By S Pathmawathy
Jul 21, 11 | MalaysiaKini
The Teoh Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) report claims that the MACC instituted the “fourth interrogation” during the wee hours of July 16, 2009, from 3.30am to 7am, which “must have been the final straw that broke the camel’s back”.
According to the report, after having to endure three strenuous rounds of interrogations, the RCI panel believes that DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock was put through yet another round of intense interrogation by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).
This is the theory postulated by the RCI to explain how Teoh was pushed to the brink and eventually committed suicide.
“The acts committed by these three persons, namely Hishammudin Hashim, Mohd Anuar Ismail, and Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus, were most probably in the form of another round of intensive interrogation of Teoh to coerce him into making a statement that it was Ean Yong Hian Wah who directed him to commit unlawful acts in handling the allocation.
“This session must have been very taxing on Teoh, both physically and mentally. He had been deprived of sleep throughout the night and into the morning and had to endure persistent, aggressive and unscrupulous questioning.
“His physical condition, as described by (Mohd) Ashraf when fetching him the glass of water, was that Teoh had moved to sit in an upright position, very slowly.
“This is the fourth interrogation session to our minds (and) must have been the final straw that broke the camel’s back,” says the report.
MACC officers had contended at both the inquest and RCI that they ended their interrogation of Teoh at 3.30am and the political aide was released. However, instead of going home, they claimed that Teoh had decided to sleep on a couch in the MACC office.
But the RCI report stated that Teoh was not released after the MACC interrogation.
At a press conference this morning, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said the government would ensure that “appropriate action will be taken against those officers involved who went against MACC procedures, based on the rules and laws already in place”.
RCI argues its case
The RCI gave three reasons to back up its theory:
1. Hishammudin was simply too stubborn to retreat from his mistake in mounting such a massive operation against Selangor elected representatives over the alleged misuse of their constituency allocations, particularly when it had received wide and extensive press coverage.
To overcome his disappointment at the negative results obtained from these witnesses, he must have resorted to a personal and more aggressive interrogation of Teoh since Teoh, as the commission has explained, held the vital link between Ean Yong and the suppliers or contractors, and if anything were to be made to “stick” on Ean Yong, it would have to be through Teoh.
2. The commission believes that Hishammudin must have been assisted upon this foray by Anuar and Ashraf. The commission names Anuar because his alibi had been proved to be false. As disclosed during the inquiry, hardly anyone saw him sleeping at the place he claimed to be at between the hours after 3.30am and 7am on July 16.
Even guard Khairudin who said that he saw Anuar sleeping in the visitor’s area pointed out an area which was different from the area where Anuar claimed to have slept at. The evidence of Khairudin itself was not credible as he was found to have with him a prepared script while testifying in the witness box, which proved beyond doubt that he had been coached.
Further, Anuar lied about the role he had played in order to cover up for Hishammudin. And on top of these factors, he was a trusted senior officer of Hishammudin who was prepared to sacrifice himself for Hishammudin. The other officer, Hairul Ilham, having gone home by that time.
3. The commission found it most unusual for Ashraf to fetch Teoh a glass of water at about 4.40am on July 16. This established three things – first, Ashraf was around during this time.
Second, though Teoh knew where the pantry was and could have gone there himself to get a drink of water, yet he demanded Ashraf’s services.
This was most extraordinary in view of Ashraf’s poor track record on physical abuse of suspects, which made it unlikely that he would entertain a demand from a person who was inferiorly situated in relation to him at that point in time. Though Teoh was termed a “witness”, he was treated more like a suspect.
Third, was the rather impolite and demanding nature of the request: “Hoi! I want to drink water” (according to Ashraf). This could be said to be downright rude, yet Ashraf complied.
From this, the commission drew the inference that Ashraf was not thoughtful and generous in performing this service but had done so out of remorse for some of the improper things that he and those involved had done to Teoh during the hours of 3.30am to 7am.
The RCI claimed that TBH “..was rude in the demanding nature of the request: “Hoi! I want to drink water” (according to Ashraf).”
Does this sound like a man who is weak in chracter and in the final stages of his resistance to the aggressive questioning by the MACC? And is contemplating suicide?
So if I push someone to commit suicide do I commit murder? Hey, maybe at least “manslaughter”? But since this was a case of OMS (On Majesty’s Service), we can sweep it under the carpet with a quiet “mea culpa”.
I am reminded of an anecdote regarding a retired British army officer. Everytime he heard a loud bang or thud, he would cry out, “Pick up the body!” So who is next? Are you sure it won’t be you or someone near and dear to you? THUD!
What’s the basis RCI say that there was a “fourth interrogation” by Hishammudin Hashim, Mohd Anuar Ismail, and Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus during the wee hours of July 16, 2009, from 3.30am to 7am, which “must have been the final straw that broke the camel’s back” – when consistently “MACC officers had all along contended at both the inquest and RCI that they ended their interrogation of Teoh at 3.30am and the political aide was released”? Is this 4th interrogation made up just to buttress the inference that pressure was exerted throughout right up to the incontrovertible approximate time of TBH’s death (ie 7.15am and 11.15am on July 16, 2009) to make the speculation of “forced suicide” due to immediate pressure plausible, without otherwise having to explain, without this story o 4th interrogation, the gap of 5 hours (since the official end of interrogation at 3.30-45am earlier) during which there was no pressure?
If as RCI said there were indeed a “fourth interrogation” by the trio (Hashim, Anuar Ismail and Ashraf) during the wee hours of July 16, 2009, from 3.30am to 7am which exerted enough pressure for TBH to prefer death by suicide, how is it consistent with this theory of pressure for one of the interrogators like Ashraf to fetching TBH a glass of water at about 4.40am (in the midst of that pressured 4th interrogation out of remorse, in the RCI’s view)? If there were indeed such 4th interrogation how it consistent with witness Tan seeing TBH wandering around MACC pantry at 6 am?
If “MACC officers had all along contended at both the inquest and RCI that they ended their interrogation of Teoh at 3.30am” what was this “4th interrogation” by the trio – an unofficial private initiative? If it were a private initiative, how does RCI conclude it was just interrogation that pressured TBH to suicide and not homicide??? If it were suicide how did the tear in TBH’s trouser occur – he tore it before he jumped? (Loh in the other thread has also explained how he could not have jumped having regard to location of his body suggesting application of unilateral force that I concur).
Malaysiakini report – ///”Transparency International-Malaysia (TI-M) president Paul Low told Bernama that the public has to trust the findings of the RCI. “We have to trust the findings of the RCI because it is properly constituted with people of integrity,” he told reporters in Putrajaya today.///
With respect TI-M) president Paul Low, though well meaning and perhaps honest in his belief, does not really know what he is talking about!
Mentally and physically exhausted, drained, but still capable of stepping up onto the windowsill, from the floor, without first stepping on a chair or a stool…or he simply climbed over or strode over the windowsill? Wow! Admirable lower body strength!
OR.. with that last drop of energy left in his poor soul, he simply crawled over the windowsill? But his vest or shirt didn’t get abraded…hmm, must be of very fine material. Oh! He didn’t land on his head or upper body meh if he were to crawl over..?
Ahh..must have done a 90 degree flip and/or a half somersault in the air in below 3 seconds and also at the same time stayed clear the wall of the building… Wow! 10, 10, 10, 10.. full marks!
Well, as the RCI were able make their conclusions, I am also able make my own conclusions based on my observation…
My conclusions are: (1)TBH had extraordinary physical strength, especially around the lower part of his body–specifically–waist, legs, thigh…, and (2)TBH had learned acrobatics before.
//#2– if I push someone to commit suicide do I commit murder?//
From the internet—
Is there a difference, legally or ethically, between murdering someone and forcing them to commit suicide?
There’s a crime called “felony murder” which is basically: if somebody dies as a result of you committing a felony, then that death is regarded as murder, even if you didn’t have the specific intent to kill them. So, if you forced somebody (which might include something like assault, if not battery) to kill themselves it may involve the felony of assault, pushing it into the realm of felony murder – removing the need to prove that their death was your intent; the prosecution would only need to prove that your intent was to assault them & that they died as a result.
I think the more typical formulation of felony murder is that for certain enumerated felonies (often, arson, rape, burglary, arson, and kidnapping), any death directly connected to the felony (whether a burglary victim asphyxiates in the closet, or a fire fighter dies putting out the arson), then those manslaughters are upped to murder (i.e., even though there was no malice aforethought).
The definition of a homicide means committing any act which leads to the death of another. Said act could be whatever motivates the person to take their own life. An example is the famous law school case of Madge Oberholtzer, who in the 1920’s was kidnapped and raped by the KKK, and who (although she could have escaped) instead chose to commit suicide out of sheer despondency. Her death was accounted a murder.
The RCI is another one of Najib’s lame excuses instrument, just like the police did not fire gas into Tung Shin, like they did not beat-up peaceful Bersih supporters, like Abdul Razak Endut had a knife, like they did not run into Mat Sabu, shoot directly at Anwar, like Najib did not promise a Stadium or meet with them etc. etc.
TBH was just a witness. They broke him SO HE FORGOT HE WAS JUST A WITNESS? Its easier to make the leap the interegators killed him..
RCI is bullshit like Najib’s entire administration, his entire career..
Hello, these MACC idiots may be terribly confused! TBH was A WITNESS and NOT A CRIMINAL! Why was he interrogated four times??????
You don’t INTERROGATE witnesses, you only INTERVIEW THEM without VIOLENT FORCE!!!! Better send these idiots in MACC back to kindergarten to teach them how to differentiate between witnesses and CRIMINALS!