The Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) rose to infamy recently with the slew of death-in-custody cases in Malaysia, once again rallying public outcry for the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department who is in charge of integrity and corruption, Paul Low, was quick to tout the EAIC as if it is the IPCMC we never had, reportedly saying that "we don't need another independent police oversight body" because the EAIC is actually the IPCMC.
This is a gross untruth , for the powers of the EAIC and the IPCMC, as mooted by the Royal Commission chaired by former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah (left), are different.
The truth is, the EAIC is more of a watered down version of the IPCMC, a "reform" legacy that is kindly attributed to former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, although by the time the legislation that enabled the IPCMC to be formed was gazetted, he had already stepped down.
No doubt both commissions were mooted for the same vision of curbing police misconduct and upholding their accountability to the people, Dzaiddin's version of it speaks more drastically of the need to keep our police force in check as the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) report described the police force as "brutal, inept and the most corrupt among the government departments".
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department who is in charge of integrity and corruption, Paul Low, was quick to tout the EAIC as if it is the IPCMC we never had, reportedly saying that "we don't need another independent police oversight body" because the EAIC is actually the IPCMC.
This is a gross untruth , for the powers of the EAIC and the IPCMC, as mooted by the Royal Commission chaired by former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah (left), are different. The truth is, the EAIC is more of a watered down version of the IPCMC, a "reform" legacy that is kindly attributed to former prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, although by the time the legislation that enabled the IPCMC to be formed was gazetted, he had already stepped down.
No doubt both commissions were mooted for the same vision of curbing police misconduct and upholding their accountability to the people, Dzaiddin's version of it speaks more drastically of the need to keep our police force in check as the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) report described the police force as "brutal, inept and the most corrupt among the government departments".
EAIC can probe only if complaint is made
As such, the RCI deemed it necessary for the IPCMC to have wider investigation powers, whereby it could initiate, or instruct the police to initiate, investigations into reports of misconduct by the police, regardless of whether a public complaint was made.
The EAIC does not enjoy this privilege as it is can only investigate cases of misconduct by law enforcement bodies after a public complaint is filed.
This therefore gives rise to the ironic situation that until the recent case of N Dhamendran, who was allegedly beaten to death in police custody, the EAIC had never investigated any case of death in custody nor police shootings, both known to be hallmarks of police brutality in Malaysia.
But before we jump on this and dance wildly to the all-familiar old tune that "the IPCMC must be established to redeem our once highly acclaimed police force!", we must realise that commissions by themselves are rarely the panacea for the misfits of a law enforcement body.
The Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was monitored by five oversight committees, and yet any palpable change to the MACC has remained as elusive as ever.
Like the MACC, the IPCMC has been routinely cited to be modelled upon a Hong Kong counterpart, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), largely due to the city-state's success in combatting corruption and setting up a modern and professional police force.
Here comes the fun fact: the EAIC is actually more similar to the IPCC rather than the IPCMC. The IPCC''s major function is to investigate complaints reported and monitor the action taken against the officers and/or force with respect to such complaints.
As such, the RCI deemed it necessary for the IPCMC to have wider investigation powers, whereby it could initiate, or instruct the police to initiate, investigations into reports of misconduct by the police, regardless of whether a public complaint was made.
The EAIC does not enjoy this privilege as it is can only investigate cases of misconduct by law enforcement bodies after a public complaint is filed.
This therefore gives rise to the ironic situation that until the recent case of N Dhamendran, who was allegedly beaten to death in police custody, the EAIC had never investigated any case of death in custody nor police shootings, both known to be hallmarks of police brutality in Malaysia.
But before we jump on this and dance wildly to the all-familiar old tune that "the IPCMC must be established to redeem our once highly acclaimed police force!", we must realise that commissions by themselves are rarely the panacea for the misfits of a law enforcement body.
The Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was monitored by five oversight committees, and yet any palpable change to the MACC has remained as elusive as ever.
Like the MACC, the IPCMC has been routinely cited to be modelled upon a Hong Kong counterpart, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), largely due to the city-state's success in combatting corruption and setting up a modern and professional police force.
Here comes the fun fact: the EAIC is actually more similar to the IPCC rather than the IPCMC. The IPCC''s major function is to investigate complaints reported and monitor the action taken against the officers and/or force with respect to such complaints.
IPCC does not have legal powers to act
However, the complaints made against the Hong Kong police force is first investigated by a branch within the police force, named the Complaints Against Police Force (Capo).
The IPCC will then review all the investigation reports of the Capo and is empowered to seek clarification from Capo or order a re-investigation of the case, if necessary.
Therefore, unlike the IPCMC, the IPCC does not contain arbitrary powers to initiate investigations against police conduct nor the legal prerogative to pursue action.
It serves more as an oversight and advisory council on the police, rather than a disciplinary body. Even the EAIC has wider powers of investigation as it can summon witnesses and seize evidence relevant to its investigation.
So why are we envious of the Hong Kong's IPCC when in fact we have a more pervasive and powerful one? Or rather, the question should be, how can we have an oversight body with more executive powers but still fails to achieve the police reforms everybody endears?
