Not too late to suspend Musa Hassan as IGP with his honourable discharge subject to full investigations into his dereliction of duties and serious allegations of corruption and abuses of power against him

A war of words have broken out between the outgoing Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan one the one hand and the Ministry of Home Affairs represented by the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and the Home Ministry Secretary-General Datuk Seri Mahmood Adam on the other.

Since Hishammuddin’s announcement that there will not be another extension as IGP for him, Musa has been hitting out at “excessive interference from third parties” against the police force, zeroing in particular on the Home Ministry.

Yesterday, he told police officers and personnel not to be “yes men” or the entire force would “rot and collapse”.

It would appear that Musa was content to be a “yes man” to the political “powers-that-be” so long as he continues to be IGP, which was why the police under his leadership reached the bottom of its “rot and collapse” of public confidence and support in the history of the Malaysian police force, despite the blueprint formulated by the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission in 2005 to restore plummeting public confidence by transforming itself into an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service.

Musa was the foremost antagonist to the full acceptance and implementation of the recommendations of the Police Royal Commission of Inquiry– particularly the key proposal for the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) – at one stage even threatening police revolt against the elected government of the day.

Musa has now confessed that there was “excessive interference by “third parties”, naming the Home Ministry, outsiders and people with vested interest “who want to do things that are not right”, in the work of the police.

Musa failed in his duties as IGP when he did not lodge official reports to initiate investigations to halt such “excessive interference” with the police.

As Musa’s term as IGP will not expire until Sept. 13, it is not too late for him to be suspended as IGP with his honourable discharge subject to full investigations into his dereliction of duties as IGP as well as serious allegations of corruption and abuses of power which have been against him.

The ball is in the court of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Hishammuddin.

  1. #1 by dagen on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 10:16 am

    What a nice blow delivered by uncle kit. And with just this one blow he struck and bloodied quite a few noses.

    “Nah” kasi you umno!

  2. #2 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 10:37 am

    Yes, the credibilty of the government is further reduced by such allegations.
    A Parliamentary select committee should haul up the IGP and the Home Ministry to probe further.
    This is a serious accusation by the top cop.

  3. #3 by Loh on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 10:47 am

    ///Musa has now confessed that there was “excessive interference by “third parties”, naming the Home Ministry, outsiders and people with vested interest “who want to do things that are not right”, in the work of the police.///

    Home Ministry Sec-Gen Mahmood Adam claimed that not agreeing to Musa’s recommendations did not constitute interfering. Mahmood Adam must have thought IGP Musa stupid to equate interference with non-automatic approval. Musa mentioned outsiders beside Home Ministry. Outsiders could be anybody inside or outside the government. Musa said people with vested interest were interfering in police work. That vested interest might be an interest to see criminal cases left not investigated, or plant evidence to get innocent people charged for breaking the law. The interference can also be getting the police to bring about inequality before the law such as in charging DAP lawmaker on DVD offence but ignoring the same actions by Perak MB Zambry and Perak EX-CO Mah.

    Does IGP have to make police report before he could launch an investigation? If he is bound by the rule to make such reports for record purposes, he would have failed in his duties for not making police report on outside interference in police duties and for not conducting investigation. IGP has no authority to condone actions against the law of the land.

    IGP has until 12 Sept 2010, the last day of his term, to make police reports against those outsiders and people with vested interest for interference with police work. He should also report against civil servants in the home ministry for acting beyond their duty.

  4. #4 by dcasey on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 11:12 am

    The implication is like the IGP publicly saying that some DUMNO ministers are **stards and these same DUMNO politicians are keeping quiet about it. The minister instead send a joker to try to explain and play down the accusation that the IGP didn’t say **stard, he only said custard….Blimey…Jokersland can’t cease to be amazing.

  5. #5 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 11:14 am

    It is funny how one rediscovers one’s conscience only after being kicked off the gravy train.

  6. #6 by Godfather on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 11:46 am

    I’m sure he will tell all one day especially regarding the “instructions” he received from Mamakthir regarding the Anwar Ibrahim case.

  7. #7 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 12:19 pm

    When its is argued that its “not too late to suspend” the IGP – for whatever reasons, whether dereliction of duties, opposition to IPCMC or insubordination – he has come out with a defence – “excessive interference”.

