It is one thing to disagree on public policy. It is another thing entirely to light the personal match, throw it, and then complain about the smoke.

When Dr. Duane Sands—former Health Minister under the Free National Movement (FNM)—described the Davis administration’s proposal for a new specialty hospital as a “dumb idea,” he did not do so in a vacuum. His stated position was straightforward: the country’s primary public hospital, the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH), still faces longstanding infrastructure, maintenance, staffing, and equipment challenges. In that context, he argued that prioritizing a brand-new specialty facility over completing upgrades and expansions to the existing general hospital was, in his view, misguided.

You can disagree with that reasoning. What you cannot fairly say is that there was no reasoning.

Enter Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), who responded not by dismantling the policy argument point by point, but by launching into Dr. Sands’ past—referencing his resignation in 2020 after violating COVID-19 emergency orders, his opposition to aspects of National Health Insurance (NHI), and alleging broader “failure” in health care.

Let’s fact-check that terrain.

Yes, Dr. Sands resigned in May 2020 after admitting he assisted U.S. citizens who arrived in The Bahamas during COVID-19 restrictions, contrary to emergency orders. That is a matter of public record.  The funny thing about this is that it was Philip “Brave” Davis that stood up in Parliament during the pandemic and said that we have “friends” that could assist us with getting the vaccine and this is what Dr. Sands did and was fired for, but this is how life is; right?

Yes, he has been critical of how NHI was structured and funded, though NHI itself was initiated under a previous PLP administration and expanded in phases thereafter.

But here is the pivot: when you begin by referencing someone’s “personal conduct,” calling them names, and listing past controversies, you have already made it personal. To then issue a release saying, “This has nothing to do with me and you, personally. This is about public policy,” rings hollow. If it were strictly about policy, the rebuttal would have focused on hospital capacity data, capital budgets, staffing ratios, and timelines—not “jackass” and character attacks.

Now to the substance.

The FNM administration (2017–2021), with Dr. Sands as Health Minister for part of that term, advanced renovation works at PMH, including infrastructure upgrades and planning for expanded services. Not all projects were completed before the 2021 election. That is also a fact.

Since the PLP returned to office in 2021 under Philip Davis, PMH has continued to experience well-documented challenges: infrastructure strain, equipment shortages, industrial disputes with nurses, and complaints about conditions in Accident & Emergency. If the government’s position is that the FNM left the hospital in disrepair, the obvious follow-up question is: what has been completed in the four-plus years since? Capital allocations were made in successive budgets. If funds were reallocated or projects delayed, that is a matter of governance—not inheritance.

You cannot simultaneously argue:

1. The hospital was in crisis when we came to office, and
2. We have not yet meaningfully completed the core renovations, and
3. Our top priority is building a brand-new specialty hospital.

That is not a personal attack. That is a sequencing question.

Then there is the demographic argument. Mr. Mitchell has publicly referenced declining birth rates and the need to supplement the workforce through immigration due to population trends. If the birth rate is declining—as demographic data in The Bahamas has shown in recent years—then the logical policy debate becomes: should scarce capital funds prioritize a women’s and children’s specialty hospital, or the strengthening and expansion of a comprehensive general hospital that serves the entire population, including a growing elderly demographic?

A specialty hospital for women and children is not inherently a bad idea. The question is whether it is the right idea right now.

And that brings us back to tone.

If Dr. Sands says the idea is “dumb,” you can rebut him with numbers, timelines, and fiscal projections. What weakens the government’s position is abandoning policy argument in favour of personal invective—then insisting it is not personal.

When you throw the first punch and then complain about getting hit back, you do not look principled. You look thin-skinned.

The Bahamian people deserve a serious discussion about:

The status of renovations at Princess Margaret Hospital

The funding and sustainability of National Health Insurance

Staffing levels and industrial agreements

Capital priorities in a constrained fiscal environment

They do not deserve political theatre disguised as policy debate.

If this is truly about facts, then let’s have facts: What renovations remain incomplete? What funds were allocated, spent, or returned? What is the full capital cost of the proposed specialty hospital? How will it be staffed, and how will it be funded without undermining the general hospital?

Those are not personal questions.

They are governance questions.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature and The Bahamas deserves much better.

END