YOURSAY | ‘Isn’t the problem that the police have been a law unto themselves.’

Mat Hasan: Don't blindly implement IPCC without consultation

FairMind: It is sad that Umno deputy president Mohamad Hasan cannot even differentiate who are the stakeholders.

The real stakeholders are the public and the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the police. The stakeholders are not the police. That is why they are called public servants.

It is ludicrous to even think that the stakeholder is the employee and allowing the employee to decide where, what and how he should work. He may abuse his authority or decide to moonlight by working for others. Definitely, it is the employer who should have the final say on how he should work.

Allowing the police to decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations made in regard to police misconduct is madness. Given the choice, the police would have thrown out the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) as shown in the past.

In fact, the blind person here is Mohamad Hasan. For umpteen years, the police have been consulted and the matters have ding-donged so many times between the police, inspector-generals of police (IGPs) and the implementers, until today the IPCC is a huge watered-down version of its original past – the Independent Police Complaints of Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

P Dev Anand Pillai: Just when elections are around the corner, the independent police commission is brought up and a charade will be played out to show the masses that it may become law if Parliament approves of it and then there will be a couple of senior leaders who will come to the defence of the police and thereafter, the matter will be left on the wayside till the next death in custody comes about.

So, it is all a matter of political will on the part of the administration of the day and integrity on part of the police - there is simply no trustworthy institution that polices the police. The police usually police themselves. How on earth can a modern society allow that?

So let us come to the point, the police commission will just be another talking point as long as the politicians continue with their charades, dramas and mind games on the people.

Will Take Note ASAP: When you craft an anti-corruption law, do you get buy-in from those who are found guilty of corruption?

When you create an anti-drug law, do you get buy-in from drug addicts and dealers? Or when you draft anti-terrorism law, do you get feedback from terrorists?

So, for anti-police abuse and misconduct law, why is it so special that you must consult the police?

Critical Thinking: One of the prominent members of the IPCMC was Hanif Omar, who was a former police chief.

He came up with the recommendations in the IPCMC report chaired by former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah on how to improve the police force.

This report was made for the good interest and betterment of the police force, in terms of accountability, effectiveness, remuneration, perks, humanpower and service. They should just implement it. Period.

Why are they coming up with watered-down versions of the IPCMC which will not meet the objectives of the report made by the royal commission?

Newday: Mat Hasan, while I generally have a good level of respect for you, in this case, I disagree with your assertion on the need to get support from the police.

If the government is actually serious about cleaning up corruption in the force, the only consultation would be with the supposedly non-corrupted top brass. Rank and file? No.

The record of corruption is for all to see. Just do it, and the commissioners cannot be insiders, they must be truly independent.

Spirit of Malaya: Indeed, it has to be an independent body. Why ask for police support? Just consult their Internal Affairs Department for their feedback. That should be good enough.

GoldenTiger5095: Mat Hasan, the report on the police commission was proposed after a royal commission chaired by a respected former chief justice.

Surely, they listened to the views of serving police officers and retired ones at that time. It is a shame that it has not been implemented after 17 years.

You appear to be scoring brownie points to curry favours rather than looking at the reality on the ground such as “karaoke sessions” in police stations during the lockdown.

Freethinker: IPCMC is exactly what is needed to protect the police force from slander and accusations of cover-up. Not only is it to improve public trust in the police force, it also allows justice to be served.

The IPCMC also improves the image of the police that they handle themselves professionally and tells the public that they have nothing to hide.

So, what's wrong with having the IPCMC?

MS: Forget the charade. This watered-down version of the IPCMC will do nothing to clean up the place which is worse than that building on stilts in Putrajaya.

And speaking of the MACC, will there be another “independent” commission to look into the corruption in the anti-corruption agency?

Live2MTB: Only when you are at the receiving end of injustice do you now ask for reforms. It’s disappointing, but let’s proceed.

Then you ask if we should consult potential violators if it’s okay to set up an independent audit authority to get their buy-in. Mat Hasan, I think you should have a deep reflection of your thought process.

The Analyser: Isn’t the problem that the police have been a law unto themselves for far too long?

Any review of the police system should be directed at reflecting community expectations, not the expectations of the police themselves.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.