 |
| The '99 per cent' movement is a statement about under-representation and democracy [GALLO/ |
‘To call’ or ‘Not to call’ – Prime Minister Najib Razak appears to be in a Hamlet-like predicament with regard to the 13th general election. Former Prime Minister and recurrent gadfly Dr Mahathir Mohamad seems resolute on this advice: Najib should go the full distance of predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s mandate, obtained in March 2008 which only expires five years hence.
But time is not on the present officeholder’s side. A swarm of potentially hostile factors – mounting fiscal debt, the worsening global economic situation, not to mention such inconveniences as the investigation in France into irregularities in arms procurement by Malaysia – combine to darken the outlook for Najib’s longevity of tenure. Mahathir has given his reasons for deferment. He holds that UMNO is riven by factions and burdened by jealousy.
Thus the party is not suitably placed to face polls. Furthermore, he says the opposition seems to want to go the length of its current term in the four states it controls rather than accede simultaneously to the PM’s apparent desire for early polls. Delay, claims Mahathir, would compel Pakatan Rakyat to abide by the schedule prescribed by the constitution and needed by a reforming-wanting PM.Mahathir’s reasons are threadbare and – what’s worse – suspect.
Machiavellian statecraft
No doubt, he was a titan of timing in the 22 years (1981-2003) he was PM. He paced his purposes – those he elected for himself and those imposed by circumstance – to events he carefully choreographed or that broke out on his watch which his proactive stance enabled him to get quickly on top of.In that way he was not prey to the fatalism of former British PM Harold Macmillan (1956-64): When asked what he feared most while in office, MacMillan wearily replied, “Events, my dear boy, events.”
The activist Mahathir was a skilled practitioner of a cardinal plank of Machiavellian statecraft:
always keep a current of energy, via new initiatives and policies, going through the body politic. That dynamic keeps both the friendly and the adversarial on notice that they are in thrall to a supremo that can play fast and loose with the pros and cons of fluid situations.
That way a leader is better able to leverage on fortuitous events that occur on his watch and better equipped to limit the damage of the unpropitious, always given that an amoral stance towards anything and anyone ensures that nothing sticky attaches to his Teflon flanks.Such a leader is frequently in advance of events – a shaper of them rather than a flapper in their slipstream.But what of leaders who are not of Machiavellian orientation?
They are likely to be reactive to events rather than procreative. And if they are not guided by a vision or by very much principle, they just do what is in their best interest to.You guessed right – that Najib’s position. The PM-cum-Finance Minister has just crafted a munificent Budget that says if he has selected Idris Jala as his numbers man, he has not taken heed of him, particularly his warnings about the mounting threat of insolvency to national finances.
Maybe, the PM thinks he can listen to Idris later, which only means he has to call the polls sooner rather than later because, he may reckon, that after winning the polls he can raise the revenue that would finance his current munificence.
Dr M fears UMNO may loseBut time is not on the present officeholder’s side. A swarm of potentially hostile factors – mounting fiscal debt, the worsening global economic situation, not to mention such inconveniences as the investigation in France into irregularities in arms procurement by Malaysia – combine to darken the outlook for Najib’s longevity of tenure. Mahathir has given his reasons for deferment. He holds that UMNO is riven by factions and burdened by jealousy.
Thus the party is not suitably placed to face polls. Furthermore, he says the opposition seems to want to go the length of its current term in the four states it controls rather than accede simultaneously to the PM’s apparent desire for early polls. Delay, claims Mahathir, would compel Pakatan Rakyat to abide by the schedule prescribed by the constitution and needed by a reforming-wanting PM.Mahathir’s reasons are threadbare and – what’s worse – suspect.
Machiavellian statecraft
No doubt, he was a titan of timing in the 22 years (1981-2003) he was PM. He paced his purposes – those he elected for himself and those imposed by circumstance – to events he carefully choreographed or that broke out on his watch which his proactive stance enabled him to get quickly on top of.In that way he was not prey to the fatalism of former British PM Harold Macmillan (1956-64): When asked what he feared most while in office, MacMillan wearily replied, “Events, my dear boy, events.”
The activist Mahathir was a skilled practitioner of a cardinal plank of Machiavellian statecraft:
always keep a current of energy, via new initiatives and policies, going through the body politic. That dynamic keeps both the friendly and the adversarial on notice that they are in thrall to a supremo that can play fast and loose with the pros and cons of fluid situations.That way a leader is better able to leverage on fortuitous events that occur on his watch and better equipped to limit the damage of the unpropitious, always given that an amoral stance towards anything and anyone ensures that nothing sticky attaches to his Teflon flanks.Such a leader is frequently in advance of events – a shaper of them rather than a flapper in their slipstream.But what of leaders who are not of Machiavellian orientation?
