Prime Minister Christie’s offhand dismissal of the so-called “disagreement” that took place in the Cabinet room Tuesday evening, is apparently the “straw that broke the camel’s back” for many people – that is, if the calls received by angry Bahamians today can be considered a barometer of public opinion.
The report in the morning papers that gave an account of a physical fight between Kennedy MP Kenyatta Gibson and Mount Moriah MP Keod Smith set the radio talk shows ringing early yesterday. Some of the callers, who identified themselves as PLPs, expressed their embarrassment at the behaviour of their parliamentarians, and vowed to withdraw their support from the party.
However, after Mr Christie’s comments on the l:00pm news, callers then turned to The Tribune news room’s phones and our private telephone.
They were particularly upset at Mr Christie laughing with the two MPs about the newspaper accounts of their “fisticuffs.”
According to Mr Christie he was not in the room when angry words were exchanged between the two ministers, both lawyers, each representing a client in the purchase of a house. It is understood that one of them wanted to close the deal for his client, while the other, representing the purchaser, could not complete the documentation, allegedly because title to the property – owned by the other lawyer’s client – was still under question.
Insulting words – some, it is claimed, with racial overtones – and angry accusations were exchanged. However, it is unclear which MP threw the first blow.
Mr Christie believed that the report of what took place in the cabinet room, presumably after a parliamentary meeting, was “accentuated by rumour and talk.” He said that “as the Bahamian people move forward today and tomorrow they will see that it is more apparent than real.”
Mr Christie, in answer to a question, said he had heard about “some disagreement being expressed,” but didn’t “hear about the fisticuffs.” He read that in the newspaper. “And,” he added, “I have met with both members of parliament and both of us have laughed together – laughed at that account, in the sense that some people are making what they would wish of it. But I didn’t see any bruises or bite marks.”
Mr Christie might think it an exaggeration, and he might have not seen any “bruises or bite marks”, but persons who yesterday tried to greet Kenyatta Gibson with a handshake were offered his left hand. It was reported that his right hand was being held in, a manner that suggested it was in a delicate condition.
It is claimed that during the fight damage was done to government property. If reports are correct, two windows and the glass top on the large mahogany table were broken. If this report is indeed true, then all Mr Christie has to do is step into the Cabinet room. If there is damage he should get a builder to assess the damage for him and report to the public. If there is no damage, then the press would appreciate that information, so that they can – correct their reports for the public. But, if true, the public would also like to know who is going to pay for the repair of the damage done.
Mr Christie is getting himself a reputation for down-playing incidents that need firmer action. For example, he stands fully behind Immigration Minister Shane Gibson’s “demonstrating new levels of efficiency in government that would cause people to question (him).”
We have no problems with efficiency. Any minister who can introduce efficiency to his ministry is to be commended. But, Mr Christie appears to miss the point. No one is complaining about efficiency. The complaint is about the manner in which such efficiency was introduced in the Anna Nicole Smith case. If it weren’t for this, no one would be questioning Mr Gibson.
For example, Ms Smith’s application for permanent residence was rushed through in less than three weeks. That’s fine, but is that the speed with which every application for permanent residence is to be handled? We are told it is “absolutely impossible” for security checks, which are required for every applicant, to be properly completed in that time frame. If true does this suggest that short cuts were taken in the Smith case, and if so will they be taken in all future cases, which if it results in slip-shod investigative work for the sake of speed, could conceivably let an Osama bin Laden slip through?
Mr Christie’s answer to the public’s concern is that “new levels of effectiveness are being introduced and we will be moving with speed, and if you don’t like it, then lump it.”
As we have said, we have no argument with “new levels of effectiveness”, but we do have a problem with the manner in which Mr Gibson handled the Smith application. We don’t like it, and for the PM’s information we won’t lump it. Questions should be asked and satisfactory answers should be given.
And what the public wants to know – especially those applying to Immigration for various permits – is whether their applications will be handled with the same speed and given the same personal attention.
Mr Gibson explained that Ms Smith is a personal friend. That’s fine, but what Mr Gibson must understand is that the public has employed him, not just to give special attention to his special friends, but to give special attention to the business of us all.
Editorial from The Tribune
