SENATOR BRIAN WALLACE'S recent speech in the Senate, pointing to the dangerous decline in Jamaica's market share of the tourism industry, and the reaction of overseas Jamaicans to it, come at a time when serious attention needs to be paid to the real state of the industry.
Senator Wallace spoke from the background of a family involvement in the industry and was therefore on valid ground when he called for action on the part of those in charge of the industry to deal with the threat to the viability of Jamaica's tourism from increasing competition within the Caribbean itself.
But while the Senator urged improved marketing strategy as an answer to the situation, the response to his speech has provoked an entirely different reaction. In letters to The Gleaner, overseas Jamaicans (and others) say that they are not coming here as tourists for one powerful reason: they are afraid to come because of the crime and violence here.
There can be no doubt that the rampant criminal activity in the island has had, and continues to have, a crippling effect on tourism. Official figures from the Economic and Social Survey show that in all important aspects of the industry there has been a downturn in its performance. Visitor arrivals are down, hotel occupancy levels have fallen, and earnings from visitors have fallen off all because of the frightening crime situation.
When note is taken of the fact that criminal activity has escalated in Montego Bay, the very heart of the industry, it is dreadfully clear that our tourism is in deep trouble; and no amount of trumpeting of minor gains can any longer mask the grim truth that the industry has been grievously hurt by the monster of crime.
Senator Wallace's appeal for action to be taken to save the industry can therefore serve as a wake-up call to the government and those in charge of the industry to pull out all the stops, to deal as effectively as possible with the crime problem, and thereby rescue the industry which is so crucial to the national economy.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
