Dear Editors,
In response to the recent news article which appeared in the June 19 2008 edition of each of your respective newspapers, I respectfully offer the following as a licensee of the Grand Bahama Port Authority.
Several comments were attributed to the Prime Minister Mr. Ingraham during the debate on the modification of provisions bill (Ginn, West End G.B.) which I find deeply disturbing, if only due to their audacity. To take them point by point:
1: “We, the Government of the Bahamas, will have to take into consideration as to whether or not it is prepared to continue to permit the Grand Bahama Port Authority to remain in foreign hands, as opposed to national and Bahamian hands”.
Having read the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (H.C.A.) on numerous occasions, and understanding the criteria outlined therein and necessary for the Port Authority to divest itself of its authority for the governance of Freeport, I can only conclude that the prime minister is willing to breach the provisions of a statute enactment of our country.
I recall this same prime minister attempting to revoke the privilege of bonded vehicles and failing as he had not the power to do so. Will he now seek to revoke the very document that provides for same?
Once he “takes” the Port Authority from its private owners, to whom will he give it? Will he keep it for himself, thereby joining a long list of politicians who have allegedly benefited personally from Port Authority largesse? Will he table in the house exactly what he is appropriating or buying?
Can the Licensees also expect to have our “concessions cancelled? If not, under what law will they remain?
For one who espouses economic development, how is abrogation of the H.C.A. justified?
Though there is some unseen hand that has sought to prevent the Licensees from being heard in court, and has prevented them from being given their rightfully due certificate of incorporation by either the office of the A.G. or the Registrar, any move to nullify our existence will be fought to the full extent of the law including constitutional grounds. We have, I believe the right to associate in the Bahamas.
To blame the current ownership battle for the economic downturn of Grand Bahama belies a fear that the actual culprits will be identified, namely successive governments of the Bahamas and executives of questionable practices within the Port Authority itself, and a powerlessness of government to respond to the peoples cries for relief, but due only to their own complicity in the fiasco.
Freeport has suffered for near 40 years, starting with the “bend or break” speech of the Late Prime Minister Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling, who one could say started the cozy relationship with Port Authority executives, and started the road to perdition that we are experiencing. The breach has been the work of central government, and those who would conspire for their own profit, at the expense of others.
That we have survived three hurricanes, a lack of marketing vision from our existing large investor Hutchison Whampoa for its hotel and a U.S. recession is a testament to our stamina as Bahamians. That we have endured 40 years of Government meddling and exclusion from our own rights by Government agencies as licensees is proof of our determination and belief in our own individual capabilities.
If the Government could not enable the reopening of the Royal Oasis in Freeport in a timely manner, how is Freeport going to benefit from Overall government ownership and laggard leadership?
It was reported that the Prime Minister said:
2: “No one is likely to ever again grant to foreigners the authority or precedence like that granted to the G.B. Port Authority. No one would be bold enough to do what was done in Freeport all those years ago when the government granted approval for foreigners to take over Freeport”.
On a point of order, Freeport was not taken over by foreigners, it was created by foreigners. If there are none in positions of authority “bold” enough to enable visionary development for the benefit of Bahamians, then we are truly lost, but at the same time, how does one describe the embracing of foreign investors by recent and current administrations? In the modern equivalent, land is sold, concessions given, for a few jobs and profit for the developer, and housing for more foreigners to buy.
The Hawksbill Creek Agreement at least had the development of a city for the benefit of the country by way of industry in mind.
When referring to “mad” foreigners, would the Prime Minister like to comment on the “Mad” Bahamians who have followed, and who have invested millions of Bahamian money in Freeport? Is not perhaps half his cabinet “Mad” by being from Freeport?
What about the “mad” money that many in national leadership positions have accepted?
It was also report that the Prime Minister stated that:
3: “No one will permit, I believe in the future for an island to have canals cut all through for the water resources to be destroyed; for the island to be virtually cut in two, noting the damage that can be done from this process to water bearing land”.
It is Nassau sir that has water issues, not Grand Bahama. I question this stance however on environmental damage by developments, given the permission given by your government for the destruction of wetlands in Bimini and Bakers Bay Abaco and even west end Grand Bahama. What about the consideration for canals being given to Albany?
Grand Bahama produces 8+ million gallons of quality water from its water table, and further, supplies it to the east and west of Grand Bahama on your behalf, areas that the government is responsible for. Freeport power, once a Port Authority asset and now in private hands, also supplies power to east and west Grand Bahama on your behalf, subsidized by Freeport Licensees and residents.
To summarize, I urge you sir to restrain yourself to applying your talents to the problems facing the rest of our country and limit your commentary to outlining your efforts in transparency, perhaps starting with full disclosure of the whereabouts of the Governments current or one time 7½ percent shareholding, and whether at the time of ownership the Port Authority owned any of its original assets?
If so, does the Government now own a corresponding value of Port Group shares, the asset bearing entity left in this jurisdiction?
Why did your prior government allow the outright divestiture of Port Authority assets for the personal profit of a few? Did the treasury get its 7½ percent of the sale price? Was the Port Authority ever compensated for its assets?
Above all, do not play to the court of popular opinion, as the public is largely ignorant of the truth of Freeport, and by your hand as much as any other.
This will be rectified as any endeavour built on lies and ulterior motives will fail, but the H.C.A. has too much potential for the Bahamas to be allowed summary dismissal.
Nationalism, foreign investment, has nothing to do with sovereign identity, but has everything to do with pride and opportunities for the Bahamian people.
Government meddling has everything to do with failure, as the track record shows.
I remain,
Christopher D. Lowe
Grand Bahamian by choice
