Source: SPF / TOC

Finally, after one month of probing into Mr Mohan’s four-month ordeal in Malaysia, the authorities have decided to provide a response.

For those who have not heard the story, Mr Mohan Rajangam, now in his 50s, was left in Malaysia for four months in 2015 without any follow up from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) or the Singapore High Commission in Malaysia after being arrested by 20 police officers at his workplace and without revealing details of his whereabouts to his family.

In fact, when he was finally released from detention in Malaysia after its authorities realised that he shouldn’t be there in the first place, he had to buy his own ticket back to Singapore — twice, after he was found to have overstayed in Malaysia when he tried to fly off on the first ticket.

His ordeal of being kept in the poor conditions of the Malaysian jail could have well been prevented if the authorities — that decided to send him to Malaysia — had checked that he was not even wanted for the murder in the first place. Or to simply check that his passport which proved that he was in Singapore at the time of the alleged murder.

However, the answers provided by the authorities raise more questions and not to mention doubt in the authority’s version of the story.

What the clarification by the Singapore Police Force on 17 Jan says:

1. SPF established that Mohan was in regular contact with Malaysian gang members in Jan 2015.
2. SPF arrested Mohan on 21 March 2015 after the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) sought assistance and arrest of Mohan because he was believed to be involved in a gang’s drug activities and harbouring members of the gang which is involved in a lethal shootout IN JOHOR.
3. SPF arrested Mohan on suspicion his drug and gang-related offences.
4. Mohan’s house was searched under the misuse of drug act.
5. RMP issued a warrant of arrest from the Malaysian Court against Mohan for an offence of murder in Georgetown, Penang on 2 March 2015.
6. The warrant of arrest was endorsed by a magistrate in Singapore court under section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
7. Note that SPF state that Mohan was transferred custody to RMP and he was not extradited under extradition law. SPF simply transferred custody of Mohan to the Malaysian Police on 23 March 2015.
8. SPF states Mohan was detained for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
9. SPF states Mohan’s family was present during the search of residence on 21 March 2015.
10. SPF contacted Mohan’s brother on 23 March 2015, the same day he was transferred to RMP and provided contact details of the investigation officer.
11. Mohan was released by RMP on 15 July 2015 after its investigation into the murder case.

What SPF does not deny about Mohan’s claims made to TOC.

1. Mohan was arrested at his workplace with 20 over officers.
2. Mohan was verbally abused by the officers overseeing his detention.
3. SPF found no records of Mohan with the Central Narcotics Bureau and the Secret Society Branch while he was in detention. Nothing was found in the search of the residence.
4. Mohan was not given access to a lawyer to seek legal advice before transferring him to Malaysia.
5. No statement was taken by the SPF police during his detention.
6. Mohan had told the police and judge that he was in Singapore at the time and date of the alleged murder in Penang, Malaysia. His impounded passport would have proved his claim.

Passport showing that Mohan was in Singapore at the time of alleged murder

7. SPF did not consider his defence before transferring him to the RMP.
8. There was no follow up from the SPF for the entirety of Mohan’s detention after he was discharged from investigations on the alleged murder.
9. The family was not informed by SPF where Mohan was for the next 4 months after he was transferred from Singapore.
10. Mohan had to buy his return ticket back to Singapore.
11. Mohan was fined for overstaying in Malaysia because he had no visa. He overstayed because SPF transferred him to RMP custody.
12. Mohan lost his job due to the arrest and detention of four months.

Mohan's employer informing that he is being sacked while he was still detained in Malaysia
Mohan’s employer informing that he is being sacked while he was still detained in Malaysia

13. Mohan had to go for surgery due to the medical condition he was in, after the four months of detention.


14. SPF took Mohan’s IC, lost it somehow but told Mohan to file a missing IC report and pay for the replacement himself.

What Mohan is contesting with SPF’s statement.

1. SPF did not state the reason for his arrest when he was arrested and throughout the whole course of his detention.
2. SPF lied about contacting his brother as the brother was in New Zealand at that time and the brother denies being contacted.
3. He did not rent the said apartment as alleged by the SPF.
4. He knew one of the gang member but that gang member had been working in Singapore for three decades. He knew the person while he was working as a manager and the gang member as a supervisor. That person was just one of 100 over Malaysian staff who had worked with him.
5. He was not investigated for the murder, but brought on a show parade around Penang for crimes that had no connection with him. He was only released after someone discovered that he shouldn’t be where he was.
6. He could have died in Malaysia without anyone knowing. It was just sheer luck that someone in Malaysia realised the mistake and let him out.

Troubling facts

1. By 23 March, the RMP has already arrested the suspects involved in the Penang murder and one of the suspects confessed to the murder with the murder weapon found. This is before SPF transferred Mohan to RMP. The arrest was reported in Malaysian news.
2. SPF claims that Mohan was released after investigations into the murder but the official document from RMP in Penang (refer to image) shows that he was investigated for other secret society activities which he has nothing to do with, and detained under the Malaysia equivalent of the Internal Security Act for 28 days. Even that does not explain how Mohan was kept in Malaysia till 16 July.


3. SPF said that Mohan was released on the 15 July but Mohan says he was released on 16 July. His flight ticket was bought on the same day which TOC has seen. The passport was also released to Mohan from the RMP on 16 July.


4. Mohan was arrested for suspicion of an offence in Johor and later transferred to RMP for an entirely different offence. How does that work?
4. SPF told the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur back in 2015 that Mohan was charged in Penang when he was never charged for any offence. Did SPF lie to the High Commission?

Reply to Mohan’s family from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2015

Till today, the ministers have also not given any response to the matter.

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

Grateful but please do more

Leong Loo Ping is grateful for baby incentives but…

“存数点失实” 前进党反击律政、新闻部联合声明

新加坡前进党(Progress Singapore Party)在本月10日发声明,批评《防假消息法》赋予部长权力,来宣布哪些消息内容是假的,但欠缺明确的阐释和标准,该党认为这并不符合透明和问责的原则。 不过,律政部联合通讯及新闻部,也很快在隔日发表声明反驳该党,坚称上述法令要求部长明确说明为何相关内容存伪;也反问前进党党员毕博渊(Brad Bowyer)的言论自由可曾被堵住? 该部强调更正不实消息并不会打压任何人都言论自由。 前进党则在今日(16日)于脸书留言中作出回应,针对两大部门联合声明中存有数点“不实之处”,其中提及“前进党声称部长可随意施加任何惩处。”对此前进党驳斥这是不确实的。 从未提到部长可施加任何惩处 “我们的声明呼吁,要裁定哪些新闻是假消息、该做出怎样的惩处,我党认为,为了彰显中立理应由新加坡法庭来处理。”,故此,从来没有提到部长可以施加人和惩处。 在两大部门的声明中,指“前进党续而提及部长在使用《防假消息法》时没有任何标准或理据”,对此前进党澄清“该部有所误会”,该党针对的是如何定义假消息,而不是法令的使用。惟该党接受这点值得争议,故此同意原有文章中移除“理据”(justification)这字眼。 “不过,这不会改变在如何裁断假消息这点,仍欠缺明确的标准。”该党在声明中举例,《防假消息法》2(2)项阐明:不论是整体或是单独部分,如存有虚假或误导性,即有关陈述即属虚假。 对此前进党认为这样的定义显得迂回也,未见能清楚解释。…

星耀樟宜再传意外事件 14岁少女镜子迷宫中割伤脸

时隔不到一周,星耀樟宜再传出受伤事件!一少女在星空花园(Canopy Park)的镜子迷宫(Mirror Maze)中玩耍时,脸部被割伤,缝了九针。 署名Susan Goh的网友,于19日晚上在脸书上帖文,指她14岁的侄女在镜子迷宫中游玩时,脸部被割伤了。她在文中也提到,已经发生了数宗意外,因此促请家长和孩子们要额外小心。 她的帖文随后在昨日(20日)有更新,指事发时有六个孩子在镜子迷宫中游玩,她的侄女不知在哪里弄伤了自己。 她指出,虽然景点经理在事发后给予协助,但是她认为有关补救程序还有待改进。 其侄女随后被送到莱佛士医院就医,被缝了九针。她庆幸没有伤到眼睛。 盼望他人采取预防措施 当她获悉有记者指星耀樟宜已就此事回复她时,她表示并没有收到来自星耀樟宜的回应。“或许这不是他们第一次碰上类似事故。” 她说,上载照片和帖文并不是要怪罪星耀樟宜,旨在盼望其他人能够采取预防措施。 有网民表示伤口很深很吓人,是否有向星耀樟宜索赔时,Susan表示帖文只为了提醒大家,避免有人再受伤。…

要有心理准备 颜金勇:出现死亡病例“无可避免”

据了解,卫生部长颜金勇今日(6日)在跨政府部门工作小组记者会上,坦言未来本地出现武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)可能无可避免。 他表示,需在加护病房治疗的病患病况严重,“如我之前所言,最终我们需准备好可能出现死亡病例。” 他说,目前前线医护人员都在致力抢救,希望他们都能痊愈,但他直言,未来仍可能“无可避免”出现死亡病例。 早在上月12日,颜金勇曾提及大多数病患会康复,但一些可能病重甚至死于感染,需为最坏情况做准备。 昨日他则表示,有鉴于中国以外各地区出现令人引起关注的增长病例,我国可能需要做好应对武汉冠状病毒疫情的长期准备。 卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授则指出,所幸本地一些住院者只是出现轻微症状,并且在出院前留院观察一段较长时间,以确保体内不在有病毒。 至于重症患者大多需要氧气支持,有者也需要接受抗病毒药物等治疗。 据了解,此前病危的确诊39岁孟加拉籍劳工(第42例)迄今仍未出院,他在加护病房已待了三周。