The reputation of two premier enforcement agencies – the police and the MACC – lies in tatters, battered and under siege.
Loud voices from lawyers, civil society groups, and ordinary citizens have been met not with accountability but with denials, deflections, and silence.
The police, already stained by past controversies, now face fresh accusations of extra-judicial killing in Durian Tunggal, Malacca.
Three men were shot dead, and the official narrative of “self-defence” has been directly challenged by an audio recording submitted by the wife of one of the victims. Yet beyond this, silence reigns.
But the audio, which was recorded by the wife of one of the victims, is critical evidence that captures the final moments before the men were shot dead on Nov 24.
Into this void steps Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, instructing Inspector-General of Police Khalid Ismail to conduct a “transparent” probe. His words are noble, but they ring hollow.
Anwar’s call for transparency is like standing in a dark room and declaring, “Let there be light.” Words alone do not flip the switch – you need to wire the bulb, connect the circuit, and turn it on.
But what does “transparent” mean in practice? And more critically, how independent can an investigation be when the police are tasked with probing their own officers, only to submit the findings to the minister who oversees them?
Contradictory explanations
Former Klang MP Charles Santiago related another case where a man died while in police custody, and for nine months, the police did not do anything, claiming roadblocks had been placed to prevent attempts to get the truth.
Lorry driver M Manisegaran was alive and heading home at 8.20pm. Within a span of a few hours, he was detained, transported by ambulance, and declared dead on arrival.
His wife, S Rajeswari, saw visible injuries: broken teeth, chest marks, and blood in her husband’s eyes.
When she demanded answers, she was fed a carousel of contradictory explanations ranging from a heart attack, fungal infection, drug use, to fluid in the lungs.
“And at every stage, the police withheld information from his wife. This is not confusion; it is obstruction,” said Charles.
In an immediate response, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) instructed the Bukit Aman Criminal Investigation Unit on Deaths in Custody to expedite its investigation into the death of Manisegaran.
In a statement, the AGC said the directive was issued to ensure the case can be promptly brought before the Coroner's Court to determine the cause and manner of Manisegaran's death.
But why wait for directives? Shouldn’t a death in custody warrant an immediate inquiry?
Caught in a storm
MACC is engulfed in its own storm. Day after day, its methods and operations fall under suspicion.
Police reports lodged by businessperson Albert Tei and his wife allege that MACC officers pointed guns at them during a raid – claims now under police investigation.
The truth, however, lies in the CCTV recordings seized from Tei’s home, which remain in MACC’s possession. The agency has denied the gunpointing allegations, but its silence on the CCTV footage speaks louder than any press statement.
Why the reluctance? The recording will portray what happened during the raid and will exonerate the MACC, which has it has consistently denied.
In what can be described as an audacious move, the MACC summoned Mahajoth Singh, a lawyer representing Tei for questioning, an action that a legal activist group slammed as an intimidation tactic.
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) director Zaid Malek described it as an “extraordinary and unlawful” action that raises serious questions about investigative propriety and respect for the rule of law.
The MACC’s defence: Mahajoth possessed evidence relevant to their investigation against his client, but isn’t it aware that solicitor-client communications are confidential?
Section 126 of the Evidence Act 1950 and Section 46 of the MACC Act 2009 protect communications between lawyer and client.
With the claims, counterclaims, and statements with the truth not surfacing, shouldn’t the same principles of transparency that the prime minister advocated in the case of the police shootings be applied in this case?
Transparency is not a slogan; it is a system. It requires independent oversight, immediate disclosure, and accountability that does not depend on directives from above. When agencies investigate themselves, the public sees not transparency but theatre.
Malaysia cannot afford enforcement bodies that operate in shadows, shielded by silence and contradictions. If the police and MACC wish to restore their credibility, they must embrace scrutiny, not evade it.
Otherwise, every denial, every delay, and every missing piece of evidence will only confirm what the public already suspects: that justice here is not blind, but blinkered. - Mkini
R NADESWARAN is a veteran journalist who strives to uphold the ethos of civil rights leader John Lewis: “When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something.” Comments: citizen.nades22@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.