Aliran welcomes the dropping of
charges of attempted murder against the 31 Malaysians who were
implicated by the police without any incriminating evidence. It was
the only decent thing to do when their case was so flimsy and without
merit. Under the circumstance the police were in no position to
proceed with the case. When the case did not proceed
yesterday, it had nothing to do with compassion or justice. It is as
simple as that.
Any claim that that “the
prosecution showed its softer side yesterday when it dropped the
attempted murder charges against 31 people for hurting a policeman”
(NST, 18 December 2007) is nothing but absolute nonsense and has
nothing to do with the truth of the matter.
statement that “we cannot pinpoint who exactly did it or rather who
was the one who ‘threw the brick’ at the person who was badly
injured” is ludicrous. The wisdom shown by the AG comes too late in
the day and begs the question, “Wasn’t that pretty obvious from
day one?” Why did you then charge them, Mr AG?
How could he have in all good
conscience charged 31 Malaysians at random without being specific
about their culpability in the crime? How could he have even thought
of charging them?
He sounds hollow when stating,
“When we exercise the law, we have to look at it fairly.” What
law did he look at and how did he exercise that law in charging them?
Malaysians need a clear and concise explanation to justify his
Didn’t he – in spite of the
defects in the ‘attempted murder charges’ – appear in person to
oppose bail so that they could be locked up unjustly? The ‘charges’
were so serious that he had to come before a junior judge to impose
his presence to obtain the judgment that he was pushing for. He did
all this apparently knowing full well that he was walking on thin
As far as ordinary Malaysians are
concerned, he had wilfully discarded the law and frivolously charged
them when there was no case to answer. In doing so he had so
heartlessly robbed them of their freedom and wantonly denied them
their human rights.
It has not even been established
in absolute terms whether all of them were there to participate in
the Hindraf assembly. We understand that on 25 November, being a
festive, religious occasion, there were devotees amongst them in the
precincts of the temple who had either come to offer prayers or to
spend their night in observance of the religious festival.
Who could forget the hysterical
screams of an agonising mother on the day her son was charged and
denied bail? She kept screaming that her son was not with Hindraf and
that he had only come to pray. But the pleas of a helpless mother
were completely ignored by an uncaring state that was adamant in
going ahead with the case right or wrong.
We are reminded of the famous
line in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure:
“O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is
tyrannous to use it like a giant.”
That’s what you have done, Mr
AG. There was no semblance of justice or fairness in what you did and
how you did it.
19 November 2007