Police must move with the times

Updated 7 years ago · Published on 28 Aug 2018 2:36PM · 2 Comments

THE police have come out strongly in defence of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma).

It is disheartening but to be expected. Once again they are reluctant to get on the wagon that has been thrust onto the new political andscape. Deja vu. 

They failed to get behind the aspirations of the people after GE12 and are now repeating their stand on this.

The reasons to defend the preventive law range from religious extremism to gangsterism, and they are speculative. In reality there are ample laws to nip these crimes in the bud depending on how swift the offenders are identified by covert means and brought before the criminal justice system overtly and in a  transparent manner.

A combination of modern surveillance techniques with other means of intelligence gathering can be used smartly as admissible evidence. But then statistics on these are exclusively in the control of the police.

The police do not seem to be able to grasp the bigger fight at hand against corruption and abuse of power.

The debacle of the police pitted against the MACC, the deaths in custody, the lavish lifestyles funded by corruption, the suppression of dissent using preventive laws, selective prosecution, denial of justice such as in the Altantuya murder case, and subservience to the political master are but some of the glaring reasons for the outcry for change as public distrust mounts.

There is no doubt that preventive laws have been useful to the police and are an integral part of any war against crime but it must also be emphasised that the rule of law by way of transparent criminal investigation may be applied to any situation, too.

It is lack of experience in investigative and prosecuting work that makes officers turn to preventive action. The reality of it is that it has no place in contemporary society and the future of modern policing. This is hard to digest for the many who have been schooled and moulded in the traditional but outdated approach to policing.

The police have to be made to understand that society is changing and expects the police to meet the new demands. Society is willing to accept collateral damage in the pursuit for more freedom and human rights. 

They want a police service that can balance these aspirations and deliver the goods on crime and public order. The police must embrace this paradigm, adapt and reinvent themselves.

They had an opportunity when the royal commission to enhance the operation and management of the police force made its 125 recommendations in 2006, but they failed to seize the positivity of it by rising to the new challenges.

They now have another chance to comply with the demands of a new socio-political landscape that is yet evolving. Those who feel they cannot contribute to the cause should stand aside or be removed.

No one is indispensable especially when there is a greater goal to attain.

For those who cannot see that and continue to giving negative reasons to deny the people’s political aspirations, they must be removed quickly and replaced by those who can win the hearts and minds of society as a whole.

Public trust and respect are paramount to the future of modern policing when it comes to public order situations.

The way forward is to engage the whole community by embracing change and the challenges of transparency. Have confidence and courage to take on new challenges, for once the public is solidly behind the police force, no crime or risk to public order would be able to flourish. 

It is a tough task but the police have always excelled in the face of adversity and will come through with flying colours as they have always done in the past.  Like it or not the police will have to get on board sooner or later.

* 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.

Sign up or sign in here to comment.

Comments

  • Human rights issue should not be meddled with national security. Preventive laws must be in place to assist enforcements in curbing crimes, especially terrorism. Without these laws, enforcements will be hand-tied. Take a look at Europe, especially UK. It used to be a safe country to live in and travel, but because of the sake of human rights, extremists are allowed to move freely or flow into the country, and these people are now making a mess around. UK has all the advanced methods and equipments, and have intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6, but the possession of all these have not prevented UK from being targeted. Thankfully, Malaysia has been peaceful and safe FOR NOW, meaning that the police are doing a good job and is in the right direction (apart from the Movida attack, North Korean assassination and the Middle East preacher assassination). National securities must come above human rights to safeguard the people. Apparently France has learned its lesson, and is able to make a clear line between national securities and human rights by amending laws, and the France people are willing to give up some level of freedoms in order to be safe. Are u sure u want Malaysia to move in opposite direction? I would suggest to think twice before u say yes.

    Posted 7 years ago by Ee How Khor · Reply

  • It is imperative that Malaysia moves in a positive direction. There has also been sporadic bombings in our cities and around our region but it has never stopped anyone from carrying on with their daily routine. Our european counterparts are more firm when it comes to this aspect of their perception to security. They expect the police to deliver the goods by bringing those responsible transparently to justice. We must strive to do the same.The law caters for the police to take pre-emptive action under a transparent criminal justice system, even without preventive laws. It is more professional and accountable. The problem with national security is when individuals are given the authority to decide when a situation tantamounts to a national security threat. Vested interests become part of the decision.
    Eg when reports were lodged overseas in the 1mdb scandal parallel to local reports, both the complainant and his solicitor were deemed to be economic threats affecting national security!
    Humanity in democracy is what sets us apart from all other species and that is the reason why we have to get on board the human rights train regardless of risks. These risks are to be managed by the police in tandem with contemporary society's aspirations. Migrants move because they have to survive and we have to be merciful to their plight. We cannot turn away the majority for the acts of a few.
    We cannot allow sporadic acts of terrorism to stop this opening of doors to those who are desperate regardless of their faith, creed or colour. Our european counterparts emphatise that and are willing to face the sporadic consequences . Millions still travel there because they have to and they know there is justice and fairplay in the country they choose to go to. We
    Cannot dim that hope. Safety is a matter of perception and at times are negatively mongered by those who have their own personal agenda. The future lies in education, human rights and the economic well being of an individual.
    Some go to the extent of orchestrating chaos to strike fear into people so as to advance the agenda of draconian laws. We have to get above that and look at the bigger picture. Collateral damage is to be expected but the human spirit has always endeavoured and overcome.

    Posted 7 years ago by G.Selvakumar S.P.Ganesan · Reply