Malaya inquiry to hear from survivors of Batang Kali shootings by British troops

From: The Guardian

Supreme court to hear case over deaths of 24 unarmed villagers at hands of Scots Guards in 1948, during communist uprising in UK protectorate

Lim Ah Yin, relative of a massacre victim, in 2012 (AFP/Getty)

Lim Ah Yin, relative of a massacre victim, in 2012 (AFP/Getty)

Lim Ah Yin last saw her father alive on her 11th birthday. A British soldier, pointing a rifle, was telling him to shut up. A week later, she followed her heavily pregnant mother back to the Malayan rubber plantation and discovered his bloated body amid a swarm of flies. There was a bullet hole in his chest.

On Wednesday, Lim, now 78, will take a seat in the supreme court in London, to witness a legal battle over the government’s responsibility to hold inquiries into allegations of historical atrocities.

The judicial review challenge, brought by the relatives of 24 unarmed men killed by Scots Guards at Batang Kali on 12 December 1948, has broadened out into a dispute over the vanishing point of when unresolved claims of injustice are allowed to disappear into the past.

Northern Ireland’s attorney general, John Larkin QC, and several Northern Irish human rights groups have intervened on different sides in the case because of the precedent it will set for the official duty to investigate legacy cases from the Troubles. Larkin is expected to argue that the obligation to investigate is limited; the human rights groups will say that even historical cases deserve justice.

Lim’s heartbreaking journey to the UK’s highest court began more than 60 years ago. She was living with her parents near Batang Kali, a rubber estate in Selangor, then part of the British-protected Federation of Malaya. It was the height of the communist insurgency. On the morning of 11 December 1948, she followed her parents out to the paddy fields to harvest rice. On their way back they met British troops and saw the body of Loh Kit Lin, the first of the villagers to die.

“A soldier pointed at my father,” Lim told the Guardian. “They checked the rice and pushed him into a hut. Then one of the soldiers pulled my mother’s arms. She was eight months’ pregnant. I and my sister tried to stop them taking her away but she was pushed down to the river. We heard gun shots and thought my mother had been killed.”

There were mock executions to persuade villagers to hand over information about “bandits”. Later that evening her mother was brought back to the hut. “I realised she had survived. Women and children were ordered to go upstairs. In the morning, we came downstairs and I heard my father’s voice. We had been ordered to go out to a lorry that was waiting.

“He [Lim’s father] said I should follow the adults. I told him mother was alive but a British soldier with a gun opened the door and told him to shut up. We climbed into the lorry and as it moved away we heard gunshots, sounding like firecrackers. As we looked back, we saw smoke come up from the [burning] houses.”

A week later Lim and her mother returned to Batang Kali on a truck carrying plywood coffins. “It was very smelly,” she recalled. “The bodies were covered in flies. They were bloated and swollen, lying in groups of three or four. Finally I found my father. He had been shot in the chest. That day, December 12th, had been my birthday.
New documents reveal cover-up of 1948 British ‘massacre’ of villagers in Malaya
Read more

“My mother cried almost every day. She brought me and my sister up. When the baby was born she gave it away for adoption. She only stopped crying when I married and her granddaughter was born. She was 92 when she died.”

Lim is one of seven living survivors who can recall what happened in Batang Kali. The official British account was that victims were attempting to escape when they were shot. In the years that followed there were two abortive criminal investigations by Malaysian and British police. Both were prevented from reaching a conclusion because of official opposition to interviewing witnesses.

In 1969, several of the Scots Guards on the patrol that day gave interviews to The People newspaper, alleging that they had been ordered to massacre villagers in Batang Kali. Two sergeants, however, insisted that the men had been shot because they tried to escape.

John Halford, a solicitor at the law firm Bindmans who represents the Malaysian survivors, said: “The bullets that killed half the inhabitants of Batang Kali can never return to their barrels and the time has long since passed when any soldiers who fired them might be prosecuted.

Police with locals under suspicion of collaborating with communist bandits during the Malayan emergency. Photograph: Bert Hardy/Getty Images

Police with locals under suspicion of collaborating with communist bandits during the Malayan emergency. Photograph: Bert Hardy/Getty Images

“But when six of them have confessed to murder, eyewitnesses remain alive and forensic tests can confirm the killings were close-range executions, the law should demand an answer from the state. After all, those killed were British subjects living in a British protected state. They and their families have a right to meaningful justice.”

Prof Sue Black, a forensic anthropologist who has carried out excavations on mass graves in Kosovo and Rwanda, has advised Halford’s legal team that evidence could still be obtained from the victims’ bodies.

In the past the Foreign Office has resisted holding an inquiry, saying: “It is very unlikely that a public inquiry could come up with recommendations which would help to prevent any recurrence.” The government has also argued that any responsibility for an inquiry passed to Malaysia when the former colony became independent in 1957.

In a statement, the Ministry of Defence said: “This was a deeply regrettable incident. The case will be heard in the supreme court on 22 and 23 April. It would not be appropriate to comment further whilst legal proceedings are ongoing.”

Yasmine Ahmed, director of Rights Watch UK, one of the groups involved, said: “The outcome of this case will have considerable implications in Northern Ireland, where many of the deaths that occurred during the Troubles happened before the enactment of the Human Rights Act in 1998.”

Sara Duddy, a caseworker with the Pat Finucane Centre in Derry, said: “Dealing with the past, whether through inquests or investigations, continues to be a battleground where the UK government seeks to deny families the right to truth. The Batang Kali massacre is proof that the past will always come back to haunt us if it isn’t dealt with.”

After recounting her experiences, Lim said: “I hope the British government can give my family justice for all the suffering they have been through.”


UK Supreme Court to revisit 1948 Batang Kali massacre

From : Free Malaysia Today

[Supreme Court may revisit law in the light of European court ruling in Polish case.]


LONDON: Unlikely as it may first appear, a small town in Hulu Selangor will become the focal point of what may turn out to be a landmark human rights court case in the United Kingdom later this week when the UK Supreme Court revisits the circumstances surrounding the Batang Kali massacre in 1948, reports The Independent.

A quick dive into the annals of history will show that after World War II ended, the British returned to recover control of Malaya from Japanese forces only to find that guerrillas whom they had supported in the fight against the Japanese had turned to communism in a bid to oust the British themselves.

British-owned rubber plantations and tin mines were targeted, leading the authorities to declare a state of Emergency in June 1948 to curb the escalating violence.

In December 1948, a 14-member Scots Guards patrol entered a rubber plantation and rounded up all civilians. The men were separated from the women and children for interrogation about communist guerrilla activities operating locally.

The next morning, after the women and children had been driven away, 24 men were executed and the village was burnt down.

British authorities have previously accepted the army’s explanation that the men were insurgents who were attempting to escape detention.

Relatives, however, claim that they were civilians massacred in cold blood.

In 1970, an on-going investigation was suddenly halted when a new Conservative government took office.

Even an investigation into the incident by the Malaysian Police in 1993 had to be closed after the police received “virtually no assistance from the UK authorities.”

Families of the victims were reported to have petitioned the Queen twice prior to commencing the present legal action. On both occasions, no response was received.

In 2012, the families then took the challenge to the High Court but the case was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did likewise on March 19, 2014.

Despite this, relatives have some cause for optimism that the Supreme Court will decide differently.

According to The Guardian, this is due to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in a case called Janowiec, which involved a massacre by the Russian army of Polish prisoners.

In that case, the court decided that Russia was under no obligation to investigate a massacre which took place some 58 years before Russia ratified the human rights convention.

The court, however, suggested that ratifying states may be required to investigate breaches of human rights which occurred a “reasonably short” time – not more than 10 years – before ratification.

The UK ratified the human rights convention less than five years after the killings at the Batang Kali massacre occurred.

In dismissing the appeal, the UK court of appeal held that it was bound by earlier decisions of the Supreme Court which held that UK’s Human Rights Act 1998 does not operate retrospectively.

The families were, however, invited to appeal to the Supreme Court to allow that Court to test its previous rulings in light of the Janowiec case.

The Court of Appeal even went as far as acknowledging that the Batang Kali case would probably succeed if it was taken up in Strasbourg, the seat of the European Court for Human Rights.

Lawyers for the British Government argue that the legal action has no merit because the incident occurred prior to ratification by the British Government of the Human Rights Convention. They also argue that the troops were under local Selangor command, and not UK command.

The case also has wide significance within the United Kingdom. If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the families, it would also mean that the British Government would likely have to open inquiries into contentious killings by British soldiers in Northern Ireland.


吉隆坡 – 峇冬加里屠杀案罹难者家属及工委会成员已准备就绪,于2015年4月22日和23日前往伦敦向英最高法院大法官提出提出已过67载的控诉。




峇冬加里屠杀案有数项特殊的案情:其中包括1948和1949年严重不足的调查行动、数名英军在1970年代承认冷血屠杀村民,但英政府违背查案警官的意愿仓促的终止调查、马来西亚警方在1990年代的调查虽半途搁置,但更多证人和证据出现、以及家属自2008年准备通过司法途径提出控诉时发现更多的新证据。 由于此案将对英政府是否应须为60至70年代英本土的北爱尔兰冲突负上责任有着切实的影响,因此北爱尔兰著名人权组织已申请介入并支持家属的申诉。北爱尔兰总检察长毫无意外的支持英中央政府的抗辩。

第三,如果英政府没有义务彻查此案,家属也要求英最高法院检讨英政府拒绝彻查的决定标准。家属律师认为自17世纪起,普通法已认可彻查在扣留间的可疑死亡案的重要性,任何拒绝彻查屠杀案的决定必须在令人信服与符合“与证据相称”(proportionate)的情况作出。英高庭和上诉庭的法官认为司法审核政府的决定是以“合理”为标准,即只要政府能合理的拒绝设立听证会,法律并不会干预政府的决定。惟罹难者家属表示这已不再是一项正确的法律标准。因此,这项法律议题预料将成为司法审核案的新标准,尤其是涉及基本人权的案例。以英最高法院院长纽伯格大法官(Lord Neuberger)为首的五司将听审这起上诉。其他4名法官分别是最高法院副院长黑尔(Lady Hale),曼斯(Lord Mance),克尔(Lord Kerr)和休斯(Lord Hughes)。



This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Batang Kali killings: Britain in the dock over 1948 massacre in Malaysia

[Sunday 19 April 2015]

from : The Independent

Victims' relatives take patrol's killing of 24 civilians to Supreme Court

Victims’ relatives take patrol’s killing of 24 civilians to Supreme Court

Britain’s failure to investigate the role of the Army in a massacre of 24 unarmed civilians in Malaysia will be challenged in a landmark Supreme Court case this week.

In the case, the culmination of a 66-year battle for justice, relatives of victims of the Batang Kali killings during the “Malayan Emergency” in 1948 will demand the British government be held to account for its repeated refusal to investigate the shootings.

The outcome has important ramifications for the UK’s duty to investigate historical incidents where British security forces have shot civilians. It could also further establish the extent to which the military is subject to human rights laws. Earlier this month, seven former defence chiefs of staff argued that British forces should be exempt from “creeping legal expansion on to the battlefield”.

Lim Ah Yin, relative of a massacre victim, in 2012 (AFP/Getty)Lim Ah Yin, relative of a massacre victim, in 2012 (AFP/Getty)

In the incident, dubbed Britain’s My Lai – after the 1968 Vietnam War atrocity when US soldiers murdered hundreds of unarmed civilians – a 14-man Scots Guards patrol entered the Batang Kali rubber plantation in Selangor state, a British protectorate. The soldiers, with a guide and two colonial police officers, rounded up more than 50 villagers, separated men from women and children, detained them in huts overnight, and began interrogating both groups about communist guerrillas operating locally. Interrogations included simulated executions, witnesses claimed.

The next morning the women and children were driven a short distance away, by lorry. The men’s hut was then unlocked and within minutes all 23 of the men were shot dead after allegedly attempting a mass breakout. One man had been shot the previous evening. The village was then burnt to the ground.

British authorities rejected subsequent demands for an inquiry, labelling the victims “bandits” and accepting the escape explanation.

In 1969, a member of the patrol told a newspaper the troops deliberately executed the villagers on the platoon commander’s orders. A further three soldiers admitted on oath to a subsequent Scotland Yard investigation that they executed the villagers under orders. Two said the Army instructed them to give the false explanation that the men had tried to escape.

Detectives were poised to interview more Malaysian witnesses when the inquiry was closed in 1970. The investigating officer concluded: “At the outset this was politically flavoured.” The decision to terminate mid-investigation, he wrote, “was due to a political change in view when the new Conservative government came to office.” A 1993, a Malaysia Police investigation was closed after “virtually no assistance from UK authorities”. Relatives twice petitioned the Queen for an apology, without response, before launching their legal-inquiry battle.

Civilians lie dead in Batang Kali, in 1948

Civilians lie dead in Batang Kali, in 1948

Lawyers for the British government  argued that it was not liable for the deaths, which occurred before Britain signed the Human Rights Convention, and that the troops were under Selangor, not UK, command.

Surviving platoon members are not expected to face prosecution.

John Halford, of Bindmans solicitors, representing victims’ relatives, said: “The unarmed Chinese labourers slaughtered were British subjects living in what was then a British Protected State. Their killers were British soldiers, deployed by the British Cabinet to protect British interests. Despite all of this, the Government will argue the law demands no accountability whatsoever because the killings are somehow not Britain’s responsibility and happened a long time ago. We trust the Supreme Court to see through this sophistry… [and] not permit an atrocity committed by our troops to be condoned and covered up in our name.”

Last year the Appeal Court rejected the relatives’ legal arguments but, unusually, invited them to appeal to the Supreme Court to enable Britain’s highest court to bring UK law into line with more recent European Human Rights Court judgments. The relatives’ arguments would “probably succeed” in Strasbourg, the judges noted.

Tham Yong was an eyewitness to the massacre (AFP)

Tham Yong was an eyewitness to the massacre (AFP)

The case’s implications are such that Northern Ireland’s Attorney General, John Larkin QC, has intervened. If the Supreme Court rules the Government does have a duty to carry out fresh inquiries into such deaths, it is certain to spark calls for fresh investigations into a series of contentious killings in Northern Ireland. Yasmine Ahmed, of Rights Watch (UK), accused him of trying to close the door to public inquiries saying: “This case’s outcome will have considerable implications in Northern Ireland where many of the deaths that occurred during ‘The Troubles’ happened before the Human Rights Act in 1998. The UK has a legal obligation to investigate the unlawful killing of its nationals. It is vital there is a domestic law mechanism allowing for the enforcement of this and the accountability of actions of the state.”


This slideshow requires JavaScript.


越洋控诉舞台剧 还原峇冬加里屠杀真相

no 3

|14.11.2014| 资料来源:光华日报