Nassau, The Bahamas: A National Investment Fund (NIF) is Not a Political ATM

The Bahamas is in Need of a Prudent Fiscal Culture

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

Nassau, The Bahamas

By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena

The Bahamas Is Not the Government’s Bank Account

“The practice of funding has gradually enfeebled every state which has adopted it.”

— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

More than two centuries later, Adam Smith’s warning still cuts through the noise.

One of the greatest tragedies of the developing world is not necessarily a lack of resources.  It is the failure to turn resources into lasting national wealth.

Countries can have oil and remain deeply indebted.  They can have gold and remain poor.  They can have copper, gas, diamonds and vast natural resources and still struggle to provide their citizens with the prosperity those resources should have generated.

Nigeria is a powerful example.  Angola is another.  Zambia’s experience with copper and sovereign debt is another.

The lesson is uncomfortable:

Natural resources do not make a country wealthy.  Good institutions do.  Fiscal discipline does.  Sound investment does.

And that is why The Bahamas needs to have a very serious conversation about the sovereign funds , national investment funds, debt, regulation and the growing role of the state in the economy.

Because there is a fundamental principle that every government should understand:

Winning an election does not mean you own the country.  You have been entrusted with it.

The Treasury does not belong to the political party in office.  The country’s assets do not become the property of the government because voters gave one party a mandate.  And national investment funds should never be treated as a convenient political bank account.

THE DEBT SHOULD MAKE EVERY BAHAMIAN PAY ATTENTION

The Bahamas has made real progress since the fiscal disaster of the pandemic.  That fact should be acknowledged.

The IMF says the country’s fiscal position has strengthened, with the primary balance remaining in surplus for a third consecutive fiscal year in FY2024/25.  The economy has also recovered strongly, largely because of tourism and construction.

But here is the part we cannot ignore:

Central government debt remains around 74 percent of GDP.  The IMF estimates central-government debt at 74.1 percent of GDP for FY2025 and 72.7 percent for FY2026.  The Fund says additional fiscal consolidation is still necessary to reach the government’s own medium-term target of 50 percent of GDP.

That is not a reason for panic.  It is a reason for discipline.

The Bahamas is a small, open economy.  We are extraordinarily exposed to tourism, global economic conditions, international interest rates and natural disasters.

The IMF specifically identifies a global slowdown that could hurt tourism, tighter financial conditions and natural disasters as downside risks to the Bahamian economy.  So we should not behave as if money will always be available.  It won’t.  Interest rates change.  Tourism changes.  Hurricanes come.  Recessions come.  Financial crises come.  Governments change.  And when the next crisis arrives, the country will wish it had preserved more fiscal space.  Fiscal responsibility is not about being cheap. It is about being prepared.

A GOVERNMENT IS A CUSTODIAN, NOT THE OWNER

This brings us to the National Investment Fund.  Let’s get the facts straight.  The Bahamas’ old Sovereign Wealth Fund Act was repealed and replaced by the National Investment Funds Act, 2022.  The legislation created a framework for national investment funds and explicitly allows funds to be used for purposes including national development and infrastructure.

The Davis administration was quite explicit about this.  In presenting the legislation to Parliament, Prime Minister Philip Davis said The Bahamas Resilient Infrastructure Fund would include a Growth Fund for Family Islands infrastructure, including airports, ports and maritime infrastructure.  The government also said the funds were intended to mobilize private capital and partnerships rather than rely entirely on government revenues or borrowing.

And in 2025, the government confirmed that $265.3 million was transferred into the National Investment Fund, with funds allocated toward capital works at New Bight Airport, Arthur’s Town Airport and Governors Harbour Airport.  The government said the transfer had been authorized by Parliament and that the associated borrowing remained recorded on the government’s balance sheet.  Those are the facts.

So the argument should not be that the government secretly stole money from a sovereign fund or that the law prohibits airport investment.  It doesn’t.

The much bigger question is:

Should scarce national capital—including borrowed money—be placed into a government-controlled investment vehicle and directed toward infrastructure without an exceptionally rigorous test of economic return, risk and opportunity cost?

That is a legitimate question.  And it deserves an answer.

A NATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND IS NOT A POLITICAL ATM

This is where the principles matter.  The government’s own presentation of the 2022 legislation said the National Investment Funds framework was designed around the Santiago Principles, which emphasize transparency, accountability, ethical standards, independence, auditing and public disclosure.  Those principles exist because governments face an enormous temptation.

Politicians think in electoral cycles.  Investment funds must think in decades.

A politician can look at a fund and see money available for a project.  A professional investment manager should look at that same money and ask:  What is the return?  What is the risk?  What is the opportunity cost?  Is this investment commercially viable?  Could private capital do this?  What happens if revenue projections are wrong?  Does this investment preserve or destroy long-term national wealth?

That is the difference between managing national capital and spending national capital.  And it is a distinction we cannot afford to lose.

BORROWING MONEY TO INVEST IS NOT THE SAME AS CREATING WEALTH

This is particularly important.  The government has explained that money was borrowed and then placed into the National Investment Fund for strategic infrastructure investments.  It also says the debt remains fully recorded on the government’s balance sheet.

That clarification is important.  But it raises another question.  What is the return on the investment?

If government borrows $100 million at a certain cost and invests it in an asset that produces a higher risk-adjusted economic return, there may be a rational investment case.  But if the investment produces a return lower than the cost of capital—or requires continuing government subsidies—then the country has not magically created wealth.

It has simply transformed one financial obligation into another asset.  That may still be justified for infrastructure with significant public benefits.

But then the government should show the numbers.  Show the projected return.  Show the assumptions.  Show the risk.  Show the alternatives.  Show the opportunity cost.  Show the public exactly why this is the best use of national capital.  “It’s an investment” is not an economic analysis.

LOOK AT NORWAY

Norway offers an important lesson.  Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global exists to manage petroleum wealth for the long term and to ensure that the wealth benefits both current and future generations.  Its fiscal framework governs how much can be transferred from the fund into government spending, with the long-term guideline based on the fund’s expected real return.

The principle is simple:  Preserve the capital.  Invest the capital.  Earn returns.  Protect the future.

That is fundamentally different from treating a national fund as an extension of the government’s annual budget.  The Bahamas does not have Norway’s oil wealth.  But we can learn from Norway’s discipline.

A national fund should be designed to outlive political administrations.  It should not be structured around the spending priorities of whichever party happens to hold office.

Because the government of today is temporary.  The assets belong to generations.

THE REAL DANGER IS POLITICAL CONTROL OF CAPITAL

This is where the discussion becomes more uncomfortable.  The greatest danger may not be the airport itself.  The greatest danger is the precedent.

Once politicians become accustomed to controlling large pools of national capital, there is a natural temptation to expand the number of things government believes it should finance, own, regulate or manage.  One project becomes another.  One fund becomes another.  One government enterprise becomes another.  One strategic investment becomes another.

And gradually, government becomes not simply the referee of the economy, but one of its biggest players.  That should concern us.

A healthy private economy needs government to establish the rules and enforce them fairly.  But government should not become the regulator, investor, employer, developer, lender, owner and allocator of opportunity all at the same time.

Because when government controls too many economic levers, political power can become economic power.  And that creates another problem:  political clientelism.

POLITICAL CLIENTELISM: WHEN GOVERNMENT BECOMES THE GATEKEEPER OF OPPORTUNITY

Political clientelism is the practice of exchanging targeted benefits—such as jobs, contracts, resources or other advantages—for political support.  It has been documented across developing democracies, including parts of Africa.

And the danger is not that elections disappear.  The danger is that elections remain while the economic system increasingly revolves around who controls the state.

The cycle becomes:  Win the election.  Control the government.  Control public resources.  Control appointments.  Control contracts.  Control licenses.  Distribute benefits.  Build political loyalty.  Then fight to remain in power.

That is not the kind of institutional democracy The Bahamas should aspire to.  Democracy should mean that a Bahamian can succeed regardless of which party is in office.

A business should win a contract because it is competitive.  An entrepreneur should succeed because the business works.  An investor should invest because the economic fundamentals make sense.  A citizen should not need political connections to navigate the economy.  Government should be the referee—not the prize.

AND THEN THERE IS REGULATION

This is where the Bahamas needs to be particularly careful.  Nobody is arguing for a lawless economy.

Good regulation is necessary.  We need financial regulation.  We need environmental protections.  We need consumer protection.  We need building standards.  We need proper oversight of businesses that pose genuine public risks.

The issue is not regulation itself.  The issue is regulation without discipline.  Because governments often look at regulations individually.

One new license doesn’t seem dangerous.  One new fee doesn’t seem dangerous.  One additional reporting requirement doesn’t seem dangerous.  One additional approval process doesn’t seem dangerous.  One new tax doesn’t seem dangerous.  One new government agency doesn’t seem dangerous.

But put them all together and the picture changes.  The entrepreneur doesn’t see ten harmless regulations.  The entrepreneur sees ten more reasons to think twice before investing.  And this is where The Bahamas could make a very serious mistake.

CAPITAL HAS OPTIONS

The Bahamas is not operating in a vacuum.  We compete with other Caribbean jurisdictions.  We compete with international financial centres.  We compete for tourists.  We compete for businesses.  We compete for investors.  We compete for entrepreneurs.

And capital is mobile.  An investor does not have to invest in The Bahamas.  A company does not have to establish its regional operation here.  An entrepreneur does not have to build a business here.  They have choices.

And if the cost of regulation, taxation, bureaucracy and compliance becomes too high relative to the return, investors can simply take their capital somewhere else.  They may never publicly complain.  They may never criticize the government.  They may simply say:  “Let’s invest somewhere else.”

That is the silent danger.  The country may not see businesses leaving in dramatic headlines.

It may simply see fewer businesses arriving.  Fewer startups.  Fewer investments.  Fewer expansions.  Fewer jobs.  Fewer opportunities.  And by the time policymakers recognize the problem, the damage can already be done.

IF GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO REGULATE EVERYTHING, PEOPLE WILL STOP WANTING TO DO BUSINESS HERE

This is the warning that policymakers need to hear.  If The Bahamas continues piling regulation, taxes, fees, licensing requirements and bureaucratic procedures onto businesses without constantly asking whether each measure is justified, we risk making the country less attractive as a place to do business.

Not because The Bahamas suddenly becomes a bad country.  Not because investors stop loving our beaches.

But because businesses ultimately make economic decisions.  They calculate costs.  They calculate risks.  They calculate returns.  They calculate uncertainty.  And then they choose where to put their money.

The Bahamas cannot assume that investors will stay simply because we are The Bahamas.  Investment is not sentimental.  Capital goes where the risk-adjusted opportunity makes sense.

That is why the objective should not be “no regulation.”  It should be smart regulation.  Regulate where there is a genuine public interest.  Eliminate regulations that no longer serve a purpose.

Digitize government services.  Set clear deadlines for approvals.  Reduce unnecessary paperwork.

Make fees transparent.  Prevent arbitrary enforcement.  Give businesses predictable rules.

And before introducing another regulation, ask one simple question:  What problem are we solving, and what will it cost the economy to solve it this way?  Because every regulation has a cost.

Sometimes the business pays.  Sometimes the consumer pays through higher prices.  Sometimes workers pay through fewer opportunities.  Sometimes investors pay by earning lower returns.  And sometimes the country pays because the investment never happens.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD WANT MORE PRIVATE CAPITAL, NOT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL

The irony is that The Bahamas needs investment.  We need investment in energy.  We need investment in infrastructure.  We need investment in housing.  We need investment in tourism.  We need investment in agriculture.  We need investment in technology.  We need investment in the Family Islands.  We need investment in small businesses.

But the answer cannot always be:  Government will finance it.  Government will own it.  Government will regulate it.  Government will manage it.

The private sector has capital.  The private sector has expertise.  The private sector can take risks that government should not.

And when government creates a predictable environment, private capital can multiply what the public sector is capable of doing.  Indeed, the Davis administration itself made this argument when it introduced the National Investment Funds legislation, saying that public-private partnerships could expand the number and scale of infrastructure projects while reducing the need for government to finance every project itself.  That principle is worth preserving.  The government should use its limited capital to catalyze private investment, not crowd it out.

THE TAXPAYER CANNOT ALWAYS BE THE ANSWER

The Bahamas already depends heavily on taxation to finance government.  And the IMF’s current assessment says additional revenue-enhancing measures and expenditure reforms may be needed to achieve the government’s medium-term debt target.  Those measures could include replacing the business-license fee with corporate income tax, introducing personal income tax, rationalizing tax exemptions, raising VAT and reducing transfers to state-owned enterprises.

Those are IMF recommendations, not laws that have necessarily been adopted.  But they demonstrate the dilemma.

