I read with great detest and condemnation at Malaysia's Foreign Affairs Minister's response to the US authorities that the actions of the Malaysian police, in relation to the recent protests and rallies, was to maintain peace and stability, and were within the norms of 'universal practice'.
My response to his comment is, how could the police maintain peace and stability when they were equally responsible for contributing to the chaotic and dangerous situation? While members of BERSIH and HINDRAF were merely exercising their constitutional rights to assembly, association and a peaceful demonstration, it was the police who instigated the attacks by spraying chemical-laced water and shooting tear-gas, which forced members of the said groups to defend themselves.
I also find the minister's comment on 'universal practice' specious. While police violence and brutality may seem acceptable in developing countries like Burma and Pakistan, we are Malaysia - the nation that claims to be modern and democratic. Assuming that it were true, our democratic system should be on par with countries like Taiwan, Japan, France and the United Kingdom, who allow its people the right to freely voice out their dissatisfaction with those in the power-that-be.
Besides, the argument about the law is such an old chestnut. As is common knowledge, laws made in Malaysia are the result of an 'elective dictatorship'. As such, how can it claim to be representative of the people, in terms of racial composition?
Clearly, the minister has missed this point.
My final question to him is which part of the universe and of what practice does Malaysia actually follow - the democratic or the despotic ones?
My response to his comment is, how could the police maintain peace and stability when they were equally responsible for contributing to the chaotic and dangerous situation? While members of BERSIH and HINDRAF were merely exercising their constitutional rights to assembly, association and a peaceful demonstration, it was the police who instigated the attacks by spraying chemical-laced water and shooting tear-gas, which forced members of the said groups to defend themselves.
I also find the minister's comment on 'universal practice' specious. While police violence and brutality may seem acceptable in developing countries like Burma and Pakistan, we are Malaysia - the nation that claims to be modern and democratic. Assuming that it were true, our democratic system should be on par with countries like Taiwan, Japan, France and the United Kingdom, who allow its people the right to freely voice out their dissatisfaction with those in the power-that-be.
Besides, the argument about the law is such an old chestnut. As is common knowledge, laws made in Malaysia are the result of an 'elective dictatorship'. As such, how can it claim to be representative of the people, in terms of racial composition?
Clearly, the minister has missed this point.
My final question to him is which part of the universe and of what practice does Malaysia actually follow - the democratic or the despotic ones?
