LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

A CONFUSING ROUNDABOUT

Sir, I would like to make a few comments regarding our newest monument, the Providence Roundabout’. This monstrosity has taken years to get off the ground. The area in which it now stands has a history of many, many accidents. I wonder if the ‘new roundabout’ is also an accident waiting to happen.

I note already that many of the road users are confused as to who gets right of way at the roundabout. Other drivers speed ahead recklessly and then force their way into the merging lane leading into the roundabout.

Others find themselves simply in the wrong lane because the marking is inadequate. The arrows demarking the lane direction appear only as you enter the roundabout. There is no obvious signage at some distance before you enter the roundabout. Changing lanes mid stream is not only difficult, it is dangerous.

In an effort to educate users, the government media has placed a leaflet in the Nation. Sounds Great!! Only problem the roundabout in the leaflet bears little resemblance to the one at Providence. If drivers take any notice and obey the instructions set out in the leaflet, it’s anyone’s guess as to the consequence.

The area in question is used by countless numbers of pedestrians crossing daily to enter Providence Estate. Has there been any consideration given to their safety? It appears not. They now have to contend with trying to cross, between traffic at a busy roundabout.

Will government do something before accidents become evident? A simple causeway over the road should have been completed even before the roundabout was made.

I understand from the government spokesman on TV that they intend to erect a monument at the site. Will it be a monument to those unfortunates who will or have lost their lives at the site? Indeed, at a time when this country is struggling to find a few dollars to buy food, medicine or pay off long overdue debts, do we need ‘another monument’? There are literally millions of roundabouts around the world, however, almost without exception, it appears to be the impoverished, developing, dictatorial States that erect monuments to themselves wherever they go.  ‘Plus ca change’.

An interested Observer

WATER FOR LIFE

Sir, I would be most grateful if you could publish these few comments on an article which appeared in the ‘Nation’ last Saturday, on World Water Day.

The article urges us to ‘Celebrate Seychelles’ because we have access to water, while ‘many developing countries do not’. I think it is high time that the government stops its comparison between Seychelles and developing countries. We are clearly a middle income country not a ‘developing country.

We have an expectation as a population that Government will provide us with good potable water to meet our needs. The frequent shortages of water in Seychelles as every one are not the result of our development pressures, or of La Nina or of wasteful activities on the part of consumers.

Yes these things can have a negative impact on available supplies, but this is not the cause of the shortages. There have been numerous, costly, studies completed to ascertain the water needs of Seychelles for decades to come.

The overwhelming recommendation of these studies is that Government gets its act together. That it replace all of the old piping system which is causing so much loss of water. Most importantly, that no matter how effective it is in conserving water with the assistance of the population, because of natural growing demand, it has no option but to develop additional reservoir storage and collection facilities.

It is now no big secret that PUC collects less than six percent of the rainwater in Seychelles. If this so small amount is capable for supplying a large part of our present needs would it not make sense to double or triple our reservoir capacity?

Government it seems is not interested in doing it the easy, effective, efficient way. It has the ‘Seychelles way’ up its sleeve. Blame the consumers or La Nina, when we run out of water.

A Government Committee, largely comprising of the same ‘exceptionally skilled and gifted individuals was convened to review the many high level, costly, consultancy reports and their conclusion, remarkably mirrors that of the external experts. Save and store more water instead of allowing it to run off into the sea.

Do you think government will respond, even to its own committee? On this issue it will not. Instead it is targeting the two less important steps in the plan to save water, that is convince households to use alternate water saving devices, something it should have started years ago. Never mind that these devices are not available in Seychelles, not even in Government housing and repairing broken pipes.

Let us all be ‘water wise’ and this includes government and how it manages this precious resource. Letting 94% of it run into the sea is not what accountable government is all about. It is about taking the necessary steps to secure the long term needs of the people.

Trimming at the edges provides temporary solutions to meet some of the present demands it does not address but which is to come.

A Waterwise Citizen

‘Gouvernman i la  pour stividorz’?

Sir, I would be grateful if you could publish these few comments about the article which appeared in the ‘The People’ newspaper in relation to the government’s decision to pay the stevedores for work that will be undertaken in cleaning up the Port area during down times, when there are no tuna vessels in Port Victoria.

Our work contributes second only to tourism as a pillar of the economy. The government gets many millions, (almost half a billion rupees), from the results of our work. The work of stevedoring is hard, long, exhausting and stressful and this is reflected in the fact, admitted by government, that stevedoring contributes to the greatest number of workplace injuries in Seychelles.

We, stevedores like many others, have families to support and home loans to pay off. The government will pay us it seems Sr 1,400 per month for our work. I wonder whether the government really believes that our families can survive on Sr 1,400 per month.

They will be conducting a study on poverty in Seychelles soon. Look in our direction, you will find more than 700 of us alone. No employer is going to take us on for a half day work. We will be forced to ‘mandyan’ to survive.

Ask Dr Patrick Herminie if he can help us out. It was he who said in the National Assembly that a Seychellois family needed at least Sr 2300 per month as a minimum salary. He spoke of government introducing a ‘minimum wage’ for all workers in Seychelles. Are we not workers also?

Seychelles Weekly, March 31, 2006