The pictures, videos and eye-witness accounts are in. The police set up barricades to prevent people from marching in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday 9 July 2011. The police turned up in force. They were equipped with tear gas, water cannons, shields, sticks. They fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse citizens – men, women, children, young and old. When the targets were weakened by the gas and the acid laced water, they pounced upon the citizens. Some were beaten. About 1,600 men, women and children were arrested. More were detained and subsequently released without arrest.
Why use tear gas and water cannon? Why not just arrest those who choose the path of non-violent civil disobedience to protest against immoral laws and practices?
I suppose it will be argued that the police should use all available means to protect themselves. I have no quarrel with the (armed and trained) police protecting themselves. They too are citizens; they too have families; they too have rights. It is for this reason that only they are permitted to be armed – not other citizens.
I suppose it will be argued that using chemical weapons and brute force produces fast results: citizens can be dispersed rapidly and ‘normality’ returns quickly. I see merit in minimizing disruption. I see also the need for ‘advantage’ when a smaller (though armed and trained) number is pitted against a larger number: when people are made to flee, only those who are weak and those who stand their ground need to be arrested.
I suppose it will be argued that rapidly ending ‘situations’ – including (armed and trained) police paralyzing and wounding citizens – reduces the risk that policemen will listen to their helpless victims and disobey orders. Using chemical weapons and brute force eliminates any possibility of dialogue and assures the policemen will follow orders.
But the whole notion of (armed and trained) police dispersing crowds using chemical weapons and brute force, whether powerful jets of water or beating with sticks, seems immoral IF the citizens do not resist arrest. Should police shoot those who surrender?
My review of eye-witness testimonies, photos and videos leads me to believe there was pre-meditated intent to deploy chemical weapons and brute force. I suppose this is not surprising, for Malaysia has a track record for deaths in custody: just think of Teoh Beng Hock and Saravanan. Also, our police are trigger happy – they think their role is to execute instant justice: just think of the sad results of car chases.
It appears only the (armed and trained) police used weapons on Saturday. I am not aware of anyone being charged with using weapons during Saturday’s civil disobedience.
Citizens participated because they were ready to be arrested; they wanted to flood the lock-ups. If the police had told them to either disperse or present themselves to be arrested, they would have formed orderly lines and presented themselves to be arrested.
But the police – under the direction of UMNO-BN and in particular the Prime Minister Najib and the Home Minister Hishammuddin – appear to have been directed to display force. It appears the government wants to show it can and will use (armed and trained) police to deploy chemical weapons and brute force to quell civil disobedience.
The police actions were designed to create unforgettable memories of the consequences of exercising freedom of association in Malaysia. The police were instructed to disperse the citizens, not by arresting them, but by applying chemical weapons and brute force against them. This the police did. They followed orders.
Now the policemen and their wives, their children and their parents are seeing the pictures, videos and eye-witness accounts of what they did. The policemen are listening to the spin coming from their superiors and from Najib and Hishammuddin. The policemen are in distress; they are turning to prayer and confession.
Brutality is not normal, even for policemen and the Federal Reserve Unit. The use of (armed and trained) police against common citizens wounds the consciences of policemen, causes them nightmares and confuses them about right and wrong. They know continuing on this path will make them worse husbands, fathers, and children.
It will become more and more difficult for the police to follow orders – orders to attack unarmed, untrained citizens using chemical weapons and brute force instead of arresting them and delivering them over to magistrates for trial and punishment.
Friends, spare a thought for policemen. They and their families are also suffering.
Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
July 11th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Trust christians to find creative ways to sympathise with and make victims of those who knowingly hurt others. They were only following orders. The real villains are those who issue the orders. This hurts them more than it hurts those they abuse. (insert expletive here).
Firstly as the people on the ground it is up to them to interpret how those orders are to be carried out. Should tear gas be fired at the crowds or away from them? When you grab a person do you do so firmly or do you go on to assault? When a person is down, do you kick him?
Secondly isn’t it true that the power of those who issue orders are only as good as those who carry them out in the name of law, justice and the King? Those who carry out orders that are illegal, unconstitutional and unjust are the ones who continue to extend the power of such a regime. They would hide behind “we are only carrying out orders” and “we are only doing our job or our duty” and they would be wrong – because their job and duty is to uphold law and justice, not to perpetuate violence and injustice. Do we really want to validate them? Do we really want to endorse the idea that it is alright to do wrong as long as it is an order from a superior?
July 11th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Hobbes,
Thank you for commenting.
I am sorry you choose to present Christians as validaters of bad behaviour and use that ‘insight’ to extend my article by saying I validate/endorse wrongdoing and urge that wrongdoers be treated as victims.
Try seeing it this way:
On 9 July the police saw ordinary citizens willing to disobey and pay the price – seemingly for nothing. And they saw more ordinary citizens doing this (compared to BERSIH 1.0) despite immense hurdles placed in their way by the government. They also saw what some of their nasty colleagues did to citizens. And they are pondering all this – with their families.
My point is that we must not demonize the police by tarring them all with the same broad brush. There are many eyewitness reports of good behaviour by the cops. We must now be on the lookout for wrongful ‘correction’ of good cops, and we must help increase the number of good cops by creating a climate in which we say ‘if you disobey bad orders,’ we will stand by you, just as we continue to stand for Teoh Beng Hock, Saravanan and others.
We gain nothing by demonizing all cops. We need to recognize the predicament many of them are in. Just as Shay’s parents were cornered and had to ascribe a race to her in order to get her a birth certificate, many cops feel they are in a corner and must do what they are told. We need to show them how to draw strength from the mood of civil disobedience.
If we demonize cops, we cannot engage them. We need to engage creatively with cops, get them to reveal what their orders were, who gave the orders, who protested the orders and how they were treated. We need to go after some cops – with the unrelenting zeal of Nazi hunters. But we also need to show cops there is a way to disobey, even if it may cost them their jobs.
We need to help cops learn this lesson: MORE people engaged in civil disobedience this time (compared to BERSIH 1.0) despite a more threatening psychological and physical environment created by the government. People drew strength both through preparation (they learned their rights) and through trust (they believed other marchers would protect them).
MORE cops should disobey and/or work around bad orders the next time. Cops need to learn their rights and they need to trust others to stand up for them. This will make it more and more difficult for the authorities to issue immoral orders in the expectation that they will be followed.
July 11th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Mr Rama, I don’t disagree with your comment. So let’s just put it down to my poor comprehension skills. “Friends, spare a thought for policemen. They and their families are also suffering.” means “We need to engage creatively with cops, get them to reveal what their orders were, who gave the orders, who protested the orders and how they were treated. We need to go after some cops – with the unrelenting zeal of Nazi hunters. But we also need to show cops there is a way to disobey, even if it may cost them their jobs.” My bad, I didn’t get it.
July 12th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Hobbes,
If I may, I don’t think Mr. Rama is saying that it’s “okay for the policeman to kick people” or that if a policeman deliberately aimed his tear gas to injure the old lady that this cop should not be held accountable.
I don’t believe that was his point. I think he’s highlighting the ethical situation of having to obey an order one may not agree with but which one fears DIS-obeying, not only because of social / professional ostracization but because the cop may even lose his job.
Even in corporate settings, let’s agree that we’re not always 100% comfortable with the tasks / stories we’re required to perform. But, without justifying outright evil/violence/criminality, everyone does their best to negotiate their own ideals vis-a-vis external orders which challenge them.
Alternatively, perhaps we could see Rama’s essay as a way of creatively reaching out to the oppressors or to those who are forced their dirty work. It’s all TOO EASY to condemn the police **as a set**, TOO CONVENIENT to group together both the cruel fella who punched a protester and the guy who drove the van and is thinkg about nothing else but going back to see his family.
Maybe if nothing else, we could apply Rama’s thoughts selectively? To be more careful in our words and accusations? Wouldn’t we wish the same for ourselves?
July 12th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Firstly let me say that I hope this discussion does not distract from the many articles that are worth reading. I am replying only because there is a point to be made, which was the intention of my original comment.
Alwyn, the title of the article is “Spare a thought for the policemen” which I would understand to mean “Have some sympathy for the policemen”. That has to be the intention of the article. The article characterised these policemen as being brutal, and this distresses them, to the point of nightmares. Granted there is poetic license, the article was not referring to those who were merely there, but those who were actively brutal. If you were there but did nothing wrong you wouldn’t need me to spare a thought for you. In fact many were applauded for their good actions. Policemen who need to turn to prayer and confession do not need my sympathy – they need God’s forgiveness. I should stay out of the way so that the process can take place. Similarly those you have described – there are ethical situations and there are ethical situations. You don’t want your sympathy to cloud ethical judgements, especially in situations where harm is wrought on others. “I know you are hurting because your actions have robbed a widow of her home and property but I understand that you did this because you fear you might lose your job … It is a wrong thing to do but I understand your dilemma.” Does that sound right to you? Shouldn’t we be saying “The poor innocent widow, now left penniless and helpless. How could you? I know you fear for your job but is it right that some innocent soul suffer just so you won’t? Please, listen to your conscience.” I hope you see the difference in focus.
