Please check out my new blog at www.lihkang.com

First of all, wish you Happy Lunar New Year and Gong Xi Fa Cai!

I am actually busy uploading old data to my new "home" - www.lihkang.com. If you have time, do come over.

Mmm......Lots to be done. Hope I will be more consistent after shifting ;p

www.lihkang.com (The Road Not Taken) www.lihkang.com/cn （十万里路）

Quote of the day...

I heard this from my amusing friend about a week ago:



Opportunity is not a saxophone,

DON'T BLOW IT!

S.O.S!

Hi, Happy New Year!

I am in bad mood la... Not so much because of the opposition boycott in Batu Talam, but I still haven't figured out what has happened to the broadband in my house. It is perfectly fine when I surf internet but it has problem when I wish to send email or update my blog. Guess what? That's the main reason why I did not update my blog in the past one month ( Haha...... apparently, it's a good justification)

I have tried everything I could do to find out what's the problem. I have replaced my modem with my friend's one, I have called the infamous streamyx help line, switch it on and off for million times...... All my efforts are in vain!

Any techno-savvy philanthropist can help? plsssss.....

Some lame excuses for not updating blog...

The reason why I keep posting the proceedings summary of the SUHAKAM's inquiry here is to share with you what happened in the rare occasion. I think this is a very good opportunity to hold the police accountable. Unfortunately, not many people think like me. Throughout the proceedings, very few people from the public or even the civil society turn up. Anyway, it managed to dig some "good stories"

Secondly, I wish to apologise to friends whom I met in Cambodia 2 weeks ago. I interviewed few of them and promised to post their stories here. Unfortunately, I was arrested by the bloody stooges of the developer in Kampung Berembang on the next day after I came back from Cambodia. Oh ya, they are squatters. Or politically correct term should be urban pioneers (peneroka bandar in Malay) For those who have not heard about the kampong, you can go to jerit website. Here are some photos: http://www.jerit.org/pictures/peneroka/berembang/berembang.htm

Hope to update this blog more often after 8th of December. SUARAM is organising a fund-raising dinner on that day leh..... "Tribute to Human Rights Defenders night" All of you are cordially invited! But have to pay la....Only RM 100 per ticket.

What? Expensive?!!? Okla..... to be honest to you, we did prepare some RM50 tickets, but selling fast ooooo. So, call me at 012-5173067 immediately when you read this, I will try my very best to get you a RM50 ticket ;p

See here: http://www.suaram.net/dinner-2006.htm

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 8 (last day)

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today is the last day of the inquiry. The findings of the inquiry will be produced at end of the year.

Today’s witnesses:

1. Constable Raja Ahmad Raja Manshor (W39)
2. Constable Shahrul Yaafar(W40)
3. Constable Muhamad Firdaus Rosli (W41)
4. Constable Wan Mohd. Shukri bin Omar (W42)
5. Corporal Jasman Aris (W43)
6. Constable Zamri Hussin (W44)
7. Constable Kamarul Ismail (W45)
8. Constable Abdul Nasser Peping (W46)
9. Lance Corporal Mustika Lamonding (W47)
10.Constable Mohd. Faizal Ahmad (W48)
11.Constable Andyracky Anak Nyalong (W49)
12.Constable Awang Azizul Azreen (W50)
13.Constable Mohd. Fadhli Kassim (W51)
14.Constable Marzuki Mat Din (W52)
15.Constable Yusri Yusof (W53)
16.Constable Wan Masrose Wan Salleh (W54)

Most FRU personnel could not recognize their colleagues

The public inquiry started at 9am today. Sixteen witnesses were called to testify in front of the inquiry panel. Most of them were only asked to identify their colleagues in either still photos or video clips.

39^th witness: Baton can only be used when rioters try to hurt the police

Constable Raja Ahmad Raja Manshor (hereinafter referred to as Raja Ahmad) has positively identified 2 FRU personnel who pushed Zahir Hassan (W17) and Lee Huat Seng (W8). They are Andyracky (pushed W8) and Zamri (pushed W17). Raja Ahmad has also identified Mustika Lamonding who was seen swinging his baton to hit W8.

Raja Ahmad told the panel that baton can only be used when rioters try to hurt the police. Besides, Raja Ahmad also thinks that giving a hefty shove to people who are trying to move away is no good.

40^th witness: I did not use my baton and shield at all

Constable Shahrul Yaafar (hereinafter referred to as Shahrul) told the panel that the FRU personnel in his section (section 2) moved forward to chase the crowd away from the Suria KLCC entrance. He also said that he did not use his shield and baton at all when dealing with crowd control.

Shahrul has positively identified Zamri and Marzuki from the exhibits.

41^st witness: Whoever did not run away”kena”-lah

Constable Muhamad Firdaus Rosli (hereinafter referred to as Firdaus) could not identify anyone of his colleagues from the exhibits.

Firdaus denied that the FRU were shoving the crowd. According to him, the FRU were merely moving forward with the shield in front of them. Whoever did not run away will “kena”-lah.

42^nd witness: I was merely asking them to leave

Constable Wan Mohd. Shukri bin Omar (hereinafter referred to as Wan) told the panel that he did not use any of his equipments. He was merely asking the crowd to go back. He left those who refused to leave to the arresting squad.

Wan could recognize himself, Kamarul Ismail and Jasman Aris from the exhibits.

43^rd witness: We only stopped the “rioters” verbally

Corporal Jasman Aris (hereinafter referred to as Jasman) told the panel that his section (Section 3) did not receive any instruction to move forward. They were only assisting the other sections when the crowd moved towards the entrance of Suria KLCC.

Jasman further testified that they (FRU from Section 3) only stopped the “rioters” verbally. But when some of the crowd tried to move forward, the FRU prevented them by using hands and weapons (rifle and gas gun).

Jasman could identify Zamri, Wan Masrose, Marzuki and himself from the exhibits. He told the panel that he did not see anyone bleeding.

44^th witness: We could use batons only if the instruction was to attack

Constable Zamri bin Hussin (hereinafter referred to as Zamri) told the panel that he used shield and asked the crowd to disperse verbally. He did not use baton on that day. Zamri told the panel that they could use batons if the instruction was to attack.

Zamri could only identify himself and Corporal Jasman from the exhibits.

45^th witness: There is no need to use the butt of gas gun

Constable Kamarul Ismail (hereinafter referred to as Kamarul) told the panel that he used shield to prevent and push to disperse the crowd. However, he later modified his testimony by saying that his usage of shield was to protect himself because the crowd was pushing.

Kamarul also told the panel that he did not use baton on that day. Answering a question from the panel members, Kamarul conceded that there is no need to use the butt of gas gun to prevent the crowd from moving towards the entrance of Suria KLCC.

46^th witness: There was no physical contact with the crowd

Constable Abdul Nasser Peping (hereinafter referred to as Nasser) confirmed that Section 3 did not receive any instruction to move forward on 28 May. Despite there was no instruction, Nasser told the panel that he did move back to block the entrance of Suria KLCC. He said there was no physical contact with the crowd when he moved.

47^th witness: I used baton to threaten the crowd, but it did not hit anyone

Lance Corporal Mustika Lamonding (hereinafter referred to as Mustika) told the panel that he did receive instruction to move forward into the crowd. He pushed the people with shield towards Jalan Ampang.

Mustika admitted that he did use baton to threaten the crowd who refused to disperse. However, he said he was merely swing the baton to intimidate but it did not hit anyone.

48^th witness: “The guy” might be avoiding the weapon from the people

Constable Mohd. Faizal Ahmad (hereinafter referred to as Faizal) was positively identified by his superior in one of the exhibits. He was seen holding the gas gun as if he was hitting someone on the ground. When the aforesaid photo was shown to him, Faizal could not identify himself. He said he is not sure.

However, he told the panel that “the guy” might be avoiding the weapon from the people.

49^th witness: I could not identify anyone

Constable Andyracky Anak Nyalong could not identify anyone from all the exhibits.

50^th witness: I could not identify anyone

Constable Awang Azizul Azreen told the panel that he did receive instruction to disperse the crowd. He too, could not identify anyone from the exhibits.


51^st witness: I am not sure who carried gas gun that day

Constable Mohd. Fadhli Kassim only told that he carried gas gun on the 28^th of May, but he is not sure who else carried a gas gun in his section.

52^nd witness: I was merely holding it (gas gun)

Constable Marzuki Mat Din told the panel that he carried a gas gun, but he was merely holding it and trying to push, in order to prevent the people from entering KLCC. He identified himself in exhibit 16N.

53^rd witness: I know all the personnel who carried gas gun

Constable Yusri Yusof carried a gas gun on 28 May. He identified some of his colleagues from the exhibits.

54^th witness: I do not know what was happening

Constable Wan Masrose Wan Salleh identified himself in exhibit 16N. He was standing beside the personnel who look like hitting someone with gas gun butt. However, he told the panel that he does not know what was happening then.

After calling 54 witnesses, SUHAKAM wraps up the public inquiry. Dato’ KC Vohrah, chairperson of the panel thanks all parties that have given full cooperation to SUHAKAM. SUHAKAM will produce the findings of the report at the end of the year.

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 7

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today is the 7^th day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 18

Today’s witnesses:

1. Sergeant Mohd Yacob Mohd Saman (W35)
2. Dr. Abdul Fahmi bin Abdul Karim (W36)
3. Sergeant Abdul Aziz bin Buniran (W37)
4. ASP Anuar bin Jusoh (W38)

Doctor: Hit on Amran’s head could be fatal!

The public inquiry started at 1pm today. Four witnesses were called to testify in front of the inquiry panel.

35^th witness: He is Lance Corporal Mustika Lamonding

Sergeant Mohd Yacob Mohd Saman (hereinafter referred to as Yacob) is the first witness of the day. He is the commander for Section 2 of the FRU unit which was present in KLCC on the day of the incident.

Yacob told the panel that his troop members were equipped with batons and shields on 28^th of May.

When still photos and video clip were shown to him, Yacob has positively identified a few FRU personnel who were seen using violence against the protestors. He identified Mustika Lamonding who was seen hitting Lee Huat Seng (W8) in the video clip. According to Yacob, Mustika Lamonding is from his troop (section 2).

36^th witness: Potentially, it could be a fatal blow!

Dr. Abdul Fahmi bin Abdul Karim (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Fahmi) is a medical consultant in the private Pusrawi Hospital. He examined Amran Zulkifli (W25) on 29 May, one day after he was admitted to the hospital.

Dr. Fahmi observed some bruises (soft tissue injury) to Amran’s right shoulder and right arm. Amran also suffered from an injury on his right scalp temper parietal area, where a 5cm jagged laceration requiring wound toilet and suturing.

Dr. Fahmi told the panel that the wound on Amran’s scalp was caused by a blunt object, but it is not consistent to the butt of gas gun. He also testified that the force used on Amran could potentially be a fatal blow. According to Dr. Fahmi, the injury could result in greater harm if similar force were used on a lesser-built person.

37^th witness: The gas gun is only meant for shooting tear gas

Sergeant Abdul Aziz Buniran (hereinafter referred to as Aziz) is the 37^th witness of the public inquiry. He is the FRU commander of Section 3.

Aziz told the panel that members of his section were armed with rifle M-16 single shot and gas gun. They were also equipped with baton on their waist. Aziz informed the panel that the gas gun is only meant for shooting tear gas. He further emphasized that the instruction was only to shoot (tear gas).

The inquiry panel showed Aziz a still photo (Exhibit 16N), but he could not identify the FRU personnel who is seen holding a gas gun high, as if he was hitting or trying to hit someone on the ground. However, he provided a list of FRU personnel who were holding gas gun on 28 May.

Besides, Aziz has positively identified Constable Zamri Hussin as one of the FRU personnel who surrounded Zahir Hassan (W17) when he was on the ground.

38^th witness: It is not encouraged to fly a helicopter too low above the crowd

ASP Anuar bin Jusoh (hereinafter referred to as Anuar) is the last witness of the day. He was the commander of helicopter pilot on 28 May. He has 12 years experience of piloting. The model of helicopter that he piloted on that day is “Accuireull” (French).

Anuar said he received instructions from Dang Wangi 1, whom he assumed was the Dang Wangi OCPD. Dang Wangi 1 instructed him to fly the helicopter low, to disrupt the speeches. According to Anuar, the lowest point he flew was lower than 500 metres. When he was asked on whether it was dangerous to fly low, Anuar conceded that it was tactically dangerous. However, he was confident to deal with it.

Commenting on the crowd’s complaints, Anuar opined that the crowd might be fearful because of the swaying trees and they are not used to helicopter. Anuar told the panel that he has no recommendation on how low the helicopter should fly. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that flying the helicopter too low above the crowd is not encouraged.

The public inquiry will continue at 9am tomorrow (18 October).

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 6

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today is the 6^th day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 17 & 18

Today’s witnesses:

1. SAC (II) Dato’ Mohd Noor bin Masdar (W29)
2. Mohd Nasaruddin Abdul Aziz (W30)
3. ACP Kamal Pasha bin Jamal (W31)
4. Chief Inspector Shafie bin Mohd (W32)
5. Sergeant Zabani bin Sulaiman (W33)
6. Corporal Abu Hassan Rasad (W34)

OCPD: The crowd was unruly because they used unpleasant words!

Six witnesses were called to testify in front of the inquiry panel today.

29^th witness: IGSO states that FRU should not be engaged against passive resisters

Senior Assistant Commissioner of police, SAC (II) Dato’ Mohd Noor Masdar (hereinafter referred to as Mohd Noor) is the first witness of the day. He is the Commander of the Malaysia Federal Reserve Unit (FRU).

Mohd Noor provided the inquiry panel with the Inspector General Standing Order (IGSO), which is meant to be followed by all police personnel. The 13^th paragraph of the IGSO states clearly that the FRU must at all times be guided by the following cardinal principles:

1. Minimum use of force;
2. Strict impartiality; and
3. Adherence to the law.

In accordance to the 14^th paragraph of the IGSO, no FRU should be engaged against an illegal assembly unless trouble breaks out or it is quite clear that the use of force will be necessary to disperse such assembly, e.g. it should not ordinarily be engaged, in the first instance, against “passive resisters”

At one point of time, Mohd Noor could not answer questions asked by the panel properly. Below are some of the conversations between Dato’ Vohrah and Dato’ Mohd Noor:

Vohrah: “The crowd was listening to speeches. Is it threatening?”

Md Noor: “By getting people to listen to speech, there are plans. To me, it’s a planned thing. ”

Vohrah: “Does that constitute a threat to security?”

Md Noor: “Whatever they are trying to do, it came out in internet and SMS.”

Vohrah: “What’s wrong?”

Md Noor: “Under the other law, Police Act and CPC, where an assembly of 3 or 5 or more people, you are required to apply permit.”

When he was told by the inquiry panel that in some jurisdictions, people only need to inform the police to hold an assembly, Mohd Noor unhesitatingly answered: “If the law has changed, we will follow.”

Mohd Noor told the inquiry panel that there is no criterion to disperse crowd in the IGSO. The decision to disperse based solely on the OCPD (officer in charge of police district). Answering a question from the inquiry panel, Mohd Noor told the panel that he thinks Chief Inspector Pusparajan (W28) could identify his troop members.

30^th witness: The situation was under control at all point of time

The diary man of the FRU, Mohd Nasaruddin Abdul Aziz (hereinafter referred to as Nasaruddin) appears as the 30^th witness of the public inquiry.

Time	Events
09:55am	The FRU troop arrived safely at KLCC and standby. Situation is good. (“Keadaan baik”)
10:24am	NGO and representatives of political parties started to give speech on the issue of fuel price hike.
10:40am	Acting on the directive of Dang Wangi OCPD, Chief Inspector Pusparajan gave the crowd first warning to disperse (3 times). The situation is good and under control (“Keadaan baik dan terkawal”)
10:42am	Acting on the directive of Dang Wangi OCPD, Chief Inspector Pusparajan gave the crowd second warning to disperse. The situation is calm and under control (“Keadaan tenang terkawal”)
10:43am	Dang Wangi OCPD directed Chief Inspector Pusparajan to give the crowd third warning to disperse. Chief Inspector Pusparajan announced 3 times. The situation is well under control (“Keadaan baik terkawal”)
10:46am	Under the instruction of Dang Wangi OCPD, Chief Inspector Pusparajan directed to unleash water cannon.
10:48am	Chief Inspector Pusparajan instructed the troop to move forward, in order to disperse the crowd. The situation is under control (“Keadaan terkawal")

Nasaruddin told the inquiry panel that he was only ordered to jot down all commands given by Chief Inspector Pusparajan (W28). Below are the notes excerpted from the diary:

31st witness: The crowd was unruly because they used unpleasant words

Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Kamal Pasha Jamal (hereinafter referred to as Kamal)
is the third witness of the day. He is the key witness because he was the ground commander of the police force on 28 May 2006.

Kamal told the inquiry panel that his task on 28 May was to supervise and make sure there is no illegal assembly. It was the objective of the operation named “Ops Padam”. He told the panel that he had been monitoring the activity through internet. Kamal also told that he expected the assembly to be unruly. Below are some interesting conversations between the inquiry panel and Kamal Pasha:

Michael Yeoh: In your experience on the first and second gathering, were those peaceful?

Kamal: No. The crowd used unpleasant words. I believe when such words were uttered against the government, some parties might react.

Vohrah: What sort of reaction?

Kamal: They might fight among themselves.

Zaitoon: Has it happened before?

Kamal: I am just anticipating, because certain groups objected the illegal assembly, the people who are from the government side.

Besides, Kamal Pasha told the panel members that about 196 police including 65 FRU personnel were deployed on 28 May. Kamal also told the panel that the police will follow if there is a change in the law that allows public assembly without a police permit. However, he personally feels that our society is not mature enough to apply those jurisdictions.

In his testimony, Kamal told the panel frankly that the helicopter was meant to disrupt the demonstration and to intimidate the crowd. He also admitted that he was the one who instructed the use of water cannon, issued an instruction to arrest and instructed the FRU to move forward.

When he was asked about the crowd, Kamal insists that the crowd was unruly. The conversations are as following:

Kamal: The crowd was unruly. They ignored my order to disperse.

Vohrah: Are you sure? Unruly means violent behaviour.

Kamal: They were shouting.

Vohrah: But not at you. This is called unruly?

Kamal: Yes. There were slogans about police brutality “Turunkan harga minyak”, “Polis ganas”, “Bebaskan tahanan”. They were yelling. They might lose their temper. Their gestures were too emotional and aggressive.

Zaitoon: Did they attack anybody?

Kamal: No. They did not lose their temper yet, but they might.

When he was asked whether he knows about the 9 people who suffered from injuries, Kamal admitted his knowledge. However, he told the panel that the injuries were not serious and those incidents were triggered by the resistance of the protestors.

Kamal told the panel that 12 police reports were made on the aforesaid incident.

32^nd witness: OCPD told the crowd that he will use force if they do not disperse

Chief Inspector Shafie bin Mohd (hereinafter referred to as Shafie) is the 4^th witness of the day. He is attached to the Dang Wangi police district.

On 28 May, Shafie was tasked to arrange the duty of other police officers. He told the panel that he was in the police bus parked in front of Suria KLCC most of the time during the assembly. His duty in the bus (Temporary Control Centre) was to keep Kuala Lumpur headquarter informed about the situation.

Shafie informed the panel that he was not involved in the arrest. He heard OCPD giving instruction to the crowd, asking them to disperse. The exact instruction is:

“Bersurai serta-merta, ataupun kami akan suraikan dengan kekerasan” (Immediately disperse, or we will disperse by using force)

33^rd witness: Water cannon were used for about a minute

Sergeant Zabani bin Sulaiman (hereinafter referred to as Zabani) was the water cannon personnel. He told the public inquiry that he was instructed to unleash water cannon from Chief Inspector Pusparajan. He used the water cannon for about a minute.

When asked whether the water can hurt, Zabani told the panel that it could hurt if the distance is too close. The water was not laced with chemical that day.

34^th witness: I could not identify the FRU personnel because of their visors

Corporal Abu Hassan bin Rasad (hereinafter referred to as Abu Hassan) is the 34^th witness of the public inquiry. He is the Section Commander of Section 1 in the FRU troop. Section 1, 2 and 3 were despatched to control the crowd on 28 May.

As the section commander of Section 1, Abu Hassan told the panel that his duty was to supervise his “boys” (anak buah). 14 members in his section were armed with shields, batons and rubber vests.

Initially, Abu Hassan tended to claim that the crowd was unruly because they shouted and refused to disperse after warnings were given. However, he later conceded that it is not possible that the action of the crowd will bring detrimental effect, though they were ‘emotional’.

Abu Hassan also told the panel that he did involve in crowd control, but he did not push the crowd. Amazingly, when exhibits were shown to him, Abu Hassan claimed that he could not recognize any of his colleagues because of the visor on their helmets. Dato’ Vohrah warned him that he is on oath.