They are likely to be reactive to events rather than procreative. And if they are not guided by a vision or by very much principle, they just do what is in their best interest to.You guessed right – that Najib’s position. The PM-cum-Finance Minister has just crafted a munificent Budget that says if he has selected Idris Jala as his numbers man, he has not taken heed of him, particularly his warnings about the mounting threat of insolvency to national finances.
Maybe, the PM thinks he can listen to Idris later, which only means he has to call the polls sooner rather than later because, he may reckon, that after winning the polls he can raise the revenue that would finance his current munificence.
Clearly, Mahathir is not impressed by this logic which was why he warned that the slumping global economic situation made Najib’s confidence in the domestic economy’s vibrancy precarious.Mahathir’s advice that Najib should allow time for his programmes to take effect is similarly misplaced because measures such as the abolishment and liberalisation of repressive laws proposed by the PM are just that – nostrums for a nose bleed rather than prescriptions for a polity gone putrid.
Mahathir simply does not want Najib to go for a snap election because he fears UMNO-BN is going to lose, on the Peninsula at least.The size and multiracial composition of the crowds that turned up for the Bersih 2.0 march for electoral reform must have convinced hardened skeptics that Malaysian civil society’s now 13-year-old push for sweeping political and economic reforms is headed for its inevitable tryst with national destiny.A reactive supremo of incumbent power wielders, UMNO-BN, at this hour can only pinch here and pare there, paddle here and tamp down there, in an effort to stanch the tide; he cannot stop it.Worse, a Hamlet-like indecision over the timing of polls serves only to emphasise the underlying futility of doing too little too late.The political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville was right: “The most dangerous moment for a bad government is when it reforms.”A hitherto slumbering citizenry is most insistent in its demands when it awakens to the reality of having being doped.
The Occupation of Wall Street, which has successfully and peacefully resisted an eviction attempt by New York police by sheer weight of numbers, has inspired similar occupations across the United States and across the world.A demonstration which began with a handful of protesters getting pepper-sprayed on the pavements of Manhattan's financial district has mushroomed into a national phenomenon, with labour unions rushing to offer solidarity and high-profile supporters lending advice and assistance.
After a year of police violence and savage crackdowns on protest across Europe, the injection of energy from across the Atlantic is more than welcome.
There are good reasons to be watching what's happening in Lower Manhattan right now. The idea of Wall Street as the heart of a global financial system whose collapse threatens the future of human civilisation is as important as the space itself, and while this is no Tahrir Square - the occupiers are hardly storming the skyscrapers above them - the brash symbolism of the protest is hard to ignore.
At the demonstration on London's Westminster bridge last weekend, I was handed flyers reading "We are the 99 per cent". As Britain gears up for a fresh wave of student demonstrations beginning on November 9, the mantra of the Occupy America movement, somewhere between an cry of rage and a threat, has begun to resonate around the world.
What does it mean?
As a slogan, "We are the 99 per cent" is inclusive to the point of inarticulacy. It is neither a demand nor an ideology, simply a statement of numbers. While intended to set the majority of ordinary citizens against the elite "one per cent" who, it is alleged, own and control most of the world's wealth, the slogan has been criticised for its formlessness: Does it mean: "We are the 99 per cent, and we're here to take back the money you stole?" Does it mean: ''We are the 99 per cent, and we will be pleased to serve you dinner whilst you confiscate our homes?" Does it simply mean "we are the 99 percent, and we're screwed?"
It means none of these things: The slogan is a statistic, a simple statement of majority. "We are the 99 per cent," it says. "Why aren't we represented?"
At their heart, these protests are about democracy. They are about the crisis of representative democracy taking place across the world, as party politics consistently places the interests of business above the interests of society.
Fault Lines: The top one per cent |
What I saw and heard in Liberty Plaza when I visited was the same shocked excitement I saw in London almost a year ago, when student demonstrators smashed into the headquarters of the party in government at Millbank: It was young people who have spent their entire lives feeling powerless and alienated suddenly realising that, with enough numbers and enough courage, they can be unstoppable, that they can take on the edifices of power and win, at least for a little while.
