From the outset it could be said that we have had to “burn to learn” because had there been a comprehensive and meaningful onslaught on crime by the last regime, we would be today, the beneficiaries of a more secure nation.
In vast majority, the population supports the imposition of a state of emergency because it is a drastic measure that is needed in this desperate time.
Those who wish to keep the discussion at a political level without recognising that such immaturity will do nothing to improve the current crime crisis are best left alone because the attention of the public must be directed to matters that lie ahead and challenges that will have to be confronted if we are ever to win the crime war.
Admittedly, there are those who would exaggerate the benefits derived so far under the SOE, but that is to be expected from people who seek political mileage from all their actions.
Nothing prevented the last regime from imposing an SOE because there would have been sufficient grounds back then to satisfy the President that he should exercise his power to declare an SOE. If therefore this Government is hailed as a crime-fighting hero, then so be it, as long as the benefits are real and the onslaught against the criminals can be sustained.
Entertaining the criminals
Under the Manning-led government, the point had been made on several occasions that the crime situation was escalating out of control and, if not countered in an aggressively lawful manner, would lead to criminals causing havoc in the country.
The delicate fabric holding our society together was being shamefully ripped at the seams and criminals were allowed to take us hostage.
While I agree that there were some crime-fighting initiatives implemented by the last government that proved successful, there was an overall lack of cohesion that prevented the formulation of a holistic crime-reduction plan.
The approach of wining and dining the criminal element blissfully hoping that the undeserved hospitality would somehow activate their good conscience was a move in the wrong direction and sent a message that being bad was acceptable and could even enable an audience with those who hold high office.
Who could forget the alleged pact made between the former regime and gang leaders and the unanswered call made to disclose the terms and conditions of such an unholy arrangement?
Why was the citizenry made subservient to those who openly violated the law without remorse and instilled fear in decent people? And what could ever be the justification for embracing and entertaining criminals responsible for the commission of serious and violent offences?
We were made a laughing stock for the gangsters and it was high time for the tables to be turned in favour of law-abiding citizens. Gangsters with notorious backgrounds were hailed as community leaders and often featured in their “bad boy” stance whenever in the public limelight.
It became acceptable to honour gang leaders upon their deaths by painting murals and erecting statues as lasting tributes for their contribution. The society was becoming so sick and warped that law-abiding citizens felt a growing sense of hopelessness until the great wind of political change in May last year.
Lacking debaters
Understandably, the inability of the last regime to effectively reduce crime was one of the major reasons for its embarrassing loss at the polls. And to make matters worse for the Opposition, because of its dismal performance in crime-fighting when it was in government, it is exceedingly difficult for the public to accept any criticism or comment coming from its benches when it relates to matters of national security.
I therefore remain firm in the view that Dr Rowley, as a seasoned and competent politician, faces the unenviable task of restoring the credibility of the party which he leads.
By no means am I suggesting that he is incapable of ensuring that his team does not let him down, but in the Lower House he did not choose the players.
Last weekend members of the House of Representatives had the opportunity to showcase their talent and there were some individuals on both sides who need a course in public speaking, for by their contributions it is clear that their oratory and debating skills are in a state of emergency.
The contributions made by the Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Whip proved that the holders of these positions are good debaters capable of explaining their respective positions on the SOE matter.
However, there are some members who make it difficult to extend the courtesy of listening to what can only be described, in a phrase often though not always genuinely used by an Opposition member, as “utter rubbish.” I refuse to call the names of the offending parties because I am confident that their colleagues, in the privacy of their respective party headquarters, would give them the truth—they must shape up or shut up.
And it is expected that while the Government recognises its collective debating strength in the Lower House, it is the Opposition that is collectively superior in the Upper House.
And the political leaders of the parties are at the end of the day responsible for the performance of members in the Upper House because those selections have been their personal choices. So while Dr Rowley can be comforted knowing that all is well with his side in the Senate, that is not the case for the honourable Prime Minister.
Moving on
There are many lessons to be learnt from the current SOE including the fact that there needs to be an intense and comprehensive education programme for all stakeholders about matters related to the proclamation and operation of an SOE.
There have been several commissions established over the years that have made recommendations that this Government ought to consider to prevent re-inventions of the wheel.
The SOE has the potential to be the best start to win the war against crime and if it lives up to this expectation, then we can truly move on. I agree that we should not harp on the past and must refrain from constant reference to the misdeeds and acts of omission of those who should have addressed the crime scourge in a timely fashion, but if we do not learn the lessons from the failure of the last regime then those in charge will make the same mistakes.
The contributions made by the Prime Minister, Leader of Government Business, Leader of the Opposition and Chief Whip proved that the holders of these positions are good debaters capable of explaining their respective positions on the SOE matter.
However, there are some members who make it difficult to extend the courtesy of listening to what can only be described, in a phrase often though not always genuinely used by an Opposition member, as “utter rubbish.” I refuse to call the names of the offending parties because I am confident that their colleagues, in the privacy of their respective party headquarters, would give them the truth—they must shape up or shut up.
And it is expected that while the Government recognises its collective debating strength in the Lower House, it is the Opposition that is collectively superior in the Upper House.
And the political leaders of the parties are at the end of the day responsible for the performance of members in the Upper House because those selections have been their personal choices. So while Dr Rowley can be comforted knowing that all is well with his side in the Senate, that is not the case for the honourable Prime Minister.
Moving on
There are many lessons to be learnt from the current SOE including the fact that there needs to be an intense and comprehensive education programme for all stakeholders about matters related to the proclamation and operation of an SOE.
There have been several commissions established over the years that have made recommendations that this Government ought to consider to prevent re-inventions of the wheel.
The SOE has the potential to be the best start to win the war against crime and if it lives up to this expectation, then we can truly move on. I agree that we should not harp on the past and must refrain from constant reference to the misdeeds and acts of omission of those who should have addressed the crime scourge in a timely fashion, but if we do not learn the lessons from the failure of the last regime then those in charge will make the same mistakes.
-Gillian Lucky
No comments:
Post a Comment