Thursday, August 30, 2012

Man beaten and robbed as bystanders watch | Free Malaysia Today

Man beaten and robbed as bystanders watch

Teoh El Sen | August 30, 2012-FMT 

A disturbing case of public apathy is caught on CCTV and uploaded to YouTube.

PETALING JAYA:  A CCTV recording of bystanders nonchalantly watching a robbery in progress has caused outrage among thousands of YouTube viewers.

The seven-minute video, titled “Oh! CCTV Rompakan di Stesen Minyak RnR Butterworth-Kulim Expressway”, was uploaded last Monday by a Penang-based NGO called Komuniti Suara Kehidupan (Kosuke) and features a running commentary presented as subtitles.

The scene is a petrol station at a rest-and-recreation area on an expressway. The time is about 20 minutes past midnight on Aug 10. A motorcyclist and his pillion rider are shown accosting another motorcyclist and trying to wrest his machine from him. The victim resists and is beaten up.

During the four-minute struggle, one of the robbers whips out a weapon, according to the commentary, although this is not clear in the video. The victim slumps down on the floor as one of the robbers rides away on the stolen motorcycle.

While all this is happening, there are several people standing around just watching and others hiding inside the convenience store at the station.

One person walks by and pauses briefly fewer than two metres away from where the scuffle is happening before proceeding in his leisurely walk.  Another person leans against a wall and crosses his arms as he watches the robbery.

The video has had more than 50,000 views.  Most viewers condemn the inaction of the witnesses.

Watch video here

‘Janji Ditepati’ mocks founding fathers | Free Malaysia Today

Janji Ditepati’ mocks founding fathers

August 30, 2012-FMT
 
An 18-year-old Malaysian says the government's Merdeka theme for this year does not reflect the dreams of the nation's founding fathers.

COMMENT
By Brian Anand
Before independence, we were a people lacking an identity. We were not referred to as Malaya or Malayans, but rather as a British colony. We lived in a land whose destiny we had no control over, and with a future that was determined for centuries, not by us, but by the foreign colonialists who occupied our lands.

A princely Kedah noble, however, came along and dared to challenge the status quo. He dreamt of a nation which would possess its own unique identity, a nation governed on the principle of self-governance, a nation with a destiny shaped by its inhabitants, and a nation with laws reflecting the will of the people. He dreamt of Merdeka.

We now live in a country where instances of intolerance are at times accepted. We live in a country where some use the rule of law at their whims and fancies in order to serve their interests. We now live in a country where freedoms are repressed, and at times even frowned upon as being unpatriotic. And most importantly, we live in a nation where our democratic system remains in an inadequate state.

When I think of the word “Janji”, I think of the Merdeka dream of our founding fathers: creating a Malaysian nation with its unique identity, a nation governed by its people through a free and fair democracy, a nation with a future driven by own citizens, and a nation with laws that reflect the will of the people.

Looking at our country over the past few years, have these promises – a reflection of their Merdeka dream – been fulfilled? Let us do a bit of an analysis.

Malaysia is an immensely beautiful nation; a melting-pot of cultures and customs that band together to give it its special identity. This is 1Malaysia – an idyllic dream of what we as Malaysians should aspire to achieve: a society based on equality and mutual respect. And here is where we give Najib Tun Razak credit and praise for having conceptualised this idea, right? Wrong.

The conceptualisation of the 1Malaysia dream was done by our founding fathers, who promised us this when they fought for Merdeka. Najib, on the other hand, has only served to provide this vision with a name and logo – nothing more.
Today, 1Malaysia is in an unfortunately lamentable state having turned into nothing more than a brand with a catchphrase. Logos and slogans are found on shops, consumer items, restaurants and on public infrastructure – with the the true meaning of it having been lost in translation. Was it our founding fathers’ promise to turn their vision into a marketing campaign? Let’s face it, clinics with the 1Malaysia logos on them are not capable of “healing” societal divide. (No pun intended.)

The principle of self-governance is the cornerstone of every democracy, and the very definition of the word “Merdeka”. The right for Malaysians to govern themselves was what our founding fathers fought for.

Today, we live in a nation where some members of society fail to see that the very essence of democracy is something that goes beyond the ballot box.

A stiffling environment

In order for us to be able to fulfil our founders’ promise and call ourselves a democracy, human rights ought to be upheld. It is terribly unfortunate that we live in a day and age where media bias has become blatantly obvious, where the rights to assemble and protest are repressed and frowned upon, where Malaysians are not able to hold certain views or support certain causes without fearing for their safety.

Was this what our founders promised Malaysians when they fought for independence? Though they were technically Barisan National members, their intention was not to let BN rule, but to let Malaysians rule by choosing whoever they deemed fit to lead, through a free democracy that respects the rights of every Malaysian.

When our founding fathers aspired to build a nation with a destiny shaped by its citizens, they dreamt of a nation which will be governed through a free and fair electoral process. How can a people’s government manifest itself through a tainted electoral system that only reflects the will of a select few?

Was that the promise our founding fathers brought to Malaysia when they achieved independence? Today, we live in a country where the call for a free and fair electoral system reverberates across our land.

Seeing, as Najib claims, we have the “best democracy in the world”, one might regard that call a logical one. It is unfortunate, however, that the call remains ignored and deemed unpatriotic by the powers-that-be.
Our founding fathers achieved Merdeka for the people and not exclusively for themselves. Their aim was to uphold the sovereignty of the people and not to protect the rule of a select few. Their promise was not to allow Malaysians to be controlled, but to control their destiny through a government elected freely and fairly.

Reject the theme

Through a free and fair electoral process, our founding fathers envisioned a land with regulations that respect and uphold the sovereignty of the people. Their aim and promise was to build a nation with laws that serve to preserve our nation’s beauty, identity, cultures and creeds, and the protection of its citizens.

Today, we regrettably live in a nation where laws are bent to serve the needs of a select few, and where “repression” is often mistaken for “protection”.

Why is it that abuses of power continue to be ignored by the authorities? Why are some racist bigots left off scot-free, while others who defend their rights get hauled up to court? Why are natives forced out of their lands, only to make way for the massive deforestation of our virgin rainforest?

At present, there seems to be more interest on repressing “libel” in cyberspace than repressing criminal activity on our streets. We live in a Malaysia where many are repressed by the law, while others remain untouched by it. Was this what our founding fathers promised us when they fought for Merdeka?

The analysis above is clear, and the answer remains pretty simple. It is seemingly evident that “Janji Ditepati” was a theme coined up by inept citizens. These citizens have managed to display a blatant inability to comprehend the dreams our founding fathers envisioned when fighting for Merdeka.

Therefore, let us reject this theme as it remains a disgrace to their memory, making a mockery out of their struggle.

Instead, in the true spirit of Merdeka, let us continue to honour their memory and commemorate the struggle by working towards achieving their Merdeka dream in our own ways – for the betterment of our beloved nation. Selamat Hari Merdeka.

The writer is an 18-year-old Malaysian who is set to pursue legal studies in the UK.

Regime change looms in Malaysia — Liew Chin Tong

Regime change looms in Malaysia — Liew Chin Tong

August 30, 2012
Malaysian Insider--Side Views
 
AUG 30 — A very young demographic profile, a high urbanisation rate, ever increasing access to the Internet and extreme longevity in power, among other factors, will be working against the ruling coalition in Malaysia’s coming election.

There are many reasons for the international community to be deeply cognisant of this fact, and to prepare for a regime change in that country for the first time since it gained independence in 1957.

Soon after the government suffered severe setbacks in elections held on March 8, 2008, the country went into a permanent campaign mode, and has remained that way ever since.

A general election have to be called soon, since the Malaysian Constitution requires that Parliament be dissolved by 28th April 2013 upon the completion of its five-year mandate.

It may be true that the government won 140 of 222 seats in the Lower House while the opposition managed to secure the remaining 82. But a closer look shows that the actual gap between the two coalitions to be much smaller.

The ruling Barisan Nasional actually won only 51.4 per cent of the votes while the opposition gained 48.6 per cent. Of the 7.9 million effective votes, BN and the three national opposition parties were separated by a mere 313,509 ballots.

As of the end of June 2012, there are 12.9 million Malaysians on the electoral roll. As many as 2.5 million of these — about 20 per cent — are first-time voters; and it is these who will decide the outcome of the election.

The 13-party ruling coalition — the BN — will be highlighting past achievements in its campaign and playing on the appeal of the status quo while the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, vows to improve governance in the country through radical policy changes.

The status quo message is however unlikely to have an impact on an almost Arab-spring demography: 48 per cent of Malaysia’s population are below 25 years old and 70 per cent are below 40 years old (though not all are voters).

The BN, especially its kingpin, Umno, has always relied heavily on a rural vote bank. It has therefore good grounds to worry since as many as 70 per cent of Malaysians now live in cities, compared to 11 per cent in 1957 and 35 per cent in 1980.

The young and urban are highly wired online as well. With 17.5 million internet users, Malaysia’s internet penetration rate is 61.7 per cent of the population and 81 per cent of the populated areas. On top of that, Malaysia is also one of the most active country on Facebook, with 12 million users, ranking 19th in the world.

