opinion

At a conceptual level, every country needs to preserve and enforce internal security, and for that matter, external security because all human beings desire peace and stability and they, as citizens and taxpayers, expect the state to be the ultimate protectors.

Thus, in all countries, there are the police as well as the armed forces the latter usually comprising three services, namely the army, the navy and the air force.

In ancient and feudal times, as well as under totalitarian or authoritarian regimes such as the 32-year rule of Suharto in Indonesia, there was no conceptual, real and professional distinction between internal and external security.

Threats to security, both internal and external, were what the autocrats and totalitarians said or wanted them to be. Threat perceptions, assessments and definitions were capricious, insistent, opportunistic and even neurotic, depending on the swinging mood and sentiment as well as the political and personal interests of the despots and their small group of self-serving advisers.

Correspondingly, there was usually no conceptual, real and professional distinction between the police and the armed police. All were regarded as merely partisan armed bands of the despots, their families and advisers.

Fine tradition

In Suharto's Indonesia, for example, the police force was placed under the command of the Armed Forces of Indonesia or Angkatan Bersenjata Republik Indonesia (Abri) with president Suharto serving as the supreme commander.

However, in normal, modern and democratic countries, the roles, functions and responsibilities of the police and armed forces are clearly defined and separated. The armed forces are only permitted to serve as a deterrent against external aggression or large-scale, massive, organised and armed rebellions against the state, or insurgencies.

The police are assigned the role of maintaining public order and internal peace, and combating crimes within the societies located in the sovereign territories of the respective states.

Seen in this modern and democratic perspective, the national efforts of post-Suharto Indonesia to gradually but firmly reduce the partisan role of the armed forces in domestic politics, and to separate the police from the structure and command of the armed forces, mark a great advance towards political modernisation. This trend of political modernisation is also clearly discernable in the post-Cold War Cambodia.

Malaysians are fortunate because our armed forces have inherited a fine tradition and culture from the British, and have always maintained their professionalism and non-partisanship in domestic politics.

It is due to the professionalism and political non-partisanship of the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces (RMAF )that Malaysians have been able to enjoy peace and security as an independent and sovereign nation founded upon parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy.

We are also fortunate because since Independence, the armed forces and police have always been separated in structure, command and role.

Servants, not lords

However, while the Royal Malaysian Armed Forces continue to enjoy the confidence and trust of the people, and ought to enjoy multi-partisan support in their quest for modernisation, the police, including its Special Branch, is in for a lot of honest and sincere soul-searching in view of widespread public criticisms, especially in the past three years.

To start with, the police should adopt a right and positive attitude towards legitimate and peaceful public criticisms. No one questions the police as an institution, and whether the Barisan Nasional or Barisan Alternatif are entrusted by the people to rule the country, the police as a public institution will still be needed to maintain genuine public order and combat crimes. Jobs in the police force will not disappear with any change of the government.

The police should also always bear in mind that ultimately, they are servants, not lords, of the people and that their ultimate objects of loyalty are the Yang Di Pertuan Agong and the country, not an individual or a particular group of political leaders in the ruling party.

As such, they must not only gain the confidence and trust of the ruled, but also that of opposition parties in order to be fair and seen to be fair. Public impression or perception of the police is a crucial and critical factor in having genuine stability and security in the nation.

In this regard, any reform of the culture, outlook and attitude of the police must involve an honest, sincere and comprehensive review of the concept and practice of the use of force. The police must realise that force should only be used as the last resort, and even then, it should used in a defensive, not offensive, manner and with reasonableness or appropriate quantum.

Negative emotions

For example, firing tear gas or spraying chemical-laced water onto peaceful crowds which include elderly citizens and children, is not acceptable. The indiscriminate use of agent provocateurs, and counter-gangs or pseudo-gangs should be reviewed.

These two methods do not serve the purpose of calming a tense atmosphere, but only further provoke negative reactions which are normal in human psychology.

The emotions and sentiments of bystanders, journalists and passers-by could also be affected or destabilised because normal human beings usually retain a basic sense of compassion and empathy, especially at the sight of other human beings crying in pain or screaming helplessly.

Negative emotions and sentiments may later develop and spread as popular resentment.

The indiscriminate use of agent provocateurs and counter-gangs or pseudo-gangs - which were developed as methods of anti-terrorism and counter-insurgency - in peaceful gatherings and demonstrations only serve to aggravate popular distrust of the police, and sooner and later, erode the moral authority of the law-enforcement unit. If that happens, it will not augur well for social peace.

Above all, the police must not confuse peaceful, albeit sometimes angry, gatherings and demonstrations with 'civil wars', 'wars of national liberation','foreign invasions', 'armed rebellions against the state' or 'insurgencies'.

Socially irresponsible politicians and their partisan propagandists in the mainstream media could fantasise with many scripts in a psychological state of political desperation, but a professional and modern police force must be able to make politically disinterested, unemotional and rational distinctions among different types of situations in order to manage the degree and nature of the responses.

Partisan interests

In other words, a professional and modern police force must develop professional and modern methods of threat-assessment which are compatible with the norms of modern, civilised and democratic societies and also the universal standards of human rights.

Last but not least, the police must conceptually understand and remember three points in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities.

First, the ruling Barisan Nasional or opposition Barisan Alternatif may come and go, but they should never be equated with the nation-state which is a wider concept and larger entity. Protecting genuine national security is therefore not the same as preserving the partisan interests of any ruling party.

Second, peaceful gatherings and the formation of unarmed crowds or demonstrations, however illegal, angry, noisy or unruly, are not wars or insurgencies and they should therefore not be treated or responded to as such.

Third, legitimate force can only be legitimately used as the last resort after all persuasion fails and even then force used must be in a defensive manner with reasonableness and with the objective of preserving peace and order - not for showing off authority for the sake of showing off.

JAMES WONG WING ON, chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia , is a former Member of Parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew , he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.