Allow me to begin with a quote from a recent judgement by judicial commissioner Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin. His Lordship wrote: “‘No one could ever meet death for his country without the hope of immortality’ - Cicero.
“It is evident from this quotation by the greatest forensic orator Rome has ever produced that sacrificing and dying for one’s country was the highest form of honour and the sacrifices of the past must remain immortal in the minds of future generations.”
Fifteen excruciating years ago, on that fateful night of July 15 or early July 16, 2009, Teoh Beng Hock met his untimely death in the custody of the MACC at Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam, Selangor.
Yet, the circumstances of his death and the identity of the perpetrators remain elusive to his family and all Malaysians.
I was first associated with this case as part of the Malaysian Bar’s watching brief team during the inquest hearings at the Shah Alam Court complex.
July 16, 2009, will forever be etched in my mind as it was the catalyst for me to turn towards legal activism in championing the issue of custodial deaths in Malaysia.
As fate would have it, on the same day, more than 30km away in IPD Sentul’s old lock-up, a certain detainee by the name of R Gunasegaran suffered the same untimely demise whilst in police custody.
He had been beaten in detention, which may have then caused his untimely death as per the courts’ findings.
Cops acted for whose safety?
I have since conducted many other custodial death cases in the courts and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.
In my experience, custodial deaths are largely avoidable if the agencies responsible for the detention had been proactive and had duly complied with the regulations and standard operating procedures governing detentions.
In addition, I am of the view that urgent reforms to prevailing laws are needed to ensure the safe detention of people. At this juncture, it is worth repeating the oft-quoted remark that - “even one death in custody is one too many”.
Considering the above, I would respond to Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail’s recent statement carried in Malaysiakini under the title “Cops measures were for safety, says Saifuddin on TBH march” on July 18, 2024.
Firstly, I was one of the participants of the said march on July 15, 2024. I participated in the last leg of the march from the front of the Bukit Aman police headquarters to Parliament.
The purpose of the march was simple - to hand over a memorandum to members of Parliament about the prolonged and seemingly never-ending investigations into the late Teoh’s unsolved murder.
Needless to say, it was obvious that the longstanding mystery of Teoh’s death necessitated urgent resolution and thus, a memorandum was to be delivered to MPs.
Unfortunately, what would have otherwise been a simple act of presenting a memorandum turned dramatic and tense due to an altercation between the police and the participants not far from the main gates of Parliament.
Knowing full well that the participants intended to reach Parliament, the police cordoned off the road leading up to the compound, thus rendering the objective unachievable.
I recall questioning the need for such heavy police presence for such a peaceful event.
The number of police personnel was hugely disproportionate, far outnumbering the 30-odd participants of the march.
The altercation between the police and participants was well-documented and widely reported in the media. The fact that the altercation took place towards the end of a peaceful march was indeed shocking and beyond comprehension.
To me, there were no justifications whatsoever for the use of brute force by the police to quell and thwart the efforts of the protesters to reach the gates of Parliament simply to present a memorandum.
There were also allegations of police brutality towards members of the march as reported in the media.
Who ordered the police to stop the protesters from reaching the gates of Parliament? There was nothing offensive about handing over a memorandum to MPs at the gates of Parliament.
The authorities ought to have been aware of the rights guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012.
It is a fact that many MPs, including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim himself, were appointed to the present government today and had their names and political careers built by previously participating in such marches.
It is also a fact that many politicians who had championed and capitalised on Teoh’s cause in the past have now conveniently forgotten their words and promises.
Being in power now, one would have the reasonable expectation that the participants of the march would have been treated with mutual respect and civility instead of forceful suppression on the day of the incident.
It was hugely disappointing to read the comments attributed to Saifuddin in the Malaysiakini article above. The home minister was quoted saying that the police measures during the march were taken to ensure public safety.
He reportedly further said: “The police, in carrying out their duty to maintain public order, have their considerations at that moment”.
The home minister’s comments raise many questions. What factors were considered for the police to cordon off the road leading up to the front gate of Parliament? Whose safety were the police trying to ensure?
As I recall, the only people who assembled were the participants of the march, with none carrying any weapons or dangerous items of any sort. And their sole purpose was simply to hand over the memorandum to elected officials. They had even informed the police of their intention to disperse after handing the memorandum over.
Teoh family deserves closure
It is incumbent for the authorities to heed the lessons of the past to secure a more peaceful future for the people. Such confrontations are unnecessary and destructive. The rights of the people to a peaceful assembly are guaranteed in the tenets of the Federal Constitution.
If these principles are observed and respected by the powers that be, Malaysia can easily progress by leaps and bounds as a leader among the other democratic nations in the Southeast Asian region.
At the end of it all, Teoh’s death must not be in vain. His demise must be thoroughly investigated to the very end and the perpetrators must be held to account.
Above all, his family deserves the truth to achieve closure.
The 2014 Court of Appeal’s grounds of judgement in this case is most damning. Conclusions were reached and persons were mentioned. Yet, despite the pronouncements, it seems the mystery of his murder is nowhere near the end.
I would not be wrong to say that we as a nation need to address this issue honestly and with integrity, and put to bed the mystery behind his untimely demise.
Failure to do so would enable injustice to continue. - Mkini
M VISVANATHAN is chairperson of Eliminating Deaths and Abuse in Custody Together (Edict).
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.