IT is interesting to note that
"as many as 100,000 law enforcers will be available at any time to fight
crime under the second phase of the Government Transformation Programme".
I sincerely hope that this is not one of the statements made simply to create a
'feel good' atmosphere. We certainly hope to
see their presence in the streets and in housing areas soon.
I also read about the attempt to create "smart partnerships" with
different groups including Residents Association, (RAs).
This is most welcome.
It is common knowledge that many RAs, out of sheer frustration over the lack of
security provided by the police, have set up their own security schemes.
In the process, they have drawn adverse criticisms from members of the public
in general and from self-righteous non-contributing residents in particular,
who for reasons best known to themselves, refuse to contribute yet enjoy the
comfort of knowing that some form of security is provided for them.
Admittedly, combating crime cannot be handled by law enforcement officers
alone.
They have to engage other interested groups so that in working together we will
be able to combat crime in a more coordinated manner.
Hitherto, RAs which have set up security schemes in their areas have
contributed immensely in keeping the crime rate down.
Unfortunately, with all the criticisms hurled at them one would think they are
engaged in an illegal activity. This is not fair at all considering the amount
of time and effort spent by RAs in organising the scheme and collecting
subscriptions and seeing to its proper operations.
Currently, RAs are trying to perform a job which is the domain of the police
with one hand tied behind their back.
If the government is serious in
working out a "smart partnership" with RAs, then such a situation
should not be allowed to continue.
RAs which perform a security services function ought to be strongly supported
by the government and empowered.
I wish to suggest how the proposed "smart partnership" can be
enhanced:
1. To all RAs
which are legally constituted and being run according to the Registrar of
Societies requirements and who are involved in providing security services, the
government should be prepared to grant a monthly financial aid which can be
used as a subsidy for the services provided.
2. The
government ought to construct infrastructure facilities for them such as guard
booths, boom gates, etc, if they are operating in a public area.
3. The police
or any responsible ministry must establish guidelines which RAs have to comply
with if they wish to run security services for their housing estates. Some kind
of licence must be issued to security services run by RAs to give it proper
authentication.
4. At random,
policemen/patrol cars should make an appearance at these pondok and be around
for a while to give it a stamp of approval and support to the efforts of RAs.
Consequently, public perception will improve tremendously.
5. Establish
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for RA guard posts to adopt so that there
is uniformity in methods used to check on entry/exit and empower them to apply
it. (SOPs must be displayed.) Guards manning posts must be given authority to
require some minimum identification from visitors/passer bys. Refusal of entry
to outsiders for valid reasons must be allowed.
6. The police
must be willing to give some basic training to those who man the guard posts to
enhance effectiveness.
7. RAs must be
allowed to deal with those residents who refuse to contribute towards the
security services for no valid reasons.
8. The Rukun
Tetangga scheme is a good one and it needs a revamp to see how it can be
integrated with the attempt to improve security and public safety
I am sure other RAs will have more ideas to offer. Perhaps, for a start a
responsible government organisation/ministry should engage all RAs who are
operating security services to give ideas on how residential neighbourhoods can
be made safer through the empowerment of RAs.
PETER RAIAPPAN
SECRETARY,
MEDAN DAMANSARA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
No comments:
Post a Comment