A Clear-Cut Abuse of Power

It was reported in the newspaper about a teacher who was arrested and detained by the police and had to spend one night in the police lock up for “threatening” one of his students that he (the teacher) might pull his (the student) pants down if the student contravened school discipline again. The student’s father found it too harsh for him to accept and had to resort to abuse of power by using his connection with the police force to have the teacher arrested, detained and spent one night in the police lock up for passing a “threat” remarks, which is not an offence or rather not a criminal offence at the first place. It was also reported that the student comes from a well-known family. This is a blatant abuse of power by the father and the police. Whoever in the police force who gave such a stupid instruction to arrest and detain the teacher is answerable for his action and proper disciplinary (for issuing invalid instruction) as well as legal action (for abusing his power) must be taken against him/her.

Read here for full report http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/21/nation/21307389&sec=nation

The teacher is now contemplating of taking legal action against the father and the police. My advice to the teacher is , go ahead!!! You have every right to sue this buggers. They are all sick people around us who thought they can do what they like. Teach these uncivilized people a good lesson. Lodge a police report. Get them investigated. Put them in prison. Let them know that money is not everything. The day where the rich is powerful and the poor is powerless has long gone (but sad to note that there are still people [like these buggers] who live in that era nowadays).

Let us look at whether the so called “threat” by the teacher towards his student is a crime that may have warrant the police to arrest the teacher and put him in a lock up for one night. The closest offence stated in the Penal Code of this nature is Extortion as stipulated in Section 383. Section 383 of the Penal Code provides as follows: -

"Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"

So, in order to prove extortion, the following elements must present: -

(a) Intention
(b) Put others in fear of injury
(c) Induces the person to deliver any property

In the present case, none of the three elements stated above exists and as such, there is no extortion and therefore, what the teacher had said to his student was not a crime. So, on what basis did the police arrest and detain the teacher and made the poor chap to spent one night in the police lock-up? Was it just because the father was someone influential and has connection with the police, the police felt bound by his request or demand to arrest the teacher and put him in the lock up? Is our police force inferior than the boy’s father? Even the PM is not authorized to give such an instruction to the police in that situation, what more the normal citizen, like you and me?

So, with no offence committed, the arrest made by the police was illegal, which caused the detention as “wrongful confinement”.

Section 340 of the Penal Code defines wrongful confinement as: -

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person

As such, in this case the teacher can be said to have been wrongfully confined when he was made to spend one night in the police lock up for not committing any criminal offence, as he was restraint from moving beyond the four walls of the police lock up.

The punishment for wrongful confinement is one year imprisonment or fine of RM2000 or both as stipulated in Section 342 of the same Code.

Apart from that, the wrongful detention also amounts to a violation of freedom of movement as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Article 9 (2) of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of movement as it provides that: -

Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof. So, by arresting and detaining the teacher for no valid reason, the police can be said to have violated the teacher’s right to freedom of movement for the night that he spent in the lock up

And the best part was that the teacher had to resort to his influential friend to get him released from the lock up. I wonder what type of police administration we are currently having. What has happened suggests that if you are well connected with the police, you are safe, otherwise, those connected with the police can make your life miserable.

The abuse of power in Mlaaysia is miserable. I think it happen everywhere and almost all the time. If you want to read more on abuse of power, you may want to read Tun Dr. Mahathir’s article on lobbying in his own blog at http://www.chedet.com/

KL CID Chief Senior Asst Comm II Ku Chin Wah confirmed the teacher’s arrest and said that police were still investigating. I hope police would do thorough investigation without fear or favour in upholding justice.

Cabinet Didn't Approve of Indelible Ink, said EC Chairman

What a twist now!!! Now, it is a totally new story. It was the cabinet and not the EC who scrapped the idea of using the indelible ink. Read full story here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/17/nation/20080517143340&sec=nation

There can be two (2) possibilities here and few consequences: -

Possibility No. 1 and The Consequence
What the EC Chairman said is true. If that is the case, one peculiar issue here is why was there cabinet's involvement in EC's business. EC should be independent and impartial in discharging its duties. No one political party, not even the government should have any sort of influence over EC. EC should be allowed to discharge its duties without fear or favour. But the question here is, why did the cabinet has to disapprove the use of indelible ink? After all these hanky panky, are we supposed to believe the excuse given i.e. security reason? WHY??? This is absolutely amounting to abuse of power and I believe the ACA, without having to wait for any report should commence the investigation without any due delay. The ACA should get to the bottom of the issue. The allegation by the EC Chairman is very serious (perhaps more serious than Karpal's statement) because it involves the process of formation of the government. As such, I do not see why the ACA should not commence its investigation immediately unless there is also an instruction from the cabinet that no investigation should be carried out. This is very interesting, as I am waiting, what's next.

Possibility No. 2 and The Consequence
The EC Chairman tell lies. If that is the case, then I believe that the EC Chairman should be charge under the infamous Sedition Act. Simply because his statement (if indeed untrue) can cause public to lose confidence in the present government.

So, whatever the possibility is, there is always a consequence. So, let us see the reaction from Pak Lah, or may be Najib (as Pak Lah is good is pushing the responsibility to his deputy) or may be Nazri Aziz because I think this is the best time for him to be a hero to save his Boss or his Boss to be.

Having said that, there is a strong indication from the EC Chairman's statement that there was or were interference from the government. I mean, if we really analyse his statement as a whole and in particular the following: -

He said he was told to take responsibility for agreeing to it...It’s not easy being EC chairperson

I just do not see how we can interpret the above two statements other than serious interference from the government in the business of EC. I think everybody will agree with me. The whole statement quoted above shows that after the Cabinet made the decision (to scrap the use of the ink), the Chairman left with no option but to agree with it and after having been made to agree (may be unwillingly) with the decision, he was told to take responsibility. What an irresponsible cabinet the nation had then. Well, for the EC Chairman, you were made a scapegoat.