Open mike: Dinner with the Premier

As an adjunct to the Overseas Territories Consultative Council meet, the Premier of Bermuda, The Hon. Dr. Ewart Brown, was generous enough to host the fourth annual Premier’s Dinner for Bermudian students studying in the UK. The event was held at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Knightsbridge, London. Also in attendance was the deputy Premier, the Hon. Paula Cox. The keynote speaker was the newly appointed Chief of Staff, Senator Wayne Caines.

Gratitude is certainly due to the Premier and his government for hosting the event, and to Ms. Crystal Todd and the members of the Department of Tourism’s London office responsible for organising it. The meal was enjoyable and the opportunity for young Bermudians to meet fellow students welcome.

However, probably of greater interest to readers of this forum is the question time that followed the meal, where students were allowed to pose questions of their choice to Dr. Brown. The Premier was given no indication of what sort of questions to expect, the setting essentially serving as a platform to respond to the specific concerns of young voters and to determine the contentious issues amongst Bermuda’s youth.

Wasting no time, one of the first questions asked was on the subject of independence, specifically Dr. Brown’s views towards breaking from the UK. He reiterated the line he has articulated in the past, stating it was ‘not on the front burner, but on the stove.’ This seemed to conflict with Dr. Brown’s earlier remarks, when he congratulated his government on achieving a deal at the UK Overseas Territory Council that guaranteed Bermudian students, in future, vastly reduced tuition fees because of our unique status as one of the few remaining overseas territories. Certainly, it appeared unwise to champion independence to an audience that, as of Wednesday, had a vested financial interest in remaining an overseas territory. Yet there was a definite sense that an independence agenda was in play throughout the evening: Senator Caines' speech, while impassioned, sounded clear notes of nationalism. As students, we were consistently reminded of our identity as Bermudians; no bad thing in itself, but I had the sense this inspiration was directed to realising a vision of difference from, not incorporation with, the UK.

The Premier was positive on the education front, stating he believed that activities such as sport were key to tackling social problems currently rife amongst younger Bermudians. He also mentioned plans to expand the curriculum at Bermuda College, citing the need to introduce courses that had a technical emphasis, such as plumbing. However, he was tentative when questioned about the viability of introducing a full, four year bachelor’s degree course at the college, agreeing that it would be a good option for those who could not afford institutions overseas, yet defending his scepticism by stating he believed the act of travelling and living in a foreign country was an indispensable part of university education. He followed this by stating, in future, he hopes to alleviate all financial hurdles to those that are able and willing to attend university overseas, but are prevented from doing so by their economic situation.

On sustainable development, the Premier affirmed his government’s interest in investigating and implementing initiatives that supported sustainable development. He made clear the change in leadership did not affect the party’s faith in sustainable development as an environmental programme.

Less convincing was the Premier’s response to the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Bill. When pressed, the Premier did not produce an answer: it was not apparent why there was no debate in the first place (the Premier offered some vague excuse about not pandering to the opposition, although the relevance of this to the motivation for debate eluded me) nor did the Premier indicate there would be any future debate or action taken. The issue was decidedly dodged; the approach seemed to be reactive rather than proactive: the Premier proclaimed, through unsubstantiated examples, that homosexuals currently enjoyed equal rights and there was no need for legislation ‘at this time’.

Finally, there were several questions that broached the government’s relationship with the media, calling for transparency and accountability. The Premier was obviously hostile to all broadsheets, directly attacking The Royal Gazette for spurious, inaccurate reporting. Dr. Brown made mention of his wish for establishing a further newspaper in Bermuda to compensate for what he perceived to be the deficiencies of the current publications. It was at this point in the session that Dr. Brown introduced the phrase ‘plantation question’. This alone was of concern to the audience, who quizzed Dr. Brown on the validity of this moniker to Bermuda, a country whose historical experience largely avoided plantations entirely. Dr. Brown responded by saying he was using the phrase in a universal sense to represent a sense of struggle that he felt was applicable regardless of geography. Dr. Brown moved on to speak of the need for an open dialogue on race, but when asked if it was possible to move beyond the polarising, divisive connotations of language such as ‘plantation question’ and speak of race in more neutral terms, the Premier defended his choice of words. He said there was a need to engage with racial problems, and that confrontation itself may be uncomfortable, justifying his terms by saying the discomfort created by them was necessary to achieving solutions in the long run.

Regardless of his responses, the Premier and his government are to be commended for creating an atmosphere where students felt free to ask difficult questions. It is, perhaps, the first stage in creating an essential dialogue between politicians and their constituents.

Comments

[Bonnie Critchley on 26.11.06 at 00:20]

Great piece, Mr.Rance and thank you.

This is broken record time, but here goes.

The PLP has never held a public forum in Bermuda since 1998, and probably before, that did not have a strictly monitored, predetermined agenda, with attendant biased facilitators.

The general public has never been afforded the opportunity to ask the hard questions. And yes Doctor Brown, many of us are uncomfortable with your divisive phraseology. We would have it straight up, rather than be spoken to in code.

The PLP rules in the time honoured fashion of maintaining the ignorance of the people for personal gain. They put the bully in Bully Pulpit. The people most at risk from this government are the poor and poorly educated. The rich can flee to other opportunities.

Doctor Brown's comment that gays currently enjoy equal rights. How can this be true if hate speech is publically acceptable and articulated by supposed role models in society, the church, politicians and other members of the public.

Yes Mr. Rance, I am sceptical. I wonder how anonymous students would be treated if trying to ask the hard questions in a general audience back in Bermuda.

[Minioin on 26.11.06 at 09:17]

Actually I don't remember any government allowing open questions in such a broad forum.

Not bad. Not bad. I know of course that Bermudians politicians are great at opening well and then disappointing everyone. And often good MPs have turned into poor Premiers. Maybe a egotisitical and rhetorically ambiguous MP turns into a good Premier. Stranger things have happened.

Its not a bad opening. It is certainly more engaged, involving and ingenuous than I have come to expect in Bermuda. Not bad.

[jake on 26.11.06 at 10:31]

Bonnie,

Not sure what hate speech you are referring to. I know there is a need for reform in our Human Rights legislation, but that is to remedy the deficiency in housing, education, and employment. I do not think the Church need alter its position, nor do I think their position amounts to hate speech. To be sure, there are individuals who cross the line and that is deplorable, but in our search for a fair society we must not become unfair.

As for Dr. Brown's event, I think it is a good thing to provide a basis for students to become politically active. I do feel that there is too much emphasis placed on his language and too little on the issues he is articulating, which for a huge part of our community are real, and resonate soundly. Your discomfort with his terminology pales in comparison to that.

[RB on 26.11.06 at 11:03]

"I wonder how anonymous students would be treated if trying to ask the hard questions in a general audience back in Bermuda.”

I went to one of the public forum meetings on the boundary changes back in 2000. The panel consisted of L.B.Evans, E. Brown, D. Allen and J. Smith. I spoke and expressed my opinion that the young white population had nothing to do with the political occurrences of the past and wished to participate in Bermudas future without racial division. To this comment I was heckled and shouted at with "sit down whiteboy" and, "you had your turn" whilst Brown and his colleagues smirked with joy at my humiliation, their actions or lack of, endorsed the intimidation of opposing views and opinions.

So yes bonnie, your observation is absolutely correct.

[Edward Rance on 26.11.06 at 11:20]

Apologies for not including this, but I was working from memory alone and the following has only just occurred to me: Dr. Brown also affirmed his commitment to affordable housing and the construction of further low cost housing units. He cited plans to form a committee composed of financial experts to address the present, astronomical rents and to take action to lower the average cost of rental accomodation.

[Kate on 26.11.06 at 12:36]

So Dr. Brown managed to claim that the granting of UK home fees for university was thanks to him. The man makes me cringe - he has no decency. He is a shameless liar and a bit stupid since the concession and the reasons for it have been reported in the UK press.

[Bermudian on 26.11.06 at 12:45]

I think that this is a great thing. And since the PLP-haters are out again, it just shows that no matter what Dr. Brown does, it will always be seen in a negative light by people on this site.

