The gall of the UBP

November 19, 2006

Dear Sir,

I have just read the article in the Saturday, November 18, 2006, edition of the Royal Gazette entitled, "MPs clash in lively Throne Speech debate's conclusion" and I have to say that the UBP has a lot of gall to be stating the things it states.

Firstly, Education, was it not under the UBP that the education system was changed and destroyed? I seem to recall parents marching on parliament in an effort to stop the changes. I remember sitting on the National Youth Council and in a meeting with the Minister of Education, Gerald Simons, many of us on the Council expressed our disapproval with the proposed new system. Clearly the UBP did not listen to the people and we now have the education system we have today, which is truly elitist. Many will recall Gerald Simons stating that the goal of the UBP was to remove elitism from our schools yet today the school system is more elite than it ever was.

The UBP revamping the education system has done more to divide the races and economic classes than anything the PLP has ever said or done. The public education system is populated, predominantly by children of lower income families, who are predominantly black. Due to the extremely high cost of living in Bermuda many of the parents have to work multiple jobs in order to support their families so is it any wonder that the kids in the public school system are not performing at the levels being demanded by some? No child will perform well in school without the full support of his/her parents. The economically elite all have their kids in private schools, which generally have a lower student to teacher ratio than do public schools. Therefore, the "us versus them" syndrome and the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue in Bermuda indefinitely because not only are students, for the most part, segregated by race, they are segregated by economics. How has the UBP educational change been the least bit positive for Bermuda?

Forget the cost overruns at Berkeley, the segregation in our school system is a whole lot more costly than the Berkeley cost overruns and will negatively impact Bermuda longer and to a larger degree. Those who have concerned themselves with the Berkeley cost overruns should instead be demanding a return to the school system that many of us grew up under and which produced most of our top performing people.

With regard to the problems at CedarBridge Academy, if the report in the Bermuda Sun this weekend is accurate, the UBP needs to be very careful how it criticises the PLP with regard to the mould problem. The Bermuda Sun quotes a source stating that the roof of the school needs to be replaced after only 10 years. If this statement turns out to be accurate than the UBP has to answer to this because it was under its watch that the school was built.

From my research, mould in buildings can come from three key sources, all related to water, which creates dampness (1) a foundation not properly waterproofed during construction, (2) water infiltration through other areas of the building, such as a leaking roof (the roof on the school has a substrate and any takes a while to create a leak) and (3) via the air condition system (at the coil, a cold damp environment, to be precise), especially where the system installed is undersized for the size of the area to be cooled, which means the unit has to work harder and longer in order to cool.

Secondly, we hear the UBP state that the PLP is using race to divide the country. Well, I hate to be the one to point it out but race has always been and will always be a major issue facing and dividing Bermuda until such time as it is addressed head-on. The UBP Government never wanted to even acknowledge that race was an issue. Only after the UBP lost the 1998 General Election did it suddenly become "enlightened" to the fact that for many, race was a major issue. The party created a Ministry of Race Relations and has had two Shadow Ministers, the current one is simply a reinstatement of the first. These Shadow Ministers hold/held the post yet neither has made any statement on how the UBP believes the issue of race needs to be addressed or what effect it has had on Bermuda. The Shadow Ministry has been deafeningly silent on the issue of race but that should be no surprise as giving lip-service to race is a UBP trait.

Instead of the UBP admitting its own failures with regard to addressing race it tries to turn the spotlight on the PLP claiming it is racially divisive. This newspaper has attempted to do the same thing with its recent heading "PLP seeking a black Governor" when the article itself provides nothing substantiating the heading.

The UBP wants to re-hash a comment by Dr. Brown where he stated something to the effect that "a vote for the UBP is a vote back to the plantation." The UBP and its supporters want to attempt to literalise this statement, yet there were no plantations in Bermuda, so clearly the statement was not intended to be literal. My interpretation and the interpretation of many others of Dr. Brown's comment is that while the government, the UBP never wanted to address the issue of race, which is a fact. One of its former Ministers, C.V. Jim Woolridge, made the UBP position on race very clear when he stated, "These white boys don't mind a black boy being in charge as long as they can tell him what to do."

Then there was Sir John Swan's statement about black males being a problem, although the UBP claimed the impetus behind this statement was not that black males were a problem per se but were underachieving. Assuming for a minute that this was the intention, what did the UBP do to make certain that black males did not underachieve? Nothing! Instead the UBP implemented its Bermuda Inc. concept which turned the country's focus completely away from Tourism, a sector that was a major employer and where lower educated people were making a very good living, to International Business, a sector that requires a higher level of education just to get a foot in the door.

