Tuesday, November 1, 2011

明福冤死两年还要人民耐心等候 民间团体批首相署部长不负责任




首相署部长纳兹里日前在国会表明,警方至今仍未依据皇委会报告内容从刑事角度重新开档调查赵明福之死,甚至以反贪会“特别调查队”程序、“没人报警”等匪夷所思的理由来推托政府及警方彻查及提控罪犯的责任,继续引起民间的非议。

“全民挺明福”运动今日就对堂堂一个首相署部长对一宗震惊国人、全民关注的冤案,作出如此轻率且不负责任的回应,表示愤怒及严正的抗议。

“在赵明福冤死已迄两年三个月,且皇委会报告出炉已超过三个月的今天,纳兹里还能如此‘厚颜’要求民众‘耐心等候’。”

“除了让人极度怀疑政府的执法能力及公正调查的诚意,全民挺明福更欲在此质疑首相纳吉及国阵政府如何履行两年前对国人作出的承诺?如何在来届大选给要求民主、透明、公正、安全的马来西亚人民一个清楚的交代?”

要求提控5名官员谋杀

除了赵家日前所提出的四点要求,全民挺明福也在文告中进一步提出下列7大抗议和要求,要求政府正视。

以下是全民挺明福的7大要求:

(一)我们抗议总检察长阿都干尼在皇委会报告出炉后一直保持缄默,未起诉报告中提及的有关官员,而警方更没有逮捕任何官员。总检察长有责任对赵家交代,至今没有任何提控行动的原因。

(二)我们要求政府援引刑事法典第107、108、120A、191、192、201至204、218、464和511条文来调查涉案的反贪会官员,包括希山慕丁(Hishammudin Hashim)、雪州反贪会调查主任凯鲁依汉(Hairul Ilham Hamzah)、查案官安努亚依斯迈(Mohamad Anuar Ismail)、执法助理官员阿斯拉夫(Mohd Asraf Mohd Yunus)、祖基菲里阿兹(Zulkefly Aziz)、布基尼(Bulkini Paharuddin)、艾弗祖(Effezul Azran Abdul Maulop)、阿曼(Arman Alies)、雷蒙(Raymond Nion),以及莫哈末纳兹里(Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim)。他们可能犯下的罪行包括密谋掩盖赵明福死因、作假供、捏造证据、销毁证据、篡改证据、制造假记录等等。

(三)我们要求5名直接涉案的雪州反贪会官员,即希山慕丁、安努亚、阿斯拉夫、凯鲁依汉,以及祖基菲里阿兹,更应该直接面对刑事法典第304条文误杀罪名,以及第304A条文疏忽致死或谋杀的罪名的调查。

(四)皇委会报告已清楚明确将反贪会官员斥为“整班骗子”(除了阿金哈菲兹与阿兹安),同时清楚提出明福遭四度录供等新线索,有鉴于此,警方有必要针对皇委会报告内提出的新线索重启调查,重新开启赵明福坠楼案的各项调查,并从赵明福被害角度彻查,还原反贪会官员谎言背后的真相。

(五)皇委会报告已阐明明福逝世时处在反贪会与官员的监护中,而相关官员也已被证明疏于职守,因此我们要求反贪会必须为赵明福之死负责。反贪会在这期间完全没有被追究造成明福死亡的责任,反而被默许在皇委会调查期间,不断掩盖明福之死的真正原因与细节,同时向验尸庭及皇委会一而再、再而三说谎,我们因此要求反贪会对此负起责任,面对应有的惩罚。

(六)我们促请政府正视皇委会报告不足及让人存疑之处,例如:为什么反贪会隐瞒他们在早上七时就知道赵明福死讯的事实等等疑点,并予以公正的调查。我们认为,自杀的结论不能以在“认为”的基础下建立,反之须拥有确凿证据或证词支持;同时,皇委会已承认不瞭解赵明福在2009年7月16日凌晨3时30分至早上7时的经历,所以是在没有任何供词能证明赵明福在这段时间发生何事及如何去世,却作出赵明福是自杀的结论,明显违法兼不合理。

(七)我们要求大马政府以及反贪会为赵明福之死,向赵家以及大马人做出无条件道歉,同时也应向赵家做出合理赔偿。

Beng Hock’s family demands criminal charges against MACC trio

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 — Teoh Beng Hock’s family today demanded that the police investigate the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers named in the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into Teoh’s death for contributing to the DAP aide’s death.

The family accused the Najib administration yesterday of “taking grieving family members for a ride” by not pushing for criminal charges against three national graftbusters despite a royal investigation panel finding the trio contributed to the political aide’s death two years ago.

Lee Lan shows the police report that she lodged on October 28, 2011. — Picture by Melissa Chi
Today, the family lodged a police report in the hope of initiating a criminal probe.

“It’s not that we do not have patience. We have been so patient but it has been taken advantage of.

“We’ve waited long enough and there is still no serious action from the government,” Beng Hock’s sister Lee Lan told reporters outside the Tun H.S. Lee police station here.

The Teohs had said the government’s inaction casts serious doubt not only on the credibility of the RCI the prime minister foisted on the family, but its chairman, Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen.

The still-grieving family was responding to de facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s statement four days ago that the government would not be prosecuting the three officers from the MACC despite being named in the RCI report released three months ago because no one had filed a police report to do so.

Today, Lee Lan, accompanied by lawyer and Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo and Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching, lodged a police report.

Teo pointed out that the police could have lodged a report and started an investigation, just as they did with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, when he claimed that Beng Hock was murdered.

The Teohs said they found it incredulous the government remained suspicious and sceptical of the RCI report and left it to the MACC to head another “special task force investigating their own officers”.

They pointed out the RCI had incriminated the MACC trio — Mohd Anuar Isamil (named in the report as “the bully”), Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus (“the abuser”) and Hishammuddin Hashim (“the arrogant leader”) — in its report for using inappropriate violence to draw information out of Beng Hock who was only a witness.

Beng Hock, political secretary to Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth-floor external corridor of the Selangor MACC office in Shah Alam after a marathon questioning overnight.

The government set up the RCI in January this year after the coroner delivered an “open verdict” ruling out both suicide and homicide.

The royal panel found that Teoh had been driven to suicide after harsh, relentless questioning by MACC officers.

赵家针对皇委会报告内容报警 促警援四刑事罪调查逾十官员



政府早前宣称,由于警方没有接获报案,因此未开档调查赵明福死因调查皇委会的报告内容。针对这样的推搪,赵明福胞妹赵丽兰今午毅然报案,要求警方从刑事罪的角度调查涉案的官员。

赵丽兰要求,警方分别以误杀、疏忽致死、假口供及捏造证据这4项刑事法典条文下,彻查皇委会报告提及的逾10名反贪官员。

她建议的法律条文,包括刑事法典第191提供虚假证据条文、第192捏造虚假证据条文、第304误杀条文,以及304A疏忽致死条件。

赵丽兰今午是在其代表律师哥宾星及行动党沙登区国会议员张念群陪同下,在敦李孝式警局报案。

皇委会点名逾十名官员

皇委会在其7月21日出炉的124页皇委会报告中阐明,赵明福因不堪面对反贪会官员持续不断、激烈及不恰当的盘问方式,因而在精神压力下被迫自杀。

报告也点名3人,分别是“欺凌者”的查案官安努亚、“滥权者”反贪助理阿斯拉夫及“傲慢的领袖”前雪州反贪会副主席希山慕丁。

除此,报告也指最少10名官员在皇委会听证会上,提供不实供词。

促总检署说明是否起诉


哥宾星表示,虽然皇委会报告内容只字未提反贪官犯罪,然而报告内容中指赵明福不堪盘问压力而被迫自杀,是警方可彻查的刑事角度。

赵丽兰今天花了20分钟报案。

哥宾星表示,家属真正要的绝非警方重新调查赵明福命案,而是总检察署交待是否控告涉案官员。

赵家把球丢回给纳兹里

哥宾星抨击说,家属之所以来报案,是首相署部长纳兹里本周一指称,由于没人针对皇委会报告报案,警方便没调查。

他抨击说,纳兹里的答复,仿佛皇委会调查报告都是白费的,因当局没有进一步调查,有的只是内部纪律调查行动而已。

哥宾星说,赵家现在把球丢回给纳兹里,还要赵家做什么才可对付涉案者。

皇委会报告只是一本书?

哥宾星非议,“若是没有人报警,就不能展开调查了吗?那到底是为了什么要花几个月时间拟出皇委会报告,它只是一本书而已吗?”

哥宾星质问,报警是否要赵案重新再彻查一遍呢?他认为,这将让经历了2年多调查阶段的赵家重回原点,“这是不符合逻辑的”。

“然而赵家已一遍遍的说,他们不会轻易放弃的!如果这(报警)是当局要的,那就照着做吧。”

斥政府滥用赵家的耐心

另一方面,赵丽兰(左图)重申,纳兹里下周一应该在国会回答赵家提出的4道疑问,包括政府是否有意愿调查真相。

“我想跟纳兹里说,我们不是没有耐心,而是我们的耐心被滥用了。我们每天都在问着,何时才是真相大白的一天。”

她斥责说,赵家耐心等待结果,却是当局一直在拖延调查此案。

赵丽兰也质问纳兹里:“你是否相信皇委会报告?为什么没有根据、没有证词、没有法医与心理医生的证明,指赵明福死于自杀或被自杀,你就可以接受?”

“而这些官员被证实使用暴力,你们却没有行动,这是无法接受的理由!”

“我们会等你的答覆,如果你觉得没有办法答覆,就让总警长、内长在国会上一起答覆。”

举例证明警可自行调查

另一方面,张念群也非议纳兹里要报案才有调查的言论,她也举出2项例子,证明警方根本无须等到报案便可行动。

张念群表示,行动党槟州首长林冠英曾发言说赵明福被谋杀,结果遭警方援引1948年煽动法令调查。

她续说,而雪州行政议员欧阳捍华声援被彻查的林冠英,说这项行动有政治意图,也遭警方在刑事法典第506条恐吓条文彻查,指这是恐吓警方。

张念群表示,上述两项行动,都是警方人员自行报警后展开彻查,说明警方是可以自行展开彻查的。

Thursday, October 27, 2011

纳兹里在赵家伤口上撒盐 丽兰:要求真相很过分吗?



赵丽兰对首相署部长纳兹里一再重复三名反贪官员仍在接受内部调查的言论,深感悲慟,并认为纳兹里的言论,不仅在质疑皇位会报告的公信力,犹如摑了皇委会主席冯正仁一巴掌,同时也在赵明福家属的伤口上撒盐。

同时,赵丽兰也对政府一再掩盖赵明福的死因真相,代表家属向政府发出四大疑问,要求政府向趙家和人民做出一个明确的交待,并强烈表示:“赵明福死了,要求知道他是怎样死的,有很过分吗?”

赵丽兰今天代表家属发表文告表示,他们一家对于首相署部长纳兹里一再重复三名反贪官员仍在接受内部调查的言论,深感悲慟。

“赵明福臥屍反贪委迄今已经27個月了,足足833個日子, 我們每一天都在等待真相。”

她指出,皇委会在报告中清楚指名該三位官員,即“欺凌者”查案官安努亚、“滥权者”反贪助理阿斯拉夫及“傲慢的领袖”前雪州反贪会副主席希山慕丁,涉及使用不当的暴力。

报告存疑要家属如何接受

然而在报告出炉三個月后,反贪会又另外再成立“特别调查队”调查皇委会报告所点名的三名反贪官员。这意味著,政府对报告也保持着有所怀疑,以及未能百分百取信的立场。

“先不论由反贪会所主导的特別调查队來调查本身的官员,是否有名不正言不順偏袒之嫌,我們不理解的是,如果政府到今天仍然认为,皇委会的调查报告並未拥有足夠的证据,來对付涉及使用不当暴力的官官员,而必须另行花费公款來做另外一轮的调查,请问,何以要求身為家属的我們,去接受皇委会的报告,在疑点重重的报告中,接受趙明福的死是被自杀?”

“是谁让他被自杀?為什麼让他被自杀的人並未罪有应得,而要我们接受沒有真相的结局?皇委会报告出炉至今,我們也听从政府所说,耐心的等了三個月,但是只聞楼梯响不见人下來,为什么反貪会以及政府,迟迟未有行动,让真相大白?”

她质疑,如果纳茲里本身都不取信,何以要受害者家属接受这个报告?何以對家属持有双重标准?为什么政府可以不取信,而家属却不能不接受呢?既然如此,皇委会的存在是不是在浪费时间、消遣家属、浪费公款?

纳茲里在伤口上撒盐

她直言,纳茲里的言论,不仅在质疑皇位会报告的公信力,犹如摑了皇委会主席冯正仁一巴掌,同时也在赵明福家属的伤口上撒盐。

“從验尸庭到皇委会,我们看着政府拖延时间,使得真相與证据日益淹没在岁月的无从考察之中,心中的悲慟不但沒有随着时日而消減,相反的,我們寻找真相的決心更為熾熱。因為,当有人用一個托辞掩蓋來另外一個托辞,显示出事有蹺蹊。真相,其实在我们每一個人的心里。”

但是身為死者的家屬,她迫不得已,只能对政府发出以下疑问。

(一) 若证据不足,为什么沒有要求声称独立的皇委会再調查下去?反而另起炉灶,让反贪会特别调查组,自己人查自己人?另外,根据纳兹里言论的疑点,及把问题抛给内政部长希山幕丁及总警察长,我们请求相关单位作出回应,给赵家及人民一个交代,并清楚公布开案程序、调查时限及由谁主导相关程序。

(二) 纳兹里说,特别调查队已拟出一份纪律报告提呈反贪会投诉委员会。我们要问:请问纪律报告的內容是什么,到底什么时候才可以公諸于世,让我們家属有个明白?

(三) 纳茲里说,若要采取刑事提控,警方则须重新开档调查赵明福之死。我們要问:请问警方有沒有意愿,以及決心開檔調查明福之死?如果不开檔,是不是等于不愿意调查這起命案的真相?如果要开檔,什么时候要开檔?什么时候可以结束调查,我們家属已经等了27个月,如今拜求一個答案。

(四) 难道明福初死,警方沒有好好的调查?所以現在才要重新开档调查?纳茲里將问题拋给內长、警方、反贪会调查组,究竟谁才是主导,我們应该要向谁要求答案?赵明福死了,要求知道他是怎样死的,有很过分吗?

不满警方拒查三名反贪官员 张念群炮轰纳兹里双重标准



民主行动党全国副宣传秘书张念群今日批评首相署部长纳兹里和警方持双重标准,并以各种理由推搪塞责,而没有对赵明福命案皇委会报告所点名的3名反贪会官员,展开适当行动。

她说,纳兹里日前在国会表示,总检察署是因为警方没接获任何一方报案要求彻查3名涉嫌赵明福坠楼案的反贪会官员,因此不能提控3人;然而,2名行动党巴生市议员却声明已经报案和要求警方展开调查3名间接或非间接逼死赵明福的反贪会官员,并驳斥纳兹里的言论。

“因此,要不是纳兹里后知后觉,就是他有意图包庇这3名涉案官员之嫌!纳兹里和总警长,都必须给予全国人民一个清楚交待。”

她也反驳纳兹里的言论站不住脚,因为之前有很多个案,警方都是自行报警展开调查。

警方曾自行报案查林冠英


也是沙登区国会议员的张念群(右图)发表文告说,在2009年12月,行动党秘书长林冠英于代表大会上上指称 “赵福被谋杀 ”,雪州皇家警察部队自行报警,援引《1948年煽动法令》调查林冠英。

“接着,行动党雪州行政议员兼赵明福前上司欧阳捍华,发表文告声称警方调查林冠英的行动深具政治动机;结果,警方再次自行报警指欧阳捍华的言论是错误行为,试图恐吓警方,因此将援引刑事法典506恐吓条文及多媒体法令调查他。

“可是在这之前,纳兹里和反贪委会前任主席阿末赛益却异口同声说赵明福自杀,警方却未采取任何行动对付。”

不愿正视明福被杀可能性

她指出,自赵明福坠楼事件发生以来,警方就一直是以自杀的角度展开调查,完全不肯正视明福是有惨遭他杀的可能性。

“如今在皇委会在报告中,清楚指名该3位官员即‘欺凌者’查案官安努亚、‘滥权者’反贪助理阿斯拉夫及‘傲慢的领袖’前雪州反贪会副主席希山慕丁涉及使用不当的暴力,警方完全有理由即刻以刑事法典第304条文误杀罪名,或刑事法典第304A条文──疏忽致死的罪名展开调查。”

张念群指出,还有10名反贪会官员在皇委会上给假供词,警方完全可以引用刑事法典191、192条文以及其他条文,调查上述官员在赵明福命案中,是否涉及给假证据、伪造、毁灭、损害证据,或伪造不正确记录或书写以庇护特定人士不会因赵明福之死而受罚。

她说,可是至今,警方依然不肯展开调查,纳兹里还以“没人报警”的理由推卸责任,这明显就是双重标准,也让全国关心明福命案的正义人士,感到极度痛心和失望。

写给活着的你



当。。。
残酷的画面
不经意
成了模糊的记忆

当。。。
路上的行人
背对背
固执的一步步远离

当。。。
含冤待雪
含泪的申诉
不再清晰

您。。。
是否还记得

曾经
寒冷的夜里
有个熟悉的陌生人
悄悄地躺在那里
他 没有了呼吸

有的人 死了
那颗心
却永远活着

有的人 活着
但是
心已经死了

然而
我还听到您的呼吸

只是。。。
您 又在哪里?
您 是否已经忘记?

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Statement of Teoh Family


We, the family members of Teoh Beng Hock, are deeply hurt by the statement of Nazri, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, that until today, no action has been taken against the 3 responsible MACC officers. More than 27 months, or 833 days, have passed since Beng Hock was found dead on the rooftop of a building adjacent to the MACC office. We have been waiting every single day for the truth to be revealed.

The RCI report clearly pointed out the 3 MACC officers, ie Mohd Anuar Isamil (investigation officer) “the bully”, Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus (assistant investigation officer) “the abuser” and Hishammuddin Hashim (former deputy director of MACC Selangor) “the arrogant leader”, were involved in using inappropriate violence. However, 3 months after the report was published, the MACC set up another “special task force” to investigate the 3 MACC officers fingered out by the RCI, indicating that the government remains suspicious and skeptical of the report.

Setting aside the question about the appropriateness and fairness having MACC to lead the special task force investigating their own officers, what we do not understand is until today, why the government still thinks the RCI report does not carry enough evidence for commencing action against these officers who have abused their power, but spends more public funds to conduct another round of investigation. We want to know then, on what basis that we, the grieving family members of the deceased, were asked to accept the findings stated in the RCI report, that Beng Hock died of forced suicide?

Who allowed this dubious “force suicide” to happen? Why the culprits are left off the hook while we are forced to accept a conclusion that reveals no truth? Why the MACC and government are giving us the impression that there is a great reluctance on their part to take action against those MACC officers?

If Nazri himself does not accept the findings of this report, why are we requested to accept the conclusion of this report then? Why impose such soul destroying double standards upon us? Why the government can choose not to believe but we are not allowed to refute the conclusion of that report?

If this is really being played out, isn’t then creation of the RCI merely a waste of time and public funds as well as taking the grieving family members for a ride?

The inaction of the Government not only casts serious doubt on the credibility of the RCI report but also represents a slap on the face of Tan Sri Datuk Seri James Foong Cheng Yuen, the chairman of RCI.

From the coroner’s court till the RCI, we can see endless foot dragging maneuvers by the government and denial of the quest for truth. Our grief does not diminish over time, but our burning desire to seek the truth continues to grow. It is painfully clear that when a person uses a lame explanation to cover another, there is great reason to believe that there is great impropriety.

The truth is already embedded in everyone’s mind.

But as the family members of the deceased, we are force to, and only empowered to pose the following questions to the government: -


1.If there is insufficient evidence, how come the RCI, proclaimed as an independent party, was not authorized to investigate further?

Following Nazri’s doubts about the report and throwing this hot potato to Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, and the Inspector General of Police, we request these authorities to be accountable to the family members and the general public by announcing their investigation procedures, time lines and persons leading the investigation.

2.According to Nazri, the special investigation task force has already submitted a report akin to a disciplinary report to the MACC complaints committee.

We wish to ask: what are the contents of the report? When is it going to be made public so that we, the family members and general public can obtain some explanations?

3.According to Nazri, if there is a need to initiate criminal indictment, the police need to reopen investigation on Beng Hock’s death.

We wish to ask: does the police have the inclination to reopen a file on Beng Hock’s death? If the answer is no, does it mean the police is reluctant to seek the truth? If they are willing to reopen a file on this matter, we wish to know when they intend to do so and when the investigation can be completed? We, the family members, have waited for 27 months and we beg for an answer now.

4.It is evident from the RCI report that police did not conduct a proper investigation when Beng Hock died in 2009. If Nazri is throwing this hot potato to the Internal Affairs Minister, police, MACC, then who is supposed to lead the investigation and from whom we should seek answers from? If the incompetence of the government resulted in Beng Hocks death, is our request for a proper explanation of his death an excessive demand?

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

吉祥援皇委会报告六理由 促设小组追缉杀明福凶手




民主行动党国会领袖兼怡保东区国会议员林吉祥批评,总检察长以没有人报案为由,不对付致死赵明福的反贪委会官员是站不住脚的。他指出,该报告已有充足理由,成立高级特别调查小组,以将凶手绳之以法。

林吉祥今天发表文告回应首相署部长纳兹里昨天在国会的讲话。林吉祥指出,纳兹里解释说,总检察长未针对皇家调查委员会报告,对付致死赵明福的反贪委会官员,是因为没有人报案。

林吉祥(左图)表示,纳兹里的说辞是站不住脚的藉口。

林吉祥质疑说:“为什么总检察长阿都干尼不能根据皇家调查委员会报告的新发现,下令人员针对赵明福死因报案呢?”
他说,皇家调查委员会报告书提到:“赵明福是在部分反贪委会官员咄咄逼人,毫不留情,压迫和无良的盘问之下,被迫自杀”(119段),但这个结论根本没有任何证据支持,纯粹臆测,无法为人所接受。

不过,他指出,皇委会报告里头,倒是有充足的理由,支持成立高级特别调查小组,打破反贪委会官员之间的“官官相护”(反贪委会报告语)之阴谋,将杀害赵明福的凶手绳之以法。

根据媒体报道,纳兹里昨天回答蒲种国会议员哥宾星提问时表示,总检察署必须等待警方调查报告出炉,才决定是否提控赵明福坠楼案中涉嫌说谎及违反标准作业程序的反贪会官员。

皇委会报告点出三名反贪委官员涉嫌采激进盘问赵明福,即希山慕丁哈欣(Hishammuddin Hashim)、阿努尔依斯迈(Anuar Ismail) 、阿斯拉夫莫哈莫尤努斯(Ashraf Mohd Yunus)。 【点击:前副总监二反贪官员须负责 四轮激进盘问促使明福自杀】

吁展开密集提控行动

林吉祥称,皇委会报告有六个理由足以让总检察长下令人员针对赵明福死因报案并展开密集的提控行动,以让掩盖真相的企图不得逞,让赵明福及家人得到公平的交代。

“如果总检察长不肯这么做,那么将会有人报案,以免让总检察长继续迟迟不对致死赵明福的反贪委会官员采取行动。”

以下是林吉祥列出皇委会报告的六大理由:

指希山慕丁为主谋


(一)赵明福皇委会在其报告中对反贪委会官员之供证与个性形容相当刻薄,其中,以雪州反贪委会官员为甚。除了指称阿金哈菲兹(Azeem Hafeez Jamaluddin )与阿兹安(Azian)两名雪州反贪委会官员勇敢、真诚(第176段),赵明福皇委会完全不接受其余由雪州反贪污委员会副总监希山慕丁哈欣(Hishammuddin Hashim)领导的谎言,因为希山慕丁就是“主谋”,是整起最后导致赵明福死亡的不公行动者。

以下这一段则是皇委会何以认为希山慕丁(左图)是整起行动“主谋”的理由:在报告第337段,皇委会报告写道:“希山慕丁以及其他受其命令,在皇委会调查中撒谎者都因勇敢的阿金哈菲兹与阿兹安之供证而漏馅,这两名官员指证希山慕丁下令他们隐瞒其直接指挥整个行动的角色,且要他们指说海鲁伊尔罕(Hairul Ilham)才是本案负责人。”

就事实而言,皇委会报告已经足以让希山慕丁以及一整队反贪委会官员被控藐视罪名,因为他们竟然在司法程序中作伪证,抵触《刑事法典》第193条文,若罪成可判罪高刑法七年有期徒刑兼罚款。

在整班由希山慕丁领导之反贪委会官员被斥为“整班骗子”(除了阿金哈菲兹与阿兹安)的情况下,这意味着他们从警方最初调查赵明福死亡案件开始,就一路撒谎至验尸庭、皇委会,对2009年7月15及16日发生在赵明福身上的事情极尽撒谎之能事。

既然有人在警方刑事调查赵明福命案时撒谎,这也意谓着希山慕丁以及整班雪州反贪委会官员(除了阿欣与阿兹安)的口供是谎言、毫无价值可言,必须打回票,因此,警方有必要重启调查,查明赵明福死亡一案。

赵明福经历数轮盘问

(二)赵明福皇委会指出,除了7月15日傍晚6时至7月16日凌晨3时30分的三轮盘问之外,还有一轮不为人所知晓的“第四轮盘问”,时间就介于7月16日的凌晨3时30分至清晨7时,皇委会报告且说这是“压死骆驼的最后一根稻草,是导致赵明福自杀的原因。”(第166段)

报告第229段指出:“当第四轮或最后一轮盘问结束时,赵明福的身心状况都应该极度脆弱。”

警方在查案过程中从未知悉,原来在7月16日凌晨3时30分至7时存在“第四轮盘问”,这是警方应该重启调查的第二个线索。实际上,警方也应依据赵明福的死亡时间,调查是否于当天早上7时至11时存在第五轮盘问。

(三)希山慕丁是整起违法执法行动导致赵明福死亡的“主谋”,尽管时任雪州反贪委会副总监的希山慕丁只负责调查与情报收集,但希山慕丁“显然拥有绝对的权力决定调查那些他怀疑在其州内涉及贪污的人士,甚至无须取得布城总部或其雪州反贪委会总监之同意。”(第23段)

希山慕丁“在没有任何支持证据,仅仅依据个人之想法”(第184段)及“仅仅”一通电话(第188段)的情况下,决定动员33名官员参与行动,此举已然滥权。

这些内幕都足以让警方重新调查赵明福的案件,查出到底是谁赋予希山慕丁触法免责权?让其逾越其雪州上司及全国总部之权力,进而导致赵明福死亡。

反贪官员早上七时就知死讯

(四)如Marcus van Geyzel在loyarburok.com发表之文章〈瞒天过海的骗局〉指出:

“反贪会的官方回应是在7月16号下午1时35分才发现赵明福的尸体。可是,在赵明福皇委会所提呈的证据却显示反贪会官员,阿兹哈(Azhar)、阿敏(Amin)、莫哈末法依兹(Mohd Fauzi Shadollah)已经在下午一时就讨论赵明福的死讯!在赵明福的尸体被发现以前,一个巴生的反贪会官员怎么会在数十公里外的办公室讨论赵明福的死讯?”

“答案就在这里。阿兹敏说,自己在中午12时45分听到一群巴生反贪会官员谈论赵明福的死讯。他说,那个消息是来自一位于7月16日早上身在雪州反贪会办公室的巴生反贪会官员,而那位官员在当天早上回到巴生反贪会办公室。按照祖基菲礼的形容,他在早上七时就已经知道赵明福从窗口坠下并死亡。”

“为什么反贪会隐瞒他们在早上七时就知道赵明福死讯的事实?皇委会没有去认真看待这个足以推翻反贪会自杀故事的致命一击。”

(五) 在赵明福2009年7月16日惨死后数日,一名自称“黑狗”之人士在网络上指责民主行动党须为赵明福谋杀案负责,转移大众对赵明福死亡案件真正原因之注意力,让人不禁怀疑,“黑狗”就是必须为谋杀赵明福负责的人。

尤有甚者,“黑狗”竟然拥有反贪委会或反贪委会官员之指纹,可以取得理应只有反贪委会拥有的相关调查文件。

(六)皇委会报告忽视律师公会远从澳洲莫纳斯大学请来的精神科法医穆兰(Edward Mullen)在精神病学报告里头提到的自杀风险评估,这名专家发现有更多理由指出,赵明福不会自杀。

A-G not going after MACC trio in Teoh death



KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 24 — The Attorney-General (A-G) is not pursuing legal action against the anti-graft officers who drove Teoh Beng Hock to suicide as no police report has been lodged over the matter, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said today.

The de facto law minister said the A-G was not compelled to prosecute any of the three Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers implicated in the political aide’s death due to the lack of investigative evidence and witness accounts.

But the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department gave his assurance that the A-G would take action if any evidence or testimony surfaced.

He was responding to Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, lawyer for the Teoh family, while winding up for the Prime Minister’s Department.

Nazri also said the MACC probe into the three officers by a special investigative team was still ongoing.

“If it’s proven that there were offences and procedural breaches, suitable disciplinary action will be taken against them,” he said.

He added that the investigative team would need more time before it could make its recommendation to the MACC disciplinary committee.

Teoh, 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.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into his death found that Teoh had been driven to suicide after harsh, relentless questioning from MACC officers.

三被点名官员仍遭到内部调查 警方没重新开档查赵明福死因




尽管赵明福死因调查皇委会报告出炉后已3个月,而反贪会也成立“特别调查队”调查皇委会报告所点名的3名反贪官员,然而这项内部调查行动至今尚未完成。

除此,警方更没有针对皇委会报告内容,从刑事角度重新开档调查赵明福之死。

首相署部长纳兹里今午表示,反贪会在皇委会报告出炉后已成立一个特别调查队(Pasukan Siasatan Khas),调查3名反贪会官员。

纳兹里续说,该特别调查队已拟出一份纪律报告,提呈反贪会投诉委员会。

“不过,这个在2009年反贪会法令第15条文下设立的(投诉)委员会,已要求(特别调查队)展开进一步调查,才再呈交给纪律委员会。”

要大家忍耐等待结果

纳兹里(左图)续说,政府会否对这3名官员采取刑事提控,也胥视报告内容而言,是否涉及违反程序、条例,或具有刑事成份。

“要对3名报告阐明的官员采取刑事提控行动,警方必须深入调查该委会的发现。一旦调查完成,调查报告会呈给总检察署。”

纳兹里今午是在国会下议院,进行2012年供应法案二读总结时这么指出。

皇委会在报告内所点名的3人,分别是“欺凌者”的查案官安努亚、“滥权者”反贪助理阿斯拉夫及“傲慢的领袖”前雪州反贪会副主席希山慕丁。

纳兹里续说,若警方的报告呈给总检察署后,总检察长将公正不阿的决定提控行动,并果敢采取提控行动。

“我们要求大家耐心(等候),那些犯法的官员,肯定会被采取行动……这可分为2件事来看,第一是纪律行动,第二则是法律行动。”

认同应对付假口供者

他重申,若要采取刑事提控,则警方须重新开档调查赵明福之死。

纳兹里的答覆令行动党蒲种区国会议员哥宾星大感不满,在打岔时抨击说纳兹里的答覆予人警方已重新开档调查此案的感觉。

纳兹里答说:“警方是否有开档调查,应该由内长(希山慕丁)答覆。”

纳兹里在哥宾星进一步逼问时,承认并不知道警方是否已开始调查。

“(不过,警方)可能没(调查),我们什么也没有听说过,但这须询问内政部进厘清。” 

也未查给假口供官员

另一方面,行动党沙登区国会议员张念群也询问,总检察署会否对付公然在皇委会听证会上欺骗的官员。

纳兹里表示,本身认同应对付那些在皇委会听证会宣誓后,却给假口供的人士,惟也须等反贪会及警方调查。

赵明福本是雪州行政议员欧阳捍华政治秘书,于2009年7月15日被带回反贪会助查雪州议员拨用拨款一案后,16日被发现毙命沙亚南玛沙南大厦5楼阳台处。

7月21日出炉的皇委会报告,指赵明福被迫自杀。

Thursday, October 13, 2011

拷問趙明福手法不當 報告出爐才懲罰3反貪官

(吉隆坡12日訊)首相署部長拿督斯里納茲里表示,需要等待內部調查結果出爐後,才可決定如何懲處被皇家調查委員會點名在趙明福案件中採取不當拷問手法的3名反貪會官員。

他是針對怡保東區國會議員林吉祥提問,3名反貪會官員將受到的懲罰時,做出書面回答。

納茲里指出,這3名反貪會官員已經被排除在調查工作之外。

反貪污委員會早前宣佈,被皇委會點名須為趙明福之死負責的3名反貪會官員已被停職。這3名官員為時任雪蘭莪州反貪會副主任的希山慕丁、時任調查官莫哈末安努爾及執法助理阿斯拉夫。

