Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Eve-teasers throw acid at girl in bengal
A girl was critically injured when a gang of eve-teasers threw acid on her. The shocking incident took place at Pandua in Hooghly on Saturday evening. The girl was walking…
More ►
More ▼
A girl was critically injured when a gang of eve-teasers threw acid on her. The shocking incident took place at Pandua in Hooghly on Saturday evening. The girl was walking along with her mother on the road when at around 7.30 pm, two youth came in their way and threw acid on her face and fled, preliminary investigations revealed.
The girl received burn injuries on her face and body. She was taken to Pandua Grameen Hospital but was referred to Chinsurah Imambara Hospital after her condition worsened. The doctors have set a 72-hour deadline for observation. The victim’s mother later lodged a complaint with the police.
The accused, Mohammed Dalim, was arrested. During interrogations, he named another accused, Mohammed Sujit, whom he had given `12,000 for throwing acid, the police said. Both were remanded in police custody by the court. The girl’s mother alleged that the two youth used to disturb her regularly on the road. “Getting complaint from my daughter, I had warned them not to do so,” she said.
▲
The girl received burn injuries on her face and body. She was taken to Pandua Grameen Hospital but was referred to Chinsurah Imambara Hospital after her condition worsened. The doctors have set a 72-hour deadline for observation. The victim’s mother later lodged a complaint with the police.
The accused, Mohammed Dalim, was arrested. During interrogations, he named another accused, Mohammed Sujit, whom he had given `12,000 for throwing acid, the police said. Both were remanded in police custody by the court. The girl’s mother alleged that the two youth used to disturb her regularly on the road. “Getting complaint from my daughter, I had warned them not to do so,” she said.
Almost 70% of Criminals in Berlin are of Immigrant Origin
Chief police Koppers had assembled the current data sets in such a way
that alongside age and social structure, the question of immigrant
background also played an important role. Thus…
More ►
More ▼
Chief police Koppers had assembled the current data sets in such a way
that alongside age and social structure, the question of immigrant
background also played an important role. Thus an above-average number
of criminals (68.4%) had an immigrant background, which is defined as
either they themselves or at least one of their parents being or having
been citizens of a foreign state. The leader of Die Linke (The Left) Udo
Wolf accused Koppers and Henkel of stirring up a "stigmatising debate"
with attributions of this type. Benedikt Lux from the Greens also
demanded "greater restraint" in the correlation of criminality and
background.
▲
Labels:
Islam Discrimination
Toll reduction for Seremban-KL highway
It will be 60 sen cheaper in two years’ time.
SEREMBAN: The toll charge for motorists travelling on the PLUS expressway between Seremban and Kuala Lumpur will be 60 sen…
More ►
More ▼
SEREMBAN: The toll charge for motorists travelling on the PLUS expressway between Seremban and Kuala Lumpur will be 60 sen…
It will be 60 sen cheaper in two years’ time.
SEREMBAN: The toll charge for motorists travelling on the PLUS expressway between Seremban and Kuala Lumpur will be 60 sen cheaper from June 2014.
Surprisingly, the good news was announced not by a cabinet minister or anyone associated with Barisan Nasional, but by Seremban MP John Fernandez of DAP.
Fernandez told FMT today that he received the information from Deputy Works Minister Yong Khoon Seng in a written reply to a question he raised in Parliament last June.
Currently, motorists pay RM7.20 for using the expressway between the two cities. But by June 2014, the trip will be shorter by four kilometers with the completion of a new toll plaza that connects to Jalan Labu here.
However, according to Fernandez, PLUS will go on maintaining the current Seremban toll plaza for motorists who prefer to exit or gain access to the expressway at the current point. There is no indication of a toll reduction for those who choose to do so.
Apparently, the new plaza is being constructed in order to reduce traffic congestion.
“Congestion at the current Seremban plaza is very common during peak hours, weekends, school holidays and festive seasons,” Fernandez said.
“The traffic jam stretches for a few kilometres along the expressway, especially affecting south-bound traffic.”
▲
SEREMBAN: The toll charge for motorists travelling on the PLUS expressway between Seremban and Kuala Lumpur will be 60 sen cheaper from June 2014.Surprisingly, the good news was announced not by a cabinet minister or anyone associated with Barisan Nasional, but by Seremban MP John Fernandez of DAP.
Fernandez told FMT today that he received the information from Deputy Works Minister Yong Khoon Seng in a written reply to a question he raised in Parliament last June.
Currently, motorists pay RM7.20 for using the expressway between the two cities. But by June 2014, the trip will be shorter by four kilometers with the completion of a new toll plaza that connects to Jalan Labu here.
However, according to Fernandez, PLUS will go on maintaining the current Seremban toll plaza for motorists who prefer to exit or gain access to the expressway at the current point. There is no indication of a toll reduction for those who choose to do so.
Apparently, the new plaza is being constructed in order to reduce traffic congestion.
“Congestion at the current Seremban plaza is very common during peak hours, weekends, school holidays and festive seasons,” Fernandez said.
“The traffic jam stretches for a few kilometres along the expressway, especially affecting south-bound traffic.”
Labels:
Toll
Temple committee files suit to set aside court order
The Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman temple committee attempts to get a stay of execution on developer Hap Seng Sdn Bhd's eviction order pending a hearing.
KUALA LUMPUR: The Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman…
More ►
More ▼
KUALA LUMPUR: The Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman…
The Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman temple committee attempts to get a stay of execution on developer Hap Seng Sdn Bhd's eviction order pending a hearing.
