Media Statement
by Lim Guan Eng

(Melaka, Monday): The Prime Minister’s authority and credibility is at stake when the Inspector-General of Police(IGP) can so openly flout his defiance and committed indiscipline by publicly opposing the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC). Or has the Prime Minister given up on the establishment of IPCMC that IGP Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar is so brave as to use the Police Day’s celebrations to highlight the rejection of 24 out of 125 recommendations by the Royal Police Commission?

The most significant rejection is the IPCMC, a key reform measure to clean up corruption and human rights abuses in the police force, even though the IPCMC has been supported  by none other than Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself. If what the IGP said is true that the attorney-general had been instructed to study and consider the best alternative to the proposal to establish the IPCMC, then this represents a complete surrender of the Prime Minister’s reformist spirit to clean up the police force.  

Instead the IGP recommended a continued reliance on the powers of the Police Force Commission (SPP) on disciplinary control over the police force as stipulated under Article 140 of the Federal Constitution. The problem is the Police Force Commission has never been effective in maintaining discipline, wiping out corruption or human rights abuses amongst the police. Such failure and ineffectiveness were the principal reasons why a Royal Police Commission and the Special Commission into the nude ear squat case was necessary.

Since the Royal Police Commission headed by the former head of the judicial service had spent so much time, money and effort to make 125 recommendations to improve the police service, it is the duty to implement them. Any failure to do so would be contrary to the Prime Minister’s to build first-class infrastructure with first-class service in government.

Only 2 months ago on 24.1.2006 the Prime Minister had said that the Cabinet Committee on Implementation of the Royal Police Commission Recommendations chaired by him decided “in principle” to set up the IPCMC. For the Prime Minister to keep quiet when the IGP, who is his subordinate, can publicly oppose it can only lead to two different conclusions.

One either he has backed down and surrendered his principles on reforming the police and setting up the ICPMC. Or two that the IGP has publicly defied his authority by opposing the ICPMC and the IGP should step down if the IGP can not accept such directives from the Prime Minister. The refusal of the Prime Minister to take firm action by rebuking the IGP for publicly opposing the IPCMC is disappointing and only indicates his indecisiveness and political weakness in pushing through his reform agenda.

(27/03/2006)