Not another crime pappyshow

FOLLOWING the brazen, horrific murders from Gonzales to the Port of Spain hospital, a worried Dr Rowley declared last Tuesday: “The government is ready to discuss this and similar initiatives with our parliamentary colleagues, if only they will see it as their job too.”

In other circumstances, this would have sounded quite statesmanlike, even providing some hope to a population filled with fear.

However, the Government and Opposition had walked that beaten path last year. Nothing came of it partly because each side showed obstinacy by clinging on to superficial conditions which derailed the main purpose. The public saw that attempt and its regrettable failure as a pappyshow.

To come now with the same proposal, especially with no clear workable conditions, according to one talk-show host, appears to be just a “political mamaguy.”

However, I have no doubt, given the crime situation, the PM means well this time.

But political perception now supersedes promises. So both UNC deputy leader Dr Roodal Moonilal and United Patriots’ leader Rushton Paray not unexpectedly, harshly rebuffed Dr Rowley’s offer. Perhaps the government thought there was an outside chance that Paray’s United Patriot would have accepted the offer.

Dr Moonilal bluntly said: “At this 99th hour, when the arrogance and incompetence of Rowley, Young and Hinds have plunged our nation into utter chaos, the people are stringent in the call for general elections…No amount of talking to Rowley can bring hope and security.”

Obviously, the Opposition, energised by its numerous public “anti-crime talks,” is smelling election blood.

Paray declared: “Dr Rowley’s call for collaboration remains disingenuous. As Prime Minister, he bears the responsibility of fostering an environment conducive to consensus building and accommodation.”

He then diplomatically opened a window: “I am confident that the leader of the Opposition will engage in dialogue when there are genuine signals of collaboration and respect.”

Ah, that word “respect” again.

Sometimes I wonder who really advises the government on crime and national security.

The Strategic Services Agency (SSA) is in serious trouble. The detection of murders suffers a dismally low 12-15 per cent rate, the Police Service Commission (PSC) is itself handicapped, the parliamentary system of political accountability is nakedly ineffective, while all this and more remain without remedial proposals. Do the politicians like it so?

Newspaper letter-writer Jeremy Jones alleged last week: “These politicians and their colleagues on both sides – have an active interest in sustaining and perpetuating the lawlessness and lack of accountability that exists at all levels within this government and all previous administrations. It is these circumstances that enable the nepotism, tyranny and corruption that pervade life in Trinidad and Tobago.”

Look, while crime continues on its unchecked rampage, overwhelming a stressed-out police service, the majority of people still yearn for a better, peaceful, well-governed country.

Part of the political mystery in all this is that the government already has a viable number of available plans and recommendations to deal with crime, help the police and inspire community support. It must therefore do what it is expected to do and then call upon the public for support. Such action is more productive and responsible than calling again for “joint crime talk.”

The Government should instead take its crime plans and proposed legislation to Parliament for the required transparent debate, let the Opposition have its say and let the public judge as the county moves into election. That is, let the politicians use whatever democratic structures and processes to see which party is better to govern us.

Given the extent to which crime is connected to the country’s economy, and given the bad economic news brought by Finance Minister Colm Imbert (eg the country’s deficit expected to be “as high as $9 billion”), the political contentions are expected to grow in intensity.

Already, Housing Minister Camille Robinson-Regis dramatically alleged last week, “Tthere is a symbiotic relationship between crime and the UNC.”

And the passionate UNC Senator David Nakhid pelt back with how it is the PNM that created “crime ghettos” and the “ghetto minds” of youths.

Imbert told Parliament last week: “Accordingly, the next three years will be very challenging. In fact, unless additional tax revenue can be collected through the improvement in tax administration …the government will be faced with very difficult choices.”

Will crime increase with an economically depressed society? How will “crime talks” help?