Today, Bermuda boast of being the insurance capital of the world and having one of the highest incomes per capita in the world yet many of its people cannot afford to own property in their own country. If Bermuda is such a success because of the UBP, as it wants us to believe, why do we have so many people, according to Patricia Gordon-Pamplin, having to live in their cars? Why do we have people earning what by most standards very good incomes but they can't afford to own their own home?

The UBP talk about the PLP playing the race card yet it knows that it needs the black vote in order to win an election and no disrespect to him, but Wayne Furbert was selected as party leader because it is believed by the UBP that it needs a black leader in order to win this black vote. Clearly it was thought by the party that Dr. Grant Gibbons, a member of a white wealth Bermuda family, was not viewed as being attractive to black voters, if that is not playing the race card than I do not know what is.

I simply have to wonder why the electorate would re-elect a UBP Government when as Opposition it has not shown that it should be the government. Where does the party stand on key issues facing Bermuda? Some UBP members and supporters say that the party has very good ideas but you don't hear about them because the press does not report on them. My response to that is, "Nonsense!" If Khalid Wasi can get media attention for his plans of a potential third party, surely the Opposition and former governing party can command media attention for its thoughts and ideas. If the average person can get media attention via the Letters to the Editor, surely the UBP can get the media attention it needs to get its ideas to the public.

My view is that if you have ideas that you truly believe will be best for the country, put aside your desire to win votes and constantly fight to have your ideas placed before the electorate, not just during a time when political points can potentially be scored, during a reply to a Throne Speech or in the lead up to a General Election, but at all times. How can you expect to be taken serious if you only express your ideas at strategic times on the political calendar, especially when you are trying to regain the trust and confidence of the electorate? If the ideas are being withheld out of fear that the PLP will pick them up and use them as their own then the UBP does not have the best interest of the electorate at heart, it only has a desire to win the next election.

Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr.

Nassau, Bahamas

Story misrepresented me

December 9, 2006

Dear Sir,

A front page article in Friday's Mid-Ocean News by Mr. Gareth Finighan attributed to me phrases and opinions which I did not make.

Given the significance of the subject matter, we could not have been clearer with him on the phone early last week about the importance of being precise and accurate in his quotes. This is why my office gave him, in writing last Wednesday, the quotes he was authorised to use in his story (reprinted below). We were very clear with Mr. Finighan both in writing and on the phone that these were the only quotes which were authorised for the story.

In the very first paragraph he attributed to me a statement that I did not make and never would make. As you will see below ? which is the verbatim transcript of the quotes authorised for the article ? the US Government does have very real concerns about US companies contributing to any political party in any country (this is a worldwide policy).

In fact, it is completely illegal for US companies to give any type of political donation in the United States itself. This is why I prominently mentioned the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in my authorised remarks ? and why the United States Government encourages all US companies ? or any company operating in the US ? to get an advance ruling from the US Attorney General on the legality or illegality of any requested donation under the FCPA if the company is at all uncertain.

Mr. Finighan also incorrectly quotes me as having "dismissed Opposition concerns" about related issues. Let me be 100 percent clear on this: It would be completely inappropriate for me ? or any foreign diplomat ? to dismiss the concerns of any political party here in Bermuda. All of us at the United States Consulate have the highest respect for Bermuda's democratically elected political parties ? and we will always take all of their concerns seriously and respectfully. As stated clearly in the authorised quotes: "What is important to everyone is honesty, clarity and transparency, because these are the hallmarks of the rule of law which is the basis for all free societies everywhere."

I would invite the people of Bermuda to read the authorised quotes that were provided to Mr. Finighan for use in the article (which are directly below) in order that everyone might have a clear and accurate understanding of these important issues.

Gregory W. Slayton

United States Consul General

Hamilton, Bermuda

The following are the quotes that Mr. Slayton released to the Mid-Ocean News:

"It's our understanding that under Bermuda law political parties are allowed to approach non-Bermudians and all types of businesses to garner financial support for their political efforts. At the same time I am 100 percent sure that my friend Dr. Brown appreciates the importance of ethical and wise leadership ? and is committed to providing just that for Bermuda. It appears that he is trying to work within Bermuda law to help his Party. At the same time I hope and believe that he is firmly committed to maintaining Bermuda's sterling reputation in the world.

"He and I have spoken about the importance of good governance and I believe that he is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards for his government. He clearly understands the importance of Bermuda's excellent reputation among the international business community worldwide ? which is one of the cornerstones of Bermuda's tremendous economic success. And I do believe that he is committed to bolstering and burnishing Bermuda's already strong reputation for honesty, integrity and transparency."

