Yes, The Bahamas is in a serious debt position ...but the present government has a nerve to ask the Bahamian people for more tax money ...to support the continuation of the manner in which our past taxes have been wasted

Government Must Be Held Accountable For Public Spending

Tribune 242 Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas:



SINCE THIS government has come on the scene, it has stumbled from one sink hole into another. Nothing seems to be going right, because there is no planning, no co-ordination, and, as we have said before, each cabinet minister seems to have his own agenda and his own game plan.

Several months ago, when it was suggested that Prime Minister Perry Christie should reshuffle his cabinet, he is quoted as having said words to the effect that the timing was not right as there were cabinet members who had agendas that they wanted to complete. If there were cohesion in the Christie government, the only agenda to be completed would be government’s agenda, and anyone not at one with that agenda would be shuffled out. This goes to the very core of what is wrong with this administration. There is no strong leader who can keep his colleagues following the same road map.

They don’t even seem to speak the same language. For example, with all the negative feedback, Mr Christie seems open to the idea of exploring new avenues to raise taxes, provided businessmen can suggest alternatives to VAT. Despite this, State Minister of Finance Michael Halkitis has said that there are no plans to postpone the July 1, 2014, date for the implementation of VAT. If there are no plans, then why should the Prime Minister ask for suggestions to find a new, less complicated way to raise taxes and drop VAT?

About the only subject on everyone’s lips today is VAT. And the more government spokesmen try to explain it the muddier the waters become. As a matter of fact, these spokespersons don’t seem to fully understand it themselves, leaving Bahamians at the end of their question-and-answer sessions more perplexed and less confident than before. As a result, public anger and confusion has grown. Grown to the point that at the end of the day the country might see a vocal group of young people ban together to hold government’s toes to the fire.

The Insight feature in today’s Tribune is a speech given by a young mother, who is also a branch manager of a local bank.

Tamara van Breugel, because of the lack of information coming from government, went on her own journey of education and was alarmed by what she discovered. Along the way, she also found many intelligent, like-minded young Bahamians who want to turn a new leaf in our history books and build a new Bahamas. They are fed up with the underhanded shenanigans that have been going on for far too long among what old Bahamians used to call their “representers”. So our readers should be on the watch for Citizens for a Better Bahamas. We predict that Mrs van Breugel’s speech is the launch of a vocal, enthusiastic and, we hope, more responsible Bahamian.

As we have said in this column before, for a government promising 10,000 jobs almost as soon as it became the government, the suggestion of VAT was suicidal. True, government has to get itself out of debt not only to prevent its credit rating from being downgraded, but to become a member of the World Trade Organisation (WHO). Among the many rules and regulations that have to be followed is that government will have to drop its tariffs on imported goods so that the goods of WHO members can enter the country more easily. This means that government will have to find a substitute to the present Customs duties. However, it does not mean that VAT is the answer. If government can’t police the collection of Customs duties now, it will never be able to afford enough inspectors to supervise VAT. A simple sales tax would seem the more sensible route.

Today, we publish a letter from a concerned Bahamian who vowed he would refuse to open his books to any government inspector, until government opened “their” books for public inspection. He was on the right path, but he made one mistake. Government’s books are not “their” books. These books belong to every taxpaying Bahamian. We have a right to know how our money is being spent. We have a right to demand that those books be opened for inspection.

This government started immediately on its grand shuffle among government employees, moving competent persons from their jobs, and replacing them with less competent party supporters. Not only does that create a state of inefficiency in a department, but it is a costly exercise. The clearing of land in the so-called Urban Renewal project was a scandalous waste of public funds. The money used was public money — our money — and we, the people have a right to know. Not only did workers trespass on private property, but the money handed out, regardless of the work to be done, warrants a public inquiry. A government representative is duty bound to prudently administer public funds — administer it as if it were his own. None of that prudence was shown in the Urban Renewal land clearance plan, for example — it was just pay-back election time. The public should demand an accounting of this scandal.

During this belt-tightening time, all of these overseas trips should he scaled down. Certainly, the public has a right to know the cost of every one of them, right down to the last glass of champagne. Remember, this is the public’s money that is being so liberally spent – while the public debt steadily rises.

Mrs van Breugel points out that in the auditor general’s 2010/2011 report, he discovered that:

• 5,980 cargo manifests had not been presented to Bahamas Customs for clearance;

• $95 million in real property taxes went uncollected, taking the total sum outstanding to $541.886 million;

• $302,866 of unpaid fuel from The Ministry of Works.

In the 2014/2015 fiscal budget, subsidies have been allocated as follows:

• $20 million to subsidise Bahamasair;

• $20 million in subsidies to Water and Sewerage;

• $7 million to the Bahamas Broadcasting Corporation.

And so the horror story of how the people’s money is being misspent continues.

Our finances would not be in such a sorry state if we had better managers in charge, and a government that did not believe that it can play Santa Claus with other people’s money.

Yes, the Bahamas is in a serious debt position, but this government has a nerve to ask the Bahamian people for more tax money to support the continuation of the manner in which our past taxes have been wasted.

November 18, 2013

Tribune 242 

Bahamas Blog International

Is The Bahamas Government Indebted to Peter Nygard?

Who Has Taken The Bahamas Back?

Tribune 242 Editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas



ALTHOUGH the PLP have tried to downplay the Nygard video posted on YouTube in the past few days, judging from comments on social media and the number of tapes e-mailed to us for our information, we do not think it wise for government to continue with its dismissive claim that the matter is of “no importance”.

The matter is of grave importance because government will have to make certain important decisions about Mr Nygard’s development at Nygard Cay involving the Canadian’s present and future investments there. Some of these developments are bitterly opposed by a large segment of our population.

Bahamians want to know whether its government is now so indebted to Mr Nygard that his interests will come before those of the citizens of this country.

Mr Christie might be out of the Bahamas this weekend, but judging by the alarmed and angry comments sent to us, we think it would be wise for him to make a statement as soon as possible to clarify the video’s declaration: “Nygard takes the Bahamas back.”

During last year’s election, we heard persistent rumours about the Nygard involvement in the PLP campaign. This tape seems to confirm the rumours.

Mr Nygard has always been close to the PLP government. We recall him trying to win over the FNM when it became the government in 1992. However, he was rebuffed and so now the video shows him with raised champagne glass, shouting “Victory! Victory! Take our country back!”

Before the Pindling government was defeated in 1992, we recall Opposition Leader Hubert Ingraham questioning the duty-free concessions granted by that government for Mr Nygard to build his pad at Lyford Cay. The late Paul Adderley was finance minister at the time.

On the FNM’s 1992 victory, we received a very official-looking invitation announcing that the Ingraham election celebrations were to be hosted at the Lyford Cay home of one Mr Peter Nygard. The way the invitation arrived at our office gave us the impression that it was issued by government. We don’t usually attend such functions, but on this occasion we decided to go.

We weren’t at Nygard Cay very long before we realised that something was not quite right. For an official function of celebration, we saw no one that we would have expected at such a party. Mr Ingraham was not there. Nor did we see any member of his government. It was obvious that for some reason the Nygard Cay party had been boycotted. We quickly left.

The following day, we got a proper teasing from one of our nephews, who laughingly told us that the last place he would have expected his uncle and aunt to be seen would be Nygard Cay. At the time we knew nothing about Mr Nygard. It was not until we went to Canada the following year that we discovered that he was a noted fashion designer.

We understand that Mr Nygard made another effort to extend the olive branch when on the 500th anniversary of the landing of Columbus at San Salvador, he sent each member of the Ingraham government a sports jacket. In fact for his first ten years in government, Mr Ingraham did not meet Mr Nygard.

However, later he was casually introduced to him at an Exuma regatta when Nygard, surrounded by his usual bevy of girls, was presented to him.

However, Mr Nygard obviously wants the world to know how close he is to the Christie government’s inner circle — in fact the deference shown him by government ministers on being introduced to him, suggests that Nygard heads that circle.

Mr Nygard is obviously unaware of our form of government, and fails to realise what embarrassment he has probably caused Mr Christie. It is now for Mr Christie to inform him that we are not a banana republic and therefore — contrary to what Bahamians are now suggesting — not for sale, or “resale” as one Bahamian remarked in disgust.

The video opens with Nygard on his tropical property. It then moves to the Bahamian flag with the words Election 2012 emblazoned across it and announcing that it is the Nygard Victory party. The video then shows the night of Mr Christie’s acceptance speech as he thanks his PLP supporters for making the victory possible. The camera, then breaks in with Nygard, raised champagne glass in hand, shouting “Victory!” from the comfort of his palatial home, surrounded by his young women.

