January 28, 2002

Dear Sir,

I refer to recent print and electronic media reports whereby spirited debate appears likely to yet again refocus Governmental attention on the wisdom of continuing to conscript a select few of our young men into the Regiment.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Regiment affords many positive aspects of constructive character building to a relatively small number of our youngsters annually who would otherwise totally lack those opportunities and to the Island's considerable disadvantage. However, how much better would it be for Bermuda to instead automatically conscript all able bodied youngsters, both male and female, while instead allowing them to participate in a variety of similarly positive programmes whereby the teaching of self discipline and life skills would continue to be paramount? As a consequence, learning how to kill people and destroy property would no longer be the principle thrust of such a body, but only one aspect for those who continue to find it appealing. Indeed, sail training and an "Outward Bound" type team combat, as indeed could every other tried and tested youth programme, many of which are tragically now withering for lack of both adequate enlistment as well as adult mentoring.

How positive and fully integrated would our national ethos instead be if all able bodied youngsters were instead automatically required to participate in such programme until they graduated to an acceptable level of achievement and positive attitude? As a consequence, should this not instead now be the way forward in order to best raise our youths' preparedness to face an already rigorously challenging future and to a totally new and far more self-assured plane?

Much has rightly been said of how positive has been the impact of a strict military training regimen on many of our young men at this vitally important stage in their training for adulthood, and yet this still continues to be solely restricted to the relatively few who are not able to avoid it once they are randomly called up.

Much has also been said of the worthiness of instead shifting the intake to only those who are willing to volunteer. However, the positive spirit of volunteerism only inspires those who are already well motivated, and therefore clearly must instead be taught to be the very great majority.

How better can we inspire youngsters to constructively participate in the very best which mankind is capable of in the positive spirit of volunteerism if we do not first seize the nettle and require that they automatically become trained in critically important self disciplined lessons in life sufficient to therefore recognise, value and willingly support that spirit.

How else will we ever attain true integration throughout society both with our girls as well our boys unless we first require that at the closing years of adolescence all able bodied youngsters at least be first taught to recognise that no man is an island, and that we therefore must all pull in the same direction if we are to remotely hope to succeed as a society clearly beset by the most challenging obstacles in a rapidly evolving global economy?

Unless we as a society now insist that such a quantum leap in our collective approach to youth character training be automatically adopted for as many as possible of our young people of both sexes, we will tragically continue to simply wring our hands in impotent wonder at the otherwise apparently insurmountable difficulties which will continue to beset us.

Furthermore, for those of your readership who may winge at the perceived cost of such an investment in our youth I can only add that the current cost in lost achievement, underdevelopment and consequential hostile negativity for a very great many of our youngsters over each and every generation arising from our continued failure to act instead enormously outweighs any financial costs in instead embarking upon such a programme clearly likely to instead benefit everyone in the final analysis.

A.E. (TED) GAUNTLETT

Somerset