October 24, 2009


Dr. Porntip gave an 80 percent chance that Teoh Beng Hock had been murdered by the MACC. I believe I have the remaining 20 percent. Looking at the information available publicly since Teoh's death, including the findings of Dr. Porntip, I have made certain deductions about the matter:

Teoh was said to have fallen from the 14th floor to a roof at the 5th floor level. That's a fall of 9 floors.

A fall of that distance would often produce some splatter of blood at the scene, but such blood was apparently absent in the photos of Teoh's body on the roof.

Dr. Porntip testified that there were marks indicating dragging across a "hard and rough surface".

The stairs, doorways and pathways to and along roofs of a building don't receive the smooth beautiful finishes given areas inside the building, they are left rough, bare cement and gravel.

From the above, I think a reasonable deduction is that Teoh did not fall to where his body was shown on the roof, but rather was killed elsewhere and dragged to the point on the roof shown in the photos. That's the remaining 20 percent.

It appears that his body was placed on the roof below a window to attempt to make Teoh's death appear a suicide.

In other words, Teoh's death was 100 percent murder.

Why was Teoh killed?

Did he know "too much"?

Could he have implicated someone in a corruption case?

Perhaps he was called to the MACC not to give evidence but rather to learn what he knew and then permanently silence him.

Teoh's death will understandably make people reluctant to provide information to the MACC, which would hamper the ability of the MACC to combat corruption.

It appears that the MACC (formerly known as the ACA) is not really interested in combating corruption, but rather interested in suppressing evidence of corruption, to the extent of committing murder to achieve that end.

What to call a country ruled by thieves and murderers? Malaysia has become such a country.

Written by Pakac Luteb

October 21, 2009


Well-known Thai pathologist Dr Porntip Rojanasunan told the coroner's court today that there was an 80 per cent possibility of homicide and 20 per cent chance of suicide in the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

This flies in the face of local investigators who were so insistent on pushing the suicide theory, they even went to the extent of insisting Teoh's parents undergo psychological evaluation

In the light of this will "UtusanMeloya" tell the whole truth of her testimony, give barebones info or spin ?

Below are some hypothetical headlines for the sake of satire (or are they) ?

"Maksud nama Dr.Porntip adalah "Hujung Lucah" dan rambutnya ala punk, dia adalah musuh orang Melayu"

" Hujah Dr.Porntip hanya merujuk pada kes Thai, keaadaan di Malaysia lain, di mana tulang tenkorak kita lebih kebal"

"Daripada 10,000 kes yang dikaji Dr.Porntip hanya 100 shj yang membabitkan terjun mati, jadi dia bukan pakar"

"Si-rambut pelangi Porntip mungkin bersubahat dengan ejen yahudi cawangan DAP, pastinya angkara DSAI lagi"

"Dr.Porntip lebih prihatin terhadap simati, tetapi kita prihatin terhadap yg hidup dan di salah tuduh"

"Dr.Porntip menghina kewibawaan pakar tempatan, jom boikot produk Thai"

'Dr.Porntip kelihatan muda walaupun menjangkau usia lebih 50 tahun - mungkin kerana memakai susuk dan ilmu-hitam"
Disclaimer -above is for the purpose of satire and is not intended to bear any semblance or insinuate our Local Daily- Utusan Malaysia which has been hailed by no less than our Prime Minister for their level of professionalism. Read more HERE and also OVER HERE.

Written by Vijay Kumar Muragavell


Meetings seem a necessary evil of working life.

They are needed to share information but take away time from productive work.

There are various expenses involved, air pollution (if driving or flying to a meeting) and the way meetings are conducted often leaves much to be desired.

For example, what is the point of the Minutes of a meeting being distributed only at the next meeting?

Shouldn't the Minutes be distributed soon after the meeting, so they can be acted upon before the next meeting?

Are there alternatives to meeting face to face?

With the internet and e-Government and email, can't video conferencing and email be used?

If the meeting is to discuss a survey, the above electronic communications should suffice.

The actual survey form could be an email attachment that is filled up and emailed back to the sender.

That would save a LOT of time and expense compared with face to face meetings.

The above i believe is generally applicable, although what caused me to write on the topic was the apparent arrogance and short-sightedness of the Health Ministry, as revealed in a letter from a doctor to Malaysiakini at THIS LINK.



Investment always has some risk.

Companies try to minimise risk when deciding where to invest.

Would Malaysia be attractive as a place to invest?

Do the slow internet speeds make it attractive? Australians don't think so.

Does the lack of an independent judiciary make it attractive?

Since Mahathir wreaked havoc on the judiciary, it has been under the control of the Executive, meaning under control of the Prime Minister.

Let's imagine we are a foreign company considering where to invest.

We look at Malaysia and note it has a large, fairly educated, fairly literate population, English is widely spoken.

That is good, the workforce won't be much problem.

The government offers large tax breaks as incentives. Again good, though artificial, as taxes are created by the government.

Companies don't operate in a vacuum, they need to liaise with suppliers, distributors, etc.

Legal disputes may arise.

Let's imagine a legal dispute with a GLC (government linked company).

The legal system in Malaysia is NOT independent, it is under control of the Prime Minister.

Government officials, or their relatives, may have financial interests
in the GLC.

So, will the court be fair and objective or favour the GLC?

It makes investing in Malaysia a gamble.

There's the DNA Bill.

It could be a tool to catch people stealing inventory.

What else could it be?

Could it be used for blackmail?

Could the company be pressured to give away trade secrets, such as
secret formulas?

An executive of the company could be told if they don't give certain information to a rival company, which just happens to be a GLC, the executive will be charged with adultery and DNA proof of adultery will be presented in court, where DNA evidence, under Clause 24 of the DNA Bill, can't be challenged.

The company considers other countries, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand as alternatives to Malaysia.


October 19, 2009


Police often lie to suspects when questioning them, to mislead the suspect to reveal information they would otherwise not give the police. Lying is a common tool of police.

Despite the PI Bala being ex-police and knowing that police lie, Bala still believed his ex-colleague and friend in the Brickfields police who invited Bala for a teh tarik after Bala's first SD.

What Bala found instead of teh tarik was that the machinery of government had moved hyperfast and prepared a second SD negating the first SD, also Bala found the government had engaged a different lawyer for the second SD.

After presenting the second SD, Bala, his wife and children disappeared. Some time later, there was also no news of Bala's nephew, who had been close to Bala and very worried when Bala disappeared.

What happened to Bala and his relatives?

Because the police lie as a normal thing in police work, they could very well lie when presenting DNA evidence in court.

For example, the police could lie that a suspect's DNA matches the DNA from a crime scene when in fact there is NOT a match. The police could also simply decide to avoid the trouble and expense of DNA testing and claim there is a match with a suspect's DNA when actually a DNA test was never performed.

A general question: What court or judge or lawyer would allow a Bill that removes the right to challenge something in court? If no challenge is possible, the courts, judges and lawyers will be
unemployed, as they would have nothing to do.

Clause 24 of the DNA Bill prevents challenging DNA evidence in court, however, other challenges might be possible.

A court, or Parliament, may be able to challenge the validity of the Bill itself.

The validity of the Bill is suspect because of the removal of judicial review.

Removing judicial review and putting handling of DNA evidence under the police violates the separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary.

The lack of judicial review is a characteristic of police states, NOT democracies.

With passage of the DNA Bill, Malaysia is officially a police state, although it has been an unofficial police state for some decades, thanks in large part to Mahathir's molest and rape of the judiciary, including ending trial by jury.

Malaysia URGENTLY needs a return of trial by jury.

Have you noticed, in all the talk by the government about judicial reforms, trial by jury has NEVER been mentioned?

That's because trial by jury is what the government fears MOST.

The absence of trial by jury is the MOST powerful tool the government has against the rakyat, even more powerful than the ISA.

That is why the government has talked of reviewing the ISA but NEVER, not even ONCE, spoken of considering a return of trial by jury.

When there is trial by jury, the rakyat, not a judge, decides guilt or innocence of an accused.

The government can control a judge but it can't control the rakyat, that's why the government is truly terrified of trial by jury.

Please excuse any typos i may have missed, my cat Claws 24 was helping me write by stepping on the keyboard.

Written by Pakac Luteb

October 18, 2009


Although this article is on a serious matter, Clause 24 of the DNA Bill, I will begin on a light note that is a pun and conclude with yet another pun.

My cat has six toes on each foot. It's a rare mutation that led me to name my cat Claws 24.

Now for the serious stuff. A court is the appropriate forum, in fact the only forum, to challenge evidence in a trial. That's a basic principle.

Because of that, any ban on challenging evidence in court makes the court useless and irrelevant. The effect of such a ban is to make the court non-existent, because such ban makes possible conviction of an accused on evidence that contains an error, is fabricated or in fact even non-existent although claimed to exist.

Some problems with convicting an accused solely on the basis of DNA: DNA evidence can be easily contaminated with other DNA or damaged (the strands of DNA broken into smaller pieces) and it can even be fabricated, please refer to THIS LINK.

Clause 24 makes the DNA Bill a tool to convict anyone of anything, by claiming that there is DNA evidence of guilt of the accused.

Malaysia Today has a nice article AT THIS LINK about how a mistake can come back later with a painful bite:

Clause 24 may be such a mistake, a mistake that may come back to bite Najib and Rosmah.

Here is a way they may become bitten:

First, 2 facts:

Fact 1: Everywhere we go we are leaving samples of our DNA. The samples are small, but they can be amplified by a method called PCR, until there is sufficient DNA for testing.

Fact 2: When a woman is pregnant, some cells from the baby inside her circulate in her blood. Thus, cells from her baby can be found throughout her body, in any tissue where there is blood supply, including in her bones. Remember, it is in the bones, in the bone marrow, where blood is made. Those cells from the baby of course
contain DNA from both it's parents, including the father. Bones of Altantuya are in Mongolia and her father is a medical doctor, he would know who can extract DNA from her bones.

Taken together, those 2 facts potentially could lead to DNA of Najib being compared with DNA from the bones of Altantuya.

If there is a match, because of Clause 24, it would be conclusive evidence, not allowed to be challenged in any court, that Najib made Altantuya pregnant.

Even if the DNA match were to be totally fabricated or non-existent, it would still be impossible for Najib to challenge in any court, because of Clause 24.

Thus Najib, because of Clause 24, could be found, without any means to challenge the evidence, to have impregnated Altantuya, giving motive for Rosmah to want to kill Altantuya.

With motive to kill Altantuya and Rosmah being present at the place Altantuya was killed, her presence at the murder scene being claimed by both Bala's first SD and by RPK, presumably Rosmah wanted to be there to be confident that Altantuya was truly dead, Rosmah could be convicted of murder and sent to the gallows.

The long saga of the murder of Altantuya would thus finally conclude.

Malaysians might gain a new peribahasa (saying) from the sordid tale,
"It's not over until the fat lady hangs".

Written by Pakac Luteb