Murder, Homicide, or Unlawful Confinement? Home Minister Must Transparently Explain the Details of MACC Statements Taken
[Press Statement by the Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement on 15 August 2025 in Kuala Lumpur]
In response to Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution’s statement in Parliament on 14th August that police have taken statements from MACC officers involved in or present at the scene, the Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement (TBH-ADA) demands that Saifuddin transparently explain whether these statements were taken in relation to investigations into murder, homicide, or unlawful confinement.
The 2014 Court of Appeal ruling clearly stated that Teoh Beng Hock’s death was caused or accelerated by unlawful acts committed by one or more unknown persons, including MACC officers. Given this context, the police should conduct investigations under Section 302 (Murder) or Section 304 (Culpable Homicide) of the Penal Code, rather than merely going through the procedures by taking statements without clear objectives.
We must once again emphasize: in his judgment, Court of Appeal Judge Hamid Sultan explicitly pointed out that in a typical case, had the perpetrators been civilians, the police would have already charged them with murder or culpable homicide. But in Teoh Beng Hock’s case, not a single officer has been prosecuted to date. This not only undermines the spirit of justice but also violates the constitutional right to life and the principle of equality before the law.
Compare this with the case two months ago, where a female university student in Cyberjaya was murdered in her dormitory. The police acted swiftly, arresting three suspects within 48 hours and announced that investigations were being conducted under Section 302 (Murder) of the Penal Code. This validates Judge Hamid Sultan’s observation: when ordinary citizens are killed, the police act promptly, solve the case quickly, and publicly state under which law the suspects are being investigated. But when it involves law enforcement officers, the police are slow, unable to solve the case, and fail to explain what they are investigating.
We stress that truth and accountability are the only paths to criminal justice. Every day of delay is a disrespect to the deceased and a further erosion of public trust in the justice system. What the public expects is not procedural tokenism, but clear answers and concrete accountability.
Justice must not be delayed, nor can it be replaced by mere procedural actions.
Ng Yap Hwa
Chairperson
Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
谋杀、他杀或非法囚禁？内政部长须透明解释反贪会录供详情
[赵明福民主促进会文告，2025念8月15日于吉隆坡发出]
针对内政部长赛夫丁纳苏申于8月14日在国会答复，警方已向涉案或在现场的反贪会官员录取口供，赵明福民主促进会要求赛夫丁透明交代，警方录取口供的目的是调查谋杀、他杀还是非法囚禁行为？
2014念上诉庭的判决已经清楚指出——赵明福的死亡，是因一名或多名不明人士的不法行为所导致或加速的死亡，包括反贪会官员。这样的事实背景下，警方应依据判决以刑事法典第302条（谋杀）或第304条（非蓄意杀人）展开调查，而非录个口供走过场了事。
我们不得不再一次强调：上诉庭法官哈密苏丹在判词中明确指出，一般情况下，如果施暴者是平民，警方早已以谋杀或过失杀人提控。唯独在赵明福案件，涉案官员至今无人被起诉，这不仅违背司法精神，更违反宪法赋予的生命权与法律面前人人平等原则。
两个月发生的赛城女大学生在宿舍被杀害案件，警方雷厉风行48小时内就逮捕三名嫌犯，并公布援引刑事法典第302条文（谋杀）进行调查。可见哈密苏丹所言属实，平民百姓遇害，警方行动迅速马上破案，并公开交代以什么法条调查嫌犯。但是碰到执法机关官员，警方就行动缓慢、无法破案和无法交代调查什么。
我们强调，真相与问责，是履行刑事司法正义的唯一途径 。每一日的拖延，都是对逝者的不敬，也是对司法公信的消蚀。公众期待的不是程序性的动作，而是清晰的答案与明确的责任。
正义不容延宕，更不能被程序化行动所替代。
赵明福民主促进会主席
黄业华