MACC slammed over 'poor probe techniques'
S PathmawathyPublished: Mar 23, 2011 6:16 PM | Updated: Mar 23, 2011 6:22 PM
The royal commission of inquiry investigating political secretary Teoh Beng Hock’s death slammed a senior official over his graft busting agency’s “poor investigation techniques”.
The royal commission of inquiry investigating political secretary Teoh Beng Hock’s death slammed a senior official over his graft busting agency’s “poor investigation techniques”.
Mohd Anuar Ismail, the agency’s officer tasked with the case of alleged misuse of state funds two years ago, admitted that “groundwork should be done” before the operation was conducted.
The royal panel is scrutinising the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigative procedures as well as the cause of Teoh’s death.
The Selangor MACC, which was in charge of the operation, began their probe on two state constituencies - Seri Kembangan and Kampung Tunku - in June 2009.
Besides Teoh, who appeared as a witness in the investigations on his boss Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah, Kajang municipal councillor Tan Boon Wah and contractors Lee Wye Wing and another known only as ‘Harun’ were also probed on July 15, 2009.
The inquiry had previously repeatedly criticised the the manner in which the graft-busters had tackled Teoh as a witness and had pointed out, among others, that Teoh’s “welfare was neglected” in the two days he was held at the 14th floor of the Selangor MACC office in Plaza Masalam.
Teoh was found dead at the fifth floor service corridor of the same building on July 16, 2009 and an inquest into his death came out with an open verdict.
Today’s proceedings focussed on the MACC’s approach in investigating Tan, where he was held more than 17 hours from July 15 to 16, 2009.
Suspicion of marked-up prices of flags
Mohd Anuar told the inquiry that his team had embarked on investigating suspicions of marked-up prices of flags supplied in the Seri Kembangan constituency, despite not checking on the market price of the product.
“This defies logic,” expressed commissioner T Selventhiranathan, looking rather flabbergasted.
“You suspect there is a mark-up. You must have a base price, if you don’t how can you suspect?” he asked.
Tan (right) was taken to Selangor MACC at about 7pm on July 15 and was released only at about 1.30pm the next day - nearly 18 hours later.
Mohd Anuar said he suspected Tan had marked up the prices of flags supplied for a Merdeka Day event, but admitted he did not check the market price of the flags.
“So you (asked your witness), ‘If there is a mark-up? If there is a mark-up? If there is a mark-up? If there is a mark-up?” Or ‘you partnered with someone to mark up?” Is that how you approach?” asked commission chief James Foong.
However, Mohd Anuar did not respond and just said, “As long (the flags) were supplied”.
The lawyer by training informed the panel that he was taken off investigations and he is currently based in the MACC in-house think tank.
‘Are we dealing with fairytales?’
Mohd Anuar said that he was asleep and subordinate officers who were in-charge of Tan and the other witnesses did not brief him.
At this juncture, Foong criticised Mohd Anuar for being “unaware” of what his subordinates were doing with the other witnesses.
“Your officers are doing all sorts of things (without) your (knowledge) and you were looking for a place to sleep. If anything goes wrong, your head is on the chopping block,” said Foong.
“You were sleeping most of the time. Who were these officers reporting back to?” asked Bar Council lawyer Edmund Bon (left) next.
But Mohd Anuar just said they reported to Selangor investigations unit head Hairul Ilham Hamzah, who reported to Selangor MACC deputy head Hishamuddin Hashim.
Mohd Anuar said that it was a common practice to cross-check the outcome of the questioning of witnesses, and this might have been done with Hairul.
Foong asked the investigator why did he head home to rest since he “wasn’t playing a major role”, but Mohd Anuar said that as the investigating officer he must be present when there is an operation.
“It is not acceptable. The investigating officer must be in the office (in case) something arises,” asserted Mohd Anuar.
“I was really exhausted. But I had to be there as the investigating officer,” he added. However, he was not able to explain why Hairul left without informing him.
Selventhiranan queried if it was “extraordinary for Hairul to go home without waking you up to tell you to take over, as no one is in charge.”
“Are we dealing with (Hans Christian) Andersen’s fairytales? He is calling the shots but he doesn’t wake you up to tell you he’s going home,” Selventhiranathan pointed out.
“The coordination between me and Hairul is not that good. I admit that. But I don’t want to point fingers at anyone. I accept,” replied Mohd Anuar.
The inquiry resumes tomorrow.
Mohd Anuar Ismail, the agency’s officer tasked with the case of alleged misuse of state funds two years ago, admitted that “groundwork should be done” before the operation was conducted.
The royal panel is scrutinising the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) investigative procedures as well as the cause of Teoh’s death.
The Selangor MACC, which was in charge of the operation, began their probe on two state constituencies - Seri Kembangan and Kampung Tunku - in June 2009. Besides Teoh, who appeared as a witness in the investigations on his boss Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah, Kajang municipal councillor Tan Boon Wah and contractors Lee Wye Wing and another known only as ‘Harun’ were also probed on July 15, 2009.
The inquiry had previously repeatedly criticised the the manner in which the graft-busters had tackled Teoh as a witness and had pointed out, among others, that Teoh’s “welfare was neglected” in the two days he was held at the 14th floor of the Selangor MACC office in Plaza Masalam.
Teoh was found dead at the fifth floor service corridor of the same building on July 16, 2009 and an inquest into his death came out with an open verdict.
Today’s proceedings focussed on the MACC’s approach in investigating Tan, where he was held more than 17 hours from July 15 to 16, 2009.
Suspicion of marked-up prices of flags
Mohd Anuar told the inquiry that his team had embarked on investigating suspicions of marked-up prices of flags supplied in the Seri Kembangan constituency, despite not checking on the market price of the product.
“This defies logic,” expressed commissioner T Selventhiranathan, looking rather flabbergasted.
“You suspect there is a mark-up. You must have a base price, if you don’t how can you suspect?” he asked.Tan (right) was taken to Selangor MACC at about 7pm on July 15 and was released only at about 1.30pm the next day - nearly 18 hours later.
Mohd Anuar said he suspected Tan had marked up the prices of flags supplied for a Merdeka Day event, but admitted he did not check the market price of the flags.
“So you (asked your witness), ‘If there is a mark-up? If there is a mark-up? If there is a mark-up? If there is a mark-up?” Or ‘you partnered with someone to mark up?” Is that how you approach?” asked commission chief James Foong.
However, Mohd Anuar did not respond and just said, “As long (the flags) were supplied”.
The lawyer by training informed the panel that he was taken off investigations and he is currently based in the MACC in-house think tank.
‘Are we dealing with fairytales?’
Mohd Anuar said that he was asleep and subordinate officers who were in-charge of Tan and the other witnesses did not brief him.
At this juncture, Foong criticised Mohd Anuar for being “unaware” of what his subordinates were doing with the other witnesses.
“Your officers are doing all sorts of things (without) your (knowledge) and you were looking for a place to sleep. If anything goes wrong, your head is on the chopping block,” said Foong.
“You were sleeping most of the time. Who were these officers reporting back to?” asked Bar Council lawyer Edmund Bon (left) next. But Mohd Anuar just said they reported to Selangor investigations unit head Hairul Ilham Hamzah, who reported to Selangor MACC deputy head Hishamuddin Hashim.
Mohd Anuar said that it was a common practice to cross-check the outcome of the questioning of witnesses, and this might have been done with Hairul.
Foong asked the investigator why did he head home to rest since he “wasn’t playing a major role”, but Mohd Anuar said that as the investigating officer he must be present when there is an operation.
“It is not acceptable. The investigating officer must be in the office (in case) something arises,” asserted Mohd Anuar.
“I was really exhausted. But I had to be there as the investigating officer,” he added. However, he was not able to explain why Hairul left without informing him.
Selventhiranan queried if it was “extraordinary for Hairul to go home without waking you up to tell you to take over, as no one is in charge.”
“Are we dealing with (Hans Christian) Andersen’s fairytales? He is calling the shots but he doesn’t wake you up to tell you he’s going home,” Selventhiranathan pointed out.
“The coordination between me and Hairul is not that good. I admit that. But I don’t want to point fingers at anyone. I accept,” replied Mohd Anuar.
The inquiry resumes tomorrow.
View Comments0