KUALA LUMPUR: The Home Ministry’s ban on taking videos of police personnel during raids and executing arrests was prompted by concerns of misrepresentation and exposure of classified information, says Comm Datuk Azmi Abu Kassim.
The Kuala Lumpur police chief was commenting on Home Minister Datuk Seri Hamzah Zainuddin’s statement on Monday banning the public from taking such videos.
Hamzah had said anyone who defied the ban could face action for obstructing a public servant from carrying out his duties under Section 186 of the Penal Code and for misuse of network facilities under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act.
Explaining the reasons for such a ban, Azmi told theSun that a video that is deliberately edited by an unscrupulous party can leave a negative impression of the police.
Azmi said videos of police raids can also expose the identities of undercover policemen, giving criminals an advantage.
“There are times police raids are carried out covertly to prevent a criminal syndicate from finding out about the operation and the police personnel involved in it.
“This serves to enable us to conduct subsequent raids at other locations without criminals being alerted and escaping. There are also times when police personnel arrest an aggressive suspect and subdue the person using some force.
“Without a full version of the situation, a video partly showing the incident may be misconstrued by the public as police brutality.
“This not only puts a dent on the image of the police force but also public confidence in it,” Azmi said.
On police carrying out checks on mobile phones, he said such inspections cannot be carried out randomly unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person has committed a serious offence and scrutiny of the mobile phone will enable investigators to obtain crucial evidence.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, who agreed with the Home Ministry’s move, said circulating a video without facts could impede police work and the investigation process.
However, he said if an individual recorded a video to safeguard his position during a police encounter, then it should not be considered an offence as long as the footage is not circulated.
“If one’s house is raided or if a person is stopped by the police and he records the encounter as a defence in court or an alibi, it is fine. But it should not be made public and circulated.
“As for taking videos of a police raid and circulating it, this can hamper police investigations. The people involved in committing crimes might destroy evidence at other locations after being pre-warned by such a video,” he said.
Haniff Khatri expressed confidence the public would not want to be a party to those out to destroy such evidence just because they are so gung-ho about recording everything they come across.
“In this sense, the Home Ministry is right,” he said, adding that those taking videos of police operations should seek the truth behind the situation before choosing to circulate it.
He said the public should adhere to police orders to stop any video-taking if ordered to do so, and that they could seek the advice of lawyers on the next course of action when they possess such videos.
He said the proposed body camera for police personnel should be enforced as it will record police conduct and that of the public.
“This way, allegations made against either party cannot be refuted as it will be in the video. The acquisition and use of such body cameras should be expedited,” he added.