Dear Editor,
I am grateful that we are in an epoch whereby prophylactic measures can be taken prior to an intractable situation developing. I refer in particular to a letter published by SN on the 6th November, where Sase Singh strongly accords with the policy supporting the 2 am curfew (‘Ramjattan is correct in his ruling on the curfew’).
In the first instance the writer made a comparison with England indicating that alcohol plays a role in the commission of various crimes, and went on to refer to alcoholic consumption being tremendously high in Guyana.
Mr Singh did not give statistics as to how this decision affects the case of Guyana. One cannot compare a developed country with 63.8 million people and a Global Peace index of 1.685, ranking it number 39 out of 162, while Guyana with a population of 770,000 ranks 92 with a GPI of 2.029 (2015); that is a false analysis and cannot generate meaningful results.
I would invite Mr Singh to visit the crime stats/analysis (www.gpf.com) or the site of the crime chief and see how this decision has impacted the crime wave. In fact the crime wave has increased significantly since this policy was implemented (www.gpf.com/seriouscrimes or www.gpi.com). It is incredible to see serious crimes (overall) increase by 6%, robbery under arms by 8%, accidents by 2.5%, fatal accidents by 1.6%, dangerous driving by 3%, traffic offences by 2%, murders by 1.3% and rapes by 1.8% ‒ I could go on.
We must consider the social, cultural and economic implications of the curfew as well. The current economic recession concomitant with this policy is not only hurting the entrepreneurial sector but could impact negatively on investments, tourism, employment, the circulation of money and economic elasticity. Knowing the potential for hurt to almost every socio-economic sector of the country, one is yet to see how the curfew has in any way contributed to reducing the crime wave. In conclusion I would suggest that we should have a quantitative analysis.
Yours faithfully,
George Phillips
