Deputy Home Minister Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar the truth is that you do not know enough to go into a debate with Gobind. You have uttered utter nonsense just days ago. You don’t even know why the IPCMC was not established.has shrugged Member of Parliament for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo’s challenge to a debate on the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as a sheer waste of time.Junaidi old fool, with your kind of intelligence you certainly need to resort to shouting the loudest so as to drown out Gobind’s voice should the debate be materialised. You just dont have the substance and not of the standard to match even a form 3 school boy to debate.
Wan Junaidi said the debate would be an exercise in futility as the government had rejected the proposed commission in 2009.
“Instead, the government had passed the law Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission Act or EAIC.
EAIC is as good as non existent. Anybody going to them will end up disappointed. Its a thorough waste of time. I did refer a matter to them and I was shocked when there was no inquiry not even taking a statement from me the complainant.That is how pathetic this EAI is. Its another avenue to enrich themselves, the staff and so called people involved. Everything in this country is sick. Where is their conscience. They take tax payers money without doing nothing.I think they are downright shameless. The PM should simply disband this so called agency and put the money spent to better use.
“Therefore, his call to a debate is a futile effort and will result in nothing. He is after a cheap publicity,” Wan Junaidi told reporters after visiting the site of a new mosque in Muara Tebas here today.
Gobind was reported as saying that Wan Junaidi’s dismissal of the IPCMC was flawed. He added that by and large, the opposition and critics of the police had been demanding that the IPCMC should be set up, as recommended by a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
“I’m not interested to debate with anyone who is incapable of being polite. The debate will end up with who shouted the loudest,” said Wan Junaidi. – Bernama
Deputy Home Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar has shrugged member of parliament for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo’s challenge to a debate on the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as a sheer waste of time. to show everyone how capable the Home ministry is by defeating every point raised by Gobind. Regardless of how uncouth any participant might be for it will only prove the person’s mettle. It is about time BN debate PR on important issues to allow the Rakyat to assess who is better.
The crux of the issue is that suspects should not die while in custody. The number of deaths is astoundingly high even over a 13-year period. This is an average of one person dying in the cell per month.
As such, this should be investigated by an independent body, and not the police force themselves. The police obviously have things to hide.
Recently, a prominent Gujarat-based activist handed me over a Gujarat government-sponsored report, “Impact of Caste Discrimination and Distinctions on Equal Opportunities: A Study of Gujarat”, drafted in May 2013. Authored by a few CEPT University, Ahmedabad, scholars led by Prof R Parthasarathy, whom I know as a fine academic, I scanned through the report but was not shocked, as I knew it would simply reflect the mindset of the Gujarat government, especially when the issue involved is rather ticklish – untouchability.
Whenever Umno politicians lack an intelligent response to demands for major changes, their only means of rebuff is cooking up spurious and baseless arguments.
Other forms of defence include that raising the issue is seditious, unconstitutional, it will hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims, it will confuse the Malays, it’s ‘haram’ and more recently, the taunt to emigrate elsewhere.
We all know that the police force does the bidding of the government and therefore are a protected species. So it is no surprise that Umno leaders in particular feel very threatened by the idea of the establishment of the IPCMC.
Why would the government want the police to be answerable for the heinous acts it commits on innocent citizens?
To date, not a single police officer has been charged with the use of excessive and unreasonable force, manslaughter or murder – except one scapegoat in the A Kugan case – in any of the other 166 deaths in custody.
In what is certain to escalate the already vicious fight between the CBI and theIB over the IshratJahan ”fake encounter case”, a former home ministry officer has alleged that a member of the CBI-SIT team had accused incumbent governments of “orchestrating” the terror attack on Parliament and the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai.
It calls caste discrimination a matter of “perceptions”, but so what? What does one expect from a government headed by Narendra Modi? Let me recall, in 2007 Modi got published some of his speeches he had delivered at the annual bureaucratic conclave, Chintan Shibir, in a book, “Karmayog”, where he said, Valmikis cleaning up others’ dirt was nothing but “an internal spiritual activity” which has “continued generation after generation.” Indeed, I have reason to believe that, with this mindset, Modi’s babus would have prevailed over Prof Parthasarathy and others on the issue of untouchability.
Being a member of the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) which tabled the proposal for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), former Umno Wanita deputy chief Kamilia Ibrahim is the latest of the many concerned voices against the government’s reluctance to accept and implement the commission’s recommendations.
It is starkly clear that without the IPCMC, if the current situation is allowed to persist, more deaths under policy custody will occur.
The latest incident happened last month where P Karuna Nithi, who turned himself in to the police after a family squabble, was found dead while being detained with close to 50 wounds in his body. The police have denied any wrongdoing.
Without the IPCMC, there is little clout to prosecute those within the police force who had indiscriminately abused their power to committed murder or be complicit in causing deaths while under detention.
In short, without the commission to regulate the conduct of the police force, errant police officers can literally walk away with murder. Why the ruling government allows this is truly mind-boggling.
Sinner: Psychologists must study this phenomenon. As soon as people leave Umno, they regain their intelligence and senses. Incredible.
R V S Mani, who as home ministry under-secretary signed the affidavits submitted in court in the alleged encounter case, has said that Satish Verma, until recently a part of the CBI-SIT probe team, told him that both the terror attacks were set up “with the objective of strengthening the counter-terror legislation (sic)”.
Mani has said that Verma “…narrated that the 13.12. 2001(attack on Parliament) was followed by Pota (Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act) and 26/11 2008 (terrorists’ siege of Mumbai) was followed by amendment to the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).”
The official has alleged Verma levelled the damaging charge while debunking IB’s inputs labelling the three killed with Ishrat in the June 2004 encounter as Lashkar terrorists.
Contacted by TOI, Verma refused to comment. “I don’t know what the complaint is, made when and to whom. Nor am I interested in knowing. I cannot speak to the media on such matters. Ask the CBI,” said the Gujarat cadre IPS officer who after being relieved from the SIT is working as principal of the Junagadh Police Training College.
Mani, currently posted as deputy land and development officer in the urban development ministry, has written to his seniors that he retorted to Verma’s comments telling the IPS officer that he was articulating the views of Pakistani intelligence agency ISI.
According to him, the charge was levelled by Verma in Gandhinagar on June 22 while questioning Mani about the two home ministry affidavits in the alleged encounter case.
In his letter to the joint secretary in the urban development ministry, Mani has accused Verma of “coercing” him into signing a statement that is at odds with facts as he knew them. He said Verma wanted him to sign a statement saying that the home ministry’s first affidavit in the Ishrat case was drafted by two IB officers. “Knowing fully well that this would tantamount to falsely indicting of (sic) my seniors at the extant time, I declined to sign any statement.”
Giving the context in which Verma allegedly levelled the serious charge against the government, Mani said the IPS officer, while questioning him, had raised doubts about the genuineness of IB’s counter-terror intelligence. He disputed the veracity of the input on the antecedents of the three killed in June 2004 on the outskirts of Ahmedabad with Ishrat in the alleged encounter which has since become a polarizing issue while fuelling Congress’s fight with Gujarat CM Narendra Modi.
Gujarat Police has justified the encounter citing the IB report that Pakistani nationals Zeeshan Zohar, Amzad Ali Rana and Javed Sheikh were part of a Lashkar module which had reached Gujarat to target Modi and carry out terrorist attacks.
In its first affidavit, filed in August 2009, the home ministry had cited IB inputs that those killed with Ishrat in the alleged encounter were part of a Lashkar sleeper cell, and had objected to a CBI probe into the “encounter”.
In its second affidavit, filed in September 2009, the home ministry, irked by the Gujarat government treating the first affidavit as justification of the encounter, said the IB input did not constitute conclusive proof of the terrorist antecedents of those killed. It supported the demand for a CBI probe.
