Thursday, January 31, 2013

Ugly ferocious beast in Malaysia

Foo Voon Kong holding photo of his wife Pua Bee Chun shot dead by police

The Malaysian Insider - Man says cops shot his wife after car chase, demands explanation

Pua Bee Chun, a 22-year-old housewife, was killed by police in a similar scenario as suffered by Aminulrasyid Amzah. Her death by trigger happy police has been the latest in a string of unexplained or innocent deaths caused by police.

14-year old Aminulrasyid Amzah

Just recently we read of the horrifying death of C Sumugaran who was reported beaten by several men allegedly including police members. His corpse was found handcuffed and with turmeric powder smeared on his face, a description consistent with the alleged brutalities prior to his demise.

These have not been rare occurrences but rather the rule to the exception, with Indians bearing the brunt of alleged police brutalities or police crimes. reported that C Sugumaran's ... case is but the latest in a long line of deaths in custody highlighted in the media. In its written answer in parliament, the Home Ministry stated that there have been a total of 156 deaths in police custody from 2000 to February 2011.

C Sugumaran

More than half or a whopping 85 cases have been classified under 'No Further Action'. Twenty-nine cases are still under investigation.

In 2007 I posted: Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob, the Chief Judge of Malaya, has expressed her deep concerns that 80 deaths in police custody occurred between January 2000 and December 2004 – that’s an average of 20 people dying per annum while in police custody, or almost a frightening 2 per month for 4 continuous years - but only 6 inquests, less than 10% of the deaths, were even held.

The Chief Judge has been troubled that in some instances, deaths occurred hours after detention. As an example, mechanic Alias Othman was detained at 10 pm on March 22 allegedly for causing a disturbance at a mosque in Bachok, Kelantan, but just a mere 5 hours later, he was very very dead. Siti Norma wants answers why so many people had died under such circumstances.

She demanded to know why police had seen it fit to decide that inquests were unnecessary in 22 cases of such deaths. ... In fact, the Criminal Procedure Code specifically makes it mandatory to have inquests into deaths under police custody.

Yet the IGP has not addressed this unacceptable omission, a violation of the Criminal Procedure Code. The IGP must be held responsible and accountable for his failure.

And that's how we came to know of names like A Kugan, F Udayappan, etc. Their troubled souls still cry out for justice. But how to achieve justice when you have blokes like the former Home Minister Syed Hamid who didn't understand the fundamental principle of criminal laws that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The mafulat moronic minister alluded to A Kugan, a police detainee, as a criminal - see Syed Hamid: Don't see criminals as heroes, cops as demons.

(Then) Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang was unsurprisingly incensed by the shameless mindless insensible police minister's stupid attempt to diminish the terrible circumstances leading to Kugan's death in police custody, which the normally recalcitrant AG had even been moved to officially classify as a murder.

In Malaysiakini Something wrong about Syed Hamid Lim blasted the Minister: "Malaysians, like people all over the world, do not regard criminals as heroes and the police as demons."

"But when a minister responsible for the police makes a shocking statement of this nature, it reflects that something has gone very wrong both with the police force and the home minister with regard to the most basic of government duties – to keep the people safe and to uphold law and order."

Then Lim roared: "Even if Kugan was guilty of the crimes alleged, the police cannot take the law into its own hands and continue to pile up the shocking statistics of deaths in police custody."

The current Home Minister is not any better.

Each time a death occurred (other than that for Aminulrasyid Amzah) the investigation would closed with NFA (no further action). And even in Aminulrasyid's case, the policeman found guilty of his death was subsequently released on appeal.

Using the example of Teoh Beng Hock's bullshit case (MACC is the same as PDRM as it recruits its officers from the police), that a young father-to-be on the eve of his wedding, and who rang his best man to remind the latter of the wedding the following day, was found to have "committed suicide", we may be excused for predicting the equally ludicrous, that the investigation into the shooting of Pua Bee Chun will find her "rushing forward to deliberately intercept police bullets which were fired in a safe direction" and that C Sugumaran "went into an epileptic fit leading to his death while helpful policemen were attempting to save him by applying turmeric powder which has anti-epileptic properties".

And each time the public frustration grows at the total non accountability of the police, there would be another call for the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission) to be established, but as usual none would be forthcoming.

The above leitmotiv is as equally frustrating as that against the very obvious and total non accountability of deaths in police custody.

Of the last three former IGPs, we have one who punched Anwar Ibrahim in an eye. Regardless of his claims that Anwar was verbally and insultingly provocative, the No 1 policeman should not have behaved like a thug, and indeed he went to prison for his crime.

Then we had one who was allegedly involved with Triad members. The No 1 policeman allegedly in cahoots with gangsters? Mind you, lately I heard he was cleansed, rinsed and canonized to become one of the 3 G-D's of Truth, one-third of the new Timurthi.

But I opine the most terrible former IGP was the one, a civil servant, who in 2006 mutinied against the elected PM of Malaysia.

AAB was the PM who promised to establish an IPCMC, but his efforts were threatened and undermined by former IGP Mohd Bakri Omar. Bakri Omar openly defied the PM.

Bakri's arrogance and defiance knew no bounds when he insubordinately sabotaged the PM’s IPCMC, by appealing directly to several UMNO backbenchers and some PAS MPs, of course after he had demonstrated his Islamic credentials with his policewomen tudung fait accompli., a precursor of recent PAS' intrusion into the lives of non-Muslims.

I am not sure what was it that those UMNO MPs saw or heard that convinced them to back the IGP against the PM in rejecting the IPCMC.

On 30 March 2006, then Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang made a press statement: As the Prime Minister had publicly made a commitment to accept the Royal Police Commission and establish the IPCMC, Bakri has committed the grave offence of insubordination and defiance of authority of the Prime Minister in publicly declaring that the police had rejected the IPCMC proposal and 24 other proposals.

The acceptance or otherwise of the IPCMC and the other 24 other proposals of the Royal Police Commission is a policy issue to be decided by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament and not by the police or any government department or service, unless Malaysia has become a police state.

If Bakri is not prepared to accept the authority of the Prime Minister, Cabinet and Parliament to decide on the policy issue on the IPCMC and the other Royal Police Commission recommendations, then the only honourable way out for him is to resign as IGP to express his opposition and not to be guilty of insubordination by wearing the uniform of the IGP to openly go against the authority of the Prime Minister and Cabinet – setting a dangerous precedent undermining the important principle in a parliamentary democracy that the public service, including the police, must be subject to civilian oversight, accountability and authority.

WTF, nothing happened. Additionally when Bakri Omar left, he left with FULL HONOURS and the blessings and grateful thanks of PM AAB. And you wonder why the police know they are teflonised.

AAB praised Bakri Omar, at an event to honour Bakri, as one of the most efficient leaders who brought the police force to greater heights.

When I read that I puked.

Wasn't this the IGP under whose tenure saw some of the worst police excesses, including abuses, corruption and numerous deaths in custody.

See my previous postings of police abuses:
(1) Malaysia's own Abu Ghraib
(2) Police Inquiry to chase trees & not see woods
(3) Shoot the Messenger!
(4) Bald & Naked Truth of Malaysian Police
(5) Most Dangerous Place in Malaysia!

Then see my analyses of the terrible RMP and its hopeless head, the IGP:
(6) Problem of the Royal Malaysian Police
(7) Police leopard in 'appropriate attire'!
(8) KTemoc's advice to Police
(9) Axe the clueless IGP!
(10) IGP versus PM
(11) Lim KS to PM: "Gotta Guts to Gut IGP?"

Wasn't this also the IGP who proselytised his non-Muslim female police officers by forcing them to wear the tudung on parade, very much against their constitutional rights, on the baseless argument that it’s merely for uniformity, when turbaned Sikhs in the RMP have for decades not appeared out of place with their non-Sikh colleagues nor were non-Sikh police personnel required to wear turbans for ‘uniformity.

See: (12) Policewomen forced to wear tudungs on parade!

That’s the quality of the former IGP – he couldn't even bullsh*t convincingly. But this was the IGP who exploited an Islamic apparel purely for political reasons, to curry favour with the UMNO and PAS MPs so as to ‘soften’ them up to take his (IGP) side against the IPCMC.

This was the IGP who breached every civil service procedures by openly and unashamedly turning the police force into a politically oriented service in telling UMNO MPs that if the IPCMC was established, the police couldn't ensure the BN’s position in power.

But the most disappointing factor that has emerged from the PM’s totally unjustified praise of this unmitigated poor performing mutinous so-called civil servant, a man who had on a number of occasions actually and publicly defied and gone against the PM/Internal Security Minister, a man who had led the RMP into the deepest reaches of dark dungeons, had been the indication that AAB had no real interest or lacked the will or backbone to change the ugly ferocious beast that was and still is the Royal Malaysian Police.

Bakri Omar had the additional notoriety of arrogantly refusing to reply to a complaint by and a request for a meeting with the Bar Council over a case of police abuse of lawyers, despite the Council having written to him three times.

Then Bar Council VP Ambiga Sreenevasan highlighted the case of lawyer S Bala, who was detained by police while attempting to attend to his client at the Petaling Jaya police district headquarters. She reminded police that their interference into legal representation of a detained person is a serious matter. 

Which police force of a western democracy dares to detain or even be rude to a lawyer attending to his client in police custody, an offence which would have seen the police officer involved sacked.

Ambiga had then warned: “The public can say that if even a lawyer is subjected to this (abuse of power), what more the ordinary citizen?”

“As far as the Bar Council and members of the Malaysian Bar are concerned, the IPCMC is the answer to this problem as investigations will be carried out quickly and they will be done in a transparent manner.”

But the IGP didn't give two hoots to the requests by the Bar Council for a meeting on this issue of police abuse and interference in due process of the law. It was precisely this sort of arrogant non-accountability by a public servant that showed the police believe they could get away with anything, and they have!

AAB was of course a coward and spineless PM, allowing that mutinous IGP to defy his prime ministerial authority.

Now more than ever before, we need not just an IPCMC but a truly effective one, meaning not one manned by UMNO ministers or apparatchiks, cronies or tame retired judges or senior servants.

Najib could well win the day if he immediately establishes the IPCMC.

But it's also true that the police have been terrified of the IPCMC to an extent that the previous IGP, Mohd Bakri Omar, had the unmitigated nerve to exceed public service ethical boundaries in a private briefing for UMNO (and some PAS) members of parliament to 'persuade' those ‘Yang Berhormats’ into rebelling against the PM on the IPCMC bill.

I believe there may be only one way to cut through the police manipulative barricades against the establishment of the much-needed IPCMC, unpleasant and unpalatable to many of us as this would be.

It's a sort of trade off where we have to compromise away from the ideal, and inform the police that a new IPCMC bill will not only contain a due process for police appeals but also a clause where the IPCMC will not investigate any alleged police conduct prior to the gazetting of the bill.

In other words, there will be a general amnesty for all police misconduct prior to the establishment of the IPCMC a la the South African 'Truth' Commission.

That may assure the police that the IPCMC will not be an apparatus to seek vengeance for past misdeeds, and may help persuade them to come to the party for a modern police system.

Unless we trade that off, the IPCMC will never see the light of day, no, not with a PM who like AAB lacks the backbone to bring it about. Yes, some damn rats will slip through and the aggrieved families of victims like Kugan, Udayappan, etc won't be happy or even agree, but we will at least have the IPCMC for the future, and most importantly, for the children of Malaysia.

It is not a perfect world, but half a loaf would be better than none.

Addendum 01 Feb 2013 - Malaysiakini published my letter on this subject which it titled Excessive and outrageous killing by the police


  1. I think you pick too many issues in a write. In fact i think youre too influenced by the rubbish tmi. nevertheless I want to touch on two issues ie custodian death and force used during a runaway. i think you can't mix death under custody with those being chased and did not stop. Under custody prima facie its under police control. When this happens an inquest will have to be carried out. Death under custody is totally unacceptable. Police must be made accountable unless there's a clear frolick of his own such as suicide.

