Sonny Inbaraj, Bangkok – It was a moral victory for the second Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor, or Apcet II as it was popularly known. The 50 Apcet II participants and 10 journalists covering the conference, who were arrested in Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian police last November, had all charges against them dropped last Friday by the attorney general.
I was one of those arrested and, as I angrily recalled in this column last year, I spent three days in a police lock-up under appalling conditions. Krishnamurti tells us that our worst fear, is fear of the unknown. To disappear into political imprisonment is to undergo such a fate, bearing in mind that Malaysia still uses the draconian Internal Security Act that allows for detention without a trial for three years.
The attorney general's statement on Jan 31 read as follows:
"The police have referred the investigation papers concerning the meeting of the Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor II [Apcet] and the one concerning the unlawful assembly which disrupted the said meeting on Nov 9, 1996, to the Attorney General Chambers.
"The attorney general after perusing the investigation papers concerning the participants of Apcet, of which 60 persons had been arrested, has decided not to prefer any charge whatsoever against them.
"As for the one which involved the participants of the unlawful assembly, seven persons had been arrested by the police on the said day. Four were arrested in the meeting room on the fourth floor Asia Hotel Kuala Lumpur whilst another three were arrested outside the said hotel. There were several others identified but were not arrested. The attorney general after having carefully reviewed and assessed the evidence disclosed in the investigation conducted by the police, has decided to institute criminal prosecution against the four of them."
The four are members of the youth wing of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's United Malays National Organisation (Umno), and part of about 300 youth members of Malaysia's ruling National Front coalition, who disrupted Apcet II by breaking into the Asia Hotel, wrecking furniture and manhandling participants.
Chanting "Foreigners get out" and carrying placards with slogans like "East Timor is an internal problem of Indonesia", "We love Malaysia", "NGOs are dogs of the West", the 300-strong mobsters surrounded the participants and threatened them with the use of force if they did not leave the Asia Hotel, while screaming profanities at them through loudspeakers.
Former Malaysian MP Fan Yew Teng, a conference participant said: "It makes me think of the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution and the invasion of the US Embassy in Tehran. It's mob rule."
Outside the hotel, in the heart of Kuala Lumpur, close to 2,000 Umno Youth members were shouting "Go away, Go away", with the police just looking on.
On Jan 31, the magistrate's court fined Nadzri Ismail, Mohamad Supardi Mohamad Noor and Abdul Hadi Mohamad Zam, M$1,500 (Bt15,000) for rioting and trespassing at the Nov 9 meeting. A fourth Umno Youth member, Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, will face similar charges on February 19 when he returns to Kuala Lumpur from a pilgrimage to Mecca.
According to Asiaweek (whose senior correspondent Roger Mitton was also arrested), Saifuddin, a political secretary to the defence minister and Umno Youth secretary, was spearheading the attack on the East Timor conference.
Now, did the Umno Youth leaders get more than what they bargained for?
It seems some strange deals were made in the attorney general's chambers. The police initially arrested the four on charges of failure to disperse after an order was given under the Malaysian Police Act. This was the same charge used against the participants and journalists at Apcet II.
However, when the investigation papers reached the attorney general, an additional charge of rioting and trespassing was added for the Umno Youth members. And what's more, the four had a choice of either pleading guilty to the charge of failing to disperse from an illegal assembly or to rioting and trespassing.
To those unfamiliar with Malaysian laws, rioting and trespassing might seem more serious to failure to disperse when a police order was given. But the crux of the matter is this. Failure to disperse comes under Section 27 of the Police Act which was amended recently to include a minimum fine of M$2,000 (Bt20,000) and/or a one-year jail term.
In Malaysia, anyone holding public office either in parliament or the state legislative assembly would be in serious trouble if he or she was fined M$2,000 or more by the courts in a criminal offence. Thus, the amendment in the Police Act is aimed primarily at opposition politicians who most of the time have to use alternative means of campaigning in Malaysia, bearing in mind that public rallies are banned in the country coupled with a press that is generally hostile to the opposition.
On the other hand, the minimum fine for a rioting and trespassing charge is M$1,500 (Bt15,000) and/or a jail sentence of one year. Also, the fine is not recorded by the police.
Little did the police realise that one of the Umno Youth leaders, Nadzri Ismail, is a state legislator and if he was fined the minimum M$2,000 under the Police Act for failure to disperse from an illegal assembly, he would have been disqualified from the state assembly.
Coming under intense international criticism for arresting participants and journalists at the East Timor conference which was not banned by the government, the police appeared to have shot themselves in the foot by charging a government Umno legislator under Section 27 of the Police Act. If he had been disqualified from public office, all hell would have broken loose with Mahathir himself making sure that heads rolled in the police force.
At the 11th hour, the mistake was realised and the alternative charge added by the police. The Umno Youth members were then advised by their lawyers and the police to plead guilty to the lesser charge of rioting and trespassing so that Nadzri could retain his state assembly seat. The wrath of Mahathir had thus been avoided.
The events of Nov 9 have grave implications for the democratic movement in Malaysia and the region. Serious questions now must be asked. What are the lessons to be learned? What strategies should now be adopted by activists to strengthen the struggle for East Timor's independence? What are the consequences for our understanding of Asean and its role in legitimising human rights abuses in the region? How should social movements in Asean respond, locally and internationally?
There are no clear-cut responses, and our struggle to answer these questions continues towards the next millennium.