Expose all questionable gifts

As religious sensitivities may be involved, I am going to tread carefully. Some Muslim friends tell me that it is all right to pay for the pilgrimage to the Holy Land of a Tok Guru or religious teacher or someone of high religious standing such as the mosque imam.

Of course, the problem is that Nik Aziz is the chief executive of the state with vested executive powers or at least yields enough influence to decide the outcome of tenders and executive council deliberations.

That the sponsorship came from a businessman who may or may not have submitted a proposal for one project or another, supports the argument as to why good sense prevailed and the mentri besar decided not to accept the offer to pay for his pilgrimage. After all, the old man has his hands full juggling criticisms against him, his administration and his party for appointing his son-in-law as Kelantan Mentri Besar Incorporated CEO.

However, while the graft-busters focus their radar on Tok Guru, one hopes they are equally interested in the politicians and their wives who traverse the world with their coterie of bag carriers. The usage of private jets is one, there are also the shopping trips, hotel stays and theme park visits which at least one former state chief executive has been known to indulge in, but which the authorities seem to be taking their time to consider.

To those (Kelantan Umno Youth) who blew the cover and lodged the report and deemed that sponsoring a religious pilgrimage was inappropriate, certainly picking up the tab after a shopping spree at Harrods or Galeries Lafayette is worth pondering. Thus, in the name of good governance and public interest, the whistle-blowers should not stop at the haj sponsorship, and if they have the information should also disclose other questionable gifts and services without regard for political partisanship.

*********

I HAVE a lot of sympathy for the police, especially those in the lower ranks who carry out orders of the top honchos. With crime on the rise, they are criticised for spending their limited time and resources checking on politicians and hauling up demonstrators.

But when they rid the streets of bad hats which result in deaths, it is labelled as extra-judicial killings and the cops are demonised for taking the easy way out by killing suspects and closing cases – including those which may or may not be linked to the dead suspects.

Many rights groups such as Amnesty International have thrown up numerous statistics on custodial deaths and extra-judicial killings, the latest being 39 shooting deaths last year.

We don’t know the kind of hardcore characters that the police have to deal with on a daily basis, but it is hard to come to their defence when those shot dead over the years include a pregnant woman, three teenagers, an undisclosed number of hand-cuffed illegal immigrants and in the latest case, a kitchen-knife wielding deranged man who was shot in the chest.

It would be unfair to target the officer who opened fire. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a knife-wielding man charging at him. What would you do?

Considering the utter state of terror one would be in, you would have aimed to kill. But herein lies the difference. The police are trained and should have enough skills to disarm a madman with a sharp object without having to kill him.

And as a journalist who has visited crime scenes and attended press conferences on shootouts, the accounts of these incidents bear similarities: "Police saw several individuals in a car behaving suspiciously. Police asked them to stop but they sped off. Police gave chase. The suspects fired at the police. Police opened fire and killed all suspects."

With what is emerging as a rehearsed script, the discerning public also doubt the "official" account. The problem is with the police investigating their own, to the man-in-the-street the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Would a mandatory coroner’s inquest after every shootout resulting in death be a practical solution to ensure the police are a little more discerning in discharging their firearms? Perhaps, but then the argument will be that in a life-or-death situation, our law enforcers would not want to be encumbered by thoughts of a lengthy inquiry which may cost them their jobs.

However, how many innocent bystanders have become collateral damage in these "shootouts"? How many cases have been closed only because dead men don’t tell tales?

If the police are serious about repairing their image, it is only proper that they allow the resurrection of the debate for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. Having someone watch the watchdogs is the only way to return at least a semblance of public confidence that those licensed to carry arms will be held accountable when they use them.

Terence is deputy editor (special reports & investigations) and can be reached at terence@thesundaily.com  or followed on Twitter @TerencetheSUN