way some candidates have been less than careful with the truth. Mr. Stuart's Hayward's doctoring of newspaper comment to suit his personal ambition is a classic example. This is not the first time. He did a very similar thing in the last election. Yet Mr. Hayward poses as the honest broker and the man who can be relied on to hold the high ground! A second unattractive event was the threatening of the Civil Service by the head of the civil service union. The threat to Civil Service jobs was so strange and ominous and so sinister in its implications that it is difficult to assess why it was spoken. It may be simply that Mr. Eugene Blakeney said it in the excitement of a very lively political meeting in Hamilton Parish. But it may be part of the PLP agenda, should the party be elected. Either way, it is dangerous thinking.

The Progressive Labour Party itself has pointed out as part of this campaign that, if elected, it would have the support of the same Civil Service which carries out the policies of the UBP. Then Mr. Blakeney threatened top civil servants.

The very organisation of a country's Civil Service protects civil servants from threats. If the Civil Service is not independent, then the democratic structure fails. Mr. Blakeney said that if the PLP wins and feels civil servants cannot be loyal to the PLP "our leader, Brother Freddie, will do what he has to do''.

It seems to us that just by issuing the threat Mr. Blakeney robbed civil servants of their essential independence. The Secretary General of the Bermuda Public Services Association should be the very first person protecting the integrity and independence of civil servants. The public has to wonder if Mr.

Blakeney would threaten them during a campaign, what might he do if in control? Aside from the civil servants, whom he is duty-bound to protect, Mr. Blakeney damaged his political party. He put his leader, Mr. L. Frederick Wade, on the defensive because Mr. Wade then had to explain and even apologise for such an embarrassing position.

Remarkably it is not the first time in this election that Mr. Wade has been on the defensive trying to explain away statements made by his candidates. The PLP began the election with Dr. Ewart Brown saying that he had scores to settle. Then the party was placed on the defensive over income tax. Candidate Mr. Phillip Perinchief suggested at a public rally that income tax was being considered by the PLP. Ever since, Mr. Wade and other party leaders have had to explain the statement and deny intending to implement income tax.

The PLP followed Mr. Perinchief's statement by gagging its candidates and told them they could not to talk to the media and announced the gag to the public.

The next day, after complaints, Mr. Wade began to explain and defend the position and to loosen the gag. But it was clear that the PLP did not trust its candidates to speak openly and was afraid of what its candidates might say.

The PLP leadership was correct to be concerned about what candidates might say, because Mr. Julian Hall, who had stated that he was not gagged, told a rally in Hamilton Parish that the Portuguese Bermudian Organisation had endorsed the PLP but the fact had never been reported in The Royal Gazette .

That was simply untrue. There was no endorsement so it could not have been reported. Again, Mr. Wade was put to explaining a blunder to the public and to apologising to the Portuguese.