Categories
Politics & government Society

[2346] Officer Dredd, the Blue Ocean Man

It is comforting that the Najib administration is showing some concerns about the size of government expenditure. They are doing something about it in some parts of government, even as the big picture offers a more complex and contradictory narrative. Yet, not all cuts in spending are right.

A reduction or saving cannot be done simply for the sake of reduction. That is mindless. There have to be principles behind all cuts.

For many skeptics of the state, that principle is small government. The concept demands the power of the state be kept in check. It advocates limiting the size of government while instituting a mechanism to counter the influence of the state.

As far as a system of check and balance is concerned, the idea of a small government is not an ideological extreme. A wall separating various offices — offices that if left together would corrupt the whole structure — prevails in any society subscribing to the supremacy of rule of law out of fear for potential abuse of power

That includes, believe it or not, Malaysian society. Even companies put in place some check and balance mechanism, even if in some cases it is only for show, and even if only to find scapegoats when something goes wrong like what is happening in certain government-linked companies in Malaysia.

A system of check and balance is expensive but one does not simply throw it out of the window for the sake of cutting cost. There is more at stake than failing to balance the budget.

For instance, one simply does not merge the functions of the police and the judges together to reduce government expenditure. The world of Judge Dredd — someone who is the police, judge, jury and executioner all at the same time — makes for a good comic but it is not ideal for the creation of a power abuse-free society.

Some believe in the separation wall. The Najib administration believes in the Blue Ocean Strategy. If the government is left to its own device, the blue ocean may inundate us all.

The Najib administration is encouraging closer co-operation between the police and the military. He said this was part of the Blue Ocean Strategy thinking. I call it the Officer Dredd thinking.

Some co-operation — having the military patrolling the border instead of the police and rehabilitating petty criminals in army camps instead of in prisons — seems innocent and even laudable at first glance. Not only it does cut cost, more importantly its rationale makes sense.

Others — having the police and the armed forces patrol the streets jointly and using of military facilities for police recruiting and training — are insidious in nature.

There is a reason behind the separation between the police and the military. The police force is concerned with mostly internal affairs. They are armed and trained accordingly. The traditional function of the military is to address external threats. The military does have additional roles in times of emergency but the qualifier is clear: only in times of emergency.

The awesome firepower of the military is the reason why it is not granted the wide-ranging power of the police force in a society under normal, peaceful times. Once merged, the forces will have extraordinarily wide powers that no single entity should have. It is a step closer towards military rule. Whoever wields this power will be the dictator. The gun will always be too hot for a free democracy.

For this reason, any co-operation between the police and the military deserves critical assessment and hostile suspicion.

Suspicions aside, is the finance of the government in such dire straits that the police and the military have to participate in someone else’s fascination with Blue Ocean Strategy and, in the process, tear down the separation wall?

If the situation is so bad, the government can take other more traditional avenues without adversely affecting any public check and balance mechanism.

There are 24 ministries in the Najib administration, not including the offices of the prime minister and the deputy prime minister. Do we need so many ministries, even more ministers and their deputies?

Some government ventures in the commercial world ended up needing bailouts. Does the government need to be in the business world?

More than 20 per cent of the RM67 billion worth of stimulus spending has yet to be spent as of March 2011, two years later. Does the Malaysian economy need that stimulus spending, if it was needed in the first place at all?

And there are multiple failed economic corridors courtesy of the Abdullah administration. Why is the Najib administration still propping them up?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 6 2011.

Categories
Liberty Society

[2330] The police force and the military must remain separated

The roles of the police and the armed forces are different. One enforces the law while the other stands on guard against the enemy of the state. The difference in functions and in challenges both faces necessitate the two to be separated. When two security forces are combined, the power of the military expands. With that, there is a fear that the military might see everything that it faces as enemy of the state. The military becomes paranoid and then acts upon the policing power that it has. That is a step towards military rule.