The camera then flashes back to the rally. Mr Christie tells the crowd that they ought to take pride and credit for putting him in his position and they would have to work together to “make this the best little country in the entire world.” Flash back to Nygard: “Yeh, the best! The best!”

Back to Mr Christie and the rally: “You have been so good for us, so good for me, so good for my colleagues, we tell you tonight it is our solemn, solemn duty to respond in kind by how we perform. PLP! PLP! PLP!”

“Victory! Victory!” shouts Nygard with raised glass as one of the girls kisses him on his cheek and he gives another a high five. “We took our country back!” he shouts jubilantly.

The first of four videos ends with a photo of Mr Nygard and the Bahamas Prime Minister over the words: “Taking our country back”.

The camera — cleverly switching from the Nygard home with his girls and champagne glasses and then back to the Christie rally — could leave the viewer with the impression that Mr Christie’s last words were directed – not to the Bahamian people — but to Mr Nygard.

To whom did he refer when he said: “You have been so good for us, so good for me, so good for my colleagues, we tell you tonight it is our solemn, solemn duty to respond in kind by how we perform.”

Bahamians elected Perry Gladstone Christie as its prime minister, not Mr Peter J Nygard.

Mr Christie would be well advised to explain his position and that of his government to the Bahamian people.

July 15, 2013

Tribune 242

Bahamas Blog International

...will The Bahamas government allow Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) to drill for oil willy-nilly in Bahamian waters ...and risk the destruction of the Bahamian bread and butter industry - tourism?

Young Man's View: The Oil Industry

By ADRIAN GIBSON
ajbahama@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas


...

I continue to believe that Bahamas Petroleum Company is a bit player in the oil industry and, having been told of the overly emotional online attacks on me by so-called shareholders/investors after my first column, I am now even more interested in piercing the veil and looking into any and all drilling agreements that this company—and any other company— has with our government.

 

For some reason, every time I think about the giving away of our national patrimony, I hear Beavis and Butthead sarcastically snickering in the background. The licensing agreement between BPC and the government states that the oil royalties would be disbursed on a sliding scale, i.e. if 75,000 barrels of oil are produced daily, the royalty rate would be 12.5 per cent; if it’s in excess of 75,000 and up to 150,000, it would be 15 per cent; 150,000 to 200,000 daily barrels would yield a royalty rate of 17.5 per cent; 250,000 to 350,000 would result in a 20 per cent rate and any daily production in excess of 350,000 barrels would incur a royalty rate of 25 per cent.

 

The Bahamas has no Environmental Protection Act and the trite regulatory practices (Environmental Impact Assessment reports) overseen by groups like the BEST Commission—a toothless bulldog— is laughable at best.

 

I totally agree with a recent article written by attorney Fred Smith (Queen’s Counsel) when he said: “As the Bahamas broadens its industrial investment profile; encourages large scale urban development; promotes all inclusive anchor projects by Bahamians and foreigners and continues its growth and development, it becomes more and more urgent for an independent regulatory body with teeth, to protect our often pristine, and always fragile environment.”

 

He went on to say: “The Bahamas, as a Small Island Nation, must make protecting the environment a priority. It is also important that stakeholders and interested parties who may be affected by industrial and/or other urban developments have an opportunity to be properly consulted. This has been repeatedly affirmed by our Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Privy Council in the Guana Cay and Abaco Wilson City Power Plant litigation. The BEST Commission has been established for years but it is not a statutory body and needs to be institutionally created by legislation to make it effective and relevant.”

 

Yes, our sluggish, relatively rebounding economy could do with an injection of oil money—but it must be on the best, most nationally-sound terms and not be a hurried, tactless and superficial attempt to redesign our economy overnight. The Nigerian experience should teach us, as a nation, the shortfalls of unregulated drilling, of allowing foreign companies to buy off prominent members of government and of an oil rich country having a poverty stricken population due to corruption, greed and overtly scandalous behaviour.

 

Now, while Bahamians are discussing oil from the perspective of a countrywide get-rich-quick-scheme, many of them haven’t considered the environmental ramifications, how BPC will likely go about getting it and/or a thorough examining of the peripheral issues related to oil drilling.

