Malaysian police wrongfully used excessive force - says HR Commission

Malaysian police found 'guilty' of using excessive force - that was the decision of the 'often conservative' Malaysian Human Rights Commission.

A Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) inquiry panel has found that the police used excessive force during the Bandar Mahkota Cheras (BMC) fracas on May 27 last year.

The panel was of the opinion that there was excessive use of force by the police and the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel on 23-year-old mechanic Chang Jiun Haur (left) and his friend, Chan Siew Meng.

Chang had claimed that he was assaulted for no reason by FRU and other police personnel that night. He had claimed that the police stopped his car and assaulted him and three passengers.

The Suhakam panel today agreed with Chang, saying that the excessive use of force had violated the safety and security of the four victims.

However, the panel said that it was unable to identify the law enforcement personnel responsible for the violation due to "contradicting and unclear evidence".

The panel recommended that:

• Measures be taken to ensure restraint on use of force; that force is exercised gradually; and that any injury is reported and treated;

• That the police and FRU require all their personnel to display their names and badge numbers visibly during field operations; and

• Since excessive force was used, that the police conduct their own investigation to ascertain which personnel was responsible... and to recommend to the public prosecutor to take necessary action. - Malaysiakini, 7/1/2008 - Suhakam: Cops guilty of excessive force

But, who did it is the problem?

In many cases, police violence many a times are committed by police officers not wearing police uniforms.

Police personnel should at all times be wearing police uniform - save for very exceptional situations when they are involved in undercover police investigations. When it comes to cases where persons are exercising their right to assemble peacefully - police should be fully uniformed. Even, if they have to wear balaclavas - there must be some number or identification marking on their attire to enable identification of the individual later on.

CCTV recordings should always be made in police actions - so that in the event of any rights violation (or crime), very easily we may be able to identify the individuals responsible.

In this case, there were only so many police personnel involved - so I wonder why SUHAKAM could not manage to identify these HR violators.

Will the police investigate as recommended by the police? Will the true perpetrators of 'excessive force' be identified, charged, tried and convicted? I am sure the other police involved on that day knows who did what - but are just unwilling to 'rat out' their police brethren. That is why we need that Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) - which 2 Royal Commissions had not only recommended but also had worked out the draft Bill. Why don't they just table that Draft Bill and make it law?

What about the victims - should they not be compensated? It would have been best if SUHAKAM did it immediately - for now, they may have to file some civil suit and hope that justice will not be thwarted at the end of the day by reason of some 'technical/procedural failures', some unfair legal protection accorded to the police and the government, some corrupt judicial officer/judge,....