One common perception is that police officers, MACC officers, etc that commit offences, even causing death and/or enforced disappearance in Malaysia.., even after findings of the Coroner, Courts, EAIC(Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission) and/or SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) confirming this, is that they very seldom ARE NOT BEING CHARGED FOR THEIR CRIMES.
Why is law enforcement and the Public Prosecutor 'protecting' these criminals? OR is it a government policy or a government decision to protect these police and law enforcement officers?
What we need is for people who committed crimes ought to be charged in accordance with the law, and prosecuted... CIVIL liability alone is not enough - if the 'criminals' are out there walking free without paying for their crimes...
TEOH BENG HOCK - the death happens in the MACC premises, and the Courts have determined ruled that Beng Hock’s death was caused by multiple injuries as a result of unlawful acts by unknown persons. > Why has there been no one that have been charged for the killing, torture and breaking of the Malaysian law yet.?
The MACC, the government and 12 others, admitted negligence in the death of 30-year-old Teoh, who was found dead on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.
On 19/7/2024, 'In a Parliamentary written reply to Lim Lip Eng (Pakatan Harapan-Kepong), Saifuddin said the police reopened investigation papers into the death under Section 342 of the Penal Code for wrongful confinement, following the cabinet decision in 2018.' - very ODD, just for 'wrongful confinement' - what about for the killing, torture, and obstruction of justice? After all, the MACC, the government and 12 others, admitted negligence in the death - 304A Causing death by negligence is a crime?
342 Punishment for wrongful confinement - Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand ringgit or with both.
304A Causing death by negligence - Whoever causes the death of any person, by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
POLICE SHOOTING of S Mahendran, G Thavaselvan and J Vijayaratnam- Coroner Rasyihah Ghazalis finding that The shots were not fired in
self-defence. There was abuse of power and (actions in the nature of)
criminal elements by police in the death of the men,
'...scientific evidence with regards to the
position of the bodies and the weapons allegedly found on the two men
did not tally with the oral testimonies of the policemen.The
weapons described by the ballistic expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the
investigating officer (P Visvanathan) were also in conflict,
police witnesses gave evidence that shots were fired at the men from an
upright position but post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced
their bodies at a downward angle. - in short, the police may have 'murdered' - and it was not a killing by reason of self defence. The witnesses(including police) LIED - BUT, then no one was charged for the killing, and the LIES. WHY? - FMT,31/5/2022
Syed Mohd Azlan Syed Mohamed Nur’s 2014 death in custody, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) found that“There was an element of crime in the attacks involving common intent or abetment by PDRM officers, including the arresting team, to intentionally use physical violence on the deceased to cause death or injury,” the EAIC said in a statement today....its investigations also found attempts to obscure evidence from the 25-year-old’s interrogation that resulted in 61 separate injuries on various parts of his body...
Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat - SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) inquiry concluded on April 3, 2019 - that Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman were responsible for Koh and Amri’s enforced disappearances. No criminal prosecution yet of any police officers involved.
## There are other cases, where the Courts have found police and law enforcement officers responsible for death, torture, etc...and awarded large amounts of monies as damages/compensations. Likewise there are also cases where the EAIC(Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission) and/or SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission), even other Royal Commission of Inquiries.
### Some of these victims have family members who will take it to EAIC, SUHAKAM and even to Courts. Alas, most do not have the capacity to do so..
When the police or law enforcement officers torture suspects/detainees - there is still no specific law that criminalizes TORTURE by public officers - that should be carrying a HEAVY SENTENCE that is deterrent.
When the police or law enforcement officers DESTROY or TAMPER with evidence - there is still no specific laws that criminalizes DESTRUCTION or TAMPERING of evidence by public officers.
When the police or law enforcement officers see or witness (or have evidence of crimes of their fellow public officers), there is still NO specific law that criminalizes their action of 'hiding' relevant evidence of such crimes. With deaths in police custody, death at MACC or law enforcement facilities, criminal police shoot to kill incidents - the failure or the refusal of public officers to disclose relevant evidence of crimes committed by fellow officers must be criminalised - and carry a DETERRENT penalty
Enforced Disappearance must be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
Extrajudicial killing must be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE
Obstruction of investigation by public officers including members of the Administration must be a Criminal Offence.
The STATE or government must end 'PROTECTION' of public officers that commit crimes - and crimes by PUBLIC OFFICERS must carry a high deterrent sentence...
Following ORDERS or INSTRUCTION of superior officers or MINISTERS should clearly not be a DEFENCE for crimes committed. Public Officers should follow the law, and be 'model citizens' - and should also be obligated to report suspected crimes committed by their fellow public officer or even the Minister or Deputy Minister. [Maybe, this must be enacted]. Guarantee should also be given that 'whistle blowing' will in no way jeopardize their employment and/or future promotions - something that any worker requires]
See also:-
RM490,000 to widow of Dharmendran(died in police custody) - 4 officers charged for 'murder' remain FREE and in the police?
RM1.4 mil in damages for family of man who died in police custody
MACC to pay RM660,000 as settlement to Teoh Beng Hock family
KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and 13 others agreed to pay RM660,000 to the family of the late Teoh Beng Hock to settle a civil suit over the Selangor exco aide's death.
High Court judge Datuk Rosnaini Saub recorded the settlement in open court today in the presence of the family's counsel Gobind Singh Deo and senior federal counsel Kamal Azira Hassan, who acted for the 14 defendants.
The MACC, the government and 12 others, admitted negligence in the death of 30-year-old Teoh, who was found dead on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.
Teoh's death was discovered after his interrogation at the MACC office on the 14th floor of the same building.
On October 3, 2012, Teoh’s father Teoh Leong Hwee, his
mother Teng Shuw Hoi, his fiancée Soh Cher Wei and his son Teoh Er Jia
filed the legal action, seeking compensation for their distress and loss
of dependence.- NST, 12/5/2015
Cops abused power in shooting of 3 men, including Sri Lankan, coroner finds
The coroner’s court finds that police did not fire the shots at the three men in self-defence as claimed and that there were elements of a criminal nature in the shooting of the trio in Rawang.
Coroner Rasyihah Ghazali said, on the balance of probabilities, S Mahendran, G Thavaselvan and his brother-in-law J Vijayaratnam, a Sri Lankan national, died of gunshot wounds on their heads and chests.
The shots
were not fired in self-defence. There was abuse of power and (actions in
the nature of) criminal elements by police in the death of the men,
she said this evening at the end of an inquest.
Police had claimed there was an exchange of fire between policemen and the trio at the edge of a jungle in Rawang and that two of the men had been armed with pistols.
Rasyihah, however, said she was unable to conclude as to what had happened to G Moganambal, the wife of Vijayaratnam, who was reported missing after the incident and has yet to be found.
On Sept 14, the three men, whom police said were suspected to have been involved in armed robbery, were killed in a shootout with the police at Km22 of Jalan Rawang heading towards Batu Arang, following a 7km high-speed car chase.
The coroner said today the men died between 5.20am and 5.30am on Sept 14 based on evidence collected in the inquest.
She said scientific evidence with regards to
the position of the bodies and the weapons allegedly found on the two
men did not tally with the oral testimonies of the policemen. The
weapons described by the ballistic expert (Izzuwan Marzuki) and the
investigating officer (P Visvanathan) were also in conflict,
she said.
She said police witnesses gave evidence that shots were fired at the men from an upright position but post-mortem reports stated that the bullets pierced their bodies at a downward angle.
Rasyihah said, in totality, there were many disputable questions of fact regarding witness statements.
The four had left Kepong at about 10pm on Sept 13 after dinner to visit friends and relatives. Moganambal’s sister, Vasanthi, had testified that Moganambal sent a location map via her mobile phone at about 1am (Sept 14) that indicated they were at a food outlet in Serdang.
Vasanthi stated in her evidence that shop owner Senizam Md Yusof admitted meeting the four that morning. However, Senizam denied in court that he had met them at his premises.
Lawyer M Visvanathan, who held a watching brief for the family of Thavaselvan and Vijayaratnam, said he had instructions to file a civil suit following today’s verdict.
We have
four months to do so as the three-year limitation period to file a legal
action against the government will set in by September,
said Visvanathan who was assisted by V Sanjay Nathan.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Sean Dudley assisted the coroner. A total of 20 people gave evidence. - FMT, 31/5/2022
Court rules cops caused death of ex-welder, awards dad RM383,300
The families of missing Pastor Raymond Koh and activist Amri Che Mat were promised in 2019 that the then government under Dr Mahathir Mohamad would look into the duo’s enforced disappearance.
Perlis Hope adviser Mohammad Faisol Abd Rahman told the Kuala Lumpur High Court this during today’s hearing of the Koh family’s related lawsuit against the government and the police.
The witness, who knew Amri (above, right) before the co-founder of the charity organisation disappeared on Nov 24, 2016, was giving oral evidence in support of Susanna Liew’s lawsuit over her husband Koh’s disappearance on Feb 13, 2017.
During the hearing before judge Su Tiang Joo over Koh’s disappearance, Faisol testified that he alongside Amri’s wife Norhayati Mohd Ariffin and Liew met then-home minister Muhyiddin Yassin who promised to bring the issue to the cabinet.
While under examination-in-chief by Liew’s lawyer Steven Thiru, Faisol said Muhyiddin’s then principal private secretary Marzuki Mohamad had arranged the meeting, which took place at the Home Ministry in Putrajaya.
Describing the meeting as taking place after Suhakam made a finding on April 3, 2019 - that Special Branch officers from Bukit Aman were responsible for Koh and Amri’s enforced disappearances - Faisol confirmed the meeting as depicted in two photographs shown in court.
One photo showed Muhyiddin meeting with the group in the home minister’s office, and that the group comprised DAP leaders Teresa Kok and Steven Sim as well as Faisol, Norhayati, Liew, and several others.
The second photo showed the group minus Muhyiddin posing outside the same office after the half-hour meeting.
Thiru: What did Muhyiddin say (in the meeting)?
Faisol: Muhyiddin said he took the matter seriously, that he would investigate the issue, and not worry as he was very concerned about what happened.
Thiru: The families managed to raise their questions?
Faisol: Yes.
Thiru: Did Muhyiddin answer (the questions)?
Faisol: Yes.
Thiru: How did the meeting end?
Faisol: With Muhyiddin promising to bring the case to the cabinet.
Limited access to classified report
On May 23, 2019, Muhyiddin announced that the ministry would establish a special committee to reinvestigate the case of Koh and Amri’s disappearance.
This special task force later prepared a report classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972.
Late last year, the civil court allowed Norhayati to obtain limited access to the report to strengthen her civil suit against the police and government over Amri’s disappearance.
Recently, Liew herself filed a separate application for limited access to the classified report to bolster her lawsuit against the authorities over Koh's disappearance.
The trial of Liew’s lawsuit before Su will resume tomorrow.
A year after the Suhakam finding, Liew filed a civil court action to compel the authorities to reveal Koh’s whereabouts.
Su is also presiding over Norhayati’s suit. - Malaysiakini, 4/6/2024
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment