Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan made a shocking confession when he spoke on “Crime and Changing Social Values in the Malaysian Society” during a seminar at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) in Kuala Lumpur yesterday — that the Police is afflicted by the “close-one-eye” syndrome.
Musa lamented that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closed”. (Sin Chew)
This is most shocking. Musa should not be lamenting about the “close-one-eye” syndrome in the police frustrating the campaign against crime. He should have declared as the Inspector-General of Police that he would no more tolerate such “close-one-eye” syndrome, whether caused by interfering politicians, corruption or rogue policemen.
Musa should have gone one step further — publicly name the police officials and the “interfering politicians” who had acted against the public interest in their “close-one-eye” conspiracy to frustrate the forces of law and order.
Both parties in the “close-one-eye” syndrome, whether the police or the interfering politicians, are breaking the law and committing serious offences in frustrating the police war against crime.
Musa’s lament proved that the Royal Police Commission entrusted with the task of making proposals to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class police service had been both a waste of time and public resources as well as a great letdown of public expectations — that some 21 months after the Royal Commission Report, public confidence have reached a new crisis point.
This is not only caused by the IGP’s shocking admission of the “close-one-eye” syndrome in the police war against crime, but also by escalation in the crime index, which had been vividly highlighted by the killing of the former top crime buster, former Penang Chief Police Officer, Datuk Albert Mah; the burglary of the house of former CID director Datuk Fauzi Shaari in Shah Alam and the hijacking in Johor Bahru of the RM3.5 million container truck transporting 10,000 cellphones from a factory in Pasir Gudang.
The increasing public perception is that the police have lost control of its most important function and duty to keep crime low and protect the personal safety and property of Malaysians, investors and visitors especially in the Visit Malaysia Year 2007.
With public confidence in the police at a new crisis low, there can be no more delay in the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as an effective external oversight mechanism to ensure that the Police stay loyal to their mandate and public expectations that it transforms itself into an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class police service which excels in the three core police areas of keeping crime low, fight police corruption and respect human rights.
An immediate announcement by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on the IPCMC is the only effective way left to restore public confidence in the police — but it must be an IPCMC which has not been watered down in terms of functions and powers as proposed by the Royal Police Commission as to be a meaningless body like Suhakam.
The time has reached for the formation of IPCMC and the formulation of a National Action Plan on crime prevention.
Malaysia cannot afford to lose out in terms of crime prevention as it will further jeorpadise global competitiveness of the country.
Nobody will put in their money in a place where their investments are not secured by world class police force.
Instead of having police officers as special branch officers, why not Musa just take a bold step to restrcuture the force by putting more officers to fight crime, the real job that the force should carry out.
No point shouting that the police’s investigations are interferred by politicians. Name them and the people of Malaysia are ready to back the IGP for doing a decent and genuine job.
It would be the duty of Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan to bring to the attention of his boss the Minister of Home Affairs and also Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi regarding who are some of these politicians who would frustrate police efforts by wanting the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closedâ€Â. Has the IGP done this? If he has, then the ball is in AB’s court whether he means what he says or is afraid of these polticians.
Whether interference is there or not, it was just another excuse and escape route for IGP to defence his men and women in blue.
Our citizen want to see tangible action plan and not excuse and washing hand on the crime rate
“…Musa lamented that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closed…”
With the IGP’s open admission of interefrence by politicians causing “frustration” to the police force, it’s time to take the bull by the horns – NAME and SHAME them, or else, keep quiet. I can only speculate there will be no shortage of Tan Sris’, Datuk Seris’ the Datuk-Datuks’, even the local Division and Branch leaders of BN, who have no hesitation in using their titles to pull rank on the Police as to the direction of their investigations pertaining reports of their affairs, being any or combinations of political, business even criminal affairs, heck even affairs of the social kind.
I say do not let up on the IPCMC issue.
Polis diraja? They should be strip of this title especially they carried out selective – profiling perescution. If cinamen and indians, they will hantam them properly and tried to extort for minium kopi even during fasting months. Look at those council men? Where do one find them? In Taman Gombak, Dato keramat – 99% of the time and men hang around Petaling Street, Pudu and Sg wang. Trouble is that no Cinamen will pass through Dato Keramat
“…it must be an IPCMC which has not been watered down in terms of functions and powers as proposed by the Royal Police Commission as to be a meaningless body like Suhakam.”
More likely than not!
You can hop around mad, pulling your hair until you go bald, it’s not gonna happen.
Soon some bright spark will be saying that they don’t need reforms to do a better police job.
“Musa lamented that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closedâ€Â. (Sin Chew)”
Is the IGP here making an attempt to absolve himself from blame and shift the responsibility elsewhere??
Does he not know that when he took the oath of office he had sworn to uphold the law?? The “oath of office” should not be taken lightly.
Whilst “Musa lamented that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to ‘keep one eye open and one eye closed’ â€Â, the following are some of the first ‘creative’ suggestions on how to wage the war against rising crime in this year of the Golden Boar: –
IGP Musa Hassan : confine foreigner workers to their work premises and putting them under 24-hour surveillance to prevent crime. “Under the plan, foreign workers, the majority of whom are contract workers, will be placed in their kongsi (workers quarters) at (their) work site and their activities monitored by the contractor even after their working hours,” he was quoted as saying by the New Straits Times. He said the workers would have to register with their employers, who are usually building contractors, if they wished to go out during breaks or days off. “This way, I believe the foreigners will be more afraid to commit crimes as they know the police can locate them,” he added. Musa said crimes committed by foreign workers, especially Indonesians, have escalated with about 5,000 criminal acts committed by foreigners last year, which accounted for some two per cent of the 232,620 cases recorded. See this link -http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/63555
Abu Hassan Din Al-Hafiz: To reduce rampant cases of sex-related crimes like rape and incest, he would recommend that woman wear chastity belts. He recommended that the “best way to avert sex perpetrators is to wear protection….My intention is not to offend women but to safeguard them from sex maniacs.” he said. Elaborating on his idea, he said there would be other positives to donning the belts : “Husbands could also feel more secure, if you know what I mean,” he said, adding chastity belts were worn as recently as the mid-1960s. His comments have elicited an outcry from women groups – see this link : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/63508
One of commentators in RPK’s blog ‘Malaysia Today†immediately related this joke about Alexander The Great.
It seems that before going to war, Alexander “asked his young wife to wear a chastity belt because he had heard of his wife’s sexual activities with one of his ministers, everytime he went to war. However, the chastity belt worn by his wife had a hole right at the vagina with a sharp blade that will cut anything that got into the hole. This was his way of finding who the unfaithful minister was.
After he got back from war, he called all his his ministers to gather in front of him and asked everyone of them to strip naked. To his surprise, all the ministers’ penis were still intact. So, he asked the Prime Minister who was the unfaithful bastard that had sexual affair with his wife.
He was shocked to know then that the Prime Minister was unable to speak because his tongue had been cut offâ€Â.
So what’s next on the list of recommendation – a steel cage helmet mouth cover like the one worn by Hannibal Lecter (played by Anthony Hopkins) in film “Silence of the Lamb?â€Â
Because of the public outcry from women groups, it seems that Abu Hassan Din Al-Hafiz had since quickly tried to cover his ‘Taliban’ recommendation as a “Joke aje. It was not seriously meant,” said Datuk Abu Hassan Din Al-Hafiz.
