I refer to A royal commission is now imperative.

Neil Khor's call to give the benefit of doubt to MACC is overly charitable. He is right to call for a royal commission, for clear headedness to prevail, and not to cast BN into a murderous culture.

But MACC is past salvaging unless the ultimate goal is to put MACC under direct parliamentary oversight.

Remember these points:

1. It was MACC's involvement in Perak state assembly persons' entrapment that forced them to defect, leading to the coup in Perak,

2. It is Umno government's apparent attempt to recreate the Perak coup in Selangor that led to Teoh's death,

3. MACC locked on to Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin in Penanti, Penang. But the commission immediately closed the case after Fairus showed his determination to resign, apparently because he no longer had value as a defector.

4. It would appear MACC has grown into a ‘special branch' of the Special Branch to fish for evidence for political intimidation and conspiracy.

Municipal councillor Tan Boon Hwa, who was in the MACC building the same time as Teoh, testified publicly to being treated with psychological torture.

For those uninitiated to these torture techniques in Malaysia, a high-profile case was recorded in Dr Anees' chilling affidavit .

5. MACC was created from ACA with increased power but without increased supervisory constraints. The logical outcome is that it will grow into an instrument of oppression.

6. BN politicians will attempt to deflect the oversight to the unconstitutional law enforcement body Enforcement Agencies Integrity Commission (EAIC)

BN is fearful of MACC coming under Parliament just as it is fearful of placing the police under the IPCMC. Don't let EAIC get pass Dewan Negara.

7. As a balance to check against MACC abuses, the police must be placed under IPCMC, and split into state-level police enforcement divisions and a federal investigating police force, while the Special Branch still has a place in the protection of citizens' rights.

8. MACC's assertion that Teoh was released at 3.45am is not credible. Fellow victim Tan Boon Hwa (Wah) reported that although he was interrogated all night, his formal statement was only officially taken and typed into computer the next morning, finishing at noon of July 16.

Teoh can be assumed to be treated the same way, which would explain why he couldn't leave the building when he was purportedly ‘released' at 3.45am. Then what happened when his coerced statement was to be typed and signed?

When was Teoh's official statement typed up, and by whom? Wouldn't the computer have a record? If he was indeed released, wouldn't there be a signature already on his statement?

Let's see that signed statement.