    But not stopping after being chased is also a no no. Prima facie the person is running from a crime. Here I'm less sympathetic depending on the crime. If armed robbery or even those snatch theft by all means use all the necessary force. Even resulting in death I don't have much sympathy for those armed criminals or snatch theft. I've got too much burglars in my area scaring shit out of us and have no sympathy if force is used if they're caught. You threatened my family and I will ask for retribution. Other not serious crimes like traffic offence or statutory liability the police are NOT to use grievous harm. All depends on the crime. It's tough if I am in their shoes but I rather give them the benefit of doubt.

    In this Pua's case, we don't know the facts yet. Tmi reporting has always been rubbish to me. They purposely mix up death under custody and relate so many things to skew a perceptiont. Never ask police for reply and reporting one side of a coin. Dont do own investigation. Always apply the utusan standard they condemned. Always report hearsay as the truth. Rubbish tmi. I've complained of their gutter journalism standard

    I will wait for further details before deciding on the matter. I will give the benefit of doubt first. I find out why she's being chased first before judgement being made. I think we all should wait rather than going into unrelated ipcmc issue which tmi falsely make it as relevant. Find out the truth first.

    1. Pua's case has the same scenario as Aminulrasyid Amzah, where a police chase was coupled with shooting. Were the shooting necessary in both cases?

      They can now in general be considered as reckless police trigger-happy occurrences where the police involved considered and, worryingly, may still consider shooting as a convenient end to a process without due regards to public safety.

      There is within the police force a regrettable sense of invulnerability and non-accountability - a lamentable siapa raja mentality.

      Deaths due to police shooting (from car chases and/or whatever) and deaths in police custody have commonality in that both situations reflect on questionable (and as yet unanswered) police process. The axiom generally applicable here is 'there is no bad soldier but bad officers' which leads us to the IGP.

      An independent-manned IPCMC is the answer, which history again shows questionable police understanding and respect of democratic process, with one, namely Mohd Baktri Omar showing mutinous insubordination to PM AAB.

      And he was fete-d and lauded on his retirement - the exclamation 'WTF' applies so aptly.

      That's what my post is about, a condemnation of a force and its leader gone rogue. Not every policeman is rogue (nor every of its IGP) but the worrying fact is its previous 3 IGPs have not been exemplary leaders.

      Much as Tan Sri Hanif has been condemned recently for his silliness, I still see him (in his IGP tenure) as one of Malaysia's best IGPs, if not the best. Apart from the IPCMC, that's the sort of classy IGP and other police divisional leaders we need today

    2. Ellese,

      Apparently, you sound you like to be the judge and jury on any case or perhaps a vigilante from the below quote.

      Quote: "But not stopping after being chased is also a no no. Prima facie the person is running from a crime. Here I'm less sympathetic depending on the crime. If armed robbery or even those snatch theft by all means use all the necessary force. Even resulting in death I don't have much sympathy for those armed criminals or snatch theft."

      Ellese, there are SOPs and laws. You are always on your tip of your toe on matters like these but the above statement proves otherwise. Now, how shall I term you, liar or hypocrite? Well, I am not going into that, which has been your trademark. Fair?

      The Polis can only disburse their arsenal of firearms, if the polis life is under threat or the public safety is. They cannot main tembak wthout reasoning. If there is a chase, let chase, they could only shoot at tyres to disable the vehicle, but they prefer to shoot at the driver to disable the vehicle but instead kena the passenger. Unless, those running away, fired at the polis at that point of time, polis could return fire. If not, let the chase begin.

      Ellese, I do not support all these, shoot first, talk later philosophy. Sometimes, the death could not talk, then we would need Pornthip to the rescue.

      I am also in support of independent forensic, just like what they have in Thailand. I am sure Ellese, you support the above and also IPCMC. Let's give a hand.

  2. Police the blue of paradise
    Once they chase the criminals
    Civilians or the crooks
    Death seems the logical way

    There are so many ways
    To cause injuries to apprehend
    The police just shoot to kill
    Case close no time wasting

    Files will stamp death on chase
    The police will write the report
    Some where police have the political clout
    The ruling regime needs it badly

    Once they take you to prison
    The beating will happen....
    The mental torture will begin
    The detectives will make you remember

    During my village days
    The police beat up the village thugs
    In the Black Maria right on the spot
    The police wanted to show who was the boss

    IPCMC must come to existence
    Every death in police custody or on the streets
    The entire police oficers involved should be called
    To testify and tell in separate recordings

    Now police the blue of paradise
    They get away with their crimes
    When they are told to uphold the laws
    Innocence until proven guilty

    The police are trained to shoot
    The part of the body to stop the aggression
    Years ago and now it seems a different story
    They are the cowboys killing the cows

  3. In a country where it is illegal for ordinary people to bear arms it is just unacceptable that there should be deaths of ordinary people under the gun and deaths of ordinary people in police custody.

    It just should not happen and it is shocking that this does. Forget the ICPMC. This is not going to stop unwarranted deaths.

    It does bring forth the merits of the American constitutional right for ordinary people to bear arms. At least then ordinary people can shoot back at the bastards.

    1. American frontier history is not for us, where even the modern yanks have suffered from nut-cases misusing guns. For our society, bearing arms is a recipe for disaster which will lead us into anarchy and bloodshed.

      There is an English saying 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' which is applicable here. The dirty bathwater which needs to be thrown out is police corruption and indiscipline, but the baby which shouldn't be thrown out is the institution of a police force, to serve and protect the people. The job thus is to clean up the PDRM and enable it to serve the people as it did years ago during Tunku/Razak/Hussein days.

  4. Sir, i read your posts often but seldom comment. But this time, I really need to record my thanks for penning this article. Obviously much time and effort researching this. One thing worth mentioning is that in Pua and Sugumaran's cases, as in TBH and A Kugan as well as Aminul Rashid and many others, it has only been after opppsition MPs got involved did the Gpvt relent and agree to things like 2nd autopsies and inquests. It seems obvious to me that our Govt is only interested in Governing the rakayt but not their own employees. And Pakatan MPs have been playing the role of people's hero. This is only hurting the BN and strengthing the opposition

  5. Dear KT,

    There is a big distinction. Under custody no force can be used. For resisting arrest force is permitted. Even in certain circumstances deadly force may be used. It depends on severity of crime. This is almost the same in all jurisdiction. Thus in an armed robbery getaway deadly force is permitted.

    For death under custody I cannot see how ipcmc is a solution. Inquest would be better. It's decided in open court by a third party: judiciary. Aggrieved can witness and its an open enquiry. Perhaps one can explain why ipcmc is better than an inquest. It's not related or non sequitor.

    In Pua's case, the facts are still unclear. Who is the driver and why they ran away. Where were they from? I may still conclude police used excessive force but if they're involved in serious crime I have less sympathy.

    In a way I'm more stricter. I cannot tolerate those grievous criminals such as using arms or even snatch thieves who have caused serious harm and death. Though the better way is for them to be tried, but if they're shot dead while resisting arrest after a commission of a crime, I cannot bring myself to sympathize with them. If the facts certainly point as such, I will defend the police. There's too much spin making a mockery of justice. Rather than dable on ipcmc, its better that tmi investigate and find out the truth including questioning the police. They could have inserted those facts which i mentioned above in their write up. instead they pick and choose. Hearsay should not be reported.

    1. not the job of news media to 'investigate'. news media report incidents and provide journalistic opinions where some do their jobs better than others

    2. Dear Ellese,

      Quote: For death under custody I cannot see how ipcmc is a solution. Inquest would be better. It's decided in open court by a third party: judiciary. Aggrieved can witness and its an open enquiry. Perhaps one can explain why ipcmc is better than an inquest. It's not related or non sequitor.
      >> I have enough of inquests and RCIs. Ellese, are you pretending to be blind, not able to see what IPCMC can do. We need separation of powers. Right now, UMNO, Polis and MACC, all are in the same gang. It is you scratch my back and I scratch yours. We cannot allow this to happen, we need a watch dog, not like My Watch (Musa Hassan) which is toothless. We need a body that can give a vicious bite, eg the government and MACC, but both are not performing but instead brothers-in-arm. If Polis Raja Di Malaysia can get away with murder, what is all the fuss about polis beating up hundreds of peaceful demonstrators. It just gave polis more confidence to work against the law. Itu yang saya katakan Raja dan Bermaharajalela Now, Ellese, do you see the light?

      Quote: In Pua's case, the facts are still unclear. Who is the driver and why they ran away. Where were they from? I may still conclude police used excessive force but if they're involved in serious crime I have less sympathy.
      >> Where it is clear or not? There is SOP to follow by the dot. The civilian DO NOT have any weapons and the polis life is not in danger. Ellese, I know you dream about being Dirty Harry. I am sorry, doing wrong does not make you right.

      We have to bring back the four pillars of powers to Malaysia which was demolish by the regime of dictatorship for the pass 22 years. Namely, Executive, Judiciary, Legislative and Monarchy. With that is place, polis with behave and politician will not ask for "commission". That would be the day, that the government fear the people.

  6. "respect of democratic process"

    how do we progress toward a democratic process and further demand the people to respect this democratic process? history tell us most started with a 2 party system, and perhaps a 3rd force will participate later to make the process more balance and pragmatic, the flow of event have it own pattern and definitely not those stupid idea as proposed by some that we need a strong 3rd force now, aware the fact that we yet a 2 party system, so how the 3rd force can play it role effectively? the rakyat are already a 3rd force but regrettably this bn apologist (yes bn apologist) again threaten the rakyat with 513 by dragging the beloved tunku into his myth to confuse the audiance, a despicable play by this people who are now dont even have stake in malaysia affair and happening.

    btw, i give my vote to pas in my twenties when some still know nothing about politics, and i continue to vote opposition in my thirties when some are still a umno cronies, now this blur blur type trying to lecture us just because he wake up from his sleep in his forties, not knowing that we all know he choose to become a bn apologist (yes bn apologist) again in his sixties, what a joker!

    1. It's nonsense to claim the rakyat are the 3rd force. I've been quite irritated by this nonsensical claim for quite sometime which to me shows a lack of understanding of political systems and terminologies.

      The rakyat or voters are THE FORCE, and whether in a 2 or 3 umpteen-party political system, it will be the voters who decide which party or combination of parties emerges as the majority.

      For example, in Australia which has a traditional 2-party system, namely Labor and the Coalition (Liberal plus National parties), the Greens have emerged as a credible 3rd force. In UK which has the the old Labour vs Tories (Conservatives), in particular in England, the Liberal-Democrats is the 3rd force.

      All 2 or 3 (or 4 or 5 etc) parties or forces require the support of the voting rakyat, which are THE FORCE.

      and don't be bitter HY, he who poins hisfinger at someone has 4 pointing towards himself

    2. a fair retort if we limit the idea within the strict definition of political systems and terminologies, but pray tell y the 3rd is called a 3rd, because u have a 2, simple isnt it?

      no bitter at all, i share ur last para, too hope u grasp the meaning fully b4 pen.

    3. a 3rd can be called a 3rd ONLY IF there is indeed a 3rd, but to label the voting rakyat as a 3rd (just for the sake of having a 3rd?) is nonsense

      thanks for agreeing on last para which means we both shot ourselves kau kau, wakakaka

    4. fine. however i would still call bersih n lynas a 3rd force.

      i believe i am pretty consistence in most of my writing, i try to keep it short n simple to avoid shoting myself, and to treasure comrade and not to be censored, i have no objection you use 'we'. wakakaka

    5. Bersih and Lynas are theoretically apolitical (or politically neutral) organizations with single issue each, Bersih demanding for a clean and fair election, and Lynas objecting to the ops of an a plant which has the potential to leave radioactive waste as health hazard to the public a la ARE.

