Foreign workers need protection from the abuse of law
COMMENT | Raj Banshi and Shresta Bharaj are two Nepali guards who arrived on our shores to earn a living. Their tasks were simple – manning the entrance leading to Taman Warisan Puteri in Sikamat near Seremban. Almost all the residents knew them. They would lift the boom, stand at attention and salute the residents as they drove through.
They were not rookies. Banshi, 40, and Bharaj, 37 had been working in the same residential area for the past four years. All the residents knew them by sight if not by name. They were well-mannered, did their duties efficiently, and the residents had no complaints whatsoever.
The duo, together with other guards, were looking forward to celebrating Deepavali with the residents, an annual affair, but it was not to be. In a foreign land away from their families, some of the residents took it upon themselves to share the festive joy with them.
On Oct 21, their lives changed forever. At about 7pm, a police team arrested them and took them away. Their employer, a former senior army officer was away, but the manager turned up at the guardhouse when the police party arrived.
Their work permits were in order - they had entered the country legally and were paid accordingly for their services. He was told that they were being held on "suspicion of being accessories to a burglary"...
COMMENT | Raj Banshi and Shresta Bharaj are two Nepali security guards who arrived on our shores to earn a living. Their tasks were simple – manning the entrance leading to Taman Warisan Puteri in Sikamat, near Seremban. Almost all the residents knew them. They would lift the boom, stand at attention and salute the residents as they drove through.
They were not rookies. Banshi, 40, and Bharaj, 37 had been working in the same residential area for the past four years. All the residents knew them by sight if not by name. They were well-mannered, did their duties efficiently, and the residents had no complaints whatsoever.
The duo, together with other guards, were looking forward to celebrating Deepavali with the residents, an annual affair, but it was not to be. In a foreign land away from their families, some of the residents took it upon themselves to share the festive joy with them.
On Oct 21, their lives changed forever. About 7pm, a police team arrested them and took them away. Their employer, a former senior army officer was away, but the manager turned up at the guardhouse when the police party arrived.
Their work permits were in order - they had entered the country legally and were paid accordingly for their services. The manager was told that they were being held on "suspicion of being accessories to a burglary".
The police were offered their passports, which bore the stamp of the Immigration Department, but they refused to take them. They only wanted a copy of the page with the work permit.
The complainant in the case was one Puspawati Abdul Aziz, who is the personal assistant to the deputy chief police officer of Negri Sembilan. She claimed she lost a sizeable amount of jewellery and valuables.
That was when the events started to unfold. The army officer paid a visit to the victim and met the complainant’s husband, ACP Taufik Toh Abdullah, a senior Bukit Aman police officer.
Over tea, they discussed the alleged burglary because the employer had professional liability indemnity insurance coverage for all those under his employment. So did the complainant and her husband – they too had a household insurance policy which covers loss to theft and burglary.
There were no signs of a burglary, no doors or windows were broken. The glass sliding doors to the house, the army officer was told, were rusty and hence, not locked. The jewellery was on a table in the dining hall.
But there was more to come. The alleged burglary had taken place on Oct 16, but a police report was only made three days later, on Oct 19.
On Oct 24, the employer reported the matter to the Nepal High Commission and together with its Third Secretary went to the Nilai police station to hand over the passports. The latter insisted that he be given access to the guards but was told that they were being held at the Lenggeng police lock-up.
The investigating officer said that he would only decide on their fate the following Tuesday as Monday was a public holiday. Banshi and Boraj spent Deepavali in the lock-up.
Some things don’t add up. Why was the police report made only three days after the alleged burglary? Surely, the “victims”, both of whom have familiarity with police and investigative procedures, couldn’t give a plausible reason for the delay.
“We wanted to investigate first before lodging the report,” the police officer is said to have told the employer.
Why wasn’t the sliding door locked and secured? “Surely you don’t expect burglars when the taman is under the watchful eyes of security guards,” the employer was told.
The only “error” the guards seem to have committed is not accurately recording the name and identity card numbers of two strangers who entered the housing estate, now the prime suspects in the case. That surely does not constitute an offence, just a procedural error for which the employer would deal with the problem.
This is an example of how vulnerable foreign workers are when it comes to dealings with the police. Eight nights in the lock-up for an offence they had nothing to with is unjustifiable.
They had been arrested under Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires the suspects to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours. Instead, they were held for eight nights and only released on Wednesday “tanpa syarat” (with no conditions).
When the investigating officer (IO) was asked about this discrepancy, the employer was told that the duo had been held under immigration laws which do not require them to be brought before a magistrate.
“Bawah undang-undang immigresen, kita tak payah jumpa majistret (Under immigration laws, we don't have to see the magistrate)," the IO told the employer.
The immediate question that comes to mind is: Why were they detained under immigration laws when their documents, including work permits, were in order?
Bharaj and Raj Banshi spent eight days and nights (including Deepavali) in the police lock-up for no reason whatsoever. They were neither involved in the burglary nor committed any immigration offence.
The police will have a lot of explaining to do, and such abuse and misuse of power are why we need the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).
While the police officer and his wife will make claims for their loss from their insurers, no amount of money is going to compensate for the loss of the liberty of the duo who were kept eight nights in custody.
Why were they in custody for so long? On the first day itself, the passports were produced, and their legitimacy to enter and work in the country had been proven.
This whole exercise, starting with the delayed lodging of the report, the detention of the guards under the CPC and then switching it to the Immigration Act, smacks of nothing but high-handedness. While waiting for the IPCMC to be set up, these two Nepalis deserve some justice.
Just because they are foreign workers, they should not be bullied and have their liberty taken away without a proper reason.
Can we expect anything to be done? Both the former army officer and the guards are willing to co-operate with the authorities in getting to the bottom of this unjustified use of the system.
Related report:
Bukit Aman to probe alleged victimisation of Nepali guards
R NADESWARAN feels that in many instances, our enforcement authorities got away by abusing their positions and powers when it comes to foreign workers. Aren’t they humans too? Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
Report this comment
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.