Teoh, 30, political aide of Selangor State Executive Councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16 on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

He had been questioned as a witness by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) between 5pm on July 15 and 3.45am the following day on the allegations of misuse of Selangor state government allocations, at the MACC office located on the 14th floor of the same building.

Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, for Teoh’s family, when contacted by Bernama said he would make an appliction to get several documents including the post-mortem report before the inquest proceedings begin.

Statements from 77 people questioned will be the focus. Azmil Muntapha Abas is expected to act as coroner.

Among those expected to be called are 28 MACC officers, chemists and pathologists and several of Teoh’s close friends.

On July 22, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced that an inquest headed by a magistrate would be held into Teoh’s death.

Besides Gobind, Teoh’s family is also represented by lawyer Karpal Singh, while lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar would be an observer for the Selangor state government.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers is still keeping mum on who would handle the case but it is believed that it will be an experienced Deputy Public Prosecutor.

Observation by Bernama at Shah Alam Magistrate Court 5 found that several workers were busy installing three screens to display the proceedings for the duration of the inquest.

Media persons are expected to be at the court as early as 6am to get seats in the public gallery as the court can only hold 60 persons.

The Attorney General should push for the inquest into the death of Teoh Beng Hock to be deferred.

It was revealed by the Selangor police chief just a while ago that police investigations into the case are ‘more or less complete’. It was also revealed that some reports such as the pathologist report have yet to be received by the police.

In addition to this, I have been informed that the police are only now asking certain individuals to produce DNA samples to assist in investigations. One would assume this is to connect those persons to the body of Teoh Beng Hock, which no doubt will have a huge impact on the case.

The Attorney General should not press for the inquest to proceed when these essential aspects of the investigations are yet to be completed. In fact, an inquest should only be held after the police have completed their investigations and where those investigations cannot by themselves find a cause of death.. This is because the Attorney General should first consider the findings of the police investigations before deciding whether or not an inquest is required. Here, it appears, the investigations have not even been completed yet.

I will be raising these matters in court tomorrow. Applications will also be made for documents. A deferment for a short while will benefit all parties to the inquest in that there would be time for the exchange of documents and very importantly, the family of Teoh Beng Hock would also be able to seek second opinions from experts on the various reports such as the post mortem, forensic and DNA report which would be of most importance to the inquest.

We propose to give the Magistrate and DPP assisting, the fullest of cooperation and assistance during the inquest. The outcome of the inquest is most important to all Malaysians and as such I am of the view that it ought not be rushed through as apparently is the case at present.

28 July 2009

GOBIND SINGH DEO

DAP National Legal Bureau Chairman

DAP MALAYSIA.  

The tragic yet controversial death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock has prompted the government to set up a royal commission of inquiry.

For suspended Puchong parliamentarian Gobind Singh-Deo (below), the government should also not forget the death of 23-yer-old A Kugan, who died under police watch.

According to the practicing lawyer, the government should call for a royal commission of inquiry to determine interrogation techniques used by the police against Kugan.

“We have to remember that Kugan was also a victim of assault and we need to find out the type of interrogation techniques used in the police station.

“If the (techniques) are unlawful, recommendations (by royal commission) should be made to avoid similar tragedies in police custody,” he said.

Second post mortem

Unlike Teoh who had died under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) watch, Kugan died five days after he was detained in connection with several car theft cases at the Taipan police station in USJ.

Following this, family wanted a second post-mortem after being dissatisfied with the first one carried out at the Serdang Hospital which concluded that Kugan died of liquid in his lungs.

However, a video of the remains taken at the Serdang Hospital mortuary revealed severe bruises on the body, leading many quarters to accuse the police of foul play.

Following a massive public outcry, attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail (left) reclassified the case as murder and investigations were underway.

One day after the AG made the announcement, 11 constables and lance corporals from the Subang Taipan police station, where Kugan had collapsed and died, were removed and put on desk duty pending investigations.

‘Family still in the dark’

“But up until now, there is absolutely nothing going on in Kugan’s case as no one has been charged…those responsible are walking about freely,” said Gobind.

Gobind also urged Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar (below) to immediately reveal the techniques of interrogation used against Kugan when he was being held.

“He should tell us whether such techniques are routinely used by the police on prisoners and suspects,” he said.

Gobind also said that Kugan’s family is “still in the dark” as to why no one has gone through the case.

“They also have no idea if action has been taken against the cops involved.

We all have an equal concern in Kugan’s as well as Teoh’s case because it involves one more custodial death in the country,” said Gobind.

A Magistrate is empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to hold an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of a person.

Commonly seen to address deaths in police custody, or suspicious deaths, the task of a Magistrate would be to hold a public hearing where witnesses from whom statements have been taken by the police will be called and openly questioned.

Those with a direct interest in the outcome of these proceedings, such as victims or suspects, may engage lawyers who may appear and question these witnesses as well during the proceedings.

One thing is certain. A magistrate has wide powers but only in so far as finding the circumstances leading to and the causes of death in that particular case are concerned.

A magistrate may not go the extra distance to inquire into the propriety of the investigative procedures adopted on the deceased, as in the case of Teoh.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry on the other hand may be asked to inquire into both. This means the RCI may look into the circumstances leading to and the causes of death of a person in custody and also the sufficiency or otherwise of measures existing to protect the rights of individuals who are detained for questioning.

What comes across as strange in the decision of the cabinet is the separation of the two. If the cabinet did not feel it fit to set up a RCI, then one would fall back on an inquest. But where the cabinet decides to set up a RCI, then what is the logic behind separating the two?

Not only would there be two separate hearings held, which will involve twice the time and cost, there could be a serious problem if the findings of both were different. That would result in an absurd and highly embarrassing position for the government.

Having said that, how is the RCI going to focus on the events which led to the death of Teoh? Are they to rely on the findings of the Inquest or are they to reevaluate the whole case and if they are required to rely on the findings of the Magistrate, then what real purpose is there for the RCI if it cannot inquire and judge for itself the real facts of the case?

It is also to be remembered that an inquest usually depends heavily on witnesses from whom the police have taken statements whereas a RCI has the power to call and question almost anyone they feel are relevant for the purpose of uncovering the whole truth in cases such as these.

Take for example the Rahim Nor ‘Black Eye” RCI. That was a case where the top police officer of the country was found to be responsible and as such, the setting up of a RCI consisting of members who were ex- judges and medical experts went a long long way in reassuring Malaysians of their impartiality.

Further, it is to be remembered that a RCI presents its findings and recommendations to the King.

In the case of a Magistrate, the findings are channeled to the Attorney-General. Arguably, the AG could maintain his impartiality in the matter, but where the death came around in an investigation involving a prosecuting agency such as the MACC, there would be perception problems as surely the AG ought not to decide on a matter where his men are allegedly involved.

I am surprised how it is the cabinet has decided to hold both an Inquest and a RCI. It really does not make much sense. It reflects a lack of will on part of the government to set up an inquisitorial process which is truly independent to unearth the dark facts behind the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

22 July 2009

GOBIND SINGH DEO

MP for PUCHONG

There are two ways in which a public inquiry may be held over the circumstances leading to the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

As already suggested, the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry would go a long way in finding ways and means by which incidents like these are no more in future. Its terms and reference should be cast wide. It should look into things like the interrogation techniques used, the time and conditions under which a person may be interrogated.

Second, we should be looking the places where interrogations take place. There should be CCTV camera’s placed there and the footage of these recordings must be made available to those interrogated upon request.

 I have done a case in which a restaurant owner was taken to a police station in Johor where he was beaten whilst tied up and then he was hung upside down from an iron bar, his pants removed and chemical liquid poured onto his private parts in the course of interrogations. The defendants denied it. We won the case. The prosecution did not appeal. A video would have helped indeed.

I am currently doing a case in which a young girl was allegedly raped in an interrogation room in a police station early one morning by a policeman in uniform. Again the defendant denies it. He claims it was consensual. A 17 year old girl. In a police station. At 5am. Consensual. A video would help.

And of course, we have the case of A.Kugan where a suspect was beaten to death in police custody. Gani Patail is not very sure of what to do. A video would help him.

These are just a few examples. There are other horror stories of hot water treatments in police stations, threats of death and so on. Well, that for another time.

Third, we should be looking at the rights of families where a death occurs. In Kugan’s  case it is quite clear that but for the family’s barging into the mortuary and taking photographs and video’s of Kugan, no one would have realized the severity of the beatings which reflected as bruises and marks all over his body.

Likewise in Teoh’s case, a request to look at the body at the scene by lawyers was denied. We know the scene of the crime must be preserved for the best forensic results. But we can surely have rules for the family and their lawyers or experts to view the body from a distance so as to decide whether or not they want to have a second opinion.

Further, I feel it is very important for the law to demand that forensic personnel be compelled to speak to the family of the deceased at the scene after they have completed their investigations before removing the body. They should inform the family of their preliminary findings. This is never done. The families are left in a lurch as to what is the cause of death and they have no way to actually decide whether a second opinion is needed. It’s quite simple. How do you ask for a second opinion if you don’t know what the first one is? 

