The EO has failed, so why the call to revive it?

asks opposition MP
B Y R IT A JO NG J UL Y 1 2, 20 13

Why revisit the Emergency Ordinance (EO) if it has failed? This was the question posed by a DAP Member of Parliament who is questioning the rationale of reviving the preventive law. Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo said Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is not making any sense in calling for the revival of the EO if his statement that "those who were detained under the EO had returned to their criminal ways after release", is to be believed. "Does he have evidence to prove this? If he has, why was no action taken against these criminals?" he asked. The home minister, in calling for the revival of EO-like laws, had said that 90 per cent of the rise in crime was committed by former EO detainees. "And how does his statement support the revival of the EO? If he is right, then clearly the EO has failed in its objective which is to rehabilitate detainees." Gobind pointed out that that EO was initially in place to reform and rehabilitate those suspected of criminal activities. "It was also to ensure that these suspects did not pose a threat to society once they were rehabilitated and released. "Zahid has completely missed the point in supporting the revival of the EO. He should instead be focusing on ways to boost current laws for better enforcement and improving facilities which already exist. This will bring about better policing and gradually deal with the problem of increasing crimes." Ahmad Zahid had also promised to show the statistics from a recent study on crime at the next parliament meeting to justify his claim to revive the EO.

DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua said in a statement today that Ahmad Zahid should not wait until September to prove his case. "Why wait till September to show statistics that prove the repealed EO accounts for 90 per cent of the rise in crime?" he asked.-- July 12, 2013.
Oxymoronic or moronic, Zahid's claim of EO 'statistics' highly suspicious - Tony Friday, 12 July 2013 Yesterday, Home Minister Dato' Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi claimed he will present statistics from a recent study on crime in full at the next Parliament session to justify the need to revive the Emergency Ordinance (EO), to allow the Police to place suspects under detention without trial for 2 years. He said "I obtained the statistics, which were derived empirically, that in Selangor, 90% of organised crimes were carried out by ex-detainees who were released from Simpang Renggam where they were held under the EO. I will present the statistics and the study in the Dewan Rakyat in the coming session, the September session, to prove the need for the EO." The perplexing question for us to ask the Home Minister is, if the study is already concluded, and he already has in his possession the study, why does he need to wait 2 months before the report is presented to the Parliament? Why not present it next week while the Parliament is still in session? In fact, even if the report isn't yet presentable next week, he could always call for a press conference and release the results of the study. There is absolutely no necessity to wait a whole 2 months "to prove the need for the EO". However, if you read into Dato' Seri Zahid's statement, one can only deduce that it is completely oxymoronic. If the "study" even exists, then surely for a shocking 90% of the crime perpetrators to be identified, these "criminals" would have been identified, arrested, investigated and possibly even charged already. But if they have been arrested and investigated - and there have been very few reports of such, then how come crime is still rampant and the Police still needs the EO?

Is the Minister trying to tell us that they have identified all the suspects of all the crime incidences over the past year but are unable to arrest and charge them? Why not arrest and charge immediately? In fact if Dato' Seri Zahid's allegation that 90% of these crimes were committed by former EO detainees were true, it actually doesn't "prove the need for the EO". On the contrary, it only proved that the police force to be totally incompetent! The question needs to be asked, that if the Police is indeed so certain of who committed 90% of these crimes, then why can't they be charged in court and put in jail? If the Police is unable to charge all of them, surely the Police is able to garner evidence and charge half or even a quarter of them? However, based on the Home Minister's argument, the Police are absolutely helpless without the EO to put these "criminals" to jail via our criminal justice system. Hence the need for the Police to take the easy way out, by becoming the witness, prosecutor and judge to place these "criminals" under detention without trial. Unlike Dato' Seri Zahid who seems to have trouble coming up with concrete statistics, we have shown using past published police statistics have shown that the EO was completely ineffective in fighting rising crime. For example, the Malaysian crime index was rising rapidly from 2003 to 2008. At the peak, with the crime rate rose by 34.0% from 2004 to 2007. During this period, the EO was readily available at the Police's disposal and yet, crime was seemingly unstoppable. However, despite the EO repeal at the end of 2011, the Police and the Home Ministry were claiming victory in the fight against crime, with the crime index declining by 7.6% in 2012. Hence, based on the above official crime statistics presented by the Police themselves, how can the Home Minister, Dato' Seri Zahid Hamidi, now claim that the cause of rising crime is almost entirely due to the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance?

Therefore, just like Dato' Seri Zahid's utter nonsense over the "Red Bean Army" allegedly funded with hundreds of millions of ringgit by the DAP, this so-called study which shows 90% of organised crimes being committed by ex-EO detainees is a complete figment of Zahid's imagination. This study does not exist. We are seriously concerned that the Home Minister is taking advantage of the public fear of rising crime to bring back draconian laws for sinister purposes in Malaysia, instead of focusing on how to improve the professionalism, efficiency and effectiveness of the Police in fighting crime. We call upon both the IGP and the Home Minister to heed Dato' Seri Najib Razak's advice when he announced the repeal of the EO, that "now police must train themselves how to look for evidence." Instead of just catching suspects and chucking them into EO detention, Dato' Seri Najib asked the police to now "provide evidence to charge them in court". -----------------------------------------------------------Tony Pua is the MP for PJ Utara ____ DAP: Ahmad Zahid should reveal statistics to show repeal of Emergency Ordinance caused increase in crime http://news.abnxcess.com/2013/07/dap-ahmad-zahid-should-reveal-statistics-to-sho\ w-repeal-of-emergency-ordinance-caused-increase-in-crime/ Zahid asked to explain why ex-detainees not charged http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/235479 Zahid: Study shows 90% of serious crimes in S'gor committed by ex-EO detainees http://www.fz.com/content/zahid-study-shows-90-serious-crimes-sgor-committed-ex-\ eo-detainees 'Get this - crime index peaked before EO repeal' - Tony Pua

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/235120 Crime Index 2003-2012 http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.malaysiakini.com/mkcdn.mkini.net/655/43\ 5x263xa33e137035689de76d3292ceb24f0dad.jpg.pagespeed.ic.PvlDG83UAV.webp Go for better enforcement to curb crime, not EO - Jimmy Puah Wee Tse http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/235165 EO an excuse for police incompetence? http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/235473 ____

EO an excuse for police incompetence?

Filed under: Politics Hornbill Unleashed @ 12:01 AM Tags: Anak Sarawak Bangsa Malaysia, Save Malaysia, Save Sabah, Save Sarawak Nathaniel Tan The essential question is this is it ever justifiable to detain someone for an extended period of time without trial? By way of some background: when you are arrested, you can be held for 24 hours. Beyond this, the police can remand you for a maximum of seven or 14 days (depending on the crime for which you are being investigated) by obtaining a remand order from a magistrate. Thereafter, you must be charged in court or released. Detention without trial under laws such as the ISA, Emergency Ordinance (EO), and Dangerous Drugs Act (which is still in effect) allowed the police and/or the home minister to detain individuals without trial or judicial review for two-year periods, renewable indefinitely. This means that according to the law, the government could detain you for your entire life, without you ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Malaysia has taken a few step forwards in eliminating old laws, but with the introduction of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) and now, talk of a replacement for the EO, we seem to be faced with old wine in new bottles. Who determines guilt? Once again is it ever justifiable to detain someone without trial? We give the state the only legitimate monopoly on violence, and empower it to punish us when we break the law. Most people find it reasonable for the state to detain and punish guilty individuals. The next obvious question is who determines guilt? Should you ever find yourself accused of a crime, do you believe in having a right to prove your innocence in a properly functioning court of law? Under any of the detention without trial laws, no such right exists if the police and government believe you are guilty, but do not have sufficient evidence to prove it, then its just a tough break for you you will be locked up for as long as they see fit. According to the law, the judiciary has absolutely no power to intervene whatsoever. Surely the irony of this is not lost on any thinking citizen. Only in a terrorist dictatorship would the inability to prove an individuals guilt lead to indefinite detention, instead of exoneration and freedom. The burden of proof At the heart of this debate is the simple concept of innocent until proven guilty. azlanThe police can say that they know someone is guilty; but how do they know? If they cannot prove it in a court of law, can they be so sure themselves? Would you put someone in jail just because someone else said he or she knows you are guilty? Do you think it is fair for you to be subject to indefinite detention just because someone knows you are guilty?

One of the worst implications of detention without trial laws is that it makes the police even more incompetent and lazy. Why bother gathering evidence when you dont need evidence to lock someone away? If I were a member of the police force, for the sake of personal and institutional pride, I would renounce any reliance on detention without trial. The job of the police is to prevent crime, and to catch criminals. Any competent investigative unit worth its salt should be able to gather sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of people they detain (especially without brutally beating a confession out of them). If they cannot, we can only conclude one of two things either the individual is in fact innocent, or the police have simply failed to perform their duties competently. After all, police in developed countries all around the globe can combat crime without having to rely on the tyrannical ability to simply lock up whoever they please for as long as they like. Is there something so special and unique about Malaysian crime that makes it more difficult than usual to prove in a court of law? Is the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) saying Malaysian police just arent as good as other police? I have never, and will never believe that Malaysians are just innately unable to be as good as anyone else in the world at anything. Improve police, not eliminate fundamental liberties MP Tony Pua rightly pointed out that PDRM cannot have their cake and eat it too. If they insist that crime rates have gone down recently, then they cannot possibly hope to simultaneously claim that with the EO repealed, crime rates have gone up. This Mahathiresque application of logic is liable to cause loss of hair.

Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Paul Low employs similar logic when he says that the police are inefficient, therefore they must have EO powers to fight crime. Firstly, weve already seen that the EO does nothing to fight the type of crime that by far affects most of us. Secondly, how about you fix police efficiency (maybe starting with, I dont know, the fact that 72 percent of PDRM personnel are assigned to non crime-fighting duties?) instead of letting the authorities lock up whoever they like whenever they like? NONESome time ago, as deaths in custody cases seemed to be spiralling out of control, deputy IGP Mohd Bakri Zinin (centre in photo) come off as a crybaby when helamented My men are just like detainees. Try telling that to the families of detainees who lost their lives. I am all for improving the quality of life of the police, and for investing much, much more into the police force then we do presently (Im sure we can forego a submarine or two towards this end). I am not, however, for using poor police performance and living conditions as an excuse to give the authorities full, unchecked power to arbitrarily snatch people away from their lives, beat them senseless, and rob them of their freedoms. I know it is demoralising to face criticism, but the leaders of the police should look to removing any cause for criticism, not just whining. It is far more beneficial to work at proving the critics wrong beyond a doubt, than it is to worry about fighting critics in some imaginary war of perception.

Pua: Crime rate reduced, despite EO repeal

First Published: 2:03pm, Jul 09, 2013 Last Updated: 2:03pm, Jul 09, 2013 Nation by Nurul Iman Dimyati

PETALING JAYA (July 9): Despite the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) at the end of 2011, Malaysia has seen a decline in crime in 2012 as according to police statistics, DAP publicity secretary Tony Pua said. He said while DAP disputes the accuracy and completeness of the Malaysia Crime Index, the police themselves have presented that crime levels in 2012 was the lowest in a decade at 145,891 or a decline of 7.6% from 2011. Most tellingly, the decline of crime, according to the polices own statistics, was achieved despite the fact that the EO was repealed during the year, Pua said in a statement today. Earlier, a significant drop in crimes was also recorded from 209,417 in 2009 to 157,891 in 2011 following the launch of the Reducing Crime National Key Result Area (NKRA) in 2009. This was attributed under the Government Transformation Plan to greater allocation of resources to patrolling and fighting street crimes. The achievement if true, was never ever attributed by the police to the increased use of the EO to detain alleged criminals without trial, he said. Thus, Pua questioned Inspector General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar and Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for blaming the cause of rising crime almost entirely on the repeal of the EO. The issue at hand is whether the repeal of the EO is indeed the cause of rising crime, or has it become the convenient whipping body for the police to cover up the lack of professionalism and competence in solving crime cases as well as prevent crime incidences? Despite all the sound and fury, the police have yet to present a shred of evidence that the recent spate of rising crime is due to hardened criminals released from the Simpang Renggam detention centre, added Pua. Ahmad Zahid was recently quoted as saying more than 2,600 detainees in Simpang Renggam, Johor had been released following the abolishment of the EO but a number of them have returned to crime.

At the same time, the police have reportedly claimed that due to the repeal of the act, they were denied the power to detain suspects, thus making them unable to put the criminals away and resulting in the rising crime rate. Pua also pointed out that according to the crime statistics over the past decade, during the years when the EO was in place, crime had risen aggressively from 2003 to 2008. At the peak, the crime rate rose by 34.0% from 2004 to 2007. During this period, the EO was readily available at the polices disposal and yet, crime was seemingly unstoppable, he stated. He stressed that Khalid and Ahmad Zahid must heed the prime ministers advice for the police to train themselves on how to look for evidences and provide them to charge suspects in court, rather than making up new laws. The focus of the debate to fight rising crime must be on how to improve the professionalism, efficiency and effectiveness of the police. It should not be on how new laws to allow for detention without trial can be drafted to overcome police incompetence, he said.

Read more: http://www.fz.com/content/pua-crime-rate-reduced-despite-eorepeal#ixzz2YoS2CnM8

SUNDAY, JUNE 23, 2013

EO Repeal Not An Excuse for Rising Crime Tony Pua

In recent weeks, we have heard various police officers at the local level explaining to residents that one of the key reasons for the increasing rate of crime is because of the repeal of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance in September 2011. The Malaysian Insider reported yesterday that Senior Federal police officers, speaking on the condition of anonymity claimed preventive laws such as the Restricted Residence Act (RRA) 1933 had been useful against hardcore criminals and syndicate kingpins. This isnt the first time the Police are laying the blame on the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance

10

and the RRA as the causes for rising spate of crime. In June 2012, Selangors deputy police chief, Datuk A Thaiveegan suggested the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) may have caused a hike in the states crime rate due to the number of suspects who could have returned to a life of felony instead of reforming. He told Malaysiakini that we see there is a rise in crime (recently) because theyve been in (detention) for too long, they need exercise, so they come out and immediately they carry out their activities. He did admit that he was only speculating by providing the caveat that he cant confirm yet (because of the EO). However now, the police appear to be pleading helplessness in the fight against crime. The sources told The Malaysian Insider, "we do not just randomly pick people off the streets and put them into detention centres. Police also gather information and statements from witnesses and verify them But now that the government has done away with preventive laws, it is very difficult to fight these criminals with one hand tied behind our backs." If the Police are indeed able to gather the necessary information and statements from witnesses and verify them, then why is it that they are not able to prosecute them in court and send them to jail? This is a shocking state of affair because are the Police telling us that if they are unable to jail suspects without trial, then they are unable to fight crime in the country? Are the police claiming to be so incompetent that they are unable to investigate with all required evidence to bring these alleged criminals to court and make them pay for their crimes via the rule of law? In that case, we might as well dispense with the Court of Law altogether since the Police and the Attorney-General will find it easier to send these alleged criminals to jail and detention without trial. In the safe cities of Hong Kong, Tokyo, London or even Singapore, none of these countries utilise detention without trial to keep crime low or negligible. Their criminal investigation departments are able to detain and prosecute these criminals for the crimes they have committed with the necessary investigation and evidence. Why is it that the Malaysian police are unable to do the same? Are the police claiming that Malaysian criminals are more intelligent and more organised in their activities to avoid detection and prosecution? The Malaysian Police has failed to concede that the real reason behind the weaknesses in fighting crime is the sheer misallocation of resources within the force. Over the past 8 years, the criminal

11

investigation department (CID) comprises barely 9% of the police force. In stark contrast, 41% of uniformed police perform management functions, while 31% are tasked with internal security and public order such as the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU), the Light Strike Force as well as the General Operations Force. Even the Special Branch of the police has nearly the same number of personnel as the CID. In fact the Budget figures in 2010 showed that the police produced 733,237 reports and security checks by the Special Branch, but only 211,645 criminal investigation papers. So Special Branch produced more than three times as many reports as the CID. The 2005 Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) Report has recommended about 20,000 uniformed personnel or 22% of the force could be reassigned to go back to active core policing work. Unfortunately this recommendation was never taken seriously by the Home Ministry. The Home Ministry and the Malaysian police must stop giving excuses to the rising spate of crime. It must accept the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry carried out 8 years ago, and implement all the necessary measures to improve the effectiveness and professionalism of the police force. The failure to do so will only see crime persist at high and increasing levels, making Malaysia unsafe not only for its citizens, but also as a conducive country of business and investment.

Zahid to furnish crime stats to prove EO needed

Posted on July 11, 2013by mocsarawak

12

By Ahmad Fadli KC Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi will present statistics from a recent study on crime in full at the next Parliament session to justify the need to revive the Emergency Ordinance (EO). According to Zahid (left), a study found that the bulk of criminal activities in the country were masterminded by former detainees who were released following the repeal of the EO in 2012. I obtained the statistics, which were derived empirically, that in Selangor, 90 percent of organised crimes were carried out by exdetainees who were released from Simpang Renggam where they were held under the EO. I will present the statistics and the study in the Dewan Rakyat in the coming session, the September session, to prove the need for the EO, he said during a press conference in Selayang this morning. He was commenting on the rationale behind the proposal to revive a law akin to the EO although police statistics have recorded a drop in crime rates since the implementation of the Government Tranformation Programme (GTP). The debate on whether the EO, or a similar law, should be revived has been raging following claims by certain quarters, including several senior police officers and the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu), that the abolition of the ordinance contributed to the spike in crime. Bersih 3.0 report to be presented to cabinet Last week, it was revealed that a law to replace the EO, which had allowed for detention without trail, has been drafted.

13

Yesterday, Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar gave an assurance that the new law being mooted will guarantee the fundamental freedom of the people. However, other parties, including the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) and opposition politicians, including Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua (right), claimed the crime rate actually peaked before the repeal of the EO. On another matter, Zahid said that the investigation panel report on Bersih 3.0 submitted to him yesterday will be presented to cabinet for further action. The report was submitted by an independent panel, led by former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar, tasked with probing violent incidents during the Bersih 3.0 rally in April last year. We will present the report to the cabinet (to determine) if the report can be distributed to the public so that they will know the report findings, he explained. Malaysiakini

Did government lie about crime statistics, asks Kit Siang

Posted on July 10, 2013by mocsarawak

By Rita Jong Going by Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidis recent statement on the crime upsurge, Malaysians have been right all along

14

about the breakdown in law and order and that the Barisan Nasional government and police have been shading the truth. DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang today said the home ministers admission that there has been an increase in organised and petty crimes goes against what the prime minister and the police have been saying, that the crime index has dropped. Is Ahmad Zahid now confirming that the prime minister, police and previous home minister had been wrong and the public right in past four years about the worsening crime situation? said Kit Siang. Is he prepared to be frank and forthright and state whether Malaysians had been fed false and wrong crime statistics in the past four years? The Gelang Patah MP said that if that was so, then the home minister should reveal the correct statistics. Ahmad Zahid said that the cabinet was pressured to abolish the Internal Security Act and the Emergency Ordinance and, as a result, the crime rate increased and organised and petty criminals came out of the woodwork, he said. Just before Parliament was dissolved for the 13th general election, Malaysians were told that the countrys crime index had decreased by 26.8 per cent since the first phase of the GTP began in 2009 and that Malaysia had been ranked the safest and most peaceful country in Southeast Asia according to the Global Peace Index. He said Malaysians were told that the country recorded around 550.1 criminal incidents per 100,000 people, placing Malaysia lower than Singapore, Hong Kong, Britain and the United States.

15

So what is Malaysias problem? If Malaysians were all that safe, he said, then why was RM272.5 million allocated in the 2013 Budget to ensure that the rakyat feel safe? In fact, this claim of a relentless fall in crime rate in the past four years continued to be the official stance after the 13th General Election with the prime minister reiterating his War Against Crime speech on June 8. He said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the crime rate has been falling since the GTP programme against crime, stating that since April this year, the crime rate dropped by 3.1% compared to the same period last year. However, just recently, the home minister and the Inspector-General of Police appear to have decided to ditch all the claims about the success of the GTP programme. Instead, they have taken the opposite tack, saying that the country has a rising crime rate to justify the restoration of EOlike preventive laws. But where are the new crime statistics? I put this question to Ahmad Zahid during his winding up of the debate in the Royal address in Parliament yesterday, but he did not give a satisfactory answer, Kit Siang added. Malaysian Insider

The return of EO? No way, says Suhakam

Posted on June 28, 2013by mocsarawak

16

Suhakam has expressed reservation against suggestions to reinstate the Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance 1969 or the enactment of a similar law as an instrument for preventive detention. In a statement yesterday, Suhakam chairperson Hasmy Agam ( below) said while the Human Rights Commission recognises the need to preserve social order, the reinstatement of the Emergency Ordinance was retrogressive. He explained that the law allowed for detention without trial and was against Article 8 (1) of the federal constitution and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

The increase in crime rates occurs in many other countries and is not unique to Malaysia. This, however, does not justify the use of retrogressive measures which would only move the country backwards in terms of its human rights record, he said. Hasmy, a former representative to the United Nations, said Suhakam was of the view that existing laws, which requires a fair trial, were sufficient in handling crime.
17

