The 34-million dollar cop

Note [21 June 2005]: Seems that it's now Four-million dollar cop.

Our police force has come in for a pounding. The Royal Commission that looked at their efficiency came up with a report that has given shape to our image of the corrupt officer. Despite the balance of good cop bad cop in the report, what lingers in the public imagination is the high-ranking officer with a fortune of RM34 million.

Imagine what a police officer has to do to earn thirty-four million ringgit. The number of times he (or she) has to compromise the law, the number of times they have to compromise our safety and security. The pimps, the mobsters, the underhand developers they associate with, that they are indebted to, who have power over them. And the number of their junior officers that they must drag down into this dirt with them.

It’s a scary image. If true, it’s obviously been going on a long time, largely undetected, completely unpunished. It now casts a long shadow over the entire police force. The honest officer, who has turned down offer after offer, is tainted as much as her dishonest colleague.

If the report is true, the officer was not even trying to hide. This was in the asset declaration, an astounding piece of arrogance. Had this piece of information come to light earlier, if the public had access to this little nugget, the course of events may have proceeded very differently.

First, if the report is false, we would know by now. The report would never have even included it. The Commission would have checked the information against the public record, and dismissed the complaint. The officer’s reputation would be intact.

If, however, the report is true, the darkness of secrecy has helped nourish this corruption. If asset declarations were made public, this officer could not have remained undetected for such a long time. As soon as the asset declaration was made, some enterprising journalist, junior officer, or victim of the corruption would have made it public. An open investigation would have occurred then. Justice would have been done, and seen to be done.

Instead, nothing has been done. The officer has, presumably, continued in his corruption. Continued his association with the underworld. Continued dragging down the officers around him, either by subverting honest investigations or subverting honest cops. And continued dragging down the force.

The lack of access to information protects the guilty, often at the expense of the innocent. Because those who are bearing the brunt of this report are the honest officers. They need the trust and cooperation of the general public to get their job done. And their job is protecting us.

Those suffering most are the poorly paid cops who haven’t made money from the gangsters. Their reputation is tarnished, the organisation they work for is tarnished. And without corruption money cushioning their homes and family lives, often this is all the honest officer has.

Privacy and freedom of information

It’s late at night. Or you’re just settling down for dinner. The phone beeps. A new message. Could it be the boss with a raise? Or that cute guy you gave your number to the other night? Nope. Maxis/ Digi/ is having some special promotion. Delete and groan.

This month, around 50 NGOs and over 230 individuals signed a memorandum calling for an end to moral policing, the authorities’ intrusion into our bedrooms and private lives. There is a private sphere and a public sphere. The police have a place in one, but not in the other.

The issue of privacy is not just about what happens in our bedrooms, but the right to privacy of our telephone numbers, our health records right down to a criminal record.

The issues of privacy and freedom of information are strongly interlinked. A common concern about freedom of information legislation is that ‘anyone will be able to find out anything about me’. This, however, can happen right now – there is nothing to prevent the government or private companies selling personal information to marketing companies, or anyone else.

With Freedom of Information it is necessary to provide guarantees to privacy of information on individuals. Unfortunately at the moment we have the worst of both worlds.

Privacy can be protected by a Data Protection Act or its equivalent. This would prevent companies or authorities from selling your personal details without your permission. Or even using it for themselves without your permission. It can even mean that they can’t even collect the details without your permission – it remains a mystery to me why Telekom requires to know whether I have a fridge to give me a phone line. Or why Popular Book Stores need to know my race before I can get a discount card. And one of the reasons I cancelled my Citibank account was because I kept receiving calls from insurance companies who addressed me as a Citibank customer.

The aim of the Data Protection Act in the UK, for example, is to balance the rights of individuals to privacy and the rights of those who want to collect information within the limits of the law. You have the right to know who knows what about you. So if someone has your phone tapped, and has recorded information about you, they have to tell you. Think about the nightmares this would give Special Branch officers!

Then, if you want them to get rid of the info they’ve collected, they have to. (SB officer turns green).

Oh, and you have the right to stop people from using information against you (SB officer files papers to migrate to Kazakhstan!). You have the right to compensation if information is misused.

And, best of all, you have the right NOT to have your information sold to people for the purpose of direct marketing.