The easy access to alternative information has undermined the efficacy of the control over the mainstream media exercised by the government, be it through licensing procedures, censorship or partisan ownership.
The BN has been ruling Malaysia ever since its earliest guise, The Alliance Party, won a self-government election under British auspices in 1955. It is now the longest serving elected ruling party in the world. The only longer serving ones, are the non-elected communist regimes in North Korea, China and Vietnam.

The many negative signs of this political longevity are all too visible to the increasingly sophisticated voters. Essentially, not only has the government over the years alienated non-Malay ethnic groups through its race-based politics, rampant corruption and intra-ethnic economic inequality, but have also driven Malay voters away.

BN had for quite a while styled itself as the moderating force in the ethnically charged population. However, after Umno began turning right in 2005 both in rhetoric and in action, it began losing ethnic Chinese and Indian support.

In 2008, significant numbers of ethnic Malays frustrated with corruption and cronyism joined this movement to vote against the government.

This sense of alienation has not diminished in the intervening years. On the contrary, more groups are showing open dissent against the central government. The Kadazan Dusun Murut group in the state of Sabah is strongly aroused and highly critical of the government’s handling of the long-standing citizenship-for-votes scandals that allegedly allow Umno to build up its support base in the state.

Umno strategists, using the party-controlled newspaper, Utusan Malaysia, and the affiliated right-wing group Perkasa, are working overtime to stop the dwindling of their Malay support base, and are doing all they can to portray the party as a fiercer ethnic champion than opposition Malay parties and leaders. So far, this seems to be alienating more middle-ground voters.

Across the board at the moment, what Malaysians seem to be seeking is greater economic equality as well as an open and clean government. And yet, Prime Minister Najib Razak continues with micro-level vote-buying measures such as giving cash handouts to strategic groups at a time when the country is in great need of macro-level reforms.

The long years in power has also seen the BN generate its own worst enemies. Many leaders in the opposition were formerly from the ruling coalition, including former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Their experience in government has been serving as a much-needed reassurance to voters that the opposition is ready to exercise power efficiently, while their personal networks within the system has brought valuable information and understanding of the system that had previously eluded the opposition.

Previous opposition coalitions (in 1990 and 1999) were hastily formed during election time and they easily collapsed soon after. An alternative coalition that has been tested for more than four years, with that has gained substantial administrative experience in governing four out of 13 states is in itself a novel — and critical — factor.

While all the built-in advantages that favour BN in an election have not disappeared and those that remain will be put to full use in the electoral contest that is to come, the factors that work against the government have been gaining strength as well. For the first time ever, it does look very possible that the old government will be voted out. — New Mandala

* Liew Chin Tong is the member of parliament for Bukit Bendera

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Crime index: Misleading reply from PDRM | Free Malaysia Today

Crime index: Misleading reply from PDRM

August 29, 2012-FMT
 
The clarification over crime statistics by PDRM does not at all exonerate the government but instead clearly indicates data manipulation by the authorities, says Tony Pua.

COMMENT
By Tony Pua
After nearly a week of silence, the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) finally provided a lengthy reply to the allegations made in an anonymous letter that the authorities have manipulated crime statistics in Malaysia to give a brighter picture.

According to the letter, crime cases were being methodically shifted into “non-index” offences that were not registered as part of official statistics presented by efficiency unit Pemandu.

Index crime is defined as crime which is reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation”. “Non-index crime”, on the other hand, is considered as cases minor in nature and does not occur with such rampancy to warrant its inclusion into the crime statistics or as a benchmark to determine the crime situation.

For example, robbery cases, Section 392 (Robbery) and Section 397 (Gang Robbery), under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be re-classified as non-index under Section 382 (Theft with Preparation to Cause Hurt or Death) of the Penal Code. Since, Section 382 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.

PDRM has defended itself from the above key accusation by claiming that even after taking into account non-index crime, “overall crime (Index + Non-Index) has in fact reduced in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (year-to-date)”.

PDRM claimed that the total index and non-index crime has dropped 7%, 9% and 5.3% respectively in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Hence PDRM concluded that the allegation is erroneous.

On the contrary, this simplistic and misleading reply from PDRM has in fact exposed the likelihood that crime data manipulation had indeed taken place extensively.

The government had in fact boasted its achievement of 15.4%, 11.1% and 10.1% reduction in the crime index over 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively as its remarkable achievement under the Crime National Key Result Area (NKRA). The fact that after non-index crime is taken into account, the crime-fighting performance dropped significantly provides strong evidence of manipulation.

Based on statistics provided by PDRM, “index crime” has dropped from 209,572 in 2007 to 157,891 in 2011, or 24.7% over the period. However, “non-index crime” has on the contrary, increased from 42,752 to 72,106 or a massive 68.7% over the same period.

What is even more glaring is the fact that “non-index crime” is increasing annually as a proportion of total crime since 2007 based on PDRM data. It has increased from 16.9% of total crime in 2007 to 21.9% (2008) to 22.8% (2009) to 29.8% (2010) to a record of 31.4% in 2011.

Shocking divergent trends

The clear-cut disjoint between the significant drop in “index crime” versus the drastic increase in “non-index crime” points strongly towards data manipulation, and validates the accusation by the anonymous letter writer that the PDRM is systematically re-classifying “index crime” to “non-index crime” cases.

If there is indeed no manipulation of data as claimed by PDRM, how else can they explain the shockingly divergent trends between index and non-index crime?

Under normal circumstances, if the crime situation in the country has improved as much as boasted by the authorities, then both index and non-index criminal cases should show a declining trend.
While the total index and non-index crime cases based on PDRM data has indeed dropped over the past two or three years, it appears that the data has been systematically manipulated to present an inflated over-achievement under the Najib administration.

The Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Annual Report 2011 has for example, boasted that street crimes have been reduced by a “phenomenal” 39.7%.

If the manipulation of crime data is indeed true, then there is no assurance that no other steps have been taken by PDRM or the authorities to use other measures to further reduce the crime index data in order to achieve the desired outcome under Najib’s NKRA programme.

There is hence a complete absence of credibility in the data presented by the government and it explains clearly why all the chest-thumping by the authorities over its crime-fighting achievements are not translated into greater sense of security by the ordinary man-on-the-street.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Police response to ‘Crime statistics: Let the truth be told’ — Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf

Police response to ‘Crime statistics: Let the truth be told’ — Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf

August 28, 2012
Malaysian Insider --Side Views
 
AUG 28 — In response to the article “Crime statistics: Let the truth be told” first published on August 22 via http://liewchintong.com blogsite and subsequently published by several online portals, we would like to state that any public feedback is welcomed and will be given due consideration.

As we all know it, crime reduction is everybody’s business. PDRM believe that all kind of feedback will enable us to improve our services to the rakyat, in line with the call for the public sector to enhance their effectiveness, efficiency and productivity.  Hence, we appreciate the concerns brought about by the letter from “Veteran Policeman”. We would, however, like to register our regret and utmost disappointment that the respective publications including the blog owner did not see fit to verify and check with PDRM on the facts of the allegations before presenting the letter to their readers.

Multiple factual inaccuracies

First and foremost, we would like to highlight multiple factual inaccuracies upon which the conclusions of the article were drawn.
These corrections and clarifications are necessary to enable the public to make an informed assessment of the situation.


The central hypothesis of the article in question and its respective allegations have been synthesised in the rest of the rest of the document below.
Here, PDRM would like to respond to every allegations published in the article.

Allegation 1: 

“In 2009, the government gave PDRM the impossible target of reducing crime by 20 per cent. PDRM succumbed to this pressure.”

Response 1:
To set the record straight, the assigned targets were the result of laboratory conducted by PDRM in collaboration with relevant ministries, enforcement agencies and NGOs. These targets and their accompanying detailed initiatives were also made available to the public via the GTP Open Days in January 2010.

The NKRA target for crime reduction is 5 per cent and NOT 20 per cent, as wrongly indicated by the writer.
While the target appears challenging, it is certainly not unrealistic — especially when it is a concerted effort, PDRM supported by various agencies, ministries and the community at large. This practice is consistent with the experiences of UK and New Zealand where a significant reduction of crime was achieved when the nation, regardless of political affiliations or agency structure, is united for the purpose of fighting crime.

Allegation 2:

“To demonstrate that the GTP, NKRA and KPI are a success, classification of cases was doctored and entered into the system to produce the desired result.”

Response 2:
It was alleged that PDRM had shifted Index Crime cases to Non-Index Crime to mask the increase of overall crime. Should the allegation be true, it follows then that the overall crime (i.e. sum total of Index and Non-Index Crime) should be on a rising trend. However, one only has to examine the fact that overall crime (Index + Non-Index) has in fact reduced in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (year-to-date) to conclude that the allegation is erroneous.

The inaccuracy raises doubt if the writer was indeed a police officer, as he had claimed, if he based his “facts” on such erroneous data.
Notwithstanding, to set the record straight, even by taking Non-Index Crime into account, we have seen a sustained reduction of crime incidents since 2010.  

