YOURSAY | ‘Fairness and impartiality are allegedly traits not associated with the police.’
Budak SRJK (C): Dear inspector-general of police (IGP), you may have discretionary powers but you are apparently misusing, or rather abusing, this power.
In reality, it is in the interest of the public for this debate to take place, rather than letting it be the interest of the 18 so-called complainants, whose police reports you are using as a lame excuse to ban the debate.
I bet millions of Malaysians, and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people all over the world, are very keen on knowing more details about our globally-infamous 1MDB and the decades-old forex and BMF (Bumiputra Malaysia Finance) scandals.
Ian2003: It is the core duty of the police to prevent troublemakers from creating mayhem during the debate. Any other action would result in the police obstructing freedom of speech.
James_3392: Nobody says you don't have discretionary power to grant such permit, but the way you exercise your discretionary power is extremely comical.
Anonymous 2436471476414726: Mr IGP, we do not question that the police have discretionary powers. What we question is how well, or rather how poorly, they exercise their discretionary powers.
There had been too many instances of inconsistency in the exercise of such powers in the past that the rakyat have grown very sceptical of the police’s actual motive in stopping the debate. Fairness and impartiality are allegedly traits not associated with the police.
Hearty Malaysian: Is police acting to protect the interests of the culprits in 1MDB as the debate may expose more of the alleged crime?
Shamu99: You can read all the laws to justify your action but a layperson will not see the justification of your reason to cancel this. The police’s role is to provide security. What a silly decision.
Anonymous #19098644: When has a debate between a 91-year-old ex-prime minister and a serving senior minister become a threat to the safety and welfare of the public?
Are the police so helpless and useless that if a few troublemakers threaten to disrupt this peaceful activity that they are unable to handle this?
The rakyat are not stupid, they know that MO1 (Malaysian Official 1) is being protected.
Drngsc: Yes, we gave PRDM (Royal Malaysian Police) extensive powers to maintain law and order, not to abuse its power. Where is the security threat?
NNFC: Why are we preventing the truth from coming out. Do you think the people will be shocked by the things to be revealed in the debate?
I do not think so because news on the scandal was already published and the courts in US, Singapore, etc, have already revealed the thieves. So, is Malaysia protecting alleged thieves?
CQ Muar: Indeed, this is outright mockery of our legal system. Here we have a mob of gangsters and hooligans setting on a parliamentarian within the confines of a security area meant for lawmakers, and they were punished under the Minor Offences Act 1955, which carries a fine of up to RM100!
Ferdtan: Who is the attorney-general (AG) working for - Umno or Malaysians who pay his salary?
From what we see from the openly biased actions of the AG, we have no more hope and trust in our public institutions, and the so-called professionals who run these agencies.
The saddest thing is that these civil servants don't care about what the people may think of them. They even don't bother with all the pretences of trying to show at least some semblance of fairness (if they do have conscience). They are now so shameless.
That is why we need to change the BN government - whether the opposition is ready or not. We need a new broom to sweep all nincompoops out.
Anonymous#007: Shah Alam MP Khalid Abdul Samad, their intention was not to insult the parliamentary institution, but to punish you for voicing up to support a woman MP (and a non-Muslim, at that) who had been unnecessarily attacked and sexually degraded by the Umno MP.
Note also how none of the 'religious' PAS MPs had said anything to chastise the Umno MP. This is not a small matter - how PAS/Umno/BN MPs act in Parliament reflects their moral standards and how they would treat the rakyat.
Rupert16: Batu MP Tian Chua used some choice words on a policewoman and he got a much heftier sentence as compared to deputy minister and Pasir Salak MP Tajuddin Abdul Rahman and his people, who were not only nasty with their words against Khalid, but were physical with the police personnel who were protecting him.
So pray tell me, is this justice?
Anonymous 539281478077880: I suppose the House speaker would be of the opinion that he "won't interfere" against the Attorney-General's Chambers’ verdict.
After all, they had been given a fine of RM100. That would be "sufficient" to the eyes of the speaker as that's how our judiciary works.
Just for argument’s sake, if this matter were to involve opposition rowdies; then the judgment would have been very different. It would be followed by the maximum punishment.
Perak Boleh: Don't waste your time, Khalid, with the AG or speaker in this country because there are two sets of laws – one for Umnoputra and one for non-Umnoputra.
Anonymous 2436471476414726: Indeed, the only problem is, Khalid, you are not from Umno-BN. So the House speaker may not feel inclined to intervene on your behalf.
In our country, the weak and helpless get no justice.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.