Posts Tagged RCI
KUALA LUMPUR – Prosiding Suruhanjaya DiRaja untuk menyiasat kematian Teoh Beng Hock hari ini dikejutkan dengan penemuan satu nota bertulis komputer dalam diari yang dipegang oleh saksi Pengawal Keselamatan di SPRM Selangor, Khairudin Denan sepanjang inkuiri hari ini.
Nota yg bertulis ‘ saya nampak dia macam baik….’, ‘yang arif tanya soalan yang bukan tugas saya sbg pengawal keselamatan…’ ditemui dalam diari bewarna merah hati apabila wakil Majlis Peguam, Cheow Wee bertanya mengenai diari tersebut.
“Apa yg ada dlm diari itu?” tanya Cheow Wee apabila lihat Khairudin sentiasa memerhatikan sesuatu pd diari yg dibawanya.
Suruhanjaya terkejut apabila nota skrip jawapan bertaip tersebut dikeluarkan oleh Cheow Wee selepas menyelak diari tersebut di hadapan mahkamah.
Khairudin yang pada mulanya menyatakan tidak begitu arif menggunakan komputer, bagaimanapun mengaku dia yang menaip skrip jawapan tersebut.
Cheow Wee: Tadi kamu kata tak begitu pandai gunakan komputer?
Panel: Kamu yang taip sendiri ke?
Khairudin : ya saya. (Mengangguk)
Panel : Tak akan kamu taip tapi tulis nama kamu sendiri? (Merujuk kpd ayat dlm nota “Khairudin jawab….”
Pengerusi Suruhanjaya, Tan Sri James Foong mengarahkan supaya salinan dibuat bagi rujukan Suruhanjaya bagaimanapun tidak dikemukakan sebagai bahan bukti.
Khairudin yang telah berkhidmat sebagai pengawal keselamatan di SPRM Selangor sejak 2005 adalah saksi yang mendakwa terlihat kelibat seorang lelaki Cina pada malam tersebut tetapi tidak mengetahui kelibat tersebut adalah Teoh Beng Hock,saksi SPRM.
Dia pada awalnya telah berkali-kali diingatkan oleh Panel Suruhanjaya supaya bercakap benar apabila dia dilihat seolah ketakutan dan menggeletar ketika beri keterangan.
Panel juga bertanya sekiranya Khairudin diajar untuk beri keterangan dan takut sekiranya salah dia akan dipecat.
Khairudin mengaku dia takut kerana ditanya perkara yang diluar tugasnya dan dia sendiri tidak pasti soalan-soalan yang dikemukakan.
Inkuiri bersambung pada hari Isnin jam 9 pagi. Maklumat lanjut prosiding ini boleh diikuti di twitter SPRMMalaysia.
KUALA LUMPUR – Tandatangan pada ‘nota bunuh diri’ dalam beg milik mendiang Teoh Beng Hock dengan tulisan pada dokumen bertulisan tangan adalah tulisan individu yang sama. Ini disahkan oleh Pemeriksa Dokumen, Jabatan Kimia, Wong Kong Yong berdasarkan dokumen yang dikemukakan kepadanya.
Pemeriksaan kedua-dua dokumen itu dibuat selepas penyiasat bebas yang dilantik oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja, Michael Leslie Squires menyerahkan dokumen tulisan tangan Teoh yang diambil dari pejabat Exco Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Mac lalu untuk dibuat perbandingan.
“Perbandingan tulisan Cina dibuat dengan menggunakan lima sample karakter tulisan yang terdapat pada kedua dokumen berkenaan dimana terdapat persamaan yang ditemui pada bahan bukti tersebut.
“Metadologi dan instrument yang sama turut digunakan bagi memeriksa tulisan tangan dalam Bahasa Melayu dan permeriksaan yang dilakukan turut memperlihatkan tiada tampalan atau pertindihan yang dibuat pada dokumen tersebut,” katanya ketika menjawab soalan yang ditanya oleh Peguam BAR Council, Christopher Leong.