Suhakam also sees the need for the authority to enhance the effectiveness of its crime investigation, prevention and monitoring mechanism, as well as rehabilitation programme for former detainees, he said. Check and balance Hasmy was responding to an ongoing debate in some newspapers on whether the Emergency Ordinance be reinstated, or a similar law created, to address claims that many former EO detainees are returning to a life of crime. Among others, the claim was made by the police and supported by a Universiti Sains Malaysia research team, led by associate professor P Sundramoorthy. In a letter to The Sun, Sundramoorthy had proposed that a preventive law similar to the EO, with a stringent check and balance system which cannot be abused, be formulated. This law is not meant to be a shortcut for investigating criminal cases. It is meant to keep away violent gang members, recidivists and organised crime members who are adept at beating the criminal justice system, he wrote. The Emergency Ordinance was repealed last year by the Najib administration as part of a reform effort, resulting in the release of some 2,000 detainees. Although the move was hailed by human rights activists, there were suggestions it had contributed to an increase in crime, such as the recent spate of robberies at eateries in the Klang Valley. Malaysiakini

Updated: Thursday July 4, 2013 MYT 2:27:26 PM

18

IGP: Police supports calls to introduce new preventive laws similar to Emergency Ordinance
BY FARIK ZOLKEPLI

Khalid Abu Bakar. KUALA LUMPUR: The police force fully supports the calls to introduce new special preventive laws similar to the Emergency Ordinance (EO), said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar.

Describing such calls as timely, Khalid said a study and subsequent calls for such similar laws to be introduced are welcomed by the police.

I am confident violent crimes can be curb if laws similar to the EO is introduced.

The police will be able to put hardened criminals away if such calls are a reality, he told a press conference after the handing over of 10 Mitsubishi GT Lancer 2.0 to Bukit Aman Traffic department, courtesy of PLUS Malaysia Berhad on Thursday.

Khalid said any decision towards enacting laws similar to EO would receive the full backing and support of the police force.

There have been growing calls for stronger preventive laws to stop the incidence of violent crime.

19

Fantasies of the IGP

Posted on July 8, 2013by mocsarawak

A FMT LETTER by Ravinder Singh For the IGP to tell Malaysians that the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) is the cause of the rise in crime and the solution to contain it is the proposed replacement law, is indeed laughable. One can fantasise many things but cannot turn fantasies into reality. One can also invent excuses to cover up ones weaknesses and inefficiencies. As is said in Malay: Jika hendak, seribu daya; jika tidak, seribu dalih. (a thousand efforts if you want to do it; a thousand excuses if you dont want to do it). Where in the world does the mere passing of a law turn criminals and law-breakers into good citizens? Who cares if the law provides for a death sentence, a long prison sentence, or a very costly monetary fine, if none of these are put into practice consistently and without fear or favour? Let us take a couple of simple examples. There is a law or regulation that says that lorries are not permitted to use re-treaded tires. When you travel on the highway, how often have you seen the re-treaded layers peeling off and littering the road?

20

These debris has caused accidents, even deaths of innocent road users. This law is so easy to enforce, yet it is not being done. Who cares for this law or regulation? Even crashes could have happened with such tires bursting while the lorries were being driven. Well, IGP, what meaning has this law or regulation? You can also see a lot of cars with very dark tinted glasses. This again is against the law. Enforcement is not difficult if there is a will to do so. But what happens? When an operasi is carried out, and cars with dark screens are stopped, they are issued a notice which gives the owner a date by which to produce the car at the JPJ with the dark tints removed. What does the owner do? He takes the car to a shop which specialises in removing the dark tinted glasses and replacing them with clear ones. The car is taken to the JPJ and passed. Back to the dealer who changes back the glasses, for a fee. Tell us, dear IGP, whether the law has reduced the number of cars with dark tinted screens? What kind of enforcement drama is this that only gives extra income to shops doing car glass tinting work? It is history that so many police cases have been thrown out of the courts over the past decade or two due to serious gaps in police investigations. Why? Does this not tell us volumes about the efficiency and competency of the police? Or are the gaps in the investigations deliberate so as to ensure that there will be no conviction of certain people, while showing the public that cases are brought to court, that the police are prosecuting the lawbreakers?

21

Have the criminology researchers, Pemandu, Mampu or the police itself done any research into this to determine why there are so many gaps in police investigations which result in cases being thrown out? Has any disciplinary action ever been taken against any police officers who had not done the investigations properly? How many of the incompetent Investigating Officers have been promoted to higher ranks? This is a sure way of carrying incompetency to higher ranks in the force. The IGP would do well to pull up every IO whose case is thrown out by the courts, or returned by the AGs office for further investigations and demand a written explanation. With all the resources at their disposal, why are the police not able to put up watertight cases? Remember, a bad carpenter always blames his tools. On the other hand, a good carpenter can make furniture with traditional tools. You can put the most modern tools in the hands of an incompetent carpenter, but the end product will depend on the ability of the hands to use those tools and not on the tools per se. There is a strong parallel between the manner in which the police has been run leading to the inefficiency and lack of discipline within its ranks and the manner schools have been run leading to the breakdown of discipline in schools and the decline of academic standards. When will the powers that be become matured enough to admit the grave shortcomings within the system? The rot in both the police and the education systems is the legacy of the administrative/management style based on the premise tell a lie and repeat it often enough and the people will believe it is the truth that was introduced by Dr M in the mid 80s.
22

The lies of the police statistics on crime were finally nailed when a Ministers home was broken into and he humbly admitted that rising crime was not the peoples negative perception but a hard truth. Apa (bukti) lagi polis mahu?

