New Police Vision re-branding – proof of pudding in the eating

New Police Vision re-branding - proof of pudding in the eating

The Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan should declare whether the Police would accept the Suhakam inquiry findings that excessive police force was used against protesters at the KLCC demo on May 28 last year on petrol and power price hikes and whether disciplinary action would be taken against the errant police personnel.

The findings of the Suhakam public inquiry, which was made public last Friday, will be an acid test as to whether Musa is serious and not just indulging in a publicity stunt when he announced during the 200th Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) anniversary celebrations that the police is being rebranded with a new vision and mission to implement the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, accountable, trustworthy, professional world-class police service.

The deadline for Recommendation 2 of the Royal Police Commission to “Review and refine the Vision Statement” was August 2005 — which means that the RMP has lagged nearly 20 months behind this time-line.

Among the proposals by the Royal Police Commission for the review and refinement of the Police Vision are “to reflect the need for police personnel to respect and uphold human rights in view of the allegations of abuse of human rights”.

Musa should tell Malaysians whether in the rebranded police Vision, the Royal Police Commission’s specific proposal that it expressly incorporate the principle “Respecting and upholding human rights as provided for in the Federal Constitution and the laws of Malaysia” has been accepted.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, Musa should declare whether he is serious about a new rebranded Police Vision which respects and upholds human rights by accepting the Suhakam public inquiry findings that excessive force was used against a group of protesters at the KLCC last year, resulting in 10 people being injured.

In Suhakam’s 355-page report of the public inquiry into the incident on May 28 last year, which was released yesterday, the panel found that excessive force was used on an otherwise peaceful assembly.

The report said excessive force was used on 10 persons and identified L/Kpl Mustika Lambonding as being the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) officer who hit one of the demonstrators, Lee Huat Seng, with his baton.

However, witnesses were unable to identify the other officers because there was no identification (either names or badge number) due to the outer protective armour covering their uniforms (that had nametags).

The findings of the Suhakam inquiry included:

  • Excessive force by some members of the police force;
  • The crowd had started to disperse when the water cannon was activated and the police charged after them and Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel and police officers used force on the crowd;
  • The assembly was a peaceful one and the actions and speeches did not incite or cause a breach of peace or violence; and
  • The provisions of section 27 of the Police Act 1967 that requires a licence for assemblies and the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia” went against the right to freedom of assembly enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution.

Suhakam Inquiry chairman Datuk K.C. Vohrah said the assembly at KLCC was peaceful and orderly and that the police, in dispersing the assembly, had interfered with the right to the freedom of assembly that was enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.

Vohrah said the heart of the panel’s recommendations was the decriminalising of peaceful assembly without a licence under section 27 of the Police Act and the call for the repeal of related subsections.

Vohrah said: “In lieu of the requirement for a licence, the panel recommends that the organiser of a proposed peaceful assembly notify the police, and the police and organiser discuss practical arrangements.”

The report’s recommendations added that the rights of any person engaged in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent are not limited by any authority and it should also be ensured that such rights would not be considered as prejudicial to national security.

The report also outlined a number of steps that it recommended the police implement urgently, such as wearing clear identification during crowd control, and prohibiting the chasing and arresting of people who are moving or have moved away.

The ball is in the court of the Inspector-General of Police that the rebranded Vision and Mission is in conformity with the Royal Police Commission recommendation that respect for human rights be adopted as one of the top core priorities of the RMP — which is now being fleshed out specifically by the Sukaham inquiry findings into the excessive use of police force in the May 28 peaceful demonstration last year.

  1. #1 by Cinapek on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 10:47 am

    Rebranding means changing the packaging. The contents are the same.

    It is the spirit and not the process that counts. Unless there is a sincere attempt to change the spirit of the force to one of better efficiency, less corruption, abuse of power and a determined attempt to reduce the crime rate in the country, then we can start to believe the IGP. Otherwise the process of rebranding is just another attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eye to avoid the demand for the implementation of the IPCMC.

    I have my doubts that the rebranding will be of any use. It is carried out by the same people with the same baggage and with the same bias and prejudice. If there was any sincerity for change, they would have embraced the IPCMC, which was proposed by an independent third party with no vested interest . Instead it was vehemently opposed by the PDRM, which clearly indicated their unwillingness to accept change. With such mindset, can we expect a “rebranding” will change things for the better?

  2. #2 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 11:13 am

    The rebranding exercise is all about getting more money and new packaging.

    If they were serious about changing the police – it would be about Reform. But that would entail admission of fault and failure which is politically unpalatable.

    Having seen many turnaround situation before, I don’t believe you can do it without admitting the problem first. Organizational behaviour is that strange – members don’t change unless there is enough honesty about the issues. You can force change on them by force but fundamentally they don’t change at the ground level behaviour if the top don’t admit the problem.

