A Significant Question in Reference to (One Billion Dollars) $1,000,000.00 in Public Money of the National Investment Fund (NIF) - Spent by The Bahamas Government

A Truly Defining Moment for The Bahamian People and The Bahamas

A Moment That Must be Documented for Posterity

By Lynden R. Nairn
Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

I do not recall there ever being a question involving as much as $1 billion in The Bahamas with so few answers.  This moment in our history requires documentation for posterity:

1. What is the Government saying?  The Government speaks loudest when it is invited to speak but it remains substantially silent.

2. What is the Official Opposition saying?

3. What are other political parties saying?

4. What is civil society saying?

5. What are individuals of goodwill saying?

This period will mark us.

It is likely to emerge that the Government will have satisfactory answers to many questions that are being raised.

However, in my judgment, it is without question that many questions are likely to remain unanswered.

And for those, myself included, who once thought a sovereign wealth fund was a brilliant idea, we will be incredibly shocked to see what this all means for that concept...aborted before birth.  Perhaps that is the saddest part of all.

Source / Comment

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

Political Issues in The Bahamas

Politics in The Bahamas

THE BAHAMAS: ELECTORAL REALITY, HISTORICAL STRUGGLE, AND THE WORK AHEAD

Saturday, 4 April 2026

4:07 PM Eastern Standard Time

Nassau, The Bahamas

By Craig F. Butler, Esq.

Today marks 58 years since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee — 4 April 1968.

He was killed standing on a balcony.

But what he represented was never killed.

Because the struggle he spoke to — dignity, justice, legitimacy, and the structure of power — did not end in Memphis.

It continues.

And we must be honest enough to say:

It continues here.

I. THE CONTINUITY OF STRUGGLE

We like to think of the African struggle as something external — something that happened “over there,” in America, in South Africa, in the streets of history.

But we are confronting our own version of that struggle right here in The Bahamas.

Not in the same form.

Not with the same violence.

But with the same underlying question:

👉 Who controls power?

👉 How is that power exercised?

👉 And who benefits from it?

II. THE PRESENT MOMENT — EMOTION VS LAW

Right now, the country is agitated.

People are speaking about:

• the voters’ register

• citizenship concerns

• passports

• electoral integrity

• governance and spending

And much of that concern is real.

But we must separate two things:

what is emotionally compelling

and, what is constitutionally possible.

III. THE LEGAL REALITY🇧🇸🇧🇸

Let me state this plainly and finally:

👉 The Prime Minister has exercised the prerogative to dissolve Parliament.

👉 The House is prorogued.

👉 The election is called.

That power is spent.

It is not reversible by public pressure.

It is not undone by commentary.

It is not halted by applications that do not meet constitutional threshold.

So let the Bahamian public understand clearly:

There is nothing — short of war, catastrophic disaster, or a true national emergency — that is going to stop the general election scheduled for 12 May 2026.

Not the courts.

Not politics.

Not outrage.

IV. THE HARD TRUTH

We have been talking about these issues for years.

Not one election.

Not two.

Multiple election cycles.

The voters’ register concerns are not new.  Citizenship questions are not new.  Administrative weaknesses are not new.

They are systemic.

So let us stop pretending that this moment created the problem.

It did not.

V. THE REAL ISSUE🇧🇸🇧🇸

This is where the country must mature.

The election is going forward.

👉 Votes will be cast

👉 Results will be declared

👉 A government will be sworn in

That is going to happen.

So the real question is no longer:  “Can we stop this election?”

The real question is:

👉 Why have we allowed this issue to persist for so long?

👉 And what are we going to do to fix it after the election?

VI. THE DANGER

Too many of our people are locked into budget politics:

- Who gets contracts

- Who controls spending

- Who distributes the billion dollars

That is not governance.  That is access to power disguised as democracy.

And until we confront that honestly, we will continue to recycle the same problems.

VII. THE WAY FORWARD

If we are serious, the work is clear:

• structural reform of the registration system

• modernization and digitization

• legal accountability where wrongdoing exists

• continuous audit — not election-time outrage

• and sustained national discipline beyond party politics

Because shouting at the moment of election will never fix a problem that has been growing for decades.

VIII. CLOSING

Dr. King fought for justice, but more importantly, he fought for structure — for a system that could sustain dignity, not just promise it.

That is the lesson.

Not emotion.  Not outrage.

Structure.

So let us be clear:

👉 This election is happening.

👉 These problems are not new.

👉 And the real work begins after the vote, not before it.

Because if we do not fix the system, we will be right back here again.

With Professional Respect Asé

CRAIG F. BUTLER ESQ.

