Inquiry attempts psyche technique

A new examination approach was used by a specialist commissioner at the Royal Commission of Inquiry today, in a bid to delve into the mind of a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officer on what he witnessed during the last minutes of the death of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

This followed forensic pathologist, Prof Dr Mohamed Hatta Shaharom request to witness MACC assistant enforcement officer Bulkini Paharuddin to close his eyes and to go back to the moment in time he first saw Teoh in the wee hours of July 16, 2009.

"Though it might seem like a strange request," said Hatta, the dean of Cyberjaya University College of Medical Sciences, who explained that he wanted to attempt a new technique on Bulkini.

He then instructed the court officers to dim the lights in the courtroom at the Kuala Lumpur court complex on Jalan Duta, where the inquiry is being held.

'Imagine you are in your favourite location'

"Close your eyes, try to relax, and move your head down. I will give you 40 to 60 seconds to calm yourself," Hatta said in his instruction to Bulkini.

"Imagine you are in your favourite location... (then) bring your thoughts slowly to the 'toilet episode'."

This came about after Bulkini related his encounter with a man, whom he identified as Teoh, as he accompanied his witness, Kajang councillor Tan Boon Wah, to the washroom at the Selangor MACC office on the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

Teoh, who was then political secretary to Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah, and Tan were witnesses in an investigation run by the MACC on July 15 and 16, 2009, into the irregular disbursement of state funds.

Bulkini said Tan requested to use the toilet about 2.15am and that he guided him to it. It was at this juncture that he bumped into Teoh, who was about to enter the washroom as well.

The MACC officer said he let Tan enter after Teoh, and, as he was turning back to the office pantry, he heard a "loud and rough" voice.

The voice, he said, was Tan's and that it was spoken in a Chinese dialect.

"He (Tan) said 'ni lo' which means ‘you'... I think it is in Mandarin... to my understanding he was saying ‘ini you punya pasal la' (this is your doing)," Bulkini told MACC lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who was then cross-examining him.

Shafee asked Bulkini, who is well-versed in the Chinese language, how he come up with this conclusion. “From the intonation and loudness, what was your understanding?”

Bulkini replied that from the bits he heard, it sounded as if the speaker was “angry” and accusatory.

Teoh, political aide to Seri Kembangan assemblyperson Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16, 2009, on the fifth floor of Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

He had been questioned overnight at the MACC office on the 14th floor of the building.

It was when Shafee ended his questioning that Hatta informed the RCI that he wanted to attempt a new technique on Bulkini.

"Now this is very important (listen closely). Imagine you are going there (to the toilet) with Tan. Then you saw a Chinese man, he came first and entered the toilet," said Hatta, as Bulkini listened attentively.

"Clear your mind and focus on the man's body structure and that man's clothing... until the point you heard the word ‘ni lo'," said the commissioner, indicating that Bulkini could start.

'Visualise Teoh's image'

A minute of pin-drop silence followed, as the 48-year-old officer did as he was told, with those in the gallery watching intently.

“Now, write on an empty piece of paper what you saw. Focus on the appearance and apparel of the person you saw on the blank piece of paper,” said Hatta, prompting Bulkini to list his thoughts.

He was instructed to repeat this exercise again and asked to visualise the image of Teoh's sprawled body, which Bulkini had said earlier that he watched on television news.

“Bulkini, you are under oath, with Allah as your witness... if you lie, you will be answerable in life and death... I give you the opportunity to read out what you wrote,” Hatta (right) warned him.

Bulkini nodded and read out aloud from the two sheets paper he had written on:

“I saw a person in white pants and a black shirt... his head was bowed. He opened the toilet door with his right hand.

“(From the television image) I saw a person lying on the floor in a gruesome condition. (He was wearing a) black shirt and white trousers”.

The police had twice recorded cautioned statements from Bulkini twice. In the first round, he did not say that he heard the exchange between Tan and another person, whom he noticed was wearing white trousers, which he divulged in the second.

Asked by Bar Council lawyer Cheow Wee why he took so long to remember, Bulkini said he was trying to recall and be absolutely sure that the person he bumped into that night was Teoh.

He explained that he watched the evening news on television on July 16, 2009, and there was an image of Teoh’s uncovered body.

Cheow (left) suggested to him that he had concocted the conversation that he claimed he eavesdropped, but Bulkini denied this and responded “there is no benefit in me doing so”.

Hatta then asked Bulkini: “The Bar Council and Shafee have already asked you these repeatedly. Why it took so long (to give the evidence to the police) and what was going on in your mind?

“I want to know, when you saw the second image (on television), was your memory was triggered?”

“Now in my mind, (the white trousers) is all I can see. I waited (several weeks) and that thought was playing in my mind because I was afraid to tell anyone immediately. I was worried that it would end up like this… people accusing me (of lying),” he replied.

