TBH: Scenarios Point to Suicide

By Eagle Eye

The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to enquire into the death of Teoh Beng Hock has been led with a trial of evidences that points to suicide. Like it or not, the formal evidences and statements tendered in court during the proceedings are authenticated and thoroughly vetted by legal and medical experts.

Federal Court judge James Foong presides over the inquiry along with former federal judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, ex-Court of Appeal judge T. Selventhiranathan, Penang Hospital’s senior consultant forensic pathologist Dr Bhupinder Singh and Cyberjaya University College of Medical Science’s dean and consultant forensic psychiatrist Prof Dr Mohamed Hatta Shaharom.

During the inquiry, it was suggested that the deceased may have suffered hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and low cholesterol level which prompted him to jump out of the window. Unfortunately, the chemist department could not back this possible reason for suicide as they did not examine these aspects.

Medical findings show that those with low glucose level or low cholesterol levels are “twice as likely to have ever made a medically serious suicide attempt”. Studies also say that “low cholesterol concentration should be further investigated as a potential biological marker of suicide risk.” Dato Shafee said during the RCI that health factors may cause “abnormality of mind”.

Also, the inquiry today was told by Investigating Police Officer ASP Ahmad Nazri that none of one of the other three witnesses who were questioned at the same time – Harun, Tan Boon Hwa and Lee - had seen Teoh being mistreated. Neither did they claim they were assaulted, said ASP Nazri.

Another theory that aroused during the inquiry is that if someone had flung the body out of the building, it would have landed right beside the wall. However, the body was found quite a distance away from the side wall of the building. This is supported by forensic pathologist Dr Khairul Azman when he testified at the inquest earlier: “in my opinion, he just climb up and jumped”. Dr Khairul explained that this is because the deceased was found a measurable distance away from the side wall of the 5^th floor corridor.

During the inquiry, ASP Ahmad Nazri also stated that marks were found at the soles of the deceased’s shoes. During the inquest earlier, pathologist Dr Prashant told the coroner that “.. most likely manner of death in the present case in my opinion would be suicidal or self inflicted death.. The injuries sustained were consistent with a fall from height, ..  the scratch marks found to the undersurface of Teoh’s shoes were consistent with a person squatting or sitting on a window frame and that there were no signs of asphyxiation or defence wounds… rule out accidental death as Teoh’s toxicology report was negative which indicated he was not under the influence of alcohol or drug…”

All these evidences clearly lead to suicide and nothing else.

Withdrawals will not affect RCI probe

2011/02/20

FIRST, complying with the likely recommendation of their politician-lawyers, the family of Teoh Beng Hock jettisoned themselves from the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to probe the death of their kin, on the contention that the Attorney-General's Chamber's participation would tar proceedings.

Second, lawyers for the Teohs -- Karpal Singh (DAP member of parliament for Bukit Gelugor) and son, Gobind Singh Deo (DAP MP for Puchong) -- ate their own dog food by pulling out, so that the joint protest is reinforced by a high but shaky moral ground against the alleged disrepute created by the presence of the A-G's three conducting officers.

(The assertion was that the A-G was a "biased" participant on the account that the chambers was appealing in the High Court against the coroner's open verdict on Teoh's death. RCI chairman, Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen, dismissed the contention as groundless)

Third, as if on cue, the Selangor government pulled back its watching brief held by lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

At the rate all this is being played out, you'd think this was a Rockettes' precision dance routine, the three objectors singing and dancing to an eye-high leg kick that rises in unison -- the opposition's chorus line to force their political playbook into the inquiry.

According to some pro-opposition news reports, the cynical choreography of three withdrawals in quick succession tries to force the impression that the RCI is reeling out of control, its credibility sullied by the departures.

Let's get something straight -- the participation of the Teohs, the politician-lawyers and the Selangor government in this proceeding was embraced in the spirit of democratic inclusion, and also stemmed from the opposition's year-long needling that the Federal Government set up the RCI.

People get the wrong impression that the three groups are limbs to the RCI's anatomy -- they are not. They are simply part of the participatory process of watching briefs and watchdogs, so their abrupt withdrawals mean that the Teohs renounced a priceless opportunity to observe and pose pertinent questions at the inquiry.

From the public standpoint, Karpal and Gobind acted not in their client's interest by not advising against withdrawal, but instead played a well-supported cameo to seize the political initiative.

From the onset, the withdrawals appear to be part of a long-term plan to equate a "hobbled" inquiry with a scenario that pans out as gains for the opposition's political interest to hang on to relevancy in the next general election, anything to stymie the prime minister's unstoppable momentum.

If this had been a poker game, the government had not only called the DAP's bluff but also raised the ante to bet on everything that was required in the inquiry of a questionable death -- and more.

If Teoh was murdered, the RCI is determined to expose his murderer. The suspects list will be extended beyond officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission -- prematurely and unfairly implied by the opposition as the main suspects -- to cover politicians closely associated with Teoh.

By now the lawyers will realise that RCI chairman Foong is no pushover. Rather than tangle with Foong in prospective arguments where they may not secure the upper hand, a strategic retreat was the shrewd early move.

However, as a parting shot, the dissenters just had to cast aspersions on Foong's credibility by characterising him as a presiding officer with a conflict of interest, just because he is a sitting Federal Court judge.

The histrionics failed. The RCI team adjudged the application for Foong to recuse himself as baseless.

Datuk Seri Mohd Shafee Abdullah, legal counsel for MACC, put some perspective to back Foong's continued chairmanship by pointing out that in previous British Royal Commissions of Inquiry, Law Lords sat as panellists and chairmen. Foong, therefore, is as credible as they come.

Then there was the complaint that Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand was not summoned to testify. The RCI took heed and included Dr Pornthip, despite her exaggerated declarations in ascertaining Teoh's death, first by flippantly adducing that Teoh's death was "80 per cent homicide" just by looking at his autopsy pictures.

Dr Pornthip's second assertion was even more flippant. For someone with a reputation of not being a shrinking violet, she claimed that she was pressured by "someone" in Putrajaya not to testify in Teoh's inquest last year despite having the gumption to take on very powerful people in Thailand besides attracting a RM100,000 bounty on her head.

Siding with the Teohs, the Bar Council posed this question: what would happen if the High Court, which has a May 23 date to have the case mentioned, and the RCI delivered contradicting findings?

Bar Council representative Christopher Leong suggested that the A-G's Chambers withdraw the revision or apply to postpone the hearing until the inquiry is completed.

Leong may have a point but there is no word yet on a fresh direction that might be assumed by the A-G's Chambers.

But in the meantime, should the inquiry be deferred on the account of the RCI-High Court "colliding" scenario? Foong, who would be very familiar with the workings of a court case, has no misgivings to continue, confident that the RCI can act prudently and independently.

An earlier contention that the RCI be deferred because the inquiry's April 25 deadline clashed with Messrs Karpal & Gobind's many court appearances has been disregarded and dismissed as frivolous. Their pre-meditated withdrawal makes the "clashing" excuse even more irrelevant and inconsequential to begin with.

In the long run and based on the authority empowered to them by the king, it is the RCI's autonomy and self-determination that is to be savoured and appreciated to bring absolute closure to this grisly affair that may continue to haunt the Malaysian psyche.

Read more: Withdrawals will not affect RCI probe http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/26sull-3/Article/#ixzz1EYwH6sbS

Najib: Pakatan guna suruhanjaya kes Teoh isu PRU

By : MalaysiaKini

February 18, 2011

Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak berucap pada majlis Multaqa Guru Takmir Seluruh Malaysia di Dewan Tun Dr Ismail (PWTC) pada hari ini. — Foto Bernama

KUALA LUMPUR, 18 Feb — Datuk Seri Najib Razak menyifatkan tindakan memulaukan prosiding Suruhanjaya Siasatan yang menyiasat kematian Teoh Beng Hock, setiausaha politik Exco Selangor, sebagai modal kepada pembangkang untuk dijadikan isu pada pilihan raya akan datang.

Perdana Menteri berkata tindakan itu bertujuan melengah-lengahkan tugasan suruhanjaya itu yang sekali gus menampakkan kerajaan seperti tidak melakukan apa-apa tindakan bagi mencari punca kematian mendiang Teoh.

“Ia dipolitikkan. Mereka ini hendak cari jalan untuk melengah-lengahkan kes ini. Tujuannya ialah supaya kes ini boleh dijadikan satu isu dalam pilihan raya akan datang.

“Sebab itu nawaitu, niat oleh pembangkang yang menasihati keluarga Teoh Beng Hock, supaya mereka harap untuk melengah-lengahkan kes ini untuk menampakkan kerajaan tidak membuat sesuatu untuk mencari kebenaran atas punca kematian Teoh Beng Hock sehinggalah pada pilihan raya akan datang,” katanya dipetik Bernama.

Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas merasmikan Multaqa Guru Takmir Seluruh Malaysia di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra hari ini.

Semalam, kerajaan negeri Selangor turut menarik diri daripada menyertai prosiding suruhanjaya yang diadakan untuk menyiasat kematian Teoh, sehari selepas keluarga mendiang berbuat demikian.

Peguam yang mewakili kerajaan negeri Selangor, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar berkata, kerajaan negeri itu memutuskan untuk menarik diri ekoran pendirian tidak konsisten Peguam Negara yang menyediakan kakitangannya sebagai pegawai pengendali sedangkan pada masa yang sama membuat permohonan semakan terhadap keputusan terbuka inkues awal bulan lalu.

Kelmarin, keluarga Teoh yang gagal mendapat kebenaran suruhanjaya siasatan untuk menangguhkan prosiding bertindak menarik diri daripada terlibat dalam siasatan itu.

Peguam Karpal Singh dan Gobind Singh Deo yang mewakili keluarga setiausaha politik itu turut gagal dalam permohonan mereka supaya Tan Sri James Foong berundur sebagai pengerusi suruhanjaya.

Kenyataan menarik diri itu dibuat oleh Karpal sejurus selepas Foong menyatakan pendirian anggota untuk meneruskan prosiding tanpa menunggu keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi berhubung permohonan semakan kehakiman pihak keluarga Teoh mengenai keputusan suruhanjaya yang membenarkan tiga pegawai dari Pejabat Peguam Negara bertindak sebagai pegawai pengendali.

Foong berkata tiada sebarang alasan untuk pihak suruhanjaya meneliti semula keputusan mereka yang membenarkan Peguam Kanan Persekutuan Amerjeet Singh, timbalan-timbalan pendakwa raya Kwan Li Sa dan Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud sebagai pegawai pengendali pada Isnin lalu dan bersedia memulakan prosiding.

Teoh, 30, setiausaha politik anggota Exco Selangor, Ean Yong Hian Wah, ditemui mati pada 16 Julai 2009 di koridor tingkat lima Plaza Masalam selepas memberi kenyataan di pejabat SPRM Selangor yang terletak di tingkat 14 bangunan itu.

TAMPARAN HEBAT BUAT KELUARGA TBH

Keluarga Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) menerima tamparan hebat pada hari kedua prosiding Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja (SSDR) bilamana usaha peguam yang mewakili mereka untuk sengaja menunda prosiding ini gagal dan tidak diendahkan oleh ahli-ahli panel SSDR yang dipengerusikan oleh Y.A. Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen.

Sejak bermulanya prosiding Suruhanjaya ini pada 14 Februari 2011 yang lalu, pelbagai usaha dibuat oleh peguam-peguam yang mewakili keluarga TBH untuk mengucar-ngacirkan dan melengah-lengahkan perjalanan suruhanjaya ini termasuk perkara-perkara berikut:

·                    Meminta SSDR menetapkan jadual prosiding mengikut tempoh kelapangan mereka. Ini kerana kononnya mereka mempunyai jadual perbicaraan yang padat;

·                    Mempertikaikan pelantikan tiga orang pegawai Timbalan Pendakwa Raya bagi membantu SSDR. Kononnya ketiga-tiga pegawai ini merupakan pegawai daripada Jabatan Peguam Negara dan besar kemungkinan akan berlakunya bias;

·                    Mempertikaikan pelantikan Tan Sri James Foong sebagai Pengerusi SSDR kerana beliau merupakan seorang Hakim yang sedang berkhidmat;

·                    Menangguhkan prosiding kerana keputusan semakan inkues masih belum diketahui.

Kesemua isu-isu yang dibangkitkan oleh peguam-peguam TBH tidak dilayan oleh Pengerusi SSDR. Ini kerana semua permintaan dan pertikaian yang dibangkitkan oleh peguam-peguam tersebut seakan-akan kebudak-budakan dan ketandusan modal.

Bukankah telah dijelaskan di peringkat awal bahawa SSDR ini hanya diberikan tempoh masa selama 90 hari sahaja untuk memperlengkap proses siasatan dan perlu mengemukakan laporan lengkap kepada Yang Dipertuan Agong selewat-lewatnya pada 25 April 2011. Perkara ini jelas dan diterima oleh semua pihak.

Penetapan tempoh masa ini penting dan wajar kerana tanpa tempoh masa yang ditetapkan ia akan berpanjangan tanpa arah tuju yang khusus. Lihat apa yang berlaku pada inkues di mana hampir 18 bulan berjalan namun tiada keputusan. Selama tempoh tersebut, pihak-pihak yang berkepentingan politik telah mengambil kesempatan secukupnya untuk meraih sokongan dan simpati segelintir masyarakat dengan pelbagai polemik politik. Dalam hal ini, langkah Pengerusi SSDR menolak permintaan peguam atas alasan jadual yang ketat amatlah disokong. Sekiranya kes TBH ini dianggap serius dan penting dalam menentukan keadilan, kenapa tidak peguam-peguam terbabit memberikan fokus dan tumpuan khusus tanpa memikirkan soal lain. Pokoknya mereka sengaja melengah-lengahkan prosiding ini untuk tujuan lain.

Peguam bagi pihak keluarga juga mempertikaikan pelantikan tiga orang Timbalan Pendakwa Raya atas alasan mereka ini mungkin bias. Jika dirujuk kepada seksyen 16, Akta 119 (Akta Suruhanjaya Siasatan) 1950, jelas membenarkan Pendakwa Raya dilantik bagi membantu Ahli-ahli Suruhanjaya untuk menjalankan tugas-tugas siasatan dengan dibekalkan kuasa Polis. Kenapa pula tiba-tiba dibangkitkan isu bias berhubung pelantikan ini. Mereka hanya terlibat membantu ahli-ahli suruhanjaya dan bukannya menganggotai suruhanjaya dan terlibat dalam membuat keputusan. Cuba bertanyakan secara rasional, dari mana boleh kita dapatkan Pendakwa raya kalau bukan dari Jabatan Peguam Negara. Isu ini ditolak oleh Pengerusi SSDR. Ini membuatkan peguam keluarga TBH mungkin naik minyak dan terus mencabar pelantikan Pengerusi SSDR sendiri.

Isu yang mengatakan bahawa sebagai seorang Hakim yang sedang berkhidmat, Tan Sri James Foong perlu menarik diri sebagai Pengerusi SSDR. Dikatakan mereka peguam yang handal dan terkenal, tetapi isu-isu yang dipertikaikan jelas memperlihatkan kecetekan dan kedangkalan mereka sendiri. Mujurlah ada wakil dari Persatuan Peguam (Bar Council) bangkit mempertahankan pelantikan Tan Sri James Foong sebagai Pengerusi dengan menjelaskan bahawa tiada mana-mana undang-undang pun yang menghalang pelantikan pegawai yang sedang berkhidmat untuk memegang jawatan sebagai Pengerusi SSDR.

Salah satu lagi isu yang sengaja dibangkitkan bertujuan untuk melengah-lengahkan prosiding SSDR ialah meminta akan prosiding ditangguhkan sehingga keputusan semakan inkues kematian TBH diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam. Usul ini turut ditolak oleh Pengerusi. Keputusan ini harus dipuji dan memperlihatkan ketegasan, pengalaman dan pengetahuan mendalam Tan Sri James terhadap undang-undang. Peguam-peguam keluarga TBH harus faham bahawa terma rujukan (TOR) SSDR adalah dua aspek iaitu pertama mengkaji sama ada pegawai-pegawai SPRM mematuhi sistem dan prosedur yang ditetapkan dalam pengendalian siasatan; kedua menentukan punca kematian TBH. Kenapa pula harus ditunggu keputusan inkues terhadap TOR pertama. Bukankah lebih baik tumpuan diberikan kepada aspek sistem dan prosedur dahulu. Kemudian, setelah keputusan semakan diperoleh maka TOR kedua bolehlah ditentukan, bukan begitu.

Apa pun keputusan peguam dan ahli keluarga TBH untuk memboikot prosiding suruhanjaya ini dilihat lebih kepada sandiwara dan bermotifkan politik. Kenapa perlu menangis teresak-esak di hadapan media. Keluarga TBH harus memberikan sokongan sepenuhnya kepada perjalanan prosiding SSDR dan bukannya bermain politik. Ingat kembali kenyataan Tan Sri James berhubung kes ini iaitu “seluruh masyarakat ingin mengetahui kebenaran, bukan hanya keluarga kamu, semua orang di sini mahu tahu perkara sebenar yang berlaku..” (The whole nation needs to know the truth, not just your family, everyone here wants to get to the bottom of this..”).