A joke on this may be alright from a commentator from RPK’s blog but one with women being the butt of it from a so called respected Malaysian Muslim religious advisor like Abu Hassan Din Al-Hafiz who has served as a religious advisor to Malaysia’s king and written books on Islamic studies – Is this what it comes down to now?
While I actually symphatize with Musa that the politicians do want to keep one eye close, the polis themselves want to keep one eye close which is how despite the heavy investments in the polis, our crime rate is high.
Politicians wanting to keep one eye close should not prevent them from catching burglars and petty criminals. Musa is talking with forked tongue, trying to partially blame politicians for their failure. Its a vieled threat – no less than insubordination, a break in the chain of command, a breakdown of institutional roles to to the arbritrariness of executive power.
IPCMC is not an option – its the ONLY way forward.
LKS,First and foremost “”Wishing ALL MALAYSIANS OF CHINESE ORIGINS ,GONG XI FATT CAI,SEN TI JAIN KANG ,WAN SI LOO YEE “”.
These Umo nationalists were inflicted with Uncurable diseases for the last 50 yrs of survival,internal feuding lawlessnes corruptions money ambition personal strugglings. ie Inhumane alibaba bussiness ehticals,soliciting easy money by all means taxes,toll collection,OSA,organised crimonlogy,daily Media Tv good imaging news coverup for their survival BY/For/In the hands of UMNO/all forms of protectionism that breeds secretive behind clor doors corruption from the highest level down to Umno Controlled Govt civil servants(which including the so called IPCMC).>>Only serves to benifits their Umno DYNASTY.
Today these Weak frail Faceless ,Lawlessness finally brought their whole nation and citizen deepshit Absolute Hardships .
Remember All Rakyats ,we are here Stand Together as One NAtion Strong Army Dmocratically blogging for our Brighter Stable Effective Govt, Futures generation,
To ensure our Full Support for DAP Constant Effective Agressive Checks and balance ,Reformation and Govt Abuses Exposing Definitely Protecting our Democratics Contstitutionals
Many thanks.ray signed off
IGP Musa is saying the truth about interference from powerful politicians. He is voicing his frustrations because the powerful politicians are “protected” from investigations and they in turn try to extend political protection to their supporters being investigated. Ours is a patronage system where pressure will be brought to bear to remove the IGP if he did not play ball. We also need a IPCMC on the top politicians.
“It would be the duty of Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan to bring to the attention of his boss the Minister of Home Affairs and also Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi regarding who are some of these politicians who would frustrate police efforts by wanting the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closedâ€Â. – lauwengsan
Rightly said. In fact, not only should the IGP be the only one to do this, all other public officials who come across such obstruction of duty should do so – it’s common sense.
If such action has been taken, then we would not have a very serious shortage of judges (including judicial officials), policemen, doctors, nurses etc, etc.
The rot started twenty-two years ago under the previous PM and his cabinet who are not keeping an eye on what is going on in the country. I have always wondered why it takes twenty-two long years for the electorate to have any inkling anything was not in order. Even then, it gave his so-called “hand-picked” successor the highest number of votes in our history!
Now we are saddled with the incumbent for five years.
Will Malaysian voters ever be wise to what is going on in the country?
Happy New Year to Uncle Lim and all Chinese viewers.
Now if police close one eye and politicians close another eye, the nation becomes blind going forward.
It is an incestous relationship and meanwhile the ordinary folks are getting screwed royally!
HAPPY LUNAR NEW YEAR TO KIT AND ALL WHO CELEBRATE THIS FESTIVAL!
Jeffrey: “Ours is a patronage system where pressure will be brought to bear to remove the IGP if he did not play ball. ”
To be more precise, the IGP can be removed – easily according to some. His removal nonetheless is subject to due process. These are some of the questions facing an IGP who refuses to toe the line. Is Musa the kind of IGP willing to risk the wrath of his political masters?? I don’t think so.
An IGP in the future may want to explore his options a bit more. Hence it is very important that our nation be a nation under the law and subject to the rule of law.
“Musa should have gone one step further – publicly name the police officials and the “interfering politiciansâ€Â
Musa is a civil servant and has no business in making a political statement like the one he did. The seminar was not the right forum and if he’s serious about putting an end to alleged political interferences to what is a civil service matter, he should take it up with the Chief Secretary.
If he wants to be a politician then he should resign and join a political party and stand for the next general elections.
The criticism he leveled against politicians is the same criticism which could be leveled at him. Doesn’t he know the role of the Civil Service and the significance of Civil Service neutrality?
The fact that IGP has to lament publicly that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closed†shows that, in according to his perception, he has not received the kind of strong and unambiguous support from the top political leadership necessary for him to carry out his duties professionally.
[By the expression “professionallyâ€Â, I mean drawing of a distinction by the police force between the genuine and legitimate democratic expression of dissent on one hand and criminal activities and challenges to internal security on the other, and in case of the latter, to investigate and bring to brook, all whether politically powerful and rich or ordinary without fear or favour].
In lamenting, the IGP is also looking to the community to give him the support and encouragement for his “dilemmaâ€Â.
The community in turn should reciprocate by seeking accountability from the top leadership whether the IGP’s grouses are legitimate and if so what may be done to address them.
To pick up from where Jeffrey left about the contraption popularly known as the ‘chastity belt’, a descendant of King Arthur once told of how King Arthur came back from the Crusades having entrusted his Lady Guinevere to his trusted best friend Sir Lancelot only to find his best friend ‘dumbfounded’
Jeffrey: “In lamenting, the IGP is also looking to the community to give him the support and encouragement for his “dilemmaâ€Â.
Musa as IGP could be dismissed for having breached the General Orders.
Jeffrey: “…he (Musa)has not received the kind of strong and unambiguous support from the top political leadership necessary for him to carry out his duties professionally. “
Who does the country’s top cop report to especially in high profile cases involving politicians if not the Home Minister and Prime Minister? Needless to say his remarks has cast aspersions on the integrity of the Prime Minister himself, his Deputy and the Attorney-General.
He’s washing dirty linen in public.
How could the IGP now continue to preside over a system which he himself has publicly acknowledged as corrupt?
Whether or not he “could be dismissed for having breached the General Orders” for this particular public lament is a matter of debate but the fact that he dared to do so publicly whilst previous IGPs pretended as if no such political pressure had been exerted at all speaks better of the present IGP, in my books as far as plain and honest talk goes, when compared with his predecessors.
You have to ask yourself : are we happy that previous IGPs never complained publicly of political pressure? Does it mean no complaints mean it didn’t exist? Or does it mean they relented to the pressure? It is more honourable to risk being reprimanded or even sacked for complaining than to continue quietly and be servile as if everything is alright.
See it this way.
We do not want him to put himself under the kind of pressure that he has now placed himself under. We do not want to see a reform-oriented IGP be shown the door – assuming he’s serious about reforms especially when it comes to the matter of selective prosecution whenever it involves politicians and politically connected personalities.
I do not think he’s serious.
I think what the IGP is trying to do is to try to deflect some of the blame away from him.
I think he is serious precisely because he knows or ought to know the implications of what he publicly complained of – as you have pointed out and yet he took the risk by calling a spade a spade. I don’t think he tries to deflect blame – he is no stranger to blame present or past which comes with the job – because any objective to deflect the blame is far outweighed, in terms of the balance of benefit against disadvantages by the inevitable inference from what he said and the possible consequences that may arise from it, again as you have earlier pointed out…
Musa was frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closed”?
How can the IGP be so powerless?
