The Tribune

ON MONDAY, we posed the question here to Prime Minister Christie: Whose side are you on - the Bahamas or Beijing?

That question is still on the table.

In a statement, released to the press on Monday - ostensibly drafted by Sir Baltron Bethel, Mr Christie’s senior policy advisor - a letter sent by Baha Mar’s original developer, Sarkis Izmirlian, to the Export-Import Bank of China (CEXIM) chairman, and copied to Mr Christie, was described as having contained “some extraordinary statements”.

“Normally,” said the statement, “the government would not respond to such a letter and statement but so far as it impacts on what the government has achieved, which is well documented, in ensuring that the Baha Mar development is finished and Bahamian creditors paid, the government is compelled to give this statement.”

Certainly a lot of bungling has been accomplished since that fateful day when the Bahamas government blocked Mr Izmirlian’s attempt to save the project and its creditors - both local and foreign - by invoking Chapter 11 of Delaware’s bankruptcy court. Government claimed that it blocked Chapter 11 to protect the Bahamas’ “sovereignty”.

It appears that The Bahamas’ sovereignty is more threatened today than if it had been protected by Chapter 11 and left in the hands of a private investor who had become a part of The Bahamas.

We agree with the view expressed by former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham in the House of Assembly on November 18, 2010, that it was an “untenable position to permit any foreign state to own land in The Bahamas”. He said, at that time, that should the project not succeed and if he were still Prime Minister, his government “would not agree to foreclose on these properties (previously Crown land) to any foreign state or any entity which is owned by a foreign state”.

When Mr Christie was about to block Mr Izmirlian’s move to Chapter 11 with “sovereignty” as the bogey man, Mr Ingraham on two occasions wrote privately to advise him against such folly.

Mr Christie and his government seemed miffed that Mr Izmirlian had not taken them into his confidence about his planned appeal to Delaware. Mr Christie, a lawyer, must know that such a move had to be shrouded in the utmost secrecy, because if the most insignificant creditor got wind of it, he could have blocked the application by putting in an adverse claim. In making a Chapter 11 bankruptcy move one does not even trust a Prime Minister, particularly one seemingly so close to the Chinese group, whose construction team, by its actions, appeared hell-bent on preventing the resort’s opening.

And so here we are today, shuffling around in circles with a government that thinks that by paying off Baha Mar’s now jobless Bahamian staff it has accomplished its mission. But what about the larger creditors, including the foreign companies? Not to pay these would be to torpedo this country’s reputation as a sound investment centre.

It is bad enough to have Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s threatening to reduce our credit rating to junk, but to fail to pay all creditors involved in this enterprise would completely destroy the Bahamas’ reputation.

From the beginning, Mr Izmirlian has made several offers to CEXIM, all rejected because it was claimed that they were made outside the Receivers’ sales process. However, obviously failing to find anyone making a high enough offer, the Receivers have had to go outside that process themselves. Now there is no longer any excuse to exclude Mr Izmirlian. If Mr Izmirlian’s offer had been accepted, Baha Mar would probably have been opened for business by now, the more than 2,000 Bahamians would be at work, all creditors would have been paid, and government would be free to concentrate on rebuilding the Bahamas after Hurricane Matthew.

Instead, a shell Hong Kong company - Perfect Luck Holdings Ltd, a private company set up in 2014 - will buy Baha Mar’s assets. They will be held for sale to the highest bidder. Using this means the purchaser will be assured that the property is free of all encumbrances. For this transaction, the Receivers are legally bound to accept the highest bidder. So far, Mr Izmirlian is satisfied that he is that bidder.

The rumour now is that one of Asia’s largest property empires is interested in acquiring Baha Mar. However, the founder of that empire, Cheng Yu-Tung, died this month at the age of 91, leaving a fortune of $15 billion. For the past four years his son has headed his empire.

However, the Cheng name has been sullied through alleged partnerships with persons involved - so it is claimed - in crime. Stanley Ho, said to be a long time associate of Mr Cheng, is often “identified as an ‘associate’ of organised crime by dint of his ownership - with Mr Cheng - in SJM, which gave free rein to China’s criminal groups known as the Triads. And so it goes on in even greater detail. Regulators around the world, including Australia, Canada and the Philippines, have rejected Stanley Ho as “unsuitable” to hold a gambling licence. Many authorities have described Mr Ho himself explicitly as “a member of organised crime”.

After pulling out of the hole that we had dug for ourselves as a “nation for sale” during the drug years, are we to get this small nation into an even worse situation with the Triad gangs - the criminals of Macau?

No, Mr Christie, you and yours might not like Mr Izmirlian, but he is a decent, honest young businessman - no under-the-table dealer - who is known in these islands and who loves and is loved by his staff. He certainly will not scandalise this country. Are you going to bypass this opportunity and introduce the seedy life of Macau to these shores?

And so we ask you once again Mr Christie - who are you for? Your own Bahamian people or Beijing?

Sir Baltron’s statement, released in your name, ran circles around the question. Now is the time for straight answers.