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.
#1 by ban_loong on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 12:37 pm
By Ban Loong
Base on pack of lies & deception by MACC officers(para 33, 86, 257, 336, 86 and many more), photocopy document (para 49), note missing (para 44) and postulations(that TBH landed with feet 1st –Professor Vanezis & mental breakdown), RCI had to come to the conclusion with the dateline around the corner (James Fong announced this in the video when RCI was formed):
1. Murdered
2. Or Suicide
There are no witness to conclusion 1 and this can be challenged by MACC offficers, gomen and too big and too hot for RCI to handle.
Alternative 2 is an easy conclusion as dead man can’t defend himself. RCI should have stated their conclusion is base on postulation.
Scientist who did experiment with results base on contaminated data and un-calibrated instrument would qualify his hypothesis and subject to further verification/testing.
Appoint a psychiatrist in the panel-was the conclusion already pre made?
Have the psychiatrist study the mental state of interrogator who show outburst of anger (Nazri-para 53 & 165) and the records of abuse on the those officers? Couldn’t they retort to extreme violence when unable get what they want?
And those MACC watch porn,
One of the major impacts pornography has is that it has been linked to violent tendencies especially regarding men.
http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/negative-effects-pornography-research-paper
RCI mentioned Dr Portip finding are speculative(para 139- what a word to use), isn’t RCI finding also speculative?
Hishamuddin have absolute power without having obtained consent from his superior and MACC HQ what he do(para 23), Why RCI could not probe further who is behind and what is the intent? RCI actually is aware of this ( para 52) MACC officers play out TBH lawyer (para 33), coludnt’ they also played out RCI?
If TBH did commit suicide, why MACC need to goes to great length of lies to prove TBH commit suicide?(suicide note 1 year later?)
Just report the actual event would suffice.
If TBH was allow to rest in the sofa with his bag with mobile inside, he would have telephone his boss immediately about his latest status (Para 55-MACC Raymond saw TBH lying on the sofa. Sleeping or unconscious?
When TBH gone missing after 6pm,why havent MACC alert look for him?RCI said defy logic(para 59) Para 136-what is RCI talking about here? TBH got hit with injury, he could not have consciously walk to the window & exit????
Para 124-if Dr Portip examine base on photo by polis which are not clearer, why not sent the clear photo for her to re study?
Link to credibility of Prof Vanezis –http://leemn.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/who-is-dr-peter-vanezis/
If the report is favouarble to gomen, with unanimous decision as claim, they would have released asap.
TBH was never released para 167 as RCI stated (otherwise he would have wanted to go home) so the responsibility of safety of the person rest on MACC shoulder.
Could it be another interrogation was held in timeline 7am to 11.15 am-the time of death as reported by forsenic (para 128) and totally covered up.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/litee/malaysia/article/rci-senior-graftbuster-launch-selangor-investigation-on-mere-belief/
IMAGE 01
For this type of window, how a person exit without some one assist?
IMAGE 02
http://www.thenutgraph.com/what-happened-to-teoh-beng-hock/
The small window ledge would make one exit with leg 1st, step on it then jump?
Easier would be out with head 1st-land with head 1st. This would contradict the Professor Vanezis finding, which RCI base on to come to conclusion
How was the window opening condition when TBH was found lying on the floor? Was it fully open or half open?
Assuming RCI is getting the truth but the conclusion?
You aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous harass and chase after a cat at 14th floor in your building, the cat jump & die on the ground. You call the cat commit suicide?
May TBH RIP!
#2 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 3:27 pm
Common Lah RCI’s findings don’t support “abetment of suicide” under section 306 of Penal Code. Abetment happens only when the MACC trio had helped (in this sense abetted) TBH to voluntarily bring about his own death by the hand of himself. Here, even if one believes RCI’s findings, the pressure exerted by the trio was said to have caused TBH’s suicide. It was not as if that TBH had voluntarily desired to end his own life, which the MACC’s officers merely assisted/abetted by helping him, at his request, to open the 14th Floor window to flung him out!
#3 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 3:40 pm
Please be sensible. In desire to seek justice for TBH, don’t twist and turn the RCI findings and try to seek ways and means within the contraints of their parameters, to devise fantastic charges like “abetment of suicide” to punish the culprits. (Abetment is only relevant when an individual helps another person voluntarily to bring about his own death by suicide – and not pressure him to involuntarily do it).The fact is the parameters set by the RCI’s findings absolve the culprits from homicide. Nothing can change that without violating logic & straining language to point of incredulity.
The proper way is to reject the RCI’s findings and their parameters in toto. It is not accepting the RCI’s verdict as if it were sancrosanct and then try to manipulate within its constraints an interpretation that it supports a charge of homicide (from forced suicide) or abetment of suicide or some other fantastic charge in order just so to punish the culprits (for justice).
#4 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 4:02 pm
Sorry to be more precise, the proper way is not to reject the RCI’s findings and their parameters in toto but basically that part of the findings that speculatively asserts and concludes the existence of a 4th round of “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous” interrogation ” (with no reference to inflicting any bodily harm) that must have been the final straw that broke the camel’s back” to drive TBH to suicide.
#5 by k1980 on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 4:13 pm
#1 //You aggressively, relentlessly, oppressively and unscrupulously harass and chase after a cat at 14th floor in your building, causing the cat to jump & die on the ground floor. You call the cat commit suicide?//
Ban Loong, you have hit the nail on the head! Same as you dump a puppy into the river causing it to drown, and then you claim that the puppy committed suicide. Either way you are a murderer and deserve to be shot.
#6 by k1980 on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 4:21 pm
macc’s Abdul Razak to be appointed the next AG?
http://maverickysm.blogspot.com/2011/07/jokes-from-malaysian-court-of-law.html
#7 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 5:25 pm
Fourth round of questioning? From 4 am thereabouts onwards? Who were the interrogators? Same people? They must be supermen after watching porno or drinking some jantan coffee or tea. What were their state of minds? Were they high risk people too liable to act irrationally?
#8 by Cinapek on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 - 10:26 pm
We were treated to a nauseating spectacle on prime time news this evening when MACC showed off their new interrogation rooms equiped with state of the art cameras and other recording facilities to try to overhaul their badly battered image.
They seem to have very quickly forgotten their dastardly and cowardly acts to “arrange” for a crucial part of the camera evidence to be deleted in the Ahmad Sarbaini death. Until and unless they have removed all the killers, torturers, murderers and liars in MACC these so called new interrogation rooms will be just as useless because any crucial recordings will conveniently be “missing” when the time comes. If they can arrange for all Immigration records of Altantuya to be deleted, what is a little camera recording?
#9 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 - 2:34 am
Tq, Mat Zain. Any insider in MACC who can be a whistleblower.
There is so much rot and filth going on in MACC. Mlaysia needs whistleblowers from within.