By Andrew Loh –

The mother of a former prison inmate has filed a Writ of Summons against the Singapore Government for aggravated damages in the inmate’s death while in police custody.

dineshprotrait
Portrait of Dinesh Raman

Dinesh Raman Chinnaiah died from positional asphyxia on 27 September 2010 while in Changi Prison, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which had conducted an internal investigation into the death.

Deputy Superintendent Lim Kwo Yin, the supervising officer when the incident which led to Dinesh Raman’s death happened, was the only one charged for the death. It was reported that 8 officers in total were involved in restraining Dinesh Raman in the incident which led to his death.

Lim subsequently pled guilty to “causing death by a negligent act” and was fined S$10,000 by the courts on 19 July 2013.

The government has accepted liability for the death and said it “will compensate the family.” It said it had also started discussions with the family about this.

Dinesh Raman’s family, however, has rejected the government’s findings and had requested the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to instruct the Coroner to re-open his inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death. The Coroner had discontinued his inquiry on 24 July after the MHA disclosed its findings into the death, and after Lim was found guilty by the courts.

The AGC has since denied the family’s request.

Dinesh Raman’s mother, Selvi Narayanasamy, filed a court application on 21 August to ask the court to compel the Coroner to re-open the inquiry. The case is pending before the courts.

In her latest court action, Selvi Narayanasamy is accusing the prison officers of abusing their positions of authority, that they “ignored the physical symptoms” exhibited by Dinesh as he was being restrained, and “continued their assault on Dinesh”, leading to his death.

It was reported in the press that “it took 8 officers” to restrain Dinesh Raman in a “fierce struggle” which lasted “30 minutes”. (link)

“Consequently, Dinesh sustained severe injuries from which he passed away on 27 September 2010,” Selvi Narayansamy says.

“[Dinesh] died an unnatural death as a result of the oppressive assault by the Prison Service Officers while in lawful custody of the Prison Service,” her writ added.

She is also contesting the government’s claims that her son’s act of kicking a prison officer, which apparently was the incident which led to him being restrained and eventually leading to his death, was “unprovoked”.

In her writ, Selvi Narayanasamy relates what took place on the morning her son died.

Between 7.30am and 7.45am on 27 September 2010, prison officer Sgt Yen Chia Hsien said to Dinesh Raman at cell 555, “Dinesh, long time never see you. Now you come back, you become a suicidal [sic] watch.”

It is believed that Dinesh Raman had been put on suicide watch because he was reported to have tried to commit suicide earlier, a view which his family rejects.

“The words meant and/or were understood by Dinesh to mean that Sgt Yen was partial against him,” the writ says.

Upon hearing Sgt Yen’s remarks, Dinesh Raman reportedly replied, “Sir, you got something against me, is it?”

“Dinesh then turned away from Sgt Yen and, as he turned away, he gestured his middle finger at Sgt Yen and uttered a vulgarity,” the writ explained. “Sgt Yen verbally reported the incident to DSP Darius [Lim Kwo Yin]. However, no written report was lodged.”

At about 9.45am, Dinesh Raman was let out of his cell to go to the outdoor yard for an hour of outdoor time, although he was not supposed to be allowed to do so that day.

At 10.45am, the writ says, “because of the incident that occurred earlier in the morning, as Dinesh was returning from the Outdoor Yard to his cell… he was accosted by Sgt Jonathan and then tackled by Sgt Yen onto the ground.”

“Sgt Jonathan applied the Oleoresin Capsicum Delivery System (OCDS) [pepper spray] and applied the same onto Dinesh’s face,” Selvi Narayanasamy’s writ says. “Sgt Jonathan then placed both his knees against the side of Dinesh’s head and applied pressure. Consequently, Dinesh was unable to breathe. At the same time, Dinesh was also weakened by the OCDS. His eyes became red and there was mucus coming out from his nose. All these physical symptoms were ignored. He was then handcuffed to his back and placed in a prone position.”

What followed were various officers being deployed and taking turns to restrain Dinesh Raman as he was subdued and taken to another cell – DHU Cell Number 1.

Later, when he was brought to the Outdoor Yard, Dinesh Raman was “drooling from his mouth,” the writ says. “Again, this physical symptom was ignored.”

While still being restrained by the officers, he “was brought to stand in front of two rows of inmates and then instructed to continuously shout (each time louder than the previous) using vulgar language in Hokkien and directed at a notorious [secret society] gang.”

As he was being brought to DHU Cell Number 1, he was put on the floor in prone position 4 times at various points along the way, all the while being restrained by various means by the officers.

Upon reaching DHU Cell Number 1, Dinesh Raman was put in a prone position on the floor for a 5th time, according to Selvi Narayanasamy’s writ.

“While in DHU Cell Number 1, one of the Prison Service Officers then poured water on Dinesh’s face but there was no response from him. More water was poured onto Dinesh’s face. However, there was still no response from Dinesh. DSP Darius then gave instructions to all the Prison Service Officers in DHU Cell Number 1 to leave the cell, leaving Dinesh unattended.”

“Dinesh’s body was presenting adverse physical symptoms,” the writ says. “The Prison Service Officers ignored the physical symptoms and continued their assault on Dinesh.”

The prison officers named in the writ are:

  • Deputy Superintendent of Prison Lim Kwo Yin Darius.
  • Deputy Superintendent of Prison Harry Yap Hong Hock
  • Assistant Superintendent of Prison Teo Chong Lian Dylan
  • Chief Warden Daljit Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh
  • Chief Warden Rozairudin Bin Zaini
  • Sergeant Yen Chia Hsien
  • Sergeant Tan Heng Chye Marcus
  • Sergeant Lee Fangwei Jonathan
  • Corporal Anand Pereira
  • Corporal Robby bin Sulaiman

On 12 August, after the conclusion of the criminal case against Lim, the Ministry of Home Affairs said it had “initiated disciplinary action against the superintendent, supervisors and other officers involved in the incident.”

The ministry has not disclosed what these disciplinary actions are.

Lawyer M Ravi, counsel for Selvi Narayanasamy, explains why the family is seeking aggravated damages:

“Our case is that a prison officer had been angered by Dinesh, who had shown him the middle finger and uttered a vulgarity at him.  They then let Dinesh out to the yard (when he was not supposed to be in the yard that day), when that prison officer who had been angered set upon Dinesh and assaulted him.  Other prison officers joined in the assault.  When they brought him to the cell, they knew he was already unconscious and unresponsive.  He was deliberately left in the cell with no effort to resuscitate him.”

“In other words we want the government to admit liability based on our version of the facts and not the government’s version.”

“The actions by the officers were not merely a negligent act but deliberate and intentional. This is diametrically opposed to the way that the government has presented its account of the circumstances of Dinesh’s death.”

View here for the writ  filed

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

毕丹星:壮大新加坡核心 各族群都扮演重要角色

“不论是新加坡或其他地方,少数民族多少都能感受到多数民族如何对待他们。要了解这点,只要问问身边的本地马来和印裔同胞,或来自马来西亚的华裔即可。” 谈及最近epay欠缺种族敏感的广告,工人党秘书长毕丹星表示“并不感冒”,他说可能是因为自己对于恶趣味的高门槛和自己“皮够厚”,才不感到冒犯。 “但试想想,就因为不懂得说“正确的语言”、需要在特定时段祷告,见工时被一个种族歧视或不敏感的雇主拒绝;或甚至因为身上的味道或头巾被嘲笑。如果他/她一再在生活上感受到这种种族歧视,可能会感受到自己像个次等公民。而每每发声回应时,就像那段受争议视频一样,是激昂而刺耳的。” 他说,当前新加坡的种族宗教现况,乃是不同群体间容忍、妥协的结果。而社会体制的“安全阀”扮演者维持稳定的角色。他认为在某种程度上,新加坡很幸运能维持和谐,但不论是多数族群还是少数民族,都好像生活在孤岛,自己的圈子中。 “对他们来说,有别于和其他族群交融,他们在自己的圈子中,生活在无知的面纱下,对他人的刻板印象和偏见从一代人延续到下一代。” 但他坦言,族群和宗教的进步,往往也是因为课题激起社会的关注,例如最近警方调查“美丽求求你”的视频,他们也是为了反讽epay的广告充满华裔对少数群体的偏见。 毕丹星提醒,在大家先入为主评断普丽蒂兄妹之前,应该先先探讨几个问题: 如果下次又出现欠缺敏感度“啡色脸”广告,考量到现如今批评广告的人被调查,我们可以怎么做? 普通公民要如何在无需惧怕被谴责挞伐的情况下,讨论似乎种族不敏感的话题? 我们要如何处理令少数族群感受如次等公民的种族歧视问题? 毕丹星说,要理解种族问题,需要不间断的观察,并且理解壮大新加坡核心价值是社会集体的责任,每个族群在对话中都扮演着重要角色。 他说,固然很找到关于族群课题的最佳平衡点,但政府等各造理应有更多的沟通和理解,以妥善管理可能存在的问题。他也欢迎社会各造积极对着课题分享看法。…

Remuneration packages given to top managements at GIC and Temasek not interfered by the Government – Lawrence Wong

On Wednesday (8 May), Second Finance Minister Lawrence Wong said in Parliament…

职总企业将收购咖啡店集团

职总创优企业合作社(NTUC Enterprise),将收购本地咖啡店和小贩中心运营商Kopitiam集团。 职总创优企业发文告指出,交易预计今年底完成,惟仍待监管部门批准。职总企业认为,他们与咖啡店集团拥有共同经营理念,即提供可负担且实惠的美食。 执行董事纪德坤声称,职总企业将善用综合优势,提升并打造国内有活力和弹性的日用品行业,最终咪表乃是为客户提供更好体验、为员工和其他相关利益者创造机会。 职总企业强调,收购策略符合职总企业的社会使命,为新加坡社群的利益服务。收购也进一步完善和提升现有熟食业提供经济实惠美食目的。 职总企业旗下八大社会企业,在保健和乐龄护理、孩童护理、日用品、熟食和金融领域,为民众提供可负担和有质量的产品和服务。 “特别是在熟食业,我们透过职总富食客提供可负担、有素质和健康的用餐选项。为调控价格,职总富食客旗下小贩中心和咖啡店,每个摊位独有提供2元至2.80元的经济套餐。” 此外,还有针对低收入消费者的“禾园”社会关怀计划,为消费者提供1.50元起的实惠健康套餐。 1988年创办的Kopitiam,如今拥有56家食阁、21间咖啡店、三个小贩中心和两个中央厨房。集团旗下有上千名员工,管理1000多个熟食摊位。 职总富食客(NTUC Foodfare)旗下则有33家食阁和咖啡店,包括14家食阁、10间咖啡店和九个小贩中心。 收购完成后,富食客和Kopitiam将继续独立营运,现有管理团队和员工不会更动。客户、摊位租户和其他相关业者可以照常运作。

Hougang is not WP's own little fiefdom

~by: Ravi Philemon~ Should Hougang be reserved exclusively for Workers' Party (WP)…