|
©New
Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Azmi Anshar
DEWAN RAKYAT, Aug 26, 2008: With hours to go before the
official results of the Permatang Pauh parliamentary by-election are announced,
the exit polls conjured by the Pakatan Rakyat gives the constituency to Datuk
Seri Anwar Ibrahim, if you are to believe the optimistic projection spun by his
people that 61 per cent of votes had been marked for the ex-DPM. It may be so
that he won his homecoming handsomely but the whiplashing uncertainty it
ramifies is causing MPs to suffer different measures of uneasiness, fits and
anxiety.
To settle brittle nerves while they braced themselves for an
unlikely result, MPs, or rather the ones not anchored at Permatang Pauh 300km up
north, trained on a diversion provided by Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar (BN-Kota
Tinggi), who seemed to have the House all to himself when he tabled the
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Identification Bill 2008. This opened a slew of
contentious debate in the House and an immediate call by the Bar Council that
the Government withdraws the Bill on grounds that it removes court jurisdiction
in verifying the validity of all DNA information tendered as evidence.
Inside the House, the routine cacophony of loud protests appeared muted on the
account that Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) was left to lead the charge of only
10 (out of 82) Opposition MPs to demand why the Government was hastily tabling
the bill. "Why are we being asked to debate this bill when we have not had time
to read and prepare for the debate? The time given is too short," she complained
to Deputy Speaker Datuk Ronald Kiandee.
Fong’s elucidation was that after the Government tabled the Universities and
Universities Colleges (Amendment) Bill 2008 at the end of the last House
meeting, the Opposition had been focused on preparing for this particular bill.
“All our preparation was for this bill. I think there is an ulterior motive in
speeding up the tabling the DNA bill," she asseverated, seconded by Mahfuz Omar
(Pas-Pokok Sena) who urged the Chair to review the overall picture of the DNA
Bill before making a ruling. Mahfuz expounded that PR MPs were also not briefed
on the DNA bill but claimed that Barisan Nasional backbenchers received a
special police briefing, in which none of the Opposition MPs were given an
invitation to attend.
No such break was given by Kiandee after he overruled their protests. The
Government, he ruled, had the right to give priority to any Bill it felt as
important. "They do not have to give a reason,” he opined. “However, you can
raise your points while debating the Bill.”
Syed Hamid, on being confronted by the protests, may have
been miffed by the lack of faith on the Government’s intention to table the DNA
Bill. “There is no sinister motive,” he insisted. The Bill, he took pains to
explain, was supposed to be tabled after the National Kenaf and Tobacco Board
Bill. “But I was unwell so I asked for it to be moved down the order paper and
be tabled later. There is no sinister motive, don't look as it as though there
is one," he told reporters at the Parliament lobby after tabling the bill for a
second reading.
Even as Syed Hamid battled Fong’s contention that the Bill was prematurely
tabled, he laboured to defend its conception: Anwar’s people strongly feel that
the Bill was weaved specifically to nail him but the Home Minister quickly
dismissed the thought. “A person is not charged because of this act but due to
police investigations when they are satisfied there is a prima facie case and
then it is up to the courts to decide. We are not going to use this to make a
person chargeable. That is not the purpose of the bill," was his defence against
allusions that the Bill would support the Government’s sodomy case against Anwar
Ibrahim.
It has been well documented that human DNA in the form of blood, skin, saliva,
hair and semen recovered at a crime scene helps police and prosecutors nail an
offender, usually in murders, rape and kidnappings. The process is either called
genetic fingerprinting or, if you are into the Crime Scene Investigations’ frame
of mind, DNA profiling. The question is: if the Bill is passed, what does it do?
For one, a primary mover in the Bill provides for compulsory extraction of DNA
and punishes anyone who refuses to give a "non-intimate sample" which is defined
as a sample from a nail or under a nail, a swab from a non-private part and
saliva. The DNA Bill defines "intimate sample" as blood, semen, tissue or fluid
taken from a person's body, urine or public hair, or a swab from a person's
private parts. Anyone who refuses to give a "non-intimate sample" faces a
RM10,000 fine or one-year imprisonment or both. However, the Bill is unclear on
the type of punitive action against suspects who refuse to give "intimate
sample".
The Bar Council Human Rights Committee chairman, Edmund Bon, was very worked up
on Clause 24 of the DNA Bill – he claimed that it allows information from the
DNA databank to be admitted as conclusive proof in any court proceeding. Clause
24 states: "Notwithstanding any written law to the contrary, any information
from the DNA Databank shall be admissible as a conclusive proof of the DNA
identification in any proceeding in court".
"If this is the case, the accused would not be in a position to question the
validity of the evidence or the credibility of the chemist," he contended at a
Press conference hosted by Loke Siew Fook (DAP-Rasah) and Chong Chieng Jen
(DAP-Bandar Kuching) at the Parliament lobby.
Bon also didn’t like Clause 13 (7) which allows police officers to use “all
means necessary" to extract a DNA sample, which he insinuated could lead to
physical abuse of a suspect. While the Bar was not against the establishment of
a DNA databank, as the DNA Bill proposes, Bon chose to view it as a draconian
implication – Malaysia may head towards the establishment of a police state if
certain provisions were not up to international standards and offer no
safeguards to people giving DNA samples or being charged in court.
Loke chimed in with a call to set up a Parliamentary Select Committee to study
the DNA Bill that ropes in legal experts and representatives from religious
bodies to determine whether or not the bill goes against other laws or religious
practices.
Chong, a practising lawyer, claimed that police, when producing evidence, were
known to make mistakes. "The court's role is to scrutinise police procedures in
producing evidence. Clause 24 takes this whole process away,” he affirmed. “This
means that you can take anyone's DNA sample, produce it in court and there is no
way to challenge it because of the conclusive evidence clause. This is utterly
ridiculous.”
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
