LETTER OF THE DAY - Lower standards is bad policy

Published: Friday | July 24, 2009


The Editor, Sir:

Prime Minister Bruce Golding in addressing the 28th General Assembly of Ministers and High Level Authorities on Housing and Urbanisation in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Montego Bay, stated his intention to lower the standards required for infrastructural development.

He suggested that the high standards were responsible for the high cost of infrastructural development thereby making housing costs to many people prohibitive. He was reported as saying We have taken a decision and I hope we don't live to regret it, that we are going to have to reduce some of the standards that we had insisted upon in terms of infrastructural development and a whole range of other things.

Ill-advised decision

I can assure the prime minister that unless they die very shortly they will live to regret any such ill-advised decision. Most certainly, however long or short they may live, if that decision is implemented, Jamaica will rue it. I was always of the view that standards are set with safety and the public interests being the primary objectives. Now we are being told that populism will take precedence. Maybe the prime minister does not believe those who are forecasting more and more hurricanes of greater intensities in the future. Things are equally gloomy as far as earthquake forecasts are concerned. Torrent showers capable of doing tremendous damages are frequent occurrences. In light of what is common knowledge and scientific projections, the intent to lower standards is baffling.

The prime minister should be reminded that the loss of lives and damage to property are greatest where the infrastructure is substandard. It is imprudent, bordering on downright recklessness, to take such a decision and then hope not to regret it. I sincerely trust that there is sufficient 'backbone' within the Cabinet to advise the prime minister against his stated intention and that he will heed good counsel.

I would suggest that the concern for infrastructural costs be addressed by looking at:

Increased project-management efficiency

Creative design and material selection

The elimination of extortion from projects.

The lowering of standards is most definitely not the way to go. I would be very happy to be informed that the report was wrong or that upon review the stated intention has been abandoned.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

Kingston