Both Prime Minister Najib Razak and Attorney General (AG) Gani Patail have flopped miserably to justify the unjustifiable – the irrational and untenable decision to have both a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) and an inquest to deal with the boiling controversy of Teoh Beng Huat’s tragic death under custody of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
In an immediate response to nation-wide protests against the government’s decision to allow the RCI to deal with only procedural matters while leaving the all important issue of cause of death to an inquest in a magistrate court, Najib said:
“We must adhere to the laws of the country. Please don’t take (political) advantage of the case. Our intention is to find out the truth”.
Sensing his statement sounded somewhat hollow, he quickly added that the Attorney General will issue a statement to explain the details.
But the Attorney General statement sounded even more hollow. His statement is a blatant attempt to mislead by deliberate omission of the relevant section of the law.
Citing section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, Gani said it made clear reference to the inquiry into the conduct and management of the government officers and departments for the public welfare. He said welfare matters relate to the well being of society and “cannot be overstretched to cover an inquiry into the death of this nature.”
In this statement, Gani made two assertions. First, the Act covers only government departments and officers. Second, his definition of “public welfare” excludes inquisition of death.
On Gani’s first point. Under the same section quoted by Gani – section 2 of the Act – it is expressly stated under item (d) that the Commission is empowered to inquire into “any other matter in which an inquiry would, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be for the public welfare, ….”. So, Gani’s assertion is directly contradicted by item (d). He is therefore guilty of a deliberate attempt to mislead the nation, as he cannot possibly be ignorant of this elementary and fundamental provision of the Act, being the highest legal adviser to the government.
On the second point. Gani’s narrow interpretation of the phrase “for the public welfare” is laughable. When the nation has been so incensed by the heinous injustice of this tragedy that it is almost on the point of revolt, appointing an RCI to probe into this death is not only legally and politically appropriate but the very minimum the government must do if it still wants to retain a remote semblance of rule of law in this country. And yet, our attorney general is telling us that making such a move is incompatible with “public welfare.” Then what will constitute “public welfare”? Waiting for violence to erupt in the streets – knowing fully well that public confidence in the existing law enforcement bodies including the courts is already non-existent?
Even when an RCI is commissioned to probe into the death, there is no assurance of justice done, judging from the government’s habit of ignoring recommendations of RCIs in recent times; but at least it will calm the highly strung nerves of the nation by showing that the government is finally taking steps in the right direction. And I can’t imagine any decent person will dispute by saying that taking such a course does not fulfil national interests as implied by Gani’s narrow interpretation.
Much has been written and expressed by respectable legal minds, political parties and civil society leaders that the present set up of an RCI cum inquest to divide the task of resolving the present crisis is legally and technically untenable and morally unacceptable, and I will not elaborate further in this direction.
Suffice to say that Najib must decide, and decide now, which course he wants to take. To salvage the image of the nation and redeem himself from a scandal-ridden past by appointing an honourably constituted RCI with proper terms of reference to take on the crisis, or relegate the task to a magistrate hamstrung by prosecutors and police, all of whom are deeply mistrusted by the public.
Kim Quek.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Royal Commission of Deception
23.07.2009
Prime Minister Najib Razak has finally announced the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to assuage the nation’s anger over the tragic death of Teoh Beng Hock in the hands of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). But what a let down, and what a deception!
Instead of probing the death of Teoh, the Commission is asked to look into the interrogation methods of the MACC. The absurdity of this move is akin to a school boy caned to death in a school, and the public inquiry is over the disciplinary procedure of the school, not over how and why the boy met his death.
The injustice that befell Teoh Beng Hock – a clear victim of political persecution – has infuriated the nation to boiling point, and yet Najib thinks that an RCI looking into MACC’s methodology would be sufficient to douse the anger and restore confidence in his leadership. What does he take Malaysians for? A bunch of dimwits?
Oh ya, I know what they will say, concurrent with this RCI is an inquest where a magistrate would look into the cause of death. But any one familiar with legal practice can tell you that comparing an inquest to a RCI is like a child vs an adult. An RCI is commissioned by the King, and it is usually made up of senior members of society with distinguished records of competence and integrity, and having wide power to summon for witnesses and evidence, and reporting to the King; whereas an inquest is manned by a junior legal officer whose source of evidence is limited to feedings from the authorities (mainly police) with no power to call for witnesses and other evidences, and forwarding the findings to the attorney general.
Since an RCI is going to be set up in response to public demand to uncover the truth pertaining to Teoh’s death, why create another junior body to take away the principal task - finding out how and why Teoh died – leaving RCI to do a side show? Besides, without allowing RCI to probe into the death, how could it fathom what has gone wrong with the operations of MACC’s? In fact these two tasks are integral and inseparable. Only when the full circumstances surrounding the death are ascertained, can the defects of the system be defined and recommendations made. This is plain common sense, and I can’t imagine a man of Najib’s intelligence cannot comprehend it. That leaves us with no alternative but to conclude that the UMNO leadership is playing a game of hide and seek with the public with respect to this tragedy.
POLICE QUESTIONABLE
Najib said “the government will do whatever that is necessary to find the truth” and Inspector General Musa Hassan has repeatedly warned the public not to speculate and hurl accusations but to trust the police to carry out a “transparent and professional” investigation, but what has transpired is contrary to these assertions.
The police investigations in particular have been shockingly questionable and unprofessional.
It should be plain from day 1 of the discovery of the body (July 16 ) that Teoh died while under custody and he fell from the window of the MACC’s 14 floor office. That he was never released was verified by his personal articles including his hand phone which were still being kept by MACC when the body was found and the fact that he could not have walked off the office on his own as implied by MACC as he did not have the electronic card to open the door. That he fell through the office window was evidenced from the 14th floor window latch which was found next to Teoh’s body.
Then why didn’t the police seal the office, seize all relevant documents including notes of interrogation, dust for finger prints particularly those at the window on the very first day (July 16), as death by foul means clearly could not be excluded.
Despite evidence of Teoh’s fall from the building while under custody, why did Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar say that he did not suspect foul play and classified the case as “sudden death” – even before autopsy was performed? Didn’t this presumption betray patronization of a fellow law-enforcing agency?
Why did the police forensics personnel visited the crime scene only on Day 4 (July 19) to take evidence, removing articles such as documents, CCTV records, window latch etc, knowing that vital clues could have been erased, tampered with or removed in the intervening 3 days? Didn’t this reflect a lack of seriousness?
Why did the police deny repeatedly to assemblyman Ronnie Liu until day 4 that it had Teoh’s hand phone, when in fact the phone has been in its possession since day 1? What was the police secretly keeping the phone for so many days for?
The body was discovered at 1:30 pm and Teoh’s boss assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah arrived at the MACC office at 5 pm asking to see Teoh, but the personnel therein including Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar did not entertain Ean Yong for more than an hour. Why kept the news from Ean Yong for so long? Why wasn’t Teoh’s family informed in the first instant? Was this long duration of silence a needed interval to complete certain preparatory work before the bad news was announced to the world? Shouldn’t such improper conduct give rise to suspicious imputations?
The autopsy was completed on day 2 (July 17), why is the police still keeping the findings under lid?
MACC IN POLITICAL CONSPIRACY
As for MACC, questions galore that suggest criminal liability over Teoh’s death in the backdrop of a political conspiracy to sabotage the Selangor Pakatan state government with corruption prosecutions. Examples of these are:
1. Why did director of investigations Shukri Abdul lie that Teoh was released at
2. Why was Teoh tortured in a marathon interrogation that stretch into the early hours of morning when he was not a criminal suspect but only a witness assisting in an investigation over a hearsay allegation of misappropriation of a paltry RM 2,400 by his boss Ean Yong? Ean Yong was among a group of seven Pakatan assemblymen selected for investigation for unspecified suspicion of miss-using their annual allocations of half a million ringgit each. In contrast, Pakatan complaints against BN assemblymen for having dubiously spent their entire annual allocations within the short period of two months shortly before the last election in Mar 8, 08 have been met with silence for more than a year.
3. Why have Pakatan leaders been systematically hounded over dubious petty allegations while MACC routinely playing deaf and dumb over multi-million and even multi-billion scandals of corruption and abuse of power by Barisan Nasional leaders? Why kept silent over the RM 12.5 billion PKFZ scandal despite having received numerous reports of complaints from Pakatan since 2004? Why took no notice over the recently exposed mansion of former Selangor Menteri Besar Khir Toyo reputedly worth RM 24 million which was well beyond his accumulated official income? Why took no action on Khir for the numerous reports of corruption and abuse of power uncovered by the Pakatan state government since the last election?
It is as clear as day light that MACC exists not to wipe out corruption, but to wipe out Pakatan Rakyat – not only in Selangor but all over the country. It is in the realization of this despicable role played by MACC, that the tragic death of an upright and dedicated young man who was due to get married on the day his life was so cruelly snuffed out, has caused the tolerance of the nation to touch its breaking point.
Let us resolve that the fascist power be not tolerated henceforth. Let us all stand up for justice for Teoh Beng Hock.
Kim Quek
Monday, July 20, 2009
Teoh's death: Mysteries abound, Royal Commission without delay
Teoh Beng Hock’s tragic death seems to have jolted this country from the euphoric daze induced by the media blitz that has glorified Najib Razak’s premiership. Staring starkly at the people now is the image of a rotten state of depraved institutions, of which the obnoxious Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) represents but the tip of an iceberg.
This rotten state was mercilessly exposed during the entire infamy known as the Perak power grab where none of the government institutions was spared from political manipulations to engage in unconstitutional and unlawful activities to satiate UMNO’s obsession to seize and preserve power at all costs.
In this context, none should be so naïve as not to recognise that Teoh is the victim of political persecution, the latest in a series of hardly concealed acts of subversion and sabotage against Pakatan Rakyat (PR) since the Mar 8, 2008 election exposed UMNO’s precarious political future. In the present incident, MACC is in the midst of an operation to destabilise the Pakatan-controlled Selangor state government through endeavours to prosecute PR assemblymen, for which it has been busy fabricating the necessary evidence through threats and coercion of potential witnesses. And Teoh Beng Hock is clearly a victim of physical intimidation and mental torture under such a process.
That this was the case was indicated by Kajang municipal councilor and businessman Tan Boon Wah, who was interrogated at the same time (though separately) as Teoh Beng Hock was interrogated (both of them were called in as witnesses, not suspects). Tan described in graphic details how he was physically abused and mentally tortured to falsely admit (which he refused) that he did not supply the 1,500 flags at the price of RM 2,400 to the constituency (Seri Kembangan) of assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah (whose political secretary was Teoh Beng Hock), implying that Ean Yong had corruptly pocketed the money. Teoh Beng Hock was understood to have been worked on to yield the result against Ean Yong
Tan Boon Wah also disclosed racial insults thrown at him during the interrogation, thus reinforcing an earlier allegation of racially biased persecution as all the seven assemblymen presently under investigation by MACC for suspicion of misappropriation of state allocations are ethnic Chinese. This view was further collaborated by Dariff Din (a Malay assistant to assemblyman Lau Weng San), who was also interrogated at the same time as Teoh and Tan. Dariff said the interrogators were obsessed with his racial identity as he looked like a Chinese; and spent the bulk of the interrogation time just to make sure that he was as claimed – a Malay. Dariff said: “everything went smoothly after they learned that I was a Malay Muslim”. He added that from what he observed, MACC was merely “fishing for evidence against Pakatan assemblymen” without any specific clue of corruption.
Against such background, the various authorities’ calls to the public not to hurl accusation but to trust the police to conduct a “professional and thorough” investigation is taken by many as an insult to their intelligence, as if the public is unaware that these two law enforcers - MACC and police - have long been perceived as routinely playing a game of “you scratch my back, I scratch yours”, the latest being the MACC’s recent exoneration of the Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan of alleged fabrication of evidence in the Anwar “black eye” probe, despite the presentation of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary by Anwar Ibrahim. So, can any one be blamed for being skeptical, thinking that it is now pay-back time for the police to return MACC the favour?
SERIOUS DOUBTS
Now that the police has said initial pathologists’ report indicated Teoh died of injury due to fall from a high place, the mystery is zeroed in on the circumstances surrounding Teoh’s fall from the building. It is here that serious doubts have surfaced over MACC’s version of what happened to Teoh.
Issue 1: Was Teoh ever released by MACC?
MACC chief commissioner Said Hamdan has disclaimed responsibility for Teoh’s death on the ground that Teoh was released before he met his death.
His director of investigations Shukri Abdul had earlier claimed that Teoh was released at 3:30 am on July 16, and was last seen at 6 am sleeping on a couch in the MACC office after been given permission to rest there. The next MACC heard of Teoh was when a cleaner in the building shouted that he discovered a body lying on the 5th storey balcony of the building (Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam) where Teoh was interrogated on the 14th floor.
This story implies that Teoh walked out of the office on his own without being seen, sometime after 6 am. But Teoh couldn’t have done that as he did not have the electronic card to open the door to either leave or enter the office.
If Teoh was released, surely his hand phone must have been returned to him. How come his hand phone was not with him when his body was found?
Besides, there was no credibility that Teoh had chosen to linger in the same office where he must have been subjected to many hours of traumatic roughing-up in the hands of the interrogators. Any reasonable person would have rushed home in the first instance to escape the dreadful place, considering that his car was conveniently parked in the same building and that he was scheduled to register his marriage with his loved one on the same day.
If indeed Teoh was in custody all the time, why should MACC have concealed this fact if it did no wrong to cause Teoh’s death?
Issue 2: What happened between 1:30 pm and 5:00 pm?
Though Teoh’s body was discovered at 1:30, it was not until after 5 pm that MACC disclosed the news to assemblymen Ean Yong and Ronnie Liu who had been waiting for over an hour in the MACC office insisting to meet Teoh Beng Hock. Why should MACC have hidden the news for so long unless there were compelling reasons which in all probability might not be guilt-free?
Issue 3: Why was the outer timber door of the MACC office unprecedentedly closed for some half an hour at the time when some one discovered Teoh’s body?
The Chinese section of Malaysiakini.com reported on July 17 that its reporter Rahmah Ghazali observed an inexplicable happening at the MACC office at 14th floor, where the outer timber door was mysteriously shut between 1:15 pm and 1:35 pm, and re-opened shortly before 1:50 pm on July 16.
Rahmah explained that she first arrived at the MACC’s 14th floor office at 1:15 to attend a press conference to be given by assemblyman Lau Weng San. Seeing that no one was around, she went down to the 4th floor to wait at the reception hall. When other reporters arrived at 1:30, she followed them to the 14th floor again, but was surprised to find the outer timber door of the MACC office closed; it was then about 1:35. Thinking that the staff could have closed the door to go for lunch, she and other reporters went down for food. She then called Lau Weng Sun who expressed disbelief that the timber door was closed, as MACC was supposed to operate around the clock. Knowing that Lau was already on the way, she decided to skip lunch and went back to 14th floor, and found the timber door re-opened this time; the time was about 1:50. Lau arrived at 2 pm. After talking to reporters for about 20 minutes outside the MACC office, he went in to make a report. Of course, none of them knew that Teoh Beng Hock was already dead then.
1:30 was the time when some one discovered Teoh’s body. Why did MACC took the unprecedented step to shut down the office briefly, closing the door between 1:15 and 1:35, and re-opening the door at shortly before 1:50? What did the staff do behind that timber door at that crucial moment that they would not want outsiders to see? The mystery seems to deepen.
