The second front where I had hoped there new policy initiatives would be announced in the Royal Address is on police reform and in particular to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) with the announcement that the bill for its formation would be taken through all three readings in the current meeting of Parliament in view of the worsening crime index as well as repeated blows to public confidence in the ability of the police to implement the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to become an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to combat crime, uphold law and order and respect human rights.

The crime index in the country has worsened from 156,315 cases in 2003 to 226,836 cases in 2006 — a sharp rise of 45.1% in the past three years when the police force had set the target of reducing the crime index by five per cent each year!
In the past three years, violent crime had skyrocketed by 85.8 per cent from 22,790 cases in 2003 to 42,343 cases in 2006, with rape cases registering the highest increase of 65.5 per cent — reaching an average of 6.7 women raped daily in 2006 compared to an average of four women raped daily in 2003. In 2003, an average of 1.5 persons were murdered daily; but in 2006, this has increased to an average of 1.65 persons murdered daily.

I want to remind the Prime Minister of his pledge 40 months ago that one of his top priorities would be to reduce crime to restore to Malaysians their fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of their homes? Today, Malaysians feel even more unsafe from crime than when he became Prime Minister.

Abdullah had been the Minister in charge of police for the past seven years and it is time he take full personal responsibility for the worsening crime situation in the country by providing personal leadership in the campaign to reduce crime — starting by ending all the procrastinations in the establishment of the IPCMC to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class Police Service.

The police’s losing war against crime was vividly highlighted last month by the killing of the former top crime buster, former Penang Chief Police Officer, Datuk Albert Mah and the burglary of the house of former CID director Datuk Fauzi Shaari in Shah Alam.

Mah, former Member of Parliament, 82, would have lived a fit and active life for at least another ten years if he had not been mown down last month as the latest victim of an escalating crime wave in the country.

It is tragic that the former top crime-buster should end his life as the latest statistic as a victim of crime.

This was not the way for a former top-crime buster and former CPO to die — making a mockery of his commitment and dedication at the prime of his life to combat crime and make the country safe for all Malaysians.

The clear message of Mah’s tragic and senseless killing is that no one, , whether ordinary Malaysian, VIP or VVIP, is safe in Malaysia anymore, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of the home. If a former top crime buster and ex-CPO could killed so senselessly in the privacy of his home, who is safe in Malaysia?

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, who said Mah was his former boss and mentor, had announced that a task force had been formed to hunt down the five assailants believed to be foreigners. What had the task force achieved?

Malaysians want the killers of Mah to be hunted down and brought to justice. But they also want all the criminals responsible for the 604 cases of murder, 2,435 cases of rape, 68 cases of armed gang robbery, 2,658 cases unarmed gang robbery, 247 cases of armed robbery and 18,446 cases of unarmed robbery last year to be hunted down and brought to justice. Will there be a task force each to solve these grave violent crimes?

The Royal Police Commission in its report in May 2005 said that the Royal Malaysian Police had been unsuccessful in projecting a positive image of itself to the people, describing public confidence in the police as “very low”.

It said: “The qualities many in the public and business see in the PDRM are the antithesis of all that PDRM aspires to be. PDRM is generally viewed as inefficient, uncaring, unable to prevent or check crime and corruption to a significant degree. Concerns regarding infringements and abuse of human rights are extensive, and PDRM is not seen as being transparent or accountable to the public.”

Nothing has changed. If anything, public perception and confidence of the police have reached an all-time low.
The Police Royal Commission called for the highest priority to be given to a campaign against crime until crime levels have reached a point considered no longer alarming. It recommended “as an immediate measure, the PDRM should target a minimum of 20 per cent decrease in the number of crimes committed for each category within 12 months of this Report’s acceptance and implementation” — i.e. by May 2006.

Instead of a 20 per cent decrease in the crime index in the first 12 months of the Royal Police Commission Report, there was a 85.8 per cent increase of violent crime in the past three years, from 22,790 cases in 2003 to 42,343 cases in 2006!
Last August, the former and longest-serving Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar who held the top police post for two decades from June 1974 — January 1994, in his Sunday Star column “Point of View” on “Crime and our guality of life”, wrote about what has become commonplace in Malaysia — the prevalent fear about personal safety whether of oneself or one’s loved ones in the streets and public places. He described how he and his family were also afraid of their personal safety in the streets and public places.

Do we need to have another VIP and VVIP death whether in government or police, as a result of being victim of crime, before the police is momentarily stirred into action, only to be quickly forgotten shortly after?

What Malaysians want is a comprehensive plan for an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service committed to reduce crime and make the streets, public places and homes safe again for Malaysians, visitors and investors — as recommended by the Royal Police Commission.

Is the Police and Government prepared to find the political will to ensure that Mah’s death marks the lowest point of police credibility in the battle against crime?

Let Mah not die in vain. Let Mah’s death stir the Prime Minister and the Police out of the inertia of the former and the opposition of the latter to establish the IPCMC as the key proposal to create a world-class police service with the triple objectives of reducing crime, root out corruption and respect human rights in Malaysia.

The RM5.5 million EO “Freedom for Sale” scandal involving the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Johari Baharom, has brought public credibility of the Police and the Internal Security Minister to a new low.

The public reprimand of Johari by Abdullah, who is also the Internal Security Minister, telling the latter that he should just answer the allegations of bribery without accusing or blaming others has come as another blow to public confidence in the efficiency, effectiveness, professionalism and integrity of the forces with the responsibility to maintain law and order.

Abdullah’s response – “Now that there are allegations, answer the allegations one by one. No need to accuse other people. Just answer all the questions.” — when asked to comment on the ACA investigation into allegations that Johari had received more than RM5mil to release at least three suspects arrested under the Emergency Ordinance raises many questions, including:

Firstly, why has Abdullah taken two long weeks to come out with such a response, which should have been made at most after 24 hours.

Secondly, Abdullah’s unusual comment testifies to the unsatisfactory nature of Johari’s response to the allegations on Internet websites implicating him in a RM5.5 million “freedom for sale” scandal involving Emergency Ordinance (EO) detentions.

There was clearly a finger-pointing exercise between Johari and the police, with Johari loudly proclaiming his innocence while accusing the police of being sloppy, slipshod and using the EO as a “short cut to detain suspects who have insufficient incriminating evidence against them”.

As even the Prime Minister-cum-Internal Security Minister is not satisfied with Johari’s public response, the Deputy Internal Security Minister should present a ministerial statement to Parliament to give a full and satisfactory accounting of his rebuttal of the RM5.5 million “freedom for sale” allegations. It is clearly invidious and untenable for Johari to continue a single day as Deputy Internal Security Minister when the Prime Minister is not satisfied with his public explanation.

[Speech (9) on Royal Address debate in Parliament 21.3.07]