Malaysian police, who have been villified for rejecting the proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) have found backing in an unexpected quarter.

Amnesty International's (AI) human rights and policing expert Cornelis Okk Hindriks said the police have valid reasons for objecting to the draft bill drawn up last year by the Royal Police Commission.

He singled out the provision that would give the IPCMC disciplinary powers over the police force, thereby stripping the inspector-general of police (IGP) of a tool with which the police force can be managed well.

"Whether they (punish) or not, the fact that they have the same powers as the IGP is wrong. I think it is one of the things to which the police have rightful objections. The commission should never have the power to prosecute or take disciplinary action," he said in an interview.

"It's the IGP's responsibility to ensure good policing and to ensure that the police force is a well-functioning organisation; one of the means to achieve that is to take disciplinary action where it is needed.

"Never take that away from the IGP because, if you do, in the end everybody will laugh at police management. That's one of the few points on which I think the IPCMC should be adjusted."

Hindrix, who was with the Dutch police and various United Nations police projects for 33 years, was in Malaysia to speak at a two-conference organised last week by AI Malaysia.

Contentious clauses

In his paper, he compared the IPCMC bill to police complaints mechanisms in several countries.

Hindrix said the proposed police watchdog in Malaysia was the only one that would make the commission part of the country's larger system of administrating justice.

"In all (other) systems, the prerogative of taking disciplinary action lies with the commissioner of police and (the power) to prosecute crimes, with the public prosecutor," he said.

He also suggested further discussion of the IPCMC's powers pertaining to the 'rules and practices of evidence', found also in the New South Wales' Police Integrity Commission (PIC), that place these 'above' national legislation.

He said Malaysian police had to determine the need for IPCMC's proposed powers to intercept, detain and open all communications either via postal services, electronically transmitted messages or any such combination.

Under other provisions of the bill, lawyers are required to disclose information to the commission of inquiry, 'notwithstanding any other written law' as long as it forms the subject matter or is related to a complaint.

Refusal to give information will be deemed an offence punishable with a maximum fine of RM10,000 or two years in jail, or both.

"Whether you need those powers in the normal situation (in Malaysia) is to me questionable... and could be a point of discussion. Do you need it? What is the level of corruption? That's what is needed to find out internally," said Hindrix.

"If you really need it, you should go ahead. If you think you should stick by the rules of evidence, then you have to set that as the standard."

He pointed out that the IPCMC bill lacks a check-and-balance mechanism for the considerable powers of the commission itself and to prevent or address perceived abuse.

Hindrix cited the New South Wales model which provides for the appointment of an 'inspector of the commission', who is independent of the PIC and who audits its operations and findings.

The inspector also deals 'with complaints of abuse of power, impropriety, and other forms of misconduct on the part of the PIC and to assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures'.

"The more power you place with one person or organisation, the more control you need over that person or organisation," said Hindrix.

He also highlighted the absence of an appeal mechanism in the IPCMC for police officers who have faced prosecution or disciplinary action, a point that the Bar Council has already raised.

"In a fair system that's also fair to the police officer, there should be a kind of mechanism (that allows for appeals against the) findings as a commission or the rulings of the IGP," said Hindrix.

Despite his reservations, he said the police should accept the IPCMC pending amendments to the provisions he highlighted.

"The police should understand that, if there is a good external mechanism and transparency, it serves policing well because (with) public trust, you get more information and co-operation. In the end, it is better for the police officers and police force itself.