March 16, 2004

Dear Sir,

Why do the leaders of this country insist on pushing this issue, at the expense of alienating the economic powers of the free world? What can we learn from the Cubans? How to roll cigars, make rum or win the Non-Mariners Race?

Seriously, from what I've read about Cuba, they are very good at one thing ? elimination of opposition. Are our leaders having to focus on eliminating opposition? Independence and attempts to control the justice system are initial steps of doing this.

I dread to think the Government policy would be formed amidst relationships with Cuban advisors. I was living in Jamaica in the mid-1970s when Michael Manley invited the Cubans in as "economic assistants" to build schools, etc.

This was at a time before the election and Jamaicans, being fiercely independent, saw the writing on the wall. They voted overwhelmingly against the Manley Government in a big upset, because there was a real fear of losing their freedom.

By the way, it was the Daily Gleaner and other forms of the media that exposed these potential threats. I truly hope the above observations are unrealised, but when I search for reasoning as to our country's direction, there are few positive thoughts to contemplate.

March 15, 2004

Dear Sir,

I would be most grateful for the opportunity to opine on the subject of Bermuda and its "cultural" ties to the Communist regime of Cuba. On reading the recent remarks of the Hon. Dale Butler, Minister for Community Affairs, I thought I was going to have an aneurysm! He states "the government's dealings with the communist regime of Cuba, were strictly cultural and there was nothing the government could do ? short of an outright ban ? that would stop individual citizens engaging in business with the Caribbean nation!"

Mr. Editor, let me take you on a stroll down memory lane. It's the 1980's. The Progressive Labour Party is in opposition, and the apartheid regime of South Africa is in full swing, at that juncture, the PLP maintained that Bermuda should do everything it could to ensure the permanent cessation of this regime.

If we now move forward today, the PLP is in Government, and in spite of the horrendous record of the communist regime of Cuba, the government finds it is perfectly moral and just to institute its "so-called" cultural ties with this government.

I can't help but come to the conclusion that either the PLP was being completely disingenuous on its position with regards to the then apartheid government of South Africa, or they are simply na?ve about the state of Cuba and its human rights record. Either way, Mr. Editor, there would appear to be a strong smell of incompetence lingering in the air. I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Community and Cultural Affairs, as a Bermudian and a former pupil of his, but I'm afraid he is wrong on this issue. You don't bring about change to a repressive regime by providing legitimacy to their existence.

This policy of cultural ties does just that. The government may try as it might to claim the relation is just cultural, but that in of itself is an act which only helps to strengthen the dictatorship. Why stop there? What about a "cultural" agreement with North Korea?

Should there be any doubt as to the state of Cuba, let me remind you:

Limitations on freedom of expression, association and assembly remain codified in Cuban law;

as late as 2003, detentions of prisoners of conscience was still taking place, showing clearly that authorities continue to use of harsh measures to stifle potential internal dissent;

citizens are as a matter of routine, detained without legal representation and trial, and our beaten by state security officers;

The authorities try to discourage dissent by harassing suspected critics of the government, by the use of frequent summonses, threats, eviction, loss of employment and restriction on movement;

while there is an unofficial moratorium on execution declared in 2001, it apparently remains in place, with three prisoners sentenced to death in 2002, it should be noted the crimes alleged are only as a result of dissent and not the result of capital crimes such as murder.

It was also noted in your paper, that the Minister for Transport, Hon. Dr. Brown was quoted as saying "I don't think the American Government is any more upset that it is happening from Bermuda than it is that it's happening from Canada, Cayman, the Bahamas, Jamaica, London or Madrid", regarding the travel to Cuba.

Mr. Editor, surely the Minister is not suggesting that because other countries have existing cultural and economic relations with Cuba, it is perfectly OK for the Bermuda Government to do the same?

If that is his premise I just don't share it. Let me remind the Hon. Member, that in the 1980's several countries had existing economic relations with the then-apartheid government of South Africa, notably the United Kingdom, under the then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher . I recall Dame Lois Browne Evans, was on television and in this same paper as going on the record to say she found such actions as abhorrent, have I missed something? Exactly what is that has changed?

The fact that it is a Government of the PLP flavour which is instituting this policy is deeply disappointing. I sincerely hope that the PLP will diligently review this policy, for it is clearly repugnant, and stands well short of the principals to which the PLP claims its stands for.

May I also remind readers that it is not just whites in Cuba who are affected by that government's communist regime but my and your fellow blacks as well. Any attempt to place this issue in the Governor's hands, as if he was responsible for the policy, while pursuing a policy of Independence, would merely suggest that the PLP is disingenuous, and inconsistent for what it claims to stands for.

March 10, 2004

Dear Sir,

Can someone kindly explain to me why airlines such as Delta can charge you more than double the fare if you travel for more than 30 days?

Why should you be penalised for staying away from home base for any length of time you choose? The distance is still the same, the time of departure is still the same, in fact everything is the same with the exception of the time you leave and return, so why is this allowed to happen?

It's bad enough that the fares we pay are the highest in the world, so it would appear to me that this is just plain highway robbery. Flying these days is not very comfortable at best, you are jammed into seats with no leg room and have to remain in a hunched up position for hours on end. For the amount of money one has to pay to be treated like cattle is a joke.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what these low-priced airlines can bring us, and what routes they can eventually cover.

March 13, 2004

Dear Sir,

On a recent visit to your beautiful Island, we had a wonderful experience with a taxi driver. Unfortunately, we did not get his name.

Due to an unpleasant encounter with another Bermudian who was in a position to help tourists, this fine gentlemen set an outstanding example of how people should be treated. We missed our ferry and because of time pressing us, we had to take a taxi. The normal fare for the trip is $12 and when I noticed that this taxi did not have a metre, I began to get concerned that we might "get taken". However, when we got to our destination, I asked the fare and the driver told me $4. He said he could not charge more the ferry would have been because were inconvenienced.

