My Sinchew
Khairy was later permitted to enter the building and was seen being taken to the Police Control Centre. He came out about 20 minutes later and told his supporters that the memorandum was with Rice.
In January 2009, Khairy and other Barisan Nasional Youth representatives marched to the Palestinian embassy to denounce Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. The police just watched.
In March 2006, police used water cannons to break up a protest by about 400 people against the increase in fuel prices and arrested more than 30 people. According to the police, the protest which was organized by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress did not have a permit.
In January 2007, police arrested 21 people during a demonstration in Cheras that was organised by anti-toll hike organisation Protes, civil society groups, trade unions and student groups. This protest part of a series of protests organised to oppose the hike in the toll rates at five Klang Valley highways that began on January 1, 2009.
In May 2009, eight Perak Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives were among those arrested by the police for illegal assembly. They were arrested while walking in a procession from the DAP headquarters to the High Court to observe a suit being filed against the BN state government over the sacking of elected village heads. Earlier that same day five members of public were arrested while making arrangements for the launch of a three-day hunger strike to persuade the Perak sultan to dissolve the state assembly.
Less than two weeks ago Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching and Teratai state assemblyperson Jenice Lee were arrested at a vigil in Seputeh which was held to mark the situation in Perak.
The above incidents exhibit the prevailing attitude of the Malaysian police. They fold their arms and become mere bystanders when demonstrations concern external affairs. However, when it comes to demonstrations that concern internal issues, the play book changes.
How can it be that protest marches and demonstrations are only illegal and undeserving of police permits when it touches on the plight of ordinary Malaysians?
The freedom of expression is a right that should be afforded to every citizen or civil society no matter what the issue is. The task of the police is to uphold that right and not to play arbiter as to whether a particular protest is acceptable or not.
Three weeks ago, police arrested five lawyers outside the Brickfields police station for unlawful assembly. The truth is that these lawyers were merely attempting to gain access to detainees inside the police station who could be heard shouting “We want lawyers”. The five lawyers were kept overnight like petty criminals.
The task of the police is to defend the sanctity of the criminal justice system and uphold the constitutional guarantee of the right to legal representation. It is not to arrest lawyers who turn up outside a police station in the middle of the night seeking access to clients who were arrested for exercising their fundamental right to expression and peaceful assembly.
What we have today is a situation where the people’s confidence and trust in the police force has been shaken to the core. Today, we are more afraid of the police than respectful of them simply because we are not sure whether the police obey the law in the first place.
In the 1959 case of Spano v. New York, the United States Supreme Court was faced with a case involving a foreign-born of 25 with a junior-high-school education and no previous criminal record who had been indicted for first-degree murder.
The young man retained counsel and surrendered to police. He was then subjected to persistent and continuous questioning by numerous police officers for virtually eight hours until he confessed. He had repeatedly requested, and had been denied, an opportunity to consult his counsel. At his trial in a state court, his confession was admitted in evidence over his objection, and he was convicted and sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court held that the young man’s will was overborne police pressure causing his confession to be given involuntarily. The admission in evidence therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in the Spano case was delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren who relentlessly upheld civil rights and civil liberties and is regarded as one of the greatest jurists of modern times. In his opinion, Justice Warren issued the stark reminder that “the police must obey the law while enforcing the law”.
50 years later this reminder finds itself relevant in Malaysia. The law promises equality for all. The law promises access to legal representation. The law promises that the guilty will be found and punished. None of these promises are being kept on a constant basis.
Four months after the custodial death of A. Kugan, the country still waits for justice to punish the young man’s murderers.
Hopefully, we do not have to wait that long for those responsible for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) fiasco to be brought to justice. It is an odd thing when excess and mismanagement costs RM12billion and the total stimulus package shaped to carry the entire country out of these tough economic times amounts to only five times that amount at RM60billion. (By DAVID D. MATHEW/MySinchew)
IN JULY 2006, Khairy Jamaluddin who was then the Deputy UMNO Youth Chief led some 2,000 protestors in a march to the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre where the 39th Asean Ministerial Meeting was being held. Their objective was to protest in opposition to Israeli violence against the Palestinian people and to hand over a memorandum concerning this to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Local newspapers reported that Khairy gave Rice five minutes to come out and receive the memorandum. When Rice failed to do so, Khairy and 200 other supporters pushed their way past the FRU line but were then blocked by the police who had formed a human chain in front of the entrance to the convention centre.Khairy was later permitted to enter the building and was seen being taken to the Police Control Centre. He came out about 20 minutes later and told his supporters that the memorandum was with Rice.
In January 2009, Khairy and other Barisan Nasional Youth representatives marched to the Palestinian embassy to denounce Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. The police just watched.
In March 2006, police used water cannons to break up a protest by about 400 people against the increase in fuel prices and arrested more than 30 people. According to the police, the protest which was organized by the Malaysian Trades Union Congress did not have a permit.
In January 2007, police arrested 21 people during a demonstration in Cheras that was organised by anti-toll hike organisation Protes, civil society groups, trade unions and student groups. This protest part of a series of protests organised to oppose the hike in the toll rates at five Klang Valley highways that began on January 1, 2009.
In May 2009, eight Perak Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives were among those arrested by the police for illegal assembly. They were arrested while walking in a procession from the DAP headquarters to the High Court to observe a suit being filed against the BN state government over the sacking of elected village heads. Earlier that same day five members of public were arrested while making arrangements for the launch of a three-day hunger strike to persuade the Perak sultan to dissolve the state assembly.
Less than two weeks ago Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching and Teratai state assemblyperson Jenice Lee were arrested at a vigil in Seputeh which was held to mark the situation in Perak.
The above incidents exhibit the prevailing attitude of the Malaysian police. They fold their arms and become mere bystanders when demonstrations concern external affairs. However, when it comes to demonstrations that concern internal issues, the play book changes.
How can it be that protest marches and demonstrations are only illegal and undeserving of police permits when it touches on the plight of ordinary Malaysians?
The freedom of expression is a right that should be afforded to every citizen or civil society no matter what the issue is. The task of the police is to uphold that right and not to play arbiter as to whether a particular protest is acceptable or not.
Three weeks ago, police arrested five lawyers outside the Brickfields police station for unlawful assembly. The truth is that these lawyers were merely attempting to gain access to detainees inside the police station who could be heard shouting “We want lawyers”. The five lawyers were kept overnight like petty criminals.
The task of the police is to defend the sanctity of the criminal justice system and uphold the constitutional guarantee of the right to legal representation. It is not to arrest lawyers who turn up outside a police station in the middle of the night seeking access to clients who were arrested for exercising their fundamental right to expression and peaceful assembly.
What we have today is a situation where the people’s confidence and trust in the police force has been shaken to the core. Today, we are more afraid of the police than respectful of them simply because we are not sure whether the police obey the law in the first place.
In the 1959 case of Spano v. New York, the United States Supreme Court was faced with a case involving a foreign-born of 25 with a junior-high-school education and no previous criminal record who had been indicted for first-degree murder.
The young man retained counsel and surrendered to police. He was then subjected to persistent and continuous questioning by numerous police officers for virtually eight hours until he confessed. He had repeatedly requested, and had been denied, an opportunity to consult his counsel. At his trial in a state court, his confession was admitted in evidence over his objection, and he was convicted and sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court held that the young man’s will was overborne police pressure causing his confession to be given involuntarily. The admission in evidence therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in the Spano case was delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren who relentlessly upheld civil rights and civil liberties and is regarded as one of the greatest jurists of modern times. In his opinion, Justice Warren issued the stark reminder that “the police must obey the law while enforcing the law”.
50 years later this reminder finds itself relevant in Malaysia. The law promises equality for all. The law promises access to legal representation. The law promises that the guilty will be found and punished. None of these promises are being kept on a constant basis.
Four months after the custodial death of A. Kugan, the country still waits for justice to punish the young man’s murderers.
Hopefully, we do not have to wait that long for those responsible for the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) fiasco to be brought to justice. It is an odd thing when excess and mismanagement costs RM12billion and the total stimulus package shaped to carry the entire country out of these tough economic times amounts to only five times that amount at RM60billion. (By DAVID D. MATHEW/MySinchew)
No comments:
Post a Comment