When government spends more, someone ultimately has to pay.  If it isn’t the taxpayer today, it may be the taxpayer tomorrow.  If it isn’t the taxpayer, it may be the holder of government debt.  If it isn’t either, it may be the next generation through reduced fiscal space.

There is no such thing as free government money.  There is only money that comes from somewhere else.

THE BILL ALWAYS COMES DUE

That is why Adam Smith’s warning matters.  Debt can make government spending look painless.  The project is visible.  The ribbon is visible.  The press conference is visible.  The new building is visible.  The airport is visible.

The taxpayer’s future interest payments are not.  That is the political temptation of debt.  The benefit is immediate.  The cost is delayed.  And the people paying the ultimate bill may be people who never voted for the government that incurred it.

That is why fiscal responsibility is not simply an accounting exercise.  It is a moral obligation to future generations.

THE BAHAMIAN PEOPLE ARE THE OWNERS

This is the principle that must never be forgotten.  The government is not the owner of The Bahamas.  The government is the custodian.

The national assets belong to the Bahamian people.  The investment funds belong to the Bahamian people.  The natural resources belong to the Bahamian people.  The country’s future belongs to the Bahamian people.

Politicians are temporary.  The nation is permanent.

That means every government should be asking itself not:  “What can we spend?”

but:  “What can we build that will still benefit Bahamians 25, 50 or 100 years from now?”  That is the standard.

THE MOST DANGEROUS SENTENCE IN GOVERNMENT

Perhaps the most dangerous sentence in public finance is:  “We have the money.”

The correct question is:  “Should we spend it?”

And the question after that should be:  “What is the opportunity cost?”  Could the money earn a return?  Could it reduce debt?  Could it strengthen reserves?  Could it attract private capital?  Could it protect the country from the next crisis?  Could it generate wealth for future generations?  Those are the questions of serious government.

Not simply:  Can we do it?

But:

Should we do it?

THE BAHAMAS NEEDS A FISCAL CULTURE

We cannot build a strong country simply by passing another budget.  We need a culture of fiscal responsibility.  We need stronger institutions.  We need independent oversight.  We need transparency.  We need professional investment management.  We need clear rules for national funds.  We need proper assessments of public-private partnerships.  We need serious scrutiny of state-owned enterprises.  We need regulatory reform.  We need to make it easier—not harder—for legitimate businesses to operate.  And we need governments that understand that restraint is sometimes more valuable than spending.

Anybody can spend money.  Anybody can borrow.  Anybody can announce a project.  Anybody can cut a ribbon.

Leadership is knowing when to say: No.  No, we cannot afford it.  No, the return isn’t high enough.  No, the government shouldn’t own it.  No, the private sector can do it.  No, we shouldn’t borrow for it.  No, we shouldn’t raid national capital for short-term political gratification.  No, another regulation isn’t justified.  No, another tax isn’t the answer.  No, the government does not need to control everything.  That is fiscal discipline.

THE BAHAMAS WILL OUTLIVE EVERY GOVERNMENT

The Progressive Liberal Party will not govern forever.  The Free National Movement will not govern forever.  No prime minister will govern forever.  No cabinet will remain forever.

But the Bahamas will.  The national debt will remain.  The national assets will remain.

The consequences of today’s decisions will remain.  That is why every administration has a responsibility to leave the country stronger than it found it.

Not simply more buildings.  Not simply more programs.  Not simply more government.

Stronger institutions.  A more competitive private sector.  Lower fiscal vulnerability.  Greater national wealth.  More opportunity.  And a government that understands the difference between owning power and exercising responsibility.

THE CHOICE IS BIGGER THAN ONE GOVERNMENT

This argument is not ultimately about the Davis administration alone.  It is about the kind of political system The Bahamas wants to become.

Do we want a country where government increasingly becomes the centre of economic life?  Or do we want a country where government creates the conditions for citizens and businesses to flourish independently?  Do we want national investment funds governed by long-term investment principles?  Or do we want political administrations to have increasing discretion over national capital?

Do we want regulation that protects the public while allowing businesses to breathe?  Or do we want a bureaucracy so complicated that entrepreneurs eventually decide that it is easier to invest somewhere else?

Do we want future generations to inherit assets?

Or obligations?

These are not partisan questions.  They are questions about the future of the Bahamas.

Because there is a simple truth that every government should remember:  The country is not its treasury.  The treasury is not the government’s personal bank account.  And winning an election does not give anyone ownership of the Bahamas.

The government is only the custodian.  And a custodian has one fundamental responsibility:  Leave the house standing.  Not just for the people living in it today—but for the children who will inherit it tomorrow.

The Bahamas does not need governments that simply know how to spend.  It needs governments that know how to preserve, invest, build, regulate wisely and say no.  Because once national capital is consumed, it cannot be spent twice.  Once an investor decides to go somewhere else, that investment may never return.  Once a business closes because the regulatory burden becomes unbearable, the jobs disappear with it.  And once a generation inherits a mountain of debt, no political speech can make the obligation disappear.

The bill always comes due.  The only question is:  Who will be left to pay it?

Source / Comment

Serious Questions and Concerns about the National Investment Fund (NIF) of The Bahamas

Nassau, The Bahamas: Was there LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by Bahamian law

By Marlon Johnson

The REAL Critical Question:

The question here is not what the money was spent on.

There already exist mechanisms for government to invest in roads and court houses etc - those things for which the Minister indicated that the lion's share of the money was used .

We have been doing that as a country for decades and decades now through the established budgetary and treasury mechanisms.

The question is whether or not there was LEGAL authority to channel money to an account in the name of the National Investment Fund and use those monies for those purposes - without the express approval of the board and investment committee as required by law.  No account has been set up by the NIF and no approvals have been granted by the NIF.

Because if there is no lawful authority, then why exactly would the government be doing this?  What would be the legitimate reason when the government could use the established budgetary and treasury processes to facilitate the roads, courthouses, and airports?

And if we can all just ignore the laws when it is convenient to do so, then why do the laws exist in the first place?

Source / Comment

The Caribbean is not ready for Artificial Intelligence (AI)

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26: Re: WE CARIBBEANS ARE NOT READY FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!

By Professor Gilbert Morris

In our typical fashion in the Caribbean everyone has a strong uninformed opinion about something we don’t make… and despite those strong opinions… the best we can do is say “AI is coming”, “we need to be ready”, “we must gain AI skills” then when foreigners and the manufacturers of AI retreat in fear - as they are doing now - we come with further empty phrases, like “we need to be careful with AI”.

Be careful how with something we don’t make, that we’re forced to use without knowing it… and which - because we like shiny foreign things - steals our data and life processes for sale beyond the reach of our debt ridden systems, stuck in the plantation modes we never reforms or changed?

AI is none of our business!

Before we go tongue galavanting through the usual empty talk and cliches, let’s at least try to grasp what’s actually happening to us:

1. We have been the first guinea pigs for AI since its inception.  Do you really think American Airlines or Mastercard or Amazon would waste money paying employees to service us?

No: automated systems have been used for decades because - we love foreign peoples things - we never reformed our economic and social systems toward innovation… and so… we depend on their systems and can’t complain when those systems fail us.  Therefore, our first line of of contact with automated systems forced us to conform to the system, rather than the system being cultivated around our needs.

Now today, these automated systems are digital with the same effects; except now, it collects our data: drive a Tesla…  that’s a data collection device; have Starlink…  that’s a data collection device; have Alexa…that’s a data collection device; your mobile and iPads…data collection devices.

In Europe, Singapore and South Korea, they have systems, methods and rules to prevent their people depending on foreign digital systems.  China built a separate internet space with no Facebook, Amazon, Google, TikTok or Instagram.  Everything is Chinese.  People live in the Chinese WeChat system and no one collects your data for sale.

So what do you think AI would bring to us that’s new?

Nothing!

EXCEPT: it would collect more of your data and manipulate you into sharing more, until nearly all the country’s data is held externally… biometrics, click-patterns, finance and payments, all your texts, emails and photographs…  all held abroad…  but analysed and massaged to determine how to turn you into a product.

What's the point of telling people in that condition…  don’t get left behind by AI?  It’s nonsense of the first water and reveals a cluelessness that’s astounding.

In 1997, as a professor at George Mason University, I won the “Technology Across the Curriculum Award” for doing something no one else did: everyone tried to determined how technology could be used in the classroom.  I tried to show how technology would eliminate the Univeristy itself…  by running dozens of simulations…  long before AI existed.  What I saw for the university, one can see now for small states.

So what can we do?

We make nothing…  we’re broke…  we have the wrong concept of technology since technology is just jewellery to us; we are just users…!

1. We must build a “digital wall” around our country as Estonia and China have done.  Without this, we are just lunch meat for tech companies.

2. Once we build that digital wall, we must develop a new biometric based alpha numeric identity and kill off all previous identification numbers.

3. Now following 1-2 above, (there are some constitutional issues to consider), we would have cut off foreign tech, service and credit card companies from our new IDs!

4. We must allow no foreign companies and no technologies inside that digital wall!

So how do we communicate with the outside world?

We develop interoperability protocols, permissioned APIs and QR code access that transmits our black-boxed identities without revealing the root biometrics.  That means when you buy on Amazon or pay a credit card bill or a school fee or buy an airline ticket, an external code is generated that keeps your unique ID code protected.

Every Caribbean nation must adopt this model over the next three years.

Where does AI fit into all this?

Well, even with your “genetic code” outside the digital wall, foreigners will use AI, but we’ll be protected.

Inside the national digital wall, we can us AI for work flow management, for research, for data analysis, but these would not be connected to the world beyond our digital wall.

Don’t see how this streamlined thinking because now we know we must train 10,000 cyber security professional across the region and place them where?

ON THE DIGITAL WALL!

This is the only sovereign or independent future available for us and we are late and not a single CARICOM nation has the right combination of people or programmes to make this a reality.  Not a single country is managing this directly from the leader’s office as a national priority the failure of which risk national catastrophe.

Not one!

CARICOM has no 24/7 initiative aimed to driving the region with a second CARICOM digital wall as a second tier of strategic protection of its member states.

We blundered our independence when we failed to reform the systems we inherited.  Digitalisation is an even more critical moment; will we rise to the occasion or babble along trying to appear knowledge about what we can’t make?

Source / Comment

Mission PAWsible in The Bahamas

Questions about Mission PAWsible from an Animinal Owner in The Bahamas

By Jessica Robertson

Nassau, The Bahamas

Let me start by saying I’m grateful we as a country are finally taking long overdue steps to begin addressing this situation.  Penalties are now in place… let’s hope there’s some actual enforcement because we know how we generally lack in that area.

But none of the news stories nor this post by the Ministry provide key information that can lead to compliance -

My biggest question is what’s the purpose of getting a dog licensed other than putting $11 into the general fund?  How does my filling out a form for my dog and putting a numbered tag on their collars actually solve the problems we have with stray dogs, dogs not properly secured in homes, dogs not being properly cared for?

Then the basics:

Where does a dog owner go to register their dog?

What information is required?

This post at least lets us know it’s $11… do you take cash or is it credit card only?

What are the hours?

Given that there is this push for compliance are there evening or Saturday sessions since many Bahamians can’t get away from work during the week to run personal errands?

Are you doing pop ups across the island to accommodate owners who don’t have cars and can’t easily get to your office (wherever that actually is)

Is the license actually valid for a year from purchase or do these expire at the end of the calendar year?

And now….

It’s 2026.  Why is this not an online process?Mygateway has worked perfectly well for so many other ministries, departments and processes.

Or Why not set it up so that licensing is done through veterinary clinics so we know these dogs actually exist and are being cared for.

Also, We have a whole new innovation ministry…. Surely they can knock together a better system.

Source / Comment

August 31, 2026 - Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas: Today marked the official launch of Mission PAWsible; a national initiative of the Ministry of Agriculture & Marine Resources focused on responsible pet ownership, public education, compliance, enforcement, animal welfare and safer communities.

The campaign represents a shift from reacting after incidents occur to putting stronger preventative measures in place.  Through education, community outreach, partnerships and enforcement of the Animal Protection and Control framework, Mission PAWsible will work to reduce roaming and stray dogs, strengthen responsible ownership, and protect both people and animals across The Bahamas.

A key part of Phase One is a 30-day amnesty period from September 1 through September 30, 2026.  During this period, dog owners are being encouraged to become compliant, with dog registration/licensing available free of charge.  After the amnesty period ends, the licensing fee will be $11, and citations will begin to be issued for breaches of the law, including offences relating to unlicensed dogs, roaming dogs, lack of identification, unleashed dogs in public places and other violations.

The press conference brought together senior Ministry officials, Animal Control, veterinary professionals and key animal-welfare partners, including:

Hon. Jomo Campbell, Minister of Agriculture & Marine Resources; Janice Miller, Permanent Secretary; Evette Evans, Under Secretary; Julianna Braynen, Deputy Permanent Secretary; Dr. Jason Sands, Director of Agriculture; Dr. Suzette Lyn, Senior Veterinary Officer; Pearline Jones, Officer in Charge of Animal Control / Police Reserve K9 Unit; Kevin Laing, Senior Animal Control Officer; Lissa McCombe, BAARK; Percy Grant, Bahamas Humane Society; Kim Aranha, President, Bahamas Humane Society; Dr. Peter Bizzell, Veterinary Medical Board; Dr. Daniel Katz, Director, Bahamas Humane Society; and Dr. Somatie Inderdeo, Director of Veterinary Services, BAHFSA.

Mission PAWsible will continue to expand through public education, school and community engagement, veterinary and pet-supply partnerships, and stronger enforcement measures designed to encourage compliance and responsible animal ownership.

Source / Comment

A Socialist and Capitalist World

EVERY COUNTRY IS SOCIALIST AND EVERY COUNTRY IS CAPITALIST!

POLICY ADVICE NOTE 306-26 Re: GOLDING’s “SOCIALISM TURN” NEED NOT BE TO MANLEY’s

By Professor Gilbert Morris

Socialism and Capitalism are the two Ghosts of political science and economics: people who think they believe in either speak the resolve of ole time religion about the virtues of one and the vices of the other: both of them - as I would tell even PhD students - talk mostly nonsense.

EVERY COUNTRY IS SOCIALIST AND EVERY COUNTRY IS CAPITALIST!

Britain made its money by Elizabeth I sending Sir Francis Drake - her cousin - to steal the resources which were stolen from native peoples by the Dutch, Portuguese and the Spanish.  Colonialism and enslavement is literally theft in a grand scale.  In Britain’s entry into China they became the largest drug dealers in the history of the universe, selling Opium to destabilise China; which succeeded for a time…just as the U.S. did in the Afghanistan invasion; facilitating the Northern Alliance in selling Opium!

In 1898, for no reason the U.S. invaded Philippines and Cuba, stole Puerto Rico and Hawaii…tried to steal Panama.  Controlled much of south and Central America all for a few families.  Senator Mitt Romneys family made their money through Bain Capital in this manner as did the Dulles family etc.  They stopped to invade Haiti and steal its resources.  And since WII - if you think that’s too far in time - Britain wanted Iranian oil.  So it got the U.S. to overthrow a democratic Iran to steal its oil.  The entire Cold War was a psych-op in which it was a hot war for third world resources.  During this time, the US, UK, Canada, Japan, France-Germany all used protectionism to prevent competition and violence against third world nations that sought to advance.

Where is the capitalism there?

Manley’s socialism was half baked nonsense…much as we all loved him.  Utter nonsense.  Mishmash of pan-Africanism, misunderstood Marxism, all run in a plantation colonial economic model, he never bothered to change.  And that’s the difference between those post-colonial nations that thrived and those that didn’t: the ones that thrived changed the system they inherited; just as Boukman Dutty - a Jamaican - told Toussaint L’Ouverture in 1791!

The best countries in the world are social democracies of varying degrees and none of them are in the G7: Switzerland, Singapore, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Nw Zealand (Cayman is amongst their number as a well run country…but less of a social experiment).

In everyone of those countries, you would have a better life than wherever you are now in the Caribbean.  Lee Kuan Yew insisted that he was a Socialist and a limited Social Democrat.  People forget, Malaysia was supposed to be the name of the Malaya-Singapore Federation: SIA added to Malaya was for Singapore: the Malaysia!

The reason Singapore and Malaysia split is because Lee Kuan Yew demanded that all policies must life everyone at the same time and Malaysia wanted dominant ethnic groups to dominate.  Lee Kuan Yew said no!  He insisted that the only for a small nation to become exceptional was for everyone to share in the propensity.  Singapore is not a Christian nation or a religious one.  Yet it adheres to Matthew 25 gospel - feed the hungry, clothed the naked, visit the sick and the poor - more than any Christian nation on earth.  The U.S. tears itself apart over affirmative action, but Lee Kuan Yew built Affirmative Action into its constitution, with the goal that everyone must share in prosperity.

Just yesterday, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong announced that between birth and 18, every Singapore family will receive $70,000 per child.  Many families in the Caribbean don’t earn that amount in 10 years.  Singapore got its independence about the same time as Jamaica.  Yet Singapore is nearly 40 times richer than all of CARICOM combined…when we take its GDP and its Sovereign Fund together with its national savings GLC and Provident Fund.  This is all from a socialist nation that is clearly capitalist in the best way…as is Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden all of which are 10 times of more richer than all of CARICOM and has a better quality of life and standard of living better health, education and lower crime than all of Europe, the U.S. and the Caribbean.

So if Hon. Mr. Golding MP is talking about Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands socialism, get the old Soviet Union out of your head.

I challenge my students on this all the time.  I say what make you say China is Communist…what does it mean.  China has better education and healthcare, cleaner better cities, greater technologies, better infrastructure, people own their homes and pay property tax once when they buy it..and live in low crime… areas with parks and increasingly alternative energy…so what is communist.  They say well, it’s the politics.  I say alright.  I grant you that in the Politburo, leaders are appointed, not elected.  But China has more elections than the rest of the world combined and those leaders have to perform.  Every member of XI Jinping’s cabinet has managed a province larger than the U.S. and successfully.

This does not mean we can’t debate the merits of systems.  But in most cases, it’s the mix of systems we are debating without admitting it.

If Hon. Mr. Golding MP is referring to social democracies which are the best managed most prosperous, most democratic nations in the world - with Singapore leading the way - he should say so!

Source / Comment

Questions for The Bahamas Power and Light (BPL)

A Timely Call for Executives of The Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) to Account to The Bahamian People and Nation

TO BAHAMAS POWER AND LIGHT WHICH IS OPERATED BY THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT:

By Charlotte Green
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

Kyle Wilson should not be the primary person explaining BPL’s payroll system.  He is the union president.  He can defend his members, explain working conditions, and speak to why workers may have been required to work extensive overtime.  But he does not control BPL’s payroll, approve the corporate budget, or run BPL’s internal financial controls.

The people that Bahamians should demand answers from are:

1. Toni Pratt, BPL CEO — she should be front and centre.  BPL itself identifies Pratt as CEO as recently as June/July 2026.

2. Christina Alston, BPL Executive Chairman — the board has governance and oversight responsibility.  BPL identifies Alston as Executive Chairman in its 2026 material.

3. Daphne Simmons, Director of Human Resources — HR should explain the overtime rules, approval process, limits, and whether the hours complied with BPL policy.  BPL identified Simmons as HR Director in April 2026.

4. Chandrice Ferguson, CFO — Finance should explain how hundreds of thousands of dollars in overtime passed through payroll and financial controls and who authorized those expenditures.  BPL identified Ferguson as CFO in 2026.

5. Chantal Williams, Chief Audit Executive — Internal Audit should be able to say whether the payments were audited, whether appropriate controls were followed, and whether any irregularity was actually found.

6. Anthony Christie, COO and the relevant operational managers — because somebody in Operations would have had to determine that these employees were needed for those extraordinary hours.  BPL identifies Christie as COO in its 2026 releases.

7. Minister JoBeth Coleby-Davis, as the minister whose portfolio includes relations with BPL, should answer the broader public-policy and governance questions surrounding a state-owned utility.

And here is the big question I think Bahamians are missing:

Don't ask Kyle Wilson, “Why did you make that much overtime?”  Ask BPL management: “WHY DID YOU NEED AN EMPLOYEE TO WORK ENOUGH OVERTIME TO EARN THAT MUCH MONEY, AND WHO APPROVED EVERY HOUR?”

Because if the overtime was authorized, documented and legitimately worked, then the bigger story isn't necessarily the employee collecting it.  The bigger story becomes BPL's management and staffing: Why was that level of overtime necessary?  Why weren't additional employees scheduled?  Was there a shortage of skilled workers?  Were repeated outages, emergencies and generation problems driving overtime?  Who signed the overtime sheets?  What controls were in place?

And before anybody labels these employees corrupt or thieves, BPL needs to tell the public whether there was actually fraud, falsification or unauthorized payment.  A large number alone does not establish any of those things.

BAHAMIANS!  That's where WE should put the pressure: CEO. Board. HR. Finance. Audit. Operations.  They have the records.  They approved the system.  THEY need to answer.

Kyle is not the one to question.  Stop being distracted because yall are distracted especially if you are not questioning the chain of command or holding them accountable and asking the right questions to the right people.

Source / Comment