I join Pat Ferguson in asking "how long''. The new Bermuda is in a tailspin, and it seems as if no one dares to speak out about some of things that are going on. Thank goodness for the Michael Dunkeleys and David Sullivans and other like them who, despite the flack, are speaking out.

Fear and intimidation have taken over and gripped Bermudians since November 9, 1998. The handful of callers to the four talk shows are conveniently blind, deaf and numb to the arrogance of the Government as they bulldoze, commandeer and ram "things'' down our throats. But Bermuda had been forewarned that they had "scores to settle''. Well, they are settling them.

It is most interesting to note that the criticism of the Government about its arrogance is being echoed by some of its very own supporters such as Walton Brown, Dr. Eva Hodgson and Rolfe Commissiong.

KEEN OBSERVER Devonshire A question of morality October 20, 2000 Dear Sir, I did not think I would have to respond with reference to my initial letter except to clear up some typographical errors but I can not allow No Aborigine (NA) to obscure the meaning of my offering as he tried to do, in his letter captioned `Put Bermuda First', published in the October 18 edition of The Royal Gazette .

First of all the policy he is referring to in the `high tech regions' in California is one relating to environmental concerns and has nothing to do with immigration. It is difficult to find a worst example than that cited by NA. If NA was reading the US newspapers recently he would have realised that President Clinton signed a Bill recently which would enable those same so-called hi-tech companies to bring into the United States certain classes of workers with minimal immigration interference. I can guarantee NA that if any worker with a clean criminal record spent his/her working life in the USA and then was suddenly told his rights would be restricted or that he should consider returning to his country of birth, there would be a long line of lawyers waiting to hear the Immigration and Naturalisation service explain their position in court.

NA then goes on to say in essence, that the time immigrants spend in a country ought to be a consideration in economic and social planning. There is little argument from me here except that the policy would have to apply to anyone and everyone. However, NA misses the point which is, what is the just and morally responsible thing to do with the LTRs? Remember NA, these persons contributed significantly to the economic well-being of Bermuda over the years. And although it is difficult these days to find many people willing to admit it, Bermuda in all likelihood, would be a much different place (not necessarily better) without the presence of LTRs. The LTRs have been living in houses, they own cars, they have been breathing the same air and drinking the same water as Bermudians for 20 years -- in some cases many more. Any policy dressed in environmental clothing which is designed to discriminate against LTRs (as described above), would be nothing more than brutality disguised as social policy.

NA has also either missed the point or unintentionally contradicted himself when he naively blames LTRs for increasing the price for house rents. NA should try and find out who own these houses? This is similar to blaming the heart muscle for a clot in the arteries. Surely market forces determined the price of rent. There is nothing new here. As for setting up trusts for the purpose of owning a house in Bermuda, NA is badly misinformed. Suffice to say every trust property must have an owner behind it. With regard to the financial viability of setting up a trust in order to own property in Bermuda, this reads like a bad joke. I will merely advise NA to have a word with any lawyer who practices in that area of law.

And if Bermuda houses are priced too high for wealthy Bermudians as contended by NA, undoubtedly they would also be out of the price range of 99.999 percent of LTRs.

NA also stated that my assertion that black Bermudians kept the UBP in power is racist. I can only conclude that the NA has intentionally misdirected himself or misread my letter to the point of failing to understand the thrust of what I actually said. I will repeat the basis of the point I was making. It is this: although most callers tend to blame the LTRs for keeping the UBP in power, statistically this cannot be the case even allowing for those constituencies which have traditionally voted for the UBP. I even went so far as to give an example of a traditional PLP stronghold which on one occasion voted for a white UBP candidate.

In any event, I have heard Dr. Hodgson on occasions mention the same thing. Is she racist for reiterating this fact? In any event, I believe that if the PLP try to cater to the extreme views of some of its supporters as heard recently at the meetings held to discuss the LTRs green paper, it would soon find that those same middle-of-the-road voters would revolt at the polls.

Finally, I do not concur with this often repeated concept as it relates to LTRs and put forward by NA in his letter bearing the title, `Bermuda for Bermudians First' or other variations of the same theme. This is nothing more than a code term that would lend credibility and sustenance for discrimination against LTRs. If Bermudians come first who comes second and third? To complement my point I will here state once again one of the main assertions of my first letter. I do not believe that anyone who has resided in this country for 20 years or more should be second to anyone. They should be given status and not made to feel like second class citizens. This is not palatable to many Bermudians but it is fair, just, and a morally sound policy. Those persons who are arguing that the LTRs do not deserve any consideration from government for their service to this country need to ask themselves what would be deserved had they occupied the situation the LTRs were confronted with at the moment.

It is worth remembering that a human being is defenceless, if he is not armed with his conscience.

TYPICAL BERMUDIAN Warwick Put aside party views October 21, 2000 Dear Sir, Recent media reports and letters to the Editor covering the PLP Government's proposals for Constitutional changes has prompted me, through your paper, to make an appeal to the voters of this beautiful Island we all call home. And the appeal is, please put aside "party allegiances'' and study this issue of constitutional changes not as supporters of either the PLP or UBP teams, but as private citizens of Bermuda.

I make my appeal after having read the transcript of the Premier's statement at her press conference held on October 18. That transcript contained approximately 1,270 words, and what I found most amazing is that the Premier did not use a single word to explain how the proposed changes will make Bermuda more democratic. Also, not a single word was used to explain why single seat constituencies will make Bermuda more democratic, and, not a single word was used to explain who will benefit from the reduction in the number of MPs.

It is already obvious to many people in this country that there is a serious risk that a reduction in the number of MPs would make the House of Assembly less representative of the community, and as a result the Government will have less 'right' to govern us. This is dangerous for democracy.

If constitutional changes are necessary, it should be because they will result in more democracy for all Bermudians. If the changes result instead in large numbers of voters believing that the House of Assembly is significantly less representative, and that they have lost their voice as citizens, then we will all be on the road to ruin. The long-term political stability and economic prosperity of Bermuda is at stake, and as a private citizen I implore my fellow Bermudians to speak up. Contact your MPs, no matter what team, and insist that a constitutional conference be held to allow your voice to be heard regarding these constitutional changes. For the sake of our children and those to come, do not allow Bermuda's democracy to slip into deficit.

ALLAN D. MARSHALL MP Smith's North Readers should take note October 29, 2000 Dear Sir, This is a rather belated response to a Letter to the Editor from Tricia Shelton some weeks ago about family and friends getting licences to drive while in Bermuda. Some of your readers are probably under the misapprehension that visitors have to stay for more than 30 days in order to apply for a licence. I thought this was the case as well as this is what is stated on the Medical Form.

When my brother-in-law was here recently for two weeks I did not think he would be eligible to obtain a licence but he noticed that on page 20 of the Traffic Code Handbook Section II 5. it states that `Visitor' does not include a person who owns and maintains a dwelling house in Bermuda nor a close relative of such a person. Of course "close relative'' may be open to varied interpretation by the employees at TCD but this may be helpful to some of your readers whose siblings and parents make frequent but brief visits to Bermuda.

This still does not address the necessity for the Medical Form to be completed or the absurdity of treating people this way when we are allowed to drive in their countries on our Bermuda licence but that is the subject for another letter! DR. VALERIE JAMES Warwick