THE police, especially the new IGP and the top team of police officers, are the highest authority in the land in terms of criminal laws of the country and especially in civic spaces. All criminal actions (both actions and lack thereof) fall under the police jurisdiction and that must be their priority. All Malaysians expect and pay for such services via our taxes.

Let us therefore review if the police, especially the former IGPs and their full slew of police personnel at federal, state, and district levels, and also not forgetting retired police personnel who are reemployed by the police apparatus, agents and informers, know their priorities?

Such criminal laws are under the jurisdiction of the police, and really, no one else. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has some authority over bribery and corruption, and Immigration has related authority over the migration of foreigners, and Foreign Affairs, some, and the Malaysian Commission of Multimedia and Communication has laws related to cybersecurity and all related violations. These are all delegated responsibilities.

It is a fact that only the police can charge and take someone to court under activities related the civil spaces of both national and public interest. Of course, the cabinet, as executive authority can direct the IGP.

A case story for review

I live in Kampung Tunku, our home for about 35 years. Recently, we began to be abused by an illegal programme authorised by a slew of incompetent local government exco members because they do not yet understand the principle of the rule of law.

A secular and multi-ethnic group of residents, and maybe promoters of specific technology, recently began a programme to “take over and enhance the security of our housing area”. They called themselves Katura; obviously legally-registered and labelled after the Kampung Tunku Residents Association.

Only problem was, no one consulted the officer in charge of police district about the programme. I went to see him two years ago and he said that it was not a legal or legitimate programme of the police, but they would not object, if it was done properly and legally.

Since those beginning days, the programme has now expanded to cover a larger area, and we suspect that it does not quite have 60% support of all streets affected. Some other, non-member residents came to see me, and asked for a dialogue with our ADUN. We did and she has temporarily solved our problem. But, this problem is bigger than just our local jurisdiction.

What actually is our problem with security? Whose responsibility is it under our rule of law system? Can anyone simply set up a security parameter without due processes and with clear authority? They really cannot because criminal matters is a federal matter and the jurisdiction of federal police HQ.

Only the police are authorised to oversee criminal jurisdictions and all related violations. Even JPJ or local governors are deputised by police for any set of laws. For example, if a block of condominiums are approved with a security fence and related security apparatus, these must be approved by the police at some level.

Therefore, when I was coming home from a meeting recently, and these “fake” guards, who are not authorised to do or undertake such vigilance, stopped me and asked for my driver’s licence, I went the next day to the police station at Sungai Way and made a police report about the matter.

While the organisation may be legitimate and credible as a society under the Registrar of Societies, membership in it is voluntary. I am not a member and do not yet intend to join it. As an ex-public policy officer of the government of Malaysia; unless it is legal and a legitimate operation, I cannot buy into or collude with any fake systems.

Therefore and thereby, the substance of my police report was to question:

1. Under whose legal authority were your agents, i.e. the Nepali guards, assigned and authorised to check my identity?

2. If the OCPD never did authorise this entire security-related operation; where then did MBPJ get such authority to assign them powers of auxiliary police?

3. Where or how did the Nepali guards, who operate as your agents, get the authority to request for either my driver’s licence or my identity card? 

4. Did the Ministry of Home Affairs approve these guards to become guards in the public spaces of Malaysia, and authorise them to check identities?

5. Were these guards ever vetted both positively and negatively by Special Branch to ensure that, while we, the residents sleep, they are genuinely working hard to keep our homes safe?

Roles and responsibilities

These Nepalese are “foreign workers” and may be fully authorised to work in security areas and arenas for commercial establishments, but our geography is our home ground, and where we sleep peacefully and comfortably because police are responsible and accountable for our geography.

Unless our area is designated a security area under the new NSC Bill, please be aware that this is a violation of any and all ideas related to local governance and security. Can the new IGP please look into this issue too; among the hundreds of others! – May 12, 2019.

* KJ John worked in public service for 32 years, retired, and started a civil group for which he is chairman of the board. He writes to inform and educate, arguing for integration with integrity in Malaysia. He believes such a transformation has to start with the mind before it sinks into the heart!

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.