Police bills — Biting the bullet

It is quite evident that much of the squalid squabbles over the bills in question, spring from the insalubrious soils of politics. It would seem that probity and politics are just not congruous... It’s a time for courage. The bullet must be bitten....

The term “police” is somewhat synonymous with guns and bullets. Perhaps this is the reason there is so much “gun talk” surrounding the Police Reform Bills, and the need for certain people who are centrally involved, to bite the bullet as they continue to face the rapid fire of the intense debate. As one witnesses the unfolding of the unsavoury saga, it becomes obvious that there is a scarcity of the sagacity of sages somewhere. One also wonders where do we really need the “reform.” Is it with the police or the politics? Maybe if we reformed the politics (or rather, the politicians) there would no longer be a need to reform the police. It is quite evident that much of the squalid squabbles over the bills in question, spring from the insalubrious soils of politics. It would seem that probity and politics are just not congruous. I personally believe that Prime Minister Patrick Manning genuinely has serious concerns about the crime crisis which has transformed our TT into a sea of angst. As a concerned citizen, it is my hope and prayer that some kind of fruitful end comes out of the PM’s anti-crime initiatives, via the Police Reform Bills and/or otherwise.

Pentecostals/Evangelicals pastors were thankful for a meeting with the Prime Minister at Hilton Trinidad last Wednesday. However, what we still need to get clearer is exactly how the Police Reform Bills are going to bring about the purging and flushing of the extremely troubling corruption and related malignancy in the police service. What will be the prophylactic to forestall ongoing infection of the service? I think this writer has been one of the louder voices on the view that the real problem with the police service is poor management. Nevertheless, if we are to lend more than politically partisan or emotional support to these bills (which evidently have the potential to produce benefits) we must have more specific and convincing details, to prove that the proposed Police Management Authority (PMA) would do a distinctly better job than the Police Service Commission has been going. What’s really the basis of the anticipated amelioration? The PM hinted that he will be providing additional light to clear possible grey areas when the bills are debated in Parliament.

One must truly appreciate all the efforts at consultations and propitiatory overtures, but there are some fundamental areas which need to pass the test of the public’s radar, before the fait accompli stage is reached. Really, as I see it, there is no reason why a huge chunk of the existing management problems in the police service cannot be solved under the present system. And in any event, the Police Service Commission has already divested a great deal of its authority to the Commissioner of Police. Mark my word, if we can’t (or won’t) properly manage the police service now, PMA or no PMA, we won’t manage it effectively in the future.

Who says good management and effective, crime-arresting policing is unattainable under the current system? Just check back your recent history to Carnival Monday and Tuesday 2003/2004. You’ll find a most impeccable model that would stand with distinction anywhere. Another concern coming from all directions has to do with the question of political control (manipulating under the guise of management) of the police service by the prime minister’s (any prime minister’s) sovereignty — veto power and all in selecting the Commissioner of Police. We may also need a more compelling refutation of this. Police power and political power can be a very frightening combination.

Given what obtains in the current scenario in TT politics, the blanking of the bills by the Opposition was easily predictable. We therefore would expect that Mr Manning and his team would already have an effective “plan B” in place to deal with our crime crisis. This in itself would constitute good, proactive management. Innovative intervention is a part of effective management, particularly crisis management, which we surely now need. It’s a time for courage. The bullet must be bitten and definite forward-thrust moves made. Also, as the Government has rightfully acknowledged, the Police Reform Bills are only a relatively small part of addressing the crime malady. In fact, achieving any meaningful result, even if the bills were passed, would be largely a long-term venture. But we need some quick, very quick, action. In addressing crime, we must also deal with areas such as the overwhelmingly fatuous and ridiculous bail laws/policies for repeat offenders in particular.

This badly frustrates the police, who toil and risk their safety and lives to catch the criminals and take them to court, only to have to begin to chase them all over again — usually for bigger crimes — as bail is repeatedly granted. Equally frustrating are appalling court delays. We must also deal swiftly and decisively with the ubiquitous illegal guns, as well as prisoner rehabilitation, unemployment, poverty and defects in education. Faith-based organisations should be made a more meaningful part of crime-control initiatives, since this has proven to be of tremendous benefit in other countries. We must also call the Opposition to account. Mr Panday’s persistent call for Constitution reform, as a condition for his support in important matters/legislation brought before the House, also needs a lot of clarification if it must be deemed reasonable and acceptable. If the Opposition Leader fails in this, his attitude of intractable non-cooperation in our time of national agony, will be construed as irresponsible and callous. May good sense prevail.