How can UMO politicians be so shameless in influencing the police force?
WHY our IGP has no backbone at all?
The Home Affairs Minister who happened to be Bad-awi must take full responsibility on such poor state of police morale by quiting this ministership.
Enough is enough!
“..//..We do not want him to put himself under the kind of pressure that he has now placed himself under..//..
Every top cop is under such a pressure. Question is whether he wants to play ball. To lament is the first sign of resistance. It is a good thing. This kind of things has been going on for too long. Ask the right party to account – why only him subordinate to political leaders? If I were him I too would complain if there were no reprieve from any other quarters. I can’t answer why I am not allowed to commence investigations of certain persons in some high profile case. Am I to take the blame? If you tell me it is honourable to resign well then I say you wouldn’t be better off with the next guy who plays ball abnd doesn’t complain.
“I think he is serious precisely because he knows or ought to know the implications of what he publicly complained of ..”
Hard for me to say since I have no access to print media. If a civil servant were to go to the media to make a statement like the one he did, he should then step down. He criticized others as not having the kind of integrity that is needed to do the job, then he should display the kind of integrity that he so desperately seeks in others – and resign.
Someone in his position, if he’s serious about wanting change, should seek change from within the system. This is the basis of my argument that he is not serious.
Anywhere else, the IGP would be asked to resign. He’s in clear breach of General Orders.
Don’t misunderstand I am for change and reforms.
“Anywhere else, the IGP would be asked to resign”.
Not here in Bolehland. Especially when IGP has grounds to complain! One cannot ask someone to resign for complaining that he is not allowed or being pressured not to do his job in an independent professional manner when the complaint (although not via normal channels) has validity, and the normal channels not yielding results. Far more people holding high positions have done wrong and not resigned. The standard of honourable behaviour to resign is not in our political and cultural vocabulary. Besides if it were argued that anyone in such position serious about wanting change, should seek change from within the system, then resignation would not help any change from within the system. Staying on (until taken to task) and complaining would do more by way of a start to highlight what’s wrong that has been swept under the carpet all these years.
Jeffrey: “…anyone in such position serious about wanting change, should seek change from within the system, then resignation would not help ..”
Yes. Resigning would not help bring about the reforms needed – which is why I say he should not take what is basically an internal matter albeit of immense public interest, into the public arena in the manner he did in the first place.
Now they can make him resign as his conduct is in flagrant breach of the General Orders to which all government servants senior and junior and high and low are subject to. If they don’t make him resign immediately then he can be made to resign later. He has in fact played into their hands.
Not a smart move.
Musa should not be lamenting about the “close-one-eye†syndrome in the police frustrating the campaign against crime. He should have declared as the Inspector-General of Police that he would no more tolerate …Uncle Kit
I agree wholeheartedly
If this is the kind of messages readers can expect to read in this blog then it is clear that this platform provided by Kit for the free expression of views on matters of public interest has been abused. You can hurl all the insults you need to, to feed your ego, but may I suggest that you show respect to Kit.
Quote
Confusedcious:
“Yes – don’t be so pig-headed you swine.
Undergrad2 – this is CNY, so don’t start your nonsense again. Pig-headed is to insist Lee Kuan Yew was an Indonesian from Surabaya. Pig-headed is to insist where East is depends on where one stands.
Just butt out, boy. Oh, you want me to cut off your internet subscriptions? Do you want everyone to know how I was stupid enough to bring you into this world, despite being brain-damaged.
This is my last warning to you. I will stop here as this is the new year, and I am trying to be nice to you. So quit while you are behind.â€Â
Unquote
Yes. I agreed. We must not disrespect Uncle Kit. Not good to call another poster “swine”. We must not forget we are guests here and uncle Kit is host. How you like if I come to your house and call your guest a “swine”?
“Swine†is a common pejorative term for pig. It is pejorative because it is associated with an image of lazy and stupid animal with ugly looking snout and bristles wallowing in quagmire of slime and filth that Muslims here abhor and Non Muslims eat and celebrate the Year of the Golden Boar. It is more usually used in a metaphorical sense to refer disparagingly to a man with all the characteristics above. Ultimately, it is however unclear which species is more rightly insulted by the slur.
Swine is a dirty animal cos they eat shit. Jews don’t eat pig, not just muslim people. some Christians don’t eat pig like adventists.
U r missing the pt here. What I say was we shd not use words like ‘swine’ cos nothin can be more derogatory than that. No need to go so low to insult people. Must respect uncle kit.
Also Jews do not eat pig, forbidden by the Torah first five chapters of bible. Some Christians like adventists also do not eat pig – along with Muslims.
I don’t think I missed any point here. If we have compassion for living things we should not insult, among them, the pig (by use of it as a perjorative term as in swine) and yet depend on it for sustenance/food and celebrate the ushering of its year!
By doing so we also insult ourselves and own mentality which is what I meant by asking which species is more rightly insulted by the slur.
That is why I had posted my comments to MAMPU that the whole civil service is in a big mess, systemic and rot from the top. If we want to end this woes it will be a long and painful process because the top must put their own house in order first and end corruption at their level. This is the direct consequences of 20 over years of abuse of power of UMNO leadrers.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan is asking those who have regards for the law to help him out. On one corner you have that towering evil might of Goliath and you have with you just one slingshot. The PDRM should do away with stereotyping people. Example just because you are a Chinese, they expect all Chineses to think and behave alike. This is also a form of close one eye syndrome. By accepting the so called Chineseness ( bad and good thrown in together ), they are actually letting a piece of evidence or a crime go scot free.
Few thousands years ago, pigs were considered dirty because of the disease they carried and people died eating them.
Religion banned eating pork to protect the people.
Nowadays, open minded and well informed people, including Jews and Muslims, are not concerned of people eating pork.
When religion is used in politics, what people eat, how they behave or think will become an issue. People all over the world had been eating pork for millions of years.
True religions do not force its values on others but accept others for what they are.
Happy CNY to all.
If the civil service is NEUTRAL, if the police force is PROFESSIONAL, Malaysia will be a country that will continue to be BLESSED.
In the 1960s, we enjoyed a seemingly NEUTRAL civil service and a seemingly PROFESSIONAL police force.
Alas, we Malaysians can no longer lay such a claim successfully today.
Why like that?
Can we also get an official response from all the Wakil Rakyat on what they think on this matter? We can all talk until the cow comes home but we are all small fries. But if we only need to highlight what our Wakil Rakyat’s opinions and compare them, we might get some ‘enlightening’ information.
Chances are we shall get lots of “misquotes’ down the road!
IGP says:”..some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closedâ€Â.
Customs Melaka says: :”..some politicians who want the customs to “keep one eye open and one eye closedâ€Â.
EPU says: “:”..some politicians who want the EPU to “keep one eye open and one eye closed†when recommending tenders.
And the line of top civil servants stood up to testify in public about what the politicians say can be done or cannot be done, what to do or what not to do…and how to do it. And all the top politicians said ‘Amen’.
Wow. Sounds almost like a page torn from Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’. Maybe we should let the story flow on…
And all the other animals remained strangely silent. The goats attempted a weak bleat but the stares of the poiliticians turned it into a weak sneeze. The cows buried their heads in the dried grass to smother their moos. The roosters flew up to the rafters and said ‘Mo Ngan tai’ (‘No eyes to see’). The horses were wearied by the day’s plowing and struggled to keep awake.
