Contrary to what I wrote earlier about his non-appearance here, Singapore's Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee did appear before the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India riot on December 8th last, as the penultimate witness. However after hearing what he had to say, I can sum it up into 2 points:
a) He shouldn't have bothered appearing
b) I'm more than ever convinced he should be replaced or sacked.
I think we've had 6 CPs since independence and of the 6, there's no doubt that CP Ng is the worst of the lot. Inexperienced, immature, lacking of leadership, defiant (for his faults), poor supervisory skills, blind loyalty and over-dependence on his equally unqualified commanders and most of all, quick to find every excuse for whatever failures he or his organisation makes, instead of taking responsibility.
Here are 2 summaries of his testimony before the COI. The first by Asiaone, the 2nd by his own mouth piece - Home Team News. I think I can run through a list of phrases to describe the testimony - shocking, irresponsible, missing the point, deflecting the blame and unapologetic, just to name but a few. However before I delve into them, I want to highlight some other pathetic testimonies by another of his commanders - DAC Daniel Tan, the Central Division Commander and the Rochor NPC head - DSP Ho See Ying. You can read a summary here.
(Central Police Division Commander, DAC Daniel Tan 'deserves a kick' to 'wake up his idea')
DAC Tan declared that the public 'should not kick us when we are down.' He said morale had been affected. He said he was proud of his officers and that many of them got injured and they still had to return and patrol these areas and urged the community to continue working with them. I have no quarrel with this statement, but what I find troubling is that despite him saying they have been active there and deployed a number of resources over the years, neither he or any of his senior officers had a clue of what the problems were on the ground at Little India, especially on Sundays and public holidays. Overcrowding, disrupted traffic flow, rampant jay-walking, drunkenness, littering amongst others. I would add, a poor deployment of forces on the ground, no traffic supervision, no supervision of auxiliary police forces like AETOS and Certis CISCO or co-ordination with them and no effort made to research the possibility of fatal/serious accidents and the crowd reaction in the aftermath.
(Peninsula Plaza at Coleman Street is a meeting place for many Burmese in Singapore)
That is to say, you patrol an area surrounded by Indians and other South Asians, don't you bother to read through or study how these people behave back in their home countries in any given situation? The similar thing can be said for Golden Mile (Thais), Peninsula Plaza (Burmese), Haig Road (until recently Sabahans and Sarawakans) or Orchard (Filipinos). You are a scholar and law graduate - you and senior officers don't bother to check the background of how these people react back home in any given situation? You don't post advisories or take pro-active measures? In fact in Haig Road until the Govt put a stop to mass recruitment of East Malaysians following the fatal Kallang stabbings cum robberies, you always had fights breaking out between Sabahans and Sarawakans owing to long held rivalries back home. No lessons were derived from all these? No affirmative action taken to ensure that the situation is always held in check to prevent an escalation?
(Ashley Fruno was allowed to protest against Air France without fear of repercussions)
DAC Tan says the public shouldn't criticise the police, but why shouldn't they when the Police appear to practise 'double-standards?' Take the protest by French activist Ashley Fruno outside the Air France offices, or the seemingly over-whelming show of force during the 'supposed Guy Fawkes Day' protest on November 5th last. Ms Fruno was allowed to protest with gay abandon, while 2 or 3 Singaporeans wearing Guy Fawkes masks were arrested and repeated warnings were given before the date, warning the public not to engage in any activity. Of course the public have a right to draw inferences by well coordinated police planning and actions into matters dealing with their rights, and the lack thereof when it involves foreigners. Were any warnings ever issued repeatedly in Little India prior to the riot? Was a 'show of force' be it big or small ever projected in Little India as a deterrent before the riot? The answer is no, it's only now that the area is well policed and contained. So why shouldn't the public not be able to criticise the police over their handling and actions in the riot?
Then comes the shocking excuse by DSP Ho, trying to rebut what COI Chairman G P Selvam had slammed Deputy Commissioner (DC) Rajakumar over - the issue of drunken behaviour. She said around 60 persons were arrested last year for being drunk under Sec 18 of the Miscellaneous Act and most were not foreigners. Whilst admitting this doesn't reflect the reality on the ground, she added 'that her priority was not to go around arresting drunkards but crime fighting!' Maybe she's forgotten that rioting is also a crime and that all her bosses have stated that drunkenness was the primary cause of the riot.
(Crime fighter extraordinaire - DSP Ho See Ying. She doesn't believe drunkenness can lead to rioting)
Even if we were to humour her explanation, it's a poor excuse. Nobody is asking the police to around arresting each and every drunkard in Little India or to deploy resources away from crime fighting to it. Logic and common sense is in short supply with our senior officers it appears. Let me use another example: A policeman on patrol comes across say 100 vehicles parked illegally along a road. What should he do, given that all are in breach of traffic laws? Does he summon all 100? Does he ask for extra manpower to help with the issuing of tickets? To do both would be utter stupidity, instead he should use discretion. Book the first and last cars or any others causing the most serious obstruction. No one in the right mind expects you to book all 100. Just a handful to send a message. Then over time return and monitor, again booking the few cars. Keep doing this and sooner or later the message gets across. That's what parking enforcement does for illegal parking, they come, show their faces, book a few and then without fail the offending drivers will turn up and remove their vehicles. Keep doing this daily around the same time, and the message becomes clear. I've seen countless places where consistent enforcement have made illegal parking less of a problem. The same with drunken louts, get a few officers, go and arrest a few drunkards in public view. Book a few for littering and do it consistently. The foreign workers who throng Little India are not first-timers, they have been coming repeatedly. If they see officers even just handful together with auxiliary officers taking action repeatedly, the message will get through. In the same way, if officers do nothing just because they are put off by the sheer numbers, these workers will go away thinking it's alright, the police won't be bothering us, we'll just carry on as normal.
(Geylang at night. The art of Taichi - CP Ng has turned the COI into Little India into a COI of Geylang)
Now to CP Ng, if he doesn't bother supervising his senior officers and commanders, if he doesn't ask them to come up with a proper policing plan to deal with anti-social issues, then he's just as culpable when they are clueless and powerless to act. Coming to his testimony, I find it shocking that until today he still doesn't want to accept responsibility. Instead he uses the same refrain - 'I'm proud of my men, for not using deadly force.' Worse still, when questioned over Little India, he cites the problems at Geylang instead and bemoans a lack of manpower, saying he needs another 1000 officers to police Singapore effectively.
(As a senior police officer, Director Prisons and Commissioner, Tee Tua Ba always led from the front unlike the current occupant now)
Mr Commissioner, we are not talking about Geylang - that is a separate place with separate dynamics. That is a red light area, where you have a large number of Singaporeans as opposed to Little India where the majority are South Asians. Geylang has illegal vice and possibly gang activity. That requires a whole different method of policing (I'll touch on this in my next post hopefully). Little India does not have the deep criminal undertone that is seen in Geylang. All it requires is a consistent and systematic approach to deal with crowds and anti-social behaviour. Even if you use the excuse of insufficient manpower because of the 'open floodgates policy' of the Govt, you have no excuse to the fact that the SPF now has the Auxiliary Police Forces helping you in policing, something that your predecessors likes Committee member, Tee Tua Ba, did not have when they were in charge. Those days the policemen had to deal with everything including illegal parking, crowd control, sentry duties and other non-urgent matters. Now these Auxiliary officers do all those. So why are you still complaining so much?
The fact is there's no coordination or will to ensure policing is done systematically on the ground. The SPF just passes on responsibilities like illegal parking/traffic marshalling to LTA/CISCO and AETOs and washes it hands off the issue. If Traffic Police had done its job, it would realise that traffic is at a standstill in some places in Little India and it's worse when it rains, like it did on December 8th. If the traffic was marshalled properly, if private busses were not given a free reign to obstruct and block traffic along Race Course Road, this fatal accident would not have occurred. There would a proper boarding and dis-embarking place, under proper Auxiliary police patrol and control. Drunkards like the victim, would be removed and not allowed to chase after the bus. He would either be arrested before that or told to simmer down and only be allowed to board when he sobers up.
(You don't need 100 cops to arrest 100 rioters says this policeman, but this logic doesn't apply to CP Ng, he probably wants 1000 policemen to handle 1000 rioters)
He has 'the cheek to say' that the police response 'although not perfect, was FAR from inadequate!' And he commends Tanglin Commander, DAC Lu Yeow Lim, for holding his ground and doing nothing but exercising restraint! This is like telling 'the Captain of the Titanic, that he did a good job, just because there were some survivors.' DAC Lu stood and held his ground in the wrong place, he was caught unawares, he did not know how many men he had, he prevented his men from taking action even though a Traffic Sergeant and AETOS officer testified, they felt they could have done something. The Sgt even correctly said, you do not need 100 officers to arrest 100 men. Yet CP Ng sticks behind his Commander's assessment claiming the were outnumbered 8-1. Perhaps he failed to realise that all of the 400 rioters did not all start to riot all at once. As more and more inaction of the police became more apparent, the number of rioters rose from the initial 10-20 to 50-60, 100-150 until the figure of 400 was reached. And a majority of them were passive rioters (as reflected by those being charged and convicted in court)
('Cometh the hour, cometh the man' - to a lay person this won't apply to Tanglin Commander Lu Yeow Lim (a), only to CP Ng it does. Heck he might even recommend a promotion for DAC Lu)
There was enough time to nip it in the bud and do something, instead of letting it escalate. CP Ng calls it restraint, well that restraint saw a large number of private cars damaged, shopkeepers and patrons in fear and a host of public vehicles including ambulances, SCDF and police vehicles damaged. The only mitigating factor is not that the police did not use deadly force as he proudly boasts - the only mitigating factor is that no innocent member of the public got injured, died or widespread looting did not occur. This was because the rioters were angry at only the police besides the bus driver and coordinator.
Yes the police did not use deadly force because for the simple reason, the situation never arose. No one's life was in imminent danger. But the interesting question to also ask is, "What happened if it was?' Would DAC Lu and the others still be doing nothing? And even if it happened, given where they were positioned or the poor level of communications, they probably wouldn't be aware until after the fact. It was just fortunate the rioters did not take it a step further, because I highly doubt the police with senior officers like Daniel Tan, Ho See Ying, and Lu Yeow Lim, would have been situationally aware or brave enough to make the tough decision. They would dithered and delayed until they found someone higher up prepared to give the order.
(The Gurkhas on the march, this I agree to an increase in numbers. Their reliability is unquestioned)
CP Ng admits there was a delay to activate the SOC, so whose fault is this? Yes, they have now done a review and improved this line of communication, but having been in the force for so many years, must it always take an incident before the police can respond professionally? He says the patrol officers and initial responders were not trained to handle a riot, fair enough, but what about incident management? There can be no excuse for a lack of training for incident management. If the initial officers had arrested the bus driver and coordinator and removed them, the area cordoned off and a call made for witnesses, I think the incident would have been contained and become far easier to control instead of escalating.
It's not a question of being trained to handle riots, that's the primary duty of the SOC and Gurkhas, it's question of leadership and incident management on the ground. So if police officers are not trained for this, can we assume that if something were to happen at another large scale public event like a football match, NY countdown etc, the initial officers would also be similarly unable to handle? They would just hold the line and let the chaos go unchecked and escalate until either the Gurkhas and SOC arrive?
Clearly CP Ng has no clue and he doesn't even bother to ensure his Commanders are in control or ensure they brief and train their officers on the ground. They don't bother to find out the reality on the ground and instead sit in their offices thinking of grandiose ideas, rely on technology solely and quick to accept credit for every good arrest or action but just as fast to deflect blame and find excuses. But at the end of the day, can you really blame these Commanders and senior officers, when the fact remains that they know no matter what goes wrong, their Commissioner will never find fault with them and instead praise them to the hilt?
(CP Ng seems proud of the riot - I doubt his counterparts elsewhere would echo similar sentiments)
CP Ng ended his testimony in the similar way he started since assuming command stating:
'Wrapping up, he said the silver lining had to be considered: Besides some damaged vehicles, there were no deaths or serious injuries to anybody and the violence was put down within two hours.
"I think many of my counterparts in the other side of the world would have taken this riot any time."
I think not, I think many other Commissioners would have been ashamed by the conduct of your senior officers and the shocking lack of responsibility on your part. Most would have tendered their resignations or accepted being sacked for such an omission. You on the other have no shame and the way the whole SPF operates at senior level is a reflection of that shame. You're only in the job because somehow or rather your Govt remains ' perpetually in love' with scholar types who profess blind loyalty to them. And unfortunately, we the public and tax-payers have to continue to pay for each and every mistake you make. You can go away feeling smug and sleep soundly at night, but the fact is crystal clear - you are definitely the worst Police Commissioner, we've had the misfortune to have.
Sir Nelspruit
*The writer blogs at http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.com/