COMMENT The Papagomo video in which he assaulted a foreign worker has stirred feelings of persistent outrage and disgust.
I have personally found it difficult to get it out of my head.
Emotional though a lot of our responses were, this article will attempt to ask some objective questions about the video and its contents.
The first and simplest question: is what Papagomo did legal?
I'm not well versed in exact legal details, but I imagine that such an assault (involving no individuals who are authorised law enforcers in any way), might only be allowed in circumstances of self-defence, or perhaps in order to prevent a crime of similar violence.
However, the video very clearly proves that no such conditions were present in these circumstances.
It also very clearly shows one individual perpetrating an unprovoked physical attack upon another.
Where does vigilantism lead?
The cornerstone of a civilised state is the principle that the state holds the monopoly on the means of violence.
In other words, in a civilised state, only legally recognised agents of the state are supposed to be allowed to employ violence of any sort, a course of action strictly forbidden to other people in the state (except, again, in the scenarios suggested above).
Any other type of approach towards the legitimacy of violence is essentially a return to a feudal, law of the jungle type of situation, where we would need to be perpetually prepared for violence between ourselves and people we don't like, or who don’t like us.
That is exactly where the road of vigilante justice leads - an end that is closer to chaos and anarchy than it is to civilisation as we know it.
This is not to say that agents of the state always practice violence legitimately. Rather, the argument is that it is only agents of the state that should be allowed to use violence legitimately (and only under strict circumstances), and never private citizens.
In this case, what that implies is that even if the victim in the video perpetrated some sort of crime of sexual harassment, there is no way a civilised state (and that includes us, its citizens) can condone punishment to be meted out by private citizens. That is the exclusive purview of the state.
What’s proven, what isn’t?
The 'even if' in the paragraph above is also relevant.
The second set of questions posed in this article involve authenticity. Going by the video alone, there is no certainty of anything.
Here are some of the things we do not know and have no proof of:
- Did the victim perpetrate a crime of sexual harassment of any sort?
- Did the woman in the video actually complain of or describe a crime of sexual harassment?
- Is the woman in the video Papagomo’s actual sister, or related to him in any way?
- Is all or part of the background to the story staged or fabricated?
- These are open questions, and we have no proof of the answers, one way or the other.
Failing that, all we are left with is speculation, either way. It is too early to tell the truth, but it is the truth that must be ascertained, especially before perpetrating or justifying violence.
Is Papagomo trustworthy?
In examining the question of authenticity, Papagomo’s history also becomes relevant.
This is the man who, last December, was found guilty of libel by the courts, and ordered to pay RM800,000 to Anwar Ibrahim.
Papagomo ( photo ) is also the man who was arrested by the police in July last year for allegedly publishing false information of a hateful and instigating nature regarding the Low Yat Plaza brawls.
He himself was a former policeman who was dismissed from the force.
At the very least, these facts do not exactly suggest a man of impeccable integrity and moral character, especially with regard to truthfulness.
Hit for saying ‘Allah’?
It is worth pointing out that there are some religious aspects to this incident as well.
On a number of occasions in the video, the victim is seen to be invoking “Allah”, by which we can presume that he is Muslim.
Papagomo and his associate respond by slapping, punching and kicking him.
One cannot help but wonder: what if there had been another incident in which a non-Muslim person slapped and punched a Muslim person after he had called out “Allah”?
Is there not something wrong about the fact that calling out to God, using a term so sacred that non-Muslims are not allowed to use it, results in being assaulted?
We have heard relentless talk, over years and decades, about needing to protect the dignity of Islam; where is the protection now?
Furthermore, Muslims who support Papagomo’s actions may have to ask themselves: does Papagomo’s accusation and guilty verdict satisfy the conditions under Islamic law and practice for finding someone guilty of a crime?
What will the police and Pakistan do?
Further questions remain regarding what is now going to be done about this incident, and who is going to do this.
Firstly, the police have on their hands a video demonstrating a crime being clearly perpetrated.
They furthermore have what is essentially a written confession, which justifies the actions in the video by saying that the police would have failed to take effective action against an alleged criminal.
Our inspector-general of police has been very sensitive to insults against the police force. Surely calling the police useless and ineffectual is a bald-faced insult of the most grievous nature?
What too, will the Pakistani ambassador and embassy do? The video shows a Pakistani national being physically assaulted and disgracefully treated, like an animal, without any proven form of justification.
Will Pakistan not protect and demand justice for its citizens? Should this not be cause for a diplomatic incident? Surely the dignity of the Pakistani nation is at stake here.
Defending dignity
In fact, it is Malaysian dignity that is even more at stake here.
If the victim in the video did indeed perpetrate a crime, then by all means, let us bring the whole weight of the law down upon him.
Sexual harassment, in any way, shape or form, must be condemned and punished, and the right of women to walk our streets, safe from harm or leering of any sort, must always be upheld.
Even then, to condone a poor imitation of Dan Bilzerian cowardly, pretending to take justice in his own hands with a gang of associates against defenceless, already perpetually scared foreign workers, is an insult to all Malaysians.
The police should act against Papagomo immediately. Failing which, the rest of us should not, as Papagomo claims, take justice in our own hands, but continue to push loudly and relentlessly for justice to be done.
NATHANIEL TAN is a former member of the Malaysiakini Team.