Taking photograph or recording a video of police carrying out their investigation is an offence under Section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing public servant in discharge of his or her public functions.
Bukit Aman CID director Huzir Mohamed (above) said this in a statement today in relation to the arrest of a 23-year-old man who recorded a police officer in action during a raid.
While his statement did not name the person, he is believed to be referring to former Universiti Malaya Association of New Youth (Umany) president Wong Yan Ke.
"The arrest was made following an offence under Section 186 of the Penal Code relating to obstructing a public servant from carrying out his duties.
"Please be reminded that each investigation is confidential and cannot be exposed on a whim (sewenang-wenangnya), moreover made viral on social media.
"The police would like to stress that taking a photo or recording a video is not an offence. However, for the sake of the investigation, if the photo or video is shared, spread, or viralled on social media, or in any way, it could obstruct the investigation.
"And it is against the provision under Section 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998," Huzir said.
Wong was arrested last Saturday after police reportedly turned up to search the house of his successor Yap Wen Qing in Petaling Jaya.
Several men in plainclothes, also believed to be cops, then demanded that Wong stop his recording, after which the video feed he was streaming to Facebook ended abruptly.
Wong was later released on police bail.
The police are currently investigating the student group under the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
This is over the group’s statement on Oct 30 in response to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's rejection of Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin's proposal for a proclamation of emergency and His Majesty's advice to all parliamentarians to support the government's Budget 2021 Bill.
Wong's arrest was criticised by groups such as Transparency International-Malaysia and Bersih 2.0, which also accused the police of bias in its investigations, as Senate President Rais Yatim had also raised questions over the Agong’s exercise of his powers in a Twitter post on Oct 26.
Both Rais and Umany had noted that under Article 40 of the Federal Constitution, the king must act in accordance with the cabinet’s advice, except on three matters: the appointment of the prime minister, in refusing a request to dissolve the Parliament and in convening a meeting among the Malay rulers.
'No legal grounds'
Meanwhile, human rights group Suaram expressed concern with the police's suggestion that a person can be considered to have obstructed an officer if they were to record against the police's request to stop.
"There are no legal grounds for the police to ask the person to stop the recording. As there is no legal ground for them to stop, the person cannot be said to have obstructed the police.
"Furthermore, if a police officer on duty is not ready to be recorded on duty, it would suggest that the police officer is not ready for fieldwork," said Suaram executive director Sevan Doraisamy in a statement.
Sevan's statement was in response to Bukit Aman CID's statement to justify the arrest.
Suaram reiterated its stand that the act of detaining Wong was unlawful and called for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to be in place to provide oversight on police misconduct.
Blatantly wrong
DAP's Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh didn't mince his words when responding to Huzir stating that the CID director's statement "is blatantly wrong and gives the impression that the police are afraid of being watched while conducting investigations".
Ramkarpal said that Section 186 of the Penal Code is unambiguous because the phrase "voluntarily obstructs" refers only to situations where one actively does something that hinders a police officer from carrying out his duties.
"How does a passive act of recording investigations come within the ambit of section 186? It is not for Huzir to say if the recording of the police carrying out investigations is illegal as this is a matter for a court to decide after considering all the evidence pertaining to the matter," he said in a statement this afternoon.
Ramkarpal reminded Huzir that Inspector General of Police Abdul Hamid Bador himself had mooted the idea of body cameras on police officers in the past.
"(This is) obviously for the purpose of promoting transparency in the investigation process. Is Huzir saying that body cameras are also illegal?" asked Ramkarpal.
"Going by Huzir's logic, recordings captured by CCTV cameras of police officers carrying out investigations would also be illegal which is absurd," he added.
He said that there was nothing wrong with recording a police officer carrying out his duties as long as this is done without obstructing him and that it should be encouraged to promote transparency of the investigation process.
Ramkarpal added his view that Huzir should stop making blanket statements and leave it to the courts to decide if a particular situation involving the recording of police officers is illegal based on evidence. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.