.png)
Malaysians love to complain about law enforcement.
We complain when smugglers get away. We complain when foreigners sneak across our borders. We complain when illegal activities happen right under the noses of the authorities.
We want our borders protected. We want our laws enforced. We want our enforcement officers to do their jobs properly.
But there is one small problem.
When someone finally gets tough, we suddenly become uncomfortable.
Why so aggressive? Why so rude? Why cannot talk nicely?
Apparently, we want our enforcement officers to fight crime with a smile, catch criminals with sopan-santun and dismantle illegal operations without upsetting anyone.
Welcome to Malaysia, where everybody wants results, but nobody wants to see the unpleasant process of getting them.
Sometimes, being nice is not enough
Look at the controversy involving Datuk Seri Mohd Shuhaily Mohd Zain, who was charged over an alleged assault involving two police officers at KLIA.
Shuhaily suggested that his prosecution was the price he had to pay for efforts to improve Malaysia's border security.
He believes that bringing changes to our borders comes at a price, and he is prepared to pay that price himself.
Whether there is a connection between his prosecution and his enforcement work remains unestablished. But his case raises a bigger question.
What do we expect from people whose job is to enforce the law?
Are we expecting them to be polite at all times, even when dealing with people suspected of being involved in illegal activities? Must they always speak gently, even when someone gets in the way of their enforcement duties?
Let us be honest. Sometimes, a firm voice is necessary. Sometimes, an officer needs to be direct, assertive and intimidating enough to make people take the law seriously.
Not everybody will cooperate just because we ask nicely.
Anyone who has dealt with a stubborn person knows this. You can explain nicely ten times, and the person will still pretend not to understand. By the eleventh time, your voice gets louder. Suddenly, the message becomes very clear.
Of course, enforcing the law is not the same as arguing with someone at home. But we should not confuse firmness with misconduct, or politeness with professionalism.
They are not the same thing.
What exactly happened at KLIA?
We have seen the video of Shuhaily confronting the two police officers. We can see him shouting and reprimanding them. News reports also say he appeared to pull one man's ears.
The two men lodged police reports, and Shuhaily has been charged with two counts of voluntarily causing hurt. He pleaded not guilty.
As members of the public, we have also seen the footage circulating online. And I think it is fair to ask what the footage actually tells us, rather than simply accepting the loudest reaction to it.
I mean, what exactly are we seeing in that video that amounts to assault?
From what I can see in the publicly circulated clip, Shuhaily was angry and confrontational. What I cannot establish from that clip alone is the extent of any injury or the full circumstances surrounding the confrontation.
So, how serious were the alleged injuries? What do the medical reports say? What happened before and after the part shown in the video?
If we are going to talk about assault, surely we should understand what allegedly happened beyond the fact that someone was shouted at and had his ears pulled.
What concerns me is how quickly a confrontation can become a public scandal, while the circumstances that led to it receive far less attention.
According to Shuhaily, he and his team were conducting an enforcement operation against a foreign touting syndicate when the two men appeared and recorded the operation. He said they were not part of his enforcement team and that he had issued a stern warning after his officers approached them.
The Inspector-General of Police subsequently confirmed that the two men were Travel Control Officers attached to the Special Branch, whose duties include intelligence gathering and security operations.
So, what exactly were they doing there, and what was the purpose of their recording? We need answers to these questions, too.
If we want to judge an incident fairly, we should be interested in the whole story, not just the part that makes the most dramatic video.
Sent back to the police force
Just when we thought the story could not get more interesting, another development emerged.
On October 29, Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail announced that the government had decided to end Shuhaily's secondment to the Malaysian Border Control and Protection Agency (AKPS) and return him to the police force.
Shuhaily had been appointed AKPS director-general on July 1, 2025, for a two-year term that was originally scheduled to end in June 2027.
In other words, his stint at the agency is ending well before its scheduled completion.
The announcement does not establish that Shuhaily is being removed because of the KLIA incident. The government has not publicly established a connection between the two - but the timing raises questions.
So, what happens next? And what does this mean for the work Shuhaily was appointed to do at our borders?
We are always talking about improving border security. We complain about smuggling, corruption and people taking advantage of weaknesses in our system. We want someone to take charge and get things moving.
But when the person leading the agency becomes the centre of a controversy, the story takes a different turn.
Shuhaily himself has suggested that improving border security comes at a personal price. Whether his case is connected to his enforcement efforts remains to be seen.
Still, I cannot help wondering what message this sends to the people tasked with carrying out difficult enforcement work.
If we want officers to take their responsibilities seriously, we must also take seriously the challenges they face. We should be asking whether they have the authority, resources and institutional support they need to do their jobs.
Law enforcement is not a customer service counter
We seem to have developed an expectation that everyone should be treated gently, even when their conduct deserves serious scrutiny.
An officer's job is not to make everybody feel comfortable. It is to enforce the law, protect the public and carry out legitimate duties.
We cannot expect enforcement officers to be effective if our first reaction to every uncomfortable encounter is to complain about their tone.
Imagine a customs officer investigating suspicious cargo. Imagine an immigration officer questioning someone over questionable documents. Imagine a police officer confronting someone who refuses to cooperate.
Must they first consider whether their words might hurt somebody's feelings?
Come on lah. We are talking about law enforcement, not a kindergarten class where everybody gets a sticker for participating.
And here is where I find our society rather amusing.
We have people demanding that caning be brought back into schools to discipline children. The argument is that children need discipline, that sometimes a stern hand is necessary, and that being too gentle will only spoil them.
Yet when an enforcement officer raises his voice at two adults, suddenly we are talking about aggression, trauma and hurt feelings.
So which is it? Do we believe that discipline sometimes requires firmness, or do we believe that everyone must be handled with kid gloves?
If we think children should learn that actions have consequences, surely adults should not expect to go through life without being challenged, reprimanded or made uncomfortable.
We cannot demand toughness from a distance and then act shocked when it appears in front of us.
We cannot have it both ways
We want strong leaders who dare to challenge wrongdoing, but we complain when they make difficult decisions.
We want the authorities to clean up the mess, but we expect the cleaning to happen without any noise, confrontation or inconvenience.
Unfortunately, real enforcement does not always look pretty.
Some operations are tense. Some people will resist being questioned. Some investigations will expose uncomfortable relationships and competing interests. Doing the right thing may upset people who would rather be left alone.
That is why we need enforcement officers who are courageous, properly trained and willing to do their jobs.
At the same time, being an enforcement officer does not mean one is above the law. Authority comes with responsibility, and the powers entrusted to these officers must be exercised responsibly.
But there is a difference between holding someone accountable for misconduct and expecting everyone in authority to behave as though they are afraid of upsetting somebody.
Perhaps the real question is not whether our enforcement officers should be aggressive.
It is whether we have become so sensitive to confrontation that we can no longer tell the difference between someone being firm and someone simply being rude.
Because if we cannot tell the difference, we will keep demanding tough law enforcement while complaining every time it gets tough.
We want our borders protected. We want crime dealt with. We want the authorities to be brave enough to confront wrongdoing.
But please, do it nicely. Don't raise your voice. Don't make anyone uncomfortable. And whatever you do, don't hurt anybody's feelings.
If that is the kind of law enforcement we want, perhaps we should stop asking why nothing changes.
Fa Abdul (fa.abdul.penang@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
