In a statement recently, the IGP said the investigation paper will be submitted for review, advice and further instructions under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.
He said police recorded statements from 25 witnesses to assist in the investigation into the incident on Sept 28.
Yes, all criminal investigation papers, including the reports lodged of the KLIA incident involving the DG of AKPS —including those involving police brutality, deaths in custody, or public officials—are processed through the same constitutional framework, it is a standard legal procedure.
But, the viral video that went viral has raised significant questions regarding its origin and the presence of the other parties involved.
Based on the video that can be downloaded and viewed on social media, was the clip taken from a CCTV in the area?
It doesn’t appear so.
Rationale – the camera was zooming in and and panning and tilts to different angle during the course of the recording.
It is obvious that the viral video circulating on social media was actually recorded by hand using mobile phones, not a fixed area CCTV.
And the angle where it captured the DG of AKPS reprimanding another person and the location where it was installed is questionable.
Anyway, a physical verification can easily confirm this question.
If it is from a CCTV, who has access to the footage?
As this is a restricted area, obviously only authorised individuals are allowed to have access to the feed from the CCTV.
The act itself?
Were the 2 individuals who apparently was reprimanded part of the team led by the DG of AKPS?
AKPS explicitly clarified that the two individuals were not part of the active enforcement operations team.
Then the question would be why are they loitering around that area?
Are they assigned to review and oversee that particular area too?
Were they working around that area or they happened to appear at the same location while the DG of AKPS was there undertaking enforcement activities?
The presence of the 2 individuals who apparently lodged the police report against the DG of AKPS at that place together while the DG was there raised more suspicion than the fact that they were videoed being reprimanded.
The DG, in a press conference claimed that he noticed them filming the enforcement activities without authorization, leading to a tense confrontation where they were ordered to delete the phone footage.
If the viral video circulating on social media was actually recorded by hand using mobile phones, not a fixed area CCTV, then it is such a huge coincidence for the person to happen to be at the right place at the right time and recorded the incident as it happened.
Obviously, the authorities need to interview the person who recorded the video and determine its authenticity.
The AG needs to satisfy himself that the video is authentic and has not been edited, tampered with, or doctored.
If the Attorney General, despite having sought experts to examine the video can’t determine with full exactness of the people involved in a sex video in a hotel in Sandakan, Sabah, years ago, taking any actions based on this viral video goes against the normal grain of logic.
The then AG, in Jan 2020, announced that while agencies like CyberSecurity Malaysia confirmed the digital footage itself was authentic and unedited, the low resolution and poor quality made it impossible to achieve conclusive facial recognition.
What is frightening to note is the audacity of the 2 individuals to lodge a police report against the DG for being reprimanded.
Video captured via official, department-issued equipment during an authorized raid is highly credible.
It is routinely used to protect the integrity of the operation and serve as primary evidence.
However, if the video was taken without an official mandate or authorization, the 2 individuals who lodged the report should be asked why the video was taken, where it was stored, and whether the recording violated standard operating procedures (SOPs) or security protocols of a restricted area.
Sharing of personal data or information without consent — including the likeness of a person which in this case the viral video - is an offence under Section 5 of the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA).
Potentially, the DG of AKPS can filed a civil suit for damages against the person who was taking the video with the penalty for defamation includes a fine of RM300,000 or a maximum prison sentence of two years, or both.
The public is waiting for the outcome of this case from the AG with great anticipation.
A physical confrontation between public servants goes through standard legal procedure.
What about those deaths in remand?
Shouldn’t those warrant the same and in fact, heightened scrutiny?
2 individuals who claimed that they are part of the police lodged a police report against another civil servant whose only `offence’ was reprimanding the 2 individuals.
If action is taken against the DG of AKPS for this, actions should also be taken on reports lodged by the families of those who died while in remand against all those in charge.
FLK (leekhean.foo@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
