THE CALL by the managing director of Scotiabank (Jamaica) Ltd. for urgent steps to be taken to make better use of the country's army and police force is not without merit. But as he himself has
conceded in subsequent interviews since making his proposals in an address to the police's Motorised Patrol Division, he may not have thought through all the ramifications of his suggestions.
His call being pitched against the background of a mushrooming crime problem will find some support among a populace clamouring for something drastic to be done. The question is whether what has been put on the table is the answer.
For one thing, abolishing the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) and the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) and having their functions taken over by a new multidisciplinary 30,000-strong force, directly answerable to Parliament, is impractical. At present the Government can hardly find money to pay the salaries of the present combined forces of roughly 9,000. How will it pay a new force three times as large and maintain equipment needed to carry out the various
functions that would be required of it?
Both the JDF and JCF are being propped up through donations of equipment and the underwriting of the training of personnel at
various levels by foreign governments. Who will train this new,
larger force, and within what time period to replace what we currently have? Personnel from the JCF and the JDF are trained to operate and function differently under our present arrangements. How will this amalgamated force function?
Additionaly, if the new force is to function any better than the old, then some of the same challenges will have to be addressed. For example, right across Jamaica, policemen are working in decrepit,
run-down, vermin-infested buildings and the JDF has managed to keep some relatively ancient vehicles and boats barely functional. These are basic funding and day-to-day management issues that have to be
tackled by central government. In short, our security forces need money and equipment, not new legislation.
Clearly signalling his impatience with the present approach to dealing with the crime crisis facing the nation, Mr. Clarke is urging Parliament to call a 60-day emergency session during which our elected leaders would debate and decide on the organisational
structure of the new entity. During this process, inputs from the
public would be invited and encouraged and a timetable set for enactment of the necessary legislation.
Given the tendency of parliamentarians to ignore laws governing their own behaviour as, for example, submitting annual returns on their financial status we are not as sanguine as Mr. Clarke that this new requirement would change anything.
In Mr. Clarke's model, the head of the new force would be responsible directly to Parliament without any ministerial intervention. He also
suggests that a council of suitable persons be appointed to protect
citizens' rights and civil liberties. It is not clear from his initial speech and subsequent interviews, to whom this council of 'suitable persons' would be answerable.
We do believe Mr. Clarke has attempted to throw new light on an old problem. His intervention is timely for it allows the society to re-examine how we are using our resources and changes that have to be made. At the same time we need to give careful thought to all aspects of the proposal.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
