Inquest into Teoh Beng Hock’s death on Wednesday should be halted to allow Cabinet to review and widen terms of reference of Royal Commission of Inquiry into causes of Teoh’s death to command public confidence in public institutions and the Prime Minister


The 15-day inquest into Teoh Beng Hock’s unusual death at the MACC headquarters on 16th July 2009 which is to begin on Wednesday, 29th July till August 12 should be halted to allow for the Cabinet to review and widen the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the causes of Teoh’s death to command public confidence in public institutions and the Prime Minister.

The contention by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail that an inquest by the magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was the right recourse, as the CPC was a specific legislation that made provision for a death inquiry, and that “holding a similar inquiry by the royal commission would be duplicitous in such instance” is totally unpersuasive and unconvincing.

In the first place, the Attorney-General should brush up his command of the English language. “Duplicitous” is derived from “duplicity” described as “double-dealing, deceitfulness” (Oxford Compact English Dictionary) What Gani intends to say is “duplication”.

Gani referred to Section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 to buttress his contention claiming that it “clearly makes reference to the inquiry into the conduct and management of government officers and departments or for the public welfare”.

Section 2(1) of Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 reads:

1) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, where it appears to him to be expedient so to do, issue a Commission appointing one or more Commissioners and authorizing the Commissioners to enquire into—

(a) the conduct of any federal officer;

(b) the conduct or management of any department of the public service of Malaysia;

(c) the conduct or management of any public institution which is not solely maintained by State funds; or

(d) any other matter in which an enquiry would, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be for the public welfare, not being—

(i) a matter involving any question relating to the Islamic religion or the Malay custom; or

(ii) in relation to Sabah or Sarawak, a matter specified in item 10 of the State List.

There is nothing in Section 2 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 to bar or prohibit the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the series of events in the conduct of MACC officers leading to Teoh’s death, how a healthy, vibrant and idealistic young political activist, who is to register his marriage the following day with a two-month child, making active plans for his marriage just before summoned to MACC, should end up as a corpse after going to the MACC headquarters.

There is nothing “duplicitous” in having a Royal Commission of Inquiry although there may be duplication if an inquest is also held. The solution is for the inquest to be held back until after completion of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into all the circumstances and causes of Teoh’s death.

It is illogical and downright irresponsible to artificially chop the circumstances and causes of Teoh’s death into two parts, one to be investigated by an inquest and another by a Royal Commission of Inquiry – with the Royal Commission of Inquiry dealing with the portion of lesser importance, whether Teoh, who has died, had his human rights violated when the paramount question is how and why he died!

The reasons why the Cabinet should establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry are crushingly decisive, and includes:

  • A Royal Commission of Inquiry is more likely to command public confidence – depending on its terms of reference and composition – than an inquest.
  • An inquest is more limited in scope, tied to police investigations while a Royal Commission of Inquiry has wider-ranging powers to go well beyond the confines of police investigations to probe into the causes of Teoh’s death, which includes the MACC’s interrogation of Teoh;
  • An inquest will be conducted by a magistrate, the lowliest cog in the judicial system. After two decades of prolonged national and international crisis of confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary, particularly in high-profile political cases, Malaysian public have no confidence in High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court judges. How can the Cabinet expect public confidence to be vested in a magistrate, who will be even more vulnerable to pressures. In contrast, a Royal Commission is headed either by a former judge or former Chief Justice (like former Chief Judge of Malaya, Justice Anwar heading the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Anwar Ibrahim’s black-eye scandal in 1999 and former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin heading the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 2005 police nude ear-squat scandal). This is because former judges, former Chief Judge or former Chief Justice are perceived as less vulnerable to improper political pressures.

Furthermore, there are Commonwealth precedents of public inquiries into extraordininary deaths.

In 2004, the Ipperwash Inquiry was established by the Government of Ontario under the Public Inquiries Act. Its mandate was to inquire and report on events surrounding the death of Dudley George, who was shot in 1995 during a protest by First Nations representatives at Ipperwash Provincial Park and later died. The Inquiry was also mandated to make recommendations that would avoid violence in similar circumstances in the future.

Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code on “Duty of police officers to investigate death” states:

(1) Every officer in charge of a police station on receiving information –

(a) that a person has committed suicide;

(b) that a person has been killed by another, or by an animal, or by machinery, or by an accident;

(c) that a person has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence;

(d) that the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by his death; or

(e) that a person has died a sudden death,

shall with the least practical delay transmit such information to the officer in charge of the police district.

