Are procedures followed?

 

    The Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the the Teoh Beng Hock (TBH) drama concluded and the verdict of 'driven to suicide' was reached.The RCI identified 3 officers of the Malaysia Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) as responsible for  'driving TBH to suicide. While we do not question and respected the decision reached however, some pertinent questions need to be addressed after the findings.What are the actions that will be instituted against the 3 officers found responsible and, are changes required in the administration and future operations of the MACC?.

We are all aware that the MACC after all is an extension of the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) and of course new officers  enlisted to this body can be inexperienced and some of them tend to feel  almighty and harboured the impression that they can  send shivers down everybody spine if they come visiting.


We now have to wait to see what is in store for the 3 culprits found responsible for 'driving TBH to suicide'. With such a conclusion, the AG will now  be placed in the hot seat and  will have sleepless nights too as they have to come up with a decision acceptable by all  on these three culprits .


I tend to agree with the recent comments from a retired ACA chief that we should not question the "interrogation procedures" by the MACC. Are these three personnel 'scapegoats? The RCI  consisted of professionals highly conversant in their own scope of responsibillity. Their findings came after careful study of every piece of evidence and moreover,in a case of a death, someone must be held accountable. In this process the RCI found them responsible so the question of 'scapegoat' does not arise. However I agree that apart from the three what about their superiors if  we question about the supervison and accountability? With this  it pushed us on to the next  situation  on the  status of TBH in this drama.


Assuming that TBH was "interrogated" that will naturally list him as a "suspect" for whatever case it does not matter. I guess everyone will agree on this. Now, let's look at the other side of the coin, if he was called merely to have his statement recorded, then he should be listed as a "witness". In the litigation process, prosecution 'witness' will  help the prosecution while the defence 'witness' will support the defence. I am not a legal man but there  can no doubts about this either.

As far as the  Royal Malaysia Police is concerned, the supervising officer will normally be  held accountable for actions of his subordinates a procedure followed till this very day. Many officers went through hell due to actions by their subordinates. Lack of supervision can lead to the decay of an organisation.However,despite measures put in place there  some bad hats always putting spanners in the works.

Administratively the Royal Malaysia Police have the Discipline Branch constantly breathing down the necks of all staffs irrespective of rank and status in the force. Highly probable that the Royal Malaysia Police is the only agency to have a such a 'watch dog' section Now do the MACC advocate the same? On this case  there are bound to have  some over zealous personnel  seemingly without proper guidance and supervision acted in a manner against set norms which resulted in this tragedy.

Apart from internal instructions in the form of Inspector General Standing Orders (IGSO) for the force to follow, the AG's office too constantly poured instructions and procedures relating to many aspects of criminal investigations to the Royal Malaysia Police and one of such that I vividly remember was related to the handling of police detainees.

The instruction forbid detainees to be taken out of police lockups after sunset without a written approval from a senior officer. In addition to this proper and meticulous documentations were needed. Again assuming TBH was an accused person how come he was out of his lockup after sunset? They were neither taking him out for a raid nor to recover any physical evidence. Further more were there proper documentations made to this effect or that of his movements in  the MACC office at that material time? My guess could be as good as yours. Entries especially connected with this matter if ever there was  in any registers or books would have been missing, obliterated or tempered with.

Were the instructions  and standing orders,if any, from the AG  filed by the MACC? Did the AG's office overlooked to include the MACC in their circulation. As a matter of fact, were the other departments involved with investigations, arrests and detention of individuals, such as the Royal Customs, Immigration, etc kept aware of the instructions from the AG or does all these only apply to the Royal Malaysia Police?.

The findings threw MACC into bad light and it will be a tremendous task as well as a slow process to be on track again.A similar situation was experienced by the Royal Malaysia Police on many occasions. This also gave a flimsy picture that the MACC apparently lacked urgency. TBH was found dead in 2009 and one would have expected that who ever that sat as boss would have taken the immediate steps to enhance  security of all MACC offices nationwide to eliminate similar occurrences.

Surprisingly this was not the case. Early this year we were again shocked with the news about a Customs officer who again 'jumped to his death' in the MACC office dragging this establishment further into the dark waters. It was only after a lapse of 2 years and after the tragic death of Ahmad Sarbani that a circular was issued to enhance security in MACC offices.I think it came a little too late and what's the action taken on this failure?None so far as the officer responsible should be held accountable .. Sadly no one bothered and don't be surprised the officer concerned with this failure will probably be on the next promotion list.

Ok, is there a third category of witness, I don't think so? The media quoted TBH as a "saksi" or a "witness".  If  TBH was  a witness then, what was he doing in the MACC office during the odd hours of the day? Witnesses helping in the investigations should be treated accordingly. Unfortunately this has always bothered me wondering about the actual status of TBH. A witness normally will have a statement recorded under Sec 112 Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) while for an accused person it will be recorded under Sec 113 of the CPC. Well, where shall we list him then? It is  still unclear and no one knows what and why exactly TBH was there for?

Repairing a dented image is no easy task as experienced by the Royal Malaysia Police.The MACC must now look at itself and have the moral courage to act against errant  officers and those who merely existed just to fill the blanks. Dedicated ones must be commended  while those problematic characters weeded out. The  country expects this organisation to dominate and needless to say,  play an effective role to eradicate corruption at all levels and at the same time ensure the nation's vital survival. 

Now whatever that was done cannot be undone so  let's sit back and relax for the next episode involving Ahmad Sabrani. What is the story going to be like？Hope they don't  browse into the book of excuses for a suitable answer. Not only the family of Ahmad Sarbani expecting an acceptable reason, the nation on the whole too expects the same.  Let's hope the MACC pull up it's socks and be on track to do what is really expected of them.