The difference is that New Yorkers have achieved this without breaking a single window. The scrupulous non-violence of the Occupy America movement leaves the right-wing press unable to tell a simple story about "feral kids kicking off against the cops": Instead, the images that have been broadcast around the world are of New York police pepper-spraying young women in the face and peaceful protesters being beaten away from Wall Street while chanting the First Amendment in chorus.
On the morning of Friday, October 14, hundreds of thousands watched online as the authorities failed to remove the ordinary, indignant people of the United States from Liberty Plaza. When Americans do symbolic protest, they do it utterly without irony.
In one way or another, we are all standing in the shadow of Wall Street. The dignified defiance of the New York occupation has inspired the world, and may yet provide some relief for the weary fighters on the European front of what looks set to be a long and punishing fight against austerity and state repression.
The question now, for the occupiers and for everyone else is: What will the 99 per cent do next?
Today we face a crushing burden of foreclosures, dropping incomes, and a financial elite that has bought our government. The elite consensus is powerful enough to prevent change, no matter who is elected. The situation seems, at least in electoral terms, hopeless. Yet, America has been here before, and has shown remarkable resilience in the darkest of times.
So just how do we get the debate we deserve? How do we root out the corruption, greed, and fraud in our system? Clearly, the root of much evil in our system of government comes from the financing of political campaigns by powerful interests. And the Supreme Court has said that money is speech, and thus, protected by the Constitution. So we must pass a Constitutional amendment to speak back to the Supreme Court, and assert the primacy of government by the people.
But how do we do this? How does one pass a Constitutional amendment in the American system to ban money from politics? It's not a question with an obvious answer, but history has some clues. There have been only twenty seven amendments to the Constitution in over two hundred years of history, ten of which were ratified with the Constitution itself and several of which were procedural in nature. Yet, the basic path to serious Constitutional change is almost always the same -- it requires organizational focus by a dedicated small group, a willingness to build alliances across factional and regional lines, a belief in playing hardball, and a strong and sustained outcry by a large group of citizens. Often, it is accompanied by local, state, and Federal laws that move the legal system in the direction of the amendment for many years before the Constitutional question emerges. Sometimes it is accompanied by sympathetic court cases.
The response to a situation like today's is often Constitutional in nature. In one historical era long past, crowds of Americans similar to the Occupy Wall Street groups gathered toprotest foreclosures, to show anger at economic depressions brought on by corruption, and to check banker control of the monetary system. They used well-orchestrated disruptions to block judges from making unjust decisions, to stop sheriffs from foreclosing on properties, and to enforce no-buy covenants when properties went up for auction. They called themselves "regulators", and created a broad-based movement against the corrupt collusion of government officials and a financial elite.
This was the period from the 1760s to the 1780s, and it produced the most magnificent series of Constitutional amendments we have -- the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to free speech and the right to bear arms. The conflict over the Constitution was in fact bitter and based on conflicts between debtors and creditor-bankers. The first draft of the Constitution was written by a small group of wealthy men, and it was a document with strong economic implications. The Constitution granted the right to coin money to Congress, and took that right away from states who had varying democratic mechanisms to create money. This dramatically reduced inflation, privileging the banking class.
Beyond that, one of the first bills passed after ratification of the Constitution was the Assumption Act, which Federalized state debt and made millionaires out of many of Alexander Hamilton's friends at the expense of farmers who did not know the bonds they held had suddenly became US Treasury bonds valued at par. Because of the ground swell of anger at elites, many states refused to ratify this document. They required a bill of rights guaranteeing free speech, assembly, religious freedom, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, from torture, from property seizures and quartering of soldiers, and the right to bear arms. The anger during this period, anger from soldiers of the Revolutionary War who had not been paid, was codified in amendments that still protect our freedoms today.
Constitutional change has always happened this way, with the public demanding its rights from an elite that at first resists, then splits, and then relents. There have been four significant periods of Constitutional change in American history. The first was, of course, the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The second set of Amendments were the post-Civil War "Reconstruction Amendments" banning slavery, granting citizenship to all male citizens and barring discrimination against the right to vote based on race. The passion of the abolitionists, organizing for decades, forced the expansion of rights to more Americans. The banning of slavery happened gradually; first the slave trade was banned, then abolition coursed through the Northern states and territories, and finally there was a Civil war. But even with their moral case as secure as it was, it was railroad barons that were critical allies of the abolitionists, as well as those who sought a high tariff to industrialize the North. And it required the creation of an entirely new political party, the Republicans, to end slavery and create the most significant Constitutional change since the Revolutionary War. Abraham Lincoln, remember, was a corporate lawyer representing railroad interests, and he was the more moderate of the Presidential candidates running at the time. Horace Greeley had run for President, as had John Fremont in 1856. It was not through purity, but through struggle and alliances, that these amendments freeing the slaves were forged.
