Note: Dr Kamsiah and I were at Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam’s house in Bangsar this afternoon for his annual Christmas lunch. We met former Ambassador to the European Union, Belgium and Luxembourg and Cambodia, Dato Deva M. Ridzam, Member of Parliament for Batu, Tian Chua, Dr N. Shanmugalingam of Trilogic and R. Nadeswaran, popularly known as The Sun’s crusading Citizen Nades, and other friends.The conversation around our table covered a wide range of issues from the economy, domestic politics to international affairs.
During the course of the conversation I asked Citizen Nades what was the latest on PKFZ and whether we could expect to see action against high ranking UMNO-BN politicians like Onn Ismail, Azim Zabidi, Tiong King Sing, Chan Kong Choy, and also the Directors of PKFZ. He said that everything depended on Tan Sri Gani Patail, the Attorney-General, whose decision will be final. If the Attorney-General felt that there was no case because these types were very sophisticated in covering their tracks (and no evidence can be found), then there will be no charges. So let us wait and see what will happen in early 2010.
Right now, the PKFZ scandal is overtaken by news of two missing jet engines worth rm100 million belonging and the ensuing investigations. The mainstream media are playing the matter up. Diversionary tactics are often used by the Government to take our attention away from PKFZ and other scandals.
So I thought I should use Citizen Nades’ December 22, 2009 to remind us that we should look at issues with the right perspective. Although we all should be concerned as a matter of principle with leakages from public offers regardless of the amount involved, the PKFZ scandal should not be out of our mind. –Din Merican
Discretion can lead to different perceptions
By R. Nadeswaran (December 22, 2009)“My brother-in-law was arrested for allegedly taking part in an illegal assembly. He was handcuffed behind his back, bundled into a police vehicle, taken to the police station for having his statement recorded. He was then released without being charged for any offence. How come some people who are arrested and charged for allegedly criminal breach of trust running into millions of ringgit are not handcuffed and have the privilege of communicating with their lawyers and family members which is a right which I was not entitled to?”
The person who sent this email wanted anonymity and was referring to a commentary in this newspaper on December 11 after three people were charged in relation with the Port Klang Free Trade Zone (PKFZ) scandal. More on this later.
It is common knowledge that many of our law enforcement agencies are suffering an “image problem”. Some of the time, wrongly, they are perceived to be a group of inefficient bunch who use the law to their advantage without considering the plight of the ordinary citizen. Many will remember the arrest and detention of five young lawyers who had gone to the Brickfields police station after their clients had been arrested for being part of an illegal assembly.
Citizen Nades
But on Sunday, a Human Rights Commission Inquiry was told that no charges were preferred after discussions with deputy public prosecutor Datuk Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah and it was deemed that the lawyers should not be prosecuted because there was no element of violence or force.
Under these circumstances, are we the citizens of this country entitled to assemble wherever we want to express our views or dissatisfaction on issues without hindrance by the authorities as long as we don’t use force or become violent? Are we to assume that peaceful demonstrations will no longer be met by water-cannons and baton-charging policemen?
|
This brings us to the issue of “perception”. The actions on the ground and the statements made at the inquiry only give the impression that lawyers are treated with a different set of rules while the clerks, office boys, retirees and the unemployed are governed by a different set.
To address the concerns of the writer of the email, Section 15(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) states that an arrest may be made in any of the following ways:
(a) by actually touching the body of the person to be arrested;
(b) by actually confining the body of the person to be arrested;
Besides, there is also something known as “common law” arrest. A police officer states that he is arresting or when he uses force to refrain the individual concerned or when he makes it clear that he will, if necessary, use force to prevent the individual from going where he may want to go. This may be one of the occasions where handcuffs are used.
The issue here is that the arresting officer is allowed to use his discretion. If he knows or has an intuition that the person is going to escape, he can use any means to restrain the person being arrested. So, what we can conclude is that exercising discretion as provided by the law can sometimes lead to accusations that the police are not treating all accused persons equally. While those accused of minor offences are brought to court in handcuffs, some like the former general manager of the PKFZ, O.C. Phang, have been spared the embarrassment. I don’t want to be accused of taking sides, but in this instance, the arresting officer used his discretion and it will be futile to question his decision.
R. Nadeswaran is editor (special and investigative reporting) at theSun. He can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com
No comments:
Post a Comment