INDEPENDENT BOARD OF INQUIRY NEEDED

17 Aug 1994

        I refer to the letter "Police officers face disciplinary action if 
they abuse power" by S.B. Balachandrer (ST, Aug 17).

        Mr Balachandrer appeared to suggest that, because the trial 
judge did not make an "express finding" that the police had actually 
assaulted Mr Somporn Chinphakdee, the basis of Judge Rajendran's 
decision to dismiss the charge of murder was, therefore, weaker than it 
might seem.

        Commonsense should tell us that quibbling over the word 
"appeared" is pointless. By no stretch of the imagination could the 
judge's statement that "it appeared to me that the accused had been 
assaulted on March 18, 1993 whilst he was in police custody" be 
construed in any way other than that he believed that the police had 
indeed abused their power. Coming from a senior and respected jurist, 
this is very serious.

        Mr Balachandrer said that the Internal Investigation Section 
(IIS) of Police Headquarters could not substantiate - in spite of evidence 
of injury - Mr Chinphakdee's complaint of having been assaulted in the chest and on his foot. Now, it cannot be that IIS and Judge Rajendran 
are both right. Either Mr Chinphakdee was assaulted, or he was not. 
Who should we believe?

        Mr Balachandrer also wondered why Mr Chinphakdee 
remained silent for eight months about needles being inserted into his 
arm. I should think that the reason is obvious. Would you readily 
complain about being abused to the same people who beat you up, 
especially if your previous complaint got you nowhere?

        In any case, the X-ray evidence of a broken needle lodged in 
his arm must still be explained. Interestingly, although Mr Chinphakdee 
took eight months to make a complaint, IIS is taking nine months. And 
it is still investigating the matter?

        Mr Balachandrer sought to reassure us that all allegations of 
police brutality are taken seriously and investigated. However, the 
divergence of Judge Rajendran's and IIS's findings in this case has 
highlighted the fact that an internal investigation can never avoid being 
suspected of a cover-up. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a wholly 
independent board of inquiry, whose reports should be in the public 
domain, to investigate such allegations. It is in the interest of everyone, 
including the police, for the professional reputation and integrity of the 
police to be beyond the shadow of a doubt.


ps:     Oh, incidentally, I find The Straits Times' deafening silence on 
this issue very amusing. The Editorial, Thinking Aloud, Tan Sai Siong's 
Looking Back in Wonder, the Sunday Times' opinion page, Tan Bah 
Bah's This Week's News that Matters to You (I suppose this incident 
didn't "matter", huh?), etc., all maintaining a studious silence. Let's 
hear it for: Constructive Dis-engagement!

pps:    I also wish to point out that this incident is surely of greater 
import to Singaporeans than Michael Fay going home drunk and 
scuffling with his dad. If the latter incident merited front page coverage 
(not to mention appearing in other columns)... 'nuff said.