Out of the 21,000 Internet users recently surveyed by website Gizmodo, 63% agreed they favoured the ubiquitous mobile to the traditional watch as a time-indicating device. Instead of threatening watchmakers, the situation rather seems to have worked to their advantage.

The latter have anticipated the threat of time-bearing mobile phones long before they were produced at the rate of a billion units a year. To ensure the survival of their industry, they have planned and implemented a response befitting the forthcoming danger. They have worked on a new marketing strategy for the watch. According to Nick Hayek of the Swatch Group, the watch is now considered as ?an extension of the wearer?s personality? (Le Temps newspaper 19/02/08).

Watch makers have therefore rightly focused on the social importance of watches as one of their strategies to counteract competition from mobile phones. The trend bow is to consider the timepiece as an unavoidable fashion accessory indicative of the wearer?s taste and status. This contrasts with its former merely functional purpose. By being able to respond to the menace of a new time-giving device, watch makers have simply taken their responsibility towards their industry. You can bet that they are constantly evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to keep it alive and kicking.

Similarly, when we look at the situation in our country, can we sincerely consider that we have anticipated and responded accordingly to the threats that today have materialised into regrettable issues? Growing violence, indiscipline, school failures, drug addiction and discourteous behaviour are but a few examples of the problems we now are facing and that might well have been avoided if appropriate stitches were made in time.

In taking responsibility we first must agree we have situations to respond to. Playing denial by making unwarranted comparisons to the worse is not a responsible way of addressing problems. In Singapore, for instance, where the rate of crime is very low, they insist on the motto ?Low crime does not mean no crime?, hence aiming at a no-crime society. Therefore they are unrelentingly responding to the slightest change and do not take any situation for granted as they know the only constancy is change.

Have we been able to respond accordingly to the fact that more and more households are left unattended during office hours hence offering golden opportunities to burglars? Would a better cooperation with our neighbours and police force have helped a decrease in day break-ins?

Have we been able to respond accordingly to the drug issue? Would a better awareness and education on the dangers of drugs together with development of better leisure infrastructure not have contributed to discourage addiction to narcotics?

Would the development of more arts and sports academies not have addressed the academic rat race responsible for so many drop-outs? Have we realised and weighed to its right measure the fact that an athlete like Buckland has represented us in an Olympic final! How are we responding to his disappointed attitude when he says that he is now ?running for himself?? Will we not discourage others if we don?t respond accordingly?

Have we been able to forecast the threats of technology, be it mobile phones, satellite TV and Internet? Do we take the time to talk about these dangers to our children? Are we controlling the situation or are we letting technology take command of our evil bents?

Well, we have to admit though that, had many citizens in this country not been responsible, the situation could have been worse. I am thinking about all those who do their jobs well and allow the economy to flourish as it should. I am also thinking of those who constantly observe and work upon the fabrics of our society while unflinchingly responding to dangerous situations.

That is why it is worth paying tribute to Father Souchon, Cassam Uteem, Phillippe Fanchette and others who have responded rapidly to the recent violent acts in Plaine-Verte, proposing feasible solutions of non-violence and fraternity amongst others. It?s not the first time that these personalities take such stance before risks of social ills. We would recall how Father Souchon and a fellow religious figure recently responded to the mushrooming of gambling houses in Mauritius, disapproving the building of yet another outlet in the capital.

We are certainly not all weaved with the thread of Ally Lazer, Fr. Souchon and Cassam Uteem but we can all take our responsibilities to our country according to our capacity. We cannot miss opportunities because time simply doesn?t wait. Why not keep our watches to the time of responsibility, while bearing in mind that a single stitch at the right time always saves nine.

<B>Alain JEANNOT</B>