RMP Have Lost the Plot!

It seems strange for Enforcers of the Law to fail miserably in understanding the intent of the establishment of the RMP themselves. In MalaysiaToday (http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/6285/1/) The Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) stressed that 'speeches made in public without a police permit is against the law'. Which brings me to the question 'what is a police permit?' and 'What purposes does a permit serve?'

During the busy days of campaigning for Tian Chua about two months ago the RMP were still enforcing a ban on public speeches and rallies; albeit then a permit would be given with the condition that it is applied for within 48 hours. For this special commendation should be given to IPD Sentul specifically to a certain ASP Nyana Segeren of the Special Branch having to forego celebrating his newborn daughter in order to assist political parties to obtain permits.

Anyway, a cover letter is required from the event's organisers with an attachment called form ‘A’ KPN (PR) 19/26 to be filled and signed off with a duplicate attached. The applicant is then required to undergo an interview and 48 hours after that, a permit shall be given.

Why all this explanation? The reason for the above is to illustrate that extensive (albeit unnecessary) explanation was done in order to hold a rally. What would a permit guarantee anyway? safety? traffic orderliness? no! the permit was a mere notification of goings on indicating where, what and when the event happens. It does not impart any additional duty on the police nor does it state anywhere that the police shall undertake to provide any safety or traffic assistance!

If a police permit is just a notification of an event so that RMP may just enter the same into their diary, would not then the meeting held days before the event, where Tan Sri Khalid, Azmin and others have briefed the RMP of the programme tentative, suffice?

If the objective of a permit is to enable the RMP to enforce orderliness, why does not the permit state as such? why are the words silent to that effect?

On the other hand, if the primary duty of the RMP is to facilitate orderliness and to enforce crowd control. In the Black 14 event, all parties (including the RMP) testified that there were no untoward elements of roughness, arbitrary mischief nor vandalism occuring. Why then, pray tell, must you stop the event? What objective are you looking for? because if it is orderliness then it is proven as the event unfolded! If the reason for the cease order was due to a mere technicality - where a permit must be applied so that orderliness is maintained or else it is illegal - then the police must use their god given ability to think logically that - with a disciplined lot such as in Black 14, and as the events unfolded smoothly and witnessed as such without any mischief - a permit is not necessary.