Deputy Home Minister Chor Chee Heung's clumsy attempt to cover up the blunder of the grossly erroneous police to population ratio of 1:3000 (correct ratio is 1:300) is as unconvincing as it is dishonest.

In the press reports of July 4, he explained that when Deputy Prime Minister cum Home Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi gave the ratio of 1:3000 on June 28, he was actually referring to statistics in certain urban centres, not the national average.

He further explained that the unusually low ratio quoted was due to the large concentration of population in these areas and the deduction of non-crime fighting personnel from the police figures.

In the first place, it was Chor himself who first raised the ratio of 1:3000 on June 27, and Badawi was merely repeating his figure on the next day. So why pass the buck to Abdullah? Why doesn't Chor answer for himself?

As to whether the ratio was meant for the entire country or for certain urban centres, the context in which the ratio was raised pointed unmistakably to the former.

Both Chor and Abdullah were talking about beefing up the police force on a nationwide basis and they mentioned our police strength of 80,000 in the same breath as they pointed out the ratio of 1:3000 for purpose of comparing it with the much higher ratios of other countries to justify their move to expand the police force.

Besides, Abdullah was specifically answering the press' query as to what ratio he was targeting for this country. If the ratio of 1:3000 was indeed meant for a certain urban centres as claimed by Chor, would it have made sense to utter the ratio without at the same time pinpointing the locality, knowing that such ratios differ vastly from one locality to another?

Chor must have taken Malaysians for fools, if he thought the latter were prepared to swallow such concoction without question .

Meanwhile, in the flurry to cover up this blunder by Chor and senior police officers over the past week, even more shocking police figures were inadvertently revealed that must have shaken public confidence to the foundation.

It was reported in the press on July 3 and 4 that Johor Baru had a police to population ratio of 1:9,300, Subang Jaya 1:10,900 and Pasir Pinji (Ipoh) 1:3,300. The police presence in these crime-infested urban centres is so ridiculously low that it is simply incredible.

If these statistics are correct (which stand uncorrected in the press), then Malaysia will undoubtedly have the dubious distinction of having one of the world's highest police to population ratios for the whole country, but the lowest such ratio for its cities, where crime rates are highest.

This is in stark contrast to other well-managed countries where the reverse is true urban centres have higher police to population ratio than national averages. Examples: New York (1:197) in United States (1:410), London (1:285) in England and Wales (1:429), Berlin (1:124) in Germany (1:343). (Extracted from 7th UN survey of crime trends and operations of criminal justice system, 1998 2000).

The above statistics mean that while Malaysia has higher per capita police personnel than US, England and Germany, the latter countries have allocated 50 times as many cops to the urban centers as Malaysia has, in comparable populations.

The Barisan Nasional leadership must explain why it has allowed such grotesque misallocation of our police manpower to have taken place, knowing as a universal truth that crime rates are invariably higher in the cities than in the countryside.

Judging from comparative statistics with other countries, and from our police force's super efficiency in clamping down on lawful political dissenters and suppressing civil liberties, we do not believe that our police force is short in numbers. Rather, it is short in efficiency and priorities.

We also do not accept Abdullah and Chor's claims that only a few black sheep have tarnished the police image.

Judging from common experience and from the recent outpouring of public grievances, it is not just the image that is in problem, but the entire police force is plagued by an appalling lack of the spirit of public service. Overwhelming majority of the population is unhappy with the police, finding the force inefficient, unfriendly and corrupt, someone to be dreaded.

However, the decadence of our police must not be viewed in isolation but seen in the larger context of deteriorating morals in a society long governed by a hegemonic power that indulges in corruption with impunity and holds democratic principles in contempt.

That the police force must be thoroughly reformed now is without question, but few believe that adding more men and equipment to it is the proper answer. Just like the remedies devised for other major ailments that afflict this country now, any such remedy is likely to be minimally effective and transient, unless the root causes are effectively dealt with fundamental reform of the corrupt political system.

But is there precedence in recent history that a corrupt and autocratic political leadership has succeeded in turning over a new leaf through self-cleansing and self-renewal? Is it realistic to expect one now?