Like police brutality, it all boils down to the working culture. A quick research of the Hong Kong's IPCC would have revealed its fantastic housekeeping and culture of accountability.
The IPCC's annual reports, breakdown of number of cases investigated, nature of cases and follow-up actions taken on the cases are all available for public scrutiny. It would appear that the IPCC is not just at work but is also proud of the work it does. This is what integrity, transparency and most importantly, competency, are about.
As for our homegrown contender, the EAIC, the name does not even ring a bell until we had three deaths in custody cases in a short sprint of 11 days. There is no annual report available at the commission's website despite the EAIC already in its second year of inception.
Until a recent report by The Malaysian Insider, we would have no idea what the EAIC has been doing all along. How can a body that is established with the purpose of holding the police accountable to the people be effective if it itself is not accountable to the public?
So, in the end, the primary ineptness of the EAIC is not about its lack of investigation officers (it used to have six, but there is only one left now) or a bigger operating budget, as claimed by EAIC CEO Nor Afizah Hanum Mokhtar (right).
An RM7 million annual budget should be enough for a body of 22 employees (as counted through the directories of its official website) and six commissioners
The IPCC will then review all the investigation reports of the Capo and is empowered to seek clarification from Capo or order a re-investigation of the case, if necessary.
Therefore, unlike the IPCMC, the IPCC does not contain arbitrary powers to initiate investigations against police conduct nor the legal prerogative to pursue action.
It serves more as an oversight and advisory council on the police, rather than a disciplinary body. Even the EAIC has wider powers of investigation as it can summon witnesses and seize evidence relevant to its investigation.
So why are we envious of the Hong Kong's IPCC when in fact we have a more pervasive and powerful one? Or rather, the question should be, how can we have an oversight body with more executive powers but still fails to achieve the police reforms everybody endears?
Like police brutality, it all boils down to the working culture. A quick research of the Hong Kong's IPCC would have revealed its fantastic housekeeping and culture of accountability.
The IPCC's annual reports, breakdown of number of cases investigated, nature of cases and follow-up actions taken on the cases are all available for public scrutiny. It would appear that the IPCC is not just at work but is also proud of the work it does. This is what integrity, transparency and most importantly, competency, are about.
As for our homegrown contender, the EAIC, the name does not even ring a bell until we had three deaths in custody cases in a short sprint of 11 days. There is no annual report available at the commission's website despite the EAIC already in its second year of inception.
Until a recent report by The Malaysian Insider, we would have no idea what the EAIC has been doing all along. How can a body that is established with the purpose of holding the police accountable to the people be effective if it itself is not accountable to the public?
So, in the end, the primary ineptness of the EAIC is not about its lack of investigation officers (it used to have six, but there is only one left now) or a bigger operating budget, as claimed by EAIC CEO Nor Afizah Hanum Mokhtar (right).An RM7 million annual budget should be enough for a body of 22 employees (as counted through the directories of its official website) and six commissioners
It is only fair that we ask for results
Using a rather generous estimate, putting RM1.5 million a year each for wages and emoluments for the staff and commissioners, another RM1 million for the amenities/rental, another RM3 million would be left in the operating budget of the EAIC each year.
And by using this estimate, the officers of the EAIC are already pretty well paid. It is therefore only fair that we ask for results.
Out of the 124 complaints investigated by the EAIC, only one resulted in disciplinary action being recommended against a police officer, and with no follow-up information available on that recommendation.
Based on these results, one would have assumed a stellar performance by our police force - but the Malaysian public does know better. Detachment from reality is a dish constantly served in Malaysia.
There is no point in inflating the EAIC in terms of manpower and budget if, after two years of operation, tangible results of any sign of success still remain in the air.
More does not mean more in efficiency, for sometimes less is more, but the working and management culture of our civil service does not seem to get that.
If the same complacency and incompetence is transposed to the IPCMC, if we ever have one, there is no guarantee that the police watchdog we clamour for will be a viscous and biting Rottweiler.
It will be a Chihuahua instead. And by that time, somebody would proudly claim that this IPCMC is actually the EAIC.
And by using this estimate, the officers of the EAIC are already pretty well paid. It is therefore only fair that we ask for results.
Out of the 124 complaints investigated by the EAIC, only one resulted in disciplinary action being recommended against a police officer, and with no follow-up information available on that recommendation.
Based on these results, one would have assumed a stellar performance by our police force - but the Malaysian public does know better. Detachment from reality is a dish constantly served in Malaysia.
There is no point in inflating the EAIC in terms of manpower and budget if, after two years of operation, tangible results of any sign of success still remain in the air.
More does not mean more in efficiency, for sometimes less is more, but the working and management culture of our civil service does not seem to get that.
If the same complacency and incompetence is transposed to the IPCMC, if we ever have one, there is no guarantee that the police watchdog we clamour for will be a viscous and biting Rottweiler.
It will be a Chihuahua instead. And by that time, somebody would proudly claim that this IPCMC is actually the EAIC.
NICHOLAS CHAN is a research analyst with Penang Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.