The Teoh Beng Hock RCI: A Sham That Deceived Malaysia

Inventing a suicide out of thin air. A sham, and a shame.

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.

Some conclusions from the TBH RCI

The TBH RCI made the following findings:

1. It rejected the suicide note because it was from the chain of evidence an “afterthought” and further, not authenticated to have been written by Teoh.

2. It rejected the evidence of Arman and Ashraf, Teoh’s interrogators at the 2nd “interview” (15 July: 10 pm to 12/1 am).

They said they only asked Teoh basic questions, and did not threaten or abuse him. The Commission found that “threats of physical harm were most probably used by Arman and Ashraf when interrogating” Teoh.

3. It rejected the evidence of Nadzri, the Recording Officer who recorded Teoh’s written statement (16 July: 1.30 to 3.30 am). The Commission found that the session “turned out to be another forum of interrogation”.

4. It rejected the evidence of Anuar, the Investigating Officer of the 52/2009 operation regarding the use by Ean Yong of his allocations. Anuar said he was sleeping at a sofa in front of his room from about 1.30 to 3.35 am, and then at the surau to 5 am, and then at the bilik tamu next to the main lobby from 5 to 8.30 am. The Commission found that Anuar’s alibi “had been proved to be false”, and continued to say:

Further, Anuar lied about the role he had played in order to cover up for HH [Hishamuddin Hashim]. And on top of these factors he was a trusted senior officer of HH who was prepared to sacrifice himself for HH, the other such officer Hairul Ilham having gone home by that time.

5. It rejected the evidence of Hishamuddin, the leader of the 52/2009 operation and the highest-ranking officer in the premises that night.

The Commission found Hishamuddin to be “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising in his stand”. Despite his denials, Hishamuddin conducted cross-checking of witness statements obtained and actively interrogated Teoh in a 4th interrogation session from 3.30 am onwards. He only left the building at about 6.15 am on 16 July and returned at about 7.55 am. Hishamuddin is to “be held responsible for the actions taken by him and his officers which propelled TBH to commit suicide”.

6. It rejected the evidence of Raymond, a MACC officer who said he saw Teoh at about 6 am lying on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room.

The Commission found that Raymond “was not a reliable witness and was used by those responsible for TBH’s death to distance them from their wrongdoings by creating an impression that TBH was not only alive at 6.00am on the 16th but was also resting comfortably and peacefully on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room”.

7. It rejected the MACC’s contention that Teoh was free to leave the building at about 3.30 am but Teoh wanted to stay behind to rest.

The Commission found that the MACC, through Hishamuddin, Anuar and Ashraf continued to interrogate Teoh post-3.30 am.

8. It accepted the Bar’s theory that cross-checking (or the cross-interrogation of suspects/witnesses) occurred in the early hours of the morning of 16 July. Teoh was not released after his statement was taken by Nadzri at about 3.30 am, but was interrogated further. The respective statements of Teoh, Tan Boon Wah and Lee Wye Wing were being cross-checked and cross-referred during that time.

9. It accepted the evidence of two MACC officers, Azian and Azeem, who revealed that Hishamuddin attempted to cover up his actual role in the 52/2009 operation by directing his officers to say he was not involved. In fact, he was “the one who gave all the instructions and directions on how the witnesses were to be interviewed and interrogated and by whom”.

10. It accepted that the MACC erected a “blue wall of silence” in the spirit of brotherhood between the MACC officers that hindered the Commission’s work:

The characteristics of  this “blue wall of silence” came amply into play in the present case as evidenced by the untruths spouted by the MACC officers to cover up the nefarious activities that took place on the 15th and the 16th. This clinging to brotherhood ties by those officers has resulted in our facing extreme difficulties in gathering evidence to arrive at the truth.

Did the Commission make these mistakes by design, or through sheer inadvertence?

The TBH RCI, to its credit, adopted a purposeful and unflinching attitude when it came to the extraction of information at its hearings. During the course of proceedings, the media played its part in highlighting important issues and inconsistencies in the MACC’s version of events. Why then did the TBH RCI commit unforgivable errors of fact and further, decided not to consider or appreciate the “killer points”? Consider at least 10 of these for yourself:

1. Time of death

The Commission held that Teoh’s death occurred from 7.15 to 11.15 am (16 July) relying on the evidence of Dr Prashant and Dr Khairul. Estimating the time of death is not an exact science but Dr Khairul actually said the time could be narrowed down to as early as 6.30 to 7.00 am. In fact, the MACC’s expert, Dr Vanezis said that it could have been as early as 11 pm to 12 am (15 July).

Why did the Commission then say the earliest time of death was to have been 7.15 am? Was it to “match” its theory that Teoh was driven to suicide after the 4th interrogation session after Hishamuddin and Ashraf had left the MACC building?

2. Raymond’s evidence as to the sighting of Teoh at 6 am

The Commission rejected Raymond’s evidence that he saw Teoh at 6 am:

If this was true, then TBH must have committed suicide after 6.00 am on the 16th. This would fit into the estimated time of death of TBH which was between 7.15am and 11.15am on the 16th as determined by the forensic pathologists. However, despite this, we entertained grave reservations over Raymond’s evidence.

With the rejection of Raymond’s evidence, it must follow that there is little to suggest consistency with the time of death between 7.15 and 11.15 am, as the Commission itself points out in the paragraph above. Without any further record of Teoh’s movements after 6 am, how could the Commission then reject Raymond’s evidence yet say Teoh died after 6 am?

3. The death window, and avoidance of it from 3.30 am onwards

The Commission held that there was a 4th interrogation session of Teoh after about 3.30 am. The interrogation was conducted by Hishamuddin, Anuar and Ashraf. What the Commission failed to do was to buttress this finding by also holding that every MACC officer, for the strangest of reasons, “avoided” the window from which Teoh fell from 3.30 am onwards. For example, one officer whose room was near the window said he cramped into and slept with another officer in the latter’s room that was far away from the window.

The Commission failed to hold that pursuant to the 4th interrogation, Teoh was brought to the window for whatever that might have taken place there that led to him falling, by design or accident, from the window. Otherwise, why would everyone distance themselves from the window in the wee hours of 16 July?

4. Cause of death: the 4th interrogation session

On the evidence of the MACC, Hishamuddin left the building at about 6.15 am (and returned at about 7.55 am), Anuar was sleeping throughout until 8.30 am and Ashraf left at about 5 am. If so, then surely Teoh would have been free to go by 5 am when Ashraf left or 6.15 am when Hishamuddin left. Would any person who was finally relieved and free to leave the building exit vide the window in a sudden act of suicide or walk out to his car and drive home? The Commission does not deal with this but assumes that after the 4th interrogation, Teoh suddenly gives up, and jumps.

Surely if the Commission held the view, as it had done in this case, that the 4th interrogation occurred, something must have happened to Teoh directly caused by his interrogators for him to have fallen either by design or accident, i.e. it was murder or homicide, and not suicide whether driven or voluntary. The time of death of about 6.30 – 7 am (allowing for a small margin of error) corroborates this argument because the Bar had pointed Hishamuddin as the main culprit, and he left the building at 6.15 am without stamping his punch card.

5. Role of Zulkefly Aziz

On 15 July, a MACC Klang officer by the name of Zulkefly Aziz was one of those specially called in by Hishamuddin to assist in the 52/2009 operation. Zulkefly is Hishamuddin’s junior in the MACC.

At about 9.45 to 10 pm, Zulkefly along with Bulkini and Hadri brought Tan Boon Wah back to the MACC Selangor office. Zulkefly then returned to his MACC Klang office at about 10.15 pm to collect his car, and drove to the MACC Selangor office. He reached at 11 pm and went to sleep at the surau. (One wonders why Zulkefly was back in the office only to go to sleep.)

At about 3.15 am on 16 July, Zulkefly woke up only to go to another surau on the 13th floor to change his trousers, and stayed there. In his earlier statement to the police (taken shortly after Teoh’s body was found), Zulkefly said he had gone home at about 3.15 am. Zulkefly had to change his story before the Commission because the Bar revealed CCTV footage showing Zulkefly only leaving the MACC Selangor office at 7 am.

So what was Zulkefly actually doing from about 3.15 to 7 am on the 16th? Why did he lie to the police that he went home by 3.15 am? And notice that key suspects Ashraf left the building at 5 am, followed by Hishamuddin at 6.15 am, and finally, Zulkefly at 7 am.

6. Time the MACC knew of Teoh’s death: Zulkefly Aziz

The significance of Zulkefly’s role in the puzzle is much clearer after he left the MACC Selangor office at 7 am. On oath, he testified that he went back to his office, stamped his punch card and immediately returned home. He did not return to work the whole of the 16th. To-date, Zulkefly has not explained why he did not work that day.

The MACC official line is that Teoh’s body was only found at about 1.35 pm on 16 July. But the evidence presented at the RCI TBH showed that MACC officers namely, Azhar, Amin, Fauzi Shadollah had already been speaking about Teoh’s death before or about 1.00 pm! How could MACC Klang officers at the MACC Klang office be talking about a death in another office miles away even before Teoh’s body was found?

The answer lies here. Amin in particular said that at about 12.45 pm, he overhead a group of officers at the MACC Klang office talking about Teoh’s death. He said that the information about Teoh’s death came from a MACC Klang officer who was at the MACC Selangor office on the morning of 16 July and returned to the MACC Klang office that morning. Zulkefly is as described. By 7 am, he already knew that Teoh fell from the window and died.

Why did the MACC hide the fact they knew of Teoh’s death by 7 am? The Commission failed to appreciate and deal with this crucial area that nails the MACC coffin of its suicide story.

7. The MACC cover up started by 7 to 8.30 am: Anuar and Hairul

Lee Wye Wing testified that between 7 and 8.30 am, he went to Sachi’s room at the MACC Selangor office to ask for his handphone and if he could return home. Sachi was asleep. Wye Wing then proceeded to Hairul’s room to ask the same of him. He saw both Anuar and Hairul in discussion over a computer. But Anuar at all times at the hearings said he was sleeping at the particular time.

If one accepts that Zulkefly already knew of Teoh’s death as early as 7 am and Anuar was part of the 4th interrogation, coupled by Anuar having to lie that he was sleeping at that time, the only available inference to be drawn is that Anuar and Hairul were discussing about Teoh’s death between 7 and 8.30 am.

8. The MACC cover up blown

The Commission disappointingly failed to act on the clear instances of cover up by the MACC of Teoh’s death alluded to by MACC officers’ own testimonies.

Among others, evidence elicited at the TBH RCI hearings showed how the MACC and AG top brass had meetings to “streamline” the statements of MACC officers and “coach” them, to build a wall of silence (i.e. not to freely offer information and not to reveal too much) and to distance Hishamuddin from the 52/2009 operation. The extent of the cover up initiated by the MACC even had its own officers, namely Azian and Azeem, expressing their unhappiness and uneasiness at the state of affairs.

Why did the MACC plan this elaborate cover up?

9. Misadventure not explored

The Bar’s alternative theory of misadventure by accident finds support in Dr Vanezis’ testimony who said:

  • That he could not rule out that Teoh was held by a neck hold with the forearm.
  • That such a neck hold may not show bruising.
  • That one could be restrained without having obvious marks on the body.
  • That without marks found on the window, one could exclude the possibility that Teoh climbed out the window himself.

The Commission failed to consider that Teoh may have been asked to and/or helped onto the ledge of the window as a means to threaten him into confessing during the 4th session. Held by a neck hold, an accident occurred which led to his death. DNA evidence of an unknown person was found subsequently.

10. Positive factors to live “transformed” into negative factors to die

It does not take a rocket scientist to surmise that Teoh had everything going for him in terms of his personal life — a baby was on the way, he was getting married, he was planning to leave his job to move back to Malacca and spend more time with his family, he had no history of mental illness, he was of strong character, organised and had a good relationship with his employer and friends, etc. In relation to the 52/2009 operation, he as a seasoned political activist was prepared to be investigated and had by then also informed his colleagues to be ready with documents. The positive list in favour of Teoh goes on.

Mullen unequivocally said that suicide is a rare cause of death and Malaysia has a particularly low rate being one of few countries where the rate is lower than for homicide. His opinion was that Teoh was firmly in the lowest risk group where the chances of suicide are extremely small. How the TBH RCI construed to pick and choose Mullen’s report to fit its pre-judgment theory of “driven suicide” is most unprofessional. Even Badi’ah and Nor Hayati’s report showed how hard-pressed they were to conjure up reasons for Teoh to commit suicide without implicating the MACC.

I leave you to decide if the TBH RCI deliberately or by design chose to ignore the 10 points above.

The big question – murder or suicide?

The MACC argued that it was “voluntary suicide”. The Bar argued that it was murder or at least homicide not amounting to murder, by causing Teoh’s death by misadventure during the interrogation.

Looking at the conclusions of the TBH summarised in the previous section, the TBH RCI had completely rejected the version of events given by the MACC’s key personnel regarding what happened on the evening 15 July 2009 and the wee hours of 16 July 2009. The MACC’s defence of “voluntary suicide” – which had rested on the testimonies of its officers – was therefore completely demolished.

Neither the MACC nor the Bar at any time pursued the “driven suicide” theory.

Cue the findings of the TBH RCI then – driven suicide. The TBH RCI somehow concluded that Teoh had committed suicide, having been driven to do so by the intense interrogation tactics employed by the MACC’s officers. As I mentioned, the MACC did not run the “driven suicide” theory during the TBH RCI proceedings. The MACC must be as baffled as the Bar and any reasonable person as to how the TBH RCI managed to come up with that conclusion.

The applicable standard of proof in these RCI proceedings is on a balance of probabilities tilting towards beyond reasonable doubt. Looking at how the TBH RCI had rejected the MACC’s version of events, it should have had no other option other than to adopt the Bar’s contention of murder, or homicide not amounting to murder. The MACC’s evidence was demolished, and there was therefore no evidence – absolutely none – to support a finding of any kind of suicide. In criminal proceedings, once the evidence of the accused (in this case the MACC, as Teoh’s captors) is not accepted, there is no doubt that the conviction of the accused must follow. This common practice was, shockingly, not followed by the TBH RCI. It is completely illogical how the TBH RCI came to the “driven suicide” conclusion – it appears to have invented it out of thin air, or the collective imagination of each of the Commissioners.

The way it was worded certainly sounds like bad fiction. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Tormented by this predicament, TBH 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. The doubts, extreme emotional conflict and the immense feeling of guilt were all intolerable. Finally, precipitating the irreversible crisis that happened to him between 3.30am and 7.00am on the 16th, was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Finding no viable strategies to surmount the hurdle of accusations leveled, he found himself unable to escape from the suffocating quagmire in which he was trapped. Losing all hope, TBH would have felt trapped and have succumbed to despair. Since the window on the 14th floor was either open or could be easily opened and it was conspicuous and easily accessible near where he was on the sofa outside Nadzri’s room, TBH would have found that the only way for escape from the torment he was undergoing was by jumping out the window, even though it meant taking his own life.

Wow. Read that again. Consider all the facts that had been accepted. Consider that the MACC’s version of events had been rejected. Consider that no one had suggested “driven suicide”. And read that paragraph again. The Bar issued a press statement saying that the conclusion “requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence.” This is a stylish way of saying that the finding of “driven suicide” was make-believe. It appeared out of thin air.

The Bar’s press statement also reveals the misleading nature of Nazri Aziz’s summary of the findings of the psychiatric forensic expert. Professor Mullen did not say that Teoh had a “weak character” – in fact, he said that “in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock’s personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide” and that the events were not such “which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody”. This is not slightly different from what Nazri said – it is completely different. One of these parties is lying.

What happened?

The purpose of the TBH RCI was to reveal the truth. Looking at the chronology of events, and the findings of fact made along the way, and the sudden and inexplicable conclusion, it is obvious that it has failed to reveal the truth behind the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

I am in shock. The five Commissioners are respected experts in their fields, and are held in high regard. There seems to be no reason to doubt their integrity. The way the report was written points to only one logical conclusion – murder, or at the very least culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to an accident during the interrogation process. But suddenly, without any basis, without any evidence (and in fact with evidence pointing to the contrary), the TBH RCI turns all its key findings on its head with one fanciful, speculative, fantastical – and fictional – paragraph.

No reasonable person of the calibre of those five Commissioners could possibly have come up with that. It beggars belief.

In the spirit of the TBH RCI report, perhaps I should try my hand at a fanciful conclusion. Here we go.

Maybe there was a political intervention – or at least some heavy influence.

Maybe the Government would not have been able to cope with the backlash that would have resulted from a finding of murder. Perhaps, having been pre-informed that the TBH RCI was going to conclude that Teoh was murdered, someone somewhere forced the TBH RCI to invent this “middle ground” – this cop out solution which has cheated Malaysia of the truth. Do you find this theory unbelievable? Well, it is no more unbelievable than the ridiculous finding of “driven suicide” that was contained in that report.

Malaysia is going through some interesting times. Our Judiciary is failing us. Our Government is failing us. Our politicians and leaders are failing us. Our police force are failing us. So many of our institutions are failing us. With their finding of “driven suicide”, the TBH RCI has most certainly failed us. It was supposed to reveal the truth, but instead has thrown up even more deception and doubt.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Marcus van Geyzel tweets at @vangeyzel. He believes that the only certain thing in life is that everything can be explained by the transperambulation of pseudo-cosmic antimatter.

Posted on 25 July 2011. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.

Read more articles posted by Marcus van Geyzel.

Read this first: LB Terms of Use

47 Responses to The Teoh Beng Hock RCI: A Sham That Deceived Malaysia

  1. Pepper Lim

    Nice!

  2. Mugunathan

    i agree with Kian Ye , all of u here are nuts & like SMALL KIDS

  3. Lawyer Bukan Burok

    As a person who has been involved with the law for 40 years, I am truly disappointed with the conclusions of the RCI. Hows can they reach such the conclusion of driven to suicide based on the evidence before them? From my reading, the evidence and RCI's own rejection of several evidence pointed clearly to a cover up by MACC. In any case, RCI is not an expert in the area of suicide and should not have reached such a conclusion. That should be a matter for expert evidence. Something is fishy here! Have the 3 former superior court judges sitting in the RCI lost some of their legal memories? The statement by Nazri was even more shocking. It looks like his training in law hasn't done him any good either.

  4. pilocarpine

    a cover-up is a scandal.
    a cover-up by the police is a shame.

    thank you for such a great job in interpreting everything… =)

  5. Soon

    We looked up to RCI for truth but it came to naught. The RCI report is very forthright in indicating who are at fault but the conclusion is not in sync with its report of facts. In no part in the report finding indicated TBH was suicidal, then how can the report concluded suicide. It seems the Inquest is of higher standard than RCI in reaching its conclusion.

  6. kha di jah

    MVG thank you , for being a concern citizen of this country, that we all love. Your write up has made many of us aware, that many ( wrong) things that happen now have great impact on every citizen , yet we are so powerless to do anything about ( except vote 13th GE). I hope all the guilty persons will get their due punishment , especially if they are Malays. ( I AM NOT RACIST- my mum is Chinese and my dad is Malay) . To the family of TBH, be strong.

  7. Phua Kai Lit

    Yet another reason to get rid of the BN ruling regime at the next General Election.

  8. YKL

    There is one issue in the report that caught my mind. In Para 196 of the report, the RCI commented that TBH has demanded for water to drink from Asharaf in a rather impolite manner despite he knew where the pantry situated.
    Have they not suspect what is the physical condition of TBH at that time? He could have been physically abused till so weak that he can not walk to the pantry himself and therefore has to ask some one to bring the water.

  9. Mandy Ooi

    Just want to say thank u to BC and especially to Edmund Bon, he is truly God's sent angel to TBH family. His spirit we admire wholeheartedly.

    TBH's death affects all Malaysians because he died at the hands of our corrupt government which allows laws to be bent & broken to serve their political means. Each & everyone of us has to shoulder the social responsibility for this situation that we are in together.

    With TBH's death, our confidence in government institutions is completely & permanently shaken.

    How can we ever have any respect in our law enforcement agencies again? How can we ever trust them to serve & protect & not endanger our loved ones? How can we ever be sure that they will prevent this terrible tragedy from repeating itself?

    The negligence of our government agencies, the lack of supervision & controls over them coupled with the ineffective bureaucracy & the seemingly total disregard for human life has created an environment where death is a genuine threat.

    By dying, TBH has single-handedly forced us to confront our government& institutions. We should stand up as a 1 nation now driven by our sense of democracy, truth, justice & anti-corruption to fight the government in its present form.

    If TBH can compel us to bring down the corrupt regime so that we can rebuild our government system and restore people's confidence, his death would not have been in vain.

    In my opinion, Beng Hock's death encapsulates what has gone all wrong in our country. Ordinary people like me just wanna serve our country, to make a difference, to fight for a better future for the younger generations. Although BH's tragic death sparked fears amongst us working in the Pakatan Rakyat govt, I can tell u one thing: "WE WILL FIGHT ON".

    Lastly, i'm glad to know u guys and we shall catch up soon.

    Mandy

  10. Hafiz Ismail

    Banyak manusia penipu dalam SPRM. Melayu-Muslim semuanya. Malu aku :'(

  11. Snowpiano Pang

    Chinese translation of this excellent post is here: http://snowpiano.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_2…

  12. Choy Poh Chu

    Can i know how to buy the Teo Beng Hock T-Shirt?

  13. Fahri Azzat

    MVG, Brilliant analysis of the report. More of such analysis please!

  14. John Baptist

    This is an excellent article, Marcus. I haven’t had the time to read the RCI’s report but I am curious as to whether the RCI explained in detail, its decision to ignore Dr. Pornthip’s version of how TBH died.

  15. Charlie Oscar

    Marcus,
    Do you know TBH personally???
    Were you there at the moment in time???
    How are you sure to Ass-u-me on your writing above based on the RCI Report???
    ALL The Oppositions Are AGAINST the RCI Conclusion!!!
    These Are Expected, Especially from Those Who Have Made Up Their Own CONCLUSIONS!!!
    You mean to say that you have Never heard of People being Driven to Do Desperate Things When They Are Cornered!!!
    Whatever it is, MACC Is Still Responsible for TBH when under their custody!!!
    May TBH RIP!!!

    • change

      Whoever you are, Malaysia government is STILL RESPONSIBLE for Mr Teoh's death!!!
      Malaysia will go nowhere as long as there is no justice!

    • drgum

      Charlie, Dearest Charlie, TBH is just only a witness, a simple witness. Sarbini is also a witness. All said and what had happened they are all dead. Should not we have a witness protection program.

    • Mugunathan

      well said charlie oscar

  16. can we all just exclude the politic talks on the death of TBH? i feel like those who spoke out of the finding to relate with the politics or government has no brain to think of TBH's family feelings..but it's good to read from this article about some doubt..the RCI should have answers for all the doubt from this articles

  17. hwaihwe

    Kian Ye, McD,

    I felt this was a well articulated article supported by logical deductions. Thus far, I am agreeing with the author.

    You two obviously feel otherwise. I'd really like to hear your POV supported by facts and logic. No harm enlightening a fellow Malaysian like me with your knowledge ? :)

  18. Nostradamus

    Teoh Beng Hock has come to me more than once to ask that his story be told. MACC killed him. Those responsible have been named. The person most responsible for the savage way in which his “interrogation” was conducted is Hishamuddin Hashim, Khir Toyo’s crony. The other MACC officers involved are psychopaths and sadists. Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus enjoys wielding power over others and is a pathological bully. Many MACC officers feel remorse but are too afraid to come out and speak the truth. Those who know what happened are afraid of retaliation and have resorted to writing an unsigned letter delivered to Gobind Singh Deo, the Teoh family’s attorney. Teoh did his best to resist them and maintained a stony silence, which annoyed his interrogators who then became more and more violent, till Teoh was unable to control himself and he lashed out at them. This drove them into a frenzy and they went overboard. MACC murdered TBH just as it murdered Ahmad Sarbaini. MACC is UMNO’s Gestapo and cannot be allowed to continue to function. The entire department must be dismantled, along with the wicked UMNO/BN regime.

  19. Simple answer : BN is doing everything to remain in power. They don't care if it's illegal.

    Pdrm, SPRM, courts, SPR, media, hackers, cybertroppers, racists NGOs, buying over opposition members, spies, threats.
    Isnt it plain to see with Najib having a bigger murder case hanging over his head.

  20. What a great article exposing what is wrong with the RCI report.

    Indeed, the way the panel concluded that TBH were driven to suicide sounds more like fiction than sound psychiatric evaluation on the state of mind of TBH.

    The conclusion was written not based on any established facts and evidence found during the inquiries. One has to wonder, how they come up with such a far fetched conclusion. Perhaps they have access to some insider information that is not published to the public? Else, the conclusion is certainly one that is picked out of thin air and not substantiated by any facts found during the inquiry itself.

    Any sane mind would be able to see that there is something seriously wrong with the RCI report.

  21. benjy

    close the chapter & move on.

  22. McD

    Even TBH fiancee could accept the outcome by saying the dream/nightmare had finally ended but it's sad to see there are still some MANUSIA SESAT who still couldn't accept it.

    Halo…bangun wei!

    • siew eng

      She thanked MACC for “allowing her to dream for several months”.

      “(Now that) I have been slapped on my face, it is time to wake up,” she wrote.

      Not quite how you put it.

    • Wendy

      agree with Siew Eng, can't u sense the sarcasm in the lines when his fiancee said that? She dreamed for a justice for her fiancee not a report saying that he committed suicide. And now its time to back to the reality of how Malaysia Govt treated the people as if we are kids who will believe everything they say, telling endless lies as if we are fools.

      • change

        forgive those cannot read…. they don't have the brain to don't understand the Malaysian dream for justice and clean government.

    • YKL

      How did you come to conclusion that TBH fiancee accepted the RCI verdict? What she said is the RCI verdit was like a slap on the face.

  23. Rejected

    Justice for TBH , please elaborate?
    I would really like to read your comments.
    (I might sound provoking, but i really am not, just asking..)

    • Kian Ye

      Asking a FOOL to elaborate???

      You might as well ask a DOG to continue banging a BITCH.

      • farcry

        See, see? I told u guys. He has nothing to back himself. What he can do is just barking.

  24. Justice for TBH

    Kian Ye,
    You must hv been living out of Malaysia or hv just got back from somewhere really far, maybe the Artic. Before making bold comments, search and read first you Moron! Hv you read the TBH RCI in full and understand what it says? Did you follow the TBH proceedings right fm the beginning? Did you read in full on all the points that Marcus had debated? Only then, you will be able to determine what is right & wrong. You sound like an uneducated fool, and most probably are.

    • Kian Ye

      A fool like you is indeed a fool.

      OK, OK….kindly allow me to teach you some BASIC KNOWLEDGE here, ok???

      It's NOT important what this article says, it's NOT important what happened throughout the TBH proceedings & it's NOT important what the RCI stated in their final report.

      Tip:
      These UNHAPPY QUARTERS wanted CHEWING GUM & cried like a BABY when chewing gum WASN'T given to them. When MOMMY finally gave CHEWING GUM to these UNHAPPY BABIES, they said the chewing gum is not chewing gum. Next, these UNHAPPY BABIES question the ingredient of the CHEWING GUM asking whether is it made of RUBBER or otherwise.

      "Typical example of MALAYSIA BOLEH"

      Clap, Clap, Clap

      • change

        can some1 shut this monkey up?

        • drgum

          Kian Ye got a point, but the problem is he does not accept the truth. RCI want to shut Malaysian, So basically we must all shut up and accept it. You want RCI, the BN government give you RCI, but what is the outcome you just have to drink it to your guts. Come election blast all this goon out of the country and put them on their 3 billion Yacht. Let them eat and scarp the gold and platinum as they wish.

      • farcry

        It's NOT important what this article says, it's NOT important what happened throughout the TBH proceedings & it's NOT important what the RCI stated in their final report.

        See, when someone reached to a point where no valid point can be used to back his argument, he would distract you from further discussing about it. "the article is not important, RCI report is no important". What your trying to prove?

  25. Kian Ye

    This is very STRANGE.

    First, some quarters are NOT pleased with the Court's decision & they requested for a set-up of RCI. Now that the RCI had been set-up & had its' ANSWER, these quarters are still NOT happy & CAN'T accept the outcome.

    WTF???

    You might as well have these UNHAPPY QUARTERS to plead their own outcome, right???

    Macam 'small kid' only. A kid cried & cried wanting a LOLLIPOP which the kid couldn't get hold off. Next when the mother finally gave the kid a LOLLIPOP, the kid cried for CHOCOLATES.

    No wonder they said MALAYSIANS are NUTS!!!

  26. Kian Ye

    This is very STRANGE.

    First, some quarters are NOT pleased with the Court's decision & they requested for a set-up of RCI. Now that the RCI had been set-up & had its' ANSWER, these quarters are still NOT happy & CAN'T accept the outcome.

    WTF???

    You might as well have these UNHAPPY QUARTERS to plead their own outcome, right???

    Macam 'small kid' only. A kid cried & cried wanting a LOLLIPOP which the kid couldn't get hold off. Next when the mother finally gave the kid a LOLLIPOP, the kid cried for CHOCOLATES.

    No wonder they said MALAYSIANS are NUTS!!!

    • Bentoh

      Oh dear,

      Using CAPS does not make your argument sounds more intelligent :) In fact, it makes you more childish because quite obviously you did not read a single word of the article, at least not when you type these chain of words with CAPS everywhere :)

    • LMa

      Lingam and Ex-Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin were also not happy of the findings of the their RCI. They had even gone to court to have the RCI's findings against them be expunged or reversed. Any wise comments from you.

      All findings must be based on the testimonies of witnesses and not plucked out of thin air. If the expert witness Mullen says there is low risk of TBH of committing suicide, who are the RCI members to conclude otherwise. People can't accept the RCI's finding on one aspect only; that TBH committed otherwise since there is no evidences from the 72 witnesses that he had done so.

    • drgum

      Kian Ye you are very funny lah, It did happen to me, when I was a kid, I cried and cried for lollipop, my step mother bought and gave to me. But then I saw this nice chocolate, and I said I want it, my step mum getting angrier and not in the mood to entertain. And then I cried and cried and cried, non stop. Finally she gave in what I want. You know what she bought a bitter chocolate not to my taste and bought many of it and shove it into my mouth. From that incidence, I hate chocolate and never ask anymore from her. I just accept what she gave to me.

      So I presume you that we all should keep quite and just bite the bullets. So let see what is the out come of Khir Toyo case where as such MACC present a non credible key witness. Funny this witness do not have to undergo intensive interrogation. So no suicidal motivation.

    • RYN

      When you pay your honestly earned money to buy a bungalow, what when the developer gives you a bungalow with cracks on walls and sink holes in the floors – wont you scream your lungs out and sue the the pants off the developer?

      Same lah here – all honest Rakyat expect that RCI for THB should uphold highest level of Honesty, Justice and Transparency.

      Otherwise we will just scream our lungs out and our sueing will be in the form of GE13. Simple saja

    • james

      Hey, when are you going to apply your brain for thinking? Stop sitting on it!