MAURICE TYNES ON BUILDING A NEW PARLIAMENT
(This letter first appeared in The Nassau Guardian on 12 June 2025—Editor)
Dear Editor
I was disappointed with The Nassau Guardian‘s editorial of Tuesday, June 3, 2025 which was titled “New Parliament can wait”.
Disappointed, because while the editorial writer admits that the current Parliament building was built in 1815, that it is in dire need of modernization, that the structure is outdated and unfit for its purpose, the writer goes on to refer to a new Parliament building as a ceremonial project and mere symbolism.
What prevents the government from allocating funds both for the construction of a new parliamentary building in incremental stages while also addressing the other needs of the society? The government’s choices do not have to be binary, fund one but not the other.
The Loyalists built and turned over to Bahamians new parliamentary buildings in the early 19th century. At that time, there were no women in Parliament, so no need for separate toilets and other gender-related issues.
There also were no motor vehicles, so there was no need for parking spaces, there were little or zero security issues and the need for access for the disabled was not an issue.
Moreover, there were no infrastructural requirements for internet access; radio or television broadcast and electricity generation became common and widespread only in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century.
When the uninformed envisage the Parliament, they only see politicians standing and speaking into microphones. They clearly do not appreciate what it takes for them to be able to sit at home and watch the proceedings on television.
Neither do they understand the level of discomfort and distress members of Parliament and House of Assembly staff must endure in the existing cramped conditions.
The current House of Assembly building was built for a staff of one or two. For parliamentarians to serve the Bahamian public adequately, they ought to have access to assistance to research, which is normally provided by parliamentary staff.
There is neither space nor any facility available for this assistance to occur. Is there any wonder that so many of the contributions in Parliament seem substance deprived and important issues end up lost in translation and personal invective.
I have a long-held opinion that there is a vast disparity in how the public views the three branches of government.
There is little doubt that there is unrelenting bias against the Parliament and parliamentarians as opposed to the judiciary and judges and the executive branch and its permanent secretaries.
The public has no problem when provisions are made to build new office accommodations for the courts and for government offices. But when $10 million is set aside for a new parliamentary complex, the new Parliament can wait.
Never mind the fact that the present Parliament was built since 1805, and since that time, scores of courts and government offices have been constructed.
It was interesting to hear the commissioner of police almost gloating that provision is being made in this year’s budget to construct a new police headquarters; not a squeak from the Parliament protesting pundits or from the public. I am sure that a new police head office is needed, but so is a new parliamentary complex.
Also related to the bias of accommodations for the three branches of government is the issue of salaries and emoluments for the various branches.
The judiciary and the executive branches have their salaries adjusted regularly without much ado from the skeptics. The parliamentarians’ salaries are fixed by law and can only be adjusted by an amendment of the relevant statute.
I find it shameful that these salaries have not been adjusted since 1988. The base salary for a member of Parliament is $28,000 annually.
A cursory glance of the salaries of the heads of the three branches of government is instructive. The salary of the chief justice as head of the judiciary is approximately $128,000; The salary of the prime minister as head of the executive branch is about $113,000; and the salary of the speaker of the House of Assembly as head of the legislature is $80,000.
The politicians have developed a self-inflicted paralysis and fear of being labelled as self-serving and greedy if they enacted or even indicate they propose to amend the law to increase their salaries.
Parliamentarians are understandably reluctant because it is the only branch of the government that has the legal authority to increase its own salary. Despite this, it is time to consider a salary increase for parliamentarians.
If the editorial writer wanted to launch criticisms of the current administration, that person could easily have done so without hiding behind the attention-grabbing headline of: “A New Parliament Can Wait”.
I shall have more to say about the need for a new parliamentary complex and many other related topics in an upcoming book that I have authored.
For many Bahamians, it will never be the right time to build a new Parliament or use the country’s scarce resources on a new Parliament.
As far as they are concerned, there will always be other projects that should be given priority.
Even the Bible in Matthew 26:11 admonishes us, “For you have the poor with you always”.
Implementing freedom of information will not relieve the pressure of the cost of living, neither will it address discontent over persistent water supply issues.
The Loyalists left The Bahamas new Parliament buildings in the early 19th century, and these buildings have served Bahamians for over 220 years.
A new parliamentary complex that has the potential to transform the lives of Bahamians and that costs Bahamian taxpayers $69 million but lasts for over 300 years will be an invaluable investment.
It would be shameful if we turn over to Bahamians in the 22nd Century the same Parliament building that the Loyalists left for us.
Sincerely,
— Maurice Tynes