For the record

November 4, 2002

Dear Sir,

I refer to your article in this morning's on the airline venture and would be grateful if you would publish some corrections and clarifications.

1: It is extremely important that you distinguish between statements made by me as Chairman of ABIC and those made as a member of the business community who holds that position. I cannot speak on behalf of "international business" on issues that I have not had a chance to discuss with my colleagues and I think it is clear in this matter that I was speaking in a personal capacity. Having said this, I believe your article fairly represented my sentiments (subject to item 3 below).

2: I would like to clarify that ICD no longer exists and that I am Chairman of the Association of Bermuda International Companies (ABIC) which is an independent body, unlike ICD which was a division of the Chamber of Commerce.

3: I don't think the article was clear enough on a matter that I stressed during my interview in relation to subsidies. I think I was clear in stating that, while I would support subsidisation of a Bermuda-owned airline, I would be strongly opposed to Government providing subsidies to any private ventures.The story made it clear that Mr. Ezekiel only supported subsidies for a Bermuda-owned airline.

The bump and grind

November 1, 2002

Dear Sir,

I am writing with regard to an incident in Hamilton on Friday, November 1.

I was driving up Reid Street, not far from the Music Box, trying to find a space to park. A taxi overtook cars on the left side of the road. I kept tooting for him to stop. If I had not gone over until my mirror on the driver side was scraping against a wire basket of a bike in the parking bay, he would have hit me.

This is supposed to be a paradise island? Will the taxi driver pay for painting the scratches when TCD tells me I need to have it painted in order to pass? Seems everyone is in a hurry and don't care about others using the streets.

Fair comment on Premier

November 7, 2002

Dear Sir,

I write to express my view that the editorial of Thursday, November 7 is off the mark in criticising UBP MP Jamahl Simmons' remarks in reference to the PLP and the Premier. While Jamahl's language was colourful, in using the metaphor of a fish rotting from the head, it certainly encapsulated in graphic fashion the Premier's inability to come to grips with the substantial allegations of sleaze in her Government.

The particular bone of contention was the reference to being drunk with power and drunk with champagne. I found it rich for the to criticise Jamahl's reference to the Premier's well-known preference for champagne, and a certain brand at that, as it is frequently referred to by Hester in your paper!

In addition, the PLP have any number of members who are expert at hurling insult and invective. Is there a double or even triple standard? One for the UBP, one for the PLP and yet another for the ? I was only surprised that Jamahl didn't refer to 'champagne socialism' as the accusation from PLP followers is that the PLP leadership are spending more time entrenching themselves and enjoying the perquisites of power than fulfilling their electoral mandate.

The champagne remark was 'fair comment' as what the Premier does in public at public functions is fair game.

Dame Lois has publicly expressed her view that politics is not a Sunday School picnic.

Confront racism

November 2, 2002

Dear Sir,

So it looks like the next election is going to be a fight. The UBP may have a chance, but, as with the last election, the chances of the opposition are not the result of strong locally-relevant leadership but the result of the failures of the present government. For over 30 years there have been no unifying themes of leadership in Bermuda politics. I think the reason for this is racism. Whenever this loathsome enigma is mentioned the eyes of everyone start looking around for someone to blame.

I propose that we occasionally try to take an objective view. From that view I think we can say that besides it's corrupting and destructive attributes, we can say that racism lives on, in our time, often as a spectre in a hall of mirrors. Often when blaming other people, we find the fault in ourselves. Racism can appear to be where it is not, and remain invisible where it does the most harm. Everyone is aware of it but no one can quite explain how it works. One area where it is very divisive is in politics.

It's not true that you can't get Bermudians to hope. The big PLP victory was a moment of profound aspirations. The election of the UBP/John Swan government was another. In many ways both great hopes were betrayed by the governments that represented them. John Swan was uniquely positioned to elevate racism as a national issue that could be largely solved by education and economic empowerment. He was black, and a success. Most people respected him and he had a clear mandate. He did not grab his chance. If he he had there would be statue of him somewhere. He did not make the country confront its racial differences. He did not rationalise education and make it a social priority. He did not lead the country to fight those problems central to its frustration. He did not define those themes as the focus of leadership. He was charismatic and could draw one's attention away from what he was not doing. He did help to raise the standard of living of many blacks and this the most important thing he did. But it is small compared to what was possible.

Avoiding the race issue is typical of the UBP. This is a ironic because the UBP is the only bi-racial party we have. They chose not to address it and to this day, allow themselves to be associated with the old white oligarchy.

It is no wonder then, that they failed to deal with racism's strange stepchild; bad education policy. Public education in Bermuda is a black issue. And the UBP education policy failed dramatically.

What does facing the race issue mean? In my opinion, it means openly discussing it, deciding on policy and then acting on it. One of the PLP's winning ideas was transparency. Their behaviour in this area has been very disappointing. It is not hard to see why. Is it possible for a party wholly comprised of one race to deal properly with issues of racial conflict? The answer is: "Yes, but it will be very difficult." It is not surprising that a single race party in an ethically mixed country would fail and will continue to fail to be transparent. The temptation to avoid scrutiny, loathe the media, and keep secrets is very great. That is the divisiveness of racism.

This bunker mentality led the PLP to avoid the strategy that would have made them great. The issue of having a constitutional conference may have looked to them like a conservative backlash. It was in fact a chance for the entire country to come to terms with itself in a far greater way than independence ever could. The UBP never could have done it. The PLP and this parliament could have. They missed that one chance. I believe it was their opacity that caused them to take the wrong choice. In the end they did exactly what the UBP would have done and decided for the rest of us what they thought would be good for us. Nothing enrages Bermudians more than that attitude. But the party of the people went ahead and did just that.

The race issue has sabotaged both parties' ability to formulate unifying and constructive goals. For both parties it is a defining aspect of their identities. The only way to cure the problem is to attack it directly with strong leadership that directs public attention to the issues and evokes public debate. Any discussion would have to include (here it comes again) public education. Much noise is made about independence being a force to unify the country. I think it is a distraction from the real point. It leads us away from the darker and more difficult issues that really count.

Just one birthday, thanks

November 6, 2002

Dear Sir

Some time ago someone told me it was incorrect to annually wish someone "Happy Birthday" but the wish should be "Happy Birthdate" since one only had one birthday.