Letter to Editor on Shah Alam shooting

Dear Editor,

I was extremely sad upon learning about the incident where a 15 year old boy was shot by policemen in Shah Alam.

Based on the reports, it was about 2am and they were driving back from an all night eatery in Section 7 when they passed the police car which signalled them to stop. Obviously they refused to stop and must have sped away, which resulted in a car chase and the police having had to shoot at their tyres to force them to stop. One of them ran off leaving the other, now identified as Aminulrasyid Amzah, 15 years, in the car. In panic he must have reversed and rammed the police car.

I can accept that at 2am, it must still be dark without proper lighting. Thus, the policeman who shot him could not have seen the driver clearly to identify him as a 15 year old boy. However, I wonder if this in itself along with the boy reversing and ramming the police car justifies the cop to shoot at the driver. The fact that the policemen found a machete in the car also to me does not justify shooting the victim unless he had been swinging it menacingly to the policemen.

I am also very disturbed that there are now two versions of the incident. One, the police report lodged by the policemen and second by the victim’s friend after meeting YB Khalid Samad, the PAS MP for Shah Alam. I shall leave that up to those in charge of investigations to determine what really happened. I hope the authorities will investigate, especially on the fact that the boy had claimed he was punched and kicked before miraculously running away.

I am however interested in the truth. I am happy to learn that all four policemen have been reassigned to desk duties pending outcome of investigations. No use suspending them as the force can utilise them to do paperwork and at least they are still on active desk duty that they can be called anytime for questioning, but not too close to interfere with investigations.

I would like to suggest the police to explore the possibility of appointing a third party as a member of the investigations committee if possible security wise. This will add credibility and stop all nonsensical talk that the police might try to cover up to help one of their own. At the same time, the third party must be of a totally neutral party without any interest. It could be a member of SUHAKAM or Y Bhg Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye or someone of that stature. However, it must never be a poilitican, for a politician have sides.

The police must act swiftly. The committee formed must also be transparent and inform the public every step of the way and finally its decision. The investigations, whatever the outcome, must be seen as a decision on the individual policeman or the group of four policemen. It is not in any way a referendum or reflective of the whole police force. The public must understand this, for one rotten apple does not make the whole stock go bad.

I urge everyone involved – politicians, NGOs, media and all those concerned to allow the family to grief and the committee to work. We must respect the family and not make it worse. We must respect the committee and allow it to carry out its duties. Do not turn this into a kangaroo court and pass public judgment. The four policemen and the family involved must be given a chance to tell their side of the story to the committee.

The police and committee at all times must act without fear or favour.

AHMAD IKMAL ISMAIL