Stop 114A and stop these mistakes

— Michael Yap (loyarburok.com)

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 25, 2012

AUG 25 — I must admit that when the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 was given royal assent, it infuriated me so much that our new laws of Malaysia are nothing better than what we have had for the past 50 years. When every statute book of ours is filled with laws that are draconian, that respect no rule of law, that are harsh and cruel in punishment; and that work unfairly against the individual, the 2012 Act is certainly outrageous to the extent that no right-thinking Malaysian would ever believe what the law minister has professed to be the “legitimate aim” of the Act.

I too joined the Internet blackout day on August 14, and appreciated the fact that I was not alone, for thousands and millions of my peers echoed the same concerns on that very same day. It was — to me and to all Malaysians — a successful step in our battle against section 114A! It was truly momentous to see a united front in our cyberspace at that point.

However, having said that, it is alarming to see that not every Malaysian who opposed (and supported) section 114A are getting their facts (and contents) right. It is meaningless to see section 114A being repealed (or upheld) when the masses do not really understand what they are opposing (or supporting). Developments since August 14 have been vibrant as there are many more statements on the section being made by various stakeholders, plus increasing media reports over the subject matter, and not to mention the volume of comments on Facebook and Twitter.

I might not be well informed either on the issue of how many Malaysians truly understand the nature of section 114A and why we oppose it; there is neither empirical evidence nor statistics to reflect that. Perhaps those misinformed are just a minority or maybe I have inadvertently exaggerated such a phenomenon. But these are some of the errors that “might” be perceived amongst fellow Malaysians:

Firstly, section 114A is a provision in the Evidence Act 1950, not a provision in the Evidence (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2012 (which merely inserted a new section 114A into the Evidence Act 1950), and there is no such thing as the Evidence Act 2012! I noticed these errors in one of our local papers (which I wouldn’t name), and this is disgraceful as it shows how our media can fail to accurately report a matter. Some might wonder — why so fussy about the short title of a piece of legislation? Well, to me, if one cannot name properly the subject of its opposition, what is the point of opposing? Such logic occurs every day in our courts, where defendants must be named properly or be denied a valid claim.

Secondly, although I don’t find our law minister to be favourable by any means, I do admit that what he said was true to some extent. Section 114A is merely a presumption of fact, not a “direct” presumption of guilt. Notwithstanding that presumption, the prosecution in a criminal case or a claimant in a civil case would still need to prove the other elements of the offence/claim. For example, if D is charged under section 4 (1) (b) of the Sedition Act 1948 of uttering a seditious statement found in an article signed by D, section 114A only presumes D made that statement (unless D proves to the contrary), not guilty of sedition. The prosecutor would still need to show that those words are “seditious” before D can be guilty of a “constituted” crime. If the prosecutor fails to show that those words are “seditious”, even if D has failed to show that he is not responsible for those words, he still walks free out of the courtroom.

The reason we oppose section 114A is because it derogates (or degrades) our presumption of innocence, in the sense that individuals are burdened by the law to establish something that should be within the province of prosecutors. It is not wrong in principle for such a shifting of burdens, which is present and acceptable in many legal systems; but what is wrong is that there should be no such shifting without a prior pressing need or strong justification for such. In my article to LoyarBurok, “The Implicit Message of s. 114A of Evidence Act 1950 to All Malaysians”, I wrote:

“Relating this back to section 114A, my question is what is the strong justification here? I would agree that most of us might have differing views of what is ‘pressingly needed’ in this country, but I am reserved in finding that it must be something to do with internet hacking.”

Now the question to the law minister is not the objectives of this Act, for we certainly know it’s either to tackle cyber-crimes (which is equivalent to “protecting the public”) or to suppress opposition. The question should be: “is there such a pressing need?” This is similar to what happens now in the UK as well; nobody denies the needs and virtues of reforming the elected upper chamber — the House of Lords — but the question is simply this (and it has been answered): is there such a pressing need for the time being? (Especially when the UK economy is at an all-time low, and many other legislative agendas should be prioritised.)

Thirdly, in the Umno Youth case, the law minister contends that section 114A doesn’t apply if the accused makes a police report as soon as possible. Though I can accept his point by saying (which I believe is what he truly means) the fact that the accused has lodged a police report as soon as possible “tends” to show that he is not responsible for the publication of those statements (thus making him/her probably innocent). However, it puzzles me as to why in the first place an innocent citizen — as presumed in law — need be burdened into showing their innocence, as in this case — unnecessarily lodging a police report when knowing themselves to be innocent?

