Joint Media Statement (25 Gps) – 2/10/2024
Justice Demands Criminal Prosecution of Police and Law Enforcement Officers that Breaks Laws causing Death, Torture and violation of human rights
End ‘policy’ or perception of protecting police or law enforcement officers
We, the 25 undersigned groups and organization call for an end of the perception that Malaysia protects the police and law enforcement officers that break the laws from being speedily investigated, charged and tried in an open Court, for these acts/omissions inadvertently violates the rights of another, and can affect the perception of the administration of justice in Malaysia.
Law-breakers, even if they are police and law enforcement officers, that break laws should like everyone else must be charged in Criminal Courts, and, if convicted, be sentenced according to law. The use of disciplinary action only, and not criminal prosecution does not serve justice.
Enforced Disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri
In 2019, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) after a public inquiry concluded that Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat were victims of enforced disappearance, carried out by the police, being Special Branch officers. The government’s response was to form a Special Task Force (STF) to look into SUHAKAM’s findings, but the Task Force report came out, it was marked as an ‘Official Secret’, and was not available to the public. Now, in a civil trial by these victims’ families, parts of the report have been disclosed. The Task Force apparently confirmed SUHAKAM’s findings, and differed only in their view that the said police officers were rogue officers. “(The STF) Found that the incident behind Amri and Koh may have been caused by the actions directly or indirectly of irresponsible rogue police officers who acted on their own individually or in a group...’(Malaysiakini, 26/9/2024).
Malaysia’s presumed ‘protect police policy’ is supported by the failure of the Malaysian government to speedily investigate and prosecute these police officers for their crimes, but it did not happen in 2019, and even until today.
What has happened to Raymond and Amri? Are they alive, or have they been killed? Why are these ‘rogue’ police officers, yet to be charged for abduction, kidnaping and murder?
The Assault and Crimes Against Ong Ing Keong
On 28/5/2024, Deaf and mute e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong, 46, is allegedly assaulted by a security personnel (a police officer) who was escorting a VVIP. There is video evidence of the offence, and other evidence, but to date the said public officer is yet to be charged and tried in court. Again, Malaysia exhibits a ‘protect the police’ policy.
Clear Laws – But No Offence when police break the law in some cases
The Federal Constitution and other laws in Malaysia stipulate the duties and obligation of the police or law enforcement officers when they arrest, investigate, conduct body searches and detain suspects for the purpose of investigations.
What happens when police and/or law enforcement officers break these laws, hence violating rights of suspects? What happens when the police officer beat and/or torture suspects, which Malaysian law prohibits? What happens if a police officer breaks laws on body search? What happens when police deny access to a lawyer? We believe that they should be charged in court and tried for their offences.
Where offences now do not clearly exist for when police/law enforcement break laws, the government must amend the law to now clearly state criminal offences (plus sentence) for offences like for not telling suspect grounds of arrest and/or their right to communicate and consult with lawyers before start of interrogations, for the offence for violating the law when conducting body searches, etc
Law Clear – Police Only Can Arrest, Cannot Kill
What happens to police or law enforcement officers that kill, rather that arrest ‘suspects’ where killing of persons whilst affecting arrest is strictly prohibited, except for limited categories? Section 15(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates ‘(3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for a term of not less than thirty years but not exceeding forty years or with imprisonment for life.’. A total of 298 alleged criminals were shot dead by the police from 2007 to August 2012, and such incidents continue to happen to this day. In such cases, reasonably the police officers should be charged for the killing, and the Courts will decide on guilt, and whether any of defences the said officers may have is accepted or not. But this is not happening at the moment even though it reasonably should.
Charge police officers who were found not to have killed not even in self-defence
On 31/5/2023 that the coroner’s court decided that ‘police shooting that resulted in death of 3, ‘…. concluded that there was abuse of power and elements of a criminal nature in the death of three men who were shot at close range by police three years ago. “The shots were not fired in self-defense…’ (FMT, 31/5/2023). There should have been immediate investigations, and the said police officers should have been charged. It did not happen, adding fuel to the public perception that Malaysian police are above the law, and will not be charged for crimes even it results in death.
