CPIB's Practices made public

[Confuseous]

Since we’re not supposed to comment on how the CPIB fared on the stand, I’ll just confine myself to some curious practices of the Bureau so that anyone who has to lim kopi with the officers will know what they are in for:

A. Seems it takes ages for officers to get down taking a statement. Like 11 hours. Maybe this is normal practice, you know, to “soften’’ up a witness before formal recording. I hope they gave Ms Sue a loo-break.

B. It’s not just one person who takes a statement. In her case, there were four. Maybe this is normal practice too: good cop, bad cop, fat cop, thin cop?

C. The person who interviews is not the person who does the recording. In fact, sometimes the person who does the recording even mistakes the person who did the interviewing. Like how recorder Mr Khoo said it was Mr Teng who did the interviewing but Mr Teng said it wasn’t him. Which makes you wonder if the CPIB has lookalikes that confuse even their own staff.

D. Even the recording officer can ask questions it seems, not necessarily the interviewer. Like how Mr Teng said the recording officer could have asked why Ms Sue changed her position on when her relationship with Ng is supposed to have ended.

E. There is a thing known as a station diary. Seems like it’s for officers to put in side notes. It’s reliable. Or rather NOT reliable since sometimes officers forget to put in a critical NOT. Like how Mr Teng wrote that Ms Sue said she will (NOT) take a polygraph test.

F. CPIB officers are quite nice. They share your concern for your family and the effect of media publicity. They even suggest ways to minimise adverse impact.

- http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/practices-made-public/

 

[chonburifc]

Cpib occifer not hum sum.

 

[Charlie99]

Although in another thread, brother [GoldenDragon] indicated that CPIB used to house many "Chinese helicopters", I recall a senior of mine, who was from an old established and very reputable English stream school, and a Commando officer during NS, was an officer with the CPIB. He simply claimed that he is a civil servant, at that time.

 

[GoldenDragon]

If severely tested, CPIB officers might get caught with their pants down when it comes to court cases. NBG's case highlighted some glaring errors, imho.

Why? Many of their officers lack the necessary experience as investigators. How many cases have they done that involved a trial? Many cases either PG or sent to PSC for departmental action.

Unlike police officers who went through IO posting in the land divisions and loaded with several huindred cases to investigate, making errors along the way and learning how to be more street-wise, CPIB officers are a sheltered lot.

Belonging to an elite entity makes things worse because they truly believe they are an elite lot. Imo, they are elite only when not severely tested in open court. If their DD Investigation can make those errors mentioned, need I say more?

 

[scroobal]

Actually nothing wrong with any of this. All that is required is for the CPIB chap on the witness stand confidently explain what he was doing in a coherent manner. Being the helicopters that they are, their language skills let them down. I was advised by someone familiar with the Police that he cannot recall a single chinese-ed in the Police Dept who is an investigator. This is quite telling.

Since we’re not supposed to comment on how the CPIB fared on the stand, I’ll just confine myself to some curious practices of the Bureau so that anyone who has to lim kopi with the officers will know what they are in for:

A. Seems it takes ages for officers to get down taking a statement. Like 11 hours. Maybe this is normal practice, you know, to “soften’’ up a witness before formal recording. I hope they gave Ms Sue a loo-break.

B. It’s not just one person who takes a statement. In her case, there were four. Maybe this is normal practice too: good cop, bad cop, fat cop, thin cop?

C. The person who interviews is not the person who does the recording. In fact, sometimes the person who does the recording even mistakes the person who did the interviewing. Like how recorder Mr Khoo said it was Mr Teng who did the interviewing but Mr Teng said it wasn’t him. Which makes you wonder if the CPIB has lookalikes that confuse even their own staff.

D. Even the recording officer can ask questions it seems, not necessarily the interviewer. Like how Mr Teng said the recording officer could have asked why Ms Sue changed her position on when her relationship with Ng is supposed to have ended.

E. There is a thing known as a station diary. Seems like it’s for officers to put in side notes. It’s reliable. Or rather NOT reliable since sometimes officers forget to put in a critical NOT. Like how Mr Teng wrote that Ms Sue said she will (NOT) take a polygraph test.

F. CPIB officers are quite nice. They share your concern for your family and the effect of media publicity. They even suggest ways to minimise adverse impact.

- http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/practices-made-public/

 

[GoldenDragon]

I was advised by someone familiar with the Police that he cannot recall a single chinese-ed in the Police Dept who is an investigator. This is quite telling.

Policemen quite smart. If their England CMI, they won't dare become an IO. For those who die die want to become IO, their HI, Dy HI, CIO or OC team would remove them to avoid headaches later. Commanders usually trust these assessments.

I can think of at least 2 HIs and maybe 3-4 CIOs currently in service, who would have fared many times better than DD Investigation CPIB. Some lau chiao SIOs I know in the past (already retired) would not have made those errors highlighted. And these lau chiaos were SI or SSI ranks. Not even a senior officer or one gazetted.

Am sure Eric would have been disappointed with the negative publicity. On hindsight, better to have Choon Mann monitor this?

 

[GoldenDragon]

. All that is required is for the CPIB chap on the witness stand confidently explain what he was doing in a coherent manner.

If that task is considered a challenge, an overhaul may be needed. Maybe the lack of experience in court to be blamed? Or, that chap had things to hide.

If you compare CPIB and police officers in court, I think the winner has to be policemen. They are good liars!

 

[Charlie99]

If that task is considered a challenge, an overhaul may be needed. Maybe the lack of experience in court to be blamed? Or, that chap had things to hide.

If you compare CPIB and police officers in court, I think the winner has to be policemen. They are good liars!

Based on what is available, it appears that those officers from the CPIB are not very confident at Court, may be due to lack of experience.

Accordingly, I believe that it is likely that the relevant leaders will implement changes to CPIB.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Based on what is available, it appears that those officers from the CPIB are not very confident at Court, may be due to lack of experience.

Accordingly, I believe that it is likely that the relevant leaders will implement changes to CPIB.

A major change took place when Eric Tan took in Wong Choon Mann as his Dy Director. After CPIB's re-org, WCM was elevated to the post of Director Investigations.

WCM made several trips in the past to CPIB for his statements to be recorded. In other words, he is traced on CPIB records. He was detained for close to 48 hours during the ALS probe.

WCM's secondment took many by surprise. Firstly, the boldness or desperation of ET to second WCM to CPIB and secondly, the 'confirmation' that CPIB had no one internally to sit on that chair.
Now, the picture is clear. His DD Invest CMI.