Eventually, Abu Hassan managed to identify two FRU personnel positively. They are Corporal Jasman and Constable Amri. He also told the panel that it was a peaceful dispersal on 28 May.

Before ending the session, the chief of the inquiry panel, Dato’ K.C. Vohrah told the witness solemnly that he should give believable statement in a public inquiry.

The public inquiry will continue at 1pm tomorrow (17 October).

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 5

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today is the 5th day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 16, 17 & 18

Today’s witnesses:

1. Teh Chun Hong (W24)
2. Amran Zulkifli (W25)
3. Wong Keen Yee (W26)
4. Omar Tan Abdullah @ Tan Soi Kow (W27)
5. Chief Inspector Pusparajan Kaliapan (W28)

FRU Chief Inspector: ‘The FRU Training Manual on dispersing assemblies do not provide for kicking, dragging or shoving people using the FRU shield, hitting people on the head with the baton or the butt of the gas gun’.

On day 5 of the public inquiry the sworn oral testimonies of witness no. 24 to 28 were recorded with details as follows.

24^th witness: I was hit once and kicked twice by two FRU Personnel

Teh Chun Hong (hereinafter referred to as Teh) was the 24^th witness called to testify in the inquiry. Teh confirmed that he participated in the PROTES demonstration that was staged in front of KLCC on 28 May 2006.

According to Teh, while he was listening to Ronnie Liew, a PROTES Coalition speaker deliver his speech, water canons were suddenly unleashed on the crowd. Teh proceeded to inform the Panel that at that moment he and some other demonstrators standing in the same vicinity instinctively hovered together in an attempt to shield themselves from the water. The effort proved futile for Teh as he was ultimately drenched wet.

Teh also mentioned that the loud reverberations of a helicopter that appeared intermittently at the premises was operated at an unusually low height and drowned out the instructions issued by the authorities.

Soon after the water cannon were unleashed, Teh noticed a group of FRU personnel each clad in a navy blue uniform and a red helmet approaching the group of demonstrators with whom he was standing. The said FRU Personnel had in their hands an instrument described by Teh as a ‘flexible red baton’. On seeing these personnel, Teh and the other demonstrators began efforts to disperse but they were still attacked by the said personnel. Teh explained that he was hit once with the baton and kicked twice by 2 personnel. Teh sustained bruises to his shoulders and leg as a result of the said attack. According to Teh, 2 other demonstrators with him at the time, identified as Wong Keen Yi and Lee Huat Seng, were similarly attacked and injured by the said personnel.

Teh sought traditional treatment for his injuries. He did not lodge a police report on the incident.

25^th witness: ‘FRU Personnel hit me repeatedly on my shoulders and on my head’.

Amran Zulkifli (hereinafter referred to as Amran) was the 25^th witness called to testify in the inquiry. Amran is 38 years of age and an entrepreneur residing in Sungai Petani, Kedah. Amran testified that on the day in question he and his 10 year old child were in the vicinity of the PROTES Demonstration as they had planned to visit Petrosains KLCC.

According to Amran, they arrived at the premises at approximately 9:00 a.m. when he noticed the assembly. Curious to determine the reason for the assembly, he decided to observe the events that were transpiring. On discovering the purpose Amran decided to suspend his plans and proceeded to join the demonstration with his child whilst holding a placard. According to Amran at this stage a speech was being delivered by a female student however this was not entirely audible due to loud reverberations from a helicopter that appeared intermittently. It was operated at an alarmingly low height.

Amran also stated that he was aware that the authorities at the premises were issuing instructions to the crowd however these were similarly inaudible in view of the noise from the crowd and helicopter. Soon after the second set of instruction was given by the authorities, Amran and his child were drenched with water unleashed from a water canon. Amran then noticed the police making random arrests and it was at this stage that he decided to abandon the demonstration.

However, as he and his child proceeded towards the entrance of KLCC with a view to resume plans to visit Petrosains KLCC, Amran was suddenly attacked by FRU Personnel who repeatedly hit him on his shoulders whilst shouting ‘Balik! Balik!’ Fearing for the safety of his child, Amran quickly reached out to take hold of his child only to be struck again by the said personnel. On this occasion Amran was hit on the head that caused profuse bleeding and led to him losing grip and sight of his child. Amran stated that at this point he observed the situation at the KLCC vicinity to being in a state of utter chaos as people were attempting to secure their safety whilst hurriedly rushing in various directions. Consumed with fear Amran proceeded to run from the vicinity of KLCC. Amran told the Panel that he could not identify the officers who hit him as they stood behind him whilst they attacked him. He also stated that he did not retaliate against the FRU aggression, that he was perhaps a target in view of his large build (115 kg) and that he was not aware that he was not allowed to enter the KLCC.

With the assistance of Nasaruddin, Amran sought medical attention at Pusat Rawatan Islam (PUSRAWI), Jalan Tun Razak for the injuries he had sustained. He received 5 stitches. Amran was subsequently reunited with his child at the said hospital and later lodged a report on the incident at the Tun Razak Police Station.

26^th witness: ‘As I set out to leave the premises, I was unexpectedly attacked by FRU personnel’.

Wong Keen Yi (hereinafter referred to as Wong) was the 26^th witness called to testify in the inquiry. Wong is 23 years of age. He is a member of Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (DEMA). Wong confirmed that he participated in the PROTES Demonstration that was staged in front of KLCC on 28 May 2006.

