Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 91 to 95 of 95

Thread: Ean Yong’s political secretary dead at MACC HQ

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    The Teoh Beng Hock RCI: A Sham That Deceived Malaysia.

    25 July 2011 | Try Me-lah | Posted by Marcus van Geyzel
    Inventing a suicide out of thin air. A sham, and a shame.

    As the news filtered in on Thursday that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Teoh Beng Hock (“the TBH RCI”) had issued its findings, the conclusions seemed simple enough. The TBH RCI concluded that Teoh Beng Hock had been driven to commit suicide due to interrogation by 3 MACC officers in a manner that was “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous”. It seemed straightforward.

    The newspaper reports of the findings were simple – after considering the evidence (70 witnesses, 750 pages of written submission, 19,200 pages of written testimonies, and 256 exhibits) before them, these learned members of the TBH RCI had come to this clear conclusion. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nazri Aziz, added that the TBH RCI findings were supported by psychiatric forensic expert Paul Edward Mullen, hired by the Bar Council as part of the proceedings. When announcing the findings, Nazri was quoted as calling Teoh Beng Hock a “weak character” and that “Professor Mullen said that Teoh Beng Hock had truly committed suicide based on his character…”

    If I had stopped at reading those reports linked above (and many similar reports in other media sources), I would think that the TBH RCI findings had finally cleared up the mystery. Further, Nazri Aziz’s seemingly helpful extraction of the findings of a psychiatric forensic expert would have solidified the conclusion that yes, Teoh Beng Hock committed suicide after all. And previous RCIs have resulted in findings and recommendations that seemed very reasonable based on the known facts – the Anwar black-eye incident, the nude squat fiasco, the revamp of the police force, and of course VK Lingam’s infamous “correct correct correct” video clip. The individuals who make up RCIs are respected and assumed to be independent and knowledgeable. They could be trusted to reveal the truth.

    But I did not stop at reading these convenient summaries.

    A blatant deception of the Malaysian public

    I downloaded and read the full report by the TBH RCI (please download it here and read it for yourself). I researched the numerous articles and reports that had been written about the proceedings. I discussed the matter with many friends, some of whom had been very closely following the twists and turns since Teoh was found dead on 16 July 2009.

    Having done all that, it appeared obvious that things were not as simple as they seemed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the seemingly straightforward conclusion that Teoh had committed suicide is in fact blatantly deceiving the Malaysian public.

    Before going into the reasons why I firmly believe that the conclusion of the TBH RCI that Teoh committed suicide was wrong, allow me to give a brief summary of some of the findings of the TBH RCI for the benefit of those who have not been following the proceedings, or the report.

    Some conclusions from the TBH RCI

    The TBH RCI made the following findings:

    1. It rejected the suicide note because it was from the chain of evidence an “afterthought” and further, not authenticated to have been written by Teoh.

    2. It rejected the evidence of Arman and Ashraf, Teoh’s interrogators at the 2nd “interview” (15 July: 10 pm to 12/1 am).

    They said they only asked Teoh basic questions, and did not threaten or abuse him. The Commission found that “threats of physical harm were most probably used by Arman and Ashraf when interrogating” Teoh.

    3. It rejected the evidence of Nadzri, the Recording Officer who recorded Teoh’s written statement (16 July: 1.30 to 3.30 am). The Commission found that the session “turned out to be another forum of interrogation”.

    4. It rejected the evidence of Anuar, the Investigating Officer of the 52/2009 operation regarding the use by Ean Yong of his allocations. Anuar said he was sleeping at a sofa in front of his room from about 1.30 to 3.35 am, and then at the surau to 5 am, and then at the bilik tamu next to the main lobby from 5 to 8.30 am. The Commission found that Anuar’s alibi “had been proved to be false”, and continued to say:

    Further, Anuar lied about the role he had played in order to cover up for HH [Hishamuddin Hashim]. And on top of these factors he was a trusted senior officer of HH who was prepared to sacrifice himself for HH, the other such officer Hairul Ilham having gone home by that time.
    5. It rejected the evidence of Hishamuddin, the leader of the 52/2009 operation and the highest-ranking officer in the premises that night.

    The Commission found Hishamuddin to be “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising in his stand”. Despite his denials, Hishamuddin conducted cross-checking of witness statements obtained and actively interrogated Teoh in a 4th interrogation session from 3.30 am onwards. He only left the building at about 6.15 am on 16 July and returned at about 7.55 am. Hishamuddin is to “be held responsible for the actions taken by him and his officers which propelled TBH to commit suicide”.

