Dear Sir,

I want someone to please tell me that what is reported as part of the airport deal was a misprint or some political spin and mischief. I refuse to believe that the cost of the electricity for the facility is left on the shoulders of the taxpayer. Additionally, the idea of guaranteed business which means if our visitor arrivals are down once again the taxpayer steps in to support the revenue.

There is no risk, how could they lose? How could anyone lose under such a construct? Give me the deal, I’ll take it. It’s a win, win, win — for the foreign contractor who gets to build it, run and manage it, and essentially own the operation for 30 years and who-knows-what terms to get it back.

Let me say that I was a reluctant supporter of the deal, but gave weight to the principle of the Minister of Finance’s right to do what he deemed as in the best interest of the country. So fast-tracking didn’t faze me when the options for stimulating the economy were few. But the details of the deal that have just emerged via the Opposition alarm me and very glaringly expose the lack of public consultation in the process, which if allowed might have challenged various aspects of this airport proposal.

Where do we go from here? It seems even by the admission of the foreign contractor, they can’t lose either way. Whether we go forward or renege, the foreign group benefits. Here is the time when we need to bring light out of darkness. If we back out, we can limit their claim by going to court and proving the process was flawed. We could go ahead with the deal but amend the conditions under the contract. I don’t think Bermuda public are saying, “Forward she goes” — not right now, at least. The minister will have to give a strong justification as to why we chose to outsource on the bases that we are subsidising, but in the effort continue to subsidise the outsourcing.

KHALID WASI