[UPDATED on 14 October 2010: Thank you everyone for stopping by LoyarBurok and caring to comment on this episode. It has been an educational experience for all of us. If you are new here, kindly take time to read our Terms of Use. Loyarburok does not moderate or monitor comments unless we are informed and directed to particular comments which may need to be edited, deleted or categorised as spam.
In the case of Pamela’s video, LoyarBurok had no alternative but to edit the original video which showed Pamela’s personal details. We took this step after numerous comments inciting hatred were published while at the same time exposing the said details, and our attention was directed to these comments.
On the issue of the editor’s voice raised by Jen Li, Pete and others, kindly note that there is only ONE Lord Bobo Barnabus, The Wonder Typewriting Monkey, who is the General Chief Editor of this blawg (see again our Terms of Use). We have a team of LoyarBurokkers who regularly work behind the scenes by curating and posting new material, updating this blawg etc. However, no one writes or speaks as the editor of this blawg save for Lord Bobo, and no one may usurp the Lord’s great powers!
Happy LoyarBurokking!]
A commentary on the intimidatory responses that made police intimidation look tame.
Of late, there is a lot of talk about civil society movements gaining momentum and mass in Malaysia. It’s heralded as the coming of a third force, the keeper of checks and balances, social justice championed by society. I was very hopeful until I saw the utterly uncivilised comments in response to Pamela’s police intimidation video.
As part of the editorial team here, I was pleasantly surprised at the record breaking speed at which the video was gaining circulation and comments. The purpose of making public such a video, especially on a site like LoyarBurok, is to encourage public debate and discussion. Comments/brick-bats, supporters/detractors are all part and parcel of the free and open discourse we seek. However, two things about the bulk of the negative responses perturbed me: (i) The violence and intimation by fellow citizens. (ii) The narrow view taken in contextualising the video.
Shut-up you stupid bitch, you should be raped!
Many of the comments are fine examples of violence against women. Browse through the comments on this blawg alone and you will see the gender-based violence in the words. The use of derogatory labels amounted to sexually harassment. The intimidatory tone worse than that inflicted by the police.
I wonder if the video was taken by a Peter and not a Pamela, would there be this much personal attacks, threats, sexual jibes, and harassment? No doubt, there will still be people of the opinion that the civilian should have been more “respectful”, but ever stop to wonder would the critical comments be more objective and focused on the incident? Would it still be fuelled by the indoctrination of women as the second sex? Do you expect a woman to be more of a “lady”? Would you think “This rude bitch damn cari pasal la.” or “This guy should’ve not lost his cool la.”
On the surface it may be just words on the internet posted by a faceless nickname. But online harassment and violence is just violence against women taking on the latest platform. Women have long been fighting to be heard, to have a voice, to not be a labelled “bitch” when a fellow male doing the same is called “assertive.”
Ooh reality video, let’s lynch the bad guy!
When I uploaded this “fragmented” video, I did not expect it to be become a contest of who’s right and who’s wrong. This finger-pointing paints a certain representation that Malaysians in general do not know how to agree to disagree nor can we discuss differing views in a civilised manner without attacking each other. (No wonder things get ridiculously extreme when discussing matters related to race) We seem to be locked in zero-sum assessments.
The video raises many points of debate and it would be a shame if it was viewed solely with the intention of picking who is in the wrong and ending the discussion there. What can we do when in doubt of whether the person is actually a policeman? Should we just apologise whenever we are flagged by police to increase our chances of being let off? What if we chose to insist on our innocence? What if apologising didn’t work? Where do we draw the line between kow-tow and being respectful? Do authorities deserve extra respect? I’m sure there are other more astute points of debate, unfortunately even these simple ones I posed were hardly touched by commentators.
The video also did not show what the situation was like before the civilian decided to record the incident. Being stopped by the police, unsure of whether you had actually broken the law, unsure of whether you are hearing hints for bribery – can be an unnerving episode to some if not most people. Understandably one of the questions raised by such a video, would be who was in the right. What was surprising is the speed and decisiveness in which this “judgment” was dispensed inspite of the many unknowns to the viewer of the video. In most countries, it is the police that are held on a higher standard, not the civilians that they have been entrusted with the duty of “policing.”
LB: Ong Jo-Lene really doesn’t know how to describe herself but she has plenty to say at Seksualiti Merdeka.
(Najibs Inchun: Admittedly , she was also being a little argumentative.)
C'mon Najib, stop hating on Pam already. She's already mentioned in her "What Happened Before" rebuttal that EVEN THOUGH:
1) "(her) family had been a close source to the family of the late Tun Razak and the father of our independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman"
AND
2) "(she's) the descendent of Malaya’s first court interpreter, Peter Lim and can trace back four generations in Malaysia",
she never once brought those up during any argument, especially arguments with police. So how was she being argumentative at all?
Look at some of the best comments in Malay Mail here: http://mmail.com.my/content/52987-loyarburok-blog…
The lady was allegedly caught using the mobile while driving, I think EVERYONE is in agreement she DESERVES the summons. What she does not deserve, for that matter is the unprofessional,abrasive and rudely goading behaviour from the police. Admittedly , she was also being a little argumentative. BUT the police carry more resposibility to ensure the situation is dealt with calmly and cooly and not excerbated any further. They are supposed to the LAW and must show an exemplry behaviour. Just because they are police they are NOT exempted from stupid and uncivilised behaviour …
After having watched the video twice, I am for Pamela Lim.The First Policeman was rude, unprofessional and goading the victim unecessarily.He at once appeared someone picked out of some kampung and put into the uniform.The second by the name of Rachmat also was also rude, abrasive without any manners,unprofessional and very loud mouthed.Both of them had an attitude that is unacceptable in this age to deal with the public.Pamela, committed an offence, for which she should have been issued the summons and they should have left.Instead of engaing in a loud tirade, they should have left after issuing the summons.When a police esspcially in Malaysia stops one, one of the common questions asked is "how do you want to settle?[Macam mana na settle?]This is an indirect reference to asking it to be settled by paying a bribe.I hope the PDRM will address THIS issue with the two policemen and also send them on a public relations course and how to talk to the rakyat.I have had some pleasant moments with the malaysian Police when on visit to malaysia …
And Malay Mail: it doesnt mean when you ask for a ticket you are admitting the offence, as you see Pam said they hinted at a bribe and the best response is to remind them of the summons they ought to issue = which can then be challenged in court
oh i forgot this also.
Use the thing between your ears man.
IsayNo2ISA,
The article you provided, as you can see is not an advisory from police. If it is, i would like you to quote any statements that inside the article that may say it was a police advisory.
For your quest, i may inform you that:
The job they are doing is crime prevention rounds, that called Ronda Cegah Jenayah (RCJ). This RCJ motorcyclist, is acting like Mobile Patrol Vehicle.
To that ID question,
You may read: from the link before, it says:
"“This uniform will enable them to move faster as they do not have to put on the metal badges and other gadgets anymore,” Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said at the 201st Police Day celebration at the police Training Centre here."
So, it stated, NO METAL BADGES.
ID is created from METAL.
If is not, the ID should be weaved on the uniform. And there is no reason to hide it also.
and on the top article:
"The police will wear a new operational uniform incorporating communications devices, handcuffs, baton and pepper spray when on operations and on crime prevention rounds."
See that CRIME PREVENTION ROUNDS?
dsnker,
I do not know but your so called proof are taken from flickr and some photo album. My source is from the Star online news portal reported in 18th July, 2010, and not from the red book you mentioned. The advisory was issued by the Police Department on the 18th July, 2010 as reported in the same news link I provided. Unless you are saying that the source of the Star online news is dubious, else you are the one did not provide any real proof and evidence.
As for the 2008 news piece you have pasted. It never mentioned that the uniform do not contain ID number tag as a change and the photo is too blur to make out if there really isn't any ID tag on the uniform to be a credible evidence.
Some more, If those two policemen were really wearing operational uniform, which were supposed to be worn during an operation. It would raise another question and that would be why are they wearing it when they were obviously not on an operation! They were on patrolling duty!!! You have just highlighted another questionable aspect of the dubious behavior of the two policemen.
Use the thing between your ears man.
IsayNo2ISA,
"It is the Police department issuing such advice:
1) To note down Police ID and name from their Uniform.
2) To ask for authority card if the status of the uniformed police is in doubt."
I am sorry that the link you gave is not really advice from police. it was sourced from RED BOOK.
That's why, i say you are obsolete.
The Uniform is called Operational uniform Code Number 4. And it is normally used on operation. And do you know this either?
That's why i give you link, to show the uniform. You are using an information that only valid before 2008.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/3…
I also think you are outdated, and never try to update yourself.
——————————–
dsnker,
You want proof? Here is the proof:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7… ?
It is the Police department issuing such advice:
1) To note down Police ID and name from their Uniform.
2) To ask for authority card if the status of the uniformed police is in doubt.
And the advisory was issued in 18 July, 2010 and you called that obsolete? Be real man, you are the one showing URL link and photos from flickr without real evidence.
IsayNo2ISA,
"In fact, it is the police department own advice that said, we must check the ID number from their uniform, meaning that new or old, they MUST wear their ID number tag on their uniform! Go read my comment in full, not choose to only see what you want to see."
I am sorry to say, but i must object. In this case, this uniform is really doesn't have ID on it. It only have NAME and POLIS on it.
This fact is not created by me, but indeed a new uniform code.
And I also sorry to say that you are using obsolete point here.
And I willing to show the new uniform code here.
http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/afp/english/photo_12…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasniee/2651525827/#…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ikdn/4535271747/
brigade
http://www.flickr.com/photos/klctcentre/281362844…
fru
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blankqo/2278873506/
We don't want to hear any sayings without PROOF.
brave and SUPERDUMB, that is. right?
brave girl… next namewee (female version)? hope more of you, though!
dsnker,
It is the Police department own advice to the public that if you are in doubt of the status of the uniformed men, you should ask for their authority card. In fact, it is the police department own advice that said, we must check the ID number from their uniform, meaning that new or old, they must wear their ID number tag on their uniform! Go read my comment in full, not choose to only see what you want to see.
"She was supposed to note the ID number of the two policemen when stopped. She did that as advised by the police department. But she couldn’t because these two unruly policemen did not wear their ID number badge for reason best known only to themselves."
Firstly, you must see the uniform. See that uniform. Tell us, is that uniform is police uniform? Are you police, to make assumptions?
Yes it is. And it is a police newest uniform. And it was used started on year 2008.
We call that operational uniform, and it was NO any ID on the uniform. It only states the name and "POLIS".
This new uniform could be easily identified with cargo trousers. There are cargo pockets and this full suit is designed with quick-drying fabrics.
and for the idiots who talk about rape n violence on the woman just because they don't like what she did, that is typical example of our 'great' malaysian attitude – Don't know how to articulate your words so it is always easier to just throw jibes & insults like a dumb animal. i think to change the next generation of malaysian kids, debating classes should be made mandatory in school. too many malaysian idiots around these days, hard to have a decent debate.
Ok Ok! I heard every side of the argument already. BOTH the public and the police must be more polite but Police must be even more polite because they are serving the public. End of day, I think people should just have more sex and just chill.
@bloodyidiot, nice apt name you have for yourself. :)
But i don't have to find out what happened to the cops because the videos were merely to show what real police brutality is, and that every country's system has their flaws so don't compare.
@Shanee
What is your objective in showing video footage of bad cops whom got fired, some charged and the rest investigated for excessive use of violence and failure to follow procedures? Just to prove a point? I wonder if it would occurred to you that you are essentially condoning the police misbehavior, emboldening the bad cop to continue behave badly or probably even to become worse cop with those bad examples.
Then answer me, what is the point of the Malaysia police department to always remind people to ask for authority cards when they are skeptical about the status of the uniformed man, as reported here:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7… ?
When what Pamela done was following the advice as reported in the same news piece above that said:"it is the public’s right to ask for identification and they have to let go of the misconception that the police would be antagonistic if they do so." She was accused of provoking the two policemen. And you joined in on the wagon to lament about her course of action. But read the news piece and go see the video and you'd see that she had indeed followed the advice as issued by the POLICE department!!!
She was supposed to note the ID number of the two policemen when stopped. She did that as advised by the police department. But she couldn't because these two unruly policemen did not wear their ID number badge for reason best known only to themselves.
The other advice issued by the police department is that we should ask for the uniformed men their authority card if we are suspicious of their status, which she did and that is when the two police went livid as posted by Pamela. So, why accusing Pamela of all sort of things when what she did was following the advisory as issued by the police department?
With all the faked cops running wild in Malaysia like one such news reported here:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/3…
And incidence of real cops up to no good as reported here:
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news…
And top that with the police department own advisory issued to the public, which Pamela had followed. Why is she then should be the subject of your condemnation, and the target of obscene and criminal intimidation by many others?
oi. shanee,
find out first la what hapened to the policemen in the videos after the videos came out. then talk.
