The Tribune

By MALCOLM STRACHAN

AS the wheels lifted on the flights taking the Bahamian delegation to Dubai for the Expo event being held there, the debate over the cost of the trip was already well underway.

The cost of the trip was revealed on Friday, with up to $1m approved by the Davis administration for the Bahamas Pavilion and a Bahamian presence in Dubai. The private sector is contributing $500,000, while the United Arab Emirates has spent $3.5m on the Bahamian trip, with the UAE covering the cost of Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis’ delegation.

There was some muddying of the waters in the statement on Friday, with director of communications Latrae Rahming saying that the previous administration had approved $1.7m for the cost of the trip.

What was missing from the statement, however, was any indication of how much the government thinks the country will benefit from the trip. That’s the crucial part – whether this is value for money or not.

It doesn’t matter if you’re spending $1m, $1.7m, or $100m as long as it’s worth it. What frustrates people is seeing money being spent – and this time while we’re told how tight finances are – without necessarily seeing a tangible benefit from it.

Take a look at recent comments by the Inter- American Bank which pointed out that if The Bahama invested properly in its digital infrastructure – internet access, broadband connections and so on – it could reap huge financial benefits.

In a report, the bank revealed, suggested an investment of $30.7m would close the “digital infrastructure gap”. $30m sounds a lot to spend, but the rewards for that are predicted to be many times more.

The report said: “Closing the digital infrastructure gap would bring benefits estimated at 5.6 percent of GDP and productivity gains of 4.6 percent over six years. Although these gains are below Latin American and Caribbean averages (9.5 percent and 7.7 percent respectively) they still well offset the costs, as the digital multiplier is above 20. Moreover, such an investment would create more than 4,000 jobs.”

In total, the investment is predicted to bring in $715m to the economy if we made it. Now that’s value for money. It would make a substantial impact on the economy, it would bring jobs, it would improve people’s lifestyle, it would improve access to services – if the Dubai trip can bring even half that return, we ought to be delighted.

What the country needs is to see effective government benefitting the people. We need to see tangible benefits from sensible investment.

Instead, too often we see unaccountable junkets and jobs for the favoured.

The new FNM leader, Michael Pintard, has called for the end to the “vicious cycle” of people being fired whenever a new government comes in.

His call was prompted by reported terminations and layoffs at Urban Renewal Centres, and Mr Pintard said: “We believe that this vicious cycle of removing persons who are not overtly political appointees, but who are Bahamian citizens working just above and not far beyond minimum wage, these people’s lives should not be disrupted because of a change of government, particularly since these are persons who have been functioning as consummate professionals, they are not using government premises or resources for partisan political purposes.”

The idea that partisan job hiring has been taking place is hardly discouraged by the words of Foreign Affairs Minister and PLP chairman Fred Mitchell, who urged party supporters seeking jobs to be patient and “hold on”.

The FNM is far from immune from criticism in such matters either – one only has to look at the police officers who were shipped off to obscure posts only to be brought back again under the new government, or the financial secretary who was ousted only to return again with the change of administration. The PLP seems to be repeating that approach with the prison commissioner.

How does such a turnover benefit the Bahamians trying to access government services? How does it represent value for money with firing and hiring dependent on how your political loyalties are perceived? How does it ensure our government is able to hire the best of the best, when those being hired have to be aware a change in administration could see them dumped for someone whose political opinions are more favourable to the incoming government?

All of these different elements show the need for government that is focused on the best outcome, and making sure any investment brings an appropriate return. The money spent on supporting those out of work due to the pandemic won’t see a financial return, but it has been invaluable in keeping people going through a time of crisis for our country. But too often we look at money being spent on the favoured, and not on the essential.

Will the Dubai trip prove worthwhile? We must all hope so. Our country can use all the investment it can get – and can ill afford throwing money away without results.