How could Norian Mai come to the conclusion that the Suhakam report is “biased and unrealistic” when he did not “pay much attention” to it? Is his conclusion based purely on hearsay?
If Norian Mai had come to the conclusion that the Suhakam report is “biased and unrealistic” after full and proper study, accompanied by a full and detailed rebuttal of Suhakam’s findings and recommendations, one could disagree but yet respect his views.
But how could Malaysians respect Norian Mai’s conclusion on the Suhakam report when the Inspector-General of Police has confessed that it was not the result of full and proper study on his part as he did not “pay much attention” to it? On this basis alone, Norian Mai’s pay as Inspector-General of Police should be cut by RM10 in Parliament during the budget debate for sheer dereliction of duty!
On Monday, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim said that the Cabinet meeting yesterday would discuss the Suhakam inquiry report on widespread police violation of human rights at last year’s Kesas Highway/Jalan Kebun gathering and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will be issuing a statement on the Suhakam inquiry report after the Cabinet meeting.
Did the Cabinet discuss the Suhakam inquiry report at its weekly meeting yesterday, and is Abdullah’s statement forthcoming?
However, how could the Cabinet focus on the Suhakam report when the top policeman in the country has already said that he had not paid much attention to it, having come to the unilaterial and arbitrary conclusion that it is “biased and unrealistic”? Could the Cabinet meet on the Suhakam report without any input from the Inspector-General of Police?
I have read the Suhakam inquiry report and found that there were detailed and specific findings on the use of excessive and unnecessary force by the police and the widespread violation of human rights which must be rebutted or they would stand as an indictment of police misconduct at the Kesas Highway gathering because police silence on such serious findings of blatant police abuses can only mean police admission of guilt.
For instance, one of the police witnesses at the Suhakam inquiry, Supt. Haji Ruslan bin Dolah (W34), Timbalan Komander of the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) and who was the FRU commander for the Kesas Highway/Jalan Kebun operation called “Ops Padam Kebun”, testified that FRU personnel who did not follow orders when firing tear gas would have committed an offence, that the police would not condone such police misbehaviour and that disciplinary action would be taken against FRU personnel who breached police orders.
As the Suhakam inquiry had specifically found that Shaiful Khairy bin Kamarul Zaman, the bodyguard of Keadilan President Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had been hit directly by a tear gas canister, which is against police regulations, what disciplinary action has the police taken on the matter?
What is the police response to the other findings of the Suhakam inquiry that the police had used excessive force, even “to stop persons from attempting to get away from the scene rather than for overcoming resistance to the order to disperse as provided by law”, against “persons sitting in their cars who were unable to move due to the traffic congestion and who were forced out of their cars and assaulted” and “on people who had already been arrested and were being taken away to police vehicles”?
Abdullah and Norian Mai should explain whether the government or police is coming out with a detailed response to the Suhakam inquiry report or whether it is going to allow the Suhakam inquiry report to stand unchallenged, when official silence about detailed and documented widespread police violation of human rights at Kesas Highway last November by Suhakam would speak louder than a thousand tongues about police guilt and misconduct!
(30/8/2001)