Friday, July 22, 2011

Suicide, sodomy, and opposition logic

The Royal Commission of Inquery (RCI) on the death of Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) was just out yesterday. It turns out RCI agreed that the death was due to suicide.

Naturally, DAP, Teoh's family and some member of the Chinese community disagree because they have pre-decided that the outcome must be murder and the murderer must be some head or if not, the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) itself.

The RCI, which seemed to be like a public inquiry that just takes in whatever was presented without much judicial assessment, seemed to pander to this request. The report by a commission of judges spend quite a bit of space on investigation method.

The issue is: Were the panel members from the police force or some law enforcement agencies and experts in the art and science of criminal investigation to make such written report?


Let's leave it at that first because the public should realised that the guilty party or allegedly guilty party, DAP seemed to got away with robbery.

Did the public bother to ask how much it cost in rakyat's money to hold such lengthy inquery which ultimately only confirms what our experts and authorities have already concluded from the very beginning?

One source said it cost more than RM1 million.

That did not include the cost absorbed by the Selangor Government to pay lawyers and were not transparent enough to admit the paid Dr Porntip a handsome fee for services she rendered, especially when it puts her credibility in question at the Inquest.

The subsequent question is: All this cost to satisfy DAP's political blame game and politics to incite racial hatred?

Unlike an earlier RCI on VK Lingam, our source, who was present at both inquiries, saw the TBH Inquery was better for it stick to within the term of reference.

The detractors of VK Lingam will disagree but according to our source, the RCI on VK Lingam astrayed from the terms of reference, which resulted in that Inquery could not proceed any further than that. VK Lingam has an application to expunge some statement made.

It raises another question about the effectiveness of RCI in resolving and establishing facts on an issue. A sweeping reaction would be the process of law through the courts looks far more superior and effective.

The conclusion on the death of TBH due to suicide did not go well even to mainstream The Star that they deliberately swayed their SMS alert towards murder by attaching to the suicide in certain quote and unquote description of MACC investigation. See below:
21/7 Royal Commission of Inquiry: Teoh Beng Hock driven to commit suicide by 'aggressive', 'unscrupulous' interrogation by certain MACC officers/STAR
One wonders whether both 'aggressive' and 'unscrupulous' were used in the official RCI report.

Opposition logic

In his fervour to accuse MACC of murdering TBH for reason many see as to cover-up DAP's indiscretion, Lim Kit Siang claimed that forced suicide is homicide. Let's read the report on Kit Siang's comment from yesterday's The Malaysian Insiders:

Kit Siang: Forced suicide is homicide

By Yow Hong Chieh

KUALA LUMPUR, July 21 — Lim Kit Siang has likened Teoh Beng Hock’s suicide under duress from graftbusters to murder and said that those responsible for his death must “face the full consequences”.

The DAP parliamentary leader said any layman would agree that being forced to commit suicide by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers was not the same as suicide but was “equal to homicide”.

“You cannot have a situation it’s not homicide but (rather) forced to commit suicide,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

Lim (picture) claimed the national anti-graft body was “overzealous” in pursuing the case involving Teoh’s boss, Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, because it was under orders to “destroy” the opposition.

A royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into Teoh’s death ruled today that the DAP aide committed suicide as a result of pressure from aggressive and continuous questioning by MACC officers.

The officers had wanted to pressure Teoh to be a witness in their case against Ean Yong for alleged abuse of public funds.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Nazri Aziz disclosed the finding today which, he said, was unanimous.

Ean Yong said he did not believe Teoh committed suicide but pointed out that the RCI report clearly showed that MACC officers had abused their power and failed to follow procedures.

“The people of Malaysia will have their own judgment on this case and we will continue to find the truth about the death of Teoh,” he said.

A royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into Teoh’s death ruled today that the former DAP aide committed suicide as a result of pressure from aggressive and continuous questioning by MACC officers.

The officers had wanted to pressure Teoh to be a witness in their case against Ean Yong for alleged abuse of public funds.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz disclosed the finding today which he said was unanimous.

The royal commission also found three MACC officers to have breached standard operating procedures and recommended that action be taken specifically against them.

Nazri told reporters the government would leave it to the police to take the necessary action against the three MACC officers.

RCI chairman Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen submitted commission’s report on June 22.

The five-man commission wrapped up its report on June 15 after having heard testimony from 70 witnesses in its bid to unravel the mysterious circumstances behind Teoh’s death.

The 30-year-old DAP political aide was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth floor corridor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam after he was questioned overnight by MACC officers at their then-Selangor headquarters on the 14th floor.

The coroner’s inquest had in January returned an “open verdict”, ruling out both suicide and homicide some 18 months after Teoh’s death.

The government was then forced to establish the RCI, which first met in February, with two terms of reference: to probe how Teoh plunged to his death and to look into MACC’s investigative methods.

The report will be on sale from 10am tomorrow at the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya.

The 124-page report is retailing at RM45 and is available in both English and Bahasa Malaysia.
That's putting words into somebody's mouth.

In the first place, there is no physical contact but psychological reaction from interrogation. Gawd ... who is to know when and how a person will negatively react to a certain line of questioning.

This a ludicrous expectation, which is somewhat similar to Bersih demonstrators' expectation of the FRU to give them a New York's Four Season Hotel level of service and courtesy.

Due notice given to the fact that TBH was not a suspect but a witness. He was a soft person and a more experienced and trained interrogators should know that hard investigating method may not be necessary.

However, that itself is expecting a wee bit too much. Even police are not budgeted and trained in such high input of psychological technique of investigation. What more to expect from a new outfit with limited budget and other more pressing development needs?

The more important question would be whether the three investigators mentioned in the report and now in the spotlight broke any of their Stand Operating Procedures (SOP).

Lim Kit Siang's remark shed a light on what we can label as "Opposition logic". It can be described as a kiasu attitude that everything must favour their's and only way. But the much often used political description is inconsistency.


If he assume psychological reaction is similar to physical force, then why did the opposition made fun of Saiful Bahari's statement that Anwar "forced" him to submit his posterior to be injected with Anwar's meat?

Never mind the fact that Anwar is in court on charges under the Penal Code 377B and not 377C which is more about committing anal sex than the sodomite act of "carnal intercourse against the order of nature." Read about it on here.

That's about court strategy and tactics and perhaps some pre-emptive moves in the event of unexpected possibilities.

When Saiful Bahari said those words in court (I presume), many made fun and questioned whether it was possible for a 64 year old man to force his will on a stronger 20 something young man.

Betcha many would have laughed and criticised the argument in an e-mail forwarded to moi below:
Many a time in the course of the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy II trial, the question was raised as to how a strong and reluctant twenty-something-year old man could be sodomised by a sixty-plus-year old person.

This question presupposes that an element of physical force was involved to bring the victim to submission. That supposition may be entirely erroneous.

A person of authority using his position or influence to gain sexual gratification from a person answerable or beholden to him is not a phenomenon either unknown or rare. It is in fact very common.

Think of those sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests and altar or choir boys which till now are plaguing the Catholic Church, those cases in the US military where superior officers sexually harass and exploit junior female personnel, instances in academia where instructors use their position to gain sexual advantage over students.

In many cases, because of their shame, confusion and emotional trauma, the victims took a great deal of time, sometimes years, to speak out on the victimisation committed against them.

Very often, there was no physical violence threatened or inflicted and the victims appear to have physically consented to the sexual relations.

In actual fact, their mental confusion and reluctance to question or resist the ‘requests’ or ‘suggestions’ by a person they look up to made them vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Or the exploiter is someone the victim is dependent on for job security or career advancement. The Anwar/Saiful sodomy case can easily fit into this pattern.

Some people consider it inconceivable or impossible for Anwar to have forced Saiful to submit to be sodomised. This is a very blinkered view, almost wilfully ignorant of what had happened in other parts of the world.

The answer to the question posed many times by observers as to how it was possible that a 60-year old man can sexually exploit a physically strong 20-something year-old man is that the former by using his charisma, position and influence can persuade or coerce the latter to do things against the latter’s better judgement with no physical violence or threats necessary.

So the act can appear to be physically consensual but in the mind of the victim during or after the act, it is something done against his or her will and is forced on him or her.

Far from it for me to say at this point that was what actually transpired in the Anwar/Saiful sodomy case. That’s for the trial to decide. What I’m saying is that it’s time people stop playing stupid and start to accept that it is not an impossibility for sexual exploitation to have taken place with no actual physical resistance on the part of the victim.

Things get very complicated once the victim ‘submits’ to the exploitation as the element of consent arguably becomes apparent. It is for this reason that sexual harassment laws have been formulated to deter persons holding positions of authority and power in organisations from even attempting to take sexual advantage of their underlings.

Cheras, Kuala Lumpur.


The answers to both the cases are not that simple and are quite complex. Unfortunately, such is the demand of the simpleton political followers in this country for short and simple logical explanation that the explanation communicated is usually manipulated and astray from the truth.

The same with the Opposition's Logic.

They decided to see TBH as psychologically affected by the "aggressive" and "unscrupulous" questioning by MACC's "untrained" and "inexperianced" interrogators.

However, it is illogical and laughable to them that Saiful can psychologically submit to the older Anwar Ibrahim whose capable of making thousands spellbound by his speech at political rallies.

Can't imagine how their logic will evolve when the opposition seize full power of government. For sure, they will be prospective candidates for Raja Lawak Astro.


Anonymous said...

TBH bukan takut atau gentar dengan interogation tu..

Dia duk takut apa akan jadi bila dia balik nanti, nasib keluarga serta bakal isteri dan anak dalam kandungan dia, memang kena macam mana pun..

Jiran saya tu, kalau jiran sebelah satu lagi baling tahi kat kedai dia pon tak berani buka mulut...

Tempat saya dulu, bulan2 paw RM300, hantar muka2 penyangak naik motor datang kutip. Lagi tak bagi, tunggu depan kedai, sampai malam!!

As if they think we don't know why TBH did what he did....

Anonymous said...

It's always a matter of time before one day another Wikileaks come out, when over time so many people who are involved in all those cases come clean due to conscience or monetary gains or some turn of events.

It can also happen when one day some dimwit or drunk person starts bragging about it and it gets all recorded.

That's the way it has been and always has been unless things comes out clean beyond a doubt and the victims are happy and decided not to pursue it further.

Since such cases do not have a statute for time limitation to be charged, so it's just a matter of time before one day justice prevails.

Reminds me of the murder and sodomy of the Mongolian lass. It's a matter of time before someone else squeaks.

Firdaus Shahnaz said...

Did Saiful Bahari fell for an 'aggressive' and 'unscrupulous' way of flirting? Kwang kwang kwang. That had surely cost him something high.

Anonymous said...

Kit Siang ni kerja dia hanya nak 'score political points' saja. Apa saja yg akan beri keuntungan dari segi politik dia akan cakap, lebih2 lagi dalam kes Beng Hock bunuh diri, kerana yang mati membunuh diri ialah seorang cina dap dan pegawai2 SPRM secara kebetulan semuanya orang2 Melayu. Jadi senanglah kit siang nak mainkan api perkauman dia atas tujuan politik semata2.
Takkankah pegawai2 SPRM tak ada hak langsung untuk membeladiri? Pandangan Suruhunjaya mengenai pegawai SPRM masih bolih dipertikaikan oleh kerana ada fakta2 penting yg tak diambilkira olih Suruhanjaya dalam menyalahkan 3 pegawai SPRM tersebut.
Pegawai2 SPRM adalah dianggap tidak bersalah sehingga dibuktikan salah olih mahkamah.
Jadi sebelum kit siang membutatuli membuat kenyataan menyalah pegawai2 SPRM eloklah kit siang menyiasat tuduhan amalan rasuah dalam dap terlebih dahulu.

Anonymous said...

The DAP wants to prolong this TBH case. And dig the grave again. And again. And again.

My Say