The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Please permit me to share my views on recent remarks made by Michael Bayley, Royal Caribbean’s president and chief executive, and our Prime Minister, Phillip “Brave” Davis, as reported in the local press.

Mr Bayley reportedly remarked that the Royal Beach Club represents a “win-win” for all parties on the basis that it will enhance the Nassau “brand” and visitor experience, as well as providing increased Bahamian ownership, jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities through a first-of-its-kind tourism model.

The government, having approved this project, presumably shares Mr Bayley’s view.

If they do, whenever a Heads of Agreement is formulated, I am sure the government will be transparent and release the same so Bahamians can be the judge of such a proclamation. I am sure Mr Bayley and his company would be willing to release the government from any legal or contractual impediment, if any, which stands in the way.

Notwithstanding what Mr Bayley and the government may proclaim, this and all the other ventures of this nature are about generating revenues for NCI.

The cruise line appetite for revenue is insatiable and will never represent any scenario resembling a true win-win position for any destination they visit.

Bahamians are just mere collateral beneficiaries whose engagement will take the form of low-level employment opportunities and a passive shareholding interest, pushed by political pressure and necessity by local and desperate politicians who seek to massage the public and detract criticisms from their unpopular decision.

It has also been publicly reported that our Prime Minister, Phillip “Brave” Davis, in speaking to reporters, said his administration approved the project partly because tourists need more attractions.

If the Prime Minister and his government accepts that there is need for more attractions, why are the most sought-after historical sites and attractions in New Providence such as Fort Charlotte, Fort Montagu, the Water Tower, Sixty-Six Steps, Government House, etc, effectively shut down to visitors or are in such deplorable conditions?

These are all historical facilities owned and managed by the government and, the least one would expect, given the Prime Minister’s remark, is a meaningful and heightened effort by the government to bring these attractions to an appreciable state of enjoyment for visitors and locals alike.

It was also the government who discontinued other cultural activities, such as the Beat Retreat, Changing of the Guard, Goombay festivals, etc. These and many other activities, as I recall, attracted and were enjoyed by many tourists and locals.

It is just plain disingenuous and duplicitous for the government to rest its decision to approve the Royal Caribbean project on the narrative that there is a “lack of attractions” when it is the government’s inactivity and neglect of the most historical sites that contributes significantly to the unavailability of many cultural attractions and activities.

I am by no means absolving the private sector in playing its role, but the government ought to take the lead in so far as these cultural sites are concerned, especially given the Prime Minister’s reason for his government’s unwise approval of the Royal Caribbean venture.

While I do agree that there is a lack of culturally enriching activities for cruise visitors and tourist generally, I do not, however, share the position adopted by the government that the development or restoration of the tourism product and attractions, must be developed and owned by the cruise industry. To succumb to such a belief and practice, the government is failing us miserably.

A financial demarcation line should be drawn for the cruise industry and it should be at the point the visitor steps foot on Bahamian soil.

CLAUDE B HANNA

Nassau,

April 16, 2023