Constitutional Theorist

Pan-African Methodology

Commonwealth of The Bahamas

Source / Comment

The Politically Immature and Thuggish Lincoln Bain

Mr. Lincoln Bain, Your childish apologies have become meaningless, weak, and lack substance

Mr Lincoln Bain, refrain from violence.  Focus on substance over spectacle, and let your vision for The Bahamas speak for itself

By Maria Russell
Freeport, G.B. Island, The Bahamas
In response to Tribune242 FaceBook Post,  Pintard Condems Lincoln Bain...

I'm not taking sides, but bullying, intimidation, and fear have no place in a democracy.  That was not the time and place.  It only takes away from the message of the protest.  These silly antics are a turn-off on all levels.  Mr. Pintard has nothing to prove.  He's already a Member of Parliament and the Official Opposition Leader by law as outlined in our constitution.

Mr. Bain, you, on the other hand, have a lot to prove to the Bahamian people, especially if you're serious and ready for mainstream politics.  To get into parliament, one would think that maturity, political sportsmanship, and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue would be essential.  If you two have a personal beef, maybe it would be wise to settle it out of the political spectrum.

You don't want to be known more for your radicalism than your message.  Having the loudest mouth is unnecessary and a turn-off.  Your apologies will become meaningless, weak, and lack substance.  Antics and polarization won't get you elected.  Empathy and humility will.

Refrain from violence.  Focus on substance over spectacle, and let your vision for the country speak for itself.  If the populace is to take you seriously, you must demonstrate leadership worthy of representing the Bahamas both domestically and internationally.  Your actions will be scrutinized globally, so it's crucial to maintain a level of maturity and statesmanship.  Anything less, undermines your message and credibility.

Source / Comment

Dr. Hubert Minnis - The Bahamas Official Opposition Leader is grossly and irredeemably incompetent as party leader as he continues to implode

Dr. Hubert Minnis: From very bad to much worse to disastrous

Within the first two months of 2015, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis has caused as much or perhaps even more damage to the FNM as he has over the previous two years-plus.  His performance has not improved.  He has gotten dramatically worse.  We are witnessing a political wreck of titanic proportions as he continues to implode.

Even some who supported his recent election as party leader are exasperated, having second thoughts: “Too many mistakes too soon”.

From the Bank of The Bahamas (BOB) episode to abandoning a party conclave to an extremely damaging senatorial firing and appointment fiasco – all within a matter of mere weeks – Minnis has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is grossly and irredeemably incompetent as party leader.

The party is hemorrhaging support from core supporters.  Many die-hard FNMs have decided that they will either not vote at the next general election or will vote DNA because they cannot bring themselves to vote PLP and they cannot support the FNM under Minnis.  The party is in a crisis of grave proportions.

Minnis has drafted a fatal political calculus.  Not only has he failed to rally the party’s base but he has also alienated much of that base.  He continues to divide the party because he seems incapable of sincerely reaching out to opposing voices beyond platitudes of unity.  A demoralized base and wider disaffection multiplied by disunity equals electoral disaster.

Since January, the party’s fortunes have been sinking weekly, fortunes which cannot be recovered under Minnis, whom arguably the bulk of the electorate has now written off as hopelessly and irretrievably out of his depth.

Having organized and begged for a second chance to prove himself and granted a reprieve, Minnis inexplicably imploded in breathtaking speed.  His actions bespeak a noxious concoction of unwarranted arrogance and inexhaustible political stupidity.

He and some avid supporters typically blame the news media, critics and others for his problems.  Their criticisms are misplaced.  His unending and mega-blunders are all self-inflected wounds, the result of arguably the worst political and policy judgment of any opposition leader since the advent of party politics.  His political judgment is hopelessly flawed.

Dumbstruck

It was not just the dull, vision-deprived, droning and dreadfully-delivered New Year’s address.  On top of this was the failed BOB march and Prime Minister Perry Christie’s subsequent withering assault on the opposition in the House of Assembly as Minnis sat dumbstruck, clueless and speechless.

It is unthinkable that Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, Sir Kendal Isaacs, Henry Bostwick, Hubert Ingraham and other opposition leaders would have sat so passively, dazed, out of their depth, unable to defend their party and themselves as they were getting licked with verbal two-by-fours – and over an issue where the governing party is acutely vulnerable. Absent his cue-cards and those who cue his actions, the leader of the opposition was clueless.

This was a singular test of Minnis’ leadership. He failed – spectacularly.  It is his failure alone.  He cannot play the victim.  His colleagues and rank-and-file FNMs were left leaderless on the field of battle as PLPs made sport of the FNM.

Minnis has demonstrated that he never possessed, does not now possess, nor will he likely ever possess the critical skills necessary to be an effective opposition leader, much less prime minister.

Those still nurturing the fantasy that he can be groomed for either office are living in a dream world that is resulting in nightmarish prospects for the FNM. Six months more will make no difference.

How much more support does the FNM have to hemorrhage before it becomes so anaemic and weakened that it will have no time to recover its electoral prospects? The good doctor is clearly not good for the recovery and health of the FNM.

Question for those who reluctantly or self-servingly organized and authorized his reprieve: How did you blindly imagine that things would be different?

In January, Minnis invited the party’s top brass as well as representatives from every constituency, a total of approximately 200, to a conclave convened to unify the party and to chart a strategy going forward.

Inexplicable

Then in one of the more inexplicable, supremely arrogant and politically stupid acts in modern Bahamian politics, he blew off the second day of the conclave to attend Junior Junkanoo in Eleuthera.

Wearing a pharaonic crown, he rushed his way into the political almanac, becoming, it appears, the only head of the FNM or PLP to abandon a conclave of his own party. Sir Lynden Pindling, Ingraham nor Christie would have pulled such a dismissive stunt. Then again he is not remotely in this league.

What made Minnis’ Eleuthera escapade even more bizarre is that the flight to the island is short and the event was held at night as seen in the photo inexplicably publicized by his team.

Party Chairman Michael Pintard unhelpfully advised that Minnis agreed the Junkanoo date earlier, suggesting that the latter is so gravely incompetent as to be unable to do basic scheduling.

Minnis likely abandoned the conclave for the very reason that he could not respond to Christie when challenged on the BOB march: he was hopelessly out of his depth and had no idea what to say.

Instead of embarrassing himself by speaking unscripted he went mute in the House and fled the conclave.  He is petrified of speaking unscripted. When he does, it is usually an unmitigated disaster. He seems to like instead to use subterfuge and politically subterranean tactics to advance his ends.

Despite the abysmal record of the PLP, the FNM is now in worse shape precisely because of Minnis’ re-election.  Having witnessed his previous disastrous two plus years, and horrified at his mega-blunders so far this year, voters and FNMs at large have surmised that the party cannot be taken seriously.

The albatross strangling the political fortunes of the FNM was and remains Minnis, replete with his jumble of grave insecurities, autocratic and non-collegial leadership style, vindictive actions and incomprehensible incompetence which often makes even a bumbling Perry Christie seem like a model of political leadership.

All of which may be seen in his senatorial firing and appointment fiasco, a case study in Minnis’ flawed leadership.  Every step along the way was a blunder.  To begin with, senators should not have been appointed with a de facto time limit.  This makes a mockery of the Senate which is the Upper House of Parliament signified by the fact that its members carry the title of honorable.

Bungled

After the recent convention, the brooding Minnis seemed to have drawn up an enemies list of those not personally loyal to him. In what appears a highly vindictive move, Heather Hunt, a well-regarded political talent, was unceremoniously dismissed because she reportedly backed Long Island MP Loretta Butler-Turner. Her firing was bungled. Will Minnis now seek to push aside, punish and deny nominations to those MPs and aspiring candidates who did not support his election?

His excuse for the dismissal of Hunt unwittingly put at risk the Senate tenure of a purported supporter in the person of Senator Kwasi Thompson, a fine person and a competent parliamentarian, who people now expect to be replaced based on Minnis’ proffered rationale for dismissing Hunt.

Minnis is incapable of dealing with internal opposition and unifying the FNM because of such paralyzing insecurities.  He is making the same mistakes as before.  He knows no other way.  This pattern is so entrenched that he seems incapable of genuinely changing it, incapable of bringing the FNM “all together”.

Minnis allowed the appointment of a new senator to spin out of control and to become a public spectacle.  Instead of effectively mounting an opposition to the government’s mass of mistakes, the FNM has remained on the defensive.

He appears to have courted the hotel union president as the new senator.  This was another mind-boggling mistake, with obvious potential conflicts of interest.

There are reports that he offered the appointment to former candidate Monique Gomez and then reneged on the offer.  In the event, his appointment has alienated scores in the party including senior figures, some of his supporters and many in the Women’s Association.

The appointment to the Senate of a novice with a meteoric rise, thanks to Minnis, and with little stature and bona fides in the party, has distressed many.  It may prove Minnis’ worst blunder yet.  Her initial comments, even before her swearing-in, have been inauspicious and problematic, including her dismissal of members of the Women’s Association as “emotional”.

Those who thought that Minnis’ paralyzing weaknesses were malleable and could be mitigated will be proved wrong time and again. He will often continue to coo the right things to certain individuals and then do the wrong thing.  It is now up to key members of the party and the rank and file to change direction before it is too late.

Collectively, Minnis’ string of disasters constitutes an overwhelming case for change as soon as possible.

