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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 “legitimate”, 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.

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 “Oceania”.

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 “progressive”. 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.

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?

“….//…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.