Markham off the markJanuary 4, 2011Dear Sir,I was genuinely surprised by the answers given by Mr Markham in your reporter's interview with him (January 3rd, 2011) regarding his participation as an observer in the recent elections in Belarus.It seems that Mr Markham and his colleagues felt the recent Belarus election was largely free and fair. He said, “In my team, we had four independent observers in the spiritual diplomacy group to verify it was free and fair election. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) also verified it was free and fair....I think this election was better than the previous one. Previous recommendations were that they open up the process. So they held debates on television, paid for by the government. The President ran as an independent.”I'm astounded because the election was largely regarded by international observers as being severely flawed. The highly regarded international paper, The Economist, stated the following:“Faked votes, cracked skulls, a jailed opposition, beaten-up protesters and relations with Europe in tatters. This, in short, is the result of December's presidential election in Belarus, in which Alyaksandr Lushashenko, a Soviet thug, declared himself the winner with an improbable 80% of the poll and returned to govern for the fourth time.... The latest crackdown has been brutish even by Mr. Lushashenko's dismal standards. After what looked like a staged provocation, riot police started indiscriminately pummelling an opposition crowd of 30,000. Activists were hunted down by the KGB in their homes in the middle of the night.” (Jan 1-7th, 2011 edition)Mr. Markham doesn't seem to understand what constitutes a free and fair election. His view that debates on television, paid for by the government, and an incumbent President who has the resources of the state to win an election (including the use of police and funds to buy votes) are evidence of democracy is incorrect. Free and fair elections can only occur within an environment free of intimidation, free of the use of state apparatus to ensure the victory of the incumbent, and free from opposition oppression.Perhaps what surprises me even more, sadly, is that Mr Markham has been an adviser to our Government. I would like to suggest that the current Government choose their political advisers more carefully; hopefully ones with better judgement and a sounder understanding of what constitutes meaningful democracy.C ThomasLondonTransparency neededJanuary 4, 2011Dear Sir,I read with interest the daily of January 3, 2011 and the article referring to the Veritas Place building on Court Street that will serve as office space for senior staff members of the Police Service. This manoeuvre has come about, so we are told, because the new police and court buildings have insufficient space to accommodate senior police staff.It really does boggle the mind that another Government building project can be so woefully over budget and yet still not accomplish the task of accommodating the police officers needed in the building. Worse yet, no one seems to know who owns the building in which these Officers will reside. This lack of information coming from Government when taxpayers' dollars are being spent is a nonsense. It begs the question whether Government is trying to hide something or is embarrassed to release the information.I am of the opinion that the identities of owners and the terms of rental arrangements made by the Government ought to be regularly published to ensure competitive pricing and total transparency. There is already transparency regarding the awarding of building contracts usually so one needs to ask the question why can't it be done for rental agreements?If the Government still refuses to divulge this information then the owners of Veritas Place should, at the very least, change the name of their building. In Roman Mythology, Veritas was the goddess of Truth, a daughter of Saturn and the mother of Virtue. Unfortunately we have witnessed none of these attributes since your story was published and Bermuda really does deserve better.ALLAN D MARSHALL JPUBP CandidateDistrict 7 Hamilton SouthConfused by articleJanuary 4, 2011Dear Sir,I found myself somewhat confused when reading Wednesday's article about the merger between Capital G and FBG. From the article it appeared that the CEO of Capital G Bank Ltd, Ian Truran, believed that by merging Capital G with FBG, competition in our local banking industry would increase. As an economics student in London, I was taught that competition was a measure of the number of firms in the market the more firms, the more competitive the market.Increased competition is a good thing for consumers, not firms, as Mr Truran stated in his interview with The Gazette the firms must compete with each other for their share of the market. Increasing the size of Capital G by merging it with FBG does, however, increase its ability to compete with the two larger banks already well-established in the market.It is potentially quite worrying that the CEO of one of our banks is either unaware of the basic principles of competition, or unable to count.STUDENTSmith's