Bukti Tahanan Politik
anak perelih
21-05-2003

Kenapa sehingga peguam tahanan ISA 5 pun dipantau, dikawal dan diancam... kenapa polis bertindak melampau dan taksub kepada UMNO/BN ..>? ini adalah kerana mereka adalah TAHANAN POLITIK KERAJAAN UMNO/BN. Jika NAZI mempunyai concentration camp, UMNO atau United Malay NAZI Organization pun mempunyai kem tahanan di Kamunting.... heil Mahathir...!!! der fuhrer!!!

http://www.harakahdaily.net/article.php?sid=5493 

Assault in Kamunting: An open letter to Suhakam

Monday, May 19 @ 10:09:50 MYT

by Cheah Kah Peng

Cheah Kah Peng 604, Penang Chinese Town Hall 22, Jln Masjid Kapitan Keling Penang 11200 Tel: 04-2611234 Fax: 04-2625678 Chairman of Suhakam mmissioners of Suhakam a Lumpur, Selangor

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re: 

(1) Assault on KeADILan Reformasi 5 in Kamunting Detention Camp

(2) Assault on lawyer inside Kamunting Detention Camp

I refer to the above matter and the enclose letter of the Reformasi 5 dated 10th May 2003.

I am one of the lawyers representing the six Internal Security Act detainees. Five of them are now still detained in the Kamunting Detention Camp. They are: (1) Mr. Chua Tian Chang, (2) Mr. Saari Sungip, (3) Mr. Hishamudin Rais, (4) Mr. Lokman Adam, and (5) Dr. Badrul Amin. (Mr. Mohd Ezam Mohd Nor now detain in Kajang).

Over the two years detention period, we the lawyers have received many complaints from the family and from the detainees about the unreasonable treatments made to the detainees by the camp authority or their agents. Those treatments include assaults, harassments, beatings, kicking, slapping, striping naked, interrogations, confiscate letters, cut off outside communications, allowing their drinking water to be contaminated (the dead birds in the water tank incident), prohibiting medical supplements, damaging personal properties, cutting off important news from news papers, turning their lawyers away for no good reason, handcuff and blindfold the detainees for long hours when travel, or blindfold and handcuff when walking inside buildings (like blindfold and let detainees walk up or down the staircase) and etc.

I would also like to point out that during our visits to the camp, the lawyers often find plain clothes personnel in the camp, sometimes interfering with the warden?s decisions, and always prepare to threaten the detainees and the lawyers. When challenged, they would refuse to identify who they are, but they often behave in a very intimidating manner. In the recent episode, one plain clothes personnel (acknowledged by Camp superior officer Mr. Adina to be one of the ?agents?, threatened me, and threatened my life when I was in the camp in front of the superior officer and at least five other officers and wardens).

The principle cause of complaints is as below:

(1) Assault on KeADILan Reformasi 5 in Kamunting Detention Camp

On the 8th May 2003, the Review Board reviewed the cases of the five Reformasi detainees. The Review Board stated that they have to be consistent with their previous finding, which was to release the Reformasi detainees at once. Their last finding was made on or about 12.12.2002.The Review Board stated that they respect the finding of the Federal Court last year, where the court has held that the police was ?mala fide? in their investigation against the Reformasi detainees, under section 73 of the Internal Security Act. The Review Board express regrets that the Minister has chosen to disregard their consistent advice to release the Reformasi detainees.

On that same day, the lawyers (Mr. Gooi Hock Seng, Gooi Hsiao Leung, and Cheah Kah Peng) made an appointment to meet Mr. Sobri, one of the high rank officers of Kamunting Detention Camp. The lawyers reiterated their clients? requests, which was to further their studies in the Camp. They further advised Mr. Sobri about the acceptance and condition acceptance of the universities for the detainee?s further education programmes. (Backed with documentary evidence of University). Letters urging the Camp authority to expedite delay matter were shown by lawyers to Mr. Sobri.

After the lawyers had explained, Mr. Sobri agreed in front of Mr. Chua Tian Chang and the above named three lawyers that he would check with the Home Minister?s office again for the long and unnecessary delay in allowing the detainees to continue further studies.

In the meantime, for preliminary aid to Mr. Chua?s PhD research, he consented to the return of Mr. Chua Tian Chang?s laptop computer, which was detained in the custody of the Camp authority for about a year.

We the lawyers were subsequently told by the clients that, the laptop computer only stayed with Mr. Chua Tian Chang for less then a day. This is because on 9.5.03 Friday (the next day), a team of Detention Camp Security Unit (Unit Keselamatan Penjara, UKP in short) stormed into their confined area and rooms and took away the laptop computer by extreme force. The UKP came with batons and shields, the detainees were beaten with batons.

The details of the assault and attack are more clearly described in their joint statement which is enclosing with this letter. Suffice to say here that they were assaulted with excessive force intentionally. One or more of the detainees were slapped on the face, striped naked, pushed and forced against the floor, handcuffed, sat on by heavy bodies, beaten by batons, pictures of their nudity were taken by the Camp photographers when they were being over powered.

It is difficult to imaginable somebody can do this, but to conclude that the person(s) who authorized this madly orchestrated assaults, and the taking of detainees naked pictures while over powered, were the work of mad man seeking to provoke.

(2) Assault on lawyer inside Kamunting Detention Camp

Same thing happened to me, the lawyer visiting the camp.

In the afternoon one day after the assault, I received a telephone call from Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah, another lawyer representing the detainees. He informed me that our client Mr. Chua Tian Chang had placed a telephone call through the camp authority to him. Chua?s requested (in front of the camp?s personnel) for the lawyer to see them immediately.

I was sent to see them immediately after the telephone call. On my way to Kamunting Detention Camp, I was called by the family members of Chua Tian Chang, informing the details of his injuries and the happening that yesterday.

When I reached the camp, it was 3:30 PM. I waited, but was in many occasions rejected by the camp guards and operator from entering the second level. I insisted and explained over the phone that I was requested to come, by a telephone call place by my client together with the understanding and supervision of the camp authority. In short, I told them I was invited to come with express permission by the camp.

Mr. Adina, the deputy Chief (Timbalan Ketua Pengarah) came with a few wardens and officers in a jeep on or about 3:45PM. First he did not understand the situation until I explained to him. Then he still asked me to come another day. I protested to the unfairness of them inviting and now rejecting the lawyer in the same afternoon.

After my strong protest, and my explanation about the extra ordinary circumstances where I was inform of my assaulted clients, a plain clothes camp personnel believed to be either from the secret service (special branch) or warden pounced at me and started to scream threatening sentences and words at me. He made me feel threatened and tried to stop me from meeting my clients. His violent movements towards me (pouncing, shouting, spiting, brandishing his fists, swearing) were later restrained by the wardens standing around, only after I said I would complain to the Bar Council. I am sure he would have hit me on the face if the others did not restrain him. That is for sure, because he was about 4 feet from me. When he shouted, his saliva was all over my face. While he was being very loud and vicious in his language, shocking words like ?you take care of yourself outside, we will?.?, ?when I see you again, I will?..?? You think you lawyer can do anything huh? Just wait and see outside?.? And of course, he had a lot of intimidating gestures as if he is at the verge of beating me up. He tried very hard to scare me. He was in various occasions tried to run towards me, but restrained.

I asked Mr. Adina, the Chief in charge of the camp that day, to identify the ?violent man?. Mr. Adina was there witnessing the whole thing. He was standing next to the ?mad man? who tried to beat me up. He identify him as ?one of them?, but refused to identify his name. But, I remember when that man was running towards me and tried to attack me, when he was held back by the other wardens, Mr. Adina shouted at him to calm down, and called him by the name of ?man?. After comparing descriptions and consulting my clients, the man in question could be the same man that assaulted Hishamudin a day before. I was told his name was ?Sulaiman?, hence ?man? in short.

Intention of this letter:

It is the intention of this letter to get the response of all parties concerned, especially as the lawyers of the detainees, we seek help and ask SUHAKAM to investigate the above matters and render us with a report and preferably a proposal of how to abate any wrong doing and infringement of human rights right under our nose.

Following this letter, we would of course call for the Home Minister to explain to us why and how this could have happened again and again under his office? We further call for the SUHAKAM Commissioners, to work closely and effectively with parties concerned, to put pressure on those human rights violators, so as to eliminate human rights breach from the face of this land.

Yours faithfully,
Cheah Kah Peng
12.5.2003