THERE is more to it than meets the eye when the man involved in a scuffle with two Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) enforcement officers recently is charged in court today.

I will leave the case to the judge, who alone has the power to decide whether the case is frivolous and a waste of the court’s time. This is beyond my scope.

However, I would like to comment on the way the case was handled by the parties involved – MBPJ, police, Attorney-General’s Chamber, Selangor government and Local Government Development Ministry.

If the man is sentenced to jail for even a day or fined RM1, I think this is an injustice that we as a society have failed to stand with an animal lover.

No law should be used against a man who was just trying to show kindness by nurturing these poor animals to good health, while there are mentally sick people who would torch the animals or poisoning them.

Although I may not be an animal lover, I believe the strays have a right to be taken into good custody by pet lovers.

I have seen these animals turning into lovely pets, both in Australia and Malaysia, when they are given a good home.

It is, therefore, disappointing when the police said the man would be charged under section 186 of the penal code for obstructing government officials from carrying out their duty.

Three important questions

Firstly, I would like to urge Petaling Jaya MP Lee Chean Chung to ask in parliament if the two officers turning up on the man’s premises had a search warrant.

In what appears to me as being the case that they did not have one, were they, therefore, not trespassing on the man’s property?

Should they not be charged with entering a private property without a warrant?

Secondly, are enforcement officers allowed to behave like thugs, when they carry out their duty, especially in cases that involve civilians? This is not the first or isolated incident.

If they behaved like thugs, a scuffle would certainly happen. It is clear from the signs of the injury on the elderly man’s face that he was not easily overpowered by the younger officer.

Thirdly, I would like to ask how section 186 of the penal code is being interpreted. Often, when the enforcement personnel turn thuggish, and civilians have to put up a struggle, it is the civilians who are being charged while the officers get away with just a slap on the wrist.

Are we, therefore, allowing our enforcement officers to continue to be thuggish in their behaviour knowing that they can use this law to protect themselves?

A scenario for the illustration

Let me give you a scenario. At 1am, you and your family members are asleep. Then, two patrol cars turn up at your home. They claim to be policemen and they have a search warrant.

One of them acts roughly and ransacks your home, turning things upside down, including an expensive vase which you bought from Egypt.

What do you do? Allow him to just push it over the table and fall to the floor?

Would you not want to stop him, and say, “Bro, please, there is nothing in the vase”?

The moment your hand touches his, it is interpreted as obstructing a government officer in his work. He then brushes you aside in a rough manner, thinking that there is drug in the vase.

Out of anger, you feel that he is being unreasonable and none of his colleagues holds him back. And your treasured vase is now on the floor smashed to pieces.

You try to stop him from doing further damage to your other treasured masterpieces.

Worse is when you lodge a police report, and the police accuse you of resisting arrest or obstructing the police officers from carrying out their duty.

So please put yourself in the shoes of the senior citizen and see if justice is being done by charging him, instead of the enforcement officers.

It is time parliament enacted a law that allows judges to carry out their independent investigations to uphold justice.

If I recall correctly, in the Scorpene submarine case, the presiding judge also had the power to investigate.

Our judges must be empowered to get to the bottom of things, instead of depending on just the evidence provided by both the prosecution and defence counsel. – March 31, 2023.

* Stephen Ng reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.