Excessive or necessary? The real test of police conduct

 

A bodycam wouldn’t have missed what the video might have. NSTP FILE PIC

THE Kulim arrest case, where a policeman was filmed stepping on the helmeted head of a motorcyclist on Monday, sits at a familiar fault line, namely the need for firm policing versus the imperative of restraint.

Police often operate in volatile situations, but the use of force is necessary, proportionate and accountable. The question is not whether force is justified but whether this level of force was.

-Advertisement-

The police have reportedly confirmed that the motorcyclist in the video had resisted arrest and later tested positive for drugs. A search of the 32-year-old's motorcycle led to the discovery of two plastic bags believed to contain ketum juice.

The police have launched an investigation to determine if the policeman in question adhered to the standard operating procedure (SOP) during the 11am incident in Jalan Tunku Putra. In the meantime, the policeman who was seen stepping on the head of the motorcyclist has been temporarily reassigned to administrative duties.

Assurances such as these are somewhat helpful but public trust in law depends less on them and more on demonstrable accountability.

Internal probes, reassignment and SOP reviews are standard responses but they risk appearing procedural rather than substantive if outcomes are opaque.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail was right when he said we mustn't make premature judgments based solely on brief video clips circulating online.

The 29-second video circulating on Facebook shows a policeman pulling a man off a motorcycle before stepping on his head. Saifuddin's point is this: we only see what happened in the 29 seconds and not what happened before, an issue bodycams can easily solve.

It is not clear if the two policemen were wearing bodycams but we understand that such devices have been distributed to all frontline police personnel since its rollout in October 2024. Their use is now compulsory for police personnel involved in patrol duties.

An SOP on the use of the devices is said to have come into force in February last year, a breach of which is a disciplinary offence.

The bodycams worn by our police serve several purposes. It is designed to prevent misconduct, protect the men and women in blue from false accusations and, equally importantly, serve as court evidence.

The police are already reporting winning the fight against misconduct, corruption and abuse of power. This is because every interaction with the public is captured by the devices' eight hour-long recordings.

Did the two policemen wear what the cops call body-worn cameras? If they did, the camera recordings will do a better job than the 29-second video.

But still, investigations based on camera recordings need decisive action. A failure to act decisively risks normalising excessive force, even if unintended. If the SOP is adequate, then compliance is the issue, pointing to training, supervision and culture.

This is ultimately about institutional discipline, namely ensuring every officer understands not just what they can do, but what they should not. - NST