Friday, September 11, 2009

Comments on MACC officers lodge police report to deny torturing suspect

SHAH ALAM, Sept 9, 2009 – Five Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers, including Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus, the witness in the inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, lodged a report at the Shah Alam police headquarters here today.

Selangor MACC director Jaafar Mahad said the officers lodged the report at 4.30pm refuting the allegation that MACC officers' had used force during interrogation.

"We are refuting the allegation that we tortured the suspect. The statement made during the inquest proceedings was ill intent and meant to mar the reputation of the MACC," he told reporters after accompanying the officers to the police headquarters to lodge the report.

In the inquest proceedings earlier today, T. Sivanesan, a witness called by the lawyer representing Teoh's family, Gobind Singh Deo, claimed that he was tortured by MACC officers during interrogation.

Teoh, 30, was found dead on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam on July 16, after giving statement to the Selangor MACC, located on the 14th floor of the same building. – Bernama

http://www.themalaysianinsider.net.my/index.php/malaysia/37306-five-macc-officers-lodge-police-report-to-deny-torturing-suspect


COMMENTS

The workforce of MACC does not comprise of only 5 MACC Officers. So the 5 MACC Officers are the good ones. Where are the other MACC Officers? Does it mean those who did not appear at the Police Station did torture the witnesses and compel them to disclose as much information as possible.

Secondly, why the Police did not investigate  Sivanesan's police report last year? Now of course the injuries on the body of Sivanesan had healed. But the medical report, photos of the injuries and the boldness to testify at the inquest speaks volumes. MACC has the losing battle to fight on.

Let's see what the common people think about MACC!


written by Leong Yook Kong, September 09, 2009
Why the 5 MACC offiers waited for such a long time to lodge police report to refute or counter the allegation made by the mysterious witness, Mr. T. Sivanesan? Correct me if I am wrong. I think the mysterious witness lodged the police report some where in September 2008. This is called "a tooth for a tooth". 

What Siva wanted to do is to seek justice for Teoh Beng Hock? That is the real reason, he volunteers to testify today. Siva, you are our hero. The question that strikes my mind is "Why the police did not investigate the report lodged by Siva ages ago"? If this had been done when the report was lodged, the story would had been totally different today. So, who will take the blame now? They asked for it.


written by focussed08, September 09, 2009

Hey, why only 5 officers lodge police reports. The whole department should lodge police reports to ensure a more thorough investigation could be initiated. 

The whole department should lodge police departments because those who had lodged police reports most probably do not have any recorded history of actually being involved in use of force against witnesses or suspects (unless identified by the witness) but others in the department might have a history of violence towards witnesses or suspects and dare not lodge any police reports. 

There is always something called peers pressure and once a "leader" starts using violence, the rest of his/her subordinates will be more inclined to follow suit in order to remain as an acceptable member of the group. Once violence is initiated, a feeding frenzy of violence will ensue as herd mentality takes over the group.


written by HJ Angus, September 10, 2009
Surely this is not the correct procedure. 
Otherwise anyone can lodge a police report to counteract any reported crime and there will be no use of the courts. 
If a police report has been made, the police should check out the facts of that report and if a false report had been lodged, action can be taken against the person.


No comments: