The classification of “sudden death” makes it imperative under CPC to hold the inquest. I have given reasons in earlier thread why inquests have not proven useful to enquire foul play, if any, implicating authorities. RCI could assist if its frame of reference enquiring on possible human rights violation in MACC ‘s interrogation procedures is wide and broad enough to connect to the immediate circumstances of Teoh’s treatment and demise. It therefore makes sense that RCI should be held first so that in an event of findings of foul play sufficient pressure may be exerted on police to investigate foul play within findings of RCI. Regretably the inquest is fast tracked to precede RCI, which means that if the inquest returns a finding of open verdict (ie no conclusion derivable from hearing) no pressure on police may be exerted to conduct a vigorous investigation within parameters recommended by RCI, especially so if the findings of inquest do not establish foul play. I have commented before that the chances of an inquest finding foul play is even more remote than a ordinary court because an inquest being “inquisitorial” can only conclude and make findings on certainty of 100% proven facts, which is more stringent and exacting than a courts based on the legal standard of only “beyond reasonable doubt” (if a fiure were to be given, maybe up to 75%) . This is laid down by previous RCI chairman Dzaiddin when he was judge in 1990 case of Loh Kah Kheng.

Continuing from earlier posting :

In ordinary circumstances, the inquest would sufice to enquire into such sudden deaths, police would investigate if there were foul play and office of Public Prosecutor (PP) would charge any person or group of persons reasonably suspected of foul play. This is how the system is supposed to work. What the government has done in getting PP to order an inquest, and (to appease public disquiet over MACC’s methods) commission an RCI to enquire into MACC interrogatory methods vis-à-vis human rights violation is what in ordinary circumstances is proper to do.

The problem however is that we are not living in ordinary times. There is a crisis of confidence in how the system works or that it could work impartially free of government’s control.

In such a milieu, whilst it is arguable that commissioners of RCI (being appointed by government in terms of the cabinet’s advising the King of appointments) ought no more be perceived trustworthy in terms of impartiality than (say) the traditional institutions of courts, securities services (whether police or anti corruption agency), inquest’s magistrate equally appointed by government, yet so far as experience with the previous RCI(s) commissioned (whether on police procedures or Lingam’s video clip) is taken into account, the RCIs have satisfactorily met public expectations of impartiality in terms of their workings, findings and recommendations), though what is unsatisfactory is only that the government has not implemented their recommendations with alacrity, which is not RCIs’ fault!

In view of the extraordinary, and extenuating circumstances of public confidence wanting that the system still works, there is a strong case from standpoint of justice for Teoh’s family that government should expand the frame of reference for RCI’s enquiry to include, as Kit says and what Civil Society demands, into probable cause of death, no matter that the Inquest’s enquiry seeks to address same issue. If there were concern of different – and conflicting – verdicts from inquest from that of RCI leading to confusion, then the inquest should be revoked in favour of RCI continuing with that area of enquiry that is consistent with Public confidence. After all the invocation of inquest is at PP’s discretion. (There were cases of custodial deaths that in absence of clamour from deceased’s family and public the PP ordered no inquest; yet there were also cases of public clamour, as in the unexplained killings of 6 people in the Kg. Medan Tragedy that PP in exercise of discretion refrained from ordering an inquest!)

So the crux is PP’s exercise of discretion. Govt/PP can delay, if not revoke, inquest considering that Teoh’s death has a political complexion in that he was interrogated for alleged or suspected misfeasance or corrupt acts of Opposition councilors that ruling coalition is perceived by opposition supporters as having a political interest in establishing. Besides Kit has also quoted a precedent in 2004 Ipperwash Inquiry established by the Government of Ontario to inquire and report on events surrounding the death of Dudley George. Looking at section 2(1)(d) of Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 the provision “any other matter in which an enquiry would, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be for the public welfare” would be wide enough to cover inquiry into Teoh’s death.

The gridlock here is that if the government were to accede to public demands of RCI doing the work of inquest (in the interest of justice), such a concession will constitute an indirect admission of its part that the “system” of courts, police etc no more works or commands public confidence (due to its fault) – something that it cannot afford to admit, albeit indirectly.

The government’s case then will be that in order for public faith, that has been lost, to be restored in the institutions, let this high profile case be worked through the normal system, and then people judge whether there is justice at the end of the day from that system.

This is understandable position (from their point of view) because if the system is perceived not restorable to a state free from govt’s bias, the only other alternative is to concede to a system overhaul from a change of government, an idea that the ruling coalition will, until the vety last, resist….

Yes, according to statistics revealed in Parliament last year, there were a total of 1535 custodial deaths in the country between 2003 and 2007 – and thats only the official figures, what about the official figures nefore 2003 and the true (unofficial) figures that are not known for especially deceased with criminal backgrounds/records whose deaths are/were not missed??? So far no inquest has, to my knowledge, so far been able to establish culpability on part of any member of uniform securities services under whose control and custody these people died.

SpeakUp, as a person of some legal aspiration/training/knowledge & experience, you would know that inquest by nature is ‘inquistorial’ and not “adversarial” as courts. The latter could at least go somewhere by proceeding on standards of balance of probabilities (in civil cases) and beyond reasonable doubt (in criminal cases). In short, to do some calculated and reasoned guess work of how death is caused by who based on evalauation of probabilities.

The worse part of an inquest being “inquistorial” (ie fact finding), the magistrate/coroner presiding the hearing cannot proceed on what reasonably on evidence is likelier to have happened “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The inquest magistrate has to conclude only on 100% proven & irrefutable facts. No such thing as “probabilities” for him.

As a result even 5% doubt would prevent him from concluding on 95% probabilities which a judge in ordinary court hearing a case to determine guilt is not so otherwise fettered!

So in custodial deaths against a wall of silence, a a code of esprit de corp not to snitch on one another, an inquest is (realistically) entirely useless to make any finding! It is always “open verdict” – ie no conclusion may be drawn from the proven facts.

Lim Kam Put’s posting is short and inconsequential for obvious reasons. However I have no time to address it now. It is not productive.

On subject “why can’t the police investigate this case based on murder or foul play? in relation to “kugan” elements into the investigation” it is about 3rd degree methods employed by securities services, and esprit de corp between them where they don’t expose and investigate each other, these are already assumed and taken for granted – nobody is denying that these methods are not present or suspected – the issues discussed have gone way beyond this point to the larger area of administration of justice, on whether inquest suffices to ferret out and expose these 3rd degree methods, establish accountability, and if not how to prevail on govt to accept RCI to look into these issues in lieu of inquest and recommend how authorities should next proceed, and the complexities inviolved in these issues.

Whats being discussed is the macro probelm of the whole building/edifice of administration of justice inn this country from the top floor and you are still poking in with comments of the obvious happening in the basement.

No wonder SpeakUp says he lost his patience.

I appreciate you want to participate in discussion. However what you commented reflected that you did not understand what’s being prior discussed that you want to butt in.

Explaining to you not only requires patience : it requires hopes that the blind can be explained to appreciate Surreal Art, the Rhinicerou, to appreciate a sunset or fragrance of a flower or an ostrich to comprehend Einstein’s theory of relativity.

When people are walking on 5th floor, you are still wandering on the first, asking where are all the people who have already walked and gone up way past the first floor, and you still don’t know it !

//If you assume there are cozy relationships among the various enforcement agencies; that they do not investigate each other, we ought to set it right in the first place// – Lim Kam Put

Who is disputing here that “we ought to set it right in the first place”?

The question is how and by means. Police & MACC? Neither works. So people clamour for RCI, govt comes out with Inquest and the other part RCI. AG quotes law (CPC) why inquest is appropriate. People know its not, so RCI is still preferred, but how to formlulate rationale/approaches to govt? These are the issues discussed in preceding posts (arguments/counterarguments) in discussion on Inquest versus RCI. The purpose is to defend the mechanism of RCI which has hope to expose third degree methods as first confition to set things right. So what is your specific grouse of what was discussed in preceding posts on this subject that you call “long and inconsequential”?

If discussion on Inquest versus RCI is inconsequential – and both are useless – what do you advocate? Revolution or what that would make it consequential? I don’t see anything or any suggestions etc in your posting except to say others’ postings are inconseqential (without reasons why so).

I am not belittling you. You are belittling yourself by talking cock all the time

You barge/butt in a discussion without the foggiest idea of the issues in dispute or nuances/complexities of various points under discussion and have a penchant to (provoke, attack first) disparage/discredit others’ comments at first instance beyond your comprehension, without having first understood them or even trying at all, and relying on others’ subsequent reply/clarification/rebuttal thereafter to then only try and begin to keep up, and understand fuller what others really said earlier. If your are an intellectual laborer – in the sense always trailing behind things said that you attacked because you didn’t understand, admit it, I am sure many will in empathy for your whether intellectually or emotionally challenged condition to go slow and to help you along, if you really want to understand. There is no need for antagonism.

//I want you to touch your heart and tell me that loud mouth is indeed a person of substance. Even my little finger is smarter than him.//

I touched my heart and truly feel that the only ‘intelligence’ you have in your little finger is how to point upwards to others to show “up yours” whenever encountering matters above your comprehension.

Judging by the way he is writing here (even as a commentator) I’d be surprised there is any visitor to his blog. Yep gotta give this guy the max for effort. However today he is making extraordinary effort to be stupid. Don’t know why. Maybe forgot medicine.

//We have not even begun and insisted that the case be classified under murder or foul play…Now we are crying and insisting that we should have RCI. My view is that have we insisted enough that this case be investigated under murder or foul play first, which I believe would definitely attract more vigorous investigating procedures and methods//

Without in depth investigations they have already preliminarily classified Teoh’s case as “sudden death”. They are still under shadow of Kugan’s case, unresolved. You think if everyone insists that Teoh’s case be classified and investigated under murder or foul play…they will say “yes sir” and do it? When the govt agrees to half measures of Inquests and RCI it is already conceding to opposition/civil society that public basis of doubting impartiality of investigations by police. Here you are saying, no, insist on the police investigating Teoh’s death
under murder or foul play first. As I said before you are still at the basement. I don’t say you are making an extraordinary effort today to be stupid for nothing!