I am startled and confused. Since Suhakam's inquiry into Bersih 3.0 started on July 5, everything was pointing to police brutality.
Not just that. The DBKL enforcement officers too were accused of bashing up protesters while BN and its 'comrades' in Perkasa have been allegedly involved in engaging thugs to 'neutralise' those who took part in the rally.
I am not sure who are the witnesses brought in to give their first account testimony to the commission. I am also alarmed at the standard of inquiry which poses Suhakam to look more inclining towards Bersih and its organiser, lawyer Ambiga and Anwar-led Opposition.
As at now, all witnesses gave adverse pictures and statements that condemns the police and other authorities as the cause for the brawl, hurts and injuries to the rally participants.
None had so far backed the police who were deployed there to control the crowd from going unruly or to avoid any untoward incidents. Worst still, the Bersih 3.0 police video which was supposed to be made public earlier last month was nowhere to be seen. The Home Ministry only gave excuse that a special panel was still viewing it.
I was there during Bersih 3.0 but stayed at a distant to avoid any commotion with anybody. I only heard about how 'ugly' it was when friends and security sources called or sent text messages a few hours after that.
And now that everything thus far are pointing to the police as being the cause for the 'peaceful rally' to become ugly, I am beginning to question the integrity of Suhakam and the witnesses.
Who are the witnesses? Were they really there at the scene or they were planted by some parties who simply tried to undermine the police and the government? From where did Suhakam pick them and who brought them to the inquiry?
What is Suhakam anyway? A bias or a neutral commission? Are the witnesses members of any political party or NGO because so far, nothing was done to really check on their background. Or are they having any link to Ambiga and the Opposition?
I would like to see justice is served to everybody. However, at the rate of the inquiry, I think there is a need to substantiate the credibility of the witnesses.
Why? Witnesses can be bought and alibi can be created.