It Is Absolutely Fair Game To Hold The Government Responsible For Failing At Its Most Basic Function.

The Jamaica Observer Editorial Page is usu­al­ly rea­soned and objec­tive in my view , even when I dis­agree I always walked away feel­ing that at least there was an attempt at objectivity.

As an opin­ion writer myself I run the risk of being harsh­ly crit­i­cized every time write an opin­ion piece.
Every per­son who takes it unto himself/​herself to opine on events simul­ta­ne­ous­ly take on being harsh­ly criticized.

It is in that spir­it that I have to dis­agree with the Editorial Page of Wednesday November 11^th.
The writer crows about being right that Commissioner of Police Carl Williams should not tes­ti­fy open­ly for a select com­mit­tee of the par­lia­ment on the crime sit­u­a­tion affect­ing the country.
In its Article titled : Bringing the top cop before Parliament: We told you so!
The writer said quote.…

We were scep­ti­cal about the deci­sion of Opposition spokesman on nation­al secu­ri­ty, Mr Derrick Smith, to use his posi­tion as chair­man of Parliament’s Internal and External Affairs Committee to sum­mon the police com­mis­sion­er to explain his anti-crime strat­e­gy. As we feared, the pres­ence of the top cop at the com­mit­tee meet­ing yes­ter­day turned out to be anoth­er big occa­sion for our par­lia­men­tar­i­ans to keep this coun­try divid­ed on a mat­ter as crit­i­cal as crime-fight­ing. We have Mr Smith to thank for the fight over whether to have the com­mis­sion­er answer ques­tions open­ly in the pres­ence of the media or to speak in-cam­era, where sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion would not be exposed to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Thankfully, the forces of rea­son pre­vailed and the ques­tions posed to the com­mis­sion­er were answered in-camera.

There was no way that those polit­i­cal­ly charged-up par­lia­men­tar­i­ans would have a nice qui­et dis­cus­sion seek­ing solu­tions around which they could unite the pop­u­lace to fight crime with elec­tions seem­ing­ly just down the road. How intim­i­dat­ed and uncom­fort­able Dr Carl Williams must have felt. To use the police com­mis­sion­er to score polit­i­cal points is irre­spon­si­ble in the extreme and is a fur­ther demon­stra­tion of the imma­tu­ri­ty of those involved.

We are not fooled by Mr Smith’s pre­tence at inno­cence in telling yes­ter­day’s meet­ing that the com­mis­sion­er would not have to answer open­ly any ques­tions that could elic­it sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion. Why bring him there then? If he want­ed non-sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion, he need­ed only to ask for a report to be sent to his com­mit­tee. Furthermore, the fact that he did not want the com­mis­sion­er to speak in-cam­era sug­gest­ed ulte­ri­or motives for hav­ing him come before the committee.
Bringing the top cop before Parliament: We told you so!

The mem­ber Derrick Smith, who want­ed the Commissioner to tell the peo­ple’s rep­re­sen­ta­tives exact­ly what mea­sures he is under­tak­ing to guar­an­tee them some degree of safe­ty is well with­in his rights to ask the Nation’s top cop to come before his com­mit­tee and tell the Nation what is being done to arrest the run­away crime in the country.

In fact, fail­ing to do so would have con­sti­tut­ed dere­lic­tion of his responsibilities .
The fact that there is now pro­ce­dure in place to demand that kind of account­abil­i­ty from those who are tasked with var­i­ous respon­si­bil­i­ties is exact­ly how a Democratic and trans­par­ent soci­ety work.
If there are con­cerns sur­round­ing how wit­ness­es tes­ti­fy before these com­mit­tees those con­cerns should not deter or pre­vent more tes­ti­mo­ny in the inter­est of trans­paren­cy and accountability.
If there are not enough pro­ce­dures in place to facil­i­tate wit­ness­es giv­ing clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion it is an indict­ment on par­lia­ment rather than it is on a mem­ber or the process for that matter.
It is a bit of a stretch to ascribe polit­i­cal motives to Derrick Smith for doing his job. It may very well be that of course there is polit­i­cal mileage to be gained from the crime sit­u­a­tion in the country.
Why would the Opposition (any oppo­si­tion) not seek to gain trac­tion from crime as it should every oth­er area where the Governing Administration(any admin­is­tra­tion) has been lacking?
Crime is a polit­i­cal issue and the mem­ber has every right to hold the admin­is­tra­tion account­able for its poor performance.
It is exact­ly the role of the polit­i­cal oppo­si­tion to politi­cize these issues.
Whether it is ram­pant pover­ty. Rampant crime. Rampant cor­rup­tion. Rampant lack of account­abil­i­ty. Dead babies or what­ev­er else.
It is exact­ly why we have oppo­si­tion to hold the Government account­able and keep the peo­ple informed.
What bet­ter time to do so than at elec­tion time?

The Commissioner of Police is an edu­cat­ed man, even with­out the PhD, as chief con­sta­ble he must be patent­ly aware that there are going to be things which he can­not divulge in pub­lic. That’s real­ly not rock­et sci­ence, every con­sta­ble worth his salt knows he can­not divulge sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion to everyone.
The Commissioner must also know that under the most intense grilling from Parliamentarians he is with­in his rights to say I can­not divulge cer­tain infor­ma­tion but the answer you seek will be sup­plied confidentially.
For cry­ing out loud the Commissioner of police now has lawyers rep­re­sent­ing the JCF, that was not so years ago.

On that basis the Observer’s crit­i­cism of Shadow Minister Derrick Smith is par­ti­san and a lit­tle bit petty.
If the Observer edi­to­r­i­al writer does not want the issue of crime to be dis­cussed as a fail­ure of the PNP Administration then it should sim­ply say so.
The most fun­da­men­tal respon­si­bil­i­ty of any Government is to keep peo­ple safe.
This Administration has failed dismally.
It is absolute­ly fair game to hold the Government respon­si­ble for fail­ing at its most basic function.
The Opposition should not be silent on this and nei­ther will this medi­um nor this writer.