tribune242 editorial
Nassau, The Bahamas
"DEPUTY PM's admission over contract is a 'constitutional crisis'" reads the headline on page 7 of today's edition. The article claims that the Bahamas is now constitutionally compromised because Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette has admitted -- as though it were ever a secret -- that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract.
What a lot of political hogwash! It's now election time -- silly season-- and the Opposition is trying to either knock out or neutralise as many politically strong opponents as it can - the most important of which, of course, is the team of Ingraham and Symonette.
According to Mr Symonette this is an "election attack" by the PLP. We agree.
We understand that a survey of sorts was taken to discover whether the team of Christie and "Mother" Pratt could beat Ingraham and Symonette. The finding was that it could not. It is believed that neither can Christie and "Brave" Davis. Ipso facto, government's lead team has to be broken up. The chisel has now been put to the base of Mr Symonette, and chipping away has started.
We find it highly amusing who is among those leading the charge against Mr Symonette on a matter of conflict of interest, integrity and ethics. There is no space to go into details here, but those who want to understand our sarcastic amusement should read from pages 103 to 109 of the Commission of Inquiry Report (Volume I) December, 1984 into "the illegal use of the Bahamas for the transshipment of dangerous drugs destined for the United States of America."
It is claimed that Mr Symonette's admission of a conflict has not only doomed him, but should remove him from the seat of government.
The admission to which George Smith, former Exuma MP and minister in the Pindling cabinet, and Loftus Roker, also a former cabinet minister from the Pindling era, refers is announced as though it were a new revelation. It is not. The public -- ever since Mr Symonette's resignation as chairman of the airport board in 2001- has had full knowledge of the fact that although Mr Symonette personally owns no shares in the company in question --Bahamas Hot Mix Co., Ltd - his children's trust does.
As a matter of fact Mr Symonette, a highly successful businessman, owns shares in many companies. Are all of these companies to be denied a right to bid on government contracts, because some member of Mr Symonette's family might own shares? How many Bahamian jobs are being jeopardised by such a policy? We agree that when such matters come before Cabinet, Mr Symonette should step aside to remove any suggestion that his presence has influenced a vote. But we do not agree that he should be removed as deputy prime minister just because certain politicians want to entertain sinister thoughts.
Bahamians must remember that this is a small country. Our problem is that we have too many lawyers and not enough successful businessmen in the House. And although on every declaration that he has to make -- and which is public -- Mr Symonette lists all of his interests in the various companies, his success is used against him. No wonder persons, who really have something to offer this country and who should be serving in parliament, refuse to volunteer.
If we had more MPs with the business acumen and the means to do for their constituencies what Mr Symonette does for St Anne's, this little Bahamas would be a better place.
But many Bahamians with much to offer are discouraged when they see the mean-spirited behaviour of petty politicians, particularly against successful persons like Brent Symonette. No wonder they want nothing to do with politics. To them it is a dirty game, best to be shunned.
The company that the PLP are now railing against is Bahamas Hot Mix, founded in 1984 by a group of Bahamian businessmen with construction backgrounds.
It is one of only two hot mix plants -- with the exception of government -- in the Bahamas.
It is the only business of its type with international accreditation.
It has about 255 well paid Bahamian employees -- all earning about $35,000 a year -- who between 7pm and 5am nightly, when most Bahamians are asleep, are now out repairing sewer pipes on Bay Street to make ready for the road improvement programme for downtown.
Were these Bahamians, who also have families to feed, to be denied this government job, just because Mr Symonette's children's trust hold minority shares in their company?
And was the Treasury to forego a savings of about $200,000 on this contract because Mr Symonette is being judged by the low standards of others?
We think not. We shall return to this subject tomorrow.
September 19, 2011
tribune242 editorial
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Bahamas is in a "constitutional crisis" due to the admission by Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette that his family has an interest in a company awarded a Bahamas government contract... claims former Bahamian Cabinet minister and Exuma MP George Smith
Deputy PM's admission over contract 'a constitutional crisis'
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE admission by Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract has placed the country in a "constitutional crisis", claims former Cabinet minister and Exuma MP George Smith.
Mr Smith said that according to article 49 of the constitution, a member of the House of Assembly must resign his seat if he becomes interested in a government contract.
He said an exception can only be made if the MP did not know he had become interested in such a contract, or if he formally disclosed the interest to the House and asks Parliament for an exemption.
This should take place "while he is still only interested in such a contract, and before it is actually entered into," according to Mr Smith.
"That is enshrined in the constitution, our most sacred document."
Mr Smith's comments echo those of another former PLP Cabinet minister, Loftus Roker, who said the deputy prime minister should resign or be fired for the appearance of a conflict of interest. The row comes after comments Mr Symonette made about his family's interest in Bahamas Hot Mix, the company awarded the contract to pave roads under the New Providence Road Improvement Project.
Road works
Mr Roker, a former minister of Immigration in Pindling administration, said: "I believe Mr Symonette, (the) deputy prime minister who is one heartbeat away from leader of this country, is in conflict of interest insofar as these road works are concerned.
"As a minister he is restricted in the jobs he can have in this country. He is not like anyone else and he chose to be a minister, nobody put a gun to his head to make him a minister.
"Mr Symonette should resign as minister before (Prime Minister) Hubert Ingraham is forced to fire him because on his own words, in my view, he is in conflict of interest".
In response, Mr Symonette said the call for his resignation was an "election attack" by the PLP.
"The PLP operatives have decided to target me. Don't come with this foolishness just because election time is coming. The PLP operatives are obviously starting their attack on me because they're scared they have nothing else to hang their election hat on and come back to same old tactics they had years ago, he said.
Last week he explained his connection to Bahamas Hot Mix and said his family's interest in the company has been public knowledge for years.
"I do not own any share in that company. The shares are owned by my children's trust, but that is public knowledge. I have investments in many companies in this country. Does that mean that I should not enter politics? I don't think so," Mr Symonette said.
"Bahamas Hot Mix got the contract, not because of me but because they are recognised and well-known road builders in the Bahamas. They are qualified to get the job. If there is a bidding process should they not bid? I am a Bahamian and I am entitled to jobs in the Bahamas just like everyone else."
Shareholder
He added: "Yes, I happen to be a shareholder but I am a shareholder in many companies. So because I have personal wealth does that mean I cannot be a Member of Parliament? Why is he attacking me? There were ministers under the PLP government who got contracts that could be called 'special interest' but no one made a big deal about that."
Mr Symonette has also publicly said his family's connection to the company is not a conflict of interest.
September 19, 2011
tribune242
tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas
THE admission by Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette that his family has an interest in a company awarded a government contract has placed the country in a "constitutional crisis", claims former Cabinet minister and Exuma MP George Smith.
Mr Smith said that according to article 49 of the constitution, a member of the House of Assembly must resign his seat if he becomes interested in a government contract.
He said an exception can only be made if the MP did not know he had become interested in such a contract, or if he formally disclosed the interest to the House and asks Parliament for an exemption.
This should take place "while he is still only interested in such a contract, and before it is actually entered into," according to Mr Smith.
"That is enshrined in the constitution, our most sacred document."
Mr Smith's comments echo those of another former PLP Cabinet minister, Loftus Roker, who said the deputy prime minister should resign or be fired for the appearance of a conflict of interest. The row comes after comments Mr Symonette made about his family's interest in Bahamas Hot Mix, the company awarded the contract to pave roads under the New Providence Road Improvement Project.
Road works
Mr Roker, a former minister of Immigration in Pindling administration, said: "I believe Mr Symonette, (the) deputy prime minister who is one heartbeat away from leader of this country, is in conflict of interest insofar as these road works are concerned.
"As a minister he is restricted in the jobs he can have in this country. He is not like anyone else and he chose to be a minister, nobody put a gun to his head to make him a minister.
"Mr Symonette should resign as minister before (Prime Minister) Hubert Ingraham is forced to fire him because on his own words, in my view, he is in conflict of interest".
In response, Mr Symonette said the call for his resignation was an "election attack" by the PLP.
"The PLP operatives have decided to target me. Don't come with this foolishness just because election time is coming. The PLP operatives are obviously starting their attack on me because they're scared they have nothing else to hang their election hat on and come back to same old tactics they had years ago, he said.
Last week he explained his connection to Bahamas Hot Mix and said his family's interest in the company has been public knowledge for years.
"I do not own any share in that company. The shares are owned by my children's trust, but that is public knowledge. I have investments in many companies in this country. Does that mean that I should not enter politics? I don't think so," Mr Symonette said.
"Bahamas Hot Mix got the contract, not because of me but because they are recognised and well-known road builders in the Bahamas. They are qualified to get the job. If there is a bidding process should they not bid? I am a Bahamian and I am entitled to jobs in the Bahamas just like everyone else."
Shareholder
He added: "Yes, I happen to be a shareholder but I am a shareholder in many companies. So because I have personal wealth does that mean I cannot be a Member of Parliament? Why is he attacking me? There were ministers under the PLP government who got contracts that could be called 'special interest' but no one made a big deal about that."
Mr Symonette has also publicly said his family's connection to the company is not a conflict of interest.
