I honestly cannot understand why Gobind Singh is making such a big issue out of something as straightforward as a dress code at a police station. This is not a new concept. This is not a shocking discovery. And this is certainly not an oppressive abuse of power the way he frames it.
Gobind Singh is a lawyer. A seasoned one. He is an MP, a former minister, and someone who has spent his entire career inside systems that require discipline, decorum, and respect for institutional norms. So he, of all people, should understand why certain places maintain dress standards.
Can you walk into a court wearing a singlet?
Can you enter Parliament wearing shorts?
Can you stroll into a gurdwara without covering your head?
Gobind knows the answer.
And he obeys these rules every single day.
So why is he suddenly outraged when the police apply a similar principle?
The Melaka Incident: What Actually Happened
Before diving into Gobind’s reaction, we need to understand what triggered it.
A 56-year-old woman, returning to Kuala Lumpur after a car accident on the highway, was directed—along with the other driver—to the Jasin police district headquarters in Melaka to lodge a report.
When she arrived, she was wearing a knee-length skirt.
A police officer at the entrance told her that the skirt did not comply with the government’s dress code for entering official premises. Despite her attempts to explain that she had just been in an accident, and despite her pleas for flexibility, she was told she could not enter unless she changed.
In the end, the woman and her daughter had to go to a shopping mall to buy long pants before returning to file the report.
The woman, let us be clear, was not in desperate or a dangerous situation.
She was not injured.
She was not bleeding.
She was not in immediate danger.
Yes, she was understandably upset— and as how we are all under the situation, she might have wanted everything to be over with as quickly as possible - but otherwise, there was no extenuating circumstances to justify why the dress code should be relaxed for.
That’s when Gobind Singh stepped in, accusing the police of abuse of authority and obstruction of justice, and demanding the IGP issue a directive forbidding police from turning people away based on attire.
A Police Station Is Not a Kopitiam
But here’s what we’re forgetting:
A police station is not a business.
It is not a customer service counter.
It is not a shop where “the customer is always right.”
A police station is an institution that exists to uphold law, order, security, and justice. Like the judiciary and Parliament, it is one of the secular pillars of the state.
Institutions like courts and Parliament impose dress codes because they do not exist to serve our convinience or fashion choices—they serve principles higher than ourselves.
The courts serve justice.
Parliament serves the nation.
Temples and gurdwaras serve God.
Police stations serve law and public order.
And when you enter such an institution, you show respect.
Not because the officer is special,
not because the counter staff are superior,
but because the institution is bigger than you.
That is why courthouses, Parliament, and religious places all uphold standards of attire, behaviour, and decorum.
A police station is no different.
The Melaka Case: Rigid? Yes. Wrong? Not entirely.
The Melaka police chief himself said exceptions are allowed for emergencies.
As to whether being involved in a relatively minor road accident, should be construed as an emergency that overrides a dress code, that is perhaps a conversation that we can have.
Gobind, however, instead of acknowledging the nuance, responded as if the police were enforcing some Taliban-style moral policing regime.
But the simple truth is this:
The woman was not in immediate danger, not bleeding, not threatened, and not in trauma.
She was there for administrative purposes - to make a police report.
She actually has 24 hours to make a police report.
And in administrative, non-emergency matters, dress codes are standard across all government service counters—including court buildings, municipal offices, immigration, and even hospitals.
So why should the police station be treated differently?
Even Gobind Obeys Dress Codes Daily
What makes this even stranger is that Gobind Singh himself is one of the most consistent followers of institutional dress codes.
When he goes to court, he wears a suit and tie.
When he attends Parliament, he dresses formally.
When he enters a gurdwara, he covers his head and shows respect.
These are all institutions that require decorum.
And Gobind never questions any of it.
Yet when the police enforce the same principle, suddenly the rule becomes “arbitrary,” “unilateral,” and “unreasonable.”
How does a rule he obeys every day become unjust only when applied by the police?
Is it the principle that he disagrees with, or is there politics behind the issue?
Emergencies vs Non-Emergencies
Let’s be clear:
If someone is in danger, distressed, attacked, bleeding, or seeking immediate help, dress codes should never apply. And police SOPs already allow for this.
But if you’re walking into a police station as calmly as you walk into a bank, a government office, or a hospital, is it really oppressive to expect you to dress according to the expectation of the institution that you entering?
We must be consistent.
We cannot demand formality from courts, Parliament, and temples, but then get offended when police ask for the same baseline respect.
If Gobind thinks it is unfair that a police station imposes a dress code on a person who wishes to enter its premises for an administrative reason, does he also think that is unfair for a a court to not allow a lawyer or a defendant to enter a courtroom while wearing shorts ?
How about a gurdwara? If a visitor wants to enter a gurdwara without removing their shoes - because they have their own “emergencies” - maybe because their toddler wandered into the premises and they don't want to remove their shoes to enter because they are “accustomed” to wearing shoes indoors - should the gurdwara bend over backwards to accommodate the “emergency” and habits of the tourist, even when it doesn't conform to the internal standards of the Gurdwara ?
If not, why not?
Respecting Institutions Is Not Oppression
The public likes to say “institution exists to serve us”.
But actually:
A judge serves justice before he serves you.
A priest serves God before he serves you.
An MP serves the nation before he serves you.
A police officer serves law and order before he serves you.
Institutions don’t bow to you—you bow to the principles they uphold.
Dress codes exist to maintain the dignity of those principles.
And Gobind Singh, of all people, knows this.
So Why Pretend Not to Understand?
Gobind is not stupid.
He understands these rules.
He follows them.
But for reasons only he knows, when the police enforce the same principles, suddenly he pretends these rules don’t exist, don’t make sense, or are somehow oppressive.
It’s astonishing how something so simple becomes so difficult only when politics gets involved.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@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.
