- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 18,719
- Points
- 0
Ramseth, lately your responses about defending the mata have been "interesting". The SPF, you point out, has become a reactive rather than a proactive force to combat crime.
The truth is the mata has lost alot of credibility in the recent years. I don't know when or how that happened. Was it due to outsourcing to certis cisco? Was it due to change in top leadership? Or because of the heavier burden after 9-11? Or is it they rather catch people making seditious posts on the net?
I'm not expecting you to answer these questions. But I believe they are points to ponder.
I remember a time when the mata used to be feared and respected by citizens. Now it seems they have alot of excuses.
Police in Chinese (or to be exact Japanese) is 警察 (yes, that's a reverse borrowing of kanji from Japanese to Chinese),to deter and to investigate. The proactive part is police patrol and presence. Police can't be everywhere. Something against the law is bound to happen somewhere. The reactive part is to investigate what happened after it happened.
When the proactive part is emphatically zealous, it's politically acceptable to the public, even expected and demanded, when crime and violence are rampant. In a relatively peaceful and low crime environment, such a policy would incur public discontent for inconvenience and waste of manpower, i.e. taxpayers' money. Where's the balance then? It's up to the Minister for Home Affairs. Why the hell do we need him for if not for policy direction?
Last edited: