Jaswant is right in his 2 postings 23rd July 18:56 and 18:58. The forum to determine cause of death is the inquest; the organisation to investigate whodunnit are the police; the party to accuse and institute the charge to do justice for the family of the victim and society is AGs and the forum to determine guilt with right to defend accorded to the accused are the courts. The RCI determines wider issues of interrogation methods of MACC & whether they violate human rights of those interrogated. This is the right way it ought to be.

However people are not interested in the right way according to the system. This is because a large section of people now perceive there is a systemic breakdown: they don’t trust the impartiality and independence or fairness of MACC or police, the magistrate in an inquest, the AG or the judges in the courts. So they keep on falling back on the RCI which is (hopefully) the last bastion in their perception to garner a measure of impartiality, fairness and independence from the government perceived to be determined to perpetrate and perpetuate all wrongs and injustice.

So it is difficult to discuss or debate what is right and wrong because with the kind of distrust and alienation with the existing institutions – from police, MACC, Public Prosecutor toi the Courts – none is acceptable!

It is a system breakdown. When one talks what is right, it is usually based on what is right within an accepted system.

Here the whole system has been rejected by large swathes of people. So any debate obn what is right or wrong flies out of the window. there is no more framework and or frame of reference with which to debate and argue what is right and wrong within a system because the entire system is perceived wrong and anything goes ie anything over which govt/ruling coalition has the least control will be right! :)

What the aggrieved want the RCI to determine is who are the culprits who caused death. This is for justice.

In other words they want the RCI – perceived comparatively more independent – to play multiple roles of police, AG, and Judges/Courts that no more command their confidence and trust. That is all what it is all about here.

None of the RCI above mentioned by Raitman concerned itself with homicide. Probably none in the world too. However here people expect it to do so. Even if it has no such powers/capability to execute all the functions expected of it simulataneously; even if it is unheard of the RCI plays role of investigator, accuser and judge flouting every principle of separation of functions for check and balance.

The system – police, inquest, AG and courts are supposed to play and specialise in separate functions for check and balance and together in combination will yield best results.

But people here say “no” there is no more check and balance, each and all are controlled by central will of UMNO/BN and therefore the system no more works, screw it, we look for something else, anything is better to try.

Such being the previaling sentiments, don’t even try to rationalise and analyse what is right or wrong because as I earlier said, right or wrong in conventional sense benchmarked against a familiar system is no more in vocabulary. Anything that govt cannot control is right – anything that it can, is wrong! Am I not right? :)

Lim Kam Put : if you got nothing meaningful to say here, shut your mouth.

Onlooker, you said, “if Pakatan Rakyat cannot even find a trustworthy person among many officers of Federal Government Departments, whether a single magistrate, a single police investigator, a single MACC staff, or a single staff from the office of the Deputy Public Prosecutor, then I really do not know how Pakatan Rakyat is going to run the Federal Government effectively and efficiently in the event that Pakatan Rakyat is to take over the Federal Government from Barisan Nasional someday in the future!”

Firstly, I am not sure it is true that Pakatan cannot even find a trustworthy person among many officers. There may be some or many trustworthy officers but one may still distrust the civil service, bureaucracy and institutions if the ruling govt. only puts the few “untrustworthy” amongst them into key positions making decisions in favour of incumbent govt.

Secondly even amongst the many untrustworthy, they may be so by reason of their taking the tone and example from their current political leaders, setting bad examples. So, thereotically speaking, if a change of govt brings in another set of leaders dedicated to good governance – assuming this the case – then many of the rank and file will have the incentive to embrace higher standards.