Dear Sir, First of all I am a dark skinned black Bermudian. Everybody is making a big deal about racism. They say it is black against white and white against black.

What about black against black and white against white? You have light-skinned blacks turning their noses down at dark skinned blacks. You have one white nationality hating another white. Take this for example: Monday July 19, I went to the hospital to have a mammogram. The Pink Lady that directs you on where to go was very helpful. She was white. The lady that took the form from me seemed like it would hurt her to smile and say good morning. She was light skinned. I got all the forms I needed and went to where I was directed to go.

I walked up to the desk, smiled and said good morning. No answer, just a hand put out for the form. I didn't think anything of it because I don't let things like that bother me. What did bother me was that a minute later a white English woman came up to that very same window and got the biggest, brightest smile and the loudest Good Morning. Can someone please explain that to me? But then again maybe it needs no explanation! Light skinned receptions -- dark skinned patient verses light skinned Receptionist - white patient. People get with it, we are all in this together.

NOT A RACIST Southampton Economy under threat July 19, 1999 Dear Sir, Premier Jennifer Smith's announcement in Parliament that an amendment will be made to the Proceeds of Crime Act to include a new category of fiscal crimes (including tax evasion) is a huge threat to Bermuda's economic wellbeing.

Bermuda, be prepared for a huge downturn in economic activity on this island as the other pillars of Bermuda's International Business Sector will quickly disappear, leaving insurance as the only remaining viable international business.

International business comes to Bermuda for one reason. Bermuda provides a competitive advantage to the business. For most of these businesses the competitive advantage is lower taxes. Whether we like it or not, our international business is tax driven and consists of individuals and companies using legitimate means to lower their tax status in other jurisdictions. Some of these tax-saving mechanisms stretch the tax "envelope'' and have yet to be fully tested in the parent jurisdiction. In these cases there is a very fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Until these approaches are fully tested by tax authorities and the courts, it is virtually impossible to determine whether an approach is an acceptable form of avoidance or indeed tax evasion. So determining whether a third party in Bermuda is involved in aiding and abetting tax evasion is not very clear. The result of this ambiguity and uncertainty is that tax advisors in high tax countries will avoid using Bermuda as a jurisdiction of choice. Why take a risk when there are other less demanding jurisdictions to chose from? That means that Bermuda will ultimately lose out on successful tax avoidance strategics. Remember the reason that Bermuda has a large insurance presence is that at one time Bermuda championed the use of novel tax saving strategics in the insurance sector. There would be no Ace or XL Capital in Bermuda if this beneficial tax foundation had not been created.

If the Bermuda Government goes through with its planned amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act we can expect a rapid disappearance of the mutual fund industry, the trust industry and the investment industry to name a few. If a mutual fund unwittingly allows a tax evading investor to participate in the fund, they will be in violation of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The due diligence required to ensure that all investors are indeed legitimate tax paying members of their community will be enormous. The solution is to move the mutual fund to a more favourable jurisdiction that requires less red tape.

Similar decisions will be made with respect to the trust and investment business on the island. The impact will be substantial and Bermuda will be left relying on one international business namely Insurance. It is foolish to place "all of your eggs in one basket'' especially a basket as precarious as the insurance industry. One change in the Bermuda/US Tax Treaty and that business would fast disappear for our underlying competitive advantage would be lost.

What is most perplexing about the Bermuda Government's decision is that they are proposing legislation that the Group of Seven or EEC countries would never even consider. For example Britain would not consider such overriding legislation because it would destroy London's ability to remain an International Financial Center. Imagine if the Midland Bank of London became criminally responsible for the tax evasion activities of its international customers. The bank would be out of business in no time! What is even more interesting is that in some civil law countries I understand that tax evasion is a civil, not a criminal, offence. In these countries tax evasion is literally a national pastime. This opens the bizarre possibility of a Bermuda representative being convicted of a criminal offence for the non-criminal actions of his client.

It's time to put some common sense back into the discussion concerning Bermuda's role in promoting "tax leakage'' from high tax jurisdictions represented by the Group of Seven and the EEC countries. If these countries do not like the fact that companies and individuals legitimately operating in an international marketplace use Bermuda to reduce their tax load, then they have a very appropriate way to address this problem. They can compete with Bermuda by reducing their taxes! Countries and jurisdictions readily compete with respect to technology, infrastructure, labour costs and regulations. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot and should not compete with respect to taxes. Come to think of it many of these countries already do by offering tax incentives and grants to companies that set up operations in their jurisdictions. It's hard to understand why that form of tax manipulation to create a competitive advantage is acceptable whereas Bermuda's competitive advantage of low taxes is unacceptable.

FAITH, HOPE AND CHARITY City of Hamilton Bermudians must be first July 16, 1999 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter in disgust. My husband, a Bermudian, has just been made redundant from his job at an insurance company. He has been with the company for over a year, yet three new foreign hires, who have only been employed a matter of months, have not been made redundant.

In a fair world, the adage "last in first out'' would have been employed, but as we all know we do not live in a fair world. When questioned about this injustice the explanation was that the company had to pay relocation expenses for these foreigners and were not prepared to suffer a loss. Why should my husband have to suffer for their mistake? Why did they hire three new people knowing the company was not making enough money? This statement to me implies that Bermudians are expendable and will always be the first to be made redundant in this company and perhaps others of its kind.

We cannot allow such injustice to continue. Where is the protection for a Bermudian in Bermuda? The present Government is promoting employment for Bermudians in these foreign-owned companies but what are they doing to ensure that employment is protected. What are they going to do about this unfair practise? DISGUSTED Pembroke