Concerning the plantation question, again, if you cant understand what he is talking about from the start, then it is near impossible to try and explain it to you. The stubbornness that comes from some people is amazing. I understand exactly where the other side is coming from...but they seem to be in the dark when it comes to seeing where Dr. Brown is coming from.

[SarahT on 26.11.06 at 12:53]

Kate - he didn't claim it was thanks to him at all. In fact he specifically singled out Alex Scott for credit for that from the Bermudian side - as in Mr. Scott was the person putting in the work from Bermuda to make that happen. He also specifically asked students how they felt about that almost immediately (large applause), and told them to make sure they take advantage of it.

[Melanie Eddy on 26.11.06 at 13:23]

Thanks Edward for being so prompt in opening discussion on the event.

I was in attendence at this annual event for the second time. I must say that Dr. Brown's approach was radically different than the previous premier's. Now I am sure opinions/perceptions of those present at both events will differ. However, I seem to recall a differing emphasis as Mr. Scott spent quite a lot of time face to face and less time behind a podium, albeit Dr. Brown did spend the majority of his time behind it fielding questions. Both approaches have their own merits.

Perhaps this is reflective of the differing composition of the head table. One glaringly obvious difference was the absence of the UK-Bermuda Liason representative from the UK Parliament ( I believe it was MP Ian Davidson last year). Not sure what this signifies, I'm sure there are a series of factors involved...

There was clear contradictions in the message projected between both Senator Caines and Premier Brown specifically in regards to responses to questions regarding Human Rights legislation and the government's relationship with the media. (No need to reiterate as an accurate account is given above.) I just think it will be interesting to see how one fosters a progressive cosmopolitan (words used within context by speakers) society with the current apparent positions on these two issues.

[SmokingGun on 26.11.06 at 13:34]

Edward Rance - thanks for a very good report on the dinner. It came across as without bias which is most important. But for heavens sake please do not disclose the colour of your skin as that will surely cast doubts. ;-)

As to what Kate just pointed out. I had to cringe at that as well. :-)

[novote on 26.11.06 at 13:41]

Kate - And the reasons are?

[SmokingGun on 26.11.06 at 14:05]

Come to think of it what terribly bad timing for Alex Scott. Had the UK papers come out with the tuition article just a couple of weeks before Doc Hollywood claimed Tiger was coming to town or the local media had mis-placed his memo that Club Med was a bust then maybe the old P would still be P.

Cudo's to Alex Scott if he was in fact the man that pushed the reduced tuition rates through.

[Martin on 26.11.06 at 15:08]

Bermudian...

It would be a relief...indeed a novel event...if everytime someone has a go at either the PLP or UBP...someone would stop calling it "hating" or words similar.

Let's just accept that if we do not like what the party in power does, or what the Opposition do, then we will criticise it!!

Sheesh!!

[Melanie Eddy on 26.11.06 at 19:41]

In response to a comment posted by Bermudian - Not sure if you were in attendence but I think the general consensus of those present (and not present) was that events like this were a good thing and commended Dr. Brown and others involved for facilitating such an event.

Also of note is that both sides (if I may borrow your language, although I not sure if you are referring to political or racial 'sides') questioned the use of terms like 'plantation'. Both in regards to contextual reference and in regards to whether its use was devisive. Although using 'sides' kind of implies that there are only two sides which interests me because if you are referring to affliations your statement suggests at least four: plp-supporters, non-plp supporters, those with an inherant understanding of the analogy of plantation and those without an inherant understanding of the analogy of plantation. Unless you believe that some of these 'sides' are one in the same.

If we are sticking to the two side analogy (assuming that was your intention), and perhaps I am being pedantic but can one side know exactly where the other side is coming from if it is on the opposite side? And if it can (as you suggest), then surely if we are speaking of two sides of the same hypothetical object then the other side would share a similar understanding or at least potential understanding.

[kibee on 26.11.06 at 22:17]

I don't think the article lacked bias, esp regarding the human rights bill. But I'm glad this article was written, and happy that Bermudians studying in the UK get this opportunity.