    There could have been interference but whether the political interference was “excessive” implying inappropriate interference or it’s the ordinary kind of legitimate interference within purview of Home Ministry’s officials or benign interference to correct the wrongful way PDRM was run, we will never know unless we support the outgoing IGP’s right to be heard!

    As I said in earlier thread, we have a stake in knowing what kind of interference. Overriding or not responding to PDRM’s request for allocation may be construed as interference. Telling the IGP who to hire and fire is also interference. Telling the IGP or directing his subordinates who not to investigate or who to do so is also interference.

    All these are interferences but there are of different gradations in terms of gravity of impact on public interest. As I have said the last type of interference is the worst. It is an abuse of power bordering on corruption on part of politicians to do that. It not only undercuts IGP’s command structure, it is also a clear contravention of Section 4 of the Police Act! How do we know that it was not an interference of the worst kind if we do not support an investigation of what the outgoing IGP alleged but concentrate instead on ushering his departure and congratulating the Home Ministry for finally summoning the political will not to extend his contract?

    It was reported on page 2 The New Straits Times 9th Sept. that Tan Sri Robert Phang, executive council member of Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation berated the IGP for being sour grapes “bringing up the issue of “interference” only now when he was on the way out and not before when his tenure was renewed thrice.

    Maybe before he was not complaining in fear that his job position might be jeopardized. Admittedly this is neither moral nor noble stand to take: a principled stand would have to complain on the basis of what is right or wrong heedless of self interest at the time when one had most to lose. That’s adds to credibility.

    So what detractors like Robert Phang have established is that Musa has not the moral credibility to complain. However (1) not having the moral standing or credibility to complain is a separate thing and issue from whether (2) the complaint has factual basis! Leave the part about the complaint being belated aside because delay in complaint does not necessarily imply the complaint is baseless. No one, least of all a career officer of 41 years, conditioned to say “yes” to political bosses all his career, will ordinarily dare to pick a quarrel with the powers-that-be (who control his pension and perks after retirement) by antagonising them with a public allegation of “excessive interference” unless there is something to it that the greater powers might have done wrong having far reaching consequence in relation to public interest!

    And there’s no way the kind of interference in (2) can be known unless the IGP is accorded a fair right to be heard, and his right to say his piece is defended and supported by Opposition and Civil society.

    Are we going to sacrifice (2) just because we are overly focused on (1)? Wouldn’t that be missing the forest for the trees in terms of public interest?

    On this ground alone I argue that the outgoing IGP’s right to be heard should be supported by the public.

  8. #8 by Peter on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 12:20 pm

    This is the problem with the UMNO government. They think the people are stupid. We all knew what Musa Hassan is talking about when he mentioned interference from Home Ministry. I am sure Home Minister Krishammuddin Hussein and Home Ministry secretary-general Mahmood Adam knew that too. Musa was referring to the Home Ministry interfering with the police doing their job. But that tail wagging Mahmood, thinking we are stupid, cleverly twisted the story as if the interference meant the Home Ministry not acceding to police’s requests. Come on, learn to speak the truth.
    Sometimes(if not all the time) their stupid racialistic head talk garbage and yet can put on a stupid grinning face. Do you expect this “kris” guy to say, “Yes, I did interfere”? Of course, he is going to deny it. That’s what the BN/UMNO government is good at. All the major institutions in the country, including the judiciary and police, have lost the respect of the rakyat due to such interferences.

  9. #9 by Godfather on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 12:29 pm


    Musa Hassan never at any time decried that he was denied the right to be heard. Neither did he suggest that he needed the public to stand up and help fight for his right to be heard.

    These are hypocrites who went with the flow when the going was good, and now that he is riding into the sunset, he is making some noises about the road being bumpy. He’s going to shut up, just like everyone else who benefitted from the UMNO bandwagon built by Mamakthir.

  10. #10 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 12:37 pm

    since he is now complaining about the interference, we should give him his day before an open hearing.
    Nothing wrong with that.
    Are we saying that thieves should not be entitled to report a robbery?

  11. #11 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 12:40 pm

    If it were suspected that the excessive interference was of a nature inappropriate or even illegal, then now is the time – when the ‘Castle is divided’ and not united in one voice for cover up – to drive a wedge and probe, especially when one has an ex IGP as “expert witness” having direct experience of the so called alleged interference…

    You will never have such a golden opportunity to demand accountability in the area of law enforcement.