Now let us make a comparison between the individual, who needs to lodge a police report whenever there is a seditious and defamatory statement appearing in their Facebook, and the state (with the help of numerous law enforcement agencies including the police force, the A-G’s Chamber, the Telecommunication and Multimedia Commission, etc.), who is supposed to investigate the alleged culprits who made those statements. Who is much more burdened in this sense? The individuals who normally would not trouble themselves to visit the police station or the state who is mandated in the investigation and enforcement of the law? To put it in another way, who has more means, both in terms of technology, manpower and resources to find the identity of the hacker who incriminates innocent individuals? The state admits that they need to shift the burden to individuals because “the cross-border nature of the Internet limits the law enforcers’ ability to look for the required evidence, especially when the accounts or publications or activities are overseas and beyond Malaysian jurisdiction”. My question is simple: if the authorities find it difficult, does the individual find it easier?

Fourthly, the police have stated that they will not probe seditious postings under section 114A. But in relation to the Umno Youth case, they would instead investigate it under section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act. This is however contradictory to what the law minister has described about the new provision: “the amendment is only a form of procedure” and is not an offence. Whatever our distaste may be to the new provision, we must admit that it is now law and has legal authority, and that it is not for the police to say whether they would apply or not. Until Parliament has repealed the provision, the police while investigating the Umno Youth Facebook post must still, by virtue of section 114A, presume that those statements are from Umno Youth until they have proved to the contrary in a court of law. The police have no authority to be above the law and the law minister should not have said that those who oppose the law do not understand it, upon failure to remind the police authorities that it is now in force.

Finally I can’t agree with what one minister has said in defending the provision: “Once it is officially passed, to do something now is an afterthought.” If that truly is a justification for the Act, then surely it is an “afterthought” to bring in the 1988 amendments to the Federal Constitution. Also, he should have advised against his boss in amending/repealing both section 27 of the Police Act 1967 and the Internal Security Act 1960, by telling him those Acts of Parliament are officially passed, and it would be an afterthought to amend/repeal them. Laws do change all the time to reflect new societal conditions, and errors made in draftsmanship must be rectified, just as any government policy, enterprise direction, construction project or even our homework. Sadly, it does not correct those recurring mistakes inherent in our law enforcement and judicial system and our citizen’s maturity over public affairs, up to this day.

It is perhaps right to oppose 114A, but before being enthusiastic and energetic in fighting ahead, there is no harm in stopping to think and reflect on what we and others have said about it. A better understanding of your “enemy” puts you in a better position. Since the government has made remarks of reviewing the provision, it may be wise for all Malaysians sharing the same view on abolishing the section to settle down and analyse the common mistakes we have always made and what logical fallacies that those who yield power have always claimed. — loyarburok.com

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 August 2012, 8:34 pm and is filed under
IT
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We know this man, Mahathir

― Ali Kadir

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 25, 2012

AUG 25 ― He says that the Barisan Nasional is the devil that Malaysians know and we should stick with this devil because the Opposition is the devil we don’t know.

But we do know the Opposition. We know that DAP/PAS/PKR politicians don’t always stand on the same page; they make mistakes and say really dumb things and may even be arrogant. And not all their populist ideas will be good for Malaysia; some may be downright stupid.

We also know that they don’t have a Dr Mahathir Mohamad in their midst and that is always an advantage. He is the devil we know and have to put up with for more than two decades and now it does seem that, Mahathir is still running the country. And offering unsolicited rubbish as advice.

This is what Dr Mahathir the “angel” has given Malaysia:

1) A corrupt culture, where civil servants, corporate figures and even ordinary Malaysians don’t think twice about bribing, stealing and cheating. A Malaysia where the government and police fudge crime figures and where ministers live beyond their means without fear of getting arrested.

2) A country where race relations have worsened over the years. Dr Mahathir can take credit that all his slogans have remained slogans and we still live in race silos. And his party Umno and Utusan Malaysia have crossed the line with a campaign of driving the wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims.

3) A country where corporate figures and cronies milk the system with one-sided privatisation deals. These sweet deals are the norms here; look at the NFC and Ampang LRT.

4) A country where the education system is in a mess.

The list can go on. So take a bow, Dr Mahathir, “the devil” we know.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 25 August 2012, 9:21 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hishammuddin’s recent announcement to make crime-busting “top priority” debunked by his four-day thunderous silence on allegation of fake crime statistics  by “whistleblower” police officer

Some ten days ago, the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein made the shocking admission that the focus on crime-busting was “not seen as a need” for the government, until only recently.

He then claimed that the government has “now got the political will right to the top” to fight crime.

This is an admission of a gross dereliction of duty by Hishammuddin as Home Minister.

I need only cite three  reasons to back up such a harsh judgment.

Firstly, as far back as seven years ago in May 2005, the Dzaiddin Royal Police Commission report expressed alarm at the “high incidence of crime”, when it noted:

“The incidence of crime increased dramatically in the last few years, from 121,176 cases in 1997 to 156,465 cases in 2004, an increase of 29 per cent. The increase seriously dented Malaysia’s reputation as a safe country. Malaysians in general, the business sector and foreign investors grew increasingly concerned with the situation. The fear was that, if the trend continues, there would be major social and economic consequences for Malaysia. A survey of 575 respondents from the public carried out by the Commission clearly demonstrates the extremely widespread concern among all ethnic groups and foreign residents. Between 82.2 per cent and 90 per cent of the respondents, or 8 to 9 persons in every 10, were concerned with the occurrence of crime.”

Secondly, on his appointment as Home Minister in 2009, the Home Ministry conducted an online opinion survey on its website from 20th to 28th July 2009, and found a worsening in public confidence in the crime situation in the country with public worry about the lack of safety from crime and their fear of crime increased from 89% in 2004 (poll conducted by Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission)  to 97% – while the number of respondents who felt safe from crime fell sharply from one in ten in 2004 to one in 100 in 2009!

The following were the findings of the Home Ministry website poll in 2009:

• 97% or 9,729 out of 10,060 respondents felt unsafe because of the high crime rate, with only 1% or 89 respondents felt safe and 2% or 242 respondents in the “uncertain” category.

• 95% or 8,883 out of 9,319 respondents felt that the safety of the people was not guaranteed as compared to 3% or 248 respondents who felt it was still guaranteed, with 2% or 188 respondents in the “uncertain” category.

• 94% or 8,743 out of 9,261 respondents felt that government had not done its best to ensure that the safety of the people was at the best level with 2% or 185 respondents felt that the government had done its best, and 4% or 333 persons “uncertain”?

Thirdly, on 9th June this year, after the bloody mugging of Bersih steering committee member Wong Chin Huat while jogging near his home in Section 18, Petaling Jaya and the gruesome abduction attack of Bandar Kinrara, Puchong teacher Teoh Soo Kim, 51, which were evidence of the failure of the Najib government  to reduce crime and to eradicate the fear of crime among Malaysians, I had said in a media statement:

“It is no use the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and the CEO of Pemandu and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Idris Jala boasting about Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and National Key Result Areas (NKRA) successes, such as claiming that the overall crime index for 2011 had dropped by 11.1%, while street crime decreased significantly by 39.7% compared with 35% in 2010 – and a marked improvement from the 15% reduction in street crime set under the NKRA in 2010 – when Malaysians still do not feel safe from the fear of crime whether in the privacy of their homes, or outside in the streets and public places”.

With these three incidents in the background, for Hishammuddin to confess some 10 days ago  that crime-busting was “not seen as a need” and to declare that “for the first time since Merdeka, crime-busting is a  priority”, it  is not only the height of irresponsibility and dereliction of duty on his part as Home Minister in the past three years, it has become  one of the most infamous instances debunking the 55th Merdeka Day theme of “Janji Ditepati”.

But apparently, there is worse to come – the very serious allegation four days ago by a Police Officer of 30 years’ service about manipulation and doctoring of crime statistics to give the false picture of drastic fall in crime rate when this is not the case, giving a very credible account of how this doctoring of crime statistics is done to mislead Malaysians about GTP and NKRA successes in combatting crime.

Although the “whistleblower” police officer has given a very credible account of the doctoring of crime statistics, Malaysians have withheld final judgment awaiting clarification from Hishammuddin as the Home Minister and the GTP/NKRA Ministers Datuk Sri Idris Jala and Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon.

In continuing his thunderous four-day silence on the serious  “whistleblower” allegation of fake crime statistics, Hishammuddin is in fact debunking his recent announcement to make crime-busting the government “top priority”.

Even more serious, the continued thunderous silence of Hishammuddin, Idris and Koh on the serious allegations of fake crime statistics for the GTP and NKRA exercises will give the 55th Merdeka Day theme of “Janji Ditepati” special though unwanted connotations.

For these reasons, Hishammuddin, Idris and Koh cannot continue their deafening silence about the serious allegations of fake crime statistics.

If these three Ministers are not prepared to break their silence, let a special Cabinet meeting be convened before Merdeka Day to delve into the serious allegations of doctored crime statistics and let the truth be told to the Malaysian public before Merdeka Day celebrations.

If what the “whistleblower” police officer alleged about the manipulation of crime statistics are true, the Police must be given the authority to release the correct and comparable crime statistics as compared with the past years to restore public confidence in the independence, integrity and professionalism of the police force.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 26 August 2012, 12:58 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Hishammuddin
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN: Stop creating illusionary fear

— CL Tang

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 26, 2012

AUG 26 — Day in day out, Umno and MCA have been frightening the people with their doomsday scenario should Pakatan Rakyat wrestle power from their clutches.

MCA leaders keep harping to the Chinese electorate that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS. Should Pakatan come to power, MCA suggests, rather ludicrously that DAP will bow down to PAS’ demands for the implementation of hudud law.

