Teoh Beng Hock - a cruel & unnecessary death
Todays editorial in The Malaysian Insider is titled Blood on MACCs hands, and the blood is that of the late Teoh Beng Hock.
Lim Kit Siang shares the same view - see The Malaysian Insider's MACC must take full blame for Beng Hocks death, says Kit Siang.
Their conclusion came about when the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Teoh BHs death stated that the MACC failed to find evidence of corruption in Selangor (DAP) ADUN Ean Yong Hian Wahs financial managing of some minor projects. There was no evidence of Ean ever abusing State funds.
The AG and MACC had argued that Teoh committed suicide because he couldnt take the guilt of being involved his boss (Eans) corrupt practice nor the stress of covering those up. Thus the argument is that, if there was no evidence of corrupt practice, ipso facto, then there was no cause for Teoh to be so stressed that he committed suicide.
In other words his death could not be suicide, as the AG and MACC had attempted to prove.
And if it was not suicide, how then did Teoh meet his horrible death? How did he come to fall from the 14th floor of the MACC building?
Remember, he was ONLY a witness, not a suspect!
Remember, he was to marry on the day following his witness appearance and unexpected mysterious death. On the day he was to die, he had rang his best man to remind him of the wedding the next day.
Even more mysterious than Teoh's death, the MACC found a note in his handbag nearly ONE YEAR AFTER his death. The MACC attempted to present that as a suicide note.
There is a blogger whom I shall just call the 'Son of Han' because of his extreme Chinese chauv! inistic views (politicised of course, like Chinese Malaysians should only vote for a Han Chinese Confucian-oriented party like MCA). His posts are unusually laced generously with abuses, vulgarisms and obscenities against DAP and PKR female MPs and ADUNs. 'Son of Han' also offered his pompous analysis of the co-called suicide note, where he alluded to Teoh's authorship. It's ironical that the 'Son of Han' is the clasical example of a running dog!
Now, when a government coronial inquest into Teoh BH's death gave an open verdict, we Malaysians know that in all likelihood, the coroner dared not say it was murder or manslaughter.
The following were gleaned from newspapers reports:
Recall, at the time of Teoh's death, the MACC building was mysteriously locked up for an hour.
Recall, after the death when DNA specimens of MACC staff were being taken, one staff (a senior bloke) was coincidentally not present. His DNA was not taken. This man was said to be fond of hoisting those unlucky to be interrogated up rudely by their clothing (belt?).
Recall, Teohs belt was found to have snapped. Where and when did it snapped?
OK, at this stage, the RCI hasnt made any official finding to indicate Teohs death was by murder or manslaughter. However, Im a cynic who believes in the old sarcasm, that authorities dont hold RCI unless they know what the findings will be.
But it does all come together why the government was soOOOOooo reluctant to have a RCI in the first place, when by stark and shameful contrast, ministers have recently called for a RCI into a puerile case of a sex video. Even then when Najib agreed to the RCI, the initial terms of reference for it was f* pathetic, which was only to investigate into MACC procedures for interviewing/interrogations.
It was like extracting Najibs tooth just to get, goad and galvanise him into including in the RCI's terms of reference a probe into the case of Teohs death, when this should have been the principal, commonsense and most obv! ious ter m of reference.
Why was there this unbelievable government (initial) reluctance to, firstly, have a RCI to look into Teohs mysterious death while he was in the MACCs custody, and secondly, to have its (initial) terms of reference include an inquiry into the cause of death? No need to answer, as they were merely rhetorical questions.
But whatever the RCIs findings may be, we know there was no reason nor cause of stress for Teoh so much so that he committed suicide on the eve of his wedding.
We also know there was no justifiable cause for MACC to investigate Ean Yong by the overnight interrogation of his aide, Teoh Beng Hock. So by logical extension, we would be justified in arguing that it must have been a politically motivated case.
We know a lot because, hey, we only know too well the Malaysian MACC, Police, Election Commission, Public Service senior officers, judiciary, etc.
Most of all we know Teoh Beng Hock died a tragic death., and for what? Thats why its so tragic.
