The Najib government seems to be making a plausible case when its new media spokesman, the Youth and Sports Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar, says that when it comes to custodial deaths and abuses of power, what is important is “stern action” and not which agency – whether IPCMC or EAIC.
He said the rakyat want “stern action”, whether from an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) or whatever agency.
He stressed that a strengthened Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (EAIC), if it could conduct speedy and thorough investigations into custodial deaths and abuse of power, would do just as well.
Khairy’s glib and slick defence of the government’s preference for EAIC instead of IPCMC would be plausible if the scourge of police custody deaths is a new one and not a problem of over a decade, or the government is a new one and not one where the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has entered into his fifth year of premiership!
Or is Khairy admitting that for the past four years, despite the Prime Minister’s boasts of a very successful Government Transformation Programme (GTP), Najib and his Home Minister for the period, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, had failed miserably in addressing and resolving the issue of police custodial deaths?
Neither Khairy or any government spokesman can deny or ignore the fact that the IPCMC was proposed specifically by Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission of Inquiry in 2005 to end the outrage of high police custodial deaths while the EAIC was established specifically to neuter the IPCMC proposal and to avoid meaningful police transparency and accountability.
When the Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission of Inquiry submitted its report in May 2005, it reported police statistics of 80 deaths in police custody in the five years from January 2000 to December 2004, or an annual average of 16 deaths in police custody in those five years.
With 222 deaths in police custody from 2,000 to now, which means 142 deaths from Jan 2005 to June 2013, this works out to a higher annual average of deaths in police custoday in the past 8 ½ years, i.e. 16.7 deaths.
The argument put forward by Khairy – that what matters is that “Stern action vital, whether it is IPCMC or EAIC” in order to end high police custodial deaths – might be plausible in 2005 when the country was deciding whether to implement the Dzaiddin RCI recommendation to set up IPCMC, but is now completely unacceptable and discredited as after more than eight years, annual average of police custodial deaths are even higher and the EAIC in the past four years have dismally failed to address the problem of police deaths in custody until the recent nation-wide furore.
For this reason, the Cabinet should not indulge in any new form of procrastination to avoid immediate action to end the scandalously high incidence of police custodial deaths, and it should live up to its “Transformation” brand by taking the policy decision tomorrow to establish the IPCMC in the first meeting of the 13th Parliament beginning next Monday.
#1 by Loh on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 - 6:06 pm
Kerismuddin, the then UMNO Youth Chief, and Home Minister objected to the implementation of IPCMC so after the report of the RCI ws known. Kerismuddin objected to IPCMC simply because IPCMC would require police personnel to answer for their actions and they have to account for what they do. That means UMNO could no longer offer protection so long as they act on UMNO interests. All other alphabet soups are created to prevent the implementation of RCI recommendations.
#2 by mauriyaII on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 - 10:37 pm
Why does the PDRM fear IPCMC? After all its implementation would ONLY throw a monkey wrench on those officers of the force who are sadistic, barbaric, non-conformal to SOP and who are just trigger happy.
Why should members of the Cabinet including Khairy Jamaluddin and the DIGP oppose IPCMC? Isn’t 222 deaths-in-custody from 2000 until now not enough? As it is more and more custodial deaths are being recorded this year alone.
Now the fear of going to the Police to even report has become REAL. It is no more a joke to say that if one goes to the police station to report a crime, the chances are he/she would be sent out in a body bag.
A RCI recommended the setting up of the IPCMC whereas the diluted EAIC is the one offered by the government. Only crooked police officers and members of the cabinet who look up to these crooked officers to close one or both eyes at their crooked ways would not want the IPCMC implemented. Any law abiding rational citizen who has respect for law and order would want the IPCMC implemented in toto.
The IPCMC would change the whole PDRM into a respected one because it would become people centric and not one to be abused by crooks, cheats and murderers.
To be a respected body, the PDRM should initiate the setting up of the IPCMC. That alone would show the citizens that the police are in favour of reform and they want to be respected as the purveyors of law and order in the country.
The question is whether PDRM wants to be a respected force or as a FARCE as it is labelled now.
#3 by lee tai king (previously dagen) on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 - 8:43 am
So the hairy monkey said what the people really wanted is stern action and not ipcmc or eaic or so other bodies.
That is classic pouring more of the same nonsense. What stern action? The people wanted accountability. Not just stern action. Altan was killed. And two hooded accuseds (now convicts) were charged, tried and finally sentenced to death. But the question surrounding her murder remained unanswered. There are many more examples I could cite but I shall refrain.
Anyway, what proportion of the rakyat does the hairy monkey represent when he claimed to speak on their behalf. Lest he forgets, its only 47%.