COMMENT The essential question is this - is it ever justifiable to detain someone for an extended period of time without trial?

By way of some background: when you are arrested , you can be held for 24 hours.

Beyond this, the police can remand you for a maximum of seven or 14 days (depending on the crime for which you are being investigated) by obtaining a remand order from a magistrate. Thereafter, you must be charged in court or released.

Detention without trial under laws such as the ISA, Emergency Ordinance (EO), and Dangerous Drugs Act (which is still in effect) allowed the police and/or the home minister to detain individuals without trial or judicial review for two-year periods, renewable indefinitely.

This means that according to the law, the government could detain you for your entire life, without you ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.

Malaysia has taken a few step forwards in eliminating old laws, but with the introduction of the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) and now, talk of a replacement for the EO, we seem to be faced with old wine in new bottles.

Who determines guilt?

Once again - is it ever justifiable to detain someone without trial?

We give the state the only legitimate monopoly on violence, and empower it to punish us when we break the law. Most people find it reasonable for the state to detain and punish guilty individuals.

The next obvious question is - who determines guilt? Should you ever find yourself accused of a crime, do you believe in having a right to prove your innocence in a properly functioning court of law?

Under any of the detention without trial laws, no such right exists - if the police and government believe you are guilty, but ‘do not have sufficient evidence’ to prove it, then it’s just a tough break for you - you will be locked up for as long as they see fit. According to the law, the judiciary has absolutely no power to intervene whatsoever.

Surely the irony of this is not lost on any thinking citizen.

Only in a terrorist dictatorship would the inability to prove an individual’s guilt lead to indefinite detention, instead of exoneration and freedom.

The burden of proof

At the heart of this debate is the simple concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

azlan The police can say that they “know” someone is guilty; but how do they know? If they cannot prove it in a court of law, can they be so sure themselves? Would you put someone in jail just because someone else said he or she “knows” you are guilty?

Do you think it is fair for you to be subject to indefinite detention just because someone “knows” you are guilty?

One of the worst implications of detention without trial laws is that it makes the police even more incompetent and lazy.

Why bother gathering evidence when you don’t need evidence to lock someone away?

If I were a member of the police force, for the sake of personal and institutional pride, I would renounce any reliance on detention without trial.

The job of the police is to prevent crime, and to catch criminals. Any competent investigative unit worth its salt should be able to gather sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of people they detain (especially without brutally beating a “confession” out of them).

If they cannot, we can only conclude one of two things - either the individual is in fact innocent, or the police have simply failed to perform their duties competently.

After all, police in developed countries all around the globe can combat crime without having to rely on the tyrannical ability to simply lock up whoever they please for as long as they like.

Is there something so special and unique about Malaysian crime that makes it more difficult than usual to prove in a court of law?

Is the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) saying Malaysian police just aren’t as good as other police?

I have never, and will never believe that Malaysians are just innately unable to be as good as anyone else in the world at anything.

Improve police, not eliminate fundamental liberties

MP Tony Pua rightly pointed out that PDRM cannot have their cake and eat it too.

If they insist that crime rates have gone down recently, then they cannot possibly hope to simultaneously claim that with the EO repealed, crime rates have gone up.

This Mahathiresque application of ‘logic’ is liable to cause loss of hair.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Paul Low employs similar logic when he says that the police are inefficient, therefore they must have EO powers to fight crime.

Firstly, we’ve already seen that the EO does nothing to fight the type of crime that by far affects most of us.

Secondly, how about you fix police efficiency (maybe starting with, I don’t know, the fact that 72 percent of PDRM personnel are assigned to non crime-fighting duties?) instead of letting the authorities lock up whoever they like whenever they like?

NONE Some time ago, as deaths in custody cases seemed to be spiralling out of control, deputy IGP Mohd Bakri Zinin ( centre in photo ) come off as a crybaby when he lamented “My men are just like detainees”.

Try telling that to the families of detainees who lost their lives.

I am all for improving the quality of life of the police, and for investing much, much more into the police force then we do presently (I’m sure we can forego a submarine or two towards this end).

I am not, however, for using poor police performance and living conditions as an excuse to give the authorities full, unchecked power to arbitrarily snatch people away from their lives, beat them senseless, and rob them of their freedoms.

I know it is demoralising to face criticism, but the leaders of the police should look to removing any cause for criticism, not just whining.

It is far more beneficial to work at proving the critics wrong beyond a doubt, than it is to worry about fighting critics in some imaginary war of perception.

NATHANIEL TAN did not see how his few days in remand long ago helped advance police investigations in any way. He thinks you should catch the play about deaths in custody SELAK : SERAK at PJ Live Arts this weekend, and he tweets @NatAsasi .

Related stories

Gov't files appeal against Kugan verdict

Zahid asked to explain why ex-detainees not charged

'Don't make technical glitches excuse to reject IPCMC'

Deputy home minister ticked off for dismissing IPCMC

Without IPCMC, custodial deaths continue unabated

No immunity, even for the home minister