I agree with Moaz Nair’s “Stop demoralising the police”. Some members of the public are simply too quick on the draw with their public bashing – if I may call it as such – of the police especially after a fatal shooting.

To them, the police version of a shoot-out is the same old narrative – that the police gave chase, the suspects fired at the police and the police returned fire resulting in the suspects’ death.

Let me recall a fatal shooting incident more than 20 years ago. On July 12, 1999, the driver and passenger of a four-wheel drive vehicle were fatally shot by the police during a police operation in Kajang.

The police version of the fatal shooting – the so-called old narrative – was more or less as follows:

One of the police personnel had shown to the men his police identification and had directed the driver of the vehicle to stop, which was however ignored. According to the police, the driver was seen holding in his right hand a firearm which was aimed at the police team. Three shots were fired at the police. In defence, the police returned fire. The entire shooting occurred in quick succession, barely lasting five seconds and ending with the death of the men. From the vehicle, the police recovered three revolvers, empty shells and live bullets.

The families of the deceased men evidently had a different version of the incident. They claimed that no firearm was present in the vehicle of the deceased and no shots were fired at the police.

Claiming that the shooting of the men was unlawful and that the police therefore were liable for the fatal shooting of the men, they commenced a dependency claim for their losses.

The court heard oral testimonies from nine witnesses (four for the plaintiffs and five for the defendants). Based on the evidence before it, the court made a finding that there was “unwavering evidence” of the presence of firearms in the vehicle at the material time of the shooting. The court accepted the police version of the incident and the recovery of the firearms in the vehicle.

The court concluded that it was clear that the fatal shooting had occurred during a valid and legitimate police operation which was pursuant to a legitimate exercise of public duty by the police.

The above, being only one example, may not win over sceptics of the old police narratives. But it does show that the police version may stand the test of rigorous examination in the court of law.

The police or some within the force may not be trigger-happy after all but may have acted in pursuance of a legitimate exercise of public duty.

For sure, there have been cases where the police version was not accepted by the court. And for sure, the police have not been without intense scrutiny of the courts. Suffice here to reproduce what Lord President Tun Suffian, sitting in the Federal Court in the case of Lai Kim Hon & Ors v Public Prosecutor [1981] 1 MLJ 84 had said:

“The police force exists to protect the public from criminal elements, and are given wide powers of arrest, search, investigation and so on … The police are expected to do their duty energetically and efficiently, and on the whole they do that – as witness the comparative peace and tranquility that exist in the country. But one power the police do not have is power to assault and torture suspects in their custody. (The) public expect the police to exercise their power in a civilised and humane way. Those who exceed their powers should not expect to be protected by the law.”

More recently, the Court of Appeal in Nurasmira Maulat bt Abd Jaffar & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara & Ors [2015] 3 MLJ 105 in no uncertain terms said as follows:

“It is trite that the law does not permit the police officers to kill suspected and/or dreaded criminals by fake encounters. The police … cannot be allowed to roam trigger happy as this will be in violation of rule of law and the relevant authorities must seriously check such violation.”

So how do we not demoralise the police and at the same check abuse by some in the force? In DK Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Supreme Court of India gave a few pointers, namely:

• Transparency of action and accountability;
• Proper work culture, training and orientation of the police force consistent with basic human values;
• Restructuring of training methodology of the police force infused with basic human values and made sensitive to the constitutional ethos;
• Change in attitude and approach of the police personnel handling investigations so that they do not sacrifice basic human values.

Hafiz Hassan is an FMT reader.

The views expressed by the writer do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.