It appears the royal commission into Teoh Beng Hock's death has fallen short of its purpose of uncovering the true cause of his demise and allaying public concern over culpable conduct by the MACC.
Instead its ‘suicide' finding raises more questions than answers and more importantly, failed to give comfort to Teoh's family and friends who believe that he was killed and did not commit suicide, a view shared by many Malaysians.
They raise the question of the usefulness of a costly exercise that failed to include the possibility of political interference that may have contributed to Teoh's tragic death.
If there was no political influence why did the MACC investigate a trivial case when relatively larger cases involving huge amounts of money reported to or known by the MACC, have not been touched?
Despite the RCI the public will not know how Teoh died and they won't know the reason why.
Political interference was not included in the RCI's terms of reference but could have thrown light on why there appeared a motive for early results when one thinks of a normal investigation as achieving that aim in due course, only after all the evidence has been examined and not exigently, and unreasonably within a matter of hours, as in Teoh's case.
In paragraph 339, the RCI report noted that ‘HH' the officer in charge, who absolved himself of direct participation in the interrogations, "not only was involved but he also unleashed his officers to do his bidding in order to get results within that night or morning come hell or high-water."
The commissioners' poignant comments imply HH had to get the ‘results' with a high degree of urgency.
But why? Would Teoh still be alive today if matters were allowed to take its normal course?
Instead we have criticisms that Teoh's death has been politicised. This is baffling because Teoh was the staff of a politician and has been the ‘collateral damage' of a perceived political witch-hunt.
Anything related to his case has to attract a high degree of political involvement and that incidentally is not unusual in a country where the public institutions don't always act independently but ‘take orders' from the politicians.
Politicians are often the only ones left to offer help to aggrieved citizens when they are led into a bureaucratic cul-de-sac. It is the inordinate politicisation of the public institutions by the government that the public may be more concerned about.
It is not unknown that law-enforcement agencies face undue political interference as demonstrated by the previous complaints of the country's top cop after his retirement.
Kim Quek also highlighted the commission's shortcomings in his article ‘Teoh's suicide - fact or fantasy?' with cogent comments that the reasonable person would find difficult to refute.
In reading the RCI report and considering the controversial evidence on which the decision of ‘suicide' was made, the finding does not do justice to the elusive truth, and the truth is unlikely to surface when the commission complained of facing a ‘blue wall of silence' and flagrant lies from MACC officers, besides other serious flaws.
Thus fact or fiction? is a reasonable poser. It would be difficult for anyone to ask others not to speculate when in the end, the commission's finding on Teoh's death is unfortunately speculative itself (quite different from the conclusion of an open verdict in the previous coronial inquest that said it was not suicide or homicide) and one that only considered certain scenarios but not all scenarios.
Is it not conceivable that he could have been carried and thrown out of the window without a struggle while still asleep or drowsy or drugged and awoke as he fell, thus not leaving signs of a struggle as evidence on his clothing?
That would be pure conjecture on my part but it begs the question: how is that different from the commission's ‘explanation' of Teoh's death?
Is it not conjectured that Teoh killed himself?
Truth and justice are at risk if conjecture, instead of reliable evidence, forms the basis of any judicial decision. And it is a world of difference between someone murdered and someone taking his own life, even if blood is on the hands of the same perpetrators.
Ironically the commission had dismissed pathologist Dr Porntip's evidence of strangulation (but did not consider partial strangulation) to explain a mark on Teoh's neck as ‘speculation', while relying on its own speculation. So much for consistency.
The commission, however, did point the big finger at the MACC officers for driving Teoh Beng Hock to his death. They found no ‘smoking gun' but established that Teoh was inhumanely treated before his untimely death.
What is not doubtful also is that the report highlighted the appalling modus operandi of the MACC officers.
Revelations of lying and deceitful conduct by MACC officers resulted in scathing criticisms by the commission but they fell short of recommending those culpable be prosecuted.
Any suggestion the MACC needs a drastic overhaul is beyond doubt. From the minutest detail of smoking in a no-smoking government department to respecting the human rights of those interviewed and even the welfare of MACC staff (the two who dobbed in their superiors should be promoted) the MACC needs critical major surgery not another facelift and name change.
Law enforcement officers who do not respect the rule book and who take the law into their own hands are a menace to society. The expose by the RCI of the MACC's flaws may partially explain why corruption remains the country's most serious problem.
Is the MACC a viable institution up to the task of tackling the country's most serious social disease?
If there is a silver lining it is the commission's recommendations that the ‘PEACE' model be used. This non-coercive approach used by law enforcement agencies elsewhere should be adopted for all law enforcement agencies in the country, not just the MACC.
The MACC needs to adopt a ‘hound-dog' approach that relies on the examination of documents, the audit trail of transactions, the corroboration of information and much public cooperation. The RCI did recommend the use of ‘forensic accountants' a step in the right direction.
Corruption after all is a ‘white-collar crime' and the approach should be devoid of strong-arm measures.
It should not function like a coercive secret police unit.
After all I doubt the income tax inspectors detain their witnesses and even suspected tax evaders overnight and subject them to such inhumane treatment as meted out to Teoh.
Ultimately the real problem of the propriety and efficiency of law-enforcement is not one of strategy or know-how but political will.
Until there is a genuine determination by the government to root out corruption, obtain help from every quarter and restore the independence of the country's public institutions, every law-enforcement agency and the politicians themselves will continue to be tainted with scandals.
The MACC has another death on its hands to explain following so soon after Teoh's. It is a further symptom of the same disease. The call for urgent redress is critical.
The MACC is an institution in distress.
How many more Malaysians will die unjustly and unnecessarily is the question only those in power can answer? If it is up to me the answer is ‘zilch.'
One death in custody is one death too many. The buck has to stop with those who allow the innocent like Teoh to die.
With the RCI's findings of malpractice within the MACC that resulted in Teoh's death, the need for further probes into the other deaths in custody in and outside of the MACC and the installing of preventive and remedial measures in those public institutions has become more urgent.
Teoh Beng Hock has not been vindicated by the RCI's finding, perhaps only further hurt by the finding of 'suicide.'
But he is a martyr, a victim of a perverted bureaucracy that betrayed him when he willingly placed his life into the hands of the MACC.
He made a fatal mistake of trusting the authorities.
Until the government can safeguard those that for one reason or another is in the custody of its authorities, blood will be on its hands, when an innocent life is lost.
Teoh's death is not in vain.
His sacrifice will yet save many lives and sound a warning to the authorities that they will be held accountable for their reprehensible conduct.
It may be small comfort to Teoh's family and friends for I am sure it is not vengeance they seek but justice.
Justice comes from a public that believes in the truth that will some day surface when those in power will set it free. Meanwhile they lament the death of a law-abiding citizen who obeyed his government and lived by its rules and paid with his life.
Teoh Beng Hock is the victim of a government who failed him.
Whether the MACC officers will be the fall guys who will pay for their aberrant conduct is another drama still to be played out.
This latest RCI has exposed serious shortcomings in the MACC as another one did a few years ago of the Malaysian police force in its inquiry.
The question uppermost in our minds is what does a RCI in Malaysia really achieve?
And when will the government stop the alarm in the community of seeing so many innocent Malaysians die in the custody of the authorities or imprisoned like the PSM 6 and go through the gauntlet of risks they may not come out alive?
