The first question is of course unanswerable although it's hard to believe that the State could kill 16 people in the last 18 months without having some sort of policy. But the situation remains muddled because whilst there have been a clutch of statements made about it, so much depends on who said it, what they meant when they said it, what a normal interpretation might be of what they said and, very simply, on what has not even been said. There was, for instance, the 'why so much fuss about only two dead' comment or, more recently the response of Minister Phandu Skelamani (Sun December 9) when refuting a comment that no one had made, that the police do not shoot people for fun. To ensure added confusion, he also explained that newspapers have suggested that those 16 were killed, 'as if this is government policy' and that they should let the law take its course - which properly they have long insisted is necessary - and stop passing judgment - which presumably means having an opinion. That kind of circular thinking was not to the taste of Assistant Police Commissioner Christopher Mbulawa who stated (Mmegi December 11) without obfuscation that no chances are taken with people wanted for armed robbery. Unspecified sources, said this article, state that the men were shot without warning as procedure stipulates. So work it out for yourself. But if the security forces eventually, by mistake, kill a World Cup tourist next year, the country will share the same sense of horror, outrage and shame as those in the UK when Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair's lads shot dead that totally innocent Brazilian. Second question. No Minister could afford to refuse to make such a statement but how would the President know that this might omit more than it discloses? But would this matter? Otherwise I have long believed that it is unrealistic to expect that MPs would ever agree to make statements of their assets, income and liabilities and if ever they did, that these would ever be anything other than very carefully doctored. On the other hand, I was greatly intrigued by the idea being currently mooted in the UK that the tax payments made annually by MPs should be routinely made public. This proposal neatly shifts the responsibility away from the individual and onto the State and finds the middle ground between what reasonably should remain private and what probably should be made public. Doubtless the tax evaders in the National Assembly would oppose the idea but it is both and fair and it should be implemented in the new year. Question 3. To a conservative non-economist (there must be others as well as myself) it seems to have been a long standing policy that the only way that the country could be catapulted out of its state of gross poverty was to provide almost free money to everyone and everything. It seems to have worked. The transition from nothing to something has been quite extraordinary - which suggests yet again, that if you have money almost anything is possible. But what if you don't? And what happens now when money is less readily available for a middle class which has gorged itself on consumer goods and is now irreversibly hooked on a deficit life style? Policy has now zeroed in on over-indulgence in respect of alcohol but what about all those other aspects of so many peoples' life styles which can no longer be sustained? Is it possible to make frugality fashionable? If not....