The TOP politician was sleeping whilst the meeting was going on. The fluttering rooster woke him up….
First, he looked at everybody from a half-closed (half-opened) eye. When he realised he was at a meeting of all the farm animals, he perked up and pushed out his chest. Then the TOP politician strutted around and with a reassuring voice said: ‘…see, all the signs show that the people have regained their ‘assurance’ and the economy is doing well…the stockmarket is approaching an all-time high, the highways are smooth, there is plenty of gasoline supplies and the Planned Projects have taken off and will be bearing fruits…”
Nobody asked what fruits were planted, nobody knew when the harvest would come….these were all part of those AGREEMENTS that the politicians signed and they said it was in a language that the other animals would not understand, ‘OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT’.
Not everything can be kept a secret. It will not be a secret who the harvesters would be…they were also the politicians. After harvest, you will see them in new mansions and plush cars, flying to casinos in remote lands – on taxpayers’ money, on ‘official’ business – paying with some of the fruits of their harvests. Some have even taken up sailing, a new pastime for top politicians.
It was a painful night for the other animals on the Farm; some were hungry, some were naked, some were cold….as darkness settles on the land.
The country’s leaders have never heard of the Animal Farm – they were told that it is one huge “conspiracy to make them believe that being farmers is an early manifestation of Adam Smith’s thesis on specialization i.e. do what you do best.â€Â
Hornbill’s characterization accurately depicts and describes the woes facing our nation led by self-serving nincompoops whose sense of public duty is only exceeded by their greed.
In the tradition of the Animal Farm, our nation is led by the Owl who has both eyes completely shut during the day and half open during the night.
In Animal Farm, the pigs (Napoleon and Snowball as in the story) were the leaders and George Orwell’s message is anywhere in the world the moment our so called saviors of the oppressed secure positions of power they will become and act like pigs (in the pejorative sense of swine).
Brief synopses of story:
The farm animals who inhabit the Manor Farm are mistreated and abused by Farmer Jones. The animals rebel, expel Jones, and take over the farm, which they rename Animal Farm. Soon, however, the pigs run the show, begin to take special privileges for themselves, e.g. extra food. They enlist the farm’s dogs as enforcers to put down any dissent, and they teach the sheep (rank and file) to toe the party line on demand. As time passes, the Seven Commandments (Animal Farm’s Constitution) undergoes subtle changes as the pigs rewrite it to suit their own agenda and persecute those animals which do not fit the agenda. The pigs eventually learn to walk on two legs, thus imitating the animals’ original exploiters, and they teach the sheep to bleat, “Four legs good, two legs better!” The Seven Commandments become one: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The pigs rename Animal Farm the Manor Farm- its original name- and invite the neighboring human farmers, who symbolize the elite class against whom the animals first revolted, to admire the results. As the story ends, the pigs become indistinguishable from their human visitors.
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is then a parable about the Russian Revolution of 1917 – how political activists and revolutionaries sought to displace the corrupt autocracy of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia with a democratic republic, which in the end turned out to be more totalitarian and repressive under communist regime of Stalin.
It is a satire of human nature – how it never changes, and how politicians in power will always abuse and manipulate those under their power by first manipulating and galvanising the masses to overthrow the existing repressive regime by promises of change for the better, only to continue and exacerbate the same abuses once they themselves got into power!
Here we’re talking about regime change which may be by revolution or constitutional means.
In cases of revolution as in Russian Revolution, French Revolution as well as China’s revolution by Mao Zedong and those of sopme African states (and more recently overthrow of Bathis regime of Saddam Hussein), the excesses and predictions in Animal Farm came true – with exception of the American Revolution against the English Colonialists.
In cases of regime change by constitutional means nothing in terms of scale and proportion of such excesses happened as in the case of displacement of colonialists by new elite with Independence of India and Malaya, though in the case of our country, the detractors of the BN will say that kicking out of the colonialists did not bring a better deal but a steady erosion of constitutional and human rights, rule of law and worsening of racism and corruption as new elites begin abusing power worse than the English colonialists replaced.
And in the case of supporters and apologists for the BN regime they will point out that another Animal Farm awaits us Rakyat the moment the BN is replaced by elites of Parti KeAdilan Rakyat, PAS and the DAP who once esconced in power will perpetrate or aggravate the abuses of power that we complain of the present government.
“My ringgit has been devalued by your action. As a result, everyday my ringgit becomes less and less in value at the supermarket, at the pasar ikan and at the kedai runcit. Even my kids are complaining that their ringgit too can now buy fewer things at the canteen…”
http://kickdefella.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/sheih-on-sheih-open-letter-to-trillion-ringgit-man/
http://kickdefella.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/sheih-on-sheih-open-letter-to-trillion-ringgit-man-pt2/
YB Kit,
With the greatest respect, if IGP Musa were to go “ one step further – publicly name the “interfering politicians†who had tried to influence the police to “close-one-eye†– he would soon find himself removed.
Opposition parties, civil societies and informed public opinion have lobbied for immediate implementation of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (‘IPCMC’).
I have no problem with this. It will serve as an external oversight mechanism to ensure that the Police are subject to accountability that its members stay loyal to their mandate and public expectations of being professional and not abuse power or be corrupt.
What I wish to point out however is that the IPCMC does not address at all the problem of politicians’ interference with police independence.
To be sure, this is a problem worldwide of which no satisfactory solution has yet been found. The biggest complaint against the police force anywhere in the world, and not just here, is not just corruption and abuse of power by its members but the fact that they are also the agents of the ruling party and not independent.
Take our local examples. People are entitled to wonder : –
· in relation to investigation of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s murder, how come there was no report of investigations of a person identified in Baginda’s affidavit as one DSP Musa Safri who was alleged by Baginda to be party that introduced him C/Insp Azilah charged with murder?
· in relation to Litrak Concessuionaire Agreement, how come investigations were initiated or conducted against the 4 opposition leaders with alacrity when Works Minister Samy Vellu demanded publicly appropriate action to be taken against those who stole the document and exhibited it without any authority (a document which the government has now retracted by deciding to declassify it)?
· whether in each of the above instances, investigations or non investigations have been influenced by political interference?
This matter of political interference is a real problem and I respect the IGP for daring to honestly mention it publicly in spite of inherent risks of its implications.
Interference may be subtle. It need not be formal or documented. It need not be handed down via official channels. It need only be whispered, and even then not necessarily by the politician himself but by his aide, or a known close ally or crony.
Subtle pressure may be brought to bear for non compliance: for examples, the disobedient police officer may on the slightest pretext or misstep be targeted for administrative action, by way of transfer or suspension on the basis of any excuse. The suspension acts as a humiliating factor. A transfer can be an economic blow. It can also lead to the disruption of the police officer’s family, and children’s education, etc.
Police like many of us are ordinary people. They are not heroes. Nor are they wealthy (if they were not corrupt). One cannot expect them to subject their families and loved ones to economic hardship by the breadwinner’s resigning his position ‘on principle’ by reason of interference with his independence. To many people ‘principle’ cannot stay hunger. Let’s be realistic.
Interference with any police system by the politicians is insidious because it encourages police personnel to believe that their career advancement does not depend on the merits of their professional competence, but on the favours of the politicians who count – IPCMC or no IPCMC!
One of the greatest of English judges, Lord Denning once said in a 1968 case of R.V. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex-parte Blackburne, “I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police as it is of every Chief Constable to enforce the law of the land…but…he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must not prosecute this man or that one. Nor can the Police Authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone.â€Â
Did our IPCMC also recommend independent status of the Police Officer from political bosses? If so, I am not aware but I don’t think so!
