MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku


Sunday, July 31, 2011

Gleefully, I Told You So!

I don't really want to elaborate more on the Teoh Beng Hock RCI case. Now that it is over it is noticed that how and who did it is very similar to the recent Ahmad Sarbiani case. In summary, what is intended to be illustrated is that both victims are unfortunate persons suffered from third-degree interrogations used on witnesses making statements to the case.

“TBH had to face MACC interrogation heavyweights like Arman the bully [who would manipulate his witness to obtain evidence], Ashraf the abuser [who was Machiavellian in his method to secure evidence] and HH the arrogant leader [who would have no qualms in lying as long as the ends were achieved, regardless of the means employed],” the RCI report had pointed out.

This is what the RCI points out on the three men mainly responsible for Beng Hock's death. Now, approximately a month after Beng Hock's death, in August 2009 a letter containing the MACC letterhead purportedly written by some MACC officers do alleged the same thing above, but it mostly points to Hishamuddin Hashim, then deputy director of MACC Selangor. One testimony mentioned in the letter was in regards to how there were fingerprints of Hishamuddin on Beng Hock's belt and how Hishamuddin likes to intimidate people by holding by belt. This supposedly points to the fact that Beng Hock was threatened and forced to make a confession, fabricate one if there needs to be by threatening to drop him from the window.

After reading this Malaysia Today's document on events leading to Sarbani's death, part 7, you can see that it is related, though not exactly the same:

Sheikh Niza brought Ahmad Sarbaini to KUS Mohd Fauzi's office, which was next door to the pantry (remember what happened to Teoh Beng Hock). Here, he was verbally abused. KUS Mohd Fauzi called Ahmad Sarbaini a disgrace to the Royal Malaysian Customs, that he was not fit to wear their uniform. Rather shaken up, Ahmad Sarbaini pleaded for pity and a drink of water.
Shockingly, they brought Ahmad Sarbaini to the pantry. Incredibly, as punishment for attempting to retract his ‘confession’, Mohd Fauzi ordered him to climb out of the window and forced him to stand on the ledge.
KUS Mohd Fauzi wanted Ahmad Sarbaini to ponder and reflect on his actions while standing on the edge as “orang macam kau ni lebih baik mati dari hidup menyusahkan orang lain”.
Nervously, Ahmad Sarbaini climbed onto the windowsill as ordered by Mohd Fauzi who continued taunting and abusing him with insults. Sheikh Niza merely looked on. In that split second, Ahmad Sarbaini’s belt got stuck on the outer part of the window and he lost his balance and his life.
And, horror of horrors, what happened to Teoh Beng Hock happened to Ahmad Sarbaini when he fell to his death onto the badminton court below.
Now, this scenario together with Beng Hock's infers that these MACC people are forcing witnesses to come out with a statement that can at least prove their innocence, or shall we say "guilty until proven innocent", in this case, they whack you as if you are guilty from the start and along the way there are third-degree interrogations. If they are still unconvinced, they would try to throw you or make you jump off. The players are not the same, but the scenes are almost related and similar to one another.
To illustrate the point - you only need to see one scene from the John Travolta movie, Be Cool where Elliot (Vince Vaughn) was about to be thrown off from the top of a building. That's to get the idea of how Beng Hock or Sarbani would die, but minus the torn out of the belt / pants. And when the interrogation went wrong with the accidental deaths of those two men, there is a mad dash to concort a story that will make people agree with their point
another suicide theory would be too close to the Teoh Beng Hock ‘suicide’.
That's another point being underscored here.
The other problem is on the AG chambers end. They can't take or understand between a potential witness that don't even have an idea of what is happening or a witness that knows things but decide not to reveal for many reasons. In this case, when both men do not have much information on whatever being asked, and when reported, the AG chambers would go ballistic and demanded extraction of more info, even to the extreme. This is the theory that many would look at now.
But again, the point is not on theory. It's to say that when the RCI report got released and read through the key statements, I must gleefully say that I told you so. If there leaked letter was included, then we have already hit the jackpot, in addition to the three MACC men being responsible. It also potentially answers what and how Teoh got accidentally plunges to death! If it gets answered earlier, it can prevent the prolonged agony and anxiety seen in the aftermath of TBH.
- A Little Taffer's Room

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.