Kl Police Chief Defends Ig Post On Protesters Lawyers Call It Unethical

---

 


Kuala Lumpur police chief Fadil Marsus has defended his social media post showing a police officer seemingly advising two protesters who were detained during the anti-Israel demonstration outside the United States embassy yesterday.
In the 51-second clip, which Fadil shared with the caption “Kita bersaudara” (we are brothers), the officer appeared to explain police procedures, caution the two men about their conduct at protests, and also expressed support for Palestine.
However, social media users flooded the comments section, questioning the legality of a police officer publicly sharing such videos. Several also raised concerns about consent, safety, and privacy, noting that the two men’s faces were clearly visible.
“There’s no issue at all. What evidence, if advice was given politely and respectfully?” Fadil said when contacted by Malaysiakini.
ADSMalaysiakini sought Fadil’s response and reasoning for sharing the video, following criticism from social media users who argued that it should not have been made public as it formed part of an ongoing police investigation.
Kuala Lumpur police chief Fadil MarsusA subsequent question was also raised, regarding whether the two men were aware they were being recorded, and if their consent had been obtained before the video was posted. However, Fadil has yet to respond.
PSM deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan also appeared in the footage, having been there to assist the detained men.
No recollection of consent
When contacted, Arutchelvan told Malaysiakini that he could not recall whether the police had sought consent before posting the video on social media.
He said that although he noticed an officer recording the conversation with the protesters, he was under the impression that the footage would be for internal police use only.
Arutchelvan alleged that what was posted on Fadil’s social media was also not the “whole story”.
“The officer asked me, saying he wanted to speak to the two of them, so I said, sure.
“What he said in the video is not the whole thing. It was edited. Towards the end, he kept telling them, ‘Do you understand? Don’t do this, do you understand?’
“Then I said, ‘Hey, this case is not even concluded or fully investigated yet, how can you intimidate them by talking about police records and all that?’ After that, he tried to be cool, saying they (the protestors) are both still young.
“I know they were recording, but I don’t remember them asking for consent. I thought it was for internal processes, since they (police) have given them bail and that they were advising on procedures,” Arutchelvan said.
PSM deputy chairperson S ArutchelvanThe two men in question were released on police bail from the Wangsa Maju district police station last night.
ADSLawyers for Liberty (LFL) director Zaid Malek, who represented them, said that the duo are being investigated under Section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant.
Unethical, improper
LFL co-founder and human rights lawyer Latheefa Koya, however, panned Fadil’s action to post the video on social media as unethical and improper.
Latheefa told Malaysiakini that the act is highly prejudicial to the legal and constitutional rights of the two men, who are only suspects.
“Prior to the bringing of any charges in court, no enforcement body should reveal the identity of detained suspects. That’s prejudicial and compromises their rights. It’s irrelevant that other persons or media may have revealed their identities already.
“The police should never do it because it confirms authoritatively their identities, and that they are suspects in an alleged crime. The entire exchange video is highly irregular, improper and demeaning to the suspects,” she said.
Latheefa lamented that it also compromises the suspects’ right to a fair trial process, as stipulated under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
LFL co-founder and human rights lawyer Latheefa KoyaLawyer Rajesh Nagarajan also echoed Latheefa.
“When a police officer ‘advises’ a suspect in an offhand or informal manner, it can blur the line between voluntary cooperation and coercion, even subtle coercion.
“The suspect might feel pressured or guided into making statements or admissions they might not have otherwise made.
“Aside from strict legality, such conduct raises serious public concern. It may appear that the police are overstepping, mumbling informal ‘tips’ rather than performing a disciplined, transparent investigation.
“This can erode public confidence in the fairness and professionalism of law enforcement,” Rajesh said. - Mkini

---