Hishammuddin said the Suhakam report on the Kesas Highway/Jalan Kebun Incident last November was meaningless if it ignored the rights of other parties.
He said: “I suggest that the police tell their side of the story and let’s see what Suhakam does about it.”
I fully agree with Hishammuddin about giving the police a second chance to defend their conduct and honour over the Kesas Highway Incident last year although the UMNO Youth leader was being most unfair to the panel of three Suhakam commissioners who conducted the inquiry, namely the former Chief Judge, Tan Sri Anuar Zainal Abidin, Tan Sri Simon Sipaun and Mehrun Siraj, when he insinuated that they had passed judgement about widespread police violations of human rights without giving the police a chance to state their side of the story.
If Hishammuddin had taken the trouble to read the 66-page Suhakam inquiry report, he would not have made such an unfair and baseless imputation as he would have found that the police had been given every opportunity to testify at the inquiry and to give their side of the story.
Had Hishammuddin read the full Suhakam report? Had the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and all Cabinet Ministers read the full Suhakam inquiry report or are they content with biased and tendentious attacks on the report?
If Hishammuddin had read the Suhakam inquiry report, he would have come
across the shockingly unprofessional conduct of the police at the
inquiry, leading the Suhakam inquiry to the following conclusion:
“The Panel arrived at its findings by weighing the evidence adduced at the Inquiry, the demeanour of the witnesses and the manner in which they answered questions. The Panel notes that many of the Police witnesses gave evidence that had been prepared. When questioned, one became defensive (W30), one contradicted himself (W37), while most stated that the answer would be provided by the next witness. The next witness would come well prepared to answer the questions that had been put earlier but would not answer any new questions. The Panel had to weigh the pat answers given in this manner by the Police against the spontaneous answers provided by other witnesses.”
Can the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Norian Mai explain
why the police witnesses at the Suhakam inquiry were drilled
to adopt a thoroughly evasive and unprofessional strategy so as to
give “pat answers” in their testimony, evincing the utter absence of
spontaneity, forthrightness and honesty, which is most unbecoming of the
honour and reputation of the Royal Malaysian Police Force committed to
the upholding of law and order, truth and justice?
I agree with Hishammuddin that the Police had not completely told their side of the story of their handling of the Kesas Highway/Jalan Kebun Incident to the Suhakam inquiry, although what I meant would be diametrically opposite to what Hishammuddin intended!
It was Hishammuddin who was the first to champion the issue of police human rights immediately after the Suhakam inquiry findings were made public on 20th August - suggesting that Suhakam had not promoted and protected the human rights of police which had been violated at the Kesas Highway last November.
I can agree with Hishammudin that the police, like all sectors of Malaysian society, also enjoy human rights. But the government must spell out what are the police human rights which had been violated at the Kesas Highway incident. Although the police are also entitled to human rights enjoyed by all Malaysians, the police definitely do not have the human right to violate and trample on the human rights of the common citizenry.
As Cabinet Ministers like Hishammuddin claim that the police had been wronged in not been given a fair chance to tell their side of the story in the Suhakam inquiry into police violation of human rights at the Kesas Highway/Jalan Kebun last year, Norian Mai should should ask Suhakam to re-open its public inquiry into Kesas Highway police violation of human rights to offer new testimony to rebut Suhakam findings and vindicate police honour, rights and actions.
(1/9/2001)