Mani said Verma doubted the input saying MHA’s first affidavit was actually drafted by IB officer Rajinder Kumar, who looked after IB’s operations in Gujarat at the time of Ishrat “encounter” and now runs the serious risk of being chargesheeted by the CBI for hatching the conspiracy behind the alleged extra-judicial killings.
Mani said Verma stuck to his guns even after being told that the home ministry did not need outside help. The former home ministry official said Verma insisted that the “input” was prepared after the encounter.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition by Gujarat Police’s additional director general P P Pandey, challenging the Gujarat high court order which handed over investigation into the encounter killing ofIshratJahan and her associates to the CBI.
Holding that the high court order had been challenged two years after it was passed in Dec 1, 2011, and the chargesheet in the case had already been filed, the apex court bench of Justices Gyan Sudha Misra and Kurian Joseph said it was not a fit petition to be entertained.
Pronouncing the order, Justice Misra said there were numerous instances where high courts, upon finding that the investigation by the state police was not being carried out satisfactorily, handed investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and ordered the registration of a fresh FIR.
It is not “uncommon and unknown to law for the high court to hand over the investigation into a case to CBI if, in its opinion, the facts of the case justified it,” said the court pronouncing its order.
Rejecting Pandey’s plea, the court further noted that there was no valid or justified contention that the matter should not have been handed over to the CBI.
Rejecting the plea that the long delay in filing the petition challenging Dec 1, 2011 order of the high court was because Pandey was party to the case, the court said that he could have impleaded himself before the high court after he was named as accused in the second FIR.
Rejection of Pandey’s plea has further compounded his woes, as the trial court has already declared him an absconder as he has evaded arrest so far.
Ishrat Jahan and her three associates were killed in a staged shootout by Gujarat Police June 15, 2004 after an input by the Intelligence Bureau that the operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba were heading towards Gujarat to kill chief minister Narendra Modi. ians
With IPCMC,
1) The corrupt practices in the force, from the highest to lowest rank, are being threatened.
2) Police can no longer select who they want to investigate.
3) VVIPs and the well-connected cannot be exempted from the law.
4) Police are no longer ‘Police Raja Di Malaysia’.
5) Police cannot shoot and ask questions later.
6) There will be no protection or cover-up by the higher rank for the lower rank, or vice versa
7) Torture during interrogation cannot be used and is punishable.
8) Lazy cops will get the sack.
9) Power abuse will be checked.
10) Free food, drinks and chicks at the protected entertainment outlets gone.
11) No more free car wash and service.
12) Cops can no longer break traffic rules while telling us mortals to obey the rules, etc, etc.
Now you tell me why they want to implement IPCMC.
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition by Gujarat Police’s additional director general P P Pandey, challenging the Gujarat high court order which handed over investigation into the encounter killing ofIshratJahan and her associates to the CBI.
Holding that the high court order had been challenged two years after it was passed in Dec 1, 2011, and the chargesheet in the case had already been filed, the apex court bench of Justices Gyan Sudha Misra and Kurian Joseph said it was not a fit petition to be entertained.
Pronouncing the order, Justice Misra said there were numerous instances where high courts, upon finding that the investigation by the state police was not being carried out satisfactorily, handed investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and ordered the registration of a fresh FIR.
It is not “uncommon and unknown to law for the high court to hand over the investigation into a case to CBI if, in its opinion, the facts of the case justified it,” said the court pronouncing its order.
Rejecting Pandey’s plea, the court further noted that there was no valid or justified contention that the matter should not have been handed over to the CBI.
Rejecting the plea that the long delay in filing the petition challenging Dec 1, 2011 order of the high court was because Pandey was party to the case, the court said that he could have impleaded himself before the high court after he was named as accused in the second FIR.
Rejection of Pandey’s plea has further compounded his woes, as the trial court has already declared him an absconder as he has evaded arrest so far.
Ishrat Jahan and her three associates were killed in a staged shootout by Gujarat Police June 15, 2004 after an input by the Intelligence Bureau that the operatives of Lashkar-e-Taiba were heading towards Gujarat to kill chief minister Narendra Modi. ians
