Abuse of police reports needs to be checked

 

One of our abhorrent national diseases which has reached pandemic proportions over the years is the abuse of police reports to intimidate those who make comments, engage in whistleblowing and unearth wrongdoings, using outdated legislation.

At the drop of the proverbial hat, one can overnight become the victim of a police investigation and face arduous questioning taking up hours and, if unlucky, repeated questioning.

Some are taken to court eventually. As journalists some of us, including yours truly, have been victims too.

These contentious reports should be checked as many of them are made with little basis and premised on nothing more than the often-biased opinion of those who are interested parties of sorts.

The police should exercise much greater restraint and discretion when investigating these reports and not investigate them when they are clearly frivolous and/or unfair.

Often, the reports are a political tool wielded by those affected when legitimate issues are reported, analysed or commented upon not only by journalists but also by civil society groups and others.

The police maintain that they have little choice but to investigate because a report has been made.

Lately, we have seen the case of a news anchor who complained about police behaviour against him. What happened was a police investigation against him instead based on a police report by one of the officers involved, prompting a lawyer to say it was an abuse of power.

And then we have the situation, a rather sensitive one of the word “Allah” being used on socks. Predictably Umno Youth, as it often does with things like these, have gone to town with it and threatened a boycott of the supermarket chain which sold the socks.

Indications are that it was a genuine mistake with the stockings being bundled with other brands - police investigation unearthed just five pairs.

If the issue had been handled with a lot less publicity, the apologies may have been sufficient.

However, police reports have been made. Everyone is weighing in with their two sen worth making it even more difficult to come to a rational resolution.

Contrasting positions become more and more solidified as politicians jostle to become champions of their supporters.

‘My own story’

It may be helpful to recount my own experiences here. I was at the receiving end of one of these encounters when I wrote against the whipping of two Muslim women for drinking offences and called for rehabilitation efforts instead, which was provided for under Islamic law.

This was in February 2010, some 14 years ago.

I was managing editor at The Star then. The newspaper never defended me although the article was approved for publication by its then-group editor-in-chief.

Instead, it apologised but I was not asked to make an apology.

I felt I had done no wrong and argued reasonably, without provoking anyone, for a more compassionate treatment of two women for a drinking offence - it’s an offence under Islamic law to drink. However, I stopped my column for a few months to ease the situation.

I had many police reports lodged against me and I had my name mentioned in some sermons at some mosques for interference in Islamic affairs and insulting Islam, which was never my intention.

One of the few people who publicly defended me was DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang.

Lim Kit Siang

The police questioning under the Sedition Act 1948, done in the presence of The Star-appointed lawyer in the newspaper’s office, was very professional and detailed. They took over three hours to finish, at the end of which, I signed my statement.

Although the entire episode caused anxiety and apprehension, I am happy to report that no further action was taken against me.

I realised then that an innocuous, reasonable comment can be twisted to make it something else and a threat to others, even when there was never such an intention. I was a public, political victim.

Last year, coincidentally for an article written in February as well, I was called in for questioning by the police, only the second such in my career.

I thought it would be for criminal defamation where - believe it or not - anyone can make a police report if he felt he was defamed.

This was infamously used for the criminal prosecution of former The Edge editor-in-chief Ahmad Azam Mohd Aris in September 2022 over two articles on alleged penny stock manipulation, following a police report lodged by Metronic Global Bhd non-executive director Kua Khai Shyuan.

Another charged was The Edge contributing editor Shamugam Murugasu.

Archaic laws

This article titled “Criminal defamation laws archaic, stifle press freedom: lawyers” examines the topic in some detail.

The charges were filed under Section 500 of the Penal Code, which carries an imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine or both. I am glad to report the charges were subsequently dropped.

The unfairness inherent in the legislation is that anyone, even if it is a person who can afford to take civil action, can (ab)use provisions in the law and lodge a police report to initiate a criminal investigation into someone who is doing his job and which is essentially a civil matter.

I was bracing myself for a criminal defamation charge in round two but instead, the very professional and thorough investigating officer told me I was being investigated under Section 504 of The Penal Code.

This reads: “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.”

I was flabbergasted. Really? In my column, I wrote about the settlement that Goldman Sachs made with the Muhyiddin Yassin government which was considered too little and suggested that all parties to the settlement be investigated.

Someone considered such an article to be able to provoke a breach of public peace when all I was saying was that the situation needed to be investigated and if there was any wrongdoing those responsible should be brought to account.

Needless probe

Instead, I was called for questioning. Such kinds of intimidation, including the threat of defamation and defamation actions (that must be the subject of a separate article) have been used over and over again against those who simply want to serve the public interest and want to unmask the truth.

Clearly, police reports have been abused on countless items. It would be unfair to blame only the police although in some instances their actions are questionable.

My limited experience shows them to be polite, professional and courteous. Still, why waste time with needless investigation when there is much more to be done?

What is needed is to remove some of the nebulous provisions in the law and the archaic legislation used in times bygone and colonial times to control people and keep those in power at an advantage.

And we need greater police discretion in investigations to save public money and time.

Our colonial masters have long since done away with those dubious legislation which we still cling to. We should follow suit, instead of following their old example which our leaders heavily criticised when they were fighting for independence and freedom and successively forgot about when they came to power.

It is an anachronism that we continue to be heavily controlled in terms of freedom of expression nearly 67 years after independence. - Mkini

---

P GUNASEGARAM can’t help thinking that the law protects more those in power than not.

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