In the final of a three-part interview, Anuar Zainal Abidin, former chief judge of Malaya and former Suhakam commissioner, tells how he stepped on the former premier's toes.

Malaysiakini: After you retired from the judiciary, you were appointed human rights commissioner, but it lasted only for one term. Do you think things have changed since you left Suhakam?

Anuar: Yes.

How has it changed?

Suhakam has no power of enforcement. This is one of the disadvantages of Suhakam. But nevertheless, we (the commissioners) can overcome it by being more vociferous. And that's what we did. If we keep quiet, we will not be functioning fully. But now, I see Suhakam's attitude is this: since we cannot enforce, therefore we do not have to do anything. I disagree.

It's true we cannot enforce, but we can still shout. Shouting is almost the same as enforcement. That was the only way I can enforce my finding effectively. What we want is effectiveness. I was told that since the open inquiry (on police brutality against reformasi demonstrators), the police have improved a lot. I learnt from the detainee that there has been less harassment and assaults. You don't need enforcement power to be effective. The effectiveness can be achieved in an indirect manner. So we should not be too worried about enforcement.

In fact, I think without enforcement is better. I don't have to dirty my hands. Honestly, if I have enforcement, I would have to set up a court and I got to prosecute. But here, all I have to do is tell you who's wrong. Of course, my findings are backed by facts. So the public will be able to make a stand.

Are you saying that the current Suhakam team is using its 'no enforcement power' as an excuse not to do anything?

Yes, I think so. No enforcement power does not mean we can only write our judgment, recommendations and pass them on to the government authorities. We have the right to make our findings known to the world. That is the advantage. Otherwise, what's the point of giving advice where it is likely to be ignored? But if I shout, they would probably think twice before doing anything. We send our reports yearly (to Parliament), I don't think anyone had even bothered reading it.

You were among the first batch of commissioners, but the government did not extend your term.

That was because of the Kesas Highway public inquiry. They (the government) did not like the idea of us making our findings public. They just want us to prepare the decision and pass it on quietly. (Prime Minister Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad) did not like me. He had said that the inquiry had followed western standards. Then I replied, stating that I was not following the western (standards) - maybe this was my mistake.

How did Mahathir express that?

He said it to the newspapers. He was protecting the police. So when I was asked for comments from the press, I told them: 'No, I am not following the western standard'. And the next day, he repeated his allegation to the press some more but after that I chose to keep quiet.

I feel that you don't have to follow western standards to decide whether kicking a person is wrong or right. In this case, one of the incidents (involved) the police kicking a chap... what had happened was this chap had been arrested (and he) was escorted by three policemen to the (police) van. He was escorted by three, one in front, one at the back and on his left. He was already in tears because of the (tear) gas.

Now, these was all shown in video. As he was walking, the policeman in front turned around and kicked him in the middle. That was a fact, and I have to decide whether that act was right or wrong. I said it was wrong and he (Mahathir) accused me of following Western standards. So macam mana nak jawab? (How to answer that?). I almost said that as a Muslim, you should know that it is wrong, very wrong.

What do you think of the proposal to set up IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission)?

I don't think we should have any police commission. Too many - because the police have their own disciplinary body to look after the problem. What is wrong here is that the body (existing disciplinary body) is weak. If we have the (independent) police commission, that would mean we will be replacing the police's own disciplinary body. We would be replacing it with somebody who is higher with authority than the police.

And here, we are talking about the wrongdoings (professional misconduct)... so now their disciplinary body is not functioning. All we need to do now is to make that body function. Why replace it?

The argument would be that you can't expect the police to punish their own people?

I don't agree with the argument. The system had been in the police force for years. One of the problems among the force is corruption. (The disciplinary body) cannot conduct investigations because there is no whistleblower. The body cannot be expected to go down to the ground and nab those who are corrupt. It should be the ACA (Anti-Corruption Agency) that should be doing it. It has the power to check on that.

I believe we should strengthen or re-organise that (disciplinary) body. The police are willing to do that. At the moment, they feel hurt because they asked what is wrong with our own body. If it is weak, they the force should be given the chance to rebuild it. So for that reason I don't think IPCMC should be set up.

But we not heard of any investigations have of police misconduct by that internal disciplinary body...

Then we need to find out from them why this is not happening. Is it because they don't want to, or because there had been no complaints? If it's corruption, the turf belongs to the ACA. But I would disagree on the contention that they have done nothing. I think there are a lot of disciplinary actions taken. During my time, I have heard reports on actions being taken against police officers. However, the reports were not made public.

But here, we are not only talking about corruption. There are also allegations of police brutality...

But they have improved since the open inquiry - which I had said earlier to be an effective means (of curbing such incidences). Actually, I am quite surprised to hear that such brutality was repeated by the police recently in a demonstration ...

That would be the Bloody Sunday incident at KLCC. Suhakam has since said that there was insufficient evidence to start a public inquiry on that. Should they wait for more evidence or start a public inquiry?

I think they should start a public inquiry. We did it (with the Kesas Highway inquiry). There is no reason why they cannot start now.

What I'm puzzled now is why are the commissioners conducting death inquiries. I don't know whether they realise that death inquiries are under the jurisdiction of a magistrate. Suhakam has no power to conduct a death inquiry. They should read the CPC (Criminal Procedure Code). It is clear that such inquiries can (only)be done by the magistrates.

Part 1

Ex-chief judge: Reopen probe on 'poison-pen' letter
Q&A: Islamic influence in judiciary worrying

Part 2

Gopal deserves Federal Court promotion
Q&A: 'I disagree with Eusoff Chin'