Never mind that PAS would not have the numbers to push this through parliament since their Pakatan partners, DAP and PKR, would never accede to it. In fact, PAS would have to rely on the other sole dominant Muslim political party, Umno, to have any chance of making hudud law a reality. Can MCA President Chua Soi Lek secure a promise from big brother Umno that it will never consider such a political alliance? If it is not able to do so, then it should refrain from lambasting DAP for its alleged subservience to PAS, when MCA dare not even stand up to Umno when it is being bullied. More importantly, MCA must stop using the threat of hudud law as its main political weapon against DAP, as it raises unnecessary fear and unease among the main races in Malaysia.

Umno leaders have been painting a picture of apocalypse should Pakatan win power. “Don’t take Malaysia’s peace and harmony for granted”, they exclaim over and over again, suggesting that Malaysia’s stability and race relations are so fragile that a change of power in a fair election could throw the entire country into chaos and mayhem. The May 13th incident is being cited again and again.

That the two most powerful component parties in the ruling coalition would rather frighten the people into believing that such events could take place in a change of government, when the probability is so remote and unlikely, is telling. Rather than acknowledging the real problems that are truly threatening the future of this country — corruption and abuse of power — and mustering the political will to curb these twin evils before it is too late — Umno and MCA are creating imaginary daunting scenarios in their bid to retain power.

Even on the occasion of Malaysia’s National Day, BN is suggesting that the past 55 years of peace and prosperity have been the result of its sole efforts and sweat, belittling the blood and tears of ordinary Malaysians who have also brought Malaysia to where it stands today. How else could its arrogance be explained when it wanted to use “Janji Ditepati” as the official slogan for Merdeka Day — and demanding it be voted back into power for having performed the duties which they were elected to do anyway?

A government that instils fear in its people as its political strategy to remain in power, instead of appealing to the hopes and aspirations of a better tomorrow, does not deserve the people’s support. A government that does not trust the wisdom and rationality of its people to choose its next leaders, should not ask for the people’s trust in return.

I think every likeminded Malaysian would send the same message to BN: please don’t insult our intelligence. Instead of creating an illusionary fear among the people, it should focus on the real issues that are actually limiting our growth and potential — corruption, declining education standards in our schools, crime on our streets and the rising cost of living, especially in the housing and health sectors.

No need for handouts; no need for slogans.

That is the way to earn our vote.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 8:48 am and is filed under
Elections
,
MCA
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Malaysia’s IPO Boom Overhyped?

– By Dhara Ranasinghe

CNBC

27 Aug 2012

Malaysia is marking itself out as the IPO destination to beat this year with a string of billion-dollar-plus deals. Impressive, for sure, but don’t take the booming IPO market as a sign that Malaysia is poised to become a regional financial hub, experts say.

The reasons for this, they add, are simple: once the slew of big Malaysian companies seeking new listings runs out there is likely to be a dearth of initial public offerings (IPOs) in Malaysia. Because Malaysia is still developing open and liquid capital markets, foreign firms looking to list in the region are likely to pick Singapore and Hong Kong over Kuala Lumpur.

All the big companies listed in Malaysia this year are local firms. To really develop itself as a centre for IPOs, Malaysia needs to attract new listings from big foreign firms in the way Singapore and Hong Kong have done in the past, analysts add.

“Part of the boom in the Malaysian IPO market can be explained by the well-developed pension system in Malaysia, which has allowed for growth in domestic demand for equities,” said Herald Van Der Linde, Head of Equity Strategy, Asia-Pacific at HSBC in Hong Kong.

“However, when it comes to comparing Malaysia with Singapore and Hong Kong, these markets are much larger, more diversified and much better developed. As such, they can compete for global IPOs. This is unlikely to happen in Malaysia yet,” Van Der Linde said.

Pay-TV company, Astro Malaysia last week said it would launch an IPO, worth about $1.75 billion. The new listing, expected by the end of September, would be Malaysia’s third largest this year and follows a $3.3 billion listing in June by palm oil firm Felda Global Ventures and a $2.1 billion IPO by state-backed IHH Healthcare last month.

The high-profile listings – Felda’s IPO is the biggest globally so far this year after the listing of Facebook – have certainly made investors sit up and pay attention to the developments in the Southeast Asian economy.

The hot IPO market in Malaysia also compares with a generally lackluster market globally as the fragile state of the global economy prompts many companies to shelve their IPO plans. Jeweler Graff Diamonds postponed a $1 billion listing in Hong Kong in May, while motor racing company Formula One earlier this year postponed a listing, worth up to $3 billion, in Singapore.

Despite these setbacks, the long-term outlook for IPOs in Asia still favor Hong Kong and Singapore over Malaysia, analysts said.

“To have a large IPO market, you need an international investor community and that isn’t there in Malaysia,” said Sanjay Mathur, Director of Research Strategy Asia ex-Japan at Royal Bank of Scotland in Singapore.

“You need to have an unfettered flow of capital, a diaspora of fund managers and a strong linkage with other financial centers,” Mathur added, referring to the things Malaysia would need to turn its booming local market into a regional one.

According to research firm Dealogic, Malaysia has moved to third place after the U.S. and China in rankings of new listings in value terms globally. That’s up from twelfth place last year.

Analysts point out that the boom in the Malaysian IPO market must be seen in the context of what is happening in Malaysia locally and not as a sign of what is changing in terms of Malaysia’s role regionally.

The Malaysian government, keen to open up the equity market, has encouraged firms to list and the growth of large domestic pension funds has meant there has been strong demand locally for the new listings.

HSBC says that the core of Malaysia’s pension system is the Employees Provident Fund, which covers around half of the country’s work force. It adds that the equity portion of the fund is estimated to have grown to almost 30 percent of total assets in 2010 from below 5 percent in 1991 and 20 percent in 2000.

Against this backdrop, the momentum in Malaysia’s IPO market was expected to continue for a little while longer.  Malaysian Power firm Malakoff and Karex, the world’s biggest condom maker, are both said to be considering listings in the months ahead.

“The IPOs will continue for a while. Remember there is a herd mentality, so if one company does well that encourages others,” Mathur at RBS said.

From the perspective of a foreign investor, what Malaysia lacked was a regional exposure, analysts said.  Hong Kong has attracted new listings from global companies keen to tap into the China growth story – examples of this are the listings of commodities trader Glencore and luxury goods firm Prada in 2011.

“We are looking at very different markets here,” said Chris Wong, Senior Investment Manager at Aberdeen Asset Management in Singapore. “Hong Kong is the market centre for the greater China story and Singapore is a magnet for the regional story.”

While Malaysia’s equity market has attracted a lot of attention because of the large IPOs, the benchmark stock index is up about 7.8 percent year-to-date, this is a similar performance to Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index and perhaps not as impressive as the 15 percent rally in Singapore’s stock index.

“As for the outlook on IPOs in 2013, I would think that this is very dependent upon global growth and how Europe will resolve its crisis,” said HSBC’s Van Der Linde. “If it was up to Asia, it should be a good IPO market – demand for equities is rising and companies need to invest more and can tap equity markets for this.”

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 6:59 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kick them out

— Sam Peh

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 26, 2012

AUG 26 — There are two options that the BN government relies on: deny even in the face of evidence or keep silent.

The first option was used by Koh Tsu Koon (can anyone explain to me why he is still around? Didn’t he get trounced?) when he told the MCA newsletter that he was unaware that a circular had been sent out by the National Unity Department of the Prime Minister’s Department asking Chinese and Indian students to make up the numbers for the National Day Parade. For their troubles, they would get some cash and a T-shirt.

Koh said no such was needed. But the problem with that bare denial is that circular has been sent to several institutions of higher learning and that it appears that The Malaysian Insider has got its hands on one such circular. Of course, the MCA newsletter will publish anything without checking. Instead of taking the word of a Cabinet minister (who trusts these chaps?), their reporters should have called up the Department of National Unity or even checked with a few private institutions but I suppose that would involve doing some real journalism.

The second BN option is silence when faced with a troublesome issue. Sometimes, the silence is because Putrajaya believes that the issue will blow over. (That is why Putrajaya kept quiet for months while PKR lifted the veil of the NFC scam).

At times, the silence allows Putrajaya to buy some time while it cooks up an explanation about some expose. Take the embarrassing disclosure from an anonymous senior police officer on how crime statistics are being manipulated so that the government can show that crime is down.

According to this detailed expose, crime figures are fudged under different categories. In reality, it is a public relations exercise aimed at duping the Malaysian public.

Nearly a week has passed since this explosive expose but there has been silence from Hishammuddin Hussein, Ismail Omar and Idris Jala and those masters of statistics, Pemandu. Why the delay?

Need to cobble together a cerita that is believable, is it? Just a caution: the senior cop who blew the whistle knows more and will be waiting to poke holes in your cerita.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 12:18 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let the truth be upheld

— Mooreyameen Mohamad

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 27, 2012

AUG 27 — The recent article by Anonymous Policeman that claimed crime statistics are being massaged listed serious allegations about police conduct, and clearly raised questions about the veracity of the crime statistics itself. PEMANDU has repeatedly said that it depends on the police to present the data for reporting and that the data from the police were never massaged by PEMANDU.

However, if what is claimed by the article is true, then there are serious questions that need to be asked: is the police force under undue political pressure to perform their duties and therefore dispensed with their charter of being “Mesra, Cepat dan Betul” (friendly, fast and correct)? And, most importantly, keeping our eyes on the real goal of all this, how to deal with the situation?

First and foremost, in order to manage any situation properly, PEMANDU and the police must work with real data to size up the problem properly and to deal with the problem in the most appropriate manner.

If data has been massaged for whatever reason, the real depth and scale of the problem would be unknown, and resources may be misdirected accordingly due to the false data. So, data integrity is, needless to say but still important to remember, of the utmost importance.