Allegation 3:

“Another point of contention is crime prevention. Instead of wasting manpower and time on PR exercises, the proven tried and tested methods must be invigorated. The mobile and beat patrols and roadblocks must be strengthened and energised.”

Response 3:
One of the core principles of the Crime NKRA Programme is “Prioritisation and Focus”.
According to a public survey in 2010, the rakyat desired and demanded for a safer and secure country. PDRM identified, prioritised and focused on two main areas, i.e., snatch theft due to overwhelming public concerns and vehicle thefts due to its high volume contributing up to 50 per cent of overall index crime.
This focused approach has enabled us to achieve the desired results in snatch theft and vehicle theft.

However, the trade-off is that we have to acknowledge the potential for increase in other crimes — whether Index Crime (house break-in, murder) or Non-Index Crime (Gambling, Counterfeits, Mischiefs, Syndicated Crime).

This is well acknowledged by PDRM, but the accusation that any decrease in Index Crime or increase in Non-Index crime is an indication of PDRM manipulating their statistics by reclassifying index crime cases to Non-Index to meet their KPIs is baseless and misleading.

Allegation 4:

“There are many cases under the index crime category that are not opened for investigation and were closed with no further action (NFA). These cases involve robberies, snatch thefts and burglaries.”

Response 4:
We would like to clarify several misrepresentations of existing process steps which are apparent in the article in question. Specifically, to address the following issues
● Reclassification of index crime cases to Non-Index Crimes
● No Further Actions (NFA)
● Short Changing of Crime Cases, e.g. 10 Burglaries equal 1 Case
● Dark Figures, i.e. Crimes Not Reported
Reclassification from Index Crime cases to Non-Index Crime
Reclassification of cases, whether from Index to Non-Index or vice-versa, may happen during the Investigation Phase as a direct result of the outcome from the investigation or during Prosecution Phase due to the strength of the evidence.

During the Investigation Phase, the investigation officer (IO) will interview witnesses and collect evidence to prepare an investigation paper (IP). The IP is then forwarded to the Prosecution (DPPs) who will assess the strength of the evidence and witness statements based on the offence (or sections) charged to ascertain the potential for successful conviction. In cases where key criteria (or ingredients) of the offence are not fulfilled or if existing evidence is insufficient to constitute the offence initially classified, then the prudent thing to do is to consider if the crime would fall under other category of offence(s) that can be charged based on the existing evidence at hand, or/and outcome of the investigation, to ensure that the process of justice is preserved.

This step within the Criminal Prosecution Process is consistent with international best practices, e.g. in UK and the US, and has nothing to do with the collection of crime statistics. Furthermore, as pointed out in earlier sections, crime statistics are compiled based on reported cases and not based on outcome of investigation or prosecution processes.

Allegation 5:

“Robbery cases under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be classified as non-index under section 382 of the Penal Code. Since, section 382 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”

Response 5:
The article in question further stated that Robbery cases under section 392 (Robbery) and section 397 (Gang Robbery) are reclassified to section 382 (Theft with Preparation to Cause Hurt or Death).
At this point, we must clarify and explain the difference between Robbery and Theft, to ensure that the public has a clear understanding of the two.

Under Malaysia’s Penal Code, Robbery and Theft essentially occur in the same situation. Robbery has an additional element of causing fear of hurt, fear of death, fear of wrongful restraint, or hurt or death. The thin line of difference between Theft (section 382) and Robbery (section 392 or section 397) lies in the time period when the theft is committed.

For section 382, there must be an element of concealment e.g. weapon in the pocket, hidden accomplices, whereas for section 392 or 397, the intention to cause fear is expressed and not concealed e.g. tying up the victim, threatening the victim with a weapon.
During the process of report taking, PDRM will classify these cases as Robbery if there is explicit mention of the weapons (e.g. guns, parang, knife) or an explicit mention of fear induced in the victim.

Allegation 6:

“Burglary under section 457 of the Penal Code is an index crime. This offence will be classified as non-index under sections 452 or 453 of the Penal Code. Since, sections 452 and 453 of the Penal Code are non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”

Response 6:
The article in question also stated that Burglary cases under section 457 (House Break-In to Commit an Offence Punishable with Imprisonment e.g. Theft) were reclassified to sections 452 and 453 (House Break-In with Preparation made for Causing Hurt).
To recap the situation mentioned earlier, if a house break-in occurred but no goods or belongings were evidently removed by the burglar, e.g. if perpetrator escaped before he or she managed to take any goods, or if the investigation officer does not have enough evidence to prove both house break-in and theft (i.e. specific goods explicitly taken out of possession of the owner) but has enough evidence to prove house break-in — in this scenario, the investigation officer will necessarily charge the offender with a lesser offence such as sections 452 and 453.

Allegation 7:

“Causing hurt under sections 324 and 326 are index crimes. These offences will be classified under section 148 of the Penal Code. Since, section 148 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”

Response 7: 
It was alleged that Causing Hurt cases under section 324 (Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons) and section 326 (Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons) can and will be reclassified to section 148 (Possession of Weapons and Missiles at Riot).

We would like to point out that sections 324 and 326 are VERY different crime types compared to section 148 — and it is far-fetched to see how the offences in the former can be reclassified to the latter.  For example, anyone causing hurt under sections 324 and 326 CANNOT be charged under section 148 unless this incident occurred during a riot.

Consequently, an attempt by the writer to attribute the increase in section 148 cases (if any) to the reclassification of section 324 or 326 cases for the purposes of manipulation of crime statistics are also seriously flawed, both logically and factually. That said, it is also worth pointing out that there is no increase in section 148 cases.

In summary to the above three allegations, both index and non-index crimes ARE reflected in the statistics.
This clearly indicates the writer in question has absolutely no grasp of the sections of the Penal Code as well as the classification of cases. A police officer with considerable experience in criminal investigation will be able to distinguish those cases for classification.

Allegation 8:

“Police take no further action (NFA) for the reason there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter if the suspect cannot be identified, the loss is minimal or there is no lead to proceed further. There are thousands of cases of this nature and since these cases are not opened for investigation, therefore, will not be reflected in the crime statistics.”

Response 8:
This allegation has been misrepresented by the writer. This again clearly puts his knowledge and intelligence of the crime cases into further question.
At this point, it is necessary to recap the report taking process.

When a complainant (e.g. victim) comes to the police station to make a police report, he or she will first file the report with an enquiry officer at the station. If the report is classified as a “jenayah” (or criminal) case, the enquiry officer will subsequently direct the complainant (i.e. victim) to meet the Investigation Officer.

The Investigation Officer will then conduct an interview with the complainant to capture the details of the case before proceeding with the investigation process. During the investigation process, the Investigation Officer will keep the complainant updated with the status and development of the case accordingly. If upon investigation, the Investigation Officer concludes that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the investigation, or if the suspect cannot be identified, or if there are no leads to proceed further, the case will be marked NFA until new leads are found as basis to continue investigation.

This practice is consistent with international policing practices to ensure that Criminal Investigation Department (CID) resources are appropriately prioritised for cases with leads or that can be solved.
However, it is important to note although the case has been marked NFA at the investigation stage, the case will still remain and be accounted for, as part of the Index Crime statistics, whether it falls under Robbery, Burglary, Causing Hurt, or other cases. To set the record straight, crime statistics (whether Index or Non-Index) are calculated based on reported cases and not based on the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

And again, ALL reported crimes ARE reflected in the statistics.

Allegation 9:

“There are also cases short-changed in order to achieve the KPI. Say, for example, in a particular day there are 10 cases of burglaries reported in a certain housing area. Only one case will be opened for investigation and the other nine cases will be cross-referred to the one case that was opened.”

Response 9:
On the statement of short changing of cases, e.g. 10 burglaries reported in a certain housing area, but only one case is investigated and as such, only one is reflected in the index crime statistics.
This again, is factually incorrect.

Each and every reported case will have an Investigation Paper opened and will be investigated. In this example, all 10 reported cases of burglaries will be counted as 10 Index Crime cases and 10 Investigation Papers will be opened.

Allegation 10:

“Dark figures (crimes not reported) are not factored into the crime statistics. There is a theory that for every 10 cases reported there will be one case not reported. People do not report crime when they have lost faith in the police.”

Response 10:
On this note, to date PDRM are tasked to take every report as complained by the public, regardless of how small the case may be deemed. As such, dark figures are not regarded as present.
We would like to take this opportunity again to stress to the public on the importance of making a police report when a crime incident happens. Failure to lodge police reports may affect crime prevention strategies and in cases where the properties are recovered, may cause unnecessary inconvenience for the victim to claim them.

In this regard, we will need the public support to treat lodging reports as part of their civic duty. An awareness programme will be launched soon to educate the public on the their right and responsibility to report a crime and that any police officer who refuses to accept reports will be subject to strict “Tatatertib” disciplinary actions.

We acknowledge the feedback from the public that PDRM has to improve the police reporting environment to be more conducive and efficient. In the same vein, we would urge the complainants to always check the status of investigation of their cases from the Investigating Officer. Please also ask for explanation under which a case is classified. In this way, we will be able to reduce the perception that a case has been under-classified.