Wong testified that on the day in question, his attention was focused on the speeches that were being delivered by the PROTES Coalition speakers. He told the Panel that he never heard any warnings or instructions from FRU or any other authorities deployed to the premises. He also mentioned that the helicopters deployed to the location were operated ‘just above the trees’.

According to Wong, while listening to Ronnie Liew delivers his speech, he suddenly noticed water cannon being unleashed. Although the Wong successfully evaded contact with the water unleashed, he had resolved to abandon the demonstration at that stage. As he set out to leave the premises, he was unexpectedly attacked by an FRU Personnel with an instrument described as a ‘red baton’. Wong sustained bruises to the right side of his neck as a result of the said attack. According to Wong, at the said time in question, he also noticed 2 other demonstrators, Lee Huat Seng and Teh Chun Hong being kicked by FRU Personnel.

Wong sought medical attention at Hospital Kuala Lumpur for the injuries he sustained. He did not lodge a police report on the incident.

27^th witness: ‘After the authorities issued instructions to attack! (Serang!), I saw Zahir Hassan being hit by FRU Personnel’.

Omar Tan Abdullah @ Tan Soi Kow (hereinafter referred to as Omar) was the 27^th Witness called to testify in the inquiry. Omar is 52 years of age. He is a committee member of the PROTES coalition and an employee of Parti Keadilan Rakyat. Omar confirmed that on the day in question, he was at the PROTES demonstration as he was assigned to the task of observing the demonstration, ensuring the welfare of the demonstrators and monitoring any urgent arrests.

Thus upon arriving at the premises, Omar proceeded to inspect the vicinity. Based on Omar’s testimony the 1^st instruction issued by the authorities was clear. The crowd was asked to disperse using the precise words, ‘Bersurai! Bersurai!’. The said instruction was issued twice although in the second instance it was not entirely clear. Soon after, the authorities instructed FRU Personnel to attack. The exact words used were ‘Serang!’. Thereafter water cannon were unleashed. During this time and at intermittent stages, a helicopter was seen hovering over the assembly.

Once the attack on the assembly commenced, Omar saw Zahir Hassan (W17) being hit by FRU Personnel. As Zahir’s 2 children were with him at the time, Omar immediately took steps to secure them to safety by escorting them across the road in the direction of Duta Vista.

In respect to the attacks on Amran (25^th witness), Omar mentioned that he did not see the attack although he heard about it subsequently. He then proceeded to state that Amran has been to demonstrations in the past including those staged in March 2006 on the sharp hikes in fuel prices. He told the panel that Amran is a protest mobilizer for the northern region. He is experienced in demonstrations and that his presence on the day in question was not surprising to him.

Omar, at the conclusion of his testimony stated that based on his experience in monitoring demonstrations, urgent arrests would not have been necessary as the PROTES Demonstration on the day in question was staged in a peaceful manner. This fact notwithstanding several members and supporters of the PROTES Coalition were nonetheless attacked and arrested on the day in question. Omar was unable to comprehend the basis of the aggression that was asserted by the authorities in this instance.

28^th witness: ‘I heard the OCPD instructs Air Unit 1 “Udara 1, turun bawah lagi”

Pusparajan a/l Kaliapan (hereinafter referred to as Rajan) was the 28^th Witness called to testify in the inquiry. Rajan is 40 years of age and holds the post of Chief Inspector, FRU, Kuala Lumpur. Rajan confirmed that on the day in question he was at the PROTES Demonstration in the official capacity of Commanding Officer for the purposes of dispersing the assembly.

Rajan testified that on 27 May 2006 he received instructions to report to the OCPD of Dang Wangi to stop the PROTES Demonstration that was deemed an illegal assembly. Rajan explained that by virtue of S. 27 of the Police Act 1967 an illegal assembly is defined as an assembly that takes place without a licence being issued for the said purpose.

FRU Troop 4B Unit 4 was assigned to assist Rajan with the task in hand. The said troop consisted of 64 male FRU Personnel including Rajan. They were equipped with a revolver, a gas gun, a rifle, a red baton of rattan make and a plastic shield. The FRU also deployed a fleet of vehicles to the premises and these included a command vehicle, water canons, logistics lorries for equipment and a land rover.

Thus at approximately 9.55 a.m., Rajan and his troop arrived at the premises. Rajan noted that in addition to the 63 FRU Personnel organised to disperse the assembly, approximately 100 uniformed & civilian clothes police officers were also at the premises. In respect to the assembly approximately 300 – 400 demonstrators were noted at the premises.

Rajan then proceeded to report to the OCPD and IPD Ketua Bahagian Ketenteraman Awam of Dang Wangi to receive further instructions. His instructions were to have his personnel on ‘standby’ to disperse the assembly. Rajan then briefed his troop informing them that they were to disperse the assembly using minimal force. The troop was then split into 3 sections with each section consisting of 18 men and told to take their positions.

Minimal force would involve instructions to the demonstrators to leave the premises without any body contact. In the event that the instructions are not heeded, unleashing the water canons would be the next step taken under the definition of minimal force.

Conversely, in instances where force is authorised, unleashing water & gas from the canons on the assembly which in effect causes skin irritation would have been sanctioned.

Rajan also explained that the baton and shield were available to FRU personnel for protection against violent crowds. For example in the event demonstrators made threats or threw stones, the FRU personnel were to use the baton and shield to protect themselves.

