Cock-up, cover-up and conspiracy

Are homicidal maniacs on the loose masquerading as policemen? Until there's political will by all BN MPs to form the IPCMC, deaths in custody will continue to be part of police SOP

COMMENT

Do you remember N Dhamendran, the 32-year-old man who died on May 21, whilst in police custody, at the Tun HS Lee lockup, in Kuala Lumpur? His case is mired in controversy, just like all the other deaths in police custody.

First, the cock-up, involving alleged brutality and torture. Then, comes the cover-up, to disguise what actually happened. When the victims’ families probe deeper and demand answers, denials swiftly follow and scapegoats are eventually found.

Two months after Dhamendran’s brutal murder, the final piece in the jigsaw has been revealed. A few days ago, the identity and photo of the remaining policeman who was allegedly responsible for Dhamendran’s murder was released. This thug remains at large. Is he armed and dangerous? Was there really a fourth person involved in Dhamendran’s murder?

On May 11, Dhamendran was arrested, along with three other suspects, after he lodged a police report about a fight.

His family only knew of his arrest on May 19 and after visiting him at the police lock-up, they were told that he would be released on police-bail four days later. Instead of welcoming him home on May 22, they received a telephone call from an unidentified policeman, telling them to collect his body from the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (KLH).

May 22 was also the day when the CID chief Ku Chin Wah released a statement claiming that the detainee, after complaining of being unwell with chest pains and breathing difficulties, had succumbed to his illness. Ku said that Dhamendran was rushed to the KLH but was pronounced dead on arrival. The death was attributed to a suspected asthma attack.

It is the same old story, with the usual plot – chest pains, breathing difficulties, asthma attack, sudden death. The only difference being the players, healthy, young adults, some of whom never had asthma or any other chronic illness, appear to drop dead whilst in detention.

Horror, disgust, condemnation and outpourings of grief are often followed by denials and declarations by senior policemen that an investigation will be conducted “by an officer from Bukit Aman”.

One would have thought that with every death in police custody, lessons would have been learnt, the guilty punished, the bad policemen weeded out, violent men and violent tactics stopped, the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for questioning suspects would be reviewed and there would be an end to this type of tragedy.

Despite these assurances custodial deaths continue, with increasing savagery, as Dhamendran’s murder has shown.

Many questions remain unanswered: Why did Ku pre-empt the post-mortem results? Does he have any medical qualifications? Was Ku’s statement an ill-advised premature act, a panic induced reaction or a genuine error of judgement? Did he have something to hide?

Irreparable damage

Why did Ku jeopardise both his credibility and the already tarnished image of the police force by adding another lie to the layers of denials and lies of the PDRM? Why did he utter a lie that could so easily be denounced? Was Ku ordered to make this announcement?

On May 22, the initial findings of the KLH consultant pathologist confirmed that Dhamendran died from a “diffusion of soft tissue injuries due to multiple blunt force trauma”. There was evidence of beating and torture, with fresh wounds from whipping with a rotan, on his back. Staples had been found in his ears and legs.

At least Dhamendran’s family got a competent pathologist’s report fairly quickly, unlike A Kugan’s family who had to fight for an autopsy from a competent pathologist. The first autopsy performed on Kugan was a tissue of lies and the pathologist was admonished by the Malaysian Medical Association. Kugan was murdered whilst in police custody in 2009. The second autopsy revealed the true extent of his injuries.

Are homicidal maniacs on the loose masquerading as policemen? How good are police vetting procedures? Are our policemen screened for mental problems as well as for their physical agility, before being enlisted?

What statistics have we of serving policemen with a history of violence and rage? How many serving policemen have faced disciplinary proceedings for misconduct towards members of the public or other members of the police force? What was their punishment and are they still working as policemen?

On June 5, two weeks after Dhamendran’s death, three policemen, Sergeant Jaffri Jaafar (44), Corporal Mohd Nahar Abd Rahman (45) and Corporal Mohd Haswadi Zamri Shaari (32) were charged with his murder. At the time, the IGP Khalid Abu Bakar said that a fourth policeman remained a fugitive but declined to give a name, photo or any other details.

A few days ago and almost two months after Dhamendran’s murder, an online paper revealed the identity and a photo of the fugitive policeman. He is alleged to be Inspector Hare Krishnan K Subramaniam, who has been missing from his workplace, since June 15.

Why was there a delay of several weeks to name the last suspect? Irreparable damage has been done by the secretive nature of these investigations. Is the ethnicity of the last suspect, an Indian man, a coincidence? This has evoked comparisons with Kugan’s death, in which an Indian constable, V Navindran, was jailed for three years, for causing Kugan’s death.

When a RM100 million lawsuit was brought against the government, Navindran testified that he was made the scapegoat by his former boss, the Subang Jaya OCPD and that, at his original trial, a lawyer had been engaged on his behalf and he had been told to plead guilty.

If the PDRM has a dubious reputation, then it only has itself to blame. People wonder if Hare Krishnan actually exists. They compare the delay in apprehending Hare Krishnan, with the speedy response in detaining a Singaporean policeman, recently. Will Dhamendran’s family receive justice or will the courts fail them? When Malaysian policemen are convicted of a crime, their faces are covered. Why?

Has Hare Krishnan gone into hiding because he knows he is being framed? Why was his identity protected for two months? Will Hare Krishnan, like Navindran, do a deal and take the rap for someone else’s involvement in Dhamendran’s murder?

Why did no one else hear or see Dhamendran being tortured? If they did, were they threatened to keep quiet? Did anyone hear rumours of Dhamendran’s death, before the announcement was made? Was he alive when collected by ambulance from the lock-up, before being taken to KLH, where he was pronounced dead? When did he really die?

There have been too many deaths in police custody to blame them on error, negligence or poor judgement. In none of the cases, has anyone been held accountable and the leader of this illegitimate government, Najib Tun Razak has been silent about the worrying trend of custodial deaths.

Perhaps, Najib does not care, because in his opinion, the lives of young Indian men do not warrant a comment from him. Until there is political will by all BN MPs and unelected Senators, to form the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), deaths in police custody will continue to be part of the police SOP.

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist