Malaysia Belongs To All Malaysians

By
Richard Loh

You were born in Malaysia, received a birth certificate as proof and you received an identity card upon attaining the age of twelve and with these you are a citizen of Malaysia, hence you are a Malaysian.

Why is it so hard for the ruling government to accept this simple fact and treat each and every Malaysian with fairness. Why must they keep harping about race and religion. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia , which came into force in 1957, is the supreme law of Malaysia. Is it that difficult to run the country with this guided Constitution? Trying to misinterpret, ignoring or quote the constitution as and when it suites the government in order to hold on to power is a sure disaster.

Each time Malaysia has a new Prime Minister, Malaysians have high hope from the new PM to take the country to new heights. Each PM came in with a big bang, promising the sky and moon with each having their own slogan and using the rakyat’s money to promote it aggressively. But alas the euphoria did not last long when the NATO (no action talk only) syndrome sets in.

The 4th PM, Tun Dr. Mahathir had totally destroyed the strong foundation for a workable system among the various races and religions set by his predecessors. Corruptions became part and parcel of his iron fist rule.

The 5th PM, Tun Abdullah Badawi, a new hope that the rakyat were looking up to that can reverse what Tun Mahathir had done to the nation. A Mr. Clean and soft spoken type he started a series of changes one that included the fight against corruptions. He managed to turn the old ACA into the new MACC but it did not work out well as many see it as old wine in new bottle. With his predecessor breathing down his neck, he was toppled after only one term as PM.

Everyone is more or less accustomed to the ways how these two PMs run the country be it corruptions or the NATO syndrome.

With the 6th PM, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the rakyat are now getting more worried. He is a total different creature from his two predecessors. Other than the many baggages that he carried into his premiership he is loaded with the greed for power and to have that he has gone against every principle of his own “1Malaysia People First Performance Now” slogan.

His many speeches were truly frightening while his support for Utusan and Perkasa that raised racism and religious issues against the Non Muslim reflects his inability to perform his duty as a PM for all Malaysians. His call for “lost lives and crushed bodies’ to defend PutraJaya indicates that he is willing to see Malaysians die in order for him to remain in power.

What is worst is his shameless lectures to the world about Islamic moderation, democracy, corruptions and what is good for the world but back home his actions are a total 180 degree turn.

The way he handled the Pre and Post Bersih2.0 rally, his visit to the British PM and Queen, his meeting with the Vatican and what he said after returning home clearly identify his true hypocrite character.

He is using his position as PM to fight for his political party Umno and his presidency. He is fighting for SURVIVAL and he could not care a damn about the rakyat.

Najib & Co. must stop being paranoid and cast away all their imaginary enemies from within or without and stop all persecutions of the innocents.

Up to this point and having seen the damages done with not much hope of any improvement in the near future, I am sad to say that I have given up on Najib & Co.

Whichever party governs or whoever wants to be PM must know and fully understand The Federal Constitution of Malaysia and be guided by it in running this country. By all means help those in need of helping irrespective of color or creed and not those who are already rich or those who are standing on the sideline doing nothing but are well connected.

They need to know these are what the majority of Malaysians are thinking.

That

Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians.

Islam is the official religion of Malaysia.

We respect the King and the Constitution.

We wanted to live in peace and harmony among all the various races/ethnic groups, we respect each other and all religions

No one is planning to overthrow a legitimate government or King nor using religion, Jews, Communist or foreigners to take over the country.

Malaysians do not need to follow Egypt, Tunisia or Libya to remove their oppressive leaders,

Malaysians Only Need One Day To Topple Umno/BN

On Polling Day Of The 13th General Election

Use The Power Of Your Vote To Send Umno/BN Packing

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 July 2011, 10:24 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PSM6 – police practicing “Arrest first, find the charges later” tactics

Let more and more Malaysians wear yellow on Saturdays to send a loud, clear and unmistakable message to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the Barisan Nasional Cabinet and government of ever-rising crescendo of swelling public support not only for Bersih 2.0’s eight demands for free and fair elections, but also for a Clean Malaysia where there is an end to the rampant corruption, abuses of power, injustices and gross human rights violations present today.

The blemishes today why we do not have a Clean Malaysia include the gross abuses of power evident in the high-handed police actions against the peaceful Bersih 2.0 rally on July 9 for free and fair elections; the unwarranted, unjustifiable and unprovoked firing of tear gas and chemically-laced water cannons against the peaceful public; arbitrary arrest of some 2,000 people; spewing of racist threats; attempt to create ethnic and religious tensions including the raising the May 13 spectre and the unjustifiable lock-down of Kuala Lumpur creating infernal traffic jams before and on the day of the rally.

Such high-handed and arbitrary police actions are still going on more than a forthnight after the 709 peaceful Bersih 2.0 rally – proven by the continued unjust, unjustified and unwarranted detention of the PSM6, including Sungei Siput MP Dr. Michael Jeyakumar.

Jeyakumar and five others have been detained under the Emergency Ordinance since July 2 after initially being arrested on June 25 with two dozen other PSM  members under Section 122 of the Penal Code for allegedly “waging war against the Agong” and trying to revive communism.

Section 122 of the Penal Code states: “Whoever collects or attempts to collect men, arms or ammunition, or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any of the Rulers or the Yang di-Pertua Negeri or abets the waging or the preparation of such war, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

This is a heinous offence –  waging war against the Yang di Pertuan Agong, liable on conviction to life imprisonment.

But who would believe that Jeyakumar and the other 29 PSM activists originally arrested on June 25 had been guilty of the heinous crime of “waging war against the Agong”?

The answer is none at all – not even the police and the home ministry which is why after the seven-day remand of the 30 PSM activists, no one whether from the Police or the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein breathed a word about  the heinous crime of “waging war against the Agong” and “reviving communism” as the charges are so ridiculous and unbelievable as the raise serious questions about the right and sanity of a government capable of such fantasies to rule the country.

Malaysians are entitled to ask who are the officers or politicians who had been so “creative” as to concoct the heinous charge of Section 122 of Penal Code of “waging war against the Agong” against the PSM activists in the first instance. These  persons responsible for such ridiculous charges should be publicly exposed and punished for a most  gross abuses of power.

The PSM six headed by Jeyakumar have been detained under the EO for 22 days after the end of their seven-day remand on July 2 on the ridiculous charge of “waging war against the Agong”.

The 42-year EO is an obsolete law which violates democratic norms and fundamental human rights and should have been repealed five years ago if the Barisan Nasional

Government had accepted the recommendations of the Dzaiddin-Hanif Police Royal Commission Report to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service.

The Dzaiddin-Hanif Royal Commission chaired by former Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin with former Inspector-General of Police Tun Haniff as deputy chairman made 125 recommendations with the specific mission change for the Royal Malaysian Police to focus on three core functions  – to reduce crime, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.

It recommended that by May 2006, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (the law under which PSM6 are detained) should be repealed “because it has outlived its purpose and in some instances facilitated the abuse of some fundamental liberties”.

The detention of PSM6 under EO (i.e. EPOPCO)  is the latest illustration of what the Dzaiddin-Haniff Royal Commission had warned six years ago that EO would “facilitate the abuse of some fundamental liberties”.

It is clear from the  initial arrests of PSM30 on  the ludicrous charge  of “waging war against the Agong” (Sec 122 of Penal Code”) to the subsequent detention of the PSM6 under EO, the Malaysian Police were guilty of  practicing the deplorable tactics of  “Arrest first, find the charges later”.

This is totally against the spirit of the rule of law, as the Police is betraying its role as the upholder of  the rule of law by abusing its powers to “arrest first, find the charges later”.

The PSM6 were accused of being “prime movers” of 709 Bersih 2.0 rally, which have been proved totally false.

Without the PSM6,  the 709 Bersih 2.0 rally had been such a great success that it has become a historic watershed in the awakening of Malaysians that regardless of race, religion, region, class, gender and age, they are truly one Malaysian people with the united bond of love for country and common aspiration for fair and free elections and a Clean Malaysia – more meaningful than Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan which is nothing more than 1Malaysia T-shirt, Malaysia Tupperware, 1Malaysia mineral water, 1Malaysia burger in the 1Malaysia circus.

