Viewpoint on The Golden Isles By-Election

Perspectives on The Golden Isles By-Election - Monday 24 November, 2025

From Sean McWeeny, former PLP Cabinet Minister and Attorney General

Some random takeaways on yesterday’s bye-election:

1. That crown on Pintard’s head can rest more securely today than yesterday.   By performing impressively in yesterday’s bye-election (even winning a majority of the polling divisions 8-6), the FNM and Pintard can point to all that as evidence that he is indeed a viable leader of a resurgent Party - no need to send a SOS out to Papa!

2. The COI lost its deposit yesterday (you need to get more than 1/6th or 16.6% of the total votes cast to save your deposit).  With only 6% of the vote, the COI fell well short of that.

Frankly, for all the noise they were making and all the social media coverage they were getting, I thought they would have done better than they did (then again voters may have had Lincoln-fatigue by the end of it all). Still, they prevented the PLP from winning an outright majority of the total votes cast yesterday.  It could also be argued that the COI cost the FNM the election yesterday by garnering 221 votes which, if added to the FNM’s tally, would have given the FNM the victory.  But that’s what spoilers do.   And the COI are certainly shaping up to be spoilers in “close“ seats in the next General Election. Bottom line : they can't win but they can cause you to lose.

3. Darren Pickstock has a lot to be personally proud of and so do Brave Davis, Jerome Fitzgerald and Kevin Simmons (the latter two as campaign managers).  Darren came into Golden Isle a virtual unknown to constituents (in contrast to the FNM’s candidate who had good solid history there).  In just 41 days, Darren made the rounds, showed himself to be a class act from start to finish, and ended up in victory.

4. Finally, the PLP has its work cut out for it.  Yesterday’s results will no doubt be seen (and felt) as a knock in the head, all the more so when one considers the massive firepower and resources the government had brought to bear.

All of it turned out to be a bit underwhelming if the final count is anything to go by.  But the PLP will no doubt see the results as a call to re-assess, reset, and do some things differently in the run-up to the Big One.  If, however, yesterday’s results are interpreted as an affirmation that all is hunky-dorry and right on track, or if nothing but excuses are forthcoming now as to why the PLP didn’t get more votes yesterday, the cycle that has seen every single governing party in the past five General Elections get tossed out after just one term is bound to repeat itself - again.  Sean

The Opposition PLP and the COVID-19 alter of sickness and death in The Bahamas

We are in a general election season in The Bahamas, and all common sense and logic seem to be thrown out the window

By Dennis Dames

COVID-19 is right in our faces, and we don’t see it for what it is. It’s a highly contagious killer virus that’s mutating rapidly into more lethal strains. The coronavirus is a global force to be reckoned with right now, and it is dubbed the invisible enemy for good reasons – because of its potentially devastating impact on the international front.

It is a serious danger to worldwide peace and stability. COVID-19 is also a grave threat to universal commerce and relationships. Every nation appears to be uneasy about their immediate future because of the raging coronavirus.

It doesn’t look like our political leaders get it. We are in a general election season in The Bahamas, and all common sense and logic seem to be thrown out the window, in my view. For example, I saw a PLP ad recently which states that a PLP government will implement free COVID-19 testing and so on.

What does free COVID-19 testing have to do with the reality that COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire now? What does free COVID-19 testing have to do with our overcrowded hospitals and morgue at this time? How will free COVID-19 testing curb the spread of COVID-19 in a tourist-dependent economy? How will free COVID-19 testing stop new COVID-19 variants from entering the country?

Let’s get real, PLP. The focus, in my humble opinion, is to convince our hardheaded unvaccinated brothers and sisters to get vaccinated soon. After all, they comprise the vast majority of COVID-19 hospital and morgue clients – 90 percent-plus.

It’s a pity and tragedy that the PLP is prepared to sacrifice many Bahamians on the COVID-19 alter of sickness and death. We lack national unity on such a dreadful issue, PLP; and all of us should be ashamed of it. It’s sad that winning an election tomorrow appears more important than saving Bahamian lives today.

Things are getting absolutely toxic and dire with the livid COVID-19 virus throughout the universe. We need to unite as one people and resolve to fight COVID-19 together. The unvaccinated is the big problem in the battle to defeat COVID-19.

Medical statistics everywhere show this, yet fools are determined to be fools. Yes PLPs, you could continue to promote your time-wasting, money-wasting and bogus free COVID test promise while our unvaccinated folks remain wickedly vulnerable to an unmerciful foe.

Yes PLP, all of your leaders are fully vaccinated. Why is it that they don’t want to share the wisdom and joy of vaccination with the unvaccinated citizens? 

Take note, PLP: There are only two choices to deal with COVID-19 – go back to lockdown, or keep the economy open.

If we choose the latter, then we must encourage the unvaccinated among us to get vaccinated. If we fail to do so, sickness, death and misery will rain down on us like a ton of bricks – and your free testing promise will prove to be dead on arrival.

Bahamas: ...The old Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) lost its way long ago ...and the so-called ‘new PLP’ has failed to find it

Sir Lynden’s and the PLP’s entitled imperial court

By frontporchguardian@gmail.com

During the 2012 general election, Sir Lynden Pindling’s widow took to the political stage as a part of the PLP’s strategy to use the late prime minister’s legacy to help the party secure victory. It is debatable how successful was the strategy.

In her appearances, Dame Marguerite sought not only to burnish Sir Lynden’s legacy, which is considerable, and much of which is admirable and contributed extraordinarily to national development.

But many in the country at large, including many PLPs, were dismayed by her tone and remarks which harkened to a darker period in the nation’s history.

Once again on vivid display was that entrenched entitlement and imperious mentality of the Pindling Court: Don’t forget what we did for you and never forget that you owe us.

Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham was chastised as a mere recipient of the favors and consideration of the court, who had supposedly turned on his political masters and benefactors.

It was a not-so-subtle reminder to party Leader Perry Christie and all other supplicants expected to offer life-long obeisance to the court.

Seemingly, the PLP is a Pindling-owned and branded enterprise merely on loan to various caretakers who are to be held accountable to the dynasty. All of which arises from an extraordinary combination of historical revisionism, mythology and hagiography.

 

Berated

At one of the rallies Dame Marguerite berated Ingraham for the way in which she felt he treated her husband after the latter left office. Missing was any reference to the effusive thanks extended to Ingraham by Sir Lynden’s oldest son Obafemi Pindling at the funeral of his father, and which Ingraham graciously declined to use in response.

What has stunned, grated on, and even enraged so many of this lament is Lady Pindling’s seemingly absolute dismissal of the degrading and vicious treatment of many Bahamians by Sir Lynden and his court during his 25-year reign.

It was a ruthless and vindictive era. Dissidents and opponents were to be destroyed. And, quite a number were destroyed.

Lukewarm supporters and half-steppers were reminded of the price of disfavor: a quick call to a bank to stop a loan, blocked access to a job or to a scholarship for a child seeking to go to college, denial of a work permit for a spouse, and a catalogue of indignities and injustices.

There was gross and constant intimidation and victimization including the callous deportation of foreign spouses resulting in exile or the ruin of Bahamian families.

Those who opposed certain policies or wrong-doings or the court’s greed and corruption were set for abuse and ridicule, including veterans of the movement like the champion of Bahamian culture Edmund Moxey and the brilliant Carlton Francis.

Francis was cruelly ridiculed by Sir Lynden from a public platform. He said of Francis who had participated in a public demonstration, “ ... And all I could see was suit!”, mocking a dying man thinned by the cancer ravaging his body.

Outstanding Bahamian educator and civil servant Leonard Archer fared even worse. After he participated in a demonstration by teachers, Lady Pindling publicly asked: “What are we going to do about Leonard Archer?” The next day he was fired by her husband “in the public interest”!

Tellingly, and of tremendous historical significance, more than half of those who formed the first majority rule government eventually left the PLP. Yet there is the laughable conceit within the PLP of its superior nationalism. It is a chauvinistic boast in a party given to all manner of chauvinism.

Even at the time when the Dissident Eight were leaving the party that they helped to build and contributed mightily to majority rule, Paul Adderley, then leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP), commented on their departure noting that the PLP was losing much of the soul of the party.

Decades later, following the death of Charles Maynard, a former PLP grandee remarked that the FNM is now the more progressive of the two major parties. Maynard’s father, Andrew ‘Dud’ Maynard, an undoubted nationalist who toiled long and hard for the PLP, recently noted that the party he once knew and supported had lost its way.

 

Corrupted

Parties of liberation and majority rule cum independence often lose their way, corrupted by temptations of extraordinary political and economic power. Examples abound across the globe. The PLP is but one example of the chauvinism and sense of entitlement that sometimes develops in such parties.

The boundaries between party and state are blurred. By example, what should be afforded an individual or a business as an opportunity arising from one’s rights as a citizen is twisted instead into a grant of favor by the party.

During the reign of Sir Lynden’s imperial court, many business people had to beg or bribe party officials for the grant of all manner of business licences and permits.

Independence leaders often become unaccountable and untouchable with their excesses dismissed. Further, the assets of the state are spoils to be divided with plundering zeal by select interests.

Soon after coming to office Sir Lynden effectively destroyed Bahamas Airways – after his own government had negotiated with a consortium including the hugely successful Cathay Pacific to make the local airline truly international. He summarily broke a prior agreement with Cathay Pacific by awarding certain routes to Bahamas World Airways, an airline conceived by his friend Everette Bannister and scoffingly referred to by many Bahamians as “the paper airline”.

In so doing he destroyed a golden opportunity for the country, resulting in the loss of an expanded local airline and causing a drain of approximately half a billion dollars from the treasury to keep Bahamasair operational.

Imagine what could have been done in terms of national development with half a billion dollars, not to mention a well-managed airline serving cities throughout the Americas. So much for being the party of superior nationalism.

The PLP did considerable work in advancing the national good. But many of the promises of majority rule were stillborn as the party abandoned a genuine nationalism for a pseudo nationalism that routinely touted and celebrated its liberation credentials even as it plunged the country into some of our darkest days.

That national nightmare involved a ‘nation for sale’ or lease to drug barons resulting in mass corruption, the destruction of scores of Bahamians who became addicted to crack cocaine or the easy money associated with the demon drug, and a ripping apart of our social fabric, from which we are still suffering up to this day.

Despite all of this, Sir Lynden and his court showed scant remorse. It is chilling and deeply disturbing still to read the Commission of Inquiry Report into this nightmarish period and to peruse some of the evidence given.

 

Oligarchy

The PLP, the supposed party of superior nationalism, is today an oligarchy of special interests which uses the rhetoric and politics of nationalism to win elections with sloganeering such as “Bahamians First”, then governs mostly in its own interest.

This is the party in which one senior PLP bragged of selling off more land than the FNM, the party of the Great Mayaguana Land Giveaway, the party in which the two top senior leaders have a clear conflict of interest with an oil exploration company.

Having militantly opposed advancing the rights of women in terms of passing on certain rights of citizenship, the party holds a special session of parliament to brag about its commitment to women and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of women attaining the right to vote.

There is a pattern here. The PLP, often quite effectively, employs the symbols and the narratives of nationalism to reinforce its credentials as the nationalist party. The FNM has often played into its hands.

Given repeated opportunities to make January 10 a national holiday, the FNM was often on the defensive, unsure of how to embrace and burnish its own commitment to a more expansive vision of the national good.

Sir Lynden and his court did not try to destroy the Dissident Eight and others in spite of who they were. The PLP tried to destroy them and to deny their nationalist credentials precisely because of who they were and what they represented.

It is a feature of the sociology of organizations, from churches to political parties, that dissidents have to be destroyed and branded as heretics and traitors when they call into question how the organization to which they were dedicated may have betrayed its ideals and the people they were committed to serving.

The old PLP lost its way long ago and the so-called ‘new PLP’ has failed to find it. The party remains dedicated to a certain chauvinism, on stark display at the recent election as the widow of the party’s longest serving leader reminded Bahamians of what it feels that the country still owes the PLP’s entitled imperial court.

September 19, 2013

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International

Peter Nygard's Relationship with the Bahamian Government creates Unwelcomed Perceptions

A worrying affair

Billionaire’s relationship with govt creates unwelcomed perceptions

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

In the world of politics, the power of perceptions can never be overstated or overestimated.

The government went into overdrive in Parliament last week, defending its dealings with the controversial Finnish-born, billionaire fashion designer Peter Nygard, who is a permanent resident of The Bahamas residing at Lyford Cay.

But it was trailing behind the bad public relations it had already received on the matter.

The perceptions created by Nygard’s “Take back The Bahamas” video, his flamboyant frolicking with government ministers and his hero’s welcome in Grand Bahama on Thursday renewed debate on money in politics.

The controversial video was one of several that made the rounds in social media last week.

That video showed Nygard celebrating the Progressive Liberal Party’s 2012 general election win while watching Prime Minister Perry Christie’s victory rally address.

Nygard proclaimed as he watched, “Yes.   We got our country back.”

Later in the eight-minute video, a group of new Cabinet ministers is shown at Nygard Cay for a meeting with Nygard.

Some of the ministers involved have branded the visit as casual and blasted the Free National Movement’s claim that it proved that the government is too compromised to govern.

Although at the time the spark failed to erupt into anything significant, the firestorm over Nygard has its genesis in a claim made by Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis more than two weeks ago, that the government was bringing a stem cell bill merely to appease Nygard.

Strangely enough, Prime Minister Perry Christie responded to that accusation when he raised the issue at Jones Communications Network’s “40 under 40” awards luncheon on July 12.

Nygard was present as he received an award for his contribution to youth development in The Bahamas and later told the crowd that Christie was a great prime minister who deserved full support for his programs.

In comments that seemed misplaced for the event, Christie explained that Nygard had approached him while he was leader of the opposition and explained that he would attract experts in stem cell therapy and research to The Bahamas if legislation is passed.

A newspaper supplement from the Junkanoo Corporation of New Providence last week that featured Nygard, said he gets anti-aging stem cell therapy four times a year.

The video that made the rounds last week shows him injecting himself with something, but it was unclear what it was.

Another video that went viral shows Nygard walking the streets of Bain Town a few weeks ago.

He was accompanied by prominent pastors Bishop Simeon Hall and Rev. Dr. Philip McPhee and others.

The group stopped outside the church of Rev. C. B. Moss, who has been promoting his Save Clifton message for well over a decade. Clifton is a stone’s throw away from Nygard’s compound, Nygard Cay.

Moss is urging the government to reject what he said is an application from Nygard to lease newly created land in the area.

In that video, Nygard bizarrely proclaims: “I have been dedicated to this country more than any single person in this whole country. There’s testimonial after testimonial.”

With the controversy over Nygard raging, Minister V. Alfred Gray, one of the ministers in the “Nygard Takes Back The Bahamas” video, declared to reporters last Tuesday, “Mr. Nygard is a Bahamian.

“He is a philanthropist, and I think he has given more to this country than many other Bahamians, including those who criticize him.”

In the House of Assembly the following day, government officials corrected that statement, saying Nygard is a permanent resident.

This came amid debate on the stem cell bill. For hours on Wednesday, the Nygard matter distracted from the substance of the debate as minister after minister flew on the defensive.

There is no doubting that Peter Nygard has made substantial contributions over the years to sports and youth development.

He has also acknowledged he financially helped both the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement.

In an affidavit last year, he said he was a “major backer” of Perry Christie and the PLP.

Christie has said that because donors expect anonymity, it is not for him to say who donated to his campaign and how much.

Legally, he has no obligation to make such disclosures.

Montagu MP Richard Lightbourn’s “word on the street” claim that Nygard pumped $5 million into the PLP’s campaign was just that — hearsay.

But there is a certain uneasiness, an unsettling element to Nygard’s cozy relationship with the Christie administration.

The government it seems will not take the approach and move the Nygard matter under the radar.

On Thursday, Nygard landed in Grand Bahama to great fanfare. He was greeted at the airport by Minister for Grand Bahama Dr. Michael Darville and other officials.

Miss Grand Bahama was also on hand, and there was a Junkanoo rush-out with a banner proclaiming, “Grand Bahama welcomes Peter Nygard”.

Darville said Nygard was there to attend a youth conference he sponsored and was also a guest of the Grand Bahama Port Authority. He said Nygard was in town to discuss business opportunities.

The laying out of the red carpet and Junkanoo greeting received by Nygard appeared excessive and unnecessary and fanned the flames of a still brewing controversy.

When was the last time the prime minister received such a grand welcome to Grand Bahama, or has he ever?

Christie and his ministers broke no law in their dealings with Peter Nygard, but the prime minister ought to be worried about the kinds of perceptions the whole affair is creating.

Pointing to Ingraham administration dealings with investors and raising criticisms in this regard is not enough.

No, it is not enough to point out what the government said is a double standard in how it is treated compared to the treatment received by the former administration on these matters.

Ingraham and the FNM were sent packing last year.

The Nygard issue is yet another distraction for Christie, and it hints at the nasty Mohammed Harajchi scandal, which erupted under his first term in government.

 

Scandal

In diplomatic cables reported on by The Nassau Guardian two years ago, the Americans either had a fascination with The Bahamas’ lack of campaign finance laws, or deep concerns about this, because they widely discussed the issue of money in politics in their cables to Washington, DC.

They noted in a 2004 cable: “Both of The Bahamas' two major political parties live in glass houses when it comes to campaign contributions.”

The cable traced the Mohammed Harajchi controversy — a situation in which political contributions backfired in a very nasty and public way.

The Iranian businessman claimed that he had been approached, either directly or via intermediaries, by “90 percent of the (Christie) Cabinet” for campaign contributions, had helped to refurbish PLP headquarters, and had underwritten several PLP political rallies, among other things.

Harajchi denied that his contributions (allegedly $10 million) were designed to gain reinstatement of his bank's operating license, which had been revoked in 2001.

At a press conference, the PLP emphasized that it is neither illegal nor improper for political parties in The Bahamas to accept donations from individuals, and highlighted attention on Harajchi's confirmation that he had received no favor or promise in exchange for his financial donation.

Christie promised a full accounting of Harajchi’s contributions to the PLP, but never provided any information in this regard.

In a 2006 cable, still on the subject of money in politics, an American diplomat wrote that it is “widely accepted” that the government’s extradition of convicted drug dealer Samuel ‘Ninety’ Knowles would lead to “withdrawal of an important source of election funding”.

“As one Cabinet minister observed, there are no controls or limits other than the conscience of the politician,” the diplomat wrote. “In addition, money can come from any source, including international donors.”

The cable said millions of dollars were allegedly obtained from “questionable sources” in the 2002 campaign.

 

Financing

The need for a law to govern campaign financing is something many politicians have discussed over the years.

In 1980, a comprehensive proposed act “to make provision for the registration of political parties; for the regulation and control of political contributions; for the public funding of elections and for other purposes incidental thereto and connected therewith” never made it to the halls of Parliament.

Perhaps it’s because there was no political will to do so.

More than 30 years after the campaign finance bill was drafted, there are still calls from some politicians — and from other Bahamians — for a law to govern money in politics.

Last week, Christie said it is something he is willing to address, but he has said that in the past many times.

While he was prime minister, Hubert Ingraham said he did not believe that campaign financing laws are necessary, adding that the government cannot “legislate honesty”.

However, Ingraham said he would have no difficulty whatsoever disclosing the sources of his political financing.

Ingraham invited a team of officials from the Organization of American States to observe last year’s general election.

That team has recommended “the adoption of a legal framework on the financing of political parties and campaigns in order to enhance the accountability, transparency and equity of the democratic process”.

Whether the current administration will adopt this recommendation, remains to be seen.

No matter how hard the current government pushes back on the Nygard affair, it is leaving a bitter taste in many mouths.

Nygard it appears has been given the keys to the country, but the government has stressed repeatedly that it is not for sale.

It is now for the prime minister to strike the right balance between welcoming him as a prospective investor while fighting against any perception that he is wielding undue influence because of his contributions to the PLP and various national causes.

Even if it is only a perception that he is wielding influence, that perception could be damaging for Christie and his government.

Christie ought not let arrogance on the part of his ministers cause this controversy to get any more out of hand.

July 22, 2013

thenassauguardian

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie backtracked on a statement he made a week ago ...confirming that Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) was benefiting from advice he was providing as a consultant for Davis and Co. law firm

Christie backtracks on oil statment

PLP leader contradicts earlier admission on issue

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie last night backtracked from a statement he made a week ago confirming that Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) was benefiting from advice he was providing as a consultant for Davis & Co. law firm.

Christie said in a statement he no longer works as a consultant for the firm. He said the professional relationship was severed “well before” the issue became a controversy.

However, the press release contradicted statements Christie made during a recent telephone interview with The Nassau Guardian that was recorded with his consent.

In that interview, Christie indicated he was still providing advice for BPC, which is seeking approval from the Bahamas government to drill for oil in Bahamian waters.

Last Thursday, Christie said he is a consultant for Davis & Co. and gives legal advice for BPC. He made no mention of the relationship being over — in fact refering to the advice he is ‘now’ giving.

“It’s not a conflict because the advice I’m giving now has nothing to do with any decisions I [will] make as prime minister,” he said.

Davis & Co., the law firm owned by Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Deputy Leader Philip Davis, is one of two Bahamian firms that represent the oil company.

“Once we became in Opposition, part of the professional services I render is by way of a legal consultancy to Davis & Co,” the PLP leader said last week.

“As a part of the legal consultancy, I consult on work the firm deems I am qualified by the office I’ve had, by the knowledge I have in terms of government and by my own grasp of the legal principles involved in issues to do with governance. So that is my consultancy and that embraces whether [it’s] matters of tourism or in this case, Bahamas Petroleum.”

The revelation that Christie is providing advice for BPC was made by Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham last week, after Ingraham was asked by The Nassau Guardian about the issue of oil drilling.

Christie confirmed he was providing advice through Davis & Co. after he was contacted by The Guardian and questioned on the matter.

During that interview, Christie expanded on the advice he gives to the oil company through Davis & Co.

“If there is an issue they need advice on, if they need someone to speak to the issue of environmental impacts, the issue of whether or not in my judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ, who should go on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm in the event that the firm regards it as necessary they would consult me on it — those are the services I provide,” Christie said.

Last night, he said his working relationship with Davis & Co. and BPC is over.

“Well before this current controversy, which is motivated solely by Ingraham’s last-minute attempts to derail his impending loss, my consulting arrangement with Davis & Co., which represented BPC among many other clients, had expired.  Thus, I am not currently advising BPC in any manner,” said the statement.

Christie’s admission last week has been the subject of several attacks from Ingraham and the Free National Movement.

On Wednesday night, Ingraham labeled Christie an oil lobbyist and said the PLP leader’s ability to lead the country is now compromised because of his relationship with BPC.

Yesterday, members of the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) demonstrated outside the Office of the Leader of the Opposition on Parliament Street and demanded his resignation over the matter.

Last night, Christie said the criticism was politically motivated and added that his ethics are above reproach.

“They are losing, we are winning, and they are inventing new charges and distractions,” he said.

Christie added that when permits for oil exploration were granted by his administration he ensured that stringent environmental restrictions were imposed.

He said the Ingraham administration did not adhere to the same strict policies when it granted oil exploration licenses.

“The current prime minister had a different approach, issuing oil exploration permits with no serious environmental conditions whatsoever,” Christie said.

Christie also said if the PLP wins the next election oil drilling would only be considered once there is a full regulatory system to ensure that stringent safety and environmental protection systems are in place and after there is a national consensus on the issue.

Christie said his party would put the issue to a national referendum if necessary.

