November 17, 2002

Dear Sir,

Our society takes a dim view of one who thinks he is the centre of everything, and limitations are vital realities a child should get from the home. Everything was not given to us - my generation and those before us, on a silver platter, and we had to make our own fun. Our imaginations were active and healthy.

We didn't pop a pill because we couldn't think of anything to do; nor did we demand that our elders entertain us, while the Government footed the bill. No one promised us a rose garden, and we didn't expect one.

It would be ridiculous, for the sake of creating resources in the minds of our youth, to deprive them of the physical comforts they have learned to enjoy. But we can stop giving them everything they ask for; stop feeling that it is our responsibility as adults to provide them with amusements, so that they need not suffer a few hours of solitude.

Imagination is gradually becoming one of the depressed areas of the mind. A young person in trouble, needs help, but let us stop pampering the average adolescent so that his naturally lively imagination grows anaemic on too rich a diet.

We pray to God no longer. We pray to Government; and our prayers are pathetic. “Give us this day our daily bread - but slice it first”. Have we as parents, as a community, as a society, lost our self-respect? All our initiative? All our imagination? All our dignity?

Must we abase ourselves always before the benevolence of our elected representatives? Must we beg always from others what we ought to be doing for ourselves?

We have forced onto Government such a burden of responsibility that we have made responsible Government impossible. Politicians and bureaucrats, whatever else they may be, are human. Although they occasionally try to act as if they were, they are not omnipotent.

They cannot grant every favour, bequeath every service, concede every demand. And let us all be thankful that they cannot. For, at the limitations of government we can discover again if we try, our personal powers.

The more we demand from Government now, the more we hurt ourselves. The wise among our leaders are slowly learning the obscure art of saying “no”. We should help them all we can, by learning the equally obscure art, of not asking.

P. DE LA CHEVOTIERE , M.D.

December 1, 2002

Dear sir,

I am sitting at my desk and reading The Royal Gazette of Thursday, November 28, 2002. The report of the meeting of the Senate of Wednesday, November 27 which ended with a debate on race, has drawn my attention.

PLP Senator Victoria Pearman said, and I quote from the report: “It is the Opposition, not the Government, who used race for political gain, by parading faces of African descent at rallies to promote the interest of people of European descent.”

Please give me a break. And please do not insult the intelligence of people of African descent. As far as I am concerned, God gave us all Gifts or Talents, as can be found in First Corinthians, Chapter 12. Some of us are thinkers and some are followers. Some of us are philosophers and some are not.

The freedom we have, because we live in this democracy, is that we are also free to think, draw our own conclusions, and act on them.

Bermuda is the home of many intellects. It may be true that there are more people with college and university degrees, per capita, than any other country in the world. These intellects can be found in all strata of the community.

Political, social, religious and charitable organisations are responsible for the preparation of their philosophy, their aims and objectives, and then it is up to them to “sell themselves” to the public. The public then will decide whether or not to donate to, join or support them.

It is therefore insulting to think that if people of African descent decide to join an organisation which is not “ruled” by people of similar heritage, they are traitors. Whether we want to admit it or not, Bermuda's governments have assisted the advancement of Bermudians over the years.

The encouragement to study overseas, to progress and develop academically, in sport as well as in culture, has been obvious. Awards have been given according to abilities and jobs have been awarded according to qualifications.

Yes, I know that there are people who would say “that did not happen to me”; there are some who will say that awards were given or not given “because of the colour of one's skin”; there are some who feel that they were not recognised as they should.

But no one can say that they do not know anyone who has progressed, who has succeeded, who has been able to advance their status. It is unfortunate that although we have worked so hard in the past to change bigotry by legislation, that the problem remains and the struggle must continue. And never forget that bigotry is practised by all ethnic groups.

The late Hon. Robert Nesta (Bob) Marley, whose philosophy lives on, tells us to “Free Ourselves from Mental Slavery”. How many times have we heard those words? How many times have we sung them?

How many times have we listened to them? But did we hear and understand them? Slavery is a very bad thing. Slavery of one race by another is awful. But, if we, the people of Bermuda, are going to change things, we have to start within ourselves, our hearts and our minds.

Then it is up to us to extend this change beyond ourselves, to our families and friends. Do you know that we are the masters of change? We are the ones who hold the change that is needed in our hands. The great female philosopher Dr. Lena Madesin Phillips said: “Change is the result of forces which we must deliberately control. Change may come through revolution, but it can also come through orderly planning, consciously and determinedly carried out.”

If we open our minds and our hearts, we will realise that people in “authority” over us, can use education, or lack of it, to keep us all down. They can tell us only what they want us to know. They can tell us that this is good for us when we know it is not.

As intelligent people, it is up to us to sieve through these facts and see it for what it is. The population of Bermuda is a blend of people of all ethnic descent. That is our wealth. Our freedom of speech, action and livelihood is ours to preserve. Our cultural blend is important and precious. It gives us a democratic environment that should not be taken for granted.

First Corinthians Chapter 12, verse 14, says: “For the body itself is not made up of only one part, but of many parts”. Similarly, we must know that Bermuda is, itself, made up of many different types of people. We are one, but different. That is who we are.

YVETTE V. A. SWAN, JP

Warwick

November 30, 2002

Dear Sir,

I would like to respond to the letter written by “Minister Webb's Kodak Moment” which was printed in the December 3 issue of your newspaper. The writer asked what proof Minister Webb had to back her statement that the Bermuda Technical Institute was closed because it was producing too many “Black Male Leaders”.

Following is a portion of the School's history which “Kodak Moment” should find informative: “Opened by the Bermuda Government in 1956 to answer the need for technical education for young persons (entry age was 12). It was, in effect, a technical high school, and was a revolutionary concept in Bermuda.

The achievements of the school, and its 600+ alumni are legendary in Bermuda, with many of its graduates pursuing further education at a time when most school leavers didn't consider a college level of education. By order of the Department of Education, the BTI, closed its doors to full time students in 1972. The reasons for the closure were not fully explained (or disclosed may be a better term) at the time.

At a reunion of alumni in 1987, it was disclosed by former Premier, Sir J. David Gibbons, that, to his horror, and over his objections, the Department of Education ordered the school to be closed as a result of mounting pressure, due to the extraordinary success of the school. As difficult as this is to be believed, the Tech was not supposed to provide the island with academics as well as technicians, let alone graduates excelling in both veins.

Additionally, the extremely high athletic achievements of the Tech students was a contributing factor to its demise also. (Sir David Gibbons remains to this day a fervent supporter of technical education at high school level.)

The basic logic behind this decision was that the BTI was a victim of it's own success, with far too many students excelling in both technical and academic exam results, and this was not the role of the Tech. (Bearing in mind that one of the purposes of the school was to teach the “academic rejects” how to use their hands, and to learn a trade.)

One wonders how the views of one or two people can be such that several generations of Bermudians are denied technical education, resulting in an increase in imported labour, the loss of opportunity for advancement for the not so academically inclined youth, and a huge glaring gap in our education system. (No doubt, there is more to this story, perhaps in time more facts will emerge.)

The BTI continued an existence as a centre for continuing studies, and was absorbed into the Bermuda College in the 1970's. Following new construction at the College, the building was vacated in the 1980's.

In 1997, the entire structure, including the approximately 60 percent which was built by students as part of their education, and the distinctive spire, were demolished to make way for the National Stadium complex at Prospect.”

OLIVER TROTT

Former Student 1959-1965

Pembroke

November 29, 2002

Dear Sir,

To Robert Henderson the person who made the comment in the Letter to the Editor on Thursday, November 28, 2002. First I'd like to say that I commend you for being man enough to give your name as there are some who like to let foul air flow from their mouth onto paper but don't have enough courage to give their name.

People are entitled to their own opinions but to this I say please get the facts before you make assumptions about things you have no clue about. You asked where are my priorities? The answer to your question is right where they should be, which is seeing to it that my children receive a proper education, also making sure they are not denied it for petty reasons.

