I refer to the Malaysiakini report PM: Don't politicise DNA bill.

The current government tells us not to speculate , but their words and actions not only invite speculation like carcasses invite hyenas. The manner in which they expect us to swallow lame political spin is insulting to the intelligence.

The 12th general election was a clear message of disdain and anger of many citizens, but yet the BN government has not learnt its lesson and they treat Pakatan Rakyat not as the will of the people but a motley crew of a dozen or so representatives in Parliament. Pakatan has 81 seats in Parliament, garnered through nearly 3.8 million votes which comes to nearly half the electorate.

They still insist on pressing charges against Anwar Ibrahim without transparently establishing a prima facie case. Pak Lah was quoted as saying that, ‘The police will not be so stupid to pursue it if they do not have a case’.

Really? We are talking about people who can have large quantities of drugs missing under their watch! Then, the Home Minister, unconvincingly announces that the DNA Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Anwar.

Under current Malaysian laws, the police cannot force anyone to give a blood sample. That will change once the DNA Identification Bill is passed. The bill makes it illegal for anyone to refuse DNA testing in criminal cases.

It was initially expected to be tabled in December, but Deputy Home Minister Chor Chee Heung said last month that the ministry will try to table the bill this month.

This resulted in the government having to deflect accusations that it was fast-tracking the bill in order to nail Anwar. Officials said the police had wanted the bill tabled since last year, as a DNA data bank would help solve cases.

My question is, how many cases do the police expect to solve once this bill is in force? What percentage of crimes involve DNA evidence ?

Other than measures to convict, why isn't there anyone talking of using DNA to exonerate those who may have been wrongfully convicted ? How many suspects have so far refused to give DNA swabs to help solve crimes ?

Anwar has stated his reasons for refusing to comply. It is not difficult to believe that being approached by a police officer and being asked to give a voluntary DNA sample could lead a reasonable person to believe that he has no choice but to consent to the request.

So far, other than Anwar, I have not heard of other suspects not giving in to this request. So how did the police obtain samples all this while? How does the government propose to prevent unnecessary DNA dragnets ?

The way dragnets typically work is - police ask people to give DNA samples for a criminal investigation and collect the DNA of those not considered suspects in the case - who just happen to fit a very broad description of the perpetrator based on witness accounts, or they may live or work near the crime scene.

The samples are then compared with biological tissue taken from the crime scene in an attempt to find a match.

According to some news reports, the dragnet in Baton Rouge, USA, ensnared more than 1,000 people over the course of ten months, netted no viable suspects and gave way to a lawsuit accusing the police of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of those sampled without written consent.

The lawsuit is also asking that police destroy or return the DNA samples of those exonerated of any wrongdoing. Will we witness police wantonly wasting public funds and unnecessarily invading our privacy by carrying out overzealous dragnets in high-profile cases ?

How confident are we as citizens that the police will not plant evidence to quickly close unresolved cases due to no new leads?

It is interesting to note that according to an opinion poll by the independent Merdeka Centre, it was found that 66 percent of respondents thought the latest accusation against Anwar was politically motivated.

Only 31 percent trusted the police to handle the case fairly. If some of these basic questions are left unanswered then it is obvious that not much thought has been given, and the perception of the people is justified,

These are some of the many questions I hope opposition lawmakers put forward when debating the bill.

I also appeal to all right thinking parliamentarians irregardless of political affiliation to give this bill the thumbs down, at least until the following are resolved:

1. The Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC)

2. The Judicial Appointments Commission.

3. The Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (MCAC).

If the above issues are not addressed, there will be an inadequate check and balance to prevent abuse should this Bill become law.