Contributed by Chin Oy Sim, Deputy CEO, and photos by Md Faizal Mahat, Administrative Assistant, Bar Council
One motion had been proposed
for consideration at the EGM: “Motion in relation to the events of and
surrounding the BERSIH 3.0 public assembly on 28 April 2012, and matters
in connection therewith, proposed by Lim Chee Wee (Chairman, Bar
Council), on behalf of the Bar Council, dated 4 May 2012”.
Although
a few Members spoke fervently against the motion and the convening of
the EGM, the vast majority of Members present were strongly supportive
of both, and were vocal in expressing their viewpoints.
After
a number of amendments had been made to the motion, it was put to a
vote and carried by a majority, with 939 votes in favour, 16 against,
with no abstentions.
The EGM was adjourned at approximately 5:40 pm.
(Full report to come)
Resolution
adopted at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held
at Sunway Putra Hotel, Kuala Lumpur (Friday, 11 May 2012)
Resolution
in relation to the events of and surrounding the BERSIH 3.0 public
assembly on 28 April 2012, and matters in connection therewith
Motion proposed by Lim Chee Wee (Chairman, Bar Council), on behalf of the Bar Council, dated 4 May 2012
(As amended)
Whereas:
(A)
A public assembly was called for and organised by BERSIH 2.0, a
coalition of 84 NGOs, on 28 April 2012 for electoral reforms. The
public assembly was commonly known as BERSIH 3.0;
(B) Dewan
Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur refused to allow the assembly at Dataran Merdeka,
as chosen by the organisers, and insisted on the use of alternative
venues;
(C) Despite the Minister of Home Affairs having twice
asserted that the BERSIH 3.0 assembly was not a security threat, the
police obtained an ex parte order from the Magistrates’ Court on the
evening of 26 April 2012 restraining Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, the
organisers of the BERSIH assembly and members of the public from
gathering at Dataran Merdeka;
(D) The police announced, after
obtaining the court order, that participants were permitted to gather at
various points in Kuala Lumpur, except Dataran Merdeka;
(E) It
has been reported by various news agencies that there were between
approximately 30,000 to 250,000 people gathered for the assembly in
Kuala Lumpur on 28 April 2012. The Malaysian Bar monitoring team
estimated the crowd to be at least 100,000 people;
(F) The crowd that gathered that day reflected a broad cross-section of Malaysian society, and was peaceful;
(G)
There were police barriers set up at every point/road leading to
Dataran Merdeka, most of which consisted of metal gates, water-filled
dividers and razor wire;
(H) There was massive police presence:
approximately 14,000 personnel were reportedly deployed (including
personnel from the Federal Reserve Unit) together with water cannons.
It was observed that a substantial number of police personnel did not
display their police identification numbers on their uniforms;
(I)
At approximately 2:35 pm the organisers of the assembly, through its
Co-Chairperson Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, announced that the assembly had
concluded and requested that the crowd disperse;
(J) The police
were initially restrained. However, this changed at approximately 3:00
pm, when there was a reported breach of the perimeter barriers set up
at the junction of Jalan Tun Perak and Jalan Raja;
(K) The
police then responded by unleashing water cannon and firing successive
volleys of tear gas directly into the crowd gathered at that junction,
and along Jalan Tun Perak, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman and Jalan Raja
Laut. Similar police action was reported at other points where crowds
had gathered;
(L) The Malaysian Bar’s monitoring teams reported
witnessing the use of heavy-handed tactics by the police, including the
indiscriminate discharging of multiple rounds of tear gas directly into
the crowds, without any obvious provocation, and the arbitrary use of
water cannons;
(M) The police also directed their use of water
cannon and firing of tear gas to box in participants rather than
allowing them to disperse quickly. As participants retreated, the
police should have re-established their barriers and given sufficient
time to the crowd to disperse in an orderly and safe manner, instead of
chasing participants and persistently shooting water cannon and firing
tear gas on them. It appeared that the purpose of the police was not to
disperse, but to attack, the crowd;
(N) Random, widespread and
wanton physical assault and brutality by the police on members of the
public and media professionals have been reported. It has further been
reported that there was confiscation and/or destruction of photographs
and video recordings made by members of the public and media
professionals, and damage caused to their recording equipment;
(O)
There were unwarranted arrests of members of the public and media
professionals. The police also arrested Members of the Bar who had
participated in the public assembly. Whilst in the care and custody of
the police, at least three of these Members were physically assaulted
and beaten, and suffered serious injuries;
(P) In response to
the use of force by the police, sections of the crowd resorted to
retaliatory acts, including the throwing of stones and bottles. The
police responded like for like. These skirmishes between the police and
sections of the crowd carried on until approximately 7:00 pm;
(Q)
The police have failed to display the maturity, discipline and
restraint required of a professional force. Instead of acting to calm
the situation, they aggravated it and contributed to its escalation;
(QA)
The findings and recommendations of the previous four SUHAKAM public
inquiries, regarding the incidents at Kesas Highway (2001), KLCC (2007),
Bandar Mahkota Cheras (2008) and the BERSIH 2.0 public assembly (2012),
do not appear to have been put into consistent practice by the police;
(R)
It has been reported that the organisers of the BERSIH 3.0 assembly had
not made sufficient efforts to manage the crowds or to resolve the
impasse between the police and the crowds;
(S) It has been
reported that between 388 and 513 persons were arrested and taken to
Pusat Latihan Polis (“PULAPOL”), Jalan Semarak, Kuala Lumpur. The
Malaysian Bar’s urgent arrest team, comprising members of the Bar
Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) and volunteer lawyers, were
present at PULAPOL to assist and represent the arrested persons.
However, the police refused to allow them access to the arrested persons
despite repeated requests by both the lawyers present and the arrested
persons. This denial of access to legal representation is a violation
of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution and section 28A of the Criminal
Procedure Code;
(T) The right of every citizen to freedom of
speech and expression, and to assemble peaceably, is enshrined in
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution as well as Articles 19 and 20 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
(U) The right of
every person to life and liberty, including the right not to be
assaulted or harmed, is enshrined in Article 5 of the Federal
Constitution as well as Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights; and
(V) The Malaysian Government, as a member of UNESCO,
is aware of the Medellin Declaration on Securing the Safety of
Journalists and Combating Impunity, adopted at the UNESCO Conference on
Press Freedom, Safety of Journalists and Impunity on World Press Freedom
Day 2007;
Now
it is hereby resolved that with respect to the events of and
surrounding the BERSIH 3.0 public assembly on 28 April 2012 in Kuala
Lumpur:
(1) The Malaysian Bar views with grave concern, and condemns:
(a)
the excessive, indiscriminate and wrongful use of water cannons and
tear gas by the police on participants of the assembly;
(b)
the action of the police in not allowing the crowd sufficient time to
disperse in an orderly and safe manner, and instead chasing the
participants and attacking them by persistently shooting water cannon
and tear gas on them;
(c) the tactics of the police in
trapping and attacking the participants with water cannon and tear gas
instead of permitting them to disperse;
(d) the
random, widespread and wanton physical assault and brutality by the
police on members of the public and media professionals;
(e)
the unwarranted arrests of members of the public, media professionals
and Members of the Bar, and the physical assault and beating of at least
three arrested Members;
(f) the unjustifiable and unlawful
confiscation and/or destruction of photographs and video recordings made
by members of the public and media professionals, and damage caused to
their recording equipment; and
(g) the lack of discipline and professionalism of the police;
(2)
The Malaysian Bar calls for the police to identify their personnel
involved in the misconduct and unlawful acts and surrender all the
wrongdoers, in particular those who assaulted members of the public,
media professionals and lawyers, for prosecution;
(3) The
Malaysian Bar renews our call on the Government to give effect to the
recommendation of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and
Management of the Royal Malaysia Police to set up the Independent Police
Complaints and Misconduct Commission recommended therein, without
further delay;
(4) The Malaysian Bar calls for the Minister of
Home Affairs and the Inspector General of Police to issue a public
apology for the actions and conduct of the police, including the
excessive, indiscriminate and wrongful use of water cannons and tear
gas;
(5) The Malaysian Bar calls for the Minister of Home
Affairs and the Inspector General of Police to issue a public apology to
members of the public, media professionals and lawyers who were
assaulted or beaten by the police;
(6) The Malaysian Bar calls
for the setting up of an independent commission to recommend and
formulate proper guidelines or operating procedures governing conduct of
police in the control and management of public assemblies, and the use
of non-lethal and lethal weapons, which would be in accordance with
internationally-accepted standards, in particular the Code of Conduct
for Law Enforcement Officials (adopted by United Nations General
Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979) and the Basic Principles
on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 1990;
(7)
The Malaysian Bar calls on the Government to pay just and proper
compensation to members of the public, media professionals and lawyers
who were assaulted;
(8) The Malaysian Bar condemns the police
for denying lawyers access to arrested persons and calls upon the police
to abide by and give effect to Article 5 of the Federal Constitution
and section 28A of the Criminal Procedure Code;
(9) The Bar
Council will look into how it can assist those denied their
constitutional rights and those who were assaulted to pursue claims
against the relevant parties for just and proper compensation;
(10) The Malaysian Bar calls on the Government, in line with the Medellin Declaration, to:
(a)
prevent crimes against media professionals, investigate and penalise
such crimes, provide witness protection for those testifying about them
and ensure that the perpetrators do not go unpunished;
(b)
promote awareness and train Malaysian law enforcement agencies to
respect and promote the safety of media professionals, and ensure that
they are able to work in full security and independence; and
(c) take resolute action for the safety of media professionals and ensure respect for their professional independence;
(11)
The Malaysian Bar calls on Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur to uphold
freedom of assembly and the right of all to utilise Dataran Merdeka for
public assemblies; and
(12) The Malaysian Bar reaffirms the
right of individuals to participate in public assemblies. The Malaysian
Bar is however concerned by, and does not countenance, any acts of
violence in a public rally. Such action by participants is not an
appropriate response to the police. Such right of public assembly must
be exercised in a peaceful and responsible manner. The Malaysian Bar
reminds organisers of public assemblies of their responsibility to take
all reasonable action to ensure a peaceful assembly. The Malaysian Bar
is equally concerned by reports that certain persons had crossed through
the police perimeter barriers at the relevant location when the said
organisers had at about 2:35 pm called for a dispersal of the assembly.
The motion, as amended, was put to a vote and carried by a majority (939 votes in favour, 16 against, with no abstentions).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment