January 22, 2005

Dear Sir,

Relative to the article in on January 20, 2005 by Phillip Wells. Mr. Wells welcome to the opinion column.

Regarding your comparison of the Maginot Line, and the Bermuda Regiment, the Maginot Line failed as it was strategically wrong for the reasons you state, but anything that is ineffective can never be reassuring. You state that your main objection to the Regiment is that service is compulsory. You also say the Regiment is not the best way to either discipline or integrate the youth, but offer no alternatives.

In my opinion if one is left to volunteer, it is likely most will not. The Freudian concept of "avoid pain, seek pleasure" will kick in. This is especially valid here were we have become soft and indulgent. Your example of not liking to be on a cold wet playing field being shouted at will strike a responsive chord with many. Easier to be in bed with a warm cup of cocoa.

My main support of the Regiment is based on its ability to prepare one for life itself.

Life is hard, competitive and the struggle for survival is constant. There is no provision made for the "softie". Everyone is subjected to the rigours of nature equally. Life was never meant to be easy, life was meant to be life.

I had the experience of working in a training school for troubled youth and can attest to the measure of success due to the routine and discipline instilled there even under less perfect conditions. Today the majority of "graduates" have become productive citizens in society.

So I have no doubt that the same benefits will accrue to the Regiment inductees.

When you eat, sleep, work and train together, you quickly learn that your very survival depends on team work and few things can equal that reality in bringing people together.

That in itself makes the Regiment valuable, and justified.

The truth is that there is no other vehicle for duplicating the work the Regiment does.

The concept could be enlarged and applied to broaden its scope to also assist programmes for troubled youth. I would welcome the input of interested others.

BILL COOK

Paget

January 25, 2005

Dear Sir,

I read with interest the recent editorial submitted by Christian Dunleavy ("We mustn't let the BIU's work ethic sink us all") and the response from Laverne Furbert ("In defence of Derrick Burgess") on January 19 together with her additional follow-up remarks published today.

As a Bermudian who works in the financial services industry I found Mr. Dunleavy's observations to be quite accurate. They succinctly described how a small minority of workers' attitudes can negatively impact our collective reputation, regardless of any specific service sector. His comments concerning Mr. Burgess' remarks regarding the need for non-Bermudian management styles to be adapted for local application highlighted how out-of-touch the BIU is with service standards prevalent throughout the remainder of the world, especially those countries who compete directly for tourist dollars.

Ironically this same observation was irrefutably validated by the remarks recently made by Dr. Ewart Brown during his recent press conference regarding the need for Bermudians to change their attitudes if we are going to successfully come out of the tourism slump that has permeated throughout our shores over the last decade. Dr. Brown clearly stated that "service standards all over the world have outpaced those standards here in Bermuda, therefore it is imperative that we stimulate the development of industry service standards and support the implementation of an industry service training programme to improve service delivery across the hospitality industry... Our people must once and for all distinguish service from servitude."

The subsequent comments offered by Ms Furbert would appear to indicate that Mr. Burgess is not the only one who is out of touch with reality, choosing instead to avoid responding to the specific matter raised by Mr. Dunleavy in favour of attacks. The remarks in her letter of January 19 are entirely out of place, unfounded and without merit. Mr. Dunleavy did not take any "personal" swipes at Mr. Burgess, he simply reiterated comments made by the BIU President regarding Bermudian workplace attitudes. That was it. No more, no less.

While it's true that Mr. Dunleavy made an unsuccessful bid for political office (in what can reasonably be considered a very safe PLP seat) what does this have to do with any Bermudian's right to publicly express his or her opinion? Ms. Furbert would have you believe that "Mr. Dunleavy and others who think like him and voice their thoughts publicly should be grateful that the PLP Government allows freedom of expression." Is she really serious?

Again, in another unrelated harangue, Ms Furbert goes on to remark that under the previous government "[we were fired from our jobs, had our mortgages called and were subject to other random acts of unkindness by UBP politicians and their cronies who controlled the economics in this country." If she truly believes this to be the case, by all means come forward with concrete examples and evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise, immediately desist from making baseless accusations in an attempt to sway public support via conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated allegations.

Ms. Furbert's commented today that "Mr. Dunleavy describes my criticism of his remarks as personal and racial which is understandable. Anytime somebody that looks like me criticises somebody that looks like him, we're being racial." That's not a very serious leap in judgment considering her earlier remarks that "Mr. Dunleavy is not unlike the rest of his UBP colleagues thinking that Bermudians, in particular black Bermudians have short memories" together with "Corporate Bermuda loves people who think like Christian Dunleavy and look like Christian Dunleavy." Dealer...I'd like another race card please.

Unlike Mr. Dunleavy, Ms Furbert decided to bare her myopic teeth and sink into personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Perhaps she feels that a verbal smoke screen will obscure the point Mr. Dunleavy was originally trying to make; namely that "the vast majority of us perform at a high level, higher than expected. Not because we're servants but because we take pride in our work and understand that strong performance is rewarded. The last thing we need is someone labelling us all as unapologetic chronic under-performers ? an island of workers who think that putting in an honest day's work is akin to a master servant relationship."

This "bob and weave" approach is an age old tactic of the current government. Don't attack the message, attack the messenger, and hope after all the smoke has cleared that we forgot the message. Nice try, but not this time Ms Furbert. Stick to facts not fiction.

KEG

Pembroke

December 19, 2004

Dear Sir,

They say that what goes round, comes round, and in the case of technical education and training, this seems to be the case.

I have commented in the past about the sad demise of the Technical Institute, but will return, briefly, to it after reading the report on the recent Senate debate on technical education. (, December 14).

Briefly, the Tech was modelled on the technical high schools which existed in England, i.e. they were secondary schools wherein the students followed normal academic studies, but the schools also well-equipped to teach craft subjects.

At the B.T.I. the same thing happened and the older students (all male at that time) could also opt to take engineering craft courses.

As time went on, technical equipment was improved and the Tech started to enrol apprentices from various big and small firms on the Island on part-time courses.

The Tech didn't actually close at the time suggested, in fact a new commercial wing had been built to accommodate young ladies. Then came the introduction of a UN "expert" to re-organise tertiary education!

His opening statement to staff was, "I don't believe in City and Guilds examinations". (He was Canadian!). Then he went on to explain his plans for a complete restructuring of the activities which would take place at the Institute and the Hotel College.

Among other things this led to the resignation of a leading figure at the latter. It also meant the destruction of the infrastructure of all the work that staffs had built up over years.

The reconstruction of the tertiary system led to the birth of the Bermuda College, formed originally from the Sixth Form Academic Centre, the Technical Institute and the Prospect Hotel College. This was a good idea. It was the implementation of the plan that left much to be desired, especially as regards technical training and when the College moved to its new campus, the Institute, etc., vanished altogether.

Further to the Senate debate, I am all in favour of having trained, registered and certified tradesman, although I still prefer external examinations.

Apropos older tradesmen: In England some years ago the NVQ (National Vocational Qualifications) were introduced, specifically aimed at working tradesmen who had never had the opportunity to obtain paper qualifications. (Although they might have attended "night school".)

Unfortunately, the scheme lost its original objective and has outgrown its usefulness, having generally become an easier alternative to CA and GCSE exams.

The whole system of training and registering existing tradesmen will take a great deal of organisation and honest and worthwhile results must be aimed for. It cannot be introduced overnight. Even so it is still a crying shame that intending tradesmen have to be sent off the Island for training.

However, whilst regretting past events in the field, let us hope that proposed training schemes, etc. come to fruition; and I would urge young people to seriously consider embarking on what can be a highly-rewarding life as a qualified technician or tradesman.