As such we would like to update that PDRM is currently addressing these issues with initiatives designed to improve PDRM’s frontline services as well as ensuring sufficient IOs with a proportionate caseload to enable the IOs to better manage their cases and update the victims in a timely manner.

Moving forward in late 2012, PDRM will launch an online report tracking system, whereby anyone issued with a report number upon lodging a police report, will be able to track and monitor the progress of their case.

This would clearly allay the fears of the public that their report has not been taken seriously or has not been recorded into the crime database. Here, any report reflected online would then be part of the crime statistics.
This online report tracking system was shared with the general public during the GTP Roadmap 2.0 Open Days held in Kuala Lumpur, Kuching and Kota Kinabalu in August this year. This move was lauded by all members of the public.

Allegation 11:

“The rationalisation of the computer system (PRS) to validate the crime figures is a flawed excuse. The system picks up only what has been fed into it. PRS system does not control classification of cases.”

Response 11:
To ensure the transparency and integrity of the classification process, at present, there is a multilayer check-and-balance system in place.

The first level of checking happens at the Officer in Charge of the Station (OCS) level where the OCS will be responsible to ensure proper classification is made towards the reported cases in his station. At the district level, daily meetings will be conducted by the Officer in Charge of District (OCPD) who will scrutinise the reports and classifications made under each of his police stations in the last 24 hours to, again, ensure proper classification.

Next, at the state level, the Officer in Charge of Criminal Investigation (OCCI) will conduct inspection of all investigation papers in the districts under him to ensure the proper classification is made.
In addition, the Chief Police Officer of the respective state will be responsible to monitor all police reports made in his state and check the classifications as required under the IGP Standing Order Chapter A123.
Again, stern disciplinary action will also be taken against personnel who have been found to be intentionally misclassifying cases.

This process is further enhanced through the verification and validation of both an independent audit firm namely PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and two rounds of International Performance Review (IPR) — the first made up senior personnel from their respective public service delivery office in the UK, US, Australia, Singapore and South Korea. The second, made up of senior police and security commissioners from the US, UK, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Regular and quarterly public surveys were also conducted by TNS, Institute Integrity Malaysia (IIM) and Frost & Sullivan.

Here PDRM would like to add that crime prevention and PDRM itself has to evolve and move with the times. The public expectations are rising towards police services. They want a more attentive, empathetic and effective force. This is the reason we advocate the Omnipresence initiative, improve frontline services and investigations processes.

At this point, we would like to conclude that clearly based on the numerous flaws in the writer’s article, he/she is not someone from the PDRM force nor has he any credible intelligence of the police operations, methodology, Penal Code and last but not least of the process of crime investigations.

At best, we acknowledge that the writer has possibly good intentions and has highlighted some personal views, similar to what we have been receiving all this while through our public engagement exercises.

Lastly, we would like to point out that while we appreciate writer’s personal views on the various initiatives currently undertaken by PDRM, namely Omnipresence, Enhancement of Investigation and Criminal Prosecution System, Beat-and-Patrol, PDRM organisation (including racial composition, religious activities) etc, there are much more conducive platforms to conduct these discussions.

As such, we will not endeavour to belabour on these topics in this letter.

It suffices to point out briefly that Police Omnipresence is an acknowledged, tried and tested international best practice e.g. in London, New York, to fight crime. It was also lauded by many resident associations within communities, specifically Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Subang Jaya, Penang etc.

With due respect to the motto “Feared by criminals and Respected by the public”, while that describes accurately the environment in the pre-2000, the requirements of modern policing across the world have changed, with the police having to play the role of law enforcer and that of “provider of community servicing” in line with a far more personable, improved and attentive approach to meet the rising expectations of the public.

Conclusion

We want to put on record the published article in www.liewchintong.com on August 22 is indeed full of factual inaccuracies, misplaced allegations and misleading statements.

PDRM is more than happy to engage the public and to offer any clarification they require at any point.
We do this in the hope that the public at large will be better equipped to make an informed conclusion as to the veracity and intention of any misrepresentation of the process PDRM are tasked to uphold for the sake of public safety and national security.

In summary, 
1. Definitions of Index and Non-Index Crimes, as well as the investigation and prosecution processes have been instituted long before the introduction of the NKRA program.
2. There is no factual basis or evidence to the allegation that crime statistics is manipulated or “doctored”.
3. ALL reported crimes, regardless of which Penal Code sections or category of crimes they come under, WILL contribute to the crime statistics. And this will be further enhanced by the Online Report Tracking System under Beta testing at the moment and due for launch late 2012.
4. The achievements of PDRM and improvements by way of the NKRA are real, as are initiatives such as Omnipresence, Safe City Programme, Investigation Enhancement, Front-line Servicing.
5. The writer IF indeed a police personnel has not been long in the force, has clearly no understanding on how policing processes and crime investigations are conducted.
6. To avoid doubts and misunderstanding due to misrepresentation as demonstrated by the writer, PDRM would like to gracefully extend an invitation to any member of the public an opportunity to come forward and share their concerns with us.

* ACP Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf is the public relations officer with the Royal Malaysian Police.

Tweaked crime statistics: Who should respond

Tweaked crime statistics: Who should respond

CPI Writings 
 
crimestats-fingerBelow we are reproducing views from several CPI columnists and regular contributors on the whistleblower’s letter detailing the way in which crime statistics have been processed to provide the misleading conclusion that crime is on the decline in the country.

We await with interest the official response – whether from Hishamuddin Hussein, the Home Minister or Koh Tsu Koon and Idris Jala, the two ministers concerned in the Prime Minister’s Department or from Ismail Omar, the Inspector General of Police.

We had earlier published the letter of explanation on the collection and recording of crime statistics by ACP Razali Mohamad Yoosuf in response to the initial article by myself on why our police are impotent against the tide of rising crime.

We look forward to publishing any further response from ACP Razali and his colleagues in the PDRM or from any other of the alleged implicated stake players on the latest developments on this subject which is of so much concern to our citizenry.

It is important that some official response be forthcoming because at risk is not simply the public’s confidence in crime statistics and the police but at risk is also the public’s confidence in the other officially generated statistics on the country’s development as well as the public’s perception of the professionalism, independence and integrity of the civil service.

Few Malaysians will ever again look at official statistics without wondering how they have been fudged and manipulated by the government for political advantage.
How the tweaking works 

Crime statistics consist of only the ‘index crime’, defined as crime which is reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation. Essentially, it means the index is the yardstick to gauge the crime situation of a given place, the district, state or the whole country. The index crime statistics will show whether the crime has increased, decreased or moving constantly. – extracted from the whistleblower’s letter published earlier in CPI

‘Non-index crime’, some of which involve a premeditated preparedness to cause serious injury, on the other hand, does not occur with such rampancy to warrant its inclusion into the crime statistics or as a benchmark to determine the crime situation.

There are several types of crime where the classification (based under the Penal Code) can be manipulated from index to non-index, the latter category which will not be reflected in the crime statistics.

Example (A)
Robbery – index crime under section 390 of the Penal Code: “In all robbery there is either theft or extortion”.
390. (2) Theft is “robbery”, if, in order to commit theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

To deflate the crime statistics, a report on robbery made by a member of the public at the police station may be shifted in classification by the police officer on desk duty. Thus, instead of filing the report under section 390 of the Penal Code (offence considered ‘index crime), it is instead filed under section 382 of the Penal Code which is a non-index crime:

The offence as classified under section 382 – “Theft after preparation made for causing death or hurt in order to the committing of the theft” – is less rampant than a straightforward robbery.

382. “Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death or hurt or restraint, or fear of death or of hurt or of restraint, to any person in order to commit such theft, or in order to effect his escape after committing such theft, or in order to retain property taken by such theft, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine or to whipping.

ILLUSTRATIONS: A commits theft of property in Z’s possession; and, while committing this theft, he has a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

Example (B)
Burglary – index crime under section 457 of the Penal Code: “Lurking house-trespass or housebreaking by night in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment”.
457. Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night or housebreaking by night, in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years; and for every second or subsequent offence shall in either case be liable to fine or whipping.

It may shifted in classification to section 452 of the Penal Code, dealing with a less rampant crime and carrying a heavier penalty, and which is a non-index crime: “House-trespass after preparation made for causing hurt to any person”.

452. Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Example (C)
Causing hurt is an index crime under section 324 of the Penal Code: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means”.

324. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with whipping or with any two of such punishments.

The filing of a report on a crime of this nature may be shifted in its classification to the apparently unrelated and rarely invoked section 148 of the Penal Code: “Possessing weapons or missiles at riot”.
148. Any person who attends, takes part in or is found at any riot and who has in his possession at such riot any firearm, ammunition, explosive, corrosive, injurious or obnoxious substance, stick, stone or any weapon or missile capable of use as a weapon of offence shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.

The shift in classification of the index crime to non-index crime may run into several thousand cases and thus impact on the statistics to make it appear as if common crime (robbery, theft/burglary) has decreased.


Views on the crime statistics alleged tweaking

From Koon Yew Yin

Firstly, no less a person than the Home Minister whose portfolio includes the police needs to address the issues raised by the whistleblower. Hishamuddin Hussein should convene a special press conference at which he can refute the damaging allegations made of political interference in the work of the police and the charge that “the police have succumbed to the political pressure in agreeing to achieve the targeted KPI set under the NKRA.”

Should he fail to do so, it will be an admission of guilt. Worse, it will show him as unfit and undeserving of the high position of Home Minister. In such a development, it is incumbent on Prime Minister Najib Razak and the cabinet to give Hishamuddin his marching orders and put him out to pasture in the same way that has happened to Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

Secondly, Koh Tsu Koon and Idris Jala, ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department and the latter, chief executive officer of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) must not pretend to be dumb and deaf on this.

As CEO of Pemandu – the unit monitoring the implementation of the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) initiative – Idris Jala is responsible for the statistical data that is released to the public. The whistleblower has provided a detailed account of how crime records are recorded and processed, and how these records have been manipulated to give the impression of a decline in crime in Malaysia.

The onus is on Koh and Idris to show that the whistleblower had got his facts wrong and to also answer the other serious allegations in the internet media on Pemandu’s role in this botched attempt to fool the public.
For the sake of their conscience and personal integrity, it will be necessary for both Koh and Idris to apologize to the public should their own investigations show that the allegations made by the whistleblower are substantially correct. This public apology must be followed by a clean-up of the mess and by strong action to punish those responsible for this despicable attempt to hoodwink the public on such a serious matter. Only in this way will Koh and Idris repair their reputation which is in tatters following this debacle.

From Jeyaseelan Anthony

Finally a whistleblower from the police has spilled the beans concerning the crime rate in Malaysia. The article by whistleblower published in the CPI Asia website is spot on. With regards to the perceived lowering crime rates, which was boasted by the National Key Result Areas (NKRA) on crime, one must realize that a lot people do not report crimes any more to the police, especially snatch theft and robbery victims etc, because they feel that it would not make any difference.


If it is not reported then it is not in the system.
That’s why the crime rate seems to be low and able to be manipulated by the authorities. Many victims have told me that the police seem to be very insensitive towards such crimes and have made it look that such crimes are normal now. I am sure many of you will have experienced this.

Malaysia seems to be a free for all country as far as crimes are concerned. Africans are having a ball of a time here committing crimes from cheating to drug trafficking. Iranians and South Americans have joined the bandwagon too. We read about this almost every day in the papers.

What has the Home Minister done so far? African students keep coming into the country to commit crimes and our government is receiving them to make Malaysia an educational hub! I can’t believe this! Why hasn’t the Immigration Department which comes under the purview of the Home Minister got tough on this issue?
Countries like the UK, USA and even India are very strict when it comes to immigration issues especially because of transnational crime and terrorism but our Home Minister seems to be taking it very easy.
What is even worse, taxpayers’ money is being used to feed these guys in prison. The Home Minister, now that he has an office in Bukit Aman, and the police only need to realize that you should beef up intelligence in low-cost housing areas as this where most of the culprits come from.

Believe me this is true because my wife was a snatch victim and the culprits came from the nearby flats. The crime rate in the place where I used to live has increased dramatically, when the low-cost flats nearby were built.

Even some low ranking police officers (OCS) have told me the same thing. The Special Branch instead of going after the political activists should be deployed in these areas. That’s how the Special Branch defeated the communists, by placing intelligence operatives in black areas. Why are the police not doing this when they can nip the problem in the bud?

As the whistleblower writer of the article says, enough of the PR exercise by the police. It’s time to get tough. So Mr Home Minister please buck up! If you can’t do the job please resign and give it to a more capable person.

From Ramon Navaratnam

I am appalled at the serious allegations and revelations made by a veteran police officer in his article entitled, ‘ Crime Statistics – Let the truth be told!

I believe that the Home Minister is duty-bound, as a duly elected people’s representative, to give a full explanation immediately on these allegations.

If an explanation and clarification by Hishamuddin Hussein is not satisfactory to the public, then the government should order a full public inquiry and investigation into these accusations of statistical manipulation of shifting the index crime data to non- index crime, which could mislead the public and the nation.

These charges of manipulation largely explain the wide perception and confidence gap in the minds of most Malaysians in regard to the grave doubts over crime statistics and Pemandu’s claim of the success in the fight against crime.

Indeed the very credibility of government and the national integrity can be adversely compromised by all these grievous allegations of police incompetence and even deceit, which must be officially exposed – with transparency, accountability and honesty.

Thus I would call upon the government and the police to give a full explanation and/or have a full public inquiry and investigation by an independent committee as soon as possible to tell the truth to all Malaysians who deserve to know nothing but the truth, please!

From Steve Oh

Thank you (to the whistleblower) for taking the trouble to tell us what you know and your constructive suggestions. Anyone can be a victim of crime and it is time the limited police resources are not diverted to non-productive duties.

The police should never try to cover up the true figures because it is not something that can be hidden when the figures and actual number of crimes taking place don’t tally.
That is why there is public outrage over the police claim that crime has gone down when the anecdotal evidence is against such a claim.

The writer has explained how figures can be doctored and it is a practice that should stop because it is unethical and dishonest and not tackling the real problems. In computer parlance, we call it ‘garbage in garbage out’.

Crime fighting can be successful when the police are left to do their job and are able to have the public help them in community policing.
There are good people in the police force who must feel demoralized because they can’t do their real job and it is time the politicians get out of their hair and let them do what the police do best.

Thank you, whistleblower, for providing the smoking gun and I hope the police will take note because remedial action may save a life. The life could be that of a policeman or a member of his or her family that becomes another statistic.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Why Join Politics?

Why Join Politics?


Media Statement by Yeo Bee Yin on joining the Democratic Action Party on Monday 27 August 2012 in Kuala Lumpur:

My mom has rightly asked, “you can have a decent and comfortable life now already, why choose such a hard life?” The reason is because I love this nation and desire to see a better Malaysia.

I have met just so many young and bright Malaysians who left home for better opportunities abroad. If all of these continue, we’ll soon reach a point of no return.

Therefore I decided to join DAP to make a change. I do not want to be a bystander as my country is going through one of the most important turning points of history, either for the better or worse future. I do not want to regret at the latter part of my life, seeing my country at peril, just because people of my generation have not done enough and have chosen comfort over sacrifice. To quote Edmund Burke (埃德蒙·伯克), “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

I believe that Malaysian youths can make a difference, and am always encouraged by Apostle Paul who wrote in a letter to his spiritual son, Timothy, “Let no one despise you for your youth, but set an example in what you say, in the way you live, in your love, faith and purity.”


Yes, young Malaysians are on Facebook and Twitter most of the time and we do watch YouTube videos quite ‘a bit’ but we too are concerned about our environment, the welfare of fellow Malaysians and the future of our children. We have different opinions on how our country should be governed.

Therefore I want to make young voices heard and hope that more young Malaysians can join us or at their respective positions do their part, to make Malaysia a country that is free from corruption, united regardless of race and religion as well as competitive in the global economy.

How I hope to contribute to DAP

I will continue to use my expertise in social media to help DAP to reach out to the young and internet savvy whose support are critical in the next general election. I believe strongly that the social media will add a completely different dimension to political campaigning in the very near future.

At the same time, I have a strong interest in environmental, sustainability and energy policy and believe that this has been an area generally neglected by politicians. I will take part actively in policy-making when the opportunity arises by contributing my knowledge in this field constructively towards a greener Malaysia, as we move forward in economic development.

———————–
** Yeo Bee Yin grew up in a small town in Segamat. She attended Chinese schools for both her primary and secondary education. Just like many kampung teenagers, she couldn’t speak English until she attended the university. 

She studied Chemical Engineering in Universiti Teknologi Petronas under Petronas Scholarship and graduated top in the graduate year 2006. After 2 years of work, she continued her study in Cambridge University under Gates Cambridge Scholarship. She completed her MPhil in Advanced Chemical Engineering in Cambridge University with a Commendation from the Department of Chemical Engineering.

During her bachelor year, she spent 6 months interning in BASF Headquarter in Ludwigshafen, Germany. Prior to attending Cambridge University, she worked for Schlumberger as a Field Engineer in oil and gas industry. She was assigned to work in Turkmenistan and spent two years working in the desert and in the middle of the sea.

After a few years abroad working and studying, she was back to Malaysia end of 2010. She changed her career path entirely and started her own business in the new and growing social media industry.
Bee Yin currently serves as DAP HQ Social Media Strategy Advisor

Why I joined the DAP — Ong Kian Ming

Why I joined the DAP — Ong Kian Ming

August 27, 2012
Malaysian Insider-Side Views
 
AUG 27 — Before joining the DAP, I have never been a member of any other political party despite having worked for two think-tanks that were linked to the MCA and Gerakan. Why am I making the decision to join a political party now and why did I choose the DAP?

I believe that our country is at a critical juncture in its history where for the first time since achieving our independence, we have a credible and strong opposition capable of governing at the federal level. This has been most clearly demonstrated in the state governments in Penang and Selangor which have vastly outperformed their predecessors in terms of delivering transparent, accountable, responsiveness and caring governments.

At the same time, despite the various transformation initiatives which have been rolled out by our Prime Minister Najib Razak, there is still a glaring absence of fundamental structural reforms that are necessary to spark a genuine process of transformation. Not only is there the business-as-usual way of ill-conceived and murky deals being done — via the various 1MDB-linked land and asset acquisitions, just to name one — we also see a disturbing ramp-up in fear-mongering attempts by the BN-linked papers such as Utusan in order to raise feelings of ethnic insecurity.

Things seem to be getting worse for the country as a desperate regime clings to power, seemingly at all costs. As such, the time for sitting on the academic sidelines and commentating as an analyst is over. It is time, at least for me, to take the plunge and to play a more active role to bring about a necessary regime change in the country.

While some may say that I could have continued to be a critical voice in the public sphere without joining an opposition political party, especially in the area of evaluating government policy, there are some natural limitations to what one person working in a non-political context can achieve. Playing the role of a check and balance on those in power can be most effectively carried out by opposition political parties and politicians, because that is one of their primary responsibilities.

Coming up with coherent alternative government policies needs to occur within the context of opposition political parties because they are the ones who have the power to implement these policies if they come to power. The important process of discussing and debating policy platforms and political positions can only take place within the context of political parties and one needs to be a member of a party to contribute effectively. While I very much value the voice of civil society, I feel that I can play a more effective role, moving forward, as a member of a political party in providing inputs in my areas of expertise.
Why do I choose to join the DAP specifically?

Firstly, the position which the DAP has taken and continues to take, on major national issues, is consistent with my own political beliefs. The DAP’s vision of a more equitable and just Malaysia that is secular, free from corruption, governed democratically and by the rule of law is a vision which I very much share in. My many columns and comments in newspapers will reflect this, I feel, starting from the time when I was working in two BN-linked think-tanks — the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP) and the Socio-Economic Development and Research (SEDAR) Institute. For example, I have been writing and researching on the issues of electoral reform and of ensuring a clean electoral roll since 2001.

Secondly, I have great respect for the many sacrifices which many of the DAP leaders have made because of their political beliefs including being beaten up, humiliated and even jailed under the various repressive laws that continue to exist in this country. Leaders like Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Karpal Singh and Teresa Kok, just to name a few, have demonstrated their willingness to walk the walk during their many years of struggle in the political arena.

Thirdly, I have utmost confidence in the leadership of the DAP in its intention to renew its ranks and to bring in fresh perspectives and ideas. My experience in interacting and working with many of the younger DAP leaders including Tony Pua (who invited me to blog about education-related matters way back in 2006), Anthony Loke, Liew Chin Tong, Teo Nie Ching, Chong Chieng Jen, Hannah Yeoh, Wong Kah Woh and Teo Kok Seong has been very positive and has reinforced my confidence that the DAP will be in very good hands in the future. Furthermore, I am very encouraged by the DAP’s efforts in recruiting young and capable future leaders into their ranks including Zairil Khir Johari, Steven Sim and Kasturi Patto.

What kind of role do I see myself playing within the DAP?

I remain committed to the issues which I am passionate about and will continue to highlight issues pertaining to electoral reform, education policy, decentralisation and other aspects of economic policy. Thankfully, I will not be alone as I will have the opportunity to supplement and complement what other DAP leaders have said on these issues. If the opportunity arises, I will also highlight other policy-related issues which are timely and important but which I feel sufficient attention has not been given to.

I will also continue my work as an elections analyst to provide insights and analysis to the DAP.

It will be an interesting learning experience as I navigate the demands of being a member of a political party and to make whatever contributions I can to the DAP as a member. I will obviously have to give up my “hat” of a political analyst but it is a small sacrifice to play in the larger scheme of things.

I look forward to the new challenges that are coming my way and I am excited about the prospects of playing a small but hopefully meaningful role in the context of bringing about positive change to our country as part of the DAP.

(I am in the process of completing the final report on the findings of the Malaysian Electoral Analysis Project (MERAP) which will be published online. I am on sabbatical leave from UCSI University until the end of the year.)

* Ong Kian Ming holds a PhD in political science from Duke University and economics degrees from the University of Cambridge and the London School of Economics (LSE). He recently joined the DAP. He can be reached at im.ok.man@gmail.com

DAP recruits political analyst - Nation | The Star Online

Published: Monday August 27, 2012 MYT 1:21:00 PM

DAP recruits political analyst

By REGINA LEE


KUALA LUMPUR: DAP has welcomed more new recruits to the party, including political analyst Dr Ong Kian Ming and oil and gas engineer Yeo Bee Yin.

Both University of Cambridge graduates, Ong and Yeo are one of the few high-profile young professionals that the party has been aggressively recruiting.

Ong in particular is famed for his political analysis published in Malaysiakini, apart from his day job as a lecturer at UCSI University.

In announcing their entry, party secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said Ong will be helping him in the party's election strategy while Yeo, will be assisting DAP in crafting social media strategies in their effort to woo young voters.

Meanwhile, in the press conference here Monday, Lim said the party will be pressing on with its effort to legislate anti-party hopping laws in Penang.

"We're not denying the basic human rights in their freedom of association. But we are talking about the democratic choice of the voters who have voted for the party," he said.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Fake crime statistics: ‘Every word is true’ | Free Malaysia Today

Fake crime statistics: ‘Every word is true’

Teoh El Sen | August 25, 2012--FMT
Senior officer in Bukit Aman concedes contents of a letter by a veteran of the force on crime statistics being doctored has merit 

PETALING JAYA: A controversial letter purportedly written by a veteran cop alleging crime statistics have been manipulated has ruffled the feathers of top guns in the force.

It is learnt that Bukit Aman has been made aware of its existence and is now considering how to respond to revealations by the 30-year veteran of the force.

Calls to Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar went unanswered, while a spokesperson said: “I don’t have anything to say for now. I need to refer the matter to my superiors.

“There will be a response soon, but we are still gathering information,” said the spokesperson.

Meanwhile, several officers FMT contacted were reluctant to confirm or deny the allegations, but all agreed that the top police leadership or Home Ministry should attempt to respond.

However, one senior officer from Bukit Aman admitted that the contents of the letter was genuine. “Every sentence written is true,” said the officer, who refused to be named.

“Because of the NKRA (National Key Result Area), we are forced to reach impossible targets. Good officers, those who can do good work, are being unnecessarily pressured.”

“So what do they do? (The way figures are manipulated). It is a loophole in how you deal with statistics. It is wrong. Numbers are numbers, don’t use this a political agenda,” he said.
“Our men are working so hard, their leaves are being frozen for these reasons. It’s not right,” he said.

The NKRA factor

Citing examples, the cop said that there were cases where foreigners with work permits being arrested just to increase statistics, and there are times when suspects in other cases are shifted around just to “close” a case.
Referring to a line in the letter alleging that the Home Minister occupies two floors in Bukit Aman, the policeman said that it was not accurate.

“The Home Minister is on the 31st floor of Bukit Aman, and I agree with the letter writer who says that it is inappropriate.”

The policeman said that one way of changing things is to “first not have the Home Minister interfere too much in police matters”.
“The NKRA people shouldn’t push us so much, we should set our own targets. Let police handle their own matters,” said the officer.

Secondly, the policeman also agreed that having frequent “high profile policing” and “high visibility” programmes does not really help curb daily crime.

“What we really need is more training. But sadly, we are not given the budget, it is now all being spent in other areas, such as the goodies the government is giving out,” he said.

Allegations need to addressed

On Thursday, several Pakatan Rakyat leaders urged the government to clarify allegations made by an anonymous policeman who said that the government had tampered with the crime statistics by re-classifying offences to show that the crime rate had “fallen”,

“Home Ministry and Pemandu (Performance Management and Delivery Unit) must clarify the accusation. The allegations are serious as it casts doubt on the integrity of official statistics,” said a joint statement by PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar, Kuala Krai MP Hatta Ramli and Bukit Bendera MP Liew Chin Tong.

The opposition pact urged Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and Pemandu chief executive Idris Jala to disclose the statistics of cases classified under Sections 148, 382, 452 and 453 of the Penal Code as soon as possible.

A letter, sent to several MPs, purportedly from a 30-year veteran of the policeman, has been circulating in several news portals and websites. The writer claimed that there was a systematic attempt to lower the crime statistics by shifting the index crime to the non-index crime when a police report is lodged.

“Is the crime rate down? Yes, relying on the statistics provided by the Police and Pemandu. Is that a true reflection of the crime situation? The answer is certainly a big ‘NO’,” wrote the ‘policeman’.

Citing examples, the ‘policeman’ said that a robbery case, which falls under the Penal Code, comes under the index crime category. However, the police would classify it under Section 382 of the code and automatically relegate it to a non-index crime .

The policeman added that causing hurt comes under Sections 324 and 326 of the Penal Code which are index crimes. But these offences will be classified under Section 148 of the Penal Code.

Since Section 148 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime category, the case will not be reflected in the crime statistics. The policeman said that under-classification of the index crime to non-index crime runs into several thousand cases.

Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein oversees the police, while Idris Jala is the CEO of Pemandu, the unit tasked with reducing the country’s crime rate.

Recent news reports of a spate of street crimes, coupled with attacks from Opposition leaders, have put the nation’s supposed fallen crime statistics into sharp focus.

Pemandu had to defended itself from public criticism which questioned if the government was being honest in saying that the crime rate has dropped considerably following initiatives under the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) launched two years ago.

Also read: Crime Statistics – Let the truth be told! http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/08/22/crime-statistics-%E2%80%93-let-the-truth-be-told/

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Claims of doctored crime statistics need swift answers ― Koon Yew Yin

Claims of doctored crime statistics need swift answers ― Koon Yew Yin

August 24, 2012
Malaysian Insider--Side Views
 
AUG 24 ― Crime is an issue of great concern to everyone in the country. This is why it is necessary for the authorities to respond as soon as possible to the whistle-blowing letter from a police officer of over 30 years experience and his allegations of the doctoring of the official statistics. The longer the delay, the greater will be the impression that a cover up is taking place.

This disclosure of massaging and manipulation of the official statistics has been the hottest news over the internet media in the last few days and it has now been picked up by the opposition politicians.
To ensure that it does not become a political football and to preserve whatever trust and respect that the public has for the Barisan Nasional government’s statistics, especially related to the Government Transformation Programme, I would like to provide some advice to the Najib administration.

Who should respond

Firstly, no less a person than the home minister whose portfolio includes the police needs to address the issues raised by the whistle blower. Hishammuddin Hussein should convene a special press conference at which he can refute the damaging allegations made of political interference in the work of the police and the charge that “the police have succumbed to the political pressure in agreeing to achieve the targeted KPI set under the NKRA.”

Should he fail to do so, it will be an admission of guilt. Worse, it will show him as unfit and undeserving of the high position of home affairs minister. In such a development, it is incumbent on Prime Minister Najib Razak and the Cabinet to give him marching orders and put him out to pasture in the same way that has happened to Sharizat Jalil.

Secondly, Koh Tsu Koon and Idris Jala, ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department, and the latter, chief executive officer of the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (PEMANDU) must not pretend to be dumb and deaf on this.

As CEO of PEMANDU, the unit monitoring the implementation of the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) initiative, Idris Jala is responsible for the statistical data that is released to the public. The whistle blower has provided a detailed account of how crime records are recorded and processed, and how these records have been manipulated to give the impression of a decline in crime in the country.

The onus is on Tsu Koon and Idris Jala to show that the whistle blower has got his facts wrong and to also answer the other serious allegations in the internet media on PEMANDU’s role in this botched attempt to fool the public.

For the sake of their conscience and personal integrity, it will be necessary for both Tsu Koon and Jala to apologise to the public should their own investigations show that the allegations made by the whistle blower are substantially correct.

This public apology must be followed by a cleanup of the mess and by strong action to punish those responsible for this despicable attempt to hoodwink the public on such a serious matter. Only in this way will Tsu Koon and Jala repair their reputation which is in tatters following this debacle.

PricewaterhouseCoopers and Crime Prevention NGO

There are at least two other organisations that need to be answerable to the public on this national scandal. One is PricewaterhouseCoopers who was paid a tidy sum to audit the crime statistics.

Have their auditors been a knowing party in the way in which the statistics were massaged? To protect and maintain their reputation, an internal inquiry followed by an official explanation is also necessary. If the whistle blower’s allegations are substantially correct, the public will need an assurance from pricewaterhouseCoopers that there will be no repetition of this despicable white collar criminal activity in any future work with the authorities.

In its Malaysia website, PwC claims to “take pride in the fact that our services add value by helping to improve transparency, trust and consistency of business processes.” For now, many members of the public are of the opinion that this declaration is simply bull s… and that PwC’s business is not conducted within the framework of ethical professional standards.

Finally, the Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF) must come out openly on this issue. According to the official literature and other news reports on the MCPF, the body is the largest NGO on the subject of crime prevention with the prime minister as the patron and the deputy prime minister as the chairman.
This officially sanctioned NGO has prominent members from both the public and private sector serving in its executive council at national and state levels. In fact, the list of executive council members reads like a who’s who of rich and famous in Malaysia!

I would especially welcome a statement from Lee Lam Thye who as vice-chairman of MCPF and of various other officially sponsored NGOs has been making statement after statement in the official media on this and that issue.

According to his latest statement, habitual shoplifters should be publicly shamed to deter them from continuing with their spree. In the news report he stated, “If people still want to continue filching stuff, then we may need more stringent punishment. A fine may not be enough. We need to publicly name and shame them via the media”.

To be fair to habitual shoplifters, I would like to suggest that we take up Lam Thye’s proposal and apply a similar punishment to those who have been guilty of providing cover to the doctoring of the crime statistics. This would also include any NGO that may be providing a fig leaf to cover up various naked official lies and untruths.

How official crime statistics are doctored and manipulated


How official crime statistics are doctored and manipulated

Commentary
 crimekpiIntroduction by CPI
Recently, the CPI published an explanation from the Polis DiRaja Malaysia in response to public concern about rising crime in the country and official statistics which provide an opposite picture of the trend in the last three years (see the exchange in CPI between Dr Lim Teck Ghee and ACP Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf ). 

We are now reproducing a letter from a reader (according to his letter, he is a police officer with over 30 years service experience) disputing the PDRM’s claim that “the question of doctored figures should not arise at all” and that “crime statistics released by the PDRM are the actual figures of criminal cases reported to and investigated by the police department [and] no alteration or adjustment to the figures can be done, in order to portray a rosy picture of the crime situation as claimed by certain quarters.”

The letter is valuable not only in showing how the official statistics have been doctored to meet the Barisan Nasional’s target of crime reduction as set out in the GTP but in the many useful and concrete suggestions it provides in fighting crime in the country.

CPI recommends that the contents of the letter be carefully assessed by PDRM and the public to help in the fight against crime.

The letter has been edited minimally for typographical and other minor grammatical errors but otherwise has been left intact.
********************************
Crime statistics – Let the truth be told!
By Name Withheld
Is the crime rate down? Yes, relying on the statistics provided by the police and Pemandu. Is that a true reflection of the crime situation? The answer is certainly a big ‘NO’.

Crime is basically divided into two categories. One is ‘Index Crime’ and the other is ‘Non-Index Crime’. The statistics made available by the police are only those cases which come under the ‘index crime’ category.

‘Index crime’ is defined as crime which is reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation. Essentially, it means the index is the yardstick to gauge the crime situation of a given place, the district, state or the whole country. The index crime statistics will show whether the crime has increased, decreased or moving constantly.

‘Non-index crime’ on the other hand is considered as cases minor in nature and does not occur with such rampancy to warrant its inclusion into the crime statistics or as a benchmark to determine the crime situation.
‘Index crime’ consists of two categories. One is ‘Violent Crime’ and the other is ‘Property Crime’.

‘Violent Crime’ comprises murder; rape; armed robbery with accomplice; robbery with accomplice; armed robbery; robbery; and causing hurt. Meanwhile ‘property crime’ comprises theft; car theft; motorcycle theft; heavy vehicle theft; snatch theft; and burglary. These are the crimes used as statistics to portray the crime situation.

In 2009, the government came up with the ‘Government Transformation Programme’ (GTP) and ‘crime’ was amongst the ‘National Key Result Area’ (NKRA). The Key Performance Index (KPI) set for the police on the 27 July 2009 under the NKRA was to reduce crime by 20%.

That tall order to reduce crime by 20% was a dilemma for the police. The police knew that the demand is idealistic but not feasible to be achieved. Any criminologist will tell that crime is the product of socio-economic factors and the police being a part of the criminal justice system cannot alone tackle this issue.

However, in upholding the dignity and image, the police succumbed to the political pressure in agreeing to achieve the targeted KPI set under the NKRA. With the prevailing policing standard and practice, the police may be able to contain the crime situation to a certain extent, but to reduce it by 20% is absolutely an impossible feat. So, in desperate times, desperate measures are taken.

The police then came up with an ingenious way of achieving the target. The principle behind the plan is, well, if this is what the political masters’ want, then we shall give it to them the way they want.

As said earlier, the crime statistics consist of only the index crime. Hence, they gradually lowered the crime statistics by shifting the index crime to the non-index crime. The shifting is done at the time the police report is lodged. The classification of the crime from index to non-index will be captured in the police reporting system as ‘non-index’ and thus not registering it as an index crime for the purposes of statistics. Lowering the index crime will show that the particular crime is on the decline.

There are several types of crime where the classification can be manipulated from index to non-index. The maneuvering begins at the police district level which receives the report and subsequently transmitted to the State Police Headquarters and Federal Police Headquarters. The crimes which were manipulated are:
a. Robbery cases under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be classified as non-index under section 382 of the Penal Code. Since, section 382 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.
b. Burglary under section 457 of the Penal Code is an index crime. This offence will be classified as non-index under sections 452 or 453 of the Penal Code. Since, sections 452 and 453 of the Penal Code are non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.
c. Causing hurt under sections 324 and 326 are index crimes. These offences will be classified under section 148 of the Penal Code. Since, section 148 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.