KUALA LUMPUR: The Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman temple committee has filed a suit to set aside developer Hap Seng Sdn Bhd’s court order which allows it to demolish the 100-year old structure.
The suit was filed on Aug 17 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
“We will also try to get the temple committee to be a party in the legal battle, as previously Hap Seng only named Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) as the defendant while leaving out the temple,” said Subang MP R Sivarasa at a press conference today.
Also present was Teluk Intan MP Manogaran. Both MPs are providing legal assistance to the temple committee.
The court has yet to set a date for the hearing.
In July, DBKL threatened to demolish the temple located at Jalan Tengah, off Jalan P Ramlee, after Hap Seng obtained a court order to demolish the structure for its high-rise building project.
The 5,119 square feet sized temple is situated on DBKL land and the city hall had allowed it to remain there after giving verbal assurances in 2010.
Sivarasa claimed that the developer did not inform the court about the temple’s history during its proceedings to get the eviction order.
“And it’s shocking that the company can get a court order to destroy the temple without naming the temple committee as a party to the case. They should be allowed to defend themselves,” he said.
Although Hap Seng only wanted eight feet from each side of the temple to build walkways, Sivarasa said that the committee could not allow it as the temple was small.
“Take away those spaces and it cannot function anymore as the temple will be confined to an 800 square feet land,” he said.
Taking Hap Seng to task, Sivarasa said the developer should construct its walkways within its own land as the temple did not encroach into the developer’s territory.
“And DBKL should help the temple as it sits on their land, not facilitating the developer to demolish it,” he added.
Using defunct laws
Echoing Sivarasa’s sentiments, Manogaran criticised DBKL for attempting to use defunct laws to demolish
the temple in July.
“DBKL officers came with an order under the Emergency Ordinance (EO) in the pretext of evicting squatters.
“When I told them that the EO had been revoked in Parliament last year, they were surprised and dispersed immediately,” he said.
He also criticised the City Hall for not appealing against the court order when they lost the case to Hap Seng earlier.
“When I asked DBKL for reasons, they just kept mum. They are attempting to collude with the developer on this matter,” alleged Manogaran.
Meanwhile, temple caretaker SR Mangalanagagi said that she had been entrusted to keep the temple running since the passing of her husband in 1999.
“We cannot give space to the developer as we have no space ourselves. Besides, why do you need to build walkways around this place when there is enough pedestrian paths around?” she asked.
▲
KUALA LUMPUR: The Sri Muneswarar Kaliyaman temple committee has filed a suit to set aside developer Hap Seng Sdn Bhd’s court order which allows it to demolish the 100-year old structure.The suit was filed on Aug 17 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
“We will also try to get the temple committee to be a party in the legal battle, as previously Hap Seng only named Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) as the defendant while leaving out the temple,” said Subang MP R Sivarasa at a press conference today.
Also present was Teluk Intan MP Manogaran. Both MPs are providing legal assistance to the temple committee.
The court has yet to set a date for the hearing.
In July, DBKL threatened to demolish the temple located at Jalan Tengah, off Jalan P Ramlee, after Hap Seng obtained a court order to demolish the structure for its high-rise building project.
The 5,119 square feet sized temple is situated on DBKL land and the city hall had allowed it to remain there after giving verbal assurances in 2010.
Sivarasa claimed that the developer did not inform the court about the temple’s history during its proceedings to get the eviction order.
“And it’s shocking that the company can get a court order to destroy the temple without naming the temple committee as a party to the case. They should be allowed to defend themselves,” he said.
Although Hap Seng only wanted eight feet from each side of the temple to build walkways, Sivarasa said that the committee could not allow it as the temple was small.
“Take away those spaces and it cannot function anymore as the temple will be confined to an 800 square feet land,” he said.
Taking Hap Seng to task, Sivarasa said the developer should construct its walkways within its own land as the temple did not encroach into the developer’s territory.
“And DBKL should help the temple as it sits on their land, not facilitating the developer to demolish it,” he added.
Using defunct laws
Echoing Sivarasa’s sentiments, Manogaran criticised DBKL for attempting to use defunct laws to demolish
the temple in July.
“DBKL officers came with an order under the Emergency Ordinance (EO) in the pretext of evicting squatters.
“When I told them that the EO had been revoked in Parliament last year, they were surprised and dispersed immediately,” he said.
He also criticised the City Hall for not appealing against the court order when they lost the case to Hap Seng earlier.
“When I asked DBKL for reasons, they just kept mum. They are attempting to collude with the developer on this matter,” alleged Manogaran.
Meanwhile, temple caretaker SR Mangalanagagi said that she had been entrusted to keep the temple running since the passing of her husband in 1999.
“We cannot give space to the developer as we have no space ourselves. Besides, why do you need to build walkways around this place when there is enough pedestrian paths around?” she asked.
Labels:
temples
Crime stats: Bukit Aman provides its version
The police responds to every allegations published in an open letter penned by a veteran policeman on crime index.
COMMENT
By Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf
In response to the article ‘Crime…
More ►
More ▼
COMMENT
By Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf
In response to the article ‘Crime…
The police responds to every allegations published in an open letter penned by a veteran policeman on crime index.
COMMENT
By Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf
In response to the article ‘Crime Statistics – Let the truth be told’, 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 a “veteran policeman.”
We would, however, like to register our regret and utmost disappointment that the respective publications including blog owners and news portals, 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%. 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% and NOT 20%, 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 energized.”
Response 3:
One of the core principles of the Crime NKRA Program is ‘Prioritisation and Focus’.
According to a public survey in 2010, the rakyat desired and demanded for a safer and secure country. PDRM identified, prioritized 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% 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 USA, 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 as shown in the figure below.
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 1 case is investigated and as such, only 1 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 program 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 multi layer 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 scrutinize 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 2 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 have 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 of the resident association within the communities, specifically Taman Tun Dr. Ismail, Subang Jaya, Penang etc.
With due respect of the motto ‘Feared by criminals and Respected by the public’, while that describes accurately the environment in pre-2000′s, the requirements of Modern Policing across the world has 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 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 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 its initiatives, such as Omnipresence, Safe City Program, 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 a public relations officer of Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM).
▲
COMMENT
By Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf
In response to the article ‘Crime Statistics – Let the truth be told’, 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 a “veteran policeman.”
We would, however, like to register our regret and utmost disappointment that the respective publications including blog owners and news portals, 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%. 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% and NOT 20%, 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 energized.”
Response 3:
One of the core principles of the Crime NKRA Program is ‘Prioritisation and Focus’.
According to a public survey in 2010, the rakyat desired and demanded for a safer and secure country. PDRM identified, prioritized 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% 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 USA, 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 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 as shown in the figure below.
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 1 case is investigated and as such, only 1 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 program 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 multi layer 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 scrutinize 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 2 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 have 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 of the resident association within the communities, specifically Taman Tun Dr. Ismail, Subang Jaya, Penang etc.
With due respect of the motto ‘Feared by criminals and Respected by the public’, while that describes accurately the environment in pre-2000′s, the requirements of Modern Policing across the world has 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 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 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 its initiatives, such as Omnipresence, Safe City Program, 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 a public relations officer of Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM).
Labels:
PDRM
Human rights: Govt ‘fails’ again
The NGO's annual report details the government's ineptitude last year in preserving human rights in Malaysia.
UPDATED
KUALA LUMPUR: The government has done worse in preserving human rights despite Prime…
More ►
More ▼
UPDATED
KUALA LUMPUR: The government has done worse in preserving human rights despite Prime…
The NGO's annual report details the government's ineptitude last year in preserving human rights in Malaysia.
UPDATED
KUALA LUMPUR: The government has done worse in preserving human rights despite Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s reliance on reforms to guarantee a win in the upcoming election, Suaram director Kua Kia Soong said today.
“We find that the record for the government in 2011 is worse than in 2010. They failed in 2010 and they failed again in 2011, and it looks like it will fail worse this year,” he told reporters at the launching of Suaram’s Malaysia Human Rights Report 2011 here.
“Because you cannot have a government that supposedly values human rights, yet has detention without trial,” he said.
He was alluding to the Internal Security Act 1960 which subjects detainees to an initial 60-day detention period without the requirement of a judicial order.
Although the ISA was repealed this year, the government has replaced it with a Security Offences Special Measures Act which Suaram claims is merely the “new ISA”.
“Those basic indicators like detention without trial, how many people were detained, how many deaths in custody last year… it was worse than 2010. How many police shootings were there? It was worse than 2010,” Kua added.
Suaram has documented a total number of 10 deaths in custody last year, compared with seven in 2010.
Meanwhile, its Human Rights Report 2011 also notes that 25 individuals were killed in police shooting last year, an increase from 2010 which recorded 18 cases.
“And with regard to freedom of association, expression, assembly, etc, the government has failed again,” Kua said.
“If you go through different freedoms, you find that they were worse.”
According to the Human Rights Report 2011, the changes made by the government were “aimed at legalising the government’s powers over its people and falsely promoting the government’s compassion towards human rights and liberties”.
It lists down the violations the government has made last year towards human rights principles such as freedom of assembly, association, and information.
Among the most notable violations was the freedom of assembly. The Human Rights Report highlighted five rallies last year in which Malaysians were denied their right to assemble: the anti-Interlok demonstrations, the Anti-Lynas campaign, the May Day rally, Bersih 2.0 and various protests against the Peaceful Assembly Act.
But in an ironic twist, the report noted that groups sympathetic to Barisan Nasional, such as Malay-rights group Perkasa and Pertubuhan Islam Gabungan Amal, were allowed to hold rallies with little to no police crackdown, despite their intention to “fuel hatred and create conflict”.
BN administration to blame
The report also highlights the “regressive” policies passed by the “Barisan Nasional-dominated Parliament”, such as the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
“We demanded the government repeal section 27 of the Police Act 1967, but the government came out with a new law, which is the Peaceful Assembly Act, in which no [spontaneous] street protests are allowed,” Suaram executive director Nalini Elumalai told reporters.
“Those who are not Malaysians cannot assemble, those who are below 15 years cannot assemble, those below 21 cannot organise a protest.
“These are the indications that it’s going worse,” she said.
When asked whether such “regressive policies” were the fault of Parliament, Kua said the blame lay squarely on the shoulders of the BN administration as it made up the numbers in Parliament.
“Parliament is at the moment dominated by BN and the laws that have been passed so far have been passed by the majority of the BN members.
“So if you say it is the failure of the BN-dominated Parliament, then of course it is. For all these years, the BN administration has paid the most lip service to reforms.”
“The prime minister is counting on his reform zeal for the upcoming general election, but the records for 2011 are not promising,” he said.
▲
UPDATED
KUALA LUMPUR: The government has done worse in preserving human rights despite Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s reliance on reforms to guarantee a win in the upcoming election, Suaram director Kua Kia Soong said today.“We find that the record for the government in 2011 is worse than in 2010. They failed in 2010 and they failed again in 2011, and it looks like it will fail worse this year,” he told reporters at the launching of Suaram’s Malaysia Human Rights Report 2011 here.
“Because you cannot have a government that supposedly values human rights, yet has detention without trial,” he said.
He was alluding to the Internal Security Act 1960 which subjects detainees to an initial 60-day detention period without the requirement of a judicial order.
Although the ISA was repealed this year, the government has replaced it with a Security Offences Special Measures Act which Suaram claims is merely the “new ISA”.
“Those basic indicators like detention without trial, how many people were detained, how many deaths in custody last year… it was worse than 2010. How many police shootings were there? It was worse than 2010,” Kua added.
Suaram has documented a total number of 10 deaths in custody last year, compared with seven in 2010.
Meanwhile, its Human Rights Report 2011 also notes that 25 individuals were killed in police shooting last year, an increase from 2010 which recorded 18 cases.
“And with regard to freedom of association, expression, assembly, etc, the government has failed again,” Kua said.
“If you go through different freedoms, you find that they were worse.”
According to the Human Rights Report 2011, the changes made by the government were “aimed at legalising the government’s powers over its people and falsely promoting the government’s compassion towards human rights and liberties”.
It lists down the violations the government has made last year towards human rights principles such as freedom of assembly, association, and information.
Among the most notable violations was the freedom of assembly. The Human Rights Report highlighted five rallies last year in which Malaysians were denied their right to assemble: the anti-Interlok demonstrations, the Anti-Lynas campaign, the May Day rally, Bersih 2.0 and various protests against the Peaceful Assembly Act.
But in an ironic twist, the report noted that groups sympathetic to Barisan Nasional, such as Malay-rights group Perkasa and Pertubuhan Islam Gabungan Amal, were allowed to hold rallies with little to no police crackdown, despite their intention to “fuel hatred and create conflict”.
BN administration to blame
The report also highlights the “regressive” policies passed by the “Barisan Nasional-dominated Parliament”, such as the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
“We demanded the government repeal section 27 of the Police Act 1967, but the government came out with a new law, which is the Peaceful Assembly Act, in which no [spontaneous] street protests are allowed,” Suaram executive director Nalini Elumalai told reporters.
“Those who are not Malaysians cannot assemble, those who are below 15 years cannot assemble, those below 21 cannot organise a protest.
“These are the indications that it’s going worse,” she said.
When asked whether such “regressive policies” were the fault of Parliament, Kua said the blame lay squarely on the shoulders of the BN administration as it made up the numbers in Parliament.
“Parliament is at the moment dominated by BN and the laws that have been passed so far have been passed by the majority of the BN members.
“So if you say it is the failure of the BN-dominated Parliament, then of course it is. For all these years, the BN administration has paid the most lip service to reforms.”
“The prime minister is counting on his reform zeal for the upcoming general election, but the records for 2011 are not promising,” he said.
Labels:
human rights
Hopping means betrayal
We are curious about the stand of Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the leader behind the scene that caused the fall of the PBS state government…We are curious about the stand of Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the leader behind the scene that caused the fall of the PBS state government in 1994 and planned the September 16 takeover attempt in 2008, over the proposed anti party-hopping Bill.Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily
The Penang state government is planning to table an anti party-hopping Bill at the November sitting of the State Legislative Assembly. It has triggered the questions of whether preventing the people's elected representatives from changing parties is a violation of the freedom of association conferred by the Federal Constitution, and why Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng made such a proposal at this time?
It is not something new to have elected government being collapsed by party-hopping lawmakers. In the 1994 Sabah state election, Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) managed to stay in power after winning 25 of the total 48 state assembly seats. However, its members were induced and roped, and the state government fell two months later. It is a forever pain in the heart of its founding president Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan.
On January 25, 2009, Umno Bota state assembly member Datuk Nasarudin Hashim hopped to the PKR, causing the Pakatan Rakyat to have 32 seats in the Perak state assembly, five seats more than the BN's 27 seats. The BN and Umno rapidly launched a counterattack by pulling back Nasarudin to Umno, and roping in DAP Jelapang state assembly member Datuk Hee Yit Foong, PKR Behrang state assembly member Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering state assemblyman Mohd Osman Jailu. They quit the Pakatan Rakyat and supported the BN, allowing the BN to regain the Perak state regime.
Different people in different situations have different feelings for the proposed anti party-hopping Bill. Pairin believes that when a people's representative contests under the banner of a political party, he or she has "sealed" a social contract with the people. If he or she changes party after being elected, it means a betrayal to the commitment. However, other BN leaders do not agree with the anti party-hopping Bill and MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek even challenged the DAP to amend its party constitution to prohibit party-hopping lawmakers from joining the party.
We are curious about the stand of Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who is the leader behind the scene that caused the fall of the PBS state government in 1994 and planned the September 16 takeover attempt in 2008, over the proposed anti party-hopping Bill.
If there is no law to prevent lawmakers from violating the commitments, the elected government might eventually fall, causing the election to lose its significance.
The Penang state government proposed the anti party-hopping Bill with the hope to gain public support and prompt the federal government to amend the Federal Constitution. The general view is, the BN and the Pakatan Rakyat are equal in strength and if the numbers of seats they gain in the next general election are close, the elected government would be unstable, if there is no law prohibiting lawmakers from changing parties. Can the BN be sure that betrayal will not happen within the ruling coalition?
Therefore, there must be an anti party-hopping law to clarify that the seat of a lawmaker who quits his or her party will be vacant, even if he or she does not join the rival party.
The people's right to vote should be prioritised over lawmaker's right of association. Moreover, the act of quitting and joining rival parties is related to the lawmaker's integrity and should not be simplified as democracy and freedom.
However, even if the anti party-hopping Bill is passed in the Penang state assembly, it would still be ruled invalid once it is brought to court.
In 1993, the PBS had foreseen a potential threat for the state government and thus, an anti party-hopping Bill was passed by in the Sabah state assembly. However, the Bill was challenged in court and eventually ruled invalid due to the violation of the Federal Constitution.
Similar to the restoration of local elections, lawmakers can still change parties as they like if the federal government refuses to cooperate. Such kind of democracy and freedom of association are not worth mentioning.
Labels:
PKR
Najib & Taib in PROXY WAR: Ground in S'wak moving "LEFT, RIGHT & CENTER"
The dust has yet to settle in Sabah, but Opposition Leader Anwar
Ibrahim is not going to wait. He and his Pakatan Rakyat coalition have
already begun to move in…
The dust has yet to settle in Sabah, but Opposition Leader Anwar
Ibrahim is not going to wait. He and his Pakatan Rakyat coalition have
already begun to move in on neighboring Sarawak, the domain of
white-haired 'Rajah' Taib Mahmud who has ruled as and how he pleased for
more than 3 decades.
"The ground is moving left, right and centre in Sarawak BN. It is the right time for Pakatan to go in for the last mile," PKR vice president Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.
"BN in Sarawak is very split now. Technically, at least 4 legislators have left their parties though they remain BN-friendly. The emergence of Sarawak Workers Party will further weaken BN."
Writing on the wall for BN
Tian
and his coalition have just welcome on board 3 senior Sabah BN leaders,
who quit their parties, citing disenchantment with the federal and
state governments for not keeping promises or uplifting the lives of
Sabahans, most of whom remain impoverished despite the state's wealth of
natural resources.
Prime Minister Najib Razak personally flew in to rally the troops but was not able to stop Lajim Ukin, an Umno Supreme Council member, Wilfrid Bumburing, the Tuaran MP, and Senator Maijol Mahap from quitting the BN. The trio have confirmed plans to form an Opposition-friendly independent movement to rally Sabah leaders to fight for change in their state.
The move is ominous as both Sabah and Sarawak hold enough seats in the Malaysian Parliament to affect the outcome of the 13th general election, which must be held before June 2013. Of the 222 parliamentary seats, 25 are in Sabah and 31 in Sarawak, giving the pair a combined 25% control of the august House.
Najib himself has called Sabah and Sarawak the BN's "fixed deposits", a term that has infuriated the residents there, adding to their displeasure with the Peninsular Malaysia-based federal government whom they scorn as being corrupt and greedy. BN leaders have been accused of amassing enormous riches at the expense of East Malaysians without reciprocal investment in developing and modernizing the two states.
Taib is more worried about Najib
The
76-year-old Taib is also much reviled. His PBB party holds an iron grip
on the state government due to decades of gerrymandering and other
electoral trickery.
But it is not Anwar and the federal Opposition that Taib fears or has an axe to grind with. It is Najib and his Umno party that Taib distrusts. So far, Taib has succeeded in foiling all attempts including by former premier Mahathir Mohamad to 'Umno-nize' Sarawak. Sarawak BN consists of PBB, the down-spiraling SUPP as well as several other small parties.
"Taib is not so worried about Pakatan, he is Borneo-centric at heart. He is suspicious of the Semenanjung (peninsula) forces entering Sarawak and it is Najib and Umno Semenanjung that he hates," Tian told Malaysia Chronicle.
"He is still very sore about last year's state elections. He was humiliated on his own home ground when Najib openly committed to ending his appointment as Chief Minister and hinted Taib would resign after the state assembly polls."
In April 2011,Taib managed to beat off the Pakatan and held onto the state government. However, DAP and PKR made huge inroads with DAP winning 12 state seats and PKR 3. Long-established BN parties such as SUPP were annihilated
Proxy war
In
the next general election, only seats in the federal Parliament are up
for grabs. Speculation has swirled Taib might sponsor independent
candidates or the Sarawak Workers Party to fight the candidates
selected by Najib.
"It looks like Najib and Taib will fight a proxy war by supporting different sets of candidates. Taib also wants all Sarawak MPs to be obedient to him but Najib has insisted that he will do the final selection instead of leaving it up to the respective parties. This means Najib will plant candidates loyal to the central or federal leadership and not to Taib personally," said Tian.
"Ultimately, it means Taib will lose his grip. Do you see Taib accepting this sort situation without hitting back?"
Already, cat fights and spats over who will be chosen to contest and which seat to contest have erupted across the Sarawak political landscape. Earlier this moth, controversial Meluan assemblyman Wong Judat finally resigned from his party Sarawak Progressive Democratc Party after months of speculation.
According to Judat, he resigned because of Julau MP Joseph Salang’s "stubborn" insistence on defending his seat. But some pundits do not think that was the real reason, pointing out that Judat had barely a week ago said that he was ” still 100 percent with SPDP”.
Salang
is also a BN leader and vice president of Parti Rakyat Sarawak. It is
believed that "power play" amongst the BN component parties had forced
Judat's hand. State BN sec-gen Stephen Rundi had publicly threatened to
take disciplinary against Judat for failing to'abide by Barisan’s spirit
of unity to win the general election'.
As for the controversial Sarawak Workers Party led by Larry Sng, whom many regard as Taib's protege, Najib has himself issued a public chastisement. The PM questioned SWP's sincerity in proclaiming itself "BN-friendly" and yet wanted to contest 6 of PRS' seats.
"SWP cannot claim to be BN-friendly when it wants to contest against the BN. Such action is obviously not consistent. If it is really BN-friendly, what is wrong in supporting all BN candidates. That is the crux of the issue," the prime minister told a media conference in June.
Najib said even if SWP managed to win any seat in the coming general election, it would not be invited to join the BN.
"There is no question of joining the BN. The important thing is to support all BN candiadates. Otherwise, if they plant their candidates, the votes will be split. My advice to the people of Sarawak is for them to support only the BN," said the PM.
As for Taib, he has only commented that he had tried to "dissuade" Larry from joining SWP.
Opportunity for Pakatan
Meanwhile,
the Sarawak BN shadow play is being watched and followed closely by the
federal Opposition. But while the mounting discontent and shifting
ground provides opportunity, Pakatan leaders admit it would not be so
easy in Sarawak for form new alliances.
However, Tian predicts Pakatan will make unprecedented headway, with DAP blazing the trail.
"We still wait and see. Some preliminary discussion had started last year but it is not as advanced as in Sabah. But SUPP is very weak and no match for DAP. For PKR, we are focusing our efforts on the traditional KDM areas and PAS is also breaking new ground," said Tian, the chief negotiator in the talks with the Sabah BN leaders who had quit last month to form their own movement for change.
Malaysia Chronicle
"The ground is moving left, right and centre in Sarawak BN. It is the right time for Pakatan to go in for the last mile," PKR vice president Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.
"BN in Sarawak is very split now. Technically, at least 4 legislators have left their parties though they remain BN-friendly. The emergence of Sarawak Workers Party will further weaken BN."
Writing on the wall for BN
Prime Minister Najib Razak personally flew in to rally the troops but was not able to stop Lajim Ukin, an Umno Supreme Council member, Wilfrid Bumburing, the Tuaran MP, and Senator Maijol Mahap from quitting the BN. The trio have confirmed plans to form an Opposition-friendly independent movement to rally Sabah leaders to fight for change in their state.
The move is ominous as both Sabah and Sarawak hold enough seats in the Malaysian Parliament to affect the outcome of the 13th general election, which must be held before June 2013. Of the 222 parliamentary seats, 25 are in Sabah and 31 in Sarawak, giving the pair a combined 25% control of the august House.
Najib himself has called Sabah and Sarawak the BN's "fixed deposits", a term that has infuriated the residents there, adding to their displeasure with the Peninsular Malaysia-based federal government whom they scorn as being corrupt and greedy. BN leaders have been accused of amassing enormous riches at the expense of East Malaysians without reciprocal investment in developing and modernizing the two states.
Taib is more worried about Najib
But it is not Anwar and the federal Opposition that Taib fears or has an axe to grind with. It is Najib and his Umno party that Taib distrusts. So far, Taib has succeeded in foiling all attempts including by former premier Mahathir Mohamad to 'Umno-nize' Sarawak. Sarawak BN consists of PBB, the down-spiraling SUPP as well as several other small parties.
"Taib is not so worried about Pakatan, he is Borneo-centric at heart. He is suspicious of the Semenanjung (peninsula) forces entering Sarawak and it is Najib and Umno Semenanjung that he hates," Tian told Malaysia Chronicle.
"He is still very sore about last year's state elections. He was humiliated on his own home ground when Najib openly committed to ending his appointment as Chief Minister and hinted Taib would resign after the state assembly polls."
In April 2011,Taib managed to beat off the Pakatan and held onto the state government. However, DAP and PKR made huge inroads with DAP winning 12 state seats and PKR 3. Long-established BN parties such as SUPP were annihilated
Proxy war
"It looks like Najib and Taib will fight a proxy war by supporting different sets of candidates. Taib also wants all Sarawak MPs to be obedient to him but Najib has insisted that he will do the final selection instead of leaving it up to the respective parties. This means Najib will plant candidates loyal to the central or federal leadership and not to Taib personally," said Tian.
Already, cat fights and spats over who will be chosen to contest and which seat to contest have erupted across the Sarawak political landscape. Earlier this moth, controversial Meluan assemblyman Wong Judat finally resigned from his party Sarawak Progressive Democratc Party after months of speculation.
According to Judat, he resigned because of Julau MP Joseph Salang’s "stubborn" insistence on defending his seat. But some pundits do not think that was the real reason, pointing out that Judat had barely a week ago said that he was ” still 100 percent with SPDP”.
As for the controversial Sarawak Workers Party led by Larry Sng, whom many regard as Taib's protege, Najib has himself issued a public chastisement. The PM questioned SWP's sincerity in proclaiming itself "BN-friendly" and yet wanted to contest 6 of PRS' seats.
"SWP cannot claim to be BN-friendly when it wants to contest against the BN. Such action is obviously not consistent. If it is really BN-friendly, what is wrong in supporting all BN candidates. That is the crux of the issue," the prime minister told a media conference in June.
Najib said even if SWP managed to win any seat in the coming general election, it would not be invited to join the BN.
