Police must change or fail
Their distinctive blue uniform sets off very complex emotions and reactions in different people. As police officers they are either respected or feared. Naturally, how they choose to be treated is entirely a matter for them to decide.
Tunku Abdul Aziz, The Malaysian Insider
Criticisms of the PDRM (Polis Di-Raja Malaysia) have lately turned ugly: they have been reduced to what amounts to a hate campaign. I believe this attitude is totally counterproductive because as citizens we deserve the police service we get. In other words, unless we are prepared to work with them, they will not succeed.
That said, PDRM must change with the times, and change what is known all over the world as the police culture of impunity. Police training must naturally cover traditional aspects of policing, but in today’s terms nothing is more important than for our police to understand the issue of human rights and the rights of the individual to police protection without regard to race or colour. Officers at every level of the service must subject themselves and their actions to the closest public scrutiny. Members of the public today are no longer mesmerised by the shiny little badges of rank that elbow for space on their very crowded epaulette.
Members of the Royal Malaysian Police belong to an honourable profession that, in our country, is more than two centuries old. The PDRM is older than the London Metropolitan Police (1829) and the New York City Police Department (1843). They are the inheritors of a long and proud tradition of service to the people of this country. And we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
The Malaysian police service is like no other in the world. What little I know of police forces in some parts of the world suggests that in many respects, ours is as good as the best, but as the report of the Royal Commission on the Enhancement of the Management and Operation of PDRM has pointed out, there is a lot of room for improvement so as to bring the standards of policing in Malaysia in line with best international practices.
As a member of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the police service, I despair of the decision of the government to soft pedal on the most important recommendation in the whole report — the creation of an independent oversight body to help protect the police protect itself against unwarranted criticisms. The government, and the police, no less, must accept that no police force in the world has ever succeeded in policing itself, and PDRM is no different. I may be forgiven for concluding that the government has made, in a manner of speaking, a right royal “dog’s breakfast” of much of the report. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi pussyfooted around this recommendation, but let us see whether our self-proclaimed reforming crusader, the current prime minister, has the stomach to force this through.
I can understand why the senior ranks are suspicious of any suggestion that they perceive as “outside interference.” The Knapp Commission (1972) on the New York police had this to say: “Two principal characteristics emerge from this group loyalty: suspicion and loyalty directed at any outside interference with the department. This mixture of hostility and pride has created what the (Knapp) Commission has found to be the most serious roadblock to a rational attack on police corruption: a stubborn refusal at all levels of the department to acknowledge that a serious problem exists.” I spent a year in New York as Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General in 2006, and was able to follow developments in the New York Police Department, and nothing substantial has changed since that report was released in 1972. Let us move from New York to London.
Sir Robert Bunyard, a former Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, describes police culture as follows:
“The culture of police groups has always been particularly strong, partly because the police occupy a unique and ambiguous role in society but also because they feel the need to defend themselves against what is seen as a hostile world.” Not really very different from the way many police officers in PDRM have reacted to the royal commission report.
A common belief or notion, which appears to be deeply embedded in the police psyche, is that of impunity, forgetting that the powers given to them are purely for the purpose of enforcing the rule of law and maintaining public order. Many of them also sometimes forget that they are not above the law, are indeed creatures of the law, and it is their duty to uphold the law, and not subvert it, however great the temptation might be.
Effective policing depends on public support, and public support will be withheld or even withdrawn if there is no confidence in the integrity of the police as a whole. It is important for them to realise that they are an intrinsic part of the society which it is their duty to serve, and all of their actions must be directed towards the public good.
Their distinctive blue uniform sets off very complex emotions and reactions in different people. As police officers they are either respected or feared. Naturally, how they choose to be treated is entirely a matter for them to decide.
The important role they play in our criminal justice system cannot be overemphasised. It is all the more important that they maintain the highest ethical and moral standards, particularly in handling cases that could lead to a possible prosecution.
We often hear complaints about questionable methods used by the police when gathering evidence, methods that will not bear close examination. Nothing is more calculated to alienate the public than the belief, rightly or wrongly, that the police are careless about protecting citizens’ rights. Members of the public are becoming better educated and know their rights under the law. What all this means in practice is that the police must change from a perceived culture of impunity to one grounded in efficiency, transparency, honesty and accountability.
We do expect, I admit, rather a lot of our men and women in blue. We make demands on them that we would never dream of imposing on ourselves. They work under conditions which are far from ideal, often exposed to great hardship and danger, and yet do we ever stop to think about their welfare and that of their families?
I can tell you that nothing much has changed in 50 years as far as their accommodation, for example, is concerned. Instead of living in wooden barracks, they now live in crammed one- or two-bedroom concrete cubicles. Police families tend to be large, and the chances of living with dignity as a family unit are not part of their terms of employment. Domestic pressures under such living conditions defy the imagination, and it was for me, on official visits to many police stations in different states, a humbling experience to talk to police personnel and to see their patience and forbearance of an existence that is not in keeping with today’s minimum expectations.
The nature of police work is such that it would be totally dishonest and disingenuous for anyone to suggest that it is no different from all the other components of the civil service. It is different, dangerous and debilitating of mind and body. The police service should be treated as a separate and distinct service, and the officers, men and women should be paid a rate for the job that reflects the true nature of their work.
Police work is not every one’s idea of fun and games, and in fact I have often said that anyone determined to join the police should have his or her head examined. But for all that, thank God that there are thousands of them who have decided to devote their lives to the care of the citizens of this country so that we can go about our work or business knowing that they are there watching over our security and safety.
I have often heard it said that if the police are paid more, the armed forces might be upset. My remedy for that is for members of the armed forces to join the police and have a taste of police life.
(Much of the material has been drawn from my own speeches and writings. The comments remain as relevant today as when they were first made four years ago.)
Tunku Aziz, one of the prime movers in setting up Transparency International Malaysia, in happier times was regarded by Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi as "one man (who) was able to harness his personal passion and deep commitment to the values of ethics and integrity, give it a larger purpose and meaning, and turn it into a force to transform society for the better." Why then was he left out of the MACC Advisory Group? He is regarded as being too outspoken for comfort and, therefore, difficult to handle.