    6. It rejected the evidence of Raymond, a MACC officer who said he saw Teoh at about 6 am lying on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room.

    The Commission found that Raymond “was not a reliable witness and was used by those responsible for TBH’s death to distance them from their wrongdoings by creating an impression that TBH was not only alive at 6.00am on the 16th but was also resting comfortably and peacefully on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room”.

    7. It rejected the MACC’s contention that Teoh was free to leave the building at about 3.30 am but Teoh wanted to stay behind to rest.

    The Commission found that the MACC, through Hishamuddin, Anuar and Ashraf continued to interrogate Teoh post-3.30 am.

    8. It accepted the Bar’s theory that cross-checking (or the cross-interrogation of suspects/witnesses) occurred in the early hours of the morning of 16 July. Teoh was not released after his statement was taken by Nadzri at about 3.30 am, but was interrogated further. The respective statements of Teoh, Tan Boon Wah and Lee Wye Wing were being cross-checked and cross-referred during that time.

    9. It accepted the evidence of two MACC officers, Azian and Azeem, who revealed that Hishamuddin attempted to cover up his actual role in the 52/2009 operation by directing his officers to say he was not involved. In fact, he was “the one who gave all the instructions and directions on how the witnesses were to be interviewed and interrogated and by whom”.

    10. It accepted that the MACC erected a “blue wall of silence” in the spirit of brotherhood between the MACC officers that hindered the Commission’s work:

    The characteristics of this “blue wall of silence” came amply into play in the present case as evidenced by the untruths spouted by the MACC officers to cover up the nefarious activities that took place on the 15th and the 16th. This clinging to brotherhood ties by those officers has resulted in our facing extreme difficulties in gathering evidence to arrive at the truth.
    Did the Commission make these mistakes by design, or through sheer inadvertence?

    The TBH RCI, to its credit, adopted a purposeful and unflinching attitude when it came to the extraction of information at its hearings. During the course of proceedings, the media played its part in highlighting important issues and inconsistencies in the MACC’s version of events. Why then did the TBH RCI commit unforgivable errors of fact and further, decided not to consider or appreciate the “killer points”? Consider at least 10 of these for yourself:

    1. Time of death

    The Commission held that Teoh’s death occurred from 7.15 to 11.15 am (16 July) relying on the evidence of Dr Prashant and Dr Khairul. Estimating the time of death is not an exact science but Dr Khairul actually said the time could be narrowed down to as early as 6.30 to 7.00 am. In fact, the MACC’s expert, Dr Vanezis said that it could have been as early as 11 pm to 12 am (15 July).

    Why did the Commission then say the earliest time of death was to have been 7.15 am? Was it to “match” its theory that Teoh was driven to suicide after the 4th interrogation session after Hishamuddin and Ashraf had left the MACC building?

    2. Raymond’s evidence as to the sighting of Teoh at 6 am

    The Commission rejected Raymond’s evidence that he saw Teoh at 6 am:

    If this was true, then TBH must have committed suicide after 6.00 am on the 16th. This would fit into the estimated time of death of TBH which was between 7.15am and 11.15am on the 16th as determined by the forensic pathologists. However, despite this, we entertained grave reservations over Raymond’s evidence.
    With the rejection of Raymond’s evidence, it must follow that there is little to suggest consistency with the time of death between 7.15 and 11.15 am, as the Commission itself points out in the paragraph above. Without any further record of Teoh’s movements after 6 am, how could the Commission then reject Raymond’s evidence yet say Teoh died after 6 am?

    3. The death window, and avoidance of it from 3.30 am onwards

    The Commission held that there was a 4th interrogation session of Teoh after about 3.30 am. The interrogation was conducted by Hishamuddin, Anuar and Ashraf. What the Commission failed to do was to buttress this finding by also holding that every MACC officer, for the strangest of reasons, “avoided” the window from which Teoh fell from 3.30 am onwards. For example, one officer whose room was near the window said he cramped into and slept with another officer in the latter’s room that was far away from the window.

    The Commission failed to hold that pursuant to the 4th interrogation, Teoh was brought to the window for whatever that might have taken place there that led to him falling, by design or accident, from the window. Otherwise, why would everyone distance themselves from the window in the wee hours of 16 July?

