THE police are a department of the government that enforces law, protects the safety, health and possessions of citizens, and most of all, prevents crime and civil disorder.

Since their duty might entail a certain degree of physical force, such as arresting and restraining, they are accorded the monopoly on legitimate use of physical force by the state.

However, what constitutes crime or civil disorder is often decided by the state, and this might lead to police powers being abused for other reasons. For example, in the past we were told by the government that the Internal Security Act must be kept on the books to protect national security, only to be repealed by the Najib Razak government in 2012, tacitly acknowledging the archaic and repressive nature of the law.

Therefore, it is proper that police be scrutinised by a body that is independent from the executive.

After all, if the government has a working Public Complaints Bureau (PCB) and anti-corruption commission to ensure transparency and efficiency of their civil servants, there is no reason for the police – with the potential to inflict harm and violence – not be held accountable by an independent body.

To clarify, the purpose of forming Independent Police Complaints of Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) is not to sow public distrust towards the police nor does it intend to weaken its functions. Rather, the IPCMC is to improve accountability and impartiality that are found wanting within our police force.

Take the case of student group University of Malaya Association of New Youth (Umany), which has recently found itself entangled with the police for merely publishing an article, contending that the monarch should exercise his powers within the framework of the Federal Constitution.

The article titled, “Yang di-Pertuan Agong Should Not Interfere in National Affairs”, would tell you that this should be a non-issue, since Malaysia practices constitutional monarchy where the article puts forward the principle the king should only reign but not rule.

Yet the police have hauled up Umany members for investigation, in what is perceived to be an assault on the students’ freedom of expression.

The police have even had the temerity to conduct a raid on the Umany’s president house over the said article, which is certainly excessive.  

It appears that the police are only interested in intimidating Umany members into submission rather than conducting a proper investigation.

The raid that subsequently led to the arrest of Umany former president Wong Yan Ke is even more baffling, given that his alleged “crime” was to record the action of a police officer during the raid.

Firstly, there is no existing law that forbids taking pictures or videos of a police performing operations. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to intimidate, arrest, handcuff and detain a video-recording individual. 

Moreover, the charge laid against Wong is indeed questionable, given that his recording act was initially investigated under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing public officials, but was eventually charged under section 188 of the same law for disobeying a police officer. 

It is noteworthy that under intense public criticism of Wong’s arrest, the police took the trouble to release a press statement to justify their high-handed arrest prior to the charges.

The fact that the investigation did not gather enough evidence to find Wong to be liable under section 186 meant that the police had abused their power, and Wong’s action clearly did not warrant such an overkill response from them. 

Further, the investigation against Umany also revealed that the police had not been impartial.  

Dewan Negara President Rais Yatim had also cited the constitution when questioning the propriety of Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah refusing an emergency declaration – presumably to protect his party’s interest. There is even a police report made against Rais, and yet there is no likelihood he will face the same treatment as Umany.

For the record, I am not advocating any action to be taken against Rais Yatim. Rather, the problem is the double standards employed against those the state perceives to be a threat to its rule.

The differential treatment between Umany and Rais is indeed jarring, given that they virtually shared the same opinion on the said matter, but freedom of expression is only applied to the latter. 

It goes without saying the proper functioning of a democratic state necessitates a police force that is impartial and accountable to ensure citizens fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the federal constitution.

The independence of IPCMC would see to it that any abuse or corruption by the police would be acted upon. This is to ensure the police would not be abused by the government to serve its political interests. 

This is crucial, especially when police in this country have a dark history of acting on behalf of the government by training their guns disproportionately on the opposition and civil society.

We live in a democracy where we should be able to freely elect our leader and representatives, and could hold them accountable through elections and other means of checks and balances.

Having an IPCMC is essential to our democracy, and most importantly, to remind the police that they are the servants of the people, not the government of the day. – November 15, 2020.

* Kenneth Cheng has always been interested in the interplay between human rights and government but more importantly he is a father of two cats, Tangyuan and Toufu. When he is not attending to his feline matters, he is most likely reading books about politics and human rights or playing video games. He is a firm believer in the dictum “power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”.