There is a loss in public confidence in the Malaysian police. Gone is the "clean, efficient and trustworthy" image, to be replaced with a "dirty, inefficient and corrupt" image. Some of main complaints levied against the police have been corruption, failure to act on complaints, abuse of powers, use of unreasonable force, torture and deaths in police custody and the "shoot to kill" attitude.

  • "Seven policemen, including two chief inspectors, were arrested for their alleged involvement in an armed robbery at a hotel on New Year's Day...". ( Star , Jan 8, 2004)

  • "Two police inspectors have been arrested for alleged extortion after their victim identified them during an identification parade". ( Star , Jan 26, 2004)

  • In Parliament, it was revealed that in 2002, 16 persons died in police lock-ups. And until July 2003, there were seven deaths for that year. In 2002, it was also reported that 237 inmates died, and in 2003 (until July), 188 died in prison.

    • A policeman has been sentenced to 15 years in jail and ordered to be given 17 lashes of rotan (cane) for raping a Filipino and an Indonesian woman in a police lock-up" ( malaysiakini , Aug 8, 2003)

  • A former police chief beat up a detainee in custody - the infamous "black eye' incident.

  • In April 1999, Parliament was informed that in the past 10 years, 635 people had been shot dead by the police. This means an average of 1.2 persons were shot dead per week over the said period.

  • In October 2003, Dr Hasan Ali (PAS-Parit Buntar) in Parliament said that "statistics showed an alarming increase in the number of deaths from police shootouts. He claimed 1.3 people were killed every week." ( malaysiakini , Oct 20, 2003)

    • Serious image crisis

    New Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in his first 100 days in office, has conceded that "the police were facing a serious image crisis owing to negative public perception, allegations of police brutality, perceived corruption among police personnel and their failure in respecting human rights."

    He announced the setting up of a Royal Commission on the Police as a step towards rehabilitating the image of the force and restoring public confidence in it. He promised serious action. "We don't want to make improvements on an ad-hoc basis, amending the laws a little here and there," he vowed.

    But to overcome the problems within the police force and to restore public confidence, would a temporary measure like a royal commission suffice. This commission, whose members are chosen by the prime minister, will come up with a report in 12 months and thereafter, it will cease to exist.

    Temporary structures like this is not the solution to the problem but what we need is a permanent commission or structure, which is independent, and with the powers not only to investigate but also to prosecute and take actions.

    The composition of its members must not be determined by the prime minister only, but the Parliament, taking into consideration recommendations made by civil society. Transparency and accountability must be the governing principles of this structure.

    In developing our own mechanism - be it a commission, a royal commission or something else - it may be good to consider how Hong Kong resolved its woes, whereby like Malaysia it too suffered a similar problem of loss of public confidence in the police force.

    Follow Hong Kong model

    Hong Kong, before the the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was set up, was a territory where corruption was endemic. Quaint terms such as 'coffee money' ( duit kopi ) served to whitewash the fact that the public service, including importantly, the police, had sophisticated systems of graft that were very much the norm.

    Caught in this trap, ordinary people were helpless in a manner fairly akin to the basic vulnerability that Malaysians are experiencing now as regards their government and the institutions that are supposed to protect them.

    However, growing public opinion itself was the reason why the system in Hong Kong changed. Faced with a tremendous public uproar over the inability of the territory to minimise massive corruption, including mass student protests over the fleeing of a prominent police officer after taking huge bribes, the ICAC was set up in 1974.

    Strikingly, a comment made at that time by an originator of the ICAC was to the effect that "to combat corruption, good laws and good organisations are essential but I put my trust principally in the services of sound men and women..."

    The ICAC had teething problems in the sense that the police force which it first dealt with, rebelled against its authority, culminating in police officers themselves engaging in public rallies. However, a compromise was finally reached wherein past practices were given immunity, subject however to the stern warning that thereinafter, police officers found guilty of corruption, would be dealt with mercilessly.

    The ICAC is mandated to act in any alleged offence of blackmail committed by a public servant through misuse of office as well as crimes facilitated by or connected with suspected corruption offences. It has substantive powers of independent investigation as well as search and seizure including the authority to take non-intimate sample from a suspect for forensic analysis.

    Its structure is relatively uncomplicated but extremely effective, comprising a chief executive and an executive council as well as a legislative council, where the latter body holds the authority of conferring and repealing the powers of the ICAC. Uniquely, four advisory committees comprising some 40 prominent citizens of Hong Kong oversee the functioning of the ICAC.

    These advisory committees include a general committee which oversees the overall direction of the ICAC and advises on policy matters, an operations review committee that examines the investigative work of the ICAC, a corruption prevention advisory committee that looks at corruption prevention studies, and a citizens' advisory committee that educates the public and enlists their support.

    Meanwhile, an internal investigation and monitoring group handles all complaints against ICAC staff that are then reported to the operations review committee. Further buttressing the internal integrity of the ICAC, an independent ICAC complaints committee chaired by an executive council member monitors and reviews all complaints against the ICAC.

    Remarkable success

    The functioning of the ICAC since the years that it has been established has been nothing short of remarkable. In a Transparency International's corruption perception index survey released recently, Hong Kong was ranked the 14th least corrupt place amongst 102 places polled, and the second cleanest in Asia. This has had obvious results in so far as development and international investors are concerned.

    The pride of the members of the ICAC in belonging to an institution of this nature is considerable. Thus, speaking at the plenary session of the 11th International Anti-Corruption Conference in Seoul, Korea in May last year, ICAC commissioner Ambrose Lee identified the success of anti-corruption work in Hong Kong to rest on four main pillars.

    • Firstly, the Hong Kong government is committed to eradicating corruption and fully supports the work of the ICAC.

  • Secondly, the ICAC operates independently. Its independence is further guaranteed under the Basic Law (Hong Kong's mini-constitution) which enables it to enforce anti-bribery laws effectively, without fear or favour.

  • Thirdly, the ICAC has a team of professional graft fighters who are dedicated to the mission of fighting corruption in Hong Kong. An important underlying factor meanwhile in all these respects has been the commitment and independence of Hong Kong's judiciary in this regard.

  • Lastly, strong community support behind the ICAC anti-corruption drive has guaranteed its successful functioning. Interestingly, over 90 percent of corruption allegations investigated by the ICAC originates from the public. Annual surveys reveal that an overwhelming majority, (98 - 99 percent of respondents), consider that the ICAC deserves their support. Again, a high proportion of complainants (over 70 percent) are willing to reveal their identities to the ICAC when reporting corruption. In contrast, only about 35 percent of complainants were willing to do so in the 1970s, when the commission just started their work.

    • "We don't want to make improvements on an ad-hoc basis," so says our prime minister. But isn't the royal commission on the police an ad-hoc response?

    A permanent response would mean putting into place independent structures, with a bite which would not mean stopping at recommendations and reports as is the case with our Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), but with the power and capacity to take actions which would include prosecuting errant police officers and even ordering the payment of compensation to the victims.

    CHARLES HECTOR is a human rights activist and a lawyer.