    4. Cause of death: the 4th interrogation session

    On the evidence of the MACC, Hishamuddin left the building at about 6.15 am (and returned at about 7.55 am), Anuar was sleeping throughout until 8.30 am and Ashraf left at about 5 am. If so, then surely Teoh would have been free to go by 5 am when Ashraf left or 6.15 am when Hishamuddin left. Would any person who was finally relieved and free to leave the building exit vide the window in a sudden act of suicide or walk out to his car and drive home? The Commission does not deal with this but assumes that after the 4th interrogation, Teoh suddenly gives up, and jumps.

    Surely if the Commission held the view, as it had done in this case, that the 4th interrogation occurred, something must have happened to Teoh directly caused by his interrogators for him to have fallen either by design or accident, i.e. it was murder or homicide, and not suicide whether driven or voluntary. The time of death of about 6.30 – 7 am (allowing for a small margin of error) corroborates this argument because the Bar had pointed Hishamuddin as the main culprit, and he left the building at 6.15 am without stamping his punch card.

    5. Role of Zulkefly Aziz

    On 15 July, a MACC Klang officer by the name of Zulkefly Aziz was one of those specially called in by Hishamuddin to assist in the 52/2009 operation. Zulkefly is Hishamuddin’s junior in the MACC.

    At about 9.45 to 10 pm, Zulkefly along with Bulkini and Hadri brought Tan Boon Wah back to the MACC Selangor office. Zulkefly then returned to his MACC Klang office at about 10.15 pm to collect his car, and drove to the MACC Selangor office. He reached at 11 pm and went to sleep at the surau. (One wonders why Zulkefly was back in the office only to go to sleep.)

    At about 3.15 am on 16 July, Zulkefly woke up only to go to another surau on the 13th floor to change his trousers, and stayed there. In his earlier statement to the police (taken shortly after Teoh’s body was found), Zulkefly said he had gone home at about 3.15 am. Zulkefly had to change his story before the Commission because the Bar revealed CCTV footage showing Zulkefly only leaving the MACC Selangor office at 7 am.

    So what was Zulkefly actually doing from about 3.15 to 7 am on the 16th? Why did he lie to the police that he went home by 3.15 am? And notice that key suspects Ashraf left the building at 5 am, followed by Hishamuddin at 6.15 am, and finally, Zulkefly at 7 am.

    6. Time the MACC knew of Teoh’s death: Zulkefly Aziz

    The significance of Zulkefly’s role in the puzzle is much clearer after he left the MACC Selangor office at 7 am. On oath, he testified that he went back to his office, stamped his punch card and immediately returned home. He did not return to work the whole of the 16th. To-date, Zulkefly has not explained why he did not work that day.

    The MACC official line is that Teoh’s body was only found at about 1.35 pm on 16 July. But the evidence presented at the RCI TBH showed that MACC officers namely, Azhar, Amin, Fauzi Shadollah had already been speaking about Teoh’s death before or about 1.00 pm! How could MACC Klang officers at the MACC Klang office be talking about a death in another office miles away even before Teoh’s body was found?

    The answer lies here. Amin in particular said that at about 12.45 pm, he overhead a group of officers at the MACC Klang office talking about Teoh’s death. He said that the information about Teoh’s death came from a MACC Klang officer who was at the MACC Selangor office on the morning of 16 July and returned to the MACC Klang office that morning. Zulkefly is as described. By 7 am, he already knew that Teoh fell from the window and died.

    Why did the MACC hide the fact they knew of Teoh’s death by 7 am? The Commission failed to appreciate and deal with this crucial area that nails the MACC coffin of its suicide story.

    7. The MACC cover up started by 7 to 8.30 am: Anuar and Hairul

    Lee Wye Wing testified that between 7 and 8.30 am, he went to Sachi’s room at the MACC Selangor office to ask for his handphone and if he could return home. Sachi was asleep. Wye Wing then proceeded to Hairul’s room to ask the same of him. He saw both Anuar and Hairul in discussion over a computer. But Anuar at all times at the hearings said he was sleeping at the particular time.

    If one accepts that Zulkefly already knew of Teoh’s death as early as 7 am and Anuar was part of the 4th interrogation, coupled by Anuar having to lie that he was sleeping at that time, the only available inference to be drawn is that Anuar and Hairul were discussing about Teoh’s death between 7 and 8.30 am.

    8. The MACC cover up blown

    The Commission disappointingly failed to act on the clear instances of cover up by the MACC of Teoh’s death alluded to by MACC officers’ own testimonies.

    Among others, evidence elicited at the TBH RCI hearings showed how the MACC and AG top brass had meetings to “streamline” the statements of MACC officers and “coach” them, to build a wall of silence (i.e. not to freely offer information and not to reveal too much) and to distance Hishamuddin from the 52/2009 operation. The extent of the cover up initiated by the MACC even had its own officers, namely Azian and Azeem, expressing their unhappiness and uneasiness at the state of affairs.

    Why did the MACC plan this elaborate cover up?

    9. Misadventure not explored

    The Bar’s alternative theory of misadventure by accident finds support in Dr Vanezis’ testimony who said:

    That he could not rule out that Teoh was held by a neck hold with the forearm.
    That such a neck hold may not show bruising.
    That one could be restrained without having obvious marks on the body.
    That without marks found on the window, one could exclude the possibility that Teoh climbed out the window himself.
    The Commission failed to consider that Teoh may have been asked to and/or helped onto the ledge of the window as a means to threaten him into confessing during the 4th session. Held by a neck hold, an accident occurred which led to his death. DNA evidence of an unknown person was found subsequently.

    10. Positive factors to live “transformed” into negative factors to die

    It does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that Teoh had everything going for him in terms of his personal life — a baby was on the way, he was getting married, he was planning to leave his job to move back to Malacca and spend more time with his family, he had no history of mental illness, he was of strong character, organised and had a good relationship with his employer and friends, etc. In relation to the 52/2009 operation, he as a seasoned political activist was prepared to be investigated and had by then also informed his colleagues to be ready with documents. The positive list in favour of Teoh goes on.

    Mullen unequivocally said that suicide is a rare cause of death and Malaysia has a particularly low rate being one of few countries where the rate is lower than for homicide. His opinion was that Teoh was firmly in the lowest risk group where the chances of suicide are extremely small. How the TBH RCI construed to pick and choose Mullen’s report to fit its pre-judgment theory of “driven suicide” is most unprofessional. Even Badi’ah and Nor Hayati’s report showed how hard-pressed they were to conjure up reasons for Teoh to commit suicide without implicating the MACC.

    I leave you to decide if the TBH RCI deliberately or by design chose to ignore the 10 points above.

    The big question – murder or suicide?

    The MACC argued that it was “voluntary suicide”. The Bar argued that it was murder or at least homicide not amounting to murder, by causing Teoh’s death by misadventure during the interrogation.

    Looking at the conclusions of the TBH summarised in the previous section, the TBH RCI had completely rejected the version of events given by the MACC’s key personnel regarding what happened on the evening 15 July 2009 and the wee hours of 16 July 2009. The MACC’s defence of “voluntary suicide” – which had rested on the testimonies of its officers – was therefore completely demolished.

    Neither the MACC nor the Bar at any time pursued the “driven suicide” theory.

    Cue the findings of the TBH RCI then – driven suicide. The TBH RCI somehow concluded that Teoh had committed suicide, having been driven to do so by the intense interrogation tactics employed by the MACC’s officers. As I mentioned, the MACC did not run the “driven suicide” theory during the TBH RCI proceedings. The MACC must be as baffled as the Bar and any reasonable person as to how the TBH RCI managed to come up with that conclusion.

    The applicable standard of proof in these RCI proceedings is on a balance of probabilities tilting towards beyond reasonable doubt. Looking at how the TBH RCI had rejected the MACC’s version of events, it should have had no other option other than to adopt the Bar’s contention of murder, or homicide not amounting to murder. The MACC’s evidence was demolished, and there was therefore no evidence – absolutely none – to support a finding of any kind of suicide. In criminal proceedings, once the evidence of the accused (in this case the MACC, as Teoh’s captors) is not accepted, there is no doubt that the conviction of the accused must follow. This common practice was, shockingly, not followed by the TBH RCI. It is completely illogical how the TBH RCI came to the “driven suicide” conclusion – it appears to have invented it out of thin air, or the collective imagination of each of the Commissioners.

    The way it was worded certainly sounds like bad fiction. Here is the relevant paragraph:

    Tormented by this predicament, TBH experienced a change in his state of mind. And in a matter of hours, this change transformed him from being in the low-risk group for suicide into the high-risk group. The doubts, extreme emotional conflict and the immense feeling of guilt were all intolerable. Finally, precipitating the irreversible crisis that happened to him between 3.30am and 7.00am on the 16th, was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Finding no viable strategies to surmount the hurdle of accusations leveled, he found himself unable to escape from the suffocating quagmire in which he was trapped. Losing all hope, TBH would have felt trapped and have succumbed to despair. Since the window on the 14th floor was either open or could be easily opened and it was conspicuous and easily accessible near where he was on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room, TBH would have found that the only way for escape from the torment he was undergoing was by jumping out the window, even though it meant taking his own life.
    Wow. Read that again. Consider all the facts that had been accepted. Consider that the MACC’s version of events had been rejected. Consider that no one had suggested “driven suicide”. And read that paragraph again. The Bar issued a press statement saying that the conclusion “requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence.” This is a stylish way of saying that the finding of “driven suicide” was make-believe. It appeared out of thin air.

    The Bar’s press statement also reveals the misleading nature of Nazri Aziz’s summary of the findings of the psychiatric forensic expert. Professor Mullen did not say that Teoh had a “weak character” – in fact, he said that “in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock’s personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide” and that the events were not such “which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody”. This is not slightly different from what Nazri said – it is completely different. One of these parties is lying.

    What happened?

    The purpose of the TBH RCI was to reveal the truth. Looking at the chronology of events, and the findings of fact made along the way, and the sudden and inexplicable conclusion, it is obvious that it has failed to reveal the truth behind the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

    I am in shock. The five Commissioners are respected experts in their fields, and are held in high regard. There seems to be no reason to doubt their integrity. The way the report was written points to only one logical conclusion – murder, or at the very least culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to an accident during the interrogation process. But suddenly, without any basis, without any evidence (and in fact with evidence pointing to the contrary), the TBH RCI turns all its key findings on its head with one fanciful, speculative, fantastical – and fictional – paragraph.

    No reasonable person of the calibre of those five Commissioners could possibly have come up with that. It beggars belief.

    In the spirit of the TBH RCI report, perhaps I should try my hand at a fanciful conclusion. Here we go.

    Maybe there was a political intervention – or at least some heavy influence.

    Maybe the Government would not have been able to cope with the backlash that would have resulted from a finding of murder. Perhaps, having been pre-informed that the TBH RCI was going to conclude that Teoh was murdered, someone somewhere forced the TBH RCI to invent this “middle ground” – this cop out solution which has cheated Malaysia of the truth. Do you find this theory unbelievable? Well, it is no more unbelievable than the ridiculous finding of “driven suicide” that was contained in that report.

    Malaysia is going through some interesting times. Our Judiciary is failing us. Our Government is failing us. Our politicians and leaders are failing us. Our police force are failing us. So many of our institutions are failing us. With their finding of “driven suicide”, the TBH RCI has most certainly failed us. It was supposed to reveal the truth, but instead has thrown up even more deception and doubt.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    SUNDAY, JULY 24, 2011, by KTemoc

    RCI report on Teoh Beng Hock - the Dark Interregnum

    Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Lies, lies, and damn lies ... which have been why I posted in The missing public trust that no one in Malaysia (other than the most hard core & faithful UMNO supporters) would trust in and rely on the objectivity of public institutions or ministers.

    We see more of this in The Malaysian Insider’s Bar Council says MACC responsible for Teoh’s death.

    Far more important, and totally damning for Minister Nazri and the cabinet, has been the Bar Council President, Lim Chee Wee’s repudiations of Minister Nazri’s untrue assertions. TMI reported:

    Lim also rejected the notion that Teoh’s “weak character” had led him to suicide, as described by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz when he announced the release of the RCI report.

    He pointed out that forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen had not testified that Teoh had a “weak character” and had not concluded that Teoh had committed suicide.

    It’s just unbelievable that Minister Nazri had the brazen nerve in believing he could get away with putting words in Professor Paul Mullen’s mouth. Obviously Nazri, knowing there is no credible source on the authority’s side, had hoped to hitch a stowaway ride on a credible source.

    But then, how do we explain the following extract of TMI’s report?

    On the other findings in the RCI report, Lim said the council had concurred with the royal panel that Teoh had been subjected to “aggressive relentless oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” and that most of the MACC officers involved in the case were not credible as they “had the inevitable habit of lying”

    Lim said the council also agreed that the massive operation launched by the Selangor MACC at the time had been based on a mere belief without proper ground work or verification. The then-Selangor MACC deputy director Hishammuddin Hashim, he said, had been accurately described in the RCI report as “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising” and “just too stubborn to retreat from his mistake in mounting such a massive operation”.

    We know the answer would be found somewhere in the period between the RCI's submission of its report to the Agong (and thus, effectively the cabinet) and its public release, nearly 3 weeks of unaccountable 'blackout', not unlike a crucial moment at one of the polling station in interior Sarawak in the State's last election, when the creativity of dark forces would be at its zenith wakakaka.

