Before last Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, the family and the Malaysian public were assured by the four MCA Ministers and the Minister each from Gerakan, MIC and SUPP that they would support in Cabinet the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the causes and circumstances of Teoh Beng Hock’s mysterious death at Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Shah Alam.
In the event, these seven Cabinet Ministers from MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP disappointed the Teoh family and justice-loving Malaysians by agreeing to the most unsatisfactory formula of dividing the inquiry into two parts – an inquest into Teoh’s death and a Royal Commission of Inqury into MACC’s interrogation techniques.
This created an nation-wide uproar which even ordinary MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP ground leaders and members fully participated, for they just cannot understand why their party leaders in the Cabinet could be so insensitive to what basic justice and fair play demand – a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the causes and circumstances of Teoh’s death.
Apart from the Ministers, there was little endorsement for an inquest, as illustrated by the massive support of tens of thousands of people who attended the Teoh Beng Hock memorial meetings in seven states in the week after the previous Cabinet meeting, calling for a comprehensive Royal Commission of Inquiry.
The Malaysian public had expected the Cabinet yesterday to take into account the virtually unanimous views of the ordinary Malaysians for a comprehensive Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s death, but the whole nation was again disappointed that there was no review of the earlier Cabinet decision.
The four MCA Ministers led by its President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, the Gerakan Minister and Gerakan President, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon as well as the MIC and SUPP Ministers who had earlier expressed support for RCI into Teoh’s death should explain why they failed yesterday to ask the Cabinet to broaden the scope of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the causes and circumstances of Teoh’s death.
If the scope of the Royal Commission of Inquiry is widened to cover the causes and circumstances of Teoh’s death, then the inquest which had a preliminary start in Shah Alam Court yesterday, could be stood down to await outcome of the RCI inquiry – as is the practice in other Commonwealth countries with similar legal systems with regard to public inquiries into unusual deaths which attract great public concern and interest.
Nanyang Siang Pau today quoted an unnamed Minister as saying that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, while briefing the Cabinet on his visit to the Teoh family on Tuesday night, had expressed the hope that the Teoh family “would not be misled by other people”.
Did Najib make such a statement in the Cabinet? Who is Najib referring to? Why is the Minister afraid to speak on record rather than doing so anonymously? Is it MCA President Ong Tee Keat or Gerakan President Koh Tsu Koon.
Let the Minister come out into the open to identify himself.
There are more and more mysteries surrounding Teoh’s unusual death at MACC headquarters exactly two weeks ago.
At the inquest yesterday, the lead counsel representing the Attorney-general, Tan Hock Chuan furnished the team of lawyers representing the Teoh family, headed by Gobind Singh Deo a bundle of documents including post-mortem, forensics, toxicology and criminology reports, closed-circuit television (CCTV) clips and DNA samples.
Conspicuously missing from the bundle is the 10-page statement given by Teoh Beng Hock to the MACC. When will the lawyer team of Teoh’s family be given this important document?
The mysterious circumstances of Teoh’s death at MACC takes on a new dimension with the emergence of anonymous “blackblogs” making baseless, defamatory and scurrilous attacks on Selangor DAP leaders and supporters, with the latest going completely overboard in accusing Kajang Municipal Councillor Tan Boon Hwa and Lee Wye Wing of being Teoh’s murder just because of their earlier refusal to provide their DNA sample for legitimate reasons nothing to do with Teoh’s death.
However, because of these lies on the “blackblogs”, both Tan and Lee have agreed to give their DNA sample as they have nothing to hide.
The lies, half-truths and doctored documents like the one on the blackblog, http://t4tbh.blogspot.com/, deserves no credence whatsoever.
However, sometimes in lies there could be found some nuggets close to truth.
I refer to the following account on this black blog:
“The DNA of strange people found on Teoh’s belt and the back of his jacket shows that Teoh was pulled up by his jacket and trousers / belt and pushed out the window.
”This means that Tan Boon Hwa and Lee Wye Wing grabbed Teoh by his jacket and trousers/belt and threw him out the window.
”The Police must arrest Tan Boon Hwa and Lee Wye Wing for the murder of Teoh Beng Hock”
Removes the lies about Tan Boon Hwa and Lee Wye Wing, but has the purported account of Teoh’s murder any ring of truth? It appears to be written by someone who might know what actually happened and who caused Teoh’s death.
Was Teoh pulled up by his jackets and trousers/belt and pushed out of the MACC’s 14th floor window? Was Teoh dead or alive when he was pushed out of the window? And who are these people concerned?
Only a Royal Commission of Inquiry and not an inquest can satisfy public confidence that there will be a full and no-holds-barred inquiry into the causes and circumstances of Teoh’s mysterious death at MACC headquarters.
#1 by atclee on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 3:25 am
“Better still why not just point the finger at Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and say that TBH was sodomised before being pushed out the window by the PKR de-factor leader; since TBH’s trousers are torn at the back from observation.”
I’m sad to say I live in a country where I can one day be murdered and the crooks get away scott-free! When I send my daughter overseas for her education in a couple of years time, I’ll just tell her frankly to get married overseas and not come back to Malaysia anymore. Really the country has really gone to the dogs and I really don’t see any changes sometime soon despite the results of the last elections!
#2 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:09 am
The 10-page witness statement the deceased signed is a treasure trove of information for the police in their investigation. Do you think it could be used at trial and if so how?
#3 by Bigjoe on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 7:52 am
Seriously, how does TB4H have evidence the rest of us don’t have? No wonder Sdr. Lim dared to imply MACC is linked to the blog!!!
Is it true the DNA is on the belt? That is a pretty odd place to have DNA of other people except the perpetrator.
This thing stinks of conspiracy all over….
#4 by SpeakUp on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 9:58 am
If that statement contains admission of mismanagement of funds etc then it will really be fun! Then the whole circus will truly start. Sigh … why are some people (MACC) just so idiotic, allowing such a situation to arise?
#5 by wesuffer on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 9:59 am
look at the body of TBH doesnt seem to be fell down from higher level.
1.) less blooding ,
2) dint see any external serious injuries
3)the position is not right.
especialist the body is place next to parapet wall. if he fell down to nearest wall. sure somewhere of his body will hit the parapet wall, maybe his head will heavy damage..or leg or hand will broken
#6 by goldeneye on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 10:17 am
Jeffrey,
Your postulation of an Outsider involved in TBH’s murder is based on the presumption that TBH had something valuable to give MACC to incriminate DAP and so MACC would look after their precious witness.
What is the basis of your presumption? I could very well postulate that TBH was killed because he had nothing to give MACC and he was abused until he died because he refused to play their game.
At least I have a basis for my theory. Tan Boon Hwa has recounted that he was physically and mentally abused by MACC to get him to admit an untruth.
Furthermore, your hypothesis contradicts itself. If Teoh is a valuable witness to MACC why cooperate with an Outsider to exterminate him?
As for Jaswant, you’re biased to the core. Your intention is to protect MACC, not find the truth.
#7 by SpeakUp on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 10:33 am
“We know MACC is in some ways involved in the murder. That is to put it lightly. How then do you prove their involvment? What is the nature of their involvement? Could some MACC officers have taken it into their own hands to further threaten the deceased with harm? Why would MACC want harm to fall on the deceased when he could well be the key witness for the prosecution in any corruption trial?”
Goldeneye … I believe Jaswant is not protecting the MACC, more like asking what is the motive and why it happened?
#8 by OrangRojak on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 11:13 am
Are there any gambling syndicates offering odds on outcomes? I’m still wondering about the “Male DNA” – why this level of detail and not less (human for example) and not more (Chinese ancestry for example). I’m still wondering if it was “Male DNA” because it was in a form that only males can produce. Perhaps the fall occurred while the victim was trying to avoid his attackers as they chased him around the office squirting him with a government issue “Anwar Evidence” water pistol?
Food for thought, as SpeakUp would say – if it’s not too distasteful.
#9 by passerby on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 11:43 am
Whatever it is, Teoh die while in the custody of MACC. If he was released before his death, why was his personal belongings still withheld by MACC. The only thing they handed to Teoh was the window handle, the rest of their explanations and denial are just bullshit.
They bullshit on DSAI’s blackeyes, kugan murder and the rest of all the deaths in police custody.
They also bullshit about the 513. A lot of people seems to know that there will be anti-chinese violence on that day. In fact, we were warned by our boss just before lunch on that day and most of us just could not believe that the government would do such a thing. We were wrong. This info came from a S’pore police inspector.
Since they have already responsible for so many death, I don’t believe they are not involved in Teoh’s death.
#10 by Thinking Two on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 12:08 pm
Make a police report as to the 10-page statement missing!
Must be something fishy!
#11 by SpeakUp on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 12:12 pm
OrangRojak … waaaah … can gamble on outcome of TBH death? Not bad la!
We wait and see how it unfolds huh? If the DNA is not Chinese then that rules out Tan Boon Hwa and Lee Wye Wing as alleged by that nut called the Black Blogger. Hehehehee … it will be fun. This is one big pool of cr@p that the MACC is sitting in. Something they happily created for themselves.
#12 by OrangRojak on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 12:32 pm
I was wondering after I wrote the comment about ancestry if there’s sufficient difference (given the Out Of Yunnan theory) in DNA to be able to narrow it down that much. I imagine many contemporary Malaysians may also have centuries-old contributions from Indian ancestors. I suppose the best I could hope for from racial profiling of the DNA is that it would prove it wasn’t a white man!
#13 by SpeakUp on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 12:45 pm
OrangRojak … we watch more Astro, we can learn more about DNA and ancestry, hahahaahahahaa … I know what you are talking about Yunanese but DNA can tell about your family tree, not just the race itself. It is that detailed.
If you got the real DNA to say Kublai Khan, you think you are his descendant, it can be traced. I think if you are mixed also can trace still.
#14 by jbozz on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 1:53 pm
We can commision a hacker to hack the blog till its root where the ip is from, the exact location and server. This will give everyone the truth. I’m sure within Pakatan Rakyat you might know some very brilliance hackers who can identify the identity of the blogger, it should be from nearby MACC, can be a cybercafe, (that will be fixed IP) or house nearby which he use a dynamic IP. Anyway, when this blogger put a comparison between how UMNO corrupt and DAP corrupt practices, we already know he is someone from UMNO an insider who is well verse with the UMNO culture. And all these info doctored by him might have been handled to him by the MACC, just to backfire at DAP the last hope for people’s justice.
#15 by SpeakUp on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 1:59 pm
Its a sad attempt to put DAP in a bad light … so so sad.
#16 by BoycottLocalPapers on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 2:55 pm
What is the point of having royal commission when the murderers of Teoh Beng Hock will be freed after a few months murder trial at UMNO’s kangaroo court? The murderers of Teoh Beng Hock will be found not guilty just like Razak Baginda was found not guilty for the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
I have lost faith in Malaysia. There is no hope and future in this country. Evildoers will prosper while those who love justice will be prosecuted & murdered.
#17 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 5:47 pm
“Goldeneye … I believe Jaswant is not protecting the MACC, more like asking what is the motive and why it happened?” SpeakUp
SpeakUp is able to speak his mind. I don’t see how someone who claims to have a golden eye cannot see.
#18 by Jeffrey on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 5:56 pm
//What is the basis of your presumption? // – Goldeneye
1. Interrogation was over 3 am, why would would hang around until 6am (as confirmed by the other interviewee) something in the building (phone not given back to him) unless there was something outstanding for him to do like signing a 10 page witness statement (summarising what he had divulged), which was in the state of being prepared (for hios signature, just in case he subsequently changed his mind)? Without his signature whatever disclosure was useless because witness staement not signed by him would be worthless for it could be argued MACC fabricated it tio impliacte DAP!
2. Allegations of triad connections – not done by BN/MACC but by members of DAP’s own coalition partner PKR (Amin & Wee) plus Johor DAP chief Dr Boo Cheng Hau. (Why would they concoct a non existent fact?)
3. TBH was retiring from politics. He had no need to cover/conceal anything that he was uncomfortable about for political loyalty reasons.
4. MACC being desirous of implicating Opposition had then every reason to protect TBH to make sure he was not harmed to be a witness. Only those whom THB possibly implicate would want to eliminate him to ensure he didn’t sign what he could have agreed with MACC to sign in witness statement.
5. Other information not mentionable in open blog.
#19 by Jeffrey on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:05 pm
//Furthermore, your hypothesis contradicts itself….If Teoh is a valuable witness to MACC why cooperate with an Outsider to exterminate him?// – Goldeneye.
You misunderstand. I have never said or implied that Teoh cooperated with the Outsider.
I implied Outsider possibly had “friends” links and contacts within MACC building if not within MACC itself cooperatinmg with Outsider.
These links told the outside that TBH was still in building waiting for documents/witness statement to be prepared by MACC officers for signature. Once he signed, finish lah Outsider’s name or his boss’s name was in it. What would you do if you were Outsider? Your friends would open the door from entrance without CCTV. Even arrange for TBH to be in a certain room alone, whilst waiting for Outsider to have access.
I agre it is speculation: but you think it might not have happened that way?
#20 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:10 pm
If I employ you as my lawyer, as counsel your personal views don’t matter. Your work is to put out the evidence i.e. do your utmost to lay out the evidence favorable to your client according to the rules of evidence. Lawyers don’t decide the guilt or innocence of the accused. The judge does or in the case of a jury trial, the jurors do.
Given the relative scarcity of the evidence in this case, it may just be able to pass the prima facie stage of the trial. But would it meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt? I doubt it.
Listen. If all you have is that the deceased was in the custody of his interrogators just before he was released, then there is not much to go on. If someone was seen going into your house and an hour later he was found dead in a drain some distance away, is that proof that you murdered him?
Had he died in the custody of his interrogators then they’ll have to answer for it. But had he died of a heart attack (assuming he had a medical history of high blood pressue and heart problems) not brought on by the interrogation, assumng there was no physical abuse, then the cause of death is a heart attack unrelated to the interrogation. The MACC officers panicked, waited for a few hours and then threw him out of the window to make it look like he fell and then think up a story later.
It is not a crime to be stupid.
#21 by Jeffrey on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:10 pm
One or two renegade blacksheep within MACC having links/cooperation with outside does not mean MACC as an organisation was having links. So MACC might want no harm to witness but Outsider/their 1 or 2 cohorts within MACC might want otherwise – if TBH signed witness statement. In MAFIA’s terminology, ‘capish’?
#22 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:18 pm
The guy was already dead before they threw him out the window. Throwing dead bodies out through the window may get you into trouble with the law because that is not the usual way to dispose of dead bodies. But murder?? He was alread dead!
#23 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:27 pm
Jeffrey,
If you employ someone to drive a truck between Penang and Johor Bahru, and he stopped in Ipoh, had more drinks than he could handle, and later killed someone, do you think you could be made liable for the act or acts of your employee who obviously was on a frolic of his own?
MACC must have rules for these tough guys to follow when interrogating their subjects. If they broke the rules, then they would be liable personally. Charge them with murder.
#24 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:29 pm
or more likely manslaughter.
#25 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 6:39 pm
” … TBH was still in building waiting for documents/witness statement to be prepared by MACC officers for signature …” Jeffrey
No, this is not the way it is done.
The IO asks the questions and what he does is he reduces it into writing simultaneoulsy and in your presence. Once the questioning is over, he would let you read and if you want to make amendments to it, you could and then initial the amendment and then the statement. Once finished you are free to go.
#26 by dino on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 7:32 pm
why don’t we look into the other way round that teoh just accidentally knows or saw something bad, forbidden or dark secrets in this agency but when this agency finds out and left no choice ……..
#27 by limkamput on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 10:37 pm
Obviously the black bog has worked on some of the “smart nincompoops” here, sigh,,,,,,
#28 by Jaswant on Friday, 31 July 2009 - 11:39 pm
*farts*
#29 by Onlooker Politics on Saturday, 1 August 2009 - 12:04 am
“The IO asks the questions and what he does is he reduces it into writing simultaneoulsy and in your presence. Once the questioning is over, he would let you read and if you want to make amendments to it, you could and then initial the amendment and then the statement. Once finished you are free to go.” (Jaswant)
Jaswant,
You are talking about the process of recording a cautioned statement but it is not the process of interrogation.
Let me tell you my experience with the Police CID’s interrogation.
First, one interrogator (IA) will start shouting at you, asking you why you do this and why you do that. Before you complete a whole sentence of your words of mouth, IA will yell at you, accusing you for telling a lie. Then IA will reprimand you on why you want to tell lie. He will say, “Are you trying to be the Prime Minister?” Before you say “No”, he will continue to say, “Did anybody pay you money to do this?”
After a long series of firing by words of mouth, another interrogator (IB) will step in and play the role of a good cop. IB will ask, “Did your boss abuse you in this case?” “Did your boss play you out?” “Write down the names and telephone numbers of 10 persons you know.” “Tell me something about these 10 persons you know.” “Did anyone of them link to the case we are investigating now?” “Do you know what we are investigating now?” “Tell me, then I will help you.”
If IB fails to get useful information from your mouth, then IA will step in again and shout even much louder at you. He will use all kinds of vulgar words to create insult upon you. He will raise up a wooden chair trying to slam the hard wood chair into you. He may also use a new toy (something looks like an electric shock stick) to hurt you with electric shock! If you don’t want to be hurt, you have better told them about what you know. In the ISA detention camp, sometimes the interrogators will make you bath in Ice Water during midnight. If you provide no good answer to the interrogators, then IA will pass remark to insult your loved ones, either your girl friend, your lover, your fiancee, or your daughter and your wife (if you have one). However, if the answer coming from your mouth is found unsatisfactory to the interrogators, then you will probably be tortured continually and repeatedly with the same stress causing techniques until you either surrender yourself to them or die in their hand.
The interrogation techniques mentioned are the techniques which either I have personally tasted or I have seen them being applied to my lockup mates with my personal experience in the Police’s custody as a so-called witness.
#30 by SpeakUp on Saturday, 1 August 2009 - 1:02 am
Jeff … I get what you mean now, I get it. Does give an interesting angle to the whole thing. Yeah … IF that happened then it will be a very dark day in Malaysian politics.
Jaswant … I know a cautioned statement is done the way you say but what about witnesses? Do they get the same statutoty caution too? I did not practise criminal law so got no idea. Ng Aik Guan did not teach me that bit too. Hahahahahaaha …
Onlooker … what notti thing did you do to enjoy such 4 Star treatment? Heheheheheee … I once went in too because of a silly argument with someone (who did hit me and I laughed it off) whose uncle was the ex CPO, the police were nice to me. I told them its ok, I know strings are being pulled and that when we all have to face God, go explain to God la. They did not look me in the eye. I sat one night in lock up but was kinda fun. Food was fit for dogs and a lot of mosquitoes! I did make friends with my cell mates too, teach them how to do a mitigation plea. Hahahahaahaa …
#31 by Onlooker Politics on Saturday, 1 August 2009 - 2:27 am
“Onlooker … what notti thing did you do to enjoy such 4 Star treatment?” (Speakup)
Speakup,
I don’t know!
It seemed that they were keen to find somebody’s sperm on my buttock! Or they would like to find a big hole at my anus which could fit in a carrot stick! They took about 15 minutes to observe my naked buttock.
I really did not know what they were trying to find out from my body!
#32 by SpeakUp on Saturday, 1 August 2009 - 3:33 pm
Onlooker you are such an anal person … ROFL!!! We should go for teh tarik … eeerrr … not because I am an anal person ok!
#33 by limkamput on Saturday, 1 August 2009 - 3:35 pm
To you big time nincompoops out there, please for goodness sake, stop farting, it is too smelly already. I don’t label my blog nincompoop for no good reason. Yes, it is to deal with my frustration when reading one nincompoop view after another.
Just investigate this case under murder or foul play, inject some “kugan” elements into investigation, I am sure the truth will come up very soon. Just investigate who was the last person/s with him. Didn’t this is what most crimes are investigated upon – the last person seen or with the victim. Why should this case be any different.
#34 by Onlooker Politics on Saturday, 1 August 2009 - 8:02 pm
Speakup,
I assure you that I am a 100% straight person in terms of sexual preference. I have no interest in homosexual behaviour nor heterosexual behaviour. Although I seem sometimes to have the tendency of getting wild with a pretty girl around, the consciousness of lustful sin will quickly pull me back from further indulgence in lustful thinking.
There should be no good reason for anyone who knows me well to suspect that my sexual preference may be a taboo in accordance with stereotyped social norm.
The Police Investigators’s strange behaviours were indicating to me that they had been caught in a biased generalisation about the sodomy cases and were being over-sensitive during a period of time when the news media headlines were frequently filled with the reports of long-lingering litigation of Sukma, Anwar and the Pakistani professor!