“It’s Not Lack of Evidence, But Lack of Action” – Teoh Family and Two Civil Society Organizations Refute Attorney General’s Letter of Explanation
[Press Statement by Teoh Beng Hock’s Family, KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section, and Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement on 9 June 2025 at the KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall]
In response to Attorney General Dato’ Mohd Dusuki bin Mokhtar’s reply to the Teoh family’s lawyer, stating that the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) could not prosecute due to insufficient evidence and unable to meet the legal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,” the family of Teoh Beng Hock, the KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section, and the Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement firmly reject the AGC’s stance, asserting that the issue is not lack of evidence, but lack of action.
The Attorney General’s letter of explanation claimed that the police had examined all available materials, including forensic reports, witness statements, and meetings with previous experts, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute under the Penal Code. However, the real problem lies in the police and AGC’s refusal to actively gather evidence.
Dusuki failed to address whether the police had thoroughly investigated the name list of 34 MACC officers submitted by the Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement in February this year. He also ignored the “Ten Critical Questions” raised by Teoh’s family, which highlight glaring suspicious circumstance in the case.
Among these questions, the family demanded to know: whether the police had re-collected DNA samples from the implicated MACC officers and cross-matched them with the unidentified DNA found on Teoh’s waistband; whether they had fully investigated the destroyed computer records, mobile phone sms, and investigation notes from the MACC; whether they had looked into why Klang MACC officers knew about the death at the Selangor MACC office as early as 7 a.m., before Teoh’s body was discovered.
The AGC has not transparently addressed these concerns. Instead, it continues to allow the police to investigate Teoh’s family rather than the MACC officers who were with Teoh in the Selangor MACC interrogation room. It ignores the fact that Teoh had injuries on his neck before his fall, refusing to hold MACC officers accountable. The AGC could act， but it simply refuses to. This is because 16 years ago, it had already predetermined Teoh’s case as a “suicide”.
After Teoh’s death, the AGC allowed the police to classify it as a “sudden death” rather than a homicide. When the coroner’s court returned an “open verdict”, the AGC shockingly applied to the High Court to reclassify it as “suicide”. Its bias was further exposed when it was appointed as the secretariat of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), leading to the absurd conclusion that Teoh was “driven to suicide.”
We urge Dusuki not to use the Court of Appeal’s civil ruling as an excuse to cover up the AGC and police’s dereliction of duty. The Court of Appeal conducted a judicial review of the coroner’s open verdict, which itself was based on the police’s flawed investigation on “sudden death” in 2009. Naturally, there was insufficient evidence for prosecution at that time.
This is precisely why the Court of Appeal ordered the police to reopen investigations to find new evidence and rectify the inadequacies of the 2009 probe. We have always demanded that the government conduct an independent and professional investigation in line with the Court of Appeal’s ruling—not to prosecute solely based on the court’s verdict, as Dusuki misleadingly suggests.
The Attorney General also selectively quoted the Court of Appeal’s judgment, conveniently omitting any mention of MACC officers’ involvement. His letter stated: “The Court of Appeal in 2014 ruled that an unknown person caused Teoh’s death through unlawful means.” However, the actual judgment reads: “One or more unknown persons, including MACC officers, caused Teoh’s death through unlawful means.”
Dusuki deliberately omitted the part implicating MACC officers, avoiding even the word “MACC” in his lengthy letter, as if Teoh died in some vague “public agency detention.” He must explain why he concealed the Court of Appeal’s reference to MACC officers’ possible involvement. Does this mean the AGC and police also excluded MACC officers’ possible culpability from their investigations?
The Attorney General further claimed that the Court of Appeal did not name any suspects or specify prosecutable criminal offenses. This again shows his selective reading of the judgment. Justice Hamid Sultan, one of the three appellate judges, explicitly named MACC officers, stating that in ordinary circumstance they should have been charged under murder (Section 302) or culpable homicide (Section 304) of the Penal Code. An excerpt from his judgment reads:
*”Since the deceased was under MACC custody, with preliminary evidence showing neck injuries before his death, the responsibility clearly falls on the relevant MACC officers. This warrants invoking extensive provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to initiate investigations and, where reasonable, to prosecute—even if the case relies on circumstantial evidence.”*
“The MACC, as a responsible agency, cannot deny liability when its officers detained the deceased and employed oppressive methods leading to his death. In ordinary circumstances, if the oppressor were a civilian, they would be charged with murder or culpable homicide under Section 302/304, read together with Section 34 (common intention) of the Penal Code.”*
The AGC’s consistent protection of MACC officers is blatantly obvious. The root issue lies in its dual role as government lawyer and prosecutor, creating an inherent conflict of interest.
After Teoh’s death, the AGC essentially acted as legal counsel for MACC officers—coordinating their statements and even appointing Abdul Razak, who infamously claimed Teoh “strangled himself”, as MACC officers’ defense lawyer.
When cases involve government officials, the AGC’s priority is protecting its own people, even if they violate laws and human rights. This conflict renders it incapable of upholding justice, abandoning its constitutional duty as an independent prosecutor.
The Teoh Beng Hock case underscores the urgent need for the government’s proposed reforms to separate the roles of Attorney General and Public Prosecutor. The government must also correct the AGC’s historical bias—serving the public officials over the people. Justice for Teoh Beng Hock is the first step!
