Totally bizarre – Hanif’s insistence to head the “independent advisory panel” into Bersih 3.0 violence

It is totally bizarre – former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar’s insistence to head the “independent advisory panel” into Bersih 3.0 violence when he should have recused himself and even advised the other panel members to withdraw or better still, the Cabinet should have scrapped the panel altogether and given full support to the Suhakam public inquiry into the human rights violations at the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.

The very fact that the Hanif panel had cancelled a earlier planned press conference after its first meeting today and decided instead to merely release a media statement is eloquent proof that Hanif and the panel members are fully aware that they do not enjoy public confidence that they will be able to act fairly, independently and impartially in the inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, regardless of whether the victims were police personnel, media representatives or peaceful protestors.

For the past month, the government had launched a high-level campaign to vilify and demonise Bersih 3.0 and Pakatan Rakyat and the Hanif panel is regarded as an key part of this “demonization” campaign.

Hanif himself played an important role in the demonization campaign from the very beginning when he gave blind and unthinking support to the wild allegation by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government.

Adding insult to injury, Hanif even said he identified pro-communist individuals at Bersih 3.0 from demonstrations in the 1970s and spoke to the media on the use of provocateurs and children in the Bersih 3.0 rally as “tactics of the communists”.

How can Hanif live down these highly prejudicial views on Bersih 3.0 unless he is going to retract and repudiate them?

In defending his appointment and reiterating today that his track record has proven that he acts with integrity, Hanif has missed the point altogether.

If Hanif refuses to retract and repudiate what he had said about Bersih 3.0, he should be appearing as a “star witness” before any Bersih 3.0 probe to substantiate his highly prejudicial views instead of heading a panel to find out what actually happened on Bersih 3.0.

If no evidence is found in the probe, is Hanif prepared to declare publicly that both the Prime Minister and he himself were wrong in alleging that Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government?

Now with the former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir taking the demonization campaign to a new pitch with his preposterous allegation that the Bersih 3.0 rally was a “preparation” and “warm-up” by Pakatan Rakyat for violent demonstrations to reject the results of the 13th general election should the opposition fail to win it, public distrust and rejection of the Hanif panel is even stronger.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has often quoted what he said when he became Prime Minister three years ago, that “the era the government knows best is over”.

This is a test whether he would walk his talk and accept that Malaysians do not want a Hanif panel.

Najib should act decisively to convince Malaysians that the government is serious and sincere in wanting a credible, impartial and comprehensive inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, where there will be no cover-up or demonization campaign in the form of an inquiry, by dissolving the Hanif panel and pledging full government support to the Suhakam public inquiry into Bersih 3.0.

  1. #1 by undertaker888 on Monday, 28 May 2012 - 6:11 pm

    Thiese will be his findings.
    1. Bersih3.0 participants are all communist agents. 250,000 of them coming in droves from the jungle to the streets.
    2. Ambiga is the opposition’s puppet. Her citizenship must be revoked.
    3. There are no police brutalities.
    4. Only 25,000 on the streets. 250,000 if they are communist agents.
    5. No fair and clean election needed. It is all OK. Semuanya OK.
    6. Nasi Lemak traders driving Ferraris must be compensated for their losses.
    7. Protesters provoked pdrm to run amok.
    8. Rahim Noor and the other guy came with the same conclusion as him.
    9. All protesters are paid by DAP, PKR and PAS to attend.
    10. No protesters or news men were hurt by police.

  2. #2 by sheriff singh on Monday, 28 May 2012 - 6:58 pm

    Does the ex-Senator who stands for ethics, transparency, integrity and so on have a view on Hanif’s insistence to continue with his appointment?

    His views would be very useful to guide the public’s perception of this investigation committee. Or has he retired?

  3. #3 by monsterball on Monday, 28 May 2012 - 8:14 pm

    Hanif has changed totally after the Genting old man died.
    He will do anything for money and comfort.

  4. #4 by sheriff singh on Monday, 28 May 2012 - 8:52 pm

    “The behavior of DAP’s storm troopers on the blogs is reminiscent of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under Stalin with its unbridled renunciation of dissidents.” Tunku said this today in an interview.

    So we have another one who believes there are Communist elements still actively around echoing Hanif’s recent comments on Bersih 3.0.

    More importantly it could be vengeance time.

  5. #5 by Bigjoe on Monday, 28 May 2012 - 9:17 pm

    The MSM is full of demonisation of Bersih even now weeks after the event. It looks like Bersih 3.0 success is beyond even what initially thought. Bersih 3.0 is more like a 9.0 quake – UMNO-BN is almost in panic – certaintly like chickens with their heads cut off.

    This whole act with Hanif and panel will make no difference because Bersih 3.0 participants all 150K/250K of them – is smelling their wounded enemy and everything they do to lessen their victory only spur them on EVEN MORE to spread the cause.

  6. #6 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 1:05 am

    ///It is totally bizarre/// – YB Kit. Yes, considering Tun Hanif Omar (THO) is qualified with a law degree from the University of Buckingham (England) and ought to know “Nemo judex in res sua – the latin for “ no man should be a judge in his own cause “ ie rule against bias, one of the 2 pillars of Natural justice! THO has maintained he will be fair and impartial in 3.0 probe. However the facts are he has before his appointment claimed that communist sympathisers were involved in the Bersih 3.0 assembly & also was said to have agreed with the PM that Bersih 3.0 was an attempted coup d’état against the government. Now we’re not questioning that THO has intention to be bias. We’re not even saying that he may well not be actually biased when conducting the enquiry. However just like justice should not only be done but seen to be done, so impartiality should not only exist but seen to exist. Likewise bias need not be proven but given the earlier statements by him and the possibility of bias as inferred from these statements in perception of fair minded and informed persons of the public he should be disqualified or should on his own accord recuse himself!’

  7. #7 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 1:16 am

    Now given the above one would has to ask the pertinent Question – if the intent of the so called independent panel of enquiry were to lend credibility to demonization (rather than exoneration) of Bersih (as in minds of detractors), why would [whosoever that may be who first has this ‘brain wave’ to use such public enquiry for such a purpose] appoint someone controversial (in terms of the rule against bias) to head it? It doesn’t make sense – “totally bizarre” in your words – because it defeats the very purpose of such an enquiry when it cannot convince the public of its impartiality! However there may be another ‘connection’ that makes it not so “bizarre”. I won’t say more but I’ll just invite you to think about one incident in my next posting and let you draw the necessary inferences.

    • #8 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 1:33 am

      Typo – “…one would haVE to ask the pertinent Question…”.

      Back to the incident sometime in 2011 – reported in Malaysiakini) –
      It happened in a public forum. Amongst panel speakers were two Tuns – TDM and THO. TDM said he was (in 1987) not favourably disposed towards draconian ISA. In fact he didn’t want Operation Lallang in which 100 politicians and social activists were carted off to Kamunting. But he said his disinclination/reservation was ‘overridden’ by police decision, that the dragnet had to be activated to calm the tense situation. YB Kit, you have disputed this as “historical revisionism”. Guess who corroborated TDM’s version then? Who said that the decision to arrest the political dissidents was made by his men to curb an outbreak of racial riots? Who said this (and I quote)- “When he (Mahathir) became prime minister (the then deputy premier) Musa Hitam told me, ‘don’t arrest under ISA, Mahathir will not like it’…However then SB director (Rahim Noor) was of the opinion that racial sentiments were flaring and going out of control and it was my duty to uphold the law and that amending or abolishing the ISA was the duty of the Parliament..”??? See the connection? I rest my case.

  8. #9 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 1:41 am

    By gosh sometimes I wonder who really runs affairs of this country!

  9. #10 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 1:48 am

    Rephrase (for clarity): “….We’re not even saying that he cannot actually be unbias when conducting the enquiry…”

  10. #11 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 10:04 am

    When there is even an iota of bias, the whole inquiry fails.

    Hanif, as a lawyer or as an ordinary citizen, should understand this easily.

  11. #12 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 - 10:06 am

    Why does Hanif want to impose himself on us? Is his pride and honour at stake if he withdraws now?

You must be logged in to post a comment.