The long list of unexplained deaths in police custody. Who is responsible?

By Mariam Mokhtar

Would you only be interested in justice, if someone you loved died at the hands of the people who are supposed to enforce law and order? Or would you be afraid to rock the boat?

Perhaps, you might even justify the death of the person in police custody, by telling yourself that he was in jail and must therefore be a criminal and deserved to die?

N Dharmendran joins a long list of unexplained deaths in police custody. The cover-up and conspiracy following their deaths are a terrible injustice.

(Last week, the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) chairman Yaacob Md Sam said that EAIC found the death of the detainee on May 21, 2013 was due to the use of force by the police.)

Dharmendran’s death was blamed on an asthma attack. The Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted four policemen of his death, but the Court of Appeal ordered the four men to stand trial, next month.

On 11 May 2013, 31-year-old Dharmendran lodged a police report about a fight, but instead, he and three other people were arrested, and charged with attempted murder.

FAMILY KEPT IN THE DARK

Dharmendran’s family only learnt of his arrest on 19 May. They visited him in jail, and were informed that he would be released, on police-bail, in four days time.

On 22 May, the family received a call and expected it to be Dharmendran. Instead, an unidentified policeman told the family to collect Dharmendran’s body from the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (KLH).

On the same day, the CID chief Ku Chin Wah, released a statement claiming that Dharmendran had complained of breathing difficulties, and pains in the chest. Despite being rushed to KLH, he was pronounced dead on arrival and the police attributed his death, to a suspected asthma attack.

Anyone who has read of deaths in police custody in Malaysia will recognise PDRM’s oft repeated phrases; chest pains, breathing difficulties, asthma attack, sudden death. It is alleged that the families of these men – usually young adults – deny that these men were asthmatic, or suffered any other chronic illness.

(Bernama reported that in a follow-up operation, four policemen from IPK KL were detained and charged with causing his death.

On Dec 12, 2014, the Kuala Lumpur High Court freed the policemen from a charge of murder because there was no prima facie case against them.

The Court of Appeal however has ordered them to enter their defence. The four police officers accused in the murder of the victim will resume trial from May 25 to 27 when they will be called to enter their defence. The IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar has said that the report is sub-judice as the case is ongoing in the courts.)

The police may not have told the whole truth, but the post-mortem results do not lie.

The KLH Forensic Department showed that Dharmendran had suffered “acute massive loss of blood” which resulted in a “hypovolemic shock.” They found 52 bruises from blunt force trauma. Dharmendran’s ears had been stapled and the pathologist said that the presence of blood, confirmed that Dharmendran had been alive, when his ears were stapled.

MORE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED.

In May 2014, the CID chief, Ku attributed Dharmendran’s death to asthma, and did not wait for the post-mortem results. Does PDRM’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) include the furnishing of medical opinions?

Last week, PDRM allegedly claimed that the man who had wrecked a Hindu temple in Ipoh was suffering from mental health problems. If so, policemen would seem to be masquerading  as ‘doctors’.

In 2015, the KL CID chief Zainuddin Ahmad, who boasts of a 38-year police career, claimed that Dharmendran’s  interrogation did not include violence.

He allegedly said, “Physical violence is strictly prohibited. We (police) have been trained to carry out interrogation. However, there is no issue about using loud, harsh voice”.

So, are the post-mortem results wrong? Or did Zainuddin lie?

Zainuddin also admitted that he had been the officer-in-charge-of-the-police-district (OCPD) and responsible for the welfare of the detainees during Dharmendran’s arrest.

He claimed that the CCTV, in the lock-up, was malfunctioning and that the logistics team had been notified.

Why are our government departments plagued with broken CCTVs? This “broken CCTV” phenomenon was also found in Teoh Beng Hock’s and Ahmad Sarbani’s deaths.

Why has the auditor-general not addressed the never ending problem of malfunctioning CCTVs in government departments? CCTVS, which cost millions of ringgits to buy, are often found to have malfunctioned, when there is a death in custody.

Why did Hare Krishnan, the fourth policemen disappear for a few days?

Why weren’t blood samples collected for DNA testing, to see whose DNA was present on Dharmendran’s body or clothing?

Unless Dharmendran was in a sound-proof cell, from which screams cannot emanate, did the other policemen not search their consciences, about the torture being conducted?

Malaysia has seen too many deaths in custody.  Questions have been asked, but no policeman has been brought to book.

As the head of the force, the IGP is ultimately responsible for all the deaths in police custody. Yes, he should resign.