Uthayakumar vs PM - time for a Public Debate?

I believe that it is very wrong to arrest and detain a person without trial - as is happening to RPK, Uthayakumar...

It even more wrong when they also charge them with 'another' offence... as is being done to Uthayakumar and RPK. (Remember, even if they are found not guilty - they continue to be detained under the ISA.)

How do they prepare for their case whilst being under detention without trial - Access to lawyer and others are so limited - and there is also a question of 'privacy'. Transcripts of communications of a confidential nature between lawyer and client may actually be in the possession of the police and prosecutors as I do not trust Kamunting rooms...

Now, Uthayakumar's sedition trial is an open trial - and this means that no one can be prevented from being in the courtroom - the only reasons for exclusion may be space constraints.

A small commotion in the courtroom preceded today's hearing when the case was moved to another court, but before the same judge.

Hindraf supporters were unhappy when they were not allowed into the new courtroom. A shouting match ensued between the supporters and the police, with Uthayakumar - wearing a white shirt and tattered blue pants - joining in.

Kapar MP S Manikavasagam was among those shouting, insisting that the police should stop "harrassing the supporters".

A woman fainted in the ensuing disorder and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance. Surendran claimed she had been “elbowed” by a police officer.

However, the commotion died down after 20 minutes, when more supporters were allowed to enter the courtroom where they sat on the floor.- Malaysiakini, 20/10/2008 Uthaya's sedition trial moved to February

Another report

A commotion broke out at the entrance of the Criminal Sessions Court here when police barred Uthayakumar’s supporters from attending his sedition trial.

Earlier, when the hearing began at the Civil Sessions Court at 9am, the room was packed with 70 well-behaved supporters. How-ever, when the courtroom was changed to the Criminal Sessions Court just before 11am, police prevented the supporters from entering the court and a shouting match ensued.

A police officer had told the supporters that they needed to be registered to enter the courtroom but the latter countered they had the right to enter an open court.- Star, 20/10/2008 Uthayakumar’s supporters create commotion when barred in court

Note that those who came were well-behaved - and the problems only arose when they mysteriously changed court rooms and then did not allow them in. Anyone who came early to get a seat in court who suddenly find themselves in the predicament of finding a seat again when the court room is suddenly changed will certainly not be happy...

There is NO requirement in law that one has to be registered - and the Bar, civil society groups and all concerned persons must protest that move to try to register persons who want to go into court...what next? Will we need to be photographed? Will we need to undergo DNA tests? ...Who is starting all these new requirements? The police?

In fact, the Judiciary is the 3rd arm of the government, which should be independent of the executive and the legislature.

The police are under the executive....and as such they should not even be there 'policing' the courts.

If need be, there must be a separate and distinct security force or police that comes directly under the courts. The court-police should be differently uniformed and will not be under the Inspector General of Police or the Minister of Home Affairs - they must come directly under the Head of the Judiciary.

I believe that the police should have no business in the courts - save as prosecution officers.
Accused persons or prisoners brought to court by the police (or prison officials) shall be handed over to the court police. [How difficult is it for the suspect or accused persons to even tell the Majistrate that they were tortured by the police when standing beside them and all around the room are the very same police - which may also include the alleged 'torturer']

NEXT....That consent of Public Prosecutor issue

Oh yes, Uthayakumar could only be charged and prosecuted if there was a consent by Public Prosecutor. If Ghani Patail allowed his personal feelings against Uthayakumar to influence his decision, then ... the consent is invalid... then the act of charging in court will be wrong - and, I believe, Uthayakumar should then be compensated by the government and paid damages as well.

The consent form is issued under Section 5 of the Sedition Act 1948, which states that "no person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4… without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor".- Malaysiakini, 20/10/2008 Uthaya's sedition trial moved to February

There has been an attempt to paint the alleged HINDRAF supporters as being ill-behaved and unruly ... is the reason behind this also prejudice? Or is it purely a political strategy of the government to discredit and kill off this peoples' movement that refuses to die until their grievances are considered and dealt with... (Yes, the PM and the BN government has yet to make a response to the all of HINDRAF's demands. Maybe we should have a public debate between Uthayakumar and the PM (or maybe DPM) just like the one that we had between Shabery Cheek and Anwar)

It is time the PM and the BN government deal with the ISSUES rather that spending so much effort trying to discredit the leaders and the movement that has raised these issues...

The declaration of HINDRAF as being unlawful was stupid...and should be immediately revoked. For so long as HINDRAF is unlawful - how can the PM or the government even initiate and have a dialogue with HINDRAF. Any reasonable person will know that like the arresting of the 5 leaders under ISA, this new move making HINDRAF unlawful will not at all settle the concerns...

Forgetting BN, Pakatan Rakyat should maybe respond to that 18 concerns raised by HINDRAF - and mind you many of this concerns could also be dealt with at the State levels.

Pakatan also avoids responding to HINDRAF's 18 concerns - choosing only to focus on 'the release ISA detainee issue', and the 'do not make HINDRAF illegal issue'...and slogans like 'Makkal Sakti'...