The silence -- the chasm, the vacuum - concerning Premier Smith's constitutional changes is alarming. I have no platform, elected or appointed, but someone must comment.

By not acting in the light of public scrutiny, Premier Smith is compromising her integrity. By not communicating with the press, Premier Smith is not communicating with us, the public.

As I have mentioned in previous letters, I have called Dr. Ewart Brown, Dane Lois Browne-Evans, Paula Cox and Terry Lister, dozens of times each, to discuss problems that I want addressed. Fine, they won't talk to me directly, then talk to us, the public, through the media.

On the issue of the number of members of Parliament, my suggestion is that we have double the number of members, on one quarter the salary - for those non-mathematically adept, that would be a net saving of one half.

How many times over the years have I read that there were fewer than two thirds of the members in the House. For instance, two weeks ago, there was a vote PLP:16, UBP:10 -- work it out another way, where were the ten PLP members and the four UBP members -- off on a fishing trip?: Are the PLP so arrogant with a 12 seat majority? But let's look at a few numbers -- and at that we have to guess. Premier Smith is playing poker -- dealers choice, with a card or two up her sleeve as well as a stacked deck -- so the light of public scrutiny -- or was it "sunshine''. Maybe it was "moonshine'' and they are drunk with power! Will Premier Smith go for 20 members - predicting the usual 11 to nine or 12 to eight split per the next few elections (again presuming that the next election will be run on issues, not race), the cabinet of eight will then still have an absolute majority over the caucus or back benches and the Premier with still double the ministerial portfolios as enticement for support, and hence will be effectively a dictator.

But this is dangerous. Let me give an example to explain: Say we reduce the cabinet to eight and the House to 24 and the PLP wins 14 seats. And let's say by chance there are five ministers of Seventh Day Adventist persuasion, believe me, we will have no Saturday shopping or Saturday anything. Do the Arithmetic. Five cabinet votes to this. Cabinet then goes to the caucus and wins eight votes to six. The party in power then turns up at the House with only eleven members to out vote the ten Opposition (remember my earlier criticism of the attendance in the House). There is, of course, the usual irrelevant debate, a bit of posturing, name calling etc. but all was decided in the Cabinet by five members. Therefore cabinet ministers, who were chosen to sit at the Premier's pleasure, owe their big cars to none other than the Premier who in fact was not chosen by the voting public but by the winner takes all absolute majority which could we say 52 percent of the public. If the NLP had been more effective we could have had the same scenario with the winner takes all getting say 45 percent of the popular vote.

So Premier Smith, you mouth the platitude "one man, one vote of equal value'' but are you looking after yourself or the public? Why do we have a democratic election and then a few elect a "queen'' to reign over us. You, Premier Smith, have too much power -- it corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not that it was any different under the UBP.

If you want to do something worthwhile: ban the position of premier; have proportional representation; have 80 seats available on an Island wide electorate - why have any Parishes.

Finally, 80 seats at quarter pay are not to save money only, but to broaden the intellectual base of the members. Might we then get some debate that isn't accusational, race based, obstructive, invective and plain silly? SANDERS FRITH-BROWN Warwick Act was irresponsible August 28, 2000 Dear Sir, I am absolutely disgusted by the blatant disregard for the environment shown by the idiots who dragged and abandoned the raft pictured in your article of August 25, 2000. I am also disappointed in the press approach which makes light of the issue by using in part the language of the non-Mariner organisation.

I cannot understand how the participants shown in the top photograph, or the event organisers, could be unaware of at least the names of the individual(s) who abandoned the raft in Tom Woods Bay.

These people should be held accountable for their actions and fined accordingly. If no one takes responsibility for the abandonment then the participants themselves should be identified, interviewed and charged with littering. I'm sure if faced with punitive charges the photographed participants, despite their probable drunken state, would probably quickly recall who took the raft to Spanish Point.

Bermuda's fragile Marine environment is under enough threat without the irresponsible action of such senseless people.

MARK OUTERBRIDGE Smith's What a lot of hot air August 30, 2000 Dear Sir, Talk Radio. Is it really worth listening to? For the most part I think not.

Now having said that is this an attempt to stifle free speech and remove this form of entertainment from a listening public which cannot seem to get enough, no matter how obnoxious, ignorant, and foolish some of the callers are? Unfortunately this forum, which could be much more useful is reduced to a small but determined group of political hacks and disgruntled people numbering anywhere from 25 to 20 hard-liners, mainly Government supporters that spew forth the most incredible litany of gloom, doom, poverty, joblessness, slavery, racism, and on and on. A few callers make it their stock and trade to revisit the dark days of segregation from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and remind us that nothing really has changed.

These people enjoy regurgitating the sins of our racist past and keeping the races divided. At the same time, Mr. Editor, this repetitious drivel is passed off as being the pulse of Bermuda which it clearly is not. We have talk shows six days per week, three shows per each weekday, three shows at night and one show on Sundays. Talk Radio could be so much more and contribute so much to Bermuda life while entertaining all shades of opinion, this unfortunately we do not get. Night Talk rates a `B' for genuine effort to provide stimulating debate by some very interesting interviews. The People's show wants to hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes at the same time. The two other shows I won't comment on at this time so why comment through the printed media on this subject? Sir I wish to remain anonymous and that is impossible to do over the radio where the massacre of the messenger is routine.

Finally is it my desire to remove talk radio? Sir most certainly not but not much is being done to make such a valuable forum more constructive, instead it has become the bully pulpit for the most strident and dangerous negativity that is not good for our country and of course this is entirely one individuals view.

FOR CLEARNESS Smith's A hidden agenda? August 23, 2000 Dear Sir, On the subject of long-term residents it is abundantly clear that this Government and the previous Government cannot come to grips with simple logistics and common sense. If only personal interest and selfishness could be overcome with a simple, rational and businesslike decision we would clearly all benefit in this community. It is beyond all logic why an impact study needs to be conducted on individuals who have been part of this community for periods in excess of 20 years. These people have worked and been associated with Bermuda for time periods far in excess of any need to conduct an impact study. They are established in Bermuda beyond all doubt. Further procrastination on the subject is an excuse that defies all logic based on a community that considers itself progressive and forward thinking.

It is my understanding that Bermuda presently has a declining population, has large numbers of emigrants both black and white who have no intention of returning to the Island and basic economics must dictate what this means to the business community. Coupled with an obvious decline in work ethic that is rampant throughout the Island there is an obvious need to inject some new standards and culture in this community if we are to survive in the modern business world.

It is painfully obvious that there is a hidden agenda with the current government and indeed the previous government when it comes to creating new Bermudians. This hidden agenda is nothing more than selfishness on all counts.

GREEN CARD City of Hamilton The public must beware August 31, 2000 Dear Sir, Over the years the Honourable Quinton Edness and I have, from time to time, crossed swords on issues of moment and I am, therefore, delighted to say that I thoroughly agree with his "opinion'' on a constitutional conference (page 4 of The Royal Gazette August 30, 2000).

There is, however, one item to which, perhaps, he did not pay sufficient attention -- the change from "British Subject'' to "Commonwealth Citizen''.

Knowing Mr. Edness' espousal of the whole idea of Independence (like the present Government) one has to wonder whether this is the beginning of some insidious, clandestine ploy to foist that most dangerous of items on an unsuspecting public.

ANTHONY GOODFELLOW Paget