Theres no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people (Howard Zinn) and if Najib still wont act to dispense true justice, I hope Allah swt will call those responsible for Teoh's death to account in the hereafter.
Lim Kit Siang shares the same view - see The Malaysian Insider's MACC must take full blame for Beng Hocks death, says Kit Siang.
Their conclusion came about when the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Teoh BHs death stated that the MACC failed to find evidence of corruption in Selangor (DAP) ADUN Ean Yong Hian Wahs financial managing of some minor projects. There was no evidence of Ean ever abusing State funds.
The AG and MACC had argued that Teoh committed suicide because he couldnt take the guilt of being involved his boss (Eans) corrupt practice nor the stress of covering those up. Thus the argument is that, if there was no evidence of corrupt practice, ipso facto, then there was no cause for Teoh to be so stressed that he committed suicide.
In other words his death could not be suicide, as the AG and MACC had attempted to prove.
And if it was not suicide, how then did Teoh meet his horrible death? How did he come to fall from the 14th floor of the MACC building?
Remember, he was ONLY a witness, not a suspect!
Remember, he was to marry on the day following his witness appearance and unexpected mysterious death. On the day he was to die, he had rang his best man to remind him of the wedding the next day.
Even more mysterious than Teoh's death, the MACC found a note in his handbag nearly ONE YEAR AFTER his death. The MACC attempted to present that as a suicide note.
There is a blogger whom I shall just call the 'Son of Han' because of his extreme Chinese chauv! inistic views (politicised of course, like Chinese Malaysians should only vote for a Han Chinese Confucian-oriented party like MCA). His posts are unusually laced generously with abuses, vulgarisms and obscenities against DAP and PKR female MPs and ADUNs. 'Son of Han' also offered his pompous analysis of the co-called suicide note, where he alluded to Teoh's authorship. It's ironical that the 'Son of Han' is the clasical example of a running dog!
Now, when a government coronial inquest into Teoh BH's death gave an open verdict, we Malaysians know that in all likelihood, the coroner dared not say it was murder or manslaughter.
The following were gleaned from newspapers reports:
Recall, at the time of Teoh's death, the MACC building was mysteriously locked up for an hour.
Recall, after the death when DNA specimens of MACC staff were being taken, one staff (a senior bloke) was coincidentally not present. His DNA was not taken. This man was said to be fond of hoisting those unlucky to be interrogated up rudely by their clothing (belt?).
Recall, Teohs belt was found to have snapped. Where and when did it snapped?
OK, at this stage, the RCI hasnt made any official finding to indicate Teohs death was by murder or manslaughter. However, Im a cynic who believes in the old sarcasm, that authorities dont hold RCI unless they know what the findings will be.
But it does all come together why the government was soOOOOooo reluctant to have a RCI in the first place, when by stark and shameful contrast, ministers have recently called for a RCI into a puerile case of a sex video. Even then when Najib agreed to the RCI, the initial terms of reference for it was f* pathetic, which was only to investigate into MACC procedures for interviewing/interrogations.
It was like extracting Najibs tooth just to get, goad and galvanise him into including in the RCI's terms of reference a probe into the case of Teohs death, when this should have been the principal, commonsense and most obv! ious ter m of reference.
Why was there this unbelievable government (initial) reluctance to, firstly, have a RCI to look into Teohs mysterious death while he was in the MACCs custody, and secondly, to have its (initial) terms of reference include an inquiry into the cause of death? No need to answer, as they were merely rhetorical questions.
But whatever the RCIs findings may be, we know there was no reason nor cause of stress for Teoh so much so that he committed suicide on the eve of his wedding.
We also know there was no justifiable cause for MACC to investigate Ean Yong by the overnight interrogation of his aide, Teoh Beng Hock. So by logical extension, we would be justified in arguing that it must have been a politically motivated case.
We know a lot because, hey, we only know too well the Malaysian MACC, Police, Election Commission, Public Service senior officers, judiciary, etc.
Most of all we know Teoh Beng Hock died a tragic death., and for what? Thats why its so tragic.
Theres no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people (Howard Zinn) and if Najib still wont act to dispense true justice, I hope Allah swt will call those responsible for Teoh's death to account in the hereafter.
Comments