"US law on the subject of political contributions is quite different than Bermuda law. In the US it is illegal for anyone who is not a US citizen to make a political donation. It is also illegal for US corporations (or any corporation) to give political contributions or to even be solicited for such ? another significant difference between Bermuda and the US."

Mr. Slayton added that there were safety checks in place under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which allowed for any concerned United States company ? or any company doing business in the US ? to receive an advance ruling from the US Attorney General on the legality or illegality of any requested donation under the FCPA.

"It's important that everything is handled clearly, cleanly and above board. That is why our FCPA applies to all US companies and all companies doing business in the US ? and why it applies worldwide.

In fact, within the FCPA there is a provision that encourages any US company that has a question to put the case in writing to the US Attorney General.

Under the FCPA, the Attorney General's office must get back to the requestor within 30 days of receipt of the request either with an advance ruling on that case ? or with a request for more information" Mr. Slayton said.

"What is important to everyone is honesty, clarity and transparency, because these are the hallmarks of the rule of law which is the basis for all free societies everywhere."

Let's help a brother

December 8, 2006

Dear Sir,

At a time when the Honourable Premier, Dr. Ewart Brown, is being rebuked for his outspokenness in this supposed democratic society, please allow me the opportunity to offer the following comments:

Although, on occasion, I write with a hint of criticism regarding certain issues, I feel it necessary at this time to highlight the positive attributes of Dr. Brown that is most deserving of praise.

Firstly, Dr. Brown has already demonstrated, prior to his leadership, that he is quite capable of putting his thoughts into action. As the saying goes ?'Action speaks louder than words', therefore, let us not dwell on the "racist dog" comment that he used as a reference, and focus on his positive contributions that many people are enjoying today (i.e. improved ferry service, lower air fares, more flights etc.).

After all, only those who have actually lived it, and have experienced some form of struggle or discrimination, will be more understanding. Yes, some feelings have been hurt, but we must learn to deal with our feelings, get over it and move on.

So to the vocal UBP representatives, put your heads together and share your thoughts about an issue that needs your attention.

Where is the support for an individual who has aspired to reach the top only to be held back? One who attempted to climb the ladder of success but when he neared the top, found that several rungs in the ladder had been removed, therefore, making it impossible for him to reach the next steps? To make matters worse, he soon discovered, after making his ascent, that he was climbing the wrong ladder ?what he thought was the ladder for 'black males', turned out to be only for 'black males under forty'. So, what is the black male over the age of 40 to do? Is he now faced with age discrimination?

Let us focus our energy on finding a solution to this problem and help a brother continue his ascent, rather than wasting time trying to pull a brother down.

JENNIFER CAINES

Devonshire

Kindergarten reasoning

December 8, 2006

Dear Sir,

How sad. How pathetic, but not unexpected. Here is a member of the Human Rights Commission, Kamal Worrell, (Royal Gazette, front page yesterday's issue), excusing a tirade and the remark 'racist dog' by the Premier with such kindergarten reasoning. Such childish footwork of the mind.

It is OK for such nasty remarks to be made because ? wait for it, this is going to be a giant leap of reasoning so you might miss it first time around ? the Premier's tirade was justifiable because he was 'referring to a statement that was made by one of the members of the Opposition about a former Premier who was referred to as a 'political eunuch' and the connotation that carries because in slavery black men were castrated' (my emphasis).

I don't get the connection. In history, in real history, black men, white men, yellow men and men in-between were castrated (become eunuchs). Women too. And it did not only happen to slaves. Non- slaves were made into eunuchs as well. Blacks do not have a monopoly on such a state. In the Byzantine Empire, the majority of eunuchs were white. The word does not signify black slaves ? it never has and it never should. Unless you are desperate to find an excuse for uncalled for racial remarks by our Premier.

But, suppose you are determined to hold with such lack of reasoning. Since when did two wrongs make a right? Weren't you taught in kindergarten that you were responsible for your actions, and someone else being wrong was not an excuse for you?

But wait. Didn't the Human Rights Commission, the same Commission Kamal Worrell is a member of, refuse to pass judgement on a certain prominent PLP member calling another black person a 'house nigr' on the radio? No, surely I must have that wrong. I have to be wrong because how can a remark like 'political eunuch' ? political, mind you, not black or slave, but 'political' ? be used as justification for undignified and racially motivated remarks by our Premier, but 'house nigr is OK?

MARK EMMERSON

City of Hamilton