Secondly, let’s address the issue of political pressure. The Government Transformation Programme is ambitious. It was formulated with the specific intent of dealing with the worst problems that the Malaysian public is most concerned about. Crime, corruption, education, urban public transportation and so on are all, by definition, high priority, urgent and biggest problems that are facing the nation.

So, yes, of course there is political pressure.

Crime and all the other NKRAs are never meant to be feel-good projects, low-intensity issues and of lukewarm concern. Everyone in PEMANDU and the specific ministries involved are all under high pressure to delivery big results, fast, to the Malaysian people.

The question is then: is our police ill-equipped to deal with such pressure that they have now succumbed to fudging the numbers just to please their bosses? Do they not stand by their motto of “Mesra, Cepat and Betul”, especially the “Betul” part, just because their shoulders carry the heavy burden of preventing and reducing crime in the country?

This may sound like finger-pointing, but the fact is, PEMANDU, the various ministries, the police and the Malaysian people are all in this together. No amount of finger pointing will absolve anyone of the failure to address the issue of crime in the country.

We all carry the heavy burden and responsibility of transforming our government and our country. If the police, or any government department for that matter, are ill-equipped, even if psychologically, to deal with the high demands of the NKRAs and deliver the results we want for our nation, what should we do?

Fudging the data to achieve the targets is certainly not the answer. Pointing fingers and apportioning blame is also not constructive.

We as a nation need to look inwards and ask ourselves: what will it take and do we have what it takes to achieve our national goals? Do we have the honesty to admit where we are wrong (amidst the things that we’re doing right), that we have weaknesses (amidst our strengths) and that we have the courage to do the right thing no matter how difficult the situation, and correct ourselves when we make mistakes?

The top leadership of the country is facing the reality of our nation that not all is right with our country: hence the Government Transformation Programme and all its NKRAs. That is a big step. It could all easily have been “business as usual”, plodding along with “average results, in its own time” instead of big results, fast.

PEMANDU’s task is monumental — and with the monumental task comes the monumental pressure — to work with all relevant ministries and government departments, and members of the public, to deliver the results that the nation wants.

(Don’t forget, the NKRAs were conceived with inputs from all levels of society, experts as well as concerned citizens in multiple labs.)

Of course the targets are stretched. They HAVE to be. Of course there is political pressure, because an entire nation wants results. Of course the targets are not easy — they were never meant to be a walk in the park.

The challenge is to deliver those targets in all earnestness, putting in our best efforts and pushing ourselves forward each and every difficult step of the way.

Fudging the numbers or making it easier for ourselves is not the way forward.

Whether the allegations are true, they have to be investigated to ascertain the extent and impact. PDRM would have to get to the bottom of it. If they are true, how would PEMANDU move forward? PEMANDU would have to re-evaluate their plans. If they are not true, then the burden is on PDRM to show how the numbers could not have been fudged in the manners that were described by Anonymous Policeman.

But regardless of the outcome of the investigations into the allegations, our national goals will not and should not change. We must reduce crime rates in the country. Those targets should not be reduced for expediency. PEMANDU and all involved must still deliver big results, fast.

Yes, the stakes are high, and high stakes come with high pressure.

Perhaps the police require more resources than what they have now. Perhaps the police force need extra support in dealing with corporate-style target-setting, frequent reporting and transparency that their work is subjected to now. Perhaps our crimes rates are indeed so high that they cannot be reduced sufficiently to meet our targets within the time frame that we have set for ourselves. These are all good questions that will come up again and again, not just in the Crime NKRA but in all the different NKRAs.

But above all, we must report the truth and we must work with our reality.

This is our country, our reality. We have to be honest with ourselves. Let’s not fudge that fact.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 4:46 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Pemandu
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tweaked crime statistics: Who should respond

Dr Lim Teck Ghee

CPI

Below 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.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 9:48 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Lim Teck Ghee
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Was Najib aware of doctored crime statistics which caused him to single out a “safe Malaysia” as the theme of his Hari Raya message last week?

When in his Hari Raya message last week the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak pledged “a safe Malaysia” by assuring that all agencies responsible will be more effective in tackling crime to enhance security in the country, it raised eyebrows and queries among thinking Malaysians for two reasons:

Firstly, the assurance of a safe country is the most basic and fundamental duty of any functioning and successful government.  The Barisan Nasional Government has claimed to be a very successful government, even making the Barisan Nasional election theme “Janji Ditepati” the 55th Merdeka Day/49th Malaysia Day theme! Why then the need to make such a pledge after 55 years of governing the country, unless Malaysia is no more as safe a country for its citizens, investors and tourists as in the past decades?

Secondly, the “safe Malaysia” theme of Najib’s Hari Raya message is even more baffling when his government has been trumpeting its  extraordinary success and “Big Wins” in its Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and National Key Result Area (NKRA) in reducing crime – i.e. in 2011, drop in street crime by 39.7% and drop in overall crime index by 11.1% although Malaysians have never felt so unsafe in public places or even in the privacy of their homes!

