By Ravinder Singh
Is Selangor chief police officer Abdul Samah Mat right in defending the non-suspension of some North Klang police officers suspected of connection with the death in custody of S Balamurugan?
The reason he gives is: “We are still investigating (them). We can’t punish a person before we complete the investigation to determine if there was any wrongdoing.”
Why are members of the public put in lock-ups (remanded) before investigations are completed and they are found guilty? Are they not being punished before they are found guilty?
Recently, the chairman of Mara was suspended before he was found guilty. Why?
Suspension of government servants suspected of some serious wrongdoing is a procedure provided for, just like suspension of employees in the private sector. Suspension is not a pronouncement of guilt, as the public is being made to believe by Abdul Samah.
Suspension is for the purpose of preventing them from tampering with documents under their control that may implicate them, or to prevent them from intimidating their work colleagues from giving evidence against them, or doing any other acts that could interfere with a proper investigation.
When employees, government or private sector, are suspended pending internal enquiries, they are on half salary. If cleared, the suspension is revoked and they are back at their jobs. The half salary that was deducted is paid back in full. So there is neither loss of job, loss of salary, or even loss of face.
If evidence is found of wrongdoing, further action is proceeded with. This may be internal disciplinary action such as demotion, suspension of salary increment, or change of job within the organisation. If criminal liability is found, then of course the case should be prosecuted in court.
By not suspending the police officers implicated, the police are giving face to them and, in a subtle way, encouraging the same treatment of detainees to go on.
The Police Act 1967 does provide for interdiction of police officers under investigation. The relevant section is 78 and is reproduced below:
Interdiction from duty
“78 (1) If it deems necessary in the public interest that a police officer should cease to exercise the powers and functions of his office instantly, the Disciplinary Authority may interdict from duty such police officer, pending any enquiry into the conduct of such police officer under this Act or of any Police Regulations made thereunder or of any regulation or order applicable to other officers of corresponding status in the public service.
“(2) The powers, privileges and benefits vested in a police officer interdicted under subsection (1) shall during his interdiction be in abeyance:
“Provided that such police officer shall continue to be subject to the same authority and discipline as if he had not been interdicted and he shall not by reason only of such interdiction cease to be a police officer.
“(3) During any period in which a police officer is under interdiction awaiting trial or disciplinary proceeding resulting in a conviction or a finding of guilt he shall receive one half of his pay and allowances, save that rent allowances shall be paid in full. No trade pay shall accrue during any period of interdiction:
“Provided that the Disciplinary Authority may, in its discretion, authorize the payment of such higher proportion of pay and allowances as it shall think fit.”
The minister of home affairs must explain why it is not in the public interest to suspend (or interdict) police officers under investigation for custodial deaths.
Ravinder Singh is an FMT reader.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.