Charge police officers who committed homicide
The High Court on 1/2/2024 set aside an open verdict delivered in an inquest involving a police shooting in Sitiawan, Perak nearly eight years ago, and ruled it to be a homicide. "This court, under the Chief Justice’s Direction No 2 of 2019, makes a finding of homicide against the police," he[Judicial commissioner Moses Susayan]… (FMT,1/2/2024) . Yet again, there was no police officer that was charged and tried in Court for homicide.
Torture and Death in Custody – People not reporting because of loss of faith?
There have been so many allegations of torture by police or law enforcement, where clear proof emerges in some death in custody cases. However, there seems to be a lack (or absence) of police reports by still living victims of torture and other law-breaking by police officers during arrest, investigation and detention.
Does this mean that the public has already lost confidence in the administration of criminal justice system, especially when it involves police and law enforcement? When the administration of criminal justice fails, the risk is that people may resort to ‘self-help’ rises? Are cases of police being killed and/or assaulted by others caused by people who no longer trust the system to get justice?
That is why any police or law enforcement officers must be charged and tried in open court – an indication that the government will not tolerate any kind of law breaking by persons responsible for the enforcement of law. They will all be investigated, charged, tried and if convicted, sentence according to law.
Need for enactment of special crimes committed by police/law enforcement?
At present, by reason of absence of specific offences for police/law enforcement personnel breaking the law, they are charged for violating ordinary criminal offences like assault, rape or murder, but for some offences like denial of access to lawyers or violating the legal requirements of body search, there is a need for specific criminal offence.
Noting that most crimes of police or law enforcement, happens in the presence of fellow police officers, or in premises or police stations filled with fellow police officers, and the feeling of many officers of not wanting to ‘betray’ or seen to betraying fellow officers makes the need to consider enactment of specific offences committed by law enforcement or police officers.
Even police chiefs, after extrajudicial killings by their officers, come out speedily, before even conducting a proper investigation, in defense of their officers’ actions or alleged crimes. This raises the question as who is the appropriate agency to investigate and prosecute professionally crimes of law enforcement personnel.
THEREFORE, we call on
a) The immediate investigation, charging and trial of those ‘rogue police officers’ that are responsible for the enforced disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat.
b) The Malaysian government should also immediately DISCLOSE the whereabouts of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, and whether they are dead or still alive;
c) That the Malaysian government be TRANSPARENT and immediately make public the finding of the Special Task Force that investigated this enforced disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri;
d) The immediate investigation, charging and trial of those involved in the enforced disappearance of Joshua Hilmy and Ruth Sitepu based on the findings of SUHAKAM Public Inquiry;
e) That the Malaysian government immediately charge in the Criminal Courts and accord a fair trial the police officers and other perpetrators for the crimes against e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong;
f) That Malaysia immediately charge in the Criminal Courts the police officers guilty of homicide as per the High Court decision in February 2024, the officers criminally liable for the killing as determined by the Coroner in May 2023, and other officers found to be criminally liable for deaths by Coroners, Courts and other Commissions like SUHAKAM and/or EAIC.
g) Malaysia actively acts to discard the perception that police are ‘protected’ from criminal prosecution, and ensure all law enforcement officers that commit crimes are speedily investigated, charged and tried.
h) Malaysia considers enacting special criminal offences in law, that can be better used against police and/or law enforcement officers in Malaysia that breaks the law.
JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE and that definitely requires the charging in Criminal Court and according a Fair Trial in an OPEN court to all police officers and/or other law enforcement officers that break the laws, that inevitable also may result in the violation of rights of another.