已設特別小組

針對林吉祥詢問由於反貪委會因趙明福事件而受到批評,反貪會是否有任何改革計劃時,納茲里說,反貪會已經就皇委會所作出的建議成立特別小組。

該特別小組是「改革執行委員會(JET)」,主要負責提高反貪委會的素質、行政機制、監督、執行改革和管理架構、有效進行調查工作等。

該委員會的成員包括,4名反貪會最高領導、4名反貪會成員、2名法律專家,包括一名皇委會成員在內。

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

反贪委耗24万聘法医律师 张念群抨花销高肃贪力弱

反贪污委员会在赵明福命案中,耗费逾24万元聘请英国法医和本地著名律师,民主行动党雪州副组织秘书兼沙登国会议员张念群指出,领取逾二亿元庞大经费的反贪委并没有交出令人满意的成绩单,其定罪率只达73%,较香港、新加坡、印尼逊色。

张念群指出,上周三她在国会提问首相,反贪污委员会聘请英国著名法医彼得维纳兹(Peter Vanezis)和代表律师莫哈末沙菲宜(Datuk Seri Muhamad Shafee Abdullah)的花费,根据首相署部长纳兹里的书面回答,反贪委聘请英国著名法医彼得维纳兹的费用,包括机票、住宿、饮食、交通和专业费,一共是9万680元,雇用沙菲宜的律师费更是高达15万元。

张念群说:“法医和律师都是专业、精深的学问,彼得维纳兹法医和沙菲宜律师收取服务费也是无可厚非。然而,这就更加凸显了泰国著名法医庞缇和赵家代表律师卡巴星与哥宾星的难能可贵。”

Monday, October 10, 2011

Teoh Beng Hock Trust Fund

In the month of September 2011, Teoh Beng Hock Trust Fund received 5 donations totalling to RM13,300. As at todate, the total collection of TBH Trust Fund is RM512,425.30. At the same time, the total expenses of the trust fund is RM31,245.35 while we have also spent RM15,002.25 to purchase an education insurance plan for Er Jia. Details of expenses can be found at the link follow. Thank you for your support to Beng Hock's family!

Update on Teoh Beng Hock's Trust Fund

Indeed, not the last goodbye…

16th July, 2011.

The 2nd anniversary of the tragic deaths of Beng Hock and Guna.

Deaths in custody numbers 1804 and 1805.

The authorities would rather they remained just inconsequential statistics.

As we did the year before, some of us chose to come together to remember.



Add another to the list of deaths in custody.

This time, in Kota Baru.

Malaysianinsider has the story HERE.

No name.

Just another John Doe?

Or another anak Bangsa Malaysia who did not matter?

Sudden death?

What means, this?

Do we look away again?

Thursday, October 6, 2011

明福案趙家不放棄‧總檢察署撤銷檢討懸案

(雪蘭莪‧沙亞南22日訊)基於皇家調查委員會報告作出趙明福自殺的結論,總檢察署今日向沙亞南高庭申請撤銷其之前要求高庭就驗屍庭作出的懸案裁決進行司法檢討的申請。

總檢察署代表朱基菲里副檢察司表示,他們的申請已經獲得批准。

11月審趙家申請


不過,趙明福家屬代表律師哥賓星強調,趙家不放棄對這起案件做司法檢討的程序,而法庭也定於11月4日就此案進行聆審。

朱基菲里說:“我們是基於皇委會報告指趙明福是因為無法承受具侵略性及過於持久的激烈盤問過程而自殺,因此,我們認為沒有必要再針對驗屍庭的懸案裁決要求司法檢討。”

然而,過後才抵達法庭的哥賓星說,趙家不會放棄司法檢討程序。

“除了針對驗屍庭的裁決要求司法檢討外,趙家在兩周前也入稟吉隆坡上訴及特權小組高庭,就皇家調查委員會的報告提出司法檢討申請,要求高庭撤除報告闡明趙明福自殺的結論和相關論點,裁決‘趙明福自殺論’不成立。”

他說,法庭將就趙家提出的申請於11月4日進行聆審,案件在10月6日過堂。

No judicial review for Teoh suicide verdict, court rules



KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 4 — The family of the late Teoh Beng Hock today failed to challenge the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s (RCI) conclusion that the Selangor DAP political aide committed suicide in 2009.

Teoh’s family filed the application for judicial review against the RCI on August 24.

The RCI, which was chaired by sitting Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong, found that Teoh had been driven to suicide after relentless questioning by investigators from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

The five-man panel wrapped up its report on June 15 after hearing testimony from 70 witnesses in its bid to unravel the mysterious circumstances behind Teoh’s death at the then Selangor MACC headquarters on July 16, 2009.

Judge Datuk Rohana Yusof ruled today that an RCI could not be subject to a judicial review, as the court was bound by an earlier federal court decision.

Lawyer Gobind Singh Deo, who is representing the Teoh family, told The Malaysian Insider the decision was made in chambers.

Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bol Hassan represented the RCI, whose commissioners were named as respondents.

“The judge’s decision was based on the federal court’s decision in Datuk V. K Lingam’s appeal, where they ruled that recommendations of the RCI are not subject to judicial review,” he said.

Gobind said the only option the family had right now is to challenge the federal court’s decision in Lingam’s case, but said that he was not sure whether they wanted to do that.

“There is still the revision application on the coroner’s open verdict, which will take place the day after tomorrow,” Gobind said.

Before the RCI was formed, a coroner’s inquest had in January returned an “open verdict” ruling out both suicide and homicide.

The lawyer had previously pointed out that there was no testimony on what happened to Teoh, between 3.30am and 7am on July 16, 2009, the crucial hours before he was found dead outside the then Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) office in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam.

Gobind had also questioned the lack of action against the three MACC officers whom the RCI said had pressured Teoh into committing suicide.

The MACC has suspended the officers pending internal investigations.

Teoh, 30, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth-floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam after he was questioned overnight by MACC officers at their then-Selangor headquarters on the 14th floor.

高庭駁回准令申請‧趙家禁挑戰皇委會報告




(吉隆坡4日訊)趙明福家屬要求高庭發出準令,以挑戰皇委會把趙明福死因列為自殺的結論進行司法檢討的申請遭高庭駁回。

上訴及特別權力組高庭法官羅哈娜尤索夫週二在內庭裁決時說,高庭的判決受限於聯邦法院的裁決,即由皇家調查委員會所作的調查結果不能受到任何形式的檢討。

趙家代表律師哥賓星在庭外受訪時說,他們仍可針對高庭的裁決向上訴庭提出上訴,但他必須先諮詢趙家的意願和指示。至於皇委會的代表律師,則是高級聯邦律師三蘇博哈山。

趙明福的35歲胞兄趙銘基於今年8月24日正式入稟高庭,針對皇委會的報告提出司法檢討申請,並要求高庭撤除報告中闡明趙明福自殺的結論和相關論點,以及宣判“趙明福自殺論”不成立。

求判自殺論不成立

他在申請書中把皇委會5名成員,即聯邦法院法官馮正仁、前聯邦法院法官阿都卡迪蘇萊曼、前上訴庭法官昔爾溫蒂拉納丹、檳城醫院法醫局法醫病理學顧問布德星,以及賽城醫藥科學大學學院醫學系教授暨法醫精神科顧問醫生莫哈末哈達列為第一至第五答辯人。

雪州行政議員歐陽捍華的前政治秘書趙明福是於2009年7月15日下午5時許,被雪州反貪污委員會官員帶走,以協助調查雪州民聯州議員被指濫用選區撥款事件,但他卻於隔日下午被人發現臥屍在銜接雪州反貪委會總部大廈5樓的露台上。

政府較後分別成立驗屍庭和皇委會來調查趙明福的死因,內閣過後於今年7月21日公開皇委會報告,報告指趙明福在接受雪州反貪污委員會官員盤問期間,因為面對精神及心理虐待,以致在沒有其他選擇下,跳樓自殺。

趙家認為,皇委會斷定趙明福死於自殺的結論在法律上是站不住腳,因為皇委會在作出結論前並未考量到相關的實據,所以有關結論理應被撤銷。

林甘短片案成裁決指標


由朱基菲、勞勿斯及阿都哈密恩邦組成的聯邦法院三司於9月13日在“林甘司法短片”上訴案中,一致作出一項標誌性的裁決,即由皇家調查委員會所作出的調查結果不能受到任何形式的檢討,因此,高庭必須依據這項裁決駁回趙明福家屬挑戰皇委會把趙明福死因列為自殺的結論進行司法檢討的申請。

上述案例也是聯邦法院首次針對皇委會的調查結果可否受到司法檢討作出裁決,這項裁決也將作為其他案件參考的先例,並將對皇家調查委員會的調查結果帶來深遠影響。

聯邦法院認為,皇委會只是調查而沒有作出任何決定,因此,調查結果及建議不能約束任何人,甚至是政府,因此,皇委會的調查結果不能受到檢討,如果當局允許皇委會的調查結果在法庭受到挑戰,將違反公眾利益。

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

赵家质疑坠楼前情况不明 入禀推翻皇委会自杀结论

【本刊记者撰述】赵明福家属今天入禀高庭,就赵明福案皇委会报告达致的赵明福自杀结论提出司法复核。赵家代表律师哥宾星指所有的供证并没有谈及赵明福坠楼前、从临晨3时30分至早上7时的情况,因此质疑报告如何达致自杀的结论。

根据《马来西亚局内人》报道,哥宾星(Gobind Singh Deo)指出,赵明福坠楼前的临晨3时30分至早上7时是关键的时刻,赵明福案皇委会召开的听证会内并没有供词谈及赵明福在该时刻的情况,因此质疑报告如何达致自杀的结论。



“如果你不确定发生了什么事,你如何导致这样的结论?”

