POLICE CODE OF ETHICS

ACP Ku Chin Wah

INTRODUCTION The Royal Malaysia Police for the past few years has been subjected to increasing public scrutiny due to some incidents that captured the nations attention. The question being asked is Can the police be trusted to police themselves? The public are now clamouring for ethical training for police personnel. This article looks into the subject of Police Code of Ethics and discusses issues related to its principles, formulation, perceptions and the problem of putting ethics into practice. Code of Ethics of a particular organization is a professional standard of conduct or moral that is generally agreed upon and recognized by its members that guides the organization in providing its services. Standard means a rule, principle or ideal. Different professional groups have different ethics, although some may have equivalent standards, but they are still different. It only applies to persons insofar as they belong to a group. There are debates, however, on whether law enforcement is considered a profession and therefore whether there is a need to have a Code of Ethics for its practitioners. Sykes (1989) defines a profession as a body of specialized, internationally recognized knowledge, a pre-professional education and continuing education, legal autonomy to exercise discretionary judgment, lateral movement, and authorized self-regulation. Villier (1997) suggests that historically, traditional learned professions had the following characteristics: They were all practiced by gentlemen , or at least by people who aspired to that class They were occupations of both status and prestige They required preparatory study at university, so as to obtain the requisite qualifications They resented competition, and did their best to create and maintain a monopoly.

Unlike the traditional learned professions like medicine, the law and the church, the police profession lacks certain of these elements as defined above. Hansen (1973) opines that by all definitions of professionalism extant, the police are not a professional group. They are professionals in the police calling, but as a group the police are not professionals. However, an inherent element of all profession is discretion. Discretion is the ability to choose between two or more courses of behaviour. Undoubtedly, discretion is a necessary element in law enforcement on when to enforce, how to enforce, how to handle disputes, when to use force etc. In that sense, law

enforcement fulfills the main criteria in the definition of a profession. Davis (1991) contends that professionals differ from other people in having obligations which others do not. Being a professional simply means belong to a profession. Davis (1991) also coined the term captive profession to describe the police profession. It is a profession the members of which must work within institutions over which they have only limited control. The police chief or the officers under are chosen by those above, not by those below. Departmental regulations also come from above. Arguably, it is a matter of semantics and how one defines a profession. Regardless, for law enforcement, the International Association of Chiefs of Police adopted the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics in 1957 and revised it in 19891. This document is being widely used as a guide in the drafting of respective law enforcement agencies worldwide. The United Nations has also formulated similar code of conduct entitled Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials 19792. This code of conduct was adopted by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 34/169) on 17 December 1979 with a recommendation that favourable consideration be given by member-states to its use within the framework of national legislation or practice as a body of principles for observance by law enforcement officials3. The Police Code of Ethics therefore provides guidance, direction and vision for a particular police organization.

ETHICS DEFINED Ethics is a discipline that deals with the moral principles on right and wrong behaviour. Morals and ethics are often used interchangeably. The moral principles are values and beliefs that guide us and dictate our behaviour. Everyone has a value system through which we see, perceive and evaluate the world and the events that occur in our lives. It dictates what we believe to be good, right, and normal. Value forming is influenced by a variety of sources such as environment, parents, peers, culture, religion etc. Dr. Morris Masseys theory of value formation divides the process into three categories, namely Imprinting (0-7 years old), Modeling (7-14 years old), Socialization (14-20 years old) and finally when a person reaches the age of 20 his values are fully formed4. It is therefore difficult to change ones values at this stage albeit at an emotional level that is so significant that causes one to re-examine ones beliefs and values5. Pollock (1998) opines that morality is used to speak of a total person, or the sum of a persons action in every sphere of life and ethics is used for certain behaviours
1 2 3

See Appendix A See Appendix B TI Source Book 2001 , p.326 4 United States Department of Justice (1999). International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Program( ICTAP) course note Lesson #3-2, p.3-6, 3-7. 5 However, it will be argued in subsequent paragraphs that police officers faced with ever challenging environment and operating as a group as their values may change accordingly. Sherman (1995) in describing four major stages in the career transformation of a police officer thinks that the transformation of a police officers identity and self-image is more radical than many other professions. The process can be overwhelming, changing even the strongest personality

relating to a profession, and is an analysis of behaviour relevant to a certain profession. There are three categories of ethics, namely (1) Personal Ethics: the guidelines of personal conduct. (2) Organizational Ethics: the guidelines for the conduct of an organization. These stem from values which are created by and for that particular members of the organization and (3) Professional Ethics : generally agreed upon and recognized standards that guide a particular professional groups decisions in accordance with the goal of providing an ever higher level of quality service and performance. This article although confines itself to discussing professional ethics, it seems that all the three categories are intertwined and linked.

DO POLICE NEED A CODE OF ETHICS? Police are granted with much authority and responsibility as compared to other civil service. They have legal authority to exercise power, discretion and control over the public, including the responsibility of making life-anddeath decisions. Such powers must therefore be tempered with high ethical standards. The public has entrusted the police with this authority and duty to facilitate their protection from criminal, predatory and other violation of peace, security and public order. This authority is jealously guarded and under vigilant scrutiny by the public. They therefore demand a certain standards of behaviour for police officers. In theory, a Police Code of Ethics sets the standards for ethical behaviour and increasingly, it is deemed necessary in the development of national integrity systems. There are two schools of thought on the concept of the Code of Ethics. Some argue that it should be inspirational but without any sanction for noncompliance. However, the majority argue that there should be a legal framework for enforcement and sanction for non-conformists. Davis (1991) explains that there are three distinct kinds of codes: the first is an inspiration or ideal describing the perfect professional (credos or aspirations), the second provides principles (guidelines or ethical consideration) that relate to the value system of the organization, and the third provides mandatory rules of conduct (mandatory rules or duties) that serve as the basis of discipline6. Davis (1991) however, contends that a code is far more valuable as a motivator than as a discipline device. Whatever the arguments, a law enforcement code of ethics generally covers the following themes. The most dominant one being the principle of justice and fairness: police officers must uphold the law regardless of offenders identity, race and social status. They must not abuse their powers to give special treatment to or take advantage of people, which are the main reasons for the solicitation and acceptance of gratuities. A second theme is that of service: police officers exist to serve the community. They must be ever ready to serve, to protect life and properties, and to maintain
6 Please refer to Appendix C for the Royal Malaysia Police Code of Ethics, which lays out ideals and principles minus mandatory rules of conduct.

public order and tranquility. Another theme is the importance of the law: police are upholders of the Constitution and the rules of laws. They must not operate beyond the limit of what the laws dictate. When enforcing the law, they must not only be concerned with the lawbreakers but their actions and behaviour must also be totally within the bounds set for them by the law. For example, unnecessary use of force when affecting arrest is not allowed; investigation and collection of evidence must be done in a legal manner. And, the final theme is of police behaviour: they must uphold a higher standard of behaviour both in their professional as well as personal lives as expected by the general public. They must not be seen to abuse their power, live beyond their means and be immoral. Having discussed the themes of a police code of ethics, it is interesting now to examine closely the confusion created in all these themes. Davis (1991) argues that a code of ethics must set standards beyond ordinary morality if it is to be a code of ethics at all. It must require something more than ordinary morality requires, lay down principles ordinary morality does not, or set an ideal ordinary morality does not. Yet, if a code is to be realized in practice, it cannot ask more than most of those subject to it are willing to give. A code must "buy" obedience. The more the code demands of those subject to it, the more it must "pay" them to obey. He is of the opinion that in drafting a code of ethics, we should decide early what kind of code it will be: is it going to be a statement of ideals, of principles, or of requirements, or a mixture? If the code is to be a mixture, great care should be taken to make clear which statements are ideals, which are principles, and which are rules. Principles are guidelines whilst rules require strict compliance, which will be substantially longer incorporating their exceptions. The way a code is prepared is just as important as the code itself. It is noted that public sector codes tend to be drafted at the top, by the senior public officials and then passed down to the junior staff. It seldom involves all levels of staff in the preparation of the code. The result is that not only does the code fail to reflect adequately the situations and aspirations of staff at all levels, but there is also a complete absence of ownership. It is important that a code be inspirational in tone, rather than simply a long list of prohibited actions. It has to be sufficiently realistic that are implementable or it will be ignored.

POLICE SUB-CULTURE We must be realistic to understand that there also exists a sub-culture value system amongst law enforcement officers. It is apparent that the formal Code of Ethics of the police organizational value system is quite different from subculture values. A formal Code of Ethics is often seen as a good PR exercise or a knee jerk reaction to some embarrassing public attention to high profile cases. If a Code of Ethics is not internalized by all members of the police force then there will be the case of the rule says this, but what we really do is something else. Scheingold (1984) identified three dominant characteristics of the police subculture. First is the idea of cynicism: every

one is a possible problem they are to be dealt with as if they have already committed a crime. Cynicism spills over to their relations with everyone, since they found that friends expect favours and special treatment whilst at the same time, professing the virtue of equality before the law. They also routinely witness and deal with people with bad behaviour in their every day performance of their duties. Their work life leads them to conclude that all people are weak, corrupt, expecting favours, and potentially dangerous and problematic. The second characteristic is about the use of force: it is part of the police subculture to use force in all situations when a threat is perceived. Challenging a police officers authority like questioning his actions may be interpreted as a threat albeit not a physical one. Force is seen as a symbol of authority and is believed to be the most effective method to keep people in line and to get quick results without argument especially from someone with an attitude problem. Finally, there is the idea of police being victims themselves: they are the victims of public misunderstanding and intense scrutiny, low wages and vindictive administrators. They also perceive themselves as being victimized by the deteriorating values of the community they police. With constant exposure to violence and lack of social order, it becomes easier to perceive wrong doing as harmless relative to the general level of social deterioration. Ewin (1990) thinks that the Criminal Justice System is jealous in its concern for the rights of the accused. These rights, to the police, impede the conviction and punishment of those the police found guilty. Police see successful arrest and conviction as one of the indicators of their good performance. In order to redress what seems to be an unequal contest, police would try to circumvent it through illegal means of obtaining evidence such as the use of improper interrogation techniques, undercover operations, force etc. This self-seeking behaviour to get the job done leads to improper assumption of power by the police force. Gilmartin et.al (1998) explain this rationalization in the concept of entitlement culture. Entitlement is the belief that an individual by virtue of his position as a law enforcement officer is entitled to certain privileges or latitudes in terms of their behaviour. The culture of entitlement is developed through daily performance of tasks ranging from dealing with violent situations, responding to tragic events, or dealing with the most unsavoury aspects of society. In dealing with the above situations, their position gives them the authority to transgress certain social norms such as traffic violation, arrest, search, use of force (including lethal force) etc. Being exposed regularly to this special authority on a daily basis in that element of society that operates without values makes them feel a sense of entitlement and impunity. A belief of entitlement does not only exist amongst the lower ranking operational cadre but also within the departmental hierarchy as an extension of rank-to-privileges relationship. Do what I tell you to do but not what I do is a manifestation of this inhouse entitlement in operation. Young officers who are idealistic and eager may be overwhelmed by this culture of entitlement which may challenge their core values. They are confronted with the dilemma of maintaining their belief and that of loyalty to

fellow colleagues for survival. Sherman (1995) in describing four major stages in the career transformation of a police officer, explains that after a new recruit leaves the training centre, he will often be told on the first day by his senior colleague to forget everything that had been taught and I will show you how police work is really done. He quickly learns that his work partner or colleague is everything. By putting on the uniform, the new recruit becomes part of a visible minority group. The uniform and gun are symbols of power and attract challenges to that power. Some people seek out the uniform to manipulate the recruits and make use of the power for their personal interests. Faced with many unreasonable public demands, these new recruits react and reinforce their view that the public is enemy. In the final stage of transformation, these recruits metamorphosis into full fledge police officers with the following assumptions about the nature of their world: Loyalty to colleagues is essential for survival The public, or most of it, is the enemy Police administrators are also enemy Any discrepancy between these views and the views of family and friends is due simply to the ignorance of those who have not actually done police work themselves7.

