The Tribune

SERVANT!

This word writ large should be plastered on the bathroom mirror of each government minister. As he or she looks in that mirror during their morning ablutions, this is the one word that should remind them of who they are, in whose service they are employed, and to whom they have to report.

When the people’s Opposition asks for information on behalf of Bahamians, it is an arrogant servant who would dismiss them with the comment that he is not “minded” to do so. This is the people’s business. No one cares what a minister is “minded” to do. He is a servant who has been commanded by his paymasters to open their – not his — books and let them know how their business is being transacted. It is not his books, it is not his taxes and it is not for him to refuse to give an answer when requested. But today that is what some of these mighty men do. After a brief two years in the seat of government, they have already forgotten that they are the people’s servants.

Imagine what would happen in the private sector if the owner asked to be shown his books, and the accountant replied that he was not “minded” to do so. The scene on the pavement outside as he beat a hasty retreat would attract a crowd.

The difficulty with these over-haughty political servants is that they have to be paid — their overseas jaunts and all — for five years before they can be fired.

All the PLP remember is that in the 2012 election Bahamians gave them 29 seats in parliament to the FNM’s nine. But what they should not forget is that although the FNM was soundly beaten, the PLP did not win the popular vote. When Opposition votes are added — that is the FNM votes are added to those of the DNA, which got no seats in parliament – the combined opposition took the popular vote by 78,858 to the PLP’s 75,815. Today, many of these disillusioned PLP voters are angry. If an election were called today, we wager that the tables would be turned.

National Security Minister Bernard Nottage dismissed as foolish the suggestion by FNM deputy-leader Loretta Butler-Turner that it was believed that government was spying on Bahamians. She questioned whether the National Intelligence Agency was a threat to democracy in this independent country. Her question was based on her not being able to find any legislation to establish such an agency. No legislation, she said, was brought to the House for this intelligence gathering agency. A fair question, which Dr Nottage brushed aside with an annoyed reply: “What you mean nobody know what’s going on with it? I have an idea of what’s going on. But I don’t care to deal with it now.”

Say what? Our servant knows what’s going on, but he doesn’t care to tell us right now? Well, Dr Nottage, if you know, but don’t care to tell the people who put you in parliament to mind their business, don’t get angry if they speculate, and do so with suspicion.

Mrs Butler-Turner asked a simple question: “What is the legal standing of this domestic spy agency and network? If it has no legal standing how is it being funded? What exactly is the budgetary authority for this agency?”

It is a simple question. It is a legitimate question. If you know, as you say you do, please share your secret.

And then there is the contract to engage the Costa Rican-based healthcare consulting and management firm, Sanigest Internacional. Finance Minister Michael Halkitis made the announcement on the plan’s projected implementation during the debate in the House on the revised Medical Act.

Health Minister Dr Perry Gomez, who confirmed that the firm had made a presentation to the Cabinet on Tuesday, had said earlier that he would reveal the cost of the consultants and matters concerning the plan when the firm began work in the country.

He then referred the matter to National Insurance Minister Shane Gibson, saying the matter was in Mr Gibson’s portfolio as it was a National Insurance-funded contract. But, of course, it was an inconvenient moment for Mr Gibson. He didn’t want anything to take the focus off the contribution that he planned to make in the House later that evening. It would seem that an answer to this question was far more important than the hot air that was to be spouted later. But, of course, the people can wait at the pleasure of their servant.

And then there was the matter of the $20m contract awarded to Holiday Industrial Builders International Ltd (HIBI) for the new building on John F Kennedy Drive, after they had been fired from completing a similar building under the FNM government.

Mr Gibson, in an effort to reveal Opposition hypocrisy, said he would table documents in the House to reveal how a construction firm that had been terminated “with cause” from a project was then awarded more work by the previous FNM administration. However, he was “not minded” to table the National Insurance Board’s contract with HIBI, which had been transacted under his administration.

When the FNM became the government, the Bahamas Mortgage Corporation terminated its contract with HIBI. NIB, under the FNM government then ordered an independent review of the project by Construction Cost Engineering (CCE) to find out what the problems were that led to the firing of HIBI. The FNM then followed the recommendations made by CCE.

Mr Gibson should also lay a copy of this document, dated October 2008, on the table of the House, in addition to a National Insurance Board Memorandum, which went out of its way to distance the Board from what it called an “improper loan” by NIB of $7m with accrued interest of $699,329. The NIB Board was then trying to recover this loan. The Memorandum claimed, and Mr Gibson has vehemently denied that “the National Insurance Board was directed, by the Minister of Housing, the Hon Shane Gibson, via communication by Elma Garraway, Permanent Secretary dated the 9th day of March 2007 to approve the loan, however, Cabinet conclusion and/or Ministerial approval was not provided and/or obtained”.

Mr Gibson said that it was impossible for him to have done this, because by then he had resigned from the Cabinet.

This was a loan that the Board under the PLP was distancing itself from. If it wasn’t Mr Gibson, then who gave permission for this loan? This too should be laid on the table of the House and the matter further investigated to discover the truth.

After all, it is a large sum of money to have been handled in such a cavalier manner. It is the people’s money. Their servants, entrusted with its safekeeping, should have the answers.