March 19, 2007

A LEAD article in the Royal Gazette’s>Saturday edition bemoaning the fact XL Capital’s “charitable” arm has pumped $13 million into real estate but only $200k into local charities deserves a comment. I think the Gazette reporter might be labouring under the misconception that good corporate citizenship actually exists. It doesn’t; it’s a figment of our imagination. Being a good corporate citizen is another way of saying “How much have we got to put into the community so that the dopes will stay away and leave us alone?”. Believe me when I say that an XL shareholder in Boise. Idaho don’t give a damn whether the LCCA gets a financial jolt in the arm... However they will give a damn if it affects their dividend! It all comes down to the bottom line and I don’t believe Bermuda is mentioned there.

It’s the same with HSBC putting forward totally unacceptable plans for their palace on Front Street. They KNEW it was unacceptable! They’re not stupid! They are one of the largest banks in the world, if not the largest and you don’t get there by being “Mr. Nice Guy”

You put in a set of totally unacceptable plans, watch the environmentalists and some Government and Opposition MPs jump up and down and then you “bow” to public opinion.

Everyone thinks you’re wonderful and you get what you wanted in the first place...easy peezy!

It will be the same with the Southlands development. We can bitch and moan all we want. We think we are protected because Government has said it will protect undeveloped land for us Bermudians but the largest piece of undeveloped land is exempt from that protection...just wait and see! There’s too much money involved, Mr. Editor and sadly in Bermuda “Greed is King”

One final note about HSBC who have a sign over at their Church Street branch which says in part “to better serve you” Good thing they’re better at banking than English grammar

WONDERING & WANDERING

Southampton

March 10, 2007

AS stated in the Report from the House mentioned in today’s Royal Gazette referring to the Honorable Minister Derrick Burgess’ speech during the Budget Debate on Friday, 9 March, 2007, I am once again reminded there are existing Immigration policies in place, albeit, not fully adhered to. I, therefore, implore Minister Burgess to remind the Chief Immigration Officer and the Public Service Commission, who makes recommendations to His Excellency the Governor, of same.I previously served the Government of Bermuda in the Department of Immigration for 18-plus years until 2002. Prior to leaving I was furnished with a copy of the Conditions of Employment and Code of Conduct for Government Workers.

In the welcoming comments by the Secretary to the Cabinet and the Head of the Civil Service, it states: “You are, therefore, encouraged to read and comment freely whenever necessary.”

Since the topic of Immigration policies is being discussed, reflecting how Bermudians should be receiving first preference, my comments are as follows:

According to Appendix One of the Public Service Commission Regulations, 2001 - Principles Governing Recommendations:

19(2): “Subject to this Regulation, the person who in the Commissioner’s opinion is the best candidate shall be preferred.”

19(4) “For the purpose of appointment to an office, a person with Bermudian Status (“a Bermudian”) who is not already an officer shall, other things being equal, rank equally with a Bermudian who is already an officer unless the Commission for special reasons decides otherwise in the particular case.

19(5) “Subject to paragraph (11), the Commission shall not recommend a person for permanent appointment to an established office if he is not a Bermudian.

I quote one particular point Minister Burgess mentions as follows: “Ensuring that employers adhere to the rule that Bermudians are always hired first before other categories of resident, including spouses of Bermudians and Permanent Resident Certificate holders.”

If this is an existing Immigration policy, then why have there been instances where expatriates have been offered positions over qualified Bermudians?

As point 19(6) of the Public Service Commission Regulations also states that “A Bermudian shall be preferred to a person who is not a Bermudian (“a non-Bermudian”)”.

Considering this, why do the qualified Bermudians, who have been bypassed, have to resort to the unnecessary process of litigation, if there are supposedly existing policies in place to protect them? If policies and procedures are being ignored in the Civil Service, how can the powers that be expect the private sector to adhere to Immigration policies and procedures and good employment practices?” Obviously, there needs to be better adherence to policies within the Government entities to sustain what Minister Burgess is advocating in the Budget Debate.

JENNIFER CAINES

Devonshire