Southlands impact

February 22, 2007

Dear Sir,

I am concerned about the “impact” of the proposed Southlands development on Bermuda’s economy and environment. I would liken it to the impact of a mega cruise ship —- not only staffed by, but built by foreign workers, the entire complex completely self-contained — including restaurants and entertainment (a casino!) — which cruise ship is then run full-tilt (say at the speed of a jumbo jet hitting a high building) and wedged into the shore at Southlands, taking out reefs, foreshore, cliffs, roads, trees, soil and animals. Yet there would be no trade-off, no improvement to our economy in exchange for the destruction of the natural beauty of Bermuda.

The Government will, of course, benefit from its taxes, just as it does with any other cruise ship arrival, but the rest of Bermuda will not.

If given the opportunity to be educated about these very complex issues — from sewage to traffic, from loss of local business to increased cost of living, from loss of habitat to loss of identity — I am certain most Bermudians would strongly object to the Southlands development. Government must provide the people with more time and a full disclosure of the facts, especially as would be revealed by independent impact studies; and then Government must listen.

ARE YOU LISTENING?

SandysOppose Southlands plan

February 26, 2007

Dear Sir,

As a Bermudian abroad, I have followed news of the impending Southlands development with acute disgust. In the headlong rush for foreign capital, it would seem the Government and the developers that they so keenly pander to are blind to Bermuda’s greatest treasure. The economy flourishes while our ecology languishes. The SDO (Senseless Destruction Order) that is being used with wanton recklessness by our government will no doubt lead to others. The circumvention of established law by the whims of the powerful is a slippery slope indeed.

Nature has been an indispensable teacher, guide, and muse for many generations of Bermudians. Let it also be remembered that it has been a nurturer and a protector. In the age of global warming and increasingly vicious hurricanes, on a tiny island that is clearly overdeveloped and overpopulated, the value of Bermuda’s unique natural beauty is being overlooked. When Bermuda is a floating concrete block, you can be assured that the tourists will stop coming. And all that money won’t be worth the paper that it’s printed on.

I appeal to those Bermudians who cherish our island’s natural assets to join the chorus of voices castigating the Government for enabling the Southlands development plans. Now is the time to defend flora and fauna that haven’t the means to plead for their survival. And I ask those who are orchestrating the avaricious charge on this precious open space to look to their consciences. And if they are unwilling to do that, let them look at their children. For they will inherit the dead earth that is left behind.

TIM LEE

Brooklyn, New York

Expats’ contribution

February 28, 2007

Dear Sir,

Derrick Burgess’ comment in today’s newspaper that “Any country you go in — you do not get involved in their politics. That is a common sense attitude you should take. I would never do it and I have never done it. I would be afraid to” is I hope, nothing more than political posturing to rally the support of his core supporters. If it is not then it is clear Mr. Burgess is engaging in the usual hypocrisy all too common within the current leadership. Perhaps Mr. Burgess forgets that his party leader and Bermuda’s self-styled President engaged in politics in the United States as a university student. Perhaps Mr. Burgess forgets that his party hosted a gala dinner inviting foreign donations. Perhaps Mr. Burgess forgets that his party employs a guest worker in the form of a political consultant to help the PLP win elections. Perhaps Mr. Burgess genuinely does not appreciate guest workers despite his remarks to the contrary.

Mr Editor, guest workers, more commonly known as expats, make a massive contribution to our island nation. I am not wishing to be portrayed as a doomsday agent, but guest workers are a resource whose opinions should not be ignored. Guest workers can easily pick up and go since most have no family or real assets here. If it were not for guest workers many of Bermuda’s charities would likely collapse through lack of funding and lack of volunteers, many sports teams would be reduced in numbers to the point of becoming unviable, the payroll taxes collected would be so significantly reduced that the Government would be unable to take jaunts around the world at a whim, the tourism industry upon which President Brown has placed so much faith would crumble overnight, the booming construction industry would be no more, Bermudians’ mortgages would go unserviced since the high rents commanded would not be paid and the international business sector would simply uproot leaving us with empty buildings (at least the housing crises would be solved). These are just a few examples — there are many more. In short, guest workers are the thread of the fabric of our society, thus should we dismiss their criticisms? Should we not listen to their expertise? Should we not try to better ourselves when criticisms are made? Surely given the importance of guest workers to our economy should we not pay attention to their views? Should we not invite their input? Should we not allow them to grumble without fear of recrimination?

Increasingly I am hearing in guest worker circles that Dr. Brown and Mr. Burgess are being compared to President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Lushenko of Belarus. Although I do not subscribe to that view, it goes to show the perception that is beginning to creep into the psyche of our guest workers, however rightly or wrongly that perception may be.

Make no mistake about it, Bermuda should be for the benefit of Bermudians, but in order for Bermudians to maximise that benefit we should treat our guest workers like we would a guest in our own home — with dignity and with respect. More importantly we should listen to their views, both positive and negative so we can learn from our mistakes. I urge our Ministers to choose their words carefully or risk inflaming those whom Bermudians rely upon for employment and income — before it is too late.

MICHAEL M. FAHY

Smith’s

Human rights eroded

February 27, 2007

Dear Sir,

There are many things the Progressive Labour Party can to be proud of. Unfortunately, its record on human rights during the last 12 months is not one of them.

The notion that our elected representatives should be sheltered from public criticism is completely fanciful. If they want to play in the public arena, they must get used to public scrutiny. If their political policies are all their cracked up to be, they should be able to withstand public analysis and debate.

Take for example the opposition to the Government’s transport policy that led to the introduction of the fast ferries. Despite vocal opposition to their introduction from some corners of the community, their subsequent success proved the critics wrong and reaffirmed this was one area of policy where the Government got it right.

It’s true, there are countries in the world where the respective governments take a dim view on those who offer political criticism. That said, given the human rights records of these countries (especially in the area of free speech, expression and association) I don’t think they are polities we want to associate Bermuda with. And although this may sound as if I’m being a national snob, this one fact remains: we have a Constitution that guarantees all people in Bermuda (both Bermudian and non-Bermudian) the fundamental right to free expression — those countries Derrick Burgess alludes to do not. Given the absence of an effective political opposition, there’s never been a greater need for all people in Bermuda to be involved in politics.

So, what’s all the fuss about? Maybe Mr. Burgess is labouring under the delusion that he is God; he of course isn’t. And even if he was, every person in Bermuda would have the right to affirm, reject or detract from everything and anything he said on the basis of the constitution’s guarantee to freedom of religion.

Perhaps someone should give Mr. Burgess a copy of the Constitution for his birthday.>

CHEN FOLEY

St David’s Island and London, England

A good editorial

February 16, 2007

Dear Sir,

Congratulations on your editorial of February 12, 2007 on Speech and Race in which you point out, “Bigotry and racism stem from stereotyping of people of a particular race, ethnicity or religion in a derogatory way. From there it is a short step to segregation and organised racism based on perceived weaknesses or failures of one group and the perceived superiority of the other”. A good example of racism at its worse is Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews in the Second World War.

In our democracy, as I understand it, there are two positions represented by our two political parties. Labour believes that the best way to govern is to restrict private enterprise by many government regulations, that social and education programmes are best run by the government which involves many government employees and high taxes. The other party believes in less restrictions on private enterprise because private enterprise creates jobs, that while some government programmes such as health and education are necessary, other needs are best met by the community involvement, religious institutions and registered charities, thus keeping taxes lower and ensuring prudent management of taxpayers’ money. Both are respectable points of view on which civilised people can agree to differ without resorting to racism.

Your editorial also considered Dr. Catharine Wakely’s dismissal by the Government appointed Hospital Board as an abuse of her human right to free speech. Also you pointed out that we must be careful to guard against the erosion of our democratic right to disagree peacefully. Good for you!

ELIZABETH M. KITSON

Pembroke

Shocked, not surprised

March 1, 2007

Dear Sir,

To be both ‘shocked’ and ‘not surprised’ at the same time seems to be a popular refrain nowadays when it comes to statements emanating from the PLP Administration. How else can one describe the recent tirade and declaration from Immigration Minister the Hon Derrick Burgess JP MP that expatriates in Bermuda should keep their noses out of local politics.

It appears the Minister and thereby the PLP Government are very happy to accept the taxes and party donations from “foreigners on our shores”, but God forbid those expatriates should offer or have an opinion about how those taxes are spent. A quick back of the envelope calculation on the taxes contributed by expatriates to the 2007/08 budget, presently being debated in the House of Parliament, indicates a conservative $125 million contribution. That’s around 15 percent of the total $917 million in taxes and fees etc. that the Government plans on taking from taxpayers next year.

Taxation without representation is a prejudice that many in our community fought hard to stop and correct in years gone by. Certainly, the PLP of old was very active in fighting such discrimination. It is a pity Minister Burgess has chosen to ignore these fundamental rights to express one’s opinions — particularly as a taxpayer. It is even more outrageous that the Premier and his Cabinet have not distanced themselves from Mr. Burgess’ comments and thinking. This is a dangerous trespass that the entire community should be concerned about, whether one is Bermudian or not.

ALLAN D. MARSHALL JP

Smith’s Parish

Job in danger?

March 9, 2007

Dear Sir,

On Monday, March 5, Mr. Evan Greenberg, chief executive officer of Bermuda’s biggest exempted insurance company made an excellent speech from which it was clear that he was a friend of Bermuda and wanted it to continue to enjoy its success and prosperity as a world insurance centre.

With this objective in view he made six well worded constructive suggestions of actions the Bermuda government should take as a matter of urgency particularly with respect to improving the regulatory competence of the Bermuda Monetary Authority.

A day or so later Finance Minister Cox gave a statement from which it was clear that with her Parliamentary salary she did not need another job and she would support Derrick Burgess’ policy of withdrawing the work permit of any non-Bermudian who commented on the local political scene.

Common courtesy would suggest that she should have resigned from her job before making her nasty personal attack on Mr. Greenbe

WILLIAM M. COX

Devonshire

What I learned

February 11, 2007

Dear Sir,

The official role of the Bermuda Regiment is to assist the Police in times of civil unrest, help the Island to recover after natural disasters and perform ceremonial duties.

I could not help but notice that when Col. Burch defended conscription he said that it was necessary to prevent anarchy. What does conscription have to do with preventing anarchy?

If men are denied their rights, they will shy away from the political system because they feel that nobody listens to them anyway. That’s probably why the UBP remained in power for so long, because men black men didn’t vote or register for fear of being drafted. It is state control of the population.

In addition to dominating and subduing males, they brainwash the community to have them believe that the Regiment helps teach life lessons and that there is no public support to end conscription. Also, they deny first hand accounts of brutality and degrading treatment saying that the men are slackers and don’t want to fulfil their duty to their country. What nonsense! What life lessons does the Regiment teach? Nobody knows. The lessons I learned were that your opinion doesn’t count, I don’t have a say as to what happens to my life, and that I can not be trusted, all of which I didn’t know before joining the Regiment. If I lived life with lessons I learned from the Regiment, I’d be a reckless driver, not vote, settle for a $12 per hour landscaping job and abandon my children because my contribution doesn’t count.

The Regiment is destructive, stressful, disorganised, and counterproductive to Bermuda’s society and must be amended. Firstly conscription must be abolished, and the Defence Act abolished to allow closer ties with the British Army, who have years of valuable experience we can learn from. Secondly, we must make the Regiment an Army, not boy scouts for civilians. Lastly, we must kick out ignorant politicians who ignore cries of the men in this country.

QUIET SUFFERER

San <$>

Lights out

February 28, 2007

Dear Sir,

I wonder if your readers, who travel out of town along Church Street, have noticed that the stop-light at the top of Spurling Hill only lets through 6-8 cars on green? This causes massive a build-up of traffic all the way back to the Post Office and along the short side-streets to Victoria Street. This has been a problem since Hurricane Florence knocked out those lights in October 2006.

I have called the Corporation of Hamilton on numerous occasions and left messages, but no-one has addressed the problem.

If anyone else is frustrated with this situation, please call City Hall. Maybe if more people complained about this situation, the Corporation might address the problem?

WAITING IN TRAFFIC

Paget