By Ravi Philemon

The Online Citizen (TOC) sent in the following opinion to The Straits Times (ST) Forum on 30 March 2010. At the time of putting this up on TOC, ST had not responded if they would put this up in their papers. So, we publish our opinion in full here.

On March 29, I emailed the Commissioner of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), CP Ng Joo Hee in my capacity as the Joint-Chief Editor of The Online Citizen, enquiring about the report on Bangkok Post titled, “Candy’s special customers: the bribe-taking, sex hungry policemen”.

In the email, I enquired if the report in Bangkok Post was true and if true, had the SPF identified these rogue officers and what action(s) have been taken against them.

On March 30, I received a reply from Mr Paul Tan, the Quality Service Manager of SPF.  In his email reply Mr Tan said that my enquiry was receiving due attention and that SPF will reply me in due course.

I was relieved to read in ST on 31 March, that responding to questions from The Straits Times, SPF confirmed that the officers mentioned in the article were not members of SPF and that the allegations by Bangkok Post against the officers of SPF are unsubstantiated.

It is inevitable that even a highly reputable force like the SPF will have some rogue elements in them.  And SPF has rightly dealt with such rogue officers in the past in a firm manner and in accordance to the law; for the integrity of SPF could only be maintained by flushing out such officers and exposing them for the sake of openness and accountability.

But what troubles me is, why did SPF choose not to respond to the queries of TOC on this issue, but was quick to respond to ST?

No doubt ST is a mainstream media and SPF may have deemed that there is a greater urgency in disseminating appropriate information to them on this issue, but could not SPF have extended the same courtesy to TOC, in the interest of letting as many people as possible know that there was no basis to the allegations of Bangkok Post.  After all, the issue concerns the incorruption of SPF and they should have made use of as many platforms as possible to put this message through.

Net-savvy citizens are often the first to read such articles in cyberspace and the writers at TOC (even though being all volunteers) often take it upon ourselves to verify the authenticity of such news thoroughly before commenting on it, for the sake of keeping our readers responsibly informed.

SPF should have also used our platform to dispel that their officers are not implicated in this issue.

Come to think of it, what is SPF’s position on engaging Net-savvy citizens, especially Net-savvy citizens who put their real names, contact details and other personal information out there, when they raise such legitimate questions?

Even if SPF had not responded to the query of TOC appropriately and in a timely manner because we are not part of the mainstream media, they could have at least responded to me in my personal capacity.

Not every Net-savvy citizen reads the mainstream media and so SPF should not assume that by quashing such allegations on the mainstream media, they have done their part in denying such allegations.

With the rapid evolution of new media and the hastened, radical shift of media consumption from traditional media to new media, SPF should build strong community partnerships in cyberspace to spread crime alerts, crime prevention advisories and counter-terrorism messages.

________________________

Afternote

After sending this email to Straits Times Forum, SPF responded to me via email on 1 April 2010. An officer by the name of Junaina Juhari acting for SPF’s Quality Service Manager responded to my query saying, with “regards to the queries that you have raised, kindly refer to Police’s response published in the Straits Times, The New Paper and TODAY newspaper dated 31 Mar 2010”.

When I asked her if she would either confirm or deny the allegations of the article in the Bangkok Post without referring me to the mainstream media, she wrote back to apologise for assuming that I have access to the local media and quoted their response to the mainstream media:

In response to media queries on the Bangkok Post article dated 28 March 2010, “Candy’s special customers: the bribe-taking, sex hungry policemen”, Police spokesman Inspector Mohd Hamizyam said, “While the Police do not condone any acts of corruption and abuse of power, our investigations have revealed that the allegations made by Bangkok Post against our officers are unsubstantiated. Instead, one auxiliary police officer and three private security officers are currently assisting in ongoing investigations after the arrest of three men on 16 March 2010 for an offence under the Women’s Charter.”

________________________________________________

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Lee Hsien Yang: "We have no confidence in Lee Hsien Loong or his secret committee"

“The will is final and binding. We have no confidence in Lee…

疑涉虐婴滥毒 警追缉28岁男子

一名男子带着昏迷的六个月大婴儿,到中央医院后迅速离开,随后在惹兰红山一带被警方截停时弃车逃跑,警方在车内搜索到疑似吸毒用品,怀疑男子涉及虐婴和吸毒。 警方指出,在男子将婴儿交给中央医院时,引起医护人员的怀疑,当局是在周末(8月24日)下午约1时40分接到有关的投报。 据警方指出,28岁的男子将失去意识的婴儿交给护士后便转身离开。 而警方接获投保后兵分两路,立即展开调查,并在前往立达路下端的惹兰红山一带设立拦截,将男子的车子截停,但是男子当场就弃车逃跑了。 警方随后派出镇爆队和警犬到现场追击,并且设路障调查往返车辆,寻找男子助查。 另外,警方随后也以涉嫌虐待婴儿和滥毒相关罪行的罪名,逮捕婴儿的28岁母亲。 据《新明日报》报道,有民众表示在甘榜峇鲁路段遇到警方路障,且被要求改道。 一名王姓产业经理指出,经过当地时曾看见一辆撞上栏杆的红色轿车,但是未见司机踪影。 他表示看到警方在附近地区进行搜查,还看到警员带着警犬到组屋和庙宇去巡逻。 警方随后也在惹兰红山第105座组屋附近停放两辆镇暴车和一辆黑色的警车,并且安排拖车将撞栏的红色汽车拖走。 据《海峡时报》报导,案件尚在调查,而婴儿也被送到KK妇孺医院(KK Women’s…

Two women charged with murder of their Myanmar helper

A mother and her daughter have been charged with the murder of their domestic…

疫情冲击 今年4月逾8600商业实体结业

在冠状病毒19肆虐期间,今年4月共有8千663家商业实体结业,比起三月增加了一倍。 据本地英语财经媒体《商业时报》报导,上个月的数字不仅是近年来新高,对比2003年SARS疫情、2009年金融危机同期倒闭商企的数量,也高出一倍。 2003年SARS疫情下,同期倒闭商企个体也不到2500家,金融危机时期同期也少过4000家。 《商业时报》是透过本地商业资讯服务BizInsights获得数据。今年三月份,倒闭商家多达4008家。 单在今年4月,其中有多达403家结业商企,都是来自餐饮领域。至于结业的零售服务则有918家。 而在4月份新创立的商企个体,则有3千767家。 经济学家提醒,若阻断措施结束,政府削减对大多数行业的补助、也取消对贷款偿债的冻结,担忧有更多企业会不堪重负面临结业。 若全球疫情未有改善,旅游、出国公干减少,跟旅游业相关的前线企业也会继续受到冲击。