Third degree/torture/interrogation methods, sometimes resulting in inexplicable custodial deaths, are pretty universal, their existence conceded, though scale varies from society to society.

I imagine I were a police interrogator faced with following temptations. I am under pressure to produce results in my investigations. Due to limited allocations, my office is not helped by modern technology or trained specialists in forensics like CSI! However there’s plenty of experience in different torture methods both psychological and physical making up the shortfall in forensics. Some of suspects are hardcore criminals and don’t yield unless I whack them. I get lazy. What for work (mentally) so hard? I try the easier way to get their confession. If admissible in court without coercion proved, I get my commendation/ promotion. Even if inadmissible, however the torture could lead to revelation of other admissble evidence. In any case, suspects are totally within my dominion and power. My salary may be meagre but power and my ability to bully with a touch opf sadism is an occupational perk and psychological compensation. And why not? Interrogations and 3rd degree methods are committed safely in the dark rooms of the precincts in the presence of other personnel/co-workers who will, by reason of esprit de corp, swear never speak against their colleagues or superior on these methods. All have a hand in the past in different occasions, and no one who lives in a glass house will cast the first stone! Because of advent of techonolgy like the camera in cell phone, the first rule is no one is allowed to carry cellphone to such rooms. No closed-circuit televisions are installed in interrogation rooms. Even if there were a snitch amongst us, there are other of my collaborators who will bear witness in corroboration of my story that I did not employ methods complained of by that snitch. His word against theirs and mine. In court, I am assisted by criminal jurisprudence mandate that my guilt of using 3rd degree methods must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, which brings in lots of difficulties in my conviction even if assuming prosecutor (who works hand in hand with me on other cases) breaks his bond to prosecute.That depends on whether society will clamour the prosecutor to do so.

And I know society is hypocritical, saying one thing and closing eye to the other.

The case against 3rd degree is that in a free society, the moral value/standard is that the successful investigations leading to prosecutions and conviction of several hardened criminals cannot be justified by brutal treatment and inadvertant killing of even one innocent suspect! Champions of civil liberty & upholders of strict letters of law will argue so. In practical reality, society turn a blind eye because removing those criminals that threaten society’s safety is greater priority than pretension in upholding constitutional rights. I know the one I whack, and inadvertantly kill will not be missed by society.

The danger I face is that the one brutalised is not a hardened criminal nor a terrorist. He may be just a petty snatch thief. Worse still he is a mere witness asked to help the case. The worst is that he is politically affiliated when it also becomes a political issue taken up by many quarters. There’s a lot of anger and sysmpathy generated out there in society. There lies the difference. They’re now coming for me, ‘protector’ of society, now a target of peoples cries for “justice” born from primal collective desire for vengeance for wrong doing perpetrated on a hapless innocent.

Best story line is that the victim committed suicide since immediate cause of death was multiple injuries caused by impact of fall.

However how do I allege he was suicidal when tragedy happened on eve of his marriage? And even if a person were suicidal, why would he choose police precincts to make final grand exit – of all places? How to explain trouser tear in backside of victim which people are alleging was caused by someone’s holding on to end of trousers near ankles of someone struggling in panic, fighting the forces of gravity ??? These are just some of the problems I would face.

Caveat: I am just telling a story in general terms relating to social/psychological dynamics of custodial accident deaths (without reference to any security organisation in particular), the examples used are for convenience (only) and any correspondence is mere coincidental, not intended (at this moment) to depict the factual circumstances of Teoh’s case, still under investigations. :)

“….everything must be based on statistics and facts and figures. If I tell you corruption is getting worse, you will probably ask me to show you the proof…”

Don’t be irrelevant. I have not asked you any proof of what is anecdotal evidence & general perception. I only say a person like Chief Minister LGE cannot make statements that majority bas in security services without such proof. Don’t be irrelevant in your argument. And to express your “frustration to the fact that most of the time we are hypocrites” as if LGE is one for making a politically correct statement is a frustartion misplaced. Hypocrisy abound, it is one it is intended for. If he hypocritically tells them majority are good and only few bad apples is intended to encourage the security services to investigate their own to rid bad practices it is different for some hypocritical others who are corrupt and say they hate corruption and point the fingers at others. Hypocrisy is necessary in first context and hateful in second: so why so undiscerning to feel frustrated at politically (read) hypocritical statement to express your disagreement?

///You want RCI to find out the truth and so also is the BAR council. It is my right to say that you and the BAR council are idiots. RCI as a method to harass the government into action yes, but RCI as a mechanism to find out the truth, you can kiss my ass. What happened to RCI on Lingam tape, and what happened to Police investigation on Kugan’s case? Just to name two./// – LimKamPut.

Anyone who told you to be yourself couldn’t have given you any worse advice: you are always in natural self prone to making emotional and irrational statements shooting through the mind without filtering in the area between your ears!

It is true that as you said there’s nothing (yet) regarding RCI on Lingam tape, and Police investigation on Kugan’s case!

However RCI is comparatively the only mechanism available to address this kind of abuse and make it come to public light.

As I have said in posting in earlier thread on same subject:-

· MACC’s conduct of internal investigation cannot be counted upon to be able to make an objective and impartial determination of a high profile case involving its own possible lache and its own officers’ wrong doing. It will judging one’s own case.

· the other alternative is police but police themselves are under long shadow of A Kugan’s custodial death, yet unresolved, so how could they be counted upon to investigate the other branch regarding a common accusation?

So other than MACC or police, which other body there is (besides RCI) will be in the position to enquire and investigate such a case?

Not only the BAR council and I are idiots for mentioning RCI (which you say come to nothing) : YB Kit also suggests RCI. So do NGOs like the Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, Centre for Independent Journalism, Centre for Policy Initiatives, Group of Concerned Citizens, Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement, Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor and Jamaah Islah Malaysia.

They are all idiots? Don’t have any enquiry by RCI then lah if a “Lim Kam Put Commission” were not possible – is that it?

Although Royal Commission(s) Of Inquiry on police misconduct and Lingam Video Clip have not (yet) yielded results in terms of punishment of the culprits, their deliberations were well publicized in media including the mainstream media, and who (but LimKamPut) can otherwise say that the publicity of these deliberations had no beneficent effect on the voters and the results of the General Elections of 8 March 2008, touted the political tsunami?