http://magickriver.blogspot.com/2008/11/abdul-razak-baginda-on-malaysiakini.html
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Abdul Razak Baginda on Malaysiakini
Malaysiakini, 20 Nov 2008
What did Razak Baginda accomplish with his first press conference since his acquittal on 31 October 2008? I viewed this video a couple of times and came to certain conclusions after carefully observing his facial expressions and the timbre of his voice.
First conclusion: his press statement was from the mind, not the heart - except when he expresses gratitude for the support of his family. There was very little that was sincere or spontaneous about it, and reading from a prepared script certainly did not help his image. Damage control for Najib and Rosmah - and the political status quo - that's what Razak Baginda's press conference was mainly about.
His self-conscious references to Allah and Prophet Muhammad were specifically intended to project the image of a man who has grown "closer to God" because of his ordeal. Any gain in spiritual consciousness is hardly apparent in Razak Baginda's energy field - he comes across as just another arrogant, half-baked, self-serving businessman who knows exactly whom to curry favor with in Umno.
No doubt Baginda and Najib may have developed a genuine friendship in the course of their professional relationship, because they are similar in many ways. Both view themselves as cosmopolitan alpha male members of an elite, well-educated class of "global Malays" (more comfortable thinking and speaking in English, but they know how to accentuate their Malayness when it suits them). Both come across as fairly glib and accustomed to living privileged lives in the corridors of power - but both are pretty bad actors and should fire their scriptwriters immediately.
Baginda's main agenda, as I mentioned, is obviously to absolve Najib and Rosmah from any involvement with Altantuya's abduction and grisly murder, while attempting to regain a measure of sympathy for himself. He does so by lashing out viciously at bloggers who have kept the story on the radar screen, though he's careful not to name anyone. He keeps using the word "truth" - meaning the official version of the truth which (like 9/11) doesn't quite hold together as a scenario.
WHAT'S THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THE TRUTH?
Najib never once met "the Mongolian woman." Altantuya was NOT involved in the French submarine deal even though she has been reported by reputable sources to have been engaged as an interpreter by Baginda's company. Baginda ended the affair with Altantuya but she continued to harass him for money, and that's why she flew all the way to Malaysia with her cousin and another friend, hired a private investigator to track Baginda down, and demanded USD500,000. No immigration records were ever deleted - and even if it happened, it was purely an accident. Baginda was introduced to the two UTK personnel, Azilah and Sirul, by Musa Safri (Najib's security aide) who then completely vanishes from the story.
The fact remains: Altantuya was last seen alive by P.I. Balasubramaniam in front of Baginda's residence in Damansara. The private investigator testifies that Azilah arrived in a car with another man and a woman (presumably police officers) and ordered Altantuya to leave the scene with them. It's perfectly plausible that Baginda really had no idea what the UTK personnel were planning to do with Altantuya. It's also reasonable to say he had no authority over the UTK officers and therefore was not directly involved in the murder. So the glaring question that begs to be answered is:
WHO ORDERED ALTANTUYA KILLED?
There can be only three people who might have done that. The first is Musa Safri, if only because he has the authority to issue orders to the UTK officers. However, he had no personal motive to destroy Altantuya. He would just as gladly have instructed that Altantuya be detained for questioning and then forcibly put on the next flight to Mongolia. The second, of course, is Najib Razak - because he wanted to help his friend and business collegue Baginda out of a tight spot. However, I doubt Najib would jeopardize his promising political career by deliberately getting implicated in cold-blooded murder. Which leaves the third person, Rosmah Mansor, who has no official
position in the government but who is widely rumored to call the shots in the Najib household. Rosmah may never have met Altantuya either - and the only reason she might have wanted to see her dead would be because her husband did, in fact, have an affair with "the Mongolian woman" whose continued presence in the country was also a grave threat to her husband's political ambitions.
I'm willing to concede that despite his clear complicity in Mindef wheelings and dealings, Abdul Razak Baginda doesn't look the bloodthirsty type and would have balked at ordering anyone killed. He was at his wits' end and didn't know how to deal with this very determined woman. It's in the public record that Razak Baginda engaged the services of P.I. Balasubramaniam (left), hoping to intimidate Altantuya and persuade her to leave him alone. However, things got a little messy and murky when Bala's assistant got too friendly with the Mongolian ladies. When Altantuya lodged a police report against Razak Baginda at the Brickfields police station, the situation became critical - and that's when Baginda broke the bad news about Altantuya to Najib and Rosmah.
Here are more glaring questions that remain unanswered: Why did the Attorney-General publicly announce that only three people were involved - Razak Baginda, Azilah and Sirul? Why did he replace both the prosecuting team and the presiding judge at the last minute? How was the crime discovered in the first place? Knowing Razak Baginda's close friendship with Najib, wouldn't the defence minister have been an obvious target of police questioning - especially since the UTK personnel involved were his personal bodyguards? Why did the PM not instruct his deputy to take temporary leave of absence to facilitate a thorough probe into the whole complex affair? Why did the trial judge, Zaki Yasin, shoot down Karpal Singh's petition for new evidence to be included without giving it due consideration? And why did both the prosecution and defence teams appear so eager to gloss over "embarrassing" testimony, e.g., when Burmaa Oyunchimeg (Altantuya's cousin) stated that she had seen a photograph showing the deceased dining with two Razaks?
And why would Balasubramaniam be prompted to issue such a detailed statutory declaration implicating Najib - and then withdraw the allegations within 24 hours?
WHERE IS BALA AND HIS FAMILY - AND WHY MUST HE GO INTO HIDING?
When amateurs attempt to deny, cover up, or obfuscate, they invariably bungle. Razak Baginda's greatest blunder at the press conference was to include this totally lame endorsement (and I quote in full):
"I have known [Najib Razak] for quite a while. I would say this, he would make a good prime minister. I have known him over the years and he is a well-read person. We had countless talks about books, I would exchange books, he would lend me books and he sometimes took my books. If there are things he is impressed about, we would discuss it. He is aware what is going on in the world. Intellectually, he is not bad and I say he would make a good PM."
Najib Razak's ambition to become PM is seriously jeopardized by the dark cloud of suspicion that persists in hanging over his head in connection with Altantuya's gruesome murder. No matter how often and how vehemently Najib denies knowing "the Mongolian woman"... no matter how many Korans he swears upon... and no matter what any of his loyal supporters say about his innocence... the public will not be convinced unless several things happen, namely:
1) The Attorney-General is sacked for gross abuse of power and replaced with somebody credible. Abdul Gani Patail (left) was assigned to fix Anwar in 1998 and he did so willingly and without conscience. That's how he got promoted to AG.
2) The Inspector General of Police is sacked - for the same obvious reasons.
3) Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal reappears to explain his vanishing act and is recalled as a key witness in the Altantuya trial.
4) The home minister identifies the person(s) responsible for deleting Altantuya's immigration records and discloses where the order came from. Furthermore, he withdraws his appeal against Raja Petra Kamarudin's release from Kamunting. The vigor with which RPK has been persecuted suggests that the entire top Umno leadership is involved in the Altantuya cover-up.
5) Azilah and Sirul are ordered to reveal their faces in court.
6) Najib and Rosmah instruct the AG's Chambers to withdraw the defamation and sedition charges against Raja Petra so that they can initiate libel suits against the blogger for publicly accusing them of direct involvement in Altantuya's murder.
These are the minimum conditions required to clear Najib Razak and Rosmah Mansor of suspicion once and for all. I am willing to bet my tenuous credibility as a despised blogger who trades in innuendo and insinuation that not a single one of these conditions will be met.
http://magickriver.blogspot.com/2008/11/abdul-razak-baginda-on-malaysiakini.html
Friday, November 21, 2008
Balasubramaniam’s Statutory Declaration revisited
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia does not state that the Umno President must become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. What it does say is that the Agong must appoint a Member of the House (one of the 222 Members of Parliament) who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House as the Prime Minister.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal signed the following Statutory Declaration on Tuesday, 1 July 2008. On Wednesday, 2 July 2008, I spent about six hours with him from 6.00pm to midnight where he not only repeated what he said in his Statutory Declaration but much more, which he said would be fully revealed in part 2 and part 3 of his Statutory Declarations that would follow over the next few days. There were six people with us at that meeting, that included three lawyers.
On Thursday, 3 July 2008, Balasubramaniam held a press conference at the Parti Keadilan Rakyat headquarters in Merchant Square, Tropicana. After that press conference we had lunch with about 20 people or so, which included members of the media, and an elated Subramanian told us to wait for SD2 and SD3, which are going to be more explosive than his first Statutory Declaration.
Of course, SD2 and SD3 never happened because on Friday, 4 July 2008, Balasubramaniam signed another Statutory Declaration recanting what he said in his Statutory Declaration of 1 July.
My lawyers tell me that what Balasubramaniam told us on 2 July 2008 is hearsay and therefore not admissible as evidence in a court of law. This means I am not at liberty to reveal what Balasubramaniam told us. It’s a shame really because the story would make a great Bollywood movie script.
On Monday, 24 November 2008, my ‘criminal defamation’ trial will kick off at the Jalan Duta court. This is with regards to my own Statutory Declaration that I signed in April 2008. I have lined up about a dozen or so witnesses who will confirm, amongst others, what I said in my Statutory Declaration, plus of course much more not revealed in that Statutory Declaration of mine.
I am actually looking forward to this trial because this will give my dozen witnesses and me an opportunity to reveal what we cannot say under normal circumstances. Let us see, after this trial commences, whether Malaysians would still want Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to resign in March 2009. My suspicion is most Malaysians would regard Pak Lah as the ‘lesser of the two evils’ and will beg him to stay on till the end of his term on midnight of 7 March 2013.
By the way, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia does not state that the Umno President must become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. What it does say is that the Agong must appoint a Member of the House (one of the 222 Members of Parliament) who commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House as the Prime Minister. And Pak Lah already has 82 Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament with him plus 20 from Umno. All he needs is ten more and MCA, MIC and Gerakan have 20 combined. So, even without the Sabah and Sarawak Parliamentarians, Pak Lah can still remain as Prime Minister of Malaysia.
That is the reality of the situation and this is what the law says. So let us not celebrate the new regime of Najib Tun Razak just yet as it may not happen after all. One week is a long time in politics, let alone four months. So many things can happen. And there are many things that are going to happen over these next four months even if they win their appeal against my release from Internal Security Act detention and succeed in sending me back to Kamunting.
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted] do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-
25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that [deleted by nat out of respect to the family of the deceased].
25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-
28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.
28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-
54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this 1st day of July 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
Monday, August 4, 2008
Some seriously troubling questions in Malaysia
On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya's cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and "a government official" taking a meal together.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Kim Quek, Asia Sentinel (3 July 2007)
An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the victim’s family, attempted to ask a question about a “government official" allegedly seen in a photograph with the victim. At that point, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer sprang to their feet in unison to block the question.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
Now, isn't that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim's family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up with defense lawyers to oppose the victim's family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim's family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?
The answer may lie in the identity of that "government official" that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.
The picture
On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya's cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and "a government official" taking a meal together. Answering Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this "government official" was Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
She could distinctly remember the name, she said, because it bears a similarity to Altantuya’s acknowledged lover's name, and she even asked Altantuya whether they were brothers. Burmaa further added that the photo had also been shown to Altantuya's father.
Now, the revelation of Najib in the photo would not have caused such a sensation if not for the deputy prime minister's oft-repeated denial of any knowledge of Altantuya, including a public denial during a recent by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.
What does Najib have to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by the witness Burmaa? His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the deputy prime minister had declined to comment for two reasons. One, any comment might be sub judice, since the case is in court, and, two, Najib had already repeatedly denied an acquaintance with the girl in the past, "as such, the issue over the picture does not arise,” the spokesman said.
Sub judice? That’s ridiculous. How could a simple statement like "I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya" be sub judice? In fact, being the number-two leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty-bound to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implications of Burmaa's allegation.
The issue over the picture does not arise? Equally ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true. Precisely because of Najib's past denials, it is all the more imperative that Najib must stand up now to clarify.
Guilty conscience?
