Above all the residents of Bermuda stands a supreme authoritative image, which ensures our pleasures and watches over our safety.

This power thinks itself to be free from error, in providing for the future.

It takes on the form of a parent.

Like a parent, its objective should be to prepare children for adulthood; however this parent seeks the opposite, it keeps its children in constant childhood.

It takes each child and develops it at will through its educational programmes. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated laws, through which its children cannot rise above.

Living in this system, the wishes of its children are not shattered, just softened. They are easily fooled, and are afraid to come together and speak up against unjust treatment. This parent does not demolish, it does not tyrannise, it suppress, it weakens their mental energy, extinguishes their strength, and stupefies them until they are reduced to nothing more than a flock of timid industrious sheep of which the parent is the shepherd.

The children become confused because they are dealing with two conflicting passions. They want to be led, yet wish to be free.

Since the parent cannot destroy either of the two passions they strive to satisfy both at once. They combine the principle of having a dictator and the promise of "freedom for all''. The people cheer themselves for being the commander-in-chief by the idea that they have chosen their own dictators.

They believe that they hold the end of their parent's apron strings. Through this system the children of the community shake off their state of childhood for one day to vote for their dictators and then relapse into its state of stupidity.

KEVIN ISAAC Concerns give rise to fear November 28, 2000 Dear Sir, At the conclusion of a recent forum, a strong PLP supporter approached me very politely and asked, "why was I putting fear into people when I spoke''? I note with interest that the learned Attorney General Dame Lois Brown Evans has accused the Opposition of "scaremongering''.

I have attempted to approach the issue of the proposed Constitutional amendments by the Government in an objective and sensible manner and in doing so have scrutinised very carefully what is proposed and the proposed process to bring it about.

My colleagues and myself in the Opposition have attempted at our forums, with the aide of overhead projections illustrating the Sections, to clearly and fairly bring to the public's attention the effect and meaning of the proposed amendments to the Constitution.

If, in carefully analysing these matters it has caused people to be "afraid'' then I can fully understand that because quite candidly much of what the Government proposes raises cause for concern.

However, I have always encouraged people to get hold of the Constitution, study it, study the proposed amendments, and understand it for themselves. I have personally been accused of attempting to mislead people although I note with interest that there has been not a single detailed response as to what particular statement of mine has been of a misleading nature.

People should understand that there are two main issues: 1: The issue of the manner in which it is proposed to amend the Constitution, and, as part of that; 2: The issue of reducing the number of MP's in Parliament; With regard to issue (1) (above) the position can be simply put that no Government should be allowed to "drive a truck'' through the Constitution without careful analysis and scrutiny with regard to the effect and impact of amendments and consideration for what other amendments are needed in order to properly and effectively modernize the Constitution.

It is an entirely acceptable proposition to consider modernising the Constitution. However, it is something that should be done very carefully and with full consideration for long-term effect and for what is required and needed in Bermuda.

Dame Lois has now suggested that a "battery of FCO lawyers'' who sit in a room in London can address particular changes (with regard to the Boundary Commission). Surely, any examination of the Constitution can and should be addressed in Bermuda before the changes take place.

It is apparent that the Government wishes to put the proverbial cart before the horse by making sweeping changes and then having them scrutinised. All that the Opposition has called for is scrutiny at the outset and argued that that is best accomplished by a constitutional conference.

More to the point, we have historical precedent for this approach in Bermuda and fundamental changes have always come about as a result of a conference.

Some form of formalised process to carefully examine the Constitution before amendments are tabled in Parliament is logical and practical and will by no means interfere with the ultimate modernising of the Constitution only enhance it.

People would appreciate that the Constitution of Bermuda embodies the fundamental rights of every individual, the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of association, the right to life, the right to the protection of law, protection of privacy, protection of freedom of conscience, protection of expression and, the protection from discrimination on the grounds of race or place of origin.

The Constitution, in addition to these fundamental individual rights, enshrines in Chapter Three the detailed provisions for the composition and makeup of the Legislature and it is this chapter through which the aforementioned "truck'' is being driven at break-neck speed.

In turning to issue (2), much has been said about the power of the Premier under Section 54 (3) to modify the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission. There have been two notable comments to this from the Government.

One from the Premier who declared at the first Government forum that she personally would not exercise such a power. The second from the Minister of Telecommunication, Renee Webb, who simply responded that that section has always been there and has not been changed. At least the Premier appears to recognise the "change'' that has resulted.

There are a couple of fundamental things to consider here. Firstly, no leader should have such a far-reaching power and while one may be willing to accept the word of this Premier that she will not exercise the power what about the Premier 20 years from now? Would the PLP want a UBP Premier to have this power, I certainly would not! Secondly, and I emphasise this in the hope that the "penny will drop'', this increased power has come about as a result of other amendments, particularly the deleting of Section 28 with regard to a 40-member House.

Consequently, given the fact that the Boundaries Commission will, in effect, create the number of MPs, the Premier could technically change their finding by the power existing in Section 54 (3) WHILE SECTION 54 (3) REMAINS THE SAME ITS EFFECT IS GREATLY ENHANCED BECAUSE OF OTHER AMENDMENTS.

Every seven years a new Boundaries Commission will again address the issue of the number of MPs. The Commission will, in all likelihood, involve different personalities with different views to the previous Commissioners.

Quite possibly there will be a different Premier with different views and consequently the issue of the number of MPs will be completely open to change once again. Common sense dictates that the number should be fixed and embodied in the Constitution, not left to a Commission.

In conclusion, it had become apparent that the Government will find an answer for every concern that is raised but what the answers indicate is the fact that the whole thing has not been carefully and properly thought out.

Once you arrive at the point where a Premier is giving personal assurances that she won't invoke a power and the Attorney General is stating that FCO lawyers can deal with certain matters it is abundantly clear that there are, in reality, some serious concerns.

If talking about those concerns makes people "afraid'' then I am pleased to see that the fundamental constitutional freedom of conscience is alive and well.

MARK PETTINGILL City of Hamilton `Let me be clear' November 30, 2000 Dear Sir, At last nights' (constitutional) meeting, Dame Lois Brown-Evans noted that nobody complained when Sir Henry Tucker changed the seats from 36 to 40 in 1968.

That is true perhaps, but he increased the number of seats. If the PLP was proposing an increase in the number of seats from 40 to 44 than I would not complain. It is the fact that they want to decrease the number of seats that bothers myself and others.

An increase of four seats (with perhaps one taken from Paget East) distributed through various Parishes would go a long way to adjusting the disparities in numbers.

Specifically, I am against reducing the number of seats because it centralises too much power in the Premier's (any Premier's) hand. The Premier already has too much power -- take, for instance, the ability to change the Boundary Commission's findings.

The Premier (specifically Jennifer Smith in this present issue) gets quite defensive, in fact, offensive, saying `don't you trust me' or words to that effect.

Let me be clear, I do not trust Jennifer Smith or anyone to make these decisions for me. When informed, I will make these decisions (I and all the other Bermudians) by voting in a referendum.

Simply put, if the UK Government does not give me (and all other Bermudians) the opportunity to vote on this, then they are abrogating their responsibility.

SANDERS FRITH-BROWN Warwick