By Tunku Abdul Aziz

Accustomed as I am to Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz’s often outlandishly over the top and predictably uncharitable innuendoes about people and their integrity, coupled with imputations of improper motives, I was, for all that, flabbergasted to read an account in the New Straits Times of Thursday, July 16, 2009 about Nazri resorting to slanderous language, obviously intended to damage and harm the reputation and standing of three well-known public figures, Tun Mahathir Mohamad, Tun Hanif Omar and Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, currently Chairman of Suhakam.

Nazri of all people should not be too quick off the mark to denounce the trio or any one else for that matter as “crooks” because I expect he himself would be the last to claim that he is a person of complete moral rectitude and that he has not once offended against the code of ethics of his chosen profession, if one could dignify the practice of politics as a profession, in the best sense of the word.

Before I go on, let me say that Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz has always been kind and courteous to me, a gesture I greatly appreciate and happily reciprocate. I write this more in sorrow than anger.

I would not normally give two hoots about Nazri’s boorish and tiresome behaviour, but when he has the gall to go out of his way to blacken the good name of a distinguished former civil servant and a fine gentleman of great honour and integrity, then I feel duty bound to say that his remarks are clearly beyond the pale. I cannot claim to know the other two gentlemen as well as I have known Hanif, but that does not mean that I am not equally saddened by Nazri’s totally uncalled for remarks about them. Nazri has overstepped the bounds of common decency.

In calling Hanif a “crook,” Nazri has strayed into the realm of intellectual dishonesty. As a minister of the crown, he owes it to them whom he described as “crooks” to justify his unkind and indefensible outburst. However, based on the man’s history of intransigence, it would be totally out of character were he to acknowledge that he had wronged these pillars of society by his mindless utterance. Being sensitive is obviously not his strong point.

Any one who has had the privilege of knowing Hanif will readily understand why he continues to be held in such high esteem long, long after he had retired as the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), a position that in his time represented complete and utter dedication, personal and professional honesty and integrity in discharging his duties and responsibilities. It is worth reminding ourselves that it was not for Tan Sri Hanif, as he then was, to go cap in hand to ask for an extension of contract. He offered voluntarily to step down on at least three occasions, and each time his request was turned own by the Prime Minister of the day.

He was the last of that special breed of distinguished Malaysian IGPs who maintained the honour and prestige of the Royal Malaysia Police. He was without any doubt the most outstanding Malaysian IGP to have served this country.

With possibly one exception, his successors have generally been a disgrace to the King’s uniform. A harsh judgement, perhaps, but I stand by my opinion.

AN EXTENSION FOR THE IGP?

And all this leads me to a consideration of whether the Najib administration should give in to pressure from certain quarters to renew the current IGP’s contract. The Prime Minister I am told keeps his ears close to the ground, and if this is true, then no doubt he must be aware of the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of concerned Malaysians about Tan Sri Musa Hassan’s continued service with the Royal Malaysia Police. No IGP in recent memory has been pilloried to the extent that Musa has been, and for very good reasons. The public perception of both the man and the service he leads has been anything but complimentary.

Najib, the self-anointed reformer, makes some hard choices on a whole range of issues on a daily basis, but in the case of the nation’s IGP, he must listen to what the people are saying. What they are saying is that they do not have any confidence in the ability of the police under the direction of the IGP to confront the country’s criminal elements decisively. The do not believe that the IGP has what it takes to keep this country safe. They fear for their safety, and based on the current state of affairs, this is understandable. Police crime statistics are fine as far as they go, but they are no comfort to those who find themselves crime victims with no prospect of getting police protection in a timely manner.

In short they would like to see a change in the top police leadership. The police must surely have a succession plan. I do not believe that no one is ready to step into Musa’s shoes? What, heaven forbid, if Musa should fall under a bus?

After all, we do have a Deputy IGP, all ready and able, waiting in the wings for the cue to perform. By the law of averages, he cannot be worse that his superior. To extend the IGP’s contract given the prevailing mood is to fly in the face of public opinion. Public opinion does matter.