(2) On receipt of the information the officer in charge of the police district or some other police officer acting under his directions and being either the officer in charge of a police station or a police officer not below the rank of sergeant shall immediately proceed to the place where the body of the deceased person is and there shall make an investigation and draw up report of the apparent cause of death, describing the wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and such marks, objects and circumstances as, in his opinion, may relate to the cause of death or the person, if any, who caused the death, and stating in what manner or by what weapon or instrument, if any, the marks appear to have been inflicted.

Can the Police or Attorney-General explain why Teoh’s death was classified as “sudden death” under Section 329(1)(e) when it should more appropriately be classified under Section 329(1)(d) – “that the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by his death”.

This question is pertinent and relevant as it raises the question whether the Police had right from the beginning tried to be protective of MACC instead of getting at “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” over Teoh’s death?

Yesterday, on behalf of the Teoh family, I had faxed an urgent letter to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak conveying the family’s request for an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister, as their request for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s death had not bee properly conveyed to the Cabinet by the MCA and Gerakan Ministers as well as Najib’s political secretary when they visited the Teoh family during Teoh’s wake.

I had not received any reply from Najib to my earlier fax asking for a meeting with him at the first available time when he returned from overseas on Teoh’s death. May be he had not received my earlier fax.

I hope Najib would set a good example to all Ministers and public servants and give a prompt response to my fax yesterday on behalf of the Teoh family.

  1. #1 by zamorin on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 1:00 pm

    why even bother with the RCI? Maybe you will get the fax reply after GE13

  2. #2 by frankyapp on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 1:42 pm

    Once again ,another tool (AG) is used by NR to protect Umno’s interest.I think this tool is well greased to do its job as the master wishes.This tool and other tools used by NR are no different.All its ultimate goal is to obey and please its master.No one,not even the might of PR can prevent these tools to kill off any hope of fair and upright justices at the moment as these dark and evil forces are cloned to find and destroy all virtures of the society to implement its interest.If no general election is held,I think these evil dark monsters will rule forever.

  3. #3 by k1980 on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 2:08 pm

  4. #4 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 3:54 pm

    The classification of “sudden death” makes it imperative under CPC to hold the inquest. I have given reasons in earlier thread why inquests have not proven useful to enquire foul play, if any, implicating authorities. RCI could assist if its frame of reference enquiring on possible human rights violation in MACC ‘s interrogation procedures is wide and broad enough to connect to the immediate circumstances of Teoh’s treatment and demise. It therefore makes sense that RCI should be held first so that in an event of findings of foul play sufficient pressure may be exerted on police to investigate foul play within findings of RCI. Regretably the inquest is fast tracked to precede RCI, which means that if the inquest returns a finding of open verdict (ie no conclusion derivable from hearing) no pressure on police may be exerted to conduct a vigorous investigation within parameters recommended by RCI, especially so if the findings of inquest do not establish foul play. I have commented before that the chances of an inquest finding foul play is even more remote than a ordinary court because an inquest being “inquisitorial” can only conclude and make findings on certainty of 100% proven facts, which is more stringent and exacting than a courts based on the legal standard of only “beyond reasonable doubt” (if a fiure were to be given, maybe up to 75%) . This is laid down by previous RCI chairman Dzaiddin when he was judge in 1990 case of Loh Kah Kheng.

  5. #5 by SpeakUp on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 4:13 pm

    RCI will never look into the death. It will rock the boat. Hard to control the outcome. Our system is perfect and there is already a police investigation and a Magistrate’s Inquiry. So it will all be perfect.

    For me if no one is implicated I really wanna read the reasoning why Teoh fell from the 14th floor. You all seen how wide the window opens? Someone who contemplates suicide will not want to crawl out of such a narrow opening to kill themselves. This plot really thickens …

  6. #6 by SpeakUp on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 4:29 pm

    If you all were to real the CEA properly it says when the Agong finds it expedient … anywhere says he finds it upon the advice of the PM or government? No so far … so the question that begs to be asked is:

    Does the Agong find the death of Teoh and all the 1,500 other deaths in the country to be something expedient enough for a RCI to be set up?

    Daulat Tuanku? Hahahahahahaaa …

  7. #7 by lucia on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 5:42 pm

    if the royal commission refuse to look into the death of beng hock, PR should organise protests/forum in the major states, like what they had been doing recently. i was in the rally in penang on 23 july at kompleks penyayang and LKS had said it – if no RCI, we shall organise more protests every month. well there is RCI BUT not the one we wanted, not investigating teoh’s death, thus we should continue with our protests!!

  8. #8 by limkamput on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 6:29 pm

    May be some wannabe lawyers can help me. Why classified this case under sudden death? The circumstances surrounding the death of BH is most perplexing. Why can’t the police classify the death as murder and investigate the case from that angle. I am sure, if there is another similar case, but not at MACC or other government institutions, the police would have investigated the case as murder.

    Thus far, may I know how the police interviewed the MACC officers involved? Did the police interview them in the comfort of their MACC offices or they have been to put in police lockup and interviewed till the wee hours of the morning. I am sure the truth would come up very quickly if the police did a “Kugan” on those MACC officers. It is Saturday afternoon, I am thinking aloud! It is not going to happen, I know, please don’t scold me for be naive.

  9. #9 by the reds on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 10:17 pm

    Najib fails his KPI! I guess he received the fax and dumped it into the dustbin!

    Our PM is so lame! Memalukan!

  10. #10 by MyPeoplePower on Saturday, 25 July 2009 - 11:49 pm

    God, when can the cruel people like Najib, Musa Hassan, Gani Patail, Ahmad Said, Nazri and those who duties which are suppose to protect the welfare of the citizens but in reverse they are the one who commit the crimes in daylight and hurt the people that they are suppose to be protect?
    These type of people are the one who holding the license to do the bad things!
    God, pls show your power to these type of people!

  11. #11 by oldman99 on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 12:59 am

    it’s obvious the macc will continue its plans to topple selangor state gov otherwise no bonus from BN.

  12. #12 by Jaswant on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 3:03 am

    Is limkamput Chinese?

  13. #13 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:23 am

    ///Can the Police or Attorney-General explain why Teoh’s death was classified as “sudden death” under Section 329(1)(e) when it should more appropriately be classified under Section 329(1)(d) – “that the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by his death…This question is pertinent and relevant as it raises the question whether the Police had right from the beginning tried to be protective of MACC instead of getting at “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” over Teoh’s death?/// – YB Kit

    “Sudden death” under Section 329(1)(e) of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is, in its ordinary grammatical meaning, a reference to a death unexpected, the cause of which is not clear or under suspicious circumstances or if an unnatural cause is suspected….

    I don’t think there’s much to fault the police in such a preliminary classification per se.

    If Teoh Beng Hock’s death had been classified otherwise instead as “a body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by his death” under Section 329(1)(d), it would have made no difference, would it, why is “sudden death” less appropriate?

    In both cases – whether classification were based on “a body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by his death” or “sudden death”, the Public Prosecutor may direct the magistrate to hold the inquest to enquire cause of death and whether any other person is connected with such a cause, and the RCI would have been excluded in either classification from looking into these issues.

    As either classification would have made NO difference in the outcome of the Public Prosecutor’s ordering an inquest [apparently deemed less efficacious and less impartial (than say a RCI) to establish who may have caused his death], it looks like no adverse inference may so easily be drawn against the Police for being protective of MACC “right from the beginning” just based on its classifying Teoh’s death as “sudden death” instead of “the body of a dead person has been found, and it is not known how he came by his death” under the other sub-section!

    Surely Police cannot preliminarily classify under sub section (a) – “that a person has committed suicide” (no one would believe) or (c) -” that a person has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence” for that would be preliminarily implicating someone in MACC of foul play before investigations.

    It will also be less than entirely persuasive for us to reject an inquest based on it being conducted by a magistrate, the lowliest cog in the judicial system” when it is recollected in favour of the lower cog in the judicial system that:
    · it was Sessions Court Judge S.M Komathy who impartially set aside the validity of the Public Prosecutor’s certificate to transfer to the High Court the sodomy case involving Anwar Ibrahim;
    · High Court Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad freed Raja Petra from the Internal Security Act by ruling that the Home Minister acted outside his powers;
    as compared to the higher cog’s Appeal Court that decided for BN’s MB Zambry (against PR’s Nizar) and two other ex Chief Justices whose handling of their office and tour of New Zealand had been criticized by previous RCI of Lingam video clip.

  14. #14 by Jaswant on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 9:20 am

    LKS characterized Teoh as a flying corpse. Corpses don’t normally fly. When they do there should be an investigation.

  15. #15 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 9:55 am

    Jaswant :Is limkamput Chinese?

    Jaswant :LKS characterized Teoh as a flying corpse. Corpses don’t normally fly. When they do there should be an investigation.

    Let me tell you a secret, shhhh, I am a bayi, but unlike you, I am smarter.

    You have stupid sense of humour, please don’t trivialise Kit’s writing, ok.

  16. #16 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 9:58 am

    //It will also be less than entirely persuasive for us to reject an inquest based on it being conducted by a magistrate, the lowliest cog in the judicial system” when it is recollected in favour of the lower cog in the judicial system that:
    · it was Sessions Court Judge S.M Komathy who impartially set aside the validity of the Public Prosecutor’s certificate to transfer to the High Court the sodomy case involving Anwar Ibrahim;
    · High Court Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad freed Raja Petra from the Internal Security Act by ruling that the Home Minister acted outside his powers;
    as compared to the higher cog’s Appeal Court that decided for BN’s MB Zambry (against PR’s Nizar) and two other ex Chief Justices whose handling of their office and tour of New Zealand had been criticized by previous RCI of Lingam video clip.//

    good arguments, but they are no consequences.