If the Barisan Nasional Government refuses to heed public opinion to immediately and unconditionally release the PSM6, then let Malaysians wear yellow every Saturday to send their disapproval and censure loud and clear to Najib, the Cabinet and all Barisan Nasional leaders until the PSM6 are restored their personal liberty.

** Speech (2) at the DAP Taman Housing Trust dinner/ceramah at Sun Lee How Fook Restaurant, Ipoh

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 July 2011, 4:51 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Jeyakumar
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


TBH suicide/homicide? – challenge to Nazri to defend his stand

In his interview with Mingguan Malaysia today, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said that the Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) case is closed and that there is no need to form another Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) because the Teoh family and the opposition had rejected the suicide conclusion of the James Foong Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The Malaysian Insider report today on Nazri’s interview with Mingguan Malaysia stated:

“He however added that although the MACC needs to revamp itself, the RCI had absolved it of murder charges and this should not be questioned further.

“I find that the truth has been revealed and it has been proven that the MACC did not kill Teoh. This is clear and MACC has been freed from the charge. Despite what has happened, I am confident that the people will continue to support the MACC,” he said.

“Nazri also denied that the RCI report had been made public due to public pressure, pointing out that he had prepared a memorandum on July 1 to ensure that that the report is released in full.

“He also agreed with accusations against opposition party members like Lim Kit Siang, Gobind Singh Deo and Karpal Singh that Teoh’s death had been heavily politicised.

“So whatever the outcome of the RCI, they will not accept. Look at what Lim Kit Siang said — that forced suicide equals to homicide… where he learned this law, it’s too remote.

“To prove murder, there must be mens rea (intention) and actus reas (action)… in Teoh’s case, where was the mens rea?’ said Nazri.”

It would appear that Nazri had not read and studied the James Foong RCI report careful enough for there is nothing in the report “absolving” the MACC and MACC officers of Beng Hock’s death at the MACC headquarters at Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

Can Nazri quote the RCI report to show where it had “absolved” MACC of responsibility for Beng Hock’s death?

In fact, I can quote two passages where the RCI held MACC officers directly and specifically responsible for Beng Hock’s death.

Firstly, Paragraph 198 when expressing “grave reservations” over the evidence of one MACC officer Raymond Nion anak John Timban who had testified that he saw Beng Hock at 6 am on the fateful morning of  16th July 2009 “lying on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room”,  the TBH RCI said:

“In our opinion, he was not a reliable witness and was used by those responsible for TBN’s death to distance them from their wrongdoings by creating an impression that TBH was not only alive at 6am on the 16th but was also resting comfortably and peacefully on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room.”

In Para 201, the TBH RCI said:

“ As it become obvious to us that Raymond’s evidence was tailored  to fit certain objectives which in this case dovetailed those of the MACC officers responsible for TBH’s death, we rejected his evidence as being unworthy of any weight or consideration in respect of the time he claimed to have seen TBH at 6am on the 16th.”

How can Nazri jump to the conclusion that the TBH RCI had absolved MACC of responsibility for Beng Hock’s death when it specifically in Paras 198 and 201 pinpointed on “MACC officers responsible for TBH’s death” (words used by TBH RCI)?

Any reasonable person who read the “horror stories” of the lawlessness and heinous criminalities  rampant in MACC particularly in Selangor,  as described by the  TBH RCI report, can only arrive at the conclusion without having to rely on Paras 198 and 201 – which I quoted  – that several MACC officers must be held responsible for TBH’s death.

Yes, the TBH RCI did not specifically name the MACC officers responsible for TBH’s death (although their identities are quite obvious to anyone reading the RCI report) but how can Nazri claim that MACC  had been “absolved” of responsibility for Beng Hock’s death when the TBH RCI had openly and directly pinpointed “MACC officers” as responsible for the death?

I would advise Nazri to re-read the TBH RCI report carefully.

I reject Nazri’s allegation that DAP had “heavily” politicised TBH’s death.

I only need refer Nazri to what the TBH RCI reiterated that “custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law” and not to downplay the gravity of custodial deaths whether  the Teoh Beng Hock case or the  tragic second MACC custodial death –  customs officer Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamad at the MACC KL premises in April 2011.

The battle seeking justice for Beng Hock, Ahmad Sarbani or other cases of unwarranted death caused by negligence or abuse of power by legal enforcement authorities such as 14-year-old Aminul Rashid or A. Kugan is a battle for the most important of all human rights – the right to life – and there should be no attempt by anyone  let alone a Cabinet Minister to downplay its importance or try to escape responsibility with the canard that it is being “politicized”!

Nazri asked where I learned my law in asserting that “forced suicide equals to homicide”. Let me ask Nazri where he learn his law that there is such a thing as “forced suicide”.

This is the TBH RCI finding:

“119. Having considered all the evidence in its entirety, we found that TBH was driven to commit suicide by the aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation to which he was subjected by certain officers of the MACC who were involved in the ongoing operation by the Selangor MACC on the night of the 15th and into the morning of the 16th.”

Is this  a simple and  straightforward “suicide”, forced suicide or homicide, especially taking in account the “horror stories” in the TBH RCI about rank lawlessness and heinous criminalities rampant with MACC officers involved in the TBH interrogation?

Ask right-thinking Malaysians, and the answer is a thunderous “homicide”!

Nazri said:  “To prove murder, there must be mens rea (intention) and actus reas (action)… in Teoh’s case, where was the mens rea?”

This reminds me of the conviction of the two “hooded accused”, who were  Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s bodyguards, Unit Tindakan Khas Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar  – found guilty of the C4 murder of Mongolian Altatunya Shariibuu in October 2006 and sentenced to death by hanging.

Thinking Malaysians have been asking: what was the motive for the C4 murder of Altantunya by Azilah andf Sirul, raising many other  questions such as who is  the real mastermind for the nefarious C4 murder  and why the mastermind is still “at large” – but that is another subject altogether.

The Bar Council has rejected the TBH RCI finding of suicide as the cause of TBH death, demanding that the authorities should investigate the MACC officers for possible offences under Sections 304 and 304a of the Penal Code, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing the death of Teoh by negligence, respectively.

The Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) agrees that MACC and its officials must be held responsible and has called on the federal government “to take very seriously these findings and to take the immediate appropriate action necessary so as to send a message to all enforcement and investigating agencies that a person in their custody is their utmost responsibility”.

I challenge Nazri to defend his clearly wrong and misguided stand that MACC and its officers are “absolved” from all responsibility for Beng Hock’s death as it was suicide and not homicide by MACC officers.

I invite him to come the public forum at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall on Tuesday night (26th July 2011) 7.30 pm entitled: “Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission Inquiry Report – Where is the promised truth?” to defend and justify his stand.

The public forum, organized by DAP, is to seek justice for Teoh Beng Hock and his family and will have speakers from various political parties, NGOs and the Teoh family.

** Speech at the DAP Taman Housing Trust dinner/ceramah at Sun Lee How Fook Restaurant, Ipoh

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 July 2011, 12:52 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teoh’s death: Is government really sorry?

—
Othman Wahab

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 24, 2011

JULY 24 — Between the reactions of Utusan Malaysia and Datuk Nazri Aziz to the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, we can draw this common thread: there is no remorse on the part of the government for the loss of life.

Oh sure, Nazri offered his hearfelt apology after the release of the report on Thursday but that was the public relations puff. The hollowness of the apology was laid bare by what he said about Teoh’s “weak character” leading him to commit suicide.

The minister chose to misread the expert testimony by forensic psychiatrist Paul Mullen. Mullen said he did not find anything that would suggest that Teoh was suicidal or predisposed to suicide in custody. So where did Nazri pluck out this stuff about Teoh’s weak character contributing to his “suicide”.

This erroneous statement was in bad faith and calls into question how sincere the government is in offering its apologies to Teoh’s family.

The RCI’s findings on the role of the MACC in heaping unwarranted pressure on Teoh was pretty unequivocal. It is clear that the investigators were bent on getting a result for their superiors (who wanted to please their Umno masters). So they tortured a young man with interrogations tactics that have no place in any organisation.

If there was a villain in this sordid tale, it was certainly the MACC which opened this probe on the flimsiest of pretences and then behaved like thugs.

The RCI recommended for action to be taken against these bullies. But the mediocre Umno operators at Utusan Malaysia chose to absolve the MACC from blame, once again allowing their anti-Chinese bias to boil over by accusing the DAP of wrongdoing.

The Umno operators at Utusan (the people at that establishment are not journalists) also ventured that it was common practice for suicides to happen during interrogations.

Mind you, this is a paper owned by Umno and therefore is the government mouthpiece. It has deliberately misinterpreted the findings of the RCI just like Nazri did.

This is what we are left with in Malaysia, my dear fellow citizens. Lies, lies and more lies. There is no subtlety, their statements are just lies dressed up.

And that editor at The Star wonders why Malaysians are angry. Maybe he no longer cares if he is lied to or talked down to everyday by the government or politicians or government proxies.

But we cannot allow this sorry state of affairs to continue.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 July 2011, 12:38 am and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teoh’s blood is on MACC’s hands

Malaysiakini Your Say
 | Jul 25, 11

‘Whether they committed suicide or not, MACC cannot be excused from the responsibility of having taken the lives of those two people.’

Teoh’s ‘suicide’ – fact or fantasy?

TKC:
 From the outset, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on Teoh Beng Hock was compromised. The original terms of reference (TOF1) was only to inquire into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) procedures, but after much pressure, they included the second TOF2 to ascertain the cause of Teoh Beng Hock’s death.

Had the scope been restricted to TOF1 only, it would have been rather easy for the RCI because it was glaringly obvious that MACC procedures were rotten to the core and would require an overhaul.

But TOF2 was much harder to handle. RCI could not, and should not, return a verdict of homicide because it would have been too controversial.

So, for many weeks we had to watch the circus of RCI clowns half-heartedly “interrogating” the MACC officers, ignored their blatant lying (perjury) and whenever the officers cried or had their back pushed against the wall by the Bar Council lawyers, RCI head James Foong relieved the pressure by changing subjects or calling for recess.

RCI, please do not take us for fools.

Kassim:
 I reject the royal commission of inquiry’s conclusion that Teoh Beng Hock’s death was a suicide. I do not buy the spin intended to cover up the puppet master in the shadows.

The panel skilfully sidestepped the question as to who gave the instruction to start investigations based on a mere belief, without facts or evidence.

Onyourtoes:
 Since everybody, including the royal commission of inquiry, Utusan Malaysia and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Aziz are full of opinions with few facts, I am also entitled to one.

I believe these three MACC officers, like many others in the inner sanctum of government agencies, are overzealous racists bent at bullying and torturing Chinese politicians and their aides.

They want confessions to wrongdoings that were not there. So they held him by his belt and put him out of the window and forced him to admit, just like sometimes we saw in movies. The belt snapped and Teoh Beng Hock fell to his death.

Was this murder? Perhaps not. Is this manslaughter? Of course.

But Nazri has said the MACC should be faulted for not following procedures. No, minister Nazri, it is more than that. MACC should be held accountable for bullying and extreme torture.

Kgen:
 Only one night of interrogation to drive a healthy, sane man to commit suicide – Hitler’s Gestapo would be shamed. And if the victim is a man who is looking forward to getting married the next day, Hitler’s Gestapo would be dying to learn how MACC accomplished it.

It’s obvious that the spineless RCI members were ordered to give the verdict of suicide. The order forgot to tell them to be gentle on MACC.

Anonymous:
 This looks like a cover-up for a botched interrogation/attempted coercion which went awry, and taken way beyond MACC’s charter and SOP (standard operating procedures) provisions.

Agree, RCI report conclusion is way off the mark. TBH (Teoh Beng Hock) did not have any plausible reasons to commit suicide. He simply had to die to cover up their tracks, but MACC’s ‘cleaner(s)’ unfortunately did not do a proper job.

Call it what you like, TBH’s blood is on MACC’s hands. Any attempt to justify MACC’s action, and attribute TBH’s death to a another party is pure conjecture and does not make sense at all.

Ipoh2:
 I work with people with mental health issues. This RCI report is not just fantasy and wild imagination but also hallucination, delusion, and close to schizophrenic.

Good men:
 This is by far the best response I have read so far relating to the recently revealed RCI conclusion.

The RCI report is another BN project, and a work of fantasy that only they themselves and the most unthinking person would believe.

One does not commit suicide so easily. However, when Pakatan Rakyat takes over the reins of government, there may well be many in Umno who might need to consider such an option before their misdeeds are all exposed.

RAW:
 Lately, within a very short span of time, two people who went to MACC did not come out alive. Whether they committed suicide or not, MACC cannot be excused from the responsibility of having taken the lives of those two people.

Something is terribly wrong at MACC.

DAP: MACC suspensions too little, too late

Multi Racial:
 Those MACC officers mentioned in the RCI report do not have any credibility left and it is best to remove them.

Those involved in the murder of Teoh, directly or indirectly, have to be prosecuted to the maximum of the law. If the attorney-general does not doing anything, maybe he too should be replaced with someone who is willing to act without fear or favour.

Democracy:
 The whole of MACC cannot be trusted. Dissolve the MACC rather than try to repair the irreparable. Then form a new MACC devoid of any of its former staff. Only then can we start a fresh.

Fairplayer:
 MACC should be dissolved. All MACC is capable of doing thus far is snuffing out lives. Does MACC stand for ‘Murder at Chief’s Command’?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 July 2011, 10:27 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UiTM lecturer: MACC officers should be brought to court

Bernama
 | Jul 24, 11

Malaysiakini

Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) law lecturer Assoc Prof Abd Halim Sidek said an investigation should be carried out on the allegation by the Bar Council that Teoh Beng Hock died due to the negligence of MACC officers named in the RCI report.

“If Teoh was driven to suicide as a result of the MACC officers’ action then they must be brought to court,” he said.

“I think the Bar Council president’s statement was premature and he jumped the gun. They must be patient and wait for the investigation,” he added.

Meanwhile a member of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Consultation and Prevention of Corruption Panel, Syed Akhbar Ali, said the non-acceptance of the RCI conclusions by some could also be construed as disrespect for the laws of the country.

“I do not understand why they cannot accept the finding when the commission was formed on public demand and followed the due process of the law.

“If they accept when they like it and reject when it does not favour them then they are not respecting the commission,” he told Bernama today.

He was asked to comment on the statement by Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee that the body did not concur with the RCI’s decision that Teoh committed suicide because it was unsupported by facts and evidence.

He said it was up to the Bar Council to appeal or challenge the finding in court but if the outcome was the same, it should be accepted with an open mind.

Yet another committee?

Meanwhile the MACC has set up the Executive Transformation Committee to improve the quality of its operations.

The committee is a proactive step to heed the serious suggestions proposed by the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

MACC Chief Commissioner Abu Kassim Mohamed heads the committee. Also in the committee are other members of the top management, MACC panels and legal experts.

According to a statement from the MACC Corporate Communications Unit today, the committee will also be responsible for enhancing performance, administration supervisory mechanism, monitoring and implementation of MACC structural, management reformation,

Investigation effectiveness, strengthening functional operation achievement through human resource development and boost forensic accounting investigation.

The statement said, the committee was aimed at refining MACC’s existing efforts to detect weaknesses and take immediate corrective measures towards improving the quality of MACC operations.

It also oversees the overall structure and reviews the current operation systems and procedures.

According to the statement, the committee comprises four of MACC’s top management staff, four existing committee and panel members and two legal experts.

Apart from Abu Kassim who will head the committee, other members are MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Mohd Shukri Abdul, deputy chief commissioner (management and professionalism) Zakaria Jaafar, deputy chief commissioner (prevention) Sutinah Sutan, corruption prevention advisory board member JS Rashpal Singh, Operation evaluation panel member Zamani Abdul Ghani, Corruption Prevention and Consultative Panel member Azman Ujang and two legal experts, namely immediate former Court of Appeal judge and MACC complaints committee chairman Mohd Nor Abdullah and immediate former Federal Court judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, who was also a member of the RCI.

