Inconsistency begets accusations of double standards

 

So, what is the big fuss over how caretaker Kedah menteri besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor was arrested in the wee hours of Tuesday?

Is it because he is considered a VVIP or that the whole process was an abuse of the system and procedures?

Did he expect to be “invited” to the police station for onward transportation to the court later in the morning?

By his own admission, Sanusi said he was in communication with Bukit Aman since Monday night and had explicitly told them he did not want to be arrested. Did he consider this an entitlement?

Wow! An accused person or a suspect in a criminal case demanding such a privilege is something new and gives a new meaning and dimension to Malaysia Boleh.

Lesser mortals are dragged out of their homes, handcuffed and driven hundreds of kilometres just to have their statements recorded, but Sanusi intimated he wanted to bypass the arrest and head to court.

Perhaps this is because Sanusi has always been a special one when it comes to brushes with the law.

Remember his infamous episode of going for a test drive at the height of the movement control order (MCO) in June 2021?

While others were marched into waiting police lorries for similar offences, he was not arrested and there was an offer to issue a compound fine – 40 days after the offence was committed.

Then Bukit Aman criminal investigation department chief Abdul Jalil Hassan said the amount of the fine has yet to be disclosed as per high-profile cases, but it was up to the alleged offender to accept it and pay the fine or fight it in court.

“We have sent the compound to that person (Sanusi) as instructed by the prosecutor’s office.

“In past VIP cases, such as Neelofa (Noor Neelofa Mohd Nor) and Siti Nurhaliza (Taruddin), we have done it the same way and it’s up to them if they want to fight it in court,” he was quoted as saying on the quantum of fine.

A few days later, a group of youths who gave their friend a final religious send-off at a funeral procession were arrested for flouting the MCO.

The 11 youths, aged between 15 and 35, gathered in a crowd, with some acting as pallbearers during a procession for about 50m to a crematorium on Jalan Siram in Butterworth.

Sanusi may have forgotten but two months later, a senior citizen was arrested at Lenggeng, Negri Sembilan in the wee hours of the morning over a viral video which allegedly insulted him following his gaffe on freezer containers.

The 61-year-old was brought to Sungai Petani to be detained after a police report was lodged by Sanusi’s special officer, Azizan Hamzah.

Kuala Muda district police chief Adzli Abu Shah said the nine-minute Facebook video uploaded by the account with the username Kamal Hero Malaya was politically motivated and had intended to insult, bring down the dignity, and tarnish Sanusi's reputation.

After he was charged, Sanusi claimed there is no freedom of speech in Malaysia. Was it not the same Sanusi’s aide who lodged the report against the senior citizen who expressed his views?

Where were the voices of concern then? No one spoke up for the senior citizen who was driven across state boundaries. Because he was an ordinary Joe, the silence was deafening.

Inconsistencies in law and penalties

Much earlier, journalist Sidek Kamiso was arrested at 4.30am on Sept 19, 2016, at his home in Petaling Jaya for an alleged offence under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which criminalises online content deemed offensive.  

In the pre–dawn raid, four police officers in plain clothes and in an unmarked vehicle jumped over the gate of Sidek’s house and repeatedly banged on the front door before gaining entry.  

The cops then searched his house in his wife’s presence, while their children - aged 10 and 14 - and a guest aged 12 locked themselves in another room. This episode left the entire household, including the young guest, in fear, shock, and disbelief.

Thereafter, he was taken to Johor Bahru and produced in court at about 3pm, during which time the investigating officer applied for a four–day remand order. However, the magistrate refused the remand application because it was an abuse of the court process. 

No charges were proffered against Sidek and there was no remorse, regret, and let alone an apology for this disreputable episode.

But the takeaway is the giveaway from Jalil who said that in VIP cases, “we have done it the same way,” (imposing a compound fine).

Caretaker Kedah menteri besar Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor

This simply means there are different strokes for different folks. There are inconsistencies in the application of the law and penalties.

Such changeability has brought to the forefront the current hullabaloo over Sanusi’s arrest.

Section 15(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a police officer only needs to touch or confine a person to effect an arrest. Therefore, if there is a submission to custody, the police officer no longer has any reason to touch or confine the person.

It is an everyday occurrence outside police stations for suspects to be handcuffed to be brought to court. When in prison, they are also handcuffed and brought to court in prison attire.

Herein lies the inconsistency. While VVIPs are allowed to come to court without handcuffs and in full suit, the lesser mortals are treated differently. 

They must have nasi bungkus in the remand cell in the court while others have the luxury of home-cooked food in a room with family members.

We have often been told that such arrangements are at the discretion of the enforcement agency. And let us be reminded that these happenings, sometimes highlighted on social media with images send the wrong message to the public.

Wouldn’t the best practice be to treat all equally without any form of special treatment? - 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.