Richard Coulson

First published in The Tribune, Monday, September 6, 2010, and is posted here with the kind permission of the author.

The Baha Mar resolution that the Prime Minister plans to introduce in the House of Assembly this Wednesday will be the most bizarre parliamentary exercise seen in many a year – a blatantly political manoevere designed to embarrass the PLP, which may backfire on Mr Ingraham and the party he leads. House members will simply be asked to record their opinion on a non-binding ‘resolution’ – still vague and undefined – about accepting several thousand Chinese workers.

Ordinarily one would expect the head of government, with a majority of elected representatives four-square behind him, to take a firm stand on an issue of unique national importance, argue for it eloquently, and ram it through to a successful vote over whatever the minority might wish.
The example in England is the ‘three-line whip’ used in the House of Commons for crucial votes, which compels every party member to toe the official line whatever his personal convictions may be, on pain of being expelled from the party.

In America, we have the example of President Obama, revered by every Bahamian politician, with his Senate and House leaders battling against bitter Republican opposition, finally succeeding with the narrowest possible margin.

Mr Ingraham does not seem to have the appetite for that kind of fight.

Consider his posture. At great length he has made publicly clear that he has little, perhaps zero, enthusiasm for the present Baha Mar project, the largest investment ever proposed for The Bahamas or the entire Caribbean.

He does not kill it, but he does not back it.

He refuses to negotiate with the Izmirlian owners or their executives to draft acceptable Heads of Agreement. He rejects overtures from unions and employer groups.

He even snubs the sovereign Government of China by failing to negotiate with them, after being formally told of their support. Like Pontius Pilate, he has washed his hands of the issue.

His ambivalence is indeed hard to understand.

Perhaps it sticks in his throat that Baha Mar was originally conceived under the PLP regime, not his own.

Perhaps, as some suspicious souls claim, he has a private deal with Sol Kerzner not to authorise a competitor to Atlantis.

Perhaps he has genuine doubts about the commercial viability of so many new hotel rooms, or the eco-environmental impact of so vast a project. If so, he should air them to the public.

Instead, in the guise of acting ‘democratically’, he agrees to present a narrow resolution to the House – the sole issue being whether to approve the entry of 4,920 Chinese labourers – and states that he will move no further unless the resolution is generally acceptable, like a half-baked referendum.

Decided by a unanimous vote? A two-thirds majority? A simple majority?

That has not yet been made clear.

But he does make clear that he wants to put the burden on the PLP, with its 17 votes to the FNM’s 24. He figures that if they, or a majority of them, vote ‘no’, he is off the hook, and need do nothing further. Who knows, he may even quietly encourage some of his own party to abstain to ensure a negative vote.

Risk

But he is taking a huge political risk. He is in effect turning over to Perry Christie and the PLP – his bitter enemies – the power to determine an issue of national significance. If, as seems highly probable, the PLP votes resoundingly in favor of the resolution, Mr Ingraham will have handed them a potent public relations weapon. Mr Christie will be entitled to boast: “WE approved Baha Mar while Mr Ingraham did nothing but dither”, and the electorate will listen.

Although some nay-sayers will always be heard, it’s pretty clear that the bulk of the Bahamian public will support Mr Christie’s position, as long as he insists on provisos to the bare-bones resolution approving the Chinese immigration. He should demand conditions specifying a guaranteed ratio of Bahamian workers, limiting the time the Chinese will be here, and requiring the Chinese government to provide their food, lodging, health care and usual amenities.

With those conditions adopted, any objections to the project will seem frivolous. In the face of our serious unemployment level, the economic advantages will be overwhelming.

Certainly the construction workers take that view, and a major union recently endorsed it. Concerns about hotel over-capacity amid the current US and European recession must be put in perspective.

No major tourism project in the entire world is based on the market demand of today or tomorrow, but always looks three or four years ahead, when recovery is forecast.

And we can be sure that China will propel part of its increasingly affluent population in our direction. The Scotiabank loan presents a technical obstacle, but has a much better chance of being repaid if the project proceeds.

So let us assume the resolution will be handily approved. Since its exact wording has not yet been disclosed, even to Parliamentarians, we do not know whether it will compel the Prime Minister to start serious negotiations, or simply give him the option to move ahead if he so chooses. In any event, being an adroit politician and seeing the way the wind is blowing, he will most likely take the reins and push forward, in order to seize the initiative back from the PLP.

Among other positive steps, he could immediately agree to fund, jointly with Baha Mar, the training program proposed by the Bahamian Contractors Association, so that when the Chinese start pouring in a year from now, many more Bahamian workers will be better qualified for senior jobs.

Whatever the PLP does to support the project in principle, it is only the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues from the majority party who can adopt the Heads of Agreement and execute all the necessary approvals and permits needed to make Baha Mar a reality.

They have full authority to negotiate and enforce a plan that will be in the best interests of the nation.

By plunging right into this work, the astute Mr Ingraham can soon redeem any respect he has lost from the paralysis shown to date. He can recover from the charge of “abdication of responsibility”, which he must do if he has any hopes of his party prevailing in the next general election.

Mr. Coulson has had a long career in law, investment banking and private banking in New York, London, and Nassau, and now serves as director of several financial concerns and as a corporate financial consultant.

E-Mail Mr. Coulson.