The Illegitimate Use Of Violence


By Zairil Khir Johari

In Weberian philosophy, a nation-state is defined by, inter alia, its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This is to say that the state retains all rights to the use of force through its legitimised instruments, i.e. the police and military. At the same time, the state, especially a democratic one, is also entrusted to to exercise this right in a manner that upholds the spirit of justice and human liberty.

However, because philosophy has no place in our national education, and perhaps because any Malay translation of Max Weber’s writings would probably have been acquired from Google Translate (as was the case with the translation of Teoh Beng Hock’s ‘suicide note’), it is understandable that those running our country today would fail to understand the intended implications of his seminal thesis.

As comprehensive as the online translator may be, the term ‘legitimate’ has appeared to have escaped the notice of the authorities, resulting in a situation in which state-sponsored violence is meted out in arbitrary fashion, with no regard whatsoever to the principles of justice.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the actions of the Royal Malaysian Police, a law enforcement agency empowered by the state to use force in the preservation of peace and public order.

Yet if we were to take last weekend’s water rally as an example, we have the complete opposite occurring:

Riot police fired tear gas and used water cannons on at least 1,000 protesters near the KL Railway Station as they marched to the Istana Negara today to rally against a potential bailout of Selangor water utility companies. Hundreds of protestors sought refuge at the Railway Station to avoid the police action after they started their march from the National Mosque.

Riot police later turned the water cannons on those who had gone back to the National Mosque despite organisers announcing an end to the rally shortly before 3pm.

According to witnesses, police used tear gas and water cannons on the crowd after allowing Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and several state exco members to proceed to the Istana Negara.

In other words, the protest had been incident-free until the police started harassing the people. This is likely to be construed as ironic to every rational being in the free world, but in Malaysia it is the country’s very own police force that was responsible for the injudicious use of violence to disrupt a hitherto peaceful and orderly rally that had been organised to voice the legitimate concerns of the people!

Perhaps the Inspector-General of Police should rely less on Google Translate and instead attempt to reeducate himself and the rest of his officers on the basic principles of justice, human rights and the rule of law that are supposed to be upheld and defended (and not violated and ignored) by the police.

The record of abuse and indiscriminate violence by the police in this country is abhorrent to say the least, and it is only getting worse as instances of extra-judicial fatalities are on the incline:

  • As of last year, there have been 1,535 recorded deaths in custody.
  • The number of fatal shootings by the police has increased 17-fold from 5 in 2001 to 88 in 2009!
  • The above trend is not circumstantial. In 2000 there were 9 fatal shootings, and in 2008 there were 82. Evidence points to an unequivocal rise in police shootings.

In recent times, we have seen the death in custody case of S Kugan, the mowing down of 15-year-old Aminul Rasyid, the gangland-style execution of three youths suspected of robbery, and many more. In most of these cases, the police escape by pleading self-defence, notwithstanding the fact that many of those shot were neither armed nor in a position to attack. Yet in 1Malaysia, reason and logic are not prerequisites for a judicial decision, especially when the state stands in defence.

In the case of Teoh Beng Hock, the young political aide who ‘fell to his death’ while being held for interrogation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), we are told that it could have been suicide, and that perhaps he strangled himself prior to leaping. (I re-iterate: 1Malaysian justice requires neither reason nor logic.)

To make matters worse, the arbitrary application of (in)justice is not merely confined to the police force, but in fact also appears to be abetted by other institutions of state, such as the office of the Attorney-General, the judiciary and the MACC.

When all is said and done, these problems are in actuality symptoms of a superiority complex that has rooted itself deep into the psyche of the Malaysian government. The fact is that until and unless a total reform of perspective occurs, in which those in power come to the conscientious realisation that democratic governance requires conformity to the principles of law, justice and human rights, we will never be rid this nightmare.

Change must, and will occur. If those in power refuse it, it will be served unto them.

  1. #1 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 - 11:58 am

    When Zairil Khir Johari discusses and analyses “state’s use of force through its legitimised instruments, i.e. the police and military, whether it’s too violent to be legitimate in the spirit of justice and human liberty, he must be careful not to lump together in one package two different contexts & situations – (1) last weekend’s water rally with riot olice firing tear gas and using water cannons in the name of preservation of public order and (2) 1,535 recorded deaths in custody including A Kugan & TBH, 17 fold increase of fatal shootings by the police or extra judicial execution if any etc .

    (1) & (2) are distinctly different contexts and situtation with their own justifications or lack thereof.

    Whilst not necessarily defending police action in last weekend’s water rally per (1), police action in case of rallies and demonstration should be evaluated on case to case basis depending on the circumstances prevailing then. In the water rally case, there are other questions involving its intrinsic merits and whether it is a good idea to bring up this tussel to and involve the Istana, which is supposed to be above politics, than (say) Putrajaya.

    Whereas (2) is different ball game almost 99.99% indefensible and permitting little scope for competing justifications.

    Certainly, in terms of take on what the police did on Sunday, fuming motorists in KL caught in massive jams, with their engines over heating may not share the same prspective/take as others discoursing on the subject whilst sipping coffee ensconced in the comfort of their chair before their desktop or Note book.

  2. #2 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 - 12:41 pm

    I believe the police had received order from their “political master” to fire tear gas and use water cannons on the peaceful protestors.

    In this country the police protect the ruling regime and not the people.

  3. #3 by Sunshine1 on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 - 2:53 pm

    Just vote OUT bn.
    Get more voters 4 PR.
    Its NOW or NEVER

  4. #4 by dagen on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 - 4:03 pm

    A wrong is a wrong. It can never be legitimised! Any effort to legitimise a wrong should be thrown out by the court. Hah. There lies the problem. The courts in jibbyland do not do that.

    So kick umno out in GE13.

  5. #5 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 - 9:10 pm

    Aiyah, mata-mata said they acted gently 2 d protestors, banyak gave face oredi loh

You must be logged in to post a comment.