I venture to suggest that even if the IPCMC were implemented, there can be no substantial improvement in professionalism on the part of PDRM unless this umbilical cord with political influences and interference is cut or at least subject to some institutional buffer and civil oversight mechanism that deters and makes political interference difficult (I qualify “illegitimate†because I grant you that there may well be some cases of interference that are “legitimateâ€Â, the challenge being able to draw a rational distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate political influences!)
The problem is not just police : it is our politicians.
When I commented that the PM’s proposal to form a high powered task force (drawing in part a cross section of representatives from the private sector) to improve the public delivery system was a good thing per se and should be given a chance to see if it worked within 6 months, many commentators here were skeptical feeling justified to pour cold water unto it based on one principal reason : that it would be cosmetic giving the woodwork a fine veneer and gloss but no good will come of it if the woodwork is rotten at its core.
May not this analogy be extended to IPCMC? How much accountability will such an institution like IPCMC bring about if the police force is still subject to interference of our ruling elites and their policies, there being no change in the composition of the ruling elite or their policies? Maybe less haranguing for petty bribes from minor traffic offences but will there be a fundamental change in police professionalism under such limitations? I don’t think so.
Which brings into focus : are being fair to keep on blaming the police, insisting on IPCMC to make them professional when we are impotent to plug the other big hole in the overall net of accountability – that of making the police independent and free from interference of their political bosses?
You have failed so far to lobby the government to even put the ACA under oversight of Parliament instead of under the PM presently.
What is a fact is that civil societies and opposition parties lobbying for IPCMC to make police accountable have entirely neglected and forgotten about the other important side of the equation of the necessity to do something about police being subject to illegitimate police interference, brought up by our IGP.
Tiada kaitan dengan tajuk, hanya salinan dari B*tchingLOG…not a weBLOG
kutu ini adalah pelampau Islam. Meskipun begitu, saya boleh hidup tanpa bergaduh dengan orang-orang bukan Islam. saya cukup kuat untuk menutup mulut rapat-rapat mengenai kepercayaan mereka kerana tidak mahu menyakiti hati mereka. saya juga boleh beralah dengan mereka.
saya telah membuktikannya. saya tidak mengamuk dan masih boleh tersenyum tanpa mengharapkan apa-apa ketika merasa amat sukar dan terganggu apabila jalan di Batu Caves yang tidak jauh dari rumah saya tersekat teruk setiap kali perayaan Thaipusam.
saya cukup kuat untuk bertolak ansur. Itu kepercayaan mereka. Mereka dengan ugama mereka dan saya dengan ‘aqidah saya.
Malah, walaupun tidak pernah mengharapkan apa-apa dari Lim Kit Siang, saya masih boleh memanggil Uncle kepadanya (kadang-kadang saya memanggilnya Sifu) kerana menghormatinya sebagai seorang yang lebih tua dari saya. Menghormati pengalaman dan kesungguhannya memperjuangkan apa yang dia yakini.
saya pernah menjawab panggilan telefon darinya dengan perasaan yang amat kecewa kerana kami tidak dibenarkan mengadakan ceramah di tempat yang kami rancangkan – ceramah untuk membantah keputusan memenjarakan anaknya Lim Guan Eng yang ketika itu dikatakan bersalah akibat kenyataannya terhadap Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik.
Ketika saya amat bersimpati kepada Guan Eng yang akan malangkah ke dalam kurungan di penjara, bersama-sama dengan Haji Mohamad Sabu, saya pernah makan semeja dengannya. Sambil mengisi perut yang lapar di Restoran Thaqwa di Seri Gombak, kami bagaikan meratapi nasib yang menimpanya.
Bukan dalam situasi seperti itu sahaja. saya pernah tidak tidur di dalam perjalanan keretapi balik ke Taiping. Bersembang dengan begitu teruja, makan bersama-sama di kantin dalam keretapi itu dan kemudian sama-sama menghisap rokok dengan mendiang P Patto sehinggalah dia turun di Ipoh. Ketika saya berkeras mahu membayar harga makanan, Patto mengangkat suara kepada saya, “Apa! hang ingat aku dah kalah, aku tak dak duit dah?”
Patto ketika itu baru sahaja kalah dalam memperjudikan nasibnya melawan Datuk Seri Samy Vellu di Sungai Siput.
Jika tidak datang dari hati saya, saya tidak akan mampu bersembang-sembang dengan begitu mesra dengan Patto. saya tidak perlu berlakon untuk melakukan semua itu. Sejak dari kecil lagi, saya diajar oleh mak dan pak saya untuk hidup dengan orang-orang bukan Islam tanpa membenci mereka.
Tidak kira sama ada ketika keluarga saya tinggal di Batu 14, Batu Kurau atau di Batu 6, Changkat Jering atau di Matang, orang-orang Melayu di situ tidak pernah membuat sikap lembu kenyang seperti tidak ada apa-apa berlaku apabila orang Cina atau Hindu mengalami kemalangan jalan raya umpamanya (di sana kami tak panggil orang India, tapi Hindu). Kami menolong dengan rela. Kami tidak perlu berlakon untuk melakukannya.
Sehingga hari ini pun, this self-proclaimed extremist, tidak perlu berlakon untuk bermanis muka dengan orang-orang bukan Islam di negara ini. Dan, saya merasa sungguh puas!
While the Police and ‘civil’ servants are operating under this ‘closed-one eye, open-the other-eye’, there are others who are extremely zealous about opening both eyes in ‘performing their jobs’. They too have no qualms about employing spies and collaborators to nail the wrong doers.
The Religious Department is an example of this no-nonsense approach to nabbing wrong-doers. First it was in Malacca, then Negri, then Perak, then KL, then Putrajaya, then Selanogor, then Kedah (Langkawi). Now its in the heartland State of Terengganu. See The Star today 20/02/07.
”
State turns to ‘Mat Skoding’
KUALA TERENGGANU: To avert soaring cases of close proximity and vice here, the Terengganu Government has initiated an ingenious plan where “Mat Skoding†or spies will be recruited to tip-off the state religious department of immoral activities.
“Mat Skoding†will be part of the voluntary squad, under the guidance of state religious advisors, acting as vigilantes here.
State Islam Hadhari and Welfare Committee chairman Datuk Rosol Wahid said: “Some of these ‘spies’ could be waitresses or even janitors at hotels acting as auxiliary undercover agents for our religious department.â€Â
The “Mat Skoding†would be rewarded for their tip-offs, he told The Star here yesterday.
Rosol said the trained “spies†would be on the lookout for unmarried couples behaving suspiciously or for vice activities throughout the state.
“Accurate details are required for the enforcement officers to act, otherwise they would be pouncing on married couples,†he said.
Rosol said the “spies†would keep surveillance at parks and secluded areas to nab dating couples intending to engage in sex.
In addition, Rosol said the state government had approved the recruitment of 20 more anti-vice enforcement officers under the State Religious Department this year.
On rampant rape cases reported here, Rosol said most of cases reported were actually those involving consensual sex.
“Sometimes one party decides to ‘fix’ the partner over a misunderstanding or for reneging on a promise,†he said.
Rosol said parents were also to be blamed, especially for the upsurge in statutory rape cases.
“These parents will allow their daughters to roam freely and later when she is pregnant, they rush to the police station to lodge a report,†he said.
”
One party wishes to close one eye, another wishes that they have more than 2 eyes. Perhaps we could match them both and get cyclops or even ‘cock-eyes’. Are we encouraging and developing spies and collaborators in our society?
Of more concern is that this latest venture comes no less from the Head of the State’s Islam Hadhari and Welfare Department. He must be putting in place the civilisational and progressive elements of the philosophy. Question is, did he consult or need to consult his other partners in the ‘power-sharing’ government?
Would the general populace, especially non-believers, be fearful of this latest venture? Would they then be justified if they formulate very negative perceptions of the religion in their minds? Is this helpful to foster social harmony, trust, respect and solidarity?
Is this an indication of how we have progressed after 50 years?
Gong Li Fa Chai to all. Don’t worry, nobody’s watching you today.
“kutu ini adalah pelampau Islam. Meskipun begitu, saya boleh hidup tanpa bergaduh dengan orang-orang bukan Islam. saya cukup kuat untuk menutup mulut rapat-rapat mengenai kepercayaan mereka kerana tidak mahu menyakiti hati mereka. saya juga boleh beralah dengan mereka.
saya telah membuktikannya. saya tidak mengamuk dan masih boleh tersenyum tanpa mengharapkan apa-apa ketika merasa amat sukar dan terganggu apabila jalan di Batu Caves yang tidak jauh dari rumah saya tersekat teruk setiap kali perayaan Thaipusam.” -penarik beca
What are you trying to imply here? I dont get the relevancy of the point you are trying to make here.I probably would like you to explain further, but knowing that this discussion would not lead to anything constructive so it is best to just ignore. Bear in mind, you are not the only one in this world with the so called ‘tolerance’ with other peoples faith, all of us do the same.And with your confidence of acquiring ultimate knowledge on others religions, let me put it to you this way that I am able to do the same to the religion you preach but dont want to ‘menyakiti hati anda’.
Now this “Mat Skoding†squad is an example of what George Orwell wrote in his book “Nineteen Eighty-Four†(1984) published in 1949 about the “totalitarian state†called “Oceaniaâ€Â.
In Oceania, there is this “Thought Police†that has telescreens in every Party household and public area, as well as hidden microphones and informers in order to catch potential thoughtcriminals who could endanger the sanctity of the Party.
There is also a Ministry of Love, the purpose of which is to enforce loyalty and love of Big Brother through fear, torture, and brainwashing.
Now that Morality Police and “Mat Skoding†squads have been formed in Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Perak, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya, Selangor, then Kedah (Langkawi) and now heartland State of Terengganu, may I humbly suggest the creation of a new Ministry called the Ministry of Love and Sex in the fashion of 1984.
As matters stand the real crimes – robbery, rape, burglaries snatch thieves – are already at all time high, so that against the soaring cases of close proximity and vice, I really don’t see the sense and logic of using “Mat Skoding†squads to spy and catch and in the process inevitably criminalise so many young couples whose only crime is the natural biological imperative of raging libidos to add to the list!
What is the beef here?
To curb what the religious officers interpret as sexual promiscuity and licentiousness?
Fine, taking a leaf from 1984 why not have a new Ministry of Love and Sex whose objective (unlike in 1984 is for torture and for instilling misery and suffering) is instead to teach about family love, conduct programes and courses to teach youngsters about the “Birds and the Bees†and the virtues of abstainance from pre-marital sex (until marriage), how to inculcate self discipline and self control over one’s biological instincts, headed by some UMNO minister well versed and experienced in this subject?
Isn’t this a more civilisational and progressive approach to the problem of sexual profligacy amongst the young, a model for the Middle East to follow?
I certainly think it is a better alternative that recruiting moral vigilantes and voyeurs, rewarded for their tip-offs, to go around keeping surveillance at parks and secluded areas, spying, snitching on and apprehending unmarried couples behaving suspiciously or for engaging in what it deemed vice activities
This is what backward countries and societies hundreds of years ago did, and it is hardly “civilisational†or “progressiveâ€Â. Indeed it is from perspectives of other quarters very retrogressive.
To snoop on others privacy, snitch and some more get paid for it, can hardly be considered noble and laudable traits in any civilisation.
It causes great damage to the moral character of the persons doing the spying and snooping. Trust me, the sin is greater than those engaged in illicit sexual behaviour.
Of course, don’t get, to head such a Ministry, some guy who advocates chastity belts for the girls as solution because not only will this violate the rights of the young women but also create opportunities for making side money from the supplier of chastity belts appointed without open tender.
Nobody will laugh at us more than what is already the case in already having a jumbo cabinet of over 30 ministries, so adding one more is no big deal.
Politicians being politicians, they of course want their ways: to bypass laws to suit their convenience and benefits, and at times may be help his friends get round the laws. For that matter, many of us feel the same too; that is, if some of us have their ways with the police.
As a very common example, when a traffic offender is caught by the police red-handed, the first reaction he has will be to ask the police man: “En. bolih tolong kah?” Very rare that the offender will willingly hand over his driving license for summon to be issued against the offence.
So it is up to the training, integrity, professionalism of the police man to handle the offence in a way according to laws.
Be they politicians, ministers, VIP or man in the streets, to the police man the enforcement of laws, without fear and favour, should be upheld at all times, and at all costs.
IPCMC or not, the police man can still do their jobs well if they put their hearts and minds into professionalism before self. Of course with the IPCMC, it will act as ombudsman in the event of excesses.
So why is the IGP lamenting about “one eye closed, one eye opened” by the politicians, minister, VIP or whoever? In the first place the police man should not even allow such demeaning words to be uttered in front of their faces.
It is equivalent to a slap in their face, because the utterer is demeaning the listener.
Yes, what sort of values are we teaching our young? To snoop and snitch is good?
Once the jokes making their customary rounds at mamak stalls and coffee shops etc splutter and stall and lose their momentum, once the smoke dissipates we are left with but one issue i.e. the role of Islam in the political and national life of a country still struggling with basic issues of democracy and freedom of speech, the life of Malaysians of different religious strands and the recurrent question: “Wither do we go from here?â€Â
UMNO, PAS and PKR will resist all calls for a constitutional amendments affecting in any way the constitutional status of Islam and Malay special privileges. In political terms such a move is the equivalent of committing a political hara-kiri by their leaders. It will never happen.
DAP’s stubborn denunciation of anything that smacks of discrimination between citizens who are equal before the law and deserve the equal protection of the law is what balances the scale. An uneasy coexistence between two earthly elements like fire and water which the Year of the Pig has come to symbolize? You bet.
The focus today is in the public perception of change. Will change be seen as unwarranted intrusion, disturbing the balance that has provided stability in both the political life of the nation and in our own? Who benefits from this kind of public perception of change if not UMNO and its close political cousins – PAS and PKR?
Or will change be seen as a quiet transition to the next stage in the political struggle to free a people from oppression by a regime bent upon advancing the personal interests of its leaders and their sidekicks. “Change†and “quiet transition†are contradictory terms for it is in the nature of “change†to disturb and upset the status quo.
But should we seek change for the sake of change? Or should we first do a political ‘cost and benefit’ analysis? How would the scale weigh and would it preserve the balance needed to maintain peace and stability?
How we move forward is determined by the public perception of change and how change affects the uneasy coexistence between opposite elements like fire and water.
The Local Police “Closed-one-eye†– and you have a lot of illegal gaming dens and massage parlors around – some within 100m to Police stations.
When CID Chief Christopher Woo opened his eyes and conducted raids personally, the errant police officers would most probably be disciplined and transferred elsewhere.
Politicians “open-one-eye†like the State Islamic Affairs Committee chairman (Selangor Exco) Datuk A Rahman Palil ONLY when he realized Muslim girls are involved as masseuse and conducted raids personally, catching 8. For more details, check at:
http://powerpresent.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-pics-31-chinese-national-gros-12.html
Even the errant teachers are not disciplined and what do you expect the students coming out to be? This is what Hishamuddin the Education Minster said (in the National Education Blueprint 2006-2010):
“In our system, it is hard to FIRE someone. If I can’t SACK them, they can stay in the POOL until they retireâ€Â. See:
http://powerpresent.blogspot.com/2007/02/more-pics-3p-pemudah-for-increasing.html
So they get transferred to some ulu places for their wrong doings and this it seems is the ONLY form of punishment they get for not doing their jobs.
This closing “one eye†for them is the social time-bomb for them in Malaysia. The break down of law and order is evident everywhere. In schools they cannot touch the students; the Datuks & Datins parents would throw their weights and we see these bullies. Go to the countryside, we see them riding their bikes without the helmets giving rise to the growing “mat rempits†culture – no enforcement, no road tax & no insurance and even free helmets from the Transport Minister.
In Taman Connaught, the Chinese folks on motorbikes get harassed without helmets but it is “one-eye-closed†in Bandar Tun Razak. The same happened in Lawan Kuda, Perak.
What they demand, they swiftly get them. And in the very latest, when they protest to the Penang government over the Sungai Nyiur toll at BORR (Butterworth Outer Ring Road, starting on 20th Feb 07); Samy Vellu (without even referring to the Cabinet) quickly build 4 Toll-free roads linking Seberang Jaya and Butterworth, with a 300m stretch (costing RM2 Million to be build on a fast-track basis (NST Feb 15). And the toll there is deferred indefinitely.
The reasons they protested:
“The road leading to the toll plaza was not new and that it was an existing trunk road and it was ridiculous for motorists to be charged toll nowâ€Â.
Can we apply the same in the Klang Valley? When DAP protested against the tolls charged along Jalan Pahang & Jalan Kuching, then they did not want to know! And the same now in Bandar Mahkota Cheras -Toll 11 km. Why this double standards and marginalisation?
Uncle Kit,
Haha, IPCMC again! I have heard this for years, when will it be implemented? By the year 2020?
Take a break uncle kit. It’s Chinese New Year + your birthday. I thought this time I would be the last one to wish you in your blog cos i wasn’t able to get online this morning. Anyway, it seems that I’m still the first. Hohoho!
Happy birthday! Many returns.
Looks like we cant escape from the leaders that are out to plunder us and the thieves and robbers that are out to rob us. Things are really looking down for Msia in every aspect.
“Both parties in the “close-one-eye†syndrome, whether the police or the interfering politicians, are breaking the law and committing serious offences in frustrating the police war against crime.”
In all other jurisdictions, this is referred to as obstruction of justice – a crime punishable by imprisonment. Needless to say, we first need to restore the rule of law.
If the IGP has knowledge of such attempts to obstruct the course of justice, he is legally bound to have it disclosed to the AG – or else he becomes himself an accomplice in the crime. By his own admission he is privy to attempts to subvert the course of justice. He could be made to disclose details by a judge.
Whether LKS could make the IGP disclose details of the crime of obstruction of the course of justice depends on whether he has locus standi in the matter before the judge.
To Jeffrey QC:
Do you think LKS has locus standi as a citizen in any such matter brought before the court?
Undergrad2, “QC†– Quack Counsel? You’re giving me hard question – “Do you think LKS has locus standi as a citizen in any such matter brought before the court?â€Â
You should address this question to our YB, the real QC having brought the landmark case on locus standi in the Supreme Court case of UEM v. Lim Kit Siang 1988.
I take it that by ‘locus standi’ you mean having a sufficient interest in law to maintain an action.
One Caveat: As to what is meaning of “sufficient†in relation to legal interest is “open ended†in the realm of philosophy of semantics because what is sufficient to you is not to me; what is sufficient to the English judge is insufficient to the Malaysian judge or Zimbabwe’s judge!
Another thing : any action mooted by you must proceed on the basis that public or section of it has an legal interest affected. You are suggesting here that “close-one-eye†syndrome is obstruction of justice and public has an interest in it because of possibly two reasons : (a) everyone affected by crime (b) everyone has an interest in police investigations not being interfered with by politicians ie no obstruction of justice or application of Rule of Law founded on article 8(1) of the Constitution against selective investigation or prosecution or exemption of it without rational basis.
On the basis of the above, the answer to your question is 99.99% “No†– LKS cannot do it.
Reasons are :
1. IGP Musa’s complaint – that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closed†– lack particulars. For eg, one does not even know who interfered. He could have even meant DAP’s politicians were interfering (to stop investigation on OSA), so to speak unknown to LKS;
2. LKS’s bringing an action on behalf of public is a genre of action commonly known as Public Interest Litigation or PIL. In UK and USA jurisdiction, PIL is established. In Nepal (surprise, surprise), it boasts of being the only country in the world which has a constitution (Article 88) that explicitly provides for PIL. In Malaysia, the seed of it germinated in Kuluwante v. Government of Malaysia but was quickly stamped out in the Supreme Court case of UEM v. Lim Kit Siang 1988. Our YB is the expert on PIL and the one with credentials – you should ask him – how and why he lost this landmark PIL case in 1988. On locus standi, Salleh Abbas LP said this in relation to LKS :â€Â…//…. It is common knowledge that a politician works for voters’ support…. The question is: is he motivated by public-spiritedness or an expectation of political gain and popularity? Would political grievances give him the locus standi? In my judgment, the court should be slow to respond to a politically motivated litigation unless the claimant can show that his private rights as a citizen are affected..//..â€Â
3. For one thing, in a PIL case, on the issue of locus standi, the litigant must not only prove public interest but also his own private interest and how his rights as a citizen together with the rest are adversely affected!
4. PIL can only be brought by our Attorney General as the guardian of public interest and as the Public Prosecutor (unless he otherwise delegate his right to YB LKS). It is he who will enforce the performance of public duty and the compliance of public law. Thus when he sues, he is not required to show locus standi.
5. Also as Public Prosecutor, criminal proceedings are under his purview. What you are complaining about is “obstruction of justice†and “interference of investigationsâ€Â. LKS can only bring civil action before civil courts in a PIL case. Civil courts cannot “hear†matters relating to criminal proceedings : only a criminal court can and for that there must be a criminal proceeding instituted by our AG. The constitutional demarcation of civil from criminal courts is clear.
For a moment I though you caught me flat footed!
The IGP is under a legal duty to disclose the identities of those who tried to obstruct the course of justice which is a crime under our Penal Code – information to which he is privy by his own admission. Is he not in the same position as a journalist who is in possession of privileged information regarding the commission of a crime. Can a judge not make him reveal the identities of parties involved in the commission of a crime or crimes under threat of contempt (of court)?
The short answer to that is “Yes†– but how do you bring the issue before the judge? Do you think LKS has the locus standi to bring the matter before the judge?
Being privy to information regarding the commission of a crime is not a crime, and is therefore a matter within the jurisdiction of a civil court. The issue as to whether the IGP could be viewed as an “accomplice†to a crime, I would agree, is outside the jurisdiction of a civil court.
Since you are only a stone’s throw from Kit, can you not call him and ask? It is a little difficult for me to throw that stone since it would have to cross a major continent and the vast expanse of the largest ocean to get there.
“IGP Musa’s complaint – that in the war against crime, the police are at times frustrated by some politicians who want the police to “keep one eye open and one eye closed†– lack particulars.”
OK. So he made a general statement. He did not quite say he knew of parties who acted to subvert the course of justice.
This is a no brainer than.
I won’t say the question is just a “no-brainer†as in something so simple or easy as to require no thought. It is just that in context of question asked, there is just no way in practical terms, one can proceed on basis of law to require the IGP to provide particulars of interference or the identities of characters involved.
1. He can, as an afterthought, turn around and say it is not interference on deeper reflection;
2. He is entitled to privilege against self incrimination since you say that by acquiescing to interference ie crime of obstruction of justice, he is also accomplice…
3. He is head honcho ordering and initiating investigations and it is hard to conceive any other could initiate such against him on an issue like this.
The last thing we want to do is to alienate him and making him do involuntarily what he is disinclined to do. Otherwise YB can raise the question in Parliament and demand answers.
If we want the country to be better we need collaboration of all in pursuit of same cause than confrontation and coercion.
That is why I earlier raised the question with YB that whilst we know how to be confrontational with PDRM and demand implementation of IPCMC, what are we doing in respect of the other side of the coin – of political interference in respect of PDRM’s professional duties?
No point for PDRM complaining to AG because it may be asked, who is AG’s boss?
Ultimately the buck stops at the desk of the big boss PM who is also the Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security.
The Big Boss should seek the answers from the IGP (who is his subordinate) to the questions we asked in this forum.
After all, it is the Big Boss who stresses the importance of professional public delivery and accountability, war against abuse of power and corruption blah blah blah… He should be concerned why his top law enforcement honcho lamented like that.
Don’t you think so?
Anyway, what is this talk about Kit being on the other side of the Ocean for posing of your question : you’re writing and posting in his blog! If there is anything not right that is being discussed here, he’d put a comment, the absence of which, I presume, it implies that he agrees with the broad conclusions discussed here.
Police needs to debriefed in order to start anew, renewed, reinvigorated, re-energized.
Many in this blog are asking for police chiefs resignation under general orders. No such provision exists in general orders.Disciplinary action there is, in chapter D. Further to this Police chief is not a political post. He is a civil servant under the current political masters.Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree. We may not like the police way of doing things. It is just inevitable that they are placed under a political master. Now where to strike?
From penarik beca to skh,
Since i do not want to mess Uncle Kit’s subject on that close one eye syndrome, let me answer here
To penarik beca,
There was a serious misunderstanding on my behalf of your earlier posting. I did not catch the point you were trying to get across. My sincere apologies to you.
Whatever I know about what the IGP said is limited to what was stated in this blog. So I’m walking on shifting sand here and I must apologize.
But whatever it was that he must have said, I suggest that he’s not so stupid to have made statements incriminating himself and the police – be it the commercial crime unit, the anti-vice unit or the criminal investigations unit. He could be “lamenting†his frustration with another department though – the AG’s Chambers headed by the AG and his head of the Prosecution Unit. He could be referring to cases where investigation has been completed and the ‘bundles’ (investigation files) have been forwarded and recommendations made – but no action has been taken because it would need the personal approval of the Minister, and no decision has been forthcoming over the years as evidence deteriorates and witnesses lose their memory.
Or as you pointed out the IGP was only making his statements in very general terms – and I would add not necessarily referring to PDRM but law enforcement agencies all over the world. That makes more sense to me. Without first reading the statement or statements attributed to him, it is difficult to say.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that he did “lament†as to the sad state affairs in the PDRM, the problems ‘his boys’ are left to face as IOs as a result of interferences by certain politicians on behalf of say organized crime figures etc and to the fact that he is privy to the knowledge i.e. he knew the identities of those who have been rather forceful in their attempts to persuade him and his boys and enquire if resources could be better used, deployed in the many other cases where investigations have not been completed. Then my question was whether something could be done legally – based on his public statements – to force him as the Inspector General of Police to disclose the identities of those interfering in the investigation work of his officers and make it public. I think not and there are many reasons that it will not happen.
To answer this question, we need first to narrow down the issues. I do not know even the facts and so what has been said by me are at best less than useful “logical speculations†– and we should leave it at that.
Jeffrey: “If there is anything not right that is being discussed here, he’d put a comment, the absence of which, I presume, it implies that he agrees with the broad conclusions discussed here.â€Â
Inclusionary as opposed to exclusionary approach?? Silence means consent??
I believe there is another and more important reason why Kit chooses not to respond directly to readers’ comments on political issues. I would do the same if I were him i.e. not make direct responses to questions or issues raised – except in the form of a headnote, in writing which he has more control. His written responses to specific issues raised here by his readers could be quoted in Parliament – and that could be problematic, to say the least. Then there is the ever present danger of entrapment.
His silence does not mean he concurs. If that be the case Kit would now be ‘enjoying’ the hospitality of His Majesty’s Services at an undisclosed location. I submit to you he’s a lot smarter than that.
And in case some readers accuse me of being patronizing, I am not.
“….//…His written responses to specific issues raised here by his readers could be quoted in Parliament – and that could be problematic, to say the least. Then there is the ever present danger of entrapment….His silence does not mean he concurs….//…” – Undergrad2
I think you are right (and not patronizing). It has definitely something to do with his political position.
There are many public issues raised in this blog which are fertile ground for all kinds of queries to be raised by political friends or foes alike for his response. Would a politician (even one of national stature like him) be able to respond at length and in depth (without benefit of the think tank support)without at the same time producing inaccuracies and gaffes that would delight his political opponents and provide them ‘bullets’ to contradict or discredit him later on in another forum or context, whether in or out of parliament?
If he were to comment and interact as freely as other non political blog owners (eg RPK or Jeff Ooi), there is every potential that it will act to his disadvantage and be politically dangerous.
Having said that, personally I hope Kit would consider some form of limited personal interaction or exchanges with readers here from time to time albeit on the less controversial of issues.
That would be nice.
It would also attract the more serious readers to visit this blog and make their input.
From penarik beca to skh
Tak dak hal lah! Sikit punya hal saja…
Source: http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/beritankom.php?itemid=2586
Behind the screen deals between PM and ex-PM?
Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur, yang akan bersidang pada 24 April depan dijangka akan menerima permohonan Dr Mahathir untuk menolak saman Anwar Ibrahim terhadapnya, kerana ia sebahagian syarat ‘perjanjian damai’ bekas Perdana Menteri itu dengan Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Menurut sumber tertinggi Keadilan, keputusan itu sebahagian daripada empat syarat damai yang dipersetujui oleh kedua-dua pemimpin terbabit bagi menyelesaikan perbalahan antara mereka. Usaha perdamaian itu, jelasnya bukan berlandaskan kepentingan rakyat, tetapi berpaksikan kepada kepentingan keluarga kedua-dua belah pihak.
Tiga syarat lain, jelasnya, ialah yang berkaitan dengan kepentingan perniagaan dan hutang-piutang anak-anak Dr Mahathir, iaitu Mokhzani dan Mirzan dan isu pengambilalihan syarikat gergasi termasuk Proton.