 

In a published Facebook post forwarded to me by economist and lawyer Dr Gilbert Morris, he said:

 

“Let’s forget about the risk premiums to protect our waters and let’s forget about the relative costs of both drilling and pumping. If there are 3 billion barrels undersea in the Bahamas, what would you think when you learn that the US consumes 19 million barrels per day? This means, if we have 3 billion barrels, our total store of oil is 150 days of US consumption.”

 

He went on: “So therefore, here is what is likely to happen: The lead firm will confirm its find and say to the government we will pay you a royalty. Let’s suppose the royalty is 90% of profits, just to be overly optimistic. The government would never see a dime. Why? Because the firm with the rights in the Bahamas, will sell the rights to the proven reserves to a larger company. That company will determine what it costs to pump the oil from the depths. The government will only gain income, even if its on the gross, from oil that passes the Relief Valve. But nothing will. Because when the large Company buys the rights, they will Cap the Wells immediately. That is because, oil prices would need to be over $200 per barrel to make its economically feasible to pump it. So Caping is like storage until the market price makes pumping feasible.”

 

“A final point: if the oil has a high sulfur content, (Sour), then that adds refining costs too. There are lots of oil finds all over the world. The question is, is it financially feasible to pump it. If the find in the Bahamas was a “monster find” (and it could become that), the question will be the cost of pumping – including environmental protection costs – relative to the profit yield based on the market price over time,” the economist concluded.

 

An October 2012 report in The Economist stated that oil is stolen in Nigeria at a record pace, with the government inflating output figures by using a discombobulating assortment of statistics. According to that report, Nigeria announced that its oil production had increased to 2.7 million barrels per day; however, due to a corrupt culture, that figure is nearly impossible to verify.

According to a former senior World Banker—Oby Ezekwesili (a Nigerian)—some $400 billion of that country’s oil revenue has been squandered or pilfered since 1960. Nigeria, home of the world’s ninth largest gas reserves, also has an unregulated petroleum industry where a Petroleum Industry Bill has been stalled for 15 years. The Bill was drafted with the intent to heighten transparency, proffer a regulatory regime and govern every aspect of the nation’s oil industry. However, glad-handing politicians have managed to bar the formulation of any effective regulatory regime as that would curb their corrupt practices and proscribe deterring—even penal—sanctions. Could there be similar reasons why no such Bill has been considered in the Bahamas—why even Environmental Protection legislation hasn’t been brought to the Parliament?

 

Indeed, a joint report by Transparency International and the Revenue Watch Institute revealed that Nigeria’s government-run National Petroleum Corporation is “accountable to no one” and is a “slush fund for the government,” which makes it the worst of 44 national and foreign companies included in their study. When one thinks of how locally government-run corporations have been mismanaged over the years—e.g. Bahamasair, the Bahamas Electricity Corporation and even the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (before the sale)—there’s much to desire and the thought of our governments running an oil slush fund is a no-no!

 

What’s more, Nigeria’s oil producing delta region has suffered environmental devastation that would eternally damage our pristine environment (beaches, mangroves, etc) and, as it relates to the environs and our tourism industry, set us back into the Ice Ages. Whilst the United Nations have chided the Nigerian government for their unchecked environmental degradation, there has been little to no attempt by that government to take legislative initiatives to curb indiscriminate drilling—just as there has been no attempt by the government of the Bahamas thus far! After a rig explosion (Chevron) in January, 2012, local Nigerian environmental groups have placed a $3 billion price tag on losses accrued over 46 days due to fires, a gas leak and environmental degradation. Even more, in December 2011, an oil spill at one of Royal Dutch Shell’s offshore oil operations was estimated to have cost a record $5 billion in damages. Apparently, the farmlands of Nigeria—particularly in the Niger delta—are progressively being destroyed. It remains to be seen what penalties or compensation will be rendered by both companies to the Nigerian people, considering the predilection of corrupt government officials and the likelihood that it would merely be swept under the rug. The Nigerian response, in these instances, could hardly be compared to the United States response to British Petroleum’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico!

 

According to a Green Peace International article titled ‘Shell Shocked’: “We witnessed the slow poisoning of the waters of this country and the destruction of vegetation and agricultural land by oil spills which occur during petroleum operations. But since the inception of the oil industry in Nigeria, more than twenty-five years ago, there has been no concerned and effective effort on the part of the government, let alone the oil operators, to control environmental problems associated with the industry.”

 

A 2010 Newsweek article entitled ‘Oil’s Shame in Africa’ further stated that: “Oil spills in Nigeria are a common occurrence; it has been estimated that between 9 million to 13 million barrels have been spilled since oil drilling started in 1958.”

