Dissatisfied with the reply from the Office of the Secretary for Security to his previous inquiries, lawmaker Sulu Sou has submitted another inquiry with additional questions.
The lawmaker’s previous inquiry focused on the authority of the Disciplinary Supervision Commission of the Security Forces.
In it, Sou pointed out that the Chief Executive has not institutionalized the scope of investigations that the Commission can conduct. As a result, the Commission will remain an advisory entity to the security branch.
Sou asked the security chief how his team is working with the Commission and requested updates on the progress of their work.
In his follow-up inquiry, Sou expressed skepticism over Secretary for Security Wong Sio Chak’s pledge that the security forces are “brave enough to face problems.” Wong added that he welcomes supervision because it leads to improvement.
Sou criticized the reply he received for not answering his questions directly. The lawmaker said he did not believe the security chief adequately answered any of his questions and this has formed the grounds for his follow-up inquiry.
Sou said that he found the secretary chief neglecting his questions to be unlawful, and requested answers to his previous questions. In addition, he questioned the legal grounds for “public safety” and “police secrets”, which the security chief cited as reasons to deny offering information to lawmakers.
Finally, Sou asked if the security chief believed his refusal to provide information to lawmakers is a violation of discipline.
In his original inquiry, Sou had drawn attention to what he regards as a high proportion of security staff found to have committed crimes or administrative infractions.
No Comments