Yes the Police owes, as what YB Kit says, to the Malaysian public a full explanation as to what transpired in the meeting between the police and Balasubramaniam at the Brickfields police station yesterday evening.

However the Police canot be compelled to give an explanation and even if they do we have no means of ascertaining its veracity.

At the end of the day we would have to make our own judgment based on probabilities.

The question then is whether the making of which – SD1 or its subsequent retraction and making of SD2 – was under duress.

Duress means compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint.

Between SD1 and SD2, the making of the latter would more likely be a result of duress. This is because he went to Brickfields police station at 4.45pm and not much is known as to what transpired in there.

To bystanders it would be reasonable to think that he was more likely to be subject to duress in the police station to make SD2 than when he made SD1. This is because it is the authorties that could apply threat or force, coercion or constraint on any individual.

Having thus concluded we are however no where nearer the truth as far as ascertaining which of the versions – SD1 or SD2 – are more likely true.

And this is because whilst he was not likely subject to duress when making the SD1, he could be making it out of inducement, which is just as likely as duress to make a person say falsehood.

So it is equally possible to say that if he was given inducement (financial or otherwise) to make certain misrepresentations in SD1 then the application of subsequent duress to make SD2 would serve the purpose of rectifing the misrepresentations in SD1.

So are we back to square one? Not really.

The argument overlooks the fact that bearing false oath in a SD, whether 1 or 2 is a criminal offence for which one could be imprisoned. So the asumption is that when one makes a SD, he would likely be true to avert the most dire legal consequences of making false representations.

It is asumed here that between an attractive financial inducement and certain punishment

This being true the making of an untrue SD1 which implicates the powerful, the influential and the VIP is more unlikely because had it been a lie, the probabilty of being prosecuted and punished is certain.

The opposite of making a false SD2 – to exonerate and absolve the powerful, the influential and the VIP – is however more likely since the powerful, the influential and the VIP could vouch for protection from any dire legal consequences otherwise attracted from wrongful act of making untrue SD.

Based on these premises, it would be reasonable to infer on balance the greater likelihood of SD1 being freely made based on belief in the truth of its contents than SD2.

These premises proceed on the important assumption, right or wrong, that the fear of being punished and imprisoned is greater than the lure of financial rewards. This is probably true for majority but not all peoples, and it also depnds on the extent of financial reward as against extent of punishment.