[Bermudian on 27.11.06 at 01:11]

Mel,

ok, someone is really overthinking what i said...sides? yes...there are two...those who understand and those who do not...regardless of political affiliation or race.

Regarding those who 'thought it was a good thing', I was referring to those ppl above who still managed to find something wrong with the Premier taking the time out to meet with Bermuda's future leaders.

Martin,

As for using the word hating, perhaps we're not on the same page there (I hate to pass things off as cultural differences, but in this instance I believe it is valid).

[Kate on 27.11.06 at 09:10]

The reason that I found it disgusting that the Government claimed any responsibility for this is because it had nothing to do with the Bermuda Government at all. It was the United Nations!!!!

The concession is to all of Britain's territory worldwide, including the Falkland Islands. Claiming any part of the credit for the Bermuda Government is just lying.

[novote on 27.11.06 at 10:03]

Kate - What was reported in the UK press? I don't believe Ewart Brown had the slightest influence of this decision, but I'd like to understand what did.

[JJ on 27.11.06 at 10:55]

I have to say that I had never heard of this issue being raised or fought for by Alex Scott in the past and so, to some degree, it seems a bit disingenuous to claim it as some kind of victory by the PLP.

[SmokingGun on 27.11.06 at 11:38]

Kate - I guess they figured people wouldn't believe the United Nations actually ever got anything done. ;-)

Bermudian - can't for the life of me figure out where you got the idea that people have a problem with the Premier attending an already scheduled annual event in order to hear what the possible leaders of tomorrow have to say. Unless of course in your mind just showing up gives him a free pass on accountability.

And as far as the use of the "Plantation Question" Doc Brown needs to get with the program. Today is 2006 and the fact that we have instant global communication makes any question that "might not have been asked of someone" even 10 years ago a very moot point.

In an instant Michael Richardson's career can implode (deservedly so) because of a camera phone. Sooner rather than later I have faith the future leaders of Bermuda are going to tell Doc Hollywood to quit dodging the questions and just tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Or they'll start looking for someone who will.

[SarahT on 27.11.06 at 12:37]

Gosh you lot. He never said the entire thing (UK cutting fees) was all Alex Scott's idea, he just said a lot of work had gone in - from all sides - and Scott was the main one pushing it from the Bermuda angle. They had a part in it, the students should take advantage, that's all he was saying!

[The Christian Fist of Gratitude on 27.11.06 at 13:20]

According to ex colleagues in W'hall this was a move that was enacted to bring UK in line with other EU states (esp France and its obligations). Basically Bermuda & other dominions got an email telling them of the change and if they want to claim credit for it then knock yourself out...

[JJ on 27.11.06 at 18:06]

Sarah T , do you recall ever hearing or reading that this was an issue that Alex Scott had raised any time in the last three years?
I am not saying he didn't, just that I don't recall it that's all. If you do then please enlighten me.
Given that such an advantage would have been another nail the independence coffin, I find it difficult to believe that he was pushing for it that hard.

[Bermudian on 27.11.06 at 18:16]

SG,

I was specifically referring to the first post that was made, and the following posts that supported it.

Somehow Ms. Critchley goes into a tirade about Doc Brown not doing exactly what he just finished doing in London.

Just because it wasn't done on home soil doesn't make a difference. As for asking the hard questions, I think we have all seen that Premier Brown is even willing to engage with some of his harshest critics (e.g. Limey).

And regarding the plantation questions, the only thing he is truly concerned about is fairness... why is he being asked certain questions and the PLP being labeled as corrupt when similar actions previously done by others have been accepted without question. Even today people are willing to voice support for members of the community who clearly had ties to oppressive regimes (oh, but that's ok because they gave to charity afterwards). It's kind of hypocritical and rather unfair.

[SmokingGun on 27.11.06 at 19:21]

Bermudian - all I can say is I'd rather hear him point out those instances that you refer to and either say "well guess what we're doing it too" (which is pretty much what using the PQ does I guess) or use the opportunity to prove he's above what has happened in the past and is willing to show true statesmanship in leading "all" of Bermuda forward. But to completely dodge a question through such rhetoric leaves a lot of people wondering if there is a bunch of shenanigans going on. Which in my most humblest opinion is unfair to the many who are truly striving to take the high road and looking to make sure we leave Bermuda a better place for our children's children.

