By CAGED

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia:Here, I’ll tell you what I heard in open court this week. I’ll tell you some mythology about activists, Christians, and Shiites propagated by an officer in the top echelons of the Royal Malaysian Police. I’ll tell you why I think the mythology is accepted by the Attorney General’s Chambers. I’ll tell you five things Raymond Koh’s son Jonathan told the judge, and I’ll tell you how the Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) responded. I’ll end with some questions.

This week, two members of the Special Branch (SB) of the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) again attended a hearing in Susanna and Raymond Koh’s civil suit against the police and the government.

Why are members of the SB attending? To detect and prevent extremists who might try to create a ruckus? Or for some other reason?

Constitutional responsibility

We don’t know why the SB are attending, because anything to do with the police is secret. But after the damning allegations against the police by a statutory body, citizens have a constitutional responsibility to speculate.

I write “constitutional responsibility to speculate” because those who uphold the constitution must cry “foul!” and demand that those in power redress wrongs whenever there is evidence that the authorities fail to afford equal protection under the law for everyone.

I write “damning allegations” because the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Suhakam, after an exhaustive investigation, concluded that the SB abducted and disappeared Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat.

Suhakam also concluded that the “investigations” conducted by the police were “tardy, sloppy, lackadaisical,” and put the victims outside the protection of the law – as also in the case of Joshua Hilmy and Ruth Sitepu.

I write “against the police” because the SB is part of the police and is subject to the Inspector General of Police. Suhakam said the evidence showed the SB conducted the abductions, not another division of the police. Suhakam didn’t exonerate the police.

I have no reason to believe the SB has been purged of the belief that national security is threatened by Bersih activists, Christian evangelists, and Shiite Muslims – evidence for this emerged during the Suhakam inquiry, and I include some of it below.

Reasons for being increasingly concerned

I’m increasingly concerned because during the hearings, I see that the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) appears to support the labelling of demonstrators, Christian evangelists, and Shiite Muslims as threats.

What did I see? The SFC who is defending the police and the government claimed that demonstrations are a threat to national security. When she said this, Professor Gurdial Singh, one of the lawyers in the Kohs’ (pro bono) legal team, sprang from his seat and objected.

What did I see? Evidence of the extent to which the police are motivated by falsehoods propagated by a man who appears to be their chief mythologist: Deputy Commissioner of Police (Retired) Awaludin Jadid.

Awaludin’s role in what I call “tackling Christianizers” first emerged when Malay Christians were targeted during Operation Lalang in 1987 – he was the Investigation Officer for several cases involving Malay Christians.

In 2019, evidence about Awaludin was one of the planks in Suhakam’s conclusion that the SB abducted Amri and Raymond in 2016 and 2017 respectively. He was also mentioned in the 2022 Suhakam decision in the case of Joshua Hilmy and Ruth Sitepu.

Awaludin was Director of the Social Extremism Division (E2) of the SB at the time Amri and Raymond were abducted, and Joshua and Ruth disappeared. He went around the nation propagating his myths, meeting state muftis, making speeches. Dates of what may be myth propagation and morale boosting activities on his calendar eerily match the timeline of disappearances. (Suhakam said this more diplomatically.)

Jonathan Koh's testimony

Raymond Koh’s son, Jonathan, testified on Monday and Tuesday. He gave the judge an annotated statement. His evidence was led by another lawyer in the Kohs’ legal team, Steve Thiru.

Jonathan included an account of his activities on the day his father was abducted, and in the days following.

The abduction day was harrowing for Jonathan. He was informed by phone that Raymond’s car was involved in a kidnapping, but the caller – who owned the car Raymond used – didn’t know who had been kidnapped. He updated his mother, Susanna. He viewed wrecked cars in a police compound. He looked for Raymond in a hospital. He accompanied his mother. He was interviewed by the police. And more.

In the following days, Jonathan gathered evidence. He and his sister got CCTV footage, clips from which were used to make the viral video which shows the extent, precision, and confidence of the abductors. (It is a matter of huge national embarrassment that the CCTV footage was obtained not by the police, but by the children of the victim.)

The family played over in their minds the death threats they had received in the aftermath of the August 2011 raid by the Selangor State Islamic Authority (JAIS), escorted by the police, of the Harapan Komuniti thanksgiving dinner in DUMC church in Petaling Jaya.

Over time, with the help of friends, they realized Raymond’s abduction might be linked to that of Amri and of Joshua and Ruth. They found evidence of incendiary speeches by Awaludin and others.

They attended meetings with the police. They were astonished when they saw a news report that the police had linked Raymond’s abduction to a smuggling ring, though the police had said they had no new leads.

They learned more during the Suhakam inquiry.

The family was shocked when the Attorney-General's Chambers charged an Uber driver who had tried to extort money from Jonathan for the additional crime of abducting Raymond – despite having earlier said they had no evidence to link the driver with the incident.

Jonathan said the decision to charge the driver with abduction was a ploy to stop Suhakam’s investigation. (To no one’s surprise, due to lack of evidence, the driver was acquitted.)

There was a lot more in Jonathan’s statement. I’ll give some examples, to give you a sense of the “defence” offered by the SFC.

Five examples of SFC's responses

My first example of what Jonathan included concerns a package with two bullets and a death threat in red ink, delivered to the Koh family’s home about three weeks after the DUMC incident.


Jonathan found the package in the letter box and brought it to his father. After seeing the contents, Raymond immediately made a police report.

Jonathan said Raymond didn’t get updates from the police about the investigation, and that the police didn’t charge anyone. (Note: Unauthorized possession of bullets carries the death penalty; therefore, the police should have conducted a prompt and thorough investigation.)

What was the SFC’s response? I’ll summarize. Since neither the package nor the note named anyone in the Koh family, the threat was not directed at them. Raymond may have got updates from the police and not told his family. The span of six years from the “alleged” threat and Raymond’s abduction shows there’s no connection between the two.

My second example of what Jonathan included is a report by Ismaweb of a long speech by Awaludin in November 2015. Jonathan presented the material in the original Malay. This is my own translation:

“Bukit Aman [Police HQ] reveals Christian missionaries are masquerading as Muslims and influencing Muslims.

“Bukit Aman revealed that there are Christian missionaries masquerading as Muslims in order to influence adherents of Islam to become adherents of Christianity. This revelation was made by the Director of the Social Extremism Division, Special Branch, Royal Malaysian Police, DCP Awaludin Jadid. He also revealed that there are many kindergartens with names that sound Islamic, but in reality, are centres for propagating Christianity.

“Awaludin said 300 to 500 apostate Muslims are still active in Malaysia and that it is intensely worrying that they adopt liberal lifestyles which can confuse us. He urged NGOs to combine forces and craft actions to halt the Christianization movement. He said many NGOs hold demonstrations or protests to oppose things, but these actions are not effective. He urged NGOs to discuss and evolve actions to prevent escalation of this problem.”

Jonathan said that while Awaludin was giving his speech, the following text was visible behind him (as seen in the accompanying screenshot which I found on the Facebook page of Ismaweb).

My third example of what Jonathan included is an extract from an article posted on the Facebook page of the Royal Malaysian Police on 7 August 2017. This is my own translation from the Malay which I heard read out by Jonathan:

“Datuk Awaludin Jadid, Deputy Director of the Social Extremism Threat Division of the Special Branch, Bukit Aman, is alarmed that three million Shiites in Malaysia are posing a threat to national security. He said although these Shiites have not been directly involved in violence, they mastermind movements which threaten national security. He said we mustn’t view the collapse of Islamic states such as Iraq and Libya as normal. Studies which have been conducted have found that Shiites are responsible.”

What was the SFC’s response to those passages? She said she’d read in full the articles from which Jonathan had obtained those extracts. She said none of them named Raymond Koh or Komuniti Harapan or DUMC. She said none of them named any of the persons from whom Susanna and Raymond Koh are seeking damages in this suit. Therefore, the extracts have no evidential value in the present case.

My fourth example of what Jonathan included is the raid of the Harapan Komuniti Thanksgiving Dinner in DUMC in 2011, which I mentioned in passing earlier. As confirmation of JAIS involvement, he referenced a police report made by a JAIS official – a report from the Suhakam inquiry. He said JAIS did not produce a search warrant.

What was the SFC’s response? She said the JAIS official, in his police report, called the raid an inspection. She said it could not have been a raid because no one was arrested, and Raymond wasn’t questioned. She said Jonathan wouldn’t know whether or not a search warrant was produced – because he had no direct contact with the officials.

My fifth and final example of what Jonathan included is what he began with: photos of Raymond doing social work, such as handing out food parcels, opening a centre, and so on.

What was the SFC’s response? She said since Jonathan didn’t take the photos, and wasn’t in them, he couldn’t use the photos as proof of what Raymond did. (Lawyer Dato’ Jerald Gomez, another lawyer in the Koh family’s legal team, made short shrift of her argument. He showed that the string of photos included one in which Jonathan himself appears.)

After Jonathan’s testimony, Michelle Wong, the fourth member of the Kohs’ legal team, led evidence from Mr Sri Ram. He was one of the three directors of Harapan Komuniti, which has been voluntarily deregistered. I’ll write about his evidence when the hearing continues on 7 November.

Concluding thoughts

I began with the mythology perpetuated and adopted as motivational truth by the police, and the seeming acceptance by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC).

From my recounting of the evidence given by Jonathan Koh, and the responses of the Senior Federal Counsel (SFC), what do you think is the position of the AGC, and thus the position of the current government?

Are there 3 million Shiites in Malaysia? Are those who organize protests and demonstrations a threat to national security? Did Shiites bring about the collapse of Iraq and Libya? Is there a program of Christianization in Malaysia? Are Christians choosing names for kindergartens in order to trick and “convert” Muslims?

Since Awaludin was propagating his myths nationally over a period of years, perhaps beginning as early as 1987, how deeply entrenched within the police force is the view that activists, Christians, and Shiites pose a threat to national security?

What’s the extent of police involvement in the elimination of Raymond and Amri? Has anything changed in the police force in response to the reports of Suhakam in the cases of Amri, Raymond and Joshua and Ruth? What’s the likelihood that it has? Is there any proof?

Note: I understand the SFC has a job to do and is duty-bound to cast doubts about the value of the evidence in relation to the plaintiffs’ claims. She’s been put in a spot by the decision of the AGC to contest so much of the evidence. To avoid crossing into judicial territory, I will say no more.

*Citizens Against Enforced Disappearances (CAGED) is a human rights non-governmental organisation that focuses on possible cases of enforced disappearances.*