Ewin (1990) thinks that loyalty plays a very important part in our moral lives. It can either be a virtue or an evil in the context of police code of ethics. He contends that most recruits are school leavers who are young and often immature and have little experience in work and the broader society. When they join the force they work and often socialize exclusively with their colleagues. They are not exposed to the wider society except during their duty when dealing with public in situations of distress, conflict and hostility. Public indifference, mistrust, hostility and resentment towards police also lead police officers to turn to their fellow colleagues. Loyalty amongst colleagues thus becomes more important than integrity. Loyalty makes police officers willing to cover up for each other and it exaggerates the need for and benefits derived from mutual support. It has become an unwritten code and an integral part of the police culture. Building on the theory of victimization, Gilmarth & Harris (1995) give a good framework termed Continuum of Compromise in understanding how an honest cop can turn into a compromised cop. The Continuum of Compromise operates in three stages: Act of Omission followed by Act of Commission-Administrative and finally, Act of Commission-Criminal. When officers feel victimized, they rationalize and justify not doing things they are responsible for doing. Act of omission includes selective enforcement, superficial investigation, lack of work commitment etc. Once officers
7 Close, D. & Meier, N. (1995). Morality in Criminal Justice An Introduction to Ethics. Belmont, Carlifornia,USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. p.159

routinely omit job responsibility, it may lead to Act of CommissionAdministrative: commit administrative violations. It starts with breaking small departmental rules and progresses down the continuum to the commission of bigger violations. Both Acts of Omission and CommissionAdministrative may erode public confidence in and respect for the police organization. Eventually, these officers unwittingly progress to the next and final stage of the continuum, Act of Commission-Criminal. It includes violations beyond just administrative reprimand and risk criminal prosecution if they are caught.

CONCLUSION Ideally, a code of ethics will help guide police officers in decision making. However, the issues of discretion, force, loyalty and others in the decision making process are very complex with many grey areas. Nevertheless, it is logically important that police officers must operate in an environment of shared moral values that are internalized in their souls. However, a subculture and an unwritten code are diametrically opposed to the written and professed formal Code of Ethics. Some argue that a list of dos and donts is a virtual challenge to their ingenuity catch me if you can; and this attitude may be naive. It is also noted that the concept of police ethics is generally tailored to individual, each responsible for his own conduct. Building on the strength of loyalty amongst colleagues, which is an existing support system, it would be useful for them to watch out for each other and be responsible for each others actions and behaviour. The problem now is how to turn the support system of moral support in tandem with their professional ethics. Doing that means (among other things) teaching police to talk about their professions ethics with each other. It seems that the keyword to a successful code is loyalty. If we could extend the loyalty amongst fellow officers to loyalty towards the police force as an institution that exists to serve the community then perhaps a Police Code of Ethics can be realized and practised. To do so, agreement amongst officers on the methods, means and objective is important for it contributes to mutual respect among police officers and helps in the development of esprit de corp, or group sense of a common goal. A police organization should also constantly review the dynamic process of value formation and deterioration; and develop defences and support systems for officers to survive in order to remain core value-based. There should be regular training, so that groups of officers come together from time to time to talk about dilemmas drawn from real life. There should also be a better understanding and interaction between the police and the public. Very often the publics encounters with the police are during the course of law enforcement. Traffic law enforcement seems to be one of the most unpleasant encounters and not surprisingly, generates most complaints from the unsatisfied public. The public perception of the

police is that of a bureaucratic enforcer of unnecessary regulations in the case of traffic offences, accusing them as jumped-up-Jack to catch traffic offenders. An upright police officer will reject an offer of bribe but after awhile he may succumb to the temptation and rationalize that the public deserves no better than that bribes be accepted. To remove mutual mistrust and wrong perceptions, both the public and the police must work together. We must endeavour to remove isolation of the police community and the general community8. Internally, counseling services, providing young officers with advice, appointment of mentors, role models whom young officer could speak to privately may help to address their fears and dilemmas. Regardless whether there is a formal code of ethics, a useful generic guide to ethical decision making is to ask the following questions: Is the decision or conduct legal and consistent with government policies? Is the decision or conduct in line with the police organization policy objectives? What will be the outcomes for yourself, your colleagues, the organization, and other parties? Do you have a conflict of interest in making a decision and could it lead to a private gain at public expense? Can the decision or conduct be justified in terms of the public interest and would it withstand public scrutiny?9