"Pamela have every right to not to cooperate with Uniform Police men whom are not properly dressed. But you guys, you said, “yeah, they might not be real police men but she should have… bla bla bla…” But the fact is this, if she did what you have recommended, there is a much higher chance that she would end up as one of the victim as reported in the news."
Uh.. we never asked her to comply. We merely said she asked to be spoken to in that manner by the two "cops" becuase of her attitude and that she should have done it differently: the methods are stated in previous post. Never once did we say, yea open your car doors to them, or yea you should have followed them to the balai.
But I will say she should have taken the summon, as she was in the wrong.
Here is an interesting read for you:
http://www.ehow.com/video_2201796_do-argue-police…
@IsayNo2ISA Who ever said recording the incident was provocation? You constantly preach about not ignoring what poeple say but somehow don't practise. No one said recording was the point of provocation.
It was her arrogance and arbitary that provked them to raise their voice at her not the recording per se. Record all you want as long as you know how to handle the situation if a cop gets edgy because of it. If her point was merely to note that the cops did not have their ID on and were "intimidating" her a 1min video would have sufficed but she wanted to taunt them to do more.
Anyway you want watch some videos?
Here are videso on the real police brutality from the states, a place you hold such high regard for:
Her only offence was intoxication and she (as far as she was concerned) was only standing up for her rights, did she need to be tased?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPc-wrZib8A
His offence taking pictures of the senator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYxn56AKnqE&fe…
Shit happens everywhere, look at how this guy was attacked for asking for the cops badge number. Was Pamela any different from this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWnqcQB_L_Y&fe…
Some say the cop was out of line, some say the girl deserved it..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10VKwULQbb8&fe…
What about this lady, read the comments that follow, a little bit likw us huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPc-wrZib8A
This is what happend when you try to get smart with cops.
I'm not saying it makes it right, but look at the lady and tell me it's worth it? Why not just report the incident once out of there?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KM1ukwBGv4
This is from the UK, this is police brutality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoPPvPbe-SM
Now lets look at Pamela's video again shall we? Oh my our Malaysian cops are the worst!
When I presented my point with reason, I was accused of having no substances but when I presented my points again with all the cases that had happened before and explained why what Pamela did was not wrong aside from her attitude. What I get in return is empty argument with no evidence what so ever to back up their points.
All the how "Pamela should act" and the "how Pamela should not react" are all based on conjecture. But all the cases I presented shown that when you comply to the demand of either Police men whom are up to no good or dubious fake police men you ended up robbed or raped (as reported in the news).
Pamela have every right to not to cooperate with Uniform Police men whom are not properly dressed. But you guys, you said, "yeah, they might not be real police men but she should have… bla bla bla…" But the fact is this, if she did what you have recommended, there is a much higher chance that she would end up as one of the victim as reported in the news. All the victims that were reported in the news were victims because they comply to the demand of the criminals.
Whereas all the "Pamela should have this or that…" are all based on your own conjecture with no solid evidence to back up your arguments.
This is what made me said that you guys are being small minded for concentrating on Pamela's attitude and (on hindsight) what should be her better course of action. But what I see is a greater danger of you guys thinking that police men behaving the way they behave is "nothing out of the ordinary".
Some even failed to notice what's wrong with the police conduct even after I have repeatedly raised this many time until I was being accused of repeating like a broken record (which I admit).
It is because our police force do not have video camera recording as a form of check and balance that there is nothing wrong that Pamela whip out her phone and record the incident. Now I did a quick count. It's about 40% of the comments posted by the supporters of the two police men deemed that as a provocation.
Many more while didn't say it out loud but they too deemed Pamela's reaction to the two police men as a form of provocation. That is why I accuse you guys of not able to differentiate between provocation and standing up for your own right.
You really have to ask yourself why recording an incident be deemed a provocation? Isn't it true that only criminal be provoked by a video camera shooting of their criminal activities?
So, the question is why should these two police men be provoked by the action of video taping them? Would they be provoked if they did nothing wrong? And really, I do not understand why the many people who choose to condemn Pamela think that her action of recording the two policemen as a form of provocation. Is it because you believe that recording how policemen conduct themselves in a routine traffic jam is an aggressive act? Why so? What is wrong with recording such an event on video openly? Would it better if she record the incident secretly? And why so?
Go read the comments on Pamela video post again, there is definitely more than 5% of comments that is obscene and bordering on criminal intimidation as some would like to believe.
@IsayNo2ISA, now thats more like it, weighted argument. :) Good on you!
I completely agree with you, as I have said before. There are imposters and Pamela's cops could've been imposters. No female should blindly follow a cop to the station, I agree completely.
The idea of what Pamela was trying to do – stand up for her rights – is definitely commendable, it's the manner in which she did it and then following that, her wanting to educate the public with it is what I think is not approriate.
And for the last time, my usage 'of nothing out of the ordinary until provoked' was not to mean that I condone the cops behaviour it was meant thats how cops are everywhere and it didn't show intimidation or police brutality. I don't know how you translate nothing ordinary to nothing wrong.
Yes they weren't wearing their ID and this is wrong and PDRM has promised to look into it and step-up to commendable police behaviour. But that fact alone should've put Pamela on alert, to reduce risks of angering this men incase they were imposters, and just taken their vehicle no. instead and file a report after she is safely out of their way and write to the papers.
Infact there are many ways she could've gone about doing this PSA without beign so arrogant risking her safety in the process. If the video shared only showed how the cops were talking to her and their lack of uniform and their seedy looking bikes and their unfastened helemts, minus her arrogant back-talk, and patronising tone of voice – this entir thread would be pro Pamela and her class act and encourage people to follow suit.
To put it simply, as I have said in my previous posts – We all acknowledge that we do have a problem with our cops that we need to collectively, work together to straighten out – no doubt. But some us feel this is not the way to do it. Your can't correct a wrong with another wrong. and that has always been my argument, at no point did I intend to put your views down, but only to get mine across – right up till you started calling everyone else dumb and small minded.
I'm sorry you equate me to those who posted spiteful remarks about Pamela, I definitely don't think that is right (I have said it before, I am a woman too i know what it feel like) But if you choose to believ so that is your perogative.
Anf finaly, that video you shared of the state trooper pulling-up the asshole – Yes, wouldn't it be great if all our cops were like him? There is a reason why most other countries carry cameras in their cop cars, this is a form of check and balance. The state trooper would've instantly been suspended if he hadn't maintained composure as he did. But they didn't get there over night they went throught alot before introducing the rule on cameras in cop cars. US citizens pay a higher tax that allows for the gov to ensure the enforcement systems, vehicles are constantly maintained, serviced & upgraded. And it's great that we are also talking about it for our cops now, if poeple would only give Malaysia a chance to grow without hitting her everytime she's down.
But here is a dose of reality for you: As seen in your video, isn't it pathetic to see citizens still treating cops like shit even when they are being so professional and merely out to look-out for them?
You asked for CONSTRUCTIVE debate over the NON-CONSTRUCTIVE attitude of pamela, and now you wanna whine when we won't get it?
And you wonder why? Sheeeeeesh get a clue ler. It's one thing to be a helpless/defenceless/unforgiven woman, but to be perasan/egoistical/loyar burok even when we point out the obvious…..
We're not americans. We will NEVER be one. we have our own unique problems and lifestyles. And so are they. Malaysians have certain expectations of who we are – our adat, our version of hormat, etc -if you fail to acknowledge that, then don't whine when we refuse to acknowledge your lack of malaysian judgement.
Dear @IsayNo2ISA
"suppose to take note of their name and ID number on their uniform"
You should ask if not shown… which Pam indicated she had done in her post… and Police/Anti-Pam as well would agree as well that police should wear their ID/Name on their Uniform…
"you do not have to follow the police men anywhere"
True… you should ask the police to follow you to the nearest police station you know if you have doubt on the police… while you driving there… contact whoever you know to meet you there if you suspect you are in danger… THIS is what one should have done… THIS is what should have been educated to public (especially WOMAN) if encouter same situation… NOT the way how Pam reacted…
Capisce???
"these people simply cannot differentiate between standing up for your own right and provoking the police"
Really??? BLOODY READ the comments… WHAT THE MAJORITY people are saying… WHO "cannot differentiate between standing up for your own right and provoking the police"…
PICK UP the majority constructive critism to Pam… what she should have reacted… what she should have done by now… not nick-picking the 5% troller comments and spinning the whole thing into gender/race biased issue… Eat a humble PIE and say Pam should have reacted differently…
A lot have question the two police profesionalism… Shane included… while you/Pam/many of us ask the police to reflect on their behaviour/profesionalism etc… we are asking the same of Pam…