So, following the earlier story (PART 1) about a group of Indian boys who were allegedly racially profiled by plain clothed police officers, the father of one of the boys have since responded to the statement released by Sentul District Police Chief ACP Beh Eng Lai, which contradicts what the father says had happened.
Just to recap, the father had accused the officers of racially profiling his son and his friends when they were walking to their cars after having a meal at a KL restaurant on December 3 (Saturday), 10:30pm. ACP Beh Eng Lai’s statement, on the other hand, shared that the boys were stopped by the officers as they looked ‘suspicious’ and had quickly entered their cars upon noticing the police’s arrival.
The father, Dominic Damian JAN 1513, has since taken to his Twitter account to call out the police for allegedly lying in their statement about what took place that night.
He dissection of the statement is as follows:
- The 4 gentlemen concerned were exiting Bamboo Curry House after having a fellowship meal. Nothing out of the ordinary about this. This is a standard eatery which is known for normal Indian cuisine and no alcohol was consumed.
- The media posting (by PDRM) communicates that Bamboo Curry House is in Jinjang. That place is located in Jalan Ipoh and is nowhere in Jinjang.
- PDRM’s assertion in their media posting is inaccurate on the following accounts:
– the 4 individuals concerned did not at any point of time try to evade the police officers as they did not even notice the plain clothed officers. At no point of time did the 4 individuals try and rush into the cars. The point is they were in plain clothes, as such when citizens are stopped, they are suspicious of the police officers concerned, as they don’t know who are the people trying to stop them.
– They were getting into 2 separate vehicles, my son in one vehicle and his 3 friends in a separate vehicle. The vehicles were some distance from each other.
– The police officers concerned stopped the occupants of the other vehicle and also came over and stopped the vehicle that my son was driving, shining their torchlights on them.
– The media posting does not express that it was 2 separate vehicles. - PDRM’s asserted that the 4 individuals were behaving in a suspicious manner! May I enquire what qualifies as a suspicious manner? Can PDRM qualify what is their training protocol to determine that someone may be a potential criminal or a threat and as such warrant’s investigation?
- Since one could not establish they were PDRM officers, as they just flashed their identification which could not be verified, one had to presume they were not authentic police officers but rogue members of the force. The following transpired:
– The police officers were annoyed when the individuals requested for their identification.
– One individual also enquired if the officers were authorised to do such a procedure and if Jinjang covers that specific location.
– My son called my wife. Both my wife and her sister were at the site of the incident.
– The police officers very explicitly expressed that their identification cards can be checked immediately or they can take the four individuals concerned to the police station and seize their vehicles for investigation. Which will take about 2 hours. Does this not constitute as a threat? Is there any provision in the statue of laws that allows PDRM to post such pictures, or is it a breach of citizens privacy (referring to the photo PDRM posted along with the statement). If it is, please remove the photo immediately.
The father went on to shame PDRM for allegedly creating a false narrative
“PDRM should not be stooping so low and tendering an inaccurate narrative of an account, let alone stopping innocent citizens. If one makes a mistake, one apologises. Incidentally, photos of their Identity Cards were taken, may I know what is the purpose of that?”
“They have not even spoken to any one of us regarding this matter. It is worrying.”
Additionally, he then shared this disappointment with how PDRM apparently conduct themselves
“I personally find the method of surveillance and investigation to be totally unprofessional. PDRM should not display such insecurity and defend an action if it is inadequate, inappropriate and incompetent,”
“We are pointing out an obvious improvement that is required, if PDRM does not have a grievance remedial mechanism in place, they ought to set one up to ensure justice. We only request that PDRM’s police officers display conduct that beholdens them to the title implication of being officers of His Majesty the King. Citizens should not need to fear police officers who are public servants, they should earn our confidence,” he ended.
What do you think about this? Do share your thoughts in the comment section.
Also read: M’sia Has One Of The Highest Number Of Indians In SEA & M’sians Believe They Should Be Thankful
