Author: My Morning Paper

I reserve all rights under the constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas to comment on any subject as I see it..I do have a voice. These are my opinions.

My Morning Paper – November 14 2024 – The Issue of Transparency At Home

The Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) once said; “We oppose this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  The FNM has this view; they’ve passed something called the Fiscal Responsibly Act, The Procurement Act, The Freedom of Information Act.  All of these things have nothing to do with people’s ordinary lives. 

Freedom of Information, I don’t think so.

It’s bureaucratic, expensive to execute.

We are talking about a philosophical difference between us and them.”

Now Prime Minister; the Hon. Philip E. Davis K.C. takes the world stage and demands accountability and transparency form the world as it related to Climate Change.

“PM calls for $1trn fund to fight climate change” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “THE Prime Minister yesterday called for greater global transparency as he added his voice to calls for the creation of a $1trn fund to combat climate change.

Philip Davis KC, speaking at COP 29 conference, said The Bahamas is ‘advancing’ it’s first Biennial Transparency Report on progress towards meeting its climate change goals with funding from the Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT).

The Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) framework allows countries to track and report on national climate change mitigation policies and adaptation actions, and gain support towards achieving the global temperature and adaptation goals, including their progress on achieving individual national; determined contributions (NDCs).

‘Transparency is not merely a reporting requirement. It’s the backbone of real, lasting climate action.  For countries, transparency means acknowledging where we stand and what we need,’ said Mr. Davis.”

 I wonder if I were to rewrite that last line if all would be well with in our country; “‘Transparency is not merely a reporting requirement. It’s the backbone of real, lasting democracy”.

The New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is at odds with “democracy.”  They are willing to go on the world stage and expect and demand transparency, accountability and democracy but apply it at their convenience at home; but real life does not work that way.

Does Prime Minister Davis not realize how contradictory this statement really is; does he even care?

Let us take a look at what he is really saying and how he is contradicting himself and his government.

Contradictions in Transparency: A Closer Look at the Davis-led PLP Government

In the same breath that Prime Minister Davis is calling for global transparency, his administration faces serious transparency issues at home. A few notable examples highlight this ongoing struggle:

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Delays

Despite FOIA being passed by the previous administration, the current PLP government under Prime Minister Davis has been slow to implement it fully. The delay in rolling out FOIA keeps critical information inaccessible, making it harder for Bahamian citizens to hold their government accountable.

Electricity Rate Increase

The public faced an increase in electricity rates with little explanation, drawing frustration and distrust. Many citizens questioned the financial management practices of Bahamas Power and Light (BPL), yet clear, detailed information on how rates were determined or the factors driving these costs were not provided. For a government that calls for international transparency, this lack of openness at home on issues affecting daily life reveals a troubling contradiction.

Lack of Transparency on Government Contracts

Under the current administration, there have been limited disclosures on government contracts, despite the Procurement Act being in place. While the government has a system for public procurement, the lack of timely updates and detailed contract information has raised questions. For instance, significant contracts awarded without competitive bidding remain undisclosed to the public, leaving citizens in the dark about how and where their tax dollars are being spent.

Handling of National Debt and Public FinancesThe PLP government has also been hesitant to embrace the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s mandates, which aim to increase fiscal transparency. For example, while they release budget information, certain critical reports on the country’s debt levels, particularly regarding the terms of recent borrowing, have lacked detail. This makes it challenging for citizens to understand the true state of the national debt and the strategies employed to manage it.

Conclusion

In my opinion, it’s almost surreal to see Prime Minister Davis step onto the world stage, all fired up, calling for transparency, accountability, and democracy—as if he’s auditioning for the role of “Champion of Openness” at the Global Oscars. And yet, back home, where he actually has the power to practice what he preaches, it’s like he’s developed a sudden case of selective amnesia.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for reason, it is their nature.

END
    

My Morning Paper – November 9, 2024 – Ignorance in Action: The Cost of Political Games in The Bahamas

“Nothing is more terrible than to see ignorance in action.” – Goethe

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), under the guise of “good governance,” seems to have embraced what could only be described as “silly season” – a term frequently used by PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell to dismiss criticisms from the opposition Free National Movement (FNM). Ironically, Mitchell’s attempt to call out the opposition on various issues ignores the glaring contradictions in his own party’s approach to governance.

Prime Minister Philip Davis, in an attempt to address rising public frustration, recently noted that individuals’ choices impact their cost of living. While there’s some truth to the notion that personal spending habits play a role, the statement came across as dismissive, particularly since it was paired with his admission that the cost of living in The Bahamas is indeed excessively high. The average Bahamian faces soaring prices on everything from basic necessities to utilities, and attributing this solely to personal choices appears somewhat out of touch with the economic realities. Many believe that the government’s decisions have done little to ease these burdens, and instead, this approach feels more like an effort to deflect responsibility.

The government’s minimal interventions and inadequate strategies to address inflation have left citizens struggling with high prices. By pointing fingers back at citizens, Davis’s statement comes off as an exercise in deflection rather than genuine problem-solving. For many Bahamians, this statement symbolized yet another instance of the PLP avoiding accountability for failing to alleviate the pressing financial struggles facing their people.

Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper recently chastised individuals for circulating a video that, according to him, “could hurt the image of The Bahamas.” While it’s understandable for a government official to be concerned about the nation’s global reputation, this stance would feel a lot more genuine if the PLP’s own history didn’t reveal a similar approach. In fact, when the PLP was in opposition, they famously placed billboards across Nassau that highlighted The Bahamas’ murder count, all in an effort to paint the FNM government as inept in handling crime. This move undoubtedly impacted the country’s image, yet the PLP seemed comfortable with these tactics when it benefited their political agenda.

It’s difficult for many Bahamians to reconcile Cooper’s criticism with the PLP’s past actions. It raises the question: does the PLP’s concern for the nation’s image only extend as far as its political expediency? This double standard demonstrates an unwillingness to own up to their own actions, especially when those very actions mirror the same behaviour’s they criticize.

The “silly season” label has become the PLP’s go-to defence whenever faced with valid criticism, conveniently ignoring the fact that their approach to governance has often been marked by a lack of introspection and accountability. Since May 2007, the PLP has seemingly been in a perpetual “silly season,” displaying a pattern of pointing fingers outward while avoiding difficult self-reflection.

The Bahamian people deserve a government that doesn’t just speak about “good governance” but embodies it through consistent actions, even when those actions require acknowledging past missteps.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.”

END

My Morning Paper – November 06, 2024 – The Hypocrisy of the Progressive Liberal Party’s Stance on the Baha Mar Scandal – Collusion or Coincidence?

In recent weeks, Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has been vocal in his criticism of Sarkis Izmirlian, the developer behind the troubled Baha Mar project. By branding Izmirlian a “failed developer,” Mitchell and the PLP appear to be sidestepping a recent judgment against China Construction America (CCA), which implicates officials within the “New Day” government in alleged collusion. This attempt to deflect raises pressing questions about the PLP’s accountability, transparency, and the potential hypocrisy of their current stance.

The Attempt to Paint Izmirlian as Solely Responsible

In the narrative promoted by Mitchell and the PLP, the failure of Baha Mar is pinned solely on Sarkis Izmirlian, while the role of CCA, the project’s lead construction company, and potential issues of sabotage remain unmentioned. Mitchell’s argument suggests that the collapse of Baha Mar was due to Izmirlian’s negligence or incompetence, rather than any outside interference. However, this interpretation ignores a key aspect of the situation: the $1.6 billion judgment awarded to Izmirlian in damages, which implies something far more complex than simple developer failure.

The judgment against CCA indicates that Baha Mar’s struggles were not due to a “failed” developer alone but rather due to interference, delays, and possible collusion involving Chinese interests and Bahamian officials. The omission of these facts in Mitchell’s statements risks misleading the Bahamian public about the true circumstances surrounding Baha Mar’s failure.