  17. #17 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 9:59 am

    sorry, good arguments, but they have no consequences.

  18. #18 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 10:30 am

    Continuing from earlier posting :

    In ordinary circumstances, the inquest would sufice to enquire into such sudden deaths, police would investigate if there were foul play and office of Public Prosecutor (PP) would charge any person or group of persons reasonably suspected of foul play. This is how the system is supposed to work. What the government has done in getting PP to order an inquest, and (to appease public disquiet over MACC’s methods) commission an RCI to enquire into MACC interrogatory methods vis-à-vis human rights violation is what in ordinary circumstances is proper to do.

    The problem however is that we are not living in ordinary times. There is a crisis of confidence in how the system works or that it could work impartially free of government’s control.

    In such a milieu, whilst it is arguable that commissioners of RCI (being appointed by government in terms of the cabinet’s advising the King of appointments) ought no more be perceived trustworthy in terms of impartiality than (say) the traditional institutions of courts, securities services (whether police or anti corruption agency), inquest’s magistrate equally appointed by government, yet so far as experience with the previous RCI(s) commissioned (whether on police procedures or Lingam’s video clip) is taken into account, the RCIs have satisfactorily met public expectations of impartiality in terms of their workings, findings and recommendations), though what is unsatisfactory is only that the government has not implemented their recommendations with alacrity, which is not RCIs’ fault!

    In view of the extraordinary, and extenuating circumstances of public confidence wanting that the system still works, there is a strong case from standpoint of justice for Teoh’s family that government should expand the frame of reference for RCI’s enquiry to include, as Kit says and what Civil Society demands, into probable cause of death, no matter that the Inquest’s enquiry seeks to address same issue. If there were concern of different – and conflicting – verdicts from inquest from that of RCI leading to confusion, then the inquest should be revoked in favour of RCI continuing with that area of enquiry that is consistent with Public confidence. After all the invocation of inquest is at PP’s discretion. (There were cases of custodial deaths that in absence of clamour from deceased’s family and public the PP ordered no inquest; yet there were also cases of public clamour, as in the unexplained killings of 6 people in the Kg. Medan Tragedy that PP in exercise of discretion refrained from ordering an inquest!)

    So the crux is PP’s exercise of discretion. Govt/PP can delay, if not revoke, inquest considering that Teoh’s death has a political complexion in that he was interrogated for alleged or suspected misfeasance or corrupt acts of Opposition councilors that ruling coalition is perceived by opposition supporters as having a political interest in establishing. Besides Kit has also quoted a precedent in 2004 Ipperwash Inquiry established by the Government of Ontario to inquire and report on events surrounding the death of Dudley George. Looking at section 2(1)(d) of Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950 the provision “any other matter in which an enquiry would, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, be for the public welfare” would be wide enough to cover inquiry into Teoh’s death.

    The gridlock here is that if the government were to accede to public demands of RCI doing the work of inquest (in the interest of justice), such a concession will constitute an indirect admission of its part that the “system” of courts, police etc no more works or commands public confidence (due to its fault) – something that it cannot afford to admit, albeit indirectly.

    The government’s case then will be that in order for public faith, that has been lost, to be restored in the institutions, let this high profile case be worked through the normal system, and then people judge whether there is justice at the end of the day from that system.

    This is understandable position (from their point of view) because if the system is perceived not restorable to a state free from govt’s bias, the only other alternative is to concede to a system overhaul from a change of government, an idea that the ruling coalition will, until the vety last, resist….

  19. #19 by SpeakUp on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 10:39 am

    The people should petition the Agong. He is suppose to be the protector of his subjects. Time to protect 1,500 custodial deaths a year.

  20. #20 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 11:03 am

    Yes, according to statistics revealed in Parliament last year, there were a total of 1535 custodial deaths in the country between 2003 and 2007 – and thats only the official figures, what about the official figures nefore 2003 and the true (unofficial) figures that are not known for especially deceased with criminal backgrounds/records whose deaths are/were not missed??? So far no inquest has, to my knowledge, so far been able to establish culpability on part of any member of uniform securities services under whose control and custody these people died.

    SpeakUp, as a person of some legal aspiration/training/knowledge & experience, you would know that inquest by nature is ‘inquistorial’ and not “adversarial” as courts. The latter could at least go somewhere by proceeding on standards of balance of probabilities (in civil cases) and beyond reasonable doubt (in criminal cases). In short, to do some calculated and reasoned guess work of how death is caused by who based on evalauation of probabilities.

