Why interrogate Teoh for so long?

KUALA LUMPUR: A Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission officer was today asked why he had taken almost two hours to interrogate Teoh Beng Hock when the scope of his investigation was confined to just four documents.

James Foong, the chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry investigating Teoh’s death, asked assistant enforcement officer Arman Alies: “You were just ordered by your superior to check through four documents, why did that take so long?”

Arman, 35, said that it was because he and Teoh had to go through all the documents contained in four large folders and not just the four invoices.

Foong then asked Arman if he had asked Teoh about matters other than the four invoices he was ordered to check through with his colleague Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus.

“Yes, I asked about other documents,” said Arman.

“So Arman, you did more than what (your superior) Hairul (Ilham Hamzah) tasked you to do, which is to check those four documents. Why did you exceed your powers?” asked Foong.

Later on, Foong again queried if anything else had happened as he was unconvinced that the questioning could last two hours.

“Why did you take so long for such a small thing, it’s just claims and signatures. Since you said all the documents were suspect, then to tag all these could just take half an hour. Was there anything else that happened?”

Close perusal of documents

When questioned by conducting officer Awang Armadajaya Pengiran Mahmud, Arman then defended himself.

Awang: Like the chairman asked, why did it take two hours?

Arman: It’s actually not two hours, just one hour plus.

Awang: Okay then, but why did it take so long?

Arman: I just asked him (Teoh) and he just looked through the documents again and again. All the four files, he went through the documents one by one.

Awang: And he took one and a half hours for that?

Arman: Yes, almost.

Awang: When you left the MACC office, did you think about the welfare of Teoh or you just did not care at all?

Arman: After 11.50pm (when the questioning ended) I did not see him anymore. I can’t say I didn’t care, that’s too harsh. My official duty with him was over. I believed that the investigating officer should be taking over from me.

Was it a fishing trip?

Arman was also asked by the commission on what basis he had found documents taken from Teoh’s laptop to be suspicious.

Foong: Where is your basis for your suspicions? Had you gone over to the place where the projects were allegedly not completed? Or were all documents suspicious?

Commissioner Abdul Kadir Sulaiman: There must have been a basis to suspect a person of something, was it based on secret information received?

Foong: Or were you just going on a fishing trip?

Kadir: Maybe you are holding a personal grudge against someone like Teoh, so you pick on certain people to be suspects. That’s why we want to know the basis of your suspicions.

T Selventhiranathan: You could have gone to the company owners to see if the signatures on the claims documents were real. That should have been the first thing you did.

Arman: Actually those could have been done, but I was ordered to just check the four documents so that’s what I did.

Silent and soft spoken

Earlier, Arman said he was tasked by Hairul to cross check four invoices with documents from four files. He said that he did not know more about the investigations and his scope was merely the four documents.

Responding to Awang, Arman said during the interview, he had asked Teoh his name, his origin, his educational background and how long he had known Seri Kembangan state assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah.

Arman said he also asked if Teoh had the authority to sign documents on behalf of Ean Yong.

“I also asked why most of the jobs were through direct negotiation and without quotations from other companies…also whether Teoh was aware of a council ordinance that stipulates that three quotations were needed before a job could be approved… I asked who decided who got the jobs,” said Arman.

He said he ordered Mohd Ashraf to tag documents that seemed suspicious.

Arman said Teoh was often silent and spoke softly but did not look stressed. He seemed to be always thinking and concentrating, and trying to remember something.

Meanwhile, the commission announced that it will be providing Thai forensic pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand with personal bodyguards during her stay in Malaysia.

“The commission received an application from Dr Khunying Porntip Rojanasunan through Malik Imtiaz Sarwar today to enlist the services of a personal bodyguard the whole time she is in Malaysia. The commission has agreed to fulfil this request,” said commission secretary Saripuddin Kassim.

However, he said the commission has asked her to reconsider her request to give a statement at a later date.

Pornthip sought to postpone the dates from March 16 to 17 to April 18 but the commission has asked that she come before April.

In the afternoon, Arman was also grilled by Bar Council lawyer Christopher Leong on several points.

Leong suggested that there was actually no need to ask Teoh to check through the documents as Arman could have done it himself. Arman disagreed.

But when suggested that Ashraf was actually not needed during the interrogation, Arman agreed.

Leong also suggested that the entire exercise was an easy one and could have taken a shorter time.

“The reason you spent so much time with Teoh, is to intimidate Teoh,” asked Leong, to which Arman said: “I don’t agree.”

Leong managed to find a conflicting statement with Arman’s testimony during the inquest.

“Earlier, your police statement stated that the interview lasted between 10.15pm and 12.40am but now you’re saying it is between 10.40pm and 11.50pm,” said Leong.

Attempting to defend himself, Arman said that the police officer at the police headquarters had refused to hear his statement properly.

“When I told the officer, he did not hear it properly (that’s why the timing is off),” said Arman.

However, this prompted a rebuke from Foong, who said: “Teoh had written in a note that MACC people had wrote different things when he said something different too. You complain about people’s department but look at your own house first.”

Inconsistent statements

Arman also contradicted his statement on the time he last saw Teoh.

Initially at the inquest he had said that he had left the interrogation room and returned to inform Teoh about another officer recording his statement; today, he said he had left the room and never saw Teoh again.

However, when Leong pressed him on the inconsistency, Arman said he actually did return.

“This is quite different, isn’t it, from what you’ve stated? But never mind, we proceed,” said Foong.

Before the proceedings adjourned, MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah informed the court that the MACC was trying to find the handwritten notes taken during Teoh’s questioning.

Previously, Selventhiranathan asked MACC to tender those notes as evidence in the inquiry.

Shafee said unlike in the old days where enforcement agencies carried notepads which were endorsed by their superiors, nowadays, handwritten notes are destroyed.

“I am informed that in MACC, they would convert those written notes into typed statements that are then made official; therefore it is difficult to get these notes but MACC will try,” said Shafee.

However, Leong immediately stood up and said: “I am astonished by Shafee’s statement. I have never heard of police or any enforcement diaries being destroyed before.”

Put on the defensive, Shafee then said: “Never have I in all my years as a defence lawyer seen an investigating body that has revealed that much. MACC has been very positive in the way it has declassified so many documents.”

However, Foong stopped the exchange, saying that the private investigator would be tasked into looking into this.

The commission reconvenes on Monday morning.

Teoh, the political aide of Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong of DAP, 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 same building.

The MACC was investigating the alleged misuse of Selangor government allocations.

On Jan 5, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas returned an open verdict in the 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.