Press Statement by Teoh Lee Lan
(The Sister of The Late Teoh Beng Hock)
18-1-2012
It’s already 2012, could the PM please tell us when the Beng Hock case will be given due attention?
We, the family of Teoh Beng Hock, will be in Putrajaya at 9 a.m., 2 February 2012 for a Court of Appeal decision on the Teoh Beng Hock case judicial review.
In 2012 we are about to usher in the third Chinese New Year without Beng Hock and with the truth nowhere in sight.
We should like to ask: What actually happened on 16 July 2009 at the scene of Beng Hock’s death? Why have the various doubts we raised gone unanswered? For the past few years, we have asked such questions not once, not twice, but more than a thousand times at the courts, in the media, and at various forums, but every time silence was the answer. At this festival, when families are supposed to have reunions and everyone get together for celebration, we still have to be faced with these questions that frustrated us for thousands of times. The heavy clouds of doubt and specious “presuppositional” answers did not in any way help to give a true picture of what happened on the day of the incident except for throwing the truth into an even more dubious haze. Some would say, hasn’t a coroner’s court examined the case? Wasn’t a Royal Commission of Inquiry already set up? Hasn’t a report come out? It is true that all this the government has done. But do we have any idea who the people most responsible are? Have we heard any agency publicly give any hint of regret? Have we seen the suspects investigated? Have our doubts and suspicions been cleared up? Has the truth come to our knowledge?
Others would say, we should leave our grief behind and move on. In the face of an unconvincing criminal judicial system that has disappointed over and over again, however, we cannot but remind and question over and over again: “Where is the truth that we want?”
We still remember the waves of questioning voices that surged among the common people when the Royal Commission of Inquiry report came out. From that we have no problem discerning that Beng Hock actually carries the expectations of so many members of the public for the truth. Such expectations illustrate the concern of all for a society free from torture and violence in law enforcement as much as it does the importance of the truth. If the truth is regarded as unimportant, violence that escaped condemnation and punishment under the law may come back at any time to haunt all of us and the defence of other social values will all the more be out of the question.
The only thing we are asking for is to at least know the truth and have those responsible held responsible. Without this, can an ambiguous answer really comfort our hearts as the victim’s family? Can it really lay to rest the soul of a victim whose life was prematurely ended at the tender age of 30?
Posts Tagged ‘TBH
KUALA LUMPUR: No legal action will be taken against the three anti-graft officers held responsible for Teoh Beng Hock’s suicide given the lack of investigative evidence, Parliament was told today.
Minister in the Prime Minister Department Nazri Aziz said the Attorney-General “was not compelled” to pursue the case but will do so if new evidence surfaces.
“The AG is not pursuing legal action against the anti-graft officers who drove Teoh to suicide because there was a lack of investigative evidence and witness accounts,” Nazri said in his winding-up speech on the 2012 Budget debate.
He was responding to Gobind Singh Deo (DAP-Puchong), the lawyer representing Teoh’s family who wanted to know if action would be taken against the three Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers.
Teoh, the political aide to Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth-floor corridor of Selangor MACC’s office in Shah Alam after overnight questioning.
A Royal Commission of Inquiry, set up after a coroner’s court gave an open verdict, found excessive aggression in interrogation methods had caused Teoh to commit suicide.
Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar had said that there are no laws to charge the three with while the MACC said it will deal with them internally by setting up a special investigative team.
…more
No action against trio behind Teoh’s death
October 24, 2011 – FMT
Self-inflicted death must have meaning and a reason. In Teoh Beng Hock’s death, we find neither meaning nor a reason for taking his own life, if we accept the findings of the TBH royal commission of inquiry.
Suicide is rare. It is even rarer for a normal person without abnormal psychology to commit suicide.
It is hard to believe suicide can happen within few hours of experiencing trauma. Hopelessness as an acute warning sign of suicide most often takes time to develop, days or weeks if not months. RCI has confirmed that TBH was “driven to commit suicide” within hours. The impossible does not happen and the improbable only happens very rarely.
This suicide verdict goes very much against common sense and the intuition of many Malaysians. A closer look is hence necessary to critically examine how the RCI arrived at such conclusion and whether the RCI has proved TBH’s intention to suicide.
The focus of study here is essentially of the psychological aspects of the section on ‘Forensic psychiatric aspects’, pages 64 to 72 of the Report of the Royal Commission of Enquiry into the death of Teoh Beng Hock (hereafter called RCI).
Serious flaws in RCI conjecture
RCI evaluated the evidence from forensic pathology and concluded that TBH fell to his death; and from forensic psychiatry that TBH would have jumped to his death. These conclusions are used as reasons to support the suicide verdict that TBH was driven to commit suicide.
However, there are serious flaws observed in RCI’s argument. The authenticity of the evidence of intention to suicide used to support the claim is doubtful. Also, the inference from evidence to the conclusion of suicide is invalid and unsound.
The commissioners’ method of reconstructing TBH’s psychological state prior to death is questionable. The suicide verdict is examined here from the perspective of suicide.
…more
TBH ‘suicide’ finding: The impossible does not happen
by CT Wong
19 August 2011 – CPI
Who Killed Teoh Beng Hock?
Recently (see my article “If you put the cart before the horse” or “Cart and Horse” depending on where you have read it), I wrote about the unfounded conclusion of a befuddled Royal Commission of Inquiry that Teoh Beng Hock was driven to suicide while he was in the custody of the MACC.
One still wonders how such a conclusion could ever have been reached by the RCI without any evidence to support it whatsoever! Such evidence requires the opinion of an expert – which is a relevant fact under section 45 of the Evidence Act – to say that Teoh was driven to suicide as a direct consequence of the third degree method of interrogation inflicted on him by the police while he was in the custody of the MACC. It is because the finding of the RCI that Teoh was driven to suicide was unsupported by any evidence that we all realized how silly had been those judges who sat on the Royal commission. Those three judges have since become the laughing stock of the nation!
…Actually the Malaysian Bar was being polite for suggesting an investigation by the authorities on possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code. Unquestionably a crime was committed. The authorities are duty bound to prosecute the perpetrators who have become common criminals irrespective of their rank in the police force! The ball is now in the court of the Public Prosecutor, who, as we all know, is the Attorney-General, to do his duty.
What then are the crimes these policemen of the MACC were supposed to have committed? As suggested by the Malaysian Bar, they are sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code and, I would add, even murder under section 302 of the same Code. It doesn’t matter which is the section applicable as the burden is on the accused persons to prove the facts which are in their knowledge to try to reduce the charge to a lesser one.
It is murder (section 302) if TBH was dropped from the 14th floor to his death by his captors.
It is culpable homicide not amounting to murder (section 304) if TBH was taken to the window to frighten him but his captors somehow lost their grip and he fell to his death.
It may be a case of causing the death of TBH by negligence under section 304A if TBH had tried to escape by climbing out of the window and fell to his death in the attempt. The negligence is for leaving the window on the 14th floor conveniently open.
The above are the possible scenarios for the reduction of the crime from murder. But it is on the accused to prove the exculpating factors.
LoyarBurokkers Marcus van Geyzel and NH Chan rubbished the Royal Commission report on Teoh Beng Hock’s death.
Now, the much-awaited Malaysian Bar’s submission to the Royal Commission investigating Teoh Beng Hock’s death dated 25 March 2011 is finally here.
The Bar recommended as follows:
- That the Commission do make a finding that TBH was in the care and custody of MACC and its officers at the time of TBH’s death.
- That the Commission do make a finding that MACC and its officers have perpetrated a cover up with respect to the circumstances surrounding and contributing to the death of TBH.
- That the Commission do make a finding that MACC and its officers have failed to discharge their obligations and duties to account for the death of TBH.
- That the Commission do make a finding that MACC and its officers are responsible for the death of TBH.
- That the Commission do recommend that the Government of Malaysia and MACC do consider offering an unqualified written apology to the family of the late TBH and to the citizens of Malaysia for the death of TBH.
- That the Commission do recommend that the Government of Malaysia and MACC do consider making reasonable recompense to the family of TBH in respect of the death of TBH.
- That the Commission do recommend the following:
…
No holds barred writing – as it should have been. Detailed, comprehensive (perhaps to a fault), and complete with a chronological time-line of key moments hours before and after Beng Hock’s death, this 334-page submission is probably the definitive word on the subject.
…you’ll have to lean over backwards to say the cart was being driven by the horse. NH Chan writes on how the befuddled RCI came to the conclusion that Teoh Beng Hock was driven to take his own life without the opinion of an expert to say that he did.
The MACC knew at the outset that without a confession from Teoh Beng Hock they would be unable to prove any wrongdoing against the state government of Selangor.
However, the RCI concluded that the MACC tried to extract a confession from Teoh Beng Hock but the ruse backfired when instead the RCI pointed its finger at the perpetrators at the MACC with a finding that it was the MACC’s own personnel who had driven Teoh Beng Hock to suicide.
Don’t you think this looks like a scenario for a whodunnit or a Hollywood movie?
One wonders how silly can the three judges get, when they should have known better? There were three superior court judges in the panel of the Royal Commission of Inquiry – in fact the RCI was headed by a Federal Court judge! All that the judges have to do – when they have to deal with expert witnesses – is to refer to section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950. It is as simple as that. Section 45 of the Act reads:
45. Opinions of experts.
(1) When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, … the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in that foreign law, science or art, … are relevant facts.
(2) Such persons are called experts.
ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) The question is whether the death of A was caused by poison.
The opinions of experts, as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.
Section 45 of the Evidence Act is plain enough. It means that the opinions of experts are relevant facts. Without any relevant fact, that is to say, without an opinion from an expert, a court is unable to form an opinion upon, in this instant, the scientific point that Teoh Beng Hock took his own life. In this case, none of the experts gave the opinion that Teoh took his own life.
Yet the RCI took the view that Teoh took his own life. But the RCI had no business to reach such a conclusion. Such a conclusion that Teoh took his own life could only be made by an expert. The RCI was not such an expert! The Commissioners must not substitute their own opinion for that of the experts! Yet this was precisely what the RCI did! By assuming the mantle of a forensic psychiatric expert it came to the conclusion that Teoh took his own life. At paragraph [233] of the report of the RCI it spoke as if it was an expert and gave its opinion on how Teoh was driven to suicide. This is how it reads in the report:
…more
If you put the cart before the horse
by NH Chan
31 July 2011 – Loyarburok
As the news filtered in on Thursday that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Teoh Beng Hock (“the TBH RCI”) had issued its findings, the conclusions seemed simple enough. The TBH RCI concluded that Teoh Beng Hock had been driven to commit suicide due to interrogation by 3 MACC officers in a manner that was “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous”. It seemed straightforward.
The newspaper reports of the findings were simple – after considering the evidence (70 witnesses, 750 pages of written submission, 19,200 pages of written testimonies, and 256 exhibits) before them, these learned members of the TBH RCI had come to this clear conclusion. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nazri Aziz, added that the TBH RCI findings were supported by psychiatric forensic expert Paul Edward Mullen, hired by the Bar Council as part of the proceedings. When announcing the findings, Nazri was quoted as calling Teoh Beng Hock a “weak character” and that “Professor Mullen said that Teoh Beng Hock had truly committed suicide based on his character…”
If I had stopped at reading those reports linked above (and many similar reports in other media sources), I would think that the TBH RCI findings had finally cleared up the mystery. Further, Nazri Aziz’s seemingly helpful extraction of the findings of a psychiatric forensic expert would have solidified the conclusion that yes, Teoh Beng Hock committed suicide after all. And previous RCIs have resulted in findings and recommendations that seemed very reasonable based on the known facts – the Anwar black-eye incident, the nude squat fiasco, the revamp of the police force, and of course VK Lingam’s infamous “correct correct correct” video clip. The individuals who make up RCIs are respected and assumed to be independent and knowledgeable. They could be trusted to reveal the truth.
But I did not stop at reading these convenient summaries.
A blatant deception of the Malaysian public
I downloaded and read the full report by the TBH RCI (please download it here and read it for yourself). I researched the numerous articles and reports that had been written about the proceedings. I discussed the matter with many friends, some of whom had been very closely following the twists and turns since Teoh was found dead on 16 July 2009.
Having done all that, it appeared obvious that things were not as simple as they seemed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the seemingly straightforward conclusion that Teoh had committed suicide is in fact blatantly deceiving the Malaysian public.
Before going into the reasons why I firmly believe that the conclusion of the TBH RCI that Teoh committed suicide was wrong, allow me to give a brief summary of some of the findings of the TBH RCI for the benefit of those who have not been following the proceedings, or the report.
It appears the royal commission into Teoh Beng Hock’s death has fallen short of its purpose of uncovering the true cause of his demise and allaying public concern over culpable conduct by the MACC.
Instead its ‘suicide’ finding raises more questions than answers and more importantly, failed to give comfort to Teoh’s family and friends who believe that he was killed and did not commit suicide, a view shared by many Malaysians.They raise the question of the usefulness of a costly exercise that failed to include the possibility of political interference that may have contributed to Teoh’s tragic death.
If there was no political influence why did the MACC investigate a trivial case when relatively larger cases involving huge amounts of money reported to or known by the MACC, have not been touched?
Despite the RCI the public will not know how Teoh died and they won’t know the reason why.
Political interference was not included in the RCI’s terms of reference but could have thrown light on why there appeared a motive for early results when one thinks of a normal investigation as achieving that aim in due course, only after all the evidence has been examined and not exigently, and unreasonably within a matter of hours, as in Teoh’s case.
In paragraph 339, the RCI report noted that ‘HH’ the officer in charge, who absolved himself of direct participation in the interrogations, “not only was involved but he also unleashed his officers to do his bidding in order to get results within that night or morning come hell or high-water.”
The commissioners’ poignant comments imply HH had to get the ‘results’ with a high degree of urgency.
But why? Would Teoh still be alive today if matters were allowed to take its normal course?
Instead we have criticisms that Teoh’s death has been politicised. This is baffling because Teoh was the staff of a politician and has been the ‘collateral damage’ of a perceived political witch-hunt.Anything related to his case has to attract a high degree of political involvement and that incidentally is not unusual in a country where the public institutions don’t always act independently but ‘take orders’ from the politicians.
Politicians are often the only ones left to offer help to aggrieved citizens when they are led into a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. It is the inordinate politicisation of the public institutions by the government that the public may be more concerned about.
It is not unknown that law-enforcement agencies face undue political interference as demonstrated by the previous complaints of the country’s top cop after his retirement.
…more
RCI findings raises more questions than answers
Steve Oh
Jul 26, 2011 – Malaysiakini letters
The following is a press release by the Malaysian Bar on 23 July 2011, following the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Teoh Beng Hock (“RCI”).
There are a number of key points on which the Malaysian Bar agrees with the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Death of Teoh Beng Hock (“RCI”).
We concur with the following findings of the RCI:
- That the RCI was unable to accept that the alleged suicide note had been written by Teoh Beng Hock, and that the undue delay by the authorities in tendering the alleged suicide note at the first available opportunity could not be taken as mere carelessness or neglect, and therefore the authenticity of the note could not be trusted;
- That Teoh Beng Hock was, at all material times until his untimely death, in the care, custody and control of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) officers;
- That Teoh Beng Hock was not released from the care, custody and control of the MACC officers after his statement had been recorded at approximately 3:30 am, and this failure “amounted to cruel conduct and punishment inflicted on purpose”;
- That Teoh Beng Hock was subjected to “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” and that the recording of his statement was unlawful;
- That the majority of the MACC officers exhibited a “total lack of consideration for human sensitivities”, and that the recruitment process of MACC officers should include a “psychological evaluation to assess their suitability for investigative work”;
- That most of the MACC officers who were involved in the operations on 15 and 16 July 2009, and who gave evidence as witnesses, were neither truthful nor credible, as they “had the inevitable habit of lying”;
- That massive operations launched by MACC Selangor – which were headed by then-Selangor MACC deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim – against the Pakatan Rakyat members of the Selangor state assembly were grounded on mere belief of information purportedly received over the telephone, and without proper ground work or verification;
- That Hishamuddin Hashim was “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising”, and that he was “just too stubborn [such trait was also displayed when he gave evidence before us] to retreat from his mistake in mounting such a massive operation”;
- That not only was Hishamuddin Hashim involved but he also “unleashed his officers to do his bidding in order to get results within that night and morning come hell or high-water”, and that Hishamuddin Hashim should be held responsible for the actions taken by him and his officers that led to Teoh Beng Hock’s death; and
- That the Selangor MACC had shown an extreme lack of cooperation with the police in the latter’s attempts to investigate complaints of assault and other offences previously made against its officers.
The Malaysian Bar, however, does not concur with the finding by the RCI that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide. Such a finding, in our view, is unsupported by the facts and the evidence.
Contrary to the statement made by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen did not testify that Teoh Beng Hock had a “weak character” that had led to him taking his own life. Professor Mullen also did not conclude that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide; rather, his testimony stated that “in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock’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 Beng Hock] to conclude his honor had been irreparably tarnished”.
…more
Teoh Beng Hock: The Search for Justice and Truth Must Continue
23 July 2011 – loyarburok.com
