He could have been 'Father of Freedom'

The Sun (Fri, 03 Apr 2009) 

PETALING JAYA (April 2, 2009) : Many Malaysians would probably still remember that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was known as Mr Nice Guy long before he was sworn in as prime minister on Oct 31, 2003.

Abdullah waves to Mindef staff.

He is still a very nice man but having been drawn into survival politics --- and all that it entails in the Malaysia context --- many are probably wondering whether he is still the same Mr Nice Guy they knew before he moved into Seri Perdana.

It is difficult not to be charmed by Abdullah. His smile is most disarming and his commonplace remarks often put those who meet him at ease almost immediately.

A journalist who works for a foreign newspaper, who had several unpleasant encounters with the autocratic Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, was bowled over by the "work with me, and not for me" call that Abdullah made just a day after being sworn in.

After Abdullah made the pledge in Parliament a few days later to put an end to corruption in the government and to uphold democracy, the journalist exulted "this is the prime minister for me!" loudly during a dinner with fellow scribes.

And after Abdullah made that surprise visit to the Immigration Department a fortnight later and told those manning counters that they should provide good service and cause less inconvenience to the public, he was most effusive in his praise for the prime minister, even though it was the only such visit.

He was estatic when Abdullah attended a Christmas reception at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Brickfields where he announced that he is the "prime minister of all Malaysians."

It was one of his missed opportunities. Abdullah could have built on that to promote genuine racial integration.

Most Malaysian voters were delighted to receive a letter from Abdullah sent to their home addresses advising them to be careful when they drive home to vote in the 2004 general election and telling them that they must exercise their right to vote.

But a few months after the general election, the journalist, like other Malaysians, was noticed to be less enraptured by Abdullah, especially after his new cabinet was more or less a re-hash of the old one that he had inherited and was doing little to root out corruption.

When Abdullah did not tick off those who waved the keris, those who made ketuanan Melayu a new war cry or moderate the call for the extension of the new economic policy, the journalist was back being his old cynical self.

Most Malaysians were delighted when Abdullah --- to the horrors of some of his ministers --- declared he was all for a more open society and invited them, especially members of the Barisan Nasional, to tell him the truth.

Those in the media were overwhelmed, especially after Mahathir had in his 22-year rule tightened laws governing publishing, printing and broadcasting to such an extent that government’s control was near absolute.

If only Abdullah had amended some of the laws to allow the media to at least have recourse to the courts over some of the unjust decisions of the government, he could have been hailed as the "Father of Freedom."

Even though he did not do that, there is no doubt that the openness that he declared gave way to more open discussions on matters that were discouraged previously. But it also brought problems --- perhaps as a result of poor management --- to his administration.

So far it has not been heard by what appellation he would be known considering all his predecessors were given popular names. Tunku Abdul Rahman was "Bapa Merdeka" or "Bapa Malaysia", Tun Abdul Razak Hussein was "Bapa Pembangunan", Tun Hussein Onn was "Bapa Perpaduan" and Mahathir was "Bapa Pemodenan".

Abdullah, the nature of the man that he is, had a lot of good intentions when he was prime minister but it was unfortunate that he was unable to press on with many of the more meaningful initiatives that he started when the challenge to them became strong.

Often, he would go back on his words, so much so that much of his six years as prime minister was characterized by numerous U-turns.

One glaring example is the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission or IPCMC which was recommended by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police.

Had it been implemented as recommended, which he promised it would, Malaysia would have one of the best police forces in the world. He would go down in history as the man who had dared to go where others had failed to tread.

Even on Islam Hadhari, a pet project which he genuinely believe would lead Muslims in the country to become more progressive like those who lived during the Golden Age of Islam where they were free to innovate and experiment, he was challenged at every turn.

Instead of supporting and helping him, most religious leaders and mosque officials continued to preach the restrictive form of the religion that frowns on innovation and progressive thought.

He is sad that Islam Hadhari is given a cold shoulder in the country when it is accepted by other countries like Indonesia and those in the middle east, he told newspaper editors when he had lunch with them on Tuesday.

He should have known that "a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and his house".

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT - correcting the misconceptions

From: www.loyarburok.com

By Art Harun · Monday, March 30th, 2009

The in-thing nowadays seems to be the phrase "social contract". Every Tom Dick, hairy or otherwise, seems to be so well versed with this subject. You make a bit of noise about the Federal Constitution and you would be referred to the "social contract". You question a teeny wee bit about equality and you would surely be referred to the "social contract". I think the next time somebody cuts you off in a traffic jam, you should shout "social contract" at that socially inept moron!

The latest outburst on the social contract had to of course come from Hishamuddin Hussein, the newly minted UMNO Vice-President. In his last speech as the UMNO Youth Chief - of course, it was also a speech designed to garner votes for his VP-ship - Hishamuddin branded those who question the social contract as "arrogant". In his words :-

"Mereka begitu angkuh, sombong dan bongkak mempersoalkan kontrak sosial dan mempertikai hak kedudukan orang Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera. Kontrak sosial telah sengaja disalah tafsir dan dijadikan tajuk untuk menyemarakkan api perkauman."

Before we talk of something important and of far reaching consequence, we should know what we are talking about. We should not just blabber aimlessly and throw about allegations and accusations as if it is our God given right to belittle other people. What is this creature called the "social contract"? Is there such a thing? Is it like any other contract? Must it be signed? And stamped? If so, who signed it? Before that, who drafted it? What are the terms and conditions? Can they be changed? What if it is breached? What are the consequences of such breach? Does anybody know?

Allow me to explain this concept.

Human Beings and Their Natural Rights

Early philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle postulated the existence of natural justice or natural rights. These concepts were premised on the theory that human beings were born with and naturally follow a set of "natural" morality and behavioural patterns which are independent of human made regulations. The concepts of "good" and "evil" for example, are inherent in every human being. Thus being the case, the people?s grasp of and adherence to such "natural rules" are independent of human made regulations and their enforcement.

If we accept the postulations that human beings are born with a set of natural behavioural patterns, than we must also accept the fact that human beings are also entitled to several basic rights. These are rights so fundamental to the existence of a human being that the denial or transgression of such rights would render his or her existence as a human being almost meaningless. The most basic of these rights are rights which are universal to every human being, regardless of creed and breed, of cultures and upbringing, of religion and school.

The advent of civilisations had seen humans transformed from being individualistic and stateless animals into socio-politico creatures. Cities were built and societies developed. Governments and states were born. The rise of the states and the ensuing assumptions of power by the states and their governments would see the surrender of certain individual rights to the states and governments for the greater good of the society in general.

The Social Contract as a Concept

If it was human nature to be able to roam free anywhere and at any time, and to take whatever was thought to be necessary to survive, why would humans then surrender these basic rights to the states or governments for such rights to be regulated or even curtailed? Why must a human being respect a property which belongs to another and who, in that instance, defines and decides on the ownership of such property in the first place? Why would the people agree to follow and obey executive orders when the people, by nature, are born to be free of constraints?

Here lies the premise of social contracts. The earliest known articulations on social contracts were by Plato who postulated that members of any given society implicitly agree to be bound by the social contract by their continued presence within that society. Implicit in most forms of social contracts is "freedom of movement", which later was termed as one of the "natural rights". The postulations of a social contract existing between a society, a state or a government and the people centre on the needs of the people to build nations and to maintain social orders within their nations. Thus, for the benefit of the nation, the people implicitly agree to surrender some of their rights to the state or government in exchange for social order and greater benefits to all.

Thomas Hobbes explained it clearly. In a state of nature, human beings have unlimited natural freedoms. However, these unlimited natural freedoms would impinge on each other's rights as each person would feel free to do anything against each other (also described as "the rights to all things"). Men then created civil societies where these rights were governed in order to establish a social order. In exchange for subjecting themselves to the state or government, the people gained "civil rights", which were sacrosanct and unalienable, even to the state or government.

Social Contract as a Living Document and the Consequence of its Breach

John Locke argues that the social contract and the civil rights are living documents in that their terms could be renegotiated to suit the needs of changing times. These contracts and rights are only legitimate to the extent that they benefit the general interest. Locke even posits the rights of rebellion in the event the social contracts lead to tyranny. 

The breach of these social contracts by the people would result in some form of punishment on the defaulting party, which could entail the loss of any or some of their civil rights. Thus, a thief may lose his rights to freedom when he is sentenced to imprisonment for stealing. A Government which breaches the social contract by abusing its powers may consequently, argues Locke, be overthrown. We have seen many instances where Locke's position has been taken to its natural conclusion. In Thailand and the Philippines for example, the people rose to overthrow Governments which were perceived to have breached the social contract by various abuses of their powers and transgressions of human rights.

