[ad_1]
GEORGE TOWN: Lawyers today questioned Bukit Aman’s CID chief Huzir Mohamed’s explanation that recording police in the middle of an investigation and broadcasting it to the public was illegal, and asked if the same could be said for the coverage of news on television.
The problem was highlighted by the arrest of a former student leader of Universiti Malaya who filmed an attempted break-in at the home of a current student leader and broadcast it on Facebook Live recently.
Huzir had said that it was illegal to record any police operation, especially one that was in the middle of an investigation. He said the police investigations were confidential in nature and that any exposure would affect their outcome.
Lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali dismissed the logic behind the argument, saying that it would make television stations and online news portals showing police raids and other operations equally guilty of the same crime.
“Similarly, crime scene television shows like TV3’s ‘999’ would also be subject to the same law,” he said.
“Recording during raids is one of the ways to ensure that the police are carrying out their duties in a transparent and lawful manner. It also ensures that the police do not do what they want, in addition to ensuring that it is truthful when testifying in court.
“If they are conducting an investigation and raids in a transparent manner and in accordance with the law, then what is there to fear?” He asked.
Rafique said the recordings are important as they could be used as evidence as a defense in court later.
“The police cannot instill fear in the public. When the head of the CID speaks in this sense, he could encourage other policemen to also use it as carte blanche when dealing with similar situations, ”he said.
Lawyer SN Nair also raised further questions about Huzir’s comments, asking what provisions of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) prohibited the police from filming.
Huzir had initially said that by recording and broadcasting a police investigation, the former student leader had opposed Section 233 of the CMA.
“May I ask the head of the CID to indicate to ignorant attorneys what specific provisions of Section 233 of the CMA indicate that the transmission of the police officer’s recording was’ obscene, indecent, false, threatening or offensive in character with intent ‘?
“From the video clip itself, on the contrary, and at first glance, it is the policeman who appears ‘threatening’, due to his words, tone and physical gestures towards the person recording the video,” Nair said.
DAP’s Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh also weighed in on the issue saying that Huzir has no right to outlaw video recordings as the courts must decide.
He asked Huzir if the body cameras that the police inspector general had proposed for all policemen could also be considered illegal.
Attorney K Simon Murali said that while the recordings are not illegal, failure to comply with a police order can constitute an obstruction. He said that while it was questionable whether police officers can issue such instructions, it is in the public interest that a video be taken to counter the accusations of abuse of power.
Last Saturday, the former leader of the UM New Youth Association (Umany), Wong Yan Ke, 24, was arrested for “alleged obstruction of the functions of a public servant” after recording the police attempt to search the home of the current Umany president, Robin Yap, and pass it on. live on Facebook.
