< Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham has now launched a heated row against the world’s largest international rating agency Standards & Poor’s.
Click to Listen to Love97FM Report of Ingraham’s attack at S&P
Nassau, Bahamas: Prime Minster Rt. Hon. Hubert Ingraham lost his cool again this time at the 2009 Bahamas Outlook Summit held at the Whydham Nassau Resorts on Cable Beach Thursday morning.
The Prime Minister’s comments came during a question and answer period following his remarks.
Standards & Poor’s is an international rating agency where investors from around the world receive reports on countries. The agency rated the Bahamas in 2007 as having an A- grade and praised the Christie government for its fiscal management of the Bahamas.
However with Ingraham’s reckless management of the Bahamian economy, with record losses projected in every sector of the economy and reduced governmment revenues projected for the fiscal year, the S&P’s December report highlighted the Ingraham’s government’s management of the economy to be the reason for its terrible report on the Bahamas. The report also higlighted Ingraham’s STOP, CANCELLED AND REVIEW POLICY of capital projects and investments airmarked for the country as what assisted in the results in the downturn of the local economy.
Well, Ingraham has not taken too kind to this FACT and therefore fired his shot back to S&P once again for their statement. Bahamas Press agrees with S&P’s report on the Bahamas as we too have said repeatedly on this BLOG that “HUBERT INGRAHAM HAS DONE THIS TO THE BAHAMIAN PEOPLE!” But as we all know in The Bahamas, the response of the Bahamian MUGABE was inevitable. Yes, the truth hurts!
@Joe Blow If you had listened to Izmerlian at the Business outlook just recently you would have heard him quote that figure!! So that is not my figure, I was just quoting him!!
Folkes,
The truth will come out there are FNM’S all over this town still defending Hubert and his tyrant like style behaviour these past months the problem with the FNM is that this S&P report was an independant source and it made what The Prime Minister did clear as crystal and he cannot live with that ….
Objective Thought: That 30% (your figure) is of vital importance to the Bahamian people. In the supplemental agreement Mr. Ingraham saw the necessity of saving the wetlands for which even you must give him credit.
Media: Was Mr. Ingraham being untruthful? We cannot know until we can ascertain just who the players were who gave their opinions about the economy. Mr. Ingraham said his Ministry was not consulted and I would think that would be a major concern. In hindsight, I believe he ended up executing the most expedient course. Breaking ground for the projects that had been actually contracted out( perhaps you can name these) would have begun an uplift in the Construction Industry to a degree (albeit shortlived), but you and I know that the “redtape that still prevails in this country would have caused enough delay that the effects of the Global crisis would already have been in full swing. Add to that the disappointment to the Bahamian workers of having the projects stopped because the developers themselves were unable to continue financing the projects. We elect people to do what they think is in the best interest of the country itself and we must have trust that they will do so, even given the past that has demonstrated some are there for reasons known only to themselves. It is my belief that Mr. Ingraham. being in the know. did the correct thing.
@Joe Blow What do you mean “give away of all the land”?? Stop spreading FNM propaganda!!! 70% of the land that BahaMar bought was bought from private citizens!!! You are dead wrong!!
Ahhhhhhhhhh NOW we can all agree Bahamas Press, Joe Blow and S&P that Hubert Ingraham’s government STOPPED, CANCELLED and REVIEWED capital works airmarked for the Bahamas which added to the slowing of the economy.
Now that that is established we can now agree that when Hubert Ingraham told ‘Outlook 2009’ that that statement was UNFACTUAL by S&P, that he was not being truthful to his audience? Can we agree on that JOE BLOW?
Because reasons as to why he did what he did (STOPPED, CANCELLED AND REVIEWED WORK) was totally in his right as Prime Minister to do. He was elected by the people of the Bahamas and he was empowered to do what he wanted to do in reference to contracts. Therefore we can agree that he had the right to do what he did, the question now is, DID IS MAKE SENSE TO DO SO LOOKING IN HINDSIGHT. Particularly having the knowledge of knowing that THE GLOBAL CRISIS WAS PENDING.
