Why do we even bother….?

Why do we even bother setting up an inquest to determine the cause of ‘sudden death’ of DAP State Exco Ean Yong’s Political Secretary Teoh Beng Hock and a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into whether or not MACC followed their SOP and jurisdiction in their investigations?

Despite that an inquest is the legally binding usual way to determine ‘sudden death’ and all testimonies presented is as good as a criminal case trial, the Pakatan Rakyat Primates are at their usual theaterical antics.

Malaysiakini.com has the story:

Pakatan: Royal commission is a mockery

Hafiz Yatim Jul 23, 09 12:57pm

Pakatan Rakyat today said that there were many questions that needed urgent answers to the circumstances leading to the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock while being questioned by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission last week.

As such, the opposition coalition said, the government was wrong in limiting the terms of reference of the royal commission of inquiry to look only into the MACC’s investigative procedures.

The royal commission, as announced by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak yesterday, will also be tasked to determine if there were any human right violations when Teoh was being interrogated.

Pakatan Rakyat leader however believed that the royal commission must also look into the cause of Teoh’s death.

 

               

Najib announced yesterday that the cause of the death will be determined by an inquest.

“This makes a mockery of the public outcry for justice, truth and accountability,” said Pakatan leader in a joint statement today.

The statement was signed by PKR vice-president R Sivarasa, PAS council member Dzulkefly Ahmad and Selangor DAP secretary Lau Weng San.

 

Also present was PAS treasurer and Kuala Krai MP Dr Hatta Ramli.

They said that some of the questions that needed to be answered were:

• why was Teoh’s case allegedly involving an amount less than RM2,500 is pursued with such aggression and urgency?

• why was Teoh and another so-called “witness” kept overnight and interrogated with such oppression?

• why was Teoh’s hand phone in the custody of the MACC when the MACC insisted that he was only a witness; why did the MACC initially deny they took his handphone?

• why would Teoh spend the night at the MACC’s office if he was free to go especially since he was scheduled to be married the next morning;

• why would Teoh commit suicide (as alleged by MACC and others) in these circumstances, when he is about to get married, with his fiancé expecting their child, and with no sign or history of depression or mental illness.

“Hence, whilst it is appropriate that the royal commission investigate the procedures of investigation of the MACC, the key question of how Teoh died must also be investigated and answered by them.

“That question cannot be separated from the more general issue of how the MACC conducts investigations,” said the Pakatan leaders in their statement.

Ridiculous questions from police

Sivarasa also said that having an inquest, which is presided by a magistrate would not achieve the true objective of finding Teoh’s cause of death.

 

               

“In an inquest, police will give the evidence that it has gathered and the DPP assisting the coroner in the inquest would direct questions. There are limited roles played by other parties and this results in numerous inquests ending up without determining the cause of death,” Sivarasa (left) said.

“Furthermore, the public has questioned the integrity of the police, judiciary and the prosecution in the past. Hence, we strongly feel that an inquest is insufficient. Expanding the terms of reference of the royal commission to determine the cause of death would be seen to be independent,” he said.

Sivarasa also questioned the relevance of the police line of interrogation to determine the cause of Teoh’s death when they met an aide to Selangor executive councillor Elizabeth Wong.

“They asked questions as to whether Teoh was a smoker, or has he got political enemies, does he owe a lot of money. Such questions posed by the authorities when recording statements would not help determine the cause of death.

“They should be looking at whether there were other finger prints on the windows, or whether there were a third party’s hair or other subtances on from Teoh’s shirt which could be sent for DNA analysis. If this was the line of questioning, I do not think the inquest would achieve its desired objective”

Selective prosecution adopted

Selangor DAP organising secretary Lau Weng San also questioned the selective prosecution adopted by MACC in supposedly taking action on Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives.

“I lodged a report to the MACC a couple of months ago regarding a BN elected representative finishing his allocation of RM500,000 within two months. But no action has been taken on it,” Lau, who is Kampung Tunku assemblyperson said.

A big poser, he said, is how could a witness, not an accused person, die while in MACC’s custody.

These, Lau said are the questions which MACC should answer as it happened on their premises.

“Hence, DAP along with Pakatan partners truly feel that we need a water-tight royal commission to not only answer questions on MACC’s investigative procedures but also determine the cause of death.”

“Having a junior magistrate presiding in an inquest is insufficient as it would not be able to determine the circcumstances surrounding Teoh’s death.”

*********************

Of course the Police would want to know whether Teoh was a gambling man, has debts, especially huges ones (to determine whether he is indebted to the Ah Longs), change of behaviour lately, shown symptoms of depression etc. Having enemies is the obvious reason why anyone would be murdered. The Police would naturally record everysingle probabilities on why Teoh is dead, suddenly.

If they want to talk about ‘selective prosecution’, why none of these Pakatan Rakyat Primates bothered when Wan Siti Farihan was found dead at her UKM residential college. This facility is obviously a Government owned building (unlike Plaza Masalam, a privately owned building). The kiasuness is very prevailing, when it comes who and why the DAP wants to champion. It is and was never about Malaysia or the principle fairness for all!

Obviously, the Pakatan Rakyat Primates would never be satisfied regardless what it is done. Worse still, they stage more theaterics and politicize every single opportunity that they can capitalise for their narrow and chauvinistic politics to belittle, if not demonize the enforcement agencies and authorities. If they can, they would create instability, chaos and a pandemonium state of anarchy. That is where they rise to the occassion to seize power, in the cover of ‘peoples’ democracy’.

It was said that some people within DAP would be happy that the inquest findings would conclude that Teoh committted suicide. Otherwise, if it wasn’t, then there would me more inquiries. More inquiries could probably uncover a lot of things some people within DAP would try very hard to protect: Their involvement with the Lords of the Underworld Vices.

If it was true, then this would be catestrophic to Malaysian politics. The reasons are so obvious:

1. The party would be funded from unaccounted monies

2. Malaysia would be a state ruled by the Lords of Underworld Vices, who would dictate if not threaten the politcians to their whims and fancies

3. Hence, the underworld vices would be a Malaysian way of life where prostitution, unstructured gambling, sale of unprescribed drugs, extortions etc. is rampantly open

4. A new form of slavery, ruled by the Ah Longs will be instituted

The social fabric standing would naturally detetriorate, if not completely destroyed. Malaysia has already been mapped on the global human traficking watch.

It has been said that since Pakatan Rakyat Primates took over the administration of the Selangor State Government, the number of ‘health spas’ and ‘massage parlours’ have increased termendously. This is under the direct inducement by Selangor DAP Leaders.

Again, why do we bother to set up the inquest and Royal Commission of Inquiry? It is obvious that we need it, to protect ourselves from anarchists who use ‘intellectualism and universal values’ as their cover.