We are officially moved to teohbenghock.org and initiated a “royal commission watch” project to closely monitor the performance of the TBH royal commission of inquiry.

Please follow the new website to obtain the latest information. We will stop to update this blog.

Thanks.

Malaysians for Beng Hock

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

读者们，

我们已经迁往新的网站 teohbenghock.org 及成立“赵明福案皇委会监察网”以紧密监督皇委会的表现。

欢迎大家浏览我们的新网站以获取最新资讯，我们将停止更新这个部落格。

谢谢。

全民挺明福运动

Press Invite by Malaysians For Beng Hock Movement

Dear Editor

Press Conference : Launch of Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission Watch Panel & Website

You are invited to send journalists to cover the launch of Teoh Beng Hock Royal Commission Watch Panel & Website.

Date : 14 Mac 2011 (Mon)
Time : 11:00am
Venue : Ground floor meeting room, KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
1, KLSCAH, Jalan Maharajalela, 50150 Kuala Lumpur

2. The objective of setting up the RC watch panel is to closely monitor the performance of RCI to ensure truth and justice for Beng Hock The RC watch panel consists of seven experts from various background, three of them will attend the press conference : Dr. Irene Fernandez, Dr. Toh Kin Woon and Dr. Ronald Mccoy, we will disclose the full details in the PC.

3. Please contact me if you have any queries.

Thanks.

Yours faithfully,
Ng Yap Hwa
Coordinator
Malaysians for Beng Hock Movement
012-2658448 / 012-2138610

Press Statement by Malaysians for Beng Hock Movement

The Malaysians for Beng Hock movement strongly question the investigative direction of the Royal Commission which leads to a verdict of suicide. The attempt to use unscientific evidence to prove the deductions and claims of MACC in the absence of Teoh Beng Hock, is totally immoral and against the professional ethics of law and forensic psychiatry. This is because any third party information, which is usually inadmissible in court, including the interviews targeting relatives and friends could be twisted to give unfair advantage to MACC’s assertions and claims.

We would like to remind the RCI chairman James Foong, when he allows expert witness testimony, he needs to refer to US federal court judgement Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993 which is the most common reference for expert witness testimony. The Daubert standard is one of the main references of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law.

The Daubert standard indicates that the judge is the “gatekeeper” to dismiss unscientific and unqualified evidence. It defines that a scientific evidence must fulfill four requirements :

1.    The theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.

2.    Subjected to peer review and publication.

3.    Known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards and controls concerning its operation.

4.    Degree to which the theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

Thus, whether they are Teoh family members, Beng Hock’s friends and colleagues or MACC officers, a forensic psychiatrist will not be able to falsify their statement because the key person Teoh Beng Hock had died, where no one is able to cross-examine his statements. It is also one-sided story when MACC officers claimed Beng Hock was “Hesitating”, “Silent”, “Thinking about something” because the dead could not refute these suggestions and there was no CCTV recording of it all. All these unfalsifiable information should not qualify as scientific evidence. It is blatantly disrespectful to the dead if the RCI accept the information.

Under such circumstance, we cannot understand why James Foong said “Soh Cher Wei is an important witness”. Doesn’t he know about such fundamental knowledge of law? Furthermore, James Fong is wrong to say Soh Cher Wei never give any statement, where in fact she had given her statement on 23 July 2009 after Beng Hock was found died. did James Foong not do his homework?

In the Psychiatry or Psychology field, the object/client being observed is of paramount importance, while the other collateral or third party information can only be supplementary evidence.

US University of South Florida mental health law and policy associate professor Randy Otto wrote a journal entitled “legal and ethic issues in accessing and utilizing third party information” which contends tha “Although such data (third party information) are relied on by forensic mental health experts and are necessary to formulate opinions, nonetheless, this information falls within hearsay category, and as such, it is normally inadmissible for consideration by the jury for any purpose other than to establish the credibility of the expert’s opinions”.

Regardless of the professional view of law or psychiatry, the Malaysians for Beng Hock movement feel that since Teoh Beng Hock had died, it is inaccurate and useless to evaluate Beng Hock’s state of mind from third party information, most worryingly being that the interviews could be twisted and manipulated by irresponsible parties.

We question why the RCI chairman is unjustifiably and unconventionally interested in the psychiatric examination, which overlooks other important clues of the homicide possibility. For example why MACC officers only submitted their handphones to the police after 1 week? Why MACC Selangor deputy chief Hishammudin Hasim’s handphone was only submitted to police after approximately 2 weeks? Why were all the information in MACC officers handphones on the date of tragedy disappeared? Pathologist Dr. Shahidan overturned all his statements in the inquest, and the MACC refused to present all investigation documents  relevant to the case.

Chong Kok Siong

Coordinator

Malaysians for Beng Hock

012-2138610 / 012-2658448

http://malaysiansforbenghock.wordpress.com/

全民挺明福运动文告

全民挺明福强烈质疑，目前赵明福皇委会已朝赵明福自杀身亡的方向调查，并在死者无法辩护的情况下，企图以不科学的证据佐证反贪委员会的推论，这是完全不道德，违反法律和法医精神学的专业操守的。我们呼吁赵家拒绝接受精神病医生的访谈，因为第三者资讯并不具呈堂证据的资格，访谈内容可能被扭曲，甚至用来附和反贪委员会的推论。

我们提醒皇委会主席主席冯正仁，在批准专家证人供证（Expert Witnesses’Testimony）时，必须考虑美国最高法院1993年的Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 案中最普遍被引用的“Daubert”标准。美国精神病学和法律学会（American Academy of Psychiatry and Law）把“Daubert”标准列为专家证人供证的主要参考标准之一。

“Daubert”标准指出，法官在审讯中扮演“守门人”的角色，以排除不可靠和不科学的证据。科学证据必须符合四个要求：

（一） 经验上可测试并证伪（falsify） ；（二）在同侪审查期刊发表过；（三）必须能评估已知或潜在的错误率，且其所使用技术具有妥善维护的操作标准；以及，（四）相关科学社群的广泛接受。

所以，无论访谈对象是赵家成员、赵明福的朋友同事、还是反贪会官员，精神病医生都无法证伪他们的供证，因为最关键的当事人赵明福已死，无法对证口供。反贪委员会指赵明福接受盘问时“神色不安”、“相当安静”、“思考一些事”，在死者无法说话也没有录影记录下，也是片面之词。无法证伪的资料并不具备成为法庭科学证据的资格，若皇委会接受这些不科学的证据，这种草率的鉴定方式，何以取信于民？

在这种情况下，皇委会主席冯正仁说“苏淑慧是鉴定明福精神状况的重要证人”就令人百思不得其解了，难道他不懂如此基本的法学知识？况且，苏淑慧并不如冯正仁所说“她至今并没有给予任何证词”，她在2009年案发后不久就到警局录口供，冯氏此言显然是未先做好功课。

在精神学（psychiatry）或心理学（Psychology）领域，被观察的主体/客户（Client）是最重要的，其它相关资料如客户过去的记录和第三者资料（Third party information）只能成为辅助资料。

美国南佛罗里达州立大学精神健康法律与政策副教授Randy Otto在“获取和善用第三者资讯：法律与道德问题”论文上就说明：“虽然精神健康专家所依赖的第三者资讯有助于形成观点，但是这些资讯属于‘道听途说’（Hearsay）的范畴。因此，除了以之增加专家意见的可信度，它通常不会被法庭接纳（Inadmissible——和考虑”。

无论从法学还是精神病学的专业角度来看，全民挺明福运动觉得既然赵明福已死，从其他人的言谈检验赵明福的精神状况既不准确，也是枉然的，更令人担心的是，此种检验方式易被心怀不轨者操纵。

我们对皇委会集中关注死者之精神状况检验，反而对他杀可能未尽追查之责，未深究一些重要线索，感到非常遗憾。例如，警方为何在案发七天后才查验反贪会官员的手机？为何雪州反贪委员会副总监希山慕丁哈欣的手机两个星期后才送交警方，涉案日期的通联记录却完全消失？法医沙希旦完全推翻在验尸庭的口供，反贪委员会拒绝出示所有相关调查报告等等。

全民挺明福协调员

庄国雄

Please see our bank account statement on 28 Feb 2011. Sorry for did not update previous few months because busying for campaign.

Some program expenses and T-shirt payment have not cleared, will update the account again later on.

Regards,

Ng Yap Hwa

Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Razak dilabel ibarat sekadar ‘menanam tebu di tepi bibir’ sahaja apabila dilihat masih tidak mampu menunaikan janji yang diberi kepada keluarga mendiang Teoh Beng Hock sewaktu pertemuan kali pertama dengan keluarga itu.

