It was heartening to hear that one priority for the government and security personnel is to ensure that an important aspect of our independence is what was termed “Independence from Fear”. This is in direct response to the fears expressed and felt by many citizens over personal security given the continuing occurrences of murders, most with illegal weapons. We were promised intensified efforts to combat and eradicate this scourge.

Yet, no sooner had the independence activities come to an end, than the fears were once more revived with the news of the murder of three more persons in two separate incidents. In response, the Police High Command organized a Press Conference aimed at reassuring citizens of the continuing commitment of the security forces to the “Independence from Fear” commitment and seeking the cooperation of citizens in this most necessary and vital task.

It was reassuring to see the “Top Brass” out in full and the sharing of responsibility in addressing the public, but if truth be told, there was “much muchness”, as the saying goes in the presentations. Take the announcement by the PM for instance on another proposed “Gun Amnesty”. This column has raised on more than one occasion, the need for the public to be apprised of the effectiveness of the previous amnesty initiated a few years ago following an upsurge in gun crimes. We need not just statistics on the number of illegal firearms recovered but an analysis on the effectiveness. Was it mainly law-abiding citizens who had acquired weapons illegally as a personal and domestic security measure, or, at least in the opinion of the security forces, possible would-be offenders who decided to turn in their illegal weapons?

Public appeals for citizens to turn in illegal weapons are all well and good, but they must be accompanied by steps to give citizens the confidence that their security is in good hands as well as to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to themselves receive legal backing for efforts to protect their families. In the absence of official statistics, it is difficult to ascertain how successful was the previous amnesty. For any new amnesty to inspire confidence, it must be accompanied by what I would term not just a “carrot and stick” approach but a heavier “carrot and boutou” approach which entails stiffer penalties for possession of illegal weapons and ammunition and, critically, enforcement of these measures.

The Police again repeated their calls for public cooperation in providing information, but murder is such a serious crime that citizens must have full confidence in the police to offer the protection necessary for those who provide such information and, critically, confidence that members of the Police Service will respect that confidentiality.

In addition to the confidentiality aspect, a concerted, professional and well-designed public campaign ought to be launched utilizing many different forms of outreach. For instance, a public debate, at both schools and community levels can be initiated on a theme such as “Crime does not Pay”, or, alternatively, “Crime does pay”,which can give a pulse reading of this critical issue that some crime-ridden societies are attempting to tackle.

Then there are many calypsoes which over the years have been waging war on gun crimes. Calypsoes such as Cro Cro’s “Put down yo’ gun”, an appeal to youths, and Chalkdust’s “Bandit factory” can be utilized, including on the weekly police radio programmes “On de beat” or “Cop Chat” on NBC Radio and We FM respectively. We must use all available means to get the message across. The undertaking for a committed police public relations campaign must be respected. The late and respected officer Johnathan Nicholls made a memorable contribution in this regard and when the police recruited a trained, experienced and qualified journalist, in the person of Hawkins Nanton, one expected a beefing up of the efforts, but for some unexplained reason that has not seemed to be the case. All pieces of the puzzle must be put in place if we want to find solutions.

While on this topic, we can connect the matter of youth and crime with a lack of innovation on the part of the government. There is much talk about “giving the youths a chance” and allowing them “to soar with their wings unclipped” when government announces its youth appointments. That is all well and good, but it must be manifested in the structure of government programmes. Have we not reached a stage, after more than two decades where feature addresses at all but the most major occasions can be delivered by the many young people promoted to ministerial, parliamentary and other official posts? Is it necessary for instance to have the overworked (no matter what he says) Prime Minister deliver feature addresses on occasions like “Pan against Crime” community rallies? What does this tell us about independence or dependence? Particularly on matters pertaining to young people – graduations, award ceremonies, young entrepreneurs etc. It is time for us to see what mettle these young appointees are made of rather than always having the all-encompassing umbrella of the brilliant Prime Minister. The PM earned his place and respect the hard way, let us not coddle the next generation of leaders, let them face the music.

• Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.