EFFORTS to fine-tune the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) and not abolish it altogether is not in keeping with many promises made during the campaign before the 14th general election and in the spirit of New Malaysia.

Promises must be kept and honoured so as to ensure that public trust and confidence will not wane.

And, that is why it would be prudent for all stakeholders concerned to consider a Serious Crimes Act to replace Sosma.

It will have almost similar characteristics as preventive laws but instead, it will be transparently accountable to the criminal justice system. The judicial branch will play a more significant role.

The police, too, must shift their stand in supporting preventive laws and forge ahead with this paradigm in keeping with modern times, especially in handling contemporary dissent professionally.

In fact, this act was mooted some time ago to curtail a surge of allegations of misuse and abuse of police powers.

It took cognisance of the immense power the executive had over the criminal justice system and made efforts to introduce more checks and balances. It did not materialise.

Many times in the past, preventive laws have been misused for political purposes, and the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal was the pinnacle. It was distressing to see how enforcement agencies were used to protect criminal acts in the guise of protecting national security.

The police, therefore, must be at the forefront of enhancing the separation of powers between them and the executive. The solution lies in making the judicial limb play a more significant role to ensure effective checks and balances.

Rules of engagement, which are prevalent during war times and critical serious crime investigations, cannot usurp the role of applying the rule of law in the strictest interpretation available.

Jurisprudence and natural justice must always be the guiding light and persuasive guide in all actions taken by any enforcement agency in applying the rule of law without fear or favour.

The executive must not be seen to be in total administrative control of any enforcement agency. There is always a possibility of rogues within the executive colluding with rogue officers in any enforcement agency to harbour criminal acts.

The inspector-general of police himself is testament to this fact, having been victimised by the 1MDB scandal. Thus, the police must strive towards ensuring that this does not recur.
 
Allegations of threats to national security must be substantiated by prima facie evidence to support any allegation from the outset of investigations.

A Serious Crimes Act would not only cover terrorists but hardcore and dangerous criminals that require more than a firm hand by investigators.

Detention, remand and a time frame will be extended, coupled with non-interference from external enquiries during the initial stages of investigation, similar to preventive laws.

This can be enacted and the progressive point here is that this law will conform to the constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code. Our legal eagles, if given the task, will be able to find the right balance between the rights of such dangerous suspects and the need to collect sufficient admissible evidence.

The police service must be given the room and space in New Malaysia to gradually ease themselves from their subservient instincts to appease the executive. This prevails aggressively till today due to the appointments and career advancements of the top echelon of all enforcement agencies, which is totally dependent on the executive.

This must change so as to ensure that the future of modern policing will become independent, firm, fair, efficient, subservient to only the rule of law,  persuasively guided by natural justice and accountable to Parliament. – November 10, 2019.

* G. Selva reads The Malaysian Insight.

* 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.