The police should exercise more care and attention in their investigations in order to cut down on serial remands, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) said in a report today.

"Investigations should be carried out expeditiously and effectively at all times and where necessary and appropriate, co-operation between the police officers from different police jurisdictions should be enhanced to reduce the necessity for 'road show remands'," it said.

('Road show remands' in the report refers to a situation where the suspect is being continuously held under remand over a period of time normally considered longer than is warranted.)

The 194-page report entitled 'Human Rights and the Administration of Law' was released by commissioners Chiam Heng Keng and KC Vohrah at the commission's headquarters in Kuala Lumpur today.

The report follows a conference held last September with the same theme.

Suhakam further stressed that the police should not apply for a remand order to detain an arrested person unless they definitely cannot carry out investigations if the person is not in custody.

Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) allows the police to remand suspects up to a maximum of 14 days which may be lengthened by magistrates.

'Road show remands' have been the bane of the police after the deaths of several detainees highlighted by human rights groups. However, the recently formed Special Commission on the Police has since called for a review of the procedures in issuing remand orders.

One particular case involved 20-year old waiter S Tharma Rajen who was transferred to four different police stations over a period of two months before his death at the Putrajaya hospital.

Duties of magistrates

The report also chastised the court system for not keeping vigilance and suggested that magistrates should:

  • inquire when a person was first arrested and whether he or she has been moved from one jurisdiction to another and more importantly how long the suspect has already been in custody

  • inquire about the welfare of the arrested person to ensure that no abuse has taken place; and

  • carefully scrutinise the application and must be fully satisfied that there is sufficient justification for the detention and not merely granting it at the request of the investigating officer.

    • Suhakam then called for Section 117 of the CPC to be amended to protect fundamental liberties of a person.

    On another matter, Suhakam also called for a separation of the judiciary and the legal services to avoid the perception that the attorney-general exercises control over magistrates, who at present are in the latter category.

    The report also recommended that all arrested persons should not be denied their constitutional right to a legal counsel.

    The government in several high-profile Internal Security Act (ISA) cases have often argued that, while legal advice is not fettered, immediate access to lawyers is left at the discretion of the police.

    Act on reports

    Expediting cases both by the police and the courts should also be a top priority, the report added.

    It also said that all police personnel should (regardless of whether they are officials manning the police hotline or mandated to take down inputs) act upon reports lodged by the public expeditiously; that all police personnel strive to provide a service in which the public can have public confidence and trust; and the complainant be informed of the result of the police investigations as soon as possible.

    The courts on the other hand should include the wider use of technology, encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution methods and adapting successful strategies to reduce backlogs and to ensure speedy trials.

    The report also recommended that laws containing ouster clauses on judicial review be reformed to better the rights of citizens.

    Currently a slew of laws inherited since colonial times such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the ISA are beyond judicial review in that ministerial decisions made cannot be challenged in a court of law.

    "Suhakam reiterates its stand for a check and balance in the exercise of powers by the executive. Judicial review of executive decisions acts as a very important safeguard in this respect," the report added.