When one considers the recent 'Bloody Sunday' and the police response to the IPCMC as expressed in their internal bulletin , it is evident that there is a rather ironic double standard at work with respect to the rule of law or legality.

But let me begin with Sunday's events. I am not claiming that the police did behave arbitrarily this weekend. If shown that the police exercised arbitrary power, then they have violated the constitutional right to assemble under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution (as the picture of one protester holding a sign reminding the police of this right shows us) among other violations. But I have to reserve judgement until the facts are all in.

Nevertheless, one cannot deny that the police have a dismal record suggesting a general inclination towards unreasonable use of force when dispersing assemblies. And that record of unreasonable force extends to other contexts including arrest, search, and interrogation (see, for example, accounts in the annual Suaram reports). Finally, we should not forget allegations of police abuse of detainees under the ISA.

Indeed, some of these reasons relating to police misconduct were precisely the impetus for the proposed IPCMC. One has to see that every one of these allegations involve the charge that the police, by breaking the law, do not respect legality in exercising their powers. And this is precisely why there have been calls for the IPCMC to ensure greater police accountability and respect for the rule of law.

This brings me to the police response to the proposed IPCMC. Other readers have already spotlighted the vindictive, dangerous, and sometimes irrational features of their response. But my observation relates to police reliance on the rule of law itself to challenge the proposal.

The bulletin contains an exhaustive list of claims one normally associates with the importance of legality. The police have pointed out tensions between the proposal and the Constitution, defects of natural justice, a failure to respect procedure, possible infringements of equality before law, and even objected to a proposed privative or ouster clause, a clause that would limit or ban judicial review of any decision by the proposed IPCMC affecting the police.

The soundness of these claims aside, they embody a set of ideas that anyone who cares about the rule of law in Malaysia will use as arguments against the government, including the police. So I am not sure whether to applaud the police for being so 'rule of law aware' or to level a charge of hypocrisy against them for finding it convenient to insist on respect for legality in the face of their own record of its disregard.