The need to arrest and detain must be done judiciously

 

Are we returning to the bad old days when the instruments of the state were used to prevent the truth from emerging?

Are we going back to the past, when the practice of “arrest first, investigate later” that prevailed when the 1MDB scandal was making headlines all over the world?

Remember the time when the attorney-general and the head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) were removed? Remember the detention of journalists whose only “crime” was to write the truth?

Remember the suspension of The Edge and The Edge Financial Daily?

Remember when mobs attacked an exhibition by cartoonist Zunar in Penang but it was the man himself who was charged? It was a time when parody, satire, and lampooning were seen as “criminal offences”.

While some were being treated with velvet gloves for their indiscretions, a few lesser mortals were being dealt heavily.

These are constant reminders of some of the dark days in our history. Now, there are signs on the horizon that those days may be returning and we as Malaysians must stand up to stop this.

For the purpose of clarity, I am using this example. Suppose I come across a local political party leader in designer clothes and driving a million-ringgit car and don’t know his source of wealth.

Would I be committing an offence if I made some remarks about his lifestyle or question his source of wealth?

It would be my personal opinion based on my observations and if that man takes umbrage at my remarks, he should seek civil remedies for defamation.

That’s what it should be. The state should never get involved. Aggrieved parties should seek civil remedies - even if he or she happens to be an aide to the prime minister or a child or spouse of a VVIP.

The police, in the past and in normal circumstances, advise the offended parties to seek civil remedies.

But last Wednesday, police arrested a 48-year-old beverage company assistant manager in Kuala Lumpur to facilitate investigations into a social media post, which alleged a private secretary to Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob was styling expensive jewellery and clothes.

According to his lawyer, Latheefa Koya (above), the investigating officer said police have opened an investigation under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, and Section 500 of the Penal Code for criminal defamation.

Section 233 is all-encompassing. It criminalises online content that is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character,” and is excessively vague, prone to abuse and often arbitrarily applied.

Enough has been said and written about how this law has and continues to be selectively used. A case in point is the thousands of police reports on a Muslim preacher who uttered offensive words against other religions.

However, no arrests, no detention – zilch. Much later, then solicitor-general Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria said the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) would not pursue the matter further.

But on the other end, is a three-day remand for a comment on someone’s wealthy personality justified? To investigate what? After all, he has given a statement but the period of detention surely must concern all like-minded Malaysians.

Well, let us accept the fact that the police have unfettered powers to arrest anyone without a warrant if they suspect that person has committed what is known as a seizable offence.

But such power must be exercised assiduously, fairly and consistently and one glove fits procedure makes little sense.

There have been instances in the recent past when people being investigated for similar offences were invited for a chat.

I am not exactly accusing the police of double standards. It is public knowledge that PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang who more than just annoyed non-Muslims with his utterances on corruption was asked to go to Bukit Aman to give a statement, after which he was free to go.

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang

However, the man who supposedly wrote that so-called offensive post was detained. Latheefa rightly noted: “It’s unnecessary for the police to request for a remand order against my client, as he has been cooperating. They can just record his statement.”

In March, Ismail Sabri told Parliament: "One cannot say that the government is protecting certain people or prosecuting certain individuals to please some quarters.

“We don't know if there was selective prosecution in the past, but today, there is no selective prosecution involving anyone. That is the government's promise," he said during question time.

So, the question is: If this is a policy of the government, why isn’t it being heeded by the enforcement agencies and the AGC?

Like Latheefa, the public too has reason to question the need for detention and for the police to open criminal investigations as it is a civil matter.

Business as usual?

Already, the authorities including the AGC are receiving flak for prosecuting two journalists for criminal defamation over the articles they wrote on penny stocks.

Last year, in the midst of the movement control order, political meetings were attended by VIPs – ministers included – in defiance of the restrictions.

I wrote: “The police force – its reputation, image, and conduct hardly smell like a bunch of roses. From being accused of arbitrarily issuing summonses to being accused of corruption, from assaulting people in remand to shooting and killing innocent people, they have taken all of them on their chins.

“Amidst such depressing news, there have been flashes of kind-heartedness, generosity, and helpfulness from some police officers when people are in dire situations. Although they are rare compared to reports of excesses, it proves that all that matters is an individual’s mindset and attitude.”

And when no action was taken, I concluded: “The tattered and battered image of the police force can certainly be enhanced if they are seen to be enforcing the law without fear or favour.”

Did anyone pay heed to it or is it business as usual? - Mkini

---

R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who writes on bread-and-butter issues. Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.