What to do with the police thing? The silence of the government and at least two of the institutions of democracy, Suhakam and the Bar Council on this is disquieting.

The defacto law minister, Rais Yatim has not announced any plans on this. Perhaps Rais Yatim and the Home Minister have been pre-occupied with the Umno general assembly. Musa Hitam of Suhakam appears resigned that Suhakam has no powers once the police take a case to court ("[#1]Police may take cases away from rights commission[/#]", May 4). The Bar Council in announcing its three additional committees on May 18 (Family Law, Environment Law and Gender Issues) in response to public needs did not seem to have included the police on its agenda.

The public outcry against police violence, deaths and torture in custody, police shootings and policing generally, deserve serious attention. The fact that events like Black 14 were allegedly coordinated by KeADILan supporters should not affect in any manner the seriousness of the complaint.

There is the argument that in a situation where patronage of the government is perceived to be the only possible way to bring about change, many concerned Malaysians do not want to be "unnecessarily" linked to those politically and visibly opposed to the government. There is a jeopardy in these links as the government would not be open to ideas for change or reform as these proposals would be "tainted by politics". (Read hostility to anything from the opposition).

Those who believe in this mode of operation would suggest that we do it quietly, develop the ideas and let a minister or people in government present it as their own. But the logic of this belief would mean that for citizens to successfully propose change from the outside, we must be depoliticised and free of ideologies, or be members of the BN.

As concerned citizens, we should always be open to any mode of bringing about desired change. But whatever the strategy adopted, we must always be vigilant and critical of our own processes as participants who shape the polity. In a polity in which actors with unequal power co-exist, participation may be viewed in a context of social domination.

The goal of the dominant actors is to reproduce the conditions which make social domination possible. The doing-it-quietly mode becomes one mechanism to legitimise power of the state as the dominant actor and a means of maintaining and reinforcing relationships of domination. The system of patronage impedes power by consensus and makes the rights of citizens meaningless. There are no rights, only favours; there are no obligations, only loyalties.

A just government responds to public opinion, including opinions of political parties. The adverse public opinion on police and policing methods shows the decreased legitimacy of a powerful institution, an arm of the Executive.

Ignoring public opinion would only instill in the long term a culture of disbelief in the institutions of the state (Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary). The culture of disbelief has been expressed historically in the reluctance of the people to involve themselves in institutional mechanisms for participation, including voting. Involvement may be manifested in protests and social conflicts, in militant and active rejection.

Public opinion as participation also engenders the construction and rebuilding of the consensus. If heeded.

It is unfortunate that the concise terms of reference of the commission of inquiry on Anwar's black eye did not support a recommendation of reviewing policing methods and practices of the use of force. I do not remember if there has been any research done to study and analyse police violence since Merdeka.

There are numerous studies of this nature in the commonwealth. A single book on studies of police violence for example can be complete in its instruction. It should discuss situational analyses (fair fight, effective policing, informal punishment, act of war, police riot), occupational analyses (police culture, operational codes, police-public relations) and in the light of checks and balances, issues of police professionalism, discipline, citizens complaints procedure, administrative reviews and accountability.

As it is we have no information on even the standards used for policing.

The UN has at least two specific instruments, which can be instructive: the 1984 Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1977 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

The UN Committee on Crime Prevention and Control has also developed the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. The General Assembly adopted this international Code of ethics for police and related law enforcement agencies on Dec 17, 1979. (Resolution 34/169).

While the General Assembly stressed the important task that the law enforcement officials were performing, it also noted the potential for abuse that the discharge of their duties entailed. The Code's underlying premise is that those who exercise police power are to respect and to protect human dignity and to uphold the human rights of all persons.

The Committee on Crime Prevention and Control in furtherance of their mandate, drew up Guidelines for the Effective Implementation of the 1979 Code (adopted on May 24, 1989 by the Economic and Social Council or Ecosoc in its resolution 1989/61). In 1990 the General Assembly adopted the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. (Resolution 45/166).

The 1990 Basic Principles were formulated under article 3 of the 1979 Code. They establish special guidelines and standards for policing assemblies and persons in custody and detention. Special consideration is given on ethical issues, responses by law enforcement officials in proportion to the seriousness of the offence, qualification and training, counseling, effective reporting and review procedures.

Suhakam has a mandate on human rights education. Perhaps government and law enforcement agencies, the Legal Service Commission and even the office of the Deputy Public Prosecutor would benefit from this mandate.



SALBIAH AHMAD is a lawyer and also with a legal resource group Sumberdaya Guaman Rakyat.