      Alas, while politicians as concerned citizens have been welcomed to participate, they have hijacked them in a political sense with political objectives. Whether Bersih and Lynas are prepared to allow the politicians to use them as springboards for the politicians' agenda are unknown, but even if they both do, then they cannot be considered as 3rd forces respectively, because they will by then become part of that political (2nd force).

      Sorry lah, no 3rd force in view (at least in Peninsula)

  7. BTW my dear HY, here's your preferred candidate saying a few words for your ears


    1. how is this relevant to what i wrote kt? i told everyone i pro pr/opposition, a vast different from one that pro dap and pro lge. and at least i am willing to read and listen and no one can stop me from calling this pas fella a stupid, unlike lks n lge, see no evil hear no evil eh?

    2. just to support your "courageous" statement that you had voted PAS

    3. Yeah KT,

      Trying to be naughty. When people voted for PAS, does not mean they carry Ibrahim Ali balls. I will vote for KJ, but does not mean I am supporting UMNO.

      People voted DAP, does not mean they like to yum seng with Hee Yit Foong.

      Now... I am confuse.


    4. wave, a vote to kj is a vote to bn. i will even vote a dog as long as it represent pr. i am very clear on this. nothing to do with courageous, deal with the system first, idiot and crook next.

    5. HuaYong,

      I am a ABU supporter, just got carried away by KT mischief. There are some characters whom I like in UMNO. People like Tengku Razaleigh, Khairy Jamaluddin and Saifuddin Abdullah. These are thorns in UMNO, we need thorns in UMNO, like what we had in Zaid Ibrahim previously.

      I will cross the bridge, when I come to it. As luck is on my side, none of them is in my constituency, hence no need to make the hard decision and grow white hair.

    6. to be frank wave, i dun even know in the past who the pas/keadilan/dap (except the respected lee ban chen) candidate in my constituency, while the earlier mca mp were here since 70' and the current one (defeated in 2008) is my classmate's sibling, the umno one use to stay in the same taman.

      no worry grow white hair, we give our vote to tr, kj, sa n otk when they become opposition.

  8. There will be no progress on police brutality in Malaysia as long as the unholy nexus exists between UMNO/BN utilising the police for dirty political work and the PDRM using their resulting leverage to act and behave in utterly unaccountable ways, from the Top Leadership to the ordinary Koperals and Mata-Mata.

    Cleaning up the entire top leadership layer of the PDRM has to be one of the first priorities of a Pakatan Rakyat administration. I will vote for PKR/PAS /DAP regardless, if they will commit to that.

    There are good officers in the police force, but for decades now, political compliance has been the principal criterion for promotion to the senior levels of the police.

  9. Dear HY and KT,

    I've met Anas and he's principled. Ive nothing but admiration of him. I've read many write and think many are exasperated of bn and PR. (See Karim raslans write for instance). We see what we he termed as "bodoh politics". The country has become too partisans and too busy challenging each other values. Somehow we just dont know what we want. we want to politicise everything and the solution to our problem is always without exception "put the person I support in government." It's a panache to all our problems from our budget deficit spending to snatch theft crime and to drinking water issue. There are many people who think weved lost it with these politician goons of both divide. This is where Anas has been in the forefront of putting senses back to people.
    To me Anas is credible and behind him there's many rakyat of the same thinking.

  10. Wave I don't want to engage you now in depth. There's too many engagement where you take position without basis. On this matter, can you just google on using force in resisting arrest. If want ill show you some case law. Then also google the subject on death under custody. Then you'll appreciate the different subject and see how tmi jumble up. In any event, please note stolen car was used and the driver was armed and posessed drugs and weapons. However even this it's too preliminary. Tmi should do an investigate report rather than spinning with other unrelated stories to create hatred and anger.

    1. Ellese,

      Resisting arrest does not warrant to be shot at. KT, already explain to you, TMI is news reporting agency not a crime scene investigator. It is known that you have your fallouts with TMI, please do not bring your personal matter here, same goes with your lost love with Haris Ibrahim. I am taking at every issue that it comes, each issue at a time. I am in support of some of UMNO policies is good for the Rakyat but my love for ABU is more. Ellese, I am not as partisan as you, that all things reported by TMI is bad and all things that Haris said, you have to disagree. Ellese, you are so partisan, please look at the mirror on yourself before naming others.

      Even for Ibrahim Ali, I have supported the racist called for action on Sime Darby. Hard to believe, yeah.

      It is a known fact that Polis Raja Di Malaysia is not worth championing until there is an improve of conduct. Ellese, why are you so hard championing for them.

      Ada rezeki ke?

    2. No wave. Reporting standards require you not to distort and manipulate events. Be objective and be balance. Don't mix facts and opinion without telling people as such. This is the ethical standard of bbc nyt CNN the times etc etc ie media in the west. This is why we condemn msm. This is why we condemn pro pr AM.

      We have always been far apart with you being highly partisan. I've always asked you to apply the same principle on the same action. In this case go compare the US SPJ standard and how tmi wrote. It's not defensible. It's purposely written to discolor events than to project the truth. And by the way there is such thing as investigative journalism. And you know what it's a basic training of journalists to investigate.

    3. While it's true there is 'investigative journalism' these genre of 'news' take time to deliver, whereas standard reporting of newsworthy incidents/happenings/events have to be prompt and limited to what the reporters (not journalists) have satisfied themselves as news that have been reasonably factual (to the best of their knowledge) and thus could be reported

    4. Dear Ellese,

      Still on your personal matters and grudges on TMI, when will you get over it and get on with your life. Sudah cukuplah...

      Main Stream Media (MSM) or Alternative Media (AM) both need readership and viewership. Eventually when all they are reporting is not worth reading or shall I call it toilet paper, they lost their objective and people will shun away because you need time to read/watch. This is the basic of survival of media.

      This is what happen to Utusan Malaysia and TV3, their news are proven not worthy. The problem, they are still able to survive as others were not given an opportunity to have their own TV station which encourage healthy competition and proper reporting.

      But that is not the most important issue. The most important issues are those implicated in the news. They have to come forward immediately to rebuke or refute if it is not true. But fortunately, most of them choose to remain silent because of guilt or the news reported is true. If they do, it will take a long long time to structure or doctor their speech by their scriptwriters.

      Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin is a good example, she took the time to construct her press conference and yet she FAILED to convince the public that she is right about the pussy, bitch and swine problem.

      Has Polis Raja Di Malaysia failed in their attempt to tell the truth when give the opportunity to speak? Ellese, you know polis has failed Malaysian and had lost the Malaysian trust at large. Furthhermore, polis want to suppress the journalist from finding the truth. It says a lot when the polis refuse second autopsy on Sugumaran, what is there to hide, if polis is right? When Pornthip came, she was prevented from doing her duties, just because she is not a Malaysian nor come from a Malaysia forensic body. All available government machinery is making fun of Pornthip.

      Listen Ellese, listen, can you tell me why are you championing the polis?

      Ada rezeki ke?

    5. Hi Ellese,

      Actually my writing is partly my response/view after reading MM FMT piece on Petra (i am a bit arrogant, what to do when the one i talked is many times more arrogant), but is alright to talk Anas. I trust your view when you claim that Anas is principled, but I found some of his writing shows he sometimes lack maturity, for instance when he propose to neutralize DAP, don’t you think his whole idea is childish? I don’t think he know much about DAP, or even Umno.

      Being partisan is the symptom of the arising and coming of 2 party system era, accept this with open heart. A mature centrist should at least poccess certain analytical ability (I think u are many times better than Anas) than churn out infantile remark like “to have a little more respect towards centrists like me and my friends.” And “how you react to this article will show if you understand the stakes at hand, can be helped to change, or simply incorrigible.” Gosh, how old is this boy?

      On TMI, they censored my comment as well, I am not too sure if that have to do with the position I take, since I always pro pr, I suspect any long comment will be treated as spam in TMI routine filter. TMI opinion column pro pr but reporting are fairly objective, of course what topic they choose to report is not that balance and this I can agree.

      I no more write any comment in TMI, and MT, Din M as well when they censor my comment, KT censor mine once but he stated his reason, I appreciated that but he himself still grumble the same subject from time to time. The old monk tell the young monk, I already forget about the nude lady that I help cross the river but you keep on talking about it ;)

  11. very well said....shameless mindless insensible police minister's stupid attempt to diminish the terrible circumstances.....we have quota qualifications and quota competent people running the ministry and bukit aman. All you ever get is quota experience, and justice fulfilled, don't we? Let the dead people haunt their murderers up to the seventh generation.

  12. There have been a number of academic studies done on the relationship between Police law enforcement efficiency, corruption and human rights abuses, both in the developing world and the US.

    The USA is an interesting case. Its highly respected national law enforcement agency, the FBI, is not a police force. The actual police duties devolve to a multitude of state, city and district (county) police forces. The standard of their many local police forces range from world class to heavily corrupt.

    These studies have found a strong correlation between Police corruption, lack of efficiency and human rights abuses.

    To sum up, if your Police force is prone to bribery or corruptly using their position in other ways, it is also very unlikely to be doing its crime prevention duties effectively , and also very likely to be abusing the legal and constitutional rights of the citizenry.

    In Malaysia we have the added dimension of the police being employed for partisan political activity in favour of UMNO/BN.

    This is all too familiar a situation in Malaysia, and it all came together in the tragedy involving Pua Bee Chun.

    Me, I was once part of the system. I've given a lifetime of service to my country but I'm out of it now.
    I feel soiled and dirtied in the evening of my life, and I'm convinced nothing can change unless the Top i.e. the Federal Ruling Party is changed.

    1. Thank you for penning this.....we know there's good people in the force but the number is too small and sidelined. Very true about needing to change the 'Top' before we could see any improvement..remember the fish rots first from the head.

    2. May be you have better evidence than all of us since you may have inside information. could you elucidate how this pua case has to do with bn. Was the police acting under bn's instruction? Who is it? How does the Pua's case help or benefit bn? I just can't see it. Not in any news report. I can see it benefits PR but not bn. Can you elucidate us on Pua's case?

  13. Having visited Anas Zubedy's blog regularly, I consider Anas is basically a BN partisan.
    His disparaging write up on Lim Guan Eng and the DAP obviously came from someone who is naturally inclined to dislike "The Opposition"

    He's not a politician but one of those who prefer the status quo of UMNO/BN rule and casts a baleful eye on Pakatan Rakyat, regardless of what they do or don't do.

    I give Anas credit for being civil and level headed and not partisan crazy like Novandri and Big Dog, but there is no denying the prejudice against Pakatan Rakyat, and inbuilt respect for UMNO/BN which runs through all his writings.

  14. Dear KT,

    I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think journalist must be truthful honest and fair. Tmi has been distorting news and not seeking a reply from counterparty. They mix facts and opinions leading people to a skewed view. Every time they report they must report as is and not juxtapose with their slanted views. Worse they then suppress and censor contrarian views.

    In this Pua's case, they have relied on hearsay without seeking clarification from counter parties. They were never honest and truthful. Then when they mix up with other unrelated events they colored the whole episode.

    Justice must be done. They should have brought up more facts on the events. Dont discolour the events.
    dont mix up with their propaganda. At the end the police may be wrong still but at least you do not wrong other people.

    1. Dear Ellese,

      Belum puas lagi, again with your personal agenda against TMI. We've done our best to explain to you but your kepala otak cannot take it. Have you done the same for Utusan Malaysia and TV3, mind you, these are Main Stream Media and TMI is only a small time alternative media.

      Polis Raja Di Malaysia has all the MSM to do reporting for them. If anything is incorrect, please rebut using the MSM to clear the polis "good name" by press conference.

      Polis has all the advantages to do proper investigation. We seen none for far for Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, Ahmad Sarbani, Aminulrasyid Amzah and Sugumaran.

      1. Polis can ask question as and when they like even it is 3am in the morning, can AM do it?
      2. If Polis tak puas, they can detain you for 48 hours for questioning, can AM do it?
      3. Only Polis is allowed in the crime scene and the full authority to conduct a proper investigation with full backing of the law. Ellese, why you so bising bising asking TMI to do it. Aren't you barking up the wrong tree?

      Polis are known when they are WRONG, they drag their feet to do the investigation, as if there are tons of red tape preventing them to do it correctly. Once they do it, it will be very very sloppy, even they are professional in it, intentionally. Professionally hide further evidence from implication, they control the crime scene.

      That is why KT recommended IPCMC, but Ellese, you act naive (main bodoh) that it is not relevant to bring back justice to the Rakyat.

      I even recommended independent forensic team, like those they are having in Thailand to be setup.

      I took the trouble to reply you, but you main diam saja and buat bodoh, perhaps it is too much for your kepala otak.

      Salam, may peace be with you.

  15. What a pitiful sight we are seeing throughout the country these few days. People lining up for hours in the sun to collect their RM 500, paid from Wang Rakyat.
    Only to be met by lectures from UMNO/BN leaders to vote for BN, as if these are BN funds

    Collect the money, vote wisely.
    You don't owe UMNO anything, its not UMNO money.

  16. All the evidence so far indicates Pua was likely not some innocent victim. She voluntarily entered a stolen car with a man who was armed, and carrying drugs in the car.
    She may not be a violent person and have no criminal record, but she likely knew she was getting involved in some very bad business.

    The car was shot at while attempting to evade arrest. It was plain unfortunate that she suffered a fatal shot, but she is no innocent victim.

  17. Stupid wave. You insult me so don't expect a nice reply. I told you I'm not going in depth with you coz you repeat the same thing but lazy to read. Go read the US SPJ standard, an ethical standard of journalism. Since years ago I've asked you to read. Your writings show you have no inkling what it's about. Justice must be done as they are. When we know the facts you judge. Here tmi distorted everything until relating it to ipcmc. Huh find out the facts first whether its justified before going into unrelated death in custody and ipcmc. no one even say how ipcmc can solve this. for all that you know its the same result coz why? coz the facts may lead to the same conclusion. but we dont know it kan? tmi just wanted to distort the perception. Then your ignorance in the subject of required force in resisting arrest doesn't help. Go and read juga lah. If you have read lll quote all your write above to show where you've gone wrong. You tell me the principles to show you understood and then I'll show you where force is relevant and how its different form other death in custody cases.


      I fail to see what is so objectionable about this Malaysian Insider report. It straightforwardly presents a man's description of what happened to his wife, and his demands for explanations from the police, which were not forthcoming, as of press time.

      The report goes into background context on other recent Police related deaths in Malaysia. At no point was there any editorial accusation of police brutality. The reader is free to make his own views.

      IPCMC ? 24 shots were fired at a car with an unarmed woman in it ? Yes this would be a case for the IPCMC, if one existed in Malaysia, again without jumping to conclusion about whether there is police misconduct or otherwise.

      On July 7, 2005, during the height of the London bombings, a Brazilian Charles Menezes killed after being shot at 11 times, hitting him 7 times in the head and in the back.
      A dark skinned man carrying a backpack entering a London tube station, moving about in an erratic manner (he was a stranger in London) police thought he was a terrorist.

      The case was refered to Britain's IPCC because the public did not think the police could fairly investigate one of their own.
      In the end the IPCC found no criminal behaviour among the police personnel involved, so there were no charges, but Scotland Yard (the London Metropolitan Police ) was heavily criticised for its Operating procedures and training of personnel.
      One outcome of the IPCC finding is Scotland Yard agreed to pay compensation amounting to 100,000 pounds to Menezes family. It won't change anything about the tragedy, but at least there is a little bit of justice.

      Nobody believed the Police investigating their own behaviour would have conducted a fair process.

      Sorry to say, I don't believe the PDRM can do a fair job either, again without jumping to conclusions about what actually happened.

    2. What I posted in 2005 on the brutal and tragic execution of teh Brazilian Menezes case:

  18. Ipcmc
    How can deadly force in resisting arrest and death in custody be the same? Then suggest opc is the solution. For death under custody why is an inquest in open court better than ipcmc? Doesn't make sense.
    Why didn't tmi mention more about the scene but peppered with hearsay evidence. I put it they mix up facts with other events to create a misperception. It sheds no light on the pua case but certainly try to in inflame hatred against the police which many gullible people like you unfocused on the issue. Tmi does this utusan style of reporting all the time.

  19. Courts in both the US and UK have ruled in the past that officers may use force as is reasonable to overcome resistance in a suspect.

    A code of conduct adopted by many US states defines that deadly force should not be used by police unless the action will not endanger other bystanders, the suspect has used deadly force in committing a crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may cause injury or death to other people.

    Police in democracies DO NOT have a "License to Kill".

    Unwarranted use of deadly force by police in conducting an arrest or on a suspect in custody e.g. under interrogation both involve possibly unlawful killing of a member of the public by police personnel.

    Many democracies have recognised that it may be unlikely that a Police department can carry out a balanced and transparent investigation into possibly unlawful actions by one of their own force. Even if such a fair investigation is carried out, public opinion can be difficult convince.
    Justice must be seen to be done as well.
    Hence the IPCC or IPCMC.

    An inquest is a law court which is convened to establish the cause of death of a person, where there is suspicion it is not natural. In the UK it is required by law for deaths in Police Custody. - the findings may be natural causes, accidental, negligence, misadventure, unlawful killing or murder. The inquest typically does not go into who committed the murder, it is not a trial for an accused, it has little or no authority to delve into other circumstances or people which may have contributed to the death, even if no unlawful death has occurred.

    So it often does not lead to any further action.
    This is where the inquest system fails.


    More rubbish from TMI.
    This weak government instead caved in to unreasonable demands from Opposition aligned lawyers bent on politicising the deaths.

  21. Good write by ipcmc and I really welcome such write. However I think ipcmc's write omitted two fundamental facts.

    One in using force (be it deadly), the courts will consider the severity of offence and the reasonableness of force. Thus where it's misdemeanor as opposed to armed robberies, the courts will not accept the use of deadly force as reasonable. Whether its reasonable or otherwise the court weigh in also whether its excessive or otherwise. Now turning back to Pua's case, what facts from tmi show it's a clear case deadly force can't be used ? Was it intentional? Who were the driver? Is he a known armed criminal? Was he armed? was there a car chase? And for goodness sake how does this relate to death in custody?

    Two, another major omission is that an inquest can return a verdict of unlawful killing including murder anf culpable homicide. In such a case, criminal prosecution must follow. In an inquest there may be findings such as inadequate police procedures. It is in this manner ipcmc is relevant. But where there's unlawful killing/ murder verdict, it is the court and not ipcmc that is the most suitable platform to deal with such matter. We must get this clear. System of justice must be done through open courts and no less. Not even the comission.

    For general knowledge for the uninitiated, when there's death under custody inquest must follow. Our Malaysian bar has been consistent on this. It's a similar practice in overseas jurisdiction. Ipcmc cannot replace inquest. Its a travesty of justice if ipcmc does that. If the inquest return a verdict of unlawful killing/ murder/ culpable homicide, ipcmc must allow the law to take its course in open court. Ipcmc again cannot replace the role of prosecution in court. An internal disciplinary action will never suffice as an incarceration punishment meted by courts. Don't be conned ipcmc is a panache to all. There is established systems and institutions in place which is no different than the rest of the world for death in custody.

  22. I don't believe anyone believe perkasa is actually from perkasa. It's a mockery so we can take at that.

    But I have a problem with this kind of people who impersonates others. At my blog they even went to the extent of creating false email accounts. And then copied the write and style from other blog. The intent was clearly to deceive. I think we must put a stop to this fraudulent act. If he's using multiple names from the same IP it would be appreciated that KT inform us as well. I find such act despicable and abhorrent. I've recorded all this fraud at my blog as well as the blogger who seems to protect these fraudster. It's wrong. Full stop. be it bn or pr.

  23. Dear ipcmc,

    I've made a mistake. I've reread your reply and realise that you did not omit lawful killing. My apology. May be our stand is not that far apart. I'm saying an inquest is a must for death under custody. Its the most important thing in death in custody. If verdict is unlawful killing prosecution in open court must follow. Ipcmc may follow to undertake weaknesses in police force if revealed by inquest but not to replace it. Everyone must understand where there's unlawful killing, inquest and criminal prosecution are the best way to resolve this and not ipcmc. If you want to say ipcmc complements them, I can accept this. But to say as if ipcmc will resolve all this death under custody cases is just plain wrong. Inquest must be the way. Follow up if its unlawful must be the criminal courts. Ipcmc can be there to follow up in improving further police procedures for example.

    1. In the UK, the Inquest system remains in place - nobody has suggested the IPCC is a replacement for an inquest. The IPCC in UK came about as a recognition of the limitations of the Inquest system.

      An Inquest is not an investigating body , it is a court case where the evidence relevant to the cause of death are presented by investigative agencies - police, pathologists, as well as friends and family of the deceased, other witnesses.

      The system mostly works for other kinds of deaths.
      But again and again, where the case may have involved unlawful killing by Police, the system has failed, because Police are often incapable of making rigorous investigation into other Policemen without fear or favour. In the UK, over a 20 year period, nearly 2,000 people died during various interactions with Police - whether out in the streets or under custody. Inquests have found many to be natural deaths, suicides, lawful killing e.g. an armed bank robber shot behaving in a threatening manner.

      There have been other suspicious cases and also verdicts of unlawful killing. No policeman was convicted of unlawful killing in the UK for over 10 years.

      In the Charles Menezes case, if not for the public outcry and IPCC investigation, the Inquest, normally dependent mainly on Police investigation, would have been a unjust whitewash. Ktemoc's articles are an excellent reminder of the events.

      In the end, Charles Menezes death at the hands of Police, shot 7 times in the head and in the back, was ruled lawful by the Inquest, but Scotland Yard procedures , training and Operational orders given by Police commanders at that time were found to be faulty, and his death could have been avoidable.

      In Malaysia, in the Kugan case, the initial post-mortem report of death due to "Water in the lungs" or pulmonary edema, would have led to an Inquest verdict of death by natural causes.

      The public outcry and political escalation (I'm not supporting Pakatan Rakyat, but recognising the chain of events) led to the truth of police misconduct coming out, until nobody in authority could deny it anymore.
      The Officer charged has since been acquited due to lack of evidence, but I am very sure criminal misconduct by PDRM personnel has occured in the Kugan case. For justice to be truly done, other PDRM officers who may have attempted to cover up the case should have action taken against them as well.

      Instead of all the Politicisation and the public anger, we need to have a formal Independent process to Investigate actions by the Police, where it becomes necessary. It is not to replace the Inquest system.

      We need the IPCMC. We need it Now..

  24. Ipcmc

    Don't understand why you don't want to close the gap. So can I safely say that in cases in death in custody you and I are in agreement that inquest must be made and prosecution must follow in the event of unlawful killing. The ipcmc cannot replace inquest as inquest is a more appropriate forum to deal with death under custody as its a open court. Ipcmc like in uk is required as it complements the inquest and prosecution. There are gaps in system that inquest can fill. And you want it now.

    Now can we can also agree force in resisting arrest and death in custody are different. Can I say that you agree it's unrelated? If related how so? How does an instant of resisting arrest be related to death in custody? Why didn't the report get a confirmation from the police to give a balance account? Why is the driver not mentioned at all? Isn't this more related than the death in custody?

    Do you agree with US SPJ standard for journalism?