September 19, 2011
tribune242
Sunday, September 18, 2011
In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning
Bahamian Agriculture, an overview. Agriculture series, part 1
By JOHN HEDDEN
jondgaul@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
RECENTLY, much has appeared in the media about agriculture, with senior politicians, pundits, veterinary intellectuals and the regular armchair philosophers making their comments and putting forward opinions.
However, I have seen no comment from the actual farming community about the status and future of farming. This may shroud the real issues involved, and so confuse the general public with rhetoric and other fancy words.
Before the reality becomes smothered I feel that as a genuine 'paper farmer' I can probably help cloud the issue even further.
In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning.
This first part deals with historical anecdotes and notes which cover geographical, topographical and climate issues, and basic soils and water availability. I have not included dates because these instantly put off any student of history.
However a journey into the well documented archives of our country will verify many of my statements.
In the beginning was the Lucayan, the Arawak, the Taino, peoples who should go down in history as the true Bahamians, and the only people who have sustainably harvested their food from the environment throughout this archipelago.
Unfortunately these people did not survive to modern times.
Since the arrival of the Europeans, and to the present day, no people in the Bahamas have truly subsisted on the products of the native environment.
Subsistence production during the many very lean years after settlement, relied on non-native species for the major food sources.
These introduced species include cassava, sweet potato, yams, pigeon peas, red beans, sheep, goats, and all poultry. Even the wild hogs of many islands were introduced as domestic breeds before going feral.
The early settlers on several occasions had to appeal to their colleagues on the US mainland for help with staple supplies to prevent starvation on many of the inhabited islands.
The purchase of the Bahamas by the proprietors, and the establishment of plantations on many of the more southerly islands, became short lived, because the thin dry, arid soils were unable to supply sustainable commercial harvests.
In most cases these plantations were abandoned to the slaves and servants to eke out a kind of subsistence involving the sea, and slash and burn methods of coppice (black land) and sandy (white land) cultivation.
To many of the islanders, the Nassau capital may as well have been in Lima, Peru, because communications and transport were non-existent.
The northern pine islands were not exploited to any degree agriculturally, mainly because the pine land was inaccessible, and the 'cap rock' was unworkable with traditional hand tools and manual labour methods. The pine areas were thus appropriately named "The Barrens", even though fresh water was close at hand.
Even the arrival of the Loyalists with their plantation approach resulted in a common survival in which the whites were no better off than their black brothers. All struggled to survive.
The Bahamas went through many years of the most basic provision for sustenance in order to stave off debilitating hunger, and the early church missions often rescued locals from imminent starvation.
Up until the 19th century, church and religious annals take account of the destitution and malnourishment existing in much of the settled Out Islands.
Less than 100 years ago, arrangements were made by the Colonial Service to accommodate workers through contracts in North America. All types of Bahamians took advantage in order to survive the depression and the Second World War.
Many of these migrant workers earned the name "American Boy" after returning with adopted American mannerisms.
Even today there is no continuity of agricultural production over the traditional "lifetimes of farming" experienced in other parts of the world such as Africa and Europe.
There was however a brief spell in our history when agriculture seemed destined to become a major contributor to the economy.
During the early to late 1800s, pineapple and citrus production became a major source of foreign revenue for the islands.
Farming in Eleuthera, Cat island, and southern Abaco became very prominent; as it did in the eastern part of New Providence.
Produce exported to North America and England made significant contributions to the islands' welfare.
However, the rise of Hawaiian pineapple and Florida citrus plantings soon put paid to that flourishing industry. A one cent tax was levied on each imported fruit, thus protecting the US producers.
After the end of the Second World War, the English government introduced the Colonial Development Corporation to various islands in order to foster growth through agricultural entrepreneurship.
The pineapple project on the best land in south Eleuthera failed because mechanisation removed the red soils and introduced raw limestone.
This area would later claim fame as the 'Charolais Ranch' that provided the US with it's prized French cattle breeding stock.
The Andros project failed because the fruit and vegetable land selected behind fresh Creek was a summer swamp when the rains came, and no number of pumps could keep the growing area dry.
It is ironical that here the water was pumped away from the crops, and not to them. Rice would not even grow in the perimeter canals and drainage ditches.
In addition, produce shipped out from Andros by barge did not even survive the journey to Nassau.
Over the years, attempts have been made to introduce sugar cane, large citrus groves, dairy, egg and poultry production to a non-existent agricultural sector.
Some survived for a number of years but mainly because protection against competition was the rule of the day.
In the modern era with the advent of Bahamian accession to the WTO and the apparent barring of protectionism in any form, bleak prospects for agricultural enterprise are looming on the Bahamian horizon.
Many feel disillusioned and upset over the lack of governmental input in order to save the tradition of farming in the country.
The reality is that apart from subsistence production purely for survival, the Bahamian agricultural sector is a myth and a non-contributor to any recognisable part of the economy.
In fact, since majority rule Bahamians have been actively encouraged to move away from agricultural and menial work into tourism and financial services. Today the perception is that agriculture is demeaning and subservient work, close to being on welfare.
The introduction of more modern technology has recently accounted for some apparently successful start ups, and renovated enterprises in Andros.
The use of more modern techniques, even basic ones like efficient irrigation, can dramatically improve yields.
Management of soil fertility and pest control are equally important. These issues will be dealt with in the following article.
September 17, 2011
tribune242
By JOHN HEDDEN
jondgaul@hotmail.com
Nassau, The Bahamas
RECENTLY, much has appeared in the media about agriculture, with senior politicians, pundits, veterinary intellectuals and the regular armchair philosophers making their comments and putting forward opinions.
However, I have seen no comment from the actual farming community about the status and future of farming. This may shroud the real issues involved, and so confuse the general public with rhetoric and other fancy words.
Before the reality becomes smothered I feel that as a genuine 'paper farmer' I can probably help cloud the issue even further.
In order to put agriculture and the modern Bahamas in proper focus we must start from the very beginning.
This first part deals with historical anecdotes and notes which cover geographical, topographical and climate issues, and basic soils and water availability. I have not included dates because these instantly put off any student of history.
However a journey into the well documented archives of our country will verify many of my statements.
In the beginning was the Lucayan, the Arawak, the Taino, peoples who should go down in history as the true Bahamians, and the only people who have sustainably harvested their food from the environment throughout this archipelago.
Unfortunately these people did not survive to modern times.
Since the arrival of the Europeans, and to the present day, no people in the Bahamas have truly subsisted on the products of the native environment.
Subsistence production during the many very lean years after settlement, relied on non-native species for the major food sources.
These introduced species include cassava, sweet potato, yams, pigeon peas, red beans, sheep, goats, and all poultry. Even the wild hogs of many islands were introduced as domestic breeds before going feral.
The early settlers on several occasions had to appeal to their colleagues on the US mainland for help with staple supplies to prevent starvation on many of the inhabited islands.
The purchase of the Bahamas by the proprietors, and the establishment of plantations on many of the more southerly islands, became short lived, because the thin dry, arid soils were unable to supply sustainable commercial harvests.
In most cases these plantations were abandoned to the slaves and servants to eke out a kind of subsistence involving the sea, and slash and burn methods of coppice (black land) and sandy (white land) cultivation.
To many of the islanders, the Nassau capital may as well have been in Lima, Peru, because communications and transport were non-existent.
The northern pine islands were not exploited to any degree agriculturally, mainly because the pine land was inaccessible, and the 'cap rock' was unworkable with traditional hand tools and manual labour methods. The pine areas were thus appropriately named "The Barrens", even though fresh water was close at hand.
Even the arrival of the Loyalists with their plantation approach resulted in a common survival in which the whites were no better off than their black brothers. All struggled to survive.
The Bahamas went through many years of the most basic provision for sustenance in order to stave off debilitating hunger, and the early church missions often rescued locals from imminent starvation.
Up until the 19th century, church and religious annals take account of the destitution and malnourishment existing in much of the settled Out Islands.
Less than 100 years ago, arrangements were made by the Colonial Service to accommodate workers through contracts in North America. All types of Bahamians took advantage in order to survive the depression and the Second World War.
Many of these migrant workers earned the name "American Boy" after returning with adopted American mannerisms.
Even today there is no continuity of agricultural production over the traditional "lifetimes of farming" experienced in other parts of the world such as Africa and Europe.
There was however a brief spell in our history when agriculture seemed destined to become a major contributor to the economy.
During the early to late 1800s, pineapple and citrus production became a major source of foreign revenue for the islands.
Farming in Eleuthera, Cat island, and southern Abaco became very prominent; as it did in the eastern part of New Providence.
Produce exported to North America and England made significant contributions to the islands' welfare.
However, the rise of Hawaiian pineapple and Florida citrus plantings soon put paid to that flourishing industry. A one cent tax was levied on each imported fruit, thus protecting the US producers.
After the end of the Second World War, the English government introduced the Colonial Development Corporation to various islands in order to foster growth through agricultural entrepreneurship.
The pineapple project on the best land in south Eleuthera failed because mechanisation removed the red soils and introduced raw limestone.
