Corruption, compliance and the integrity crisis in law enforcement

Erosion of compliance undermines not only operational effectiveness, but also public trust in the legitimacy of law enforcement.

From P Sundramoorthy

The recent revelation by the director-general of the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) that directives issued “long ago” continue to be openly ignored within enforcement agencies is not merely an administrative failure.

From a criminological standpoint, it is a warning sign of a deeper, more entrenched institutional problem. When rules are selectively obeyed and violations carry no meaningful consequences, the organisation itself begins to normalise deviance.

Over time, this erosion of compliance undermines not only operational effectiveness but also public trust in the legitimacy of law enforcement.

Criminology has long recognised that corruption rarely begins with dramatic criminal acts.

Instead, it often starts with small acts of non-compliance that go unchallenged. When officers learn that directives can be ignored without sanction, a culture of impunity gradually takes root.

This phenomenon, known as the “normalisation of deviance” occurs when behaviour once regarded as unacceptable becomes routine simply because it has not been punished. In enforcement agencies, this process is especially dangerous because it directly affects the use of state power.

Law enforcement institutions occupy a unique position in society. They are authorised to investigate, detain and use force in the name of public safety. This power is justified only so long as it is exercised within clear legal and ethical boundaries.

When internal directives are disregarded, it signals a breakdown in internal controls. More critically, it suggests that obedience to rules has become discretionary rather than obligatory.

From a criminological perspective, discretion without accountability is a breeding ground for corruption.

The problem is compounded when senior officers minimise or rationalise non-compliance by suggesting that directives are outdated, impractical or subject to interpretation. Such explanations may appear reasonable on the surface, but they are criminologically troubling.

They blur the line between legitimate professional judgment and deliberate rule-breaking. Once officers are permitted to decide which rules matter and which do not, institutional coherence collapses. The law becomes something to be enforced on others, not something that binds the enforcers themselves.

This dynamic has serious implications for public confidence. Research consistently shows that public cooperation with police depends less on fear of punishment and more on perceptions of procedural justice.

When reports emerge that internal directives are ignored with impunity, the public inevitably questions whether investigations, arrests and use-of-force decisions are being made lawfully or arbitrarily.

Not just about bad apples 

The issue is not confined to individual “bad apples”. Focusing solely on individual misconduct obscures the structural conditions that allow corruption to persist.

When violations go unpunished, they are not anomalies; they are symptoms of institutional failure. Weak supervision, ineffective disciplinary systems and the absence of independent oversight all contribute to an environment in which non-compliance becomes routine rather than an exception.

Self-investigation further exacerbates this problem. When enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating their own failures, conflicts of interest are unavoidable.

Even well-intentioned officers may unconsciously protect colleagues or the institution’s reputation.

Criminology describes this as “institutional self-protection”, where preserving organisational legitimacy takes precedence over uncovering uncomfortable truths. In such systems, accountability mechanisms exist largely on paper, while meaningful enforcement remains elusive.

Long term consequences 

Persistent non-compliance erodes internal morale, particularly among officers who wish to act ethically but feel undermined by colleagues who face no consequences for misconduct.

Over time, principled officers may become disengaged or leave the service altogether, further weakening institutional integrity. Meanwhile, those willing to bend or break rules are rewarded with convenience, protection or career advancement. This inversion of values accelerates organisational decay.

Corruption in law enforcement also has wider societal effects. When citizens believe that enforcement agencies do not follow their own rules, respect for the law itself diminishes. This can lead to increased cynicism, reduced cooperation with investigations and a greater willingness to justify rule-breaking in everyday life.

In criminological terms, institutional illegitimacy fuels broader social disorder by weakening the moral authority of the legal system.

The way forward 

Addressing this crisis requires more than issuing new directives or conducting internal reviews.

Evidence strongly supports the need for independent oversight mechanisms with real investigative and enforcement powers.

External oversight reduces conflicts of interest, increases transparency and reassures the public that misconduct will be addressed impartially. Crucially, oversight must focus not only on dramatic incidents but also on persistent patterns of non-compliance that signal deeper cultural problems.

Equally important is the consistent enforcement of existing rules. Directives must be treated as binding instructions, not optional guidelines. Violations, regardless of rank or seniority, must attract predictable and proportionate consequences.

From a deterrence perspective, certainty of punishment is far more effective than severity. When officers know that breaches will be detected and sanctioned, compliance becomes the rational choice.

The decisive role leadership plays

Ethical leadership sets the tone for organisational culture. When senior officials model compliance, openly acknowledge failures and support independent scrutiny, they send a powerful message that integrity is non-negotiable. Conversely, when leaders dismiss or downplay breaches, they legitimise misconduct throughout the ranks.

In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, enforcement agencies must be seen to operate within the same legal and ethical framework they impose on others. Ignored directives are not minor internal matters; they are indicators of systemic weakness that demand serious reform.

Finally, loyalty within law enforcement must be understood not as blind allegiance to colleagues or institutions, but as a higher duty to the Federal Constitution, the law and the people.

True loyalty to the king and the country is demonstrated through integrity, accountability and unwavering respect for the rule of law, for it is only by upholding these principles that enforcement agencies can honour the trust placed in them and safeguard the nation’s moral and democratic foundations. - FMT

P Sundramoorthy is a criminologist at the Centre for Policy Research at Universiti Sains Malaysia and an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.