The Editor, Sir:

In an effort to curtail and discourage illegal activities, the Government, on occasion, has conceived innovative and ingenious propositions that are intended to discourage such activities.

Some of these proposed solutions, in the past, lacked vision, consideration and effectiveness. Consequently, one is often left, at times, with the option of questioning the intent and thinking of Government.

This brings me to the latest of such proposition, the contemplated move to impose sanctions and penalties on passengers who utilise the services of illegal taxi operators, as was outlined in an article on June 14, in The Sunday Gleaner, under the caption ' Passenger penalty-fines mooted for use of public transport'. Essentially, it was stated that the Government was contemplating imposing fines on individuals who use the services of illegal transportation 'in its bid to bring uniformity to the transport sector'. An initiative, which I think, if it is pursued, is a retrograde step on the part of the Government and certainly lacks depth of thought.

Lacks effectiveness

Commuters in various communities who use public passenger vehicles have always borne the brunt of an inept transportation system that lacks effectiveness. The JUTC bus service is not reliable and there are two few buses to accommodate the immense commuter traffic on a daily basis and the legal taxi operators are ineffective and restricted. Unfortunately, because of this state of affairs, the illegal operators filled this gap and in most instances have proven to be even more reliable and efficient than the licensed operators.

Now, should we be made to understand that commuters should be penalised for wanting an efficient system that gets them where they want to go? Or should not the Government be looking at improving the efficiency of the existing system; improving regulation and enforcement; enforcing effectively existing laws, which can be effective in curtailing the illegal activities, if the human resources needed are employed and deployed and the acquisition of additional resources to tackle the problem are pursued vigorously.

These propositions, in my estimation, are the likely solution to curtailing the existing problems and not some frivolous and nonsensical argument that seeks to penalise an already overburdened society.

I am, etc.,

ERROL McLEISH

ermarlii16@hotmail.com

Daytona, Greater Portmore

St Catherine