SpeakUp, although Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 and the letter of its provisions say that Yang di-Pertuan Agong determines appointment of commissioners, frame of reference and manner of conduct RCI, it is the general impression that such acts are on cabinet advice per overriding prescription of our Federal Constitution (not sure, I think articles 39/40?).

Except as otherwise provided for by the Constitution as regards his position and authority, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong usually acts in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or more specifically, of the Prime Minister, in the exercise of his functions. However, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is entitled to and at his request, any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.

Although the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act on the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister or after consultation with or on the recommendation of any person or body of persons (other than the Cabinet), His Majesty may act in his discretion in the performance of the three following functions, that is to say:

· The appointment of a Prime Minister;
· Consent or the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament;
· The requisition of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the privileges, position, honor and dignity of Their Royal Highnesses, and any actions at such a meeting.

Appointment of RCI commissioners is not one of these defined exceptions.

The King is expected to act on Cabinet’s advice because we are constitutional monarchy and not absolute monarchy, and the constitution being supreme to a legislation like Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, the latter should be read subject to overriding provision of constitution requiring cabinet’s advice.

“Imranj78, well said, but unfortunately past records do not seem to suggest what you said is going to happen. How many investigations involving dubious deals and incidents have run their proper course? You can’t blame the people for being suspicious, can you?” – so says Lim Kam Put who in earlier thread “Inquest into Teoh Beng Hock’s death on Wednesday should be halted to allow Cabinet to review and widen terms of reference of Royal Commission of Inquiry into causes of Teoh’s death to command public confidence in public institutions and the Prime Minister” takes the following positions:-

· “To me both the inquest and RCI are useless…. Why can’t the police investigate this case based on 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”

· “why can’t we make more noise on insisting that this case be investigated under foul play or murder (by the police) when circumstances have pointed toward that?”

Lim Kam Put is still talking about pushing the police to investigate murder/ foul play. Forget about RCI or Inquest or which is better! (He must be a very unusual mind to make an analysis – and conclusion – of the obvious that all others have failed to discern!)
We all missed the point that he has got.

Then he comes out to tell Imranj 78 : “unfortunately past records do not seem to suggest what you said is going to happen. How many investigations involving dubious deals and incidents have run their proper course? You can’t blame the people for being suspicious, can you?”

Exactly. According to statistics revealed in Parliament last year, there were a total of 1535 custodial deaths in the country between 2003 and 2007. None of of these have been investigated to the point that revealed a single foul play. Then we have the latest, A Kugan. Until today justice has not veen served. The perpetrators have not been identified and punished.

And now he is saying the RCI being placed more confidence by civil society including Bar Council, the Opposition, YB Lim Kit Siang, Dr Chen Man Hin and many others to investigate Teoh’s death missed the point whgen the real point is to pressure the police to investigate the case on basis of murder and foul play!

I don’t see anything consistent or rational in what he says on this subject!

I did not write what you said. I merely quoted verbatim what you said.

“Why can’t an issue be tackled in multi-prongs approach” rather than “sequentially”?

You mean have RCI, Inquest, police and MACC all multi-prong investigate the same death at same time (concurrently) and all 4 institutions investigating the same subject possibly coming out with different conclusion?

Since your brain can handle more than one variable at same time, whats your solution to all 4 coming out with different conclusions of Teoh’s death?

//Damn it if I said police investigations have not been effective, it does not mean that we should not try to make it more effective??

How do we make police investigations more effective? What’s your proposal, Lim Kam Put?

I thought the idea of a RCI is to impartially make such findings, define such a parameters and make such recommendations that will provide impetus to the police to investigate more effectively but you pooh pooh the idea of either RCI or inquest.

So how do you recommend that we do it?

Investigations into A Kugan ‘s case have also not been effective. Lets hear how exactly you and the people can make police investigate custodial deaths more effectively (other than prior deliberations and recommendations of RCI).

Lim Kam Put, Let me take you through the merits of your preceding posting.

You said in 1st para – ///….“You have simply taken out of context all I said”. If so you have in your posting #20 and #22 an opportunity to restate context. From what I can see, you have been wailing all over the place and yet have not yet said anything coherent.

For example, lets look at your 2nd para in which you said /// “Now you are talking about “how”. That is for all right minded people, NGOs and political parties to think and to pressure the government to do the right things when investigating cases of this nature. Am I supposed to give you the how part each time I make a statement?”…..///

I thought “right minded people, NGOs and political parties” are now lobbying for expanded frame of reference for RCI so that its impartial recommendations may hopefully exert appropriate pressure on authorities/police to do a more thorough investigation on Teoh’s mysterious custodial death than what they had done so far labelling it “sudden death”.

Now Lim Kam Put, you derided that idea of RCI (Quote :“I am telling you RCI and the Inquest are most probably not going to be effective”), so I asked you now how else you want to achieve best result. [You don’t pooh pooh what others suggest here as “pea brain” and when asked what’s your alternative bright idea, you replied “Am I supposed to give you the how part each time I make a statement?”] This is pathetic and irresponsible. You wanty the house torn down saying that it is wrongly built and when asked how to correctly rebuild it, you say “how am I supposed to know?”

Then you said to me ///You too have been giving out lots of sh!t, did anybody ask you the how part? /// as if to confirm/admit that all that you have posted, contradicted others and created ruckus are “lots of sh!t”.

Your 3rd para: ///….When I said multi-prongs, I mean precisely what I said. We should try to ask the government to investigate the case under murder or foul play, failing which or concurrently, also ask for inquest or RCI. For you it is we “have passed” that. /// Hello isn’t it understood that we have already done and passed that? Is not this your statement senseless? – “we should try to ask the government to investigate the case under murder or foul play” – as if there were elements of such murder or foul in Teoh’s case the police need be told by all that they should investigate the case appropriately under murder or foul play, and that it behooves upon “right minded people, NGOs and political parties” to lobby, send memorandum, write to press, raise in parliament, demand etc – “please police do that, please do that!” before all of us are entitled to ask for RCI???

I think Lim Kam Put, you have lost it – your marbles (the one in your head, I don’t mean between your legs)!

Coming to your last para // …. “You have consistently asked others to be civil and don’t indulge in names calling. At least I am direct in whatever I said. You, on the other, are the one suffering from Schizophrenia.etc..Talking about aggrandisement, how fitting this applies to you…”// – it actually does not dignify a response because its “non-rational” and a lot of pungent foam but no beer stuff..

I note that you have assumed that when I talked about self -aggrandisement in Schizophrenia generally, I was actually obliquely referring to your goodself.

Well if you find a hat that fits appropriately your head, there is nothing wrong for you to take and wear it!

Well there’s nothing in your latest comments that add coherence to what you said, so I think there’s no need for a rejoinder. Regarding your statement “I need to earn a living despite whatever you fellows talked about me. Bye for now, but it does not mean I will not be watching you”, I can only say “likewise”.

///If you just learn to shut your loud mouth for one day, I may just let you go.///

Who are you to tell others whether or not you might just let them go?

The game can be played both ways, you know : it is not a threat but a promise!