Apr 27, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamas Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham ...says that there would be no oil drilling in Bahamian waters if his party - the Free National Movement (FNM) is re-elected to office

The Bahamas PM: FNM government won’t drill for oil

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said yesterday - there would be no oil drilling in Bahamian waters if his party is re-elected to office.

Asked if his administration would allow drilling if returned to power, he said ‘no’.

Ingraham added that Bahamas Petroleum Company Plc. (BPC) — the company licensed to explore for oil in Bahamian waters — has direct ties to Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie and other senior members of the party.

In 2005, BPC began its negotiations with the Christie administration for its various permits and licenses to look for oil in the country’s territorial waters.

Since then the company has only done 2-D and 3-D underwater seismic testing to figure out the best areas to drill for oil and get a better handle on the country’s oil potential.

However, in 2010 the Ingraham administration placed a moratorium on new oil exploration or drilling licenses. The moratorium came after the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“We are undertaking studies and after that we will see, but we don’t have any plans to drill for oil in The Bahamas,” Ingraham said.

He was responding to questions put to him by The Nassau Guardian after he completed a tour of Bains Town and Grants Town yesterday.

“They (BPC) are very much tied to Perry Christie and those,” Ingraham said.

“In fact, I think he may be a consultant for them. He is certainly involved with them.”

Ingraham also suggested that attorney Sean McWeeney, a former PLP attorney general, is also tied to BPC.

On its website, under company advisors, BPC lists the law firm Davis & Co., run by PLP Deputy Leader Philip Brave Davis, as part of its Bahamian legal team.

McWeeney’s law firm Graham Thompson & Co. is listed as the second firm representing BPC in The Bahamas. McWeeney is a partner in the firm.

A press release posted on BPC’s website and published in Offshore magazine, said the company “now looks forward to the outcome of the Bahamian elections.

“Whatever the result, it anticipates a refreshed mandate to support exploration,” the press release said.

Ingraham said yesterday The Bahamas’ waters are too pristine and important for the country’s tourism product to risk drilling for oil.

“We’ve seen what happened in Louisiana with oil drilling,” Ingraham said, referring to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

BPC’s CEO Simon Potter recently told Guardian Business that drilling an oil well by April 26, 2013 was an important benchmark for the company. However, BPC’s current oil drilling license is set to expire this month.

Potter said he was confident that the company would receive an extension from the government; the renewal is subject to the company meeting certain obligations, terms and conditions.

Last September, the company began compiling its 3-D seismic data.

There is reportedly a 25 to 33 percent chance of oil being found under The Bahamas’ territorial ocean floor.

The company has also submitted its environmental impact assessment to the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology Commission (BEST).

Apr 19, 2012

thenassauguardian

General Election in The Bahamas: ...Bahamians are expected to turn up at the polls in record numbers to vote in a new government - May 07, 2012

2012: The FNM’s new plan

The governing party puts forward its vision for the next five years

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.co

Nassau, The Bahamas

With three weeks left until the general election, two of the three major parties jockeying for your vote on May 7 have released their blueprints for governance.  Last Thursday night, before thousands of jubilant supporters who converged at R.M. Bailey Park for a mass rally, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham unveiled the Free National Movement’s Manifesto 2012.

The FNM’s extensive, 120-page document touches on the party’s plans to reduce and prevent crime, tackle illegal immigration, improve the country’s educational system, diversify the economy, reform the tax system and improve life for all Bahamians.  It places a heavy focus on youth development, national volunteering, business expansion and economic development of the Family Islands.

On Thursday afternoon, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA) released its Vision 2012 and Beyond – a document which sets out that party’s policies on crime, immigration, the economy and social issues.  At the time of writing this article, the official opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had yet to release its five-year blueprint, called “Our Plan”.  However, the party asserted that it had been releasing critical components of Our Plan, such as its crime fighting platform Project Safe Bahamas and a mortgage relief scheme for homeowners facing foreclosure, over the past several months.

While this is by no means an exhaustive look at Manifesto 2012, I have highlighted a few areas which should be of concern to voters.

Crime

In no other area has this administration faced more criticism and backlash than its crime fighting strategy.  Murders climbed to record levels under the FNM’s watch and incidents of other violent crime and anti-social behavior grabbed headlines during the past five years, in spite of the myriad of policies the government put in place to curb violence.

Critics from the opposition maintain that the government failed to deliver on its 2007 mandate for crime fighting and continue to lay the blame for the crime statistics at the government’s feet.  It is not surprising then that the fight against crime is listed as the main concern of the next FNM administration.

“Ensuring the safety and security of all Bahamians is our number one priority,” the manifesto says. “The business of police must be preventing crime not simply responding to it...  Our aim is not just to control bad behavior but to change it.”

In the document, the FNM lays out 11 ways it plans to ensure that the Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) not only responds to crime, but also helps to prevent criminal behavior.  The FNM plans to accomplish this by increasing the police’s visibility and presence on the streets.  Low visibility is a common complaint from many in society who feel that officers spend too much time in their squad rooms and not enough time patrolling known criminal hot spots and neighborhoods which have become targets for housebreakers and armed robbers.

The FNM said during its next term in office, it will boost the ranks of the Royal Bahamas Police Force by 250 officers; require officers to spend half of their weekly shifts working the beat; and require police to spend as much time on the streets at night as they do in the daytime.  The FNM also said it will marry community policing with modern technology to increase the predictive capability of the police force and expand closed circuit television to assist in crime prevention and criminal detection. The FNM also says it will require district constables to hold monthly meetings in their areas to keep residents aware of crimes committed in their communities.

While placing more police on the streets and beefing up the command of the RBPF may put some residents at ease and catch a few criminals in the act, it will do nothing to root out the spirit of lawlessness, disorder and general disregard for human life that so many in our society are afflicted with. Focusing on at-risk youth, instilling positive values, education and affirmative life skills are the only long-term solution to the crisis our country is faced with.

There are several long-term initiatives in the FNM’s agenda that could lead to positive results if they are properly introduced and maintained.  One such policy is identifying troubled youth when they display anti-social or violent behavior in the school system.  The FNM says it plans to create “a fast and effective program in the school system and at the community level to address the early display of anti-social behavior by young persons as well as a targeted program for repeat offenders”.

Other proposed policies in the FNM’s manifesto for youth development include a mandatory community service program for government school students; creating a summer institute for boys making the transition from primary school to junior high; and creating a youth outreach initiative.

Education

Under its education platform, the FNM promised to ensure that every child is adequately numerate and literate before he or she leaves the third grade.

The manifesto says the FNM will create a mandatory work experience program if elected for another term, which will ensure that all high school seniors complete a minimum number of apprenticeship hours before being allowed to graduate.

The FNM also plans to place a heavier focus on skills training by expanding technical and vocational skills training offered at public high schools and increasing the budget allocation to the Bahamas Technical and Vocational Institute (BTVI).  The next FNM administration also plans to bolster programs at BTVI so that it can certify skills levels and standards for Bahamians trained in construction, plumbing, masonry, electrical work, etc.

Jobs

Another key issue in this election will be job creation.  According to recent figures released by the Department of Statistics, the country’s unemployment rate was 15.9 percent as of November 2011.  The unemployment rate for young people was 34 percent and the unemployment rate in Grand Bahama stood at 21.2 percent.

Unemployment and crime go hand in hand and in order to stem the level of violence and theft on our streets, the government must focus on job creation.  In order to stimulate job creation, a responsible government must look out for small businesses and create grants and stipends which allow them to remain afloat and keep people employed.

In its manifesto, the FNM said it will foster small and medium business development by giving more incentives to the manufacturing and industrial sectors; it will promote and encourage small resorts and bonefishing lodges that are Bahamian owned; and give incentives to entrepreneurs to open up shops in the Family Islands and create employment in those communities.  If re-elected, the FNM says it will also offer a one-time apprenticeship financial incentive to manufacturers for each apprentice they take on.

Tax reform

Although tax reform is noted in the manifesto under its plans to modernize the economy, just how the FNM will address the issue if re-elected is not made clear.

“Accelerate taxation system reforms to reduce dependence on border taxes and broaden the tax base,” is all the manifesto says on the issue.

Financial analysts have long maintained that the country has to move away from its heavily customs based tax regime to another taxation system which makes us more competitive in the global trade market.  Tax reform is also needed so that this country can fully comply with international trade agreements such as the one signed with the World Trade Organization.

Vote wisely

Bahamians are expected to turn up at the polls in record numbers to vote in a new government.  This election cycle there are many choices.  Three parties are fielding 38 candidates each and there are a handful of independents and fringe party members all hoping to be elected to Parliament come May 7.

In New Providence, it is now impossible to avoid the billboards and posters with the smiling faces of political hopefuls which crowd every corner, or to ignore the political ads filled with promises and election pledges which play every few minutes on the radio and television.

However, voters should not be fooled by the fanfare and theatrics which are commonplace in “silly season”.  In between the gibes, wisecracks and blame laying which are thrown about at political rallies are slivers of the real issues that will affect this country for the next five years and beyond.  The concerned voter, and every Bahamian interested in the future of this country, should make an informed choice based on the policies and promises each party and candidate has made on the campaign trail, along with their records in office.

The discerning voter should decipher the grandiose promises from the probable initiatives that can be implemented over a five-year period before he or she makes a choice.

Apr 16, 2012

thenassauguardian

The Bahamas: ...The defining outline of the 2012 general election is clear... ...In making their choices of party and leader, voters will assess and compare the records of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and its leader, Perry Christie, from 2002 to 2007 and that of the Free National Movement (FNM) and its leader, Hubert Ingraham, from 2007 to 2012. This comparison and assessment will serve as the basis for who voters believe may best lead the country for the next five years

The so-called silly season

Front Porch

By Simon

The term silly season is often used to describe the lead-up to a general election and the ensuing election campaign.   It is a favorite of some journalists who apply it dismissively in discounting what they view as boilerplate rhetoric from politicians.

Unsurprisingly, the term has a history, obscured by its indiscriminate application by the self-same journalists who wield it to chide and caricature the political class.

Originally, the silly season referred to the period of the late summer when news was scarce.   In response to this slow period, newspapers utilized attention-getting headlines and graphics, and printed exaggerated stories on frivolous and “silly” topics to boost circulation and advertising.

Silly seasons are a human phenomenon and not the provenance of any professional group, be they politicians or members of the press and media personalities.

There is a group of celebrity journalists who work in the print and broadcast media and also play pundit on talk shows.   Some of these media figures look in the mirror and beam: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the best journalist of them all?”

Perhaps more editors, producers and senior journalists may look in that proverbial mirror and ask how they can more comprehensively, intelligently and creatively cover the 2012 election cycle.

Secret

The little secret many journalists won’t admit to publicly is that they enjoy the entertaining elements of politics and general elections as much as their readers and viewers.   Good for them.   Still, they have an obligation to inform and educate the public beyond what is said by the speakers at various political events.

The defining outline of the 2012 general election is clear.   In making their choices of party and leader, voters will assess and compare the records of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and its leader, Perry Christie, from 2002 to 2007 and that of the Free National Movement (FNM) and its leader, Hubert Ingraham, from 2007 to 2012.   This comparison and assessment will serve as the basis for who voters believe may best lead the country for the next five years.

It is essential for journalists to be objective.  In the interest of objectivity many journalists operate under the rubric of “fair and balanced”, an important principle.   Still, it is a principle with a goal in mind, namely to get to the facts.

The misapplication of the notion of fair and balanced has been lampooned by the fictional example of a television anchor promoting a news segment.  The segment includes a politician who believes that the earth is round.   Of course, in the interest of fairness and balance, there will be a politician who believes that the earth is flat.

The veteran and now deceased American political journalist Tim Russert served for 16 years as the moderator of the highly-respected NBC Sunday morning news program, “Meet the Press”.

Russert was legendary for being generally “fair and balanced”.   He was respected by Republicans, Democrats and independents, liberals, moderates and conservatives.

His “Meet the Press” table was a must-stop for those who sought and won the presidential nominations of their respective parties.  Presidential aspirants, powerful Congressional leaders, governors, Cabinet secretaries and business moguls were interrogated by Russert.

Getting through a Russert interview without a major fumble was a badge of honor.   Before going on “Meet the Press”, interviewees did serious preparation, which often included mock interviews and combing through briefing books.

Tim Russert’s method was as simple as it was compelling.   He did his research and held politicians accountable for their words.  The Russert method was simply good journalism.  Perhaps the media can better employ such journalistic methods during this election cycle.

Promises

As a start, one of the dailies may consider making a master list of the promises made by the PLP and the FNM in their election manifestos and speeches from the throne, and see how well or poorly they kept their promises.

The period in question for the PLP would be 2002 to 2007 and for the FNM, the period from 2007 to 2012.   The reporting would simply hold each party accountable for their own words.   This would be of considerable service to voters who do not have the time to do such research.

The press may also hold political leaders accountable for their new promises.   For example, Ingraham has promised to expand the National Prescription Drug Benefit.  A newspaper like The Nassau Guardian may ask how much such an expansion would cost.   Similarly, Leader of the Opposition Perry Christie may be asked how he will pay for his promise to double the national budget for education.

This is the kind of good research journalism that is sorely lacking.   Quite often nowadays, many editors and reporters are so caught up in getting the juiciest headlines that they fail to do the important research pieces that are necessary, and sometimes they miss important aspects of a story.

This journal has done work of this nature in reporting on how MPs spent their constituency allowances.   More such work would be welcome and a good way to improve the quality of political journalism in the country.

 

Feb 21, 2012

thenassauguardian

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

Outrage at Haitian leader’s remarks

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feb 10, 2012

thenassauguardian

Majority Rule and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) in The Bahamas

Majority Rule and the PLP

By KHALILA NICOLLS
khalilanicolls@gmail.com

Nassau, NP
The Bahamas

EVERY year when January 10 rolls around, I often feel as though the Progressive Liberal Party's glorification of Majority Rule Day is a political strategy to guilt me into pledging my allegiance to the PLP as a show of respect for all they did to bring about the liberation of the black masses in the Bahamas.

As an African woman who should surely see the importance of Majority Rule, the feelings are troubling. Not because the political strategy, if it were one, is tasteless, but because I believe contrarily that the PLP has failed to bring about true advance for black Bahamians as a collective body.

That is not to say I deny the contributions of our nation-builders and the significance of their accomplishments. But that is to say I do not think the PLP is exempt from the scrutiny of black Bahamians. The political organisation has a 59-year-old history, and it seems to me, all of their black cred(ibility) is based on pre-1980s glory.

Furthermore, I believe a true test of national progress is not to be found by assessing the best of us, speaking here in terms of economics and access, but the least of us.

And one only needs eyes to see that the underdevelopment of black Bahamians over the past 30 years has been and continues to be a national disgrace.

Surely there has been progress, but many examples are anomalous: black Bahamians who received handouts under Sir Lynden Pindling's arm of influence; who profited from illicit activity, whether drugs or gambling; who benefited from political connections or exceptional educational opportunities; and black Bahamians with destiny working in their favour.

Outside of those examples, the PLP would have to admit that economic progress for black Bahamians predated the PLP. By the time Majority Rule slipped through, there was already a thriving black middle class, for which the PLP cannot lay claim. This progress was achieved under the United Bahamian Party (UBP) government, albeit in spite of the UBPs efforts.

Within the black middle class. there was the Adderley family of Wilford Parliament Adderley, which was comprised of lawyers, politicians and doctors; the Bethel family of Marcus Bethel consisting of undertakers and politicians; Sir Milo Butler, patron of Milo B Butler and Sons, who produced a line of grocery merchants; Jackson Burnside, a dentist, who paved the way for his future lineage of professionals; noted patron of the Eneas clan, Bishop Wilmore Eneas, who was a religious leader.

Others in the black middle class included Dr CR Walker, restaurateur James Russel, banker A Leon McKinney, candy maker Ulrick Mortimer, and clothing retailer Erdley Moss. Irwin McCartney and Dwit Thompson owned a custom brokerage business; Audley C Kemp was in the liquor business, as were Charles and George McKinney; Hugh Campbell Cleare owned an East Bay Street bicycle shop; and Harcourt Carter sold Japanese electrical appliances.

The PLP did not make these men. On the contrary. Many of these men made the PLP. And since then, what? What progress has there been for black Bahamians who are not counted amongst the established lot.

On balance, as a collective community, black Bahamians are still in an economic and social quandary despite the hope-filled promises of better for blacks and the idealism of the Majority Rule era.

Although the PLP is still the most vocal champion of Majority Rule, whatever momentum it had as a galvanising force for the black community back then, today it has no credible basis to portray itself as the people's party.

For all of its former glory, the PLP has turned into just another political party, arguably no better or worse than any of the others, white, black, red or green. Far from being revolutionary, the PLP has been a mere "tweaker of the status quo". So what then is the meaning of Majority Rule, the PLP's symbol of black liberation?

Many of the people who take exception to the concept of majority rule at the same time promote the concept of One Bahamas. But both constructs are based on race. Proponents of One Bahamas try to express a raceless reality, but there is no such thing.

One Bahamas simply expresses an identity based on the negation of race. Majority Rule on the other hand does so based on the affirmation of race. In either case, without a racial consciousness One Bahamas and Majority Rule would be meaningless, redundant phrases.

For One Bahamas to have relevance and validity, it needs to express a vision of racial cohesion in the Bahamas, not based on the denial of race but on the acceptance of race.

Racial difference is not something to shun. It is part of our cultural diversity, and it is an important to understanding our cultural heritage. We should not seek to deny or inflate race, which exposes us to insult and political manipulation. We should accept it.

In one sense, Majority Rule is an inherently paradoxical concept, because in a system of political representation, presumed to be democratic, any elected government is a majority government. Therefore, even under the UPB's tenure there was majority rule.

One could argue that based on the UBP's racially discriminating laws that privileged white people, men and land owners, the body of eligible voters represented a national minority. If this were statistically true, then any claim to majority rule prior to the 1962 election could stand to be challenged. But even still, within the legal framework of governance, the UBP was without question a legitimate majority government.

So what then do we make of the 1962 election, which represented the first vote in which there was universal suffrage, and the 1967 election, which represented first time in Bahamian representational politics that the racial composition of the House of Assembly reflected the racial composition of the Bahamas society?

In order to give majority rule significance beyond its racial character, some point to the fact that in 1967 for the first time, "the will of the majority was finally expressed and converted into political power".

After all, in 1962, the PLP won 32,399 votes. But because of seat distribution, with only 26,826 votes, the UBP retained its power and went on to lead the next government.

However, the argument does not stand scrutiny. First, the 1962 conundrum was a flaw of the political system, not the racial dynamics or a kind of social imbalance peculiar to the age.
Although the gerrymandering related to seat distribution was a major obstacle, the fundamental flaw in the system was inherent. It still exists today, and it is globally felt.

In the modern democratic system, a government can form a majority even without the popular vote. Arguably it happened in 1967 - which questions the very basis of the PLP's claim to majority rule.
In 1967, the PLP won only 18,452 votes. Collectively, the PLP opposition secured 24,633 seats.
That hardly represents a popular majority. And in terms of seat distribution, the PLP came out even with the UBP: 18 seats each.

It was only after forming an alliance with Randol Fawkes of the Labour Party and independent candidate Alvin Braynen that the PLP was able to secure a majority. So what does that really say about Majority Rule?
From the standpoint of a popular uprising or black advancement then, 1962 was a much more impressive showing, because at least then the PLP won the popular vote hands down.

Given all that has been said, clearly Majority Rule requires further examination to separate fact from fantasy, and to arrive at true meaning over myth.

Another element that flies in the face of Majority Rule's traditional narrative is the PLPs struggle with an ideology of black empowerment.

Compared to the likes of black nationalists in the United States like Kwame Ture (Stokley Carmichael) or Marcus Garvey, the PLP's concept of race was very tame. And the accomplishment of Majority Rule was no sign of black power. It represented change, yes, even political progress, but a revolutionary concept of black empowerment, no.

So what I find interesting and often overlooked is that, for all of its rhetoric, the political leadership who led blacks into an era of majority rule did so while at the same time running away from its black identity. Although it used race as a political tool to galvanise its constituents, the PLP did not use an affirmative ideology of blackness.

I spoke to one of the few living black parliamentarians of the 1967 election, and he admitted that black Bahamians were not joined in their common struggle for equal rights and justice, by an affirmative black power struggle. There was no such concept within the PLP's public platform.
I found further proof of this in an account of Sir Arthur Foulkes, who documented in short what he called the "PLP's long lie about race".

"Miriam Makeba, the celebrated black South African singer, was among a number of prominent blacks in America who wanted to do business in the new Bahamas.

"But Sir Lynden stopped her when he heard she was romantically linked with black power firebrand Stokely Carmichael. She left Sir Lynden's office in tears and never came back. The new Bahamas was having nothing to do with that," stated Sir Arthur.

He also recounted the story of Lady Marguerite Pindling, African American songstress Nina Simone and Bahamian journalist, Oswald Brown. Nina Simone, a known activist who used her music to share the struggles of black people and spread black protest songs, performed a concert in Nassau with Lady Marguerite and Mr Brown in attendance.
Mr Brown was so moved by the performance that he ran on stage and kissed Ms Simone's feet. By his own account, it was a sign of support, because there were some in the audience who started to boo her.
Lady Marguerite was reportedly unimpressed with Mr Brown and Ms Simone. According to Sir Arthur, Mr Brown was rebuked and chastised by the party.

Some would argue that the PLP supported black power, just a moderate version of it, but I wonder if the documented contradictions call this into question.

The PLP was not alone in this contradiction. The black dilemma was most notably played out in the United States between the differing ideological stances of Martin Luther King Jr and Malcom X.

However, what is often overlooked is that even Martin Luther King became more radical in his latter years. His famous lament was, "I fear I have integrated my people into a burning house".
In the white community, Sir Lynden is vilified as a being a black radical who racialised the country. In the black community he is heralded as a pragmatic moderate who knew how to balance delicate dynamics.

To me, there are any number of anecdotes that speak to a black government that was simply conscious of its inherent lack of power.

Nothing can invalidate the fact that Majority Rule represented the shattering of a glass ceiling for black Bahamians seeking political office. But there is much to question about some of the traditional narratives of Majority Rule: that it represented the expressed will of the majority; that it represented a form of black liberation; and that it established some incontrovertible black cred for the PLP.

It is not that I have a problem accepting Majority Rule as a mammoth accomplishment for black Bahamians. I believe Majority Rule marks an important political milestone; it recognises the political progress of black Bahamians in breaking a new barrier. I do not, however, believe it is a sign of black liberation or progress.

History has shown that black representation failed to bring about progress for black Bahamians as a collective body. The Bahamas still has an economic structure that favours the merchant class. Now, instead of profiting families like the Moskos and Pinders, the policies profit the likes of Franklyn Wilson and Tennyson Wells.

Although there was growth in the black middle class in the 70s and 80s, it has remained virtually stagnant since then. In the industries of merit, finance and tourism, Bahamians still have little ownership, and struggle to assume some of the top posts.

For Majority Rule to have had meaning beyond a recognition of progress for blacks in political representation, the PLP would have needed a true black mandate rooted in the affirmation of blackness.

In its 1968 constitution, the PLP stated as one of its objectives "to strive for and maintain the political emancipation of all the people of the Bahamas". For a political organisation, this would seem appropriate. After all, black people were under-represented in the House of Assembly. Looking skin deep, that was obvious.

What would have been more visionary and appropriate as an objective for a black majority government rooted in a shared ideology of blackness was the emancipation of every black person from the shackles of mental slavery. It is a task no white individual or white government can achieve for black people, and to this day, few if any black governments have undertaken the task with institutional purpose or strength.

A black government undertaking a black mandate would have examined all of the institutions of black oppression and represented the self-interests of black people.

To me, the promise of Majority Rule suggested that now we are going to make black people better off. Not just those at the top, but as a nation of black people we are going to grow. And no matter how much the PLP boasts, I just cannot see how it has lived up to that promise.

* Pan-African writer and cultural critic Noelle Khalila Nicolls is a practising journalist in The Bahamas.

January 25, 2012

tribune242

We Bahamians are an ungrateful people

While the world suffers, Bahamians fiddle

tribune242 editorial




WE SWITCHED the television on. Saudi tanks were rolling into Bahrain to prevent that country's social unrest spilling over Saudi borders. Libyans were rushing in mad confusion to avoid tear gas hoses as the Arab League considered asking the UN to impose a no fly zone to stop Col. Muammar Gaddafi strafing his people from the air - a reporter described Libya's turmoil of cruelty as a "problem from hell." Egypt was still in confusion. In short the Middle East was on fire.

Suddenly, television cameras focused on Japan. There one saw a scene of absolute horror. Viewers were told that Japan had just suffered an 8.9 earthquake, the largest in its history, and the fifth largest recorded in this past century. Then as though an invisible giant had drawn in his breath, taking the ocean with it and leaving behind a denuded coastline, there was a powerful outward roar as a mountain of water rushed back across the land. Out of the earthquake, a giant tsunami had been born and in a twinkling of an eye an ancient town had disappeared from the face of the earth. Houses crumbled under its mighty weight, thousands of men, women and children disappeared before they had time to consider what they could do to save themselves.

What we were witnessing would affect the whole world and an already crippled international economy was pushed back just as it was starting to slowly move forward. As a result of the confusion in one section of the world every man, woman and child on the rest of the globe was caught up in the turmoil. If never before, that short sequence of events was proof that we are all one family caught up in each other's destiny on this one big ship called Mother Earth. As gas prices started to climb -- as a result of the Mid-East crisis --and goods, already too expensive, soared, one wondered if indeed Armageddon was near. At least that was what our maid thought.

"Oh, dear God," she moaned, "the world is in confusion!"

Suddenly she turned angry. "We Bahamians," she said, "are an ungrateful people. See how the world is suffering and we have the nerve to complain about a little inconvenience." Yes, when one compares Bahamians' problems against the suffering of other humans on the same planet, they are indeed "little inconveniences" and we should all hang our heads in shame for trying to make the mole hill into the mountain.

Here we have politicians busy trying to score brownie points against their opponents, not for the betterment of the body politic, but to gain a seat in parliament and to win an election.

While Japanese dug through rubble looking for loved ones, occasionally picking up an empty shoe and weeping for the loss of the human who once walked this Earth in it, Bahamians were squabbling over the sale of a telecommunications company that ill performed at the best of times and should have been put on the auction block a long time ago.

"Bahamians are just too selfish and too greedy, always with their hands out instead of trying to do the best they can with what they have until things get better!" she sniffed, with the toss of her head and the suck on the teeth. "They have gold by comparison and they don't appreciate it!"

While others suffer untold damage, some Bahamians are busy trying to organise their own "small Egypt" -- like the monkey wanting to follow fashion no matter how destructive that fashion.

Today Bahamians are busy trying to figure out how many FNM MPs would have to vote in the House against its government's sale of BTC to send the people back to the polls. As Mr Ingraham told them in today's Tribune, a majority vote against the sale of BTC to Cable & Wireless would be a parliamentary show of no confidence in his government. He would then turn the government back to the people; there would be an early general election, and Bahamians could then vote in a new government. However, he pointed out, the sale of BTC was one of the planks in the FNM's platform, one on which the FNM had won the government.

However, with 24 FNM members in the House to the PLP's 17, Brad McCartney is the only likely FNM to break ranks. This will in no way put the FNM's government in jeopardy. However, Mr McCartney has kept everyone guessing about his final decision of whether it will be an "aye" or "nay" for the BTC vote. The fact that, although he attends House meetings, he has avoided party meetings for many weeks, gives a pretty good indication as to how his mind is set.

Anyway, instead of losing precious time over such matters, Bahamians should thank God that they have a job. It is now up to them to give it their best until they can start climbing the ladder upward again.

March 17, 2011

tribune242 editorial

Bahamas Blog International

Bahamas: Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) and the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA)... What's The Connection?

CWC and the URCA connection
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com


A closer look


Government officials are often quick to point out that the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA) operates independently.

URCA may be so independent that ministers aren’t quite sure which of them is responsible for the regulatory agency.

Is it Minister of State for Finance Zhivargo Laing?

He said no. That would be Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette.

So we contacted Symonette.

He too said no. That would be Minister of National Security Tommy Turnquest.

So we contacted him.

But Turnquest said that would be Attorney General John Delaney, who we were unable to reach.

Perhaps it is Delaney.

We are still unsure whether he would have referred us to another minister.

With URCA reviewing the pending sale of a majority interest in the Bahamas Telecommunications Company (BTC) to Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC), in some circles questions are being raised about the affiliation former CWC executives have with the regulator.

CWC said last week that a foreign human resources consultant for URCA is a former CWC employee — not a current one as her LinkedIn profile had said. The Nassau Guardian based an initial story on what she was saying on that online professional profile.

Marsha Lewis left CWC in 2009, according to the telecoms company, and has been providing human resources consultancy to URCA since 2009.

So she is no longer with CWC.

On Friday, information came to our attention that her husband, Philip Lewis, is.

So we did some digging.

His LinkedIn profile confirmed that he is CWC Caribbean’s Vice President for Business Development.

We needed to be sure though that his LinkedIn profile was current.

So we confirmed through CWC that Mr. Lewis is still with the company.

We then sent a formal question to CWC: "Given that a former CWC executive is CEO of URCA (Usman Saadat), another former executive is the HR consultant for URCA (Marsha Lewis), and a current CWC executive (Philip Lewis) is married to the HR consultant, is CWC concerned in any way that there may be at the very least an appearance of conflict given that URCA is considering CWC's purchase of BTC?"

After The Nassau Guardian’s original story on Wednesday based on Mrs. Lewis’ LinkedIn profile — which has since been changed — CWC shot back, informing that Mrs. Lewis left the telecoms company in March 2009 to start her own business — LCI Inc., an HR consultancy.

Why URCA needed to bring in a foreign HR consultant is another issue. It was certainly the board’s prerogative.

And URCA has indicated that it is quite satisfied with Mrs. Lewis’ services.

Why Mrs. Lewis changed her profile to say she left CWC in December 2008, instead of March 2009, is not clear.

Following our inquiry on Friday about her husband, LIME CEO David Shaw approved a brief response from the company: “As the largest telecoms employer in the region CWC/LIME has been a corporate home to many people who gained experience with us and then moved on to other businesses or ventures.

“In this region, that’s not uncommon, especially in telecoms. And as for a conflict of interest, the legislation and regulatory framework were set up before we were the successful bidder.”

Indeed, The Nassau Guardian has no evidence to suggest that CWC had any advantage in the privatization discussions, but the connection to URCA is interesting to note, even if it is purely coincidental.

THE INTRODUCTION

URCA engaged LCI Inc, Mrs. Lewis’ company, in August 2009 “to provide assistance and advice in relation to URCA’s ongoing development of its human resource capacity.”

The former CWC executive was introduced to URCA by another former CWC executive — Saadat, the now CEO who at the time was URCA’s director of policy and regulation.

This was confirmed in URCA’s recent press statement.

“LCI’s selection by URCA’s then CEO was through an introduction of LCI by Mr. Saadat. URCA’s board endorsed the decision to engage LCI,” the statement said.

At the time of the approval of Lewis’ contract with the regulator, URCA pointed out, CWC was nowhere in the privatization picture.

“Public announcements by the government have disclosed that C&W did not participate in the government’s initial search for a strategic partner in the privatization of BTC, and was therefore not under consideration as a possible purchaser of BTC until 2010. From URCA’s perspective, there was no actual or perceived conflict arising out of the recruitment of Mr. Saadat or the engagement of LCI in 2009. “

The Nassau Guardian noted in a story on this issue this past Friday that CWC — though not a bidder in the BTC privatization process in 2009 — was on the government’s radar as Privatization Committee Chairman T. Baswell Donaldson advised Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham in 2009 that CWC had conducted a “lengthy” review of the opportunity to purchase 51 percent of BTC.

CWC in 2009 was one of the companies the privatization committee said it favored to bid for BTC. But CWC at the time decided not to proceed.

URCA has stressed that there is no conflict involved in the fact that two former CWC executives play key roles with the regulatory agency.

But is there an appearance of conflict?

It depends on who you ask.

The Progressive Liberal Party insists that there is.

Its chairman, Bradley Roberts, has said Saadat should not serve as CEO.

What’s clear is that URCA will not only have to provide the necessary regulatory approvals to CWC’s purchase of BTC’s majority shares, but it will also have to regulate the new company.

So the appearance of fairness and transparency is not only important in the approvals process, but in the ongoing regulation of the new BTC or whatever CWC will decide to call it.

Furthermore, URCA may need to provide repeated assurances to BTC’s competitors that CWC does not have an advantage in the regulatory process due to connections any of its key officials may have to CWC.

Competitors may get jittery at the knowledge that a former CWC CEO is now CEO of URCA, and that a current executive is married to URCA’s human resources consultant, who is a former executive of CWC.

But URCA’s Chairman Wayne Aranha said in a statement to The Nassau Guardian over the weekend the board has no concerns in this regard.

He advised that Mrs. Lewis’ company is an advisor to URCA in relation to certain human resources matters and initiatives.

“As such, Mrs. Lewis does not initiate or authorize transactions or otherwise make decisions for URCA relating to HR or any activities,” Aranha explained.

“To be clear, she has no involvement with regulatory matters and there is no issue of conflict.

“The board and I are aware of her husband’s employment. This does not concern me given the conclusion above relating to Ms. Lewis.”

USMAN SAADAT

In May 2009, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham informed the House of Assembly that URCA — which was about to be formed — would be headed by a non-Bahamian.

Usman Saadat became URCA’s director of policy and regulation, and later its CEO, a post he currently holds.

“We have already accessed the talent of someone from outside The Bahamas who will be the policy director of URCA,” Ingraham said in the House of Assembly in 2009.

He explained then that while it was the government’s hope to populate the entity with Bahamians, it might not be realistic in the near term.

“In this early phase...we will be required to access talent that may not be available in The Bahamas,” Ingraham said.

He noted then that the policy director’s salary will also be “far in excess of anything heretofore known by public sector enterprise.”

“I would expect that some of the salaries paid to some of the professionals will be higher than what is normally paid in other areas in The Bahamas,” he said without divulging the pay scale for those appointed to URCA.

URCA’s goal, the prime minister noted, is to “have a transparent, effective, well-managed and knowledgeable entity that can act independently: that has no axes to grind; no preferences, no bias to cause the sector to be regulated in accordance with the Communications Act.”

The bill to establish URCA was passed in Parliament in 2009, as part of a package of communications bills designed to restructure the communications industry in the country.

URCA made extinct the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). URCA has far more extensive powers, authorities and duties than the PUC.

In September 2010, Chairman Aranha announced that Saadat was the new CEO of URCA.

He said URCA received applications from the local market as well as regional and international candidates for the top position.

Saadat, who headed CWC St. Lucia, reportedly has more than 15 years of global experience in regulation and competition strategy, coupled with a proven track record of leadership roles in the communications industry.

It wasn’t long before concerns about Saadat’s appointment made it to the press.

Trade Economist Hank Ferguson asked on The Guardian Business Facebook Feedback months ago: “Should I be worried that the former CEO of Cable and Wireless is now the regulator for BTC which is being purchased by his former employers? This should concern us all.

“If I were a visitor to this country, I would be forced to believe that the local population did not have competent or capable people, as every major entity within the country seems to have foreign (non nationals) at the helm. Where are the Bahamians?

“I do not question Mr. Saadat’s capabilities and his work in St. Lucia but noted that when he resigned from that post he noted his desire to return to his home country.

“I assume he has lost that desire but it worries me that our dependence on foreign talent may come at the expense of developing our own skills and talent (and God forbid that he and others are not engaged in the transfer of skills).”

The timing of Saadat’s hiring to the regulatory body after he left his position at Cable and Wireless prompted one union leader to say “we smell a fish there”.

But URCA said in December 2010, “The appointment of Mr. Saadat as former DPR (director of policy and regulation of the Public Utilities Commission) is far from sinister and would not give rise to any reasonable person concluding that some untoward scheme was underway or otherwise provides a basis for one to ‘smell a fish there’.

“…This URCA board is very pleased with Mr. Saadat’s performance, firstly as DPR and now as CEO. The board is satisfied that no conflict of interest exists, and will ensure that none rises between Mr. Saadat’s duties as CEO (and an executive board member) of URCA and any past association that he had with Cable and Wireless.”

At the time, the names Marsha and Philip Lewis were not yet in the press.

But last Thursday, URCA said, “From URCA’s perspective, there was no actual or perceived conflict arising out of the recruitment of Mr. Saadat or the engagement of LCI (Mrs. Lewis’ company) in 2009.”

PLP CONCERNS

The PLP has expressed concern about the fact that a former CWC executive heads URCA at a time when URCA is considering the BTC sale.

“The Progressive Liberal Party finds it most interesting that Mr. Saadat’s resume made no mention of his return to the Far East to ‘settle down’ as noted by him as his main reason for resigning from Cable and Wireless St. Lucia in 2008.

“The PLP asks how is it that in less than eight months Mr. Saadat, with just 14 years of experience, was selected by the FNM government to become the director of policy and regulations at URCA in The Bahamas and was then instantly promoted to the position of chief executive officer at URCA,” a recent statement from the party said.

The issue was raised in the House of Assembly last week by Golden Gates MP Shane Gibson. It came after The Nassau Guardian article based on Mrs. Lewis’ LinkedIn profile.

“Now bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this thing was carefully plotted out. Cable and Wireless has a former employee working in the MIS (management information systems)department at BTC. Cable and Wireless’ former employee is in charge of URCA (Saadat).

“Cable and Wireless’ current employee is also a consultant to URCA. You see the picture, Mr. Speaker? This thing was carefully crafted and carefully designed.”

As previously mentioned, CWC subsequent to these statements released a statement saying Mrs. Lewis left in 2009.

Speaking in the House early Wednesday, Gibson said, “This didn’t just start. Don’t mind them saying (it), Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows that Cable and Wireless did not just parachute into this position where they decided to purchase BTC. This was carefully planned out and mapped out where they put their people in strategic positions to make sure that at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, they get what they want.”

Gibson added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if this was condoned by the Government of The Bahamas, because when you look at that contract that they signed with Cable and Wireless the Bahamian people would wonder who is it that the government is representing.”

But Minister of State for Finance Zhivargo Laing denied that Cable and Wireless had received any advantage in the BTC privatization process.

“I’d like to make it abundantly clear that any suggestion on the part of the member for Golden Gates that the government coordinated, orchestrated for any employees of Cable and Wireless to work at URCA or anywhere else in pursuit of this privatization is false, inaccurate and absolute nonsense, absolute nonsense,” Laing said.

“URCA is an independent organization and has employed and engaged at its pleasure. I want to make that abundantly clear, Sir.”

That independence will no doubt be important as the regulatory body considers whether to provide the green light for the sale of BTC.

2/28/2011

Bahamas: Cable and Wireless Communications (CWC) and the Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA)... What's The Connection? (Part 2)

thenassauguardian

Bahamas Blog International