Rajan confirmed that the crowd on the day in question was not violent and not deemed a threat as such the troop was instructed to use minimal force only.

Rajan proceeded to inform the Panel that the troop deployed on the day in question had been adequately trained on using the equipment provided to them and on dispersing assemblies. The training manual in handling such matters do not provide for kicking or dragging people, shoving people using the FRU shield, hitting people on the head with the baton and hitting people with the butt of the gas gun. Rajan confirmed that these measures are positively not among the FRU procedures in dispersing an assembly and agreed to submit a copy of the FRU Training Manual for the Panel’s reference.

Rajan went on to state that during the demonstration he and the OCPD positioned themselves on top of the Command Vehicle so as to be facilitated with a clear view of the events that were ensuing and to provide further instructions to the troop. Rajan proceeded to emphasise that on the day in question his role as Commanding Officer was for all intents and purposes a conduit for taking instructions from the OCPD and communicating these to the FRU troop. Thus each time a new instruction came forth, Rajan would ring a bell to get the attention of the troop and instruct them accordingly.

In respect to the instructions that were issued to have the assembly disperse, Rajan said that instructions to the crowd to disperse were issued on 4 separate occasions and on each occasion the instruction was repeated 3 times. The chronological orders of the said instructions were as follows:-

1^st instruction: 10:40 a.m. Repeated 3 times

2^nd instruction: 10:42 a.m. Repeated 3 times

3^rd instruction: 10:43 a.m. Repeated 3 times

4^th instruction: 10:45 a.m. Repeated 3 times

Rajan also stated that during the time he was issuing the instructions to the crowd he noticed Tian Chua and another person within the assembly seeking additional time from the OCPD. Although the OCPD appeared to have gestured his consent to the people making the requests, based on the video footage recorded, Rajan was not informed of any additional time that was to be granted. Rajan also acknowledged that during the time he was instructing the crowd the helicopter, which was also under the control of the OCPD was in close range to the assembly and that the reverberations were indeed loud. Rajan also told the Panel that he heard the OCPD say ‘Udara 1 turun bawah lagi’.

According to Rajan, as the crowd failed to comply with the instructions to disperse even after the 4^th set of instructions were issued, the OCPD instructed him to have the water canon officers commence action. At 10:46 a.m. the water canons were unleashed on the assembly. This was done on 2 separate occasions before the police commenced urgent arrests. Soon after the assembly dispersed.

Rajan stated that the events that transpired on the day in questions were diarised in detail and chronological order and it was agreed that a copy of the same was to be submitted to the Panel for their reference.

Rajan stated that he never witnessed any abuses of power by FRU Personnel or any other authorities stationed at the premises on the day in question. However, when the panel asked Rajan to comment on the brute force used by FRU personnel on the day in question as depicted in the photographs and video footage retained in evidence, Rajan responded as follows:-

1. That he did not recognize most of the FRU personnel depicted as abusing their power;
2. That some force by FRU personnel is justified in certain instances as each situation and type of crowd must be assessed independently;
3. From the time FRU personnel began instructing the crowd until the water canons were unleashed, approximately 40 minutes had elapsed. The crowd clearly disregarded the instructions and as such further action was needed; and
4. Those photographs may not depict with accuracy the actual event that transpired.

In essence, it was observed that after the said photographs and video footage were revealed to Rajan he began contradicting the testimony he provided at the beginning of the session to a significant degree. He was also unable to provide the panel with a comment on the photograph shown to him depicting the head injuries sustained by Amran and could only submit that he only heard about Amran’s injuries the next day.

In conclusion, Rajan said that on the day in question the OCPD gave him instructions to have FRU depart from the premises at 11:25 a.m. and this was duly executed at 11:30 a.m.

Session adjourned.

Prepared by,

Gowri Balasubramaniam

SUHAKAM Public Inquiry on "Bloody Sunday" - Day 4

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

Today is the 4^th day of the inquiry. The inquiry will continue on the following days:

October 13, 16, 17 & 18

Today’s witnesses:

1. Zahir bin Hassan (W17)

2. Dr. Hasnita binti Hassan (W18)

3. Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh (W19)

4. Lim Ban Teng (W20)

5. Dr. Nur binti Abdul Karim (W21)

6. Nashita bin Md Noor (W22)

7. Ooi Tze Min (W23)

Doctors confirmed that force used on the victims was excessive

Seven witnesses were called to testify in front of the inquiry panel today.

17^th witness: I also want to know why the FRU personnel kicked me

Zahir bin Hassan is the first witness of the day. He is the deputy secretary general of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

According to Zahir Hassan (hereinafter referred to as Zahir), the police did make announcement before water cannon were unleashed. But he could not hear clearly what the announcement was. Zahir told the inquiry panel that the FRU charged into the crowd at a very fast pace when the crowd was slowly dispersing. He said that 4 to 5 FRU personnel beaten him up.

Zahir testified: “I was only trying to give some senses to the police that the crowd was moving away and there is no need to push them. They (FRU personnel) pushed me; I lost balance and fell down on the road (Jalan Ampang) I was stumbled by the pushing of the shield. A bus had to stop because I fell on the middle of the road. I felt several kicks on myself. I was only half or quarterly conscious at that moment.”

Answering Dato’ Vohrah’s question on what triggered the FRU personnel to kick him, Zahir said smilingly “I also want to know.”

