“Not because I say so it’s so.” This phrase used by Dr Ptolemy Reid when addressing members of his party is indelibly printed in my memory.
Much concern has been expressed over the order that taxis should be painted yellow by August 2010. Criticisms are made in private, but public statements are few. A report was made that taxi-drivers held a meeting to consider the order, but nothing more has been heard.
The concerns raised are:
Is it an amendment to the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act?
■ If so, was a Bill debated in Parliament allowing comments by Members of Parliament?
■ If there is no Bill, is this a decree?
■ If it is a decree, does our constitution allow governance by decree?
■ Does the order refer to taxi services alone or to all taxis?
■ With all taxis painted the same colour criminal activity will be enhanced.
■ Criminals can paint their vehicles yellow and escape detection in the crowd.
■ Taxi drivers are exposed to ambush on the Timehri Road when transporting passengers from the airport to Georgetown. They will be exposed to greater danger when their cars are easily identified. Drivers may be attacked and robbed of their day’s takings.
■ Passengers using taxis to make purchases or visit banks will experience difficulty in identifying their cars when other taxis are parked in close proximity.
■ What is the penalty for not obeying the order?
■ Consumers are complaining about the rise in food prices and VAT. The use of taxis has been curtailed and this has affected the income of taxi-drivers. These are hard times and the cost of repainting a car is estimated be $153,000. That expenditure is not necessary if the taxi is already well painted.
■ Taxi-drivers will have to take loans from banks and pay high interest rates.
■ A promise is made of a rebate of $9,000. Is this considered adequate compensation? If this is a legal charge should not VAT be removed from the paint and the painting service?
There has been little open criticism of the order as consumers fear victimisation.
Years ago an order was issued to public servants not to attend a “protest march.” A friend of mine joined the procession. She received an income tax assessment for one million dollars although she had no income other than her salary. She suffered a stroke and died.
Further I say not.
* * * * * *
Sea wall noise nuisance
Why was permission granted to persons to hold a lime on the Subryanville sea wall on Easter Monday?
The noise nuisance caused by a car with boom boxes in the trunk, began at 3.30 pm and continued until 7.30 pm when Kitty police officers were persuaded to intervene. The Minister of Home Affairs is bent on eradicating noise nuisance, but policemen seem not to understand when noise becomes a nuisance.
On Easter Monday residents of Subryan-ville and Bel Air Gardens were bombarded with noise for a period of four hours.
In addition, it is reported that the movement of people on the grass is weakening the wall that protects us from the sea. This is a time to strengthen, not weaken, the wall.
