Jul 23, 11 | MalaysiaKini
Rejecting the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) findings that DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide, the Bar Council says the government and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should apologise to Teoh’s family and compensate them for the loss.
“The Malaysian Bar also calls on the government of Malaysia and MACC to consider offering an unqualified written apology to Teoh Beng Hock’s family, and to the citizens of Malaysia, for his death,” said Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee.
He also urged the government to make reasonable compensation to Teoh’s family for his death.
Lim said that the authorities should investigate the relevant MACC officers for possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code, namely for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and for causing Teoh’s death through negligence, respectively.
“It is very clear to the Malaysian Bar that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC, and that immediate action must be taken to hold the culpable officers accountable for their behaviour,” he added.
In a statement today, Lim said the RCI’s finding is unsupported by the facts and the evidence of the case.
He also pointed out that contrary to the statement made by Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Aziz during the release of the RCI report, forensic psychiatrist Paul Edward Mullen had not testified that Teoh had a “weak character” that had led him to suicide. No conclusion of ‘weak character’
“Mullen also did not conclude that Teoh had committed suicide; rather, his testimony stated that ‘in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh’s personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide’.
“He further opined that the context of the events that had taken place was not one ‘which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody’, as he had not been made aware of anything ‘to explain panic and distress sufficient to drive (Teoh) to conclude his honour had been irreparably tarnished’,” said Lim.
He also pointed out that Mullen’s testimony does not provide the basis for the RCI’s finding of suicide, such as that described in the section titled ‘Conclusion on forensic psychiatric aspects’ in the RCI’s report.
In that section, the RCI stated that “Teoh experienced a change in his state of mind. And in a matter of hours, this change transformed him from being in the low-risk group for suicide into the high-risk group”.
Lim said that Nazri had made the same statement at the report’s launch, that Teoh had “truly committed suicide based on his character that had changed from a low-risk group to a high-risk group for suicide after undergoing a continuous and aggressive questioning session”.
The Malaysian Bar, whose lawyers had assisted throughout the inquiry, also noted that the joint expert psychiatric report of Dr Badiah Yahya and Dr Nor Hayati Ali had stated that there was a lack of information to determine Teoh’s state of mind.
The report read: “We did not have any evidence on how the investigation was conducted as there were ‘no written questions posted to (Teoh)’ or audio recording as to ascertain the amount of pressure he experienced.
“It is not known whether he had experienced in his mind the effects of being possibly prosecuted on the allegations, whether it would have been devastating for him and/or his organisation. This should require more information on what was said and done in the period taken [sic] into custody until he was found dead.”
Both the experts from Health Ministry were engaged by MACC and present during most of the court proceedings and had interviewed Teoh’s family members, housemate and work colleagues.
Therefore, to surmise that Teoh had committed suicide between 7.15am and 11.15am, said Lim, requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence.
Despite the disagreement, there are a number of key points on which the Bar Council concurred with the RCI report:
Therefore, to surmise that Teoh had committed suicide between 7.15am and 11.15am, said Lim, requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence.
Despite the disagreement, there are a number of key points on which the Bar Council concurred with the RCI report: