[UPDATED] Police Intimidation Video: What Happened Before

1. Again, another supporter condoning the behavior of two policemen not showing their authority card after being requested by a member of the public.

2. On an ASSUMPTION that the police were screaming and yelling at the woman BEFORE the video-taping begun : it is an act of stupidity to be aggravating the men further by demanding for IDs and making a big fuss. She was alone and the men had guns.

   On watching the video, I got the impression the woman was taunting the men, egging them to make a false move, trying to be a smart-ass with that tone of voice. Another stupid move! One was indeed dumb but the other two were not dumber.

   On the ASSUMPTION the men were 'fakes' – by videoing them will make them scared maybe? hellooooo they got guns !

   As for the article AFTER the video to justify it, I personnally found it in bad taste.

   There is no doubt that professionalism in this country is seriously in want, not only with the PDRM but in many fields. Not to excuse being unprofessional but the fact of the matter is – basically, we are all victims of the system. But let us not compound it further with acts of stupidity. Let us all try to THINK first before we act or speak.

   Zarul Wong – good job!

3. @Zarul Wong,

   From your long winded comments you have ignored one simple but essential thing. I have mentioned it and I will repost it here again.

   It is a well established international standard for law enforcer to properly identify themselves while discharging their duties.

   Yet you put fireman in the same category as police, simply because they are both uniformed units. But they are not the same type of uniformed units! Unless you are proposing that fireman be given the power to enforce law.

   The reason that police is police because they have been entrusted with the power to uphold law. Hence their conducts should be closely scrutinized not rationalized (which is what you are essentially doing).

   If you think that by insisting that the two policemen should have shown their authority card is being nitpicking that I'll admit that because that single act of the two policemen would render their sub-sequence actions legitimate or illegitimate.

   By their failures to produce their authority cards, their actions are suspects and you are condoning their actions by ignoring these fact.

   You have also committed essentially the same mistake that you are accusing me of. You jumped into conclusion that the two police men had produced their authority card and that Pamela continues to behave the way she behaved even after the two policemen have shown their authority card. And that Pamela have lied. Now, isn't this only your accusation without an iota of proof and evidence?

   In contrast my conclusion is based on what is recorded in the video where there isn't 1 second that the two policemen shown have produce their authority card.

   You are accusing me of judging the police based on unrelated incidence. Which is a twisting of my intention of showing the news link. There are altogether 4 news link posted by me.

   The 1st one is a public advisory by the Police department that we the public should ask for the authority card when in doubt of the uniformed man status.

   The second one is a reported case of girl rape in police station.

   The third one is the reported news of fake police committing crimes.

   and the forth one is the reported news that the police uniform is not unique and that there are many other organization that have similar looking uniforms, in which the OCPD Asst Comm of PJ have also opined that the public should ask for the police authority card if they were unsure of the status of the uniform man.

   Now, the link I provided is to prove that there is really a need for Pamela to ask for their authority card and there is a solid case against the two policemen for not showing their authority card. Not that I have a prejudice against the police. But I do have a big problem with police misbehaving. I guess you are refusing to acknowledge that.

   The question is if this is not where we should start demanding police to raise their professionalism then where should we start? Another Kugan death in Custody? Or another Aminur Rashid shot death?

4. @ IsayNo2ISA

   "But all shown the lack of thought for the consequences of condoning the behavior of Police failure to properly identify themselves when discharging their duty."

   Look, it is clear now that you've probably read the Red Book. Good for you. But you don't have to go all OCD over the whole "failure to properly identify themselves".

   "Consider that there are cases of real cops doing bad things, fake cops committing crimes using fake police uniform, it is extremely important that the real police should correctly and properly identify themselves while discharging their duties."

   This argument cannot hold because if those guys REALLY were real bad cops or fake cops, then we'd be having a different conversation right now and Pamela Lim might be "victim" of something more grievous. This is based on conjecture. Maybe she can try this stunt again, and hopefully she'll get stopped by bad cops or fake ones this time. THEN you can put forward your argument.

   "I guess that this is not a standard that demanded by Zarul Wong because he thinks that police come to his house to arrest him is the same thing as firemen come to his house to fight fire. The analogy is idiotic because one involve a person basic human right while the other is saving of life and property. Not to mention that the fire engine itself is good enough indicator that fire fighter were there to fight fire but there are no clear identification at all for police men from unmarked vehicle."

   Both the police force and the fire brigade are uniformed bodies of the government public service. Aren't both expected to follow certain procedures?

   With your distrust of the police force, isn't it possible for a fireman to be a bad fireman and loot your house while he's putting out the fire? Or an ambulance attendant to pickpocket your wallet? The analogy is a clear example of what petty procedural thinking can do. If you think that it's idiotic, well the analogy was just a reflection of your train of though. So you calling it idiotic is like…well, you looking at the mirror and calling what you see as idiotic.

   See, this is what's wrong with you. You post up newslinks of any police brutality and mistakes that they've made that you can find, and you feel that it serves your arguments. Well, it does. No one is disputing that. But I also point out how you've already made up your mind about the police before you address the issue. You have already shown prejudice towards the police simply based on separate unrelated issues involving them. How is it fair to simply judge a situation by other separate issues? It's just simply not a fair judgment at all. At best, what you're doing is a bad assumption of things.

   All you ever say is "WHAT IF POLIS WERE FAKE?"

   Well, they weren't. That's why Pamela is still running her mouth. If they WERE fake, Pamela will almost be certain to be face with serious grave repercussions of her personal safety, and we won't be having this conversation. You get me? We are going through the fact that the Polis Bantuan fellows are REAL because it has been established so by the PDRM themselves!

   But you…you just stick to that one moment in the past, that one moment of uncertainty about their identity…that one moment where it was, perhaps, possible that they were fake cops…because secretly you WANT them to be fake cops…because then it will reaffirm your fantasies and prejudices about the police force.

   You're stuck at that one moment in time, friend. The rest of us are moving forward with this thing and dealing with the issue.

   The fact of the matter is, while you downplay Pamela Lim's stupid behavior, do you not realize that she has committed a bigger offence than the two Polis Bantuan not producing their identification ever will? How is it justified that a citizen obstructs an officer of justice from carrying out his duty?

   I'm sorry to burst your fantasy bubble…but all talks of human rights will cease for a while once you are confronted a police officer who suspects you of committing an offence or a crime. It is the civic duty of a citizen to cooperate with an officer of the law. Here Pamela Lim not only does not cooperate, but is blatantly rude and arrogant. Note that the issue of identification is irrelevant here because recent statements from the PDRM has shown that they were genuine Polis Bantuan.

   Arguments of "what if they were fake?" will not hold water because the fact of the matter was that they were real. You've got to move forward in this, man. You can't expect me to guide you and hold your hand forever, you know?

   "You guys are being nit-picky for refusing to see the obvious but focusing on Pamela’s use of “getting defensive”, while conveniently come to a conclusion that they have produced their authority card simply because she didn’t use the word that they refused to produce the card. How you guys can come to such a conclusion that a defensive police man will be willing to produce his authority card; and how you guys can come to a conclusion that the two policemen that tried to hide their name tag will produce their authority card is beyond me."

   Hey, you're nitpicking here too, you know?

   If they never showed their authority card, then Pamela Lim should have stated so. She never did. Further, the PDRM has issued a statement saying that the two officers were perhaps lacking in professional conduct. We ourselves admit that the two police could've handled it better. Why won't you let this go? Is it because this is the only point you think you can defend properly in this whole incident, that you will force anyone who wishes to debate with you to address this issue?

   Well, we did…it was just that you didn't listen. You never addressed some of my earlier issues, either. Any issue either myself or anyone here who doesn't agree with you raise, you conveniently claim that is is irrelevant and quickly resume your harping and nitpicking of the whole "authority card" issue. How will this discourse move forward if you're still stuck there?

   "That you guys condone police men not properly identify themselves while discharging their duty."

   No one is condoning anything. We addressed the issue as unacceptable and improper, didn't we? Move on, man!

   "his is dangerous because most reported cases of police brutality involves police men whom had failed to properly identify themselves."

   I can only say that your statement truly shows your prejudicial misconception and prejudgment towards our police force.

   Here, the imperative word is "…MOST reported cases". As in other cases which are NOT Pamela Lim's case. Here you are merely generalizing the issue by appealing to fear and paranoia. You refused to see the circumstances of Pamela Lim's situation that she was dealing with real police officers. You want proof? She's still alive, and they haven't robbed her or worse. You want further proof? The PDRM has issued statement over the matter.

   So you see how your "authority card" argument is just a small part of a larger issue which you refuse to consider?

5. @Zarul Wong, Son of Sam Woo,

   I know your position fully well. It has repeatedly countless of time here. But all shown the lack of thought for the consequences of condoning the behavior of Police failure to properly identify themselves when discharging their duty.

   Consider that there are cases of real cops doing bad things, fake cops committing crimes using fake police uniform, it is extremely important that the real police should correctly and properly identify themselves while discharging their duties.

   In fact it is one of the international standard of procedure that the law enforcer should properly identity themselves before making an arrest, else the arrest could be and should be challenge in court.

   I guess that this is not a standard that demanded by Zarul Wong because he thinks that police come to his house to arrest him is the same thing as firemen come to his house to fight fire. The analogy is idiotic because one involve a person basic human right while the other is saving of life and property. Not to mention that the fire engine itself is good enough indicator that fire fighter were there to fight fire but there are no clear identification at all for police men from unmarked vehicle.

   You guys are harping on solid evidence of the two cops not producing their authority card and I have pointed it out to you guys that through out the video itself have shown that they have never in 1 second have produce their ID cards. Yet you are accusing me of nitpicking on 1 law enforcement procedure. In fact you guys are the one nitpicking for insisting a SOLID EVIDENCE while rejecting the WHOLE VIDEO FOOTAGE exactly showing that the two police men not only didn't show their authority card BUT ALSO trying to hide their name tag clearly showing that they have something to hide.

   You guys are being nit-picky for refusing to see the obvious but focusing on Pamela's use of "getting defensive", while conveniently come to a conclusion that they have produced their authority card simply because she didn't use the word that they refused to produce the card. How you guys can come to such a conclusion that a defensive police man will be willing to produce his authority card; and how you guys can come to a conclusion that the two policemen that tried to hide their name tag will produce their authority card is beyond me.

   Yes, even the police department has come out and apologize, kudos to them, perhaps what you guys were looking for is an apology from Pamela. But the way you guys going about in getting it is remained much to be desired. Because your comments and actions are loud and clear. That you guys condone police men not properly identify themselves while discharging their duty. This is dangerous because most reported cases of police brutality involves police men whom had failed to properly identify themselves. I guessed we have grown used to living in a police state that's now we are having people defending police misbehavior.

6. Hey guys. I'm back from running errands. Okay…

   @IsayNo2ISA

   First off, I must admit I was a tad harsh on the personal attacks on you. For that, I apologize.

   The reason I was ticked off was because your nickname is "IsayNo2ISA" and yet you were willing to accuse the cops of "refusing to show their IDs when asked for" without any SOLID evidence to back up your accusation. See the irony?

   What you claim to be substance is not SOLID evidence. You yourself admitted there is nothing in the video showing Pam asking for and the cops refusing to show their IDs. The only straw you are clutching on to is a cop who doesn't want his name splattered all over youtube. Can anyone tell me how that is SOLID evidence???

   Pam's claim that they "got defensive" was her word againt theirs. Why do you think she worded the sentence that way? So she can imply to the people who don't use their brain that "the cops refused" without really telling the truth either way. Can anyone tell me how that is SOLID evidence???

   Your answer to my question in the form of a question "Why should Pamela take a picture of the two policemen as evident of their encounter if they have produced their authority cards?" was answered by Pam herself in her article -> "I photographed them with my phone so that I have evidence of my encounter with them should I WANT TO CHALLENGE THE SUMMONS IN COURT." Can anyone tell me if Pam has already made up her mind that they were real cops when she said that or if she was still wary of their identity???

   I apologise once again if I have offended you personally. Please understand my point of view. I'm all for anti-corruption and anti-abuse of power. But isn't accusing people without SOLID evidence a form of corruption and abuse of power?

7. @ IsayNo2ISA

   "But you rationalize their behavior as if it is ok for them to not properly identify themselves while discharging their duty of law enforcement. That to me is a problem."

   So police officers making ONE mistake justifies Pamela Lim's overblowing of the issue? I never rationalized their behavior as okay. I mentioned that, based on the video, they could have handled it better. On the scale of things I still say that while the two Polis Bantuan indeed has certain professional conduct of which they have lacked, Pamela Lim's blatant disregard to authority is not only unbecoming of a "law-abiding" citizen as she claims herself to be, but also alarming in the sense that she actually thinks that it is acceptable.

   That with the fact she has gone on to state lies and misrepresent the facts of the recording further shows her malicious intent at deceit.

   Yes, the police didn't act accordingly. They themselves admitted it. But Pamela Lim fabricated her own version of the truth for her own purpose. Which do you think is a more serious issue, then? A police force that accepts and admits its shortcoming or a malicious girl who lies about simple truth while claiming for justice? Does it mean that it is okay for people to throw lies at the police force just because a higher standard of conduct is expected of them by people such as yourself?

   "The responses on the post is clear enough evidence that she didn’t get to discredit the police department at all. You first of all, have taken the position to lament at Pamela rather than the unprofessional conducts of the police. My position is, despite of all Pamela’s short coming, she does manage to show the importance of Policemen properly identify themselves while discharging their duties. Which one is a bigger issue here? To you Pamela’s attitude is the bigger issue. But the way I see it, unprofessional police conduct is a bigger issue because I expect so much more from our law enforcement officer."

   I expect a lot from our law enforcement officers, too. I am concerned about the issues which they are facing too. But I do not go so far as to nitpick on one lapsed procedure. Are you a government servant? Do you mean to say that you will not allow this discourse to continue until I fill in Form 11F and submit it to Bahagian Kewangan before 2.00 p.m.?

   How can you not see the cause and effect of this whole thing?

   In this instance, Pamela Lim's bitchy behavior isn't the only issue in contention. Unless if you consider, among other things, Pamela's obstruction of a government servant in conducting his duty as justified so that they show proper identification?

   Why nitpick on procedures? Are you saying that you won't allow a fireman to put out the flames of your burning house unless they start showing proper identification for fear they may be looters in disguise? This is exactly what you are inferring.

   You're saying that it's perfectly okay for people to step on the heads of the police force just because they refuse to show you their authority card? By your logic, are you saying that a murderer can walk away scot-free from being detained simply because a police officer wasn't polite enough to show their authority card when making the arrest?

   Seriously…have you considered that they HAD shown their authority card to Pamela BEFORE she made the recording…and Pamela had LIED about it (she NEVER DID say that they didn't show her their authority card, you know? She merely said they "got defensive")? What will you say then?

   Don't just assume it's always the police force's fault just because they wear a uniform and you've been too indoctrinated with political propaganda, man.

8. @Zarul Wong,

   You do have your right in criticizing her. Same as me taking my position that the Police men are not professional. You have admitted it yourself that they have indeed tried to hide their name tag. But you rationalize their behavior as if it is ok for them to not properly identify themselves while discharging their duty of law enforcement. That to me is a problem.

   And your logic that yes, they were trying to hide their name tag but that doesn't mean that they did not produce their authority card is too far fetch to be a valid argument. Any logical thinking person would point out to you that there is no way that a person whom want to hide their name tag would want to produce their ID card. It just doesn't jive.

   You are entitled to your views but I am pointing one thing out to you. That is you are essentially condoning the behavior of police men not properly identify themselves when requested by the public, when you have consistently and completely missing out in mentioning this point. Not until I have raised it up here. That is my problem with you and the many that chooses to condemn Pamela.

   Because you all have failed to mentioned in your comments that the police men should have identified themselves probably given that there are so many fake police men cases and real police men up to no good cases reported in the news. And immediately focuses on attacking Pamela's Attitude. I do not like her attitude myself, but I loathed more the unprofessional conducts of the two policemen because they posed a greater danger to the society compared to Pamela's bitchy behavior.

   As for your contention that Pamela should not have gone all out in discrediting the police force, the question I put to you is have she managed to achieve that? What did she get in return?

   The responses on the post is clear enough evidence that she didn't get to discredit the police department at all. You first of all, have taken the position to lament at Pamela rather than the unprofessional conducts of the police. My position is, despite of all Pamela's short coming, she does manage to show the importance of Policemen properly identify themselves while discharging their duties. Which one is a bigger issue here? To you Pamela's attitude is the bigger issue. But the way I see it, unprofessional police conduct is a bigger issue because I expect so much more from our law enforcement officer.

   Yes, they are human. But what's so difficult in showing their authority card and say:"Hey! Ini adalah Polis! Jangan halang polis menjalankan tugas!" ????

9. @ IsayNo2ISA

   You're missing the point here. It would be okay if she was just bitching about it, but she wasn't just bitching…she was on an all out effort to condemn and discredit the police. That's the bigger picture, man!

   "On the same token then, how sure are you that they have produced their authority card? Where is proof that they have shown their authority card? Show me such proof then.

   Go watch the video, it have shown that they were even trying to hide their name tag! That is why I am certain that they did not show their authority card. But I get it. Like Son of Sam Woo you will never want to admit that. Because you are looking at the bigger picture of a woman bitching and I am only peeping through a small hole of police not conducting themselves in a professional manner."

   Covering their nametags doesn't mean they never showed their authority card. Imagine if you were in THEIR situation of being recorded without your consent? How can you prove they never showed their authority card? You show me proof they never showed their authority card, then.

   As I said, you're only nitpicking on just one issue which no one can verify except the two Polis Bantuan personnel and Pamela Lim herself. Of course, with Pamela Lim's affinity towards exagerration and misrepresentation of facts, it's difficult for me to take her word.

   Yes, the police should have conducted themselves better, but again Pamela should not have behaved the way she did…and she certainly did not have to go on an ill-advised crusade online to discredit the police. And she should not have fabricated stories and added in so-called details as an afterthought in this very post after the whole thing blew up in her face. It just shows a very clumsy effort of covering up.

   What is your problem with people not conforming to your views on this anyway? We have the right to criticize her as well, you know?

10. Zarul Wong,

    Which one is a bigger issue again? Between Police men misbehaving and a Woman bitching, please enlighten me here.

    It seems that in your position a woman bitching is a bigger issue here.

    On the same token then, how sure are you that they have produced their authority card? Where is proof that they have shown their authority card? Show me such proof then.

    Go watch the video, it have shown that they were even trying to hide their name tag! That is why I am certain that they did not show their authority card. But I get it. Like Son of Sam Woo you will never want to admit that. Because you are looking at the bigger picture of a woman bitching and I am only peeping through a small hole of police not conducting themselves in a professional manner.

11. @ IsayNo2ISA

    "You are the one consistently missing the point. The two policemen obviously didn’t show their ID number and didn’t produce their authority card throughout the video."

    How sure are you that they didn't show their ID number or produce their authority card? What if they DID show their proper identification, but Pamela Lim decided to record anyway, and as an afterthought fabricated a story that they "got defensive"?

    "If they have shown their authority card, the card would still be in their hands. But it is not. You are the one refusing to see this. Instead you keep on harping on her attitudes, unnecessary paranoia. The fact that such paranoia will not exists in the first place if they have produced their authority card so that she could jot down their ID number have obviously eluded you."

    How long did the time lapse between the moment she was pulled over until she started recording? One minute? Fifteen minutes? How sure are you that they haven't just put their authority cards back in their pockets before Pamela started recording?

    "Again, it is obvious that you are way too lazy to read back old comments. I have said that my position is that both party are wrong but I hold the police to a higher standard of behavior because they are law enforcement officer. In my view their behavior in the video is unacceptable. If they have shown their ID card, properly identify themselves in the video and Pamela still behave the way she does then all your arguments are valid. But they are real cops that do not behave properly. But they are real policemen that refuse to properly identify themselves. This is my position. And you are the one refusing to see it."

    Yeah, well my position is the reverse to yours. My arguments are still valid as Pamela did not approach the matter in the manner as prescribed in the Red Book at all. The issue that we have with her is how much effort she has put to discredit the police force, even after they have issued a statement on the matter.

    There lies my problem with her. The way you are addressing this issue is as though you are just peeking into it through a small hole. You only see that the police officers allegedly did not produce to her their identification. That is just one small component in the larger picture here. Look at the entire thing, instead of that one single thing which you think is the point of it all. Well, it isn't the point. It's gone way bigger than that, and you know it.

    You're just sticking to it desperately because you cannot address the other parts of the bigger issue here.

12. @Zarul Wong,

    You are the one consistently missing the point. The two policemen obviously didn't show their ID number and didn't produce their authority card throughout the video.

    If they have shown their authority card, the card would still be in their hands. But it is not. You are the one refusing to see this. Instead you keep on harping on her attitudes, unnecessary paranoia. The fact that such paranoia will not exists in the first place if they have produced their authority card so that she could jot down their ID number have obviously eluded you.

    Again, it is obvious that you are way too lazy to read back old comments. I have said that my position is that both party are wrong but I hold the police to a higher standard of behavior because they are law enforcement officer. In my view their behavior in the video is unacceptable. If they have shown their ID card, properly identify themselves in the video and Pamela still behave the way she does then all your arguments are valid. But they are real cops that do not behave properly. But they are real policemen that refuse to properly identify themselves. This is my position. And you are the one refusing to see it.

13. @ IsayNo2ISA

    "Watch the Video, which part of the Video that shows the police men display their ID number of producing their Authority card? Isn’t it clear that they did not show their authority card because I have watched the full length of the video 3 times trying to get hold of their ID number but to no avail. Tell me, can you?"

    I explained this in my earlier reply if you somehow missed it or refused to see:

    …it is not shown at all in the video whether or not they have shown their authority card to Pamela Lim. You quickly jump to the conclusion that they have not, and that they are fake police officers.

    Have you considered that they had actually showed her their authority card and Pamela kept recording anyway? What if Pamela had LIED to us to retain whatever that’s left of her ego? Even her description of the video itself is a blatant attempt at misrepresentation and misinterpretation, and that’s what’s being portrayed on the video clear as day! How do you expect me to believe what she says now when she can’t even reconcile her justification with the evidence of the video?

    "Again, Zarul Wong all your arguments are based on your “what if”, your own imagination and conjecture. In contrast, I have shown news link to substantiate my points."

    Your news links just shows exactly why Pamela Lim's behavior is unacceptable. There are genuine cases of police brutality and people going around as fakes out there. Pamela Lim's issue is NOTHING compared to what the people involved with those other cases are going through.

    Do you not see that Pamela Lim's issue is just a blatant attempt at misrepresentation of facts to portray herself as a "victimized" person, thus gaining plus points for herself as a so-called social activist?

    What she is doing is just sowing the seeds of unnecessary paranoia and distrust towards an already beleaguered police force. She isn't even attempting anything to rectify the situation, as a concerned and responsible citizen should. She is just further dehumanizing the police force and blatantly smearing their already damaged reputation.

    Do you not see this? Or are you simply too set in your own worldview to admit to this?

14. @askinganywhere,

    Wow, I can't believe you would stooge so low. Changing context of sentences in news link is not low enough to you is it that now you even want to demonize a rape victim? I'm grad that I am conversing with you through an online forum and not in real person.

15. Watch the Video, which part of the Video that shows the police men display their ID number of producing their Authority card? Isn't it clear that they did not show their authority card because I have watched the full length of the video 3 times trying to get hold of their ID number but to no avail. Tell me, can you?

    Again, Zarul Wong all your arguments are based on your "what if", your own imagination and conjecture. In contrast, I have shown news link to substantiate my points.

16. @ IsayNo2ISA

    "Is it acceptable to you then that the policemen refuse to show their authority card to you when you requested for it because you are not sure if they are real police men or because you are in doubt of their status?"

    To answer your question, it is not acceptable. HOWEVER, it is not shown at all in the video whether or not they have shown their authority card to Pamela Lim. You quickly jump to the conclusion that they have not, and that they are fake police officers.

    Have you considered that they had actually showed her their authority card and Pamela kept recording anyway? What if Pamela had LIED to us to retain whatever that's left of her ego? Even her description of the video itself is a blatant attempt at misrepresentation and misinterpretation, and that's what's being portrayed on the video clear as day! How do you expect me to believe what she says now when she can't even reconcile her justification with the evidence of the video?

    "I am not generalizing. I am pointing out a fact. That such cases have happened before with proof! In contrast, all you have is your own conjecture."

    Look, no one is saying the our police force doesn't have it's bucketload of problems and issues. But does this justify treating them with prejudice, hatred and disrespect? Does this justify dehumanizing everyone who wears a police uniform just because of their problems and issues?

    "I am not justifying her attitude if that is what you meant. But I choose to focus on the refusal of two law enforcement officer to properly identify themselves when requested by a member of the public. Which is a much bigger menace to the society compared to Pamela’s bitchy behavior that you have chosen to focus on."

    You choose to focus on the wrong thing here. Again, I put it to you that the argument of “what if the cops were fake?” does not hold water and purely irrational speculation because if they WERE fake, then we’d be having an entirely different conversation altogether and Pamela Lim’s great idea of videotaping them would have even more dire circumstances to her personal safety than what is happening now.

17. @IsayNo2ISA

    "the girl agreed to the policeman's demand and performed oral sex on him and was also raped."

    why?

    "The policeman allegedly threatened to throw her boyfriend in jail for 20 years if she refused to obey his instructions," said a source.

    is it LOGIC?

18. @Zarul Wong

    And you have committed the error I have pointed out earlier. You have completely ignore the question. Let me put it up to you again as it seems you are too lazy to read back the old comments.

    Is it acceptable to you then that the policemen refuse to show their authority card to you when you requested for it because you are not sure if they are real police men or because you are in doubt of their status?

    I am not generalizing. I am pointing out a fact. That such cases have happened before with proof! In contrast, all you have is your own conjecture.

    I am not justifying her attitude if that is what you meant. But I choose to focus on the refusal of two law enforcement officer to properly identify themselves when requested by a member of the public. Which is a much bigger menace to the society compared to Pamela's bitchy behavior that you have chosen to focus on.

19. "It is not fair to treat the uniformed men with disdain. But if their status is in doubt and if they refuse to show their authority card then, there is every reason to NOT cooperate with them! Unless you want to see another case like this reported:

    http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news…

    Now you're just generalizing, as I had said. Blatant use of scare tactics to support your prejudice against the police force. Paranoia will get you nowhere. It is unproductive and baseless to justify Pamela's conduct, which is what is being discussed here.

20. It is not fair to treat the uniformed men with disdain. But if their status is in doubt and if they refuse to show their authority card then, there is every reason to NOT cooperate with them! Unless you want to see another case like this reported:

    http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news…

21. As predicted. Son of Sam Woo will never want to admit that the two policemen did not show their Authority card. How many times that this Son of Sam Woo have laid personal attack on me instead of arguing with me with substance? I think he does not understand what is arguing with substance means. Let me put it succinctly to him it means to argue with something to back up/substantiate your point.

    Also, to substantiate my arguments I have produced at least three news link that advice the public that we should ask for the uniform policemen authority card when in doubt. In return all I get is some empty argument from Sam without anything to back up his points.

    I have answered his questions but he refuses to acknowledge it. Let me put it up again.

    Why should Pamela take a picture of the two policemen as evident of their encounter if they have produced their authority cards?

    Any sane man would come to the conclusion that the two policemen didn't. Well unless that sane man have an agenda of his own.

22. @ IsayNo2ISA

    "My position is clear: If the police men have shown and produce their authority cards then Pamela’s behavior is unacceptable. But if they didn’t, which to me, it’s clear that they didn’t, then they are at fault because there are many fake policemen cases reported in the news."

    So are you saying that is okay for Pamela to behave the way she did based on paranoia and conjecture? If everyone is paranoid of police officers and everyone treated them the same way Pamela did, how are the police going to do their job? If everyone who disagrees with a traffic summons because of their own egotism starts scribbling nonsense on the summons book, how will the police function?

    It is fair to disrespect every police officer on duty simply on the basis of paranoia that they might not be who they seem to be? Look, we meet all kinds of people every day. A lot of people aren't who they seem to be. There's a lot of rogues and fakes out there, and they're not wearing police uniforms. Does that mean this justifies our rude behavior towards other just because we have a hunch that "this person MIGHT be a fraud"?

    As I've said before, it's easy to hate a uniform. It's easier to jump to conclusions about a uniformed body that's been suffering bad PR all this while. Just because the police have almost no credibility does not mean that stupid holier-than-thous such as Pamela Lim can talk down on them and disrespect them. It boils down to MUTUAL RESPECT. If Pamela Lim can't find it in her to shed her prejudices against the police and show some respect, then who is she to ask to be treated with respect?

    The argument of "what if the cops were fake?" does not hold water because if they WERE fake, then we'd be having an entirely different conversation altogether and Pamela Lim's great idea of videotaping them would have even more dire circumstances to her personal safety than what is happening now.

    "Compounding that with the fact that the policemen uniform is not unique to the police, and that fake police uniforms and insignia is easily available in the market. Policemen should be more professional and not displaying the attitudes shown in the Video."

    Look, let's call a spade a spade and say…yes, the two Polis Bantuan didn't exactly deal with the matter in the most professional of conduct. However, what Pamela Lim did, which was blatantly recalcitrant and provoking, isn't exactly righteous and just conduct either. There's a saying that two wrongs don't make a right, and this is a fine example of such.

    What's worse, she made entire fabrications, conjectures and blatant lies in her entry here to "defend" herself. For example, here is what she says:

    "I have utmost respect for the police force when they arrest criminals, recover kidnapped children, clamp down on high crimes and solve murder mysteries."

    Her claims of "utmost respect for the police force" here is purely lip service and utter lies. Watch that video again to see how much her so-called "utmost respect for the police force" is worth. Not worth a damn.

    Then, she goes on to say:

    "I never hesitate to cooperate with them whenever necessary but I will not be intimidated when I refuse to give bribes."

    Nowhere in the video do we see the police soliciting a bribe in any conceivable way. If any, there was a vague attempt by Pamela Lim herself to offer a bribe. How can you people not see through this very irresponsible blatant attempt at deception?

    That's all there is to it, you know? We're just seeing two sides of the coin here. As I said, people are easily influenced by their limited perception of things. Some see a police officer in uniform and they see a symbol to hate. People like Pamela Lim dehumanize the police force due to her prejudice and treat them without respect.

    She dehumanizes everyone who disagrees with her and treat them without consideration and respect. These are the problems people are having with her. We don't want someone as impaired as her claiming herself to be a warrior of truth and justice and all that jive. She is not worthy to be as such.

    She spins lies to justify her faux pas instead of being dignified and apologizing over the whole debacle. Here, even the PDRM are showing more class than she ever will have. Now everyone who is against her (such as myself) are being called a lot of things by her supporters and alter egos, yet they themselves are guilty of being worse.

    It is a simple situation with a clear resolution if only Pamela Lim had shut the hell up and not make a fuss over an offense she was caught red handed! Was she expecting that the police officers gave her flowers and grovelled at her feet instead of giving her a telling off and summons?

    People like Pamela Lim, who shallowly think that the ability to speak English is a sign of a highly intelligent, well-informed person, sicken me. Just because a person can't speak English doesn't mean they are stupid, Pamela. It doesn't give you the right to belittle them. You asked them if they knew what "intimidating" meant. Well, I ask you now if you know what MANNERS mean?

    Pamela Lim no longer has the moral right to ask for respect, because she was already being disrespectful. The entire thing was blown out of proportion because of her, and she has exemplified blatant disregard to integrity and truth when she decided to milk the situation for all it's worth by misrepresenting facts and knowingly attempting to deceive the public.

23. Again…

    You wrote: “Isn’t it as clear as sky in the video that the two policemen for reasons best known to themselves that they did not want to show their Authority Card?”

    Which timeframe to which timeframe in the video shows is it clear as sky that they REFUSED to show their IDs WHEN ASKED FOR? WHEN DID IT SHOW THAT PAM ASKED THEM FOR THEIR ID AND THEY REFUSED TO GIVE IT TO HER? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

    If you fail to show which timeframe to which timeframe in the video is clear as sky that they refused to show their IDs when asked for… Will you stop saying they refused to show their IDs and admit you have been the judge, jury, and executioner in your own little kangaroo court and you are no better than the ISA you claim to oppose?

    I guess a politician you really are then.

    One really last thing before I really leave. If Pam had proof that they refused to show her their ID when asked for, that's an offence that's grounds for a police report. Why did she not make one?

    There's no proof to convict the cops of NOT SHOWING THEIR ID WHEN ASKED FOR.

    Like you said "But I get it. You will never want to admit that."

    Mr. Judge, Jury and Executioner

24. @Son of Sam Woo,

    I didn't deliberately miss your answer. Your post shown up after my comment was made. Any how I will re-post my answer to your question as it appears that the same had happened again that my response to your question appeared too late.

    Son of Sam Woo,

    It is clear in the beginning of the Video itself. The policemen is clutching the booklet close to his chest even attempted maneuvers to cover up his name on his uniform.

    Now read back Pamela’s entry on top. I quote:

    “I asked them for their names and their ID numbers in which they got defensive. Then I thought if they were going to hassle me further, I might as well record their actions on photographs. I photographed them with my phone so that I have evidence of my encounter with them should I want to challenge the summons in court. They began to yell at me for taking pictures, accusing me of “intimidating” them and that I have no rights to take pictures of their uniform as it was government property. When they began to intimidate me with their words, that was when I switched to video mode.”

    And with these your conclusion is the video was taken way after the request was made but the paragraph shown that it wasn’t way after.

    The paragraph also show the readers that the reason that she is taking their picture in the first place because they did not show their Authority Cards to her! So that she has evidence of their encounter. Now, a reasonable person (as AR would love to put it) would ask the question why would she need evidence of their encounter if they have shown their Authority Card? And the reasonable and logical conclusion would be that they didn’t!

    It is exactly because that they refused to show their Authority Card which the police department have advise the public to ask for it when in doubt, that Pamela take their picture and subsequently shoot their video.

    But I get it. You will never want to admit that.

25. In supporting my arguments I have produce at least three news link.

    1) Police department's own advisory to the public, that we should ask for the authority card when we are in doubt of the uniformed man's status.

    2) That there are reported cases of rape and robbery committed by fake cops.

    3) That there are rape cases reported committed by real cop in the police station.

    All supporting the fact that we should demand proper Identification from the uniformed policemen just in case. Which Pamela did, and which, the policemen in the video didn't comply. If they had shown their authority cards and Pamela was still behaving the way she was behaving then I will advocate for her arrest for obstruction of police duty and let her stay in the lockup for a few nights.

    But the fact is that these two policemen never shown their authority card.

26. Dear Mr./Ms. ISayNo2ISA,

    I guess I was right when I said you either need reading glasses or a new brain.

    I have already replied to your answer. But since you chose to dismiss it and continue to put words in my mouth, just as you have done to everyone. I'll repost it for your benefit before I leave.

    ————————————————————–

    Dear Mr./Ms. ISayNo2ISA,

    You have not answered my first question to you. Nor have to answered any of my subsequent ones. But I will be the gentleman and answer yours even though you have already judged me guilty of accepting something I don’t. No, it is not acceptable for police men to refuse to produce their authority card when asked to do so. However, it is even more unacceptable to me fr someone to be judged guilty withou any proof.

    Now, my turn, you wrote: “Isn’t it as clear as sky in the video that the two policemen for reasons best known to themselves that they did not want to show their Authority Card?”

    Which timeframe to which timeframe in the video shows is it clear as sky that they refused to show their IDs when asked for?

    If you fail to show which timeframe to which timeframe in the video is clear as sky that they refused to show their IDs when asked for… Will you stop saying they refused to show their IDs and admit you have been the judge, jury, and executioner in your own little kangaroo court and you are no better than the ISA you claim to oppose?

    Besides rewatching the video, you also need to reread the article before blindly commenting and and throwing out guilty verdicts.

    “I asked them for their names and their ID numbers in which they got defensive. Then I thought if they were going to hassle me further, I might as well record their actions on photographs. I photographed them with my phone so that I have evidence of my encounter with them should I want to challenge the summons in court. They began to yell at me for taking pictures, accusing me of “intimidating” them and that I have no rights to take pictures of their uniform as it was government property. When they began to intimidate me with their words, that was when I SWITCHED TO VIDEO MODE.

    What followed was all recorded for you to see.”

    Can you please read when she asked for their ID to when she switched to video mode? I don’t make stuff up. You either need reading glasses or a new brain.

    I didn’t conclude that they did or did not produce their ID cards. It was an example to show you “got defensive” isn’t the same as “refused”. I concluded that it was wrong of you to judge them guilty without any proof, just words from Pam, that doesn’t even accuse them of refusing to show their IDs.

    Btw, I might be out and about for a bit. So please take your time to rewatch the video. I am sure everyone is looking forward to this new footage you have discovered.

    And please try not to put words in my mouth while I’m away like you did earlier — “You still haven’t answer the my question if it is acceptable to you that the police men refuse to produce their authority card when asked to do so. So it seemed that it is acceptable to you.”

    P/s: You reallywould make a great magician or politician. Please consider a career change if you are not either one already :)

    Have a great one :)

27. Son of Sam Woo,

    It is clear in the beginning of the Video itself. The policemen is clutching the booklet close to his chest even attempted maneuvers to cover up his name on his uniform.

    Now read back Pamela's entry on top. I quote:

    "I asked them for their names and their ID numbers in which they got defensive. Then I thought if they were going to hassle me further, I might as well record their actions on photographs. I photographed them with my phone so that I have evidence of my encounter with them should I want to challenge the summons in court. They began to yell at me for taking pictures, accusing me of “intimidating” them and that I have no rights to take pictures of their uniform as it was government property. When they began to intimidate me with their words, that was when I switched to video mode."

    And with these your conclusion is the video was taken way after the request was made but the paragraph shown that it wasn't way after.

    The paragraph also show the readers that the reason that she is taking their picture in the first place because they did not show their Authority Cards to her! So that she has evidence of their encounter. Now, a reasonable person (as AR would love to put it) would ask the question why would she need evidence of their encounter if they have shown their Authority Card? And the reasonable and logical conclusion would be that they didn't!

