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

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


Sunday, August 14, 2011

七月十四冤魂祭



“我一直跟他讲,是不是你回来?你回来就现身给妈妈看,妈妈――​很想看你――”语音哽咽低沉,彷彿再也说不下去时,却又突然石破​天惊的激慨:“告诉妈妈,到底发生了什么事,是谁害你的?!现身​啦现身给我看!告诉我谁把你害死的,要不妈妈也不甘愿!”

两年了,搥著胸,她还在喊:“妈妈怎样都不甘愿!”

讲了之后,通常都有感应。例如,车子alarm总是会自己作响。​无独有偶的是,总是在家人谈起了他,就莫名其妙的震天价响。像是​不甘寂寞,也像是在提醒大家–––––莫忘明福,莫忘明福。

而在7月16号赵明福死忌前后的一个礼拜,往往,响得最凶。每一​次响,赵妈妈都会流著泪问:“明福,是不是你回家来了?给妈妈一​点凭据好吗?”

终于,有一次,当车子alarm又响时,当她走近车子想要检查到​底那里出错时,卡的一声———

卡的一声―――车内的锁车lock,自已,跳上来。


XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX


他們說,明福,回家了。
他們說,如果真相不能大白,寧可明福做猛鬼,有冤訴冤,有仇報仇。



XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX


(奇怪吧,有些人,人死如燈滅,夢也不報一個。但是有些人,卻人死如鬼,驅之不去。)
(原來,趙明福一直沒有離開過。)
(原來,他一直沒有離開過。)


XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX


有人會說這很極端。我知道。

可是對於家有冤死鬼,等了25個月一個顯而易見的真相不但等不來,還出現諸多粗製濫造謊言的人而言,這樣,能夠叫極端嗎?這樣,難道不是雖然司法不昭但仍然不能死心的一種表現?如果我們人人都能夠接受“是這個樣子的啦”的論調,那又何必再要有法庭。

因為,有沒有法庭,都是這個樣子的啦。

安息。一路走好。放下。死者已矣,在生的人要過在生人的活。這些話,聽在耳裡,傷在冤死鬼家人的心裡。明明就是不能放下。明明不是他們選擇的一條路。明明就是不能退縮的斗爭。為什麼放不下卻會突然變成一種原罪了呢。

而想想,冤死在馬來西亞的人,又何止趙明福一個。

如果沒有記錯,他是三年內的第一千五百個吧。記得阿米奴嗎。記得古甘嗎。記得沙巴尼,以至最近驗屍報告才證明是跪著被槍決的Mohd Khairul Nizam Tuah(20歲)、Mohd Hanafi Omar(22歲)以及才15歲的Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shafie嗎。

(新聞背景)

2011年8月12日星期五

Friday, August 12, 2011

Bar council's full submission on TBH RCI

Download Bar council's full submission on TBH RCI at loyarbocor! 下载律师公会呈交给赵明福案皇委会的完整报告!
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

loyarburok.s3.amazonaws.com

Who killed Teoh Beng Hock?

The burden of proving that Teoh’s death was an accident lies on those who had held him at the MACC

By N H Chan


Recently (see my article “If you put the cart before the horse” or “Cart and Horse” depending on where you have read it), I wrote about the unfounded conclusion of a befuddled Royal Commission of Inquiry that Teoh Beng Hock was driven to suicide while he was in the custody of the MACC.

One still wonders how such a conclusion could ever have been reached by the RCI without any evidence to support it whatsoever! Such evidence requires the opinion of an expert – which is a relevant fact under section 45 of the Evidence Act – to say that Teoh was driven to suicide as a direct consequence of the third degree method of interrogation inflicted on him by the police while he was in the custody of the MACC. It is because the finding of the RCI that Teoh was driven to suicide was unsupported by any evidence that we all realized how silly had been those judges who sat on the Royal commission. Those three judges have since become the laughing stock of the nation!

This nursery rhyme from our early childhood immediately comes to mind:

Three blind mice, three blind mice
See how they run, see how they run.
They all ran after the farmer’s wife
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife.
Did you ever see such a thing in your life
As three blind mice?

Those three blind mice that ran after the farmer’s wife got their tails cut off.

Like the three blind mice, the three judges of the Teoh Beng Hock RCI were unable to see the wood for the trees in the forest of their task to enquire into the death of TBH. Because they were blinded by the confusion of their task they could only manage to come out with an unfounded opinion.

Have you ever seen such a thing in your life as three blind judges? Were our judges incompetent? Or were they interested in the pursuit of their own aggrandizement? “Judges are not interested in the pursuit of power. If they were, they would not have become judges” said Lord Nolan in his lecture “Certainty and Justice: The Demands on the Law in a Changing Environment” at The Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lectures, Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, at pages 312-313. Undoubtedly judges who are interested in the pursuit of power are corrupt; for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So now you know. They are either incompetent or corrupt.

Now is an opportune moment to discuss further. Since Teoh did not commit suicide as there was no evidence to support such a conclusion, then how did he fall from the window on the 14th floor to his death?

How did Teoh fall to his death?

We all know that Teoh fell from the MACC building to his death when he was in the custody of the MACC. We also know that he was subjected to cruel and unrelenting interrogation by the police officers at the MACC who wanted to extract a confession from him so as to implicate the Selangor state government with alleged wrongdoings. He was found dead from a fall from a window on the 14th floor of the MACC building. All these happenings cannot be denied because it has been revealed at the hearing of the RCI.

One should also know that section 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 says the burden of proving any fact especially within the knowledge of any person lies on him. So that in the TBH case, the burden of proving how TBH died lies on the MACC. This is because only the MACC and its personnel knew how TBH was killed. His death occurred when TBH was in the custody of the MACC. That is why the Malaysian Bar said “that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC”. This is what section 106 says:

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

ILLUSTRATIONS
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

This is what the Malaysian Bar said (see loyarburok.com on “Teoh Beng Hock: the search for justice and truth must continue):

It is very clear to the Malaysian Bar that full responsibility for Teoh Beng Hock’s death lies squarely and solely on the MACC, and that immediate action must be taken to hold the culpable officers accountable for their behaviour. … The authorities should investigate the relevant MACC officers for possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code, namely for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing the death of TBH by negligence, respectively.

Actually the Malaysian Bar was being polite for suggesting an investigation by the authorities on possible offences under sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code. Unquestionably a crime was committed. The authorities are duty bound to prosecute the perpetrators who have become common criminals irrespective of their rank in the police force! The ball is now in the court of the Public Prosecutor, who, as we all know, is the Attorney-General, to do his duty.

What then are the crimes these policemen of the MACC were supposed to have committed? As suggested by the Malaysian Bar, they are sections 304 and 304A of the Penal Code and, I would add, even murder under section 302 of the same Code. It doesn’t matter which is the section applicable as the burden is on the accused persons to prove the facts which are in their knowledge to try to reduce the charge to a lesser one.

It is murder (section 302) if TBH was dropped from the 14th floor to his death by his captors.

It is culpable homicide not amounting to murder (section 304) if TBH was taken to the window to frighten him but his captors somehow lost their grip and he fell to his death.

It may be a case of causing the death of TBH by negligence under section 304A if TBH had tried to escape by climbing out of the window and fell to his death in the attempt. The negligence is for leaving the window on the 14th floor conveniently open.

The above are the possible scenarios for the reduction of the crime from murder. But it is on the accused to prove the exculpating factors.

I use the word “captors” decidedly. A witness is never restrained and he is interviewed. He is free to leave at any time. A suspect is restrained and he is interrogated. He has no freedom of movement. He is held in custody. That is why in the coroner’s inquiry into the death of Selangor Customs assistant director Ahmad Sarbaini we get this kind of answer from a witness:

Awtar: What is the reason for him to climb out of the window? Why didn’t he use other ways?
Dr Shahrom: From what I was told by the police, he had a visitor’s pass, which only allowed him to go up the building, not down.
[see the New Straits Times, Thursday, August 4, 2011]


Could Teoh have accidentally fallen to his death?

We have ruled out suicide for the reasons stated above. Was his death accidental then? Of course, if the accused persons could show that TBH’s death was an accident then the culprits would get off scot free.

I think it is most unlikely that such a defence can succeed. How could TBH or anyone fall out of a window by accident, meaning by chance or without apparent cause? There was no reason or cause for TBH to climb out of the window on the 14th floor. Unless he was trying to escape from his captors in which case it would not be an accident at all. But, in any case, there was never any suggestion that Teoh tried to escape through the window before the RCI. Therefore, such a defence if raised could only be an afterthought. As such it is no defence at all.

An accident is an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause. An incident that is happening by chance is a fortuitous happening – an accident.

In any case, I think, section 15 of the Evidence Act is worth considering when there is a trend of people falling to their deaths when they were held by the MACC as witnesses. Section 15 reads:

15. When there is a question whether any act was accidental or intentional or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that the act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.


Could homicide be ruled out?

There was a suggestion from some forensic pathologist that there were no injuries on Teoh’s body not related to the fall to show that there was a struggle or resistance to being pushed or carried to the window. Since there was also no sign of damage to the window sill to show any sign of a struggle, homicide, according to their cloistered mind, was ruled out.

It doesn’t take a kung fu or karate exponent to know that a person could be disabled in such a way that he would not be able to put up any resistance or struggle against his captors.

Speaking from my own experience as a criminal lawyer in my younger days at the Bar, I know that most suspects when subjected to intense and prolonged interrogation were generally docile and would not put up a struggle when asked to perform certain tasks like being asked to remove their pants and to sit on ice.

Also, because I have done it myself, I know it is not difficult to subdue a person to do as he is told with very little physical effort on my part. The easiest thing that I have used when I was set upon by a thug when I was a student in London who had grasped my throat was to grab the little finger of the hand that grabbed my throat with my hand and by bending the finger upward the pain inflicted on my assailant was so excruciating that I could make him do anything. It would not take much effort to snap his little finger but there was no need. I made him kneel to say he was sorry. He never tried to bully me again.

The easiest way to make a person do as he is told is to use an arm lock on him from behind. On the other hand a policeman would simply put a pair of handcuffs on his wrists behind his back. He can then be led to the window without a struggle. In most cases the suspect is docile so that you don’t even have to disable him. There are other methods but any trained policeman would know how to do it.

In a disabled state the suspect with some assistance from his captors could even be made to climb onto the window sill without a struggle and made to sit there.

Candle Light Vigil in Rememberance of The Souls Who Died In Innocence



Date: Saturday, August 13
·
Time: 8:30pm - 11:30pm

Location:
Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam
Jalan Tengku Ampuan Zabedah F 9/F
Shah Alam, Malaysia

Created By:
Chia Chin Yau

More Info:
Candle Light Vigil in Rememberance of The Souls Who Died In Innocence, this Saturday, 13 Aug, 8.30pm at Plaza Masalam, Jalan Tengku Ampuan Zabedah F 9/F, 40100 Shah Alam.

*Pls bring along candle & mineral water. Thank u.

Sudah dua tahun mu terbunuh, namun kebenaran belum terjawap. Terpasksalah, kita lepas cinta dan sayang terhadap Beng Hock. Tapi, kita tidak akan melepaskan tuntutan utk mengembalikan kebenaran dan maruah-mu. Sila datang sokong Vigil for Beng Hock, Plaza masalam, 13 Aug, 8.30pm.

本週六,8月13號,晚上八點半,我們將在趙明福的臥屍​地瑪茲蘭大廈(Plaza Masalam),舉行《七月十四 — 冤魂祭》,以點點燭光,哀綽所有馬來西亞的冤魂。


*请自备蜡烛,矿泉水,谢谢大家!

Thursday, August 11, 2011

未追究反贪会对明福命案责任 林吉祥抨皇委会犯下一大错漏



接续之前对赵明福皇委会报告的诘问,民主行动党国会领袖林吉祥今天再批评报告出现“一大错漏”,即“没有追究及确定反贪污委员会在赵明福坠死案的责任”。

他强调,反贪会作为一个机构整体,必须对赵明福的死亡负起责任。

林吉祥在今天文告表示,赵明福案皇家调查委员会的一大错漏就是,尽管在听证会之前已浮现许多证据,但皇委会却没有追究及确定反贪污委员会在赵明福坠死案的责任。

拐弯抹角提及反贪会责任


他说明,仅将矛头指向数名反贪会官员是不足够的,“反贪委会这个机构也应该负责”。

“皇家调查报告只是拐弯抹角地提到反贪委会在明福之死的角色和责任,并没有切中要害地、直接要反贪委员会负责及他们的义务。”

林吉祥因此认为,皇委会在执行“调查赵明福死亡案以及导致其死亡的周遭因素及导因”的宗旨时,推卸责任,而成绩也令人不满意。

反贪会力图掩盖死亡真相

NONE林吉祥(左图)举出皇委会报告中第336段作为佐证。

该段落说明,“经过我们针对反贪委会调查方式的盘问,我们认为赵明福不应该死于枉然,当局应该尽一切努力改善反贪委会的功能,以及国内刑事司法的行政效率。我们的证据显示反贪委官员竟然准备不惜一切说谎。”

林吉祥驳斥,赵明福于2009年7月16日惨死在反贪委会位于莎亚南总部大厦的丑闻,不只是几个反贪委会官员“准备不惜一切说谎”的问题。

“而是反贪委员会身为一个机构,已经不惜一切参与沉默的阴谋、说谎,妨碍司法公正、掩盖明福之死的真正原因与细节。”

反贪会律师偏袒供证官员

林吉祥补充说,赵明福案皇委会报告也精确地查明希山目丁哈欣是“指挥整个行动的最资深官员”,针对赵明福在雪州反贪委会期间发生什么事、为何死亡,他是“最明显需要负责”的人。

“但是,希山目丁身为合法的资深反贪委官员现在还逍遥法外,他仅仅被撤除参与调查工作的职权,而事实上,他和其他反贪委员会官员应该针对导致明福之死被提控。”

他补充,首先,如果致死明福的凶手继续逍遥法外、不受惩罚,明福将是“死于枉然”;其二,反贪会并没有被追究明福死亡的责任,反而被默许在皇委会调查期间,不惜一切、掩盖明福之死的真正原因与细节,而反贪委官员还可以向皇委会一而再、再而三说谎。

“当需要进行严厉的苛责时,赵明福案皇委会却只观察到“反贪委会不但没有不偏不倚地协助我们找出赵明福在7月15日晚上到16日早上这段时间内,究竟发生什么事”,反而与反贪会律师拿督斯里沙菲宜一起,偏袒那些前往供证的反贪委会官员。”

质疑反贪会妨碍司法公正

林吉祥指出,律师公会上个周五正式评论赵明福案皇委会时,更直接了当地批评反贪委在皇委会调查的角色。该公会说:

“任何人会希望反贪委员会能在这项调查工作带头,找出真相、恢复它的公信力。然而,它却无法划清反贪会及其官员之前的界线,并选择倾向那些可能涉及、必须为赵明福之死负责的官员。反贪委会选择维护其官员的行动,而不是协助皇委会进行调查,反贪委在整个皇委会调查工作期间,一味地采取了被告的防卫姿态。”

“在这种情况底下,我们很难把所有证据拼凑在一起,找出究竟在Plaza Masalam发生了什么事?赵明福为什么死亡?”

“皇委会必须考虑反贪会证人是受到引导和指示供证,并且刻意撒谎、篡改和压制证据,以及毁灭证据。”

林吉祥质问,为什么赵明福案皇委会报告要逃避责任,没有责难反贪会在皇委会里竟然“压制、篡改及毁灭证据”,在皇委会面前妨碍司法公正,而不是协助找出导致赵明福之死的主因及细节?

皇委会在无人负责下告终

林吉祥也指出,律师公会在提呈意见时说,皇委会为“有怎样的人民就有怎样的政府”的经典说明”提供了证明,它说:

“反贪委会官员身负阻止、侦查及肃贪的重任,这些官员必须拥有3‘I’素质:廉洁(INTEGRITY)、独立(INDEPENDENCE)及智慧(INTELLIGENCE)。”

“皇委会也认同,反贪会做为一个机关必须保留,并强化它的形象、声誉及功能,但是,唯有滥用司法权力的人士受到应有的处分,才可能实现。”

林吉祥抨击,赵明福案皇委会竟然在反贪会及反贪会官员在无需为他们滥权,导致明福在反贪会控制、照顾及监管下死亡一事负起任何责任下,告一段落。

他补充,律师公会适时地感叹,皇委会失去了一个“黄金机会”,没有调查为什么反贪委会在“名声、公信力及功能方面与香港廉正公署(ICAC)有如天渊之别?毕竟反贪委会宣称要以香港廉正公署为榜样。

律师公会指反贪会有腐败

林吉祥进一步指出,问起若“全面地调查赵明福之死”会揭发什么,律师公会声明“很肯定地反贪委会里有些东西已经腐败了。”

“根据赵明福案皇委会的听证会,律师公会建议皇委会必须下定论,反贪委会及其官员必须为赵明福之死负责,他们也有意向掩盖赵明福之死的真相及细节。”

他强调,如果不要让明福死于枉然,那么反委会及其官员必须为他的死亡及本身掩盖事实的行为负责。

“当今政府里有哪一位部长准备向内阁及政府重提‘谁杀了明福’,还明福及他悲伤的家人一个公道?”

Sunday, August 7, 2011

林吉祥促蔡细历莫再装聋作哑

随着律师公会昨日公布赵明福皇委会结案陈词,建议以误杀罪名调查5名涉案反贪会官员,行动党国会领袖林吉祥今日敦促马华总会长蔡细历和4名部长应该停止装聋作哑,表明他们是否认同律师公会的看法。

林吉祥也敦促,内阁必须尽快纠正赵明福皇委会报告的错误,为赵明福讨回公道。

“马华总会长和四名部长在内阁与国阵最高理事会里面,到底做了什么来纠正皇委会报告的错误,确保赵明福不会冤死?”

“接下来的问题则是,如果首相纳吉一个大马口号真的对大马人拥有意义,那么所有内阁部长到底针对皇委会报告明目张胆的错误有什么建议,不管他们是来自哪一个种族、宗教和政党。”

他今日是在文告中如此表示。

应以误杀罪调查5人

经过多个月来的听证会,上个月底发布的皇委会报告是结论,赵明福并非死于他杀,而是自杀。

该报告也点名,三名反贪会官员——前雪州反贪会副主席希山慕丁、查案官安努亚和执法助理官员阿斯拉夫,涉嫌以持续不断、激烈及不恰当的盘问方式,因而导致赵明福蒙受精神压力而选择自杀。

不过,律师公会昨日公布的结案陈词却有不同的结论,他们不赞同自杀的推论,相反认为赵明福是死于误杀或是有刑事责任的意外,因此反贪会必须负上责任。

该会更建议,5名涉案的雪州反贪会官员应该面对刑事法典第304条文误杀罪名的调查。

他们包括皇委会点名的3名官员——希山慕丁、安努亚和阿斯拉夫。另外两人则是雪州反贪会调查主任凯鲁依汉和巴生反贪会执法助理官员祖基菲里阿兹。

调查10官员阴谋掩盖

律师公会也建议,有关当局以刑事法典第304A条文另外一条罪名——疏忽致死的罪名,来调查这5名官员。

他们更建议,有关当局应该援引阴谋掩盖赵明福死因、伪造证据、毁灭证据的罪名来调查这5名官员,以及另外5名反贪会官员。

他们包括布基尼、艾弗祖、阿曼、雷蒙和莫哈末纳兹里。

皇委会传达讯息失败

林吉祥(左图)也指出,律师公会也要求皇委会必须向大马所有执法单位发出5个强烈的讯息。

它们包括:

(一)不能容忍滥权。

(二)嫌犯和证人的尊严必须受到保护和尊重。

(三)伪证和掩盖事实必须受到严重的惩罚。

(四)执法单位有义务照顾他们拘留的人。

(五)执法单位必须为扣留期间死亡或嫌犯和证人的可疑死亡负起解释的责任。

“(但是),冯正仁领导的皇委会非常不幸地,无法传达这5个讯息。”

Friday, August 5, 2011

结案陈词与皇委会大相径庭 律师公会未解释赵明福坠楼



律师公会今日向会员公布的结案陈词,虽然有部分观点与赵明福皇委会报告相似,但是双方的最终结论却是大相径庭。

皇委会的调查报告总结说,赵明福是死于自杀,而非他杀。他们点名,3名官员希山慕丁、安努亚和阿斯拉夫涉嫌以持续不断、激烈及不恰当的盘问方式,因而导致赵明福蒙受精神压力而选择自杀。

尽管律师公会同样认为,赵明福遭到反贪会激烈的盘问而导致其心理状态不稳,但他们却指出,这构成误杀或疏忽致死,因为赵明福当时尚在反贪会的看管之下。

不过,针对赵明福於2009年7月16日凌晨3点30分完成录取口供后,直到他坠楼死亡期间所发生的事情,律师公会只是点到即止,相信时任雪州反贪会副主席的希山慕丁因不满调查结果,仍然继续盘问,但未详细描述赵明福是如何坠楼。

排除明福自杀或意外坠楼


律师公会只是通过推理,排除赵明福并非像反贪会般所称般自杀,也并非意外坠楼,因此其死因只有可能是具有刑事责任的意外或是误杀。

无论如何,双方都认同的观点,包括调查行动是由希山慕丁主导、希山慕丁因为无法获得本身想要的调查结果而狗急跳墙,以及赵明福在凌晨3点30分并未获得释放,相反继续被盘问。

向会员公布赵明福结案陈词 律师公会建议误杀罪查五人



在赵明福皇家委员会调查报告公诸于世半个月之后,律师公会在听证会所作的结案陈词也接着曝光,该会建议5名涉案的雪州反贪会官员应该面对刑事法典第304条文误杀罪名的调查。



这包括皇委会报告所点名的3名官员——前雪州反贪会副主席希山慕丁(Hishamuddin Hashim)、雪州反贪会调案官安努亚依斯迈(Mohamad Anuar Ismail),以及雪州反贪会执法助理官员阿斯拉夫(Mohd Asraf Mohd Yunus)。

另外两人则是雪州反贪会调查主任凯鲁依汉(Hairul Ilham Hamzah),以及巴生反贪会执法助理官员祖基菲里阿兹(Zulkefly Aziz)。

根据上月底公布的皇委会报告,希山慕丁、安努亚和阿斯拉夫3人是涉嫌以持续不断、激烈及不恰当的盘问方式,因而导致赵明福蒙受精神压力而选择自杀。

至于祖基菲里,律师公会的结案陈词指出,他是当天早上7点才离开雪州反贪会办公室,并且在离开前就已经知道赵明福死亡;而凯鲁依汉则是雪州反贪会的调查主任。

一旦罪成,他们将有可能面对30年的监禁和罚款。

涉嫌伪造与毁灭证据罪名


律师公会也建议,有关当局以刑事法典第304A条文另外一条罪名——疏忽致死的罪名,来调查这5名官员。一旦罪成,他们最高可能面对2年监禁或罚款,或两者兼施。

他们更建议,有关当局应该援引阴谋掩盖赵明福死因、伪造证据、毁灭证据的罪名来调查这5名官员,以及另外5名反贪会官员。

他们包括布基尼(Bulkini Paharuddin)、艾弗祖(Effezul Azran Abdul Maulop)、阿曼(Arman Alies)、雷蒙(Raymond Nion)和莫哈末纳兹里(Mohd Nadzri Ibrahim)。

律师公会今早在其网站公布这份长达337页的结案陈词,不过只是局限于律师公会会员下载。

它是由5名律师公会代表律师签署,包括律师公会副主席梁肇富、西华南迪仁(S Sivaneindiren)、赵伟、刘罗拨特(Robert Low,译音)和云大舜。

就算自杀也是反贪会驱使


尽管律师公会同样推断赵明福有可能在当天凌晨3点30分后可能继续受到反贪会官员的盘问,并且遭受反贪会摧毁精神稳定的盘问方式,但是他们却不同意皇委会自杀的结论。

相反,他们认为赵明福是死于误杀或是有刑事责任的意外,因此反贪会必须负上责任。

律师公会表示,就算是赵明福在极不可能的情况下自杀,这也是受到反贪会强烈的盘问手法所驱使。

“当他当天(2009年7月15日)步入反贪会办公室时,他和其他人都是没有分别,都是属于低自杀风险群。如果赵明福自杀,反贪会肯定是在他步入反贪会直到死亡期间,做了一些东西。”

“这是他归属反贪会照顾和控制的时候。赵明福在凌晨3点30分并未获得反贪会释放,是无可置疑的。”

肯定有些事情打击赵明福


他们也引述本身聘请的心理鉴证专家保罗马伦教授(Paul Mullen)的报告,来证明他们的论点。

“在有关12个小时内,或是他受到反贪会拘留直到死亡期间,肯定是发生一些事情,完全打击他之前稳定的心理状态,无法现实地评估本身的情况。”

“赵明福就像我们全部人一样都有本身的弱点,他关心家人和未婚妻,还有他对同僚的忠心和责任感,都可能被无良的盘问员利用为不利于他的武器。”

“(皇委会调查员)施国伟给皇委会汇报就有提到一些盘问技巧,可以完全摧毁一个人稳定的精神状态,并且诱发恐惧,甚至是选择自杀。一名完全没有被毫无节制执法单位扣留经验的守法公民会更容易受到有关技巧的祸害,特别是他们和(外界)援助与支持完全切断。”

属反贪会监管需负起责任


他们表示,反贪会在任何情况下,都必须对他们拘留的人士负起看管和保护安全的责任。

“这里所谓的拘留,不只是意味那些被逮捕的人,相反也包括那些被带到反贪会办公室盘问和协助调查的人。这是他们应有的责任。”

“因此,就算反贪会可能没有主动驱使赵明福自杀,他们还是需为没有恰当看管和照顾赵明福安全负起刑事责任。”

他们也表示,有证据显示反贪会曾经使用严重打击赵明福心理状态的盘问技巧。

其例子就是反贪会官员布基尼在盘问另一名证人陈文华所使用的精神和肢体虐待手段,指示陈文华连续立正两个小时、间歇处于黑暗之中,以及威胁其妻子和女儿安危。

他们也指出,希山慕丁曾发出明确指示要阿斯拉夫候命,以盘问赵明福。令人可疑的一点,后者之前并没有参与雪州民联议员拨款案的调查,相反曾经面对14宗虐待被盘问者的投报。

反贪会需证明没刑事元素


他们也引用一宗民事案例强调,扣留期间死亡是文明法治社会最糟糕的刑事案,因此反贪会有责任证明赵明福的死并没有任何刑事元素(foul play)。

“其理由很简单,你在这样的案件很少会有独立证人。”

“大多数证人都是有相关利益者或是受到调查的人。他们面对严厉的指令系统,并且受到‘蓝墙’的限制。”

他们也表示,我国宪法条文第5条文也明文规定生命的权利,而国家有责任保护这项权利。因此,他们建议,政府应该援引刑事法典第304和304A条文来调查反贪会官员,分别是误杀和疏忽致死的罪名。

“大马刑事法典第304和304A条文都有明文规定这些义务和责任。”

排除可能非刑事意外坠死

律师公会也指出,皇委会必须考虑反贪会证人是受到引导和指示供证,并且刻意撒谎、篡改和压制证据,以及毁灭证据。因此,这证明反贪会官员有刻意掩盖他们涉及赵明福案。

因此,他们表示,反贪会缺乏可信证据来证明自杀的推论。

律师公会也排除赵明福可能非刑事意外坠死,因为有关窗口是高过赵明福重心,因此不大可能是意外跌出窗口。此外,赵明福也不是一名烟民,不可能会趋近有关窗口。

“这意味赵明福的死因只有可能是有刑事责任的意外或是误杀。如果是有刑事责任的意外,这意味他们没有意图杀死赵明福,但是却鲁莽、疏忽或不小心导致他的死亡。”

他们希望皇委会能够建议政府和反贪会向家属和所有国民作出毫无保留的道歉,同时也对赵家作出适当的赔偿。