By Ravinder Singh
Congratulations to the policemen who dared to scuffle with a datuk to stop him from accomplishing his jihad against the yellow shirted Bersih in Ampang.
Only days ago the IGP cynically dismissed Jamal’s threats to harm and even finish of a few Bersih personalities. When asked whether he would take any action over the criminal threats, he coolly said Jamal was only a talker and had so far not carried out any of his threats.
What will the IGP now say to the policemen who physically restrained the Red Shirt leader “only for making some noise without intention to harm anyone?”
After he was brought under control at the Ampang incident, Jamal was clearly heard saying he would make mincemeat of the Bersih people in retaliation for the bloody nose he got. At first he blamed the police, but later pointed his finger at Ampang MP Zuraida Kamaruddin’s followers. Which version will the IGP believe?
In the normal course of things, a statement made spontaneously carries more weight than a statement made after a lapse of time as one would have had time to cook up something. So, after cooling down, he took the opportunity to implicate his arch enemy, Bersih, to justify further incidents and even violence against its followers.
Now that the IGP has seen that Jamal does not “just make noise”, that he does not make empty threats, that he is serious even if he is covered in blood, how will the IGP describe his aggressive and violent behaviour at Ampang?
In the Sabak Bernam incident a few weeks ago, three Red Shirts were reported to have been arrested.
At the Ampang incident, why was Jamal not arrested although he was clearly leading his warriors to battle?
Is it not a common strategy of peacekeepers to get the leaders of the lawless and put them out of business?
Why is Jamal not being put out of his business of lawlessness?
What else does the IGP want before he is convinced Jamal is a real threat to the peace and harmony of this country? The Malaysian Constitution does not by any stretch of the imagination give Jamal the freedom to act in his lawless manner. If he is not put out of business, then the only conclusion one can arrive at is that he is in business for and on behalf of the government.
Ravinder Singh is an FMT reader.
With a firm belief in freedom of expression and without prejudice, FMT tries its best to share reliable content from third parties. Such articles are strictly the writer’s personal opinion. FMT does not necessarily endorse the views or opinions given by any third party content provider.