The statement said a few local and foreign experts would also be brought into the committee to evaluate and implement the proposed improvements.

According to the statement, the Performance Management and Implementation Unit (Pemandu) will also be involved to assist the committee.

Teoh, who was political secretary to Selangor exco member Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam, Selangor on July 16, 2009 after giving statements at the Selangor MACC office located on the 14 floor of the building.

On Thursday, the RCI ruled that Teoh had committed suicide after aggressive and relentless interrogation by MACC investigating officers.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 25 July 2011, 10:32 am and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Fernandes blames ‘silly press’ for relocation talk

Free Malaysia Today
 | July 25, 2011

TOKYO:  AirAsia has chosen Jakarta to be its regional headquarters in an effort to be seen as a Southeast Asian airline rather than just a Malaysian one.

The region’s largest low-cost airline plans to open its base in the capital at South Jakarta’s Equity Building in October, group chief executive Tony Fernandes told the Jakarta Globe yesterday.

It plans to take advantage of easy access to the Asean secretariat in advance of the “open skies” agreement that will go into effect in 2015, he had said.

That agreement will lower barriers for air travel between the region’s capitals.

Asked why he chose to move the fast-growing airline’s principal corporate base to Jakarta from Kuala Lumpur, Fernandes said: “Asean is based in Jakarta, and Indonesia will be the largest economy in Asean in times to come … And I like it there.”

Fernandes, who is Malaysian, said he had already bought a home in Jakarta within walking distance of the new office. “I don’t like the Jakarta traffic,” he said.

Not true, says Fernandes

However today, Fernandes denied that AirAsia was moving out of Malaysia to Indonesia and blamed the “silly press” for reporting about the Jakarta shift.

A day after global headlines were made about the Jakarta shift, Fernandes this evening tweeted to state that AirAsia was staying firm in Sepang.

“AirAsia headquarters always in Malaysia. We were born in Malaysia. My home is Malaysia.

“Our stock listing is in Malaysia. Hope this clears this up. Silly how some press turn things around,” he said in his tweet.

He also clarified that the new office in Jakarta was part of AirAsia’s regional expansion plan.

Move good for Indonesia

According to aviation experts, AirAsia’s relocation to Jakarta highlights the country’s growing importance in the region’s aviation sector.

“This will be great for our aviation industry,” said Dudi Sudibyo, an aviation industry analyst in Jakarta. “This will push us to be better.”

To match AirAsia’s ambitious strategy, the Indonesian government will have to continue to improve infrastructure to accommodate more passengers flying into and around the country, said Bambang Ervan, a Transportation Ministry spokesman.

“This is very positive, we welcome AirAsia’s plan,” he said. “It shows that AirAsia, one of the world leaders in the aviation industry, has confidence in Indonesia’s strong growth.”

The Indonesia National Air Carriers Association (Inaca) forecasts passenger growth at 10 percent to 15 percent this year.

Central Statistics Agency (BPS) data showed that air traffic in Indonesia grew 22 percent to 53.4 million passengers in 2010 on the back of demand from the middle class for domestic flights.

That is higher than the 9 percent average increase recorded by Asia-Pacific carriers, according to data from the International Air Transport Association.

“Indonesia is among very few countries that managed to record strong growth in air traffic last year,” Bambang said. “The lack of available airlines compared to population and geographic conditions is only a sign that there’s a lot of opportunity here.”

New orders

Fernandes was in Tokyo for the announcement of AirAsia Japan, a new joint venture with Japan’s largest carrier, the ANA Group, to launch Japan’s second budget airline next year.

He confirmed his airline’s recent order for 300 Airbus A320neos. The deal, originally for 200 planes, was increased with an option for 100 more. It was the largest single aircraft order until Wednesday, when American Airlines ordered 460 Airbus and Boeing aircraft in a $38 billion deal.

Fernandes played down concerns raised by some analysts about the possible debt implications of such a deal, saying the company was cash rich, with a turnover of more than $4 billion last year, and operated as a group with a profit margin of about 20 percent.

– Agencies

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 11:06 am and is filed under
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #75

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Reform in Islam

Confusing Examples For Principles

My main criticism of the traditional ulama is that in their meticulous and detailed studies of the individual verses of the Qur’an and sunnah, they completely miss out on the underlying theme – missing the proverbial forest for the tress.

           To Taha, Muslims’ preoccupation between secular and Islamic state is arbitrary and useless. The values of supposedly secular Western societies like gender equality, commitment to basic human rights, abhorrence of cruel and inhumane punishment, the brotherhood of mankind, and participatory democracy are also Islamic values and ideals. That the West has absorbed and claimed these virtues to be its core is no reason why Muslims should not also subscribe to them. If we follow Taha’s message and make the Shari’a compatible with modern values and aspirations, which as we have seen are also Islamic, then the question of secular versus Islamic would not arise.

           The Syrian reformist Muhammad Syahrur argues along similar lines. In his book, al-Kitab wa al Qutan: Qira’a Mucasira (The Book and the Qur’an: A Contemporary Interpretation), he challenges Muslims to imagine: Had Allah revealed the Qur’an today, how would it be written? Apart from being an intellectually stimulating exercise, it would certainly help us understand the Holy Book better. Such an endeavor however, requires considerable mental effort, much more demanding intellectually than simply parroting the lessons of the past.

           In my book The Malay Dilemma Revisited, I posed a similar question. Had Allah chosen an Eskimo to be His Last Messenger instead of an Arab, would the imagery of Hell be a place of eternal fire or a cold frozen dungeon?

           The Qur’an and sunnah teach through parables and anecdotes, but we should not confuse these examples with the underlying principles. Let me illustrate this principle with, well, an example.

           If I were to explain the universal theory of gravity by stating that gravitational pull is directly proportional to the mass and inversely to the square of the distance, or more precisely and elegantly stated by the simple formula g=km/d2, only math jocks would get excited. Others would fall asleep. But if I were to illustrate this with the example of an apple falling to the ground, then the concept is readily grasped. But if one confuses this example with the underlying principle, then one’s faith would be severely shattered on seeing an apple floating when in a spaceship. Indeed if you drop an apple while on one of those gut-wrenching roller coaster rides, it “falls” to the sky. If we truly understand the principle of gravity, then these apparent aberrations, far from shaking our faith, reaffirm it.

           Much of the disagreements over the interpretations of the Qur’an and the sunnah are attributable to this confusing of examples over principles. We interpret the Qur’an literally, often completely missing its essence.

           I am reminded of the Catholic priest who was sent to preach among the Eskimos. On his first sermon he was in his usual fire and brimstone form, exhorting the natives not to plunder, lie, or fornicate lest they would be sent to burning Hell. Imagine his horror the very next day to find his congregation enthusiastically doing all those damnable deeds. To his angry admonition, they jovially countered, “But Father, we want to go to that place where the fire burns all the time!” Confusing example with principle!

           It is instructive that many of the fresh insights into Islam are the result of the intellectual efforts of lay Muslim scholars rather than traditional ulama. Equally significant is that these scholars often are the product of Western liberal education, imbued with the capacity for critical thinking. Taha and Syahrur were professional engineers. Abdullahi An-Naim has a law degree from Cambridge and a doctorate from Edinburgh. As noted by Fazlur Rahman, himself an Oxford PhD, the level of scholarship of the traditional ulama is severely challenged. Their training is narrow, lacks scholarly rigor, and is singularly devoid of original thought. The state of the traditional Islamic educational institutions is no better. Al-Azhar University, Islam’s Harvard, did not have disciplines outside the traditional theological field until the late 1960s. Thus its scholars did not have the opportunity for intellectual cross-fertilization with those in other fields. They remained insular intellectually and socially.

           The best hope for the future will be the new breed of scholars coming out of Western universities. It is gratifying that many leading American campuses now have chairs in Islamic Studies. These future scholars, trained under the liberal, broad-based education that is the hallmark of the American system, will lead Islam into its renaissance. According to Osman Bakar, the Malaysian Chair of the Institute of Islamic and Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, America will be the second Mecca. Islam flourishes only in an atmosphere of freedom. America amply provides that.

           Traditional ulama are dismissive of Western-trained scholars. To them you are not a “real” Islamic scholar if you do not have the overflowing robe (preferably green, the color of the prophet), oversized turban, and scruffy beard. The spiritual leader of PAS, Tok Guru Nik Aziz, in a Friday sermon contemptuously dismissed Western-trained scholars as having been brainwashed by “orientalists” out to ridicule Islam. When you cannot challenge the message, simply attack the messenger – an age-old trick, and a very cheap and ineffective one at that.

Next:   The Quest For Answers

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 11:17 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mat Zain says MACC officers can be charged for Teoh’s suicide

By
Shannon Teoh
 | July 26, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — A former senior police officer said today that three Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers should be charged for abetting Teoh Beng Hock’s suicide following the release of the royal commission of inquiry’s (RCI) findings.

Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim told the Inspector General of Police in an open letter that then deputy director for Selangor Hishammuddin Hashim, officers Arman Alies and Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus were culpable in the interrogation of Teoh.

The former Kuala Lumpur CID chief noted the RCI said the three men had left the former DAP aide “almost a mental and physical wreck.”

“The commission found that Teoh Beng Hock was driven to commit suicide, as per paragraph 119 and detailed reasons from paragraphs 120 to 201… I find that Hishamuddin, Anuar and Ashraf can be charged for Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 of the Penal Code,” said the former city criminal investigation chief.

The royal panel had said found that “Arman and Ashraf behaved like inquisitors in an inquisition at the second stage of the interrogation.”

“TBH had to face MACC interrogation heavyweights like Arman the bully [who would manipulate his witness to obtain evidence], Ashraf the abuser [who was Machiavellian in his method to secure evidence] and HH the arrogant leader [who would have no qualms in lying as long as the ends were achieved, regardless of the means employed],” the RCI report had pointed out.

Mat Zain told the IGP in his letter that the police could not simply leave it to the MACC to take disciplinary action against its officers but must take action as it was a crime “against public justice under the Penal Code.”

The ex-cop also said that the three officers and two others, Bulkini Paharuddin and Raymond Nion anak John Timban were all guilty of giving false testimony in court proceedings, punishable with up to seven years imprisonment under Section 193 of the Penal Code.

“I am shocked that MACC officers gave false testimonies so bravely in the commission’s proceedings. It is as if their actions were not criminal.”

However, Mat Zain said that their boldness led him to conclude that “they were either ill-advised or given guarantees by certain parties that they will not be charged. On their own, they will not dare give false testimony, what more before a royal commission.”

The RCI had unanimously ruled that Teoh, a former aide of Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah, committed suicide as a result of pressure from aggressive and continuous questioning by anti-graft officers.

The five-man panel wrapped up its report on June 15 after having heard testimony from 70 witnesses in its bid to unravel the mysterious circumstances behind Teoh’s death.

The 30-year-old DAP political aide was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth-floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam after he was questioned overnight by MACC officers at their then-Selangor headquarters on the 14th floor.

The coroner’s inquest had in January returned an “open verdict” ruling out both suicide and homicide some 18 months after Teoh’s death.

The government was then forced to establish the RCI, which first met in February, with two terms of reference: to probe how Teoh plunged to his death and to look into MACC’s investigative methods.

But Teoh’s family has rejected the commission’s verdict and are currently mulling a judicial review of its findings.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 12:19 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Crime
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mat Zain’s Open Letter on TBH RCI report

Mat Zain bin Ibrahim

26hb.July 2011.

Kepada;

YDH Tan Sri Hji Ismail bin Haji Omar,IGP,

Ketua Polis Negara,

Ibu Pejabat Polis DiRaja Malaysia,

50560 Bukit Aman,

Kuala Lumpur.

Email:
[email protected]

Dengan Email

YDH Tan Sri,

SURUHANJAYA JAMES FOONG-TINDAKAN SUSULAN POLIS.

Assalamualikum wbt.

1.	Sebelum membincangkan perkara tajuk,sukacita saya merujukkan Tan Sri kepada surat saya bertarikh
24.1.2011
 yang dialamatkan kepada YBhg.Datuk Idrus Harun,Peguam Cara Negara dengan salinannya kepada YAB Perdana Menteri  dan Tan Sri sendiri. Dalam surat tersebut saya telah kemukakan maklumat terprinci berkaitan perbuatan pemalsuan  dan manipulasi keterangan serta penggunaan keterangan palsu dalam prosiding Suruhanjaya
Di-Raja menyiasat Insiden Mata-Lebam 1999 (RCI Mata-Lebam).Dalam surat sama saya turut menegaskan jangkaan saya bahawa pemalsuan dan manipulasi serupa akan berlaku juga dalam Siasatan Suruhanjaya Di-Raja berkaitan kematian Teoh Beng Hock (Suruhanjaya James Foong). Pada masa saya menulis surat tersebut, Suruhanjaya ini masih belum ditubuhkan lagi.

Laporan Suruhanjaya.

2.	Saya telah berpeluang memiliki dan meneliti Laporan Suruhanjaya James Foong dalam Bahasa Malaysia dan Inggeris. Seperti yang telah dijangka, memang terdapat banyak pembohongan, pemalsuan dan manipulasi keterangan serta penggunaan keterangan palsu dalam prosiding ini juga, seperti yang terkandung dalam Laporan Suruhanjaya James Foong. Serupa dengan apa yang berlaku dalam prosiding RCI Mata-Lebam. Cuma yang berbeza, ialah pemainnya sahaja.

3.	Walaupun berhadapan dengan masaalah saksi-saksi penting, terdiri daripada beberapa orang Pegawai SPRM memberi keterangan palsu dan tidak munasabah, selain daripada tidak mendapat sokongan seratus-peratus daripada pihak-pihak terlibat dan pendekatan berlawanan oleh Peguam-Peguam dan lain-lain kearalan, Suruhanjaya James Foong pada pendapat saya, wajar diberi pujian kerana telah berjaya memenuhi kehendak terma-terma rujukkan yang sempit dan terhad yang diberikan kepada Suruhanjaya.Pada pendapat saya penemuan yang mereka capai dan laporkan, setakat fakta serta keterangan yang dibentangkan dihadapan mereka, adalah teratur, lengkap dan berterus terang.

3.1.	Malahan, jika Laporan diteliti secara mendalam dan rasional, saya berpendapat, Suruhanjaya ini menunjukkan lebih simpati kepada mendiang Teoh Beng Hock dengan membuka ruang dan peluang yang sangat luas kepada keluarga mendiang itu untuk meneruskan prosiding sivil terhadap SPRM dan Kerajaan.Malah meletakkan SPRM khasnya, dalam keadaan yang rumit.

4.	Seterusnya saya berpendapat Laporan Suruhanjaya ini juga telah secara berterus-terang mendedahkan keterangan-keterangan beberapa kesalahan jenayah serius yang dilakukan oleh beberapa orang Pegawai SPRM berhubung kait dengan kematian Teoh Beng Hock. Namun begitu keterangan yang didedahkan tidak cukup untuk mengaitkan sesiapa dengan kesalahan Membunuh dibawah Seksyen 302 Kanun Keseksaan (KK) ataupun kesalahan Mematikan Orang dengan Salah (Culpable Homicide) dibawah Seksyen 304 KK. Bagaimanapun terdapat keterangan yang cukup untuk mengenakan tindakan dibawah Seksyen 304A iaitu “menyebabkan kematian dengan cuai”. Hukuman bagi kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 304A ini adalah penjara 2 tahun dan boleh juga dikenakan denda atau kedua-duanya sekali.

5.	Kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah yang didedahkan dalam Laporan tersebut adalah dalam bidang kuasa dan tanggungjawab Polis untuk menanganinya dan bukan sekadar membiarkan SPRM mengambil  tindakan disiplin jabatan semata-mata.Kesalahan yang dilakukan adalah kesalahan terhadap Keadilan Awam di-bawah Kanun Keseksaan dan bukan sekadar kesalahan desiplin Jabatan.

5.1.	Berpandukan kepada maklumat terkandung dalam Laporan Suruhanjaya berkenaan saya berpendapat mereka yang dikenalpasti terlibat dan jenayah yang masing-masing lakukan adalah seperti berikut dibawah.

BULKINI PAHARUDDIN

6.	Berdasarkan kepada penemuan Suruhanjaya diperenggan 85 dan 86 serta alasan-alasan yang terkandung dalam perenggan 87 hingga 93 saya berpendapat, Bulkini boleh dikenakan pertuduhan “memberi keterangan palsu dalam prosiding kehakiman” dibawah Seksyen 193 KK yang boleh dihukum penjara 7 tahun jika disabitkan kesalahannya.

RAYMOND NION anak JOHN TIMBAN

7.	Selanjutnya, berdasarkan penjelasan dalam perenggan 198 hingga perenggan 201, saya berpendapat Raymond boleh dikenakan pertuduhan kerana “mereka keterangan palsu” dibawah Seksyen 192 KK yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 193 KK yang membawa hukuman penjara 7 tahun jika disabitkan kesalahannya.

7.1.	Rekod punched out pada jam 6.04 pagi dan punched in jam 6.05 pagi 16.7.2009 dalam punch card Raymond adalah bukti penting bahawa beliau telah membuat catatan palsu dalam sesuatu buku atau rekod yang merupakan ingredient penting bagi kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 192 KK.Malahan rekod punch card ini (dalam perenggan 201) boleh digunakan untuk membuktikan terdapat perbuatan  “cover-up” untuk melindungi mereka yang terlibat dengan salahlaku berkaitan kematian Teoh Beng Hock itu.

HISHAMUDDIN HASHIM

MOHAMAD ANUAR ISMAIL

ASHRAF MOHD.YUNUS.

8.	Berdasarkan kepada “Keputusan mengenai terma rujukkan yang kedua”  dimana Suruhanjaya mendapati bahawa Teoh Beng Hock telah
didorong
 untuk membunuh diri sepertimana butiran dalam perenggan 119, beserta dengan alasan terperici Suruhanjaya sepertimana dalam perenggan 120 hingga 201, khasnya perenggan 197, saya berpendapat bahawa Hishamuddin, Anuar dan Ashraf boleh dituduh diatas kesalahan
“Menyubahati kesalahan membunuh diri”( Abetment of Suicide) dibawah Seksyen 306 KK
 untuk dibaca bersama Seksyen 107 (berkaitan Subahat) dan/atau Seksyen 120A (berkaitan Konspirasi Jenayah) KK.

8.1.	Kesalahan dibawah
Seksyen 306 KK memperuntukkan hukuman penjara 10 tahun
 jika disabitkan kesalahanya. Polis mempunyai kuasa untuk menangkap tanpa waran bagi kesalahan ini yang tidak boleh dijamin. Penyiasatan kes ini juga tidak memerlukan Arahan Penyiasatan daripada Pendakwa Raya.

8.2.	Selain daripada  diatas, pada pendapat saya,Hishamuddin,Anuar dan Ashraf juga boleh dikenakan pertuduhan memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu yang boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 193 KK sepertimana juga kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Bulkini dan Raymond.

Memberi atau Mereka Keterangan Palsu oleh beberapa Pegawai SPRM.

9.	Secara peribadi, saya hairan dan terkejut mendapati beberapa orang Pegawai SPRM dilaporkan telah memberi keterangan palsu secara berani dan bersahaja dalam prosiding Suruhanjaya ini. Seolah-olah perbuatan mereka demikian itu bukan kesalahan jenayah. Setakat pengetahuan dan pengalaman saya, kakitangan Kerajaan,tidak kira apa peringkat pun, akan cemas dan bimbang apabila dipanggil memberi keterangan lebih-lebih lagi dihadapan sesuatu Suruhanjaya Di-Raja. Selain daripada sedar akan konsekuennya jika mereka memberi keterangan palsu didalam prosiding itu, lazimnya kakitangan Kerajaan sedar, bahawa sesuatu Suruhanjaya Di-Raja itu ditubuhkan diatas Titah SPB Yang Di-Pertuan Agong dan apa-apa hasil laporannya adalah diatas perkenan Baginda juga.

10.	Dalam perkara memberi keterangan palsu oleh Hishamuddin, Anuar, Ashraf, Bulkini dan Raymond, saya menyimpulkan bahawa, sama ada mereka telah disalahnasihatkan ataupun mereka telah diberi jaminan oleh pihak tertentu yang mereka tidak akan dikenakan sebarang pendakwaan, walaupun melakukan kesalahan jenayah serius itu. Pada pendapat saya,secara bersendiri, mereka tidak akan berani memberi keterangan palsu sedemikian itu, lebih-lebih lagi dalam prosiding Suruhanjaya Di-Raja.

11.	Perkara serupa pernah berlaku ketika prosiding RCI Mata-Lebam 1999, bilamana seorang Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof dipercayai telah diberi jaminan oleh Peguam Negara, bahawa tiada pendakwaan akan dikenakan terhadap beliau, walaupun Dr.Rahman telah dibuktikan menyediakan 3 laporan pakar yang palsu diatas arahan Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (TS Gani Patail), ketika itu seorang TPR Kanan di-Jabatan Peguam Negara, yang mana 2 daripada laporan tersebut dikemukakan dalam prosiding berkenaan. Bukti mengenai salahlaku jenayah ini masih kekal dalam Laporan Suruhanjaya Di-Raja yang berkenaan.

SPRM pernah membersihkan salahlaku jenayah TS Gani Patail.

12.	Saya percaya Tan Sri masih ingat pada 11.3.2009 (lebih kurang 4 bulan sebelum insiden kematian Teoh Beng Hock), SPRM pernah membersihkan TS Gani Patail daripada kesalahan jenayah memalsukan keterangan dalam siasatan kes mata-lebam tersebut itu. Walaupun pada hakikatnya, SPRM telah mengumpulkan bukti yang kukuh untuk mendakwa beliau. Malahan seorang daripada Ahli Panel Bebas yang dilantik untuk meneliti hasil siasatan SPRM itu, turut mendapati terdapat keterangan mengaitkan TS Gani Patail dengan salahlaku jenayah tersebut. Adalah dipercayai Ahli Panel yang membuat keputusan tersebut ialah Y.Bhg. Dato’Haji Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, mantan Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang kebetulan pula adalah salah seorang Ahli Suruhanjaya James Foong.

13.	Persoalannya sekarang ialah, adakah layak untuk TS Gani Patail untuk “overrule” keputusan Suruhanjaya James Foong berkaitan salahlaku jenayah kerana memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu oleh beberapa Pegawai SPRM, sedangkan Pengerusinya, Tan Sri Datuk Seri James Foong Cheng Yuen, ialah seorang Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang sedang berhidmat. Selain itu beliau sendiri (TS Gani Patail) telah didapati melakukan kesalahan mereka keterangan palsu oleh salah seorang Ahli Suruhanjaya ini dalam satu kes lain.

14.	Tidak salah untuk saya menyatakan bahawa selagi tidak ada pihak berkuasa yang berani tampil untuk membuat keputusan menghadapkan TS Gani Patail kemuka pengadilan diatas kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah terhadap Keadilan Awam itu sendiri, selagi itu juga kecelaruan dan kepincangan dalam Sistem Pentadbiran Undang-Undang Negara yang sedang kita alami sekarang tidak akan dapat diperbetulkan.

15.	Tidak keterlaluan juga,untuk menyatakan kemungkinan, bahawa Pegawai-Pegawai SPRM dan lain-lain didapati berani dan tanpa segan silu memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu, sekalipun dalam sesuatu Suruhanjaya Di-Raja, ialah kerana mereka mengambil sebagai teladan tindakan TS Gani Patail sendiri yang melakukan kesalahan jenayah yang serupa, tetapi tiada sesiapa yang berani mengambil tindakan keatas beliau.

Penutup.

16.	Sesuatu Laporan Suruhanjaya Di-Raja akan kekal sebagai bahan rujukkan umum sepanjang hayat. Pihak berkuasa tidak boleh menghalang mana-mana pihak sekalipun yang ingin membangkitkan apa-apa isu yang ditimbulkan dalam Laporan berkenaan pada bila-bila masa pun.Lebih-lebih lagi dana rakyat berjuta Ringgit dibelanjakan untuk mengendalikan sesuatu siasatan Suruhanjaya seperti ini.

17.	Maklumat-maklumat mengenai perlakuan jenayah yang terkandung dalam Laporan Suruhanjaya adalah maklumat yang sahih dan boleh digunakan sebagai asas dan keterangan bagi memulakan sesuatu prosiding. Malahan pihak Polis tidak perlu menunggu pihak ketiga untuk membuat laporan Polis menyiasat atau mengambil tindakan keatas sesuatu salahlaku jenayah. Laporan Suruhanjaya itu sendiri adalah satu laporan resmi Kerajaan yang ditandatangani oleh setiap seorang daripada pembikinnya, malahan di-perkenankan pula oleh Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

18.	Dalam perkara beberapa Pegawai SPRM memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu dalam prosiding Suruhajaya ini,saya berpendapat Peguam Negara TS Gani Patail, berada dalam situasi beliau tidak berupaya untuk melaksanakan kuasa dan tanggungjawab beliau secara adil, berkecuali dan saksama. Ini adalah kerana beliau sendiri terlibat dalam mereka keterangan palsu yang disiasat dan kemudiannya dibersihkan pula oleh SPRM.

18.1.	Sekiranya beliau mengambil keputusan untuk mendakwa Pegawai-Pegawai SPRM itu kerana memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu, maka persoalan yang akan timbul ialah bagaimana pula halnya dengan kes mereka keterangan palsu terhadap beliau sendiri. Besar kemungkinannya ada pihak dalam SPRM yang akan membangkitkan isu ini semula.

18.2.	Sekiranya pula TS Gani Patail gagal atau enggan mengenakan apa apa pendakwaan terhadap Pegawai-Pegawai SPRM yang terlibat itu,maka akan memperlihatkan beliau menentang keputusan dan/atau penemuan Suruhanjaya James Foong dan sekaligus membuka floodgate untuk Laporan Suruhanjaya tersebut dicabar.

18.3.	Begitu juga keadaanya bagi SPRM.Sekiranya Jabatan itu enggan mendakwa Pegawai-Pegawai mereka kerana memberi atau mereka keterangan palsu sepertimana keputusan Suruhanjaya, maka akan menyulitkan mereka untuk mengambil tindakan sedemikian terhadap pesalah lain.

18.4.	Begitu juga sekiranya SPRM enggan mengiktiraf keputusan Suruhanjaya terhadap Pegawai-Pegawai mereka sedemikian itu, maka SPRM juga terpaksa tidak mengiktiraf keputusan Suruhanjaya berkaitan kematian Teoh Beng Hock.

19.	Apapun, saya terpaksa menyatakan bahawa kecelaruan dalam kes kematian Teoh Beng Hock ini mungkin dapat dielakkan sekiranya Polis telah melaksanakan tugas siasatan dengan teliti dan berkecuali.Perbuatan pembohongan,pemalsuan dan perbuatan “cover-up” oleh beberapa orang Pegawai SPRM seperti yang berjaya dikesan dan dilaporkan oleh Suruhanjaya tersebut, sepatutnya telah dapat dikesan oleh penyiasat Polis diperingkat awal siasatan lagi. Malahan PDRM mempunyai kepakaran dan kecekapan untuk menyiasat dan menyelesaikan kes-kes yang lebih complicated daripada kes kematian Teoh Beng Hock itu,sekiranya PDRM bertindak secara professional.

19.1.	Bagi saya,perbuatan membawa masuk “suicide note” disaat-saat akhir Inkues, adalah suatu kesilapan besar yang telah memusnahkan sama sekali kredibiliti Peguam Negara dan Polis dalam menangani siasatan insiden ini.

19.2.	Diharap kesilapan yang telah berlaku dalam penyiasatan kes Teoh Beng Hock ini sama ada disengajakan atau sebaliknya akan menjadi pengajaran yang berguna kepada Penyiasat-Penyiasat baru dalam Pasukan.Semoga mereka sedar bahawa sebarang perbuatan mereka keterangan palsu dan percubaan “cover-up” lambat laun akan terbongkar juga.Mereka wajar dinasihatkan untuk menerima hakikat bahawa “its always better to disclose than to be discovered”. Satu pemalsuan tidak boleh ditutup walaupun dengan seratus pemalsuan yang lain.

20.	Akhirkata, saya masih meletakkan keyakinan kepada Tan Sri dan pucuk pimpinan tertinggi PDRM dalam menangani isu-isu yang dibangkitkan kali ini dan sebelumnya,
secara adil dan bijaksana serta berlandaskan Peraturan Undang-Undang
. Apapun PDRM tidak boleh dilihat sama sekali sebagai mengenepikan Laporan Suruhanjaya Di-Raja, oleh kerana pebuatan seumpama itu boleh ditafsirkan sebagai menghina Titah SPB Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

Selamat sejahtera dan selamat menyambut bulan Ramadhan Al’Mubarak.

Terima kasih.

Yang benar,

(Mat Zain bin Ibrahim)

26.07.2011

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 1:45 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nazri agrees to debate with Kit Siang over Teoh RCI

By
Clara Chooi
 | July 26, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 — Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz today declared his willingness to debate the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Teoh Beng Hock’s death with Lim Kit Siang.

Through his media officer, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, who is now in London, said he would accept Lim’s offer but suggested that the meeting with the DAP stalwart be held after the fasting month of Ramadan.

In a blog posting yesterday, Lim had slammed Nazri (picture) for saying that the Teoh RCI had absolved the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) of murder charges and called on the minister to justify his stand.

He invited Nazri to do so at a forum tonight entitled “Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission Inquiry Report — Where is the promised truth?” scheduled for 7.30pm at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall here.

In a Twitter posting this afternoon, Nazri’s aide said: “Nazri Aziz accepted YB Lim Kit Siang’s challenge for a debate as posted on the latter’s fcbk @limkitsiang stil waitng 4 a response from YB.”

The aide added: “Nazri accepted the challenge n suggested the forum is 2 b held after Ramadhan” and explained later that the minister is now in London for the 57th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference which goes on until Thursday.

When contacted, Lim acknowledged the tweet and said he would respond at tonight’s forum.

“I did not use the word ‘debate’… I invited him to the forum tonight to explain his position. But, through his officer, he said he accepted the debate so I will respond tonight,” he said.

On Twitter again, Nazri’s aide wrote: “Nazri mahu forum mesti diadakan juga, tidak kisah dimana, berapa ramai dan siapa lagi ahli forum, dia tunggu dgn kesabaran.” (Nazri wants this forum to be held, regardless of where, how many people and whoever else takes part in it, he patiently waits.)

Lim’s challenge to Nazri came following the latter’s interview with Utusan Malaysia carried on Sunday where he declared that there was no need to form another RCI although Teoh’s family rejected the panel’s conclusion that Teoh had committed suicide.

In the interview, Nazri had also said that although the MACC needs to revamp itself, the RCI had absolved it of murder charges and this should not be questioned further.

But Lim refuted all charges, reiterating his stand that the MACC should be held responsible for the tragedy as the RCI had discovered that Teoh’s suicide had resulted from the “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” by its officers.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 26 July 2011, 5:06 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


4 new leads from the TBH RCI Report providing powerful reasons why police should re-open investigations on who were TBH’s killers

The James Foong Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the death of Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) is a great disappointment, as  it has come out with a finding of “TBH was driven to commit suicide by the aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation by certain officers of the MACC”(Para 119) , which is rejected by all right-thinking Malaysians.

There is however a silver lining in the TBH RCI Report as it has provided four new leads which are powerful reasons why the police should re-open investigations into who killed TBH at the MACC headquarters at Shah Alam on July 16, 2009.

LEAD ONE
 –

the TBH RCI was most scathing in its indictment of the character and testimony of the MACC officers especially from Selangor at the RCI. Apart from two brave and truthful souls from Selangor MACC, i.e. Azeem Hafeez Jamaluddin and Azlan (Para 176), the TBH RCI virtually dismissed the rest as a pack of liars led by Hishamuddin Hashim (HH), the “mastermind” of the massive and unjustified operation which resulted in TBH’s death.