 

• frontporchguardian@gmail.com, www.bahamapundit.com.

thenassauguardian

The Value Added Tax (VAT) debate in The Bahamas ...and the Bahamian politicians, politics and healthy political discourse involved...

Bahamas will ‘pay savagely’ for VAT politics

Consultant fears VAT delay would lead to credit downgrading, loss of policy choices

BY ALISON LOWE
Guardian Business Editor
alison@nasguard.com
Nassau, The Bahamas

The Bahamas will “pay savagely” if plans to implement valued added tax (VAT) gets “bogged down in politics”, a consultant to the government has warned, suggesting that delays in implementing the new revenue measure could lead to serious fiscal woes.

Noting some of the negative response to the proposed new regime to date, Ishmael Lightbourne told Guardian Business that there is “no question” that the new tax regime would represent good fodder for political fireworks when the legislation is introduced in Parliament.

However, pointing to the situation in crisis-stricken Greece, Lightbourne said that The Bahamas’ choice is one of either implementing VAT – or some other revenue raising measure – or being forced to implement new taxes or expenditure cutbacks by “external forces”, like the southern European country.

“I think the essential issue is the country’s fiscal position which is consistently showing a deficit gap, and that is not getting better from our present tax regime, and we are putting ourselves further and further into deficits and national debt,” he said.

“In that position, my focus has always been that if we do not get off that path, we’ll be losing a chance to voluntarily make these changes in terms of expanding the revenue base or reducing the cost of government. When we can’t do that ourselves, external forces come in and impose certain conditions. If you look at Greece, Greece has been under IMF watch or care, and they are having to do things like cut some 12,500 public servants. Those are the types of issues we want to try to avoid.”

Highlighting a continuous “gap” between government’s revenues and expenditures in recent years that has led to a spiralling national debt, which stands at 60 percent of GDP and is projected to hit $4.8 billion by the end of this fiscal year, Lightbourne suggested that The Bahamas’ fiscal situation could take a turn for the worst if a further downgrade occurs as a result of international agencies perceiving that The Bahamas is not committed to fiscal reform, which would increase borrowing costs.

The situation to date is already “pretty dismal”, he highlighted in a recent presentation to the Bahamas Society of Engineers, with the government borrowing to pay administrative and operational expenses such as salaries racking up around $200 million in recurrent deficits alone per year as a result.

To date, it is unclear exactly how the official opposition, the FNM, will respond to the VAT plans. Earlier this year, former junior finance minister Zhivargo Laing suggested that had the party been re-elected during the last

general election, it would have implemented VAT within two to three years of taking office.

In a recent statement, FNM Chairman Darron Cash suggested there need to be more “public discussion” on VAT and the government was not doing a good job on the education process.

The Democratic National Alliance, headed by former FNM Minister Branville McCartney, has recently come out against the tax. In an email sent to supporters yesterday entitled “VAT will destroy us”, the party which ran a slate of candidates in the last election tells supporters that if VAT is implemented, The Bahamas “will never be the same”.

“The cost of living will be going up, the cost of your food, your cable bill and school fees!” said the party.

During an appearance on Guardian Radio’s “Coffee Break”, DNA Chairman Andrew Wilson charged that the tax will destroy the middle class and suggested the government consider a sales tax instead.

Lightbourne said: “You have to look in the real world of politics, any opportunity that presents itself for the opposition to catapult itself in the political arena, they will take. That’s the nature of politics. Now whether they will do that to the detriment of country and allow government to be the fall guy, I’m not sure, [but] that may be their strategy...”

The VAT consultant said that in a recent presentation to the Killarney Constituency Association on VAT, Opposition Leader and Killarney MP Hubert Minnis “made no comment.”

He said that a presentation on VAT to the entire parliament has “yet to come off” but he is hopeful that one can be made shortly.

“They need to be able to see the issues and challenges that we face as a country and how we go about resolving those issues. I’m still hoping that will happen so we can bring to their attention the kind of decisions that need to be made. No matter who is government these issues will present themselves and won’t go away.”

“It’s not VAT or nothing, it’s got to be VAT or something, in order to close this enormous gap we have growing by the year,” he added.

Pauline Peters, another newly-hired VAT consultant and a former head of Grenada’s inland revenue service who led the implementation of VAT in that country, told Guardian Business that while that country may remain challenged with reducing its debt burden, the introduction of VAT in 2010 in Grenada has been helpful.

“It has certainly raised additional revenue that can assist in that process (of reducing debt). One would recognize that the revenue is going to the consolidated fund and the government would prioritize with respect to how that is spent.

“There would’ve been areas that would’ve benefited from increased revenue, such as infrastructural development in the country, the social safety net would’ve been increased, and other financial issues that government would’ve been dealing with.”

October 01, 2013

thenassauguardian