According to TheMalaysiaInsider’s report by Syed Jaymal Zahiid on 2nd Jan 2010, Gobind Deo who is the lawyer for the late Teoh Beng Hock’s family and also DAP Puchong MP “explained that the police report may affect the ongoing inquest as Dr Pornthip may feel intimidated by the police probe and not turn up for the inquest”. “This will stall the proceeding and deter efforts to uncover the truth behind the mystery surrounding Teoh’s death”, said Gobind further.

If Gobind & DAP believe that this is the case, then you should apply to the Coroner Court to cite those who lodged the police reports for contempt of court.

Any court including the Coroner’s court conducting the Inquest has the inherent power to punish any contempt of itself.

Although there is no comprehensive definition anywhere of what is conduct amounting to contempt of court, the fact that the behaviour of lodging report has produced anxiety in the mind/emotions of Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand causing her to reconsider testifying for the second autopsy and to go back is, on the face of things, thwarting the due process of enquiry of the Coroner’s court and hence in the absence of a lawful justification a contempt of that court.

The fact that anyone has a right to lodge police report does not mean that that right is unqualified. For example it is an offence to lodge a false report. Equally this should extend to a baseless report – baseless for Three reasons:

Firstly, Dr Pornthip had denied leaking contents of the post-mortem report. Suara KeAdilan had merely published a report in its last issue quoting “sources from the Health Ministry” as saying that Dr Pornthip had concluded that Teoh’s death was homicide. Now a leak from “sources from the Health Ministry” of Dr Pornthip’s conclusions is not the same as a premature leak of conclusions from Dr Pornthip herself.

Secondly, even if for any reason it were true that Dr Pornthip prematurely leaked her findings to Suara KeAdilan – which she denies- her wrongdoing is itself a subject of contempt of the Coroner’s Court that MACC could properly apply for in the Corner’s court if it believes that were the case. The police reports based on sedition are baseless. If such a leak were seditious, what else will not be construed to be?

Thirdly the Inquest on Teoh beng Hock’s death and the person of Dr Pornthip and her findings directly implicate or absolve MACC and hence MACC is an interested party in the Inquest. It would be improper from public policy standpoint for officers of an interested party like MACC to lodge police reports against a witness/observer in a hearing involving itself, the effect of which will reasonably result in the witness being harrassed to the point of not giving testimony.

For these three reasons there is likely no reasonable or lawful basis for such police reports to be lodged, in the absence of which it may be argued that those who lodged the reports are skating on the edge of contempt of court giving rise to a basis to apply such to the Corner’s Court.

///In this country of Malaysiaboleh, judges and coroners serve at the pleasure of UMNO. Will this coroner prepare to risk his future for justice?///

Even if one think unlikely, one – no matter how sceptical of the independence of the court system – has no choice but (in the absence of alternatives) to resort to the law and the courts in the period before any change of government by ballot (if at all it happens).

Occasionally we do have judges like High Court Justice Lau Bee Lian whom the legal fraternity think is principled.

(She had made a ruling to grant the Herald the right to mount a legal challenge against the government ban on the Catholic weekly in using the word ‘Allah’ in its Bahasa Malaysia section).

She is one who would risk her career for fairness. Even now some lobby groups are expressing their intent to protest against her decision.

Yes her decision may be a short lived victory for the advocates of moderation – and she may be overruled when her decision is appealed against by PM’s Department in conjunction with the Home Ministry to the Court of Appeal.

However what choice has one got but to play within the system and hope for the best even if the system is known stacked against one and the hope for fairness is perceived slim?

Otherwise, one is totally without recourse in the interim period.

If one advocates acting outside the rule of law as an alternative – because one thinks its the law of the jungle prevailing in Bolehland outside – then one must be prepared to get devoured even faster by the wild beasts roaming strong and wild outside since they can then shed without apology the most tenuous of pretension to upholding of the rule of law!

///We will continue to use the court to highlight the naked abuse of power and processes to subdue opposition. We will continue to use the court to buy time./// – AhQ

That is still resorting to court and law system that I spoke of in my earlier posting. One need not have lots of faith in its vindication to resort to it in the absence of alternatives. It does not mean that we are subservient to or subjugated by it.