    The worse part of an inquest being “inquistorial” (ie fact finding), the magistrate/coroner presiding the hearing cannot proceed on what reasonably on evidence is likelier to have happened “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    The inquest magistrate has to conclude only on 100% proven & irrefutable facts. No such thing as “probabilities” for him.

    As a result even 5% doubt would prevent him from concluding on 95% probabilities which a judge in ordinary court hearing a case to determine guilt is not so otherwise fettered!

    So in custodial deaths against a wall of silence, a a code of esprit de corp not to snitch on one another, an inquest is (realistically) entirely useless to make any finding! It is always “open verdict” – ie no conclusion may be drawn from the proven facts.

  21. #21 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 11:15 am

    The great wannabe again tried to impress with his long and inconsequential postings. To me both the inquest and RCI are useless. Why can’t the police investigate this case based on murder or foul play? I am sure the investigation methods and procedures would be different. Why you dare not comment on this? Just inject some “kugan” elements into the investigation; I am sure the truth would come up very quickly. Right now, may I know how the police interviewed the MACC officers involved – in the comfort of their own office or they have been hauled up and put in lock up and interviewed till the wee hours of the morning? Please tell me wannabe, since you like to talk so much.

  22. #22 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 11:36 am

    Lim Kam Put’s posting is short and inconsequential for obvious reasons. However I have no time to address it now. It is not productive.

  23. #23 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 11:49 am

    Typical, saying 90% unproductive stuff and you can’t devote 10% just to address the fundamental issue here.

  24. #24 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 12:22 pm

    On subject “why can’t the police investigate this case based on murder or foul play? in relation to “kugan” elements into the investigation” it is about 3rd degree methods employed by securities services, and esprit de corp between them where they don’t expose and investigate each other, these are already assumed and taken for granted – nobody is denying that these methods are not present or suspected – the issues discussed have gone way beyond this point to the larger area of administration of justice, on whether inquest suffices to ferret out and expose these 3rd degree methods, establish accountability, and if not how to prevail on govt to accept RCI to look into these issues in lieu of inquest and recommend how authorities should next proceed, and the complexities inviolved in these issues.

    Whats being discussed is the macro probelm of the whole building/edifice of administration of justice inn this country from the top floor and you are still poking in with comments of the obvious happening in the basement.

    No wonder SpeakUp says he lost his patience.

    I appreciate you want to participate in discussion. However what you commented reflected that you did not understand what’s being prior discussed that you want to butt in.

    Explaining to you not only requires patience : it requires hopes that the blind can be explained to appreciate Surreal Art, the Rhinicerou, to appreciate a sunset or fragrance of a flower or an ostrich to comprehend Einstein’s theory of relativity.

    When people are walking on 5th floor, you are still wandering on the first, asking where are all the people who have already walked and gone up way past the first floor, and you still don’t know it !

  25. #25 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 3:11 pm

    I may be walking at the basement, but I am focused in trying to solve substantive issues. You may be walking at the 5th floor, but you are just talking cock – cock that does not make an iota of difference to the our life, to the truth of BH death and to eventually bring changes to the criminal investigation procedures and the criminal justice system in our country.

    You have got it all wrong to begin with the assumption that there is “esprit de corp between them where they don’t expose and investigate each other, these are already assumed and taken for granted – nobody is denying that these methods are not present or suspected – the issues discussed have gone way beyond this point to the larger area of administration of justice…”

    If you assume there are cozy relationships among the various enforcement agencies; that they do not investigate each other, we ought to set it right in the first place. That is paramount and fundamental. If we can’t get this sorted, may I know where are we moving to – to your 5th floor, to inquest and RCI and to your talking cock?

    “No wonder SpeakUp says he lost his patience”. Ya, how nicely you put it to belittle me. I want you to touch your heart and tell me that loud mouth is indeed a person of substance. Even my little finger is smarter than him.

    By the way I am not butting in. I am just trying to point out the fallacy of your arguments. Again, I must say you are not as great as you think you are.

  26. #26 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 4:42 pm

    //If you assume there are cozy relationships among the various enforcement agencies; that they do not investigate each other, we ought to set it right in the first place// – Lim Kam Put

    Who is disputing here that “we ought to set it right in the first place”?

    The question is how and by means. Police & MACC? Neither works. So people clamour for RCI, govt comes out with Inquest and the other part RCI. AG quotes law (CPC) why inquest is appropriate. People know its not, so RCI is still preferred, but how to formlulate rationale/approaches to govt? These are the issues discussed in preceding posts (arguments/counterarguments) in discussion on Inquest versus RCI. The purpose is to defend the mechanism of RCI which has hope to expose third degree methods as first confition to set things right. So what is your specific grouse of what was discussed in preceding posts on this subject that you call “long and inconsequential”?

    If discussion on Inquest versus RCI is inconsequential – and both are useless – what do you advocate? Revolution or what that would make it consequential? I don’t see anything or any suggestions etc in your posting except to say others’ postings are inconseqential (without reasons why so).

    I am not belittling you. You are belittling yourself by talking cock all the time

    You barge/butt in a discussion without the foggiest idea of the issues in dispute or nuances/complexities of various points under discussion and have a penchant to (provoke, attack first) disparage/discredit others’ comments at first instance beyond your comprehension, without having first understood them or even trying at all, and relying on others’ subsequent reply/clarification/rebuttal thereafter to then only try and begin to keep up, and understand fuller what others really said earlier. If your are an intellectual laborer – in the sense always trailing behind things said that you attacked because you didn’t understand, admit it, I am sure many will in empathy for your whether intellectually or emotionally challenged condition to go slow and to help you along, if you really want to understand. There is no need for antagonism.

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 4:50 pm

    //By the way I am not butting in. I am just trying to point out the fallacy of your arguments// – LimKam Put

    Which fallacy of arguments?

    Don’t talk generalities. Be specific.

    Please point out one by one, point by point.

    I will go through with you, each and every one, and examine which one is fallacious – I too want to know – and whether you know what you are talking about.

    You start first.

  28. #28 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 5:01 pm

    //I want you to touch your heart and tell me that loud mouth is indeed a person of substance. Even my little finger is smarter than him.//

    I touched my heart and truly feel that the only ‘intelligence’ you have in your little finger is how to point upwards to others to show “up yours” whenever encountering matters above your comprehension.

  29. #29 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 5:20 pm

    ///To me both the inquest and RCI are useless. Why can’t the police investigate this case based on murder or foul play?/// – Lim Kam Put

    Now it takes a very unusual mind of Lim kam Put to make an analysis of the obvious…..

    Why didn’t I think of it? Slap myself, “stupid! stupid!” Why didn’t YB Kit? Why lobby for RCI? Chen Man Hin, Bar Council Civil Society all wasting time arguing for RCI.

    Lim Kam Put’s profound insight: Lobby the police. (To quote the great man : “To me both the inquest and RCI are useless…. Why can’t the police investigate this case based on murder or foul play?”)

    Lim Kam Put can see it with such clarity and brilliance. Go back to first principles and presto, there’s the solution.

    Thank you for reminding us the trite, obvious and true that will help the nation!

  30. #30 by SpeakUp on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 5:32 pm

    Jeff … you are truly most patient. LoL! I noticed that there are quite a few PR members who are like that, they cannot accept criticism at all and are so full of hatred for BN. This is also evident in FB where nasty words (actually, foul language) are openly used. Its an interesting trend.

  31. #31 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 5:47 pm

    There are not only a few PR members but a considerable number of BN supporters are like that.

    At the end of the say, it is rationality versus irrationalty, from the latter one begets racial and religious bigotry that destroys the country.

    Change from bottom (ground level) to up is real, not so much top down. Any leader with vision will (unless he’s strong willed and has other advantages of leverage) be soon overthrown if people all around are idiots. However the converse is not true. If you have idiots up there surrounded by masses of rational people around, the idiots couldf not entrench their positions and will be soon overthrown!

    We then have to be patient to fight irrationality, whether they are manifested by BN’s supporters or PR’s, and whether BN remains in power or PR takes over.

    It behoves those who are educated and are blessed with a more disciplined mind and controlled emotions to help their countrymen out in these respects.

  32. #32 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 6:41 pm

    Years ago, I have said that you have often flooded this blog with lots of irrelevance, and sadly today you are still doing the same.
    We have not even begun and insisted that the case be classified under murder or foul play and yet you are talking we have passed that. Who decided that we have passed that, you and your little group of half baked imposters?
    Now we are crying and insisting that we should have RCI. My view is that have we insisted enough that this case be investigated under murder or foul play first, which I believe would definitely attract more vigorous investigating procedures and methods. It is not just I said this; LGE in one of the forum had also raised the issue that until now, not one of the MACC officers has been arrested to help in the investigation. To you of course this is due to cozy relationship and therefore nothing much could be done. Is this the way we should be moving forward? If we find some fundamental thing wrong and not working, we just move on? No, part of the solution must also be we insist that this fundamental thing be set right. I remember when Kugan’s case first surfaced, the police (or was it AG) initially said that the case would be investigated under murder. But because we have not followed up vigorously on this, this was of course all forgotten. If we can make so much noise on so many issues, why can’t we make more noise on insisting that this case be investigated under foul play or murder when circumstances have pointed toward that? Who is talking about revolution here, you the imposter?