There is only one explanation for Najib's past denials and his present silence: A guilty conscience. If Najib's conduct with respect to the case had been above-board, there would be no reason for him to deny an acquaintance with his friend Abdul Razak’s friend Altantuya. Similarly, if the allegation of the picture is false, it is inconceivable and totally incomprehensible that Najib should have chosen not to refute Burmaa's allegation.
In fact, Najib seems so worried about the publicity of the picture that his secretary called editors in the local press and requested them not to blow up the issue. This resulted in the explosive story being absent from the local headlines the next day. (In one Chinese paper – Guang Ming – the Najib story hit the front page in the evening edition, but disappeared completely by the next morning). And of course, Anwar Ibrahim's criticism of the trial and his specific call on Najib to clarify the issue of the picture during a press conference was generally blacked out.
However, despite such new suppression, irreversible damage is done. There is little doubt that Najib is deeply troubled and his political position seriously weakened.
Manipulation
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.
The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in a complete change-over of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings began. These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of "serious interference by third parties".
Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.
On a more serious note, this unseemly trial does not exactly add credit to Malaysia’s system, whose already wretched image has just been further mauled by the shameful finale of another sham trial – that of Eric Chia of Perwaja Steel fame. After seven long years of investigations and three years of court hearings, that case was thrown out due to lack of prima facie evidence. With that, the long-drawn out Perwaja Steel saga ended without finding any culprit for the mountain of losses (more than RM 10 billion) suffered by taxpayers.
There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system, which began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi's leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah's administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.
Kim Quek is a Malaysia-based commentator.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Kim Quek, Asia Sentinel (3 July 2007)
An unbelievable spectacle took place in the bizarre murder trial of Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaaribuu on June 29. Karpal Singh, the lawyer for the victim’s family, attempted to ask a question about a “government official" allegedly seen in a photograph with the victim. At that point, both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer sprang to their feet in unison to block the question.
This resulted in a shouting match, with Singh on one side, the victim’s cousin on the stand, and the combined forces of the prosecution and defense blocking the line of questioning.
Earlier, a similar division of forces occurred when a Mongolian witness – a girlfriend of the victim told the court that immigration entry computer records of the deceased and her two Mongolian companions, including the witness, had been mysteriously erased. When Singh asked the court to take proper note of this highly irregular event, both the prosecution and defense objected to the evidence as irrelevant, and insisted that it be expunged.
Now, isn't that a strange phenomenon? A prosecutor is supposed to seek justice for the deceased victim's family against the murderers, so how come the prosecutor is now ganging up with defense lawyers to oppose the victim's family lawyer? Is this a case of prosecutor vs. defense or a case of prosecutor plus defense vs. victim's family? Obviously, the prosecution and defense seem to have plenty of common interests. What are those common interests?
The answer may lie in the identity of that "government official" that allegedly appeared in the photograph with Altantuya that both prosecution and defense tried so hard not to allow into court.
The picture
On Day 10 of the trial, Altantuya's cousin Burmaa Oyunchimeg testified that after Altantuya returned from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet Burmaa, and showed her a photograph of Altantuya and her lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, who is accused of conspiring in her murder, and "a government official" taking a meal together. Answering Singh later, after the shouting match in the court had subsided, she said this "government official" was Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
She could distinctly remember the name, she said, because it bears a similarity to Altantuya’s acknowledged lover's name, and she even asked Altantuya whether they were brothers. Burmaa further added that the photo had also been shown to Altantuya's father.
Now, the revelation of Najib in the photo would not have caused such a sensation if not for the deputy prime minister's oft-repeated denial of any knowledge of Altantuya, including a public denial during a recent by-election, when even the name of Allah was invoked.
What does Najib have to say now that his denial is directly contradicted by the witness Burmaa? His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad issued a brief statement on June 30 saying that the deputy prime minister had declined to comment for two reasons. One, any comment might be sub judice, since the case is in court, and, two, Najib had already repeatedly denied an acquaintance with the girl in the past, "as such, the issue over the picture does not arise,” the spokesman said.
Sub judice? That’s ridiculous. How could a simple statement like "I have never had my photo taken with Altantuya" be sub judice? In fact, being the number-two leader in the government, Najib is absolutely duty-bound to say outright whether he was ever photographed with Altantuya, in view of the serious implications of Burmaa's allegation.
