|
To hand an immense problem to a small court, and a secondary, less urgent matter to an important organization seems like an extreme waste of time and risk of reputation. It appears that we have put the horse before the cart. By TAY TIAN YAN translated by Chang Yee Chien Sin Chew Daily
The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RIC) has finally been decided. At the same time, the coroner’s court was ordered to carry out an inquest. We do not yet know whether the two organisations will be complementary, overlapping or, possibly, contradictory. The differing views of the legal sector, the political sector and the civilians on this matter are worth examining. After all, everyone is hoping for a comprehensive panel of investigators to look into Teoh Beng Hock’s suspicious death case. The cabinet has decided to allow the coroner’s court to investigate the cause of his death. The RIC, on the other hand, was assigned to inspect whether the interrogation procedures of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) violated human rights.
Najib explained that the RIC is not equipped to carry out a thorough investigation of the cause of Teoh’s death therefore the matter should go to the coroner’s court. However, the legal sector holds a different opinion. They believe that the responsibility and authority to investigate the cause of death should lie solely with the RIC. Of course, this leads us to the question of whether the investigation into Teoh’s cause of death or the MACC’s interrogation procedure is more important. At this point in time, what people really want to find out is the genuine reason for Teoh’s death. It is an absolute necessity that we solve this mystery before other intricately related issues can be disentangled. These issues include the MACC’s motives, practices and interrogation procedures. Therefore, in theory, the RIC’s most crucial task at hand is to carry out a thorough investigation on Teoh’s cause of death. Matters such as whether the MACC’s interrogation procedures have violated human rights or not should be second or even third on their priority list.
The legal sector does not deem it wise to hand such a complicated case to the coroner’s court. They have two reasons for this view:
(1) The coroner’s court is led by a magistrate. Will he have sufficient authority to summon trials, interrogate or to pass judgements for such a convoluted case?
(2) The coroner’s court has a past record of indecisiveness and inconclusive judgements. They have numerous unsettled cases with unknown causes of deaths. Therefore, the legal sector remains suspicious of the cabinet’s decision to order an inquest by the coroner’s court. To hand an immense problem to a small court, and a secondary, less urgent matter to an important organization seems like an extreme waste of time and risk of reputation. It appears that we have put the horse before the cart. Now that the RIC has lost its true value and purpose it gives the impression of a panel which was assembled for the sake of assembling.
The family of Teoh Beng Hock and the community were earnestly anticipating the formation of the RIC. This is because only a team of council members with such high rank can regain the confidence of the public that something can done. The terms of reference of the RIC have not been fixed. Therefore, there are still chances for the government, the legal sector and the political parties to further their discussions, and to reach a common consensus. Most importantly, they should not pass over this opportunity and they should not fail the people.
 |
The Blogs 
