This is a country of big meetings. Perhaps all developing countries are. But there it is: in come some heavyweight international worthies to sensitise, persuade or instruct us in relation to a particular topic which is often, but not always, of greater interest to them than to us. The invitees are not expected to slum it; the meeting will not take place in some raucous downtown venue, and snacks or a meal or both will be served. There will be the bonus of the expected opening address by one – or on a particularly fortunate day, even two – ministers of government, and thereafter, experts will hold forth, maybe even questions will be asked, or decisions taken. Whatever the case, everyone goes home happy at the end of the session, secure in the knowledge that a good day’s work has been done, and the problem, whatever form it might take, is well on its way to being solved.
There are, of course, some issues like oil, which need this kind of exposure in addition to the input of foreign consultants, given that we are so naïve in that area, but there are others where the justifications are not so clear.
Last week, the citizenry learned from the state paper that there was what it captioned a ‘War on noise nuisance.’ Exactly why we should need a meeting including an international contribution on noise nuisance must have puzzled readers at first; after all, the thousands who suffer from it in this land of ours already know what has to be done and hardly need any advice from foreign consultants. But it turned out that this was not about noise nuisance in general, but noise nuisance in the workplace.
The purpose of the meeting, it would seem, was to draft noise regulations which were in consonance with the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) code of practice on exposure to noise in the workplace, which was passed by its governing body in 1975. One can only observe that this is not an industrial society, which is not the same thing as to say that we don’t need workplace noise regulations; we do. However, as suggested earlier, it is to say that this is an unbelievably noisy society and much of that noise harassment is not coming from the workplace, per se.
Of course, workplace noise nuisance has its own bureaucratic umbrella, which was why Minister Keith Scott was on hand on this occasion. Noise nuisance in general, however, falls under the portfolio of Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, the Minister of Public Security, and he has not demonstrated any great energy where that is concerned.
The meeting did acknowledge information from the World Health Organisation, which is well known: namely, that exposure to excessive noise is the main cause of deafness. It was noted that teenagers can be at risk owing to the unsafe use of audio equipment and the exposure to uncontrolled noise at entertainment venues. While this age group may have been singled out by the WHO in relation to entertainment venues, in fact, these affect everybody, as any number of little rum shops, beer gardens and discos blare out their music at all hours of the day and night. They often have their boom boxes sited on the pavement outside, playing at a volume to cause the neighbouring houses to vibrate.
And then we have categories of workers exposed to noise nuisance which they themselves don’t recognise as noise nuisance, and which the ILO has never thought about, to wit, minibus drivers and conductors. It so happens that in the first place, there are regulations on the statute books already about music in minibuses, but these are at best only sporadically enforced, and in the second, some of the passengers are as keen on loud and sometimes vulgar music being played in a bus as are the workers. It might be added that neither the police nor the workers who beaver away in the Ministry of Public Security seem aware of the connection researchers have found between fast music and speeding.
And what about the music cart vendors? They can be a workplace hazard all in their own right, especially when they park their carts in front of a business to sell to a number of customers.
There are other examples of this type, but in a general sense, the society has learnt to tolerate far too much ‘entertainment’ noise. Small children are taken to parties where music is played at a high decibel level, which accustoms them to a loud volume and will damage their hearing if it is done often enough. In other words, noise nuisance is a general societal problem, and not one confined to one segment of life’s experience.
As such, over and above whatever draft regulations are drawn up for the workplace – which one cannot help but feel did not require a large assembly but could have been accomplished by more modest means with a visiting expert – there needs to be a major campaign against noise nuisance throughout the society. That doesn’t need a big meeting either; it just requires the Minister and the Commissioner of Police to ensure that the laws are systematically enforced, and if found to be defective for the purpose, for the government to go to Parliament with amendments.
Everyone should be entitled to a bit of quietness in his or her own home: children should be allowed to do their homework without having to struggle through the fog of noise from a nearby beer garden; adults should be able to watch their TVs or listen to their radios without the sound being drowned out; and the sick in hospital or in their house should be entitled to some peace. And to start with, there should be a widespread campaign informing the public about the damage noise nuisance does to hearing.
