarks were a “direct attack on Bahamian democracy and all Bahamians — those of foreign descent or otherwise — who uphold the ideals of the nation and their right to vote for whichever political party they see fit”.

“Haiti’s president should respect the sovereignty of our democracy,” McCartney added in a statement yesterday.

FNM Chairman Carl Bethel, who did not speak for the party but gave his personal views, said Martelly’s political statements shocked him.

“Non-Bahamians cannot dictate what goes on in The Bahamas, whether they visit or live here,” said Bethel, who stressed that this comment did not refer to President Martelly.

He also shot down speculation that Martelly’s visit was orchestrated by the FNM to gain votes from the Haitian-Bahamian community.

“The FNM is a Bahamian party whose first interest is the interest of The Bahamas,” he said.

During his brief visit to The Bahamas, President Martelly urged Haitian-Bahamians with the right to vote to support the party that could serve and protect their interests.

He made the statements during a meeting with Haitians and people of Haitian descent at Church of God on Joe Farrington Road on Tuesday night, and repeated them on Wednesday.

Last year, PLP Leader Perry Christie said successive governments have been hesitant to take a strong stance against the illegal Haitian immigrant problem because they fear a voting bloc of Haitian-Bahamians.

“Once governments become frightened of the numbers of Haitians who have become Bahamians and who can vote... they have become an important voting bloc.  So somewhere along the line the purity of the commitment to protect The Bahamas and its territorial waters is sort of merged to the fear of doing things that might cause you to lose an election,” Christie said.

"...We allowed ourselves to be influenced too much by their presence as opposed to using our own commitment to convince and satisfy them that they are Bahamians, accepted as Bahamians, and that the programs that we are offering them to close down illegal immigrants coming into our country are programs as much in their favor as in any other Bahamian's favor.”

Feb 10, 2012

thenassauguardian