Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng has urged the police to amend its standard operating procedures for conducting raids.

This followed a Jan 7 incident where his legal client, who asked to be identified only as Mr Liaw, purportedly resisted a narcotics raid at his home for over 30 minutes in Selayang under the mistaken belief that the plainclothes police conducting the raid were robbers.

Liaw, 60, and his daughter Janet Liaw, 33, were charged on Jan 17 at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate’s Court under Section 186 of the Penal Code for allegedly obstructing public officers from discharging their duties during the incident. They pleaded not guilty and were each released on RM5,000 bail.

“Under urgent circumstances or exceptional situations, the police do not need any warrant to raid any building. But, they would have to produce their identification documents.

“(Mr Liaw) saw one ID but thought it was fake. Others should show their ID too; perhaps if everyone showed their ID, he may be more convinced. So perhaps the police procedure is not professional enough.

“So I propose that in special circumstances when the police are trying to break into a premise, the police should amend their SOP such that at least one person is in uniform. It doesn’t matter if the rest are not in uniform, but there should be at least one - ideally an officer with a few pips.

“That would be more convincing. At least the name and ID number are on display,” he told a press conference at Liaw’s home today.

‘No reason for police to look for me’

Liaw told reporters that about 3pm on the day of the incident, he went to open his apartment door and found about eight men outside demanding to enter.

One of the group showed him an ID card and identified himself as a member of the police.

“To my mind, it is impossible that the police would have reason to look for me. So, I said this is a fake and I don’t believe him.

“I said I would call the police and started dialling 999. There was one at 3.25pm and another at 3.45pm. I wanted to stall them because the iron grille is very strong. I hoped that if they spend 15 to 20 minutes to break in, the police would be able to reach me in time,” he said.

Liaw said he had not thought that the police would raid him because he had no ties with criminal or secret societies, and merely ran a direct sales business selling health supplements from his home.

He said that as he left the front door, one member of the raiding party also brandished an object threatening to break into his house, but he could not identify the object as he was not wearing his glasses.

Liaw went inside to alert Janet who was sleeping in her room with her son to lock her door because “fake police” were attempting to barge in, and barricaded himself in his own room.

He said it took the police about 30 minutes to break through the front door (photo), during which he made frantic phone calls for help to the police and family members.

Janet too said she had barricaded her bedroom door and made Facebook posts calling for help, while her nine-year-old son cried.

Once inside the house, Liaw said the police made short work of his bedroom door and brandished a handcuff through a gap in the door. It was only then he realised that the raiding party was genuinely the police.

He said he felt relieved to see the handcuffs and surrendered. From that point onwards, he said he cooperated with the police as they searched their home, and told Janet to do the same.

This included surrendering the password to their home computer and allowing the police to inspect their phones.

As for Janet, she said she initially resisted as she was dragged out of her bedroom, but stopped when she was handcuffed and realised that she was dealing with the police.

They were later taken to the Gombak police district headquarters to have urine samples taken and were tested negative for drugs. They claimed the police also failed to find any drugs in the raid.

‘False accusations’

During the sample-taking process, however, Janet claimed that she was falsely accused of insulting a police personnel. This was when she remarked “So filthy” in Chinese when she saw urine puddles in the sample-taking area, but was allegedly misunderstood by a police personnel present.

She also claimed that she was falsely accused of assaulting the police during the raid, and that her late husband's watch had gone missing from her home after the raid.

Liaw said he estimates that he suffered losses of about RM10,000 from the forcible entry alone, and has yet to tally the losses suffered from packages being opened (photo) that were meant for sale.

Janet said her son was traumatised by the incident. A relative, who said she helped to look after the child in Janet’s absence but declined to be identified, said the child had nightmares that night.

She said the child was also baffled why the police would arrest “good people”, and didn’t know what to say when he asked.

Liaw’s son-in-law meanwhile, who identified himself only as Mr Lim, said he arrived at the apartment after receiving calls for help from Liaw.

He said when he attempted to shoot a video of the group as they left the apartment, one of the police confiscated his phone and forced him to delete the recording.

Liaw and Janet spent one night in a police lockup after the raid. During interrogation, Liaw said that the police bragged that they had followed him for three months, but he was unconvinced about their claim.

This is because the police allegedly had little to show for their efforts apart from pictures of him standing outside his apartment, and pictures of his car.

The police also mistook Janet as his mistress, he said.

Liaw and Janet said they hope their lives would return to normal, including by having their charges dropped.

Calls for police accountability

Lim meanwhile wants the police to be held accountable for botching the raid against Liaw.

“The investigating officer who decided to raid (Liaw’s apartment) should be sacked, because after investigating for so long, all he had accomplished was a fiasco.

“This is unprofessional; perhaps even high school boy scouts would do better. So, this officer must be sacked. Otherwise more innocent people would be victimised,” he said.

He also urged inspector-general of police Mohamad Fuzi Harun to explain whether bystanders and those being raided have the right to film police operations, and if not, which law it is prohibited under.

He said members of the public should have the right to film public officials carrying out their duties.

Asked whether the family plans to lodge reports to authorities such as Suhakam or the Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (EAIC), Lim, who is representing the Liaw family in court, said this will be decided after Fuzi responds to his queries.

In any case, he said Suhakam and EAIC are unlikely to intervene as the case is already in court. It is scheduled to be mentioned on Jan 26.

Malaysiakini has contacted Gombak OCPD Ali Ahmad for comment and is awaiting a response.