I wish to clarify my position in light of the comments of Attorney General Dame Lois Browne-Evans as reported in today's story `MP cries foul over Constitution'. It is not my intention to scaremonger or mislead the public. We in the Opposition (like the public at large) have to rely on the Government to inform us as to the extent of what they may be planning, whether it be in the area of Constitutional reform or any other area. We see it as our job and our duty as the Opposition to ask questions and highlight answers which we think will draw out for the public that which the Government is planning.

I thought it significant that in answer to one of my questions at the Government forum last Thursday, the Attorney General responded that the point might well be addressed in the actual drafting of the amendments to the Bermuda Constitution. I had raised the issue of the Premier's power to modify the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission, and specifically asked whether the Attorney General agreed that if the scope of the Commission was increased under the proposed changes (to recommending the number of constituencies and thus the number of MPs) then the scope of the Premier's power to `modify' the recommendations of the Commission would similarly be increased.

This is an important point. It should be addressed openly and not behind closed doors by those who draft any amendments. Do we want the Premier of the day to still have the power to `modify' the recommendation(s) of a Boundaries Commission if the new role of the Boundaries Commission is to decide how many MPs Bermuda should have? Please also note then when I say the Premier of the day, I do not necessarily mean our current Premier, I mean any future Premier and Government as well. It is the principle to which we are speaking.

Constitutions are meant to survive the Governments of the day.

For us in the Opposition this underscores the merit in having a Constitutional conference. A conference provides the opportunity to assess and think through each proposal, and possibly improve what is proposed. I mean let me be clear, Mr Editor: I am glad the Attorney General recognised the point I was trying to make, and thus the need to address it. I just don't think it should be done behind closed doors after the fact, that is after Government's resolution for change has passed through Parliament.

We do not believe we would be fulfilling our responsibilities as an Opposition if we were to endorse a blank cheque for change. We do not believe the same should be asked of the people of Bermuda.

There was also one other point of concern arising out of last Thursday's meeting as well. I seem to recall that we were told by one of the Government panel that there would be `terms of reference' for the Boundaries Commission, a suggestion which seemed to indicate that Government has in mind providing the Boundaries Commission with directions in addition to those which are set down in the Bermuda Constitution. I have to think that was a mistake. There is a provision currently in the Bermuda Constitution which makes it clear, very clear, that the Boundaries Commission cannot and must not be told what to do.

Their only mandate is to follow what is set out in the Constitution. Section 53(8) states: "In the exercise of its functions under this Constitution, a Constituency Boundaries Commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.'' I have re-checked the Paper presented by the Premier to the House of Assembly in August and there is no proposal to amend the above sub-section which ensures the independence of the Boundaries Commission. The only direction the Boundaries Commission must follow -- under the amendments proposed by the PLP and currently before us -- is to decide and recommend the number of constituencies, of equal numbers of electors in so far as it is reasonably practical to do so, and without regard to parish boundaries, and to choose a number of constituencies between 20 and 40. So we in the Opposition ask: What other directions is it proposed to give the Commission? Who will decide those directions? How is it proposed to give the Commission any additional directions in light of s.53(8) of the Constitution? These seem to us to be fair and reasonable questions. Once again, if I may, both the questions and the answers underscore the merit to having a Constitutional conference. In this way, proposed amendments are not only considered but examined and thought through to achieve the desired result, a result which is hopefully in the best interests of all Bermudians now and in the future.

It is not a question of deceit as the Attorney General has suggested. It is a matter of process and we in the Opposition prefer a process that is inclusive and open and transparent as we go about this important matter of Constitutional reform.

JOHN BARRITT, JP MP A feeling of rejection The following was sent to Premier Jennifer Smith and was copied to The Royal Gazette.

November 16, 2000 Dear Madam, "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.'' Matthew 13:57. In May of this year, when I applied for the position of Curriculum Editor at the Bermuda College, a day before my scheduled interview for the position, I was told by the Director of Human Resources that the college had decided not to fulfil the position at this time. You indicated to me that it was a "prudent management decision''.

Six months later, after having applied for the position of Education Officer, Staff Development in the Ministry of Education, I received correspondence from the Secretary to the Public Service Commission indicating that the recruitment process with respect to this position has been deferred at this time. I have attached the letter.

Why in a "New Bermuda'' have the two positions for which I have applied suddenly been deferred? These responses have caused me grave concern. I have asked myself, "Am I to believe the promises made in the October 1998 General Election Platform of the Bermuda Progressive Labour Party entitled, `A New Bermuda' or am I to believe these promises are empty words resounding like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal?'' What were these promises? 1. A Progress Labour Party Government will put Bermuda first, as we have always put Bermudians first.

Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? 2. A Progressive Labour Party Government is committed to the mobilisation of the talent of every Bermudian, as well as the resources of other stakeholders, in the task of reconstruction.

Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? 3. We see A New Bermuda in which the talents of every Bermudian will be mobilized in building a humane society, in which social and economic justice is a reality, not just an ideal.

Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? 4. We will move swiftly to institute relevant measures to ensure equal opportunity and fair practices in the workplace in Bermuda. Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? 5. I give you my word that every undertaking in this platform is a pledge to the Bermuda people.

Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? 6. Accountability and Transparency will be the underlying credo for the priorities, principles and policies of a PLP government.

Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? 7. We will ensure a Public Service which is responsive to the public whom it is their duty to serve, and respected by all Members of a Government who are also the servants of the Bermudian people.

Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith 8. We invite you to share our vision of a New Bermuda.

Where fairness rules -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Where human dignity, economic opportunity and social progress are the right of all -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Where none are left behind -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Where all of its people can benefit -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Where all who are able to work find dignity and reward in secure jobs, or in their own enterprises -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Where the government serves all of the people -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M.

Wade-Smith? Where Government operates in the sunshine of public scrutiny -- Exclude Dr.

Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Where A New Bermuda is a model democracy and a place of equality, safety, peace, prosperity and justice for all -- Exclude Dr. Muriel M. Wade-Smith? Having established that the promises of A New Bermuda have obviously not included me, must I now believe that my most recent application for the position of Education Officer, Staff Development in the Ministry of Education where the recruitment process has been deferred is also a "prudent management decision?'' May I hasten to add that "prudent management decisions'' have very serious consequences not only for individuals but for families as well? Such decisions can be most demeaning, demoralising and destructive.

There is an old adage that says: "Never criticise a man until you have walked in his shoes.'' Consequently, I do not expect anyone in Bermuda to understand the utter anguish and excruciating pains of rejection that I have experienced over the past 22 years in my quest to obtain employment in my native land.

Please allow me to share some of these feelings of despair and unanswered questions with you.

1. Have you ever experienced the feeling of being unfilled because of an aching void within that lets you know that you have been thwarted, for whatever reason, to fulfil God's plan and destiny for your life? 2. Have you ever been crushed, wounded, rejected and hurt as you watch and wait silently while less qualified people of African descent, Caucasians and foreigners from many regions from around the world enjoy the privilege of working in your country while you, a born and bred Bermudian, in spite of having the highest qualifications in the field of education, is continuously overlooked? 3. What would my contribution to Bermuda's educational system have been if I had been treated fairly and justly in 1978 when I returned to this country as Bermuda's first qualified curriculum co-ordinator.