Dalam program Fokus Berita, terbitan TV Selangor, adik pembantu politik itu, Teoh Lee Lan berkata, jika perdana menteri ikhlas mahu membantu menyiasat, beliau sepatutnya memenuhi segala permintaan yang dibuat keluarga mendiang supaya dapat menyelesaikan kes itu secepat mungkin.

“Ini keikhlasannya tidak dibukti dengan perjalanan inkues sepanjang setahun lebih, sekarang Suruhanjaya Diraja menolak semua permintaan kami hanya kerana mereka tidak mahu kes ini ditukar lagi tetapi pada asalnya siapa yang menukarkan keadilan, kebenaran sepanjang kes ini,” katanya.

Lee Lan juga turut mempersoalkan sebelum Suruhanjaya Siasatan Diraja ditubuhkan, inkues Teoh Beng Hock jelas menunjukkan mereka hanya menjalankan siasatan yang disifatkan sebagai berat sebelah.

“Semua orang boleh lihat bagaimana inkues menjalankan tugasnya dan anda beritahu saya, adakah mereka menyiasat dari segi membunuh diri atau dibunuh, jawapan yang sangat nyata, mereka hanya menyiasat dari segi dibunuh.

“Perdana Menteri meyakinkan kita bahawa inkues akan memberikan satu jawapan tetapi tidak, malah dianggap tidak munasabah. Kemudian beliau (PM) berjanji untuk menubuhkan satu siasatan suruhanjaya diraja untuk menyiasat kematian Teoh Beng Hock,” katanya.

Turut menemani beliau adalah, Penyelaras Rakyat Menyokong Beng Hock, Eng Yap Hwa.

Sebelum ini Najib menemui anggota keluarga mendiang Teoh Beng Hock di Pejabat Perdana Menteri pada 28 Julai tahun lalu.

Pada pertemuan itu, Najib menyampaikan takziah kepada bapa pembantu politik DAP itu, Teoh Leong Hwee, emaknya, Teng Shuw Hor, abangnya, Beng Kee, adik perempuannya, Lee Lan dan juga tunangnya, Soh Cher Wei.

Teoh, 30, setiausaha politik anggota exco Selangor Ean Yong Hian Wah, ditemui mati pada 16 Julai 2009 di koridor tingkat lima Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam, Selangor selepas memberi kenyataan di pejabat Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) yang terletak di tingkat 14 bangunan itu.

FEB 28 — Let’s get one thing straight. The Agong or any of the Malay Rulers may have a special position under the Constitution but they are not God.

For God-fearing Malaysians, only the Almighty is infallible. With that concept set out (for the benefit of Utusan Malaysia and its English cousin, The Star) I would like to address the current debate on whether Teoh Beng Hock’s family have disrespected the Agong by not being party to the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Former judge Shaik Daud says the family has disrespected the institution. I don’t think so because it was always going to be possible for them to walk away from a commission hearing they did not institute (done by government) or agree with.

If we are to accept Shaik’s argument, should we also say that the governments of Abdullah Badawi and Najib Razak have disrespected the Agong because they did not implement fully findings of the royal commission on the police or the findings of the VK Lingam commission?

In fact, it seems to me that the Agong should be angry with the government because whenever they find themselves in a bind, they go for an RCI but are very lame-willed about implementation.

By doing so, they have made the RCI a laughing stock. In the Teoh case, the RCI is stocked with judges and government officials.

So I do wonder who is really disrespecting the Agong?

* Jacob Sinnathamby reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

Tindakan Undur Dari Prosidang Suruhanjaya Diraja Tidak Merugikan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T0Qk0wEZAw

Siasat Kes Teoh : PM Didakwa Hanya ‘Menanam Tebu di Tepi Bibir’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MuySsG_Wzs

Kes Teoh Suruhanjaya Diraja dan Inkues Tiada Pegwai SPRM Dipanggil Jadi Saksi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noUcxvqOR0M

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 28 — The boycott of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Teoh Beng Hock’s death by his family has nothing to do with the Agong, a constitutional law expert said today.

“The Agong has nothing to do with the RCI,” law professor Abdul Aziz Bari said in response to former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail’s claim today that Teoh’s family had disrespected the Agong by walking out of the inquiry.

“Shaik Daud is talking nonsense by claiming that the Teohs had insulted the Agong. It drags the royalty into the affair when the entire panel and process was put in motion by the prime minister,” said the International Islamic University Malaysia academic who specialises in constitutional monarchy.

Shaik Daud, who retired from the judiciary in 2001, said in a Bernama report that all parties involved should give the RCI due recognition and respect because it was set up on the command of the king.

Abdul Aziz told The Malaysian Insider that Shaik Daud’s comments were surprising for a former top-ranking judge as it showed a failure to understand the separation of powers under a constitutional monarchy.

“It’s like saying the envelopes used for government documents with Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda (On His Majesty’s Service) on them were sent by the King and can somehow be misused in an insulting way to the Agong,” he said.

Teoh’s sister, brother, parents and their two lawyers walked out of the RCI proceedings on February 16 after they failed to stay its proceedings, claiming the deputy public prosecutors that were acting as conducting officers would not be impartial.

The former political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah had fallen to his death on July 16, 2009 after being questioned by officers of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission at their old offices in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam.

A 17-month-long coroner’s inquest had delivered an “open verdict” ruling out both suicide and homicide which then prompted Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to form the commission in the face of public pressure.

Abdul Aziz also said that a judge should show empathy and sensitivity to the family of the deceased even if he did not agree with their actions.

KUALA LUMPUR, Mar 3 — Teoh Beng Hock’s neck “bruises” found in the second post-mortem were not sustained before his death, a government forensic pathologist told the royal panel investigating the death of the DAP aide today.

Dr Shahidan Md Noor said the two dark “bruises” were likely caused by post-mortem staining from the first autopsy, which is a degradation of blood products during decomposition.

“We need to take this so-called bruise with a good pinch of salt because there’s no way to say it’s ante-mortem, because the first post-mortem has not shown it,” said Dr Shahidan at the inquiry today.

“The quality of the second post-mortem is much more inferior than the first post-mortem,” he added.

Dr Shahidan said he had conducted the second post-mortem on November 22, 2009, while the first post-mortem was performed on July 17, 2009, a day after Teoh’s death.

Two government forensic pathologists, Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim and Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar, had conducted the first post-mortem.

Dr Prashant said today he only found a small pinkish-reddish abrasion on Teoh’s neck that was likely caused by a pen in the latter’s blazer pocket during the fall.

“As mentioned in the first post-mortem, blood clots (were) under the neck. No visible injuries on the skin,” said Dr Prashant.

He and Dr Khairul have also insisted that the bruises found in the second autopsy were a result of post-mortem staining.

“This is because of the breakdown of hemoglobin (that) has dispersed through the skin and caused post-mortem staining of the neck,” said Dr Prashant.

Thai forensic pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, who had observed the second post-mortem, has testified previously that the bruise on Teoh’s neck could have been caused by a blunt object being pressed against his head or neck.

Dr Shahidan said, however, that the bruises found in the second autopsy could not be the only factor in determining pre-fall injuries.

“Just because they’re present, there is not enough to say there’s ante-mortem injuries,” said the forensic pathologist from Hospital Sg Buloh.

Dr Khairul testified yesterday that Teoh was unlikely to have been strangled or held in a neck lock as there were no clear external marks on the neck or red dots in the eye.

Dr Shahidan urged the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) today not to over-emphasise the bruises found in the second post-mortem.

“If it’s a real one, we’ll see it in the next 24 hours,” said Dr Shahidan.

“But when my colleague examined (Teoh’s body) in the first post-mortem, they could not find it. So I don’t think we should place so much weight on it,” he added.

Dr Pornthip has said Teoh’s fatal plunge was likely a homicide, highlighting the bruise on the 30-year-old political secretary’s neck.

She also said Teoh was likely unconscious when he fell nine floors from the then Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) headquarters in Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam.

But Dr Shahidan said Teoh was probably conscious when he fell because the latter’s body was slightly bent before he hit the ground and landed on his right side.

“It’s a natural reflex. When one falls, one takes a stance to absorb the forces,” said Dr Shahidan.

“So I believe he was conscious when he fell,” he added.

The forensic pathologist, however, could not explain why a cloth, which had been draped over Teoh’s neck during the post-mortem, was untainted despite staining on the skin.

“I can’t answer that one,” said Dr Shahidan.

Teoh was the political secretary to Selangor state executive councillor, Ean Yong Hian Wah, at the time of death on July 16, 2009.

His body was found on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam after he had been questioned overnight by MACC officers on the 14th floor of the same building.

Teoh was a witness in investigations against his boss for abuse of state funds.

The inquiry, which is chaired by Federal Court judge, Tan Sri James Foong, resumes on Monday.