Prosiding ini adalah untuk mencari kebenaran. Bagaimana kebenaran dapat dijelmakan sekiranya proses mencari kebenaran disulami dengan taktik-taktik kotor dan dimasukkan elemen politik bagi menagih simpati rakyat. Ini merupakan mainan politik kotor yang amat berbahaya dan rakyat perlu sedar akan perkara ini.

Muhammad Nabil Izzat AK

Seremban

RCI: Opposition Propaganda Denies Justice

By Keen Observer

The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock started of on Monday with a barrage of baseless but politically charged arguments from the counsels.

Opposition heavyweights Karpal and Gobind Singh dominated the whole inquiry with their unrelenting prejudiced and bias remarks that insult the intelligence of the highly experienced bench.

The father and son team waged a bitter war against their learned counterparts who are summoned out of the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) to render nation service by assisting the Inquiry Commissioners in their legal capacity as qualified legal experts.

However, Karpal and Gobind does not realise that they are DAP politicians too. It seems that they are trying to generate as much attention as possible by casting doubt on the credibility of the ‘conducting officers’ who are neutral citizens assisting the Commissioners of Inquiry without subscribing to any personal agenda or political beliefs.

Although the duo alleged that the conducting officers are partial to the government, both failed to note that they are politicians with a political agenda too.

Karpal is DAP chairman and Bukit Gelugor parliamentarian while his son Gobind, a rising star in the party, is the Puchong member of parliament.

Their presence in court surely cast much doubt on their role as sympathetic counsels representing the family of the deceased.

The unfairness of this has certainly rubbed on members of the public who are watching the inquiry via live telecast outside Civil Court 3.

Are they trying to confuse the public by discrediting the conducting officers’ reputation to sow the seeds of distrust to shore up support for their political party and beliefs?

Both also insisted that controversial forensic pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand to be among those to testify in the inquiry.

Dr Pornthip’s questionable academic credentials should be given due consideration as she may not be qualified to give a professional’s view on the serious matter at hand.

The Thai pathologist is also prone to making contradictory claims, as evident during the inquest.

During the inquiry, Karpal Singh’s untimely mention of other inappropriate issues such as Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial as well as the V.K. Lingam scandal raised the ire of the Commission Chairman Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen who had to patiently reason with the politician cum lawyer.

SIASATAN SURUHANJAYA DIRAJA TBH : POLITIK vs KEBENARAN

Memang dapat dijangkakan bahawa kes kematian Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) ini merupakan bahan politik yang cukup penting untuk digunakan oleh DAP bagi menyerang kredibiliti Kerajaan. Pelbagai cara dan helah digunakan oleh golongan ini untuk memastikan bahawa kes ini akan sentiasa berterusan dan menjadi bualan masyarakat.

Setelah hampir 18 bulan berlalu, dirasakan momentum sokongan dan simpati rakyat secara keseluruhannya terhadap isu yang dibawa pembangkang ini semakin menurun. Namun dek kebijaksanaan strategi Perhubungan Awam yang digunakan maka isu ini ada turun naiknya. Ada sahaja isu-isu yang tiada berkaitan langsung dengan kes kematian TBH di gembar gemburkan bertujuan untuk menaikkan rasa benci masyarakat terhadap pihak berkuasa dan Kerajaan. Sampai bila agaknya isu ini akan selesai. Memandangkan pilihan raya umum dijangka semakin dekat maka kecenderungan untuk melengah-lengahkan Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja ini sengaja dibuat dengan tujuan meraih simpati politik.

Penubuhan Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja (SSDR) bagi menyiasat kes kematian TBH ini jelas dengan terma rujukan dan tempohnya. Dua terma rujukan yang ditetapkan adalah untuk (1) meneliti aspek pematuhan sistem dan prosedur yang diamalkan oleh SPRM dalam proses penyiasatan dan (2) untuk mengenal pasti punca kematian TBH. SSDR ini diberikan tempoh masa selama 3 bulan dan dijangkakan SSDR akan mengemukakan laporan penuh kepada Yang Dipertuan Agong selewat-lewatnya pada 25 April 2011.

Manipulasi DAP ke atas kes TBH

Di pusingan pertama ini, pihak pembangkang khususnya DAP dengan strategi-strategi politiknya telah berjaya dari segi:

i.              Mendesak kerajaan menubuhkan SSDR. Memang inilah matlamat mereka agar SSDR ini dapat di manipulasi sepenuhnya sebagaimana SSDR berkaitan kes VK Lingam. Percayalah SSDR ini akan dijadikan pentas politik DAP sebagaimana yang berlaku dalam inkues TBH dan SSDR kes VK Lingam. Akibatnya, mereka berjaya melemahkan imej dan kredibiliti Sistem Kehakiman Negara ini baik dalam mahupun luar negara. Isu ini menjadi bahan politik yang dijaja di semua peringkat.

ii.            Memasukkan siasatan ke atas punca kematian TBH sebagai Terma Rujukan (TOR). Bukankah proses inkues ke atas TBH masih belum muktamad? Pihak Peguam Negara telah pun memutuskan untuk mengemukakan semakan ke atas keputusan inkues yang lalu di peringkat yang lebih tinggi. Kenapa tidak ditunggu sahaja keputusan tersebut? Apa akan berlaku sekiranya di mahkamah tinggi nanti, keputusannya ialah membunuh diri? Sudah tentu, pihak DAP akan mengemukakan rayuan semakan, bukan begitu? Terasa janggal bilamana Peguam Negara pula yang telah memfailkan semakan semula keputusan inkues tersebut. Bukankah pihak peguam keluarga dan konco-konconya beria-ia di peringkat awal untuk memfailkan semakan tersebut kerana kononnya tidak berpuas hati, tetapi senyap selepas itu?

iii.           Menggunakan sepenuh keluarga TBH termasuk kakak, ibu dan ayahnya sebagai aktor-aktor dalam drama ini. Terbaru di mana kaum keluarga TBH dikatakan ingin berjumpa dengan Ahli-ahli SSDR. Apakah tujuan pertemuan dan perjumpaan ini? Adakah untuk meraih simpati dan bertujuan mempengaruhi keputusan SSDR? Taktik dan strategi kotor peguam-peguam yang berkenaan wajar diambil perhatian dan dihentikan segera. Dilihat bahawa kes ini semakin dipolitikkan sehingga membelakangkan aspek undang-undang dan keadilan kepada semua pihak termasuk keadilan kepada pegawai-pegawai SPRM.

iv.           Strategi melengah-lengahkan SSDR hingga ke PRU 13. Tindakan peguam-peguam bagi keluarga TBH cuba melengah-lengahkan SSDR ini wajar dihentikan. Pelbagai alasan cuba diberikan termasuk jadual perbicaraan yang ketat dan sebagainya. Sekiranya ahli-ahli SSDR tunduk kepada permintaan peguam-peguam ini maka terbuktilah bahawa SSDR juga tidak melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya secara adil. Tarikh 90 hari atau 3 bulan dirasakan mencukupi dan tidak perlu lagi dipanjangkan. Semakin lama ia berjalan maka semakin besarlah political mileage yang bakal diperoleh golongan peguam politik ini.

Di mana pula keadilan buat SPRM?

Sejak dari awal kewujudan inkues dan SSDR, SPRM dilihat dihentam bertubi-tubi dan dibiarkan bersendirian dalam hal ini. Sebagai sebuah agensi penguatkuasaan yang hanya melaksanakan tugas, pegawai-pegawainya juga merupakan manusia yang mempunyai perasaan dan maruah diri.

Siapa pula yang memperjuangkan keadilan bagi pihak SPRM? Dalam hal memerangi rasuah ini, memang benar bahawa tiada istilah kawan buat SPRM. Semua pihak mempunyai kepentingan dan keuntungan politik sendiri. Tiada istilah keadilan buat SPRM.  Tiada siapa yang berjuang mempertahankan institusi ini. Yang diserang dan dipersalahkan adalah agensi yang memerangi rasuah. Perasuah dilindungi dan disanjung. Kesalahan ditutup dan dialihkan pandangan masyarakat apabila isu rasuah dipolitikkan.

Tindakan SPRM digambarkan sebagai konspirasi, berat sebelah dan atas arahan pihak-pihak tertentu. Institusi ini dimalukan, dicemuh dan dipersendakan bertujuan melemahkan semangat warga kerjanya. Kejayaan dan tindakan keras yang dibuat SPRM dianggap sebagai sandiwara dan tidak berkesan. SPRM ditelanjangkan dalam forum-forum perundangan seperti inkues dan SSDR.

Banyak perkara-perkara penting tidak diketengahkan (highlight) dalam proses inkues kerana dihalang oleh peguam-peguam yang berkaitan dan sikap berat sebelah yang ditunjukkan oleh koroner. Tambahan pula peguam yang dilantik mewakili Kerajaan lebih bersikap rasis dan pro kepada keluarga TBH. Proses inkues bukan sahaja gagal memperlihatkan keputusan yang jelas malah gagal serta membuang masa dan wang ringgit rakyat. Semuanya dek desakan pelbagai pihak yang bukan bertujuan mencari kebenaran dan keadilan tetapi mencari sokongan politik murahan dengan membelakangkan proses perundangan.

Bagi mengelakkan senario yang berlaku dalam inkues TBH dan SSDR yang berlaku dalam siasatan kes VK Linggam, maka ahli-ahli SSDR yang dilantik perlu bebas dari segi minda, berani membuat keputusan dan tegas dalam tindakan. Sentimen “kasihan” atau “simpati” kepada keluarga si mati wajar dijauhi demi mencari keadilan dan kebenaran. Jangan terpengaruh dengan dolak-dalik ahli-ahli politik yang bertopengkan peguam kerana yang dicari bukan keadilan atau kebenaran tetapi lebih kepada sokongan ke atas nafsu politik serakah mereka.

Khoo Chai Lee

Kuala Lumpur

Teoh Beng Hock RCI sets April 25 deadline

By : MalaysiaKini

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock's death in custody is expected to wrap up its inquest and present its report to the Yang diPertuan Agong by April 25 at the latest.



teoh beng hock royal commission first meeting 290111 james foongCommission chairperson James Foong said they will conduct the inquiry from Monday to Friday every week from Feb 14.

"According to our calculations, the inquiry must be completed and the report handed to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by April 25. That means, we don't have much time," Foong (left) told a press conference after the commission's first meeting at the Kuala Lumpur court complex on Jalan Duta today.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak recently announced the formation of the RCI, after a public outcry over the findings of the inquest into Teoh's death while in the custody of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission in Shah Alam.

The inquest ruled out both murder and suicide.

NONEThe RCI will focus on two terms of reference: the cause of Teoh's death and whether or not the MACC followed proper procedures when questioning Teoh.

Foong said the panel members at their first meeting went through their terms of reference "section by section", and also discussed the list of witnesses with the conducting officers assigned to the commission.

However, he declined to be specific on the number of witnesses or who would be called, saying that the panel would have a better idea during their next meeting on Feb 9.

"Today is only the fourth day of our appointments, and also the fourth day the conducting officers have been informed of their (assignment)... We don't know (details of the witness list) at this stage," he said.

Foong noted that the conducting officers, led by senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh, would prepare documents on the rules and regulations governing the MACC, and possibly on similar international bodies for reference.

'We don't decide what to investigate'

Asked if the RCI could expand its scope to include other deaths in custody, such as the A Kugan case, Foong pointed out that the commission was not empowered to make such a call.

NONEHe also brushed aside claims by DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang (right) that the terms of reference for the MACC have been diminished in this RCI, saying that they "are not here to agree or disagree with the opinion of any leader of a political party".

"Our task is to go through the terms of reference laid out. You would have to direct those questions to the correct authorities," he said, adding that the panel members were' appointed by the King.

Foong declined to comment on the impact the RCI could have on an on-going application to review the findings of the coroner's inquest into Teoh's death.

He also did not want to touch on the possibility that the panel may face applications for recusal of its members, as had happened in 2008 during the RCI into the VK Lingam tapes.

Foong said the panel "will not speculate" on any of those issues and that they would "deal with it if the matter comes up".

azlanEight people sit on the panel. Besides Foong, the others are retired Federal Court judge Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, retired Court of Appeal judge T Selventhiranathan, forensic pathologist Dr Bhupinder Singh and consultant psychiatrist Dr Mohamed Hatta Shaharom.

The conducting officers are Amarjeet and deputy public prosecutors Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud and Kwan Li Sa.

The director-general of legal affairs in the Prime Minister's department, Saripuddin Kasim, has been appointed commission