Even UMNO members can allegedly fall foul of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). In January 2009, three MACC officers detained 46 year-old Halimi Kamaruzzaman, an UMNO party member, and allegedly assaulted him during his detention.Six months later, Teoh Beng Hock was asked to report to the MACC office for questioning. Despite the chilling similarities between Teoh’s and Halimi’s cases, the crucial difference is that they went too far with Teoh.Halimi alleged that the MACC officers wanted to extract a confession from him and implicate UMNO Supreme Council member Norza Zakaria in money politics. Norza has close ties with Khairy Jamaluddin, who was the UMNO Youth deputy chief then.The injuries inflicted on Halimi (with Norza Zakaria right) were not recorded as the closed circuit television camera in the room had been disconnected. During his four days of detention in Kuantan, he alleged that three MACC officers, including the head of a unit, had physically assaulted and rained blows on his head, stomach and shoulders.
“I was also forced to strip naked, lie down and roll on the floor. An officer choked me against the wall. They threatened me that my wife would also be arrested and be asked to strip if I did not agree to make a confession that I handed over money to UMNO members.
“I had to do squats, sing Negaraku and the UMNO song many times and the officer threatened to burn my private part with a cigarette”.Very few were aware of this incident. Perhaps, NGO groups and Opposition party members were reluctant to highlight this incident because Halimi was considered one of the ruling coalition. If that is the case, then they have only to search their consciences into why they did not act with more determination to save Halimi from his abusers.Keeping alive the memory of Teoh until justice is served is relevant to all Malaysians. It matters because one day, it could so easily happen to you.
If we do not demand justice, even for strangers, then who will fight for us, should a similar fate befall us? It matters because someone knows something and is not prepared to speak up. It matters because a man’s life was taken.Some people will wonder why we still bother to revive the circumstances and investigations surrounding the mysterious death of political aide Teoh. There are a few who will maintain that it is a waste of time and tell us that “the government will never listen”, or “it was so long ago, what’s the point?” Well, they are wrong.For the living, the torment continues
Teoh wasn’t supposed to die like that. He was in the prime of his life, with marriage on the books and a child on the way. He may be gone, but for the living, the torment continues, none more so than for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.
It was Najib who promised the Teoh family three years ago, “No stone will be left unturned in finding out the real cause of death and, if there is any foul play, action will definitely be taken.” To date, he has not fulfilled that promise.That Teoh lives on in people’s memories and is feared, more in death than when he was alive, is partly Najib’s doing. Had Najib lanced the boil and ordered a proper, detailed investigation into Teoh’s death, his credibility would have been enhanced, and his reputation slightly improved. Najib, who prides himself on being a reformer, failed to live up to his promise.The Prime Minister is to blame for the growing unrest over Teoh’s death, whilst the Opposition has been able to tap into people’s frustrations. We can record our disgust at the foot dragging, whitewashes and farcical interpretations by so–called government experts in the investigation.
From the outset, the ‘routine’ interrogation of Teoh by the MACC raised more questions than answers. The MACC officers were investigating a claim that Teoh’s boss, Selangor state executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, was misusing state funds.The rakyat is puzzled why the MACC were so thorough in the investigation of Teoh’s case, which allegedly involved RM 2,400 whilst ignoring the bigger cases of corruption involving several hundred millions of ringgits. It was alleged that Najib wanted to wrest back control of Selangor.The royal commission of inquiry report revealed that three MACC officers had played an instrumental role in Teoh’s death. To date, they have not been punished.
To appease the public, especially in the weeks leading up to the anniversary of Teoh’s death, the MACC Chief Commissioner, Abu Kassim Mohamed, said that the commission would first make its recommendations to its complaints committee before dishing out any disciplinary action.At a time when public confidence in our public institutions needs to be restored, the leaders and civil societies have failed the rakyat.
Nothing to do with race
Teoh’s death has nothing to do with race. The list of people who died in unexplained circumstances is long – teenager Aminulrasyid Amzah, customs officer Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed , or car salesman A Kugan. These were perfectly healthy men, but all came out in a box.
When UMNO’s Halimi was allegedly framed to implicate those higher up in UMNO, more should have been done to highlight his plight. NGOs and opposition groups should have rallied to his cause. It does not matter if the victim is Malay, Chinese, Indian, Dusun, Iban or Orang Asli, or that he belongs to UMNO, DAP or any other party.Abu Kassim has shown poor leadership qualities. He has tainted the MACC and prolonged the agony of everyone involved. He should resign.Najib, if he had any sense, would tap into the growing frustration of the public and demand that the three MACC men implicated in Teoh’s death be punished. He may well have them jailed before GE13, to save himself, albeit temporarily.
We should remember that Teoh’s death occurred because someone messed up and pushed the boundaries too far. It is up to us to ensure that he and his family gets justice. It is also up to us to make sure others do not suffer the same fate.
The president pledged to signal a commitment to the rule of law by closing the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison. When he failed, his supporters developed the now-tired strategy of focusing on the structural constraints he faced. In fact, Obama's reversal on Guantanamo was an early indication that he would preserve some of the morally abhorrent and illegal practices pioneered by his predecessor,President Obama has been calling since last summer for the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad, whose forces have massacred thousands of opponents. In his State of the Union speech Jan. 24, Obama said Assad's regime "will soon discover that ... human dignity can't be denied."
But it's been a different story in court, where the Obama administration has fended off suits by foreigners who were seized by U.S. agents and sent abroad for brutal interrogation - in one case, to Assad's Syria.
The program was known as extraordinary rendition. Alleged terror suspects, mostly captured in foreign countries, were flown either to secret CIA prisons or to other nations, often those with a history of torturing prisoners.
Some of those nations' leaders are the same autocrats Obama has targeted in his recent campaign to align the United States with popular uprisings in the Middle East. Critics of his stance in the rendition cases say he's undercutting his own message.
Protesters in Syria, Morocco, Egypt and other Mideast nations are aware of "the gap between U.S. rhetoric about human rights and its cooperation with torture regimes," said Ben Wizner, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer in one of the rendition suits.
President George W. Bush, who greatly expanded the use of rendition, said captives were sent only to nations that had assured the United States they would be treated humanely. His administration said it wasn't responsible for any mistreatment they may have suffered after rendition.
Human rights progress
Obama, in his first month in office, promised to eliminate abuses in the program but did not disavow use of rendition. He renounced torture by U.S. interrogators, ordered that secret CIA prisons be closed, and issued an executive order saying prisoners could not be sent to countries where they would be tortured, though he hasn't specified how that condition would be enforced.
Rendition is "one of the areas where Obama had made the clearest progress (in reforming the program), but there's been no action on accountability," said Joe "Chip" Pitts, a Stanford law school lecturer and former chairman of Amnesty International USA.
Obama's Justice Department has opposed lawsuits against U.S. officials for torture during past renditions, arguing that the cases - all of which have been dismissed without trial - would expose state secrets if allowed to proceed.
The Obama administration first stated its position in a San Francisco courtroom, where five men accused Jeppesen Dataplan, a San Jose flight-planning company, of helping the CIA transport them to foreign countries where they were tortured during Bush's administration.
Sweden's government later paid one of the men, Ahmed Agiza, $450,000 for its role in his rendition to Egypt. Jeppesen has not commented on its work for the government, but a 2007 Council of Europe report described the company as the CIA's aviation services provider, and an employee quoted a director as saying in 2006 that Jeppesen handled the CIA's "torture flights."
At a federal appeals court hearing in February 2009, an Obama administration lawyer echoed previous Justice Department arguments that the case was too hot for courts to handle, warning that "judges shouldn't play with fire." The court later ordered the suit dismissed, and the Supreme Court denied review.
Arar's story
It was the same story for Maher Arar, a Syrian-born software engineer and Canadian citizen who was seized by U.S. agents at New York's JFK Airport in October 2002 based on information from Canadian police that he belonged to al Qaeda.
After nearly two weeks of detention and questioning, he was sent to Syria, despite a U.S. intelligence board's prediction that he would probably be tortured there. Arar said he was held for a year in a coffin-size cell and viciously beaten with an electric cable during interrogations.
After his release, Canada investigated his case, acknowledged that its police had falsely accused him of terrorist connections, apologized and paid him $10 million.
The United States has denied mistreating Arar and has barred him from entering the country. The Justice Department - the Bush administration in lower courts, Obama in the Supreme Court - won dismissal of his lawsuit, arguing that it would interfere with foreign policy and damage national security.
When Obama started calling for leadership change in Syria, some critics brought up the Arar case. One was San Diego attorney Chad Austin, who said in a Jan. 27 blog on the Mondoweiss website that Obama wasn't so eager to renounce Assad's human-rights abuses when they served the rendition program.
The White House would not comment on whether its position on rendition has undermined its support for Arab Spring protesters. Other foreign policy commentators offered mixed views.
Pitts, the Stanford law instructor and former Amnesty International leader, said Obama's opposition to lawsuits for rendition abuses has affected other nations' "perceptions of our stature and our moral legitimacy" and has made some U.S. allies reluctant to extradite terrorist suspects to this country.
But Allen Weiner, a former State Department lawyer who directs Stanford's International and Comparative Law program, said the brutality of some rendition cases should not prevent the United States from condemning abuses elsewhere.
"I'm not an apologist for what happened to Arar," Weiner said. "But it does not follow that if the U.S. record on human-rights issues is imperfect, that we are muzzled and lose the ability to criticize other countries for (abuses on) an entirely different scale."
No comments:
Post a Comment