皇家调查委员会报告认为,由于雪州反贪污委员会官员激进的四轮盘问手法,导致原本属于低自杀风险群的赵明福,在短短几个小时内转为高自杀风险群,并认为赵明福面对极大的精神压力和愧疚感,而为了逃离这个困局,他选择了跳出14楼的窗口。

皇委会报告第233段内容如下:

“根据精神科法医方面达致的结论

因受这个困境折磨,赵明福(左图左)的精神状态面临转变。在数个小时内,使他从低自杀风险群升为高自杀风险群之列。怀疑、极端的挣扎情绪、巨大的罪恶感都是难以承受的。最终在16日凌晨3时至7时之间发生无法扭转的危机,是压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草。他找不到可行的策略来克服所施加在身上的指控,他发现自己无法逃离这个令人窒息的两难困局。失去了所有的希望,赵明福会感到自己被困了,并且屈服于绝望。14楼的窗口打开着,或容易打开,而他正躺在纳兹里的沙发上,其实是很接近窗口的。赵明福或许发现唯一逃离眼前困境的方法就是跳出窗口,即便这样做是夺走自己的生命。” 【点击:数小时内转成高自杀风险群 皇委会称明福投窗自尽解困】

上诉庭退休法官陈炘铠(N.H. Chan)抨击调查赵明福案皇委会报告的两项结论是毫无根据的,即赵明福是自杀及反贪委的极端盘问手法导致赵明福自杀。

他指,该两项结论须有专家佐证,但专家根本未提出此供证,而是皇委会妄下结论,并且明显违反《证据法》。【点击:无专家意见妄下自杀结论 前法官斥皇委会违证据法】

以民事诉讼告反贪委

另外,哥宾星也质疑总检察署未对付皇委会报告指三名反贪委员会采激进盘问手法导致赵明福自杀,此三人即前雪州反贪委副总监希山慕丁哈欣(Hishamuddin Hashim)、执法助理阿金哈菲兹( Azeem Hafeez Jamaluddin)和阿兹安奥玛(Azian Omar)。

“总检察长应解释……为何没有采取行动。”

皇委会报告出炉后,反贪委已经勒令三人停职查办。

哥宾星表示,赵家将会在下个月向反贪委提出民事诉讼。

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

DAP wants police action on Teoh’s interrogators


Klang MP Charles Santiago says no action has been taken against the three MACC officers since the release of the RCI findings.

KLANG: DAP MP Charles Santiago today lodged a police report demanding an investigation into the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) which implicated three Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers in the death of Teoh Beng Hock.

“We want the police to act on the findings which said that torture had contributed to the death of Teoh… there was criminal intent,” Santiago, the Klang MP, told reporters after lodging the report at the Klang police headquarters here.

The RCI had ruled that Teoh, the former political aide to a Selangor executive councillor, had committed suicide as a result of pressure from aggressive and continuous interrogation methods.

It blamed three officers – former Selangor MACC deputy director Hishammuddin Hashim and enforcement officers Arman Alies and Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus – for his death.

The three in the RCI report were described as “Arman the bully, Ashraf the abuser and HH the arrogant leader” and recommended action against them.

Police, however, said there are no laws to charge the three while the MACC launched an internal probe and promised to implement other RCI recommendations, including conducting questioning on the ground floor and installing cameras.

But former Kuala Lumpur CID chief Mat Zain Ibrahim in an open letter to the Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar said the three can be charged under Section 193 of the Penal Code. (Section 193 prescribes seven years’ jail and fine for giving false evidence at judicial proceedings.)

‘Justice has to be done’


Santiago concurred with the view after consultations with his lawyers and demand police investigate the three under Section 193.

“In fact, the police don’t have to wait for a report to be lodged to launch an investigation,” he said.

He added that it has been close to two months now since the release of the RCI report and no action has been taken against the three MACC officers.

“Justice has to be done for Teoh,” said Santiago.

Teoh, 30, was found dead on July 16, 2009, on the fifth corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam after he was questioned overnight for alleged graft at the then MACC Selangor headquarters on the 14th floor.

The RCI cleared Teoh and his boss, Sri Kembangan state assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, from corruption charges.

Teoh’s family has rejected the RCI’s verdict and is considering applying for a judicial review on its findings.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Teoh RCI report continues to rankle



'Reading the RCI report made me felt like I'm reading fiction rather than a fact-finding report of a royal commission.'

TBH 'suicide' finding: Impossible does not happen

Danny Lazaroo: I'm a practising psychologist, fully registered with the Australian Psychology Board.

I can't think of any trained and qualified psychologist who would condone or agree with the RCI's (royal commission of inquiry's) findings. Suicide, in the absence of prior suicidal attempts or ideation, or psychiatric condition/history, and in a context of an individual with a future orientation, is most unlikely.

But I am not surprised - psychology and psychiatry are not well-regulated mental health fields in Malaysia. Furthermore, it is impossible for any psychiatrist to state with certainty that Teoh Beng Hock would have committed suicide - an actual risk assessment cannot be concluded without prior interview with Teoh or data collected from him.

The best we can come up with is a possibility/probability of suicide. From the start, I've believed that this was not, and could not have been, a suicide.

The murderers will continue to be allowed to roam free, of course. This is Malaysia, where the truth is hidden and the illegal always allowed. Malaysia, truly corrupt.

DannyLoHH: Indeed, reading the RCI report made me felt like I'm reading fiction rather than a fact-finding report of a royal commission.

The conclusion does not jive with all the findings and evidence. It was clear that this was a torture session that had gone awry. The MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) investigators involved should all be investigated for torture and manslaughter charges.

Also, it was clear that the many MACC investigators had committed blatant perjury, yet to date, the police and the AG (attorney-general) have done nothing. Where is the rule of law?

Cala: By putting up a detailed analysis that shows James Foong's RCI has indeed erred in concluding that Teoh took his own life, the writer, CT Wong, has proven that a practising engineer too is as capable as any professional in the fields of psychology and philosophy. I am proud of him.

Back to Foong's oxy-moronic and warp logic, I am happy Wong questions the logic and legitimacy of the RCI finding by pointing to the lack of scientific data/evidence that lends weight to the likelihood of Teoh taking his own life under repetitive torturing.

As Wong points out, none of the four types of data sets are in the report. If Foong is worthy of his salt, either he withdraws the RCI findings or he has to defend his earlier position more convincingly.
I am disappointed that in this age of Internet, Foong comes to represent the low standard of our judiciary and happily pronounces anything he so wishes unsubstantiated with facts.

Judging by the manner he had read Teoh's mind before the alleged leap, he is telling the public that he has the supernatural power of speaking on Teoh's behalf. If that is true, Foong can well be the medium through which one can talk to all who are in the other world.

Tkc: In this country, the wisdom of our civil servants is inversely proportional to their seniority. The higher their position, the more prone they are to make a fool of themselves.

Presumably it has a lot to do with the fear of losing their pensions or missing out on some lucrative directorship in public-listed companies after their retirement.

In Teoh's case, the only people who believe in the theory of suicide are the clowns in the RCI and of course MACC, PDRM and the AG's office.

Teoh's family was vindicated when they decided to boycott the RCI because it was a charade from Day 1. But my heart goes out to them because they have yet to get the closure that is unjustly denied to them. Our best hope is for Pakatan Rakyat to reopen the case when they occupy Putrajaya one day.

Michael Gan: Asia News Network on July 25 reported:
"The RCI described (former Selangor MACC deputy chief) Hishamuddin Hashim as a leader who would use all kinds of tricks as well as lies in order to achieve his objectives."

As for his subordinates, they were being arrogant, concealing the truth and fabricating lies on hearings in order to protect their superior.

I wonder if Teoh actually didn't break down at all and stood firm. After all, he was a witness to a mere RM2,400 misappropriation case. He is in DAP, and there are some pretty tough nuts there.

So, if that was the case, it is possible the some or one of the MACC officers could have just lost their cool.

One Brain Cell: The facts of the case are clear for all to see. Umno/BN is a very sore loser and wanted Selangor back at all costs. Using the MACC as an attack dog was a favourite tactic.

They wanted to undermine the credibility of a few DAP state councillors - Ean Yong Hian Wah among them. Teoh was expected to buckle under intense and prolonged "interrogation" but he stood up to his tormentors till fatigue got the better of them and they probably went overboard, killing him in the process.

The plot to wrest Selangor back from Pakatan Rakyat had to be postponed. Now they're trying to use Indonesian immigrants to do the job.

Teoh was killed by Umno/BN's vileness and dishonourable misconduct - and Hishamuddin Hashim and his colleagues belong in jail for torturing an innocent human being beyond the limits of endurance.

Kgen: All I can say is shame on the RCI for allowing itself to be influenced by politics. Malaysians are fed up of being lied to by people who are publicly entrusted to act with the utmost integrity but promptly sell their souls to the ruling regime.

BornInM'sia:
At the end of the day, the RCI panel members may realise that they have in their possession the skill of writing a good novel.

TBH ‘suicide’ finding: The impossible does not happen

Extracts from Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission of Enquiry:

Decision on the second term of reference:

[119] Having considered all the evidence in its entirety, we found that TBH was driven to commit suicide by the aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation to which he was subjected by certain officers of the MACC who were in the ongoing operation by the Selangor MACC on the night of the 15th and into the morning of the 16th.


- Forensic psychiatric aspects

[233] 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 levelled, he found himself unable to escape from the suffocating quagmire in which he was trapped. 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 Nasdzri's room, TBH would have found that the only way for escape from the torment he was undergoing was by jumping out of the window, even though it meant taking his own life...."




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.

Making attributions without proof

One of the two main terms of reference as spelt out in the RCI is “...to enquire into the death of Teoh Beng Hock and the circumstances surrounding and contributing to his death. It does not state clearly whether ‘death’ means the cause of death (e.g. major injuries, heart attack etc.) or the manner of death (natural causes, accident, homicide or suicide).”

By RCI's verdict of the enquiry, it had taken to itself the responsibility to determine the manner or mode of death.

As for the requirement of the level of proof, RCI stated that their finding would be based on "a balance of probabilities sliding to proof beyond reasonable doubt" (RCI pp.5). This means RCI claims its standard of proof is very high. Also, it says that in order to "understand the probability that TBH took his own life", it is crucial to know TBH's traits of character and his changing states of mind (RCI, pp.64).

It is clear from the above that RCI intended to use the language of probability in the reasoning in the argument. However, the RCI commissioners used the language of certainty when giving the verdict of "driven to commit suicide"; it does not say something like "TBH probably or most probably was driven to commit suicide", but asserted that TBH was "driven to commit suicide".

The commissioners should not use categorical terms of suicide in absolute certainty as the precise mental state of the deceased could not be known.

Purported intention to suicide unconvincing

When read closely, the RCI para.[233] on "conclusion on forensic psychiatric aspects" does not confirm that TBH intended to commit suicide but speculated that TBH must have committed suicide:

"...TBH would have found that the only way for escape from the torment he was undergoing was by jumping out of the window, even though it meant taking his own life." (RCI, pp.72). However, such speculation is used as the reason to come to the suicide verdict: "...Having considered all the evidence in its entirety, we found that TBH was driven to commit by the aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation to which he was subjected by certain officers of the MACC.." (RCI, pp.37).

Para. [233] is of utmost importance in determining whether TBH had the intention to suicide. RCI was unable to confirm the intention to suicide and yet it confirmed suicide had occurred. This is a deep contradiction and the inference is seriously flawed.

RCI is using a strange logic which is only intelligible to itself. It runs something like this: Teoh Beng Hock would have found suicide as the only way out. Therefore, TBH committed suicide. Speculation has then become hard fact. There is little wonder that the public refuses to accept the verdict.

But, why must RCI deliver a suicide verdict? Why not an open verdict? We do not know for what reasons the commissioners felt compelled or were compelled to make a verdict that contradicts its own reasoning. With an unconvincing verdict, the reasoning itself in the RCI needs to be examined critically.

Missing the mark in suicide definition

According to De Leo, Burgis, Bertolote, Kerkhof and Bille-Brahe (2006), the World Health Organisation working group had proposed a standard definition for the study of suicide:

"Suicide is an act with a fatal outcome which the deceased, knowing or expressing a fatal outcome had initiated and carried out with the purpose of provoking the changes he desired (WHO/Euro, 1986)".

The key elements of the WHO's definition involve: 1) an awareness that action has fatal outcome, 2) the self-responsibility of the subject both to initiate and to carry out the suicidal behaviour and 3) the intention to bring about wanted changes.

RCI's verdict of "driven to suicide" is not in accordance with WHO's definition of suicidal behaviour. RCI's speculation of TBH's thinking of "...would have found that the only way of escape...jumping out of the window" can only be described as suicidal thoughts rather than an act that was initiated and carried out by TBH himself.

By WHO's definition, one cannot force another to commit suicide without one's intention to commit suicide. One can force another to kill him/herself which is considered as homicidal. In 22 state and three territories of the United States of America, even assisting in suicide is a crime and the charge is murder.

RCI has not proved the crucial elements of suicide: (1) the locus of origin (self-initiated) and (2) the intention (to cause, or not to cause death). Neither has RCI proved that TBH was aware or conscious of the potential of fatal outcome.

The RCI verdict is therefore illogical conceptually.

RCI lacking legitimate data of psychology


To establish suicide or suicidal behaviours, from the legal point of point of view, both the physical act (actus reas) and the mental element (mens reas) must be present; the mental element is intentionality i.e. the intention to suicide. It is self-evident that evidence must be produced to support any claims of suicide as the manner of death.

From the psychological point of view, the legitimate data which can or should be used as evidence are derived from experimental methods, observations and introspections.

There are 4 different types of data:

behavioural data
personal accounts of inner experience
symbolic data (symbolic creations of the mind such as texts or the language used), and
material data like the biological data and neuropsychological data

Behaviour is what can be seen or observed from the outside. The data gained and evaluated is called outsider viewpoint without going into the mental state of the subjects studied.

The inner experiences involve the feelings, emotions, beliefs, thoughts, reasons, motives and intentions. The data gained/evaluated is called the insider viewpoint. These cannot be seen directly from outside and can only be accessible to others through verbal or written reports or inferred from non-verbal behaviours.

Insider viewpoint without evidence

RCI had provided an insider viewpoint of TBH's psychological state of mind without giving any basis of how the data of inner experiences were collected and evaluated. It is more appropriate to say that RCI reconstructed the reality of TBH's psychological state in such a way that the suicide verdict is inescapable. This is a serious flaw of RCI's reasoning.

The relevant passage is found in RCI para.[233] page 72 (in italics below) and my comment run as follows:
-"Tormented by this predicament, TBH experienced a change in his state of mind."


My comments: How did the commissioners know of TBH's torment of predicament and inner experience of psychological changes? What evidence?
- "And in a matter of hours, this change transformed him from being in the low-risk group for suicide into the high-risk group."

My comments: Why the immediate grouping into suicidal and not other category? How likely is that within a matter of hours a person becomes suicidal? Having suicidal thoughts is different from suicidal behaviour. What evidence of suicidal behaviour is there with TBH?
- "The doubts, extreme emotional conflict and the immense feeling of guilt were all intolerable."

My comments: Guilt is an inner emotion and thought. How do the commissioners know? What evidence of TBH's inner feelings was being manifested?
-
"Finally, precipitating the irreversible crisis that happened to him between 3.30am and 7.00pm on the 16th, was the last straw that broke the camel's back."

My comments: Metaphor is no substitute for hard evidence. What really happened?
- "Finding no viable strategies to surmount the hurdle of accusations levelled, he found himself unable to escape from the suffocating quagmire in which he was trapped."


My comments: When and how did the commissioners know that TBH knew of no other viable strategies?
- "Losing all hope, TBH would have felt trapped and have succumbed to despair."

My comments: When and how did the commissioners know that TBH had lost all hope?
- "Since the window on the 14th floor was either open or could be easily opened and it was conspicuous..., TBH would have found that the only way for escape from the torment he was undergoing was by jumping out of the window, even though it meant taking his own life."


My comments: How did the commissioners know TBH's intention to suicide?

The above reconstruction sounds more like a survivor's account of suicide attempt.

Reconstruction and interpretation of suicidal thoughts and behaviours must relate to legitimate data. Without a proper and sound method of data collection and interpretation, we can only infer that the data is manufactured out of imagination.

RCI couldn’t have known

RCI had used various terms like "extreme emotional conflict", "guilt...all intolerable", "irreversible crisis", "losing all hope", "succumbed to despair" to give an account TBH's subjective psychological state of mind after the interrogations. Then, they described TBH's judgement of the extreme situation as "no viable strategies", "unable to escape" and "trapped". The depiction of TBH's immense emotional turmoil and the judgement of "no escape" was framed in such a way as to lead to the inevitable consequence of "jumping out of the window".

The way that extremes in emotion and impairment in judgement are attributed to TBH without any correlation to any specific time, specific location, specific events and specific details raises the serious doubt of its authenticity.

Highly subjective and using loaded phraseology

RCI used a large amount of rather emotional, subjective and value-judgement words and phrases to describe TBH's state of mind. For example:
"[219]...Taking his mobile phone away would have meant robbing him of his means to reality and sanity. And the MACC officers did just that. Thus, for the first time in his life, TBH found himself totally and completely isolated from the outside world and thrust into desolation..." (RCI, pp.71)

Are the commissioners suggesting that TBH was losing his sense of reality and sanity just because of a handphone? And suggesting that TBH was going insane?

And how do they know that it was the first time in TBH's life that he felt "totally and completely isolated"? Presumably, they had special access into TBH's autobiographical memories and all the life stories.

The first sentence of the RCI finding using a third-person perspective speaks of "...would have meant...". But by the third sentence, a speculation by RCI had become a fact – "TBH found himself totally....". It is a remarkable feat to blur the reality by switching from one dimension of reality to another.

It is important to analyse this short passage as the whole argument for the suicide verdict is constructed using similar lines of reasoning or reconstruction of mental reality.

Risk factors are not causal factors

Risk factors are still risk factors, however high or acute it is. Risk factors are not causal factors unless proven so.

Just because RCI suggests that someone feels trapped and troubled by hopelessness does not mean that the individual would commit suicide. In fact, even most people who have previously harboured suicidal thoughts still do not do so.

All the three psychiatrists who gave expert opinion to the RCI were of the view that TBH belonged to low-risk group for suicide after reviewing TBH's life history against the risk factors.

The psychiatrists were Dr Badi'ah Yahya, a forensic psychiatrist and Dr Nor Hayati Ali from the Ministry of Health, and Paul Edward Mullen, emeritus professor of forensic psychiatry, Monash University, Australia. Dr Badi'ah and Dr Hayati based their argument on the observation that TBH came from an intact family, had a stable job, and had no history of mental illness, impulsivity or substance abuse.

However, RCI ignored the expert opinions of the low probability of suicide and argued that TBH had undergone dramatic psychological changes from the low-risk group to the high-risk group for suicide when taken in by the MACC on July 15, 2009.

Quite early in their argument, RCI chose to categorise that TBH belonged to a high-risk group for suicide. Instead of choosing to argue out what was the probability of each of the manners of death (natural, accident, homicide or suicide), RCI ruled out all other scenarios and was fixated on the sole verdict of suicide.

RCI then used the hypothesised emotional state to justify suicide was the only way out for TBH.

No warning signs of suicide

RCI adopted the approach of insider viewpoint in arguing for the suicide verdict. RCI first classified TBH belonging to high-risk group for suicide and then provided purported details of TBH's inner emotions and thoughts before he purportedly took the decision to ‘jump’.

From their approach, we would have expected that RCI had managed to gather evidence of signs of TBH of wanting to commit suicide. Strangely, no such evidence was produced.

According to the American Association of Suicidology, a person in acute risk for suicidal behaviour most often will show the following warning signs:

“Threatening to hurt or kill himself or herself, or talking of wanting to hurt or kill him/herself; and/or
Looking for ways to kill him/herself by seeking access to firearms, available pills, or other means; and/or
Talking or writing about death, dying or suicide, when these actions are out of the ordinary.”

RCI had not provided any credible and convincing evidence that TBH had suicidal thoughts or suicidal behaviour. It is at best mere speculation and at worst the manufacture of inner experience of a supposedly insider viewpoint.

RCI had failed immensely to establish TBH's intention to suicide.

TBH stable and supported


Van Orden et al. (2010) proposed that the most dangerous form of suicidal desire is caused by the simultaneous presence of two factors – the thwarted belongingness (I am alone) and perceived burdensomeness (I am a burden) – and the hopelessness of these situations.

Also, the individual must acquire the capacity to engage in suicidal behaviour.

It is most unlikely that TBH would have felt hopeless when he was only detained less than 24 hours and there were ample opportunities for him to be reconnected to the outside world.

There is no reason for TBH to entertain the thought that his family, friends and colleagues in the outside world had abandoned him.

Subsequent events following news of TBH’s death saw an outpouring of support – including many friends, colleagues and ex-colleagues – for the family. It is clear from this that TBH had a sound social network of support to cope with any traumatic events.

Thus, the attribution of despair and hopelessness by RCI onto TBH is falsely created.

A physical and mental wreck will not commit suicide

Para. [229] stated that "By the time the fourth or final stage of the interrogation was over, TBH would have been almost a mental and physical wreck. When Ashraf fetched him a glass of water [demanded impolitely by TBH], TBH was said to have sat up very slowly."

It is clear that in such a tortured weakened state, TBH would not have sufficient strength to commit suicide. When he could hardly move, he could not be expected to jump out of the window. This RCI conclusion now of TBH’s physical near collapse is self-contradictory to its melodramatic reconstruction of a fevered, despairing mind planning an energetic act of self-annihilation.

It is more probable that TBH would want to get out of the dreaded MACC building the moment he had the chance and the energy.

Conclusion

The RCI's suicide verdict is questionable as the reasoning in its argument is deeply flawed. Mere speculation of TBH's psychological state prior to death had become hard facts.

The authenticity of the evidence of intention to suicide used to support the claim is doubtful.

The inference from such evidence to the conclusion of suicide is invalid and unsound.

RCI based its reasoning on reconstructed suicidal thought. It is not inevitable that suicidal thoughts would lead to suicide. Also, it has not provided any evidence of suicidal behaviour or warning signs of suicide. The seriously weakened mental and physical state TBH as described by the commissioners shows that suicide is implausible.

RCI should have delivered an open verdict as it is a matter of intellectual honesty and integrity to respect facts and evidence.

Death would only have meaning when the truth is revealed and justice is done.

Reference List

De Leo, D., Burgis, S., Bertolote, J.M., Kerkhof, A.J.F.M., and Bille-Brahe, U. (2006), Definitions of suicidal behaviour. Crisis, 27(1), 4-15.

Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T.K., Cukrowicz, Braithwaite, S.R., Selby, E.A. and Joiner, Jr., T.E. (2010), The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, Psychological Review, 117 (2), 576-600.

蘇淑慧的少了一個人的全家福



我等苏淑慧愿意跟我开口,两年了。

这两年来,太多人叫我侧写这个还来不及结婚就守了寡的女子,我都不愿意。把自己的想法乱套在别人身上,对生者与死者都是一种不敬。

可是皇委会的报告出来了,我国史上最大宗的“悬案”不但没有进步反而还退步成为白纸黑字的自杀了。而大部份人对赵家,有同情心,却没有同理心。所以这样的热情不长久。很残忍,可是看著一年比一年人少的追思会,大家都看到一个事实—— 人,是善忘的。

别无他法。只得去找明福的妻。

苏淑慧的回信, 这么写著。

“如果你访问我,我想你应该得不到什么新闻或是看法。老实说,我不像丽兰或是赵妈妈他们那般的激烈,或是说激怒。我把一切看得很淡很淡,我是选择让我自己看看就好了。我承认我是特意这么做的,因为这样我会比较好过日子。”

“动情会令我很受伤。应该你的问题就是什么看法之类,希望什么?我没有激情的言论,,没有希望。所以你觉得你能够访问到什么吗?当然我也知道大家想听我说,我那一句简单的谢谢皇委会让我做了几个月的梦,被打了一巴掌,该醒了也都会登标题。你看呢?”

她不知道,她那一句 已经是头条了。很淡,可是当中却又包含太多的情感。

而我在裡邊, 嗅到了一絲因為包持希望而帶來失望的恨意。即使她每次出現都彷佛淡淡的不在乎,但是內傷,是看不見的。

xxxxxxxxxx

“这个事情是没有真相的。我相信就算是换了民联来做政府,同样没结果。那个时间已经过了,证据没有了。可能只是改掉一个制度,你要把所有的公务员都换到完,那是不可能的事情。”

“两年的时间,如果那三个人真的是凶手,这么久了,就算他们真的给民联政府捉去审了,只要这三个人什么都不讲,你什么真相都得不到。最多,不是像律师公会讲的什么误杀呀那种轻微的罪呀我觉得。”

那三个人,指的是皇委会报告中过度使用高压手段迫使明福被自杀的反贪会官员。

什么时候看得这么透彻了?

她又笑。“不懂咧。” “我开始看到皇家委员会成立的时感觉还普普通通的,我是看到它在审的时候看到反贪会的错漏百出什么东西都给他们挖出来呀,哎呀很有希望的样子,还蛮开心下。”

“一路审下来好像一直都是对我们有利,做到问题好像都在反贪会那边,有人必须为他的死负责,好像有看到希望,给我的感觉是这样啦,可是最后的结果出来是自杀,哈哈哈哈哈———”

xxxxxxxxxx

“我不想搞到自己要生要死。我现在最大的想法就是把孩子顾大,顾到20年呀30年呀这样就好了,我觉得自己也不需要这样长命了。过多二三十年我也不用留在人间了。”

苏淑慧还在笑,可是这一次,透过笑脸,我们听到她的鼻音了。

“等天收、人在做,天在看这些都是鬼话,真有天,一切一切就不会发生。你知道,经过他的事情之后,我不相信鬼神, 我也不拜神的。”

真的,我在富贵山庄看过她点香,真的很随便,拿著香,抿著嘴,随手一插,了事。

“以前我信,不過现在我拜神是不诚心的,如果没有必要我不会拿香来点。我拜神很随便的,我认为那个神也不必保佑我。”哈哈大笑,她说:“如果我是神我也不会保佑这样的人,没有神心的,不用保佑我,有灵去保佑别人就好。”

張念群:剖析《皇委會報告》之四

兩年前,雪州反貪委會告訴我們,他們在7月16日凌晨大約3點45分的時候,就已經釋放明福。兩年后,皇委會的報告告訴我們,在第三次問話后,雖然反貪委會已經錄取了明福的口供,可是明福並沒有被釋放,原因如下。(皇委會報告第167段)

 第一,明福是被強行帶回反貪委會進行問話。在這種情況下,很難讓人相信在他被釋放后,還樂意呆在反貪委會,哪怕是一分鐘。事實上,明福就曾詢問過一位名叫Sachi的官員,到底他什么時候可以回家。明福歸心似箭的心情,可見一斑。

 第二,在整個調查過程中,反貪委會都會將幾位證人的口供進行比對。換言之,在陳文華和李維榮的口供錄完以前,反貪委會根本不可能讓明福離開。李維榮的口供在凌晨5點才錄完,陳文華的口供更是錄到早上11點30分。所以明福不可能在3點45分獲釋。

被釋放說法不攻自破

 第三,李維榮和陳文華在錄完口供后,並沒有即刻被釋放。所以雪州反貪委會所謂“證人錄完口供就可以離開”的說法,根本站不住腳。

 第四,證人獲釋以前,反貪委會一般都會發出正式通告,要求證人帶回特定文件以協助調查。可是反貪委會並沒發出這樣的通告給明福,明福被釋放的說法,不攻自破。

 第五,2009年6月的時候,有訪客在未經許可情況下,誤闖反貪委會官員辦公室。所以時任雪州反貪委會副總監的希山慕丁就發出指示,不論證人還是訪客,在他身在反貪委會期間,都必須有官員陪同。所以在錄完口供后,明福必定也有人陪同。換言之,既然明福沒被釋放,那必然就有第四次的審問。皇委會推斷,第四次審訊發生在凌晨3點半至6點期間。主要負責盤問明福的官員,正是展開Ops DUN的主要負責人,時任雪州反貪委會副主任的希山慕丁。

 行文至此,不得不帶大家重溫兩個星期前我在專欄中點出的幾個疑竇:為什么反貪委會在兩年前謊稱明福在16日凌晨3點45分的時候,已經獲釋?如果明福真的是自殺,為什么反貪委會要隱瞞他們其實在3點30分至6點之間,對明福進行第四次盤詰?在凌晨3點45分到清晨6時這段時間,到底發生了什么事?

 下個星期,我將進一步解說希山慕丁在整個調查中的角色。

張念群:官官相護最佳寫照

為了調查雪州民聯議員濫用撥款的情報,前雪州反貪會副總監希山慕丁從各分局調派人手來參與7月15號的行動。其中一人是布城反貪污委員會總部官員布基尼(Bulkini Paharuddin)。

 布基尼的職責在于審問以RM2400售賣1500面國旗給歐陽捍華的陳文華。

 布基尼在皇委會供證時宣稱,他在16號凌晨2點半問完話后,就已經允許陳文華離開。

 可是,皇委會不接受布基尼的說法,因為陳文華在口供書上簽名,清楚標明著16號早上11點30分,而他也是在同一時間取回他之前被扣留的隨身物品。

 皇委會結論是:如果陳文華真如布基尼所言在凌晨2點半時已獲准離開,為什么他的口供和隨身物品不是在那個時間簽署歸還?很顯然布基尼的證詞是捏造的。(皇委會報告第80段)

 布基尼皇委會上也言之鑿鑿的表示,他在凌晨2點15分錄完口供后就到茶水間進餐。不久后陳文華來到茶水間找他,透露自己希望能夠得到一杯水解渴並獲准使用洗手間。布基尼二話不說馬上就陪同陳文華到茶水間隔壁的廁所。也就是洗手間入口處,布基尼自稱看見了一名和陳文華身高差不多的華裔男子,陳文華對著那名男子高喊“你咯!”

 皇委會認為,布基尼的這段供詞目的在于隱射歐陽捍華在撥款的使用上有些貓膩,而陳文華正遷怒明福作為捍華的政治秘書向警方透露了太多信息。

 可是,布基尼這段證詞同樣也被皇委會認為是蓄意編造,原因有4。

 一、布基尼是在明福逝世后的3個星期才突然宣稱自己曾在洗手間看過明福,皇委會不接受布基尼所謂時間拖得越久記憶也明晰這種違背常理的說法。

 二、布基尼說他看到一名和陳文華身高相近的華裔男子,可事實上趙明福卻比陳文華高一個頭。

 三、洗手間就在茶水間隔壁,陳文華完全不需要布基尼帶路也能找到,布基尼正在進食而且身為審問陳文華的資深官員,卻突然這么親切,讓皇委會覺得有點不可思議。

 四、如果那段可疑對話真的曾經發生,那么布基尼理應會在陳文華從洗手間出來后向他探問,從中套取對他所徹查案件有幫助的信息。可是布基尼卻沒有這么做。所以布基尼證詞只能是捏造。

 皇委會在他們報告中措詞嚴厲的譴責反貪會官員針對此案“滔滔不絕說出虛假事實,以掩蓋他們惡毒行為”。從上周我在文章中提及的雪州反貪會官員雷蒙和這次主角布基尼,他們都被皇委會裁定為不可靠的官員。可是迄今,他們沒有一人在“捏造證詞”罪名下被調查提控。真正是官官相護最佳寫照。

張念群:明福6點前已出事?

兩年前的716,當趙明福墜樓的悲劇發生后,雪州反貪會的說辭是在他們錄取完明福的口供,大約凌晨3點45分的時候,明福已經是被允許離開反貪會。可是,或許是反貪會總部太舒服反貪會的官員太親切,明福在被扣留了近10個小時后依然捨不得離開,所以主動要求留在反貪會休息。

 在皇委會的聽審過程中,反貪會的官員重複著同樣的說法。被皇委會標籤為“濫權者”的反貪會官員阿斯拉夫(Mohd Asraf Mohd Yunus)言之鑿鑿的表示,他在凌晨4點40分準備離開反貪會時,看到明福正舒舒服服的躺在沙發上。在明福的要求下,阿斯拉夫親自到茶水間為明福捧來一杯水。(皇委會報告第55段)

 另一位官員雷蒙也表示,他在凌晨6點離開反貪會時也曾見到明福。雷蒙在2009年7月16日的打卡記錄顯示他在早上6時04分離開,但是在6時05分時再次打卡進入辦公室。雷蒙解釋說那是因為當天需到法庭工作,擔心來不及返回辦公室,因此直接就打卡記錄當作是隔天的上班時間。

 基于多個理由,雷蒙的證詞和牽強的解釋不被皇委會接受。

 第一,雷蒙自稱經過所謂趙明福臥躺的沙發時,光線並不清晰,他也只是快速地走過,除非雷蒙當時有刻意走近勘查,否則根本不可能確定躺在那裡的人就是明福。

 第二,雷蒙自稱他之所以會經過所謂“當時明福的所在地”是因為他正要回家。可是平時他離開辦公室的路線是不會經過那裡的。

 第三,既然當天雷蒙需要到法庭工作,那么他本來就不需要打卡記錄他進入辦公室的時間。而且既然他在早上六點離開時壓根沒打算回來辦公室,那他之后又該如何打卡記錄他離開的時間?所以皇委會認同律師公會的推論,雷蒙兩次打卡是為了強化他當時人是身在反貪會的證詞。

雷蒙不是可靠證人

 第四,雷蒙說他是在事發16號下午4時30分左右接獲趙明福墜樓的通知,並且被要求回到辦公室。皇委會委員拿督瑟爾文在聽審時就表示,反貪會官員若不曉得雷蒙曾經在凌晨時分見過趙明福,就不會打電話要求他回到辦公室,所以雷蒙的解釋還有不能連接的地方。對此雷蒙也一直沒有作出回答。

 根據上述疑點,皇委會作出的結論是雷蒙是被反貪會可以安排的時間證人。“他不是一名可靠的證人,同時也遭那些須為趙明福之死負責的官員利用,以掩蓋他們的過錯,讓人錯以為趙明福在7月16日清晨6時間,不僅還活著,而且還舒服、祥和的躺在納茲裡辦公室外的沙發上”。(皇委會報告第198段)

 為什么反貪會不斷對外宣稱明福在16號凌晨3點45分的時候已經獲釋?如果明福真的是自殺的,為什么反貪會要隱瞞他們其實在3點30分至6點之間對明福進行了第四次盤詰?為什么反貪會要刻意安排一位時間證人來謊稱明福在清晨6時間還活著?在凌晨3點45分到清晨6時這段時間期間到底發生了什么事?是不是因為明福在第四次盤詰期間已經出事?有沒有可能因為明福其實在6點前已經不在人世?

 這些疑竇,我留給聰明的讀者自己解答。

(沙登區國會議員)

張念群:“大馬能!”式的巧合

對待喜歡把“勿把趙明福之死政治化”掛在嘴邊的國陣諸公,我首先會奉勸他們去閱讀一遍皇委會的報告;如果他們連報告都沒讀過就在那裡大放厥詞,我會不客氣地告誡他“Diamlah”!

 悲劇的源頭來自2009年6月22日時任雪州反貪會副總監希山慕丁所收到,指雪州民聯議員濫用撥款的情報。儘管所謂的“情報”只是告密者的一面之詞,希山慕丁沒有進一步確認該訊息的正確性,卻即刻展開雷霆搜索Ops DUN,成立9個小組來調查該指控。由于人手不足,希山慕丁更從雪州反貪會的其他分局調派人手來參與7月15號的行動。反貪會當天出動了33官員來調查歐陽捍華和劉永山兩位州議員。

 在其他的舞弊案中,我們可曾見過反貪會展開如此大規模的行動?

 時隔兩年,反貪會迄今依然找不出這兩位州議員貪污的證據。那么當初的雷霆搜索可謂猴子撈月亮白忙一場。可是,希山慕丁的情報從何而來?為什么他具有絕對的權力來調查雪州的民聯議員,無需通知或獲取雪州反貪會總監或布城總部高層的批准?

希山慕丁真“好命”

 今年4月27日,雪州反貪會執法助理阿晉(Azeen Hafees Jamaluddin)在皇委會供證時揭露,反貪會曾為了應付趙明福墜樓案驗屍庭及當時可能召開的皇委會,而數度召開會面及會議以統一官員的口供。在其中一場由布城總部召開的會議上,希山慕丁更指示所有的官員,須對外指稱2009年7月15日當天突擊行動是由雪州調查主任凱魯依漢統籌。

 身為此案的最高指揮官,數度為了掩飾自己的角色而撒謊,被皇委會標籤為一名“高傲的領袖”,可是他在趙明福慘案發生后不僅沒被對付,反而很快地就被擢升為森州反貪會總監。

 希山慕丁的“好命”,讓我聯想起前聯邦法院大法官奧古斯丁保羅。

 大法官奧古斯丁保羅于1998年5月21日由高庭司法專員升任高庭法官,是吉隆坡高庭眾多的法官中年資最淺的。同年,他就被賦予重任審理前副首相拿督斯裡安華的瀆職及雞姦案。很多法官在高庭審理了一輩子都無法進一步陞遷,忙活了十幾年最終在高庭終老。可是大法官奧古斯丁保羅卻得天獨厚,在2003年8月1日被委任為上訴庭法官,並于2005年6月17日更上一層樓成為聯邦法院法官。竄升之快,是他的其他同僚望塵莫及的。

 或許有人會說,也許這一切都是巧合呢?的確,這一切可能都是巧合,畢竟“Malaysia Boleh”嘛!”

(沙登區國會議員)

張念群:終究還有正義聲音

明福是個性格脆弱的人?

 抱歉,我不能認同。

 308以前,明福是《星洲日報》的記者,俗稱“無冕皇帝”。可是,他在政治海嘯中看到了改變這個國家的希望,所以選擇加入民主行動黨,當上了歐陽捍華的政治秘書。

 可是他的決定並沒有得到親友100%的祝福。有人說:“當記者不是更好嗎?為什么要涉及政治?很危險咧!”也有人建議:“不然就和淑慧一起當老師吧!學校放假還可以一起去旅行,多好!”

 親友的勸阻並沒有改變明福的念頭。因為他清楚自己的理念,因為他有自己的想法。

 霹靂州變天,我和明福以及數位支持者結伴到怡保為參與507州議會的同志打氣。見證了警方的鎖城和大逮捕后,我突然被一股無力感包圍。人民是何等渺小?這時,是明福對我說:“不能放棄,我們一定要加倍努力,這個國家才有希望。”

 這么一個目標明確、意志堅定的年輕人,他絕對不會是納茲裡口中的草莓族。

不認同明福自殺結論

 皇委會的報告千呼萬喚始出來,讓更多人意難平。有段時間我也覺得疑惑,是否就只有明福的親人朋友才堅信明福不會是個輕生者?是否我們的堅持終究只是自己一廂情願的主觀?

 直到星期六下午,在皇委會聽審期間,一直都有派遣團隊參與的律師公會發表了他們的看法。

 他們首先在文告中澄清,他們所聘請的心理鑒證專家保羅馬倫教授(Paul Mullen)並沒有做出趙明福是自殺的結論,相反的,他的證詞表示“從我們瞭解的趙明福的人格和行為,並沒有顯示任何自殺風險的增加”而且“根據其經驗,當天發生的事件不會導致趙明福在‘扣留期間自殺’”。

 律師公會也在文告中表明,他們並不認同趙明福是自殺的結論,並認為政府應該以“誤殺”和“導致他人死亡”的罪名,來調查涉案的反貪會官員。

 閱畢律師公會的文告,我第一時間做的是馬上發短訊給淑慧。皇委會讓我們夢醒,可是世間終究還是有正義的聲音。

 我當時是在新山一間Starbuck咖啡廳等待黨員來接我前往下一場活動。顧不得自己身處大庭廣眾,淚水不自禁的流下,是難過的眼淚,也是欣慰的眼淚。

 在尋找真相追求公道的路上,感謝所有為明福這位已經無法為自己辯駁的往生者說話的每一份良心。

(沙登區國會議員)

七月十四鬼門關大開的那一夜(二)

七月十四。老人家說是猛鬼出籠的大兇日。

臉書上也有人在說不出門比較好,去的又是趙明福的臥屍之地,兇呢。

但是還是有人來。不多。雖然記者說大概三十個,不過我們自己偷偷算人頭,有五六十個;加上因為下雨早一點點走的人以及在停車場找不到大隊而自己點起了蜡烛的約十一人。

來的人很多有些根本不认识赵明福。如我。如白頭。如那天晴,那天晴的母親。如38yaoyao妹。

那晚的冤魂祭也不止为明福一人,是为所有在执法单位扣押中冤死的人。希望社会明白,这不是基于跟明福友好的私交,而是我们更多人对于司法不昭的不肯妥协。

八點半。出現的人寥寥可數。還早。還早。我們這樣彼此安慰著。

用烛光圈起來的冤魂,不止這三位。
雖然沒有照片,但是每一條冤魂,都記載在馬來西亞隻手遮天血腥的歷史,還有我們的心裡。

人,慢慢的多了。

公正。明白嗎,我們要求一個公正。
別一直用大話來推搪。聽了太多,耳朵也會中毒生癌。

點一盞燈。點一盞渴求公正與公道的燈。


冤呀。看到淌淚的印裔同胞。有點遺憾。
下次一定要把請這群熱血的年青人把古甘的照片加上去。

我們都持白蜡烛。
可麗蘭,持的是元寶蜡烛。可以想像死者家屬的心情嗎?可以嗎?





這一組照片。找不到形容詞。
(一)的錄影中出現的嘶嘶嗦嗦,是抽泣聲。
我想,各人的想法不一樣。
所以,自己看,自己領受比較好。

燒到手了呀,為什麼做媽媽的渾然不覺?
在兒子的臥屍地,想起了什麼?

最後,縮在一角抽泣。
看著她手上的紙巾掉下來。又拾起。又掉下來。
終是把頭低下來。不忍再看。

要點燃多少根蜡烛,才能照亮這一條漫長的路?



我們真的要讓他們白死嗎?
下一個死在扣留當中的,會是誰?




趙爸爸話不多。可是這樣更糟。因為有苦說不出,沒能發洩到。

他們說,魂魄吃的是味道。
花香,慰藉了他們的魂嗎?

麗蘭:“謝謝你們大家來,讓我們不會覺得———孤單、無助”

(鞠躬):“辛苦你们了。”

“你們的到來,對我們來說,非常的重要。謝謝。”

第一次參加聚會的小朋友John Choo說,其實麗蘭的一聲謝謝,他就已落淚了。什麼也不說,什麼也說不出,他反而更加感同身受。相反的,其它政治人物說的話,讓他覺得破壞了悲傷但詳和的氣氛。



90分鐘的《冤魂祭》散場了。
互不認識的人聚在一起,清理現場。
一個有被傳召上庭的保安愣愣的看著我們。
我問,這樣的清潔你滿意嗎?他點頭,說,比原本的還要乾淨。
一會,我轉身要走,聽到他小小聲的唸了句經文。
轉過身去,看到他在用手抹臉。

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Teoh Beng Hock Trust Fund Updates

EXPENSES OF TEOH BENG HOCK TRUST FUND AS AT JULY 23, 2011



3-Oct-09 Allowance for Cher Wee for monthly maternity check up 2000.00

2-Oct-09 Supplements for Cher Wee 186.90

10-Feb-10 Cord Blood Banking 4500.00

10-Feb-10 Monthly Allowance for Er Jia (Feb 2010 till April 2010) 2002.15

4-Mar-10 Inpatient Bill - Pantai Hospital, Batu Pahat 2549.85

16-Jun-10 Monthly Allowance for Er Jia (May 2010 till December 2010) 8002.15

11-Oct-10 Monthly Allowance for Er Jia (Jan 2011 till June 2011) 6002.15

25-May-11 Monthly Allowance for Er Jia (July 2011 till December 2011) 6002.15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL EXPENSES RM31,245.35

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





SUMMARY OF TEOH BENG HOCK TRUST FUND



Closing Balance as at 23 July 2011 451,119.55http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Expenses 31,245.35

Education Insurance 15,002.25

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL COLLECTION RM497,367.15

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------