When teenager Aminulrasyid Hamzah was shot dead by the police in a car chase some time ago, the policeman who had pulled the trigger was charged in court.

It was argued then, shouldn't it be the mother who had allowed the boy to go out at night be the one to be charged instead? Had Aminulrasyid not been allowed to go out late at night, the police would not have shot him. Did the police have a choice, it was asked? The police had in the end chosen to shoot.

Similarly, more than a hundred police reports including those from associations were made against the Bersih 2.0 rally fearing that the rally would cause chaos in Kuala Lumpur and business would lose income.

Even though the street rally had been called off, the police took pre-emptive actions anyway to stop people from assembling in Merdeka Stadium. Road blocks were set up all over the city, causing massive traffic jams citywide.

The city virtually ground to a standstill with very little activity. Certainly people who operate businesses in the city has been affected and it would also have discouraged tourists from coming to or going around city.

Certain quarters are blaming Bersih 2.0 for their loss of business. In truth, it was the police action of blocking the city’s roads that led to traffic jams and losses of business.

But Bersih is blamed to be the cause of the police action. Hence, it is said to be Bersih’s fault. Isn't this the same as in the Aminulrasyid case?

Doesn’t the government have a choice - to allow Bersih to have the rally under police supervision rather than to adopt a confrontational approach to stop it at all costs?

Certainly, the government had a choice. The confrontational approach was taken in the end.

So why should the public blame Bersih for losses of business and massive traffic jams, that are in fact due to police action?