Dear Editor,
Community policing has met with a variety of setbacks since the late eighties. The Community Policing Groups (CPG) programme was supervised by the Civil Defence Commission (CDC) and was a part of my responsibilities as the Deputy Executive Officer, Civil Defence Commission. The setbacks began to surface with the removal of CPGs from the CDC. The body became virtually autonomous.
(The fate of the National Relief Committee which operated under the guidance of the CDC and of which I was the Emergency Response Adviser, was the same.) Even Partners of the Americas (POA) was initiated by this writer and was a close ally of the CDC. POA is a vibrant partner in disaster preparedness/response in sister countries which were individually ‘twinned’ with different American states.
With these entities becoming somewhat autonomous, they began to do their own thing. Coordination became more complex. Remember during the 2005 flood the President had to forge a Joint Operations Committee for the coordination of response/ relief operations.
I wrote extensively on the role of the CPGs in previous letters concerning the lapses which led to the waning of the CPGs from over 3000 members in over 400 groups, and virtually giving the complete history of the body to correct some misconceptions.
Indeed there has been a disconnect in the entire concept and operation of CPGs. This disconnect began, as said above, with the removal of CPGs from the CDC. CPGs initially tackled the spate of crime in communities, but also had responsibilities for patrolling sea and river defences to report likely tampering, defects or breaches.
This became more relevant during disaster situations since community policing and protection of evacuated homesteads became an additional target situation for vigilance. Community safety and/or evacuation were also seen then as a disaster response (crime prevention) function of CPGs.
I had also decried the various acronyms foisted on us by donor agencies, all of which boiled down to crime prevention. I looked also at the hefty budgets which were expended i
n experiments in various citizen security systems, which hardly make news except for the funds they guzzle.
I advocated such budgets be expended on CPGs since they were dealing with the same resource pools of manpower and equipment.
I advocated that headquarters in each vibrant community provide a focal point of operation and the works. I went on to suggest that community policing should be a form of National Service and that credits be given to youths who served therein. A ministry was even touted to handle this aspect of community policing/crime prevention.
During my watch, a regime of training was initiated to have CPG members trained in their functions and also in the use of firearms. This was no haphazard move, but was to be conducted by the GPF, Divisional Commander or his designated officer.
Members who were qualified and approved were recruited as rural constables. Weapons were secured by the divisional station and issued only to those trained and certified in weapons usage or approved as rural constables.
The question about the viability of CPGs is beyond debate. Their successes can hardly be underplayed. Around the world today community policing has come to play a vital role in crime prevention.
Yours faithfully,
Seopaul Singh
