Anyone present at the recent parliamentary sessions would perhaps agree that the "dewan yang mulia ini" (august house) has been turned into a battlefield for Umno and PAS members of parliament.

Who started it? It may surprise some people, but contrary to what has been often portrayed of the fundamentally Islamic party, PAS is careful not to drag sensitive issues like race or Islam into the limelight or hurl unwarranted accusations at Umno for being less Islamic than themselves.

On the other hand, Umno MPs are the ones who would usually provoke PAS into such arguments. Umno MPs have lately incurred the wrath of PAS and a large section of the country's Malay population by accusing the party of spreading lies. Umno has also been attacking PAS' media organ, Harakah, as a slanderous and treacherous paper.

There may be many accusations about PAS Youth chief Mahfuz Omar being emotional, but it is often the Umno guys who give vent to their frustrations in the Dewan like school boys, thumping tables and making querulous noises. Umno back-benchers can act in such a pack-like frenzy that sparks are bound to fly.

Such puerility took place last Wednesday. MP for Tampin Shahziman Abu Samad was so ticked off by Mahfuz's (MP for Pokok Sena, Kedah) allegations of police brutality at the Kesas highway impromptu gathering on Nov 5 that he (Shahzimin) jumped up and tried to lunge at his opponent (Mahfuz) but was restrained by his (Shahzimin) comrades who sat near him.

It was an eye-opener for students in the gallery who saw how the whole thing started. Mahfuz, after all, had locus standi to address the house. The speaker, Zahir Mohamad Ismail, had granted him permission to debate the matter because of its urgency.

Mahfuz's report that 125 people were remanded, several injured, one almost blinded by tear gas, a woman stripped naked in prison, an MP whipped (he had cane marks to show) and that 70 vehicles were vandalised by riot police should be reason enough for MPs to address the issue in a solemn manner, especially when the Deputy Home Affairs Minister Zainal Abidin Zin was present to hear the grouses.

Instead, Barisan Nasional MPs were heard interjecting with mocking comments like "kesian ... kesian" (poor thing).

When Mahfuz stressed that it was the rakyat's basic human right to gather peacefully, BN MPs charged that the people had "blatant disregard for the law" and insisted that the gathering was unlawful.

When Mahfuz demanded to know when the people's rights would be restored, BN MPs asked him to "tunggulah pilihanraya" (wait for the election). When Mahfuz mentioned the word "discipline", the Backbenchers' club members retorted, rather ironically, "Dalam dewan pun tak disiplin" (even in this hall you are not disciplined).

When Mahfuz reported about a woman who was allegedly stripped off her clothes while in custody, BN MPs seized it as an opportunity for more juvenile humour, never mind that it is at the expense of the young woman. Zainal remarked in his closing speech "Saya hairanlah bagaimana YB Pokok Sena boleh nampak perempuan itu ditelanjangkan" (I wonder how the Honourable MP could have seen her being stripped off her clothes), implying mischievously that he (Mahfuz) probably did.

This remark disgusted the opposition so much that many demanded Zainal to shut up. Even the most patient of them did not spare Zainal. However, Mahfuz still accorded Zainal a reply, that he had received the report from the Legal Aid Centre. He also said that the matter was not to be dismissed as a joke.

Who is to blame?

If anyone was seen to politicise the Kesas highway rally in Parliament, it was the Umno representatives. They seized the chance to sling mud at PAS, not realising that it was the rakyat's constitutional right to assemble peacefully that had been challenged, not Umno politics.

The Umno MPs were adamant that the gathering was illegal because it did not obtain the necessary police permit. They maintained that the police had good reasons to intervene and the use of force was necessary to disperse the crowd which did not heed the call to "bersurai" (disperse).

They stressed that the police were the "custodians of law" and what they (police) did the other day was to defend the constitution for the sake of national security, not go against it.

The BN MPs claimed that the massive jam along the highway caused inconvenience to those who were not part of the reformasi struggle. They misleadingly claimed that the rally did not get much support. "Only about 1,000 people attended the function," said Zainal.

In the eyes and minds of the Umno representatives, it was the people who were unruly that day, it was the people who had been disobedient by turning up at an event that did not have a police permit, it was the people who "flouted the law and therefore must pay the price", in the words of Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Shahrizat Abdul Jalil when commenting on the woman who had been allegedly stripped off her clothes in the lock-up.

The opposition, on the other hand, challenged that peaceful assembly was a right enshrined in Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Flat refusals to issue permit or permission to the opposition to hold rallies every time an application was made to the police or the management, for example, of the National Sport Complex in Bukit Jalil, seemed to be the government's tactic to curb meetings and fellowship of dissident political groups.

Umno's contention that it was the supporters who caused the massive jam was unfair. If a permit had been granted to the people to hold their rally on the proposed private land, there would have been no traffic jam to start with.

If police cars and FRU trucks had not block all exits leading to Jalan Kg Kebun, where even local villagers had difficulties entering, traffic would have flowed smoothly and there might not have been a commotion.

Police had turned Kg Kebun into a war zone the day before the gathering was supposed to take place. They arrested the owner of the land and four other people, including a woman, the night before. Road blocks and police checks were carried out the day before as a show of force to warn people from disobeying orders to attend the event.

The Police Order Protection Ordinance under federal law states that police can only use force on civilians when there is a reasonable necessity to do so. When force is deemed necessary, it must not be done with punitive intent. There must also be ample warnings by persuasion or negotiation.

If police had to disperse a crowd, they should announce "bersurai, bersurai, bersurai" (disperse) before making their move. Extreme caution and justification must be exercised in the use of water cannons and tear gas. Force must not be followed with violence and if there is a dire need to use force, those injured in the course of the activity should be sent for immediate medical treatment.

On Kesas highway that Sunday, police and FRU personnel stormed into the crowd without warning. Rattan canes, chemical-laced water and tear gas were used without discretion. Cars and motorcycles were vandalised, and those who resisted or could not run fast enough were either dragged out of their cars and herded into trucks or whipped [#1](Mayhem on a Sunday afternoon, Nov 6)[/#].

If the police intended to disperse the crowd and ease traffic flow, they had certainly achieved their objectives by about 7pm.

But was it necessary then to shoot tear gas into a truck-load of detainees? Was it necessary to strip a woman off her clothes and force her to do stand-ups in the lock-up? Was it necessary to make all detainees sleep in a makeshift camp in the police station garage? Was it necessary to prevent detainees from contacting their families? Was it necessary to delay medical attention to those who were injured? Was it necessary to refuse lawyers information as to the detainees' whereabouts?

All these allegations were presented before the magistrate and recorded by lawyers from the Kuala Lumpur Bar Council Legal Aid Centre, who are representing the detainees. There were 25 different kinds of injuries reported that day.

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has been lambasted for keeping mum over the whole affair until much later when it announced that it would set up an enquiry into the matter. However, yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had requested Suhakam to be objective during their probe.

Inspector-General of Police Norian Mai has been criticised for being biased when his charges did not act with such defiance during the Umno Youth demonstration against Suqui's 17-point election appeal outside the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall on Aug 17.

National security

The deputy home affairs minister insisted that the police were merely carrying out their duties and they had been told not to exert unnecessary force.

The People's Manifesto Initiative, a group consisting of 12 non-governmental organisations who met Abdullah before the rally, got this assurance from him: "As long as I am home minister, there will be no police violence."

Indeed, it is difficult to argue that violence should not take place when police are driven by the sole desire of preserving national security at whatever cost. Perhaps, "threat to national security" should be defined explicitly so that citizens are aware if their actions were threatening in any way.

Until today, the police have yet to recover any weapons or explosives to warrant calling the situation a threat to national security. The claim that the police needed to preserve national security when half the crowd is made up of women, children and senior citizens is a weak assertion which failed to convince the public that there was danger lurking to destroy peace in the country.

Serious allegation

Police brutality is a serious allegation and the least the deputy home affairs minister could do in Parliament was to assure the public that he would look into the matter.

The least he could do was to request the opposition to submit a thorough report so that the matter could be investigated further.

Yet, none of these assurances was given. Instead Umno MPs defended the police force without attempting to listen to the opposition's views. This strategy only reinforced the latter's claim that the violence was politically motivated by some Umno leaders who were afraid to confront the people's growing support for the opposition.

Umno's defensive act in Parliament also lent more weight to the opposition's claim that the police owe their allegiance to Umno, and not to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (His Royal Highness the King).