The under classification of the index crime to non-index crime runs into several thousand cases. Of course, by removing these cases from the crime statistics will reflect that the crime has gone down.

A simple way of ascertaining the extent of cases taken off from the index crime category for the purpose of reducing the crime statistics is by asking the police to provide the statistics of cases classified under sections 148, 382, 452 and 453 of the Penal Code since the implementation of the NKRA to date.

Then a comparison should be made with the statistics of cases under the said sections in the last three years preceding the NKRA. You will discover a sudden hike in the number of cases under those sections after the introduction of the KPI. This figure should then be compared with the figure of the same sections for the three years preceding the NKRA.

The result will confirm that for the period of three years prior to NKRA, cases classified under sections 382, 452 and 453 are almost nil and under section 148 may have only few reported cases. The number of cases recorded under the four sections for the three years after the NKRA minus the number of cases recorded for the three years before the NKRA will be the figure that has been manipulated.

Other factors that suppress the crime statistics during the NKRA period are:
  1. There are many cases under the index crime category that are not opened for investigation and were closed with no further action (NFA). These cases involve robberies, snatch thefts and burglaries. Police take no further action for the reason there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter if the suspect cannot be identified, the loss is minimal or there is no lead to proceed further. There are thousands of cases of this nature and since these cases are not opened for investigation, therefore, will not be reflected in the crime statistics. No profiling is done on these cases, but merely swept under the carpet. Without profiling then the trend, pattern, target areas and possible suspects could not be studied to address the recurrence of these incidents.
  1. There are also cases short-changed in order to achieve the KPI. Say, for example, in a particular day there are 10 cases of burglaries reported in a certain housing area. Only one case will be opened for investigation and the other nine cases will be cross-referred to the one case that was opened. For the 10 cases of burglaries, the statistics should be 10 cases of index crime. Since, there is only one case that was opened for investigation therefore the other nine cases will not be reflected in the index crime statistics.
  1. Dark figures (crimes not reported) are not factored into the crime statistics. There is a theory that for every 10 cases reported there will be one case not reported. People do not report crime when they have lost faith in the police. Lack of faith may arise when the people have the impression that the police will not treat the report seriously; ineffective investigation due to incompetence; practicing double standards; no confidence the police can solve the case or bring justice to the victim or can recover the lost items; discriminative investigation based on the person’s background, influence, or status in society; minor trauma or losses treated with scorn; cases can be compromised by suspects getting away through bribery, influence be it political or social standing; exhaustive in going to the police station and lodging report; and last but not least is distrust and suspicion about the police.
Overall, the crime has indeed gone up. There are many flaws in the statistics dished out to the public. The statistics was tailored to justify the KPI and appease the powers that be. It is better for the police to tell the truth and shame the devil.

In response to Dr Lim Teck Ghee, the police said, “Crime statistics released by the PDRM are the actual figures of criminal cases reported to and investigated by the police department. These figures are auto-generated by the department’s computer system i.e. the Police Reporting System (PRS). In this way, no alteration or adjustment to the figures can be done, in order to portray a rosy picture of the crime situation as claimed by certain quarters.”

The rationalization of the computer system (PRS) to validate the crime figures is a flawed excuse. The system picks up only what has been fed into it. PRS system does not control classification of cases. To demonstrate that the GTP, NKRA and KPI are a success, classification of cases was doctored and entered into the system which will surely produce the result that was desired.

The police made another assertion, “All crime data and statistics generated within the PDRM system have been audited and verified by Pricewaterhouse Coopers Malaysia.”

Do you expect accountants to audit and verify classification of cases? Are they going through all the police reports to ensure the nature of crime committed, categorizing the correct section of the offence under the law, and classification of the case as index or non-index?

Be truthful on their role that is only limited to calculating the figures given by the police. In fact, it is a waste of public funds hiring accountants to just vet the figures if only the police are honest in the first place.

End the charade on public relations (PR) exercises to erase the fear of crime. Stop fooling the public with PR programs, like ‘high profile policing’, ‘high visibility patrol’, ‘walkabout’, ‘stop and talk, ‘meet and greet’, and ‘singing in shopping malls’, that won’t work when criminals are still milling around.

Spending huge money hiring consultants with no background or expertise in criminal field to advise the police was the biggest blunder. It is a shame on the police organization of 205 years, having police officers of more than 30 years in service and experience with educational background from degree to PHD, being unable to tackle the crime situation.

Police are not looking at the proper perspective in tackling crime. Victims of crime go to the police for what? To seek redress!

Investigation is the area where most people are frustrated of, suspicious and lack confidence in the ability of the police to apprehend the suspect and solve the case. This is the primary cause of dissatisfaction and the negative perception of the police.

Poor investigation and inaction lead to more criminals on the streets and crime becoming more prevalent and widespread. One of the ways to reduce crime is by removing as many criminals as possible from the society and sending them behind bars.

Crack the whip on the investigators. Increase the staffing of investigators in all departments involved in investigations and the right officers to helm these departments at district, state and federal levels. As a reminder, terminate at once the current distortion of the KPI on solving rate and charging rate before it develops into another controversy.

Another bone of contention is crime prevention. Instead of wasting manpower and time on PR exercises, the proven tried and tested methods must be invigorated. The mobile and beat patrols and roadblocks must be strengthened and energized. Poor planning, lackadaisical attitude of staff, lack of knowledge and skills are the main problems afflicting this area. Ad hoc measures of crime prevention are ineffective and should be a thing of the past. Crime prevention through mobile and beat patrols should be constant and extensive with sufficient police presence, effective enforcement and result orientated.

It takes a thief to catch a thief. There was a time when detectives were very resourceful in intelligence gathering and have the ability to pinpoint the culprit just by analyzing the modus operandi. They were all-rounded and like cats can smell the rats miles away.

Good, capable and mind probing detectives have been displaced with insignificant desk jobs. The investigation departments are now filled with personnel who are expected to display noble attributes and source for information and intelligence on crime from temples and churches. This segment of the organization needs to be given importance and improvised. More personnel should be inducted with the necessary skills and agility to gather intelligence on criminal activities, detect and apprehend criminals.

Immediate and drastic move to improve on those three areas (investigation, crime prevention and detectives) will produce significant progress in alleviating the crime menace the people are experiencing now.

Criminals come from various ethnic backgrounds. The police organization should similarly be staffed with sufficient policemen from multi-ethnic backgrounds. The police organization is now filled with more than 90 percent consisting only of one ethnic group.

Crime has no boundary or race barriers. The composition of the police should reflect the society they are dealing with. The police are unlike an organization that doesn’t deal or interact with the public. How do you expect policemen from one ethnicity to effectually communicate, source for information, deal with criminals, and address communal issues, with a person of different culture, customs, language and background in an effective and practical manner?

This is not a racial issue, but voiced with a noble intention in the best interests of all Malaysians.
Policemen are hired to instill peace and security. Police should not waste too much time, energy and manpower to preach religion and be involved in religious activities. There is too much of religious activities in the police force now.

All policemen subscribe to a religion at the time of employment and there is no reason for them to go wayward with the discipline of the force in place. There is a unit called ‘Bahagian Agama dan Kaunselling’ (BAKA) established in all districts, states and federal level to organize religious functions, activities and sermons.

This should be left to the experts in religion and counseling. They can be roped in or hired to provide religious and counselling services instead of using so much of police manpower trained in fighting crime.
Police are responsible for the maintenance of law and order. They are answerable to the law and the law alone. The Home Minister has no business in occupying two floors of office building at Bukit Aman. His appropriate place is at the Home Ministry, Putrajaya. His role should be confined to policymaking only and not getting involved in, directing, or supervising the day-to-day operations of the police.

There is no guarantee that he won’t be under investigation if he transgresses the law. The IGP should not be put in a comprising position should a conflict of issue arises involving the Home Minister. One very senior police officer with the ranking of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) is dedicated to chaperon the Home Minister. Many more senior officers and men are assigned to him in the name of NKRA. This is a sheer waste of manpower, tax payers money and abuse of power, whence these men should be on the ground maintaining law and order.

To fight crime, you have to take the bull by its horns. The police should not be parading in public, smiling; giggling; shaking hands; stop and talk; and meet and greet, to overcome the fear of crime or the negative perception. That is only a cosmetic appearance when the real grievance is unresolved and unattended.
The police are a leading crime enforcement body and are not in the tourism industry or tasked with public relation functions. The police must appear serious and stern whilst executing their duties. Their sacrosanct oath of protecting the people and property must be honoured.

There must be a climate of fear and respect towards the police. The fear must come from the wrongdoers and those who intend to contravene the law. Respect is from those who feel secure when seeing the men in blue. Are the police doing the right thing to earn that respect?

People are feeling insecure with the crime situation and the fear of being a victim keeps increasing. Ironically, even the policemen are having the same sentiment. Camouflaging crime figures will only aggravate the situation further. Be honest and tell the truth.

The writer is a policeman with over 30 years service experience who wishes to remain anonymous.