THERE has been much debate on the need for the police to maintain preventive laws although the future of modern policing requires reinventing an approach to all the guiding principles associated with human rights.

Our preventive laws can be traced back to our colonial past. The British used it oppressively in all socio-political aspects of society. 

Political dissent was suppressed most brutally using these laws. All those subjected to investigations under these laws were deemed to be guilty until proven innocent.

The authorities were to be totally trusted in their judgement as judge, jury and executioner. 

It was draconian.

However, these laws served our nation well most effectively during its fight against the communist insurgency. The laws suited the cause and we have to be grateful for the outcome of the war against communism. 

The police earlier having had great success using those laws became gradually overly dependent on them. In time it affected their natural abilities honed in the instinctive skills of investigations especially in the areas of procurement of intelligence coupled with natural ability to detect crime. 

It was the hallmark of police craft and acted as the bona fide way to prevent crime. Only police officers were trusted to have understood the criminal mind, how it worked and knew the right way to fight crime. 

They mastered the use of all the investigative tools to gather admissible evidence. They were trusted fully by the community,  given sufficient time to process intelligence and admissible evidence in preparation for court.

Obviously it is different now in modern day society. This total trust is no longer a given in modern day society. 

There has been a serious erosion and abuse of police powers that has been documented over the years.

Part of this erosion has also come about from the universal contemporary paradigm of emphasising on human rights.

Transparency of any police action is a prerequisite to winning the trust of society.

It is now the norm for early interference by the judiciary in further detention applications and the standard of proof that was raised to beyond reasonable doubt at the prima facie stage; were some of the reasons that curtailed the ability of investigators to use all their tools of investigations. 

It was inevitable as it was in tandem with the shift towards the rights of an accused person. The police in a knee-jerk reaction began to incline towards preventive laws.

It eroded the honing of the natural instinctive skills of investigators doing real police work. The flair for criminal investigation became a rare commodity.

The police over time were pushed into a narrow corner with lesser space and time to gather admissible evidence. 

If you study the effects of the law carefully one will realise that these laws are mostly effective for criminal offenders who face bailable offences.

Proceedings in summary trials became tedious and the workload of investigation officers became too heavy. The lure of using preventive laws was the only recourse to turn to.

Serious criminal offenders who face offences which carry heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, death penalty etc which are non bailable; are not really deterred by these laws.

In fact they gladly accept restriction or preventive detention in place of serving heavy sentences.

The preventive laws not only became a quick and easy fix for the police but it also created bargaining preference to serious and dangerous criminals.

Allegations of pay offs have always swirled in such situations. 

Statistics always look better as minor offenders are put away more using these laws.

But the question is, for example, are rampant motorcycle thefts alarming or one case of rape cum brutal murder of a child? 

The police’s focus in being responsible to solve cases by identifying suspects and accountable for the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders, began to share the burden of crime prevention measures.

Crime statistics became the obsession of the police as a whole.

The focus in bringing down crime statistically became paramount to every senior cop in position. Petty crime became the priority because of the fear for statistics.

This has to be changed to ease the pressure on the police. The statistics must move to an approach where emphasis is shifted to actually solving by adhering to the basic functions of apprehending and prosecution of criminal offenders in its strictest interpretation.

Probably a new yardstick to measure the actual apprehension, prosecution and conviction can be introduced.

It will be beyond the general international standards but it will be more indicative of the real situation on the ground.

Presumptions in law and enhancing investigative powers can be increased in certain serious offences to assist the police.

Preventive laws have outlived its purposefulness and the police must professionally embrace the criminal justice system.

The future of modern policing and the relevance of The Royal Malaysia Police depends on it. – July 21, 2018.

* 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.