BN Cabinet’s Decision on the RCI and inquest of Teoh Beng Hock’s death

PAKATAN RAKYAT is of the view that the Cabinet’s decision to limit the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to look only into the MACC's investigative procedures and to determine if there were any human right violations when the deceased Teoh Beng Hock was being interrogated and that his cause of death will instead be determined via an inquest makes a mockery of the public outcry for justice, truth and accountability. 

This outcry is unprecedented because MACC’s conduct has brought grave and justifiable accusations that their investigations were selective and politically motivated to target only Pakatan Rakyat’s ADUN’s and made doubly worse when it appeared to be made along racial lines.

Their unjustifiable oppressive conduct in these investigations are clearly connected to Teoh’s death, and the actual facts of what really happened need to be uncovered. 

Many troubling questions need to be answered: 

• why are other complaints of corruption involving much larger sums and BN leaders not investigated; who directed the MACC to start the witch hunt against the Selangor ADUNs?
• why was Teoh’s case allegedly involving an amount less than RM2,500 is pursued with such aggression and urgency;
• why was Teoh Beng Hock and another so-called  “witness” kept overnight and interrogated with such oppression; 
• why the delay in informing the concerned parties of  Teoh’s  death; 
• why was Teoh’s hand phone in the custody of the MACC when the MACC insisted that he was only a witness; why did the MACC initially deny they took his handphone? 
• why was Teoh’s lawyer not allowed to see or accompany him during interrogation; 
• why would Teoh spend the night at the MACC’s office if he was free to go especially since he was scheduled to be married the next morning; 
• why would Teoh commit suicide (as alleged by MACC and others) in these circumstances, about to get married, with his fiancé expecting their child, and with no sign or history of depression or mental illness.    

Hence, whilst it is appropriate that the Royal Commission investigate the procedures of investigation of the MACC, the key question of how Teoh died must also be investigated and answered by them.  That question cannot be separated from the more general issue of how the MACC conducts investigations.

There is really no need whatsoever for this inquest to proceed, bearing in mind that the RCI should investigate the circumstances of the death. In any event, we have serious doubts about the effectiveness of such inquest.

NGOs and other bodies, the Bar Council, Suhakam and the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police have all raised their concerns on deaths in custody and the inquest proceedings as presently practiced. This led to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Criminal Law in 2006 to recommend that a new Coroners’ Act to be enacted to replace the archaic CPC provisions that does not adequately lay out procedures on inquests into deaths in custody.

Inquests are conducted by a Magistrate acting as a Coroner and assisted by the Deputy Public Prosecutor who will in turn depend on police investigations into the cause of death. In the numerous inquests held on suspicious deaths in custody over the last several years, for example on Tharma Rajen, Ragupathy Muniandy, Ahmad Salleh, Ulaganathan Muniandy, Francis Udayappan and Vivashannu Pillai – the proceedings have been hampered by the lack of willingness of both the Magistrates, the DPPs and the police witnesses involved to fully and seriously investigate the deaths, and as a result no police officials have been found culpable and most deaths classified as “natural causes” or “sudden deaths”. 

Our experience of these and other inquests show that the inadequacy of the process is also largely due to the fact that the Magistrates are restricted to the evidence produced by the police witnesses investigating the deaths.  In Teoh’s case as well, there is a high level of skepticism about the effectiveness and independence of the PDRM investigation to identify the real cause of his death.

The inquest process is also limited by the fact that Magistrates are junior judicial officers still attached to the Judicial and Legal Services whose personnel are frequently transferred between the judicial and prosecution departments – something obviously undesirable for appearance of bias. This is made worse when the DPP appearing is likely to be a senior prosecutor while the Magistrate remains a junior officer. 

Inquest proceedings are further hampered by the strict application of criminal and evidentiary rules, the limited findings that can be made without making further recommendations and the restricted participation of lawyers acting for interested parties.  

In light of the tremendously low public confidence commanded by both the judiciary, the   prosecutors and the police in their ability to act independently, fairly and impartially especially in such a high profile and politically explosive case,  Pakatan Rakyat therefore demands that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry be extended to comprehensively cover all the surrounding circumstances of Teoh Beng Hock’s death,  If not, the most important question of how his death occurred would not be answered to the satisfaction of the public.

Needless to say, the composition of the members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry should comprise of individuals who are competent, independent, credible and of high integrity and able to act without fear or favour in fulfilling its terms of reference.