This area would later claim fame as the 'Charolais Ranch' that provided the US with it's prized French cattle breeding stock.
The Andros project failed because the fruit and vegetable land selected behind fresh Creek was a summer swamp when the rains came, and no number of pumps could keep the growing area dry.
It is ironical that here the water was pumped away from the crops, and not to them. Rice would not even grow in the perimeter canals and drainage ditches.
In addition, produce shipped out from Andros by barge did not even survive the journey to Nassau.
Over the years, attempts have been made to introduce sugar cane, large citrus groves, dairy, egg and poultry production to a non-existent agricultural sector.
Some survived for a number of years but mainly because protection against competition was the rule of the day.
In the modern era with the advent of Bahamian accession to the WTO and the apparent barring of protectionism in any form, bleak prospects for agricultural enterprise are looming on the Bahamian horizon.
Many feel disillusioned and upset over the lack of governmental input in order to save the tradition of farming in the country.
The reality is that apart from subsistence production purely for survival, the Bahamian agricultural sector is a myth and a non-contributor to any recognisable part of the economy.
In fact, since majority rule Bahamians have been actively encouraged to move away from agricultural and menial work into tourism and financial services. Today the perception is that agriculture is demeaning and subservient work, close to being on welfare.
The introduction of more modern technology has recently accounted for some apparently successful start ups, and renovated enterprises in Andros.
The use of more modern techniques, even basic ones like efficient irrigation, can dramatically improve yields.
Management of soil fertility and pest control are equally important. These issues will be dealt with in the following article.
September 17, 2011
tribune242
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Belize celebrates 30 years of independence but major challenges still lie ahead
By Wellington C. Ramos
This September 21, 2011, will make 30 years since Belize became independent from Great Britain but Belize still has major challenges ahead that it is grappling with, such as crime, gangs, political victimization, drugs, poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, lots, land, nationalism, dual citizenship rights and the Guatemalan dispute.
All these issues continue to plague Belize and make it difficult for our country to develop rapidly. Belizeans are not as nationalistic as the Jamaicans are to their country. One of the reasons for this is because Guatemala is still claiming Belize and some Belizeans think that this claim will remain an everlasting dispute until we give Guatemala some land.
Another reason is that there are many Belizeans who are trying to obtain a lot or piece of land and haven’t gotten any, despite all the efforts they have made to obtain them. Yet, they are witnessing foreigners coming into their country taking, squatting and purchasing lands to live and do farming. People identify themselves with land and when they have it, they will be more than willing to put their lives on the line for it.
Our government should now begin the process to make sure that every natural born Belizean be given a piece of land so that he can live with his or her family and grow food to support them. This will also increase Belizean nationalism because they will have something tangible to attach themselves to.
I left Belize to come and live in the United States thirty-three years ago. When I first arrived in New York City, there was a group called the “Freedom Committee” that was being chaired by Mr Compton Fairweather. This group held weekly Sunday meetings at the basement of a Methodist Church on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn. Alongside of him were his officers: Muriel Laing, Walford Young, Derrick Staine , Leotin Staine-Lewis, Mary Stuart-Flowers, Mr Trapp and several others. The room was packed with mostly elderly people.
These officers would give speeches about their lives when they were living in Belize and how beautiful Belize is. The main purpose of this group was to make sure that Belize remains a free country with all its territory intact. At the end of the meeting, I would go around and engage in discussions with some of the people in the audience and, to my surprise, many of these people were not prepared to go home and some of them had no intentions of returning to Belize and live.
In addition to this organization, there was a “Telephone Belize News” where Belizeans could call every Tuesday at midnight to get updated news, entertainment events and death announcements. Belizeans from all over the country looked forward to this day to make their telephone calls. After years of service to the community, Mr Fairweather retired and went home to Belize to live. The association and the Belize News no longer exist and Belizeans are still talking about the news but have not done anything to replace or upgrade it.
Prior to the independence of Belize, the two main political parties in Belize held different positions. The United Democratic Party wanted independence with a defenbe guarantee from Great Britain. The People’s United Party wanted independence with or without the guarantee and felt that, with world opinion on their side, Belize will survive.
The prime minister of Great Britain at the time, Margaret Thatcher, wanted to get rid of most of Britain’s overseas territories. She felt that the countries created a huge financial burden to the British government and its people.
The Belize prime minister at the time, the Honorable George Cadle Price, was told by the British that Britain will leave their troops in Belize for an indefinite period of time. A couple years after, the British government started to withdraw their forces out of Belize and the Guatemalans started to reclaim Belize up to this day.
Today, Belizeans are living with this constant threat from Guatemalans, who cross the border at will and come into Belizean territory and occupy lands to establish new villages. In addition, they trespass on Belizean soil to steal Mayan artifacts and other valuables from the country. The Guatemalan military does nothing to stop their citizens from crossing the border to come into Belize.
The Belize and Guatemalan governments signed an agreement in the year 2008, to make efforts to send their border dispute to the International Court of Justice. In this agreement, both countries pledged to conduct a referendum in their respective countries to ratify the agreement. If any of these two countries fail to ratify it, then the whole process will be stalled.
The Guatemalan congress just recently ratified it, after the Belize government did so months ago. It will be up to these two governments to now bring this agreement to their people for a referendum vote. Both countries will be having elections soon and whether these governments would like to bring this controversial issue to a vote by their people is still left to be seen.
In the meantime, Belizeans will be jumping and parading all over the country this year but when the jumping up and parades are finished, Belize will still be in the same position it was in before it celebrated this year’s independence.
Belizean nationalism can only come through implementing an ongoing nationalism program to educate our children and people. First, they must be proud to be Belizeans and have reasons to state why being a Belizean is a lot better than being anything else.
For me, I am proud to be a Belizean because this is the country of my birth. The American government can always take away the citizenship they gave to me but the Belize government cannot. In fact, I dare any Belizean to try and take away my citizenship rights and privileges.
Belizeans living in the Diaspora should start thinking positive about Belize especially with what they are experiencing living in America today. If they do not want to have anything to do with Belize, it might be a decision they will regret later on in their lives.
I have placed my life on the line for Belize when I served in the Belize Police Force and have served in the American armed forces to prepare myself to defend my country if it is invaded by Guatemala or any other country on earth. While victory against the enemy might seem impossible, I would not be able to carry on with my life if I stood there and did nothing to be invaded by another country.
A true citizen is one who is willing to pick up arms and shed his or her blood in defence of his country. If we can get more Belizeans to think like this, our country would find a way to solve this dilemma.
This year we heard from three of our country’s prime ministers and they touched on the poverty in Belize but failed to mention that the African Belizeans, Garifuna and Creoles make up the majority of the poor and those who are leaving Belize to come to the United States.
When the Garifuna people were engaged in farming and fishing back in the old days, their poverty rate was low. Giving the citizens land to grow their own food will eliminate poverty in Belize and this is the time to implement such a desperately needed program for our idle black youths in Belize’s cities and towns.
September 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
This September 21, 2011, will make 30 years since Belize became independent from Great Britain but Belize still has major challenges ahead that it is grappling with, such as crime, gangs, political victimization, drugs, poverty, unequal distribution of wealth, lots, land, nationalism, dual citizenship rights and the Guatemalan dispute.
All these issues continue to plague Belize and make it difficult for our country to develop rapidly. Belizeans are not as nationalistic as the Jamaicans are to their country. One of the reasons for this is because Guatemala is still claiming Belize and some Belizeans think that this claim will remain an everlasting dispute until we give Guatemala some land. Another reason is that there are many Belizeans who are trying to obtain a lot or piece of land and haven’t gotten any, despite all the efforts they have made to obtain them. Yet, they are witnessing foreigners coming into their country taking, squatting and purchasing lands to live and do farming. People identify themselves with land and when they have it, they will be more than willing to put their lives on the line for it.
Our government should now begin the process to make sure that every natural born Belizean be given a piece of land so that he can live with his or her family and grow food to support them. This will also increase Belizean nationalism because they will have something tangible to attach themselves to.
I left Belize to come and live in the United States thirty-three years ago. When I first arrived in New York City, there was a group called the “Freedom Committee” that was being chaired by Mr Compton Fairweather. This group held weekly Sunday meetings at the basement of a Methodist Church on Ocean Avenue in Brooklyn. Alongside of him were his officers: Muriel Laing, Walford Young, Derrick Staine , Leotin Staine-Lewis, Mary Stuart-Flowers, Mr Trapp and several others. The room was packed with mostly elderly people.
These officers would give speeches about their lives when they were living in Belize and how beautiful Belize is. The main purpose of this group was to make sure that Belize remains a free country with all its territory intact. At the end of the meeting, I would go around and engage in discussions with some of the people in the audience and, to my surprise, many of these people were not prepared to go home and some of them had no intentions of returning to Belize and live.
In addition to this organization, there was a “Telephone Belize News” where Belizeans could call every Tuesday at midnight to get updated news, entertainment events and death announcements. Belizeans from all over the country looked forward to this day to make their telephone calls. After years of service to the community, Mr Fairweather retired and went home to Belize to live. The association and the Belize News no longer exist and Belizeans are still talking about the news but have not done anything to replace or upgrade it.
Prior to the independence of Belize, the two main political parties in Belize held different positions. The United Democratic Party wanted independence with a defenbe guarantee from Great Britain. The People’s United Party wanted independence with or without the guarantee and felt that, with world opinion on their side, Belize will survive.
The prime minister of Great Britain at the time, Margaret Thatcher, wanted to get rid of most of Britain’s overseas territories. She felt that the countries created a huge financial burden to the British government and its people.
The Belize prime minister at the time, the Honorable George Cadle Price, was told by the British that Britain will leave their troops in Belize for an indefinite period of time. A couple years after, the British government started to withdraw their forces out of Belize and the Guatemalans started to reclaim Belize up to this day.
Today, Belizeans are living with this constant threat from Guatemalans, who cross the border at will and come into Belizean territory and occupy lands to establish new villages. In addition, they trespass on Belizean soil to steal Mayan artifacts and other valuables from the country. The Guatemalan military does nothing to stop their citizens from crossing the border to come into Belize.
The Belize and Guatemalan governments signed an agreement in the year 2008, to make efforts to send their border dispute to the International Court of Justice. In this agreement, both countries pledged to conduct a referendum in their respective countries to ratify the agreement. If any of these two countries fail to ratify it, then the whole process will be stalled.
The Guatemalan congress just recently ratified it, after the Belize government did so months ago. It will be up to these two governments to now bring this agreement to their people for a referendum vote. Both countries will be having elections soon and whether these governments would like to bring this controversial issue to a vote by their people is still left to be seen.
In the meantime, Belizeans will be jumping and parading all over the country this year but when the jumping up and parades are finished, Belize will still be in the same position it was in before it celebrated this year’s independence.
Belizean nationalism can only come through implementing an ongoing nationalism program to educate our children and people. First, they must be proud to be Belizeans and have reasons to state why being a Belizean is a lot better than being anything else.
For me, I am proud to be a Belizean because this is the country of my birth. The American government can always take away the citizenship they gave to me but the Belize government cannot. In fact, I dare any Belizean to try and take away my citizenship rights and privileges.
Belizeans living in the Diaspora should start thinking positive about Belize especially with what they are experiencing living in America today. If they do not want to have anything to do with Belize, it might be a decision they will regret later on in their lives.
I have placed my life on the line for Belize when I served in the Belize Police Force and have served in the American armed forces to prepare myself to defend my country if it is invaded by Guatemala or any other country on earth. While victory against the enemy might seem impossible, I would not be able to carry on with my life if I stood there and did nothing to be invaded by another country.
A true citizen is one who is willing to pick up arms and shed his or her blood in defence of his country. If we can get more Belizeans to think like this, our country would find a way to solve this dilemma.
This year we heard from three of our country’s prime ministers and they touched on the poverty in Belize but failed to mention that the African Belizeans, Garifuna and Creoles make up the majority of the poor and those who are leaving Belize to come to the United States.
When the Garifuna people were engaged in farming and fishing back in the old days, their poverty rate was low. Giving the citizens land to grow their own food will eliminate poverty in Belize and this is the time to implement such a desperately needed program for our idle black youths in Belize’s cities and towns.
September 17, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thoughts on Jamaica's 50th anniversary
By FRANKLIN W KNIGHT
The approach of the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence provides an appropriate time to review and perhaps revise the way Jamaica is governed. Thinking about the structure of government does not require the approach of a significant year, but anniversaries are always an opportune moment for assessment. How has the country done in the past 50 years since it took control of its own affairs? What institutions are not working at all? What is working well? What could be made better?
One place to start is with the constitution hastily written in 1961 to respond to the self-made emergency following the unexpected collapse of the West Indian Federation that was carefully designed to shepherd a number of Caribbean units into an awkward form of independence. But the principal goal of the federation was to relieve Great Britain of the administrative costs of empire. British Caribbean independence was not designed to secure the future happiness and well-being of the citizens of the Caribbean. To guarantee their goal, the British promised that any territory that felt it could make it on its own was free to do so. With the premature collapse of the federation, Jamaica, along with Trinidad and Tobago, opted for independence and needed constitutions to legalise the process.
In 1776 the British North American colonies initiated the idea of a written constitution as a prelude to political independence. It was a rationale for change that tried to do two things. The first was to synthesise some core values and guiding principles of just government. The second was to lay out the guidelines for structuring and regulating the good society. Since then every group of citizens wishing to construct a modern state has outlined its history, culture, hopes and expectations in a form of written constitution. That is what Jamaica did in 1961.
The Jamaica constitution quite properly tried to capture what it felt were the basic values and principles of the country at the time. In that it did a good job. It recognised that Jamaica was a demographically diverse country with roots in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It had a culture that was an eclectic and creolised blend of the various peoples who made the island their home over centuries or who had recently arrived. Jamaican culture was not like a pizza with a choice of exotic toppings. Rather, it was like a delicately constructed cake with discernible ingredients all delightfully melded together. That conviction is reflected in the island's motto, "Out of many One people" as well as in the symbolic colours of the national flag. That intrinsic diversity is still exalted as a desirable virtue.
Jamaicans also hold a deep respect for popular democracy, deriving from its curious history. Jamaica was not always a democracy. Indeed, the original British representative legislature was neither representative nor democratic. But neither was the British Parliament before the Great Reform Act of 1832. Fortunately for Jamaica, the English residents who structured the government of the colony after its capture from the Spanish in 1655 were not the viable critical mass needed to develop and retain the sort of bourgeois proclivities of the white property holders in British North America. The Jamaican legislature accepted free non-whites and Jews as bona fide members as long as they met the eligibility requirements. They were not happy with the result but they had no choice.
Then in 1865 the Jamaica Assembly did a remarkable thing. Rather than expand its representation it abolished itself. That was a lesson in self-preservation that was not lost on the masses. Political control, it learned, was the most important instrument in ensuring social cohesion and common justice. By the time that Jamaica began universal adult suffrage in 1944 a popular democracy was being practised widely by hundreds of organisations across the island. Teachers, small farmers, dockworkers and various other groups of workers formed mutual aid associations hoping to improve their common condition.
Jamaican democracy is founded on the unswerving conviction that the legitimacy of any government rests on the overt approval of the people expressed in free, fair, and open elections. The government is not only responsible to the people; it is also the principal protector of those people. It is benefactor and surrogate parent. This conviction crosses all social and economic divisions and ties the elites to the masses, unlike many other countries where governments are divorced from the people. When governments work well it results in genuine accountability. Governments that fail to meet the expectations of the people are usually rejected at the polls.
The weakness in this apparently sound principle of government resides in the written constitutional form that privileges the two founding political parties, the PNP and the JLP, which have controlled the political process since 1944. As constitutionally structured, especially in a first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the PNP and the JLP do not have a fair chance of winning sufficient representation to form a government. These parties have been monumental failures since 1962. Yet a good constitution should cater to a wider representation of views than just those of the PNP and the JLP.
As Jamaica approaches its 50th anniversary, now is as good a time as any to rethink the constitution. What Jamaica needs is a responsive procedure that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Because democracy is not a perfect form of government - there is no perfect form of democracy - then from time to time it needs to be modified and re-calibrated to serve the majority of the people. Nothing could serve the people of Jamaica better than a major discussion in the next year about the constitutional basis of its government and how it may be improved. As the poet Tennyson wrote: "The old order changes yielding place to new; and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Change is inevitable. Jamaica's present and future depend on periodically reconciling its political institutions to its new realities.
September 14, 2011
jamaicaobserver
The approach of the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence provides an appropriate time to review and perhaps revise the way Jamaica is governed. Thinking about the structure of government does not require the approach of a significant year, but anniversaries are always an opportune moment for assessment. How has the country done in the past 50 years since it took control of its own affairs? What institutions are not working at all? What is working well? What could be made better?
One place to start is with the constitution hastily written in 1961 to respond to the self-made emergency following the unexpected collapse of the West Indian Federation that was carefully designed to shepherd a number of Caribbean units into an awkward form of independence. But the principal goal of the federation was to relieve Great Britain of the administrative costs of empire. British Caribbean independence was not designed to secure the future happiness and well-being of the citizens of the Caribbean. To guarantee their goal, the British promised that any territory that felt it could make it on its own was free to do so. With the premature collapse of the federation, Jamaica, along with Trinidad and Tobago, opted for independence and needed constitutions to legalise the process.
In 1776 the British North American colonies initiated the idea of a written constitution as a prelude to political independence. It was a rationale for change that tried to do two things. The first was to synthesise some core values and guiding principles of just government. The second was to lay out the guidelines for structuring and regulating the good society. Since then every group of citizens wishing to construct a modern state has outlined its history, culture, hopes and expectations in a form of written constitution. That is what Jamaica did in 1961.
The Jamaica constitution quite properly tried to capture what it felt were the basic values and principles of the country at the time. In that it did a good job. It recognised that Jamaica was a demographically diverse country with roots in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It had a culture that was an eclectic and creolised blend of the various peoples who made the island their home over centuries or who had recently arrived. Jamaican culture was not like a pizza with a choice of exotic toppings. Rather, it was like a delicately constructed cake with discernible ingredients all delightfully melded together. That conviction is reflected in the island's motto, "Out of many One people" as well as in the symbolic colours of the national flag. That intrinsic diversity is still exalted as a desirable virtue.
Jamaicans also hold a deep respect for popular democracy, deriving from its curious history. Jamaica was not always a democracy. Indeed, the original British representative legislature was neither representative nor democratic. But neither was the British Parliament before the Great Reform Act of 1832. Fortunately for Jamaica, the English residents who structured the government of the colony after its capture from the Spanish in 1655 were not the viable critical mass needed to develop and retain the sort of bourgeois proclivities of the white property holders in British North America. The Jamaican legislature accepted free non-whites and Jews as bona fide members as long as they met the eligibility requirements. They were not happy with the result but they had no choice.
Then in 1865 the Jamaica Assembly did a remarkable thing. Rather than expand its representation it abolished itself. That was a lesson in self-preservation that was not lost on the masses. Political control, it learned, was the most important instrument in ensuring social cohesion and common justice. By the time that Jamaica began universal adult suffrage in 1944 a popular democracy was being practised widely by hundreds of organisations across the island. Teachers, small farmers, dockworkers and various other groups of workers formed mutual aid associations hoping to improve their common condition.
Jamaican democracy is founded on the unswerving conviction that the legitimacy of any government rests on the overt approval of the people expressed in free, fair, and open elections. The government is not only responsible to the people; it is also the principal protector of those people. It is benefactor and surrogate parent. This conviction crosses all social and economic divisions and ties the elites to the masses, unlike many other countries where governments are divorced from the people. When governments work well it results in genuine accountability. Governments that fail to meet the expectations of the people are usually rejected at the polls.
The weakness in this apparently sound principle of government resides in the written constitutional form that privileges the two founding political parties, the PNP and the JLP, which have controlled the political process since 1944. As constitutionally structured, especially in a first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the PNP and the JLP do not have a fair chance of winning sufficient representation to form a government. These parties have been monumental failures since 1962. Yet a good constitution should cater to a wider representation of views than just those of the PNP and the JLP.
As Jamaica approaches its 50th anniversary, now is as good a time as any to rethink the constitution. What Jamaica needs is a responsive procedure that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Because democracy is not a perfect form of government - there is no perfect form of democracy - then from time to time it needs to be modified and re-calibrated to serve the majority of the people. Nothing could serve the people of Jamaica better than a major discussion in the next year about the constitutional basis of its government and how it may be improved. As the poet Tennyson wrote: "The old order changes yielding place to new; and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Change is inevitable. Jamaica's present and future depend on periodically reconciling its political institutions to its new realities.
September 14, 2011
jamaicaobserver
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Bahamas: The gas retailers are slaves to big oil and so is the Bahamian government
No mercy from oil giants
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune242 Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, The Bahamas
Just over twenty years ago, the notorious regime of the Medellin Cartel came to an end, when a long series of gun battles resulted in Colombian police killing drug leader Pablo Escobar. Mr Escobar was said to be a violent mercenary responsible for the murder of hundreds of government officials, police, prosecutors, judges, journalists and innocent bystanders. He was the last survivor in the powerful drug cartel, infamous for its violent past and of smuggling cocaine into the United States.
This article is not about cocaine or drug cartels; however, it is useful to understand what the Medellin Cartel represents to understand the extent of the oppression felt by petroleum retailers in the Bahamas in relation to their petroleum bosses, Esso, Shell, Chevron and the Freeport Oil Holdings Company, Ltd. (FOCOL).
"The Medellin Cartel, you know they are notorious for killings and murders; they have more heart than oil wholesalers in the Bahamas. They have more love for their victims than oil companies have love for the Bahamas," claimed one gas retailer, who wished to speak anonymously.
Take Esso, for example, owned by the most profitable country in the world, Exxon Mobile. Esso is "king" in this town, said one government source.
Esso owns the only jetty at Clifton Pier that pumps oil from the barges into racking trucks for distribution. Esso collects millions in transfer fees from the largest wholesaler, the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BEC), along with all of the other private wholesalers, for use of its jetty. In turn, according to Leslie Miller, former Minister of Trade and Industry, the oil company pays the government a pittance of $10,000 annually to rent the sea bed. He said the Bahamas is the third largest consumer of oil in the English speaking Caribbean.
That is right, according to Mr Miller, Esso pays the Bahamian people $10,000 a year, to run an extremely profitable business at one of the most important historical sites in New Providence. It pays $10,000 a year to operate a business that routinely contaminates the air quality and the sea quality at one of the most sacred old sea ports in New Providence. And the Bahamian people, the government included, are powerless to do anything about it. What does that say about the notion of Bahamian sovereignty?
This fee dates back more than 40 years, according to Mr Miller, during the era of the United Bahamian Party (UBP) government. It has gone unchallenged since, he said. When he got wind of the situation as minister and agitated for change, Mr Miller said he was shortly after transferred from trade and industry to agriculture and fisheries. This unsurprising move is indicative of the powerful external forces at work in Bahamian politics.
Esso is reputed to charge the highest rents, between $15,000 and $24,000 per month, and the highest franchise fees, 8 per cent, at its retail sites. One retailer claims that it is cheaper to rent square footage for a store in New York City, one of the most expensive cities in the world, than square footage on Bahamian soil to franchise an Esso service station.
The franchise agreement is a noose around the neck of Bahamian business people, dictating everything from stock levels, operating hours, dress codes, layout of the convenience store, and products to be sold. One retailer said his service station makes no money between 1am and 6 am, but he is forced to stay open and pay people to watch a building because his "slave masters" say so.
There is supposed to be a fundamental separation between the wholesale business and the retail business, according to the national investment policy, say retailers; however, in practice, the separation is a lie.
When Chevron took over from Texaco a few years ago, retailers say this relieved some of the burden on Texaco retailers, because they no longer took out a percentage in franchisee fees, but word has it that Chevron is currently being sold again, so there is no telling what the future could hold.
"Nothing is at the discretion of the dealers. They are basically powerless. They are puppets for the oil companies," he said.
Retailers incur all of the costs of site maintenance, including equipment repair, landscaping, plumbing, electricity, water, staffing.
The oil companies mandate that their retailers pay exorbitant fees for "useless" customer service training. Even though the oil companies insure their buildings and equipment, they mandate retailers also pay insurance: not for security reasons, but so that the oil companies can obtain a lower rate of insurance on their payments.
To alter the conditions of a franchise agreement for a gas retailer would mean closure, because the oil companies could yank their equipment and close up shop, leaving the retailer saddled with debt to a bank that ultimately cares only about getting paid.
The list of complaints goes on, and they are relevant, not only to Esso, but all of the oil companies, including Sun Oil Bahamas, which uses the Shell brand under license. Retailers claim, "The sunshine boys took over from the Bay Street boys and carried on the same old tactics." FOCOL is owned by a mixed bag of political types with Franklyn Wilson and Sir Orville Turnquest among the shareholders. Sun Oil Bahamas is a subsidiary of FOCOL.
These views, nonetheless, stand in stark contrast to views expressed by others, like the former energy minister, who cautioned me not to be fooled by the crocodile tears of gas retailers.
Mr Miller pretty much labelled some of them as "greedy scoundrels" who could not be trusted, because, in his view, their constant cries for margin increases are unfounded.
One gas station owner said about three years ago he was able to make $200-$250,000 in annual profit. At that rate of profitability, Mr Miller suggested there was nothing wrong with the margins. Another gas retailer said those profit levels are the stuff of fantasy today; in less than one year his overdraft with the bank quintupled. There is no doubt, retailers carry a heavy load. They virtually subsidise the industry, said one source. With so much debt to contend with, it is not easy to get out, and with no power, it is hard to survive.
Although full of enthusiasm and insight, Mr Miller speaks with an embittered heart. He said he was able to bring about $80 million worth of savings in the pockets of Bahamian consumers, for which he is very proud. But he admits, in the face of very powerful forces working against the interests of the Bahamian people, he failed to create fundamental change in the local industry. At almost every turn - Liquefied Natural Gas, Petro Caribe - his efforts were rejected by the Bahamian people, the Bahamian government and various unseen, external forces.
Mr Miller claimed that the United States' government, through the Embassy in Nassau, was one of those powerful forces working counter to the interests of the Bahamian people. They would pressure the Bahamian government to back off the oil companies. Naturally, the US Embassy in the Bahamas is here to secure the interests of its citizens and corporations, the latter being more important, despite the rhetoric.
It is claimed that oil companies are so powerful globally that they even have the American government, senators and congressmen included, slaving for them, inside and outside their own country. Imagine how much power the Bahamian government, much less the local gas retailers, would have in face of those geopolitics.
Profit margins are only one part of the debate. The more fundamental argument is about the nature of the relationship between wholesalers and retailers. Any reasonable analysis of the Bahamian oil industry, weighed with global oil politics, would determine there is an inherent lack of equity with the current structure, and local gas retailers get the shortest end of the stick. There is no arguing the need for fundamental change in the Bahamas.
Problem
Successive governments have tried to patch up the problem, but no one has yet been able to bring about the kind of fundamental change that would really work in the best interests of the Bahamian people, business owners included.
Minnis Service Station on Market Street is one of the few independent stations around. It started out as a Shell retailer, about 50 years ago, operating as such for about 21 years. Mr Minnis said at that time black people did not know much about business and they were "given a sip of water and made to believe they had a gallon."
He owned his property on Market Street, but not having the resources or expertise at the time to set up a gas station, he entered a lease agreement with the oil company to develop the land. Once complete, he said the oil company leased the business back to him. After 21 years, he said he decided that he no longer wanted "a job" working for big oil. He wanted to provide "a service" to his people under the dictates of his own business.
So Mr Minnis said he refused to sign anymore lease agreements and set out to become an independent gas retailer. Shell came and packed up all of its equipment, its signs and compressor, and refused to sell gas to Minnis Service Station without a lease agreement. After a solid business relationship for 21 years, Mr Minnis said he was left out in the cold and all because he wanted to develop himself in a manner that suited his own best interests.
At times, Mr Minnis said he would have to work a deal with a friend, who owned a nearby station, to get gas for his tanks.
Mr Minnis said his views are from "the stone age," but how he sees it the global economic system has people "trapped in a cage."
Replaced
Corporations have replaced the old colonial masters and the old slave masters, he said. Within the system, some people are made to believe they live in a mansion, and if they work really hard they can own it, when all the time they are simply trapped in a cage, in the dungeon of the master's house. That is the farce of the petroleum industry and the West World, said Mr Minnis.
The gas retailers are slaves to big oil and so is the Bahamian government.
One gas retailer said the industry progressed over the years away from independent stations, because the oil companies saw an opportunity to make more money. He said in the decades prior to the '60s and '70s, the retail industry was operated mainly by white Bahamians who owned independent stations. The oil companies only profited from the sale of fuel, which is the only thing they rightly should, according to retailers.
Not being satisfied with this model, the oil companies sought to buy out the retailers and set up their own competing retail outlets. This way, they could collect rent, franchise fees and profit from the sale of oil.
Government regulation facilitated the wholesalers, because a long-standing moratorium on retail licenses forced interested business people to obtain franchise agreements through wholesalers in order to operate a retail outlet.
Some 50 years later, independent retailers are almost a thing of the past, in New Providence, where the big oil cartels reign supreme. The independent model is applied in the Family Islands today, presumably because the oil companies do not have an interest there.
According to one source, one of the reasons for the moratorium on retail licenses was the proliferation of service stations. He claimed this is yet another side effect of wholesalers having their fingers too deep in the retail pot.
Wholesalers get their money up front, so they are not concerned about the market being flooded with service stations. The risk and the burden of debt lie on the retail operators.
If the government were to regulate the industry properly, retailers claim it would bring about consolidation and eventually level out the number of stations. Those remaining stations would become more viable and more profitable, said a retailer.
As for resources and expertise, retailers claim wholesalers no longer need to do it all. Bahamians have sufficient expertise and access to financing to develop their own service stations. And if wholesalers moved out of the picture, they could do so profitably.
Bahamian retailers say wholesalers, whether foreign or Bahamian owned, need to get out of the business of retailing. Wholesalers should stick to the business of oil exploration and import, and leave retailing to local businesses. Retailers claim there is a consensus that independent gas retail is a better option for Bahamian businesses.
September 12, 2011
tribune242
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune242 Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net
Nassau, The Bahamas
Just over twenty years ago, the notorious regime of the Medellin Cartel came to an end, when a long series of gun battles resulted in Colombian police killing drug leader Pablo Escobar. Mr Escobar was said to be a violent mercenary responsible for the murder of hundreds of government officials, police, prosecutors, judges, journalists and innocent bystanders. He was the last survivor in the powerful drug cartel, infamous for its violent past and of smuggling cocaine into the United States.
This article is not about cocaine or drug cartels; however, it is useful to understand what the Medellin Cartel represents to understand the extent of the oppression felt by petroleum retailers in the Bahamas in relation to their petroleum bosses, Esso, Shell, Chevron and the Freeport Oil Holdings Company, Ltd. (FOCOL).
"The Medellin Cartel, you know they are notorious for killings and murders; they have more heart than oil wholesalers in the Bahamas. They have more love for their victims than oil companies have love for the Bahamas," claimed one gas retailer, who wished to speak anonymously.
Take Esso, for example, owned by the most profitable country in the world, Exxon Mobile. Esso is "king" in this town, said one government source.
Esso owns the only jetty at Clifton Pier that pumps oil from the barges into racking trucks for distribution. Esso collects millions in transfer fees from the largest wholesaler, the Bahamas Electricity Corporation (BEC), along with all of the other private wholesalers, for use of its jetty. In turn, according to Leslie Miller, former Minister of Trade and Industry, the oil company pays the government a pittance of $10,000 annually to rent the sea bed. He said the Bahamas is the third largest consumer of oil in the English speaking Caribbean.
That is right, according to Mr Miller, Esso pays the Bahamian people $10,000 a year, to run an extremely profitable business at one of the most important historical sites in New Providence. It pays $10,000 a year to operate a business that routinely contaminates the air quality and the sea quality at one of the most sacred old sea ports in New Providence. And the Bahamian people, the government included, are powerless to do anything about it. What does that say about the notion of Bahamian sovereignty?
This fee dates back more than 40 years, according to Mr Miller, during the era of the United Bahamian Party (UBP) government. It has gone unchallenged since, he said. When he got wind of the situation as minister and agitated for change, Mr Miller said he was shortly after transferred from trade and industry to agriculture and fisheries. This unsurprising move is indicative of the powerful external forces at work in Bahamian politics.
Esso is reputed to charge the highest rents, between $15,000 and $24,000 per month, and the highest franchise fees, 8 per cent, at its retail sites. One retailer claims that it is cheaper to rent square footage for a store in New York City, one of the most expensive cities in the world, than square footage on Bahamian soil to franchise an Esso service station.
The franchise agreement is a noose around the neck of Bahamian business people, dictating everything from stock levels, operating hours, dress codes, layout of the convenience store, and products to be sold. One retailer said his service station makes no money between 1am and 6 am, but he is forced to stay open and pay people to watch a building because his "slave masters" say so.
There is supposed to be a fundamental separation between the wholesale business and the retail business, according to the national investment policy, say retailers; however, in practice, the separation is a lie.
When Chevron took over from Texaco a few years ago, retailers say this relieved some of the burden on Texaco retailers, because they no longer took out a percentage in franchisee fees, but word has it that Chevron is currently being sold again, so there is no telling what the future could hold.
"Nothing is at the discretion of the dealers. They are basically powerless. They are puppets for the oil companies," he said.
Retailers incur all of the costs of site maintenance, including equipment repair, landscaping, plumbing, electricity, water, staffing.
The oil companies mandate that their retailers pay exorbitant fees for "useless" customer service training. Even though the oil companies insure their buildings and equipment, they mandate retailers also pay insurance: not for security reasons, but so that the oil companies can obtain a lower rate of insurance on their payments.
To alter the conditions of a franchise agreement for a gas retailer would mean closure, because the oil companies could yank their equipment and close up shop, leaving the retailer saddled with debt to a bank that ultimately cares only about getting paid.
The list of complaints goes on, and they are relevant, not only to Esso, but all of the oil companies, including Sun Oil Bahamas, which uses the Shell brand under license. Retailers claim, "The sunshine boys took over from the Bay Street boys and carried on the same old tactics." FOCOL is owned by a mixed bag of political types with Franklyn Wilson and Sir Orville Turnquest among the shareholders. Sun Oil Bahamas is a subsidiary of FOCOL.
These views, nonetheless, stand in stark contrast to views expressed by others, like the former energy minister, who cautioned me not to be fooled by the crocodile tears of gas retailers.
Mr Miller pretty much labelled some of them as "greedy scoundrels" who could not be trusted, because, in his view, their constant cries for margin increases are unfounded.
One gas station owner said about three years ago he was able to make $200-$250,000 in annual profit. At that rate of profitability, Mr Miller suggested there was nothing wrong with the margins. Another gas retailer said those profit levels are the stuff of fantasy today; in less than one year his overdraft with the bank quintupled. There is no doubt, retailers carry a heavy load. They virtually subsidise the industry, said one source. With so much debt to contend with, it is not easy to get out, and with no power, it is hard to survive.
Although full of enthusiasm and insight, Mr Miller speaks with an embittered heart. He said he was able to bring about $80 million worth of savings in the pockets of Bahamian consumers, for which he is very proud. But he admits, in the face of very powerful forces working against the interests of the Bahamian people, he failed to create fundamental change in the local industry. At almost every turn - Liquefied Natural Gas, Petro Caribe - his efforts were rejected by the Bahamian people, the Bahamian government and various unseen, external forces.
Mr Miller claimed that the United States' government, through the Embassy in Nassau, was one of those powerful forces working counter to the interests of the Bahamian people. They would pressure the Bahamian government to back off the oil companies. Naturally, the US Embassy in the Bahamas is here to secure the interests of its citizens and corporations, the latter being more important, despite the rhetoric.
It is claimed that oil companies are so powerful globally that they even have the American government, senators and congressmen included, slaving for them, inside and outside their own country. Imagine how much power the Bahamian government, much less the local gas retailers, would have in face of those geopolitics.
Profit margins are only one part of the debate. The more fundamental argument is about the nature of the relationship between wholesalers and retailers. Any reasonable analysis of the Bahamian oil industry, weighed with global oil politics, would determine there is an inherent lack of equity with the current structure, and local gas retailers get the shortest end of the stick. There is no arguing the need for fundamental change in the Bahamas.
Problem
Successive governments have tried to patch up the problem, but no one has yet been able to bring about the kind of fundamental change that would really work in the best interests of the Bahamian people, business owners included.
Minnis Service Station on Market Street is one of the few independent stations around. It started out as a Shell retailer, about 50 years ago, operating as such for about 21 years. Mr Minnis said at that time black people did not know much about business and they were "given a sip of water and made to believe they had a gallon."
He owned his property on Market Street, but not having the resources or expertise at the time to set up a gas station, he entered a lease agreement with the oil company to develop the land. Once complete, he said the oil company leased the business back to him. After 21 years, he said he decided that he no longer wanted "a job" working for big oil. He wanted to provide "a service" to his people under the dictates of his own business.
So Mr Minnis said he refused to sign anymore lease agreements and set out to become an independent gas retailer. Shell came and packed up all of its equipment, its signs and compressor, and refused to sell gas to Minnis Service Station without a lease agreement. After a solid business relationship for 21 years, Mr Minnis said he was left out in the cold and all because he wanted to develop himself in a manner that suited his own best interests.
At times, Mr Minnis said he would have to work a deal with a friend, who owned a nearby station, to get gas for his tanks.
Mr Minnis said his views are from "the stone age," but how he sees it the global economic system has people "trapped in a cage."
Replaced
Corporations have replaced the old colonial masters and the old slave masters, he said. Within the system, some people are made to believe they live in a mansion, and if they work really hard they can own it, when all the time they are simply trapped in a cage, in the dungeon of the master's house. That is the farce of the petroleum industry and the West World, said Mr Minnis.
The gas retailers are slaves to big oil and so is the Bahamian government.
One gas retailer said the industry progressed over the years away from independent stations, because the oil companies saw an opportunity to make more money. He said in the decades prior to the '60s and '70s, the retail industry was operated mainly by white Bahamians who owned independent stations. The oil companies only profited from the sale of fuel, which is the only thing they rightly should, according to retailers.
Not being satisfied with this model, the oil companies sought to buy out the retailers and set up their own competing retail outlets. This way, they could collect rent, franchise fees and profit from the sale of oil.
Government regulation facilitated the wholesalers, because a long-standing moratorium on retail licenses forced interested business people to obtain franchise agreements through wholesalers in order to operate a retail outlet.
Some 50 years later, independent retailers are almost a thing of the past, in New Providence, where the big oil cartels reign supreme. The independent model is applied in the Family Islands today, presumably because the oil companies do not have an interest there.
According to one source, one of the reasons for the moratorium on retail licenses was the proliferation of service stations. He claimed this is yet another side effect of wholesalers having their fingers too deep in the retail pot.
Wholesalers get their money up front, so they are not concerned about the market being flooded with service stations. The risk and the burden of debt lie on the retail operators.
If the government were to regulate the industry properly, retailers claim it would bring about consolidation and eventually level out the number of stations. Those remaining stations would become more viable and more profitable, said a retailer.
As for resources and expertise, retailers claim wholesalers no longer need to do it all. Bahamians have sufficient expertise and access to financing to develop their own service stations. And if wholesalers moved out of the picture, they could do so profitably.
Bahamian retailers say wholesalers, whether foreign or Bahamian owned, need to get out of the business of retailing. Wholesalers should stick to the business of oil exploration and import, and leave retailing to local businesses. Retailers claim there is a consensus that independent gas retail is a better option for Bahamian businesses.
September 12, 2011
tribune242
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
WikiLeaks, foreign policy and OECS trade policy unit findings are too much for the Diaspora
By Ian Francis:
WikiLeaks and the Comrade
My last article a few days ago on this medium addressed the ongoing WikiLeaks saga as the Bridgetown based US Embassy ramped up its poor and unqualitative analysis and observations about certain political leadership in the region. It was my intention in this article to refrain from further comments on WikiLeaks; however, I have been stalled due to the many unsubstantiated mischief or allegations allegedly being made against Prime Minister Gonsalves. Let me make it clear, although I have known Comrade Gonsalves for a long time, as a social commentator, I hold no biases but can only comment to what I perceive as wrong against a duly elected prime minister. It shows that the policy of hate, spite and mischief is evident and alive in St Vincent and no doubt in other CARICOM states.
It was my understanding three years ago that, when certain allegations of sexual misconduct against the prime minister surfaced, the allegations were dealt with in the necessary respective judicial jurisdiction where a final resolution was rendered. Further ill-founded and mischievous complaints emerged including one from Canada, which resulted in a rather quick retreat by the various complainants. Several other whining and concocted stories against the prime minister, a minister of government and senior officer of the Royal St Vincent Police Force bore no fruits and were described as mischief and speculative.
What is very interesting in this whole episode is the apparent weight and recognition given to three local mischief makers by the United States government. As I learned of the plots, cell phone conversations and begging requests made to the United States Embassy, I could not but helped ask myself, is St Vincent and the Grenadines an independent nation? Are the three mischief makers or character assassins against the prime minister considering themselves to be firm anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist? Lastly, how can any serious lawyer engaged in such an important issue not understand that DNA tests are conducted in a very specific manner and the possibility of contamination could play a very important role in advancing key evidence? I found it imperative to raise these important questions with the view of understanding that one of the three smarties who are destined to destroy the Comrade will see it fit and necessary to respond to my article.
CARICOM foreign policy coordination
It was only three weeks ago that great fanfare and hope was displayed in Georgetown, Guyana, when a respected and able Irwin La Rocque of Dominica assumed command of the CARICOM Secretariat. It was even more satisfying to me when I read excerpts of the welcome address accorded to the secretary general by Prime Minister Douglas of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. In his capacity as current chair of the Community, he heightened the need for more foreign policy coordination within the region by the Secretariat and entrusted Mr La Rocque with many other tasks to be pursued by the Secretariat.
In my view, Prime Minister Douglas’s remarks were appropriate, realistic and established a tone and supportive launching pad for the new secretary general. Unfortunately, as the date approaches for the next United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the varying lobbying efforts are in place by the United States to influence a note by CARICOM states on the Palestine resolution, there are now serious concerns about Prime Minister Douglas’s welcoming remarks about foreign policy coordination in the region. There are even stronger concerns on my part about which way St Kitts will vote on the resolution, as current media reports indicate that Grenada, St Kitts and St Lucia are likely to break ranks with the long standing CARICOM position on supporting the call for an independent Palestine state.
While the foreign policy conduct of St Lucia and Grenada will never be a surprise, I am a bit concerned about St Kitts for two reasons. My respect and observation of Dr Douglas as a deep thinker and no-nonsense leader, and Cuban trained medical doctor, Dr Assim Martin, who recently represented St Kitts in Israel on a recent fact finding mission.
I must add that I was not surprised at the comments attributed to Grenada’s Foreign Minister Karl Hood in the Jerusalem Post. His professed ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Palestine issue was not surprising and his eagerness to get media publicity in Israel further attest to this minister’s individual shallowness on foreign policy issues. Grenada has always been a strong supporter for the creation of a Palestine independent state. This is why, in 1979, Grenada gave formal diplomatic recognition to the PLO and at the same time maintained diplomatic relations with Israel, thus supporting the latter’s right to exist.
As the voting period becomes closer, the CARICOM Secretariat cannot shrug off its responsibilities for a foreign policy coordination strategy on the PLO. It was done before and it is important to allow this consistency to continue. If Grenada feels that it cannot support the resolution, it should immediately break diplomatic relations with the PLO, thus paving its way to vote no, given Bridgetown’s warning, Hood’s recent junket in Israel and foreign policy ignorance.
St Lucia’s behaviour is not surprising. Their approach to foreign policy management stalled four years ago when they booted out mainland China for a return of a renegade province known as Taiwan. In addition, in recent months when the St Lucia crime environment escalated, King’s only solution was to suggest assistance from Israel. Since nothing further was heard about this, it is not known whether Israeli agents are on St Lucia’s soil, thus making it mandatory for King and his hooligans to vote against the PLO resolution.
Therefore, there are still many unanswered questions to the current chair and secretary general of CARICOM.
1) Will the Secretariat be engaged in foreign policy coordination at the United Nations when the resolution is introduced calling for a Palestine state?
2) What is the current state of foreign policy coordination with respect to CARICOM states recognizing one China?
3) Is foreign policy coordination within the Secretariat selective, which leaves individual member states to do their own thing when it is in their interest?
The concept of foreign policy coordination is very confusing to me.
The OECS Trade Policy Unit
During the last year, I addressed many trade related issues related to Canada and the OECS within the context of the CARIBCAN trade agreement. My concerns have always stemmed from the fact and knowledge that that were deficiencies and much more work on an effective trade strategy was necessary if trade and investment opportunities are to be realized and sustained between Canada and the OECS. My concerns were often challenged by Trade Policy Unit personnel, as they felt that my comments and opinions were not fair. Their challenge to my articles increased after their successful rum tasting event and Quebec’s Liquor Board’s consent to grant provisional trial rights for alcohol products from St Lucia.
However, the recent Trade Policy Unit junket held in Antigua last month released transparent and long known information. The release of their technical study on trade between the OECS and Canada requires no further comments except to ask the Castries-based unit the following questions:
1) With the recent closure of the OECS diplomatic mission in Ottawa, what are the alternative plans to ensure an OECS trade enhancement presence in Canada?
2) Now that the OECS Trade Policy Unit has released a technical study that shows little or no trade development capacities between Canada and the OECS, what specific strategies will be advanced by the Unit to build and strengthen trade capacities?
3) Can the Trade Policy unit shed some more light about potential ICT products that can be exported from OECS countries to Canada?
4) In light of the results from your Unit’s technical study, will your unit continue to rely on the Trade Facilitation Organization (TFO) to build trade relations between the OECS and Canada or will be you are exploring the participation and involvement of real Canadian trade stakeholders in your anticipated trade capacity building initiatives?
5) What does the future hold for the development and sustainability of an effective trade strategy between Canada and the OECS that involve diverse sectors and stakeholders?
My articles and opinions are not designed to provoke or challenge the functionality of regional institutions. However, trade and investment impact on diverse interests and may be the time has reached when the Trade Policy Unit needs to embark upon new strategies that will engage a broader spectrum of individuals and institutions.
September 14, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
In the North American Diaspora, there is always a thirst for forward looking news from the Caribbean region. This thirst for progressive policy news is often bolstered when it is learnt that our regional governments are actively coordinating foreign policy management, searching for export markets and trade collaboration in Canada and, most important, attaining a factual and global understanding that the United States has lost its world policing status. Many new players have emerged and it is time to take cognizance.
WikiLeaks and the Comrade
My last article a few days ago on this medium addressed the ongoing WikiLeaks saga as the Bridgetown based US Embassy ramped up its poor and unqualitative analysis and observations about certain political leadership in the region. It was my intention in this article to refrain from further comments on WikiLeaks; however, I have been stalled due to the many unsubstantiated mischief or allegations allegedly being made against Prime Minister Gonsalves. Let me make it clear, although I have known Comrade Gonsalves for a long time, as a social commentator, I hold no biases but can only comment to what I perceive as wrong against a duly elected prime minister. It shows that the policy of hate, spite and mischief is evident and alive in St Vincent and no doubt in other CARICOM states.
It was my understanding three years ago that, when certain allegations of sexual misconduct against the prime minister surfaced, the allegations were dealt with in the necessary respective judicial jurisdiction where a final resolution was rendered. Further ill-founded and mischievous complaints emerged including one from Canada, which resulted in a rather quick retreat by the various complainants. Several other whining and concocted stories against the prime minister, a minister of government and senior officer of the Royal St Vincent Police Force bore no fruits and were described as mischief and speculative.
What is very interesting in this whole episode is the apparent weight and recognition given to three local mischief makers by the United States government. As I learned of the plots, cell phone conversations and begging requests made to the United States Embassy, I could not but helped ask myself, is St Vincent and the Grenadines an independent nation? Are the three mischief makers or character assassins against the prime minister considering themselves to be firm anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist? Lastly, how can any serious lawyer engaged in such an important issue not understand that DNA tests are conducted in a very specific manner and the possibility of contamination could play a very important role in advancing key evidence? I found it imperative to raise these important questions with the view of understanding that one of the three smarties who are destined to destroy the Comrade will see it fit and necessary to respond to my article.
CARICOM foreign policy coordination
It was only three weeks ago that great fanfare and hope was displayed in Georgetown, Guyana, when a respected and able Irwin La Rocque of Dominica assumed command of the CARICOM Secretariat. It was even more satisfying to me when I read excerpts of the welcome address accorded to the secretary general by Prime Minister Douglas of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. In his capacity as current chair of the Community, he heightened the need for more foreign policy coordination within the region by the Secretariat and entrusted Mr La Rocque with many other tasks to be pursued by the Secretariat.
In my view, Prime Minister Douglas’s remarks were appropriate, realistic and established a tone and supportive launching pad for the new secretary general. Unfortunately, as the date approaches for the next United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the varying lobbying efforts are in place by the United States to influence a note by CARICOM states on the Palestine resolution, there are now serious concerns about Prime Minister Douglas’s welcoming remarks about foreign policy coordination in the region. There are even stronger concerns on my part about which way St Kitts will vote on the resolution, as current media reports indicate that Grenada, St Kitts and St Lucia are likely to break ranks with the long standing CARICOM position on supporting the call for an independent Palestine state.
While the foreign policy conduct of St Lucia and Grenada will never be a surprise, I am a bit concerned about St Kitts for two reasons. My respect and observation of Dr Douglas as a deep thinker and no-nonsense leader, and Cuban trained medical doctor, Dr Assim Martin, who recently represented St Kitts in Israel on a recent fact finding mission.
I must add that I was not surprised at the comments attributed to Grenada’s Foreign Minister Karl Hood in the Jerusalem Post. His professed ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Palestine issue was not surprising and his eagerness to get media publicity in Israel further attest to this minister’s individual shallowness on foreign policy issues. Grenada has always been a strong supporter for the creation of a Palestine independent state. This is why, in 1979, Grenada gave formal diplomatic recognition to the PLO and at the same time maintained diplomatic relations with Israel, thus supporting the latter’s right to exist.
As the voting period becomes closer, the CARICOM Secretariat cannot shrug off its responsibilities for a foreign policy coordination strategy on the PLO. It was done before and it is important to allow this consistency to continue. If Grenada feels that it cannot support the resolution, it should immediately break diplomatic relations with the PLO, thus paving its way to vote no, given Bridgetown’s warning, Hood’s recent junket in Israel and foreign policy ignorance.
St Lucia’s behaviour is not surprising. Their approach to foreign policy management stalled four years ago when they booted out mainland China for a return of a renegade province known as Taiwan. In addition, in recent months when the St Lucia crime environment escalated, King’s only solution was to suggest assistance from Israel. Since nothing further was heard about this, it is not known whether Israeli agents are on St Lucia’s soil, thus making it mandatory for King and his hooligans to vote against the PLO resolution.
Therefore, there are still many unanswered questions to the current chair and secretary general of CARICOM.
1) Will the Secretariat be engaged in foreign policy coordination at the United Nations when the resolution is introduced calling for a Palestine state?
2) What is the current state of foreign policy coordination with respect to CARICOM states recognizing one China?
3) Is foreign policy coordination within the Secretariat selective, which leaves individual member states to do their own thing when it is in their interest?
The concept of foreign policy coordination is very confusing to me.
The OECS Trade Policy Unit
During the last year, I addressed many trade related issues related to Canada and the OECS within the context of the CARIBCAN trade agreement. My concerns have always stemmed from the fact and knowledge that that were deficiencies and much more work on an effective trade strategy was necessary if trade and investment opportunities are to be realized and sustained between Canada and the OECS. My concerns were often challenged by Trade Policy Unit personnel, as they felt that my comments and opinions were not fair. Their challenge to my articles increased after their successful rum tasting event and Quebec’s Liquor Board’s consent to grant provisional trial rights for alcohol products from St Lucia.
However, the recent Trade Policy Unit junket held in Antigua last month released transparent and long known information. The release of their technical study on trade between the OECS and Canada requires no further comments except to ask the Castries-based unit the following questions:
1) With the recent closure of the OECS diplomatic mission in Ottawa, what are the alternative plans to ensure an OECS trade enhancement presence in Canada?
2) Now that the OECS Trade Policy Unit has released a technical study that shows little or no trade development capacities between Canada and the OECS, what specific strategies will be advanced by the Unit to build and strengthen trade capacities?
3) Can the Trade Policy unit shed some more light about potential ICT products that can be exported from OECS countries to Canada?
4) In light of the results from your Unit’s technical study, will your unit continue to rely on the Trade Facilitation Organization (TFO) to build trade relations between the OECS and Canada or will be you are exploring the participation and involvement of real Canadian trade stakeholders in your anticipated trade capacity building initiatives?
5) What does the future hold for the development and sustainability of an effective trade strategy between Canada and the OECS that involve diverse sectors and stakeholders?
My articles and opinions are not designed to provoke or challenge the functionality of regional institutions. However, trade and investment impact on diverse interests and may be the time has reached when the Trade Policy Unit needs to embark upon new strategies that will engage a broader spectrum of individuals and institutions.
September 14, 2011
caribbeannewsnow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)