The parliamentary caucus on human rights and good governance is holding three public hearings in search of input for long-term solutions to the upward spiral in crime rates in urban areas.

This is the third national process after the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police and subsequent Royal Commission on body search of arrested and detained Persons.

The new initiative, in my opinion, is another sign of loss of public confidence in the police force and policing system, and the outcome of the executive's failure to reform and improve the country's most important public service.

On March 9, a public poll by TV3's Buletin Utama revealed that 81 percent of the respondents agreed that public confidence in police integrity is still low. An earlier study by Transparency International Malaysia revealed that about 55.7 percent of individual respondents and 59 percent of corporate respondents named the police force as the agency with the lowest level of integrity and transparency. This indicates serious concern with community-based policing.

Last month, the diminishing public confidence was again displayed a group of Johor Bahru residents who demonstrated in front of the Johor Menteri Besar's residence. They demanded action to reduce the crime rate and better policing services. Ironically, the event was disrupted by the police who arrested and remanded two Suaram activists for distributing leaflets.

This highlighted three questions - who are the police accountable to; whose interests do they promote; and do they really serve the public interest?

The police response to calls for reform has been superficial and cosmetic in nature - taking the form of campaigns like Saya Anti Rasuah and Kempen mesra dan senyum bersama PDRM with its Mesra & Senyum badge.

Creating a change of image without substantive reforms is a shortsighted move intended to generate a 'feel good' environment and to improve ratings for the police force. This hasn't worked, going by the findings of the two surveys cited.

Every day, police personnel are on the front-line, dealing with the public. The police must take note that the public is always watching them. Even if negative information about the police is not available through the mainstream media, the police must remember that there are other sources today - Internet news sites and blogs.

Accountability issues

Crucial to the question of reform is accountability. Who are the police accountable to and is there an accountability mechanism to scrutinise what the police do or don't do. The proposed Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission would deal with complaints and improve the professionalism of the force, but its implementation has been unaccountably delayed.

Until then, the question remains if the police feel accountable to society or only to political powers and the executive. Malaysia's police force is widely seen as being used primarily in the interests of the ruling political coalition, in return for protection from the executive.

This is due to the very composition of the police force, a centralised agency unlike in Britain and the US where they answer to an elected local council and are known as the citizens' police.

The centralised system restrains the community in accessing information and correcting the police force. Individuals only have the option of complaining to the Internal Affairs Department of the police force and other authorities. They do not have the power to decide how the police force should operate and there is limited opportunity for dialogue with the police.

In a decentralised police system, for example in the US, the mayor of every city has jurisdiction over the police including powers to hire and fire the chief. This ensures accountability to the local community.

Placing the police force under an elected local council would also allow the police force independence from political leaders who are motivated by different priorities. The council would bring all players together, manage relationships, help formulate the community strategy and scrutinise police conduct and performance.

Locally accountable policing is more likely to command the confidence of the community and enable precise reform under the wider issue of local government
reform. The United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials clearly states that the police are accountable to the people they serve. People approach the police with issues of concern to live in a safe environment. Obviously, these contacts can only be meaningful when the public has trust in the police agency as a whole and are confident in what they are doing.

A direct and good public-police relationship is crucial for a well-functioning police agency. And this trust and confidence has to be earned in the first place by the police force being made accountable to the people.

Come August, Malaysia will move into its 50th year as a nation and it is timely for the old PDRM to be reformed and be made into a real force that will serve
the public. This by the force being made democratically accountable to the very people who pay their salaries. The tax payers.

In this regard, it is also time for the local government elections to be brought back and the police force be de-centralised.

K SHAN is a human rights activist attached to various organisations working with refugees.