However, in modern states, especially in a democracy, it is submitted that the natural consequence to a Government for its failure to uphold the social contract through abuse of its powers would rest with the people's vote in an election. The real power therefore rests with the members of the state, namely, the people and the voters to elect a new Government at an opportune time.

The Rights of the State vs the Rights of the People

The concept of social contracts also appeals to later day philosophers, such as John Rawls (1921-2002). He branded states which violate human rights as "outlaw states" and "benevolent absolutism" and argued that these states should not command mutual respect and toleration from "liberal and decent people". Rawls of course premised his postulations on the assumptions that human beings are both "reasonable and rational" and that we are reasonable only to the extent that we are able to achieve an end together within a set of specific regulatory principles. In going about achieving this end, we, as the people, would affirm some fundamentally basic liberties or freedoms, such as "freedom of conscience, expression and association".

Analysing all the concepts of the states or government versus the rights of the people, as well as the concept of the social contract between the two elements, the question is of course one of the quantity and quality of rights which the people are ready and willing to surrender to the state or government in exchange for the greater societal benefits which may be yielded from the state. Are there in existence, for example, rights which are so basic and fundamental, which ought not to be surrendered at any cost? Or is the greater good of the state or society a justification for the transgression by the state of the people's fundamental rights? Are there rights which are so fundamental to the existence of the people that these rights are universal in nature? Or are there values, cultural, religious or otherwise, which make these rights vary from one society to another?

Mahathir Mohammad and Lee Kuan Yew are perfect examples of the propagator and practitioners of "benevolent absolutism". Both share a common perspective towards democracy. Under the guise of "Asian values", they argued that democracy in Asia, particularly in Malaysia and Singapore, cannot and should not entail the concept of absolute "freedom" as practised in the West. Freedom, according to Mahathir, should be curtailed for the greater good of the country. What Mahathir and his ilk failed to address is the fact that no reasonable citizen of this country would question the curtailment of freedom for the greater good of the nation. But what is being demanded is that such curtailment must be done in accordance with the law. Such curtailment should not, at any rate, be done without the due process of the law. That basic right is cast, almost in stone, in the Federal Constitution and that is a part of the social contract, if we want to harp on the same. In truth, the Asian values which were being brandished about by Mahathir and LKY are but a lame excuse for benevolent absolutism. Pure and simple.

Underlying the "agreement" of the people to surrender some of their rights to the State for the greater good of the society as a whole is a system of "check and balance" which is ingrained in our justice and administration system. Now, what is left to the people if such check and balance mechanism is obliterated by the Government? Isn't that a blatant breach of the social contract?

The point is this. Nobody in their right mind, and that includes me, is questioning the need for a controlled curtailment of some individual rights in favour of an orderly society. I hope I have made that clear. What is being questioned is the mechanism of such curtailment. It must be done with due process of the law. That is the social contract. It stems from the realisation that the primacy of the individual has to be balanced with the paramountcy of society (to borrow the words of Shashi Tharoor in his excellent dissertation, "Are Human Rights Universal?" appearing in the World Policy Journal). And in my opinion, the element which provides the leverage between the two seemingly opposing rights is nothing but the law and justice system.

The Malay Annals ("Sejarah Melayu") and the Social Contract

Just as the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 defined early social contracts between the subjects and the English King or States, the Malays have their own version of a social contract. This is contained in the Malay Annals, an excellent satirical work by Tun Sri Lanang which consists of and is believed to have been based on facts which were romanticised with folklores. In it was narrated the story of Sang Utama Sri Tri Buana (the Palembang ruler from whom all Malay royalty claims descent) who, in his quest to rule the people, made a pact with Demang Lebar Daun, who represented the people.

"Demang Lebar Daun promised that "the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty's throne, but they must be well-treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law". To which Sang Utama replied " I agree to give the undertaking for which you ask, but I in turn require an undertaking from you ... that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them." To which Demang Lebar Daun agreed " ... but if your descendants depart from the terms of the pact, then so will mine.. subjects shall never be disloyal or treacherous to their rulers, even if their rulers behave cruelly and immorally ... and if any ruler puts a single one of his subjects to shame, that shall be a sign that his kingdom shall be destroyed by Almighty God." (as taken from the Tuah Legend website)

Thus was born the oft-quoted Malay saying, "Raja adil Raja disembah, Raja zalim, Raja disanggah", which forms the basis of the loyalty of the Malay subjects to their King. The Hang Jebat rebellion against Sultan Mansur Shah was an illustration of how this social contract was practised.

