In his opinion Mr Short seemed to localize Laore’s view on the rationale stated for having a division in police force then, and he further elaborated on his personal inputs portrayed in his book (Policing a Clash of Culture) for an argument sake.
I wonder with interest whether Ms Laore might response to Mr Short in due sequence.
I am not surprise in some way if she does.
However, just reading between the lines of their respective reflections, I somewhat concluded that Ms Laore might be miscalculated of her intended focus - delay for officially disclosing TRC report.
Undisputedly, both Short and Laore would underpin their individual strengths when relating to TRC report.
Being a Commissioner of Police then, Mr Short would obviously and critically “defend” policing territorial ground, while Ms Laore, being one of the surviving members of TRC, she would feel the urge for SIG to disclose the entire TRC report, since her involvement in the post ethnic tension, deserves some sort of national merits.
When alluding division in police force, I assume Ms Laore has highlighted the breakdown of law and order enforcement which could be envisaged as paving the way for taking the law in one’s own hand.
Apparently, the emergence of ethnic tension was actually the product of law-breaking regardless of whatever parties involved.
Finally, TRC Report is a collective input whilst Short’s book is a personal input.
Both are two separate worlds.
In other words, they are of their own intentions, but for Laore’s reflection, it seems to be asking the SIG why delay in disclosing the TRC report.