Why now, Musa?
You cannot create doubts in the minds of the people by making such sweeping statements without substantiation. No amount of denials by the minister or his cohorts is going to clear the reservations of the rakyat unless and until you are willing to be specific.
R. Nadeswaran, The Sun
WHEN Tan Sri Ismail Omar was appointed inspector-general of police two years ago, many had expected him to shape up an already beleaguered police force. From rising crime rates to public order, he had his work cut out for him. Besides, the internal bickering between his predecessor, Tan Sri Musa Hassan and the former commercial crimes chief, Datuk Ramli Yusoff, turned into what appeared to be a bare-fisted brawl. With Tan Sri Robert Phang in the fray, a battle royale has ensued.
After months of anxiety, worry and concern, Ramli was acquitted of charges accusing him of misuse of power.
While the civil suit which was filed by Ramli has yet to start, everyone thought the dust had settled and Ismail would be able to focus on reducing crime rates and other issues of public interest.
But last week, Musa came to the fore with his claims of “interference from politicians” and a host of other claims, allegations and assertions, this time accusing Phang of having had a hand in the transfer of a senior police officer.
Why now? If indeed there was interference, shouldn’t Musa have thrown the Police Act in the face of the people behind the interference and ask them to mind their own business? Was he not the key witness in the trial of a former deputy prime minister who was charged with “interfering with police business”?
Why now? Did Musa consciously stop investigating crimes just because the call came from Putrajaya?
Why now? There were no reasons or provocateurs behind Musa’s sudden outburst and hence why out of the blue, call for a press conference?
Why now? Having yet to answer the charges made by Ramli in his various court affidavits, does Musa now want us to believe his hands were tied in the past?
Why now? Musa retired two years ago and if he was unhappy with the events during his tenure, shouldn’t he have voiced out his views at the handing-over ceremony to his successor?
Why now? Musa had all the opportunity to offer advice to his successor, Ismail who had been his deputy. Is he trying to undermine the IGP by describing Ismail as a “yes man”?
Why now? Who was the Tan Sri who came to you with a stack of summonses? Shouldn’t he have been shown the door and told that the law takes it course?
Such claims have yet again forced the public to form their own views and opinions on the impartiality of the police force. People are wondering if the police pander to the wishes of politicians or if they go by the book in the application and enforcement of the law.
Going by Musa’s assertions, people who have committed murder, robbery and other heinous crimes are walking on our streets on the basis of phone calls from politicians?
These claims may have some truth in them, but making statements without substantiation would be akin to self-appointed do-gooders and instantly-created NGOs demanding all kinds of explanations from the opposition.
Musa did not provide one instance where the minister or a politician had interfered in police investigations. Except for saying that a titled politician turned up in his office to sort out summonses, nothing more specific was revealed.
If indeed the police acceded to directives and instruction from higher up, are we to assume that the police closed the file on the Balkis fiasco where funds totalling almost RM10 million were transferred illegally, which borders on breach of trust?
Are we to say that the police also closed the files on the overseas money transfers that were carried out illegally through money changers although there were prima facie cases against them?
No, Musa. You cannot create doubts in the minds of the people by making such sweeping statements without substantiation. No amount of denials by the minister or his cohorts is going to clear the reservations of the rakyat unless and until you are willing to be specific – incidences, names, dates and times – when such interference took place.
R. Nadeswaran maintains that the police should be impartial and that any charges made must be backed up with evidence. Comments: [email protected]
