Some comments and thoughts on what I’ve read so far of the Amnesty International report “Malaysia: Towards Human Rights Policing” which I think we should all give a look through. Among the things mentioned is something I’ve tried putting into words in my previous post here and elsewhere. The same sentiment is worded more clearly in the above report:

“It is widely acknowledged in studies of police that they cannot be effective unless they have the consent of the people being policed. This is achieved when society believes that policing is impartial and carried out on behalf of all the community, rather than favouring certain groups within it. Further, a police service will be most effective, and will maintain the confidence, trust and respect of the public, when it is representative of the community.”

And,

“The [UN General Assembly] Resolution [34/169] and the [UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials 1979], by setting out that ‘every law enforcement agency should be representative of and responsive and accountable to the community as a whole‘, establishes a fundamental standard on the nature of human rights-based policing, and the relationship police should have with the communities they serve and the political system within which they function”


I suppose the argument I would make is that consent requires trust, at the very least, if not respect. If there is no trust, or no way in which to enforce a trust arising out of any compact between the public and the police, there can be no effective police force. That trust can be destroyed when the powers supposedly granted by an Act of Parliament, voted in by elected representatives of the people in a democracy, is misused or perceived to be misused (and here broadly categorizing “misuse” in the normal understanding of a infraction against society’s “sense of justice” or “mores”, however we wish to cash out this equally inchoate term).

Just some brief comments after browsing through the report: it appears that the stated goal of the report is to envision a police force in Malaysia which is both based upon and is cognizant of human rights. Now, to do this, several articles of the UDHR are cited, among them Article 29(2):

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purposes of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirement of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”

Not being versed in the UDHR at all, I was quite surprised and disheartened to examine the substance of that article. Basically, limitations to a person’s rights can be sanctioned by law for the purpose of recognizing and respected the human rights of others (I presume the rights listed out in the UDHR). This is basically a caveat, of course, and one that could represent a fundamental flaw in arguing for a Human Rights-based police force in Malaysia.

It appears that the report is well aware of the Emergency Ordinance still in force in Malaysia, including the ISA and other repressive laws. Because, I believe, the meaning of public order is currently defined and maintained by the government, and I wonder if Acts provide for a definition of “public order” in Malaysia (anyone with legal training can maybe comment on this).

Currently, detention under the Emergency Ordinance is with a view to “preventing any person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order”. Again, public order. Who defines this?

Secondly, if there are police procedures (brutal/abusive or otherwise) that are sanctioned by the Criminal Procedures Code (CPC), or procedures which have been sanctioned in fulfilment of the requirements of the CPC, then these procedures can be viewed as sanctioned by law in the course of “meeting the just requirement of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.

Back to reading the report, I guess, just a bit worried about some preliminary issues is all.