Yes of course, our financial troubles only began with this iteration of the government.

Well, would you look at that - scenario "B" actually just happened (yesterday. The Bahamas has been given a positive outlook by S&P - Moody's will surely follow, as they collude ratings. Which means a few things, but most importantly: a) borrowing will be cheaper for The Bahamas. So, all things being equal, the government appears to have made the prudent move in using existing capital to pay current debt, then borrowing in the future - at lower interest rates - to service residual existing and future debt.
Any first year economics student or first year debt management strategist knows this.
Doesn't fit with ExposedU2C's specious, banal drivel, though, so he continues to assert that the sky is falling.

1) You should know where local pension funds are invested, but they are required to disclose such information.

2) Generally, local pension funds cannot invest internationally, absent CBOB approval. There should be a negligible effect to local pensions. (Those affected will almost certainly be high net-worth individuals, who will be able to weather the storm.)

This is a good question...

Look, let's not play politics with everything.

1) This action, on the face of it, is neither illegal nor immoral. The government is using future capital to pay current debt, but that can be done for a number of reasons - let me give you three: a) Government will refinance future debt (almost a given) and has already agreed to terms for said refinancing (again, almost a given); b) Government has already received tentative assurance from credit rating agencies that there will be positive change in the economic outlook of the country (quite possibly) therefore making future borrowings cheaper - in which case using sinking fund to pay current obligations is absolutely the correct move; c) Government forecasts that economy in second half of 2025 will be robust and should afford them necessary funds to either replenish sinking or seek more favourable financing terms in the medium term (5-12 months).

Honest question. Who do you expect to appoint this "special review" that you declare needs to happen? The corrupt-from-day-one FNM (assuming they win the next election)?
(Not that you are wrong, but just curious as to your opinion.)

You are confusing the two. This is about a constituency vote, not a vote for the FNM (Party). Don't forget, Minnis won his seat even though the FNM were severely trounced at the polls. Minnis will win his seat again, easily. FNM will lose that seat if he does not run.

Iram Lewis cannot "split a vote" - stop it with your nonsense. Iram leaving does not hurt the FNM's chances in that constituency at all.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with your first point.

You are delusional if you think the FNM is going to win the next election.

Remind me again when the FNM did any of the things mentioned by Howard?