The issue over the picture does not arise? Equally ridiculous. In fact, the opposite is true. Precisely because of Najib's past denials, it is all the more imperative that Najib must stand up now to clarify.
Guilty conscience?
There is only one explanation for Najib's past denials and his present silence: A guilty conscience. If Najib's conduct with respect to the case had been above-board, there would be no reason for him to deny an acquaintance with his friend Abdul Razak’s friend Altantuya. Similarly, if the allegation of the picture is false, it is inconceivable and totally incomprehensible that Najib should have chosen not to refute Burmaa's allegation.
In fact, Najib seems so worried about the publicity of the picture that his secretary called editors in the local press and requested them not to blow up the issue. This resulted in the explosive story being absent from the local headlines the next day. (In one Chinese paper – Guang Ming – the Najib story hit the front page in the evening edition, but disappeared completely by the next morning). And of course, Anwar Ibrahim's criticism of the trial and his specific call on Najib to clarify the issue of the picture during a press conference was generally blacked out.
However, despite such new suppression, irreversible damage is done. There is little doubt that Najib is deeply troubled and his political position seriously weakened.
Manipulation
That this murder case has been subjected to serious political manipulation has been obvious from the very start, when the police commenced their highly questionable investigation, right through to the present trial when the conduct of lawyers for both sides appear increasingly dubious. Instead of the prosecutor seeking the truth and the defense lawyer fighting for the accused, both seem preoccupied with an overriding mission – to prevent the whole truth from emerging. Their combined efforts to cover up the issue of the immigration record and the identity of Najib Razak in the picture are just two examples of such conduct.
The highly irregular nature of this case was also marked by frequent and mysterious changes of legal personnel, resulting in a complete change-over of the defense team, the prosecutors and the judge even before the hearings began. These weird phenomena were crowned by the shock appearance of a new team of prosecutors who were appointed only hours before the hearing was supposed to begin, thus necessitating an impromptu postponement of the trial for two weeks. None of these changes of legal personnel has been properly explained, except for the resignation of Abdul Razak’s first lawyer; Zulkifli Noordin, quit, he said, because of "serious interference by third parties".
Under these circumstances, the public must brace itself for more aberrant scenarios from this court, while Najib and his supporters may have to keep their fingers crossed in the days ahead when many more witnesses have yet to walk through what must appear to Najib as a minefield.
On a more serious note, this unseemly trial does not exactly add credit to Malaysia’s system, whose already wretched image has just been further mauled by the shameful finale of another sham trial – that of Eric Chia of Perwaja Steel fame. After seven long years of investigations and three years of court hearings, that case was thrown out due to lack of prima facie evidence. With that, the long-drawn out Perwaja Steel saga ended without finding any culprit for the mountain of losses (more than RM 10 billion) suffered by taxpayers.
There has been a spate of criminal cases being dismissed of late due to inadequate investigations and poor prosecution, indicating that the downward slide of our criminal justice system, which began in the Mahathir era, has gotten worse under Abdullah Badawi's leadership. With the criminal justice system in a shambles, the rule of law is in jeopardy. And that is an important benchmark to judge the efficacy of Abdullah's administration vis-à-vis his reform agenda.
Kim Quek is a Malaysia-based commentator.
Friday, July 4, 2008
What happened to Balakrishnan from 4.45 pm 3/7 to 10.20 am 4/7?
What happened to Balakrishnan from 4.45 pm 3/7 to 10.20 am 4/7/2008?
Friday, July 4, 2008 ·
“Under duress” was the reason cited by private investigator for making the explosive statutory declaration about Najib’s relationship with Altantuya he now retracts, but you tell me, which Balasubramaniam looked more “under duress”?
BEFORE entering Brickfields Police Station at 4.45 pm 3/7 (the time and place, according to his original lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu)
AFTER entering Brickfields Police Station at 4.45 pm 3/7 (as he was with his new lawyer M Alurampalam at Prince Hotel about 10.20 am this morning)
Clearly, the truth must have been violated in this third episode of Tsudomy at some point, either before yesterday press conference with Anwar, or before the press conference this morning.
The one-million dollar questions: where? when? by whom? how?
I just hope there would not be the third high-profile sodomy victim.
Friday, July 4, 2008 ·
“Under duress” was the reason cited by private investigator for making the explosive statutory declaration about Najib’s relationship with Altantuya he now retracts, but you tell me, which Balasubramaniam looked more “under duress”?
BEFORE entering Brickfields Police Station at 4.45 pm 3/7 (the time and place, according to his original lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu)
AFTER entering Brickfields Police Station at 4.45 pm 3/7 (as he was with his new lawyer M Alurampalam at Prince Hotel about 10.20 am this morning)
Clearly, the truth must have been violated in this third episode of Tsudomy at some point, either before yesterday press conference with Anwar, or before the press conference this morning.
The one-million dollar questions: where? when? by whom? how?
I just hope there would not be the third high-profile sodomy victim.
Najib may be saved legally, but the political damage is beyond repair
Najib may be saved legally, but the political damage is beyond repair
Friday, July 4, 2008 · No Comments
Balasubramaniam has retracted “the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008″ which was said to have been made “under duress” (although he looked nothing like that in yesterday press conference) but especially seven paragraphs related to Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya.
I don’t think the damage on the deputy prime minister can be repaired even with this retraction. The goal of the game until yesterday was to keep the damaging revelations/claims from the public especially those having no access to internet or alternative news. That goal was scored yesterday with the statutory declaration that no newspaper or television channels dare to black out.
With this retraction, Najib may be saved legally at least from embarrassed questioning in court, but politically the damage is done and beyond repair. I wonder how he or UMNO leaders can now talk about expediting the transition of power from Abdullah. He now makes Dr Chua Soi Lek of MCA looking like a saint.
What is also beyond repair, in most Malaysians’ eyes I believe, is also the credibility of the police station. What had happened in the Brickfields Police Station that could make a man coming out to look more “under duress” than what he now claims to have suffered before the visit to the police station?
What Abdullah must do, if he is still interested in reform, is to have an independent commission investigating the whole tsudomy saga.
The following is the new statutory declaration released by P Balasubramanian today at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur.
I, Balasubramaniam Perumal, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981. I was subsequently promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998.
2. I currently work as a freelance private investigator.
3. I wish to refer to the statutory declaration I affirmed on July 1, 2008. I refer specifically to paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52, wherein I have stated inter-alia that:
a) Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
b) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
c) Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
d) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
e) Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
f) Altantuya Shaariibuu met Najib Razak in Singapore;
g) Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
h) I told the police about the relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu but when it came to sign my statement this detail was left out;
i) The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any questions in respect of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s purported relationship with Najib Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Najib Razak and/or his wife;
j) Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested but did not receive a response; and
k) Najib Razak sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
4. I wish to retract all the statements that I have made in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. The statements contained in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 are inaccurate and not the truth. I wish to expressly state that:
a) At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
b) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and the she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
c) At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
d) At no material time did Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak, together with Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
e) At no material time did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
f) At no time whatsoever did Abdul Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak met with Altantuya Shaariibuu in Singapore;
g) At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
h) At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly, the statement I signed before the police is complete;
i) At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and
j) At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
5. In addition, I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 under duress.
And I make this solemn declaration voluntarily and conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960.
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal
Friday, July 4, 2008 · No Comments
Balasubramaniam has retracted “the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008″ which was said to have been made “under duress” (although he looked nothing like that in yesterday press conference) but especially seven paragraphs related to Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya.
I don’t think the damage on the deputy prime minister can be repaired even with this retraction. The goal of the game until yesterday was to keep the damaging revelations/claims from the public especially those having no access to internet or alternative news. That goal was scored yesterday with the statutory declaration that no newspaper or television channels dare to black out.
With this retraction, Najib may be saved legally at least from embarrassed questioning in court, but politically the damage is done and beyond repair. I wonder how he or UMNO leaders can now talk about expediting the transition of power from Abdullah. He now makes Dr Chua Soi Lek of MCA looking like a saint.
