Updated, Fri 11/9 at 5.30am:
High Court rules in favour of torn underwear
I fail to see the JC's wisdom in allowing the Coroner's decision to okay alleged torn underwear's owner as witness in the Inquest. How do we know that it is his underwear in the first place, and if he was telling the truth about his prick being caned and what-not?
But that's how it's going to be.
NST 09/09: Beng Hock's inquest: Witness T. Sivanesan alleges he was slapped, kicked and caned on penis by MACC officer, showed underwear as proof
After all these years, many of us still can't get images of the mattress during the Sodomy Part I trial. And now we have this - a torn s'pender* at the Teoh Beng Hock inquest!
I don't know why the Coroner allowed Sivanesan's spender to the hearing. The MACC official who had caned his prick could be a rogue officer. If it's true, Sivanesan's bad experience should be brought to the Royal Commission that the Government has set up in connection with TBH to look into the procedures at the MACC.
The Coroner must now allow for witnesses who were NOT tortured by the MACC interrogation to share their experience with the Inquest. Just a week ago, a GLC head told me of his experience. I'm sure he still has his untorn s'pender/boxer/underwear to prove his point.
* S'pender is an old slang, believed to be short for suspender, to describe underwear. It's like gostan, which is derived from go a stern, which we still use to mean reverse.