POLICE are under increasing scrutiny following allegations of inconsistent treatment in the handling of two individuals charged under the same legal provision, prompting calls for transparency and clarification over enforcement procedures.
The controversy centres on the contrasting manner in which controversial preacher Muhammad Zamri Vinoth Kalimuthu and activist Arun Dorasamy were brought to court to face charges under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code.
Zamri was escorted in handcuffs under heavy police presence at the Kuala Lumpur Court Complex, while Arun appeared at the Jawi Magistrates’ Court in Penang without restraints and accompanied by Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform), M Kulasegaran.
UMNO Youth chief Datuk Dr Muhammad Akmal Saleh questioned whether different standard operating procedures had been applied.
"One was handcuffed and another was not. Can the police explain why this happened?" he asked.
Akmal further raised concerns over possible preferential treatment. "Is there a different SOP because Arun (Arun Dorasamy) was accompanied by a Deputy Minister compared to Zamri (Muhammad Zamri Vinoth)? We ask for an explanation," he said.
Akmal also broadened his criticism to issues of fairness in enforcement.
"In the case of the inverted flag, the person charged is the one who defended the flag, while the individual who deliberately inverted it remains free. What kind of justice is this?" he added.
The issue has been compounded by political reactions, with Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) vice-president Datuk Dr Mohd Radzi Jidin questioning the appropriateness of a deputy minister accompanying an accused individual to court.
"Is it appropriate for a Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department to be present in court alongside an accused person? The government must provide an immediate explanation," he said.
Similar concerns were raised by Johor Angkatan Muda Keadilan chief Mohd Faezuddin Puad, who warned of potential reputational damage to the government.
"We do not want this to give the wrong impression to the public, as if the government is siding with Arun or showing political support for him. We are also concerned that this could damage the image of the Madani Government and the Prime Minister in the eyes of Malaysians," he said.
Legal representatives for Zamri also questioned the disparity.
His lawyer, Muhammad Hariz Md Yusoff, said his client was brought to court under strict police control and in handcuffs, in contrast to Arun’s experience.
"We wish to state that our client was brought to court this morning in handcuffs.
“However, we understand that Arun Dorasamy was invited or asked to attend court without police escort and without handcuffs," he said.
He stressed that both individuals face identical charges.
"The situation of both charges is the same, under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code. So we question why our client was brought in handcuffs and tightly controlled by police from all sides until being taken to court," he added.
Hariz also raised concerns about the optics of a government figure accompanying an accused person.
"Arun Dorasamy was accompanied by the Deputy Minister of Law as if to show that he has protection or support from that party. When a person accused of an offence is accompanied by a Deputy Minister whose portfolio relates to legal affairs, it can have a negative impact on public perception," he said.
He warned that such circumstances could undermine confidence in institutional neutrality.
"It could give the impression that the individual did not commit an offence or is supported by certain parties. This involves the judiciary and prosecutorial institutions," he said, adding that it may appear as though one party enjoys executive backing while another does not.
Both Zamri and Arun have pleaded not guilty to their respective charges.
Zamri faces allegations related to statements concerning a gathering outside a shopping complex in the capital, while Arun is accused of making statements causing public alarm through a video circulated on social media.
The episode has intensified debate over consistency in law enforcement and the need to uphold public confidence in the independence and fairness of Malaysia’s legal and judicial processes. - March 17, 2026