Officer admits he was not briefed in full

Similar to what happened when other other MACC officers were on the stand, RCI chief commissioner Justice James Foong reprimanded Bulkini for testifying that he was not in the know about the details of the MACC operation.

“Despite being briefed, as you said (by the then Selangor MACC deputy director Hishamuddin Hashim) you are saying you went there (to Tan's place) without knowing much about the whole operation?”

Bulkini: I was not in-charge of the team. On the way I was informed by the team head what it was all about.

Foong: This means that officers go to briefings and still don’t know the whole scheme of things... you just follow the team, just follow orders blindly?

Bulkini: Yes.

Foong: If I gave a briefing, I would state the purpose of the operation. This is like chicks following (their) mother (hen).

But Bulkini mumbled something incoherent.

Foong: Then you (might as well) not go for briefings. Just stay outside. I think you are not telling the truth.

Bulkini: Your honour... I’m telling the truth, (not all officers) are fully briefed because MACC does not want any information to be leaked.

Foong: Your explanation is unreasonable. If this is true, then the weakness lies with your superiors.

'Loud voices didn’t bother me'

Bulkini’s assertion that the unknown person in white trousers he bumped into when accompanying Tan to the toilet was Teoh was also doubted by Cheow.

To one point Bulkini, who was loaned from the Putrajaya office to assist in the Selangor MACC investigation on July 15 and 16, 2009, conceded that it was possible he saw another Chinese man and not Teoh, as he was not familiar with the employees of the Selangor MACC office.

He was also rapped for not checking up on his witness Tan, although he heard “loud and rough” exchanges in the toilet and appeared more concerned about finishing his meal that morning.

Cheow: Did you go into the toilet after you heard them?

Bulkini: No.

Cheow: You heard people shouting, but you didn’t enter the toilet. Why? What if they were fighting?

Bulkini: I didn’t wash my hands. It didn’t move my heart to inspect. I went back to the pantry to continue eating.

Before this, Cheow had asked Bulkini about the accusation levelled against him by Tan, that he (Tan) was psychologically affected by the questioning session.

Bulkini denied that he had in any way assaulted Tan (right) by throwing a pouch at him, by closely pointing a finger at him or by threatening to arrest his wife.

Tan had also accused Bulkini of making him wait in a dark room and kept switching the lights on and off purposely.

Bulkini: The room had no light, all the time.

Cheow: Something wrong with the bulb?

Bulkini: I don’t know... but it was bright enough in the room.

Suddenly, Bulkini blurted that he knew Tan’s “tricks from the beginning” which then prompted the puzzled counsel and commissioners to ask him to explain what he meant.

“I already knew his (Tan’s) tactics. He will think all these and blame others. He was rummaging through his things and caused some things to break when we first met him at his house.

“I know he did it purposely, so as to say that we went through his things and stole them. That’s why I asked him to check if he lost anything. He is smart, but I am experienced,” replied Bulkini.

He said Tan, who seemed “hot-tempered” kept walking in and out of his house when the officer had gone there on July 15, 2009.

Tan had even denied that it was his house, and also lied that his wife was a “homemaker” when she was employed in a factory nearby.
 
“I warned Tan to not say things over the phone in Chinese. I told him ‘I understand him’. In the conversation, I think with his wife, she said to him - ‘I already told you not to do this kinds of things’ - and he replied - ‘you shut up, I know what to do’,” claimed Bulkini.

'Teoh wasn’t getting married'

After Bulkini, another Putrajaya MACC assistant enforcement officer, Mohd Hafiz Izhar Idris, who was involved in the state funds misappropriation investigation, was called to the dock.  

Hafiz had dealt with Teoh briefly, when he was taken to the Selangor MACC office, and he said today that they had chatted.

“I just asked about his background, whether his was married and he said he was a reporter before,” said Hafiz.

Hafiz added that he asked about the “suspicious invoices” found in Teoh’s laptop but did not make notes from the conversation as it was just “small talk”, and that he was not in charge of recording Teoh’s statement.

“When you asked Teoh whether he was married, did he mention that he was not but will be registered the next day?” asked Shafee, to which Hafiz responded “definitely no”.

Coming to the end of the proceeding, Foong (left) told the counsel that the inquiry’s private investigator, Michael Leslie Squires, had found that no such event was about to take place.

“The investigations showed that there is no such registration. Actually, I don’t know how the impression that he is getting married came about,” said Foong.

Shafee concurred that the anti-graft agency’s investigations came to the same conclusion.

This matter was raised as it has been was widely reported that Teoh was supposed to register his marriage with fiancée Soh Cher Wei on July 16, 2009, the day he died.

Following the unexpected turn of events, Soh married Teoh posthumously, on Aug 16, 2009, and gave birth to a son, Teoh Er Jia, in February last year.

The inquiry continues on Monday.