Whe the cops went CRAP...

Police group's protest just out of this world

When the idea of an independent body to look into complaints against the police force was mooted about a year ago, this scribe was among the minority who argued that there is no necessity for it.

I had then argued that what the country needs is a body that looks into complaints against government servants and all government departments.

I had reasoned that zooming in on our policemen would not do anyone any good, because abuses not only take place in the police force, but in every government department. I had suggested an ombudsman, which was subsequently echoed by the minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz.

Just like good cops and bad cops, there are good civil servants and equally bad ones. Therefore, if a body is set up to look into police complaints, shouldn't there be a similar body for the customs department, the department of environment and so on?

Those countering my views were quick to point out that there already exists an organisation - the Public Complaints Bureau (PCB) - which undertakes those functions.

But not many are aware that the PCB is nothing but a postman, who receives a complaint from Joe Public and forwards it to the relevant department for "appropriate action."

Whether the department takes action or dumps the complaint in the waste paper basket, the PCB does not know. If the department does not reply, the PCB sends a reminder. If the reminder is ignored, there's nothing that can be done.

My views have not changed and they are not likely to change in the near future, but what I read in the official website of the Royal Malaysian Police over the weekend caused some serious concern.

One of the three groups representing police officers has challenged the system and to put it bluntly, has issued an ultimatum to the government - go ahead (with the independent body) and you'll face the consequences.

First and foremost, let's accept the fact that the police officers have a right to their views, however right or however wrong, and that a person no less than the prime minister listened to their views.

After having done that, why are challenges and ultimatums issued to the government?

Among other things, the group wants to embark on a nationwide road show to explain its stand to the people.

It also wants to reject the RM100 allowance and demand to have an eight-hour-five-day-week schedule.

There's also a suggestion that investigation officers resign en-masse, among other "out of this world" suggestions.

Under the heading "Lost (sic) of powers by politicians" The group says: "The explicit and implicit effect of the formation of an independent body is that the real organ which exercise powers of control over the police will be the commissioners of the body and NOT the minister. Let politicians beware that they will eventually lose powers, control and influence over a neutral, professional and people-centered Police (as suggested by the Royal Commission)."

It appears that the group has jumped the gun as to how this body will look into complaints. It may have wrongly judged the operations of the body by claiming that "conducting investigations and hearings outside the purview of rules and practices of evidence, and no right of appearance or representation in a hearing go against the grain of the Rule of Law."

"This blatant infringement of rights cannot be countenanced under any pretext," it says.

"It is settled law that right to be heard cannot be denied to a condemned person. If a hearing is done behind his back, he is tried in absentia. He has the right to know and be allowed to examine evidence against him. The rules of natural justice are the minimum standards of fair decision-making imposed on persons and consists of the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias," it adds.

How did the union come to the conclusion that accused persons would not be given the right to be heard?

The union may be right in assuming that when the independent body is formed, it has disciplinary powers over members of the force including dismissal and reduction in rank.

It is also right to say that these powers are currently within the domain of the Police Force Commission, a constitutional body headed by the Minister-in-charge of the police.

But it is untenable for the group to argue that an organ created by an Act of Parliament can usurp the function of a body which is a creature of the Constitution.

There will be complications as well, since the same body has no power to hire but endowed with the right to fire.

The group may have good grounds to protest and have reasonable points to present. However, what is worrisome is the fact that the group has not fully utilised the internal grievance handling procedures before resorting to such threats. The PM and the government has always advocated the notion of "consultation, not confrontation."

So, let's use the existing systems in place before this whole issue becomes a tussle for supremacy between the force and the administration.

It is heartening to note that the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar has distanced himself from the posting of the group's thoughts on the website. But the sad thing is, everytime someone down the line does something silly, he is on the firing line.

R. Nadeswaran is Deputy Editor (special reporting and investigations) at theSun. He can be reached at citizen-nades@thesundaily.com