I am raising this issue because I have read in the news recently that the police is cooperating with the military in fighting crime. In the Parliament yesterday, the Minister of Home Affairs confirms the news report.[1] He said that the Ministry was having strategic cooperation with several entities including the military. The cooperation includes the use of military camps for training and recruitment of police officers and joint patrol.

Whether this militarizes the police force is arguable, but what is certain is that it will expand the influence of the military in our society.

The goal of reducing crime rate in the country is laudable. The goal however does not justify all means. The rule of laws must still be adhered to. Rights must be respected, including those belonging to criminals. The goal also does not justify the erosion of separation between the police and the armed force.

The two must remain separated.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Kementerian Dalam Negeri sedang dan akan mengadakan kerjasama strategik dengan pihak lain antaranya seperti Angkatan Tentera Malaysia yang telah dilaksanakan bagi menangani jenayah seperti penggunaan kem-kem tentera untuk melatih dan merekrut anggota polis, mengadakan rondaan-rondaan secara bersama dan menyerap bekas personel tentera dalam perkhidmatan polis. [Page 3. Hansard. March 9 2011.]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2113] Of be fair to the police with respect to the November 8 shootout

The November 8 in Klang incident when the police shot dead several suspected criminals after a car chase has emboldened a number of individuals, more prominently perhaps a strong accusation from DAP, of summarily killing. While the Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan’s response of you are either with the police or you are with criminals[0] as well as the police force’s whole reputation are hardly convincing at all, for this particular episode, I view the criticism against the police as utterly unfair.

I am extremely skeptical of implicit accusation of racism, as implied by The Malaysian Insider’s report which frames a DAP politician accusation as “waging a war of revenge against the Indian community by ordering the police to kill suspected criminals.”[1] To be fair to P. Sugumaran, the DAP member of Ipoh Barat, he seemed to be making that statement within context of other incidents which the police acted wrongly. Nevertheless, the statement was made with strong reference to the November 8 incident.

This is a delicate subject to tackle. At its heart is a question why certain ethnic groups are perceived to heighten the likelihood of a person being a criminal. It could be either wrongful stereotype or that the statistical distribution actually sided with the unwanted side of conclusion. One has to be very careful for in fight crime and committing racial prejudice. Nevertheless, increasingly, any police action taken against a certain ethnic group is considered an act of racism, regardless whether there is a strong case or not against a particular person.

I am further unimpressed and disappointed by the stress on alleged criminal. The status of the deceased as alleged criminal has been used to justify condemning the police for killing the suspects. Due to that, they argue the police should not have opened fire. This stress fails to take a holistic view of the event.

Indeed, everybody is innocent until proven guilty but these condemnations ignore crucial two things.

First, the suspects opened fire first. They even tried to force the police off the road.[2] If the police’s assertion is true, then one should not expect the police to go meet up with the suspects to ask kindly them to surrender. What kind of mad man would walk up to a suspect asking, “sir, would you surrender your weapon please?” when the suspect is threateningly pointing a pistol at the officer?

Even if the police decided to be ridiculously polite in their approach, the suspects were running away.

As a third person, I see that the police right to retaliate. Furthermore, while having somebody killed is always deplorable, it is, for the lack of better word, a gunfight.

Second is the very fact that these suspects have guns that should be obvious because the suspects used it in an aggressive manner.

The police deserve a lot of criticism, but not in this case. Criticism thrown at the police so far has been irrationally partisan to the point that the police can do no right.

Be fair.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 18 — Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan today said those who questioned police action in shooting suspects should consider whether they wanted to support those who upheld the law or the criminals.

He said this when asked to comment on claims that the police had used excessive force in a recent shooting in Klang, where five suspected robbers were gunned down

 

”The duty of the police is to protect the people. We do not protect criminals,” Musa was quoted as saying by state news agency Bernama. [IGP: To question police action is to support criminals. The Malaysian Insider. October 18 2009]

[1] — IPOH, Nov 15 — A DAP politician has accused the Barisan Nasional (BN) government of waging a war of revenge against the Indian community by ordering the police to kill suspected criminals.

Ipoh Barat DAP secretary P. Sugumaran (pic) lambasted the action, saying that the police had no right to pass judgement without first asking them to surrender.

”Their actions are clearly the BN’s political agenda to take revenge on the Indian community in the country.

”But how different are they from the suspected criminals they murder when their actions are tantamount to a criminal act in itself?” Sugumaran said in a statement here yesterday.

He cited the Nov 8 incident in Klang when the police had shot dead five robbers during a high-speed car chase and the recent shooting of the Deva Gang leader in Penang. [DAP blames BN for cops playing cowboys with Indians. The Malaysian Insider. October 15 2009]

[2] — KLANG: Police shot dead five suspected robbers in a shootout after a high speed car chase in Taman Klang Utama at 12.30am Sunday.

The five, believed to be dangerous and high on the wanted list, were involved in at least 10 robberies in Selangor and the Klang Valley for the past one year.

Selangor CID chief Senior Asst Comm II Datuk Hasnan Hassan said a team from the Klang district serious crime division spotted the five men in a Perodua Kelisa in Lorong Sungai Keramat around 12 midnight.

Realising that they were being followed, the robbers tried to forced the police car off the road while firing a few shots at them. [Five robbers killed in shootout with police (Update). The Star. October 8 2009]

Categories
Liberty Society

[1883] Of it is not about defending a criminal; it is about rule of law

While Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said that his statement about criminals should not be regarded as heroes does not refer to the recent death of Kugan[1] — an alleged criminal who died in police custody under suspicious conditions — I find it hard not to make the connection. Surely such statement is linked to the controversy because such statement cannot be cooked up all the sudden out of nowhere. There has to be a trigger and that trigger is most definitely the death of Kugan. The Home Minister is taking concerned individuals for fools it seems. One lesson of March 8 2008 has yet to sink into him.

Regardless of that, to state that various individuals and groups are taking criminals as heroes is an argument done in bad faith. It dishonestly paints individuals and groups rallying around Kugan in bad light. That is definitely not the best way to build bridges. As a person once served as the Foreign Minister of this country, I actually expected a more refined argument from him. One that is befitting of diplomats. I guess, I was wrong.

Firstly, Kuran is an alleged criminal. Nothing has been proven yet and to consider Kugan as criminal is to assume too much. Indeed the police personnel involved should be considered innocent until proven guilty too. Investigation into the matter should duly take place first because any conclusion is made. That is a reasonable standard to take up but it must be made applicable to Kugan too. Any double standard will make the matter worse.

More importantly, concerns for the death, even if Kugan was convicted of the crime he was accused of, is not about defending a criminal. As a Home Minister, he should know that this is about rule of law.

While investigation is underway, pictures circulating on the internet are hard to ignore.[2] Those pictures of terrible wounds on Kugan are incriminating to the police; it suggests torture took place while Kugan was under the care of the police. Did the police carry out torture on Kugan?

The possibility of torture and murder are both transgression of rights. When that transgressions occur, that means there is a possibility of disrespect for rule of law. Even criminals have their rights and that death, if indeed caused by the police, would be the ultimate transgression of rights.

When right to life is held with contempt, then something is not right. That is the whole point of this issue. It is quite cleanly and clearly not about defending or mourning a criminal. If Kugan were still alive, were not tortured and were properly convicted if indeed he was guilty of the accused crime, then trust me, nobody would have come to the side of Kugan.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — PUTRAJAYA, Jan 28 — The people should not regard criminals as heroes and the police who enforce the law as demons, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said today.

Speaking in general terms, he said no one was above the law and added that action would be taken against those who broke the law, even if it was the police. [Syed Hamid: Don’t regard criminals as heroes. Bernama. The Malaysian Insider. January 8 2009]

[2] — [A. Kugan: Horrifying pictures depict latest victim of police brutality/murder? Jelas.info. January 22 2009]