The next great wave of Constitutional change occurred in the Progressive era. These have a far more checkered history. The Jim Crow laws stripping black voting rights happened in part, ironically, because of the next great wave of Constitutional amendment organizing. The Anti-Saloon League, the very first and excruciatingly focused single-issue group, began building an indomitable political machine in the mid-1890s. Its focus and willingness to build relationships with anyone who agreed, from the KKK to progressives to nativists to conservative business elites, led to increasing restrictions on alcohol at the local, state, and eventually, Federal level. If you were a politician that didn't want to ban alcohol, the ASL would beat you, much as Grover Norquist does today with his uncompromising stance no taxes. Even after prohibition was shown to be a dismal and catastrophic failure, and "wet" politicians were elected in the early 1930s, state legislatures didn't want to ratify the amendment repealing prohibition for fear of the Anti-Saloon League. The 21st amendment remains the only amendment ratified by state conventions.
The ASL also contributed to the women's suffrage movement and the campaign to legalize the income tax, other amendments passed in this era. Prohibitionists believed that women would be a favorable voting bloc for their interests, since it was women who suffered when their husbands drank to excess. They also wanted to replace the Federal government's main source of revenue -- taxes on alcohol -- with another source. Hence, the income tax.
Simply put, coalition politics matters deeply when undertaking constitutional change.
The final era of Constitutional change is, according to Constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman, that of the New Deal. While there were no amendments passed in the 1930s, the New Deal was a de facto Constitutional revolution. Labor laws, struck down by earlier Supreme Court decisions, were ratified by massive strikes and a strong popular movement. Child labor was outlawed. There was even a "Bonus Army" encampment in Washington, a march of World War I veterans who were demanding to be paid their deferred salaries from World War I. Francis Townsend set up clubs to promote his concept of Social Security, and Huey Long set up "Share the Wealth" clubs to change the distribution of wealth in America. A large Federal regulatory apparatus was set up in the 1930s, as was Social Security, what would become the safety net. The laws undergirding the New Deal had been passed in states and localities for years, struck down by courts or undermined by inadequate funding. It was only a depression, and then sustained aggressive popular advocacy by labor unions, advocacy groups, veterans groups, and voters, that shifted the Constitutional framework.
Today, we are in a similar Constitutional moment. A financial crisis and crash has shown our elites to be feckless and corrupt, and the social contract undergirding our economic arrangements has fallen apart. It is time for mass organizing, and big ideas, something tea party activists realized, and Obama spoke to in 2008. It is also time for focus, discipline, and the creation of cross-sectional alliances. The Occupy Wall Street movement as well as the Tea Party Movement should agree: our Federal government is bought and sold and rarely represents the people. In our quest to get money out of politics, we are not beginning at square one. There has been an anti-corruption movement against the modern financing system since the 1970s, and we have many allies in this struggle. It is Citizens United and the bailouts, twin representatives that make corruption so explicit, that have shown us we must act. And it is the foreclosure crisis that suggests that if we do not act, we will be acted upon. Such is how Constitutional moments happen. Now it is up to us, the people, to make this our moment, as our forebears have in their moments of crisis.
September 2011 a major incident occurred in the sleepy town of Bharatpur in East Rajasthan. Cooped inside an armoured vehicle, a group of heavily armed policemen fired at a mosque in the district’s Gopalgarhqasba, killing more than half a dozen people instantly. Since then, the death toll has climbed to ten—despite the dead belonging to the Muslim community, men in uniform burned most of the bodies and hid them in a well. The body of a half-dead man was also burned in this gruesome incident, the first of its kind—police firing inside a mosque—in Independent India.
Initial reports termed the incident as a riot—however visits by Shri Chandrabhan, the Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee (RPCC) President, human rights organizations and conscientious individuals confirmed that this was no riot but a case of Police brutality and highhandedness. All the ten dead were Muslim Meos—they also fell without exception to Police bullets. At no point were the dead attacked by rival Hindu mobs, though a day earlier, on 13th September, a Muslim Maulavi was thrashed by some Gurjjar elements.