Again I'll try to explain the point I was trying to make as I was unable to, it seems in my previous attempt. My child along with other students was sent home from school because she did not have on a blazer, in 80 degrees heat, I may add.

The point was not that I couldn't afford a blazer - although that part is correct. I felt it was a frivolous matter for these students to be sent home. They were sent home, being denied an education for their outward appearances, although being in their proper school attire apart from a blazer.

I did not see the logic in my child having to be exposed to all the discomfort of being too heated from wearing the blazer at that time.

Not to mention eventually me having to spend out more money for skin creams and treatment. I'll say it again, no I can not afford that. I should subject my child to this and I ask for what reason? Just to uphold a certain image, is that it?

That seems to be the problem with for too many Bermudians. They are so caught up in outward appearances that they lose sight of the main priority, which in this case should be focusing their attention on the students inner abilities rather than their outward appearances.

I merely suggested that they be given the same option as their teachers have because I'm sure most of them dress according to what makes you feel comfortable for that day. I'm not saying that if the need should arise for the individual student to wear a heavier upper garment then let it be made clear that no other colour is acceptable, only the blazer.

Don't force the student that has no need for it to wear it. Because they may not have the need to wear it for many reasons.

Now to speak on the issue of my child's cell phone. I did not purchase the phone for her, nor do I pay her bills (pre-paid I may add). Regardless of these facts, the phone is something she does use.

Although I hate to admit this, it has been good for her to have for several reasons. To end all I ask is that you Robert Henderson and those who are so opinionated like you, please get all the facts before you make assumptions.

LINDA WALES

November 25, 2002

Dear Sir,

We represent the Hamptons Limited and in this regard they have brought to our attention their concern with regard to certain misleading information that was contained in the article of The Royal Gazette dated November 22, 2002 under the heading “Residents protest housing development”.

In particular our clients are concerned that the purport of the article is that this is effectively a new planning application for Planning permission, which greatly exceeds previous planning permission given for the site and that the development is proposed to take place in woodland area.

In this regard it should be noted that on the June 14, 1994 permission in principle was given by the then Minister of the Environment for the construction of forty homes on site. The present application is effectively for reinstatement of this planning permission.

The area upon which the development is proposed to take place is presently zoned Residential Two (having been zoned Medium Density prior to the 1993 Planning Statement). The Hamptons Limited entered into a Section 34 agreement dated February 16, 1999 whereby effectively eight acres of woodland and agricultural land were preserved in perpetuity.

The area upon which the development is taking place consists of approximately 4.5 acres which was designated for development by the forward planning team of the Department of Planning.

The Hamptons Limited also had a final building permit for the seven houses off St. Anne's Road which was granted in 2000. We trust that in order to present a fair and complete picture of exactly what our clients intend to do on the site that The Royal Gazette will see fit to publish the information set out above. We look forward to hearing from you in response.

HOLLIS & CO.

December 3, 2002

Dear Sir,

Further to all the recent articles appearing in The Royal Gazette dealing with “Performance Bonds and Bonding,” and especially the letter dated November 27, 2002 headed “Explaining Bonds,” I wish to add my comments. Firstly, there is no “Bonding Company” in Bermuda that can issue such a document as a “Performance Bond” in the true meaning of a “Bond”.

The request for “bonding” is generally a North American/European practice that Bermuda (at least the Bermuda Government) has tried to use with very limited success.

In the past, a “Bond” provided by contractors in Bermuda normally has been available when a local contractor partners with a foreign contractor, and it is the latter that can provide the “Bond.” A local contractor can offer a “Letter of Guarantee” or a “Surety” which I understand is normally acceptable in lieu of a “Bond” in Bermuda.

A bank or insurance company can provide these as long as the contractors can show that they have adequate funds to cover the value of the “bond”. This is not an easy thing for a local contractor to do in today's very competitive market.

It will be interesting to see if details of the “Bond” for the Berkeley School Project are ever made public, or indeed enforced should it become necessary!

A BONDING BARD

Smith's