Having problems with message search?
| From: Law Sin Ling 23 July 2008 S$1Million Bounty - Bountiful Reasons to Fret Sg_Review 27th February 2008 marked the day where terrorist suspect Mas Selamat Kastari escaped from the renowned high-security Whitley Road Detention Centre operated by the dreaded Internal Security Department of Singapore. Following previous examples where bounties worth S$1,000 to S$50,000 were offered by separate private agencies for the capture of Mas Selamat, the ante went supernova when 2 anonymous businessmen recently offered a S$1million bounty to anyone who could supply vital information leading to the eventual capture of the man who had put plenty of heat under the collar of the Minister of Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng, and fuelled unflattering comments on the lack of professionalism of the entire Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) under his charge since 1994. The MHA emphasised that it had "assessed these persons and their proposal to be serious and credible and has agreed to their request". The judgement of the Ministry is highly suspect, especially after the highly controversial incident where it emerged that an "independent investigation" on the escape consisted to convene a Committee of Inquiry (COI) comprising an advisor to the President, a serving ambassador and former police chief, and the Deputy Secretary for Security at the MHA; all individuals with close relation to the government. The absurd contents of the report affirmed the cynicism. The identities of the two patrons cannot be guarded in anonymity and must be exposed to the public. There are good reasons for this demand. If the 2 men have any direct relation with members within the MHA (notably the police), or with members of the governing political Party, it would potentially constitute a form of indirect government sponsorship through the involvement of third-party proxies. Such a controversial act must be scrutinised by the public and especially in Parliament - if a House overwhelmingly dominated by members of the ruling Party in government has any shred of objective neutrality to speak of. Should there be an honest absence of such direct relations, knowing their identities would allow the public greater visibility to question the likely motivation of the donors; might they have potential interest in securing government goodwill in business contracts, might they be seeking favours in being granted civil privileges such as refuge or citizenship status, might they be seeking leniency in current or future criminal proceedings, to name a few. The presence or otherwise of corruption (where involvement of the government or members of the civil service is hinted) should be assessed through the public's olfactory curiosity. Packaging a dodgy deal, sanctioned by the government, in opacity in the name of acceding to a concern "over the prospect of themselves (the 2 men), their families or business interests in the region" is asking for government integrity to be trampled and buried miles deep. The chairman of the government parliamentary committee on Law and Home Affairs Dr Teo Ho Pin commented that "the amount (of $1m) will be a huge motivating factor for some individuals and spur them on to find Mas Selamat". It was a suitable remark to spur deeper reflection on the harmful problems ramified from the nature of employing private financial sponsorship to arouse public and police interest in a case of national interest and security. Firstly, it is a sure precursor to progressively tolerated measures which negate the values of the law enforcement agencies. The MHA would grow increasingly reliant on ethically questionable means to fulfil their duties, such as encouraging the use of monetary incentives offered by the public to the masses (which encompass members of the police force). This unavoidably erodes the moral authority of the agencies, reduces the scope of their relevance, and subsequently shifts the emphasis of their role away from that of active direct enforcement to one as a primary contractor managing sub-contracted methods of keeping the law. In the least respectful regard, the practice simply changes the context of law-enforcement from 'public-service' to 'service by the public' via private financial sponsorship. And when the police force becomes a farcical ornament, vigilantes take over. The end result is irreparable social chaos. Singapore's acquired professor in terrorism Dr. Rohan Gunaratna lauded that "This reward will keep not only the security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies alert and vigilant, but make the public also aggressively and actively look out for him. So reward is important." His vision that public attitude in aiding law-enforcement should be moulded by inflating material rewards would nicely complement the previously suggested erosion in effectiveness of the agencies. The public ought to be warned that an advice from an authority in counter-terrorism is by no means a blueprint for designing policies that imbue sensible social behaviours. Ultimately, the concept makes a mockery of the law-enforcement agencies, which as it now stands are implicitly admitting their helplessness in failing to justify their paycheck. In the current context, the Ministry had already acknowledged having accepted the request by the 2 benefactors to have the Ministry "operationalise their proposal" and hence manage the $1 million reward. That first step towards ignominy had been taken. Another concern is that such a concept opens the Pandora's Box to future mischief and connivances. It does not take Herculean effort to execute a plot initiated by individuals within the law-enforcement agencies involving the elusion of a high-profile wanted person which may finally result in the perpetrators earning the loot so packaged as an anonymous reward from the public. The Ministry certainly does not need the extra temptations to pile on the burden already experienced in their current efforts to curb corruption within their rank and file. There is thus an important rationale to compel the Ministry to exclude members of law-enforcement agencies, as well as their close relatives and friends, from the present monetary rewards so offered. After all, a system of performance achievement incentives is already in place within the system. However, collusions are still possible, and potentially tedious to detect and contain, notably when the bounty-for-service mindset takes root and becomes a prevalent norm, thus diminishing the human consciousness of what may constitute police malfeasance. A more worrying scenario involves the realisation that the rewards could equally benefit individuals in foreign countries perhaps through direct or indirect channels in Singapore. In such a supposition, Singapore law-enforces are effectively reduced to the status of hostage to foreign elements who may not be above colluding with higher authorities over there to subvert mutual security pacts signed with Singapore which do not demand the exchange of Singapore's wanted persons with attractive bounties. In the face of the $1 million reward, the Minister announced that he was "encouraged by such continued public support". Be it in desperation or sheer foolishness, the Minister has sowed the seeds of future ills on the potency of law-enforcers in Singapore to act effectively. Judging by the attitude of the government, it would not be ridiculous to believe that the Singapore government would one day liberally use bounties as a de facto modus operandi to police the state. One can only watch in dismay at this deplorable state of affair as the country marches inexorably towards social decadence. (Mr) Law Sin Ling |
Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail.
Une boite mail plus intelligente.
Offline 
Send Email