Paradox to answer

WE WOULD like someone more perspicacious than us, someone having greater clairvoyant powers, to attempt to solve the paradox, or mystery, which the spate of kidnappings, on the one hand, and the UNC's approach to this dreadful problem, on the other, present to the country.

The essence of the paradox is the following contradiction. Almost all of the criminal abductions take place in UNC constituencies and almost all of the victims appear to be either supporters of the Opposition party or the children of such supporters. If only for this reason alone, one expects that the UNC would be anxious to cooperate fullly with the authorities in the effort to deal with this proliferating crime. But no, the UNC remain adamant in their policy decision not to support Government legislation which includes the Kidnapping Bill designed, among other things, to make the offence unbailable and to empower the authorities to seize the assets of abductors.

Now would somebody please explain that mystery to us? We do not believe we labour under a delusion when we expect, indeed demand, that those elected to seek the people's interest should exhibit a respectable degree of logic, consistency, insight and clear-headedness in their approach to solving national problems. The strange thing is that the UNC appear to be quite agitated and frustrated by the kidnapping situation. However, instead of supporting the effort to improve the relevant legislation, the party is coming up with such dubious ideas as setting up a kind of vigilante anti-kidnapping squad, importing foreign mercenaries to liquidate kidnappers and again calling for the resignation of National Security Minister Howard Chin Lee.

It appears, then, that apart from their confrontational rhetoric and obstructionist stand, the UNC themselves have little or nothing to offer in terms of addressing the crime, particularly the kidnapping, problem. In the present circumstances, it can hardly be enough for the UNC to reject the Kidnapping Bill on the grounds that is is "fundamentally flawed" without explaining why. They have had enough time to study the Bill and the country would now be quite anxious to hear their reasons for the wholesale condemnation of this piece of legislation when it comes up for debate. Why are the UNC against the Bill's central intent: To make kidnapping a non-bailable offence and to empower the authorities to seize assets derived from the proceeds of this particular crime?

Why, on the one hand, the UNC proposes such a radical and foolish idea as hiring foreign "hit men" to rid the country of kidnappers while, on the other, they are objecting to the two main purposes of this Bill? All this is part of the paradox which we expect the UNC themselves will be able to unravel when they make their contributions on the Bill. Because of the UNC's declared anguish over the kidnapping scourge, it may well be that they would prefer to see more stringent and harsher measures taken against those found guilty of this crime. Indeed that should be the logical outcome of their expressed outrage, particularly when they accuse the Government of being in an "unholy alliance with kidnappers and perpetrators of crime". Maybe the "fundmental flaw" they find in the Bill is the feeling that it is not strong enough. Maybe that is the answer to the paradox.

The country will have to wait and see. But if this does not solve the mystery of the UNC's contradictions on the issue of kidnapping — a crime which has all the hallmarks of being orchestrated — then the matter may well be subject to other interpretations.