Discretion equals arbitrariness. Arbitrariness is the enemy of justice, especially in public administration.

When asked about the dress code that denied a woman wearing shorts entry to the Kajang police station to make a police report, Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani claimed he was merely following the directive from the Chief Secretary of the Government Zuki Ali.

He said the directive asked heads of department to use their discretion to determine the standard of what constitutes decent dressing of those members of the public who had to go to government offices.

That itself should ring alarm bells to those interested in governance. How can it be left to the subjective judgment of civil servants to decide the dress code of the public?

One has decided that wearing shorts was taboo. Another could find singlets or slippers offensive. Whose moral values are they based on? It is entirely, dangerously arbitrary.

And is it any of their business anyway? I thought public service meant serving the public. And that would be regardless of what we wear. Perplexing.

One wonders what was the rationale behind the chief secretary’s directive. By the way, I was told that the directive, from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), was issued in December 2020 by the chief secretary.

Before that directive, there was no such dress code policy. We recall that law minister Azalina Othman Said had clarified in 2015 that there was no dress code for the public when dealing with government departments and agencies.

Muhyiddin Yassin was prime minister from March 2020 to August 2021. Hence, it was made under Muhyiddin’s watch.

Did the paternalistic posturing find Makcik Kiah’s bare knees disturbing? And oh, for more arbitrariness, let’s declare an Emergency, shall we?

At any rate, one can easily see that this whole dress code kerfuffle was brought about by vague instructions.

They do not benefit implementers who are clearly floundering. Unfettered discretion, ambiguously applied, leads to abuse of power.

But one could assert that enlightened heads could refuse to abide by such unfollowable arbitrariness, not just because of their murkiness but also because of the rule of law.

Of course, one could hardly expect the IGP to disobey the chief secretary’s directive. Our system of governance is based on a “yes sir, no sir” upbringing and a pecking order that guarantees pensions for life.

Hence, one could not be expected to question whether such a directive was even law? Was it within the ambit of the Police Act 1967, from which the IGP and the police’s powers and duties flowed?

The Police Act 1967 states that the police force shall be employed “for the maintenance of law and order, the preservation of the peace and security of Malaysia, the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, and the collection of security intelligence”.

Was it consonant with fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution?

Especially Article 8(1) which states that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”. And Article 5(1) which states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with the law.”

Did the heads of department take their oaths of appointment swearing to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law or to uphold the chief secretary or the prime minister? Perhaps they should check.

Could they not have questioned whether such a directive was lawful? Could they not do so now?

If the prime minister were to commit a crime, would it not be the duty of the police to apprehend him? Isn’t that governance?

In International Humanitarian Law, if a General were to order an officer to execute civilians, that officer would be under a duty to disobey that order because it would be unlawful, being a war crime. No officer who has been properly educated would follow such an order.

I guess it boils down to being aware of the law, really. Especially constitutional law. And the terms of reference of one’s office.

Speaking of which, the IGP also said that the directive relied on the fifth principle of the Rukun Negara viz “good behaviour and morality”. That directive, without the sanctity of law, attempted a sanctimonious justification of the dress code by quoting the Rukun Negara.

Well, I would like to remind us of the third principle of the Rukun Negara: “Upholding the Constitution” and the fourth principle “Rule of Law”. Be that as it may, the principles of the Rukun Negara, although revered, are not law.

The law is that you cannot deny anyone access to the police station to make police reports.

Section 107(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) states that “a police officer shall be duty bound to receive any information in relation to any offence committed anywhere in Malaysia”. That is the law.

Nowhere does it say that the police can prescribe a dress code for anyone wanting to make a police report. It is not the law.

The matter can be easily and swiftly solved. May I beseech the new Madani government to rescind the impugned chief secretary’s directive.

Our new esteemed Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim seems like a man unconcerned with dress codes. He wore slippers to his office on his first day of work. And he ditched the necktie.

I bet the good chief secretary has also dutifully done so. Now, how about ditching the unsustainable dress code directive?

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