The PLP’s Questionable Role in a “Private Matter”

Mitchell’s recent remarks instruct Bahamians to “sit down, be quiet, and stay out of this private dispute.” Ironically, it was the PLP, during the Christie administration—where Mitchell and current Prime Minister Philip Davis both served as cabinet ministers—that injected itself into what was initially a private matter. The administration justified its intervention as a measure to protect Bahamian subcontractors’ interests. Yet, it is now clear that the intervention may have been far from neutral, and it may even have contributed to the challenges faced by the developer.

Despite funds being provided by Izmirlian’s team to pay subcontractors, the contractor, CCA, used this payment to purchase and develop another Bahamian property. For this to happen, permits and approvals would likely have been required, suggesting that Bahamian officials had to be aware of and possibly even sanctioned these actions. This scenario is eerily reminiscent of other instances of poor communication and accountability, such as the controversial entry of Carnival into the country early in the PLP’s administration, where no official took responsibility for the permits issued.

Collusion or Coincidence?

The forensic reports due later this month are likely to shed more light on the potential collusion between Bahamian officials and CCA. Nonetheless, the timing and circumstances surrounding the PLP’s involvement in the project have raised serious concerns. The assertion that the government’s intervention was motivated purely by concern for Bahamian subcontractors is at odds with the details emerging from the investigation, which suggests that key decisions may have been influenced by interests beyond national pride or protectionism.

Mitchell’s current rhetoric ignores the complexity of these issues, preferring to keep public attention on Izmirlian as the “failed developer” rather than acknowledging the PLP’s role in the ongoing scandal. The Bahamian people deserve an honest answer: if the PLP’s only aim was to help subcontractors, how did a significant amount of the project’s funds end up being used by CCA for separate ventures? Why was no oversight applied to ensure that funds were used appropriately?

Deflection Tactics and the FNM Blame Game

Another deflection tactic used by the PLP is the suggestion that the Free National Movement (FNM) is spreading rumors about potential job losses due to the judgment against CCA. This narrative seems to serve as a smokescreen to distract from the PLP’s alleged role in the scandal. There is little concrete evidence that the FNM has launched such a campaign, and it’s worth asking why Mitchell would choose this moment to bring up such a claim.

If the PLP’s involvement was as innocent as they claim, why not fully cooperate with the investigation and present the forensic evidence to the public? The refusal to engage with the findings of the judgment—while deflecting blame onto a developer and political opposition—paints a picture of a government unwilling to be accountable for its past actions.

Accountability Is Key

For a government that prides itself on being a “New Day” administration, the PLP’s handling of the Baha Mar scandal demonstrates a continuation of old ways. Bahamians deserve answers, transparency, and an end to the rhetoric that paints one party as the scapegoat while officials avoid accountability for their own potential missteps.

In light of the judgment, it’s time for Mitchell and the PLP to follow their own advice and exercise caution in their statements. As more information emerges, it’s essential that the PLP is held accountable for its role in the Baha Mar fiasco and that the Bahamian people receive clear and transparent answers about how and why government officials were involved.

END

 My Morning Paper – October 31, 2024 – In Defense of Country or Party?

Just when you thought that the country’s top executive, Prime Minister, Philip Davis K.C., was displaying some semblance of commonsense, as he tasked  Attorney General Ryan Pinder with reviewing the  recent Baha Mar court ruling and its implications for The Bahamas. Just when the government seemed to had taken a wait-and-see approach, a decision which reflected a more cautious stance that some viewed as necessary given the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the case, especially considering the Bahamas’ economic and political relationship with the United States. And while the government was also attempting to downplay any other teffects that it may have on The Bahamas, it would appear that Prime Minister Davis left his office door opened just a little bit too long.

 So in saunters the country’s top diplomat, the Hon. Fred Mitchell, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and all “hell and darkness” followed; was that too dark too quick?  Mitchell who seems more busied with ‘picking fights’ with the United States justice system; fights which in my opinion are quite unnecessary, as was the very first intervention by the Christie Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government in the Baha Mar matter. Instantly, the country’s top executive then seemed convinced to throw caution into the wind as he now seeks to defend the unnecessary fight that the top diplomat has picked.

We have seen this show before.

“PM DEFENDS MITCHELL’S REMARKS ON BAHA MAR COURT RULING” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “PRIME Minister Philip “ Brave” Davis defended Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell’s critical response to a recent New York State Supreme Court ruling, which awarded Baha Mar’s original developer, Sarkis Izmirlian, over $1.6bn in damages in a fraud and breach of contract case against the main contractor, China Contraction America (CCA).

Mr. Mitchell, the Minister of Foreign Affairs dismissed fraud allegations involving the Christie administration officials during the Baha Mar saga as ‘salacious’, arguing that no evidence supported the accusation.

He accused Izmirlian of promoting a narrative misaligned with the facts. 

He urged the public to approach the commentary on the US ruling with caution and advised Bahamians to be ‘skeptical’ about information related to the judgment.

His comments sparked backlash.  The Nassau Guardian reported last week Tuesday that former Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson said Mr. Mitchell showed a ‘total lack of diplomatic behavior’ with his ‘intemperate’ comments.

‘I have no problem with the chairman raising to defense of party officials, family and friends,’ Justice Thompson wrote. “However, I take strong exception to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of our nation lambasting the judge of a friendly country because he did not like is ruling, and vilifying a foreign resident and investor because he dared to bring an action to secure his right and succeeded.”

Mitchell’s comments, which dismissed allegations of corruption within the Christie administration as “salacious” and urged Bahamians to approach the ruling’s commentary with skepticism, were met with criticism from figures such as former Justice Jeanne Thompson. She argued that his tone lacked the diplomatic restraint expected of a Foreign Minister. Moreover, members of the opposition, such as Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard, suggested that Mitchell’s remarks may compromise the perception of Bahamian diplomacy and investor confidence in the nation.

Question: When Fred Mitchell urges “the public to approach commentary on the US ruling with caution and advised Bahamians to be ‘skeptical’ about information related to the judgment”; does this bit of advice also apply to his commentary and any and all information coming from the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) as a party and a government?

Another question:  With his constant unsolicited rhetoric from the New Day government, in my mind, raises the question of if Fred Mitchell is acting as the country’s best interest and the country’s top diplomat or in the best interest of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) as its chairman?

And yet another question; Can Mitchell actually wear both “hats” and render an objective point of view; a diplomatic point of view on this issue?

The chairman of the Progressive Liberal party (PLP) seems to want to be able to get in the front of this “train wreck” because there are very serious allegations brought up in the ruling by the US Supreme Court that tends to shed The Bahamas’ government in a very poor light.

The ruling pointed out, “Baha Mar financial crisis would have been averted if its main contractor had properly used $54 m to pay the project’s sub-contractor rather than fund the British Colonial purchase, a U.S. judge ruled”.

Apparently it was the court’s ruling that CCA purposely diverted much needed capital from the Baha Mar development only to go on to use it or misuse these fund to invest in another capital project; did the Christie administration have any knowledge of this at the time?

If so, who knew what and when did they know it?

Indeed, this situation underscores the challenges of balancing national interests with party loyalty, especially when navigating high-stakes international litigation involving significant investment and reputational issues but can one reasonably carry out this balancing act?

 The ongoing review by the Attorney General may clarify the government’s official stance, but the controversy highlights the tensions within Bahamian leadership as they balance diplomacy, political image, and public accountability in the face of complex international rulings.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is within their nature.

END

Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell criticized the Free National Movement’s (FNM) call for a parliamentary committee on crime, questioning its potential impact on the rising crime issue. Mitchell asserted that another committee would not directly address the complexities of crime, suggesting that actions are necessary rather than “political hay.” He urged that this approach avoid turning crime into a political debate and emphasized the need for tangible steps to address the problem.

The PLP government, led by Prime Minister Philip Davis, has introduced its “Five Pillars” strategy to combat crime, focusing on Prevention, Policing/Detection, Prosecution, Punishment, and Rehabilitation. This comprehensive approach aims for cross-government coordination in addressing the root causes and escalating trends of crime. The administration believes this plan supersedes the need for a committee, instead emphasizing real-time interventions and immediate support for law enforcement efforts.

Critics, however, argue that crime remains a serious concern despite the PLP’s plan, and some in the public sphere view the government’s response as insufficient, given recent crime trends. They express that a more united and potentially collaborative approach, as recommended by the FNM, might better address the issue. Mitchell’s dismissal of the committee suggestion has fueled criticism, suggesting that he may be overly focused on maintaining the PLP’s stance, even as the public increasingly demands further action on crime beyond existing government strategies.

My Morning Paper – October 23, 2024 – Just the Facts Please…..

I have always said in The Bahamas that when it comes to politics, there are two sets of “facts”; the actual facts and there are Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) facts and what I have come to find out is that these two sets of facts do not assimilate.

In a statement in the Nassau Guardian this morning , in reference to the recent Baha Mar ruling, the PLP Chairman is quoted as saying;” Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian of “seeking to tell a narrative which does not line up with the facts”.

When the chairman talks about the facts not lining up, exactly whose facts is he referring to?

It would appear that they lined up for Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the state of New York but that is beside the point I guess.

 “Mitchell slams Izmirlian, Pintard and Baha Mar ruling.” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt form this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman and Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell yesterday accused former Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian of “seeking to tell a narrative which does not line up with the facts”.

Mitchell was responding to a significant New York court judgment finding that Izmirlian lost his Baha Mar project a decade ago as a result of fraud and breaches committed by China Construction America (CCA).

Mitchell’s claim was made notwithstanding the fact that Justice Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York said in his ruling that credible evidence indicated that Izmirlian acted “honorably and commercially reasonably” in seeking to have the multi-billion-development completed.

The judge awarded Izmirlian’s BML Properties Limited $1.6 billion against China Construction America as a result of the fraud and breaches.

Mitchell also lashed out at Opposition Leader Michael Pintard who on Sunday called for an investigation into the inferences in the ruling that Bahamian government officials had colluded with CCA to push Izmirlian out.

“We’re concerned about the leader of the opposition, who jumps on a judgment, comments written by a judge in the United States,” said Mitchell in a video recording that was widely circulated yesterday.

“When is the leader of the opposition going to support Bahamians and support The Bahamas?”

“Support Bahamians and support The Bahamas” on what exactly, Mr. Mitchell?

Here, we have the chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party attempting to attack the Leader of the Opposition Free National Movement (FNM) with the old line of being “anti-Bahamian”.  He did this when the New Day, Old Way Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) went to “war” with the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), at that time every one that disagreed with the PLP government was seen as being “anti-Bahamian”.

Another instance occurred when Bahamians protested over issues like inadequate electricity and poor infrastructure in islands such as Andros and Eleuthera. The government’s response was to dismiss some of these criticisms as lacking in national loyalty, framing critics as opposing progress and nation-building efforts.

This has been a recurring theme in the PLP’s narrative whenever they face public discontent or organized opposition to their policies, so this has been established let us move on.

It is simply amazing that the chairman of the New Day, Old Way PLP government seeks to attack the leader of the opposition and the BML Properties Limited over the recent Baha Mar ruling when it was the findings of the Supreme Court of the State of New York  that stated; “In addition to the court ruling in favor of the Izmirlian family for the sum of $1.6 billion, the judgment referenced evidence of troubling allegations about the direct involvement and active support of officials in the then-PLP administration when Prime Minister [Philip] Davis served as deputy leader,” so herein is where the issue comes in.

It would appear that the court ruling condemns the PLP administration for what amounts to collusion; in acting in concert with the contractor CCA to gain ownership of Baha Mar but I am sure that the New Day, Old way government does not see it that way but interestingly enough again Prime Minister Davis and Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) do not seem to be on the same page as it pertains to this issue.  We have the Prime Minister instructing the Attorney General to review the matter; while the Chairman Mitchell suggests that there really is nothing to review.

So what’s worse here? A government that can’t govern or one that hides its failures behind accusations of treason and lies? Calling criticism “unpatriotic” is the real betrayal. It’s the last refuge of a failed administration, desperate to distract from the truth that they’re not doing their jobs. And the truth is, Bahamians are suffering, the government is failing, and that is fact.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

My Morning Paper – October 9, 2024 – Weaponized Misinformation

The Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government continues to inundate the public with what I can only characterize as “weaponized misinformation”.

This morning he wishes to evoke biblical philosophies of “thou shalt not kill” and “Vengeance in mine sayeth The Lord”, as he laid the ground work for a very loose attack on Free National Movement (FNM) senator Darren Henfield for his recent comments in the Senate regarding capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.

My first thoughts were, if there were any other biblical philosophes which the “good” PLP chairman would like to invoke at this time; the first coming to mind Proverbs 19 [5] “A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape”

Mitchell goes on to make what can only be labeled as asinine comments wherein he asks; “Do we round up everyone on the street that we suspect is a killer and hang them right away, no trial, no judge, just go out and hang them?” This was never suggested based on what Senator Henfield was saying and only a person looking to mislead though misinformation would reach such an erroneous conclusion.

The “good” chairman should be ashamed of himself but we all know that he is not and totally prepared to do it all again tomorrow on some other topic, but Mitchell’s misinformation did not stop there.

Mitchell goes on to speak to meeting the standard of the worst of the worst in terms of capital punishment, a question which we as a country has not been able to agree on but the question is who set this standard for The Bahamas?  These would be bodies like the Privy Council and other Caribbean Countries; it’s odd that the PLP seeks to follow others at their convenience, lacking consistency in governance.

No, Mr. Mitchell, at no time during the Minnis administration was there a call for the death penalty and did you or any or your devoted followers van prove me wrong that I simply ask that you all present the evidence and layout your case.

The New Day government goes on even further in this dissemination of misinformation making the following statement; “What we know after hundreds died, if not thousands went missing in Abaco, this same Senator Darren Henfield was witness[ed] at a mass funeral in Abaco, where citizens of Abaco were protesting the funeral at the gates, it was shockingly negligent and a government, his government, was told in advance to evacuate the citizens of Marsh Harbour as the storm was coming and failed to do so and the result was scores of dead and missing.

Who should pay the ultimate price for this negligence”?

Like I said; “Weaponized Misinformation”.

It is pubic record at the time that the Minnis administration did appeal for the citizens of Marsh Harbour to evacuate and did carry our evacuation exercises to move people out of the path of Hurricane Dorian, and many actually did.  The ‘good’ chairman needs to attempt to be truthful with himself and the Bahamian people as to what really happened, instead of simply politicizing such a great tragedy.  Maybe there is a reason why Prime Minister Davis, now says that there will not be any further investigation into this matter, the “good” chairman needs to stop contradicting his leader with such blatant misinformation and lies; as they only cast aspersion on the very character of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP); not only as a political organization but as a government.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is within their nature.

END

My Morning Paper 3rd October 2024 – Shocking Admissions

This latest admission by the Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government regarding the government’s “war on crime” is very troubling to say the very least.

“Mitchell on crime: What more do you want govt. to do?” – The Tribune

Except from this article;

“AFTER Opposition members accused the government of lacking a sound plan to combat crime, Fox Hill MP Fred Mitchell questioned what more they expect the government to do.

He was responding to St Barnabas MP Shanendon Cartwright, who lamented the country’s murder rate.

His comment came just hours before police recorded another murder yesterday, the second for the week and the country’s 91st for the year.

“We should all be ashamed, Madame Speaker, that we have not in any meaningful and adequate way addressed the issue of crime in a fundamental way,” Mr. Cartwright told Parliamentarians yesterday.

He acknowledged that a multi-layered approach involving all stakeholders is essential in the fight against crime, but argued that the government is not leading efficiently in this effort.

Mr. Mitchell pushed back, insisting the government is taking the matter seriously and that it was wrong for Mr. Cartwright to push a narrative suggesting otherwise.

“The evidence is there on all the social programmes that have been put in place since 2021,” Mr. Mitchell, highlighting the Urban Renewal programme, the government’s school breakfast programme and other initiatives, emphasising that these are long-term efforts aimed at positively impacting youth.

“I don’t want the public to be left with the impression that we think this is a joke,” he said.”

It would appear that the New Day government is conceding defeat in their “war on crime” and it would be a joke if it were not such a serious matter because the people of The Bahamas that elected them to office on promises of defeating crime cannot….CANNOT… afford for the government to simply give up.

The truth is this that the New Day government seems to have been enacting the every same social programs in their fight against crime as far back as the Christie administration, it was not effective then, so I am at a total lost as to why they would believe that it would be effective today?

What is the definition for insanity again? 

But seriously, we the citizens simply cannot afford for the New Day government to claim “insanity” at this time.

The chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) speaks to stopping just short of imposing draconian measures to combat crime and while we do not need overtly harsh measures, we do need the government to impose more harsh strategies to fight crime, even if it means losing the next general election; this is called country over politics.

The odd thing here is this, that imposing the laws already on the books consistently and evenly would be considered ‘overtly harsh” today simply because the average citizen no longer appreciates nor respects the persons that enforce laws on our streets. 

The Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF) is partly the fault for this and there needs to be a consistent move toward our officers regaining the respect lost; while simultaneously imposing our laws on a consistent basis.

While I truly appreciate that maintaining law and order in a rapidly growing county as The Bahamas especially on the island of New Providence is a difficult task; we cannot no have a government; any government, even seeming to concede defeat.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

My Morning Paper – September 27, 2024 – The Unconstitutionality Of It All – Pure Hypocrisy

This past week the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government passed the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) Amendment Bill 2024, which was supported by the Opposition Free National Movement (FNM), and why would or should the FNM have any opposition to this bill, especially since it is essentially the very same bill that they had passed as the National Criminal Intelligence Agency (NCIA) bill (2019), which Prime Minister Philip Davis, then in opposition, labelled as illegal and unconstitutional.

“Govt. Defends NIA 2024 Amendment Bill” – The Bahama Journal

Excerpt from this article; “Thew Minister of National security Hon. Wayne said the National intelligence Agency (NIA) Amendment Bill 2024 by the Davis administration has breath new life into the agency which is an important arm of national security.

Some of the major changes to the Bill include a change in name from the National Crime Intelligence Act (NCIA) to NIA removing the word crime because the agency covers more than criminal activity.

The amendments will also provide for the introduction of a NIA Commissioner that is expected to improve internal operations, career paths and collaborations with other government agencies.”

While debating the bill and queried about his “flip flop on the matter Prime Minister Philip Davis is heard saying, “I am debating the amendment to the bill itself and my view of the bill was in context of a discussion to pass the bill”.’

Now my questions are exactly what was “the context of the discussion” that the prime minister referred to in order to pass the bill and does this new context along with the two amendments; the change of name and the addition of a commissioner, change the lawfulness and constitutionality of the bill?

This reminds me of the “flip flop” that Davis and his New Day government did in the shanty town matter, one day the prime minister was supporting Fred Smith Q.C. in stopping the demolition of the shanty town once becoming prime minister petitioning the very same judge that put the stop order in place to have it removed.

Of course there was nothing wrong with the original demolition order, as there was nothing wrong with the original National Crime Intelligence Agency (NCIA) besides, by their opinion the name and the need for someone extra to pay; I mean a commissioner and the  Free National Movement (FNM) is delighted that they got at least these two things done.

One last sentiment, the Davis administration has proven to be a dangerous administration, like they once claimed the original NCIA bill to be and I am betting that they are just as unconstitutional has they also claimed it to be.

Fun Fact; The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) was established without the necessary legislation, during Seventy two Thousand dollars ($72, 000) of public funds in the fiscal period of 2012-2013, so it was a “secret” agency by the PLP that the FNM made legal and now it would appear that Prime Minister Secrect Squirrel is taking back into the “darkness”

The Progressive Liberal party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END