Hot air from Hinds

THE EDITOR: Let me convey the thanks of a grateful nation to my colleague Fitzgerald Ethelbert Hinds on the signal achievement that he announced on Tuesday. Serious crimes are down! Never mind that murders are up. You don’t have to worry as much as you used to about being slapped, cuffed, kicked, choked, chopped or planassed. Today’s criminals will get right to the point and shoot you dead. I assume we are expected to take some comfort in that.

He also points out that while murders are up, shootings overall are down. This suggests a lower rate of wasted bullets among the criminal fraternity, with a decrease in amateurish non-fatal shooting attempts and a more professional “one shot, one kill” approach, no doubt reflecting the proliferation of unofficial shooting ranges where gang recruits perfect their aim.

Once again, my learned colleague is seemingly celebrating a greater degree of professionalism and focus among criminals, who no longer beat around the bush and beat you up, but are practised in killing with a couple of shots to centre mass and head.

He also helpfully pointed out that the Rose Hill RC students and teachers were overreacting to gunshots 200 metres away. Was the minister suggesting that the people of Rose Hill are supposed to consider automatic gunfire a normal part of their daily life (and death), as if Rose Hill could be any city in Ukraine, where bullets fly daily and children’s lives are cheap? When they hear gunshots, are they just expected to take it for granted and let the Devil take the hindmost?

As Minister of National Security, he would know that a popular gun such as the AR-15 has an effective range of 400 to 500 metres, and that the 5.56 x 45 mm rounds it fires can penetrate heavy wooden doors. However, this should not have been too much of a concern if the school had proper bulletproof doors and windows and the students and teachers had proper, up-to-date uniforms with body armour and helmets, as any reasonable school should in the free-fire zone that our country has turned into.

But that’s not all. Our National Security Minister has extended his portfolio into education. He has given us a lesson that it’s not the job of the TT National Security Minister to make citizens feel safe, unlike similar ministers in other countries across the world. This must be a special feature of our nation’s Constitution that I have somehow missed in several close readings. Maybe he can kindly read that part to the nation.

This is a highly unusual interpretation of the functioning of a state (or any society). Is he suggesting that the security of our state (unlike any other state) and its people is not the responsibility of its leaders? Throughout the history of civilisation, it has been the responsibility of the king, president, prime minister, sultan, ooni or moulay to maintain a body of men-at-arms who protect the citizens from external and internal threats, and such a body has a designated chief. And in turn citizens give their trust and taxes to such an administration, rather than being expected to defend themselves in daily shoot-outs, as obtained in the Wild, Wild West.

Alternatively, is he suggesting that the Prime Minister, President or Minister of Finance should step up and personally do the job, as he prefers to fiddle while Rome burns? Don’t forget that Emperor Nero was a child of Rome.

Hinds seems to suggest that a laissez-faire approach to crime is the way to go, and that he is merely a policymaker for the police, who, in turn, are a regulatory body supervising the criminal industry and reining in its excesses, and, surely, it is the job of parents, teachers, vigilantes, pastors or bystanders to keep society safe. That is certainly not the approach taken in nations like the UK and Singapore, where largely peaceful societies are secured by uncompromising law enforcement, with overt or covert use of force when needed.

Even here, when we take a matter seriously, such as airport or presidential security, we don’t depend on churches, mosques and temples to pray away presidential assassins, nor on parents to raise children who don’t want to take weapons aboard aircraft.

Finally, I wish to congratulate Hinds on his breathtaking discovery that CCTV cameras can be a useful tool in the fight against crime. While I seem to recollect CCTV cameras being introduced in profusion for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting under a past administration, no doubt this iteration of the CCTV project will have a novel flair and style, coming as it does from Hinds’s headquarters? Or is this just more hot air from his hindquarters?

DINESH RAMBALLY

MP, Chaguanas West