The Social Contract is not Cast in Stone

As pointed out above, Locke argues that the social contract is a living document and its terms may be renegotiated as and when the needs arise. Rawl on the other hand posits that we, as human beings, are reasonable only to the extent that we are able to achieve an end together within a set of specific regulatory principles. Thus, by no means is a social contract an unmovable object. As society evolves, generations and consequently values and cultures change, internal and external dynamics would redefine the society?s priorities and needs. It follows that the social contract would change and vary in order to achieve newer objectives and ends.

Thus in India, we would now see the practice of suttee, where a surviving widow would be burned alongside her husband?s body, being outlawed. Slavery in the United States and other parts of the world become a practice which is frowned upon. Gay marriages are now permitted, even in Singapore. Such is the power of time and progress.

The Federal Constitution for example, had never contained provisions for the New Economic Policy or a new education policy. In the aftermath of May 13th 1969 however, the NEP was introduced out of societal necessities as well as, probably, political necessity. Thus a new social contract was born. What about the new education policy, where the English took a back seat, as opposed to the pre-Merdeka policy where a certain degree of emphasis was given to the English language? Wasn?t that a change to the social contract?

The Federal Constitution is, to my mind, the social contract between the people of Malaysia and the State or Government. But it has been amended countless time to suit the needs of the society (although one could present a really substantive argument that it was amended for political expediency on countless occasions). The Judiciary for example, in whom was imbued judicial power in the original Federal Constitution (and thus the original social contract), was later deprived of judicial powers save and except provided for by the Parliament through yet another amendment of the Federal Constitution. Wasn't that a change to our social contract?

Hishamuddin talked about the actions of some parties who dare to belittle our Royal institution. With respect, that is almost hypocrisy. Under the original social contract, the Malay Rulers cannot be sued in any Court. No legal action may be brought against any of the Rulers. Mahathir Mohammad's regime amended the Federal Constitution to allow the Rulers to be sued in a special Court. Many of us would have read the recent suit by a bank against one of the Malay Rulers. Wasn't that a change to our social contract? How about the necessity for Royal assent to a bill of law before that bill could legally become law? Originally that was the position. But again,

the Federal Constitution was amended to do away with such requirement. Wasn't that yet another change to the social contract?

Hishamuddin and his ilk should realise that nobody is questioning the rights of the Malays and the status of Islam as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. What is being questioned is the implementation of the Government's affirmative policy. There are obvious differences between the two. In any event, the social contract, as proven above, has been varied and changed on countless occasions, by none other than the BN Government itself. Of course, the BN Government would argue that those changes were necessary for the betterment of the society as a whole.

Why then, when anybody other than the BN leaders stand up to raise a question on the social contract, or when he or she would even dare to suggest a discussion on, let alone a change to the social contract, he or she would be deemed arrogant, or in Hishamuddin's own words, "sombong, angkuh dan bongkak"?

This entry was posted on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm and is filed under Human Rights

Eight Blunders of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Seven Blunders of the World is a list that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi gave to his grandson Arun Gandhi, written on a piece of paper, on their final day together, not too long before his assassination. The seven blunders are:

• Wealth without work
• Pleasure without conscience
• Knowledge without character
• Commerce without morality
• Science without humanity
• Worship without sacrifice
• Politics without principle

This list grew from Gandhi's search for the roots of violence. He called these acts of passive violence. Preventing these is the best way to prevent oneself or one's society from reaching a point of violence.

To this list, Arun Gandhi added an eighth blunder: Rights without responsibilities.

JESUS IS OUR CHAMPION!

Exstracted from Our Journey. Written by Joe Stowell.

“ ‘But what about you?’ he asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ ” Matthew 16:15

At some point in life we’ve all felt the frustration and fear of being up against situations that we can’t deal with and, worse yet, there seems to be no one to help. If you were to ask me to tell you about the times I have felt the twinges of hopelessness, my early recollections would be from my first year in high school.