An anatomy of the incident reveals the following pattern: a dispute over a piece of land was simmering between Hindu Gurjjars and Muslim Meos. These two communities have lived in harmony for centuries in East Rajasthan. In fact, Muslim Meos, inhabit a huge strap of land covering three states. Beginning from Rajasthan, this girdle crosses Bharatpur, Dausa, Deig, and parts of Jaipur. Then it stretches onto Haryana encompassing the present-day Nuh-Palwal-Sohna-Firozepur-Hathin-Mewat region—the thick Meo belt. Finally, it moves on to the Mathura-Agra-Ruhelkhand area in Uttar Pradesh. Gurjjars and Jats are also predominant in this belt. Other communities include Meenas and Yadavs.
Meo history can be traced back to ancient times; even after converting to Islam from possibly Buddhism, Meos fought the Turkish slave dynasty. They sided with Ibrahim Lodi and Rana Sanga when Babur came knocking with his Mughal army. In the 18th century, Meos raided the army of Ahmed Shah Abdali. In the same period, they played a critical role in the setting up of the Jat-Hindu kingdom of Bharatpur and several small Gurjjar-Hindu principalities in Dausa. Conversely, Jats and Gurjjars helped Meos in setting up the Firozepur state in Haryana.
During the 1857 struggle, Meos fought fiercely as a community against British armies. Gurjjars and Meenas, who also fought against the British, were pastoralists and Adivasis respectively; like Jats Meos were—and still are—peasants. Their participation in 1857 kept a pace with Jat anti-British incursions. Meos, Jats and Gurjjars kept Delhi free from British occupation for four months. Even after the capture of Delhi by the British, Meo resistance did not cease. British reprisals were harsh. Meo villages as far as Allahabad were destroyed. Thousands were killed and buried unceremoniously. Swanky British bungalows, Cantonment and Civil lines were erected on the ashes of ruined Meo villages.
When Delhi was being built as India’s new capital in the early 20th century by the British, confiscated Meo village lands in the Raisina area were used to build the Viceroy House. This same building is known today as the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
On 14th September 2011 in Bharatpur, just before the police firing, a compromise between Meos and Gurjjars was almost affected, in the Gopalgarh thana. According to reports, both Gurjjar and Meo MLAs of the area, along with the district administration were present, when a group of RSS workers burst in the thana shouting that some Meos had killed Gurjjars. In the ensuing pandemonium, the local SP, accompanied by a posse of Gurjjar Police personal, mounted an armoured vehicle and drove straight into the local Masjid.
Rajasthan has a Congress government; a group of Meo civil society members made representations to Rahul Gandhi, Digvijaya Singh and other Congress leaders in Delhi. Consequently, the SP and DM were transferred and a CBI plus a judicial enquiry was ordered by the Rajasthan Chief Minister. Later, the entire police force of Gopalgarh thana, including the local SHO was transferred. Furthermore, the DM and SP were suspended from service. The IG Police too has been removed. Though Ashok Gehlot, the Rajasthan CM, acted late, his actions were decisive even in face of opposition in the form of Dhariwal, his Home Minister. Efforts are on to register cases under section 302 against the afore-mentioned district officials.
Hindus and Muslims have jointly condemned the incident. Communal harmony remains undisturbed, even though rabid VHP leaders like Praveen Togadia are trying to communalise the situation. The incident has brought forth the need to enlist more Muslims in the Police force—a point made by Shri Digvijaya Singh, the Congress General Secretary, in his last Times of India blog—and equipping khaki personals with a solid secular ideology.
“No One Killed Kunasekaran, Samiyati Indrayani Zulkarnain Putra, A Kugan, M Krishnan and K Sivam” – Death of justice in police custody
“No One Killed Jessica”, a movie inspired by a TOI headline and based on a real-life story. While the killers of Jessica Lall were brought to book, thanks largely to a resolute Sabrina Lall, Jessica’s sister, media pressure and public outcry for over a decade, hundreds of murder cases and custodial deaths have remained unsolved for years in our country. And the ordeal the victims’ families go through cannot even be imagined by the rest of us who lead our busy lives.
Cipriano Fernandes died in police custody nearly three weeks ago in Goa, yet the policemen have gone scot-free so far, being protected by every stretch of the arm of law. While the law is supposed to protect the rights of individuals, most often, it is bent to suit and protect the offenders.
Cases of people dying while under detention keep cropping up, leaving an indelible mark on Malaysia's human rights record.
Suresh Kunasekaran, Samiyati Indrayani Zulkarnain Putra, A Kugan, M Krishnan and K Sivam – these five shared a common death: they all ended up dead while in police custody.They also shared something else in common – failed justice and blatant abuse of their rights as humans.
When Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak assumed the country’s leadership from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on April 3, 2009, he promised the rakyat that he would “uphold civil liberties” and exhibit “regard for the fundamental rights of the people”.
Sadly or typical in politics, neither happened. Six years ago a royal commission report proposed the setting up of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) but in 2009 the government shot down the proposal, saying the IPCMC’s powers were “too broad” and unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, cases of people dying after being detained by police keep happening. Statistics showed that between 2000 and February 2010, those who died while in detention were Malays (64), Chinese (30), Indians (28) other races (eight) and foreigners (14).
In Kugan’s case, the cop suspected of causing the former grievous hurt has been declared a free man by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court. Judge Aslam Zainuddin on Jan 28, 2010, set constable V Navindran free because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
Kugan, 23, was arrested in January 2009 in Puchong for allegedly stealing luxury cars. Barely days after, he was found dead inside the lock-up of the Taipan police station in USJ-Subang Jaya. A post-mortem declared his death as “fluid accumulation inside the lungs”. But eyewitnessess told a different story. They said the cop Navindran whacked Kugan with a rubber hose. A second post-mortem commissioned by Kugan’s family revealed that apart from being beaten, he had also been burnt and starved, all of which led to Kugan’s death.
On Jan 3 this year, police arrested electrician Krishnan, 37, on a drug-related offence. Four days later, Krishnan was found dead inside the Bukit Jalil police cell, with a Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia post-mortem concluding he died from stomach ulcer. A preliminary report on the second autopsy conducted by Universiti Malaya Medical Centre concurred with the earlier finding.
What made police so powerful?
Krishnan’s wife rejected the preliminary report, insisting that her husband was beaten to death. She said there were photographs of bruises on Krishnan’s body as well as two eyewitness who saw everything. The lawyer for the family said they were awaiting official documents on the first and second post-mortems before deciding on the next course of action. The report is due for release on Feb 7.
A week before Krishnan’s death, another death was recorded, this time at the Sentul police lock-up where Sivam, 43, was found dead. Samiyati, meanwhile, was found dead at the Wangsa Maju police station on Sept 12, 2006. Despite there being bruises on her body, Samiyati’s death was attributed to asthma.
The question being asked by the rakyat is: what has made the police so “powerful” in determining who they want to kill or set free?
In July last year, DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo demanded the Home Ministry clarify the cause of death behind the estimated 1,500 custodial deaths between 2003 and 2007.
“From 2003 to 2007, why was there no action taken? Why is it that until now (the) minister is unable to give a report and details?
“I call upon (Home Minister) Hishammuddin Hussein to respond and tell us how did these 1,500 people die? What has been done about their death?” asked Gobind.
On June 23, Gobind had forwarded to Deputy Home Minister Wira Abu Seman Yusop a copy of a BBC report titled “Malaysia pressed by UN over detentions without trial”. The report, published on June 18, stated that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s visit to Malaysian prisons and detention centres found that between 2003 and 2007 “over 1,500 people died while being held by authorities”.
Gobind had said the deputy minister replied that there was no police report made and the ministry would only take action once a report is lodged.
Truly, such indifference shown by the deputy home minister towards the lives of people only further eroded the rakyat’s confidence in the police.
Basic rights denied
Criminal lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad had once pointed out that laws such as the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and subsidiary legislation such as the Lock-up Rules were designed to “uphold and ensure the basic rights of persons under arrest” as well as to regulate lock-up conditions. However, these have been enforced in such a way that the basic rights are denied.
Section 28A (3) of the CPC stipulates that when an arrested person wishes to communicate with a “relative or friend to inform of his or her whereabouts” or “consult with a legal practitioner of his or her choice, the police officer should allow this “as soon as may be”.
In reality, this provision under the law has been conveniently dismissed by the police. Why?
The Royal Commission on Police report, released in May 2005, stated that between 2000 and 2004 only six out of the 80 deaths in custody were subject to inquests.
The failure of the judicial system in delivering justice to Kugan’s family follows on the heels of Teoh Beng Hock, a former DAP political aide who was found dead on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009, hours after he was interrogated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in the same premises.
Teoh’s family rejected the possibility of suicide, suspecting foul play instead. Following a public outcry, Najib ordered an inquest into the death. But after 18 months of proceedings and with Teoh’s remains exhumed for a second post-mortem, the coroner delivered an open verdict, ruling out both suicide and homicide.
