MP SPEAKS I will be the first to praise the government if the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) is established and all who are guilty of misconduct are brought to book.
Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) chairperson Heliliah Mohd Yusof (left) claims the opposition will never admit it if a government agency does a good job. Heliliah said this in response to criticism from me that the EAIC was "designed to fail" from the onset.
"Will the opposition praise any government body despite it being set up with heartfelt sincerity?" she asked.
Let me declare upfront that I will be the first to praise the government if the IPCMC is set up and all who are guilty of misconduct are brought to book. And this will certainly not be my first time doing so.
However, I'd like to ask the EAIC chairperson if she actually thinks that the commission has delivered anything remotely close to what was promised?
In the past three years, the EAIC received a budget of RM7 million a year. Today, it has only one investigating officer as part of a 23-man staff that includes clerks and drivers.
In terms of actual concrete actions taken since its formation in September 2011 and until the end of 2012, the EAIC had only recommended one disciplinary action and two warnings to civil servants.
In that sole case of disciplinary action, a complaint had been lodged against a police officer mid-last year for closing a case after three days.
Even in this relatively minor case of indiscipline, EAIC chief executive officer Nor Afizah Hanum Mokhtar (left) admitted that she doesn't know if the recommended disciplinary action of a demotion has actually been carried out by the police.
This is despite the fact that under the EAIC regulations, the police are required by law to feedback to EAIC the actions they have taken on specific complaints and recommendations made.
The fact that the government isn't serious, with only one investigating officer today to "look after" 19 government agencies, is proof of the intent for the entire exercise to fail.
The performance of EAIC is so dire that even Heliliah's former colleague, former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, openly questioned the effectiveness of the EAIC.
Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) chairperson Heliliah Mohd Yusof (left) claims the opposition will never admit it if a government agency does a good job. Heliliah said this in response to criticism from me that the EAIC was "designed to fail" from the onset."Will the opposition praise any government body despite it being set up with heartfelt sincerity?" she asked.
Let me declare upfront that I will be the first to praise the government if the IPCMC is set up and all who are guilty of misconduct are brought to book. And this will certainly not be my first time doing so.
However, I'd like to ask the EAIC chairperson if she actually thinks that the commission has delivered anything remotely close to what was promised?
In the past three years, the EAIC received a budget of RM7 million a year. Today, it has only one investigating officer as part of a 23-man staff that includes clerks and drivers.
In terms of actual concrete actions taken since its formation in September 2011 and until the end of 2012, the EAIC had only recommended one disciplinary action and two warnings to civil servants.
In that sole case of disciplinary action, a complaint had been lodged against a police officer mid-last year for closing a case after three days.
Even in this relatively minor case of indiscipline, EAIC chief executive officer Nor Afizah Hanum Mokhtar (left) admitted that she doesn't know if the recommended disciplinary action of a demotion has actually been carried out by the police. This is despite the fact that under the EAIC regulations, the police are required by law to feedback to EAIC the actions they have taken on specific complaints and recommendations made.
The fact that the government isn't serious, with only one investigating officer today to "look after" 19 government agencies, is proof of the intent for the entire exercise to fail.
The performance of EAIC is so dire that even Heliliah's former colleague, former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, openly questioned the effectiveness of the EAIC.
Heliliah should perhaps be thankful that the "opposition" hasn't been more harsh in the criticism of the EAIC, or even accusing its commissioners of "sleeping on the job".
Hence the opposition's "criticisms" of the EAIC are entirely valid and should not be summarily dismissed by the EAIC, as chairperson Heliliah has done.
In fact, I would challenge Heliliah, a former Court of Appeal judge, to state unequivocally if the EAIC has actually served its purposed and has successfully met its founding objectives.
EAIC and IPCMC: Just a name?
This leads to the core issue as to whether the EAIC will ever be able to emulate the role and purpose of the IPCMC, as envisioned in the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 2005.
Two days ago, I had written that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Paul Low is sorely mistaken that the difference between EAIC and IPCMC is just in the name.
The difference between the two is clearly in their intent, with the former set up as a toothless tiger meant specifically to do a cosmetic job to placate the people's demand for an IPCMC, while pandering to the strident objections of the police force.
The IPCMC, on the other hand, was clearly an agency to check, discipline and inculcate greater professionalism in the police force.
Minister Low had immediately pleaded victimisation, on June 10, to express his "grave disappointment" at how his words were "blatantly misrepresented for reasons best known only to Mr Tony Pua himself".
Low said: "I fail to see how much clearer I can make it understood... IPCMC and EAIC are only names, and what really matters is that we arrive at an independent agency that has the resources, clout and scope of influence to do the job effectively, now that the weaknesses of the existing EAIC had been more or less identified...
"Whether the name remains ‘EAIC' at the end of the day... ‘EAICC', ‘PEAIC', etc... does it really matter? ...Clearly, even a teenager would be able to conclude that my intention was never to equate the EAIC in its current form to that of the IPCMC proposed by the RCI in 2005."
So did I "blatantly misrepresent" Paul Low's words or his intent and as a result unfairly maligned him?
Let me remind Low, in his own words stated just less than two weeks ago, at his press conference on May 30: "The EAIC is actually the IPCMC."
When asked by reporters if he meant that there was no need for an IPCMC since the EAIC was in existence, his specific response was, "we already have the channel".
Now this "teenager's" question to Low is, in the context of his statements above, did I misrepresent his words or did Paul Low twist his own words?
However, as pleaded by Low himself, let me be constructive and give him the benefit of the doubt.
The point of my earlier statement was that the names of these institutions signify and signal the intent of the government. And that is exactly the reason why the government has stubbornly refused to set up the IPCMC.
Otherwise, if it is all "just a name", why not just change the commission's name from EAIC to IPCMC, and claim the moral victory of delivering what the rakyat is "crying out for"?
The RCI of 2005 even drafted a proposed IPCMC legislation, which was substantively rejected by the BN government.
The EAIC was emasculated to become essentially a "post office" to refer cases back to the affected institution's own disciplinary panels and committees, without any power to enforce punishment or recommendations on the guilty enforcement parties.
Paul Low has a simple position to take. Incorporate all the recommendations made by the RCI proposal for the IPCMC into the EAIC, and Pakatan Rakyat will immediately concede that the EAIC can retain its name.
After all, to quote the transparency minister, it is "just a name".
Hence the opposition's "criticisms" of the EAIC are entirely valid and should not be summarily dismissed by the EAIC, as chairperson Heliliah has done.
In fact, I would challenge Heliliah, a former Court of Appeal judge, to state unequivocally if the EAIC has actually served its purposed and has successfully met its founding objectives.
EAIC and IPCMC: Just a name?
This leads to the core issue as to whether the EAIC will ever be able to emulate the role and purpose of the IPCMC, as envisioned in the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 2005.
Two days ago, I had written that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Paul Low is sorely mistaken that the difference between EAIC and IPCMC is just in the name.
The difference between the two is clearly in their intent, with the former set up as a toothless tiger meant specifically to do a cosmetic job to placate the people's demand for an IPCMC, while pandering to the strident objections of the police force.
The IPCMC, on the other hand, was clearly an agency to check, discipline and inculcate greater professionalism in the police force.
Minister Low had immediately pleaded victimisation, on June 10, to express his "grave disappointment" at how his words were "blatantly misrepresented for reasons best known only to Mr Tony Pua himself".Low said: "I fail to see how much clearer I can make it understood... IPCMC and EAIC are only names, and what really matters is that we arrive at an independent agency that has the resources, clout and scope of influence to do the job effectively, now that the weaknesses of the existing EAIC had been more or less identified...
"Whether the name remains ‘EAIC' at the end of the day... ‘EAICC', ‘PEAIC', etc... does it really matter? ...Clearly, even a teenager would be able to conclude that my intention was never to equate the EAIC in its current form to that of the IPCMC proposed by the RCI in 2005."
So did I "blatantly misrepresent" Paul Low's words or his intent and as a result unfairly maligned him?
Let me remind Low, in his own words stated just less than two weeks ago, at his press conference on May 30: "The EAIC is actually the IPCMC."
When asked by reporters if he meant that there was no need for an IPCMC since the EAIC was in existence, his specific response was, "we already have the channel".
Now this "teenager's" question to Low is, in the context of his statements above, did I misrepresent his words or did Paul Low twist his own words?
However, as pleaded by Low himself, let me be constructive and give him the benefit of the doubt.
The point of my earlier statement was that the names of these institutions signify and signal the intent of the government. And that is exactly the reason why the government has stubbornly refused to set up the IPCMC.
Otherwise, if it is all "just a name", why not just change the commission's name from EAIC to IPCMC, and claim the moral victory of delivering what the rakyat is "crying out for"?
The RCI of 2005 even drafted a proposed IPCMC legislation, which was substantively rejected by the BN government.
The EAIC was emasculated to become essentially a "post office" to refer cases back to the affected institution's own disciplinary panels and committees, without any power to enforce punishment or recommendations on the guilty enforcement parties.
Paul Low has a simple position to take. Incorporate all the recommendations made by the RCI proposal for the IPCMC into the EAIC, and Pakatan Rakyat will immediately concede that the EAIC can retain its name.
After all, to quote the transparency minister, it is "just a name".
TONY PUA is the DAP Member of Parliament for Petaling Jaya Utara.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.