fmt: Bar Council: Suicide finding is ‘a leap in logic’ by Teoh El Sen

Bar Council: Suicide finding is ‘a leap in logic’

Teoh El Sen

 | July 23, 2011

The Malaysian Bar says the RCI's finding that Teoh Beng Hock had committed suicide was "unsupported by the facts and evidence".

KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council has rejected the suicide finding of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Teoh Beng Hock’s death, saying that the conclusion was “unsupported by the facts and evidence”.

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee also urged the government as well as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to apologise to Teoh’s family and the citizens of Malaysia, over his death; and compensate Teoh’s family over their loss.

“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,” said Lim.

He said the Bar welcomed the statement by Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz that “appropriate action would be taken against the officers through the process of law without delay”.

Lim said the authorities should investigate the relevant 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.

However, Lim said that Nazri had erred when he quoted forensic psychiatrist Professor Paul Mullen
to support the fact that Teoh had a “weak character”.

“Contrary to the statement made by Nazri, Mullen did not testify that Teoh had a ‘weak character’ that led him to take his own life. He did not conclude that Teoh had committed suicide,” said Lim.

Rather, Lim said, Mullen’s testimony stated:“in [his] opinion, what we learned of Teoh Beng Hock’s personality and behaviour do not suggest any increased risk of suicide”.

“He (Mullen) further opined that the context of the events that had taken place was not one ‘which, in [his] experience, leads to suicide in custody’, as he had not been made aware of anything ‘to explain panic and distress sufficient to drive [Teoh Beng Hock] to conclude his honor had been irreparably tarnished’,” said Lim.

Lim said this was in stark contrast to what Nazri had stated during the release of the report as Mullen’s testimony in fact did not provide the basis for a finding of suicide.

Leap in logic
The Bar Council noted the RCI findings were the following:

• That the time of death had been between 7:15 am and 11:15 am on July, 16, 2009;

• That Teoh Beng Hock had not been released at 3:30 am and been left alone sitting on a sofa after his statement had been recorded;

• That Teoh Beng Hock had been subjected to a fourth interrogation session after 3:30 am by Hishamuddin Hashim and his officers, which was aggressive and relentless. In addition, the RCI rejected the evidence of MACC officer Raymond Nion that he had seen Teoh Beng Hock lying down unattended on a sofa at approximately 6am;

• That the fourth interrogation session was probably between 3am and 7am; and

• That the window from which Teoh Beng Hock is said to have fallen out was located conspicuously.

Lim said in view of the above, and as there were no evidence whatsoever produced at the RCI hearing of Teoh’s whereabouts or movements after 6:15am, and that the MACC staff would have begun arriving by 8:00 am, “to surmise that Teoh had committed suicide between 7:15am and 11:15am requires a leap in logic and an assumption of facts not in evidence”.

Lim also noted that the the other joint expert psychiatric report tendered during the RCI by Dr Badiah Yahya and Dr Nor Hayati Ali (who were engaged by MACC and present during most of the court proceedings and had interviewed Teoh Beng Hock’s family members, housemate and work colleagues) also said there was lack of information on whether Teoh had suffered any strenuous mental strain from an interrogation.

Not truthful or credible
However, Lim said there were a number of key points on which the Bar agreed with the report of the the RCI, which included:

• That the RCI was unable to accept that the alleged suicide note had been written by Teoh Beng Hock, and that the undue delay by the authorities in tendering the alleged suicide note at the first available opportunity could not be taken as mere carelessness or neglect, and therefore the authenticity of the note could not be trusted;

• That Teoh Beng Hock was, at all material times until his untimely death, in the care, custody and control of MACC officers;

• That Teoh Beng Hock was subjected to “aggressive, relentless, oppressive and unscrupulous interrogation” and that the recording of his statement was unlawful;

• That the majority of the MACC officers exhibited a “total lack of consideration for human sensitivities”, and that the recruitment process of MACC officers should include a “psychological evaluation to assess their suitability for investigative work”;

• That most of the MACC officers who were involved in the operations on July 15 and July 16, 2009, and who gave evidence as witnesses, were neither truthful nor credible, as they “had the inevitable habit of lying”;

• That massive operations launched by MACC Selangor – which were headed by then-Selangor MACC deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim – against the Pakatan Rakyat members of the Selangor state assembly were grounded on mere belief of information purportedly received over the telephone, and without proper ground work or verification;

• That Hishamuddin Hashim was “arrogant, given to falsehoods, untruthful and uncompromising”, and that he was “just too stubborn [such trait was also displayed when he gave evidence before us] to retreat from his mistake in mounting such a massive operation”;