THE EDITOR, Sir:
IT'S HARD to tell the difference. At times they both seem to have the same effect and often, it is difficult to understand how one has benefited from either. We are putting another tax on the tourist to pay for the Tourism Master Plan. How can this be right? If we can't finance our own plan then we should borrow the money because we ought to be able to show a return on the investment.
However, I have a serious concern about monies spent on advertising and promoting tourism in Jamaica. Every dollar so spent has to first overcome the negative effects of crime and violence in the minds of the potential visitor before addressing the competition. In other words, crime is already acting as a tax on tourism.
Wouldn't it be better to spend a substantial amount of those monies on more social programmes like the one in Grants Pen, on education and other initiatives aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies and forms of anti-social behaviour, in order to gradually wean the youth away from the culture of violence.
We could then allow the Great Tourism Master Plan which GOD produced when he created this fantastic little island, to work. Then we could really 'RUN WITH IT'.
If some visitors are coming here despite the crime, imagine if we succeed in containing it, not to mention the tremendous opportunities which would arise as a result. The tourist might find that, once again, they have to book in advance to come here. To simply implement a Tourism Master Plan in the present environment is to swim against the tide. To further tax the tourist under these circumstances is not only to add insult to possible injury, it just seems like a crime.
I am, etc.,
VICTOR E. NUGENT
Kingston
