Soma That Speed

Speed limits. Fascinating things. Let me get one thing clear first. I'm not discussing the speed limit imposed on those places where it is justified such as near schools and such, physically disabled people areas (such as where the Malaysian Association of the Blind is situated which is a centre of activity for many blind people), in long stretches of road in residential areas (used also as a tool to enforce peace and security), dangerous blind (not intended) corners and slip-in roads as most Malaysian cities have, and to regulate certain stretches of roads for to cater to their peculiar circumstances. No. Those places are wholly justified. In fact, I say the police should be watching those areas. It is there that they shall find the law trampled if not driven over regularly.

But not on the highways. Not those vast, flat and seductive empty six-laners that God laid down for those of us that want to place our pedal to the metal. No. Those places like the Garden of Eden should be left pristine just as it was made. A grave matte black with vertical disconnect white lines without those metal poles with the red circle and a number in the middle at the side. The following yellow triangle signs however are welcomed: falling rocks, high winds, winding roads up ahead, bumpy roads, and perhaps one for cops around the corner would be greatly appreciated. So as you can tell by now, I'm talking about speed limits on the highway.

The question I always find myself asking is this: if the highest one can travel in a vehicle in the country is 110 km/h, (1) why do car makers that make cars for our country not calibrate the car to limit its top speed to maybe 120 km/h only (only army and police excepted) (2) why doesn't the government make it a policy to limit the cars to that speed only and enforce it? Surely it would be easier to do that than to allow hundreds of thousands of vehicles every few years with the ability to go beyond the speed limit at will and try to contain them. The assumption is noble - people should be able to regulate themselves - but not most third world developing countries in Asia, including our country. In these places, laws are mere guides, even an opinion perhaps. But operationally it is an absolute disaster. Why do it this way then? I'm sure I am also not the only one to have thought about this and asked this question. I am certain the question must have occurred to all these traffic experts.

Will it kill people's need and desire for cars? No. You still get somewhere in them and that's the most useful part about them. The speed is secondary. So the car industry may take a dent but it certainly will not bring its doom. It may even save fuel, cars that don't go so fast or are not high performance also don't burn fuel as quickly too. And for the record, even the Toyota Prius goes up to almost 110 miles per hour (approximately 180 kilometers per hour). Will it make it easier to do policing? Yes. It would be so easy to see who is speeding beyond the limit. Less traffic police resources have to be invested into this area and it can be used for other purposes.

There are all these substantial benefits in favour of reducing speed this way but still it is not done. The question parallels the existential one. Why did God make us in and for freedom yet fashion such a narrow path for us to be near his Grace? A test of our faith, we could rationalize but it still sits rather uneasily sometimes. But back to the speed limit. And I suspect a reason governments allow cars to be so much higher above the speed limit is because they in some vague way understand that there is a freedom in being able to break the law and go as fast as you can in your car. You have the freedom to keep within or to break the law. That is important. Because that is one of the most fundamental rights we have as human beings. They day we are not able to do that we would have either a Brave New World or 1984, or worse both. Which if you think about, is the direction our country seems to be slowly drifting towards. Anybody got some soma?

Deskbound Fat Cops

The News Straits Times reported today that fat cops in the Johor police force will be taken off the streets and put behind desks 'until they trim down and improve their fitness levels'. This ingenious idea was the brainchild of none other than the police chief Datuk Hussin Ismail. He drew inspiration from two patrolmen who were overpowered by a suspect who then stole their police car. If those two patrolmen were fat asses, I think what actually happened must have been that that suspect flung some cheap doughnuts on the road which they stopped and got out of the car like the fat clumsy pigeons in the park greedily pecking anything even though they are long full.

And this idea, in all the name of all that is sensible, is a dud. A simple application of common sense would make illustrate this: You do not take fat cops off the street and put them behind cushy desk jobs where they would be on their huge sweaty quivering ass most of the time. You make them work harder. More importantly, that these beat cops are getting fat suggests that they might be eating more than they are patrolling, sitting more than walking, and farting and burping more than arresting.

For those recalcitrant fatties, Datuk Hussin has warned that those who fail the quarterly fitness tests that he has introduced 'will receive counselling and additional fitness training twice a week until they pass muster.' Pass the mustard, more likely, and that is after raiding the all you can eat buffet. I am also wondering what kind of counselling will this fat cop who has failed his quarterly fitness test get? What will they say to aquivering wreck of a nasi lemak chugging machine when he has flunked his test so many times? Will he get a bum rap or a rap on the bum?

That was the stick. And what was the carrot? 'They have come to realise that when they are fit they are more alert both mentally and physically. And as an added bonus, they look good.' That these cops need Datuk Hussin to point out something so blindly obvious also indicates that the fatness might not just be emblazoned on their guts but is in their heads as well. Though physical fitness is important for a cop, especially those tasked to apprehend criminals, I would like to see more emphasis on development of their mental acumen, stamina and fitness. A fit body is only half (I would say quarter) of the job done and it is the easier task. Shaping those flabby minds - that's the challenge. And it's going to need the mother of all sticks but I wouldn't use too many carrots. One, at most, two should be enough. After all, they've had enough to eat already.

The Cop Around the Corner

The cop around the corner is akin to the bandit in the bushes. That is where most Malaysian traffic cops usually are - hidden, in subterfuge, when they are not conducting traffic. Behind a blind corner, a lush leafy bush, beyond the horizon of a small hill. That is their modus operandi, their stratagem which really is no different from that of thieves. Catch the unsuspecting offender by surprise and red handed. It is not uncommon to see an operasi going on in areas where traffic is thick, fast and merciless and a swarm of cars by the side of the road with their attending police next to the cars, ready to write that ticket or pretend to do so. Which you get really depends on whether they are doing it to maintain an acceptable statistic for their superiors that month or whether they are looking for a meal or short of cash that month.

I have always thought this methodology to be immoral and wrong if used as a standard operating procedure for daily or regular operations. If it is to be used at all, it should be limited to those special and difficult kind of crimes. This stems from what the function of the police is. Their function is to prevent crime, or where a crime has been committed, to catch the offenders and bring them to justice. So clearly if and when they know a crime taking place, their job is to prevent it from occurring. A cop standing at a strategic spot on the road is worth ten of them in the bushes. The subterfuge method should only be used where the nature of the crime makes it difficult if not dangerous for the usual kind of surveillance and methods i.e. infiltrating and collecting evidence against triad gangs, or bribes, as examples. Or in war.

Let us now take one of the most common traffic operations carried out rather often - speeding. It is a fact that if there is a police car patrolling the area or is reputed to do so, the people in that area will be more mindful of the law and abide by it. You can see this happening on the highway all the time. There will be a car tearing down the highway being a total bastard tailgater but comes to a screeching slow down the moment the driver spots a police car in front. Therefore, if the traffic cops were really serious about limiting the occurrences of speeding they should just patrol the area. What they should not be doing is not doing any patrolling and then, whenever the sense of duty overwhelms them, conduct an operasi over the space of a week nabbing as many offenders within that period in the full glare of the press.

The present method carried out by the traffic cops sends the wrong message. It tells people that the law is just about punishment instead of prevention. It lets people know that unless there is an operasi on, you can pretty much break the law without any repercussions, or can get away with a small bribe. It also tells us that the cops are not doing their jobs. Prevention of crime requires eternal vigilance, not ad hoc operasi carried out whenever it is convenient for the cops. It is also an inefficient use of resources because one patrol car with two cops in it can do the job of ten or fifteen cops with their speed guns, barriers, multitude of transportation and tickets used. Then there is the economic cost of it all - assuming tickets are issued, postage costs, court proceedings, petrol, time wasted in court (which could be spent on economically productive activity), the attendant jams caused by the operasi, the higher risk of accidents. There is also the loss of goodwill against the cops because people who are fined by them (especially when the law is enforced so selectively) form a negative psychological and emotional view of the police. This may hamper them in the long run if more and more people feel this, because they are losing a vital source of crime prevention information.

That they persist in this manner has only two explanations for it: corruption and/or incompetence. You will only know which one you will have to face the day you are pulled over by the cop around the corner who just might be a bandit in the bushes.