    The Bar Council’s disagreement has been strictly with Minister Nazri’s spin (his attempt to put words in the mouth of credible expert like Prof Mullen). Notwithstanding the implausible finding of 'suicide', now totally demolished by the Bar Council's repudiation of Nazri's pathetic and shameful attempt to 'justify' the finding, there is enough in the RCI's report to show some genuine investigation. But ...

    ... BUT there is now an increasing* suspicion that in the silent interregnum, there has been some disingenuous ‘creativity’.

    * 'increasing' means the suspicion was already there way before the public release of the RCI report, but since then, has escalated to humongous dimensions

    If so, then it supports the rakyat's perception that in Boleh Land court cases, coronial inquests, police reports, pathological reports and hospital medical checks etc must always support the side of the UMNO-led government and its pro-UMNO public institutions. How it would or could be achieved is irrelevant. It could be a voluntarily case of what Sasterawan Negara (National Laureate) Samad Said termed 'charma' (cari makan), or it could be involuntary.

    We also know why, as reported in TMI, that the Teoh family boycotted RCI when, aside from the RCI chairperson being (unusually) a sitting Federal Court judge, the RCI insisted on continuing the inquiry despite a proposed judicial review over the appointment of deputy public prosecutors DPPs (from the AG's Office) as conducting officers.

    And the ultimate insult to the Teoh family’s wish for at least some (whom they see as) impartial and outstanding citizens sitting as RCI members was when Najib and his cabinet rejected what was a fair and reasonable request.

    I wrote on that in one of my earlier (February) posts RCI = Regrettable Conflict of Interest?:

    The Teoh family after consulting 126 NGOs had earlier proposed (a) former national police chief Tun Hanif Omar, (b) former Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, (c) former Court of Appeal judge NH Chan, and (d) former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Musa Hitam. But Najib has failed to appoint even one of them to the RCI. Why?

    Surely these four are Malaysian luminaries with impeccable credentials and reputations of integrity, with even an UMNO man in Musa Hitam. The only person, also of exceptional integrity and courage, former Justice NH Chan, may perhaps be seen by the Najib administration as being anti-government. If that is the case, kaytee suggests he be replaced by former Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who is also retired.

    But in refusing such a request for outstanding citizens, including even UMNO's Musa Hitam to sit on the RCI, Najib and his cabinet had actually revealed their true colours, their intention and what they had already decided on the outcome, thus the Teoh family's correct boycotting of the RCI at least didn't confer on the inquiry its most desired and most important vestige of credibility.

    As Sir Humphrey Appleby advised: 'Minister, two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don’t have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.' And so it was.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Who Killed Teoh Beng Hock?

    8 August 2011 | LB Rants | Posted by NH Chan

    NH Chan writes why he believes the burden of proving that Teoh’s death was an accident lies on those who had held him at the MACC.

    Recently (see my article “If you put the cart before the horse” or “Cart and Horse” depending on where you have read it), I wrote about the unfounded conclusion of a befuddled Royal Commission of Inquiry that Teoh Beng Hock was driven to suicide while he was in the custody of the MACC.

    One still wonders how such a conclusion could ever have been reached by the RCI without any evidence to support it whatsoever! Such evidence requires the opinion of an expert – which is a relevant fact under section 45 of the Evidence Act – to say that Teoh was driven to suicide as a direct consequence of the third degree method of interrogation inflicted on him by the police while he was in the custody of the MACC. It is because the finding of the RCI that Teoh was driven to suicide was unsupported by any evidence that we all realized how silly had been those judges who sat on the Royal commission. Those three judges have since become the laughing stock of the nation!

    This nursery rhyme from our early childhood immediately comes to mind:

    Three blind mice, three blind mice
    See how they run, see how they run.
    They all ran after the farmer’s wife
    Who cut off their tails with a carving knife.
    Did you ever see such a thing in your life
    As three blind mice?

    Those three blind mice that ran after the farmer’s wife got their tails cut off.

    Like the three blind mice, the three judges of the Teoh Beng Hock RCI were unable to see the wood for the trees in the forest of their task to enquire into the death of TBH. Because they were blinded by the confusion of their task they could only manage to come out with an unfounded opinion.

    Have you ever seen such a thing in your life as three blind judges? Were our judges incompetent? Or were they interested in the pursuit of their own aggrandizement? “Judges are not interested in the pursuit of power. If they were, they would not have become judges” said Lord Nolan in his lecture “Certainty and Justice: The Demands on the Law in a Changing Environment” at The Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lectures, Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, at pages 312-313. Undoubtedly judges who are interested in the pursuit of power are corrupt; for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So now you know. They are either incompetent or corrupt.

