Did TBH \’mati katak\’?

There is a popular Malay phrase I grew up learning because I lived in Kedah, where there were miles of secluded roads without street lights and very often one could see frogs which were smashed flat and dried up after their time in the sun and their inner guts splashed out and had been eaten by birds, flies, and bees etc. That process of unnecessary dying experienced by those frogs was referred to as ‘ mati katak ’.

It means that death was based on pure chance with obviously no intentional plan for the frog to be jumping into the tracks of the car exactly at the same time that the car was passing. But in the late Teoh Beng Hock case, how then could the RCI conclude that “he committed suicide”; unless we can read his intentions, or by assuming that the “confession note, which was found much later” was in fact his.

Did he really ‘ mati katak ’? or, was he simply at the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong people? If those MACC officers did not exist, would he have died?

Intentions are often made evident by what humans say, do, or even do not speak. As SH Nasr says, “A veil reveals as much as it hides.” Did TBH really say that he was going to take his life?

Frankly, because of his wedding date and his knowledge that his child was to be born I do not for a minute believe that he committed suicide. I would rather believe that he may have been driven to jump or fall, but the real question is how did he get into such a precarious position in the first place?

Please allow me to reflect on the limits of “such false authority and power”. These are made evident in the way “some such public servants behave or conduct themselves”. For example, recently someone sent me a two-minute clip that showed a policeman dressed in blue punching and pushing a man we assume was going to be detained. The video shows his intentions amply, all done in public during the Bersih 2.0 rally.  

I think in Malaysia we believe in the doctrine that “people are innocent until proven guilty”. And it is only the French who believe in the doctrine of justice “where people who are charged are guilty until proven innocent”. May those who know more accurately please correct me if I am wrong here.

Why then does the AG publicly suggest that the MACC officers must be dealt with but only using “public service regulations”? Lim Kit Siang had recently made a statement that “even pushing one to commit suicide is homicide”. Was not the RCI aware of the criminal role of the MACC officers? 

What jurisdiction does the minister then have to say that they would be charged? Can the minister make those charges that the RCI did not, or may even have made privately? Cannot the police still prefer homicide charges against the MACC officers who may be apparently guilty of second degree manslaughter? Why then is the AG speaking quite out of turn? Is the RCI blind or incompetent?

Decorum and civility mandated

Decorum and civility are mandated by any and all public service rules or regulations. Fundamental human regard is the premise of all human relations in the public services, except for warfare within the animal kingdom.

Is not traditional Malay culture fine and absolutely kind and polite and hospitable in all ways of life? Why is it then that within the culture of the modern workplace, it has become so inhuman and inconsiderate?

Why do the police not know the limits of abuse even in public when any ordinary videographer can take such shots of such obvious violation? Why were the MACC officers allowed to abuse human beings only to “force a conviction?” Is this not also standard operating procedures of the police and in fact why we needed a “Police Abuse Commission?”

Dear friends, I have my pet hypothesis. It says that the current workplace has become both modernistic and rather feudalistic. What do I mean?

First, the boss is perceived as the feudal lord, who is always right, premised upon his authority. He is taught and rewarded to take care of his back and those of his colleagues loyal to him but they are never to question the boss or their bosses. He is there only to obey orders and then to do, and then die when directed. That appears to be the meaning of the sign-off, “ Saya Yang Menurut Perintah ”.

Second, the modern workplace has also become rather modernistic in the sense that no one, who sees wrong-doing, will today speak up any more for fear of reprisals. Speaking up in most circumstances gets one into more trouble.

For example, even if the truth was that the MACC officers may have forced TBH to hang out of the building and they lost their grip on him, and therefore he fell to his death… very few in their culture will publicly talk about this or even to argue to establish such a hypothesis.

There is often a subtle and hidden dimension to this kind of “culture of not speaking up”. Often, one simply keeps quiet and the loudest person often gets heard and then only the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

But, often after the fact, or in the canteens, the real story breaks…, how else does RPK get all his sources feeding him those juicy nuggets of information which he then connects the dots and makes his own storyline; which sometimes may not be all truth? But was the RCI not supposed to disabuse that falsity, too? There is also an excellent article in the Sunday Star by a “loyarburok” on this subject too.

‘Taking trips to Abilene’

In the parlance of Jerry Harvey, my teacher in the US, “all these people who do not speak up and out are actually taking trips to Abilene!” An Abilene Trip is also why the likes of Sadaam Husseins of the world rise up.

They abuse power by overstaying in power and that power corrupts and they get more power and then begin to behave god-like and slowly but surely reduce all dissent to almost zero and then, they surround themselves with “yes-men and women” who only say that “the king has beautiful birthday clothes even when he is naked”.

Would THB have therefore died if the MACC officers did not have false power and authority? Would they have been somewhat racially motivated in a rather negative way too? Would TBH have died if MACC was not so Malay-centric in terms of its workers and workforce?

Would TBH have died if the MACC followed international standards of practice and procedures? Would TBH have died if they had simply followed their current SOP? Why are some people immune to “adherence to rules and regulations”? Is this, maybe, the most negative expression of the “ ketuanan Melayu syndrome?”

I am not being racial but I am upset like most people that the RCI did not quite reveal all the truth, although it clarified and declared the obvious negligence of procedures by the MACC, and now someone must pay the price of one innocent and dead person. But who is that someone?

May God bless Malaysia.