First published in The New Straits Times on  28 March 2007.

THE inspector-general of police has proposed to the government that members of the force be paid 20 per cent more than the ordinary civil service.

I say, yes, and perhaps even more. Get them decent housing, too, and cost of living allowances if they are in the big cities, scholarships for their children, better healthcare, etc.

Since the prime minister, finance minister and the internal security minister are all but one person, I think the reasonable request could be easily met.

The economy is said to be good, so let us reward those who helped create the conducive environment that allows commerce and investment to thrive.

Some of the reasons for the proposed pay revisions are to curb corruption and to get more people to join the force.

Regardless, I see the proposed pay hike as the decent and appropriate thing to do for the sacrifices expected of them and their families.

And I say to the government, please also include teachers, healthcare providers and armed forces personnel in the list. Their importance to us is without doubt.

On the subject of corruption, I find it rather discomforting to see patrol cars with the Jangan Rasuah sticker on them, or police officers with the badge Saya Anti Rasuah on their chests. Are they meant for us, or the cops?

This reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who once angrily described how he had to bribe a policeman so that he could escape a traffic ticket for speeding.

It was disgraceful, he said with disgust, and his son was in the car then, too, and the 10-year-old was a witness to the whole thing.

He had to?

Yes, he said, or else he would have had to pay a much higher fine or worse, go to traffic court if he did not.

But  did he commit an offence?

Of course, he said, but that was not the point. The policeman was asking for money. What choice did he have?

He could pay the fine, I told him. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

But paying off the cop was easier, he said, still seething. Furthermore, if the policeman asked for money, how could he decline?

Report the extorting policeman?

I must be crazy, he said. Who would not want to settle things there and then and get on with life? Furthermore, making a report against the policeman would be too much of a hassle.

But should not the crooked cop be exposed and not allowed to serve again and sully the image of the force? Take the ticket and report him.
That was what he should have done, I said.

I must be joking, he said. Why should he pay more when he could settle for less? And why would he want to get caught up in the mess of internal investigations? It was not his problem. It was the government’s and the IGP’s.

Let them deal with that, he said, plus he was also late for his appointment.
He was just an ordinary citizen, trying to make a living. So he broke the law; what right had the policeman to ask for the money?

So bribing the cops was the easiest and most effective way for him, even if he was wrong on two counts — breaking the law and corruption. Was he stupid, or what?

No, he was being practical, he said.

If the policeman did not ask for a bribe, would he consider paying him to get off?

Of course not, he said, but added that he would try to suggest in an ever so subtle way that he was sorry and if there was anything he could do, he would.

And that would include paying the man off? Err…Yes.

Then why should he be on his moral high horse and start a righteous tirade against the force for having to bribe one of them, when he was no better? It took two to tango, I said.

No-lah, he said, it was only a small matter. His offence was not that big a deal and no one was hurt by it. He helped the policeman with some money and the cop rid him of further inconvenience.

Since his son was a witness to him breaking the speed limit and bribing a policeman, was he not concerned of the values he was imparting to the impressionable boy, whose father was the world to him?

It was something like a business decision, he said. He weighed the options and consequences — bribe versus the law — and then, he decided that the best option was to bribe the policeman.

In a way, bribing the policeman worked more in his favour than the cop, who could be sacked and jailed? Yes.

Would he bribe a policeman again? Of course not.

But if it would not get him in trouble and if he could get off easier, it was something he would consider.