Delayed relief undermines public trust

THE EDITOR, Madam:

As I read The Gleaner’s report on Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s defence of the non-use of donated Hurricane Melissa funds, I am left to conclude that he is deflecting. Referencing the more than $67 billion projected for relief efforts does not address the inefficiency and apparent mismanagement of donated funds.

It is understood that disaster recovery would require more than donations alone, especially given the more than 100,000 households reportedly affected. Naturally, the Government would need to find additional resources. However, the critical question remains: why did people donate in the first place? Many did so because of the urgent and immediate needs of those impacted.

I personally chose to support recovery efforts through an individual distributing supplies directly to affected communities. I did not contribute to the state-run fund, and, in hindsight, I am relieved I did not.

One would have expected the Government to operate a more coordinated and efficient system than the fragmented distribution seen, where some areas received an abundance of aid while others were left with little or nothing. Donors were unlikely to anticipate that, months later, 98 per cent of contributions would still be sitting unused while individuals continued to suffer, some still living under tarpaulin.

Common sense suggests that, with less bureaucracy, these funds could have been deployed more quickly and effectively to support recovery in a structured manner. Instead, the delay raises serious concerns about priorities and responsiveness. The $1.4 billion was intended for immediate relief, not prolonged inactivity.

If this approach reflects the Government’s strategy, then it is difficult to see it as anything other than a case of misplaced priorities — or, more bluntly, ‘common nonsense’.

MARK CLARKE