Diluted representation

September 17, 2008

Dear Sir,

The Minister of Health needs to be better briefed by his senior civil servants before making statements in the House and on public television. Speaking on the Dental Act Amendment Bill last week, the Minister stated that to place limits on the number of dental hygienists and chairside assistants that a dentist may supervise would merely be to adopt a "Global Standard". Your correspondent, Diogenes II, has shown that assertion to be completely false.

If jurisdictions as large, populous and bureaucratic as Ontario, California, New York and the European Union don't feel the need for such legislation, do we really need it in tiny Bermuda?

And when the bill first came before the House, the Minister justified the proposal by saying it was "to prevent overcrowding in a practice", as if overcrowding would be an issue unique to dental offices!

Can we now expect further legislation to restrict, say, the number of draughtsmen that an architect may employ? Or the number of nurses and technicians in a physician's office, the number of labourers supervised by a foreman on a building site or the number of vice presidents under charge of the CEO of an exempt company? Or, come to that, the number of Ministers that a Premier may have in his cabinet?

When the matter was debated in the Senate, Senator Thaao Dill was reported as saying "the Ministry would be consulting the dentists about what number (of assistants and hygienists per dentist) was suitable". But I fear he meant consulting the Dental Board, which in no way represents dentists. It would be the Dental Board drawing up the Regulations giving meat to the Act and, as they say, "the devil is in the detail".

The profession, via the Dental Association, has virtually no say at all in the activities of the Dental Board. There is no dialogue between the two. The present bill does propose that the Dental Association and the Hygienists' Association shall each nominate three candidates for membership of the Board, from which the Minister will choose one from each to serve – a pretty diluted form of representation. What is the Ministry afraid of – informed opinion?

As an aside, Mr. Editor, if it is desired to improve the delivery and availability of dental care, it would be more pertinent, in my view, to legislate a minimum number of assistants and hygienists that a practising dentist may employ. Having dentists do the work of assistants and hygienists is not efficient utilisation of the skills and training of dentists, quite aside from safety issues.

NIGEL CHUDLEIGH BDS, LDS

City of Hamilton

Fuelling questions

This was sent to the Bermuda Electric Light Company and copied to The Royal Gazette.

September 18, 2008

Dear Sir,

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere and absolute astonishment at what Belco is calling "fuel adjustment" that almost equals the actual energy charges! What further amazes me is that Bermudian and Business owners are the brunt of what could border on "greed"!

This observation is based on the newspaper 'article' reporting Belco's balance sheet and statement of earnings for the six-month period ending 30 June 2008, which reflects net earnings of in excess of $7 million ... That is the absolute epitome of the aforementioned Bermudian and Business owners being the captive audience of a complete and total monopoly! I end with . . . for shame! Taking advantage of the public by these usury rates is unconscionable! I trust you are able to sleep at night!

NORMA CROSS

Hamilton Parish

Editor's note: The Royal Gazette does not normally invite individuals or companies to reply to letters on publication, but in this case did so, in order to clear up misconceptions about the fuel adjustment rate.

Belco executive vice president Linda Smith said: "Belco does not profit from the fuel adjustment rate. The rate, which is regulated by the Price Control Commission, covers the cost of fuel purchased by Belco to produce electricity.

To date in 2008, Belco has spent $14.7 million over and above the same period last year which represents a 44 percent increase. The price Belco pays for fuel includes the cost of fuel purchased on the world market, plus transportation of the fuel to Bermuda and Customs duty of $15.10 per barrel.

Belco's standard practice is to have 3.5 months of fuel supply stored to ensure we can meet supply in the event of an emergency, such as weather that would prevent a tanker from reaching the Island. In July, Belco needed to purchase 130,000 barrels of fuel which was at an all-time high price of $146 per barrel. This shipment of fuel is currently in service and will continue in service through November, possibly December, depending on demand.

The company's consolidated net earnings for the first six months of the year are lower than 2007 due to conservation by customers in response to the higher fuel prices, as well as increased operating costs that Belco, as with all businesses, are experiencing due to the effect higher fuel prices are having on all commodities.

Belco needs to sustain a certain level of income to invest in electricity infrastructure. On average Belco invests $25 million to $30 million per year in Bermuda's energy infrastructure.

Apologise for Playboy visit

September 18, 2008

Dear Sir,

I have sat and waited patiently but nothing has happened. It has been long enough but the Premier still hasn't issued a public apology for a mistake that he made. Now, I will be the first to say that no man is perfect but I do believe that it takes a big man to say he is sorry and a bigger man to say he was wrong.

Premier Brown made a trip to the Playboy Mansion and made a donation to a "charity" with money from Bermuda's account (taxpayers money), not his own personal account. If I am incorrect with this theory then I am sure someone will correct me. The last time I checked this same charity, that is run by his son, is being investigated on various fraud charges. Doesn't he owe the people of Bermuda an apology for making a bad decision with regards to our money? Let me reiterate that no one is perfect but if he had given the money out of his own pocket I would care less, but he didn't, he spent our money and I think he should address this.

As I read the article in the paper about the charges being filed against his son I had to shake my head. Innocent until proven guilty, yes, but come on Premier, if you were in the Opposition and another Premier did the same thing, you would be ripping him apart.

Firstly, I believe, (and this is my opinion) that it wasn't in good taste for the leader of my country to be at the Playboy Mansion and secondly, I believe you made a hasty decision with giving this charity money run by your son. In my opinion, that was the only reason. If I am wrong for this assumption, I apologise.

At the end of the day, I would like to feel that you at least feel some sort of regret for the decision you made. I will remain just a little more patient because, who knows, the press release, which contains your apology and reasoning, could be sitting in your out-tray for delivery.

GREJAI SMITH

Devonshire

Know what buttons to push

September 18, 2008

Dear Sir,

As we all know, there is a presidential election coming up in the United States. On the one hand they have Sen. Barack Obama – Democrat, and on the other side they have Sen. John McCain – Republican. It is a matter of fact that it is the Republicans who always run the sleaziest campaigns – who delight in character assassinations and misrepresentations of fact. I don't think even the most rabid of supporters amongst the Republican ranks could deny this.

Barack Obama would undoubtedly be the best person for President of America – not only for the American people but for the world as a whole. What I like about Barack Obama is his sense of balance and fair play. He is not an extremist and everything he has done through his adult life proves his willingness to serve humanity. He is a man of formidable intellectual capability. Clearly, he could prove to be a great President of America – the world's most powerful nation. He could well do an excellent job of restoring balance within the US and throughout the world – economically, environmentally and diplomatically.

And, God knows, a great American President would be a very welcome change – for that matter, a mediocre President would be a few steps up. It's my guess we will see the Republican propaganda machine get into top gear. We will see and hear blatant misrepresentations of fact and gross examples of character assassination. Will the American electorate refuse to see the undoubted qualities of the Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. Will too many of them, for specious reasons of their own, not vote for the best candidate? Will they allow themselves to be manipulated by unscrupulous, dirty campaign tactics and rhetoric?

It is, after all, something which happens in democracies. Clever politicians know what nerves to pinch – what buttons to push. Their campaign managers know to a 'T' the vulnerabilities and prejudices of much of the population – and they exploit these to the hilt. And if enough of the electorate are suckered in – the wrong guy wins. Isn't this exactly what happened here in Bermuda in 2007?

POPULIST

Paget