Third, the law must make it a point to distinguish between ordinary deaths and deaths in custody. Where a death occurs in custody, then the police or the other investigating body becomes suspect. The law must give the family the option to have a second autopsy after they are appraised of the findings of the first. If they are satisfied with the initial report there is no need to go further, but if they are not, they have a right to a second opinion.

The other point is this. The family should be permitted to get any government or private pathologist to help them. It Teoh’s case, the family was asked to get a pathologist at the very last minute. This made it very difficult and we were only able to secure help from Thailand. And in Kugan’s case, we were given the runaround by the police up to a point that demonstrations needed to be held.and ultimately, we got Dr Prashant to help. Now, the AG has roped him into the prosecution team as well.

And, whilst on this topic, we should make sure that if the family opts for a government pathologist, then the state should bear the costs of the second autopsy. In Kugan’s case, we collected donations to foot the bill of RM3000.

There is also the question of formulating laws which protect the police or other officials in investigations of this nature. Ordinarily a lot of speculation and theories are channeled against them but we must understand that that is because of the problems I have spoken about above. Given the way in which the family and public are left in the dark about these very sensitive and important details, temperatures would indeed be expected to rise.

Quite apart from a Royal Commission of Inquiry, the law provides for inquests to be held in cases of sudden death. Take the Sujatha inquest as an example. Here a Magistrate will hear all witnesses in public before coming to recommendations as to the possible causes of death and also if anyone is to be held responsible. The terms of reference are narrower in that the Magistrate sits to merely ascertain the cause of death and proposed suspects. It does not go further in terms of what is discussed above, which a Royal Commission of Inquiry can look into.

I have advised Teoh’s family to call for both. A royal commission of Inquiry would be broader in its terms of its reference. It would look at the cause of death and more importantly the circumstances surrounding interrogations and the rights of suspects and their families. If a Royal Commission of Inquiry is not set up then we would ask for an inquest to be held.

July 19, 2009

GOBIND SINGH DEO

MP for PUCHONG  

 Many months ago A.Kugan was beaten to his death in police custody. Think about it. Bruises and marks showing he was beaten. He was in a police lock-up or station. There is no dispute about the fact that it was the police who were responsible. We waited for the results of the post-mortem report. We got it. We were not happy with it. We were not happy with it because our eyes didn’t lie to us. We know what we saw. To us it was murder. So we went to the funeral and brought the coffin back to UMMC. We wanted a second opinion.
 
Whilst all of this was happening, the police let out theories of how it is the first postmortem seemed to exculpate them. It wasn’t murder, according to them. Nobody was arrested. Until today, no one has been charged. Gani Patail is the Attorney General of Malaysia. He decides who is to be charged and for what. Well, that’s usually the case. If I remember correctly, he said one day that A.Kugan’s case should be classified as murder. This was during Pak Lah’s time.

Then we went to see a good person by the name of Dr Prashant in UMMC. We told him we wanted a second post-mortem done on A.Kugan. He agreed and we got on with it. His examination confirmed what we (all Malaysians, except those investigating) could already see and already knew. It was surely murder.

Then Gani Patail said he had a problem. Now there were two reports. He didn’t know what to do. So he commenced investigations on the reports. These investigations are still pending and those who brought Kugan to his death are still walking around freely.

I am impressed.

I now know that the best way to buy a few months or years of time for my clients who are accused of murder is to get a second post-mortem report. Once this is done, Gani Patail will have a problem and he will investigate the reports. In the meanwhile, the accused can go free. They can even leave the country if they want. No problem.
 
Some intelligent people have told me that the purpose of the investigation into Dr Prashant’s report is to see if it is correct. Of course, whilst investigations are pending, some high officers of the health ministry have already said his report is not quite right. Gani Patail is still waiting for the official results. The suspects, meanwhile can remain free. But the problem is really this. Whilst all this is happening, another body is found outside the office of the MACC. Again, a public outcry. Again a demand for justice. The police are investigating.

I was at the scene of the crime yesterday. I was told the police had their best team working on the case. The government also says this. Gani Patail also has this at the top of his mind. Justice. And then, guess what? I manage to see the team of forensic pathologists who are working on the case. And there is Dr Prashant. I am impressed. I say hello and of course, the usual hand shakes. I have faith in him.

But hold on a second. Isn’t this the same man the prosecution is having a headache with in respect of Kugan’s case? Is it not the case that Gani Patail has issues with his report in that case and thus the inquiries etc?

