|
 ©New
Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Othman Talib
WHEN the Royal Commission To Enhance The Operation And Management of the Royal
Malaysia Police concluded its report in April 2005, it recommended the setting
up of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).
The proposed regulation remains a bill today and has been
reviewed as the police objected to some of the provisions which they considered
inappropriate.
The principal functions of this proposed commission are to receive and
investigate complaints about the police in order to improve integrity, reduce
misconduct, prevent corruption and build public confidence.
The scope of complaints covers allegations of police corruption, use of
excessive force, abuse of authority and serious police misconduct or conduct
which may be illegal, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, discriminatory or based
on improper motive, and is serious enough to bring the police force into
disrepute.
The proposed commission was modelled on similar organisations established for
police departments in Hong Kong, New York City (United States), England and
Wales (United Kingdom), Queensland and New South Wales (Australia) and Toronto
(Canada).
Therefore, it is not an unusual mechanism for overseeing and monitoring a law
enforcement agency.
Although there may be some similarities both in form and substance between the
IPCMC and its foreign counterparts, some exclusive provisions are included in
the former: it not only carries out investigative functions, but is also
empowered to convict and impose disciplinary punishments, including a discharge,
reprimand, reduction in rank or dismissal.
These punishments are also provided under the Government General Orders on
misconduct and indiscipline. One of the stipulated punishments considered
unusual under this bill is "transfer the offender to other duties".
While it has always been the prerogative of the Inspector-General of Police to
transfer officers, the transfer of an officer to other duties or posts as a
punishment in the context of IPCMC would only give credence to the general
perception that such a post has a certain prejudice attached to it.
In fact, each member of the police force has a role in maintaining law and order
and keeping the peace and security of the country.
Besides, any of the punishments meted out by the IPCMC are deemed to be final
and conclusive and shall not be challenged, appealed against, quashed or called
into question in any court.
While even a convicted criminal has recourse for appeal to higher courts, a
police officer found guilty by the IPCMC cannot even seek redress under the
fundamental rule of natural justice.
Some of the other discontent among police officers on the setting up of the
IPCMC then was its sole application to the police department.
They argued that it merely gave the impression that corruption is prevalent only
in the police force. There were also fears that the IPCMC could be misused by
irresponsible members of the public to frame police officers.
While attention was focused on fears that police personnel in particular, and
the police force in general, might become the target of public odium through the
IPCMC, some police officers also ignored the provision allowing them to seek
recourse through the IPCMC if they themselves have been aggrieved by any actions
or decisions of their superiors.
In a recent case, a certain district police chief, acting on information,
arrested a senior police officer purportedly for corruption.
Despite the absence of any evidence related to the allegation, and without
checking the authenticity of the complaint, the officer was unjustly detained
for five days with no specific charges filed against him.
His detention not only caused embarrassment to him and his family members, but
humiliated him among his friends and neighbours.
In the past, police officers have also been victimised by mere allegations of
misconduct or corrupt practices where the evidence at the outset was not even
prima facie to justify an investigation by the disciplinary authority. But it
took the investigation officer an unreasonably long time to arrive at a
conclusion.
In some cases, the investigation took as along as five years to conclude and the
delay contributed to the affected officer losing his opportunity for promotion.
As a matter of departmental policy, officers under investigation for
indiscipline or misuse of authority are side-stepped for promotion and their
other benefits, such as going for courses or paid study leave with scholarship
are forfeited.
Ironically, despite the unreasonable delay in the investigation, no action is
normally taken against the investigating officer, as there is no independent
body, other than the courts, for the affected officer to seek remedy and
justice.
The IPCMC can act as a confidante system where it protects the identity and
safety of whistle blowers within the police force. Since the force adheres to a
strict chain of command, generally there has been a reluctance or fear among
subordinates to report on misconduct of their supervisors and colleagues.
The IPCMC can be an effective shield for whistle-blowers to seek protection and
anonymity. The IPCMC provides a mechanism where members of the public can be
excluded from any hearing, thus maintaining confidentiality of the source of the
information.
The unprecedented case of a senior police officer being charged under the
Anti-Money Laundering Act 2001 for corrupt practices recently only affirms the
public call for the police to have greater transparency, better governance and a
higher integrity force as the lead agency in law enforcement.
The IPCMC acts as an institutional safeguard for innocent individuals, be it
members of the public or police officers, who may fall victim to malicious,
ignorant or careless acts of the law enforcement agencies.
The government has now come up with an amended version of the IPCMC called the
Independent Integrity Enhancement Commission/Independent Special Complaint
Commission/Law Enforcement Complaint Commission, which reportedly applies to all
enforcement agencies responsible for prevention, detection and investigation of
any offence.
We are waiting to see what the contents are when the bill is tabled in
parliament.
The writer was former director of Internal Security & Public Order with
the Royal Malaysian Police and a member of the Police Force Commission
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 023/2012: Talk on ISO 9001 | 2008 Quality Management System Certification