Wong menolak cadangan yang dibuat oleh Leong bahawa tandatangan Teoh pada salinan kenyataan SPRM menunjukkan terdapat pergerakan pen di mana garisan akhirnya tidak bersambung.
“Ada kemungkinan berlakunya pergerakan pen dimana ia tidak menyentuh kertas, dan biasanya terdapat pelbagai bentuk tandatangan disebabkan oleh seni kaligrafi seseorang inidividu itu.
“Seseorang individu tidak boleh menghasilkan bentuk tandatangan yang sama setiap masa kerana faktor dakwat, getaran dan penekanan,”katanya.
Pada masa sama Wong bersetuju dengan beberapa cadangan yang dikemukakan Leong bahawa tulisan tangan yang terdapat pada buku nota , adalah celaru, ditulis dengan cepat dan ringkas dan tulisan Cina pada nota bunuh diri adalah lebih formal dan lengkap garisannya.
Keterangan Wong bagaimanapun akan disambung kemudian.
Maklumat lanjut perkembangan RCI juga boleh diikuti setiap hari melalui twitter rasmi SPRM di SPRMMalaysia dan ia juga dipaparkan di laman web rasmi SPRM di www.sprm.gov.my.
April 02, 2011 20:46 PM
KUALA LUMPUR, April 2 (Bernama) — Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand who once gave a controversial testimony on the death of Teoh Beng Hock, today admitted that she was now being investigated by the Medical Council of Thailand for alleged breach of discipline.
Questioned by lawyer Datuk Seri Muhammed Shafee Abdullah who is representing the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), Pornthip also admitted that she was a controversial activist in her country and disliked by the police.
“The proceeding is still on-going and the complainant alleged that you (Pornthip) manufactured evidence,” said Muhammad Shafee before the Commission of Inquiry into Teoh’s death.
Referring to the case of the death of a millionaire in Thailand, Muhammad Shafee said Pornthip had given a wrong opinion on the second autopsy conducted, which resulted in his brother being charged with murder, while the first autopsy found that the millionaire had killed himself.
Muhammad Shafee said Pornthip and her team did the second autopsy and found that the millionaire was killed but from the third autopsy conducted by 11 pathologists from different countries, it was found that the millionaire had committed suicide, the same finding as in the first autopsy.
Pornthip who appeared annoyed by Muhammad Shafee’s allegations, refused to answer his question and accused him of not knowing anything about the case. But Muhammed Shafee said reports on the case were widely publicised through the Internet.
The proceeding also touched on Pornthip’s theory given during the inquest by the Coroner’s Court, which according to Muhammad Shafee had tarnished the image of an organisation (MACC).
To that, Pornthip replied: “I can’t answer that.”
Pornthip said she was only giving her opinion but admitted that she had said (during the inquest) that there was a sign of penetration of the deceased’s anus to obtain permission for the second autopsy to he conducted.
She said during the second autopsy, it was found that the injury was caused by a broken bone that re-entered the body.
Pornthip also said that she found Teoh’s death to be caused by a fall and not strangulation, and the injuries on his chest were due to the impact of the fall.
She further said that the injuries sustained by Teoh were consistent with injuries from a fall from a height of 30 metres and agreed that the first autopsy done within 24 hours after death was better than the second autopsy, conducted four months later.
Pornthip who frequently answered that her opinions were based on her reading of books and her experience, however, disagreed with Muhammad Shafee’s contention that her views on Teoh’s death were limited and depended on the limited cases she handled.
She said she handled various cases in Thailand and what she had stated in court were her own opinions and not under the directive of any quarters.
After Pornthip gave her testimony, Commission of Inquiry chairman, Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen said private investigator Michael Leslie Squires had completed his investigations into the computers and phones used by six MACC officers. No SMSes or calls were found to have been made through these phones in relation to the case and no emails either sent through their computers on the case.
The inquiry panel also comprises former Federal Court judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, former Appeals Court judge Datuk T.S.Nathan, Penang Hospital forensic pathologist Datuk Dr Bhupinder Singh and forensic psychiatric consultant Prof Dr Mohamed Hatta Shaharom.
Teoh, 30, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the 5th foor corridor of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, after giving his statement to the Selangor MACC, located on the 14th floor of the same building.
The proceeding continues on Monday.
FIRST, complying with the likely recommendation of their politician-lawyers, the family of Teoh Beng Hock jettisoned themselves from the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to probe the death of their kin, on the contention that the Attorney-General’s Chamber’s participation would tar proceedings.
(The assertion was that the A-G was a “biased” participant on the account that the chambers was appealing in the High Court against the coroner’s open verdict on Teoh’s death. RCI chairman, Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen, dismissed the contention as groundless)
According to some pro-opposition news reports, the cynical choreography of three withdrawals in quick succession tries to force the impression that the RCI is reeling out of control, its credibility sullied by the departures.
People get the wrong impression that the three groups are limbs to the RCI’s anatomy — they are not. They are simply part of the participatory process of watching briefs and watchdogs, so their abrupt withdrawals mean that the Teohs renounced a priceless opportunity to observe and pose pertinent questions at the inquiry.
From the public standpoint, Karpal and Gobind acted not in their client’s interest by not advising against withdrawal, but instead played a well-supported cameo to seize the political initiative.
If this had been a poker game, the government had not only called the DAP’s bluff but also raised the ante to bet on everything that was required in the inquiry of a questionable death — and more.
If Teoh was murdered, the RCI is determined to expose his murderer. The suspects list will be extended beyond officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission — prematurely and unfairly implied by the opposition as the main suspects — to cover politicians closely associated with Teoh.
By now the lawyers will realise that RCI chairman Foong is no pushover. Rather than tangle with Foong in prospective arguments where they may not secure the upper hand, a strategic retreat was the shrewd early move.
However, as a parting shot, the dissenters just had to cast aspersions on Foong’s credibility by characterising him as a presiding officer with a conflict of interest, just because he is a sitting Federal Court judge.
The histrionics failed. The RCI team adjudged the application for Foong to recuse himself as baseless.
Datuk Seri Mohd Shafee Abdullah, legal counsel for MACC, put some perspective to back Foong’s continued chairmanship by pointing out that in previous British Royal Commissions of Inquiry, Law Lords sat as panellists and chairmen. Foong, therefore, is as credible as they come.
Then there was the complaint that Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand was not summoned to testify. The RCI took heed and included Dr Pornthip, despite her exaggerated declarations in ascertaining Teoh’s death, first by flippantly adducing that Teoh’s death was “80 per cent homicide” just by looking at his autopsy pictures.
Dr Pornthip’s second assertion was even more flippant. For someone with a reputation of not being a shrinking violet, she claimed that she was pressured by “someone” in Putrajaya not to testify in Teoh’s inquest last year despite having the gumption to take on very powerful people in Thailand besides attracting a RM100,000 bounty on her head.
Siding with the Teohs, the Bar Council posed this question: what would happen if the High Court, which has a May 23 date to have the case mentioned, and the RCI delivered contradicting findings?
Bar Council representative Christopher Leong suggested that the A-G’s Chambers withdraw the revision or apply to postpone the hearing until the inquiry is completed.
Leong may have a point but there is no word yet on a fresh direction that might be assumed by the A-G’s Chambers.
But in the meantime, should the inquiry be deferred on the account of the RCI-High Court “colliding” scenario? Foong, who would be very familiar with the workings of a court case, has no misgivings to continue, confident that the RCI can act prudently and independently.
An earlier contention that the RCI be deferred because the inquiry’s April 25 deadline clashed with Messrs Karpal & Gobind’s many court appearances has been disregarded and dismissed as frivolous. Their pre-meditated withdrawal makes the “clashing” excuse even more irrelevant and inconsequential to begin with.