So let me come to the message of this article. The writer does not write from a personal experience that involves him needing to forgive a policeman. He might or might not have been at the rally. He might or might not have been hurt by the action of a policeman. But he calls on people to be in sympathy with the policeman. On the other hand, in a real life situation, the family of Baharuddin has directly blamed his death on a deliberate act of cruelty by the police. Without any outrage expressed, even a mention of this, a christian writes and calls for sympathy for the police. What will the family make of this?
Alwyn, you get my point about focus?
This is a time to rejoice with those who rejoice, commiserate with those who are hurt and condemn wrongdoing. That should be our focus. Like that PAS leader who was hit in the neck. Or Anwar’s bodyguard. Or those who continue to suffer from the after effects of the gas. Forgiveness is for them to give or withhold. Do we say to them “spare a thought for those who did this?” For those who have caused hurt, it is a time for them to examine their conscience and feel the full effects of it.
I am only responding to the article. I do not know Mr Rama. Surely he is a good and nice person. I do not know his intentions but do not doubt that they are good. But I think the focus of this article is wrong.
July 12th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Thanks for the clarification, Hobbes. I think you’ve helpfully narrowed the scope / focus.
I don’t know Mr Rama all that well, but I can attest that his compassion for victims is unquestioned (see his blog http://write2rest.blogspot.com). As for Baharuddin, without question we need to grieve with the family. On the other hand – and granted you may consider this entirely insensitive – I wonder if it’s an entirely a waste of time to reflect on how the policemen themselves must now feel?
If 20 policeman were ordered to break-up a group of protesters, and if one protester died in the process, must we condemn equally all 20 of them? Say it was Ahmad’s baton which delivered the death-blow on Baharuddin, how would Ali – who was standing next to Ahmad and may even have landed a few himself – feel, now that his whole unit is being blamed for the death?
So, in slight contrast to your characterisation of the intention of the article, I would imagine that this is what Rama is getting at (and even if not, it’s certainly worth thinking about): The trauma of the policeman who was ‘part of’ the brutality, does not love evil, was merely ‘following orders’ (your dreaded phrase, right?) and now have to live with it.
If nothing else, maybe Rama’s article can push us to ask: How does it FEEL to be a policeman under orders during events like BERSIH?
July 13th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
I had read the dialogue between the three of you, and so when I read the article by Charis Ding in the link below, I immediately thought of you guys. Here it is: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/41924-someone-did-win-on-july-9th
Charis, in the first part of her article, showed the common humanity of the FRU men she encountered. She experienced fellowship and kindness. Then she saw them at work. I wondered how she felt about the FRU men, when the rally ended. Was she able to still see their goodness? Or does she now see only their blind brutality? I hope not.
My own observations is that some of the officers were uncomfortable in the duty of the day, while some seemed to have given in to the demons and were relishing the power in their hands. At the worst showdown, when the FRU had charged twice into the crowd and arrested marchers, I was standing on the ramp up to Puduraya. I held the Malaysian flag over the ramp and, with the crowd, booed the officers as they led captives away.
One young officer looked up to me and in a very bullying, aggressive manner shouted to me to “Simpanlah bendera itu!” The Indian and Malay men beside me were affronted. “How can he ask to keep the flag? Has he forgotten his own country?” they asked. And so, encouraged by their words, I held the young officer’s stare till he looked away. I was trembling in my jeans–would he charge up the ramp and arrest me? But, I held on and let the flag stay as it was over the balcony and be witness to police actions on the very people they should be protecting.
It was a small victory, but I hope the memory of it will stay in the young man — of the kind of love we have for our country that we would risk our well-being and also of the new confidence in the rakyat (which enabled so many to turn out 709). I wanted this one officer to feel our light and our obedience to a power so much greater than worldly ones. May it guide him..
We are a nation at an exciting point. We will have to pursue justice, and expose and punish wrong-doers. Above this practicality of nation transformation, the way ahead will be better if forged with love, compassion, mercy and grace in true brotherhood of man. I believe that is Rama’s point. I subscribe to that point too.
Shalom! God guide and bless Malaysia. Thank you for reading.