    Now is an opportune moment to discuss further. Since Teoh did not commit suicide as there was no evidence to support such a conclusion, then how did he fall from the window on the 14th floor to his death?

    How did Teoh fall to his death?

    We all know that Teoh fell from the MACC building to his death when he was in the custody of the MACC. We also know that he was subjected to cruel and unrelenting interrogation by the police officers at the MACC who wanted to extract a confession from him so as to implicate the Selangor state government with alleged wrongdoings. He was found dead from a fall from a window on the 14th floor of the MACC building. All these happenings cannot be denied because it has been revealed at the hearing of the RCI.

    One should also know that section 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 says the burden of proving any fact especially within the knowledge of any person lies on him. So that in the TBH case, the burden of proving how TBH died lies on the MACC . This is because only the MACC and its personnel knew how TBH was killed. His death occurred when TBH was in the custody of the MACC. That is why the Malaysian Bar said “that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC”. This is what section 106 says:

    106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

    When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.


    (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

    (b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
    This is what the Malaysian Bar said (see on “Teoh Beng Hock: the search for justice and truth must continue“):

    It is very clear to the Malaysian Bar that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC, and that immediate action must be taken to hold the culpable officers accountable for their behaviour. … The authorities should investigate the relevant MACC officers for possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code, namely for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing the death of TBH by negligence, respectively.
    Actually the Malaysian Bar was being polite for suggesting an investigation by the authorities on possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code. Unquestionably a crime was committed. The authorities are duty bound to prosecute the perpetrators who have become common criminals irrespective of their rank in the police force! The ball is now in the court of the Public Prosecutor, who, as we all know, is the Attorney-General, to do his duty.

    What then are the crimes these policemen of the MACC were supposed to have committed? As suggested by the Malaysian Bar, they are sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code and, I would add, even murder under section 302 of the same Code. It doesn’t matter which is the section applicable as the burden is on the accused persons to prove the facts which are in their knowledge to try to reduce the charge to a lesser one.

    It is murder (section 302) if TBH was dropped from the 14th floor to his death by his captors.

    It is culpable homicide not amounting to murder (section 304) if TBH was taken to the window to frighten him but his captors somehow lost their grip and he fell to his death.

    It may be a case of causing the death of TBH by negligence under section 304A if TBH had tried to escape by climbing out of the window and fell to his death in the attempt. The negligence is for leaving the window on the 14th floor conveniently open.

    The above are the possible scenarios for the reduction of the crime from murder. But it is on the accused to prove the exculpating factors.

    I use the word “captors” decidedly. A witness is never restrained and he is interviewed. He is free to leave at any time. A suspect is restrained and he is interrogated. He has no freedom of movement. He is held in custody. That is why in the coroner’s inquiry into the death of Selangor Customs assistant director Ahmad Sarbaini we get this kind of answer from a witness:

    Awtar: What is the reason for him to climb out of the window? Why didn’t he use other ways?

    Dr Shahrom: From what I was told by the police, he had a visitor’s pass, which only allowed him to go up the building, not down.

    [see the New Straits Times, Thursday, August 4, 2011]
    Could Teoh have accidentally fallen to his death?

    We have ruled out suicide for the reasons stated above. Was his death accidental then? Of course, if the accused persons could show that TBH’s death was an accident then the culprits would get off scot free.

    I think it is most unlikely that such a defence can succeed. How could TBH or anyone fall out of a window by accident, meaning by chance or without apparent cause? There was no reason or cause for TBH to climb out of the window on the 14th floor. Unless he was trying to escape from his captors in which case it would not be an accident at all. But, in any case, there was never any suggestion that Teoh tried to escape through the window before the RCI. Therefore, such a defence if raised could only be an afterthought. As such it is no defence at all.

    An accident is an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause. An incident that is happening by chance is a fortuitous happening – an accident.

    In any case, I think, section 15 of the Evidence Act is worth considering when there is a trend of people falling to their deaths when they were held by the MACC as witnesses. Section 15 reads:

    15. When there is a question whether any act was accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that the act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.

    Could homicide be ruled out?

    There was a suggestion from some forensic pathologist that there were no injuries on Teoh’s body not related to the fall to show that there was a struggle or resistance to being pushed or carried to the window. Since there was also no sign of damage to the window sill to show any sign of a struggle, homicide, according to their cloistered mind, was ruled out.

    It doesn’t take a kung fu or karate exponent to know that a person could be disabled in such a way that he would not be able to put up any resistance or struggle against his captors.

    Speaking from my own experience as a criminal lawyer in my younger days at the Bar, I know that most suspects when subjected to intense and prolonged interrogation were generally docile and would not put up a struggle when asked to perform certain tasks like being asked to remove their pants and to sit on ice.

    Also, because I have done it myself, I know it is not difficult to subdue a person to do as he is told with very little physical effort on my part. The easiest thing that I have used when I was set upon by a thug when I was a student in London who had grasped my throat was to grab the little finger of the hand that grabbed my throat with my hand and by bending the finger upward the pain inflicted on my assailant was so excruciating that I could make him do anything. It would not take much effort to snap his little finger but there was no need. I made him kneel to say he was sorry. He never tried to bully me again.

    The easiest way to make a person do as he is told is to use an arm lock on him from behind. On the other hand a policeman would simply put a pair of handcuffs on his wrists behind his back. He can then be led to the window without a struggle. In most cases the suspect is docile so that you don’t even have to disable him. There are other methods but any trained policeman would know how to do it.

    In a disabled state the suspect with some assistance from his captors could even be made to climb onto the window sill without a struggle and made to sit there.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Appeals court allows Beng Hock’s family to seek review of coroner’s open verdict

    By Yow Hong Chieh
    February 02, 2012
    The Court of Appeal granted Teoh Meng Kee’s request for leave. — File pic

    KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 2 — The Court of Appeal has granted leave to Teoh Beng Hock’s brother, Teoh Meng Kee, to seek a judicial review of the coroner’s open verdict on the political aide’s death.

    The three-man panel said in a unanimous decision that the court was satisfied that there was a question of law which could be pursued further for interpretation, The Star reported today.

    The High Court here had earlier dismissed an application for a revision in the inquest and upheld the verdict by Coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas, who found that Beng Hock’s death was neither a suicide nor homicide.

    While the judge conceded that the open verdict left much hanging, it was the only option available to the coroner since evidence was absent to support a conclusion.

    Beng Hock, a DAP political aide, was found dead outside the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s office at Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam on July 16, 2009 after being interrogated overnight.

    On July 21, 2011, a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) concluded that he was driven to suicide after being subject to aggressive and relentless interrogation by three MACC officers.

    The Teoh family, however, has refused to accept the panel’s findings, insisting that Beng Hock had no reason to kill himself.

    The Attorney-General’s Chambers had also requested a revision into the open verdict that was returned in the inquest into Beng Hock’s death but later withdrew it in September last year.

    It was filed before the RCI into Beng Hock’s death had been established was therefore no longer required as the commission had delivered its findings.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2008

    Rights Of The Dead, a film by Tricia Yeo

    14 Jan 2013 | 305 views
    Directed by Tricia Yeoh. Produced by Pusat KOMAS for FreedomFilmFest 2012.


    In July 2009, the mysterious death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock rocked the nation. His body was found outside the premises of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), where he was being held overnight for interrogation. The filmmaker was herself was a colleague of the deceased working in the Selangor State government. She tries to make sense of the inquest and royal commission of inquiry into his death and takes a critical look at the Malaysian system of government and politics that is ultimately responsible for ensuring justice for its citizens including those who died in custody or while in detention. The film also shares the perspective from Teoh Beng Hock's family.

    A Google Hangout (viewed live on will be conducted on Friday, 18 th January 2013 at 9pm with director Tricia Yeoh, Teoh Lee Lan (the sister of Beng Hock) and other invited guests to discuss issues raised in the film.

    Questions will be collected throughout the week via Twitter (@freedomfilmfest),
    Facebook ( and email

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910

Visitors found this page by searching for:

kevin morais macc

picture manoharan ean yong teoh beng hock

the case of teck beng hock

Teoh beng guar

is the procedure adhered in investigation process of malaysian anti corruption commission involves great stress and presssure on the suspected person

teoh beng hock body

Azian who was one of the first MACC officers called during the early stages

cheow wee

MACC to reveal najib private account

karim raslan strategy of tension

teoh beng hock marriage preparations

Teoh Beng hock protest 2009

kevin teoh dead

have you ever jump off a building

macc malaysia

Royal Commission of Inquiry set up to ascertain circumstances leading to the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock rules he was driven to suicide.

money deposited into ean yongs private account

teoh beng hock ean yong money in account

teoh beng hock

SEO Blog

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts