by Richard Teo
Malaysians in general and Indians in particular must be appalled at how the Attorney-General could charge 31 Hindraf protestors for the dubious crime of attempted murder.
Surely the charge can only be valid if the perpetrator of the crime can be identified. There is no justification to detain the 31 members if the crime was committed by a single individual. The prosecutor cannot expect the court to believe that the 31 perpetrators were responsible for throwing an object which specifically caused injury to the police officers.
How could the prosecutors cast a net so wide and hope per chance that it may catch the culprit from amongst the 31 protestors? Obviously not all of the 31 protestors were responsible for the single injury caused to the officer. Therefore will justice be served if the law punish the 31 Hindraf members just because one of them caused injury to the officer?
Can our justice be so vicious that 31 individual should pay the price for a crime committed by one individual? That in essence is what the Attorney-general is doing and in doing so he has made a mockery of our judicial system.
But in reality what was the crime committed by the 31 protestors?
By the same token, there were several protestors who suffered head injuries when the police fired tear gas canisters laterally at the crowd. Video clips taken on that day confirmed that quite a number of the protestors suffered injuries as a result. By the same logic the police officers who fired the tear gas canisters can also be charged with attempted murder.
Further the clips also showed that in retaliation some of the protestors flung the canisters back at the police thus perhaps causing the injury to the police officers.
If such a scenario did occur, how could any one be charged with attempted murder? The act of throwing back the canisters in retaliation was merely a natural response to the action of the police in the first place. Is it acceptable for the police to fire indiscriminately at the crowd with the possibilty of causing injury to them whilst it is against the law for the victims to retaliate in a similar fashion?
What is perhaps even more shocking is the refusal of the judge to grant bail to the 31 protestors.This literally means that the 31 Hindraf members whose guilt has not even being established will now have to start serving time before the actual trial commence. Anyone familiar with our legal system will tell you that it will be light years before they will see justice in the court.
The act of charging the 31 protestors by the Attorney-General, Gani Patail is not only a travesty of justice but serves to confirm the lingering suspicions that the Attorney-General’s chambers and the judiciary are beholden to the executive.