    To focus on the complainant’s record of service and to think along lines that Home Ministry did right not to renew the contract, to talk about the lack of credibility of the complaint being made now and not earlier etc is to miss the strategic opportunity for public accountability now presenting itself, not grasped, because of distraction from the earlier said extraneous issues.

  12. #12 by k1980 on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 12:53 pm

    Come to think of it, the DNA stains on the mattress produced by Musa during Anwar’s trial might have turn out to be Musa’s. So too would the DNA in Saifool’s rectoom

  13. #13 by undertaker888 on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 1:09 pm

    today is the the 9th, there is 4 days to go.
    Musa, you have 4 days to spill the beans. No interference. Come on, if you are so clean and will not “rot and collapse”, 4 days for you to redeem yourself. Just reveal these 2 would be enough:

    1) is sodomy 2 a setup?
    2) where is the picture of Al…ya with…?

    kalau tak berani, belah-lah. jangan nak cakap cakap kosong macam biasa.

  14. #14 by boh-liao on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 1:16 pm

    Will musang b charged under OSA, breaching of “Aku Janji”, n badmouthing his bosses?
    Will disciplinary action b taken against him?

  15. #15 by DAP man on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 4:38 pm

    In other words Musa is telling the government, “Catch me if you can”.
    I doubt the government will because Musa will reply,
    ” You touch me, I will bring you down as well.”

    It’s a sort of blackmail.

  16. #16 by frankyapp on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 5:08 pm

    They say a dying man won’t tell lies. It’s a pity IGP Musa waited only upon his retirement to tell or reveal the truth. However what he has said,is never too late and concrete action is needed now to follow up what he has unvieled. By the way is there a law against any top civil servant to hold up the truth in their public performace of duty ?

  17. #17 by somaris on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 5:54 pm

    Yeah MUSA.
    Tell the Rakyat.U got few more days to do the right thing.We all MALAYSIAN are waiting.Spill The Beans.

  18. #18 by boh-liao on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 7:16 pm

    Psssssst, musang, just tell us NR n Altantuya, true aah? Ful of sai got poked or not?
    All d bonking @ d U know what chambers, got aah?
    Not too late 2 tell us d truth, still bulan suci ramadhan

  19. #19 by johnnypok on Thursday, 9 September 2010 - 7:57 pm

    Where is the wide-mouth HM? Why no action taken against the IGP for making false-accusation? You should immediately issue a show-cause letter to Musa, and take stern action against him. Why so quiet? Why so fast to punish others? Eat small only. Wait until GE 13.

  20. #20 by Cinapek on Friday, 10 September 2010 - 9:04 am

    Musa’s outburst is interesting in more ways than we can imagine. It indicates:

    1) It was a bitter response to what he might have perceived as being “played out” after all the cooperation he has given the UMNO led BN Govt. He had expected to be reappointed but it did not happen and he is bitter.

    2) He must realize that there will be backlash on this outburst. Either he must have enough juicy stuff on those that walks in the corridors of power to know they will not dare to touch him or he has decided that there is no way back.

    3) He has termed it “interference”. But I suspect he meant that “third parties” had given direct intructions to his subordinates bypassing him in some of the states to act partially in favour of BN time and again and he had quietly went along with this hoping in return he will be rewarded for his cooperation. His subsequent comments warning his men not to be “yes” men bears this out.

    This overt display of insubordination by the IGP and the acid condemnation of the Home Ministry indicates the deep rot in the BN Govt. This outburst by the IGP is but a manifestation of the shadier things that have been committed and covered up by the Govt with the connivance of the PDRM.

  21. #21 by undertaker888 on Friday, 10 September 2010 - 11:52 am

    hmmm…MT is blocked again by bloke heads. must be some juicy things some people dont want the general public to know…

  22. #22 by vsp on Friday, 10 September 2010 - 12:07 pm

    The Home minister has denied there has been no interference, but they yet they have not disciplined the IGP. If the IGP can get scot-free for such indiscretion, it just proves that the IGP has a very powerful weapon in his arsenal to blow the UMNO government to smithereens.

    Contrast this to Nurul Izzah’s and they want to charge her for sedition. Expect the IGP vs Home Ministry issue to be as quiet as a mouse and the IGP will be compensated for his “service” in some other form. The IGP tenure cannot be extended for a third time because Hishammuddin was aware of the taunts hurled against such a possibility. Never has he expected that hell hath no fury like an IGP scorned!

  23. #23 by vsp on Friday, 10 September 2010 - 12:24 pm

    What are the moderators doing? No F***words being used and yet the post has got them frigging jumpy!

  24. #24 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 10 September 2010 - 6:08 pm

    Musa Hassan, are you beginning to sound like a cry-baby who has lost your candy?

    Ok, maybe, just maybe, you are actually right this time. Maybe, you are fed up now with those foul-mouth, SOB home ministry [email protected] who are giving you the walking orders. I guess it is time you just bite the bullet and show them who is “boss”, ok. Just spill the beans – everything, just the honest truth so that you can defend yrself later. Don’t lie becos you wouldn’t be able to defend any lie on the new side of the fence.

    Just sock it to them Musa, just sock them. We are all behind you, big man.

  25. #25 by Jeffrey on Friday, 10 September 2010 - 6:29 pm

    It is true what Godfather said in #9 that “Musa Hassan never at any time decried that he was denied the right to be heard. Neither did he suggest that he needed the public to stand up and help fight for his right to be heard”.

    However here it is not just his right to be heard that is at stake but our right to hear what he has to complain.

    Now it is also true that much has been complained by critics and detractors about his service record and competence, which affects the credibility of what he complains now but not during his tenure whilst he was enjoying the service perks.

    Whilst these criticisms may be justified, they pertain to the man himself and are relevant to highlight (from public standpoint) if he were continuing his tenure of office. For then it may be relevant to ask, “how can we allow him to continue office with such blemishes of record?”

    The fact is that he is not continuing office. His contract has not been renewed.

    So issues pertaining to his competence, bias etc, -which are issues are pertaining to the man himself- become less important, and what looms larger an issue of greater importance is the systemic malaise of our policing system being vulnerable to political interference that undermines police neutrality and professionalism.

    This problem of political interference had been there before Musa’s tenure. It was likely so there during his tenure, and it would also be there after his tenure! I call this a systemic problem.

    I am addressing this problem of the system that deserves our attention. It deserves more attention that the problem with the man himself, which might be important if he were continuing his tenure but obviously not so important when he is already going and as good as gone without his service contract being renewed….

    So let us not mix up our problem with the system with our problem with the man himself – not mix up his right to be heard (which he is not demanding) from that of our right to hear (which I argue we should be demanding) of what he has to say and (unfortunately) dare only to say at the point of departure.

    This opening of opportunity to hear what lips that are normally sealed have got to say only happens when there is a breaking of ranks within a castle divided, which we should leverage and seize the opportunity that does not quite come so often.
    If we care to at least know the inside story of the systemic problem as a first step to address it in public interest, then we should not allow our dissatisfaction with the problem of the (retiring) man to affect and make us forget our greater dissatisfaction with the (continuing) systemic problem, and for these reasons, I say we should encourage and support his saying his piece than urging for his suspension in lieu of honourable discharge.

  26. #26 by HJ Angus on Saturday, 11 September 2010 - 12:16 am

    of course the posturing by the various parties could just be the means to secure another source of income like a director-ship in a BN friendly company or GLC just like what a former IGP is enjoying.
    You notice the claims and dismissals are mostly subtle with no specifics?
    To me a top position like IGP or Chief Judge should retire and enjoy their generous pensions without being eligible for employment by anyone – maybe serve in special commissions or royal inquiries.

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 11 September 2010 - 7:46 am

    Chairmanship or directorship whether in a BN friendly company or GLC or PLC is more likely if the candidate is perceived friendly and not antagonistic to or in conflict with the government officials of the day : its only then that he is of assistance within the patronage system to benefit the corporation that pays him quid pro quo the generous directors fees.

    So far claims are mostly subtle with no specifics could (possibly) be because of the fact that technically he is still under employ, albeit the last days and cannot be seen as appropriate attacking employer. We don’t know what comes after. It could depend on how he evealuates degree of public support for what he reveals. If he thinks that there is no support whats the point of putting directorships at risk with no compensating advantage?

You must be logged in to post a comment.