Tit-for-tat must end

WE CAN only hope that the support given to the Health and Safety Bill by the UNC Opposition in the House on Friday is a signal that the on-going legislative gridlock will soon be over. In voting for the Bill, the UNC has broken the stand it has taken not to support any government proposal unless and until it initiates discussions on constitutional reform. It may well be, however, that the Opposition has changed its mind on this particular measure because it had originated from the UNC administration and, in presenting it, Labour Minister Lawrence Achong was candid enough to praise the UNC government and his predecessor Harry Partap for the “tremendous” work they had done on it.

 Whatever the case, it is our view that the UNC Opposition cannot maintain this policy of tit-for-tat non-cooperation in parliament without eventually damaging the interests of the country and retarding its progress. While the Opposition may be highly critical of government’s performance and proposals, its purpose in our parliamentary system is certainly not to stymie the legislative process at all costs, particularly bills designed to address urgent and critical social problems. After more than 40 years of independence, no one will deny the need for updating our constitution, but the UNC cannot place this complex and democratically taxing exercise above more pressing and crucial needs of our country, such as reforming the Police Service to deal more effectively with the frightening crime problem.

The UNC may have their own opinion about fighting crime and the provisions of the Police Reform bills and, as our system provides, they would have the opportunity to express these views in parliamentary debate and even on public forums, but they cannot expect to keep faith with the national society by insisting on a policy that seriously binds the government’s hands in its efforts to deal with the most critical issue facing the country. In our editorial on Saturday, we pointed to the negative effect which the failure to upgrade the Police Service over the years has had on its ability to meet the mounting crime challenge. The package of legislation proposed by the Government is intended at long last to achieve this objective and it seems reprehensively obstructive for the UNC to be holding these three bills to ransom in their bid to force the government into discussions over constitutional reform.

For one thing, the bills will make members of the Police Service and the Commissioner far more accountable than they are now. The Police Service Commission will be replaced by a Management Authority and the CoP will be given the authority to fully control and manage the service. He will no longer be “a toothless bulldog” as former Commissioner Jules Bernard moaned when he was called upon to answer for the crime situation. Another objective of the package is the replacement of the ineffective Police Complaints Authority by an independent body having “the power to investigate serious police misconduct, police corruption, criminal offences committed by police officers” and to refer its findings to the the DPP, the Police Management Authority or the Commissioner “for appropriate action as they think fit.” Another important purpose of the package is to “introduce new management structures of the Police Service in order to deal with modern realities.”

It is time for the partisan tit-for-tat retaliation between the two parties in parliament to stop. Both sides have been guilty of this kind of foolishness that ignores the national interest. The PNM Opposition must be blamed for not supporting the UNC proposal that would have obviated the problems we now have with the Privy Council. The PNM had also voted in 2000 against the UNC’s Health and Safety Bill, the same bill they presented on Friday. TT’s best interest is being sacrificed to the compulsion of partisan politics. When will this nonsense end?