‘Perhaps Teoh was still in custody?’
The Bar Council puts forth a theory which contradicts MACC’s version that Teoh did not die while in custody.
(Free Malaysia Today) – The Bar Council suggested that Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officials did not release Teoh Beng Hock because they had yet to complete their investigations.
This theory contradicted MACC’s stand all this while that Teoh, a former DAP political aide, was not in the commission’s custody when he was found dead.
“In truth, your officers were not finished with investigating and interrogating Teoh and that was why he was still in the office,” Bar Council laywer Cheow Wee quizzed Selangor MACC investigation unit head Hairul Ilham Hamzah
“That was why a ’004/09′ form was not given to him,” added the lawyer.
Hairul was testifying before the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), which was set-up to probe Teoh’s death.
Earlier, Hairul confirmed with Cheow that the 004/09 form, which required someone to return to the office to provide documents, was not given to Teoh even though he had told investigators that he had some supporting documents left in the office.
“But this form was given to (another witness) Tan Boon Wah,” said Cheow.
Responding, Hairul merely said that he was informed by investigating officer Mohd Anuar Ismail that Teoh’s business with MACC was already settled during a briefing on the morning of July 16, 2009.
“I also suggest to you that actually the investigation was still being continued on the witnesses all through July 15 till the morning of July 16,” said Cheow.
Hairul replied that from what he was informed, another witness Lee Wye Wing was being interrogated from 1.30am till 5.30am and Tan had asked to rest in the office.
Between a suspect and a witness
Earlier, Hairul was questioned about the difference between interrogating a suspect and interviewing a witness.
Hairul told the commission that MACC was trained to keep witnesses comfortable, and most importantly for them to cooperate.
“The way we do this is through questioning only,” he said.
Hairul said that the more aggressive questioning techniques – such as using psychological tactics to trigger a person’s emotions, sense of guilt or sadness – were only employed on suspects.
However, commission chairman James Foong asked if the distinction was indeed that clear or was there a “grey area”
Foong: But in this case, why the treatment on Teoh was like a suspect, not a witness? Here you asked him to explain a document and so on. For sure he is the target. Because, you needed Teoh to cooperate, and you know he is an officer of (state exco) YB Ean (Yong Hian Wah). For certain you had forced him… Wouldn’t the process of questioning and interrogation be mixed up?
Hairul: No
Foong: Wow, you’re so clear about that?
Hairul: We only got his explanation, we did not give him any pressure.
At this point, it was pointed out by commissioner T Selventhiranathan that sometimes a witness could turn into a suspect halfway through questioning, to which Hairul agreed.
Hairul said that there was a standing order to guide officers on the procedures in questioning witnesses but there was none on interrogating a suspect.
He said that a suspect’s movements would also be controlled while a witness could leave anytime he wanted, on valid grounds, such as going to the toilet, to have a drink or if anyone in his family was ill.
However, he admitted that MACC did not inform Teoh of his rights.
Cheow also asked Hairul if interrogation techniques could change if a witness was found to actually be a suspect, to which Hairul replied in the negative.
Hairul said that if a witness turned into a suspect, MACC would question the individual again.
“What about the reverse? If a suspect is being interrogated… and since there is no standing orders, we all know the techniques are more aggressive… suddenly he turns out to be just a witness. Then will the techniques suddenly change and be softened? ” asked Cheow.
Hairul: In my view, I feel that by then we are forced to be good with him.
Cheow: Do you agree, that if a suspect turns to be a witness halfway through an interview. Aggressive techniques have been used. Isn’t it unfair? You have already used aggressive techniques and later you want to be friendly with him?
Hairul: Maybe in that situation, yes (it’s unfair to him).
In the dark
Hairul was also questioned by the commission on why he was unaware of how his officers conducted their interrogations.
This prompted commissioner Dr Bhupinder Singh to remark:” I find it very ridiculous that you don’t know anything that is happening in your own department.”
