I have asked my office to arrange for an appointment with the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor to give him an opportunity to explain the bias in police investigations involving government leaders and police officers when compared to Opposition leaders and government critics


By Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Monday, 2nd October 1995:

I have asked my office to arrange for an appointment with the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor to give him an opportunity to explain the bias in police investigations involving government leaders and police officers when compared to Opposition leaders and government critics

I have asked my office to arrange for an appointment with the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor to give him an opportunity to explain the bias in police investigations involving government leaders and police officers when compared to Opposition leaders and government critics

Last Wednesday, Bukit Aman issued a press statement through its public relations chief Supt Ghazali Mohamed Amin, which was carried prominently on radio and television and in the newspapers, that the CID Director, Datuk Mohamed Said Awang wanted to see me as if I was on the police “Wanted List”, but when I cancelled my flight back to Penang and went to Bukit Aman the next, day, the CID Director was not available.

Two days ago, the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor described as “baseless” my allegations of police bias when conducting investigations involving government leaders and police officers when compared to opposition leaders or crit¬ics of the government.

He said that, “the system provides for ‘check-and-balance1” and anyone who is not satisfied with any police action could bring the matter to courts.

It is sad that the IGP does not. understand that, it is precisely because the Police hide behind the courts, claiming that, this will provide the necessary ‘check-and-balance’ against police abuses of power, that the public have no confidence in the police when it comes to police investigations involving govern¬ment leaders and police officers.

If the Police is to fully gain the confidence of the public when it conducts investigations against government leaders and police officers, it must operate with greater accountability and transparency as demanded by A democratic society and must be more sensitive to public opinion and public morality – and not hide behind the mythical “check-and-balance” provided by the courts.

When and who gave the Inspector-General of Police the powers to dabble in foreign policy?

Rahim also tried to explain why the police had called off its probe into Australian mass media allegations in early 1994 that Malaysian politicians had been recruited and paid by Australian spies.

The IGP said that police investigations were called off “in the interest of ties between the Australian and Malaysian Governments.”

When and who gave the IGP the powers to dabble in foreign policy?

I will ask the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister to explain in the forthcoming Parliament when and why the Inspector-General of Police was given a foreign policy brief.

The IGP’ s explanation is very weak. Why did the IGP suddenly realise that police investigations should be called off “in the interests of ties between the Australian., and Malaysian Governments” after Australian mass media had reported that it was the government politicians who had been recruited by Australian spies and not opposition leaders?

Will the reason calling off the police probe “in the interests of the ties between the Australian and Malaysian Governments” apply if it were really Opposition leaders who had been recruited by Australian spies?

I propose to make the issue of police bias in its investigations of government leaders and police officers when compared to Opposition leaders and government critics a top item in the forthcoming Budget Parliamentary meeting.

However, I am prepared to hear out the Inspector-General of Police and to give him an opportunity to present the Bu k i t Am an case.

Investigation of Sabu for the assault on the two TV3 crew members another example of police bias against the Opposition.

It is reported today that the Attorney-General’s Chambers has found no grounds to charge former PAS deputy youth chief, Mohamed Sabu in connection with the assault of two TV3 crew members during a PAS ceramah in Kedah during the recent general election campaign.

In the April 22 incident, TV3 cameraman Rosli Ramli, 29, and reporter Fadzli Ahmad, 22, were allegedly assaulted by a group of PAS supporters for filming Mohamad Sabu’s ceramah at Kampung Seberang Kota in Kuala Kedah.

Following the report, police sought-the assistance of five PAS members, including Sabu., to come forward to assist in investigations. However, when only two of the party members came forward to do so, a court, order war. then obtained to call the rest to present themselves to the police.

Mohamed Sabu should never have been investigated by the police as if he had instigated the assault and this is another example of police bias against the Opposition.

DAP never condones violence, particularly violence against. journalists, however biased they may be. We cannot really blame the journalists for the mass media bias, because this is the decision of the newspaper proprietors who are serving a different agenda.

When the two TVS crew were assaulted, I promptly issued a statement denouncing the violence.
At that time, denunciation of Sabu, FAS and by extension the Opposition, for the assault on the TV3 crew, came thick and fast, but no one questioned why the TV3 News Management deliberately sent the TV3 crew to provoke such an incident although such an incident cannot, be condoned under any circumstances .

The TV3 news during the general election was not news at all but sheer propaganda, and the TV3 news crew were not sent to report fairly but to get materials which could be used to present the Opposition in the worst possible light.

In the circumstances, while those who laid their hands on the two TV3, crew members should be punished, the TV3 News Management who provoked such a situation as to jeopardise the safety of the two TV3 crew members must also be condemned and exposed as “irresponsible” and most cowardly.

If those responsible for the TV 3 News Management. during the general election dare to be so biased and unfair to the Opposition as to provoke anger of Opposition members and supporters, why was it they did not have the courage to appear before Opposition ceramahs to answer for their biased coverage instead of exposing innocent TV3 crewmen to public anger and outrage?

An independent and impartial Police would have understood this background to the incident.

I am not saying that the Police should not investigate to find out who had assaulted the two TV3 crew members, for a criminal offence is a criminal offence, but that the Police should not have played along with the Barisan Nasional hysteria at the time to want to interrogate and arrest Mohamad Sabu giving the impression at the most critical time before polling day that Sabu, and by implication, the Opposition, are no different from gangsters!

Loading