PASTOR RAYMOND KOH
61.
In the case of Ng Yee Fong & Anor v EW Talalla [1986] 1 MLJ 25, Mohamad Azmi
SCJ defined the word “acquiescence” as follows:
“… properly used where a person having a right, and seeing another
person about to commit or in the course of commi�ng an act infringing
upon that right, stands by in such a manner as really to induce the person
commi�ng the act, and who might otherwise have abstained from it, to
believe that he assents to it being commi�ed; a person so standing by
cannot a�erwards be heard to complain of the act (see De Bussche v Alt
(1878) 8 Ch D 286 314). In that sense the doctrine of acquiescence may
be defined as acquiescence under such circumstances that assent may be
reasonably inferred from it.”
62.
The family and other persons ac�ng on behalf of Pastor Raymond Koh do not
have the inves�ga�ve powers of the State to secure evidence on the iden�ty of
the person or persons who caused the disappearance in order to prove with
precision the culpability of the State.
63.
At the conclusion of the Inquiry, if the Panel’s finding is that this case is one of an
enforced disappearance, the Panel is empowered under Sec�on 13(2) of the Act
to refer it to the relevant authori�es or persons with the necessary
recommenda�ons.
64.
On the other hand, in the event that the Panel’s finding is that the disappearance
is an involuntary disappearance in which the State is not concerned, the Panel
similarly has powers under Sec�on 13(2) of the Act to refer the case to relevant
authori�es or persons with the necessary recommenda�ons.
Standard of Proof in a Public Inquiry
65.
There is no provision in the Act which sets out the standard of proof that is to be
applied in a public inquiry. However, this does not mean that there is no standard
of proof that the Public Inquiry is required to meet.
66.
A public inquiry is an inves�ga�ve inquiry similar to an inquest (an inquiry into a
death by a coroner). Although a public inquiry is not an inquest or a civil or
criminal trial, the Panel is of the view that the standard of proof to be applied in
a public inquiry is of the same standard of proof applicable to an inquest, that is,
on a balance of probabili�es and not beyond reasonable doubt.
20