My censure motion to cut the salary of Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, in Parliament today was defeated by a 48 to 30 votes when it was put to the House.

I had moved the motion against Musa on two grounds, viz:

• For being more of a lobbyist for police megal deals instead of being the police leader to keep crime down and the country safe for Malaysians, tourists and investors; and

• Telling Malaysians that they had been living “a great lie” in the past five years under the Abdullah premiership by succumbing to the new police line that the real problem is not worsening crime situation or a misperception.

When winding-up, Deputy Home Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heong admitted the veracity of the two letters I handed to him earlier during my speech, viz:

• letter from Musa as IGP to the Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop dated 12th February 2007 on the subject “Cadangan Kontrak Sewaan Helicopter Kepada Polis Diraja Malaysia Selama 30 Tahun Melalui Private Funding Initiative (PFI)” where Musa gave his full endorsement for the RM20 billion Asiacopter proposal to rent out 34 helicopters to the police for 30 years; and

• letter from Musa as IGP to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dated 3rd November 2006 on “E-Police Force Solution – Letter of Intent”, pressing for the issue of an “Letter of Exclusive Intent” to Web Power Sdn. Bhd. by the government for its RM4.2 billion “E-Police Force Solution” proposal.

However he tried to dismiss the “integrity issues” in the two letters, although I said that this was the first time an IGP has breached general orders and gone out of his way to lobby for mega police deals for a particular company – which had never been done by his predecessors, whether Tan Sri Bakri Musa, Tan Sri Norian Mai, Tan Sri Rahim Noor or Tun Hanif Omar.

When I asked whether the government would welcome a three-prong investigations into the improprieties committed by Musa, especially as his son was working in one of the two companies which are inter-connected – government investigation into breach of standard operating procedures, Anti-Corruption Agency investigation and Public Accounts Committee inquiry, Chor merely replied that the PAC is entitled to investigate into both matters if it is minded to do so.

On my second reason for the censure motion against Musa, I rebutted claim that from international statistics, Malaysia is safer than Japan, Hong Kong and Australia and nearly on par with Singapore.

I pointed out the disgraceful phenomenon whereby Malaysians who crossed the Johore causeway into Singapore would feel very safe while instantly feeling very unsafe when they return to Johore Baru through the causeway – which is the most powerful testimony that Malaysia is a world away as compared to Singapore in terms of the comparative safety in each country.

As the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib seemed to have adopted the new police line that Malaysia is safer than Japan, Hong Kong and Australia, I challenged Najib and Musa to walk the streets of Johore Baru without their retinue of escorts for a day to get a direct experience of the “fear of crime” which has become the daily nightmare of Malaysians.

I also reminded Musa of the long list of top government and police officials who have fallen victim to the endemic in the country after their retirement, including his most well-known predecessor as IGP Tun Hanif Omar, former Penang Chief Police Officer Datuk Albert Mah (who was murdered in his Petaling Jaya home in an armed robbery), former Sarawak Governor Tun Rahman Yaakob – warning that he himself might face the same fate after his retirement as IGP!

I omitted to mention the recent cases of the September murder of Hor Joo Lee, wife of former Penang MCA State Assemblyman, Lai Chew Hock to illustrate the gravity of the crime situation and why the Police leadership should end its denial syndrome about the endemic crime in the country.

When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi did when became Prime Minister five years ago was to establish a Royal Commission Report, which reported in Chapter 4, viz:

“3.1 The incidence of crime increased dramatically in the last few years, from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,455 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent.

“The increase seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country. Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation. The fear was that, if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia. A survey of 575 respondents from the public carried out by the Commission clearly demonstrates the extremely widespread concern among all ethnic groups and foreign residents. Between 82.2 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents, or 8 to 9 persons in every 10, were concerned with the occurrence of crime.”

After three years, in 2007, the incidence of crime increased by 33.94% from 156,455 cases in 2004 to 209,559.

“3.2: There was an alarming increase in violent crime during the period. Violent crime grew from 16,919 cases in 1997 to 21,859 cases in 2004, an increase of 29.2 per cent in 8 years. Cases involving unarmed gang robbery saw an increase of 56.5 per cent followed by attempted murder (76.9 per cent) and unarmed robbery (80.7 per cent).”

After three years, in 2007:

1. Violent crime increased from 21,859 cases (2004) to 35,158 cases (2007) – an increase of 60.8 per cent.

2. Unarmed gang robbery saw an increase of 318.4 per cent (i.e. from 1,689 cases in 2004 to 7,067 cases in 2007).

3. Unarmed robbery increased by 30.4 per cent (i.e. from 13,211 cases in 2004 to 17,241 cases in 2007).

“3.3: There was also a significant increase in property crime during the period from 104,257 cases in 1997 to 134,596 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent.

“The increase was most severe in theft of lorries and vans (171.6 percent), cars (161.4 per cent) and motor cycles (92.4 per cent). Actual figures for prioperty crime are believed to be higher5 due to non-reporting.”

In three years, in 2007,property crime increased from 134,596 cases in 2004 to 174,440 (an increase of 29.6%).

Because of this high incidence of crime, the Royal Police said it was “urgent” for a concerted police drive against crime.

It dedicated Chapter 7 to “Launch A Sustained Nation-Wide Drive Against Crime” and said:

“The Commission recommends that PDRM allot the highest priority to the campaign against crime, along with eradication of corruption and making policing more compliant with human rights and prescribed laws. The prioritization should remain until crime levels have reached a point considered no longer alarming.”

The Royal Police Commission recommended that the police formulate and implement annual and month crime reduction plans, and proposed the following target:

“As an immediate measure, 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”.

It is now more than three years since the publication of the Royal Police Commission. What has the Police to show for its “sustained nation-wide drive against crime”, the proposed “annual and monthly crime reduction plans” and in particular “a minimum 20 per cent decrease in crimes within 12 months”?

The Police had its own target of reducing the crime index by five per cent a year. If this more modest target had been reached, then from 156,455 crime incidence in 2004, there should be a drop to 148,632 cases in 2005, 141,200 cases in 2006 and 134,140 cases in 2007.

However both the Royal Police Commission’s recommendation of a minimum of 20% decline of crime index in first 12 months or the police’s more modest target of 5% decline per year had not been achieved, and the Police is fighting a losing battle against crime with the traditional crime index breaking the 200,000 mark last year as well as this year.

The Inspector-General of Police is therefore doing the country a great disservice in now adopting a most irresponsible attitude in claiming that the worsening crime situation is not a fact but a mere misperception.

In trying to convince Malaysians that they had been living under a “great lie” in the past five years under the Abdullah premiership in succumbing to the misperception of a worsening crime situation, Musa Hassan is not fit to continue as IGP for a single day.