Full rights to those being interrogated
(The Star) IT should not matter how the Cabinet came to decide on an inquest to delve into how political aide Teoh Beng Hock had died, and to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s interrogation methods.
The point is that both avenues will now be traversed because both are necessary. They are the least that should be done in the circumstances, and they are also what Malaysians want.
No decent person will want anything but the complete truth to be known. Only the guilty will feel the need to conceal or distort what actually happened.
The inquest is expected to take shape in the following days. The legal system can be expected to perform its designated functions in appointing a magistrate and seeing the matter to its conclusion.
For its part, the Royal Commission of Inquiry must comprise unblemished individuals of exceptional standing. They must then discharge their duties in a highly competent manner befitting the seriousness of their task because justice must be done, and be seen to be done.
There are sound reasons for properly considering the permissible interrogation techniques and making them transparent. Again, only the guilty among the interrogators will have anything to hide.
For example, there have been suggestions that all interrogation sessions be videotaped in full, and archived with ready access when needed. The available technology makes this a simple requirement to fulfil.
Furthermore, a person being interrogated should be informed of his right to take contemporaneous notes of the proceedings, or to make an audio recording of the sessions if he so wishes. This will help immensely in cultivating public confidence in the procedures.
A legal representative should also be present during all interrogation sessions, to deter abuses between recordings. If suspects enjoy this right, witnesses should also be entitled to it.
These measures can be introduced as standard procedures without difficulty, if as a nation we are serious in doing what is right.
What reason is there to fear more openness and accountability?
We need to make redress where a wrong has been committed.
Better yet, we can and should take steps now to avoid wrongdoing in the first place.