    It is exactly because that they refused to show their Authority Card which the police department have advise the public to ask for it when in doubt, that Pamela take their picture and subsequently shoot their video.

    But I get it. You will never want to admit that.

28. @IsayNo2ISA,

    for me, it was simple. Pam can said,:

    polis, boleh saya tanya. Saya ini bukanlah pandai sangat, tapi tuan polis dari mana, balai mana?

    and then she can ask too, but POLITELY:

    maklumlah, sekarang banyak polis palsu, baju polis ini seragam yang terbaru kah? saya ini tak pandai tentang seragam polis ini.

    after that, she can ask for any id or whatever.

    IF this we are looking in the video but the police still angry, i must said that that police is VERY BAD. that can be police intimidation.

    BUT, we dont see it from our eyes. not from the video. This is one sided as only PAM saying this, this and this.

    BIAS or PREJUDICE, is proven by actions. We want to see that happy ending but PAM is more bias when she POST THIS VIDEO to youtube and called as intimidation.

    Fake police? no problem. why dont follow the police to police station? afraid to police? WHY? she is her own car. she can decide.

29. @AR

    I am not picking and choosing what suits my argument, I am stating a principled stand here. I can't say about the same about you.

    Here is another news piece, this time with the PJ OCPD Asst Comm Arjunaidi Mohamed himself have answered “there should not be a problem about doing so (asking for it).” When asked whether the public should be hesitant in requesting police officers to produce their identity cards.

    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7…

    I know I will not be able to make AR, askingwhere, and Son of Sam Woo to change their position to agree with me. But I do want to point out one fact.

    That all of them have completely ignored one key point in this argument. That whether it is acceptable that the policemen should refuse to produce their Authority cards when asked by the public. One that even the OCPD Asst Comm of Police have opined that the public should ask for it.

30. @IsayNo2ISA

    I did read part of it, I also agree on what you said. But see, however hard we try to for a utopic system, it is just not possible and never will be. My point is, even if the policemen had their ID. numbers, authority cards, whatever proof there is to be shown that they are real cops, it DOES NOT MATTER in this case. If you are so adamant, just think of the counterfeit money that is being produced. Heck, I have a USD100 counterfeit note and once produced it to the money changer, even they could not detect it. That is how the world operates, there is always the criminal element and you cannot expect a perfect system ANYWHERE in the world to protect you. As intelligible human beings though, you have a responsibility upon yourself to safeguard your own interest and yourself. But not the way Pamela does it, ESCALATING things to where it should've not been to, get it?

    You can say all you want about a fully trained police, bla, bla, bla, this and that. But the fact is, EVERYONE is a human being. Even in the most advanced nations on earth, America for example, who seem to be professing ideals of human rights of the highest degree, are not immune to the fact that they have police brutality. Why? Because everyone is a human being, they are not like ROBOTS OK? I wonder though if Pamela is subjected to some of the their brutalities, she would go all over to the ECHR in the Hague to fight for her cause.

    That is why I have stressed, REASONABLE PERSON. We are not a developed nation as yet, neither the police, nor Pamela, nor you or me, have reached a mentality deservingly of a DEVELOPED NATION STATUS. Heck, we even re-elected an ex pornstar as our leader (jeez, I didn’t get hold of that dvd though :P)

    Reasonable person means, in the eyes of the law, is a person who acts within the norms of the society. Just you look at the video, the policemen are not that well ‘trained’ to handle a situation where they are being film at. Or Pamela, with her broken BM (is neither a well trained Malaysian citizen for that matter) and how she handled the situation herself. If she so professes of who she is, to make a better change, to fight for the greater good, then she must have acted in a way that is that is of a better EXAMPLE to the policemen. Use your ingenuity or whatever it is, that is how real JUSTICE is fought for. You cannot fight fire with fire, then you must become ice. Cool as ice, get it? And surely wars are not the way to settle scores.

    Humans have lived for thousands of years, hundreds of religions have spawned, yet we are still here, discussing petty issues like Pamela’s pathetic video. Being a human being is never easy and never will be. So if we all want to prevail over ignorance, show to the world that how is it to be illuminated. Not the forceful way, because we’re dealing with human beings here, but in a civilized, intelligible and righteous way. What the Books professes us to do.

    Don’t pick and choose certain verses just to justify your cause, like Pamela seems to be doing. But delve into it and embrace what it is trying to say. Jesus Christ, even at the cross, he proclaims, ‘Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do”

    If you can do that, then you are truly deservingly of God’s invisible army. But we live in a world that isn’t perfect and never will be, so ponder on this.

    I apologize if I may have gone out of topic, but I’m already a little bit tipsy. And I still have to run now. Happy Deepavali all, I really mean for a better Malaysia for us all. This only can be achieved if we truly understand tolerance :P

31. My position is clear: If the police men have shown and produce their authority cards then Pamela's behavior is unacceptable. But if they didn't, which to me, it's clear that they didn't, then they are at fault because there are many fake policemen cases reported in the news. Compounding that with the fact that the policemen uniform is not unique to the police, and that fake police uniforms and insignia is easily available in the market. Policemen should be more professional and not displaying the attitudes shown in the Video.

    Whereas askingwhere is good at changing the context of sentences to prove his perverted argument and Son of Sam still refuse to answer if it is acceptable to him that if the police men are refusing to display their authority card when asked by the public. This shows their bias position and prejudices.

32. @IsayNo2ISA

    "the police men refuse to produce their authority card"

    Are you confirm it that they refuse? Are you see it with your eyes? Your own eyes?

    Did you the one record it, any witness?

    This is just a excuse. excuse to refuse police summon. you, the most biggest culprit, allowing such a wrongdoing. you oppose law when the law is there. excuse here, where anywhere with intimidation, harass, and many things. use human rights and anything to support this and that.

    There is law to that's say you could oppose, but in the court. not in public area.

    If you don't like ISA very much, be the one that acts, be a parliament member. create your own law. when the law is passed or removed, we could agree as if the action according to law.

33. Btw, I might be out and about for a bit. So please take your time to rewatch the video. I am sure everyone is looking forward to this new footage you have discovered.

    And please try not to put words in my mouth while I'm away like you did earlier — "You still haven’t answer the my question if it is acceptable to you that the police men refuse to produce their authority card when asked to do so. So it seemed that it is acceptable to you."

34. Dear Mr./Ms. ISayNo2ISA,

    You have not answered my first question to you. Nor have to answered any of my subsequent ones. But I will be the gentleman and answer yours even though you have already judged me guilty of accepting something I don't. No, it is not acceptable for police men to refuse to produce their authority card when asked to do so. However, it is even more unacceptable to me fr someone to be judged guilty withou any proof.

    Now, my turn, you wrote: "Isn’t it as clear as sky in the video that the two policemen for reasons best known to themselves that they did not want to show their Authority Card?"

    Which timeframe to which timeframe in the video shows is it clear as sky that they refused to show their IDs when asked for?

    If you fail to show which timeframe to which timeframe in the video is clear as sky that they refused to show their IDs when asked for… Will you stop saying they refused to show their IDs and admit you have been the judge, jury, and executioner in your own little kangaroo court and you are no better than the ISA you claim to oppose?

    Besides rewatching the video, you also need to reread the article before blindly commenting and and throwing out guilty verdicts.

    "I asked them for their names and their ID numbers in which they got defensive. Then I thought if they were going to hassle me further, I might as well record their actions on photographs. I photographed them with my phone so that I have evidence of my encounter with them should I want to challenge the summons in court. They began to yell at me for taking pictures, accusing me of “intimidating” them and that I have no rights to take pictures of their uniform as it was government property. When they began to intimidate me with their words, that was when I SWITCHED TO VIDEO MODE.

    What followed was all recorded for you to see."

    Can you please read when she asked for their ID to when she switched to video mode? I don't make stuff up. You either need reading glasses or a new brain.

    I didn't conclude that they did or did not produce their ID cards. It was an example to show you "got defensive" isn't the same as "refused". I concluded that it was wrong of you to judge them guilty without any proof, just words from Pam, that doesn't even accuse them of refusing to show their IDs.

35. @Son of Sam Woo,

    You still haven't answer the my question if it is acceptable to you that the police men refuse to produce their authority card when asked to do so. So it seemed that it is acceptable to you.

    And how do you know that the video recording was made "way after" the request was made?? The same way that you come to the conclusion that they have produced their authority card albeit defensively?

    I apologize if I have missundersood your comment. But you can't fault me for it because this was what you wrote, and I quote your words:"And what’s up with the racist slant?" Without your added elaboration above, anyone would think that you are accusing me of making racist slant.

36. Dear Mr./Ms. ISayNo2ISA,

    I see why you're so "substantially" confused now. The recording was made way after the part where she asked for their ID. Did you even see the video??? Where was the part she asked them for their ID and they refused???

    You wrote: "Isn’t it as clear as sky in the video that the two policemen for reasons best known to themselves that they did not want to show their Authority Card?"

    Please show me from which time frame to which time frame Pamela asked for their ID and they refused.

    Sorry, forgot about this part.

    You wrote: "Also, I do not understand the part on racial slant. Please enlighten me which part of my comments that is racial in nature?"

    1) I meant why bring in race into a non-racial incident. I wasn't accusing you of making any racial statements. You mentioned in your earlier post that "this is a Malaysian Culture. We love to shoot the messenger, no wonder the Sin Chew Jit Poh Reporter was detained under ISA when the one that uttered racists remarks went scot free."

    2) I merely pointed out that Pam wasn't the messenger in this case. In fact, she was the first person to "politicize the race issue here in order to garner support". Which was the same thing the guy you mentioned did. Not you.

    3) The only one twisting the facts here are you. You are giving new meanings to words, creating new video footage out of mid-air, accusing people who disagree with you to be in cahoots with criminals. You really should be a magician, or better yet… a politician!!! lol

37. @asking any where XY,

    It still doesn't negate the fact that a public advisory have been issued where “The police have always reminded people to ask for authority cards when they are sceptical about the status of the uniformed man.”

    So, the police have changed uniform, but the advisory was issued after the police found that their so called blue uniform is not unique to the police force! As reported here:

    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7…

    So? What say you then? Shouldn't you be asking for the uniformed authority card the next time when you were stopped by policemen from an unmarked vehicle like the two policemen in the video and wearing black helmet instead of the white helmet normally used by the police?

38. @Son of Sam Woo

    Yes, I think your comments are devoid of any substances because you are essentially repeatedly doing what I have commented before. You completely ignored that there are two policemen refusing to produce their authority cards when asked by public to do so. Given the news report of fake cops and the public advisory issued by the police department itself, that we the public should ask for the authority card of uniformed policemen when we are in doubt of their status. Shouldn't these two policemen immediately shown their Authority card?

    Isn't it as clear as sky in the video that the two policemen for reasons best known to themselves that they did not want to show their Authority Card? When Pamela was shooting video of them, all they need to do is show the "Kad Kuasa" and say, hey I'm the police! You better cooperate! Yet for you their behavior of not showing their authority card is acceptable as I deemed because you refuse to answer the question I posted to you. Instead, you accuse me of making racial statement in my prior comments that's why I mentioned the company you keep. So don't twist the fact here.

39. Dear Mr./Ms. IsayNo2ISA,

    I'm sorry you chose to purposely ignore the substance of my post and stick to your poor comprehension of the English language to justify conjuring truths out of mid-air and putting it in people's mouths.

    Pamela wrote: "I asked them for their names and their ID numbers in which they got defensive."

    You interpreted what she said as: "…they refuse to show her their Authority Card. Which was the main issue here."

    1) You weren't there, how would you know if they refused to show her their ID. She only said, "they got defensive" not "they refused" (This is everyone's logic)

    2) YOUR LOGIC: "got defensive" = "refuse". In your own words "Does that even jive in your logic and in English semantics? Or you are willing to forgo logic just to prove a point?"

    3) An example: "I got defensive and asked him why he wanted my ID, but it did not mean I refused to give it to him."

    4) My point: People like you are no different than people who abuse the ISA. Making up statements you want to believe from vague half-truth statements for your own agenda. In your words "These are the people I would not want to be associated with."

    5) Let's see another example of how you make stuff up. You wrote:

    "How about the companies that you keep? Go read the comments that is condemning Pamela, how many of those are blatant racists, and some of the comments were even bordering on threats with criminal intents. Words like gang rape and rape were used. These are the people I would not want to be associated with."

    So you are saying that just because I disagree with you and Pamela, I'm in cahoots with racists, criminals, and rapists. Wow! Everyone. Don't make this dude angry by disagreeing with him/her. You will be associated with racists, criminals, and rapists. Hey! Does this remind anyone of a little something called the ISA?

40. @AR

    Reading your reply to my comments it occurred to me that you have never bothered to check the news link I posted. In the news link it clearly shown that there are fake police insignia you could purchase where there is no way a Joe on the street could differentiate whether it is fake or genuine. That is why it is imperative that the two policemen should have acted more professionally and that we should hold them to a higher standard of behavior, so that we could easily distinguish them from the fake one. That is why the two policemen should just show Pamela their Authority Card and if Pamela still behave the way she did after that, then I would have no qualms with anyone of you condemning her attitudes. But that was not the case, in no point the video shows that the Policemen were displaying their Authority Cards. So, I fault the police and it is the two policemen themselves that have smear the police force image.

41. I found some interesting facts at
    https://www.loyarburok.com/human-rights/express-yo…

    written by dsnker:

    ““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/
    ”

    and

    “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?”

    What do you think AR?

42. @IsayNo2ISA

    By the way, I was nationalist back there, mistyped the pseudonym for another forum.

    To clear the air, let us have a look at the Red Book flowchart shall we:
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PXBWMgM7Arc/S1HiuwrKofI…

    What happened prior to the video being shot is all but speculative and based on one person’s side, so we’ll only analyse on what transpired in the video.

    Let’s follow the chart.

    Stopped by the police: Pamela had commited a traffic offence

    Police in uniform: Names were clear but did not bear ID number on the uniform. So the police were partly to be blamed. But they had pistols, they had the summons book, one was even wearing the police insignia and their uniforms do really look like the normal polis bantuan that we’d normally encounter. Their body language says it all, in the midst of a busy street, they were real policemen. The one with shades really reminded me of that old Chips flick :P So no question of them being bogus cops, from a reasonable's man perspective, or woman, if you will.

    Am I under arrest: This is where it all got out of hand. Please look at it objectively, on a reasonable man’s perspective again.

    1) She takes the video.

    Who would not get agitated if someone is taking a video while you’re doing your work, unless of course you’re an actor/actress, you’re paid for it. But these are just ordinary policemen riding kapchais under the hot sun and earning a meager salary at doing it too. So let’s all be reasonable people here, Pamela was unreasonable.

    2) She writes on the summons book

    That is when everything went downhill, whilst the cop in yellow helmet was writing down the summonses, the taunts started with the bespectacled police. The police still tried to maintained composure, asked her to sign on the summons. Instead, “When they handed me the summons to sign, I wrote on it that ‘I do not accept as I had handsfree,’ the police went livid.” This is where it gives them the RIGHTS to arrest her for tempering with governments property, whilst taking a video and going rowdy doing it.

    3) Plus, her Bahasa melayu is atrocious and this lady is really acting weird and suspicious, like trying to hide something. But the policemen were REASONABLE PEOPLE and did not abuse their powers to arrest Pamela. They just asked her to follow them to the station to settle things there.

    So there we have it right, crystal clear. How do handle a difficult person that disobeys everything you say?

    Well ISA, like I said, this involves the question of our police force’s integrity, which in turn, reflects on the government. And also, Pamela’s responsibility to act as a reasonable citizen. Was it right on her part to post it on youtube and blow this secluded incidence out of proportions? Be reasonable please.

    She proclaims to be a CITIZEN JOURNALIST and a descendent of Malaya’s first court interpreter, very impressive credentials. But her Bahasa Melayu is FAIL. Invisible army of God? She can’t even handle herself well with those two policemen. So the point is, don’t be a hypocrite.

    Plus, if you care to check on previous posts, there is an obscure character by the name of uncle Simon Li. He recounts of a story of a chanced meeting with 2 policemen that occurred 5 to 6 years ago, in which he vividly the jolly conversations, but forgot what he was flagged down for in the first place. The loose story shows that it was purely fabricated. Further interrogative tactics deployed on uncle Simon Li, he is now never to be seen on LoyarBurok. So tell me, is this not a DELIBERATE attempt to smear the police force’s image?

    Good day

43. @askinganywhere,

    You are very good at what you are doing, I must give that to you. I will leave it to the readers to judge for themselves if the news piece were a public advisory from the Police Department. I reproduce it here for everyone convenience and public education:

    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7…

44. @IsayNo2ISA

    i am changing nick as the post was moderated.

    and not a problem.

    So, you are telling the writer are writing this:

    "The police have always reminded people to ask for authority cards when they are sceptical about the status of the uniformed man."

    Thats mean, writer is saying that? is it? abu cakap ali pukul orang? thats it?

45. @askinganywhere,

    or askinganywhereXYZ?

    Anyhow, thanks for you advice. But I think you need it more for yourself. Have you noticed how the writer wrote the news piece when quoting what is said by Emily and Lee? Words quoted were in the same paragraph. If it were on a separate paragraph, the writer would mentioned "he says".

    Whereas the sentence "The police have always reminded people to ask for authority cards when they are sceptical about the status of the uniformed man." is in a paragraph of its own. So there is noway that this is a quoted statement of Lee.

    Also do you notice how the last remark was, again on a separate paragraph? That's because it is to make it obvious that is a personal opinion of the writer of the news piece. Again, you are resorting to twisting of facts by changing the context of the sentence.

    Regardless of your "twisting" effort, you can't deny that

    "The police have always reminded people to ask for authority cards when they are sceptical about the status of the uniformed man."

46. frankly, i don't really care how pamela behaved.

    the two cops showed that they were not equipped or adequately trained to handle a difficult situation.(in actual fact. it's a small aggravation. macam itu pun tak boleh tahan..how?)

    My stand is simple. Police/armed forces must be able to handle all situations calmly and patiently. that also you don't understand…how?

47. @Nationalist,

    You are absolutely right that both parties are at fault. But I am more sympathetic to Pamela because I do not hold her to a higher standard of behavior. I am holding the two policemen to a higher standard of behavior because this is what our society needs. Professional Law Enforcement officer. Not thugs in uniform. If they have shown their ID numbers and have produced their authority cards, then I would be lamenting at Pamela for her uncooperative and bitchy behavior. But considering that the two policemen are hiding their ID number tags and refuse to produce an authority cards, and with the knowledge that there are so many fake cop cases reported in the news. I fault the policemen for not conducting themselves properly.

    @Son of Sam Woo,

    You said a lot of words but where is the substance? You have essentially repeated what I have mentioned in my earlier comments that you focus on Pamela's attitudes and what should be her best course of actions but choose to completely ignore the fact that those two policemen didn't wear their ID tag on their uniform and refused to produce their authority card when being asked. Does that mean these behaviors are acceptable to you?

    From Pamela's word herself the policemen gone defensive, so are you saying that the two policemen going defensive will be willing to produce their authority cards? Does that even jive in your logic and in English semantics? Or you are willing to forgo logic just to prove a point?

    Also, I do not understand the part on racial slant. Please enlighten me which part of my comments that is racial in nature? How about the companies that you keep? Go read the comments that is condemning Pamela, how many of those are blatant racists, and some of the comments were even bordering on threats with criminal intents. Words like gang rape and rape were used. These are the people I would not want to be associated with.

48. @IsayNo2ISA

    Then who say it then, man.

    RASHVINJEET S.BEDI write this article. This person never sputter this word anonymously, you know.

    ok, i mark it with >>.

    from here.

    >>

    Malaysian Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF) vice-chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye agrees that impersonation of police and other government security personnel is an issue of concern.

    The MCPF has received some complaints of impersonations of police personnel, he acknowledges.

    He says the Government should take note of the problem and check outlets that sell these uniforms and paraphernalia freely.

    “This problem has existed for quite a while. The sale of these items should be tightened to prevent abuse,” he warns.

    Lee says the police should educate the public on what to do when confronted by impostors.

    The police have always reminded people to ask for authority cards when they are sceptical about the status of the uniformed man.

    But not many people do that, unfortunately.

    >>

    this is excerpt from Lee. the contents from interview. so third person, the narrator would be RASHVINJEET S.BEDI, the writer. if you get it, LEE says. if not, then RASHVINJEET says. this two person is not a police.

    after then, the writer interviews Emily Abdullah.

    >>

    Emily Abdullah says she would not be able to tell the difference between an impersonator and a real police officer. She has been stopped at police road blocks but has never asked to see their identification.

    >>

    go to school, to learn how to write.

49. @askingwhere

    I ponder if you realized that you are not only going into semantics but you have resorted to change the context of the sentences by moving the quotation marks (either intentionally or unintentionally) to justify your position. The fact is the news piece itself is a public advisory. And the sentence that "The Police always reminded people to ask for authority cards when they are sceptical about the status of the uniformed man." Is not a sentence uttered by Lee Lam Thye. The changing of context on your parts shows that you are no into arguing issue with integrity but resort to twisting of facts.

50. Dear Mr./Ms. IsayNo2ISA,

    You wrote "Pamela asked for an ID and the two Police men went livid". And you also wrote "…they refuse to show her their Authority Card. Which was the main issue here…" Yet in Pam's article, she wrote that they only went livid when she wrote "I do not accept as I had handsfree" on the summons. And it was HER WORD that they got "defensive" when asked for their credentials , NOT they "refused" to provide their credentials.

    I'm just as against ISA as your moniker implies you are. But can't you see that what you just did (do I really have to spell it out for you?) is the same thing the abuser of the ISA did to make you livid enough to "Say No 2 ISA" in the first place? So what's the difference between you and that abuser?

    Just to be fair, like you said, even though we know NOW that they were real cops. But let's say they refused to show her their credentials. Yet she wrote that "if I hadn’t read the RED BOOK… I would not know what to do…" Does "The Red Book" advise one to: (a) Start filming cops who refuse to show you their credentials so you can post it online and educate the public on how you handle cops with no credentials, OR (b) If you encounter cops who refuse to show you their credentials, use your common sense, they are definitely crooks, don't hang around and film them, your cam will be dead, you, even deader. At the first chance, drive to safety, or to a nearby police station if you know one, even if you have to run over their bikes. Run if you have to!

    So, my question to you is this: Is your statement "…they refuse to show her their Authority Card. Which was the main issue here…" WRONG? OR do you still think the cops refuse Pam's request for proper ID, and having read the Red Book, she did (a) instead of (b)?

    And what's up with the racist slant? The first person to "politicize the race issue here in order to garner support" was Pam. Wait a minute… isn't that the same thing that guy did? So what's the difference between Pam and him? I'm so boycotting both of yall's Nasi Kandar stores.

Comments are closed.