Disciplinary Actions is between employer and employee, and that does not satisfy the desire for JUSTICE as demanded by victims and/or the people. Awards of damages in civil actions against public officers and government also do not satisfy the demands of Justice, as per the example of the family of victims like Teoh Beng Hock who still continue to demand criminal prosecution of officers/persons that are responsible for the death of Teoh. ‘…Teoh's mother expressed frustration that the perpetrator has not been charged yet..’(NST, 1/8/2024)
Charles Hector
Ng Yap Hwa
For and on behalf of the 25 groups listed below
ALIRAN
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
Association Of Home And Maquila Workers (ATRAHDOM), Guatemala
Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
Greenpeace Malaysia
Haiti Action Committee
KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee (KLSCAH CRC)
Migrant Care, Indonesia
National Garment Workers Federation, Bangladesh
North South Initiative, Malaysia
National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), West Malaysia
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
PAYDAY Men's Network (UK/US)
Persatuan Amal Progresif Malaysia
Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)
Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia [SABM]
Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
The Workers' Assistance Center, Inc. (WAC), Philippines
Union of Domestic, Maquila, Nexas and Related Workers (SITRADOM), Guatemala
WH4C (Workers Hub For Change)
Assault on Ong Ing Keong: 115 days later, PM fails to explain failure to prosecute
From dashcam to courtroom, a journey stalled
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) refers to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s statement on the case of assault on deaf e-hailing driver Ong Ing Keong.
The PM said the investigation process “takes time” and “is still open” and asked the public not to speculate.
This response by Anwar is contrary to good governance and utterly fails to provide an explanation to the public why a simple assault case has resulted in no prosecution against the suspected police personnel over the past 115 days. The suspect was identified by police and the assault has been recorded on video.
Anwar’s claim that some cases “take time” does not answer public concern. This is not a complicated murder case or a mega-financial scandal that it requires so much time.
Anwar appears to have no answers, but only evasions.
It is an undeniable fact that the inspector general of police has stated that the investigation has been completed and the investigation papers have been given to the Attorney General’s Chambers, first on 5 June, and a second time on 27 July.
All the evidence of the assault, which is Ong Ing Keong’s dashcam video, has also already been given to the authorities from the very beginning of the investigation.
It is because of this that there has been widespread public concern that the VIP police escort responsible for the assault was not brought to court to face criminal charges.
It is audacious for the PM to then ask people to abstain from speculating on the matter when the failure to prosecute despite clear evidence is obvious to everyone.
The PM has failed to grasp the gravity that the failure to prosecute has on the public confidence in our criminal justice system. His flippant response has only generated more questions.
In cases involving draconian laws such as the Sedition Act and the Communications and Multimedia Act, cases are investigated, prosecuted and sentenced at breakneck speed. Why not in Ong’s case?
It is not enough for the PM to brush off the matter. As the head of government and leader of the executive body, he has a responsibility to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
The administration of justice is not done behind closed doors, and as such, the public is entitled to scrutinise the actions of the authorities and the government.
Public concern on the delay in Ong’s assault case cannot be dismissed as mere impatience; it is an expression of discontent over the justice system and it is about whether or not the law is applied equally, without fear or favour.
The PM must therefore give clear reasons why there is such a delay in Ong’s case. He must also remember that the issue is not only the delay in the prosecution of the VIP police escort but also to investigate and explain how the alleged palace representative was allowed by the police to pressure Ong to drop the case.
Ong deserves to have justice, which
he has so long been denied, and members of the public are entitled to
an assurance that the rule of law is upheld in the administration of
justice in our country. – LFL - ALIRAN Website,21/9/2024
This was the finding of the Home Ministry’s Special Task Force (STF) classified report on the disappearance of both men between late 2016 and early 2017.
Excerpts of the report classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 were read out during today’s hearing of a lawsuit by Koh’s family.
Suhakam in 2019 ruled that Amri and Koh - who disappeared on Nov 24, 2016, and Feb 13, 2017 - were victims of enforced disappearance perpetrated by members of the Special Branch from Bukit Aman.
After the Suhakam finding, Susanna Liew, 67, filed the civil suit against the police and government for disclosure of her 68-year-old husband Koh's whereabouts.
Abductors acted on own accord
During proceedings before civil court judge Su Tiang Joo today, Koh’s family counsel, Jerald Gomez, asked subpoena witness Zamri Yahya, who used to be an STF member, to read out the excerpts of the STF report.
“(The STF) Found that the incident behind Amri and Koh may have been caused by the actions directly or indirectly of irresponsible rogue police officers who acted on their own individually or in a group.
“They acted on their own accord, together with outside religious groups.
