SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 3

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today (11 October 2006) is the 3^rd day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 12, 13, 16, 17 & 18

Watching Brief with Observer Status:

1. Chan Weng Keng - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)

2. Edward Saw Keat Leong - Bar Council

3. Superintendent Rusli bin Ahmad - Secretariat of IGP (Inspector General of Police)

4. Mohd Radzi Harun - Attorney General’s Chamber

Watching brief:

1. Sheena - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)

2. Ramesh Sivakumar - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)

3. Chang Lih Kang - SUARAM

Today’s witnesses:

1. Lee Huat Seng

2. Lua Khang Wei

3. Dr. Dzulhelmy bin Sulaiman

4. Mohd Hafizh Mohd Mokhtar

5. Andrew Ong Kok Heng

6. Lai Chee Sen

7. Lee Khai Loon

8. Lim Hong Siang

9. Soh Sook Hwa

Video clip showed FRU hit protestors brutally

Nine witnesses were called to testify in front of the inquiry panel today.

8^th witness: I was hit by police on my forehead. FRU hit me from behind using baton

As one of the victims of police brutality, Lee Huat Seng, a fresh graduate from Universiti Sains Malaysia told the panel how he was hit during the peaceful assembly on 28 May.

Lee Huat Seng (hereinafter referred to as Huat Seng) was retreating peaceably with his friends after the water cannon were unleashed. While they were walking slowly towards the Public Bank building, several FRU came from behind and pushed them by their shields. Huat Seng said he kept telling the FRU personnel that they will leave, but they did not bother. The FRU personnel hit him several times on his back by baton because he was standing at the outermost of the group.

Huat Seng denied that he has obstructed the police because people had to walk gingerly as the floor was wet and slippery due to the water cannon. According to Huat Seng, after he was hit by FRU personnel from behind, a policeman without uniform came up to him and hit him on his forehead with empty hand. He fell on the ground due to the hitting.

Huat Seng later sought medical assistance in Hospital KL. When asked by the panel why he did not lodge a police report after the incident, Huat Seng told them that he has no faith in police anymore.

Earlier, consistent with other protestors, Huat Seng told the inquiry panel that he could not hear any warning from the police before the water cannon were unleashed.

9^th witness: I tried to help my friend, but I was hit too

Lua Khang Wei, administrative secretary of the Selnagor Hokkien Association is the 9^th witness of the public inquiry. In the pictures shown to the panel members earlier, Lua Khang Wei (hereinafter referred to as Lua) was seen bleeding profusely on his right cheek.

Similar to all other protestors who have testified in front of the inquiry panel, Lua could not hear what the police was trying to say before the water cannon were unleashed. After he was drenched by the water cannon, Lua left the scene and moved towards the bus stop along Jalan Ampang.

However, Lua went back to assist his friends, who were being intimidated and hit by the police while retreating. Lua saw a number of FRU personnel pushed his friends from behind and Lee Huat Seng (witness 8) was hit by baton. He also saw Lee Huat Seng was being hit on forehead by a policeman without uniform. While Lua was trying to lift Lee Huat Seng who was beaten to the ground, he was hit by the FRU personnel too. He could not recall how many times he was hit, but he told the inquiry panel that his right arm was in extreme pain.

In the melee, Lua’s spectacles fell and cut his right cheek. He bled profusely because of the cut. He was later sent to Hospital KL for medical treatment.

10^th witness: Injury suffered by Lee Huat Seng could be life threatening if greater force were used

Dr. Dzulhelmy bin Sulaiman is the doctor who treated Lee Huat Seng and Lua Khang Wei in Hospital KL on 28 May 2006. Dr. Dzulhelmy bin Sulaiman (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Dzulhelmy) is currently a medical doctor in Emergency Unit of Hospital KL.

Dr. Dzulhelmy admitted that he only examined Lee Huat Seng’s forehead, because Lee only complained about the pain on his forehead. He found reddish mark on Lee Huat Seng’s forehead and the patient was in pain. The injury was caused by a heavy hit. According to Dr. Dzulhelmy, the injury suffered by Lee Huat Seng was considered light, but it could be life threatening if greater force were used on the same spot.