“不是没证据，而是无作为” – 赵家与两组织驳斥总检察长
[赵明福家属、隆雪华堂青年团和赵明福民主促进会文告，2025年6月9日于隆雪华堂发表]
针对总检察长莫哈末杜苏基回复赵明福家属律师，解释总检察署基于没有充足证据及无法满足“排除合理怀疑”(beyond reasonable doubt)的法律标准而无法进行检控，赵明福家属、隆雪华青和赵明福民主促进会驳斥总检察长“不是没证据，而是无作为”。
总检察长在信函中表示，警方已研究所有资料，包括验尸报告、证人证词和召见之前的专家，而达致没充分证据以在刑事法典下进行提控的结论。但问题在于警方和总检察署拒绝积极搜证。
杜苏基并没交代，警方是否已彻查赵明福民主促进会于今年2月提呈给警方的34个反贪会官员名单，也无视赵明福家属提出的疑点重重“十大问题”。
赵家十问质问警方是否重新搜集涉案反贪会官员的DNA，与赵明福腰带上的不明人士DNA重新对比；是否彻查反贪会销毁的电脑资料、手机简讯和调查笔记；是否调查为何巴生反贪局官员早于尸体被发现前的早上7点，就知道雪州反贪会死了人。
总检察署没有透明交代家属的疑问，继续让警方调查赵明福家属而非与赵明福同处于雪州反贪会密室的反贪会官员。它无视赵明福颈上有坠楼前伤口的事实，拒绝严办反贪会官员。总检察署非不能也，实是不愿也！因为16年前它对赵明福案件早有自杀的定论！
赵明福命案发生后，总检察署接受警方将其归类为猝死而非他杀。死因调查庭作出悬案判决后，总检察署竟然向高庭申请判此案为“自杀”而非悬案，其对赵明福案件的立场显而易见。认定赵明福命案是“自杀”的总检察署，更不可思议地被当时的皇家调查委员会委任为秘书处，导致皇委会作出赵明福“被迫自杀“的荒谬结论。
我们呼吁杜苏基勿以上诉庭判决为民事性质而非刑事性质来掩盖总检察署和警方拒绝履行职责的借口。上诉庭对死因调查庭的悬案判决进行司法复核，而死因调查庭又是根据2009年警方不专业的“猝死“调查而作出判决，自然没有充分的证据进行提控。
所以，上诉庭才下令警方重新开案调查，以搜寻新的证据，解决2009年警方不专业调查和证据不足的问题。我们一贯要求政府根据上诉庭判决展开独立和专业的调查以搜证再提控，从未要求政府根据法庭判词文本进行提控。杜苏基的言论极具误导性和偷换概念。
总检察长也选择性引用上诉庭的判决，巧妙地避开了反贪会官员涉案的嫌疑。他在信中指出，“2014年上诉庭裁决不明人士以违法手段致死赵明福”，上诉庭的原句却是“一名或多名不明人士，包括反贪会官员，以违法手段致死赵明福”。
杜苏基隐去不利于反贪会官员的上诉庭判词，洋洋洒洒的一封信连“反贪会”几个字也完全不提，仿佛赵明福死在一个虚无缥缈的“公共机关扣留所”(tahanan agensi awam)。杜苏基必须解释，他为何刻意隐去上诉庭判决提及反贪会官员可能涉案的部分，总检察署和警方是否在调查中也同样排除反贪会官员可能有刑事错失的做法。
总检察长也说，上诉庭没有点名任何嫌犯，没有指出可被提控的刑事错失。这证明总检察长再次选择性阅读上诉庭判词。上诉庭三司之一的哈密苏丹的判词清楚点名反贪会官员，认为一般情况下应以谋杀(302条文)或过失杀人(304条文)提控。他的判词摘录如下：
“由于死者被反贪会官员拘留，随后有初步证据表明其颈部受伤，而他随后被发现死亡，显然责任归咎于反贪会的相关官员。这需要援引大量《刑事程序法》的相关条款以启动调查，并在合理的情况下依法提出检控，即使起诉案件可能仅依赖间接证据。”
“反贪会或相关官员作为一个负责任的机构，当其官员将死者拘押并在整个过程中使用压迫手段导致其死亡时，他们根本无法否认自己的责任。在一般情况下，如果压迫者是案情事实方面的普通人，那么压迫者将被警方和/或总检察长控以犯有谋杀或过失杀人罪，并于《刑事法典》第 34 条关于共同意图的谋杀罪并读。”
总检察署一以贯之维护反贪会，包庇反贪会官员的罪行，可说是司马昭之心人尽皆知。归根究底就是总检察署兼顾政府律师和检控机关的双重角色。
赵明福案发后，总检察署俨然是反贪会官员的代表律师。所以案发后总检察署才约见反贪会官员以协调他们的口供，以及委派那位发表赵明福“自己掐颈自杀”言论的阿都拉萨担任反贪会官员的代表律师。
当案件涉及公务员，总检察署先思考的是如何保护“自己人”，即使公务员违反法纪和侵犯被扣留者的基本人权。利益冲突情况下，总检察署无法维护社会公正原则，甚至完全放弃其在宪法下被赋予的独立检控罪犯的重要角色。
赵明福命案显示，目前政府在研究的分离总检察长和检控机关的改革措施是刻不容缓。政府也必须纠正过去总检察署为官不为民的错误，为赵明福平反就是第一步！