In the long run and based on the authority empowered to them by the king, it is the RCI’s autonomy and self-determination that is to be savoured and appreciated to bring absolute closure to this grisly affair that may continue to haunt the Malaysian psyche.
PRODDED by self-serving political scheming, and before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s death can proceed unmolested, its inception has been disparaged, thanks to the loaded aspersions cast on the inquiry’s independence and ability to carry out the task as instructed by the king.
The motivation to begin the inquiry with earnest intent has been tilted out of balance, the purpose being the aggressive-compulsive angst to commandeer proceedings.
On Monday, the first day of the inquiry, Gobind Singh Deo (DAP member of parliament for Puchong) launched his involvement as the Teoh family counsel by protesting the presence of three Attorney-General’s Chambers’ conducting officers, patently running down the court officers as “biased”.
The Teoh family, Gobind further contended, had “lost faith” in the A-G after the chambers filed for a revision on the coroner’s open verdict in the inquest to determine Teoh’s death.
Gobind justified his objections on two counts:
– the A-G was pushing for a suicide verdict, when what the family wants to imply is that Teoh was murdered; and,
– if there had been alternative police investigations after the inquest, especially on the coroner’s evidence of pre-fall injuries on Teoh’s neck.
It is classic disinformation tactic to force whichever enforcement authorities involved in the RCI to be on the defensive, a “drawing-the-first-blood” strategy that puts Gobind and lead counsel Karpal Singh (DAP chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor) in a strategic position to call the shots.
Moreover, the DAP lawyers also engineered an “emotional” weapon, putting up Teoh’s sister, Lee Lan, to mandate the removal of the three conducting officers on grounds that they were “biased”, reinforced with an expressive plea that her family wanted “fair and independent” individuals as conducting officers.
How loaded were the plea adjectives and nouns uttered? “Biased”, “lost faith”, “fair and independent” seemed to be leading assumptions designed to persuade the RCI members with emotive implorations.
So, it was heartening that RCI chairman Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen did not buy into any of the attack, the Federal Court judge rationalising his rejections of Lee Lan’s and Gobind’s submissions in cool, crystal logic without losing focus on what must be done.
Addressing Lee Lan directly, Foong averred: “From the very beginning, I have expressed great sorrow on your brother’s death. But do not forget, this is a far wider scope than just your family. The whole nation needs to know the truth, not just your family. Everyone here wants to get to the bottom of this. I am not restraining you or your lawyers from appealing the decision but as of this moment, I have not seen the conducting officers as being partial.”
Gobind will realise by now that this judge and this RCI won’t be swayed by his histrionics. The steely focus on facts and empirical evidence, not theatrics, is refreshing.
But there were more legal manoeuvres: Karpal filed for a judicial review to defer the RCI and avoid a clash with the A-G’s bid to acquire a revision of the inquest’s outcome at the High Court, which the commission acknowledged but decided to let it be ruled in open court.
Fair enough. But the next manoeuvre buttressed by Gobind is galling: “We weren’t consulted on the date. The courts are very strict with postponements these days. If the RCI proceeds on Monday, it will put us in a spot because we have cases lined up until March and some in April.”
“…because we have cases lined up until March and some in April…” simply means that the father-son combo has key trials or hearings that require their personal involvement and cannot be dislodged by something as imperative as the RCI, not even after the row they nettled for a year in demanding that the government set up the inquiry.
But can you blame Karpal-Gobind? In whatever explosive situation, they are political animals first, lawyers second.
As for the inquiry, all right-thinking Malaysians are terribly anxious to know — in definitive and absolute terms — how Teoh died, whether it was a misadventure, culpable homicide, suicide or murder.
Teoh’s death was tragic and may still be a crime. So, let’s do away with the histrionics and theatrics.
Let’s just get on with the job.