Time to broaden oversight across Malaysia's criminal justice system

Malaysia should consider establishing a National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice. Such a body would complement the Independent Police Conduct Commission by providing broader oversight, strategic guidance and policy evaluation across the criminal justice landscape, writes criminologist Datuk Dr P. Sundramoorthy.

Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ayob Khan Mydin Pitchay’s recent call for stronger external oversight of the Royal Malaysia Police through the Independent Police Conduct Commission (IPCC) represents one of the most significant developments in Malaysian policing reform in recent years.

His public acknowledgement that police misconduct should not be investigated solely through internal mechanisms reflects a fundamental shift in the culture of accountability within law enforcement.

More importantly, it recognises a principle long advocated by criminologists worldwide: legitimacy in policing depends not only on effectiveness in controlling crime, but also on public confidence that the police themselves are subject to scrutiny and the rule of law.

The traditional model of “police investigating police” has long attracted criticism because it creates a perception of institutional bias, regardless of whether investigations are conducted fairly.

Criminological research consistently demonstrates that public trust is shaped not only by outcomes but also by perceptions of procedural justice.

Citizens are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement when they believe officers are held accountable for misconduct and that complaints are assessed independently. The establishment of the IPCC was intended to address this legitimacy gap, and Ayob’s willingness to publicly encourage citizens to utilise the commission further strengthens its credibility as an independent oversight body.

His remarks are particularly significant in light of recent disclosures that more than 1,400 police personnel have faced disciplinary action, including dismissals, for offences ranging from corruption and criminal misconduct to drug-related violations and abuse of authority.

While these cases represent only a small proportion of the overall police force, their impact on public perception is substantial. As Ayob himself observed, a relatively small number of misconduct cases can tarnish the reputation of an entire organisation.

Criminologists have long noted that police corruption and abuse of power create a multiplier effect: they not only undermine confidence in policing but also weaken broader trust in government institutions and the criminal justice system.

However, the creation of external police oversight should not be viewed as an end in itself. The deeper issue concerns governance across the entire criminal justice system.

Policing does not operate in isolation. Crime-control outcomes are shaped by the interaction of multiple institutions, including the police, prosecution services, courts, prisons, Immigration authorities, anti-corruption agencies, Customs, rehabilitation services and community-based organisations. Weaknesses in any part of this system can undermine public safety, justice and institutional legitimacy.

For this reason, Malaysia should seriously consider establishing a National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice. Such a body would complement the IPCC by providing broader oversight, strategic guidance and policy evaluation across the criminal justice landscape.

While the IPCC focuses specifically on police conduct, a Criminal Justice Advisory Commission would examine systemic issues affecting crime prevention, law enforcement, sentencing, rehabilitation, victim protection and institutional accountability.

The rationale for such a commission is compelling. Contemporary criminology increasingly recognises that crime is a complex social phenomenon requiring coordinated responses across multiple agencies.

Many of Malaysia’s emerging challenges – including organised crime, cybercrime, corruption, financial fraud, drug trafficking, violent extremism, youth offending and recidivism – cannot be effectively addressed through policing alone. They require integrated strategies involving multiple criminal justice institutions as well as civil society stakeholders.

A Criminal Justice Advisory Commission could also perform several important functions.

First, it could provide independent evaluation of criminal justice legislation, policies and reforms. Too often, responses to crime are driven by political pressures, media attention or public anxieties rather than empirical evidence.

An advisory body comprising criminologists, legal scholars, retired judges, former enforcement officials and civil society representatives could help promote evidence-based policymaking and more effective reforms.

Second, it could identify structural weaknesses within the criminal justice system before they develop into major crises. Issues such as prison overcrowding, court backlogs, rehabilitation effectiveness, police resource allocation, prosecutorial discretion and emerging crime trends require continuous assessment rather than reactive intervention after problems have escalated.

Third, it could enhance transparency and accountability across criminal justice institutions. Public confidence is strengthened when citizens know that independent experts regularly review the performance of agencies and publish recommendations for improvement. Such oversight is particularly important in democratic societies where significant coercive powers are entrusted to state institutions.

Fourth, it could facilitate greater public engagement in criminal justice policy. Effective and democratic justice systems depend on meaningful dialogue between institutions and the communities they serve. An advisory commission could act as a bridge between government agencies, academics, victims’ groups, professional associations and the wider public, ensuring that diverse perspectives inform policy development.

Importantly, the establishment of both the IPCC and a broader Criminal Justice Advisory Commission would align Malaysia with international best practices in democratic governance. Across many mature democracies, independent oversight mechanisms have become integral components of criminal justice administration. Their purpose is not to weaken enforcement agencies but rather to strengthen their legitimacy, effectiveness and public trust.

From a criminological perspective, legitimacy remains the most valuable asset of any law enforcement institution. Police powers ultimately depend on public consent and cooperation.

When the public believe misconduct is investigated fairly and that institutions are transparent and accountable, compliance with the law increases and crime-control efforts become more effective.

Conversely, when accountability mechanisms are perceived as weak or compromised, public trust erodes and the effectiveness of criminal justice institutions diminishes.

Ayob’s endorsement of external scrutiny therefore represents more than an administrative reform; it signals an important recognition that accountability and effectiveness are mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory objectives.

The next logical step is to extend this philosophy beyond policing and towards the broader criminal justice system.

A robust IPCC, coupled with a National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice, would provide Malaysia with a comprehensive framework for improving governance, strengthening institutional legitimacy and enhancing public safety.

Ultimately, effective crime control in a democratic society depends not only on the ability to enforce the law, but also on the willingness of institutions to remain accountable to the people they serve.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.