So whats going on Gani Patail? Do you trust Dr Prashant or not? If you do why are you wasting time dragging the Kugan case and if you don’t, why is he on the case of Teoh Beng Hock? Mine is a simple conclusion. Gani Patail has faith in Dr Prashant. Well done, Gani Patail! So, how long more are A.Kugan’s parents to wait before any policeman is to be charged for causing their son’s death. Actually, since we are already talking about it, and we know Gani Patail has faith in Dr Prashant, why really is the Kugan case being delayed?

17 July 2009

GOBIND SINGH DEO
 MP for Puchong

WHO COMPLAINED?

The MACC should tell us who the complainants are in respect of the investigations against the Selangor Pakatan Assemblymen.

It is certainly strange that all of a sudden the MACC is investigating not one or two but 12 Pakatan Assemblymen in one go. Was there a general blanket report which was made which covers all Pakatan leaders only? How else would the MACC explain the position?

The MACC exists to combat corruption. It is a public body and it must be accountable to the public. There have been numerous reports made against certain BN leaders but we don’t see any enthusiasm on part of the MACC to bring these people to book.

The MACC must not and cannot abuse its power. It cannot launch blanket investigations against groups of people. As I understand it, as is the case in other criminal investigations, a report must be lodged before investigations may commence. But reports are almost always directed at certain factual patterns implicating certain individuals they cannot be general reports ‘just so that MACC officials may knock on anyone’s door to check’.

The DAP will through its National Legal Bureau write to the MACC for a copy of the report lodged. We will investigate the bona fides of this ‘investigation’. If there is any wrong revealed, we will not hesitate to sue to put things right.

16 July 2009

GOBIND SINGH DEO

MP for PUCHONG

By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com

Gobind Singh Deo

HAVING a famous father helps, but first-time Member of Parliament (MP) Gobind Singh Deo, 38, has carved his own reputation as a lawyer and a politician.

The "little lion of Puchong" as he is fondly known, has become as well known as his father for being thrown out of Parliament sittings.

On 16 March, he was suspended from attending the Dewan Rakyat and stripped of his salary and allowances for one year, for alleging during a parliamentary debate that then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was involved in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder.

The Puchong MP from DAP is challenging his suspension in court with a suit against the Dewan Rakyat speaker, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Dewan Rakyat secretary, and the federal government.

In the first of a two-part interview with The Nut Graph, Gobind talks about his suit and explains that the consequence of such decisions by legislative assemblies not only impact elected representatives, but the constituents they serve.

TNG: Have you got the trial date for your suit against the Dewan Rakyat speaker?

Gobind: Not yet, although we've asked for an early date, specifically before 15 June when the next session of Parliament begins. I am hopeful, despite it being against the odds.

What have you been doing since your suspension?

I've been making it a point to go to my constituency even more often. We have events mostly over the weekends when people are around. During the week, there's still a lot of political activity like talks and conferences. So apart from the fact of physically being unable to go to Parliament, nothing has changed. It's still a political life for me.

What weekend programmes do you hold for your constituents?

I make it a point to visit a market every weekend for morning walkabouts. Then a breakfast meeting with my committee members and residents. Then I rotate my visits to my three service centres, one in Bandar Puchong Jaya, one in Batu 14 Puchong, and recently we opened one in Seri Serdang. At the centres, we try to solve people's problems on the spot, or get MPSJ (Subang Jaya Municipal Council) councillors to assist with more complex problems. I always move around with some MPSJ councillors. Then I have meetings to plan for our events and on national issues which I feel strongly about. I make it a point to speak to my committee about these issues before statements are made so they have a feel of politics, not only at [the] constituency level but so they also understand how an MP works.

How are you funding your work in your constituency now that your parliamentary income has been suspended?

I've not had my MP's salary since the middle of March. The service centres are currently funded by donations and money from fundraisers. There are also volunteers who consistently help. A large portion of my parliamentary salary was channelled to the service centres. After it was taken away, I've faced some difficulty but somehow we manage. I used to pay the volunteers allowances to cover their petrol or phone calls and now they don't receive anything, but they continue to work and they don't even ask because they feel strongly about the cause. It is during these difficult times that you realise [that] about the people you work with, and how they feel about the cause.

You are using personal funds?

Yes, I've had to resort to that. I have a legal practice. It's not particularly big, but it helps.

How much of your firm's earnings do you put into your constituency?

It ranges between RM5,000 and RM10,000 a month. I just spend it as and when needed. Like you go for a wedding and you make a contribution, then I go to another wedding and another contribution, and then another function at a temple ... The amount includes spending on the upkeep of my service centres. I'm also getting some help from a special fund set up by the Selangor government at the beginning of this year. It is a fund for all MPs in the state.

How much does an MP get from this fund?

It's a total of RM150,000 a year of which RM100,000 is used for various community-orientated purposes, and RM50,000 goes towards the upkeep of your service centres. You get the funding through making claims.

It's been said that an MP's salary is often not enough to do constituency work.

MPs don't get enough at all. Even the salary we get, we struggle with that. Imagine how it is when you have to survive without that salary. It sets you back about RM2,500 [a month] to run one service centre. Being an MP, you attend a lot of functions, so there are a lot of times you make contributions. These expenses dig very deep into the MP's pocket, in particular if you're from the Opposition because you do not get the peruntukan that government MPs get.

What is this peruntukan? Is it from the federal government?

All MPs are supposed to get a special allocation set aside for each constituency. The practice has been such that Barisan Nasional MPs get it but the Opposition MPs don't. That's been the norm.

How much is this entitlement?

I don't know the figure because I've never got it. But this has been an issue we've raised in Parliament before.

Who do you take up this complaint with?

We raise it in debates in the Dewan and ask the prime minister to explain. Their argument is that the allocation exists and it is up to us to make the application, but we don't get it.

Who are you supposed to apply to?

The district officer is one person; there are various different people. It's not channelled through one agency or one office.

All the Pakatan Rakyat MPs are not getting this allocation?

Many aren't. I don't know if it affects all.

How much is an MP's salary with other privileges and benefits?

In total it comes up to RM15,000, plus allowances, including an office allowance and for a driver. It is separate from the special federal allocation we have to apply for.

In your suit against the Dewan Rakyat speaker, what are the constitutionally, or maybe ethical, points that you are trying to prove?

That's a long one. I'll take it in stages. I've just written a press statement that I'm against the suspension of [former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr] Khir Toyo's allowances.

Now, the motion against me in Parliament sought to suspend me not only from attending the Dewan Rakyat but it went further and it read that I am suspended as MP. Ordinarily, as in the case of Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh and Fong Poh Kuan, the motions are clear that they are only suspended from attending the Dewan Rakyat sittings. So to my mind, the Dewan can only do that much to suspend you from attending the sitting. But it cannot suspend you as an MP because you become an MP by way of election. So to me, the Dewan Rakyat went beyond its powers.

The second aspect is the fact that after the motion was tabled, the charge was read, and I was never given a chance to defend myself. I was fully prepared to defend myself. I'm a lawyer by profession; I don't make statements without basis. And it was most disappointing when the Speaker of Parliament denied my request to speak. Disappointing because Parliament is supposed to be the seat of democracy. Parliament is supposed to uphold fundamental rights such as the right to be heard. If you were going to suspend me, to take away my allowances, then it follows as night would day, that I be given my right to speak. You must hear somebody before you condemn [him/her]. How can you condemn someone unheard? What if [he/she] can defend [him/herself]? What if you have made a mistake? These are basic tenets of fundamental justice. Having been denied that right in Parliament, it's changed my entire perception of parliamentary democracy in this country. There's no democracy in Parliament.

Gobind Singh

The third part is in respect of salary and remuneration. Unlike in England, where Parliament is supreme, we are different. England does not have a written constitution but we do here. And it's crystal clear in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution that the constitution is supreme. The provision with regards to allowances of an MP is provided for in the constitution. Article 64 says Parliament shall by law provide for the remuneration of each house. So it's a constitutional provision. The argument here is this: can the Dewan Rakyat pass a motion which is against an expressed provision of the constitution? To me it cannot be done. It's unconstitutional, simple as that. Unlike England where Parliament can do whatever it wants because it's supreme. But here it's not supreme. Parliament is subservient to the constitution.

At the end of the day, this suit is filed on principle, not so much the salary. Members of Parliament do more than just attend sittings. The greater part of it is going to the constituency and serving as a Member of Parliament there. Serving the people incurs cost, and the speaker should have thought of that.

I thinks around 85% of the MPs, particularly those from Pakatan, are full-time. They don't have any other profession or source of income to fall back on. These people also have their overheads and liabilities. What would happen to them if by just the stroke of the pen their livelihood is taken away?

And if you were an MP who relied solely on income from Parliament, knowing it could be taken away so easily, by a simple majority in the house, would you be able to carry out your duties without fear or favour? Would you want to say things which would upset the majority, knowing that they could destroy you? I'm lucky because I have my legal practice to fall on. So what do rulings like this do? MPs are supposed to go to Parliament to speak their mind, and sometimes what they say may be very serious and very sensitive.