Bahamas Press/ Editor
Media: Mr. Ingraham admitted himself that his government reviewed many projects so how can I not agree with you. He stopped some. He cancelled some. He also gave his reasons for doing so. He, no doubt, will reassess some that he stopped and at a future date , if they had merit and funds are available he will re-introduce them. I personally would have stopped the Straw Market deal for several reasons. It is no longer relevant.It has devolved into a flea market. It was too costly. Given this government’s plan to relocate the shipping port, it is best to wait and see how an authentic straw market can be fitted in. Baha Mar was never a viable option and I believe even Mr. Christie began having doubts about its viability. Add to that , how was he going to explain the “great give-away” of all that public land? And what about the drain on the Treasury that would ensue in relationship to the infrastructure that would be needed and a government responsibility? The Rose Island project had a projected start of 2009, so that became a moot point. Yes, the school in (Aklins?) is needed but the 3 million is not cost effective for 40 students even if the school doubled as a hurricane shelter. Need we go on? Because there has been no vision over the years, because there has been no plan that all can agree to, over the years, because we do not know how to trust or give credit where credit is due, because so many give their allegiance to a political party instead of their Country we will continue to stand still and even regress. SO Sad!
@media I hear ya Media and sadly I agree… I also wondered why they did not release a press statement about HI’s comments!!
I am just hoping that they will answer him in the HOA if given a chance to.. I hope Bahamians won’t say that they are late again!!
But Objective, the PM did not make his statements in the House of Assembly, he responded to them in the public domain, at a public Press session at a conference. A stall reponse proves our point that they have allowed him to get away with it, but his Junior minister was slammed to the wall because of it.
Bahamas Press/ Editor
Joe Blow before we stray from the question and gather responses back and forth filled with ambiguity and irrelevance, let us establish and agree on the main point of the argument.
Can it be agreed that Hubert Ingraham’s Government did indeed STOP, CANCEL and REVIEWED contract entered into legitimately and legally by the government of the Bahamas? Can that be agreed?
Again, can we get a straight answer here? To suggest whether they stall under Christie is another debate, a red herring in this discussion, let’s establish the principle point here first.
Bahamas Press/Editor
Just wait until the speaker gives the PLP a chance to speak in the HOA… HI will be dealt with where he can’t threaten PLPs with legal action.. That’s what they do to shut up the PLP… The PLP respects the law but HI thinks that he is the law!!!
Media: “A simple yes or no will be sufficient”. You sound like a lawyer!
Would that it could be answered so simply. We would have to examine each project separately. Had Mr. Christie not delayed some of the projects that were approved by his government, we might have been a little better off but by the time Mr. Ingraham came into the picture it was too late to make any significant difference. We must remember that the start up of any project is very slow and most of the projects can take up to ten years to complete. We see now that several projects(non-govrnment) have ground to a halt and others are barely moving forward. I do fault Mr. Ingraham though for not begining as many government sponsored projects as was feasible, because I believe he knew that the economic turndown was coming. Else why would he have committed so much more money to the Social Services budget? I also fault him for not being a little clearer and kinder in his response to questions that are put to him. Our problem is that we will never know just what shape the treasury was in and this is a problem each time there is a change in government. The out-going group always says what good shape we are in finacially and the in-coming group tells the public what bad shape the treaury is in. Had we diversified our economy many years ago, we could be in far better shape now. Had we looked into and made changes to supplement our power needs we would be in better shape. The blame can be laid at the feet of each successive government and happened because we will not listen to those who have the vision, we will not plan, we will not co-operate with one another and we cannot trust those to whom we have entrusted our country. There is an “old boys club” operating and it has members from both sides of the House and there is a line-up of political wanna-bees willing to sacrifice their souls to get into that club.
There were so many projects they stopped Objective Thought, Ingraham could not name all in his response. For example they stopped the school T.G. Glover, and say the contractor asked for it to stop. LIES! We wrote a piece on that. They Stopped the court building, the court building now on Nassau Street, another project stoppped by Ingraham.
They stopped and fired soo much people and things, they themselves don’t know what they did. But the record is there to prove what they all bragged about. All the road in Acklins and Eleuthera was stopped. They flew to MICAL and stopped the I-Group, we have photos with hem saying how they were meeting up to revisit the project. These are just a few examples of what S&P referred to.
But here the thing Objective Thought, something to also consider. When Zharvigo Laing made his statments about S & P every PLP inside and outside the party slammed his head to the wall. And he deserved it! But now the BIG HUBIGGITY responded to the statements of S&P, where did the ‘PUSSY CAT’ GO? NOT A WORD OF RESPONSE TO INGRAHAM STATEMENTS ON THURSDAY! This is the time for them to DEAL WITH INGRAHAM, THE BIG CHEESE, but the ‘PUSSY CAT’ SCARD, INDECISIVE, WEAK AND AFRAID OF THE PIT BULL, JUST LIKE CAT SCARED A WATER!
Bahamas Press
I have said this before and I will say it again… The former MOW minister Earl Devaux was the one who went into parliament and mentioned the 80 million figure. The PLP still uses the 90 million figure so they definitely did not get their info from the PLP!!
The former MOW did not only mention the 80 million figure but he also named the capital projects totalling to that amount!!
And did anyone else hear the figures quoted by HI??? He said that the straw market was 25 million when the former MOW always said 23 million and the school in Acklins was 4 million when it is known to be 3.1 million… What was the PM trying to do???
That’s on the record for everyone to see even the PM!! I can’t remember exactly when it was done but it was last year (2008) between the mid term budget and prior to him being shuffled into another ministry!!
I hope that S&P finds the time to respond to HI’s criticisms of their report and shows them exactly where they got their information from!!!
Someone needs to shut up HI’s mouth and let him know that he is not always right as he seems to believe….
I think then the point is established, and agreed by you (JOE BLOW) and US, that as you said.
“There is no doubt that Mr. Ingraham stopped, or delayed, or terminated certain contracts he termed ‘political’. He made “no bones” about that. And it was his right and duty to do so if he believed them to be flawed and detrimental to our country. No one should have expected less of him.”
Therefore it is correct and TRUE of what was said by Standard & Poor’s that the Ingraham government Cancelled, Stopped and or Terminated projects which slowed the Bahamian economy in 2008?
Can that be agreed Joe Blow? (A SIMPLE YES OR NO WILL BE SUFFICIENT).
Bahamas Press/ Editor
The first three quoted statements come directly from the Standard and Poors’ Mission Statement. I suspect the word “opinion” appears there as they must rely, in part, on the opinions of those who are touted as being in the know in the country about which they are reporting. Also it is a part of their caveat to absolve them from any legal responsibility that might ensue from their report. The 4th quote came from their report on the Bahamas in their June,2007 report. The statement “that few heeded” was not in quotes as it was my own observation as I saw or read little or no comment or reaction from the government, the financial sector or people in general. You, appear to have taken the word “opinion” out of the Mission Statement and ascribed it as a comment by me, which indeed I did not make. The statement in the 2007 report about the “slowdown” and its probable effect could not be substantiated by facts and figures because it had not yet happened and so must be put, at that time, in the catagory of an educated opinion. We now know it is indeed fact because we have the emperical evidence.
Nowhere in my response did I write ‘speculative unfactual opinion around which YOU put quotation marks! Nor did I make a comment about the Dec.2008 report.
There is no doubt that Mr. Ingraham stopped, or delayed, or terminated certain contracts he termed “political”. He made “no bones” about that. And it was his right and duty to do so if he believed them to be flawed and detrimental to our country. No one should have expected less of him.
Your reference to “no funding” is too vague for me to reply to, as I do not know to what you are referring. You do have a propensity to jump from “pillar to post” and confuse issues. Please clarify if you want a response.
You and I are in no position to second guess what the Prime Minister’s reasons are for doing what he does, mainly because we are not privy to the facts. Many things are hidden from us and for reasons that may be legitimate or not. We can only voice our approval or disapproval as the case may be and vote him in or out at the next election. In the meantime let’s be of good cheer and continue our debates. Just maybe something we say may trigger a change!
I am glad to begin a debate on this topic Joe Blow, because here is where I believe you continue to “Misinform” this audience and misguide yourself in accepting what Ingraham said about Standards & Poor’s to being “OPINION”.
When did S&P said ( and be specific to the date and to which jurisdiction to which it was it stated for), that “the tourism sector and construction of homes will be most directly affected by the U.S. economic downturn.” And when this was said, was this an OPINION ALSO? And although as you said, it went UNHEEDED was that opinion derived by factual evidence and statistical data?
And if it was, how can you explain that one position by S&P in (June as you said) was an unheeded fact and its current report on the Bahamas (in Dec. 2008) is again “SPECULATIVE UNFACTUAL OPINION?”
And how could S&P’s report that the Ingraham government’s STOP, CANCEL & REVIEW POLICY was simply their opinion, when Ingraham himself confirmed at ‘Outlook 2009’ in his response to that ‘competent journalist’ that he STOP, TERMINATED AND CANCELLED Capital projects he deemed “political”. And this response was done forgetting that Earl Deveaux himself tabled to Parliament as minister of works the list of contracts placed on hold by the Ingraham government in 2007. This is recorded in the hansard as ON RECORD JOE BLOW, as Kendall Nottage would say, it is an “EASY verifiable FACT!”.
And outside of all this, the Prime Minister mislead those attending when he said, the contracts had NO funding, well even if they had no funding, he saw them in place he is clearly admitting that they were inplace, and someone stopped them from happening because of funding.
One would remember that the PLP was KICKED OUT OF POWER (THANK GOD) on May 2nd 2007. And Hubert Ingraham, as minister of finance, resumed the shaping the 2007/8 budget upon being elected to office. And it was his decision as MINISTER OF FINANCE to either CONTINUE or terminate projects. Ingraham chose the latter. Did not he stopped the straw market, The school in Salina Point Acklins and the School in Grand Bahama and Andros. All of the housing projects even the road works, he stopped them all.
And this is the exact period where the STOP, CANCELLED and REVIEW POLICY TOOK EFFECT. So It is wrong for Ingraham to say, THERE WAS NO FUNDING IN PLACE, wasn’t he the minister of finance with responsibility to see to it that government projects became part of the 2007/8 budget?
A case and example in this Between May 2007 and January 2008 period was where the Ingraham government terminated over 1,200 temporary government workers functioning in government departments around various ministries. Earl Deveaux in 2007 said and Ingraham repeated, that the Christie government hired those workers with NO funding provided. And said that they were brought on with NO proper clearace by the ministry of finance. Therefore they HAD TO GO, but again we say, did not Ingraham have charge of the 2007/8 fiscal budget? Could he not applied their salaries in that fiscal period? Or did Ingraham simply not care about those people?
I guess we will soon hear that those temporary workers were not fired, like we are hearing that they never stopped, cancelled and reviewed ANY contract?
So what did they do Joe, did they not STOP, CANCELLED, AND REVIEWED everything like they did to those workers or did Ingraham simply deleted them out? We have the answer, we await your response.
Bahamas Press/ Editor
“S&P credit ratings, indices,investment research and data provides financial decision-makers with the information and opinions they need to feel confident about their decisions.”
” The credit ratings and observations are soley statements of opinion and not statements of facts or recommendations to purchase, hold or sell. Any user shall not rely on any credit rating or other opinion contained herein in making any investment decisions.”
” ratings are based on information it receives by Rating services”
In June 2007 the S&P Report wrote this comment, “the tourism sector and construction of homes will be most directly affected by the U.S. economic downturn”. A statement that few heeded! The information was garnered some months prior to the Bahamas’ election.
I cannot say why Mr. Ingraham responded as he did to the reporter’s question. He is known not to “suffer fools” gladly. While the “proverbial buck” stops with him, we must face some realities too. If he suspected (and I believe he did) that we were going to hit some bad economic patches, in short order, it was his responsibility, upon his election, to pause and reasses just where the Coutry was and given predicted bad times, just how he could mitigate the problems that would ensue. I believe Mr. Christie had some apprehension also and that accounts for why he held back on final approvals for a lot of the projects that looked like they would carry the country forward. ( I leave unsaid as to whether or not some of the projects were good or bad for the nation).
Suffice it to say,that those large projects we do have started (with the exception of Albany) are experiencing deep economic woes and most likely will have to stop of their own accord.
Politicians will always magnify the good and decry the bad and that is why we must not “blindly” follow them and what they declare.
Please think on this: “He who angers you, controls you”.
WOW these people are so jokey. When S&P report is positive they cant stop quoting it. The report isnt favorable so it must have been influenced by the PLP. If i was to go to the newspaper archives i bet you i could find every quote from the FNM bragging or being silent on the S&P Report made from 1992-2002. HI is a fool for responding to the S&P Report the way he did. That rating agency has been doing that for years, how come he never express concern then?
This is the same S&P that the last Ingraham Government praised in the House of Assembly through William Allen, the then Minister of Finance. Did he think that the Bahamas was in a vacuum and that his reckless actions would go unnoticed by the outside world? If it were not for the world wide financial crisis, he would have attracted the replacement investments to replace the ones he cancelled and gotten away with his vindictive scheme. Where are the billions of dollars in investment that Carl Bethell bragged about in the House? Who needs the binoculars now?
Comments are closed.