What is also beyond repair, in most Malaysians’ eyes I believe, is also the credibility of the police station. What had happened in the Brickfields Police Station that could make a man coming out to look more “under duress” than what he now claims to have suffered before the visit to the police station?
What Abdullah must do, if he is still interested in reform, is to have an independent commission investigating the whole tsudomy saga.
The following is the new statutory declaration released by P Balasubramanian today at a press conference in Kuala Lumpur.
I, Balasubramaniam Perumal, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981. I was subsequently promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Royal Malaysian Police Force in 1998.
2. I currently work as a freelance private investigator.
3. I wish to refer to the statutory declaration I affirmed on July 1, 2008. I refer specifically to paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52, wherein I have stated inter-alia that:
a) Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
b) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
c) Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
d) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
e) Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
f) Altantuya Shaariibuu met Najib Razak in Singapore;
g) Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
h) I told the police about the relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu but when it came to sign my statement this detail was left out;
i) The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any questions in respect of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s purported relationship with Najib Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Najib Razak and/or his wife;
j) Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested but did not receive a response; and
k) Najib Razak sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
4. I wish to retract all the statements that I have made in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. The statements contained in paragraphs 8, 25, 28, 49 and 50 to 52 of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 are inaccurate and not the truth. I wish to expressly state that:
a) At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
b) At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu and the she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
c) At no material time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
d) At no material time did Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak, together with Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
e) At no material time did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
f) At no time whatsoever did Abdul Razak Baginda and/or Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that Najib Razak met with Altantuya Shaariibuu in Singapore;
g) At no time whatsoever did Altantuya Shaariibuu inform me that she wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
h) At no time did I tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu as no such relationship existed to my knowledge. Accordingly, the statement I signed before the police is complete;
i) At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested; and
j) At no time did Abdul Razak Baginda inform me that Najib Razak had sent him an SMS on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
5. In addition, I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 under duress.
And I make this solemn declaration voluntarily and conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960.
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal
‘Official’ summary of key points on Najib’s relationship with Altantuya
‘Official’ summary of key points on Najib’s relationship with Altantuya
Published by guansin on July 5, 2008 02:37 am
The twist performed hastily at Prince Hotel in the morning of Jul 4 has helped us all in one major way - it ‘officially’ summarises the very long, original statutory declaration (and now believed to be more genuine and closer to truth than ever due to the circumstances unraveling now). In other words, just focus on the following key points:
* Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
* Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with * * Altantuya Shaariibuu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
* Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
* Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
* Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
* Altantuya Shaariibuu met Najib Razak in Singapore;
* Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
* I told the police about the relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu but when it came to sign my statement this detail was left out;
* The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any questions in respect of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s purported relationship with Najib Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Najib Razak and/or his wife;
* Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested but did not receive a response; and
* Najib Razak sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
These are the parts that Bala ‘wanted to retract’. So they are the main points of Bala’s SD of Jul 1, now made ‘officially’ by the people coercing Bala to make another SD on Jul 4. Such easy read now. Thank you.
( From https://airkosong.com/_/2008/07/05/official-summary-of-points-on-najibs-relationship-with-altantuya/ )
Published by guansin on July 5, 2008 02:37 am
The twist performed hastily at Prince Hotel in the morning of Jul 4 has helped us all in one major way - it ‘officially’ summarises the very long, original statutory declaration (and now believed to be more genuine and closer to truth than ever due to the circumstances unraveling now). In other words, just focus on the following key points:
* Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
* Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with * * Altantuya Shaariibuu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
* Najib Razak instructed Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaariibuu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the deputy prime minister;
* Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya Shaariibuu had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
* Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 as a commission for a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris;
* Altantuya Shaariibuu met Najib Razak in Singapore;
* Altantuya Shaariibuu wanted me to arrange to see Najib Razak;
* I told the police about the relationship between Najib Razak and Altantuya Shaariibuu but when it came to sign my statement this detail was left out;
* The prosecutor during the course of the trial in the High Court of Shah Alam did not ask me any questions in respect of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s purported relationship with Najib Razak or of a phone call I received from one DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC to Najib Razak and/or his wife;
* Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before he was arrested but did not receive a response; and
* Najib Razak sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda on the day of his arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Abdul Razak Baginda to remain calm.
