If the police force, an institution that has been trained on the use of firearms for years and decades can lose their weapons in numbers, what will happen when enforcement agencies without that kind of training are all given weapons?
COMMENT This is not to say that the police have demonstrated themselves to be impeccable firearms users. Malaysia has a shocking number of extrajudicial killings. Earlier this year, police shot dead housewife Pua Bee Chun.
From the facts available, there seems to be absolutely no indication that she posed any sort of threat to them.
Norizan Salleh was luckier, seeing as she lived, but it seems hardly appropriate to apply the term ‘lucky' to a single mother who the police shot five times in 2009, again for no reason that seems justifiable.
All this is even before we get into the number of "Indian gangsters" shot dead by the police under suspicious circumstances.
Last week, the inquest continued into the death of D. Dinesh. According to eyewitnesses, Dinesh was out with friends late one night, when cars appeared out of nowhere to block a number of vehicles that night.
Friends of Dinesh say that they got out of their cars, only to be met with gunfire, which eventually hit and killed Dinesh.
The police say that Dinesh and others attacked their cars and personnel with parangs, whereas eyewitnesses have stated that they were all unarmed and only trying to flee the scene.
It is worth noting that none of the police personnel at the scene could have easily been identified by uniform or police vehicle at the time.
The truth has become the word of one party against another, and the dubious parangs that seem to appear at every police shooting (including in the case of Aminulrasyid Amzah) are understandably suspect.
From the facts available, there seems to be absolutely no indication that she posed any sort of threat to them.
Norizan Salleh was luckier, seeing as she lived, but it seems hardly appropriate to apply the term ‘lucky' to a single mother who the police shot five times in 2009, again for no reason that seems justifiable.
All this is even before we get into the number of "Indian gangsters" shot dead by the police under suspicious circumstances.
Last week, the inquest continued into the death of D. Dinesh. According to eyewitnesses, Dinesh was out with friends late one night, when cars appeared out of nowhere to block a number of vehicles that night.
Friends of Dinesh say that they got out of their cars, only to be met with gunfire, which eventually hit and killed Dinesh.
The police say that Dinesh and others attacked their cars and personnel with parangs, whereas eyewitnesses have stated that they were all unarmed and only trying to flee the scene.
It is worth noting that none of the police personnel at the scene could have easily been identified by uniform or police vehicle at the time.
The truth has become the word of one party against another, and the dubious parangs that seem to appear at every police shooting (including in the case of Aminulrasyid Amzah) are understandably suspect.
Adept at David Copperfield trick
Lawyer N Surendran once described them as ‘magical parangs' for their ability to appear out of thin air.
Interestingly, in the Dinesh inquest, the police explained that it was completely reasonable for them to decide for themselves on the spot that no fingerprinting of the parangs ‘found at the scene' was necessary.
There is thus conveniently no way to confirm or deny whether or not Dinesh might have been holding a parang that night.
One of the most alarming aspects of these cases is that we cannot even tell for sure whether the police technically acted in accordance with standard police procedure or not.
At the Dinesh inquest, the magistrate made a formal request to the Ampang police station to be provided with a copy of the Inspector General's Standing Orders (IGSO), which contains the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and guidelines for police conduct, including the rules governing the proper discharge of firearms.
Why IGSO kept under wraps?
The honourable magistrate was then informed by the Ampang police, informally and not even in writing, that this was not possible.
From what I was able to gather, the reason given was something like "there is only one copy."
Were justice more fact than farce in this country, perhaps the policeman who gave that excuse would have been hauled up for contempt of court (and, one wishes, for stupidity).
In fact, over the years, activists and lawyers have in vain made repeated request after request for the contents of the IGSO to be revealed.
If the contents of the IGSO are not known, how can we tell whether or not it is in fact perfectly correct police procedure to shoot first and ask questions later?
For all we know, the official police code of conduct could state that the proper thing to do upon seeing a 15 -year -old boy refusing to stop at a roadblock is to spray him with machine gun fire.
There is no logical reason to withhold the IGSO from the public. Other countries freely publish these guidelines, and obviously no criminal geniuses have somehow figured out how to use them to their advantage. Why should we be any different?
The two most likely reasons the IGSO is kept secret is firstly that the Malaysian government loves to operate in the shadows, using a culture of secrecy to ensure the maximum ability to abuse power; or secondly, because the police in question did in fact run afoul of the IGSO, and should be subject to serious disciplinary action even according to internal police rules and regulations.
We can see now, why the police might not want the public to know.Violent gun crime can only be controlled by better, more intelligent law enforcement that is consistent with human rights.
Better gun control can only be achieved through less corruption, and less incompetence. Trying to add more guns, especially given our horrific record, is merely adding fuel to an already blazing fire.
An observation in closing - One of the policeman who testified at the Dinesh inquiry that he was one of the shooters was asked by the family's lawyer: When was the last time you saw or read a copy of the IGSO?
The policeman looked blankly for a while before responding: four years ago, when I was a recruit. I think that speaks for itself.
Lawyer N Surendran once described them as ‘magical parangs' for their ability to appear out of thin air.
Interestingly, in the Dinesh inquest, the police explained that it was completely reasonable for them to decide for themselves on the spot that no fingerprinting of the parangs ‘found at the scene' was necessary.
There is thus conveniently no way to confirm or deny whether or not Dinesh might have been holding a parang that night.
One of the most alarming aspects of these cases is that we cannot even tell for sure whether the police technically acted in accordance with standard police procedure or not.
At the Dinesh inquest, the magistrate made a formal request to the Ampang police station to be provided with a copy of the Inspector General's Standing Orders (IGSO), which contains the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and guidelines for police conduct, including the rules governing the proper discharge of firearms.
Why IGSO kept under wraps?
The honourable magistrate was then informed by the Ampang police, informally and not even in writing, that this was not possible.
From what I was able to gather, the reason given was something like "there is only one copy."
Were justice more fact than farce in this country, perhaps the policeman who gave that excuse would have been hauled up for contempt of court (and, one wishes, for stupidity).
In fact, over the years, activists and lawyers have in vain made repeated request after request for the contents of the IGSO to be revealed.
If the contents of the IGSO are not known, how can we tell whether or not it is in fact perfectly correct police procedure to shoot first and ask questions later?
For all we know, the official police code of conduct could state that the proper thing to do upon seeing a 15 -year -old boy refusing to stop at a roadblock is to spray him with machine gun fire.
There is no logical reason to withhold the IGSO from the public. Other countries freely publish these guidelines, and obviously no criminal geniuses have somehow figured out how to use them to their advantage. Why should we be any different?
The two most likely reasons the IGSO is kept secret is firstly that the Malaysian government loves to operate in the shadows, using a culture of secrecy to ensure the maximum ability to abuse power; or secondly, because the police in question did in fact run afoul of the IGSO, and should be subject to serious disciplinary action even according to internal police rules and regulations.
We can see now, why the police might not want the public to know.Violent gun crime can only be controlled by better, more intelligent law enforcement that is consistent with human rights.
Better gun control can only be achieved through less corruption, and less incompetence. Trying to add more guns, especially given our horrific record, is merely adding fuel to an already blazing fire.
An observation in closing - One of the policeman who testified at the Dinesh inquiry that he was one of the shooters was asked by the family's lawyer: When was the last time you saw or read a copy of the IGSO?
The policeman looked blankly for a while before responding: four years ago, when I was a recruit. I think that speaks for itself.
NATHANIEL TAN has most recently been following the Teoh Beng Hock civil suit. He believes you should support the Malaysiakinibuilding, and tweets @NatAsasi.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.