From kindergarten through eighth grade I attended a small Christian school. My dad was a well-known pastor in the area, which meant that I was the big man on campus. Everyone knew who I was, and I had it made—until the day I graduated from that school and enrolled in the nearby public high school. Nobody knew me or my dad at the new school, and nobody cared. So, needless to say, I wasn’t a big shot anymore. What’s worse, I became the victim of Ronnie, who decided to prove his emerging manhood on me. Whenever I passed him in the hall, he would shove and taunt me. I was traumatized. Every day at school I was filled with anxiety and fear because of Ronnie. I needed somebody to help me. I pleaded with friends who knew Ronnie to ask him to stop, but they never did. I was all alone in my problem, and I needed a champion.

In Jesus’ day, the Jewish people were up against the oppressive regime of Rome. Every day they lived with the shame of being a despised minority under the tyrannical thumb of Caesar, who demanded hefty taxes and unflinching allegiance. The once- proud Israel was now a puppet servant state of a brutal and pagan empire. They desperately needed someone to champion their cause. Could it be that Jesus was the long-awaited deliverer? Hence, this on-the-spot quiz! Peter came up with the right answer when he declared Jesus as “the Christ”—the “Messiah” who would deliver them from the oppression they had endured for so long. Against the backdrop of Caesar-worship and rampant paganism in Caesarea Philippi, the disciples pinned their hopes on Jesus.

What Peter didn’t know was that Jesus would be their champion on a far more significant level than a political one: the oppression of Rome. Jesus came to overthrow the source of our problems, not the symptoms. Rome was merely the tool of Satan to defeat God’s people and tarnish God’s glory. Defeating Rome would have been a great accomplishment, but the enemy of our souls would have found another way to wage war against the people of God. So Jesus went head-to-head against Satan, engaged in battle on an old rugged cross, and after a three-day struggle with death rose victoriously from the grave to assure the final victory over the enemy of our souls.

Jesus is the ultimate champion! And when we cast our lot with Him, He assures us that the victory is already won on our behalf. The next time you find yourself in a full nelson up against the wall of despair, claim Jesus as your champion. As Paul declares, you may be “struck down, but not destroyed” (2 Corinthians 4:9). Since He won the battle at Calvary, you are now entitled to share in the spoils of His victory. Thanks to Jesus, the word defeat is not in our vocabulary!

Can The Judiciary Be Independent/Impartial?

Yes, JC's term extended, but questions remain

Thursday, 12 March 2009 07:22AM

©The Malaysian Insider (Used by permission)

by Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Mar 11 - Ridwan Ibrahim, whose term as a judicial commissioner (JC) in the Ipoh High Court became the subject of much public debate in the ongoing Perak constitutional crisis, has had his contract extended for another two years.

"Yes, it has been renewed. Effective 1st March," de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz confirmed the news today.

Nazri told The Malaysian Insider that Ridwan's two-year term as a JC expired last February 28, but a renewal letter signed by the Chief Justice of Malaya, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, has effectively extended the controversial judge's term. He explained the renewal of a JC does not require the involvement of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the newly-minted body regulating the appointment of judges.

Asked when the letter was sent out, Nazri said he could not remember, but added it did not matter because the renewal can be backdated.

Ridwan recently made several controversial rulings in the Ipoh High Court, the most notable being an order stopping Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar from holding "any unlawful assembly." He also ordered Sivakumar to only use the services of State Legal Advisor (SLA), Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid, to represent him in another case where three elected representatives are suing him for declaring their state seats vacant.

But the constitutional wrangle has become more muddled with Sivakumar suing the SLA in a separate suit filed in the KL High Court yesterday. For federal lawmaker M. Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh-Barat), the real question to be answered concerns the accountability of a JC compared to a judge with full tenure.

"How can a trainee judge be allowed to decide a constitutional matter of such monumental significance which concerns the public?" he asked. "By right the case should be heard by an experienced judge," added Kulasegaran, a lawyer by training. Kulasegaran explained a JC is a judge-in-training who is put on a two-year probation period, at the end of which he is usually confirmed, relieved of his duties or chooses not to continue as a judge, such as Raja Aziz Addruse, a notable lawyer who was a former Bar Council president.

He noted that JC Ridwan had added to the complexity of the issue when he made the decision barring Speaker Sivakumar from chairing "unlawful" assemblies in chambers instead of in open court where the public can follow the arguments of the lawyers from both sides.

