Rick Fox Declares His Intention to Enter Frontline Politics in The Bahamas

The prosperous future of The Bahamas depends on the choices we make right now

The Bahamas: It’s Better To Be Number One

The Bahamas Must Be First and It Must Start Now.

Today, I’m announcing that I will be a candidate in the next general election.

For months, I’ve been listening closely to the hopes and frustrations of my fellow Bahamians.  One truth is clear: the future of The Bahamas will depend on the choices we make right now.

You’ve shared that you want more  transparency, a modern economy that prioritizes affordability and security, and a country where opportunity is our reality, not just a promise.

I share that vision. 

And I’m stepping forward today because we cannot wait any longer to realize a Bahamas that we all envision is possible.

Why Now?

We are running out of the one resource we can never get back: TIME.

•⁠ ⁠The time we need to empower our youth with real opportunities.

•⁠ ⁠The time we need to build a nation that runs efficiently, innovates boldly, and leads globally.

•⁠ ⁠The time we need to deliver world-class healthcare, affordable housing, and safe communities.

•⁠ ⁠The time we need to compete on the global stage.

Hurricane Future isn’t coming.  Hurricane Future is here. 

Our Direction

Scripture teaches: “Honor your father and mother, so that your days may be long upon this earth.”

We should also honor the fathers and mothers of our nation.  Their legacy brought us to this moment.  Our responsibility now is to move The Bahamas forward. 

We must move with clarity.  We must move with courage.  We must move with honor and integrity.

We will embrace innovation, education, security and opportunity as the pillars of our future.

We will build a future where Bahamians can compete, influence, and lead globally without having to ever leave home.

We will trust in the lord with all of our hearts.  We will not lean on our own understanding and in all of our ways, we will acknowledge him and he will direct our path.

This is Our Moment 

As a candidate and as a leader for The Bahamas I will demand transparency, honesty, integrity while demanding a level of excellence from all of us.

This is bigger than party politics.  This is The Bahamas versus the world.  Imagine a nation where every Bahamian feel secure, safe, empowered, and proud.  Where opportunity flows, innovation thrives, and our people shape the world from home.

More is on the way. 

The Bahamas will lead.  The Bahamas will rise.  The Bahamas will be #1.

It’s Better to Be Number One in The Bahamas.

Source / Comment

Create a Bahamas for Bahamians ...and then watch them care more for themselves, their people, their environment and their future

A country with no plan, pt. 1

Of late, when I hear any of our political leaders speak about the need for a national development or economic plan I am baffled.

The prime minister and his deputy, along with the minister of the environment and a number of others in Parliament, have spoken of this on recent occasions and it is instantly disconcerting. If it were intended to display intelligence or passion, it missed the mark on both counts, and it is really not something that any member of a governing party should ever utter.

We have been a sovereign nation for almost 41 years. I know that there are all sorts of growing pains attached to that sovereignty, and, really, we are just an infant country. But, some issues, in particular, keep us stuck in our infancy: the lack of a national and/or economic development plan is the most significant of them.

Why, after all this time has passed since our autonomy are we just now saying that we need national and economic plans for development? As the country’s leaders, how is it that you’re only now asking for these plans, which should have been the crux of your existence and previous governance? Moreover, how do you win an entire government without having had such plans, be it the most recent win in 2012, or the very first win in 1967? What government can govern at all – never mind effectively – without first having a comprehensive plan to govern? As it appears, have we really been on autopilot for all these decades?

As a ruling government, the fact that you have no such plans, by your own admission or public comments, does nothing to inspire confidence amongst the citizenry. What are the 300,000 or more of us – less the ones sitting in Parliament apparently unaware of how significant an issue this is – supposed to think about where it is you intend to take this country and how you intend to do it?

A guest on a local radio show recently suggested that such development plans have not existed prior to now, yet there exists an Economic Development Unit in the Office of the Prime Minister? How is that even possible? What is it that they do there year after year? I am certain I know the answer – maintain the status quo. We are a status quo-maintaining society, and it shows from the top down.

Our direction

Going forward, in the best interests of the country, every man or woman who offers himself or herself as a servant of the people, for elected or appointed public office, should be required to submit a serious analysis of economy and government, in support of an overall plan of how to (sustainably) grow our nation. In the absence of this, and without demonstrating coherent and sustained thought on the question of growth, for what reason will I give you my vote?

With the exception of none, all of the issues we have as a country point to: 1) our (obvious) lack of direction; and, 2) the fact that so much has changed in our economy and society in four decades, yet so much is unchanged with respect to laws and regulations, structures, people and processes that govern their enforcement.

Is it at all realistic to expect to move forward when the framework of your country is so rusty and fragile that you can’t build anything new on it without predicting that it will collapse?

The current government while in opposition campaigned on a Bahamas for Bahamians first. But here’s something to think on: The Bahamas was never for Bahamians. It was a vacation home; a paradise for visitors. And out of that grew a tourism industry, which I suppose seemed the easiest thing to follow through with at the time. But we are surely paying for that easy decision now. To create a Bahamas for Bahamians would have required much more effort than simply leaning on tourism.

That said, the benefits of open trade and foreign direct investment are well known, but we should have developed, be developing, from the inside out, not the outside in. As long as we aren’t, we will always be either stagnant or backward moving because there is no real value being added to human capital and productivity. Employers and employees have hit a ceiling of achievement and most will stop there. Additionally, they have no vested interest in what they achieve internally, but will continually look to the outside for the answers and the reward.

Had we developed instead from the inside out, meeting and securing our primary needs first and steadily growing and expanding real industry, something like value-added tax, or the (threat of) implementation of any method of taxation, would be a far less likely bone of contention, as the desperate scramble for revenue would have been avoided, de facto.

External input into our economy, by way of tourism, foreign banking and other foreign direct investment should never occur without attached domestic investment opportunities for the people these investments are meant to benefit. And if we are to assume those people are the citizens of our country, then why is it that they are the very people who repeatedly end up with the minimum wage or no benefit?

Give the people whose country it is the opportunities to directly invest in the development of their own country, in whatever small portions they can afford. And then watch them care more for themselves, their people, their environment and their future.

• Nicole Burrows is an academically trained economist and a self-trained writer: nicole.burrows@outlook.com.

April 16, 2014

thenassauguardian

- A country with no plan, pt. 2

- A country with no plan, pt. 3

...the difficult questions of citizenship and the dangerous problem of stateless people in The Bahamas

Future Peace Of The Nation Depends On Citizenship Issue 

By PACO NUNEZ

Tribune News Editor

pnunez@tribunemedia.net

Nassau, The Bahamas

THE chances of a peaceful future for the Bahamas may depend on whether the difficult questions of citizenship and the dangerous problem of stateless people is dealt with, the Constitutional Commission has warned.

Noting the “perceived unfairness” in the system as it currently stands, and the serious implications of a very large number of people living in the country without status, the commission recommended that a special task force examine citizenship issues and report back as quickly as possible.

“This must be made a matter of high priority for the government.  The future peace and internal harmony of Bahamian society may well depend on it,” the report said.

“The commission cannot overstate the enormous psychological, socio-economic and other ill-effects that result from leaving large groups of persons in limbo in relation to their aspirations for Bahamian citizenship.

“Not only are the affected individuals badly damaged and marginalised, the entire society is put at risk and its future compromised by having within its borders a substantial body of persons who, although having no knowledge or experience of any other society, are made to feel that they are intruders without any claim, moral or legal, for inclusion.

“Such feelings of alienation and rejection are bound to translate into anti-social behaviour among many members of what is, in effect, a very large underclass in our society,” the report said.

The commission said citizenship was a top priority among those it interviewed prior to compiling the report – second only to the death penalty.

Among the recommendations in this area were that all provisions relating to the acquisition of citizenship and its transmission to children be expressed in “gender-neutral” language, so as to remove any sign of discrimination against women.

“Most persons who spoke to the commission or made presentations were of the view that the discriminatory provisions ought to be removed, although there were occasional instances of a clinging to some of the patrilineal provisions in the current constitution,” the report said.

“The point on which there was the greatest divide related to the general provisions providing for citizenship. There could be found no agreement on this issue, particularly with regard to how to treat persons born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents . . . a group that includes the numerically large native-born children of Haitian immigrants to the Bahamas.”

The commission said given the size and complexity of this problem, its work was only preliminary and must be continued.

But, the report emphasised, “the commission is not in favour of automatic citizenship by reason only of birth on Bahamian soil.”

Among its specific recommendations in this area were that:

• the reference to filius nullius, (child of no father) be deleted to remove any difference in treatment based on the marital status of the parent.

• Bahamian men and women have the equal ability to transmit citizenship to their foreign spouses under Article 10, except that there should be provisions (preferably in the Nationality and Immigration Acts) to guard against marriages of convenience.

• amendments be made to ensure that those persons born to Bahamians outside the Bahamas, as well as persons born to non-Bahamians in the Bahamas would not be rendered stateless.

• the ability of a Bahamian father or mother to transmit their citizenship to their children born overseas should be a right not conditioned on how the parent acquired citizenship.

• the provision that applications for citizenship must be submitted within 12 months after the applicant turns 18 be reconsidered.

• changes be made to ensure both men and women can pass on Bahamian citizenship to their children, regardless of marital status.

• the position with respect to dual citizenship or nationality should be stated, and in particular persons who are eligible for Bahamian citizenship should not be denied registration simply because they possess another nationality. Renunciation of another citizenship should also not be made a condition to the grant of citizenship.

SIDEBAR - The issue of statelessness

From the section of the commission’s report on citizenship

The commission notes, and it has also been drawn to its attention in the presentation from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), that several provisions of the constitution might have the effect of creating a class of persons who are stateless.

The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons defines a stateless person as “a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its laws.”

As was further indicated in the submission from the UNHCR, these provisions of the constitution are not only “contrary to the ICCPR and CEDAW, but also problematic in light of the Bahamas’ obligations pursuant to the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child).”

The most significant of these under our constitution is Article 7 which operates to reduce many persons to a situation of effective statelessness, as the persons who are primarily affected are either unwilling or unable to avail themselves of the other nationality to which they are entitled.

Needless to say, the majority of persons who fall into this category are children born in the Bahamas to Haitian parents.

The issue of statelessness arises in respect of this category of persons as set out below. The Haitian constitution provides for persons to acquire nationality through descent, but only if either of their parents is native-born, and have never renounced their citizenship (Article 11, 1987 Constitution of Haiti).

Thus, those persons born in the Bahamas to a native-born Haitian parent who has not renounced Haitian citizenship would become Haitian nationals at birth and retain it indefinitely thereafter.

But if their parents are not native-born or have renounced, they would effectively be stateless. Thus the right to claim Haitian citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation.

Even where persons falling into this category are entitled to Haitian citizenship, most choose not to acquire Haitian passports, as in any event they would be required to renounce that citizenship at 18 to acquire Bahamian citizenship.

The Haitian Constitution forbids dual Haitian and foreign nationality.

Children born abroad to a Bahamian parent in circumstances where they are unable to acquire the nationality of the Bahamian parent may also be at risk of statelessness, at least until they reach the age of majority.

For example, under Article 8, the right of a father to transmit his citizenship is not available if he himself acquired his citizenship by descent and was not native-born.

Similarly, with respect to a Bahamian female married to a foreign man, the child may be rendered stateless (at least until 18), if the father is unable by the citizenship rules of his country to transmit his citizenship, and if citizenship is not available by birth in the place where the child is born.

Effects of statelessness

The commission cannot overstate the enormous psychological, socio-economic and other ill-effects that result from leaving large groups of persons in limbo in relation to their aspirations for Bahamian citizenship. Not only are the affected individuals badly damaged and marginalised, the entire society is put at risk and its future compromised by having within its borders a substantial body of persons who, although having no knowledge or experience of any other society, are made to feel that they are intruders without any claim, moral or legal, for inclusion. Such feelings of alienation and rejection are bound to translate into anti-social behaviour among many members of what is, in effect, a very large underclass in our society.

The representatives from the Haitian community, in a most frank and open way, shared some of the effects they and others in the Haitian community have suffered:

• Discrimination

• Unable to open a bank account

• Feeling no sense of belonging and feeling rejected

•You feel as if you are the problem

• Not allowed to work in certain jobs

• Young people going through the transitory state are taken advantage of and abused by the authorities

• Many stateless young people feel like aliens not just because they are not automatically entitled to citizenship in their birth country but they also do not feel welcome in the country of their parents’ birth. Essentially, these people become virtually stateless in their own country of birth, the consequence is despair and frustration.

• No opportunity for scholarships afforded to all other children. “These children are cursed to a lifelong penalty and stigma,” one said.

This is obviously a most untenable position in which to place individuals who were born in the Bahamas, have no connection (other than ancestral) to any other country, and have no intention of residing anywhere else.

In this regard, the commission notes the warning of noted Bahamian social scientist, Dr Dawn Marshall, in her classic study on Haitian migration to the Bahamas. Although published in 1979, it is as timely today as it was then:

“The study of Carmichael Road Haitians indicates that many children are being born in the Bahamas who in a decade or two will be claiming their rights as Bahamian citizens. Not all of these native-born Haitians will docilely accept the denial of their rights. It is time, then, that the Bahamas government begins to think about the future of these potential citizens and not condemn them to personal destinies of isolation and relative deprivation.”

July 09, 2013

Tribune 242

...the future of The Bahamas

The young and unemployed

The Nassau Guardian Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas



On May 7, 2012, many young Bahamians exercised their right to vote in an election for the first time.  But it is this generation lured by promises of a better Bahamas that continues to suffer the consequences of continually failing government policies.  The Bahamas has an overall unemployment rate of 14 percent that surges to nearly 31 percent for those between the ages of 15 and 24.

It is this generation of discouraged Bahamians who asks where are the promised 10,000 jobs?  The government’s answer: An inadequate campaign to expel domestic staff in the pursuit of a so-called Bahamians first policy.  Surely, the government can do more to inspire, develop and meet the career aspirations of our children?  To the misfortune of our young, simply being Bahamian will neither improve educational aptitude, nor professional qualifications.

Spending on education has not doubled as promised.  Repeatedly passed for seemingly more pressing matters of webshops and lottery, poor education now stands as a significant barrier of entry to the workplace.  A point of consternation reiterated by the Bahamian business community and acknowledged in a recent Inter-American Development (IDB) report.

Yet this government prefers to appease the cronies of independence, while our youth stand idle with dangerous temptation.  They naively listen to the PLP’s ongoing eulogy of a glorious era under Sir Lynden Pindling that seldom touches on the problems of drugs and corruption during those times.  They dream of the yesteryear of independence because this is a government that prefers the past to the present.  They cheer the creation of a holiday to celebrate majority rule, while our Parliament bars entry to young people when they seek accountability.

The College of The Bahamas Union of Students (COBUS) made a laudable attempt to express its dismay for college fee increases but saw its efforts dashed by ridiculous assertions that the peaceful and professionally-dressed student group was a security threat.  Unlike Spain and Greece, our youth have not marched en masse on Rawson Square to demand change.

In its second year, this government must reaffirm its commitment to education and make it a priority.  It must showcase talented Bahamians whose intellectual prowess has lead to success.  It must advocate scholastic achievement through hard work and dedication to study.  It must engrain in the minds of our youth that education is the key to success.  Most importantly, the government must engage this next generation of Bahamians in the process and administration of government.
They are the future Bahamas.

June 11, 2013

The Nassau Guardian

Bahamas Blog International

The Oil Drilling Referendum in The Bahamas ...and Pontius Pilate

No Referendum For Oil Drilling


Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas

ALREADY they are discussing how to share the oil wealth, even before the first vein of oil has been discovered to make the discussion relevant.

 

In our opinion politicians are putting the cart before the horse or, as the farm hand would say, “counting their chicks before they are hatched.”

 

What they should be giving serious thought to is whether they should even be playing russian roulette with the future of these islands, whose wealth lies in the extraordinary beauty of its waters, powder soft beaches and colourful marine life. One slip of the drill and our future is gone forever.

 

Already, the livelihood of our fishermen are threatened with the overfishing of the conch, and the threat of a US ban on its importation as a food delicacy to save the species from extinction. Now enters King Oil with its offshore rigs which could further pollute — despite safety precautions — the natural habitat of the conch.

 

We need only one slip — equipment failure, staff error, a hurricane — and the purity and beauty of our shallow seas are gone forever.

 

As pointed out in the book Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, the “main hazard is connected with the spills and blowouts of oil, gas, and numerous other chemical substances and compounds.

 

“The environmental consequences of accidental episodes are especially severe, sometimes dramatic, when they happen near the shore, in shallow waters, or in areas with slow water circulation.”

 

Offshore rigs, said another report, “can dump tons of drilling fluid, metal cutting, including toxic metals, such as lead chromium and mercury, as well as carcinogens, such as benzene, into the ocean.” And yet another report claims that “exploration for offshore oil involves firing air guns which send a strong shock across the seabed that can decrease fish catch, damage the hearing capacity of various marine species and may lead to marine mammal strandings.” It is claimed that “drilling activity around oil rigs is suspected of contributing to elevated levels of mercury in Gulf of Mexico fish.”

 

The big oil companies will extol the benefits of oil drilling, the elaborate safety measures taken around the wells, until the big blow comes and then they are in such a state of confusion that their tongues are tied to find an explanation of what went wrong. In 2010 the world watched in horror the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. As the thick oil spread south, even the Bahamas trembled. The talk then was who would our government hold responsible to clean up the mess that Bahamians feared might touch our shores. Fortunately the Bahamas was spared.

 

But in that disaster 11 workers were killed and more than three million gallons of crude oil poured into the Gulf.

 

Don’t say that it can’t happen here. It can happen here and this is where it is most likely to happen because, as we know in the Bahamas no one observes the rules for long, and security will soon slip.

A news report recently suggested that the Gulf accident happened because the US interior department “exercised lax oversight in approving BP’s operations in the Gulf, accepting too readily the company’s claims that there was little risk of an accident.”

 

It is almost obscene to think that the politicians are discussing the financial returns before investigating whether the dangers are too great for us to subject our fragile tourist economy to the oil consortiums.

 

As for a referendum. This is one problem that should not be put to a referendum. All Bahamians will see is the possibility of quick wealth — as in the drug peddling years — they will not even consider the possibility of these islands being covered in thick tar — off limits to everybody.

 

When Bahamians went to the polls on May 7th they elected Perry Gladstone Christie as prime minister, not Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands and walked away from the problem. Rather than leaving such a weighty problem to voters, who do not have access to the necessary information, it is for MPs to study the pros and cons, the benefits and the dangers, and with a vote of the Assembly, where they represent the people, make a rational and considered decision. If they are incapable of doing that then call it quits, go back to the people and give them a second chance to find someone willing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

This is not a vote for a referendum. This is a vote for members of parliament — all of them.

 

September 13, 2012

 

Tribune 242