ROYAL COMMISSION THE ONLY OPTION
In summary, it is apparent that MACC is holding far too many secrets that it has not shared with the public over this tragedy, which is aptly defined by Lim Kit Siang as “how a healthy, vibrant and idealistic young political worker could enter the MACC hqrs as a witness in its investigation only to end up as a corpse in a plunge from the 14th floor of the building”.
Entrusting the full responsibility on any of the existing law-enforcing agencies to unlock these secrets would not do, as none enjoys public confidence.
There is no option but to appoint a royal commission of inquiry comprised of competent individuals whom the public trust to handle the present mess, if Najib does not want the mistrust of his leadership to deepen. And not a minute is to be wasted for this commission to spring into action, if vital clues needed to establish the truth is not to be lost for ever.
Kim Quek.
This rotten state was mercilessly exposed during the entire infamy known as the Perak power grab where none of the government institutions was spared from political manipulations to engage in unconstitutional and unlawful activities to satiate UMNO’s obsession to seize and preserve power at all costs.
In this context, none should be so naïve as not to recognise that Teoh is the victim of political persecution, the latest in a series of hardly concealed acts of subversion and sabotage against Pakatan Rakyat (PR) since the Mar 8, 2008 election exposed UMNO’s precarious political future. In the present incident, MACC is in the midst of an operation to destabilise the Pakatan-controlled Selangor state government through endeavours to prosecute PR assemblymen, for which it has been busy fabricating the necessary evidence through threats and coercion of potential witnesses. And Teoh Beng Hock is clearly a victim of physical intimidation and mental torture under such a process.
That this was the case was indicated by Kajang municipal councilor and businessman Tan Boon Wah, who was interrogated at the same time (though separately) as Teoh Beng Hock was interrogated (both of them were called in as witnesses, not suspects). Tan described in graphic details how he was physically abused and mentally tortured to falsely admit (which he refused) that he did not supply the 1,500 flags at the price of RM 2,400 to the constituency (Seri Kembangan) of assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah (whose political secretary was Teoh Beng Hock), implying that Ean Yong had corruptly pocketed the money. Teoh Beng Hock was understood to have been worked on to yield the result against Ean Yong
Tan Boon Wah also disclosed racial insults thrown at him during the interrogation, thus reinforcing an earlier allegation of racially biased persecution as all the seven assemblymen presently under investigation by MACC for suspicion of misappropriation of state allocations are ethnic Chinese. This view was further collaborated by Dariff Din (a Malay assistant to assemblyman Lau Weng San), who was also interrogated at the same time as Teoh and Tan. Dariff said the interrogators were obsessed with his racial identity as he looked like a Chinese; and spent the bulk of the interrogation time just to make sure that he was as claimed – a Malay. Dariff said: “everything went smoothly after they learned that I was a Malay Muslim”. He added that from what he observed, MACC was merely “fishing for evidence against Pakatan assemblymen” without any specific clue of corruption.
Against such background, the various authorities’ calls to the public not to hurl accusation but to trust the police to conduct a “professional and thorough” investigation is taken by many as an insult to their intelligence, as if the public is unaware that these two law enforcers - MACC and police - have long been perceived as routinely playing a game of “you scratch my back, I scratch yours”, the latest being the MACC’s recent exoneration of the Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan of alleged fabrication of evidence in the Anwar “black eye” probe, despite the presentation of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary by Anwar Ibrahim. So, can any one be blamed for being skeptical, thinking that it is now pay-back time for the police to return MACC the favour?
SERIOUS DOUBTS
Now that the police has said initial pathologists’ report indicated Teoh died of injury due to fall from a high place, the mystery is zeroed in on the circumstances surrounding Teoh’s fall from the building. It is here that serious doubts have surfaced over MACC’s version of what happened to Teoh.
Issue 1: Was Teoh ever released by MACC?
MACC chief commissioner Said Hamdan has disclaimed responsibility for Teoh’s death on the ground that Teoh was released before he met his death.
His director of investigations Shukri Abdul had earlier claimed that Teoh was released at 3:30 am on July 16, and was last seen at 6 am sleeping on a couch in the MACC office after been given permission to rest there. The next MACC heard of Teoh was when a cleaner in the building shouted that he discovered a body lying on the 5th storey balcony of the building (Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam) where Teoh was interrogated on the 14th floor.
This story implies that Teoh walked out of the office on his own without being seen, sometime after 6 am. But Teoh couldn’t have done that as he did not have the electronic card to open the door to either leave or enter the office.
If Teoh was released, surely his hand phone must have been returned to him. How come his hand phone was not with him when his body was found?
Besides, there was no credibility that Teoh had chosen to linger in the same office where he must have been subjected to many hours of traumatic roughing-up in the hands of the interrogators. Any reasonable person would have rushed home in the first instance to escape the dreadful place, considering that his car was conveniently parked in the same building and that he was scheduled to register his marriage with his loved one on the same day.
If indeed Teoh was in custody all the time, why should MACC have concealed this fact if it did no wrong to cause Teoh’s death?
Issue 2: What happened between 1:30 pm and 5:00 pm?
Though Teoh’s body was discovered at 1:30, it was not until after 5 pm that MACC disclosed the news to assemblymen Ean Yong and Ronnie Liu who had been waiting for over an hour in the MACC office insisting to meet Teoh Beng Hock. Why should MACC have hidden the news for so long unless there were compelling reasons which in all probability might not be guilt-free?
Issue 3: Why was the outer timber door of the MACC office unprecedentedly closed for some half an hour at the time when some one discovered Teoh’s body?
The Chinese section of Malaysiakini.com reported on July 17 that its reporter Rahmah Ghazali observed an inexplicable happening at the MACC office at 14th floor, where the outer timber door was mysteriously shut between 1:15 pm and 1:35 pm, and re-opened shortly before 1:50 pm on July 16.
Rahmah explained that she first arrived at the MACC’s 14th floor office at 1:15 to attend a press conference to be given by assemblyman Lau Weng San. Seeing that no one was around, she went down to the 4th floor to wait at the reception hall. When other reporters arrived at 1:30, she followed them to the 14th floor again, but was surprised to find the outer timber door of the MACC office closed; it was then about 1:35. Thinking that the staff could have closed the door to go for lunch, she and other reporters went down for food. She then called Lau Weng Sun who expressed disbelief that the timber door was closed, as MACC was supposed to operate around the clock. Knowing that Lau was already on the way, she decided to skip lunch and went back to 14th floor, and found the timber door re-opened this time; the time was about 1:50. Lau arrived at 2 pm. After talking to reporters for about 20 minutes outside the MACC office, he went in to make a report. Of course, none of them knew that Teoh Beng Hock was already dead then.
1:30 was the time when some one discovered Teoh’s body. Why did MACC took the unprecedented step to shut down the office briefly, closing the door between 1:15 and 1:35, and re-opening the door at shortly before 1:50? What did the staff do behind that timber door at that crucial moment that they would not want outsiders to see? The mystery seems to deepen.
ROYAL COMMISSION THE ONLY OPTION
In summary, it is apparent that MACC is holding far too many secrets that it has not shared with the public over this tragedy, which is aptly defined by Lim Kit Siang as “how a healthy, vibrant and idealistic young political worker could enter the MACC hqrs as a witness in its investigation only to end up as a corpse in a plunge from the 14th floor of the building”.
Entrusting the full responsibility on any of the existing law-enforcing agencies to unlock these secrets would not do, as none enjoys public confidence.
There is no option but to appoint a royal commission of inquiry comprised of competent individuals whom the public trust to handle the present mess, if Najib does not want the mistrust of his leadership to deepen. And not a minute is to be wasted for this commission to spring into action, if vital clues needed to establish the truth is not to be lost for ever.
Kim Quek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)