Ban all smoking

November 25, 2003

Dear Sir,

The issue of smoking in public places, particularly in our restaurants, has in my view, received painfully inadequate attention to date. Action is needed of the Ministry of Health. Action is presently confined to Government buildings. This is not enough at all. The idea of designating a section in a treatment for smokers in the same room as non-smokers is not only ludicrous but also insulting to the intelligence of the general public as this does absolutely nothing to protect the non-smokers from secondary smoking.

The whole world knows there is clear evidence now of the close correlation between passive smoking and health related diseases, cancer of the lung in particular. The evidence is overwhelming. While we cannot tell people not to smoke, we should be able to tell them they cannot smoke. Smokers should not be allowed to make anyone a victim of their dangerous habit. Consequences of smoking should be confined to smokers and no one else.

Tax on cigarettes is enormous. In the United Kingdom it generates about 7 billion a year. This may explain the apparent reluctance of some countries in banning smoking in public places. The restaurateurs decry such a ban claiming it would damage their business, and could result in a loss of a great number of jobs. The public health is however to me much more important than the invalid and scaremongering statements.

In March 2003, New York banned smoking in its 13,000 bars and restaurants. One month ago, Brussels warned that smoking could soon be banned in all public places across the European Union. Britain, where 120,000 die each year of smoking-related diseases, has already outlawed tobacco advertising ahead of a proposed Europe-wide ban. What is Bermuda doing? I do hope public outcry would eventually lead to drafting of legislation to ban smoking in all restaurants ? both big and small.

DR. H. O. SUBAIR

Pembroke

Give youth a chance

November 25, 2003

Dear Sir,

I refer to Thursday's "Letters" column and those submissions entitled "A decade ago" penned by "Embarrassed Bermudian" and "Get rid of the Regiment" penned by "Sad Sack and Beetle Bailey" in particular. These letters followed the previous evening's TV interviews with the Commanding Officer of the Bermuda Regiment, together with officers and conscripted recruits, when the many outstanding contributions to the well being of us all provided by the Regiment during Hurricane Fabian were so effectively highlighted.

"Embarrassed Bermudian" lamented the apparent passing of proven principles in the raising of youngsters such as "prevention ... is better than cure", "when a child grows with discipline, most times it will be disciplined in all areas of life" and "If this country does not take control of its youth, tomorrow will be a sad day". Contrast this with the exhortation from "Sad Sack and Beetle Bailey" to "wake up? doesn't 101 no shows (in response to the Regiment's annual call-up) demonstrate that the Regiment has served its time?"

Concerning all of the foregoing I respectfully commend the following observations for your consideration: "Embarrassed Bermudian" is simply yet again reaffirming the extremely deep-seated frustrations of so many who are repeatedly confronted by the apparent refusal of "the powers that be" to effectively address those too many of our youngsters who simply refuse to conform to normal societal standards. As a consequence, the opportunity is tragically lost to thereby redirect those youngsters' currently wholly negative focus instead along potentially positive paths. Conversely, "Sad Sack and Beetle Bailey" instead argue that a disciplined regimen of positive character training, (as is in part so well provided by the Regiment via Community Service to one's country), is now pass? on the premise that "the press ganging of teenage males to become soldiers is against human rights in most countries". Furthermore, they amazingly add "they should get rid of the Regiment and invest the money into a better and more modern Police Force with a larger voluntary reserve constabulary to back it up.

For God's sake, get real and get a life! For those who saw the Bermuda Regiment TV feature interviews last Wednesday, was there anyone who failed to appreciate that those young conscripted men would be a credit to any nation in spite of the fact that but for their having been conscripted, they would not have as fully developed vitally important aspects of their character so clearly then demonstrated? When the chips are down, who would you prefer to trust in moving this Island ahead? Young men who clearly demonstrate a disciplined approach to problem solving, or instead those who attend social functions armed with baseball bats and machetes?

In conclusion one is forced to also wonder how different Bermuda would be if all young people (i.e.both girls and boys instead of only the chosen few) were obliged to perform some form of community service under the effective guidance of proven leaders such as those whom the Regiment regularly turns out in abundance. After all, we legislatively and reasonably require the education of all youngsters in traditional academic and vocational subjects.

Why not also legislatively require all young people to be trained via positive character building programmes as well such as Outward Bound also embracing sail training? Is not the building of strong, positive characters in as many as possible of our young people at least as important (if not more so) as a traditional education? If all young people were put on the right path towards developing a positive attitude, would not the strident cry of politicians, (whose only (r)ace in the hole they can reliably call upon to guarantee their success in a General Election is) "We have the demographics, (in spite of having deceived you)", then become utterly redundant before a discerning and quality driven electorate?

A damaging decision

December 5, 2003

Dear Sir,

It seems to me that the questions rising from the various statements as to when the HSBC began to court the Bank of Bermuda can be further confused by reference to the remarkable statement contained in the Six Month's report issued in June. Entitled "Forward Looking Statements" it reads as follows:

"Certain of the statements that are contained in this six month report that are not historical facts are statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements that are based on management's current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Some of these forward looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as 'believes', 'expects', 'may', 'will', 'should', 'seeks', 'strives', 'approximately', 'intends', 'plans', 'estimates' or 'anticipates' or the negative of those words or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties and are not guarantees of future performance or results. You should not rely on any forward-looking statements in this six-month report.

A number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, changes in securities market valuations; changes in foreign exchange rates; fluctuations in interest rates; inflation; volatility and volume of securities transactions in emerging markets; changes in savings rates or investment behaviour, changing pension requirements in target markets; government regulations, including banking regulations; local economic conditions, and competition in the geographic and business areas in which we conduct our operations.

Additional factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements can be found in our 2002 Annual Report in the section entitled "Forward Looking Statements". This is not the first time the Bank has included "Forward Looking Statements" in its reports ... do we now discover that the statements were more than a lawyer's disclaimer?

Does it indicate that the Bank of Bermuda bankers were scared of something coming up which has led them to this amazing move. For it is remarkable that a bank set up because Bermuda was not being served well by an outside bank should throw in the towel in this way. The decision is certainly damaging to our Bermudian pride in our ability to make our own way in the big world ? part of the reason why the Cabinet find themselves at some odds with the Governor. Actually they are at odds with Whitehall ? and probably not even a junior minister, but a civil servant or two. On the other hand as Britain becomes increasingly submerged in Europe it is less and less likely to be interested in the fate of remnants of Empire, and it may well be, down the line, that obtaining our independence will be the lesser of two evils.

That said, the Constitution, treated in such a cavalier way by the PLP and Whitehall, will become a much more important instrument. There is only one proper way to amend it, and that is by popular referendum, because there is no way in which the boundary between minor changes and major ones can be defined to everyone's satisfaction. Voting on referenda on changes can be done at General Elections. I appreciate that some leaders of the PLP may regard the electorate as stupid, but that is no excuse for avoiding the popular voice in these matters.