Besides, Dr. Dzulhelmy also examined Lua Khang Wei. He found that Lua Khang Wei was in pain on his right shoulder. Dr. Dzulhelmy also found reddish mark on Lua’s shoulder and a scratch on his right cheek. However, the movement of Lua’s right hand was normal.

As told by Lua, his right cheek was cut by his rimless lens and his right shoulder was hit by baton. Dr. Dzulhelmy testified that the injuries were consistent with those inflicted by baton and rimless lens.

11^th witness: An unfortunate man was held and beaten up by a team of FRU personnel

Mohd Hafizh bin Mohd Mokhtar is the 11^th witness of the public inquiry. He is a journalist with Suara Keadilan. Mohd Hafizh (hereinafter referred to as Hafizh) has taken some pictures, which includes those showing Zahir Hassan was being kicked by FRU personnel.

Besides, Hafizh’s pictures also showed an unknown protestor was being surrounded by a number of FRU personnel and was being hit brutally by the butt of a tear gas launcher (pic).

12^th witness: I saw Zahir Hassan being kicked by several FRU personnel

The next witness, Andrew Ong Kok Heng is also a journalist. Andrew Ong Kok Heng (hereinafter referred to as Andrew) is currently working with an online news website, Malaysiakini.

Andrew has taken more than 100 photographs, but part of it was corrupted. Nevertheless, his photographs shown to the panel were ample to tell the chronology of Zahir Hassan being kicked by FRU personnel.

Andrew told the inquiry panel that he saw Zahir was trying to shield his daughters before the FRU personnel hit him. He was being kicked by several FRU personnel for at least 3 times, according to the witness. One of the pictures has clearly shown that a FRU personnel’s leg appeared near Zahir’s crotch.

13^th witness: I was shocked when I saw Amran

Lai Chee Sen, a temporary teacher in a secondary school was called as the 13^th witness of the inquiry. Lai Chee Sen (hereinafter referred to as Lai) has taken some photographs and few short video clips on the 28 May 2006.

Lai told the panel members that he saw Lee Huat Seng was being hit by FRU personnel. He showed a few video clips to the inquiry panel. One of the clips has clearly shown a FRU personnel swung his baton and hit Lee Huat Seng’s waist. This was followed by another attack by a different police officer (without uniform) who struck Lee Huat Seng on the left side of his forehead.

Lai also told the inquiry panel that he was shocked when he saw the “bloody” Amran after he crossed Jalan Ampang.

14^th witness: I was hit by police and my glasses was broken

Lee Khai Loon, a full time staff of a youth organization is the 14^th witness of the inquiry. Lee Khai Loon (hereinafter referred to as Khai Loon) was a victim of police brutality.

Khai Loon told the inquiry panel that he did not hear any warning from the police before the water cannon were unleashed. When he was dispersing with his friends, Khai Loon saw Lee Huat Seng was being hit by FRU personnel. He was just behind Lee Huat Seng when the incident happened.

Seconds later, Khai Loon was also being hit by a hard object. He told the panel that the hitting came from behind when he was moving. His glasses were broken and he could not see things clearly. Khai Loon told the panel that his friends guided him to cross the main road (Jalan Ampang).

15^th witness: FRU said “Kalau kamu ambil gambar lagi, saya akan hancur kamera kamu!”

Journalist of an online news website, Merdekareiew, Lim Hong Siang was called to testify as the 15^th witness of the public inquiry.

Lim Hong Siang (hereinafter referred to as Lim) showed some photographs which were taken by him during the peaceful assembly on 28 May. He told the panel that the crowd was dispersing in a very peaceful manner after the water cannon were unleashed. They moved gingerly because the floor was wet and slippery. The entrance of Suria KLCC was blocked by the police, and the only way to disperse seemed to be crossing the main road – Jalan Ampang.

However, the FRU personnel acted rudely towards the crowd. When Lim was trying to take picture of the FRU’s brutality, he saw two FRU personnel came to him in an intimidating manner. He then decided to run away from them. While running, Lim was kicked by the FRU personnel on his buttock. He then shouted to the FRU “Media pun kamu pukul ke?” (You hit even journalist?)

The FRU warned him:“Kalau kamu ambil gambar lagi, saya akan hancur kamera kamu!” (If you continue to take picture, I will destroy your camera!)

16^th witness: I saw few of my friends being beaten up by the FRU

Soh Sook Hwa, the former secretary of Malaysia Youth and Democratic Movement (DEMA), was called to testify in the inquiry as the 16^th witness. DEMA is a student and youth organization which is part of the PROTES coalition.

Soh Sook Hwa (hereinafter referred to as Soh) told the inquiry panel that she did not hear any warning from the police throughout the demonstration. After the water cannon were unleashed, Soh and her friends started to disperse, moving towards the direction of Public Bank building. The FRU shoved them from behind by their shields. She also saw few of her friends were being beaten up by the FRU personnel.

Soh told the inquiry panel that she saw Lee Huat Seng was being hit on his head and fell on the ground. She also saw Lim Ban Teng was being beaten by the FRU’s baton. Another of her friends, Teh Choon Hong was kicked by the FRU on his back.

After returning home, Soh took the picture of the victims as evidences. Pictures showed the injuries of Lee Huat Seng, Lim Ban Teng, Lua Khang Wei, Teh Choon Hong ad Wong Keen Yee.

The public inquiry will continue tomorrow (12 October).

Prepared by,

Chang Lih Kang

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 2

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today (6 October 2006) is the 2^nd day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 & 18

Watching Brief with Observer Status:

1. Sivarasa Rasiah - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
2. M. Moganambal - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
3. Chan Weng Keng - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
4. Chen Hong Lynn - Bar Council
5. ASP Alaudeen bin Abd Majid - Secretariat of IGP (Inspector General of Police)

Watching brief:

1. Sheena - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
2. Chang Lih Kang - SUARAM

Today’s witnesses:

1. Lance Corporal Mohd Nasarudin Hashim (continue)

2. Yap Weng Keong

3. Dr. Hatta Ramli

4. Lim Sok Swan

5. Liu Tian Khiew (Ronnie)

FRU personnel: the crowd was always calm

The 3^rd witness, Lance Corporal Mohd Nasarudin Hashim (Nasarudin) continued to testify in the second day of the public inquiry. He was scrutinized in detail by the inquiry panel on the 17-minute video. Nasarudin was the FRU personnel who recorded the video on 28 May.

3^rd witness: I never expected the water cannon to be unleashed so suddenly

Nasarudin told the panel that there were around 40 FRU personnel present on 28 May 2006. They were armed with M16 rifles, .38 pistols and riot guns (tear gas launcher). Answering questions from the panel members and lawyer, Nasarudin repeated at least 4 times that the crowd was calm and never turned unruly at any point of time during the video footage.

One of the panel members, Dato’ Choo Siew Kioh noticed that there is a 4-minute gap in the video footage. Responding to this, Nasarudin denied that there was a cut or any editing was done on the video. He told the panel that he merely switched off the camera to save battery.

Besides, Nasarudin also told the inquiry panel that he heard the warning given by the police officer on the command vehicle. The warning sounded like this “Bersurai serta-merta, atau kami akan gunakan kekerasan” According to the FRU personnel, the crowd was calm after the warning was given.

Nasarudin also told the panel that he never expected the water cannon to be unleashed so suddenly. From the video footage shown in the inquiry, the police unleashed water cannon in less than 3 minutes after the OCPD was seen giving another 5 minutes to the crowd.

The following is the chronology of the video footage:

11:01:27 The OCPD was seen giving 5 more minutes to the crowd.

11:03:09 Amaran terakhir (last warning) was announced.

11:04:07 Water cannon were unleashed.

4^th witness: I saw Zahir Hassan being kicked on his waist by the FRU

Yap Weng Keong is the 5^th witness of the inquiry. He is a member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat. Yap Weng Keong (hereinafter referred to as Yap) is working in a legal firm. He is among the 20 protestors who were arrested during the protest held on 28 May.

Yap told the inquiry panel that he could see police making some announcements when Ronnie Liu was addressing the crowd. However, he could not hear clearly what the police was trying to convey because a helicopter was hovering above the crowd.

When the crowd was dispersing, Yap saw Zahir Hassan was hit by the FRU. It happened just beside him. According to Yap, Zahir was surrounded and kicked by FRU personnel, whom he could not recognize. Zahir was kicked on his waist and fell on the ground.

Yap was subsequently arrested. To date, he is not prosecuted.

5^th witness: Police practised double standards

Dr. Hatta Ramli is the 5^th witness of the public inquiry. He was the main organizer of the anti fuel price hike gathering on 28 May. Dr. Hatta Ramli (hereinafter referred to as Hatta) is also the treasurer of PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia). He told the inquiry panel that he could not hear any warning from the police because the helicopter was hovering dangerously low and caused lots of noise. Hatta said the helicopter could crash when Dato’ Vohrah asked why is he so worried about it.

When the water cannon were unleashed, Hatta went down the stairs of the LRT station to seek shelter with his 7-year old son. After a moment, he went up again and saw FRU personnel started shoving people by their shields.

Hatta told the panel that he saw two melees when the crowd was dispersing. He saw Zahir Hassan was down on the ground, surrounded by several FRU personnel. Besides, he also saw another commotion at different scene, but he could not see the face of the victim. After crossing the main road (Jalan Ampang), he saw a “bloody” guy, who is known as Amran. He advised Amran to consult doctor at a nearby clinic.

Hatta condemned the police for practising double standards in permitting demonstrations. He also thinks that the police had an “agenda” on 28 May, because they packed-off immediately after their “attack”, even there were still some people scattered around. It was not a common practice. He termed it as “They come, they hit, and they run!”

6^th witness: I was pushed from behind. FRU hit my friend’s head

The 6^th witness of the public inquiry is Lim Sok Swan. Lim Sok Swan (hereinafter referred to as Swan) is a student activist who spoke in the May 28 gathering. According to her, she has only spoken for less than 5 minutes, before handing over the microphone to the next speaker - Ronnie Liu.

When Ronnie Liu was speaking, Swan saw the FRU started moving. She also saw a police officer on the command vehicle announcing something. However, similar to all the other witnesses, Swan could not hear clearly what was said by the police officer. Swan told the inquiry panel that she saw someone from the crowd gesturing with the police on the truck. Hardly 2 minutes after that, water cannon were unleashed.

In her testimony, Swan told the panel that she was pushed by the FRU from behind. Her friend, Lee Huat Seng, who was telling the FRU that they will disperse, was hit by the FRU on his head. She saw the FRU hit Lee Huat Seng by baton.

7^th witness: The police were hiding their name tags

The last witness of the day, Liu Tian Khiew (better known as Ronnie Liu) was called to testify in front of the inquiry panel. Liu Tian Khiew (hereinafter referred to as Ronnie) is the NGO bureau chief of Democratic Action Party (DAP). He was also the last speaker of the demonstration on 28 May, before the police launched attack on the crowd.

Echoing Dr. Hatta Ramli, Ronnie was also very concern about the helicopter that hovered at a dangerous height. The chair of the panel, Dato’ K.C. Vohrah was shocked when Ronnie told the panel that the helicopter was way below the tip of the twin tower. It was, according to Ronnie, only approximately 80 feet above the road. The helicopter was just above the trees and caused leaves and branches of those trees swaying.

In Ronnie’s testimony, when the water cannon were unleashed, he was still standing on the ladder, delivering speech. He remembered that he did ask the crowd to remain calm. He was drenched. Two policemen came to him and arrested him. He was handcuffed by a plastic cuff. He saw Badrul Hisham was dragged by the police, and some women were harassed. They were shoved by the FRU personnel’s shields.

Towards the end of his testimony, Ronnie made a few complaints. Among others, he feels that the police should exhibit their name tags whenever they are on duty. He was very unhappy with the police who appeared in the 28 May demonstration because most of them were hiding their name tags.

To date, Ronnie has not been charged.

Prepared by,

Chang Lih Kang

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 1

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today (5 October 2006) is the 1^st day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 & 18

Members of the Panel:

v Dato’ K.C. Vohrah (Chairperson)

v Dato’ Choo Siew Kioh

v Dato’ Dr. Michael Yeoh

v Datin Paduka Zaitoon Dato’ Othman

Venue:
SUHAKAM Inquiry Room, Level 29, Menara Tun Razak, Jalan Raja Laut, KL.

Background of the incident:
In protest to the sharp fuel price hike, three peaceful protests had been organized by a number of NGOs, political parties and the MTUC (Malaysia Trade Union Congress) on 3rd, 10th and 26th of March 2006 in front of the KLCC. On the 26th of March, the police dispersed the peaceful crowd violently and arrested 22 protestors. Many protestors were injured due to police brutality. A complaint was submitted to SUHAKAM on 31 March 2006.

On 28 May 2006, the Coalition to Protest Fuel Price Hike (PROTES) once again organized a demonstration in front of KLCC to voice the plights of all Malaysians who are heavily burdened by the fuel price and electricity tariff hike. Unfortunately, the peaceful assembly was dispersed by the police with brute force and excessive violence. 20 people were arrested, including one minor. Many protestors were beaten and kicked by the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel. Several protestors were badly injured. The tragic day was dubbed “Bloody Sunday”.

After filing complaint to SUHAKAM, civil society groups made numerous efforts to urge SUHAKAM to hold public inquiry on police brutality in the aforesaid demonstration. After a long wait, SUHAKAM has finally agreed to hold a public inquiry into the incident.

Watching Brief with Observer Status:

1. Sivarasa Rasiah - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
2. Amer Hamzah - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
3. Edmund Bon - Bar Council

Watching brief:

1. M. Moganambal - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
2. R. Ragunanthanan - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
3. Ramesh - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
4. Latheefa Koya - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
5. Stephanie Bastian - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
6. Sheena - Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (KL)
7. Chang Lih Kang - SUARAM

Today’s witnesses:

1. Chua Tian Chang

2. Badrul Hisham bin Shaharin

3. Lance Corporal Mohd Nasarudin Hashim

Police’s Video Confirmed that the Assembly was Peaceful

After allowing lawyers to assist in the inquiry, Dato’ K.C. Vohrah, the chairperson of the inquiry panel kicked off the inquiry by calling the first witness, Chua Tian Chang (hereinafter referred to as Tian). Tian was one of the main organizers and he is now the Information Chief of Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

1^st witness: I saw a pool of blood on the ground. Police should have learnt from other ASEAN countries

Tian was asked about the overall situation on the day of the demonstration. The inquiry panel inquired in detail on the incident. The inquiry panel also asked some questions about the Anti Fuel Price Hike Coalition – PROTES. Tian has given the SUHAKAM panel a full picture of the incident.

According to Tian, there was a heavy police presence on the day of the protest. The organizer has made it crystal clear that the demonstration on 28 May will be the last of the series of anti fuel price hike protests. Tian also told the inquiry panel that Dr. Hatta, the coordinator of the anti fuel price hike coalition (PROTES) had also reiterated this message in his speech on the day of assembly.

Besides, Tian told the inquiry panel that he could not hear the OCPD when the officer warned the crowd by using loud hailer. It was due to the noises caused by the helicopter and the warning was given when speaker, Ronnie Liu was delivering his speech. Tian told the inquiry panel that he saw a pool of blood on the ground after the police had left the scene. Towards the end of his testimony, Tian criticised the police for being selective in allowing public assemblies. He told the inquiry panel that the Malaysian police should have learnt from other ASEAN countries on how to handle big crowd, especially when the ASEAN Police Conference has just concluded.

2^nd witness: Water cannon hit me on my stomach, and I was dragged rudely by the police

Second witness was Badrul Hisham Shaharin, the coordinator of an anti-corruption organization, GERAK. Badrul Hisham Shaharin (hereinafter referred to as Badrul) was the emcee of the assembly on 28 May. He was eventually arrested by the police.

Badrul told the inquiry panel that he was the one who started off the assembly. After a short introduction, he then passed the microphone to the coordinator of the assembly, Dr. Hatta to deliver his speech. Badrul recalled, Dr. Hatta only spoke for a very short while and the second speaker took over. When the third speaker, Ronnie Liu was speaking, Badrul heard some noise from the police but he could not hear clearly what the OCPD was trying to address. He thought the OCPD might be requesting the crowd to disperse, so he tried to communicate with the OCPD through sign language. After some exchanges, he was made to understand that the police was giving them another 5 minutes. Unfortunately, water cannon were unleashed from the truck after hardly two minutes.

The water cannon hit Badrul on his stomach and he fell to the ground because of the force. He was immediately surrounded by 5 to 6 police personnel and was rudely dragged for some 30 yards. According to Badrul, his pants were torn due to the crass dragging. He was then handcuffed and placed into the paddy wagon. He saw Zahir Hassan, the deputy secretary general of Parti Keadilan Rakyat in the wagon. Zahir was badly injured and his mouth was seen bleeding.

Badrul told the inquiry panel that he was not prosecuted to date.

3rd witness: The video was not doctored

The third witness of the inquiry is Lance Corporal Mohd Nasarudin Hashim. Mohd Nasarudin Hashim (hereinafter referred to as Nasarudin) is a FRU personnel, who was instructed to record video during the 28 May assembly. Nasarudin told the inquiry panel that the FRU commander who instructed him was Chief Inspector Pusparajen.

Nasarudin also told the inquiry that Chief Inspector Pusparajen did not direct him to film any specific scene. He testified that the video was not doctored.

The 17-min video was played at the inquiry. The video has clearly shown that the gathering was peaceful until the police acted.

The inquiry adjourned at around 4:30pm and further questions will be asked of Nasarudin on the next inquiry date.

Representatives of the FRU, police and Attorney-General’s Chamber were invited by SUHAKAM as observer but were not present today.

Prepared by,

Chang Lih Kang

Lecturer also kena? Biasalah...

I think many people in the English-speaking circle know Azmi Sharom very well. Dr. Azmi is the former deputy dean of the UM Law faculty. He is very vocal in issues of academic freedom and campus democracy. He writes prolifically in English dailies.

I was told that Azmi received a show cause letter from the university, after the below piece was published in The Star. What do you think about UM's ranking in Times next year?

High jinks in student politics?

COMMENT

by AZMI SHAROM

STUDENT politics bores me. Nothing can be more soul-numbing than a bunch of young people whining about the poor food in their colleges or the lack of parking spaces for the cars that daddy bought them.

My interest in student elections is therefore not based on the issues but on the process itself. This interest arises out of my dual role as a lawyer and as an educator.

Let’s take the first role: the lawyer. Lawyers are often the brunt of unflattering jokes and usually we tell the best ones. But amidst the snide comments about our shark-like tendencies, it is forgotten that at the core of our values should be justice and fairness. If we don’t have these ideals, then really, what’s the point of being a lawyer?

In the interest of fairness and justice then, it is important to make sure that things are run in a manner that reflects these two ideals. In this sense, I do not think that the way student elections are conducted on our public university campuses pass muster. Let’s begin by looking at the less contentious points first.

The rules in place with regard to campaigning are really laughable. There are banners and posters put up here and there but they say absolutely nothing except the name of the candidate. There is no mention of their policy grounds and their campaign promises. This is made worse by the fact that the candidates are given about a day to campaign! Add to this the ban on the creation of formal coalitions, and what you get are voters who have little opportunity to know who they are voting for. It makes a mockery of the idea of a true democracy.

Why the crazy rules? There has been since the 70s a fear on the part of the Government that students are a political force to be reckoned with. This was why the draconian University and University Colleges Act (UUCA) was passed; to neuter this force. In the late 1990s, in the fervour of reformasi, again student bodies were at the forefront calling for political change.

In the light of all this, efforts have been made to make sure that university elections cannot reflect in any way real politics. That is why the system is set up to be so utterly sterile and insipid. As though it is not bad enough that the UUCA prevents students from having any sort of political party allegiances, their campus politics are emasculated to such an extent that it becomes near impossible to reflect any sort of political views.

Now we get to the contentious issues. Not content with stifling the entire election process, university authorities then decide to get actively involved by clearly supporting one group of student candidates over another. The group of choice is known as the Aspirasi group. All sorts of lavish treatment are given to this group, and its candidates are seen very much as the university’s candidates of choice.

Certain activities which can be seen to be in contravention of the UUCA like the Selangor state government’s treating Aspirasi candidates to a stay in a luxury hotel in Petaling Jaya prior to the elections this year, go unquestioned.

It’s rather funny that students would align themselves with the university authorities when really they should be aligning themselves with the student body, but never mind, different strokes for different folks. The problem here is that this sort of cosiness breeds a mentality that somehow the Aspirasi members are a sort of semi-university authority.

I argue that that is why the student representatives of a public university who abused fellow students for merely setting up a help desk behaved in that way. They obviously thought that their thuggish behaviour was being done on behalf of their university. The fact that they did not get even the mildest slap on the wrist seems to show that the university too believes this.

What is worse are the accusations, so far not properly investigated, that university authorities and Aspirasi candidates actually threaten students with expulsion from residential colleges if they do not vote for Aspirasi.

Things also take a fishy turn when votes are marked in such a way as to be traceable back to the voter, and electronic voting, as conducted in some universities, cannot be scrutinised.

Speaking of scrutiny, I wonder why a recent delegation of Aspirasi members begged the Government not to allow Suhakam to monitor student elections. I have always thought that if you have nothing to hide, it matters not if you are being scrutinised. Obviously, I’m mistaken.

This practice of favouring one camp over the other is not limited to election time either. Worrying reports from students suggest that for ordinary student projects, Student Affairs will be more helpful if the project members were Aspirasi supporters. If this is true, and please note I am not saying it is, then what we have here is full-scale corruption.

It is imperative that all universities are thoroughly investigated by a neutral third party to come to the truth. Are student elections being conducted in a manner that is as constitutional and as democratic as possible? Are allegations of Student Affairs’ unethical involvement in student politics and everyday student activities true?

If these allegations are true, they must be put to a stop. If they are not true, let it be shown by a neutral third party that they are not true.

Although not completely definitive, an occurrence during the last student elections is worrying and is further reason why a proper investigation should be conducted. What happened was that the voting for two faculty representatives had to be done again because the number of votes was more than the number of voters. The original vote was done at the various colleges. The re-election was done at the Faculty concerned.

In the first vote, an Aspirasi candidate came first, narrowly followed by an independent candidate. In the re-election, the two independent candidates won by a margin far larger that the original vote.

What this shows are two possibilities. Either the original votes were tampered with or that students voted differently when the venue for the election was a neutral one. (Colleges have a reputation of being very pro-Aspirasi.)

As an educator, I pray that these allegations can be proven to be categorically untrue. Because if they are true, then what are we teaching our young people? That it is OK to have an electoral system that favours one group over all else? That it is OK to use one’s power to behave in an unethical manner so that one can win?

If these are the lessons being imparted – and remember they are being imparted to the future leaders of a nation that is supposedly a democracy –then God help us all. Because a nation led on cynical Machiavellian pragmatism and not the ideals of democracy and fair play would be a poor nation indeed.