[VB on 28.11.06 at 09:37]

I don't mean to belittle the usefulness of a Premier hosting a dinner for Bermuda university students. I think it is a good thing.

I do question the venue, one of Londons most expensive hotels. I would not suggest a British version of Dennys either for such an event.

Perhaps a bit more fiscal prudence from the leader of an island no bigger than a small US town would be more appropriate than a level & location more fitting of a large devolped country.

Something stinks here & is at taxpayer expense.

Never mind the size of P Browns ego, he is NOT a president. Influencing the minds of students with fancy meals while playing politics is totally out of order.

[SarahT on 28.11.06 at 12:18]

JJ:

"Sarah T , do you recall ever hearing or reading that this was an issue that Alex Scott had raised any time in the last three years?"

I don't! But, as you said, that doesn't mean that he - and everyone else involved - weren't working on it. Especially if others like the UN were involved he probably couldn't make it public.

At any rate my only point is they weren't trying to take credit for the UK giving all British Overseas Territories this break, Dr B was just saying Alex Scott had worked on it and giving him his due. A minor point, really.

[SmokingGun on 28.11.06 at 12:47]

Ya know something VB - I'd say I have to agree. Kind of sticks it in the craw of all the other Bermudians who can't afford to attend school in the UK.... yet.

[Ali on 28.11.06 at 13:09]

VB, Don't you know that the Mandarin Oriental is 'home away from home' for anyone associated with Government when they are in London? This has been the case for the last 7 years and includes civil servants, I have seen them there on many occasions. It is not illegal for our tax payers money to be spent in this way but it does show how highly they think of themselves. Perhaps it's part of a long term plan to encourage students to get into politics.

[Melanie Eddy on 28.11.06 at 18:20]

Ali, VB - Just a thought but do you think that the use of the Mandarin Oriental might be due to it's Bermuda connection. Elbow beach is part of the Mandarin Oriental Group. Mind you The Savoy also has a connection to Bermuda as well, as it is part of the Fairmont group. I hadn't heard of the Mandarin Hotel as a 'home away from home' before. I have known/heard of people 'associated with government' also residing at other London hotels when they are in town.

Last year the event was held at Westminster and was much earlier, say October. So perhaps it had more to do with scheduling? Getting venues for large numbers close to christmas in London has to be a challenge.

[SmokingGun on 28.11.06 at 18:34]

Dang Melanie - someone's always got to come up with a practical reason behind our Government's largesse. Hmm, better book the Savoy next year just to keep the Fairmont happy. Oh wait, they already get all the PLP shindigs. Oh well, back to the Burj I guess. ;-)

[Bill Cook on 28.11.06 at 20:37]

Traditionally the Grosvenor House on Park Lane was the hotel of choice for many Bermudians.

It is centrally located overlooking Hyde Park and well suited for conventions as it hosts the antique show etc.

I have stayed there on many occasions and found the facilities excellent esp the incredible breakfasts.

It costs one half of the cost of the Mandarin, and its afternoon tea is very good.

[Melanie Eddy on 29.11.06 at 17:09]

Smoking Gun - My comment was merely posing a possible reason for the choice of venue. Basicially taking into consideration that the current Premier is also Minister of Tourism and that members of the London office of the Dept. of Tourism were also in attendence. (I myself was surprised at the location of the event when I received the invitation.) I hardly think that is a broad sweeping statement endorsing government largesse.

Bill - Thank you for your informed comment. It definately helped in refining the context of the discussion and lent some perspective.

[SmokingGun on 29.11.06 at 19:24]

Melanie - Please do not take any offense to my verbosity. It's in my nature when given an opportunity to take a pot shot at our ballooning government expenditures whilst also getting a chance to deflate their egos. It's like bagging two birds with one shot. Your point was most valid but as Bill pointed out there are other less expensive options. And seeing as this was the 4th Annual I'm sure they had plenty of time to figure out where to make a reservation.