Today’s New Straits Times report “ACA probes cop with RM27m assets” has refocused public attention on corruption in the police force and raised the question whether the Royal Police Commission’s three key recommendations that the nation should have an efficient and professional world-class police service to reduce crime, eradicate corruption and respect human rights have made any appreciable progress in the past two years.
According to the NST, a senior police officer at Bukit Aman is being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) for abuse of power and failing to declare RM27 million worth of assets.
It is understood that the officer is also a company director and the RM27 million fortune was amassed illegally.
The NST report said:
Sources familiar with the case said ACA officers from Putrajaya took a statement from the officer at his office yesterday.
“The officer, who is in his 50s, is a director of a company which was awarded a project in April to develop an area in Lahad Datu,” a source said.
“Several villagers voiced their opposition to the project when the company staff went to the area to do surveying work.
“The police officer allegedly ordered the villagers to be arrested,” the source added.
The ACA started its investigation following an anonymous telephone call about two weeks ago.
Malaysians are reminded of the Royal Police Commission report on police corruption:
“The public believes that police personnel are vulnerable and this encourages the public to offer bribes in order to avoid any inconvenience, legal action or paying heavier fines.”
The public are also reminded of the case of the “RM34 million” senior police officer mentioned in the Royal Police Commission Report, which said:
“A retired police officer alleged that corruption was rampant within PDRM. He claimed that many officers had assets several times over their known income. According to the complainant, it was common knowledge that a particular senior officer made an asset declaration amounting to RM34 million and he was surprised that no action was seen to have been taken.” (p. 278)