A FLAW in the way how some net citizens view interference may lead to some precedents set that may be regretted by all.
A comment cited by FocusM, for example, read: “Many of us fought for politicians to not interfere with police work … but now, some want politicians to interfere in this…”
The net citizen was commenting about the police investigation, and subsequently, the deputy public prosecutor preferring charges against a senior citizen, 69-year-old Uncle Patrick Khoo under Section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing public servants in the discharge of their functions.
The same law was also used against former University of Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY) president Wong Yan Ke who was arrested by police officers from the Kajang Police District Headquarters who conducted a police raid on the UMANY’s office in Petaling Jaya.
Wong was later acquitted and discharged without calling for his defence as no prima facie case was made out against him. This, in the view of many, was a waste of the court’s time. According to reports, Wong had merely recorded the raid carried out by plainclothes policemen.
In both Wong and Khoo’s cases, handcuffs were used although both arrested persons were not known to be violent. Given that handcuffs were only to be used when the accused had acted violently, it has yet to be seen how Khoo’s case will turn out when the court trial begins.
The fact remains that there are – and there will always be – overzealous public servants who act ultra vires beyond their call of duty.
Based on evidence from the CCTV, during the scuffle between Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) enforcement officer Azizul Azzim Norehan, 32, and Khoo, Azizul was believed to have acted aggressively towards Khoo, thus causing injury to the victim’s face.
He was not wearing a body camera that could provide evidence that he had been civil in the way he handled a member of the public.
Khoo, on the other hand, was trying to protect a few dogs from being taken away forcefully – something which has irked many animal lovers – with many of them now questioning why the council’s Health and Environmental Services director Dr Chithradavi N. Vadivellu had not deployed Azizul who is known for his aggressive behaviours to a desk job based on earlier complaints.
The other example was the brouhaha over what was the “appropriate” attire in government offices. This involved the police and public hospitals and statutory body, the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM).
As all three developments appeared to happen one after another within the space of a month, one wonders if there was someone directing the narrative.
Had there been no intervention to resolve the issues at both local council and state level, this could eventually be a sore point that work against the unity government in the coming state elections.
A more recent example is when the Appeals Court ruled in favour of a resident association of a guarded community which forced non-paying residents to open the security bar on their own.
If MBPH which is the local council in this case fails to appeal to the appellant court, this could lead to a lot of frustrations in the future where non-paying residents will have to get down from their vehicles during a thunderstorm to open the security bar themselves while the grinning security guards sip their hot cup of coffee.
While it legitimate that no politicians should interfere with any form of police or Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) investigation, the actions taken by enforcement agencies can be costly to the unity government, especially in the lead up to the coming state elections.
What if the decision undertaken by the enforcement agencies is wrong and some public servants are also making attempts to undermine the current government? – April 29, 2023
Main photo credit: Coconuts
