The Manicou Report

“We are responding aggressively to the rise in criminal activity. Kidnappings for ransom have declined significantly from a high of 58 in 2005 to 8 cases at the end of August this year. May I take this opportunity to congratulate our security forces for their efforts in this regard and we make bold to say that anyone who kidnaps someone for ransom will be caught.”

Budget Speech, page 7, paragraph 3.

On Monday before the budget speech, Riaz Khan was kidnapped while standing outside his father’s business place at Jerry Junction, Carapichima and before the budget debate had even begun, Riaz Khan had been shot dead and his body dropped off at the Caroni Cremation site.

On Budget Day itself Rehanna Ramlochan left home to go purchase medication at a nearby pharmacy but wasn’t seen after she purchased the items in the pharmacy. A $1m ransom was demanded for her safe return.

Prime Minister Patrick Manning

Now I agree that there were far fewer kidnappings this year than last year so far, but exactly what are the stats on arrests in kidnapping cases is what I would like to know. The Prime Minister has stated that if you kidnap you “will be caught”. Where has this 100% arrest rate been shown in the last 2 years? Where is the evidence? Saying it under Parliamentary privilege doesn’t make it true.

I don’t know the facts myself on the arrest rate for kidnappings with ransom, but if I had to bet guess all I have on this, I’d bet guess that this arrest rate is nowhere near 100%. So the question that follows is, what measures did the government put in place that has so emboldened Mr. Manning to say something like anyone “who kidnaps someone for ransom will be caught”? What did they do in the last budget to ensure that crime has less and less of a grip on society? What could make a Prime Minister herald by a policy of “not very much”, and a history of “glaringly insufficient” as the definitive reply to the kidnapping scourge?

Let’s imagine (God forbid) that I were the Prime Minister wanting to boast about my 100% arrest rate for kidnappings. I would say,

“Well Mr. (or Madam) Speaker, last year we had 58 kidnappings and 58 arrests, this year to date we had eight ten kidnappings and ten arrests. May I take this opportunity to congratulate our security forces for their efforts in this regard and we make bold to say that anyone who kidnaps someone for ransom will be caught.”

But that’s just me.

So what’s the plan in next year’s budget for crime? Believe or not, there’s just one new measure taken in this year’s budget to deal with the growing crime problem. But don’t take my word for it, check it out for yourselves. In fact the section on crime in the Budget speech is about 3 1/4 pages long of which one page deals with promises for next year. The other 2 1/4 pages is a rehashing of all the “great” things they did in previous years.

So the only new measure introduced to combat the crime scourge is the purchase of a sophisticated radar system and the purchase of three offshore patrol vessels. However neither of these will materialize till 22 months after an agreement is reached with the bidder. The date for the proposed meeting with said bidder? December. So by my calculations, we won’t see anything of these vessels till November 2008 for the earliest. That is two years away people! (By the time December 2008 rolls around, the Summer Olympics in Beijing would have been long completed and the United States would have already chosen its next president. My point is don’t hold your breath).

In addition to the purchase of the offshore patrol boats, they will acquire six fast patrol boats, and 4 interceptors for both inshore and offshore operations as well as by 26 four armed helicopters. Mr. Manning didn’t say whether or not this would also take 2 years so I assume we’re supposed to guess.

If this is as good in real life as it sounds on paper, it will be excellent. Our southern coast is just a giant welcome mat for guns and drugs. The combination of the radar system and patrol boats should make a dent in either of these items landing on our shores. But what about the guns that are already here, I wonder?

The past implementations highlighted in the budget were:

• A community programme in Gonzales called the Pride in Gonzales Project which is taking a community oriented approach in order to improve the social and physical conditions of the community of Gonzalez.

• The Dial 555 initiative whose function I cannot tell apart from that of Crimestoppers’.
• Various pieces of legislation including the passage of the No-bail for Kidnapping Act.

*Quite curiously, the blimps weren’t even mentioned for the duration of the speech.

The Urkel Years

Now, there is nothing wrong with either of these initiatives. They are all good measures and I’m sure will accomplish something. But, if this is what passes for aggressive in this country, we’re in deep trouble. Apart from the proposed offshore patrol, I think our Government has created the most passive crime plan known to man. How could an “aggressive” crime plan which consists of waiting for citizens to call you with tips, “lending support” to various community programmes, and passing legislation in the Red House, really be called aggressive? Well Mr. Prime Minister, I really beg to differ.

Are there criminals in the country right now quaking in their boots because of the blimp or legislation? As a matter of fact are they any more afraid of being caught this year than they were last? Probably not. So when the Prime Minister talks about the aggressive response to crime and that anyone who kidnaps for ransom will be caught, I have to wonder how many other Government ministers are smoking the same wacky tabbacky.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish that the parents of Riaz Khan be not dismayed by the seemingly passive response to crime and instead take Mr. Manning’s words as a personal pledge that that their child’s abductors will be caught. The fact that it’s an empty promise should be of no consequence to them. The fact that they have no redress if their abductors aren’t caught should mean nothing. They should avoid comparisons to George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” sign displayed on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Just because the person who spoke these words is oblivious to their human implication, shouldn’t suggest that he is a political robot. They should take comfort in the fact that the Government tried their best.

And to the rest of us: keep watching your backs. The drug scourge might take a dip in late 2008, but the senseless gang violence may or may not dip with it. In any case there are enough guns on the streets to keep us busy for years to come. And if this is aggressive, then we don’t have much to hope for.