This is a perfect example of how most of your people treat tourists. We have been to Bermuda four times in the past two years and certainly plan to return!

I only wish I had this gentlemen's name so he could get the proper recognition. Perhaps he will read this letter ? I hope so.

Dear Sir,

If BCC is evicted from their Dockyard site for no other reason than that Derrick Burgess does not embrace the operators as "our people", I hope they choose to take the silos they erected with them. I'll volunteer to help to move them. I'll bring my own sledge hammer.

Last I checked, making a profit is not a crime, nor is being a monopoly. There is no moratorium on competition and the law does not support the redistribution of wealth by decree.

Who's next? The MarketPlace? Stevedoring Services? ACE? Does it stop at businesses; how about your house or your car?

Empowerment is about providing opportunities through new licences and regulation, facilitating the entry of new businesses to compete with the old on service levels and pricing. It is not about killing off a trusted and proven business to hand an essential industry to an untested entity.

Compare the results of opening the telecommunications market for TBI to compete with Cable & Wireless versus the Proactive, Berkeley debacle.

I suspect Jim will be too reasonable to set the bulldozers on the silos but I would have liked to have seen the government weather the consequences of it's lack of vision. Again.

March 11, 2004

Dear Sir,

By now the previous owners of the HSBC's acquisition will have been busy reinvesting the proceeds realised. Let's hope that motivations for the sale did not include an underlying lack of confidence in Bermuda's single industry future, increasing worries about incompetent government and a consequent desire to reduce local exposure.

We'll never know. At the other end of the scale, employees will be anxiously awaiting details on the 250 or so of them soon to become ex-employees. It was clever of HSBC to use executives still viewed as "Bank of Bermuda" to carry out the dirty work.

Why shoulder the blame for this grief when locals were lining up to accept money to fire locals? Thirty pieces of silver perhaps, but for HSBC, it was wise to sidestep the certain opprobrium.

The new 'CEO', safely buttressed by two HSBC pros, says the bank is 'more poised for success than at any time in its114-year history.' Quite how this can possibly be, when it is to be stripped of its essential international operations as they are absorbed into the infinitely larger HSBC, he does not explain; perhaps for the obvious reason it is not explainable.

What we now have is a branch office of HSBC here in Bermuda, and nothing more. The new CEO, who looks a nice man, with experience with Citibank too, will supposedly see that the place is properly staffed, front for HSBC with the local politicians, and see to it that the premises open and close on time.

Conveniently, he will also present a Bermudian face to those who still find that important. The previous CEO, to whom all this must have been only too obvious for a long time, has vanished from the scene with almost indecent alacrity.

As a passing note, he should surely be congratulated, as there can be no local CEO who has ever made so much money in so short a time.

The future function of the local directors is an absolute mystery. Normal directors' responsibilities as elected representatives of shareholders have quite obviously disappeared. Policy will be the purview of others.

Operations and financial matters will be dealt with according to HSBC directives, also determined and reviewed elsewhere. Perhaps HSBC views the board's paper tiger continuation as a palliative to ease what has been a rather large local mouthful to swallow, rather like allowing the sign to remain over the door for a while.

Possibly HSBC also wants them kept around as front line local insulation from any unanticipated public relations problems that may arise. In any event, torn between whatever the fees may be, and the hollowness of their responsibilities in the eyes of the public, including the downside risk of having to absorb PR flak, it is probable that the public view will soon win out.

The 'amalgamation' referred to is a polite term for an absolute takeover and nothing less. Bermudians should accept what has occurred factually, and not be deceived by flimflam designed to pander purely to local sensibilities.

March 12, 2004

Dear Sir,

Alex Scott went and lost his temper with the Governor and the Brits because they told him there had to be a Chief Justice free of his political influence.

Nobody but nobody tells Alex what to do even if the whole country gets tied up in knots unbending his ego. You would have thought we would have all learned about egos last time around. Why is it that when they get to be Premier, its not enough, they always want more?

Anyway, a referendum is the only way to go ? the reason ? if the parliamentary candidate I want disagrees with me on independence ? he is for it and I am against it, what do I do ? vote for a candidate I don't want?

Just because I disagree with him on Independence, it doesn't mean I don't want him in Parliament. There should be an opportunity for me to vote for my candidate in an election, but against independence in a referendum.

Anyway, I do not want my decision on Independence stolen from me by some politician who is forced to do what somebody else tells him to do.

Next, we should take a leaf out of the Bank of Bermuda sale. When something as important as selling the bank comes along, and once sold it has gone forever, a 75 percent vote was required to sell it.

They made really sure a substantial majority wanted to see it go. That way it avoided the argument, dispute and second guessing if some 51-49 vote was blamed on bad turnout, or the rain, or something of the sort. When 75 percent say sell, you know they mean sell, not maybe. An overwhelming majority of shareholders were united on the future of the Bank. It should be the same way with Independence.

Now, with something as important for our future as cutting loose from the first world, and for the future of our children and grandchildren, we cannot have half the people one way and half the other, that's a sure way to guarantee permanent discord, recrimination, and a country divided right down the middle for the rest of time. Everything that goes wrong will be somebody else's fault. But, with a 75 percent vote to go, nobody can point a finger when we end up like Jamaica.

So, if we have got to waste time with independence all over again, we need a referendum so we can vote for our member of parliament one day, and on independence another. Because it is a whole lot more important to us than the Bank of Bermuda ever was, we need at least 75 percent in support of it, and maybe more. Then nobody can blame anybody else for the mess we will get into.