This is what the TBH RCI has to say about Hishammuddin, the “mastermind”:

“We found him to be arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising in his stand. His falsehoods, particularly of his non-active involvement in the entire operation at the material time, were exposed from the contradictory statements he made before us. But more compelling was the confirmation from two of his own officers, namely Azeem and Azian who were brave enough to reveal towards the later part of our proceedings the actual role of HH in this operation despite the fact that HH was their superior and still holds a senior position in the MACC as director of the MACC Negri Sembilan.”

As for Anuar Ismail (Anuar), who was appointed investigation officer (IO) of the operation by “mastermind” Hishamuddin, the TBH RCI statement cannot be more condemnatory: “Anuar lied about the role he played in order to cover up for HH. 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.” (Para 195).

In Para 337, the TBH RCI said: “That HH and others under his command lied in this inquiry is borne home by the testimonies of Azeem and Azian, the two MACC offices who were courageous enough to testify that attempts were made to get them to say that HH was not directly involved in the operation and that it was Hairul Ilham who was in charge”.

In fact, the TBH RCI report is fertile source for the formulation of multiple perjury charges against Hishamuddin and other MACC officers in giving false testimony at the RCI – a judicial proceeding under the definition of Penal Code Section 193 which provides for  the maximum sentence of seven years jail and fine on conviction.

Para 336 of TBH RCi is an example where a perjury charge could be framed against Hishammuddin, as it said:

“The evidence adduced showed that the MACC officers were prepared to go to great lengths to lie. One glaring example is that of HH, a very senior officer, who was overall in charge of operations on that fateful 15th evening and spilling over into the early hours of the morning of the16th. In testimony before us, he was adamant in his stand that he had no knowledge whatsoever that complaints of assault and use of force had been lodged against officers under his charge with the police. However, his lie was exposed with startling clarity when DSP Kamaruddin Ismail from the Selangor police produced a letter written by HH himself in 2008 responding to police inquiries in relation to the complaints of assault and related abuses of power that had been lodged against MACC  officers under his command.”

Will the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani for Patail arrest and charge Hishammuddin for perjury just based on Para 336 of the TBH RCI?

With all  MACC Selangor officers led by Hishammuddin dismissed as “a pack of liars” (apart from Azeem and Azian), this would  mean that they had lied all the way from the initial police investigations into TBH’s death, the TBH inquest and the TBH RCI about what happened to TBH in MACC on the fateful days of July 15/16, 2009.

As the police had been lied to in police criminal investigations into TBH’s death, this means that all the police statements given by Hishammuddin and the MACC Selangor officers (except for Azeem and Azian) about what happened to TBH in his three interrogations in MACC from 6 pm on 15th July to 3.30 am on 16th July were  untrue, worthless and must be rejected – justifying a re-opening of police investigations into TBH’s death.

LEAD TWO
 –

The TBH RCI reported that apart from the three interrogations from 6pm on 15th to 3.30 am on 16th July, there was a hitherto unknown “Fourth Interrogation” of TBH between 3.30 am and 7 am on the 16th “that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, that propelled TBH to commit suicide” (Para 166).

Para 229 said: “By the time, the fourth or final stage of the interrogation was over, TBH would have been almost a mental and physical wreck.”

Police investigations into TBH’s death never knew about this “Fourth Interrogation” between 3.30 am to 7 am on 16th July – a second lead from the TBH RCI report on why police should re-open investigations.  In fact, it should also investigate whether there was a “fifth” interrogation between 7 am to 11 am – depending on the time of TBH’s death.

LEAD THREE

– Hishammuddin was the  “mastermind” in the host of criminalities and breaches of the law in the massive operation resulting in TBH’s death. Though deputy director of MACC Selangor at the time in charge of investigations and intelligence-gathering, Hishammuddin “appeared to have absolute authority to investigate anyone whom he suspected to be involved in any corrupt practice in the state without even informing or obtaining the consent of his superiors in the in the MACC headquarters in Putrajaya (HQ) or his superior  on the ground, the director of Selangor of MACC.” (Para 23).

Hishammuddin blatantly abused his powers when he launched the massive 33-officer operation which resulted in TBH’s death “solely on a mere belief and without  supporting facts” (Para 184) based on a “mere” telephone call (Para 188).

These are revelations which would justify police re-opening investigations into TBH’s death to find out who gave Hishammuddin the sense of immunity and impunity for breaking laws and committing crimes, going over the head of his superior in Selangor and in national headquarters resulting in TBH’s death?

LEAD FOUR –

A few days after TBH’s tragic death  on 16th July  2009, a “black blog” appeared which accused DAP of TBH’s murder to distract public attention from the real cause of TBH’s death – raising the suspicion that the “black blog” was the work of people responsible for killing him.

Furthermore, the “black blog” had the finger prints of MACC or MACC officers as it contained documents related to TBH investigations which were only in the possession of MACC.

This is the fourth lead justifying the re-opening of police investigations into TBH’s death as police investigation into who was behind the “black blog” would probably have found TBH’s killers as well.

[Speech (Part 2) at the  DAP forum on “Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission Inquiry Report – Where is the promised truth?” on Tuesday, 26th July 2011 at 9 pm]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 4:07 am and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A sham that deceived Malaysia

By
Marcus van Geyzel (loyarburok.com)
 | July 25, 2011

The Malaysian Insider

JULY 25 — 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 July 16, 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” (July 15: 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 (July 16: 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 July 16 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 July 16. 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 (July 16) 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 (July 15).

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 July 16?

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 July 15, 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 July 16, 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 July 16. 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 July 16 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 July 15, 2009 and the wee hours of July 16, 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. — loyarburok.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 5:45 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After Bersih, doubts over Malaysia’s UNHRC spot

By Debra Chong

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 27, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, July 27 — LawAsia, a global organisation of lawyers, judges and legal experts has reminded Putrajaya it could lose its seat in the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for its strong-arm tactics over the Bersih 2.0 affair.

The 45-year-old society based in Brisbane, with membership from over 50 countries in Asia and the Pacific region, issued a strong-worded statement earlier this week rebuking the Malaysian government for breaching the fundamental rights to freedom of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it attempted to prevent the Bersih 2.0 rally for electoral reform on July 9.

It said the Najib administration’s actions of July 9 also appear to seriously breach another global agreement, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which it said Malaysia adopted in 1990.

“The queries over Malaysia’s fitness to hold a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council, in view of its apparent disdain for the fundamental human rights of its citizenry aptly highlight international concern that aspirations to hold political power now far outstrip an adherence to the democratic principles on which the country was founded,” it said.

A Bersih marcher near past a spent tear-gas grenade. — Picture by Choo Choy May

“Above all, LawAsia encourages the Malaysian government to be mindful not only of the rights of its citizens but also of the message that its actions in respect of the Bersih movement have sent to the wider world,” it added.

It noted with alarm the arrests of more than 1,600 people on the rally day itself and the “haphazard crowd control methods employed by police saw a hospital compound in Kuala Lumpur affected by both tear gas and water cannon, an action for which there can be no justification”.

It also condemned the federal government for using the Emergency Ordinance (EO) in some arrests, noting those laws allow for “long detention without access to due court processes”, shutting down public space in the capital city and roads leading to it and an “eventual display of police brutality against rallying citizens and others that was both uncivilised and wholly unmerited”.

“Actions of this sort in any country will always deserve the strongest criticism from the legal community on both legal and humanitarian grounds,” it said.

The prominent legal society said it regretted that Malaysia appeared to have “cast aside” universally-held principles on human rights, the democratic process and the rule of law, and questioned if Malaysia could still play a leading role in the region in the future.

It urged the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) to set up an independent investigation into the entire affair.

Suhakam has already formed a three-man public inquiry panel consists of the commission’s vice-chairman Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee who will be aided by Professor Datuk Dr Mahmood Zuhdi Abdul Majid and Detta Samen.

The Malaysian Insider understands it is now in the process of recording statements from witnesses over the July 9 public rally which the authorities insist was illegal.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 27 July 2011, 5:56 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.