The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

There is in this country a long-standing tradition of eloquent men who choose to share their opinions with the wider world behind a veil of anonymity. That is their choice and I do not harbour strong feelings one way or the other.

For my own part, I have never hidden my public opinions behind a pseudonym. That fact alone seems to annoy some people, including the person who wrote under the pseudonym “The Whistleblower” in both The Tribune and Nassau Guardian of Tuesday, 25 July 2017. For, in addition to (wrongly) describing me as a PLP, or a PLP apologist, he refers to me as “one Andrew Allen”, as if to belittle my claim to voice opinions, while paradoxically focusing his entire contribution on them.

Mr Whistleblower’s instinctive retreat into tribal politics is unfortunate, but not unexpected, in so small and politically-fixated a society. For the record, I am no PLP. Neither am I an FNM. In fact, the most casual search of The Tribune or Guardian’s archives will disclose far more letters by me critical of the PLP than the FNM over the years. Of course, equally predictably, smart-aleck PLPs at the time shielded themselves from my valid criticisms by calling me an FNM. So Mr Whistleblower is in good company.

What seems to grate him most was my comment that the 2012 to 2017 government was the most productive in recent history in terms of national development. Unsurprisingly, I stand by that statement.

The reason I made it, and the reason I stand by it is because it is based on simple, testable facts, rather than rumours, opinions or unsubstantiated accusations. Also unsurprisingly, Whistleblower failed to directly refute any of the facts that I cited.

Here they are again:- NHI, which clearly (despite being ‘unfunded’ in Whistleblower’s eyes) was to be financed by a payroll tax of some kind, just as NIB is today; The University of the Bahamas (silence from Whistleblower on this one); Upgrading the RBDF drastically (again, silence); doubling the conviction rate for serious offences via Swift Justice (silence).

Against these very specific achievements, we have nothing from Whistleblower but a barrage of adjectives: ‘reckless’, ‘corrupt’, ‘greedy’.

Here is what seems to confound people like Whistleblower: there are actually some of us who are directed not by political tribalism, but rather by a genuine desire for national achievement. When we see a government achieving things, we say so. Likewise, when we see an opposition (now in government) with no plans and a litany of bogus claims (they will ‘resell’ Baha Mar; 500 Chinese passports in the Baha Mar deal; they will give VAT exemptions on breadbasket items) we say so, too, even if we once supported that party, or even if our daddy was a so-and-so within it. It is called political maturity.

When Whistleblower or anyone else can show evidence of corruption against a politician (PLP or FNM) I will be among those deploring that politician, and I will not be shy to put my name where my mouth is. But to reduce the debate on national development to accusations of personal corruption (as both Whistleblower and the FNM have done) is a disservice to country and a cop out from intelligent discourse.

ANDREW ALLEN

Nassau,

July 25, 2017.