opinion Following Monday's release of the report of the National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) on the Kesas Highway and Jalan Kebun incidents late last year, the Royal Malaysian Police has again come into public limelight and entered into public debates.

In normal societies where liberal and social democracies prevail, public scrutiny of the police, and the police's own public accountability are normal, acceptable and even encouraged.

After all, it is ultimately the tax-paying citizen who supports the police force financially and gives it the job. The pension funds for retired police personnel also come from the taxpayers.

Thus, although the police are not directly accountable to the voters, they should always bear in mind that they are funded by the people who elect members of parliament, one of whom would be appointed as the Minister of Home Affairs and be charged with the duty and responsibility of overseeing the police force and its performance, management, operations and conduct.

That is why, every year, the Parliament has to debate the budget of the police under the allocation and expenditure of the Home Ministry. Besides the economic and financial aspect of it, the parliamentary debate serves to remind the police that the people are its real boss, not the other way around.

However, charged with the duties and responsibility of maintaining public peace and order, the police sometimes has to do things that some people do not intuitively like. That is normal as long as the forces used are defensive in nature and reasonable.

Much zeal

All modern security laws in modern societies provide for the reasonable use of force by the police. The people must appreciate the efforts of the police to combat crime, and always remember to salute the brave ones.

The people, as the boss, should also be more concerned with the working conditions of the police, especially those stationed in urban centers where the high crime rate and cost of living are a mounting psychological pressure for individual police constables.

The government and opposition parties should attempt to reach a bipartisan consensus to improve the well-being and welfare of the police force.

However, the police should understand that while most of the people are appreciative of their efforts and sacrifice in combating crimes and maintaining public order, many are attempting to understand what is the exact meaning and precise definition of the 'internal security' they have been enforcing with so much zeal in recent years.

Admittedly, there is a need for every country to enforce internal security but in mature and liberal democracies, the definitions, concepts and notions of internal security are made clear, coherent and consistent after public and democratic discourses.

This is to avoid confusions, uncertainties, vagueness and capricious or rash actions which could result in public distrust, decreasing credibility and even popular contempt and hatred for the police. No socially responsible citizen of any country would like to see that happen to their police force.

Open mind

The police must learn and understand modern social psychology so as to appreciate the human propensity to distrust loquacious politicians repeated 'cautions' to them of all kinds of threats. Sooner or later, threats, real or imagined, would be treated as mere bluffs.

This would be very dangerous indeed for the police who are really concerned with genuine threats to internal security, like the real terrorists.

Of course, a responsible and professional police force should not imitate or emulate loquacious politicians and mainstream journalists close to them whom, more often not, use imagined or contrived 'threats' to frighten voters to support them as 'protectors', or to seek support from Western powers and public opinions.

A responsible and professional police force must maintain its credibility at all cost so as to not jeopardise its effectiveness in confronting real threats.

The police should strive to distinguish and differentiate insurgency from the normal activities of opposition parties, like PAS, DAP, Keadilan and PRM whose existence is guaranteed and recognised under the Federal Constitution and the Societies Act.

It should also always bear in mind that fairness and reciprocity are the two paramount principles governing every decision and action.

'Groupthink' danger

Above all, a good police force, like good politicians and journalists, must be willing and capable of taking criticisms with an open heart and mind.

As concrete measures for self-improvement, the police should perhaps consider regularly inviting experts in security and threats assessment, prominent lawyers, human rights activists, mainstream as well as alternative media journalists, and their own counterparts from overseas to attend dialogue sessions to obtain feedback and generate new ideas.

More open and frank dialogues serve to avoid the psychological pitfall of 'groupthink' in the decision-making process.

JAMES WONG WING ON, chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia, is a former Member of Parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.