The findings from Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) found that the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) handling of the Public Assembly on April 28 (Bersih 3.0) as unreasonable, contrary to the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012.

Another key finding was that the police had also denied several human rights like press freedom and freedom of expression.

"The findings from this investigation is based on the statement fromt the witnesses and evidence including documents, pictures, video recording, newspaper reports, medical reports and police reports," said Suhakam Vice Chairman Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee.

The findings was released today after an inquiry conducted by Suhakam on the incident.

The panel, which was chaired by Dr. Khaw, also noted that the Act came into effect five days before the assembly and “it was too early for the PDRM to fully observe the PAA 2012 in its operations and handling of the assembly participants.”

As a comparison, the Commission would like to commend the police for their successful handling and management of the “Himpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat” peaceful rally held at Stadium Merdeka in Kuala Lumpur on Janaury 12.

The three-member panel also noted that the police did not assist or facilitate in the dispersal of the participants during the public assembly of 28 April 2012 as envisaged under section 8 of the PAA 2012.

The participants of the assembly were not given sufficient and reasonable time to disperse in an orderly and safe manner.

“Instead, the warning to disperse was made only before the initial firing of the water cannon and tear gas but none thereafter. The continuous firing of water cannon and tear gas had also hampered the efforts of the participants to disperse,” said Dr. Khaw.

The panel also observed of the use of disproportionate force and incidents of misconduct by the police personnel towards those who had been arrested and that most of those arrested were not informed of the ground of their arrest.

Other key findings included:

•That there were participants who were arrested by the police personnel while they were inside certain premises although they had already left the scene of the assembly;

• That there were attempts by the police in preventing the media from covering the event by confiscating their equipment, deleting the photographs taken as well as arresting or assaulting them;

• That all the arrested participants at the PULAPOL were not informed of the grounds of their arrest and were denied the access to their legal representatives;

The panel also noted that the persons who staged protests outside the residence of Dato’ Ambiga
Sreevenasan after 28 April were entitled to exercise their right of expression and freedom to assemble.

At the same time, the exercise of these rights must be conducted must also be in accordance with laws, regulations or municipal by-laws.

Suhakam also believed that that the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) could have played a greater role in facilitating the movement of traffic by opening more roads in and around the city.

Suhakam’s recommendations

In response to its findings, the Panel of Inquiry has outlined several key recommendations for the consideration of the relevant authorities and media. They include, among others, the following:

• The need for the PDRM to facilitate peaceful assemblies as envisaged under the PAA 2012 by ensuring crowd and traffic management and control as well as minimising disruptions to the public and activities in the places concerned. These can be realised through meetings with the organisers as well as on-going training and workshops on crowd management and control in line with international standards;

• The need for the police to make distinction between a peaceful assembly and a riot as well as to maintain its neutrality in protecting the safety of participants and members of public in the event of public assemblies involving two or more opposing groups in the same area;

• The need for PDRM to review and amend their Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)/Standing Orders in the dispersal of assemblies in accordance with international human rights standards such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Convention on Civil and Political (ICCPR), Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC), European Convention and American Convention on Human Rights and to emulate best practices of other Police Forces in the world;

• The need for the PDRM to ensure that participants are given sufficient and reasonable time to disperse in an orderly and safe manner, and that proper exit routes are available to avoid any untoward incidents. Alternatives means to warn and disperse participants should also be explored;

• The need for the PDRM to avoid any untoward incidents or conflicting instructions by ensuring all orders are issued by the Ground Commander and, should the task be delegated to another officer, the information must be made known to the police personnel on duty during the assembly;

•The need for the PDRM to adopt additional or other means of communication in order to ensure that police officers maintain communications with one another and to avoid any possible confusion with respect to orders or actions taken by any of the troops on the ground;

•The need for the arresting officers to exercise care and avoid using unwarranted or disproportionate force at the time of the arrest as well as to need to inform the arrested persons the ground of their arrest and to ensure their right to obtain access to legal counsel;

• The need for members of public especially participants of public assemblies not to take the law into their own hands and to appreciate and respect at all times the role and responsibilities of the police in maintaining and preserving security, peace and law and order;

• The need for the police to wear their permanent name tags or identification body numbers at all time when exercising their duty while the plain-clothes officers tasked to monitor, observe and document the event should not be involved in the dispersal or arresting process, unless they clearly identify themselves;

• The need for the PDRM to review its SOP and to make compulsory the reporting of its personnel after performing their duty which details all actions taken during the assignment;

• The suggestion for the relevant authorities and media to refer to the OSCE’s Special Report on the Handling of the Media, which contains guidelines on, amongst other things, how the authorities should treat the media during assemblies, as well as how the media should be prepared in handling the reporting of such events;

• The need for communication or briefing between the police and the media before the assembly to assist both parties in appreciating each other’s roles and duties on the day of the assembly, and to anticipate any unforeseen circumstances;

• The need for the journalists to ensure that their attire are not similar to what the participants are wearing and that their media tags are worn and visible at all times. They should also not join the participants in activities such as chanting and singing to avoid being identified as participants;

• The need for PDRM to conduct and complete its investigations on the police reports lodged by the public in relation to acts committed by police personnel to avoid allegations of bias and lack of transparency;

• The need for the authorities to exercise caution when issuing statements that may be interpreted as condoning or advocating any infringement of human rights and which contravenes any law in the country; and

• The need for the authorities to act professionally, impartially and fairly at all times in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities and not to be seen favouring or being partial to any particular party or group.