The report noted that the manner in which the tear gas canisters were fired suggested the police had wanted to inflict injury.
The Bar Council had placed its members as special monitors of last Saturday’s rally after an arrangement made with the police.
It revealed today details of its investigation on Bersih 2.0’s Saturday rally, concluding that the event had been peaceful and did not warrant the bombardment of chemicals that the police had unleashed on protestors.
Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee told reporters that the council will present its findings, which was based on first-hand accounts from its monitoring team, to the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar when it meets with him sometime this week.
The team, he said, had reported only a few isolated cases of protestors displaying unruly behaviour when “one or more” were seen lobbing mineral water bottles at a televison station reporter.
The police, on the other hand, said Lim, had used non-lethal weapons like tear gas and water cannons “arbitrarily, indiscriminately and excessively” to disperse protestors despite the lack of provocation from the thousands who had gathered for the march.
“Some monitors noted that the police did give warnings prior to utilising tear gas and water cannons. However, it was difficult for the huge crowd to hear what the police commanders said via their loud hailers, exccept for participants who were situated near the police,” the council said in a summary of its report handed out to reporters here today.
Lim said that in one incident, protestors found themselves crammed into a tight knot behind Kompleks Dayabumi with no escape route as tear gas canisters were fired at them from both ends.
“This happened in Puduraya area as well. You launch at both ends, without any exit point. You are supposed to launch to disperse... all these tactics were wholly unnecessary,” he said.
Lim said that based on at least two inquiry reports prepared by Suhakam, the police had made all the wrong moves on Saturday in terms of crowd control.
“You do not engage by using tear gas and water cannons... you use a collaborative approach with the crowd. The police should have minimised any show of non-lethal weapons and of course, firearms.
“Police officers should be assigned to engage the crowd, find the leader and find their intention. If they intend to move forward and moving forward would disrupt public order, then tell them to stay where they are, ask them how much time they need for speeches and such and once they are done, they will disperse,” he said.
Lim said only one police officer by the name of “Suhaimi” had displayed such tolerance while the most others had been confrontational, displaying “us against you” attitudes.
“There was a kind of mood among some of them. Like — I am going to fight you because you want to fight me.... I am going to catch you and hold you down and punch you and arrest you. This mindset must change. The police are there to protect us, to enable us to exercise our freedom of assembly, not oppress our right,” he said.
Lim also noted the manner with which the riot police had launched the tear gas canisters — at close range and at eye-level — saying this appeared as if they had wanted to use them to inflict injury instead of to disperse the crowd.
“When used in a certain manner, they can become lethal weapons. We also have eyewitness accounds of police attacking protestors,” he said, but added later that the council’s monitoring team had not been able to record on camera any clear evidence of police brutality.
Lim, who had earlier announced that the IGP had already agreed to meet with the council, said that among others, the council will urge the police to conduct a comprehensive internal investigation on Saturday’s rally and participate in any inquiry by Suhakam.
No comments:
Post a Comment