Now, Malaysians are beginning to understand why Najib has made “a safe Malaysia” the main theme of his Hari Raya message last week.

Was Najib aware of the doctored crime statistics in the GTP/NKRA reports which caused him to single out a “safe Malaysia” as the theme of his Hari Raya message last week, to try to assure Malaysians who have never felt so unsafe because nobody in Malaysia really believed or trusted in the official crime statistics about fall in crime rates and street crime?

This is the fifth day of thunderous and deafening silence whether from the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin or the two GTP/NKRA Ministers Datuk Sri Idris Jala and Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon to the expose by the “whistleblower” Police Officer of 30 years’ service about manipulation and doctoring of crime statistics to give a false picture of drastic fall in crime rate in the past three years, when this was not  the true situation.

Najib must be forewarned that public confidence in  his grand transformation programmes, whether GTP or ETP, will evaporate into thin air  if the three Ministers could not provide a credible rebuttal to the expose by the “whistleblower” police officer of fake or doctored crime statistics.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 1:26 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why I joined the DAP

By Dr Ong Kian Ming

The Malaysian Insider

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.)

* Dr 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
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 12:42 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


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

                This entry was posted on Monday, 27 August 2012, 3:34 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet tomorrow should direct Hishammuddin, Idris and Koh to respond to fake crime stats allegations in post-Cabinet media conference as continued silence would rubbish all GTP and ETP claims of success and “Big Fast Results”

The Cabinet tomorrow must place on top of its agenda the very serious allegations of fake crime statistics to give the false and misleading picture of “Big Wins” and “Big Fast Results” milestones in the Reducing Crime NKRA, claiming a dramatic reduction of 35% in Street Crime and 15% in Index Crime in 2010, followed by a further drop of 39.7% in Street Crime and 11.1%drop in Index Crime in 2011 – hailed as “the highest drop ever since Independence”.

Yet Malaysians have never been more afflicted with the debilitating “fear of crime” – whether the fear of taking a neighbourhood stroll with the family or the fear of going out at night!

I hope there are courageous and fearless Ministers who dare to speak up at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow to point out that the week-long deafening silence to the very credible expose by the “whistleblower” 30-year police officer of how crime statistics have been doctored to give the false picture of “Big Wins” and “Big Fast Results” in the Reducing Crime NKRA in the past two years is the greatest disservice to the present administration.

The Cabinet must take full cognizance of the inescapable fact that continued silence on the part of the authorities concerned and failure to rebut the very credible account of fake crime statistics by the “whistleblower” police officer would rubbish all the Government Transformation Programmes (GTP) and Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) claims of success and “Big Fast Results”.

For these reasons, the three Ministers directly involved in the Reducing Crime NKRA, the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, and the GTP/NKRA Ministers Datuk Sri Idris Jala and Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon must break their silence and be directed to hold a post-Cabinet media conference to respond fully to the whistleblower police officer’s allegations.

It is no exaggeration to say that the entire credibility of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Transformation Programmes, whether GTP, ETP, Political Transformation Programme (PTP) or Social Transformation Programme (STP) is now in the balance, with Najib’s premiership facing a crisis of confidence, if Hishammuddin, Idris and Koh continue to keep their deafening silence.

In fact, the 55th Merdeka Day on 31st August on Friday runs the risk of being remembered by future generations of Malaysians as the Day when Najib’s Transformation Programme met its Waterloo.

All Malaysians await the outcome of the Cabinet meeting tomorrow whether there will be a credible refutation of the whistleblower police officer’s allegations of fake crime statistics, or whether the silence of the three Ministers responsible for the Reducing Crime NKRA will prove to be the most thunderous event in the 55th Merdeka Day celebrations of the country.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2012, 12:41 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Merdeka Day bash at  Bukit Jalil Stadium a set-back for nation-building by 55 years when Malaysian public  excluded from the 100,000-seat capacity stadium which is reserved for “BN invites” only

Last night, in response to the Malaysiakini report “
Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash for invites only
”, I penned five tweets, viz:

Scandalous! Outrageous! What Merdeka D bash is this?
http://goo.gl/H1IpV
 Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash is invite only- Sara Ghazie(Mkini)

“Got like that one meh?” exclamation will be heard throughout country when Malaysians read “Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash is invite only”

No better proof of BN hijacking Merdeka Day celebrations – 1st BN election slogan of “Janji Ditepati” n now 100k Stadium largely BN invites

With MerdekaDay bash BtJalil Stadium hijacked by BN pumped up by rent-MerdekaDay-crowds, all pretence of 1Malaysia inclusive thrown 2winds

What irony 4Najib’s 1Msia signature slogan! “Bukit Jalil Merdeka Day bash is invite only” has set back nation-building in Msia by 55 years!

This morning, the Minister for Information, Communications and Culture, Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim “clarified” that the official Merdeka Day celebration at Bukit Jallil Stadium on Friday is opened to the public, saying:

“The allegation made by certain people that the Merdeka 55 gathering at Bukit Jalil will be only for invitees is not true.

