Silly questionnaire

HERE is a question for individual members of the public: Do you believe that any police officer will readily admit to using narcotics or selling drugs or protecting drug traffickers or receiving money from them? In a sense, our question is rhetorical because we already know that the answer is a categorical no; in fact, we feel our readers would find it ridiculous even to pose such the query. They would be surprised, if not amused, however, to learn that the Government has a different view, that it genuinely believes police officers, when asked, would voluntarily incriminate themselves by owning up to such drug offences.

It’s laughable but true. A questionaire now being issued by the Government to police officers contains these silly questions and many more. For instance, it asks police officers to say whether they were ever involved in the sale or transport of illegal guns or ammunition. And if they have, they should please explain. Another question for the cops is whether they ever received payment or gratuity from any person involved in such illegal activity. And if yes, they should please explain. Policemen are also required to be virtual whistle-blowers on members of the families, both immediate and distant, who may have been involved in drugs and the drugs trade.

The confidential questionaire does not give its source within the government, so we have no idea who actually concocted these ridiculous questions. With great earnestness, however, it declares Government policy that no one should be employed in the state security sector who is or has been associated with such activities as espionage, terrorism, sabotage or attempts to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy “by political, industrial or violent means.” A necessary and reassuring statement, of course, but how could the pursuit of such a policy be based on such acute naivete? It is laughable to think that, after numerous commissions and investigations into the Police Service have failed to effect any significant reform, have failed to deal with malignerers and corrupt officers, this kind of self-implicating questionnaire has any chance now of being effective for that purpose. Since the Service falls under his portfolio, we must assume that National Security Minister Martin Joseph has, at least, approved its issue and, accordingly, we must ask him now to please explain.

In addition, the questionnaire asks for a range of information with respect to the personal finances and health of police officers some of which seems to border on an invasion of privacy. Following the setback over the non-passage of the Police Reform Bills through Parliament, we expected the Government to proceed with other measures to cleanse and revitalise the Service, but this questionnare, we believe, is hardly the way for them to go about it. The eventual effect, in fact, may well be counter-productive since the effort has already provoked the opposition of a number of officers and the Police Second Division Association which has ordered officers not to comply until it knows where the information will be going. The questionnaire, it seems to us, is also an admission by the Government that the managers of the Service cannot be relied upon to undertake the necessary reforms. Surely there must be a cadre of honest and committed officers left who can be enlisted to undertake this enterprise in collaboration with the Special Anti-Crime Unit. If not, then heaven help us.