“However, this is only my view,” the former police Integrity and Standard Compliance Department director testified.
It should be noted that the STF finding did not mention if these rogue police officers are from the Special Branch or even from Bukit Aman.
“From my understanding, they (rogue police officers) acted on their own without orders or the capacity of their departments, on their own initiative, outside the control of their departments, without following the orders or discipline of their teams,” Zamri said.
He explained that, according to his understanding, both Amri and Koh were religious activists who were being monitored by the state religious departments of Perlis and Selangor, respectively.
He noted that a Toyota Vios was present in both scenes, where multiple four-wheeled drives surrounded the men before they were abducted.
Amri was last seen leaving his home in Kangar, Perlis, whereas CCTV footage showed Koh being abducted in broad daylight in Petaling Jaya, while he was on the way to a friend’s house.
Zamri also revealed that the STF report recommended, among other things, that Amri and Koh’s cases be further investigated with the assistance of independent bodies.
He noted the STF’s additional recommendation that a few police officers be referred to the inspector for further action.
These officers are Khor Yi Shuen, Azizie Abd Hamid, Shamzaini Daud and Hazril Kamis.
However, it is not clear in what capacity the named officers are alleged to be involved in the two abductions.
Report not binding
During today’s hearing, the police and government’s legal representative, senior federal counsel Nurul Farhana Khalid, stated that the defendants maintain the position that the STF report is not binding on the civil court.
The defendants’ representative from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) also contended that the report merely contained the STF’s views and recommendations on the issue.
Towards the end of today's proceedings, Gomez informed the civil court that the plaintiff would seek to subpoena several other witnesses, including the then STF chairperson, Rahim Uda.
The hearing before Su resumes on Oct 21.
Norhayati Mohd Ariffin, Amri’s wife, has filed a separate lawsuit to compel the authorities to reveal the whereabouts of her missing husband.
She is also relying on the same STF report. - Malaysiakini, 26/9/2024
Teoh Beng Hock's family calls for reopening of case with international experts help
PUTRAJAYA: Teoh Beng Hock's family has proposed reopening the investigation of the case with the assistance of international crime experts.
"The case has been investigated for 15 years and yet has to be completed," said lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, who represents the family.
"The Prime Minister said he will have a discussion with the Inspector-General of Police regarding the need for expert assistance on this matter." he said.
He added that the Prime Minister agreed to the family's appeal that the investigation of the case needs to be completed quickly.
Meanwhile, Teoh's sister, Lee Lan, said the family was dissatisfied with the case being investigated under Section 342 of the Penal Code since it was reopened in 2018.
"The Court of Appeal ruled that Teoh's death was caused by multiple injuries from a fall from a building caused by 'an unlawful act or acts of an unknown person or persons.'
"This is clearly a murder case and needs to be investigated under Section 302 of the Penal Code, where whoever commits murder shall be punished with death.
"The use of Section 342 of the Penal Code was unacceptable and unreasonable to the family," she said.
She said the Prime Minister agreed that the investigation of Teoh's death should fall under Section 302 of the Penal Code and will refer to the police chief.
Additionally, Teoh's mother expressed frustration that the perpetrator has not been charged yet and sought justice for her son's death.
"My son would never commit suicide; he was a great son.
"For the past 15 years, I've always been thinking about my son's death, and I need to know exactly what happened to him," she said while holding back her tears.
Teoh's family arrived at the Prime Minister's office in Putrajaya at 2:48pm today to seek justice for his death in 2009.
Teoh's body was discovered on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.
Before his death, he was questioned overnight by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers on the 14th floor of the building.
Teoh was a political aide to the then-Selangor executive councilor Ean Yong.
In July 2011, the Royal Commission of Inquiry ruled his cause of death as suicide.
The government agreed to compensate the family with RM600,000 as a settlement for a civil suit initiated in 2012 for negligence resulting in his death.
The High Court set Oct 29 to deliver a ruling on a judicial review application brought by Teoh Beng Hock's family against the police over his death in 2009.
The lawyer representing the family, Ramkarpal Singh, said the parties will wait for the court's decision as there is nothing left to be said after the date was set.(NST, 1/8/2024)
