Why would 30 wardens be needed to handle two defenceless detainees?

On May 9, 2003, around 4 p.m. a despicable incident took place at Kamunting Detention Centre, Taiping, where ISA detainees were locked away. Kamunting Detention Centre is the infamous place where the Malaysian government robs the freedom of Malaysians it doesn’t have the guts to charge in open court. This is the place where Malaysians who are arbitrarily denied their right to defense, fairness and justice are separated from society and family in an inhumane fashion.

Kamunting Dentention Centre stands out as our national shame and disgrace: a place of injustice and a cruel reminder to the whole world that Malaysia still practises barbaric methods of denial and resorts to false accusations to put away political critics and honest dissidents.

Deplorable and Unforgiveable

What took place in Kamunting Detention Centre on May 9, was deplorable and unforgivable. The ‘keepers of the law’ became the violators of the rule of law. They deliberately took the law into their hands and assaulted the detainees under their charge. They acted like thugs and bullies.

According to Cheah Kah Peng, the lawyer representing Tian Chua and Hishamuddin Rais, his clients were ‘slapped, stripped naked, pushed and forced against the floor, handcuffed, sat on, beaten with batons and had pictures of them in the nude taken by camp photographers as they were being overpowered.’

In all, 30 wardens and security personnel in full assault gear invaded Tian and Hisham’s living areas. Why would 30 wardens be needed to handle two defenceless detainees? Doesn’t this suggest that the assault was premeditated and meant to intimidate and to create an impression of chaos? Or were these wardens venting their anger on the Advisory Board that had recommended the release of some of the ISA detainees?

Interestingly, the Advisory Board was surprised that the detainees hadn’t been released when their cases came up for another review on 8 May, the day before the assault on Tian and Hisham took place. The Advisory Board had in December last year recommended that these detainees should be released. The Board itself couldn’t simply turn a blind eye to the ruling of the Federal Court on 6 September 2002 that the ISA detentions were politically motivated, carried out in bad faith, and therefore a constitutional violation.

In the light of the Federal Court’s ruling, there were no legal or moral grounds for the detainees’ continued incarceration. The Advisory Board took the only course open to it, that is, recommend the detainees’ release.

Attempt to Extend Detention Order?

Under the circumstances, the assault on Tian and Hisham was particularly suspicious. Was the assault someone’s attempt to force the Minister of Home Affairs to extend Tian and Hisham’s detention orders? If so, who were involved?

Was it their intention to create the impression that the detainees had not been ‘sufficiently rehabilitated’ and still posed a so-called threat to national security? A series of other incidents in May indicated the likelihood of some such ploy.

First, on 3 May the authorities took Dr Badrul Amin Bahron to Kuala Lumpur to attend court the next day even though Dr Badrul was suffering from extreme high blood pressure. Despite medical advice discouraging Dr Badrul from undertaking the journey, the authorities were adamant that he should go. Naturally this upset his friends and caused animosity between them and the detention camp staff.

As if it wasn’t enough, the detention camp staff resorted to another provocative gesture. While the detainees were away, the Camp Director ordered the vegetable plot that was managed and maintained diligently by the detainees to be cleared and destroyed.

Why was such a step necessary? That wholly unreasonable order resulted in the total destruction of the fruit trees, beans, herbs and vegetables that the detainees had painstakingly cultivated. Wasn’t it an act of provocation to destroy literally the fruits of the detainees’ labour of love? So, was the provocation intended to create an incident that would become a pretext to prolong the detainees’ incarceration?

On 8 May, the day that the Advisory Board recommended their release, Tian Chua retrieved his notebook computer from the record office with the knowledge and sanction of a top official. This computer was delivered to Tian Chua last year but he hadn’t been allowed access to it at all. The computer was just kept in the storage area of the record office.

Yet, on the day of the assault, 30 camp personnel in riot gear went to ‘repossess’ Tian’s computer. Tian who happened to be present when the repossession occurred was seriously assaulted. Hisham witnessed Tian’s beating and went to his friend’s aid. Hisham himself was brought down, beaten, handcuffed, and dragged off to solidarity confinement. Was this high-handed and brutal assault necessary?

Each of those incidents was an outrage. All of them together suggested an attempt to provoke the detainees into some form of retaliation just before their two-year detention orders were due to expire (in June).

Badawi Responsible for Shameful Conduct

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi is Minister of Home Affairs. He is directly responsible for the shameful conduct of his Kamunting officers. Abdullah Badawi hasn’t said a word to condemn the assault on the detainees.

Despite some of his previous utterances on police conduct, it would seem that Abdullah Badawi’s authority hasn’t made much impact on his officers. It is public knowledge that there have been cases of assault and torture under police custody, death among detainees arising from police brutality, and allegations of the sexual molestation of female detainees by male police officers.

Has violence against detainees of all kinds become part of a pervasive police culture? Is it tacitly encouraged, or at least tolerated? How many police personnel who had flagrantly abused their authority been openly charged and punished?

Remember the assault on Anwar Ibrahim? In that incident, police personnel handcuffed and blindfolded Anwar before the Inspector-General of Police carried out his cowardly attack on Anwar. All who were involved were silent or lied about the incident to protect their boss and themselves. The police team instructed to investigate Anwar’s assault didn’t reveal the identity of the assailant.

Only when until public pressure made it impossible to conceal the IGP’s crime, did the IGP confess before the Commission of Inquiry. Yet what was the eventual punishment meted out Rahim Nor? Did he ever have to spend time in prison, like Anwar, or the Kamunting detainees?

It is the failure to punish and punish sufficiently police personnel, such as the former IGP, or the Kamunting warders, or other police officers, guilty of brutality, that breeds that kind of sickening conduct. Unless and until stringent action is taken against such personnel, even detention centres will be unsafe for detainees.

Why Didn't Suhakam Intervene

This case has been widely reported. Suhakam, the National Human Rights Commission, has received memorandums and reports. Why, then, hasn’t Suhakam intervened? Is Suhakam reluctant to intercede? If so, why? If not, why haven’t the Suhakam Commissioners expressed their views?

Isn’t it strange for the Chairman of Suhakam to advise the detainees to make a police report? Although Suhakam has apparently written to the Kamunting authorities their versions of the assault on Tian and Hisham, why hasn’t Suhakam visited Kamunting to hear the detainees’ versions, and to conduct an on-the-spot investigation?

Like every sensible and concerned citizen, the Suhakam Commissioners must know and practise this much: Only independent, responsible and legally sanctioned intercession is absolutely necessary to curb police brutality. Otherwise, Suhakam will be failing to carry out one of its core functions, which is ‘to inquire into complaints regarding infringements of human rights’.

Now e-mail us and tell us what you think.