 

Due to a lack of regulation and political patronage, more than 1000 people lose their lives to oil-related deaths in Nigeria every year, 70 per cent of that nation’s population live below the poverty line (less than $1 dollar per day), clean potable water is hardly accessible and—even whilst it is a major oil exporter having racked up more than $340 billion over the last few decades—Nigeria still imports most of its gasoline. Is it possible that we could be an oil producing nation that exports our crude but then—as is the case with salt—must buy back and import our own oil (in its now refined state)?

 

Considering the corruption, dodgy practices and dysfunction of some of our elected representatives and public officers, should we too be worried about gas price-fixing scams (which cost Nigeria $29 billion in the last 10 years), oil theft (which cost the Nigerian treasury $6 billion per year), fuel subsidy scams (which cost the Nigerians $6.8 billion) and an overall proclivity by some officials to “tief” and misuse public funds like it was going out of style (which has cost the Nigerian’s nearly $400 billion since their Independence in 1960)?

So, will the government allow BPC to drill willy-nilly and risk the destruction of our bread and butter industry (tourism)? Will they risk the contamination of our groundwater and our soil, of the destruction of our coastal environment, of our local fishing industry being ruined by oil spills and of oil sheen spreading to fishing habitats with the government still being handicapped in its capacity to even conduct clean-ups at Clifton Pier (from BEC’s spills)? And, what about gas flaring—which is the release of unusable or unwanted raw natural gas and associated gases—into the atmosphere? Look, if we’re going to drill, let’s do it the right way, let’s put any and all related legislation and regulations in place beforehand. The government must remember that we the people—and those who make up the government—all live in the Bahamas and, unlike some of the principals of BPC, have nowhere else to go and call “home” (in the truest sense of the word).

 

I urge the government to get on with the people’s business, to stop talking foolishness in our Parliament or resign and get the hell out!

 

...

 

May 06, 2013

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International

 

Amnesty concerned over 'apparent inaction' of the Bahamas towards 2008 report issues

By AVA TURNQUEST:



HUMAN rights group Amnesty International has expressed concern by the "apparent inaction" of the Bahamas government towards any of the issues tabled in the 2008 report published earlier this year.

The report tabled concerns over the death penalty, domestic violence and migrant's rights, and provided suggestions towards restoring the country's commitment to promoting and protecting human rights.

Commenting on the police and security forces, the report stressed: "The lack of an independent body to investigate allegations of ill-treatment involving police officers undermined confidence in due process."

Yesterday, Amnesty International spokesman R. E. Barnes named the allegations surrounding the deaths of Patrick Strachan and excessive force used on Emmanuel McKenzie as two examples of inaction towards the report, as the organisation is unaware of any conclusion to either investigation.

He also criticised Government's refusal to release reports on the Carmichael Road Detention Centre.

Amnesty International calls on Government to:

Repeal all provisions allowing for the death penalty and immediately declare a moratorium on all executions;

Ensure that all complaints of excessive use of force by the security forces are subject to immediate, thorough and independent investigation and, if state agents are charged with misconduct, that their cases are brought to trial in an expeditious manner;

Amend existing legislation to ensure that marital rape is outlawed;

Ensure the full and effective implementation of the Domestic Violence Protection Order Act;

Implement migration policies that protect human rights, including ratifying and implementing the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.

Mr. Barnes added: "We are concerned first and foremost about human rights, however we always try to allow governments or the appropriate bodies sufficient time to follow proper protocol.

"Our job is simply to observe and note what's occurred. However, it is our fervent hope that a report on the Detention Centre is forthcoming."

December 05, 2009

tribune242

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

The CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) is A Work In Progress

CSME "A Work In Progress" 

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

6th June 2005

There are a number of elements of the CARICOM Single Market and Economy that have yet to be worked out, but the Caribbean Community hopes that The Bahamas will come onboard and sign the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas before the end of the year, according to CARICOM Secretary General Edwin Carrington.

While on the Love 97 programme, "Jones and Company", on Sunday, Mr. Carrington was unable to provide specifics on certain aspects of CSME, noting that the details are something that the heads of CARICOM will have to come up with.

"The CSME at the moment is a work in progress and the CARICOM countries that are involved are constructing this arrangement," he said.

Mr. Carrington indicated that there is still a whole lot to be worked out as it relates to the single economy.

"If you look at the treaty, you would see that the single economy has hardly been sketched out in the treaty document," he said.

"It has set out broad guidelines as to what would be involved in the single economy.  Essentially, the single economy is a process to move the economies of the region to certain common approaches in a number of areas that will enhance their competitiveness so that their productive capacity would be such that they can compete better in the international marketplace.

"That's the broad objective.  How you do that, what are the steps that you have to take, these are matters we are working on."

Another aspect of the CSME that has not yet been clearly worked out is the regional development fund which will be established to cushion the economic fallout that may result from the formation of the CSME, Mr. Carrington indicated.

He could not say specifically what contribution The Bahamas would have to make to the development fund.

Asked what this country's future with CARICOM would be if it does not sign the revised treaty, Mr. Carrington said it was a "political question".

"I'll tell you why," he said.  "The legal advice which we have is that this instrument, the revised treaty, including the single market and economy, does not provide as the previous instrument [did] for you to join the community and not the common market.  It is one integral product and joining it commits you to the entire product subject to, of course, reservations.

"So, if The Bahamas signs on, let's say, without reservations then it is committed fully to that.  If it wants not to participate in certain aspects of it then it would have to put forward reservations and get those accepted."

Mr. Carrington was also asked whether other CARICOM states could later challenge the reservations The Bahamas intends to secure.  He stressed that CARICOM is not a "fly by night" organization and if the sovereign states have signed certain reservations with The Bahamas, they stand and "no one can challenge them."

The Bahamas government has said that it wants to sign the revised treaty, but only if it is able to secure certain reservations against the free movement of people, the monetary union, the Caribbean Court of Justice at the appellate level, and the common external tariff.

"Let us assume that they have agreed to those reservations," Mr. Carrington said.  "That's it.  If you did not get the agreement that you wish, then I presume you would sit down and determine [whether you should] go in nevertheless or [whether you should] on the basis of not receiving these reservations not go in."

He again indicated that The Bahamas would be able to keep its reservations for as long as it sees fit.

"I'm not a head of government, but I would find it difficult to believe that [the heads] would not give them sympathetic consideration...They would not be changed without The Bahamas' agreement."

Echoing a familiar sentiment in the CSME debate, The show's co-host, Godfrey Eneas, asked the CARICOM Secretary General why The Bahamas with a per capita income of between $15,000 and $17,000 should be "saddled" with other countries with low per capita incomes.

But Mr. Carrington took issue with the use of the word saddled, saying it was unfortunate that Mr. Eneas would choose that word "because no one is saddled with any country."

"If I follow your argument, [The Bahamas] is seeking to enter the Free Trade Area of the Americas.  Then why should the rich U.S. saddle itself with a poor [Bahamas] in relative terms?  It seems to me first of all, the notion of saddling is wrong because you seem to suggest that you have to carry those countries.  That is not the case."

The show's host, Wendall Jones, then asked, "How do you answer the complaint of the criticism that the CSME is premature given the divergence of the states of the Caribbean, economically and socially.

Mr. Carrington responded, "To say that it's premature seems to suggest that there is some better time to come when you can do these things."

During the show, Mr. Jones also indicated that there are many Bahamians who have concerns about the right of establishment provision of the treaty.

Mr. Carrington explained that, "First of all, the principle of a right of establishment is that a national of a CARICOM member state has the right to establish a business in another member state in the community in the context of single market and be treated as a national of that particular country.

"My understanding is that a number of countries have identified areas in which they cannot accept [this].  I believe every country has certain exceptions.  I don't know that the exceptions that you are talking about would be acceptable or otherwise.  It's an area I hope that discussions would take place."

Mr. Jones asked, "Can you say if there is anything in the revised treaty that states that the right of establishment will not apply to the retail and wholesale sectors?"

The secretary general said, "No. I don't think that there is anything in the treaty which is that specific...Let me just remind you [that] The Bahamas would be seeking in my view a political situation.

"It may well be that in putting that in a document to the heads they may say, "Sorry, we can't accept that one.  In other words, I'm saying don't limit yourself to what the treaty says because we are talking about a political arrangement which The Bahamas government would seek with a view to implementing the treaty."

Mr. Carrington was also asked why he thinks the CSME is so unpopular in The Bahamas.

"I can see no rational reason for the widespread unpopularity as you've said," he answered.