Why were the charges dropped?

The decision by Attorney-General (AG) Abdul Gani Patail was made three days after Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi met 16 Indian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to hear their grievances.

While the NGOs welcomed the move, some political analysts saw it as a calculated attempt by the Prime Minister to give his reputation a boost following his decision to use the ISA against the Hindraf leaders.

Six of the 31 were released unconditionally, while the other 25 were charged with mischief and illegal assembly. They pleaded guilty and were released on bail of RM500 ($220) each, ahead of sentencing scheduled for Dec 27. The five Hindraf leaders remained in detention under the ISA.

While they have avoided the maximum possible jail term of 20 years for attempted murder, the 25 still face up to five years in prison and/or a fine for mischief while taking part in an unlawful assembly, as well as a jail term of up to one year and/or a fine of not more than RM10,000 for illegal assembly, Mr Ravi Neeko, the chairman of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre in Kuala Lumpur told Today.

The sentences can run consecutively or concurrently.

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan, while welcoming the AG's decision, said it was regrettable that the 31 had to spend about 15 days in prison.

Underlining its belief that freedom of assembly is a constitutional right, the council had appointed 10 lawyers to represent the 31 individuals under its free legal aid scheme. They made a representation on Friday to the AG to have the charges reduced. Bar Council vice-president and one of the members of the legal team, Mr Ragunath Kesavan, said the AG had "responded positively".

Expressing joy over the development, Mr A Vaithilingam of Malaysian Hindu Sangam, the group that led the special meeting with Mr Abdullah, told Today: "To me, arresting people in a place of worship is not the right thing to do."

At the meeting with the Indian NGOs on Friday, Mr Abdullah promised he would urge the AG to review the charges. While acknowledging that the meeting was one of the factors that had affected the AG's decision, Mr Vaithilingam denied that there was a compromise between Mr Abdullah and the Indian NGOs over the charges.

He said: "We only spoke to the Prime Minister. Everything else was between the Prime Minister and the AG."

Mr Samy Vellu, the president of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) – the main Indian party in the ruling Barisan Nasional – yesterday thanked Mr Abdullah and applauded the move to "lighten the burden of the families" of those imprisoned.

But Dr Ooi Kee Beng of the Institute of South-east Asian Studies said the reduced charges hinged more on the fact that the case "doesn't hold" in court.

He told Today: "To prove that 31 people tried to kill a policeman, how do you do that? To prove that two persons tried to do so would already be difficult."

Still, Dr Ooi said the move could be an attempt by Mr Abdullah to soften his political image. "Using the ISA damaged Mr Abdullah's reputation quite a bit," he said. "He might, over the next few days or weeks, try to appear merciful to tie in with his general reputation of being a soft, kind uncle."

In another development, two opposition leaders from Parti Keadilan Rakyat are suing the Malaysian government for RM4 million for "wrongful" arrest last Tuesday near Parliament House.

Keadilan's information chief Tian Chua, 43, and its Kota Raja division information chief Abdul Razak, 46, have named Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan and the government as defendants in a suit filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday.

They are also demanding compensation of RM20,000 for damage done to Mr Abdul Razak's car, as well as RM80 a day for the loss of use. "The suit is to preserve our good name and dignity," Mr Chua told reporters.

The two were among 26 individuals from Bersih – a coalition of five opposition groups and 67 NGOs seeking free and fair elections – arrested last Tuesday for defying an order against illegal assembly when they tried to submit a memorandum of protest against a Bill to raise the retirement age of election officials to Parliament.