I have been following the statements made by the Home Minister, senior police officers and UMNO bloggers who argue that the recent increase in crime is the direct result of the Prime Minister’s repeal of the Internal security Act (ISA) and Emergency Ordinance (EO). They are now asking for these detention powers to be restored so the police can combat crime. Some who are clamouring for this U-turn had earlier supported the repeal of both laws only a year ago.

Let us be clear, however, that the ISA was not used against hardcore criminals, whether it was during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s or Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s tenures as PM. It was instead used against political opponents and those deemed to be religious “deviants”. It’s time we stop blaming the repeal of the ISA for the increase in crime.

Now let’s look at the Emergency Ordinance. I am still trying to understand how the introduction of new detention laws can help fight crime. What the police can do is detain someone—say a drug lord or a “five-star” gangster—for a year or two and put him in a restricted area, say somewhere in Johor. In the days when the EO was used against communist insurgents, the strategy of confining them within a remote and restricted area was effective because back then there were few roads and no television, mobile phones or the Internet. Held incommunicado, the communist operative could not carry out his activities or give instructions to his cadres. But the situation has changed. Mobsters and their syndicates now even have their own Facebook platforms from which they openly communicate with their members, and simultaneously challenge the authorities with their show of strength. In this modern context, how does detaining them help to combat crime?

In the end, hardcore criminals must be put away in prison. Society must be protected in the fullest sense of the word, and not merely be granted a reprieve by selective and intermittent detention. Gang members must be made to realise that the police are stronger than them, and that there is no escape from the punishment of the law if they continue to engage in criminal activities. They must be convinced that the police force will get to them sooner or later. The public can also help if they think the police can protect them; otherwise, they will continue to pay protection money to the gangs.

Suppose the rise in crime and violent killings is due to the police force’s inability to cope, either because of a lack of resources or corrupt ties between the force’s top guns and the drug lords and gambling syndicates. Suppose corruption has seeped in that deeply. If our problem is similar to say Mexico’s, then taking the trouble to introduce new detention laws is a waste of time. A major overhaul of the police is the only way out of this mess.

What the Prime Minister and his Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should do now is to take stock of the real situation and take immediate steps to fight organised crime in the way former President Felipe Calderón did in Mexico. He deployed the military to join forces with those in the police force who were still “clean” to fight the drug lords because he realised the police could not do it on their own. In five years he increased the recruitment of senior federal police officers from 7,000 to 38,000, and he persuaded graduates to enroll so that he could move some of the less reliable officers into retirement. He was not embarrassed to ask for help from the United States in terms of funding, police training and investigative resources to strengthen his own force. He improved the prosecutorial capability of the police force and re-organised the state police to work in tandem and closely with their federal counterparts.

In other words, our leaders must accept that the situation with our own police force has become extremely alarming and urgently requires comprehensive and far-reaching measures. If police officers are on the payroll of the syndicates, then the syndicate bosses would actually want a short spell in detention until things cool down instead of having to face criminal charges in court. That means an EO can be useful to this gangster and can shield him from having to face the full force of the law. An EO, in other words, can be subject to abuse, and innocent parties can also end up being detained at the syndicates’ behest.

It’s unrealistic and facile to reintroduce detention laws for such intractable and complicated problems. The root causes will not be addressed. When I was a Member of Parliament many years ago, senior police officers (retired and still in service) would confide in me about the problems of corruption in the force. That was one of the compelling reasons we wanted an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission or IPCMC to be introduced as part of a package to deal with the ailing force.

If the problems are not as serious as I have painted, then we should be able to deal with them the way First World countries like Australia, Singapore and the United Kingdom do. They have a police force that is capable of investigating crimes professionally, and that has the capability to prosecute them in the courts of law.

If our police force is tainted and is given detention powers once again, then the old system will be put back in place where there will be no incentive to diligently investigate and prosecute criminals. Why gather evidence and risk upsetting the “bosses” when a short detention will do the trick? Some mobsters may end up in Simpang Renggam with the new detention laws, but with their mobile phones and the Internet they can continue running their businesses. So how does an EO help us to reduce crime? It doesn’t. Only spring-cleaning the police will restore the community’s confidence in the country’s safety and security. Half measures and knee-jerk reactions never solve anything.

*This statement was first published on Zaid Ibrahim's blog (http://www.zaid.my/)
All views are the writer's own and does not necessarily represents that of Astro AWANI.