Cops propose guidelines for new law to replace Emergency Ordinance

J UL Y 1 1, 20 13

Police have proposed several guidelines to the home ministry concerning the new law which will replace the repealed Emergency Ordinance (EO) to prevent abuse of power, said the inspector-general of police. ""We are aware of fears the new law will involve abuse," Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said in Kuala Besut yesterday. The Star reported that Khalid, in a response to critics over the police' dependence on preventive laws, had promised that his men will be trained well in gathering evidence. "My men will work harder as we believe this new law will enable the police to take action on hardened criminals and kingpins," the top cop said. Khalid said the new preventive laws will ensure that seasoned criminals are taken off the streets through several ways, including meticulous evidence collection to ensure the cases brought to court were air-tight. "This new law will be beneficial for the people as it will reduce street crimes," he added. Khalid said rightsof the public was their utmost concern, adding that the new law would serve to put their safety as priority, even more compared to the criminals. "We are confident serious crimes will be reduced significantly when the new law is introduced," he said. - July 11, 2013.

23

Cop spars with Suhakam chief over EO revival

A senior police official today got into a heated argument with Suhakam chairperson Hasmy Agam over the latter's opposition to the reinstatement of the Emergency Ordinance (EO). The incident occurred when Suhakam was unveiling its annual report for 2012 at its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur where Hasmy had raised his objection to the EO from a human rights standpoint during the Q&A session. Hasmy (left) said he was "dismayed" by urgings to reinstate the EO - a law that allows for detention without trial - and that he was not convinced by the reasons behind such proposals. "Immediately after (calls to reinstate the EO), there were (revelations that) adraft (replacement law had been prepared). It looks as if everything has been planned. "Even the most naive person on the street can see this has been planned," he said. Hasmy, a former diplomat, said that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak should be commended for abolishing the law and "pushing this country forward". "However we are very dismayed that instead of moving forward, some quarters want to move us backwards, just because of this so-called rise in crime rates," he said.

24

'Prevention better than cure' Later, an irate Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohad Nazir, a representative from Bukit Aman, rose from his seat to address the room and state support for the EO. Mohad said that the EO allowed preventive detention and that "preventive is [sic] better than cure".

Without the EO, Mohad (right) said the public were now "suffering" and pleaded to Suhakam to support the police's effort to reinstate the EO. Hasmy responded that other countries were capable of responding to crime without such laws and there were evidence that the EO had been abused in the past. "So I think it is time for the police to move forward," he said. He then cited the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Scotland Yard, Interpol, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Victoria Police as notable examples of good policing without such laws. "There are five there. Why can't Malaysia be number six?" he asked. Mohad retorted that even the United States had the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay for the purpose of homeland security, but Hasmy replied that the former may not have read the Patriot Act properly. Mohad: Well, you see, we have a different demography, a different landscape. PDRM are the most unique police force in the world.

25

Hasmy: Every police force is unique. Mohad: No, you cannot compare PDRM with other countries. We are paramilitary, we are intelligence, we are everything. Everything is in the hands of the police. Mohad then explained that police in Singapore do not have the same amount of responsibilities and should not be used as a comparison. Mohad: We have more responsibility, so we must have these preventive measures. Hasmy: Yes, I accept that. We will support anything preventive but it has to be within international norms, it has to respect human rights. Mohad: There are thousands of criminals released, they have been in there together, they have networked... Hasmy: That's the fault of the EO, you let them network. This prompted laughter from the audience, comprising journalists, NGO and government representatives, and conciliatory efforts from Hasmy. "Look we are not against you, we want to improve you, we want to work with you. We are not against you," said Hasmy, before Mohad grudgingly took his seat. Mohad told Malaysiakini later that his views were purely his own and do not represent those of the police. He was accompanied by five other police personnel in full uniform.

Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance , commonly abbreviated as theEmergency Ordinance (EO), is a Malaysian law whose most well-known provision allows for indefinite detention without trial. The Emergency Ordinance was enacted by the National Operations Council led by Tun Abdul Razak as part of the state of emergency declared following the May 13 race riots.

26

As the state of emergency has never been revoked to the present day, the Emergency Ordinance remains in force. The Ordinance has been regularly used to detain those deemed to be subversive by the government, and is in fact used far more frequently than the Internal Security Act. Though figures for those detained under the EO are not released by the government, Human Rights Watch estimated there to be 712 such detainees in 2005.[1] A recent use of the Emergency Ordinance was in June 2011, to detain indefinitely 6 members of Parti Sosialis Malaysia, including Sungai Siput Member of Parliament Dr. Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj, due to their support for the Bersih 2.0 rally for electoral reform. These 6 people have been collectively called the Emergency Ordinance 6, or EO6. As of July, all 6 remained under detention, and looked likely to remain so for another two years.[2] The first Occupy Dataran was planned to coincided with an EO6 vigil. When the EO6 were released on 29 July,[3] the first official KL People's Assembly meeting was postponed until the following Saturday, 6 August. [4]
Updated: Saturday July 6, 2013 MYT 6:15:05 PM

Better policing needed, not a new law to replace the repealed Emergency Ordinance
BY BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

KUALA LUMPUR: Government ministers have been making a case for a new law similar to the Emergency Ordinance (EO) that was repealed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in 2002 as part of his transformation agenda.

They say incidents of crime are escalating and that preventive detention, a salient feature of the EO, is necessary to arrest the escalation of crime.

27

This means that the police will be once again given powers to arrest and detain anyone suspected of crime or gangsterism at a specific place like the former Simpang Rengam detention camp, where they would be housed, rehabilitated and released a few years later.

There would be no charge, no decision by a competent court to convict or release and no sentencing - persons are arrested, kept under forceful detention and released several years later merely on police suspicion.

While doing this would remove criminal elements - as well as innocents - to protect society and give everyone peace of mind, it is really a step backwards for society, human rights and for us as a mature, democratic nation.

Crime has been on a steady rise for about two decades, in tandem with urbanisation - but all this time, the repealed EO was in operation and actively used to curb criminals, so to speak.

It did not stop the rise in crime and neither would a new law to replace the EO.

The cause of the steady rise in crime is well known and well documented uprooting of the rural community into urban squatters, urbanisation of the Malay population into flats and the marginalisation of Chinese youths into crime.

At the same time, the standards of policing have also dropped.

Politicians also failed to see the problems developing, and failed to allocated resources to improve policing and to study crime and its causes and ways to prevent it.

The current spike in crime has been in the making for a long time and has nothing to do with the 2011 repeal of the EO.

What we need, on an urgent basis, is to improve policing - how police are recruited, trained and methods used as well as their legal education.

28

To do this, politicians must allocate resources for education and training of the police force not for more motorcycles and more guns.

How the police are currently recruited? From which social groups are they come from? Do they come from all social groups in society? Are they receiving adequate training? Are the methods employed relevant for the times?

We have to ask these questions and more to make policing come across as dominant and effective.

Merely enacting another EO is not going to work because police currently have adequate powers for the job.

It is now the law but the methods used that are ineffective.

It is just that sometimes the police feel overwhelmed by crime and take shortcuts that eventually get them into problems - i.e. violation of human rights.

According to Bar Council president Christopher Leong, the EO was used against syndicated criminals but we are now seeing a spike in snatch thefts, house burglaries, stabbings, and robberies at ATM machines and restaurants.

These crimes are not a result of the repealing of the EO, he said.

The way forward is competent investigation, arrest of culprits and charging them in court.

To do this we need really effective police intelligence and good policing on the ground, combined with community involvement.

Police patrolling must be effective and proactive, not just speeding through a neighbourhood on motorcycles to get to the nearest mamak stall.

Beat bases must interact with the local community, unlike now.

29

Besides, a law similar to the EO is open to abuse and that is something we dont want. We have left preventive detention behind us.

The fact is that the EO was repealed was because the Government recognised its potential for abuse, and such a law was not in keeping with the society we want to become.

When the old EO was repealed, about 2,600 detainees were release and a small group did return to crime, but not the vast majority.

It is rather unfair for anybody to pin the rise in crime on former EO detainees.

It has been spiking for a long time and the reasons are obvious - major social problems like urban squalor that have become accentuated by an alarming drop in the standards of policing.

Let us improve our policing and our outreach programmes for vulnerable communities, and not enact another form of the EO in a knee-jerk reaction and return to the bad old days.
Friday, 05 July 2013 09:38am

Free Malaysia Today (Used by permission) FMT LETTER: From KC Vohrah, via e-mail There is no doubt that there has been an increase in violent crimes involving snatch thefts, robbery and house breaking. It appears these crimes are random in nature as against criminal activities run by syndicates or organisations. It is another matter, however, whether the increase in these crimes can be attributed to the release of detainees under the repealed Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance (the EO) in 2011 which was enacted by the National Operations Council in 1969 under the fourth Emergency Proclamation declared on May 15, 1969. Even before the repeal of the EO, there was a high number of such violent crimes and other crimes but to make a leap to say that the present high crime rate of violent crimes involving snatch thefts, robbery and house breaking is due to the release of these detainees is simply not borne out by credible evidence save for unverifiable anecdotes linking then to criminal syndicates or organisations.

30

If the authorities in fact know that these crimes have increased because they are committed by these former detainees then why are the authorities not increasing surveillance and footwork to nab these peoples for them to be prosecuted in court with evidence including circumstantial evidence what is allowed in law. There appears to be a study done by Dr Sundramoorthy (as reported in the papers) on the matter but it is short on statistics before and after the EO and there is no evidence that has been made public to show that the increase is directly related to the release of the detainees after the repeal of the EO. Unfortunately, apart from the call for a new law with elements of the EO in such law, nothing more is known about the study. Who commissioned it? Who were the members in the team that made the study? What crimes did they study? What were the ground rules they took for the study? What material did they rely on? What studies did they look at? Until we have an informed study that is made available to the public it is difficult for the public to come to any credible conclusion as to whether the release of these detainees indeed caused a marked rise in the random violent crimes as against organised or syndicated crimes. It is a worrisome issue that there are well intentioned statements by many calling for an introduction of elements of the EO which allow for preventive detention without trial. The strong Bar rendering its yeoman service, Suhakam with its far reaching studies and consistent call, the tireless efforts of social activist have all contributed over so many years to the repeal of all laws which allowed detention without trial. And the 2005 the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police Report (the Dzaiddin Report) carries many areas of study and made several recommendations. One of the recommendation of the Dzaiddin Report was for the repeal of the EO which the Commission said was a lazy way for the police to lock up suspects without conducting proper investigations. There cannot be detention without trial, a human rights norm under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, and this is accepted by the Constitution. True there are certain provisions, very special provisions, with special procedure where laws were once made, the EO being one of them. But the laws were made under these provisions saw many cases of abuse by the authorities where the detainees were held incommunicado; there was no charge, no trial, no conviction on evidence providing for the process leading to conviction and sentence of imprisonment; persons were arrested and kept under detention on criteria that could not be reviewed objectively by the courts.

