" . . . because they don’t think Bahamians are yet mature enough to deal with such weighty matters?" - while not condoning keeping issues from the citizenry, we were not mature enough to deal with CSME when we had the chance to do so on our own terms, now we will have to deal with it in a backhanded way through WTO. We continue to think that we can be an isolated economy in this ever flattening world. Wake up Bahamas!

and she never missed a starting time while representing The Bahamas at an international meet like some who have been sucking up BAAA money forever

I am still trying to understand how you can get more eggs out of the chicken by squeezing harder on its neck.

can someone educate me as to when and where the Minister said that there was never any abuse? I am aware that he said that the Government of The Bahamas has not engaged in any abuse and that it will be investigated to determine if any individuals had been involved. I am also aware that he stated that the video was fake, but I am not sure he said because the video is fake that there was never any abuse. He appropriately said that it will be investigated and acted upon. Let the process complete itself and if it is not acted upon, then jump down his throat, not before.

"Frankly, my sources asserted that Fred Mitchell was a bit too methodical and far too organised to have committed such a diplomatic boo-boo." ~ Gibson

All politics aside, I agree with this statement as Min. Mitchell is probably the most suited Foreign Affairs Minister The Bahamas has ever had.

Fortunately or unfortunately, as representatives of the country to the outside world, Foreign Affairs Ministers and appointed Diplomats are slaves of the Government, not entities their own.

Minister Mitchell will be expected to carry the blame as a good soldier should but these fiascos are not aligned with what he has demonestrated as his governance modus operandi (political shanigans aside)

It is unfortunate that the author spoiled an educationally factual article by stating " ...the government, through the Speaker, removed an elected Member by force from the Parliament ..." when that is probably conjecture.

Groupthink is a dangerous thing. I tought we elect MP's to represent their constituents not their party. No wonder we are lost in space.

Part 2 .....

On the matter of license fees, the license fee structure of GBPA models the license fee structure of central government, with the singular exception of the "vendor" fee which is higher. The difference is that a GBPA licensee has the benefits of the HCA (duty exemptions) which provides more bang for the buck. It is true that a professional pays a Freeport professional license fee to Govt and a business licenase fee to GBPA. A non-Freeport professional would also pay both fees, but both to Govt. ....

While the cost of electricity is too high, it is no higher than anywhere else in The Bahamas, or any other non-oil producing Island. ......

I think that Comrade Russell would be pleased if we did as suggested some time ago and spun GBPA out from its sister operational company, Port Group Limited, as a stand-alone regulator and keeper of the HCA (in the same way URCA was spun out from BTC). Then there would be no more cry about being managed by foreigners. But please, Comrade, do not throw the baby out with the bath water by continuing this insane discussion about doing away with the HCA and/or the GBPA (warts and all). In this regard, I agree with Comrade "QC" Freddy but add that central government must do a better job at holding GBPA's feet to the fire rather than usurping the responsibility granted it by the same central government. It must treat GBPA and the HCA as a franchisee of the government, not as an enemy of the government. Let it do its work, but ensure that the work is congruent with the national agenda (I almost said "vision").

It is unfortunate that we do not do a better job of educating our people on the topics we find so interesting and necessary. I respond to the two previous post simultaneously.

The Hawksbill Creek Agreement grants the GBPA (a corporate entity) and its licensees (3000+ Bahamians) certain benefits and certain authority/responsibility for the private development it proposed to build. It did not grant these to the current owners of the GBPA but to the GBPA itself. Please do not confuse the entity with its owners. The entity can be sold today to someone else (Bahamian or otherwise). Additionally, do not confuse the HCA with the entity (one is a law, the other is a beneficiary of the law).

The real question is does the HCA model benefit Freeport or not? Not who is the current owner of the GBPA? I put to you that, for the most part, the HCA model has and continues to benefit Freeport, and by extension, The Bahamas. It is the closest thing we have to true local government in the country and the area under its jurisdiction is clearly administered more effectively than anywhere else in the country (in spite of what one may or may not think of the GBPA owners). Additionally, GBPA is no less Bahamian than the central government which is controlled by foreign entities like imf, idb, wto, Amnesty International, US Govt, Chinese Govt (and the list goes on).

Most people do not seem to appreciate that every bye-law promulgated under the Agreement giving GBPA specific authority has a Govt Minister as the ultimate arbitor. GBPA has someone in central govt to answer to even if the someone does not appreciate it. Anyone agrieved under the administration of a Freeport bye-law may appeal to the relevant govt minister.

I was with you until you dug up comments from the infancy of Bahamianization (almost 40 yrs ago). Can we ever have a discussion about an issue without taking political sides?