YB Kit,
The Govt. proposes (1) an inquest led by a magistrate to determine where, when how and in what manner Teoh Beng Hock died and whether any person or groups of person are so implicated in causing it and (2) RCI to determine if there was any human rights violation during the interrogation of Teo. (1) is admittedly unsatisfactory but is compensated by (2).

Why is Inquest unsatisfactory? Reasons: (i) Inquest is unlike an adversarial trial where 2 sides fight each other with judge determining probabilities of what happen, a magistrate in an Inquest cannot determine on probabilities but proved facts. In custodial deaths, facts of torture are almost impossible because of esprit de corps of Securities Services not to snitch on one another; (ii) there’s no assurance that a particular magistrate assigned case will be independent/competent (iii) history of Inquests show that they were usually held months or even years after the death with verdict (in Teoh’s case) might be after our next General election (iv) verdict is likely ‘open’ verdict ie. a verdict that says, in absence of proved facts, no conclusion may be arrived as to who caused death : precedents of such inconclusive open verdicts are cases of Mr. Rumie Azzan Mahlie (2004) & Loh Kah Kheng (1990) both mysteriously falling to death exactly like Teoh from high levels of STA (Sarawak Timber Association) Building of which Inquests concluded nothing!
Securities Services are comfortable with Inquest because no Inquest (due to constraints of law ie Criminal Procedure Code) has (historically) been successful to implicate any of their members for abuse/torture. Yet one faces an uphill task to fault the Govt for recommending Inquest (that leads nowhere) for 2 reasons: (a) in many other cases of custodial deaths or even unexplained killings of 6 people who were killed in the Kg. Medan Tragedy, Inquests were requested by family members but not granted by govt, so the granting of an Inquest for Teoh assumes complexion of a “concession”, however (b) there’s yet a bigger second reason, and that is, it is a requirement of law (I think) under Criminal Procedure Code (334 & 337) (“CPC”) that when anybody dies in custody of police, psychiatric ward or hospital, the Inquest is appropriate mechanism where no one has yet been charged by Public Prosecutor. (IPCMC recommends legislative amendment to CPC on Inquest to remove its undatisfactory constraints) but as at now this has not been done yet, its therefore still law, so how do you fight to say RCI is better when our CPC says custodial death should be investigated by Inquest in lieu of police?
You should look this way: even if unsatisfactory Inquest returns “open verdict”, the RCI in the process of investigating human rights violation during the interrogation of Teo will achieve a measure of yours & NGOs objectives. As Kenny Gan posted above (July 22nd, 2009 21:18) (whose comments I associate), “I can’t see how an inquiry into whether there were human rights violations in Teoh’s interrogation can be separated from the cause of Teoh’s death. If the interrogation methods were the cause of his death, this will be revealed provided of course that the RCI can get at the truth.”

If RCI opens leads from establishing human rights violation and torture of Teo won’t this connect to his death ??? The idea is to have the RCI before or at least concurrent to the initiation of the Inquest.

An Inquest’s unsatisfactory open verdict does not and ought not necessarily to preclude public pressure for police investigations (suspended because of Inquests/RCI) and AG/Public Prosecutor to charge culprits, if connection between human rights violation and death is probable.

Here the govt is juggling between 2 imperatives and opposite camps: (1) to satisfy security forces & arguments of law based on CPC by having unsatisfactory Inquest on cause of death and simultaneously (2) to try ameliorate public outrage and satisfy opposition & NGOs’ demands by giving in to RCI to investigate human rights violation and torture of Teo.

Don’t forget for majority of custodial deaths, Inquests not even granted; yes those limited cases granted have been satisfactory but they were all not accompanied by a collateral RCI hearing on a connected issue – whether there’s human rights violation/torture just prior to sudden death, and the probable connection between the two!

On premises of above, the Cabinet’s decision is (realistically though ideally) the best available deal on the table.

And: “(realistically though NOT ideally)”

You look at it diapassionately: assuming we have RCI not just on human rights violation of Teo but also cause of death and whodunnit (without the ineffective Inquest) and RCI recommends the culprits be charged, and govt desists from acting on the recommendations as they desisted in last two RCIs to act on them, whats the difference? Same – justice not done.

So whats difference if you now have an Inquest that stonewalls and returns open & inconclusive verdict blaming no one but a RCI to balance it?

If assuming RCI conducts nvestigation/hearing properly and convinces public that torture and human rights violation probably took place in Teo’s case leading to his death, and on basis of that recommends that police investigate and AG charges, and that is not done, will there not be negative political repercussions that govt wants to avoid ?

Yes one may argue, whats the point of all the hassle of RCI that is intended to connect human rights violation and death and culminate in police investigation – when police investigation is precisely that which is not trusted by public, for if it were otherwise acceptable there’s really no need to have RCI in first instance?

Well the difference is that an independent RCI’s findings before pressure on police to investigate creates a different climate and is different from police investigations without a prior or any RCI’s finding of fault.

If police investigations are desultory or perfunctory in face of a climate of RCI’s findings of fault/guilt, the police institution itself and not just MACC will be put on second round on the dock of public judgment with all its attendant political repercussions in next GE.

If you insist that RCI and not Inquest should investigate cause of death, how do you reply (1) the point about not following prescription of law/CPC ((334 & 337) for custodial death and (2) also establish that RCI has better investigative/forensic infrastructure than (say) police in investigating a killing/homicide (though no one disputes that RCI is more independent and impartial)?