31

It cannot be gainsaid that Najib Tun Razak as Prime Minister walked the talk and was responsible for the repeal or annulment of several laws like the Restricted Residence Act, the Internal Security Act, the EO and the Emergency Proclamations. Let us not roll back all the good work done for the country in getting rid of repressive laws. We cannot ask for the return of the EO or any law allowing detention without trial. Another fact in relation to the commission of crimes has to be noted; violent crimes have to be tackled, no doubt, and Denison Jayasooria in his thoughtful article published in the media has highlighted what Hasmy Agam, Suhakam chairman, has stated, that the Human Rights approach is not soft on crime or criminals but called on the policeto enhance the effectiveness of its crime investigation, prevention and monitoring mechanism, as well as rehabilitation programme for former detainees. Denison pointed out, Even in the case of snatch thieves are these people not known, do they not leave a trial, where do they sell the items they steal? They all leave a trial of crime. What we need is serious police work, the investigators, non-uniformed police in the community more like undercover operations, better informer system, more processionals in the investigative team and better witness protection programmes. At the moment we are concerned with violent crimes connected with theft, robbery and burglary, not the sort of organised crimes of criminal syndicates or organisations. If it is an issue of syndicated or organised crime, Malaysia could study the RICO (the 1970 US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act) and SOCA (the UK Serious Crime Act 2005). These are far reaching laws which do not rely on preventive detention but on a proactive operation by a national agency against serious and organised crime through collaboration with the police and other enforcement and intelligence agencies to carry investigation with disruptive powers of interventions including resorting to the power of courts for seizure of assets. Let us not by knee jerk reaction go to the old bad days by bringing back repressive laws of detention without trial with its attendant abuses. Let us work together not only to tackle random violent crimes but organised crimes and take note as Denison has noted that a stronger socio-economic intervention programme in the high risk communities is essential to prevent the outflow of people in high risk social-economic conditions into gangs, and that that being a national problem, all relevant agencies must work in an inter-agency approach together with civil society to address the root causes of serious crime.

32

No doubt as Denison has pointed out this is a long term approach, but in the meantime, there can be established a special panel comprising senior criminal lawyers, former policeCommissioners, the Bar Council, Suhakam and EAIC to review the area of serious crime and assist the policeto strengthen the investigative and evidence based policing in Malaysia. And many well agree with that.

EO not the answer, say civil liberty groups

Thursday, 11 July 2013 09:26am ImageThe Sun Daily (Used by permission) by TAN YI LIANG PETALING JAYA: Reinstating detention without trial in the statute books is not the answer to reducing street crime, said legal and human rights groups. The Bar Council, in asserting its stand against any legislation replacing the Emergency Ordinance, questioned the need to give the police more powers. Addressing the increase in street crime requires diligence, intelligence, abilities and the dedicated resolve of the police. It is not about giving them more powers, council president Christopher Leong told theSun yesterday. He was commenting on the possibility of preventive detention making a comeback in any Act drafted to replace the Emergency Ordinance. Meanwhile, Lawyers for Liberty founder Eric Paulsen urged the government to recognise the impact of such laws on human rights, such as the right to fair trial and due process. He said the absence of the EO was not the reason for the spike in crime, as there was no evidence linking the two. The government should strengthen the police force and provide them with adequate resources, support and training to be a modern and civilised first world police force, he added. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) executive director Nalini Elumalai said the EO was too broad in its scope and left too much room for corruption.

33

The main problem with the EO is that it allows indefinite detention without trial and is too all encompassing, even allowing arrests for motorcycle theft, she said.

Better policing needed, not a new law

Leven Woon | July 4, 2013

PKR leader R Sivarasa says the authorities should not attribute the spike in crimes to the abolition of the EO.

KUALA LUMPUR: PKR leader and Subang MP R Sivarasa is against the governments move to enact a new law to replace the abolished Emergency Ordinance, saying what the country needs is better policing. He said PKR which once rallied behind the abolition of EO in 2011 would not allow any similar law that grants the power of detention without trial to the police. The police already have plenty of power, it is just that they themselves are not capable of executing the power, he told reporters at Parliament today. His comment came after Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidis announcement today a new law to replace the EO is already with the Attorney-Generals Chamber. Zahid said the abolition of EO has resulted in a lot of criminals to escape prosecution, thus contributing to a spike in crimes. These criminals who are backed by big crime organisations could hire good lawyers and get away from serving jail time, he was quoted of saying.

Charge them in court

34

In response, Sivarasa said the police should not blame the spike in crimes to the abolition of the EO because they had been given 18 months to prepare for such abolition. The question is, you are able to arrest so many people last time, if you have evidence to show they are involved in crime, why dont you charge them in court? But you released everybody at the last minute (after the EO was repealed) and now blame the rise in crime to the repeal of EO. If these guys were truly involved in crime, you can charge them, you can deny them bail. But that was never done, he said. The Subang MP claimed that when the EO was still in effect, the police had frequently cited the law to detain people, and did nothing thereafter. There is a lot of corruption involved, people get locked up, they pay money, and they were released. And nobody knows anything because there is no case in court, he said. Last week, the Bar Council has also raised objection against a EO-like law, saying the current crime situation had nothing to do with the abolition of the EO. The EO was used to detain syndicated criminals, said the Bars president Christopher Leong. What we have now is an increase in snatch thefts, house burglaries, stabbings, and robberies at ATM machines and restaurants. These crimes are not as a result of the repealing of EO, he said

- See more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/07/04/betterpolicing-needed-not-a-new-law/#sthash.njkOQRaM.dpuf

35