    Fallancy, if you really want to know, is bullsh!t. Ya, lots of noise but no substance, that was your posting here.

    One more thing, don’t be lulled by your sidekick into believing that you are really doing that great. Both of you are essentially using each other to get to me. You have no intellectual honesty if you continue to say that half baked is a man of substance. If I have written those half truth and nonsense, you would have castrated me long ago.

  33. #33 by Jaswant on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 6:49 pm

    If by mistake you stumble over his blog, you will see there are no visitors. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Zero hits over the years. Any reason why?? But you gotta give this guy the max for effort. As to rating it is pathetic.

    http://limkamput-nincompoop.blogspot.com/

  34. #34 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 7:04 pm

    Judging by the way he is writing here (even as a commentator) I’d be surprised there is any visitor to his blog. Yep gotta give this guy the max for effort. However today he is making extraordinary effort to be stupid. Don’t know why. Maybe forgot medicine.

  35. #35 by Jaswant on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 7:06 pm

    Can’t afford to buy his medications??

  36. #36 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 7:25 pm

    //We have not even begun and insisted that the case be classified under murder or foul play…Now we are crying and insisting that we should have RCI. My view is that have we insisted enough that this case be investigated under murder or foul play first, which I believe would definitely attract more vigorous investigating procedures and methods//

    Without in depth investigations they have already preliminarily classified Teoh’s case as “sudden death”. They are still under shadow of Kugan’s case, unresolved. You think if everyone insists that Teoh’s case be classified and investigated under murder or foul play…they will say “yes sir” and do it? When the govt agrees to half measures of Inquests and RCI it is already conceding to opposition/civil society that public basis of doubting impartiality of investigations by police. Here you are saying, no, insist on the police investigating Teoh’s death
    under murder or foul play first. As I said before you are still at the basement. I don’t say you are making an extraordinary effort today to be stupid for nothing!

  37. #37 by SpeakUp on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:02 pm

    Jaswant … OMG! I thought you were just joking with the link … well he just got one extra visitor, dang, I made a mistake to to go and see it! Hahahahaahahaaa … Now I can understand the need to come here and try to get all the attention that he has been missing on his own blog! ROFL!!!

    He is definitely a real coffee shop politician … man Jaswant you really made my day.

  38. #38 by Jaswant on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:26 pm

    A retired old man with serious identity issues to be precise, trying to find his niche in life. A bit too late isn’t it? Rejected by his ilk. Not welcome by the rest. An ungrateful one at that. Having had his education funded by UMNO-BN all his life, and now pretending to be someone else, he now turns against his master.

    This is a man with serious issues with himself.

  39. #39 by SpeakUp on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:29 pm

    Jaswant, I was about to profile him but I decided not to. Wasting my neurons …

  40. #40 by OrangRojak on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:37 pm

    Jeffrey says half measures of Inquests and RCI
    Is this the basement? Where’s the way out? Are you comparing Inquests and RCI-MACC-policy against RCI-Cause-of-death? Or police murder investigation?

    I fail to see how it’s a half measure, or was that sarcasm? I thought from your previous posts, your opinion was that the current offer is as good as it gets. I’ve got to confess to hurrying through them a bit recently.

    As far as I understand, there’s no evidence to suggest Teoh died at the hand of another. Not one bit. He was a bit young and healthy for ‘sudden death’ – but that just means the pathologist’s report should be all the more intensive for it. Until there’s the slightest sign that his death was caused by another, sudden death is what he died of.

    I fail to see how an RCI into Teoh’s death could be initiated before the police have finished their investigations. An RCI would be a fairly unambiguous Royal declaration that the police are unfit to investigate. I can’t be the only one to think that that would be extremely unlikely to happen in any country, let alone Malaysia.

    Maybe I’m being a stick-in-the-mud, but I for one … well, you know … disinterment … said it before. Boring.

  41. #41 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:38 pm

    You are essentially saying: If a fundamental, legal and effective measure is not sufficiently explored and taken, it is ok, we shall move on to the lesser measure or measures. Who are you to decide we move on or not to move on? Who are you to decide when others may want this avenue be explored further? In fact, who in fact are you?

    Let me tell you who you really are: You are just a simpleton (or may be a paid blogger now) who could only impress those lesser than you. You should be ashamed if those supporting you are mere one-liners who probably can’t hold more than three variables in their pea brains and those who just want to get me. The rest I need not say.

  42. #42 by limkamput on Sunday, 26 July 2009 - 8:45 pm

    Do you know who have serious issue with themselves here? [email protected]@jaswant and [email protected] [email protected] mouth.

  43. #43 by Jeffrey on Monday, 27 July 2009 - 12:10 am

    ///You are essentially saying: If a fundamental, legal and effective measure is not sufficiently explored and taken, it is ok, we shall move on to the lesser measure or measures./// – Lim Kam Put

    Nobody is prematurely pointing finger to blame anyone without thorough – and impartial investigation.

