Let’s consider this, YB. LKS

Merely requesting that an RTI be set up to probe the case would very likely not be successful. Three years down the road, all traces of evidence would already have faded. While I agree that there must be something we have to do, we cannot just wait and see as this involves the security of the country
 
By ViewAct

While I applaud YB LKS’s insistence in setting up an RCI to probe into the matter regarding Israelis in our police department, may I bring up the following points to the attention of everyone?
 
1)      Like the Teoh Beng Hock case, did the RCI work? We remembered a brave pathologist being threatened, being restricted, being intimidated in carrying out her duties honestly.
2)      Now, with 3 agencies (who are known to have bad records), do you think they WON’T temper with the evidence to make it insufficient to prove them guilty? After all, the evidence is in their hands. Remember what happened to Selangor’s DUN? Remember Sodomy 1? Remember Teoh Beng Hock? What makes you think they will follow the very rules they set for us? They have their own set of rules, man.
 
Thus, merely requesting that an RTI be set up to probe the case would very likely not be successful. Three years down the road, all traces of evidence would already have faded. While I agree that there must be something we have to do, we cannot just wait and see as this involves the security of the country. We should not take it lightly. I don’t know how RTI etc works, but may I suggest the following:

1)      Request Parliament to remove the Police, MACC and Home Minister’s selected committee from being involved in that case. And transfer all related evidence, files, etc out from their custody. And put it into secured storage. The storage can only be opened for extraction of information upon access by all authorized parties simultaneously. Something like a set of keys which each authorized party holds one.

2)      In the RTI, there would be 4 parties:
i) One member of the Government body (Home Minister’s department)
ii) One member from the opposition (PR)
iii)One member from the Bar Council
iv)One independent personnel
v)One witness
 
– The government body is to be there to ensure that the opposition does not abuse its power.
– The opposition body is to be there to ensure that the government does not abuse its power.
– The bar council is there to advise on law, and to ensure the whole process does not go overboard against any constitutional law.
– The independent personnel are to make sure that the proceeding is fair and just.
– And the witness is to verify that all events happened accordingly.
– Reports of proceedings will be recorded, transcribed and made available to be reviewed. Should there be any misdeed, or some points missed out, it can be pinpointed upon and the necessary corrective/remedial action taken.
 
So YB. Lim, while I like your boldness in bringing up issues in our country, please do excuse my direct approach. May I suggest that you opt for a slightly different approach in your house proceedings? Sometimes, insistence and persistence in that insistence will appear like a nuisance, stubbornness, annoyance and unnecessary noise; even if you have a valid point. Taking a different approach, by getting the “other side’s” own statement/view on a certain issue (you know well how they will contradict their own statements, and how their pronouncements always hit them back on the face hard); why not let them say first, and then only provide a “supporting” view which they cannot deny, nor agree. Then, I believe you will be allowed to continue your talks without much resistance. Well, it’s just a suggestion. No hard feelings.