“It is deplorable for certain opposition leader to try to foil what is to be the rakyat’s right to commemorate nation’s 55th birthday.”

Rais need not be so coy as he could name me as the one who had responded to the Malaysiakini report on the Malaysian twitterverse.

If I am wrong or mistaken, I am prepared to retract and apologise as I have no intention to spoil, foil or sabotage the Merdeka Day bash planned by the Barisan Nasional government at Bukit Jalil Stadium, although I strongly disagree with the manner in which the Barisan Nasional is hijacking the 55th Merdeka Day/49th Malaysia Day celebrations, causing even greater division and dissension among Malaysians instead of sparking a transcending sense of Malaysian one-ness rising above race, religion, region or political affiliation in keeping with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia policy on both these national celebrations.

However, as a result of Rais’ comments, I have revisited the Malaysiakini report last night as well as my five tweets to ascertain whether I have inadvertently made any mistakes or whether the Malaysiakini report had erred.  But I have found neither.

There is no denial or retraction of the statement attributed to the Information, Communications and Culture Ministry secretary-general Kamaruddin Siaraf that members of the public could only witness the 55th Merdeka Day “bash”  from four screens outside the Bukit Jalil stadium.

This has been further confirmed by the seating arrangement released by Kamaruddin yesterday where only VIPs, BN component party members, civil servants, schoolchildren and other specially-picked groups – including two minor BN-friendly political parties, Indian Progressive Front (IPF) and Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma) – have been allocated seats in the 100,000-seat capacity stadium.

The  Malaysiakini report last night stated that Kamaruddin, when asked why opposition parties were not included in the seating plan, said that “opposition party members  could join the rest of the crowd outside the stadium”.

He said dismissively: “They can come on the ‘
tiket rakyat
 (people’s ticket)’ No problem.”

After reviewing the Malaysiakini reports last night and Rais’ comments today, I stand by my five tweets last night that the Merdeka Day bash at  Bukit Jalil Stadium is scandalous, outrageous and a set-back for nation-building by 55 years when Malaysian public are excluded from the 100,000-seat capacity stadium which is reserved for “BN invites” only.

Clearly the Najib administration has never heard or understood the statement “The People Are the Boss” in a parliamentary democracy.

How much would the Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium cost? Would Barisan Nasional pay for the bash from the BN coffers?

As the Malaysian taxpayers will have to pay for the Merdeka Day bash at Bukit Jalil Stadium, how can the Malaysian public be treated as “outsiders”, relegated to outside the stadium to watch from four screens?  They might as well stay at home to watch the live telecast instead!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2012, 11:45 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Police response to ‘Crime statistics: Let the truth be told’

— Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 28, 2012

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.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 28 August 2012, 5:22 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Janji Detepati or Janji Diketepi?

REFSA (Research for Social Advancement)
 | 29 August 2012

In conjunction with Malaysia’s 55th year of Independence on 31 August

In the run-up to our 55th Merdeka Day celebrations, the federal government has been particularly keen on reminding Malaysians of all it has done for us.

Full-page newspaper advertisements and massive roadside billboards trumpeting ‘Janji Ditepati’ (Fulfilling our Promises) and a theme song of the same title make much of recent BN federal government handouts such as the RM500 Bantuan Rakyat 1 Malaysia cash payments, RM100 student aid and RM200 book vouchers for students.

As generous as these may seem, they are mere peanuts in comparison to the largess heaped upon the elite and connected. The student aid and  book vouchers  totalled RM550 million and RM263 million respectively.  Elsewhere, at the stroke of a pen, the government forgave former Malaysia Airlines chairman Tajudin Ramli’s debts – a total of RM589 million! And let’s not forget the RM250 million NFC scandal which saw loans for cow-farming being used to procure expensive cars and ultra-luxury condominiums instead.

The ‘promises’ the government has fulfilled are mere crumbs in comparison to the munificence shown to its cronies. Just two sets of cronies alone quietly reaped hundreds of millions of ringgit, while millions of Malaysians are exhorted to be grateful for the mere hundreds of ringgit each receives.

Alas, this is but a small example of the federal government ballyhoo that diverts attention from the issues that really matter and the Janji Diketepi (Promises Unfilled).  Our parting shot: 55 years after independence, KL still floods, even after multi-billion ringgit mega-projects like the SMART tunnel.

____

REFSA is an independent, not-for-profit research institute providing relevant and reliable information and analyses on social, economic and political issues affecting Malaysians with the aim of promoting open and constructive discussions that result in effective policies to address those issues. Topics REFSA has covered include the deployment of the national police force, the national Budget, procurement policy in the state of Penang, and the federal government’s Economic Transformation Programme (ETP). Please visit us at
www.refsa.org
.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 August 2012, 10:56 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Economics
,
Financial Scandals
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.