    What many people want is an impartial mechanism/body of people to investigate the truth.

    It is true that in ordinary circumtances the securities services/police are the institution to investigate the mysterious death of Teoh within our system.

    However here is not a simple death. It is a custodial death. Someone died in custody when called in for interrogation. That someone was also a political aide to an opposition councillor unmder investigation.

    According to statistics revealed in Parliament last year, there were a total of 1535 custodial deaths in the country between 2003 and 2007. None of of these have been investigated to the point that revealed a single foul play. Then we have the latest, A Kugan. Until today justice has not veen served. The perpetrators have not been identified and punished.

    What do you make of it? You still have the confidence in the fundamental and effective measure of one uniformed service investigating another service a custodial death with political complexion against the backdrop of 1535 custodial deaths in the country between 2003 and 2007 unresolved???

    All I am saying is that civil society including Bar Council, the Opposition, YB Lim Kit Siang, Dr Chen Man Hin and many others have a basis to place greater confidence in a Royal Commission of Inquiry than either MACC, police or even an Inquest to conduct an impartial investigation.

    The question of going through the normal route, working through the system of the police investigating this matter (when they have already classified it as “sudden death” – is way passed.

    It is naive to say that pressure must be applied to insist that this case be investigated under murder or foul play first by the police.

    The classification of murder or foul play cannot happen unless they say their investigations show prima facie evidence of that. As long as they say that the situation does not, based on their investigations, show prima facie evidence of murder and foul play, thats the end of it and the matter will not even reach the Public Prosecutor’s desk for a charge to be contemplated!

    And here our Lim Kam Put is still insisting “to me both the inquest and RCI are useless. Why can’t the police investigate this case based on murder or foul play?”

    Others have gone beyond that. they are debating at the “5th floor” of RCI versus inquest and why this is better than that. Even the Govt appears to have conceded that there are extenuating circumstances in Teoh’s death meriting a traditional departure from traditional police investigation (that public have no confidence in) and in its place have an inquest to determine caiser of death and RCI on MACC interrogation methods whether they violated civil/human rights.

    All have gone that far. However Lim Kam Put is straying far behind (I call it at basement when others have climbed up 5 floors). Hed is still contending the proposals and counter proposals between RCI and Inquest are waste of time and the right way is to vigrously pressure the police to investigate murder and foul play.

    Liker I said he must be a very unusual mind to make an analysis – and conclusion – of the obvious that all others have failed to discern!

  44. #44 by House Victim on Monday, 27 July 2009 - 3:56 am

    “The solution is for the inquest to be held back until after completion of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into all the circumstances and causes of Teoh’s death.”
    ————————————–
    This is the Logical and Proper from all respects!

    1. RCI
    Besides Section 2 1) b) & d), I believe RCI must be there because there is No existing Governing or Monitoring Body on MACC under MACC Act and other Law to investigate MACC.

    2. The cause of Death and the Mishandling of MACC in this case is ONE Integrated matter, especially mishandling is at least a part of the Cause of the Death.

    3. Other parties, such as Police, AG, Courts are also “well-known” for their “Mishandling”. and some can be found already in this case. This it not only a matter of NO Confidence but already a foul play by the Police and AG!
    as in my Comment #9 of Page 2
    http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2009/07/23/teoh-family-rejects-cabinet-decision-and-demands-comprehensive-rci-into-tbhs-death/#comments
    So, Section 2 1) b) is applying also also to see that he Police, AG and Court to handle properly!

    4. 329 d)
    I am sure 329 e) and d) must have distinction to make them stand isolated. “Sudden Death” should be more on “nature death” than other possibility. When d) and e)) are available. I am sure, it is BIAS for the Police to taken it as “Sudden Death” under e) and not d) without any reference from the Pathologic Report. AG should be the one to correct it, if it is a negligent of the Police. But, why AG should be silent?
    ————————————–
    THE RCI MUST HEAD FOR THE CAUSE OF DEATH OF TBH to see that Proper Investigations and Judgment be conducted, including by Independent and Competent 3rd Parties!

  45. #45 by undertaker888 on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 - 1:54 pm

    if all of you (limkamput, sasha, jeffrey..etc) do not stop this nonsense, i will surely throw you guys off the 15th floor.

    We need constructive reasonings here, not showing off your tit-for-tat, half-bake intelligence over here condemning each other.

    no wonder malaysian politics can’t grow further. imagine i wasted my vote to one of you one day, i can guarantee you will all behave the same here as in parliament. just harping, no solutions.

    till then my vote stays with homer simpson.

You must be logged in to post a comment.