MACC’s logic boggles the mind, says RCI

Commission chairman Foong says there were no good reasons to hold Teoh overnight.

KUALA LUMPUR: It was unreasonable for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to hold Teoh Beng Hock overnight to interrogate him, the head of the commission investigating his death said today.
James Foong, chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, asked MACC’s Hairul Ilham Hamzah if it was “really necessary” to keep Teoh overnight when investigations could be continued the next day.
“Or did you have other intentions for keeping him there?”
Hairul heads the investigation unit of the MACC’s Selangor office.
Foong said MACC should have immediately accepted Teoh’s assistance when he told investigators that he was able to supply the documents they needed.
“Why did you want to do a roundabout work?” said the chief commissioner.
“Teoh said he was able to provide, but you wanted to take it from the land office later. By right you should have gone to the land office earlier anyway. Your logic (for keeping him) is really mind blowing to me.”
Hairul, 35, had earlier told the commission that he was heading an operation to investigate alleged misuse of state allocations for the Kampung Tunku and Seri Kembangan constituencies in 2009. He said he did not release Teoh because there were statements to be recorded.
“If you had wanted to build a case against YB (Ean Yong Hian Wah of Seri Kembangan), you needed some basis for your suspicions,” said Foong.
He said Teoh, by leading the officers to his office for supporting documents, could have then and there provided documents to either help MACC  build a case or drop it. But, he noted, MACC decided to get those documents from the land office later instead.
“If you were thinking that way, why didn’t you just release him first, get the documents and see what happens? He was a witness. He should not be treated this way.”
‘This is normal’

Hairul tried to respond, but Foong cut him off, saying: “It seems all the reasons to prolong Teoh’s release were unreasonable.”
Hairul then said: “In all investigations of MACC, this is normal.”
Foong: Then doesn’t this amount to harrassing someone?
Hairul: No.
Asked by conducting officer Awang Armadajaya Awang Mahmud why he did not postpone interrogating Teoh the night of July 15, 2009, Hairul said he did not want Teoh’s statement to be an afterthought.
“But if all documents, either in the CPU or laptop, were all in the hands of MACC, how can his  statement change?” Awang asked.
Hairul: “Seeing that we have already started taking statements from Teoh, might as well finish it.”
He admitted that the law does not stop Teoh from going home anytime if he wanted to, but he said Teoh did not ask to be excused and was cooperative.
Hairul said there was a commotion outside the MACC office that night, with Ean Yong asking why the investigations had to continue through the night and demanding Teoh’s immediate release.
“However, I told him there was nothing I could do to release Teoh as the interview was being carried out and his statement had yet to be recorded,” said Hairul, adding that he assured Ean Yong that the questioning was likely to end by 5am.
Awang: What was the real reason for an overnight questioning?
Hairul: There were a few reasons. The first was because most of the witnesses in MACC cases, specifically those investigated under Section 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 and Section 18 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act 2009, are interested parties. For example, witnesses who are workers, family, people close to the suspects.
In my experience, I do not want a witness to give a statement as an “afterthought” and recording the statement from the witness as soon as possible would lessen the chances of that happening.
Awang: Would the same risk happen even after all documents have been seized?
Hairul: In MACC, we want the story behind the documents. Documents do not change, but the story behind the document, may change.
Commissioners Abdul Kadir Sulaiman and T Selventhiranathan also questioned the need to hold on to Teoh.
“Whether or not a project was done could be determined at the land office or with documents from Teoh’s office,” one of the commissioners said. “In such a situation, why hold Teoh when there could be documentary evidence to show whether this was done or not?”
Hairul: True. But I think that this is normal. That’s the way we work.
Foong: So do you think this way of working should it be changed or not? You want to be such as the Hong Kong’s ICAC, Scotland Yard. People respect them. For MACC, don’t you want your image to be better?
Hairul: Yes.
Foong: Why don’t you give us recommendations, if MACC should change this practice?
Hairul: I am not qualified to give suggestions. But there are specific urgencies for certain cases.
Selventhiranathan: But was there urgency in this case?
Hairul: Well, it was considered sensitive as it involved YB Ean Yong.
Target: Pakatan YBs
In an earlier hearing, Hairul told the commission that the operation that he headed had focused mainly on “YBs who were from Pakatan Rakyat”.
This morning, assistant enforcement officer Arman Alies told the commission that he had never had a reason to get angry with anyone during an interrogation and that he did not get angry with Teoh when he and colleague Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus were questioning him.
Arman was being questioned by Universiti Sains Perubatan Cyberjaya’s forensic psychiatry consultant Professor Dr Mohamed Hatta Shaharom, who asked: “Is it common to get angry in your life?”
Arman: It’s common.
Hatta: What would make you angry?
Arman: Depends.
Hatta: Can you give us an example of what would anger you?
Arman: If people disturbed me, I would be angry.
Hatta: An example, please.
Arman: Maybe in a game, if someone tried to injure me.
Hatta: It has been two and a half days since you’ve been in court. How many times did you get angry?
Arman: When I was being bombarded relentlessly with personal attacks.
Hatta: When?
Arman: When questioned by the Bar Council.
Hatta: All of them?
Arman: Not all, but especially that handsome guy sitting at the end (points to Edmund Bon).
Hatta: You felt angry with him?
Arman: Not really, just felt pressured by his questions.
Hatta: You’ve worked for MACC for about 10 years. When you interrogate a suspect or witness, what would make you angry?
Arman: I think I’ve never felt angry with a witness before. Plus, I more often go out on the field rather than do questioning.
Hatta: Don’t tell me there hasn’t been any witnesses or suspects who slighted you.
Arman: For us, it’s alright if a person wants to talk or not. Regardless, we will find other documents or other witnesses to find what we need. So there’s no use getting angry at anyone.
Hatta: So you’ve never felt angry?
Arman: I don’t think I have. Sometimes, perhaps, if that person is not telling the truth, personally I’d feel … I can’t explain. But not angry at him.
Hatta: When you were with Teoh? How many times did you feel you wanted to get angry with him?
Arman: Not at all.
Hatta: Was Teoh like other witnesses you usually question?
Arman: He was just like any other ordinary person, there was nothing special about Teoh.
Hatta: Between you and Ashraf, who would get angry more easily with Teoh?
Arman: Neither of us.
Hatta: Here (in court), I noticed that Arman appeared irritated a number of times.
Arman: I’ve been exhausted actually, not irritated.
Hatta: Why exhausted?
Arman: Because I’ve been questioned since morning and I’ve not slept much.
Commissioner Selventhiranathan asked Arman why many parts of the record in his second investigation diary were similar to entries in the first although he claimed that he did not have a copy of the latter.
“There are some parts where there are common words, that are exactly the same and not altered. But you told us you don’t have other than the first and second pages. How did you do that? Do you have a photographic memory? ”
Arman said he did not understand the question.
A week to type
When MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah asked him the same question, he said he had typed his entries for the second diary from memory.
Earlier, replying to Awang, Arman said he sometimes took a week to type out his investigation diary. But he said it should be a day-to-day exercise.
He said he sometimes delayed this work because there were more important things to do.
Investigation diaries are supposed have details of an ongoing investigation, including dates, time, actions taken in the conduct of the investigation.
Meanwhile, Sor Cher Wei, who was Teoh’s fiancée,  has agreed to be interviewed by psychiatric experts for the commission.
Commission secretary Saripuddin Kasim said that Sor had set two conditions for the interview.
“The interview is to be recorded with a video camera and her lawyer should be with her the whole time,” he said.
Saripuddin added that Teoh’s eldest brother, Meng Kee, had also been contacted but had said that referred “all discussions” should be with the family’s lawyer, Gobind Singh Deo.
Three psychiatrists have been employed by the commission to ascertain Teoh’s personality and state of mind before his death.
Teoh, who was political aide to Ean Yong, was found dead on July 16, 2009, on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.
He had been interrogated the night before by MACC officers at their office, located on the 14th floor of the building.
The MACC was investigating the alleged misuse of Selangor government allocations.
On Jan 5, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas returned an open verdict in an inquest into Teoh’s death, ruling out both suicide and homicide. Subsequently, the government caved in to public pressure and established the commission now sitting.
It is investigating both the cause of Teoh’s death and MACC’s interrogation methods. The inquiry is scheduled to end on April 25.