One of the panel members, Datin Zaitoon asked Zahir a hypothetical question on whether the kicking might have caused by him preventing the police from doing their job? Zahir answered solemnly: “If that is the reason, there is a serious problem on the training and professionalism of the police.”

18^th witness: The force used on Zahir Hassan was excessive

Dr. Hasnita binti Hassan (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Hasnita) is a medical officer attach to the accident and emergency department of Hospital KL. She is the 18^th witness of the public inquiry.

Dr. Hasnita is the doctor who examined Zahir Hassan on 28 May when he was sent to HKL. In her testimony, Dr. Hasnita observed red marks on Zahir’s left forehead, abrasion wound on his right cheek; lower incisor and canine of him were angulated and loose.

Dr. Hasnita told the panel members that the injuries could be caused by a blunt object. It could also be caused by a fall. However, the injuries were consistent with what was told by the patient (Zahir Hassan).

Dr. Hasnita also confirmed that the injuries on Zahir must have been caused by a trauma. The force used on him was excessive because it has caused him bled.

19^th witness: Zahir did not resist at all

The 19^th witness of the inquiry, Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh (hereinafter referred to as Syed) was called to testify. Syed was only about 10 feet away from Zahir when he was kicked by the FRU personnel.

According to Syed, FRU personnel shoved Zahir with shield and he fell on the road. He saw 2 FRU personnel kicked Zahir; one kicked on the front (face), and the other kicked on the back. He noticed that Zahir did not move after being kicked. He moved towards Zahir and tried to protect him. When he checked on Zahir, he saw blood stain on his left forehead. He also noticed bruises on Zahir’s left leg and it was swollen. When he asked Zahir whether he was ok at that moment, Zahir did not answer. Only when he was trying to stop the police from carrying Zahir away, he heard Zahir said “Tak apa, biarkan” (it’s ok, let them)

Answering Dato’ Vohrah’s question on whether Zahir was talking to the police in a raised voice, Syed told the panel chief that Zahir was talking in a gentle manner. Zahir did not resist at all though he was being kicked by the FRU personnel.

20^th witness: My finger was fractured!

Like most of the participants, Lim Ban Teng (hereinafter referred to as Ban Teng) did not hear clearly the warning to disperse from the police, though he was standing at the outermost of the crowd.

Being one of the unfortunate victims, Ban Teng told the inquiry panel that the police used baton on the crowd who were dispersing. He and his friend were dispersing towards the Public Bank building after the water cannon were unleashed. Suddenly, he saw his friend, Lee Huat Seng (W8) was being beaten on the back by the FRU personnel. He then moved towards Lee and tried to help. While he was trying to reach Lee Huat Seng and pull him away, he was hit on his finger too.

Ban Teng consulted doctor in Hospital KL on that afternoon. He was told by the doctor that his finger was fractured, and the pain lasted until today.

21^st witness: The injury suffered by Lim Ban Teng was serious

Dr. Nur Abdul Karim (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Nur) is the medical officer who examined Lim Ban Teng (W20) on 28 May. Dr. Nur is attached to the emergency department of Hospital KL.

On physical examination, Dr. Nur told the inquiry panel that Lim Ban Teng’s right thumb was swollen with reduced range of movement. After doing an X-ray check, she found that Ban Teng has suffered from a fracture on the 1^st metacarpal bone of his right hand. It was a closed fracture and it might be caused by blunt object with high velocity.

Dr. Nur classifies the injury suffered by Ban Teng as a serious but non-critical injury. She is of the opinion that the force used on the victim was excessive.

22^nd witness: I was angry because we were being treated like animals

Nashita Md Noor (hereinafter referred to as Nashita) is the 6^th witness of the day. She witnessed the melee where Zahir Hassan was being kicked by the FRU personnel.

Nashita recalled, people started running away after the water cannon were unleashed. She saw the police in green vest started to chase, arrest and handcuff protestors. She was with her 12-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter when a group of FRU personnel came and yelled to them. They shouted “Baliklah!” (go back) several times and pushed them (the protestors who were dispersing) with their shields. Nashita told the panel members that she was very angry, because as a human being and a mother, she felt bad for being treated like animals.

At one point, Nashita saw Zahir Hassan (W17, who is also her neighbor) was rushing towards his daughters who were being pushed by the FRU. The next second, Zahir was pushed to the ground and the FRU personnel started to kick and hit him. Zahir was seen bleeding. Later on, Zahir was manhandled and being brought away by a group of policemen.

Nashita was also being pushed from behind and fell on the flower bed of the pavement.

23^rd witness: I was being kicked on my back while dispersing

Ooi Tze Min (hereinafter referred to as Tze Min) is the 23^rd witness of the inquiry. He was kicked and hit by the police while dispersing.

Consistent with most of the participants, Tze Min did not hear any warning from the police during the assembly. When the water cannon were unleashed, Tze Min was drenched and started to retreat.

While he was moving towards the direction of Public Bank with his friends, FRU came and pushed them from behind. Tze Min told the inquiry panel that he was being kicked on his back. Besides, he also saw two of his friends, Lee Huat Seng (W8) and Wong Keen Yee were being hit by policemen. According to Tze Min, they told the police several times that they will leave and do not push them. Unfortunately, their efforts were in vain.

The public inquiry will continue tomorrow (13 October).