Mazlee, here’s proof education in this country is a toilet bowl!

This is not intended as a personal attack, as I feel that the individual concerned is as much a victim of our system of education.

And I think that pointing to the Peter Principle to explain the situation I am going to present here ignores a very important point we need to take note of, if we are now, post the 14th GE, seriously striving to build a new Malaysia for all of her people.

We once had an exemplary education system.

We don’t, anymore.

And, no, the rot did not set in during Najib’s tenure.

It goes back a good 40 years.

You judge if I have overstated the case from what I am about to share.

Now, factor into that “worse than 3rd world” state of affairs we call an education system, an absence of any consideration of meritocracy in the appointment or promotion to office and positions and you then can begin to make sense of the deplorable state of affairs that I am going to describe.

Have all of you been following the inquest into the death of the Dutch model, Ivana?

I have.

I want to share with you here reports from FMT on the testimony of the investigating officer from PDRM.

On 5th September, FMT reported that the “police officer who investigated the case of Ivana Smit said she had not been instructed by her superiors to cordon off the crime scene at the condominium where the body of the Dutch model was found in December last year”.

So what was the instructions she received?

“go to CapSquare Residences”; “I was just ordered to go to the sixth-floor unit,”, were her instructions.

No instructions to cordon off the crime scene.

She agreed, though, that it was standard protocol to seal off a suspected crime scene with police tape.

She didn’t, because she was not instructed to do so.

There are other strange revelations by the officer as quoted in that report, but I will move on.

On 20th September, FMT reported that the same investigating officer admitted that she “was “clueless” as to what she was supposed to do with some of the Dutch model’s clothes handed to her for DNA testing”.

So what did she do with those items of clothing?

She handed them over to the deceased’s family when she met them later.

Why?

When the DPP asked why, unlike earlier items seized at the crime scene which she had sent to the Chemistry department for DNA analysis, she had not done the same with these latter items, FMT reports her as saying that it was “not her job”.

She elaborated that she was not instructed to do anything else with those latter items by the ASP who had taken over as the investigating officer.

Again, didn’t do because there were no instructions to do so.

The DPP assisting the inquest must have been appalled at this response and asked : “As the IO, how could you not understand that this was material evidence? These are clothing items. Why did you give it to the parents before testing them? Don’t you think you should have taken these to the Forensics Department?”

The reply from the officer : “I didn’t know where to send them. I brought the items to my office to check them, then I put them under lock and key and on Dec 9, gave them to the deceased’s family and next-of-kin”.

When the DPP asked again if this meant she was clueless as to what needed to be done “when receiving and processing evidence for sampling”, the officer, who is a sergeant, admitted that this was the case.

How had she transported the evidence in question upon receipt of the same to the police station?

As reported, “she had placed most of the smaller items in her handbag, while the other larger sealed specimens were kept “in the basket”.

That basket, is presumably that attached to the motorcycle she was riding.

Yesterday, FMT reported that this officer testified that “police should have classified the case as a homicide instead of opening a sudden death report (SDR)”.

She, as the initial investigating officer, had classified it as sudden death.

Why?

Although she was wary of the circumstances of the death, she had been instructed by her superiors to open a SDR file and it would be inappropriate to go against those instructions.

In its report, FMT explains that “SDRs are usually opened by the police when the deceased is believed to have died due to natural causes. Investigation papers (IPs), on the other hand, are more general and take into consideration other causes of death such as murder or foul play”.

During cross-examination, when she was asked why she had not opened an IP instead, she replied that she “did not know” what the difference was or what an IP was.

FMT provides the following details about this officer :

• she was promoted to an investigating officer just two months before Smit’s death
• she informed the court that she was not familiar with the job
• she was not given any training after becoming an assistant investigating officer and later an investigating officer
• she conceded that she had taken on the case despite lacking the necessary exposure

Am I making a mountain out of a molehill if I say that if we don’t do something about our education system, and fast, and stop these promotions that are not merit-based, then the whole notion of a new Malaysia is illusory?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in: Making This World A Better Place, Nation in Distress, Pakatan Harapan Manifesto, People Are The Boss, Rakyat Reform Agenda, Reform the Nation, Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia, Social Inclusion Agenda, Taking back our country, The voice of the people, Zero Discrimination Please