FOR generations, human beings have struggled with the same problem: the abuse of power through the machinery of enforcement and the law itself.
There is, of course, every reason to be concerned. But history also reminds us that this problem is not new. It is one of humanity’s oldest political diseases.
From ancient China to medieval Europe, from kingdoms in the Middle East to empires in India, rulers quickly discovered that controlling enforcement agencies often meant controlling society itself. In imperial China, several dynasties relied heavily on secret police and politically loyal officials to silence rivals and maintain fear. During the Ming Dynasty, the Jinyiwei became infamous for arbitrary arrests, political surveillance, and torture. Loyalty to authority frequently mattered more than truth or justice.
Europe too has its dark chapters. During the Inquisition and other authoritarian periods, legal systems and enforcement mechanisms were often manipulated to suppress dissent, settle political scores, and protect ruling interests. Courts and laws sometimes became instruments not of justice, but of fear.
Across parts of the Middle East and South Asia, rulers similarly used networks of informants, spies, and enforcers to preserve power. In many ancient kingdoms, criticism of authority itself could be treated as disloyalty or sedition.
The lesson from history is painfully consistent: whenever power operates without effective checks and balances, abuse eventually follows.
Human beings, unfortunately, do not suddenly become angels simply because they occupy positions of authority. The temptation to misuse power for political survival, personal gain, revenge, or control has existed throughout civilisation.
But history also provides hope.
Many nations gradually realised that societies cannot progress if enforcement agencies are feared more than trusted. Over time, countries evolved by strengthening institutions, improving laws, increasing transparency, and creating systems capable of restraining abuse.
The United Kingdom itself went through centuries of political struggle before parliamentary democracy, judicial independence, and institutional accountability became more deeply entrenched.
The United States was founded upon deep suspicion of concentrated power. Its constitutional structure, separation of powers, and institutional checks were designed precisely because its founders understood that unchecked authority eventually corrupts.
Germany, after the horrors of Nazi rule where enforcement agencies became instruments of terror, rebuilt itself with strong constitutional protections and safeguards against authoritarian excesses.
Closer to Asia, Hong Kong’s establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in 1974 became a landmark institutional reform after widespread allegations of corruption within parts of the enforcement machinery. Singapore too invested heavily in strengthening institutional credibility and anti-corruption enforcement.
None of these systems became stronger overnight. Reform required political courage, public pressure, and a recognition that no society can thrive when enforcement power is abused.
There is truth in the saying that corruption and institutional rot often start from the top.
If lower levels of government or enforcement agencies become deeply corrupt, abusive, or predatory, it usually reflects wider problems within political leadership itself. Widespread corruption rarely survives without protection, tolerance, or compromise somewhere higher within the system.
A corrupt junior officer may exist anywhere. But systemic corruption is different. Systemic corruption inevitably requires networks of silence. This is why the rakyat must stop seeing laws as matters relevant only to lawyers, judges, or politicians.
The laws passed in Parliament shape the relationship between the citizen and the State. Laws determine how much power enforcement agencies possess, what safeguards exist against abuse, whether oversight bodies are independent, whether whistleblowers are protected, and whether the courts can function without fear or interference.
Weak laws create weak protections. Poorly drafted laws create dangerous consequences.
And parliamentarians who do not fully understand constitutional liberties, separation of powers, or institutional accountability may unintentionally help create systems that later threaten society itself.
In Malaysia, we sometimes become overly focused on personalities and political drama while paying insufficient attention to the quality of laws being passed.
Citizens must demand more from Members of Parliament than emotional speeches, political slogans, or endless partisan battles.
We should ask more serious questions.
Do our MPs understand the long-term implications of the laws they support?
Do they strengthen institutional independence?
Do they create genuine checks and balances?
Do they protect citizens against abuse of power?
Or do they merely expand executive control?
A mature democracy cannot survive purely on elections. Elections matter, but institutions matter just as much. Strong institutions act as guardrails against human weakness, political greed, and abuse of authority.
Ironically, political leaders often fail to realise that powers abused today against opponents may one day be used against them when political tides change. That is why laws must be designed not for temporary political convenience, but for long-term national stability and justice.
Ultimately, no enforcement agency can remain clean if the surrounding political culture itself is corrupt. And no nation can remain genuinely free if citizens become indifferent to the slow erosion of institutional integrity.
The defence of liberty does not begin only in courtrooms. It begins when ordinary citizens understand that laws, institutions, and checks and balances are not abstract concepts. They are the invisible protections standing between society and the abuse of unchecked power.
Senior lawyer Dato Sri Dr Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is the founder and chairman of Yayasan Rapera. The views expressed here are solely his own.