4. Would my baby son, Ashanti, be still alive if I had the privilege of working and assisting him in buying his own car so that he did not have to place himself at the hands of a reckless driver who caused the snuffing out of his young life? 5. Would I be placed in the embarrassing position of being harassed by credit recruiters because I have not been allowed the dignity of working so that I can pay my own bills? I have noted, over the past two years, that both you and Dame Lois Browne-Evans have had the blessed privilege of having two lucrative job positions in comparison to my $25 a meeting appointment as a member of the Board of Education? 6. How would I have survived if I did not have a family that was supportive of my conviction that I have not been treated justly and fairly in my own country? Thank God for my family and especially my mother, who in spite of being a domestic has assisted me very generously financially whenever the need has arisen in my life. Do you understand how I feel with my qualifications to be placed at the loving disposal of my mother when my mother should be placing herself at my loving disposal? I have accepted the fact that under the present system, it does not matter whether it is the United Bermuda Party Government or the Progressive Labour Party Government, a government that I have supported from its inception, I will never get a job in my native-land. I have also concluded that I was needed in my country but not wanted. Consequently, discussions about Constitutional Reforms, Long Term Residents and Faster Ferries mean very little to me when I have not been able to get a job in my own country over the past 22 years.

I, however, have appealed to a God of Freedom, a God of Justice and a God of Equality.

I rest my case.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?'' Genesis 18:25 Thank you very kindly for you attention.

For a Better New Bermuda, MURIEL M. WADE-SMITH, Ph.D Smith's Parish Less is certainly not more November 10, 2000 Dear Sir, Someone will know when we first elected 36 members of Parliament -- it was certainly in the early 1700's or before. By 1834, the year of Emancipation, there were approximately 4,500 whites, 1,500 blacks and 500 slaves -- there was not an exact census -- but let's say 10,000 people. Even the slaves who had no rights were represented.

Only landowners with land valued at more than 60 could vote and this value was raised to 100 against the instructions of the UK by the local parliament. Certainly, this was to disenfranchise eligible black voters and, in fact, some 100 blacks were then disenfranchised.

In 1968, four more seats were added to give more fair representation to the highly populated parish of Pembroke which gave us the present number of 40 members of parliament.

Prior to the formation of ratings in 1963 decisions in the interest of Bermuda were made by a majority. Obviously they voted in their own interest -- that of the forty Thieves if you want to be cynical. But, at least, they fought each other for what was on the table.

I believe it would be stupid to reduce the number of members of Parliament. We need a broader base of input not narrower. What we need to reduce is the power of the Cabinet and thus the Premier who holds the Cabinet's egos, (she gives the Honourable title and the cars etc. etc. on her whim). I am fully for reducing the size of the Cabinet with the savings from the reduction of the supporting Civil Service.

But, and here is the catch for Jennifer Smith, if she reduces the Cabinet, and doesn't reduce the numbers in the House, her backbench will out-number her Cabinet. At present, with a collective responsibility of Cabinet, whatever a majority of seven cabinet numbers agree to passes by majority; the Cabinet outnumbers the backbenchers, the issue however self serving to the Cabinet or Premier, then passes the parliamentary caucus -- and with the Whip, why bother going to Parliament -- the "debate'' is a farce.

My campaign against centralisation of power is not new -- I can produce a dozen letters I have written especially when Sir John Swan was `King' and pushed through `Independence' and `Hamburgers', against the power vested in the hands of the Premier.

Think about it we vote. By usually a very small majority (54 percent is not large) one "party'' takes all the majority group of Parliamentarians then get together and select a Premier (by constitutional decree) who then chooses her Cabinet. They owe their position, title, car, and other perks to the Premier.

They serve at her/his pleasure and not at her/his displeasure (remember Arthur Hodgson).

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Premier basically has absolute power.

SANDERS FRITH-BROWN Faith restored November 24, 2000 Dear Sir, Bermuda still has honest people. While at the World Rugby Classic on Monday November 13, 2000 I had the misfortune of losing my diamond tennis bracelet. I called Peter Lewis at Mix 106.1 and had him put a notice over the air. Within ten minutes, I had a telephone call from an honest lady who had found my bracelet. Thank you again for restoring my faith in the honesty of many Bermuda residents.

KAREN OLSON Pembroke