However, the breakdown of traditional values in the wider society sometimes also runs parallel to the breakdown of traditional police values. 9 Adapted from the NSW Police Code of Conduct and Ethics http://www.gaiaguys.net/PoliceCode-of Ethics.htm

REFERENCES

Close, D. & Meier, N. (1995). Morality in Criminal Justice An Introduction to Ethics. Belmont, Carlifornia,USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company Villier, Peter (1997). Better Police Ethics- A Practical Guide. London: Kogan Page Ltd Hansen, David.A (1973) Police Ethics. Illinois, USA: Charles C Thomas Sherman, Lawrence (1995) . Learning Police Ethics in Morality in Criminal Justice-An Introduction to Ethics. Close, Daryl & Meier, Nicholas.1995. Belmont, Carlifornia, USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Davis, Michael (1991). Do Cops Really Need A Code of Ethics? Criminal Justice Ethics, 0731129X, Summer/Fall91, Vol. 10, Issue 2. Ewin, R.E., (1990) Loyalty: The Police. Criminal Justice Ethics, 0731129X, Summer/Fall90, Vol. 9, Issue 2 Pollock, J.M .(1998). Ethics in Crime and Justice. 3rd ed. Belmont, USA: West/Wadsworth Pope, Jeremy (2000). TI Source Book 2000. Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrety System. Berlin, Germany : Transparency International (TI).

Appendix A International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Law Enforcement Code of Ethics As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice. I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or to my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop selfrestraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed both in my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the law and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities. I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of police service. I will never engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers. I will cooperate with all legally authorized agencies and their representatives in the pursuit of justice. I know that I alone am responsible for my own standard of professional performance and will take every reasonable opportunity to enhance and improve my level of knowledge and competence. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession . . . law enforcement. Source : International Association of Chiefs of Police website at: http://www.theiacp.org/documents/index.cfm?fuseaction=document&docum ent_type_id=1&document_id=95 retrieved on 28 May 2006

Appendix B Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials Adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979 Article 1 Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfill the duty imposed upon them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts, consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession. Commentary: (a) The term "law enforcement officials', includes all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention. (b) In countries where police powers are exercised by military authorities, whether uniformed or not, or by state security forces, the definition of law enforcement officials shall be regarded as including officers of such services. (c) Service to the community is intended to include particularly the rendition of services of assistance to those members of the community who by reason of personal, economic, social or other emergencies are in need of immediate aid. (d) This provision is intended to cover not only all violent, predatory and harmful acts, but extends to the full range of prohibitions under penal statutes. It extends to conduct by persons not capable of incurring criminal liability. Article 2 In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons. Commentary: (a) The human rights in question are identified and protected by national and international law. Among the relevant international instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Declaration on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. (b) National commentaries to this provision should indicate regional or national provisions identifying and protecting these rights. Article 3 Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. Commentary: (a) This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used. (b) National law ordinarily restricts the use of force by law enforcement officials in accordance with a principle of proportionality. It is to be understood that such national principles of proportionality are to be respected in the interpretation of this provision. In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved. (c) The use of firearms is considered an extreme measure. Every effort should be made to exclude the use of firearms, especially against children. In general, firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. In every instance in which a firearm is discharged, a report should be made promptly to the competent authorities. Article 4 Matters of a confidential nature in the possession of law enforcement officials shall be kept confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice strictly require otherwise. Commentary:

By the nature of their duties, law enforcement officials obtain information which may relate to private lives or be potentially harmful to the interests, and especially the reputation, of others. Great care should be exercised in safeguarding and using such information, which should be disclosed only in the performance of duty or to serve the needs of justice. Any disclosure of such information for other purposes is wholly improper. Article 5 No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Commentary: (a) This prohibition derives from the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly, according to which: "[Such an act is] an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [and other international human rights instruments]." (b) The Declaration defines torture as follows: ". . . torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners." (c) The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" has not been defined by the General Assembly but should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental. Article 6 Law enforcement officials shall ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their custody and, in particular, shall take immediate action to secure medical attention whenever required.

