Actually, it was too good to be true – the initial news that police had given PKR permission to gather in numbers on the morning of Jan 9 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court for the verdict in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial.
Photos of PKR deputy president Azmin Ali shaking hands with the Kuala Lumpur Police Chief that appeared on web news portals immediately after approval was granted for the gathering bolstered the impression of cordial agreement between the gathering’s planners and the police.
Frankly, few had expected that police would grant permission so readily given their resistance to the Bersih gathering of last July and the spirit of the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 that was passed by Parliament in December, whose provisions are a deterrent to public gatherings.
Thus news that police permission for the 901 gathering had come on a silver platter smacked of the beginnings of détente between a hitherto unyielding police force and an opposition regularly wanting to publicly demonstrate their concerns.
By evening of the same day (Jan 6), the police chief of the district where the KL High Court is located began to reel the catch in by posting conditions on Facebook he said the gathering must abide by if it’s to be allowed.
The next day PKR’s Azmin demurred that the permission he had obtained for the gathering did not come with conditions attached save the assurance that the gathering’s pacific intent would be accompanied by behavior to match.
Photos of PKR deputy president Azmin Ali shaking hands with the Kuala Lumpur Police Chief that appeared on web news portals immediately after approval was granted for the gathering bolstered the impression of cordial agreement between the gathering’s planners and the police.
Frankly, few had expected that police would grant permission so readily given their resistance to the Bersih gathering of last July and the spirit of the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 that was passed by Parliament in December, whose provisions are a deterrent to public gatherings.
Thus news that police permission for the 901 gathering had come on a silver platter smacked of the beginnings of détente between a hitherto unyielding police force and an opposition regularly wanting to publicly demonstrate their concerns.
By evening of the same day (Jan 6), the police chief of the district where the KL High Court is located began to reel the catch in by posting conditions on Facebook he said the gathering must abide by if it’s to be allowed.
The next day PKR’s Azmin demurred that the permission he had obtained for the gathering did not come with conditions attached save the assurance that the gathering’s pacific intent would be accompanied by behavior to match.
Orwellian scenario
The KL Police Chief disagreed with Azmin’s recall. He claimed every condition attached to the permission that had been granted was discussed in detail with the PKR leader.
Ironically, it sounded like the sodomy trial against Anwar Ibrahim itself, which was essentially a case of what the accuser said about what the accused had done to him.
It’s an Orwellian scenario: two people can be at the same discussion, event or non-event, and emerge with radically different versions of what had or had not transpired.
But post-meeting pictures of Azmin with the KL Police Chief uploaded on websites in the immediate aftermath of their meeting reflected a spirit of concord at odds with the divergent takes each would later offer.
When an appraising public is faced with the dilemma of whom to believe in straits like this, it would have to depend on what in legal parlance is called ‘balance of probabilities.’
Usually, that balance is decided by what has happened in analogous circumstances before.
The antecedents to 901, or the ‘Free Anwar Gathering’, are the Bersih 2.0 gathering of July 2011, and the Hindraf rally and Bersih 1.0 marches of November, 2007.
In those events, there was conflict between what sundry participants said about how they had behaved and police claims about that behavior.
The KL Police Chief disagreed with Azmin’s recall. He claimed every condition attached to the permission that had been granted was discussed in detail with the PKR leader.
Ironically, it sounded like the sodomy trial against Anwar Ibrahim itself, which was essentially a case of what the accuser said about what the accused had done to him.
It’s an Orwellian scenario: two people can be at the same discussion, event or non-event, and emerge with radically different versions of what had or had not transpired.But post-meeting pictures of Azmin with the KL Police Chief uploaded on websites in the immediate aftermath of their meeting reflected a spirit of concord at odds with the divergent takes each would later offer.
When an appraising public is faced with the dilemma of whom to believe in straits like this, it would have to depend on what in legal parlance is called ‘balance of probabilities.’
Usually, that balance is decided by what has happened in analogous circumstances before.
The antecedents to 901, or the ‘Free Anwar Gathering’, are the Bersih 2.0 gathering of July 2011, and the Hindraf rally and Bersih 1.0 marches of November, 2007.
In those events, there was conflict between what sundry participants said about how they had behaved and police claims about that behavior.
Repeat of Bersih rally?
In signal episodes of the Bersih 2.0 gathering on July 9 last year, there were conflicting versions of who-did-what in response to exigent circumstances at places like the Tung Shin Hospital and in the underpass at the KL Sentral, and also in an incident involving PAS leader Mohamed Sabu and some cops.
In these incidents, the police version was contested by that of the participants, with the result that the credibility of the former is greatly caviled.
Consequently, the claim by the KL Police Chief that the permission he had granted the organisers of the 901 gathering was provisional and not without pre-conditions would come under a cloud, given contested versions of what happened in past situations.
The standing of the police as credible interlocutors is not what must be taken for granted by a public that has confidence in the criminal justice system.
It’s belaboring the obvious to say that public confidence in the force is at a low point.
In fact, issues with respect to that shortfall are bound up in the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim which is why the massed gathering called by PKR and now permitted by the police, with or without conditions, are build-ups to the national drama of political change.
It’s a concatenation of events, almost 14 years in the making, whose culmination should be new tenants at Putrajaya and the start of what ought to be a new dispensation for the country.
In these incidents, the police version was contested by that of the participants, with the result that the credibility of the former is greatly caviled.
Consequently, the claim by the KL Police Chief that the permission he had granted the organisers of the 901 gathering was provisional and not without pre-conditions would come under a cloud, given contested versions of what happened in past situations.
The standing of the police as credible interlocutors is not what must be taken for granted by a public that has confidence in the criminal justice system.
It’s belaboring the obvious to say that public confidence in the force is at a low point.
In fact, issues with respect to that shortfall are bound up in the sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim which is why the massed gathering called by PKR and now permitted by the police, with or without conditions, are build-ups to the national drama of political change.
It’s a concatenation of events, almost 14 years in the making, whose culmination should be new tenants at Putrajaya and the start of what ought to be a new dispensation for the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.