THE inspector-general of police (IGP) is reported to have threatened action against those who try to paint police in a bad light (Malay Mail, November 12, 2020).

Well, if anyone makes unsubstantiated remarks about the police, that would be wrong. For that matter, such remarks against anyone are wrong and cannot be defended as freedom of speech.

What about highlighting something that is true?

Among the good policemen there are some black sheep as is shown by media reports of police personnel, both of rank and file, being caught now and then for various offences.

Some 15 years ago a royal commission of inquiry recommended setting up an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

It is yet to see light of day because of police objections. Why object if you want your house to be clean?

The present system of the police investigating the police is most unsatisfactory.

Let me share an experience. I was driving from Penang to Kuala Lumpur using the old road (Route 1).

A few kilometres south of Tanjung Malim (at Kalumpang RTD weighbridge station) I was stopped by a traffic cop.

He said I had “potong double line”. It was midday and the road through this rural area was bare as far as the eye could see.

I denied it, and he repeated it. I took out my licence. He refused to take it, still saying I had “potong double line”.

Finally, he took it and wrote a summons on Form 257. It stated “tidak ikut tanda di trafik line”.

I asked why something different from what he had said was written. He said for this offence the fine is RM100 and for double line offence it is RM300.

Later, I obtained a print-out from a police station. The offence stated was different: “Tak mematuhi lorong yg betul, LN166/59 Seksyen 008(2)”.

I checked with the police in Penang and the RTD, and both explained this was an offence for not keeping in the correct lane at a double lane crossroads junction with traffic lights.

I complained to Bukit Aman and the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (EAIC), and both found nothing wrong; in fact they defended the policeman’s action.

I wrote to the traffic police in Kuala Kubu Baru, asking how I could have committed an LN166/59 Sec 008(2) offence at the stated place as there is no such junction at the place.

I was asked to come to court (Kuala Kubu Baru) and get an explanation. A court date was set, summons No: KKB BF-86 POL-13560-08/2017.

I pleaded not guilty and was put under a RM5,000 cash bail. Was this the “explanation” they meant?

This was 250% of the maximum fine for the offence, if found guilty. The magistrate had acted far beyond his powers and outside law.

A complaint was made to the chief justice and a response was received stating that for traffic offences there is normally no bail.

I must give credit to the chief justice’s office for taking administrative action through Shah Alam High Court to set aside the bail.

On the hearing date, the police witness (who issued the summons) was absent. He was repeatedly absent at the subsequent hearing dates, and I had travelled from Penang, six trips all in. The case was dismissed not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA).

I had solid evidence to prove that an LN166/59 Sec 008(2) offence cannot be committed at the place I was stopped as there is no junction there that fits the description of this section.

By staying away, or being kept away from court, the policeman did not have to answer how an LN166/59 Sec 008(2) offence can be committed at a place where there is no such junction in the first place.

It was so easy for the policeman who issued the summons (service number R8101466) not to be accountable for what he did.

He just had to stay away, or be kept away from attending court. Why was no effort made by the DPP to compel his attendance to defend the summons he had issued?

A DNAA means the charge is still hanging over my head.

I appeal to the IGP to re-open this case so that the policeman who issued the summons is made accountable for it.

If the police can prove that such an offence can be committed at the state place, I will pay the fine. Otherwise, I should be given a full discharge.

Dear IGP, is justice seen to be done? The police compound was RM50 (after 50% discount) and what was the cost of six trips from Penang to Kuala Kubu Baru?

I am not blaming the whole police force, but why was this policeman not brought to court to prove he had not issued the summons for reason(s) known only to him?

If you don’t or can’t make your personnel accountable for their actions, the public should not be blamed for highlighting their negative experiences.

This policeman should have been disciplined on two counts: the first for issuing a summons for an impossible to commit offence for reasons known to him, and second for not attending court.

He was not and what message does this give to others in the traffic police? – November 18, 2020.

* Ravinder Singh 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.