Commentary: (a) "Medical attention", which refers to services rendered by any medical personnel, including certified medical practitioners and paramedics, shall be secured when needed or requested. (b) While the medical personnel are likely to be attached to the law enforcement operation, law enforcement officials must take into account the judgement of such personnel when they recommend providing the person in custody with appropriate treatment through, or in consultation with, medical personnel from outside the law enforcement operation. (c) It is understood that law enforcement officials shall also secure medical attention for victims of violations of law or of accidents occurring in the course of violations of law. Article 7 Law enforcement officials shall not commit any act of corruption. They shall also rigorously oppose and combat all such acts. Commentary: (a) Any act of corruption, in the same way as any other abuse of authority, is incompatible with the profession of law enforcement officials. The law must be enforced fully with respect to any law enforcement official who commits an act of corruption, as Governments cannot expect to enforce the law among their citizens if they cannot, or will not, enforce the law against their own agents and within their agencies. (b) While the definition of corruption must be subject to national law, it should be understood to encompass the commission or omission of an act in the performance of or in connection with one's duties, in response to gifts, promises or incentives demanded or accepted, or the wrongful receipt of these once the act has been committed or omitted. (c) The expression "act of corruption" referred to above should be understood to encompass attempted corruption. Article 8 Law enforcement officials shall respect the law and the present Code. They shall also, to the best of their capability, prevent and rigorously oppose any violations of them. Law enforcement officials who have reason to believe that a violation of the present Code has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to

their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power. Commentary: (a) This Code shall be observed whenever it has been incorporated into national legislation or practice. If legislation or practice contains stricter provisions than those of the present Code, those stricter provisions shall be observed. (b) The article seeks to preserve the balance between the need for internal discipline of the agency on which public safety is largely dependent, on the one hand, and the need for dealing with violations of basic human rights, on the other. Law enforcement officials shall report violations within the chain of command and take other lawful action outside the chain of command only when no other remedies are available or effective. It is understood that law enforcement officials shall not suffer administrative or other penalties because they have reported that a violation of this Code has occurred or is about to occur. (c) The term "appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power" refers to any authority or organ existing under national law, whether internal to the law enforcement agency or independent thereof, with statutory, customary or other power to review grievances and complaints arising out of violations within the purview of this Code. (d) In some countries, the mass media may be regarded as performing complaint review functions similar to those described in subparagraph (c) above. Law enforcement officials may, therefore, be justified if, as a last resort and in accordance with the laws and customs of their own countries and with the provisions of article 4 of the present Code, they bring violations to the attention of public opinion through the mass media. (e) Law enforcement officials who comply with the provisions of this Code deserve the respect, the full support and the co-operation of the community and of the law enforcement agency in which they serve, as well as the law enforcement profession. Source: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland Website: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp42.htm Retrieved on 28 May 2006

Appendix C

PDRM CODE OF ETHICS

LOYALTY Undivided loyalty to the nation, government and leadership of the force; DISCIPLINE Always uphold self-discipline and job-discipline with dedication, patience and trustworthiness; AUTHORITY Discharge all responsibilities and powers with loyalty, firmness, courage, fairness and justice; SENSITIVITY AND COURTEOUS Courteous, quick and correct service with a priority placed on the rights and interests of the wider community; EXCELLENCE Always strive to improve knowledge and expertise; lead a simple, noble and happy life; and cultivate positive and proactive attitude in order to transform the force into an excellent organization sensitive to contemporary changes.