"Justice must be seen to be done," Kulasegaran emphasised.

The Malaysian Bar

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my Powered by Joomla! Generated: 12 March, 2009, 12:11

Excuse me, are you a doctor?

Hospital: Mob tampered with Kugan's body

NST Online 5 March 2009 By : Farrah Naz Karim farrah 

PUTRAJAYA: Serdang Hospital yesterday fought back against accusations of a misleading post-mortem on police detainee A. Kugan.

Its director, Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali, said a mob of about 50 people had barged in and tampered with the body before any post-mortem was carried out by the hospital's forensics pathologist.

Dr Norzi said his medical officers sought cover for two hours in a connecting room of the mortuary as they feared being hurt by the mob.

The post-mortem, he said, was supposed to take place at 8am the next day as police personnel had to be present during the procedure.

A report on the incident at the morgue by the hospital authorities stated that Kugan's fully-clothed body was in a body bag, which had been torn open by the mob. The medical officers also reported they were shocked to see a pool of Kugan's blood on the floor of the mortuary.

This, the report said, indicated that wounds on the body could have been inflicted after his death.

The report also stated that the 22-year-old had died of pulmonary oedema or fluid in the lungs. It also stated that there were no fractures on his body or damage to his vital organs.

However, Kugan's family lawyer, N. Surendran, said the second post-mortem conducted by University Malaya Medical Centre's pathologist Dr Prashant N. Samberkar revealed that his death was due to kidney failure caused by muscle injury that might be attributed to physical, chemical or biological factors.

Dr Norzi told the New Straits Times that both post-mortems were "weak evidence" in the case as they had been conducted after the body had been tampered with.

On claims that Kugan, a suspected car thief, had been starved for six days before he died, Dr Norzi said a person's stomach would be cleared of traces of food about four hours after his last meal.

Attorney-General Chambers' prosecution division head Tun Majid Tun Hamzah received the second post-mortem report from Surendran yesterday.

Tun Majid said comparisons would be made between the reports for a just decision. "This won't be long, hopefully within this month. The chambers will inform the public of its decision." 

Kugan died at the Subang Taipan police station while being interrogated on Jan 20, six days after he was arrested in connection with car thefts.

Kapar member of parliament S. Manikavasagam, who accompanied Surendran to the chambers, said a police report would be lodged against the Serdang pathologist either tomorrow or Saturday "over a false and misleading post-mortem".

In Kuala Lumpur, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said police would wait for the A-G's decision before taking action against the 11 policemen involved in Kugan's death.

Terrible images of Kugan

Friday, 06 March 2009 06:56AM © Malay Mail

by Haris Hussain & Nevash Nair

ALMOST two months after A. Kugan died in the Subang Taipan police lock-up, his mother, N. Indra, still cries herself to sleep every night. Now, sleep is even more elusive after she came to know about the pain and suffering he endured before he died, five days after he was arrested on Jan 15 in connection with police investigations into a series of luxury car thefts. Every time she closes her eyes, she sees her son’s bruised, battered and burnt body.

In an interview with Malay Mail, Indra said she is still unable to accept the fact that her son is gone, so much so her husband, R. Ananthan, refused to show her the second post-mortem report prepared y the independent pathologist hired by the family. The report was released on Monday. Ananthan relented only after Indra insisted. What she saw shocked her. “I have never laid a finger on my son but these heartless policemen beat him to death. Only a mother knows how I feel. The pain is so unbearable that I wish I were dead,” she alleged of the case that the Attorney-General has reclassified as murder.

My life has changed forever. He is my first-born. The manner in which I lost him makes it even more difficult for me to deal with. I did not carry him for nine months in my womb just so that someone can torture him this way. “There were signs that he was starving before he died. He was never hungry when he was with me. I would cook him his favourite dish, fried chicken and nuggets, whenever he was hungry.” Indra said her three other children miss Kugan too but that the one hardest hit is her husband. “As a father, he always thought that Kugan would be around to provide for the family if anything were to happen to him. He loved Kugan more than anything in this world. Now, he worries

about who will take care of the family if he dies.”

The one million ringgit question: Why would anyone starve, brand and beat up the corpse of a close relative?

BEWARE: Do Not Manipulate The Law