A slap on the wrist is not enough for errant cops

 

In the wee hours of Aug 9, Roslei Kamisan, 61, was arrested at his home in Lenggeng, Negeri Sembilan and brought across state lines to Kuala Muda, Kedah for questioning.

Kuala Muda district police chief, ACP Adzli Abu Shah said the man was detained for investigations under Section 504 of the Penal Code, Section 15 of the Minor Offences Act, and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.

What offence specifically did Roslei, an ex-serviceman, commit? All he did was post a video in which he criticised, ridiculed and derided Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor and called him “stupid” for having made a crude joke on the availability of a container which would serve as a temporary morgue.

The video, which had gone viral, shows Roslei repeatedly questioned the Kedah menteri besar’s intelligence, and noted that Sanusi previously blew his top when a whistleblower outed him for going on a test drive during the Covid-19 lockdown.

His arrest resulted in an outpouring of public anger and accusations of police of high-handedness and abuse of the law. Through his solicitors, Roslei sent a letter of demand to Adzli for making a defamatory statement that the former was also sought for a previous criminal offence.

But is that the end of the matter? Public officers, especially those elected to office are subject to scrutiny by the public. Often, they have been accused of incompetence, insolence and even foolishness. Their actions, and in some cases inaction, always compels right-minded citizens to voice out their displeasure with even harsher words.

Two years ago, two Nepali guards spent Deepavali in the lock-up because of an over-zealous police officer who was acting on a complaint from a senior officer about his house being broken into. I then wrote: "Eight nights in the lock-up for an offence they had nothing to do with is unjustifiable. They were neither involved in the burglary nor committed any immigration offence. The police will have a lot of explaining to do.”

The police did explain – internal department action would be taken against the officer involved. Was that all? What about two innocent people deprived of their liberty for eight days? It was unlawful detention, to say the least.

Now, back to Roslei’s case. Firstly, no offence was committed despite the police throwing him under the bus by investigating him for offences under three different pieces of legislation.

Secondly, was the offence so serious that the police travelled more than 400km (and crossed state lines) to make an arrest? Couldn’t someone from the Lenggeng police station drop by his house to record a statement?

Finally, if indeed he had committed an offence as serious as “intentionally insulted and provoked people to break the public peace”, he would not have been released after being questioned by the police. (Section 504 is related to intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace which carries a punishment of up to two years imprisonment, or a fine, or both.)

Toothless tiger?

So, what explanation can Adli offer for what is perceived as misusing his authority? He is not obliged to tell us, but the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) can compel him to explain himself.

The EAIC is supposed to oversee the disciplinary conduct of all enforcement officers but while it has the power to conduct investigations, it can only recommend actions to be taken by the Police Force Commission and not enforce those actions themselves.

Last year, the EAIC received 27 roadblock-related complaints from members of the public last year, most of which were police personnel on duty raising their voices when asking for documents or making enquiries.

Its then chairman Mahmood Adam appeared apologetic when he explained: “They (personnel on duty) may have raised their voice because they were wearing face masks or (to counter) the loud noise coming from vehicles passing through the roadblock.”

But this is not a matter of an exchange of a few words between a motorist and a police officer. It is an issue which questions the conduct and integrity of our police officers and the (mis)use of their power against the common man.

Something more drastic can be expected from the new set of commissioners headed by former chief secretary to the government Mohd Sidek Hassan.

The EAIC can act on its own volition to carry out an inquiry. Section 27 of the EAIC Act states that “the Commission may commence an investigation in respect of a misconduct it becomes aware of on its own initiative only if the Commission is satisfied that the matter is of significant interest to the public or that it is in the public interest to do so.”

Members of the commission include retired judges, and it would be right to assume that they would certainly view this issue as of significant interest to the public and it is in the public interest too.

The EAIC is seen by critics as a toothless tiger and a “showpiece” to appease those clamouring for the establishment of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) which was mooted by former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi more than 10 years ago.

Detractors have pointed out that the EAIC has done little about complaints of police misconduct, especially the numerous reports of custodial deaths. Perhaps an inquiry into the conduct of the Kuala Muda police will be a starting point to dispel such notions. - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN says errant enforcement officers are being let off with promises of “internal disciplinary action”, and when courts award substantial damages, they are paid with taxpayers’ money because of the principle of vicarious liability. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.