Teoh’s sister, disappointed with the unjust verdict, demanded that a Royal Commission of Inquiry be set up to relook the cause of Teoh’s death. Najib has given the royal commission a three-month deadline.
Najib, however, refused to select any one of the five nominees suggested by Teoh’s family as the commission panel. Names given included former Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan, former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar and workers rights group Tenaganita founder Irene Fernandez.
It is perplexing that Najib was not keen in all five names when all five are well known advocates in their respective fields. Would Najib care to answer why he refused to appoint even one of the names referred by Teoh’s family? Is it because the government wants to hide the truth one way or another? What happened to Najib’s cry of “people first, performance now”?
Even DAP leader Lim Kit Siang was left wondering why Najib rejected the names suggested by Teoh’s family. Lim regretted that the prime minister failed to consult Teoh’s family although he had promised to meet them and the public on who best be appointed as commissioners.
“It is no exaggeration to say that as a whole, the composition of the six members of the commission does not inspire full public confidence,” Lim had said.
In Kugan’s case, his family might not be as “enlightened” as Teoh’s in terms of demanding that an inquiry be set up. But all the bruises on Kugan’s body confirmed their fears that he was severely abused while in detention. A Sivarasa, one of the lawyers representing Kugan’s family, has demanded that Attorney-General Gani Patail resign for failing to ensure that justice prevailed.
Integrity of judicial system compromised
The Session Court’s decision to allow constable Navindran to go free has once again proven the public right that the judicial system is no longer trustworthy. To them it is unbelievable that in spite of eyewitnessess confirming that the cop had whacked Kugan with a rubber hose, the court set the constable free.
“The court’s excuse is the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. It is unbelievable to what extent our judicial system can stoop so low. Setting the cop free has made a mockery of our country’s ability to mete out justice.
“The other truth is that the Session Court’s decision has also tainted the integrity of Malaysia’s judicial system. In this country, justice is all about power and influence, not about punishing the wrong-doer. It is as if justice is dead in Malaysia,” an activist Manohara Subramaniam lamented to FMT.
In October 2006, Amnesty International Malaysia (AI), disturbed over the custody death of Suresh, said its documented cases in the past revealed that relatives of those who died in police custody alleged that the police had obstructed the complaint process, suppressed evidence and even colluded with hospital officials and medical officers.
AI had then called for amendments to the CPC to include best practices on preliminary investigations in cases of custodial deaths. This also included sealing a police station as a crime scene for an independent investigation, including temporary suspension of officers in charge of the lock-up. These procedures were deemed important in avoiding tampering of evidence and any possibility of conspiracy between people involved in the case.
Another issue that AI believed needed urgent implementation was the installation and proper maintenance of closed-circuit televisions in all police stations, especially lock-ups and interrogation rooms with clear guidelines on how these recordings are kept safe.
Incidences of deaths at the hands of the police have left an indelible mark as far as the manipulation of justice and abuse of human rights are concerned. Failed justice in such cases is seen as a humiliation in the face of Najib’s promises of putting the rakyat’s welfare first.
In February 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council examined Malaysia under its Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Malaysia, however, rejected various recommendations by member states, including ratifications of core human rights treaties.
On Friday, the sub-divisional magistrate and deputy collector, Sabaji Shetye, deposing before the judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) in Old Goa, stated in no uncertain terms that Cipriano died due to head injuries sustained in police custody. Shetye, who is conducting the probe into the alleged custodial death of Cipriano, said that according to medical reports and other material on record, it was clear that two of the injuries on Cipriano’s head were fatal and were caused while he was in police custody.
This has been confirmed by Goa Medical College and Hospital’s forensic department head, Dr Silvano Dias Sapeco, who said the death was caused due to two head injuries sustained by blunt force which led to the swelling of the brain.
Time and again, killers have got away in India and many a time, justice delayed is justice denied. Police have a poor track record in matters of custodial death.
The way police have attempted to manipulate public opinion in Cipriano’s case from the time Panaji Police picked up Cipriano and the conflicting stories they have tried to project on where they picked him up and why they arrested him in the first place, clearly points to foul play. When pressure built on them, Panaji Police tried to character-assassinate Cipriano. How does it matter what character Cipriano Fernandes had?
Here are the facts of the case: Cipriano was arrested on January 7, 2011, from his aunt’s house in Porvorim across the Mandovi River, based on a complaint by his girlfriend, Georgina Nunes, who stays in Caranzalem. He was taken under preventive arrest for threatening to kill her, police say.
The inside story goes that Cirpriano was having an affair with Georgina, a widow, and wanted to marry her. He was so passionate about the woman that he threatened to harm her if she did not marry him. Agitated by his behaviour, it is alleged, the woman complained to a powerful politician in her area, who is also a minister in the Congress government in Goa, telling him of her woes.
The minister is known to protect his voters no end, like a Robin Hood figure. He has the money and the muscle power to accomplish whatever he wants, it is said. If he feels the problem is genuine, he will go to any extent to resolve it.
Thus the minister wanted Cipriano to be taught a lesson. He told one of his confidants and close police aides to teach Cipriano a lesson. So, while the Panaji police team went to pick up Cipriano in a jeep, the policeman who was given the task of teaching Cipriano a lesson by the politician accompanied them in plain clothes. On record, he was not on duty at the Panaji police station on the said day, sources said.
It is said Panaji Police inspector Sandesh Chodankar, since suspended in this case, was at home at that time. He, sources say, was not at the police station at the time of the crime. His mistake was he had not put a station entry that he was leaving his office that day. But he cannot abdicate his responsibility.
The government has since suspended police inspector Sandesh Chodankar, sub-inspector Radesh Ramnathkar and head constable Sandip Shirvaikar, in the case involving Cipriano’s death. There are others who were on duty at the police station against whom no action has been taken so far.
Another interesting fact that has since come out is that the alcohol detection test report which has been received a couple of days ago from the forensic laboratory, Surat, Gujarat, where the sample was sent, has confirmed that Cipriano was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of arrest, as alleged by police. This makes it clear that another fact had been concocted by police. The police had stated that Cipriano was misbehaving under the influence of alcohol.
The histopathology report, which too has since come out, clearly states that Cipriano had neither consumed poison nor alcohol as alleged by the police. All these stories being planted by police in the media clearly show that they are on a cover-up operation. And the experience is, policemen are often good at cover-ups.
Interestingly, Georgina Nunes, who had first complained against Cipriano had accompanied the police when they picked up Cipriano. She has since alleged in the media that police had tortured Cipriano in the jeep. He was hospitalised on January 8 as his condition was bad, and breathed his last on the morning of January 9.
Cipriano’s cousin, Cosme Fernandes, has demanded that action be taken against all the culprits and they be put behind bars. He has also demanded that the driver of the police jeep, in which Cipriano was taken to police station, be questioned.
The family is now doing the familiar running from pillar to post seeking justice. Human rights activists have started making some noises. Police say they have done nothing wrong. “Investigations are on,” they say routinely. But will Cipriano’s killers be punished? Will the real culprits be caught and convicted? Only time will tell. Until then “No one killed Cipriano”
The turning over off the verdict of the Jessica Lal Muder case to give a life-time imprisonment sentence to a well-connected accused, is a precedent of the power of media, should they decide to use it. Dramatizing it with a strong cast and making it into a Hindi film is the need of the hour, if not anything else. The number of scams that 2010 saw makes a film showcasing the power of the audience, a necessary welcome to 2011.
Update: Read this author's review of No One Killed Jessica here.
The trailer makes you look forward to a crisp and strong film.
Update: Read this author's review of No One Killed Jessica here.
The trailer makes you look forward to a crisp and strong film.
With music composed by Amit Trivedi and the 'right' snippets in the trailer the initial audience is likely to hit theaters. And this despite the fact that the story is known to anyone who is interested. I'm also hoping the film will also reach out to the people who aren't aware of the details.
The question now is - are the parts that didn't make it to the trailer good enough for us to recommend it to family and friends.
Music reviews:
Listen to the songs Here. Awesome, I say!
milliblog has given it a 200 word review instead of their regular 100-worder. That says it all!
music aloud - "9/10"
Bollyspice - "Ultimately, an album certainly worth checking out! Or 3.5/5"
Bollywood Hungama - "This has to be one of the most prestigious outings for Amit Trivedi as he brings in certain maturity in the way he deals with the soundtrack here. Or 3/5"
Hindustan Times - "fails to contain a cohesive sound and is rather mediocre."
music aloud - "9/10"
Bollyspice - "Ultimately, an album certainly worth checking out! Or 3.5/5"
Bollywood Hungama - "This has to be one of the most prestigious outings for Amit Trivedi as he brings in certain maturity in the way he deals with the soundtrack here. Or 3/5"
Hindustan Times - "fails to contain a cohesive sound and is rather mediocre."
No comments:
Post a Comment