The Prime Minister should take stock of the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court today in finding the current Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar responsible for the death of A. Kugan in police custody.
It must have been brought to the notice of the Prime Minister that the conduct of the IGP was seriously in question with the case of Kugan pending but yet the Prime Minister felt it fit for him to be appointed as IGP.
First the IGP, next the Home Minister
Now the Prime Minister is highly embarrassed and he has only himself to blame for not realising the obvious, which is that the court could well find against Khalid in the case, which it ultimately did.
Now we have the Home Minister in a somewhat similar situation. Does the Prime Minister not understand that there is a conflict as the Home Minister is in charge of the police and that he may be found liable for acts which may warrant police action?
How does the Prime Minister talk of greater governance and transparency with appointments like these?
Najib should go to court & hear for himself
In fact, the Prime Minister should perhaps go to the Federal Court tomorrow morning in Putrajaya to hear for himself arguments in the case involving these allegations against his Home Minister.
He will have an opportunity to hear in full, the allegations which are expected to come up during the hearing later if the Federal Court is of the view that the matter should proceed to trial.
The Prime Minister may also want to explain what has become of the investigations into the report.
With all that, the Prime Minister cannot plead his usual ignorance and keep silent. He would, if he did so, prove that he is no reformist and that we cannot expect him to make those difficult decisions which are required of him if we are to really expect any change or transformation in his government.
GOBIND SINGH DEO
MP Puchong
Is Najib Protecting the undeserving???
The democratisation of desire is accompanied by the legitimisation of lust. The neat and largely imagined distinction between the ‘criminal type’ and the ‘law-abiding citizen’ has blurred significantly. The sense that anyone can be the next murderer or rapist serves to create a widespread sense of insecurity. Conversely, the policing mechanism, far from becoming available to all, is retreating into becoming the private army of the powerful. An underlying sense of unease, of the fear that the powerful can not only get away with anything, but do so with impunity is palpable. The media plays the game at both ends, at one level creating the climate of desire while simultaneously engaging in shrill criticism after the event. Sense of anarchy and hysteria feed on each other. Debates are fierce but narrow, angry but unproductive. The system is too well entrenched to change, nor is it really pushed to. In asking for special measures to counter this problem, we are in effect acknowledging that the system as it exists cannot deliver. Without fundamental and systemic changes across the spectrum of the administration- the Parliament, the elections, bureaucracy, police and judiciary, and without engaging in a larger societal dialogue, a problem of this kind can no longer be tackled. This is not a particularly comforting thought, for it tells that no easy answers exist but the time has come to go beyond symbolic steps and demand wholesale change. It is time to look beyond the anger, beyond the apparent demands being made in this case and focus on the pushing the system to transform itself- in its entirety.
Today, it is a widely held belief that the police has become an instrument for the powerful and has little time for the citizens. For all the talk about police reforms, no concrete action has been taken, nor is any imminent. But the periodic bouts of anger we see spilling out on the streets, have their source in a deep-seated disgust at precisely this misuse of power. It is time for the political class to read the changing mood of the people; the blind acceptance of the power distance between political leaders and the common citizen is receding rapidly. The idea that the more a politician has to be protected from prosecution ,Enough is clearly enough. The anger we saw spill out on the streets and while this was clearly not the time to gloat about it, the police action after the event has been swift. the more powerful he is, speaks volumes for the nature of democracy that is practised in Malaysia. The time has come for a more rational, transparent and uncompromising principle to be followed in this answering this question. What is needed is a systemic overhaul of all gratuitous displays of power.- It looks like zahid wants more custodial death as he had said only two died durin g custody. See what the high court judge justice singham had said. he wants the IPCMC to be established now. Zahid have to learn something from the highly qualified judge instead of saying something rubbish.Disregarding the recent scrutiny Judge Singham subjected it to on this front, the Government has chosen to protect Homeminister under this category. As always, the list contains names that are surprising- who, for instance is and why does the state need to provide him with such high security? It turns out that he is MP, who has in the past had criminal case against him, which included hitting and abduction., and there is no obvious reason why he should be deemed worthy of such elaborate
Legally binding or not, it is a great call from Judge Singham. Thank you, your honour for the lone voice from the judiciary but the judiciary has spoken, so to say. The question now is whether Najib has the gumption to order it. After all, it was the recommendation of an RCI. But he will have to overrule the PDRM, his Homeminister and other ignorant voices against the establishment of the IPCMC. What has our new minster Paul to say about this call? Najib, go for it and show you are in charge.
The also denied that police were targeting non-Malays, saying that most of those who had died in custody were Malays ( (97|), followed Indians (51), Chinese (49) , foreigners (25) and other races (9).
“This perception has to change. This has shown that most deaths are not because of the police,” he added.
The home minister was answering a question from Sungai Petani MP Datuk Johari Abdul (PKR) on measures taken to detect , investigate and prosecute members of police force over deaths in custody.
“We are very committed to avoid deaths in custody and will not compromise, or protect any policeman, or anyone who uses force to the point it causes death in custody.
“Every complaint will be investigated. That is my guarantee,” the Home Minister promised.
Zahid said there was no need for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) was already in place.
The EAIC, which investigates complaints of misconduct against the police force and 18 other enforcement agencies can only make recommendations to the disciplinary authority of the relevant enforcement agency upon completion of investigations.
The tactic is not restricted to any specific party, but can be seen across state legislatures throughout the country. It is as if we have reached the limits of debate and exhausted the power of language and communicate our positions through negative means only. By not working, not allowing others to work, not talking to each other, not allowing others to speak and so on. Usually a tantrum is a child’s way of levelling the power inequality that exists between the adult world and the child. A tantrum intensifies the pitch of protest to an unsustainably high level and forces the more powerful adult to bend to the demands of the toddler in order to buy the resumption of ordinariness in life. It is understandable when the weak, powerless and exploited use negative means of protest; for elected representatives to communicate through a succession of legislative tantrums is bizarre. In their case, they have the constitutional right to express themselves and indeed, the power to articulate their feelings by way of voting. When they feel that a vote is not an adequate vehicle for their sentiment, then why should the ordinary citizen feel satisfied with it?
This noisy inarticulateness can be seen in that super-Parliament called television too. Panel discussions dissolve into acrimonious emptiness night after night as the two sides, aided and abetted by determined anchors, bombard the viewer with verbiage marked more by volume than by weight. Channels take on the responsibility of solving the problems of the country and ask searching questions receiving noisy answers in return. Underneath all the sound and fury lurks a strange vacuum; one where ideas are substituted by plausible arguments and belief by expediency.
Of course, this strange inarticulateness is not restricted to the Parliament or media alone. Even those protesting show a similar lack of coherence. The anger of the middle class shows a similar characteristic; what we see is a nameless anger that has been seeking an address of some kind.Perhaps the larger problem is that we have run out of belief in the bigger ideas and have grown weary of articulated ideals. The old labels have become shiny with overuse, and do not fit the feelings that the world of today generates in us. The concepts we have grown up in defending and believing in do not seem to have reciprocated that investment, and show a stubborn tendency to go their own way. The old classifications of left and right, liberal and conservative, secular and fundamentalist, media and business seem too rigid and self-absorbed to offer answers today. Even the ideal of democracy seems to have overpromised and under-delivered and more worryingly, seems bereft of ideas on how to find new answers from within its aging self. The leaders do not have access to a new language and the followers cannot rise above the vocabulary provided by television shows, film dialogues and advertisements.
