Focus beyond body camera

IT HAS been six months since Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) launched an internal investigation into allegations of corruption involving several of its enforcement personnel who allegedly solicited bribes from fruit traders.

A senior officer informed me in early January that the matter was being probed and the then mayor Datuk Seri Mahadi Che Ngah sent integrity officers to collect evidence and interview traders.

The issue was reported after an audio recording went viral. It alleged that DBKL officers bullied traders in Kuchai Entrepreneurs Park in Kuchai Lama who had violated licensing guidelines.

I have since then been patiently waiting for the results of that investigation, and despite several inquiries, I have yet to get a response from the local authority.

How long does it take to carry out an investigation? And more importantly, when will the findings be made public?

DBKL should have by now explained what happened.

The matter even caught the attention of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Body camera recordings can help capture situations and later be used for booking culprits, including misdeeds of the enforcement officers. — Filepic

Had the officers been wearing body cameras, the footage would have surely shed light on the matter by now.

For sure, body cameras are going to have an increasing presence in the country.

DBKL had announced that it would soon incorporate the use of the devices into its standard operating procedure, following in the footsteps of numerous city councils in Selangor and the Health Ministry.

The police and Immigration Department are among other enforcement authorities that are expected to jump onto the bandwagon soon.Which brings me back to the question ― does wearing a body camera deter a person from taking bribes?

The question may be simplistic and blunt to some. But dumb, it certainly is not.

Some may view it as progress. Body camera recordings can provide valuable evidence in cases of misconduct or excessive use of force.

Some people question if nabbing those accepting or giving bribes through use of body cameras can truly help reduce corruption.

They can also help increase transparency and accountability in law enforcement.

But body cameras may not necessarily prevent enforcement officers from soliciting bribes or engaging in other forms of corruption.

While the presence of a camera may deter some officers from engaging in misconduct, others may simply find ways to circumvent the system or disable the cameras. In other words, it is just another case of treating a symptom, not the disease.

When talk about body cameras zoom in on law enforcement, the issue of corruption inevitably comes into focus.

Bribery is corruption, but corruption is more than an under-table offer of an envelope filled with cash.

Corruption comes in many forms. It can happen anywhere, involve anyone and evolve in response to changes in rules, legislation and even technology.

Bribery is a mere symptom. Corruption is the disease, and the lack of integrity is the root cause.

Technology cannot be a cure for integrity deficit, can it?

There is no denying that body cameras can improve personnel safety and behaviour, increase evidence quality, reduce civilian complaints and minimise agency liability.

They are, however, powerless in tackling corrupt practices like lobbying, cronyism, nepotism, embezzlement, money laundering and whatnot.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of body cameras in preventing corruption will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific policies and procedures in place for their use, the training and accountability measures for officers and the overall culture of the enforcement department.

It is important to continue to evaluate and improve these systems to ensure they are effective in promoting ethical behaviour among law enforcement officers.

But having said all that, body cameras are an essential tool for the protection of enforcement officers, particularly in situations where they may be at risk of attack from the public.

There have been cases of DBKL officers being assaulted and hurt by petty traders during enforcement exercises.

By recording interactions between officers and the public, body cameras can provide an objective record of events and help to resolve disputes or allegations of misconduct.

In today’s world of social media, more and more individuals are recording interactions between law enforcers and the public and sharing them online, hence body cameras have become increasingly important. They provide an impartial perspective on the incident.

I, for one, am interested in getting a neutral standpoint in altercations between enforcement officers and the public.

For instance, I want to know what exactly happened in Taman Saga in Bentong, Pahang, during an operation to catch stray dogs.

An elderly man lost his life while preventing his dog from being taken away by the city’s dog catcher.

While the case has been classified as sudden death, footage from body cameras, had the dog catcher been wearing one, would have been an essential tool that could help shed light into the incident, clear the air and hopefully build trust between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.