"There is no question of joining the BN. The important thing is to support all BN candiadates. Otherwise, if they plant their candidates, the votes will be split. My advice to the people of Sarawak is for them to support only the BN," said the PM.
As for Taib, he has only commented that he had tried to "dissuade" Larry from joining SWP.
Opportunity for Pakatan
Meanwhile,
the Sarawak BN shadow play is being watched and followed closely by the
federal Opposition. But while the mounting discontent and shifting
ground provides opportunity, Pakatan leaders admit it would not be so
easy in Sarawak for form new alliances.However, Tian predicts Pakatan will make unprecedented headway, with DAP blazing the trail.
"We still wait and see. Some preliminary discussion had started last year but it is not as advanced as in Sabah. But SUPP is very weak and no match for DAP. For PKR, we are focusing our efforts on the traditional KDM areas and PAS is also breaking new ground," said Tian, the chief negotiator in the talks with the Sabah BN leaders who had quit last month to form their own movement for change.
Malaysia Chronicle
Labels:
Najib,
Sabah and Sarawak
Police response to ‘Crime statistics: Let the truth be told’ — Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf
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,…
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 is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
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 is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
Labels:
Police Brutality
The Nut Graph’s 2012 Merdeka Awards
The Nut Graphby Koh Lay Chin
AS
we welcome Peninsular Malaysia’s 55th year of independence this year,
we celebrate once again the people who continue to inspire us and…
The Nut Graphby Koh Lay Chin
AS
we welcome Peninsular Malaysia’s 55th year of independence this year,
we celebrate once again the people who continue to inspire us and give
us hope for a better Malaysia.
We first published The Nut Graph’s
Merdeka Awards in 2009. Four years later, we continue to be reminded of
the immense talent in the country. And we continue to be moved by fresh
initiatives from citizens of all stripes. Our selection comprises
awardees who uphold constitutional freedoms and civil rights, empower
citizens and/or care for the environment or the cities we live in. They
are people whose actions contribute towards making Malaysia a better
democracy and place to live.
We
do not claim that this list of awardees is definitive or exhaustive in
any way. Indeed, these are our picks. We welcome readers to include
theirs in the comments section to make the picture complete.
At The Nut Graph, we tip our hats off to the following Malaysians, in no particular order:
Borders
This
bookstore chain has been uncompromising about ensuring that the
religious authorities don’t get away with abuse of power. When its store
manager was arrested and charged for distributing Irshad Manji’s book Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta before it was banned,
Borders publicly
protested the actions of the Federal Territories Islamic Department
(Jawi). And then Borders took Jawi to court. In an environment where Islamisation has
ridden roughshod over our constitutional civil liberties, no less
because many fear speaking up, we salute Borders for standing by its
employee and standing up to the religious authorities’ abuse of power.
The courts
Against the backdrop of more
book banning, the Court of Appeal upheld the lifting of the ban on a
Sisters in Islam book. The court went as far as to describe the Home Ministry’s ban as “outrageous” and “irrational”.
There
was also another nod for freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful
assembly when the Kuala Lumpur High Court quashed the home minister’s
declaration that
Bersih 2.0 was unlawful.
And where the High Court had failed to grant a stay, the
Court of Appeal unanimously granted a temporary stay against Jawi’s further action over the Manji book ban, in favour of Borders.
Yes,
two, or in this case, three swallows do not make a summer. And it’s
hard to predict if these three cases demonstrate that our courts are
returning to their rightful role as custodians of our constitutional
freedoms. Indeed, there is still room for an intelligent, independent
and fearless judiciary in Malaysia. Still, in these three cases, the
courts provided a check and balance against the executive. After years
of court decisions that were seen to deny constitutional freedoms and
cement the executive’s power, these three court decisions have been a
breath of fresh spring air.
Rumah Anak Teater
Set up in 2008 by Malay-language playwright and actor
Nam Ron, and other theatre practitioners,
Rumah Anak Teater has been pushing the bar when it comes to showcasing and promoting local talent in the performing arts.
It’s also not afraid to tackle political and social issues through its productions. The collective is responsible for
Beng Hock, a production that drew from the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s findings into
Teoh Beng Hock’s controversial death at the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s office in Shah Alam. It also produced independent film,
Jalan Pintas. The group has also been instrumental in setting up
Projek Asas Teater which trains aspiring thespians in acting, dance, music and scenography.
For
their work with youth, and for bringing a different feel and relevance
to Malay-language theatre and film, we hope Rumah Anak Teater will
continue to inspire us with their work.
Poskod.my
Poskod.my is
an online community-driven site about the city, with a focus on what’s
happening in local communities and on the streets. Poskod “believes that
the more we know about ourselves and the people around us, the stronger
our communities, the easier our participation as citizens in this
country, and the better our lives.”
To realise this mission statement, Poskod.my launched
#betterKL, a grassroots campaign linking various people and initiatives in Kuala Lumpur. Thus far, the two have organised a series of
Poskod Talks that have highlighted topics like public transportation, urban cycling, and creative young companies in the city.
Rafizi Ramli and Khairy Jamaluddin
In
the past year, several politicians have had public debates on issues of
national interest. One, however, was notable above the other debates.
On
29 Jan 2012, at a debate organised by the United Kingdom and Eire
Council of Malaysian Students, Pakatan Rakyat’s Rafizi Ramli and Barisan
Nasional’s
Khairy Jamaluddin showed Malaysians that political opponents can still be equally civil and respectful of each other.
Other
debates between
politicians have featured rhetorical questions or ad hominem attacks.
Rafizi and Khairy showed us a glimpse of mature politics where
discussing issues like education, student rights and economic growth are
far more important than personality attacks or mere rhetorics.
Occupy Dataran
They were
beaten, harassed and
arrested,
but that did not deter them. Those involved in Occupy Dataran did more
than just set up tents in a historic public space. They ignited debate
about student rights, freedom of assembly, public spaces and education.
Occupy
Dataran was founded even before Occupy Wall Street emerged in the US.
The leaderless, independent and autonomous grassroots initiative wanted
to reclaim Dataran Merdeka as an open and democratic space. And by doing
so, they wanted to explore and imagine a new political culture that
redefined the meaning of democracy in Malaysia.
It takes courage to think outside the box. Just as it takes
courage to
stay the course despite the violent response from state and non-state
actors. What will the authorities do if more citizens demonstrate such
courage?
Kill The Bill
Initially formed as a “one-stop information centre” against the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011,
Kill The Bill now
specialises in spreading information and gathering supporters for civil
society events. Their main mission? To grow an empowered citizen
movement that organises and supports peaceful assemblies.
The team organised a
Bersih 2.0 remembrance day this July, where people walked from Merdeka Square to Stadium Merdeka. It was a feat and a record. Activist
Wong Chin Huat, who is also a columnist for The Nut Graph,
said he couldn’t remember the last time an assembly, which had no
police permit, dispersed according to the organiser’s schedule instead
of being dispersed by the police.
They are on our list for their tenacity in upholding freedom of peaceful assembly and expression for all Malaysians.
Election monitoring and civic education groups
These groups include
Bersih 2.0, UndiMsia!, Jom Pantau PRU13,
Tindak Malaysia, and the
#MyMP project which have been educating, informing and engaging voters in Malaysia.
With
the 13th general election approaching, these groups have been
relentless despite their limited resources. The mammoth success of the
Bersih 3.0 rally
this year speaks for itself. At the same time, Jom Pantau PRU13 aims to
monitor any irregular and fraudulent practices in the coming general
election. Tindak Malaysia has been providing regular training for anyone
who wants to be a polling and counting agent when the election is held.
Many of these initiatives target young voters, hence ensuring we have
an engaged citizenry in the generation to come.
LoyarBurok
They shared this award last year with the
UKM4 for
their fight for students’ rights and freedom. But LoyarBurok has
continued to inspire us with its drive and commitment and hence, they
deserve to be mentioned again and on their own.
Impressive by any standard, efforts under the LoyarBurok group include Undi Msia!,
Idola Demokrasi, #MyMP, and regular events for youths at their Pusat LoyarBurok in Bangsar.
The
LoyarBurokkers have
continued to stir debate and discussion on social media platforms on a
variety of issues. With a presence on many fronts, LoyarBurok continues
to engage young Malaysians in cool and intelligent ways, hence
empowering more citizens to participate more actively in shaping this
nation.
Wild Asia*
Wild Asia has
been working diligently throughout Malaysia and across Asia,
encouraging businesses to be both profitable and responsible. Through
their
Responsible Tourism Initiative,
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative and
Corporate Social Responsibility programmes, the homegrown social enterprise has been reaching out to a wide range of companies.
These
range from hotels to oil palm producers with a message that emphasises
sustainability through practical and viable changes. The social
enterprise is humble in size, but dreams big and makes meaningful
changes that benefit both businesses and the environment.
Sabah government
It must be something when WWF-Malaysia praises a state government for its actions in protecting the environment. In July,
WWF-Malaysia applauded
“the Sabah state government’s passing of the Bill to prohibit coastal
areas in Kota Kinabalu to be alienated to others”.
An
amendment to the Sabah Land Ordinance 1930, the Bill that was passed
bars any development on the Kota Kinabalu seafront from Tanjung Aru to
Likas Bay. The passing of this law garnered plenty of praise from other
environmental
NGOs. And rightfully so. The amendment helps protect the state’s precious coastal areas, mangroves and coral reefs.
Irene Fernandez and Tenaganita
She
has endured two decades of state pressure and persecution for her
longstanding work for migrant workers. But Irene Fernandez continues to
soldier on to protect the rights of vulnerable and abused migrant
workers who live in our midst.
While the authorities regard her as
unpatriotic and have threatened her with the
Sedition Act, Fernandez remains unflinching. At 66, her untiring work at
Tenaganita, which helps foreign workers and victims of human trafficking, has been recognised
internationally.
It is a pity that her work gets less than positive coverage in her own
country. We salute Fernandez for being such a strong voice for those who
have none.
Sze Ning
(Corrected) Sze Ning became
aware of the plight of indigenous communities affected by oil palm
estates while interning with Centre for Orang Asli Concerns. Today, this
freelance photographer documents these marginalised communities through
her lens. Sze Ning continues to do research, documentation and
capacity-building training for the Orang Asli.
She is also involved in the online fair trade enterprise
Elevyn which
connects craftspeople directly with consumers. Craft producers benefit
from up to 85% of their goods’ sale price. The initiative also allows
consumers to evaluate how their purchases improve the lives of the
indigenous communities.
The list of awardees were selected by The Nut Graph team. We created and published The Nut Graph’s Merdeka and
Malaysia Day awards as a way to honour and model exemplary Malaysians.
* Disclosure: The Nut Graph’s editor Jacqueline Ann Surin was the media trainer for Wild Asia’s Responsible Journalists Programme II last year.
Labels:
Merdeka
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)