    Leaders cannot be dishonest at the top and then expect the people on the ground to be honest. Even if they are not corrupted, so long as there is not enough honesty, there will be little change at the bottom. At best you get a hypocritical behaviour of covering up the dishonesty better for publicity temporarily shelving the problem not fundamentally changing it.

    So I agree with Cinapek, rebranding is about covering the problem NOT fundamentally changing it. Watch for a lot of publicity spin to ‘say’ the police are doing better but in reality there is no trust and believe and there will be more tension and hypocrisy. All it takes is for some incident and statistic to set everyone back to square one…

  3. #3 by Libra2 on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 11:20 am

    This in a nutshell is putting “old wine into new skin”. Same people, same name, same integrity, same arrogance, same abuse.
    The only difference is they will get a pay rise and “Jangan Rasuah” tags.

  4. #4 by tsn on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 12:36 pm

    Our country is caught in vicious cycle, we need someone with superbrain to break the cycle.

    The more we insult the people we need in time of need is really a no win game, in fact it is a very dangerous game.

  5. #5 by k1980 on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 2:35 pm

    The IGP should be proud that Bolehland is capable of producing such genuises as Ben Hir who is being urgently sought by his African sweetheart USD5million reward offer for this successor to Ben Hur

  6. #6 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 2:52 pm

    Malaysian students who study overseas are susceptible to being recruited for various causes as they tend to avoid mixing with the locals.

    I am sure that many groups like religious or terrorist cells will target such lonely students.

    So we can’t blame the IGP for this bomber.

  7. #7 by smeagroo on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 3:33 pm

    everytime a new IGP steps in he introduces new packaging. So typical of our bolehland leaders. What a waste of time n money. HOw many times hv we heard of such things b4 in the past without much success? I wonder who will get the rebranding contract?

  8. #8 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 8:33 pm

    “As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, Musa should declare whether he is serious…”

    I’m sorry ‘pudding’ is not something he is familiar with – perhaps, for the IGP the ‘proof of the belachan is in the eating’ makes more sense.

    “The ball is in the court of the Inspector-General of Police…”

    The ball may be in his court, but as the IGP what can we do if he does not want to play ball – his ball??

  9. #9 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 9:58 pm

    A baboon in new clothes is still a baboon. But a baboon in ‘style’.

  10. #10 by zzzzzzzzzzz on Thursday, 29 March 2007 - 10:58 pm

    Reminds me of a wolf getting ” rebranded ” and now known as a sheep. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. In Malaysia, why do people want to be cops ? Because it is a government job ? Because they don’t have other jobs ? Because they like to look smart in the dark blue uniform ? Because they can be heroes ? Why doesn’t the PDRM recruit people who are righteous, who are of opinion that this country should be governed properly, who think that unfortunate people should be helped, etc. ? As for those who are already in service, they should be made to mingle with this new generation of cops so that they can see for themselves that crime in whatever form, really does not pay. Where are all the righteous cops ? Is it because of experience that teaches them to keep quiet ? Is it because of the hierarchy of rank and power that stop them from being who they should be ?

  11. #11 by smeagroo on Friday, 30 March 2007 - 12:19 am

    can an honest person join the police force and not be influenced in return? How would a single honest cop be able to work with a group of corrupted officers? Will they look out for him in the line fo fire? Maybe I watched too many The SHield tv shows.

  12. #12 by HJ Angus on Friday, 30 March 2007 - 1:13 am

    smeagroo has a very valid point.

    I expect an honest cop will slowly change to suit the culture or he will request a transfer.

    Regarding the line of fire he may have to be careful not have anyone behind him. I think what we see on TV reflects what can happen in real life.

    After all truth can be stranger than fiction.

  13. #13 by 4th_wife on Friday, 30 March 2007 - 7:37 am

    Aiyoyo…old medicine in new bottle, this is bolehland and bodohland in the making. Lets see how long the wayang last.

  14. #14 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 30 March 2007 - 8:35 am

    How to have new Vision …with ONE EYE closed!

    Rightly, that would be only half-vision.

    How to have new Mission….with ONE ARM tied by “Banyak Nonsense’ BN Coalition.

    Rightly, then the Police are only equal to ‘One-armed’ police against ‘Two-armed’ bandits.

  15. #15 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 31 March 2007 - 9:39 am

    “…against ‘Two-armed’ bandits” Hornbill

    You find many in Las Vegas.

  16. #16 by dawsheng on Saturday, 31 March 2007 - 9:49 pm

    What are you talking about? Pudding in the eating? NO! Let me tell you, its been EATEN! This one is new pudding, after eating this one, they will eat another one, after, they still got endless supplies of puddings. This is the puddingkingdom, and their cops SUCKS! what can you do about it?

You must be logged in to post a comment.