These are the parts that Bala ‘wanted to retract’. So they are the main points of Bala’s SD of Jul 1, now made ‘officially’ by the people coercing Bala to make another SD on Jul 4. Such easy read now. Thank you.
( From https://airkosong.com/_/2008/07/05/official-summary-of-points-on-najibs-relationship-with-altantuya/ )
Of sex, lies and scandal
News @ AsiaOne
Of sex, lies and scandal
What are the latest updates on the political drama that has gripped Malaysia? AsiaOne brings you the developments.
Fri, Jul 04, 2008
AsiaOne
It's a story of politics, sex and scandals that has left Malaysians bewildered and divided in opinion.
First, fresh allegations of sodomy against de facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's from his aide, Mr Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 23, have emerged.
Datuk Seri Anwar has denied the claims, saying over the week that he has proof and alibis to prove his innocence.
Seeking refuge in the Turkish embassy in Kuala Lumpur last Sunday after his aide lodged a police report, Datuk Anwar told reporters that his plans to announce plans to contest a parliamentary by-election and that four lawmakers from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition would defect to his alliance have been derailed.
On Jul 2, Datuk Anwar filed a police report against the attorney-general and the police chief for fabricating evidence against him in a 1998 sodomy trial. He was jailed in 1998 for sodomy and corruption, but his conviction for sodomy was overturned in 2004.
And now, the trial of murdered Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaariibuu, has lent more ammunition to the opposition led by Datuk Anwar.
After blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin made a sworn statement in June claiming that the wife of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak was involved in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, a more explosive development followed as private investigator and former policeman Balasubramaniam Permal said that vital information he provided on the murder to his police interrogators was omitted from his sworn statement.
The Straits Times reported that Mr Balasubramaniam said this at a press conference chaired by Datuk Anwar. The opposition leader said that the private investigator's revelation showed that evidence can be suppressed or fabricated to establish a "pre-arranged script and a pre-arranged outcome".
Mr Balasubramaniam, who was a witness in the murder trial, had claimed that Datuk Seri Najib had introduced the murdered model to political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore.
However, Datuk Seri Najib has been quoted in Malaysian dailies that the private investigator had lied, and that he never knew Altantuya.
In yet another twist, it was reported in The New Straits Times this morning that Mr Balasubramaniam has retracted parts of his allegation he made at the press conference.
The ongoing developments have left Malaysians wondering if the political drama will distract from government efforts to tackle bread-and-butter issues such as fighting inflation and escalating food and fuel prices.
One Malaysian, Ms Sairana Mohd Saad, 30, an executive in her late 30s, told The Straits Times:"There are many national issues to deal with, and yet we waste time, effort and energy on useless sodomy charges which will benefit no one."
Press Statements by Sivarasa Rasiah and Americk Sidhu
Press Statements by Sivarasa Rasiah and Americk Sidhu on the retraction of P. Balasubramaniam’s Statutory Declaration
Thank you for joining the live webcast of the press conference. KeADILan Vice President Sivarasa Rasiah (MP for Subang) and lawyer for P. Balasubramaniam, Americk Sidhu’s statements are below.
— PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BY AMERICK SINGH SIDHU —
4 July 2008, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
I have been made to understand that Mr. Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal has issued a statutory declaration at a press conference held at the Prince Hotel at 11.00 am this morning, retracting his earlier statutory declaration affirmed on the 1st July 2008.
The reason given for this retraction is that his original statutory declaration, recorded by myself, was “compelled to be affirmed under duress”.
No details of this alleged compulsion and duress have been put forth. Mr. Bala is reported as not answering when asked this morning in his press conference who was it who intimidated him.
For the record, I confirm that the statutory declaration affirmed by Mr.Bala on 1st July 2008 which he released yesterday was affirmed voluntarily before a commissioner for oaths Dr. T. Yokheswarem and in my presence.
I first met Mr. Bala in the presence of a few other persons in a restaurant about two months ago where he asked me to assist with preparing a formal document incorporating some evidence that had not been presented in the ongoing Altantuya trial. I started the process about two weeks after that. I would have met him a few times where I recorded in long hand, what Mr. Bala told me.
I have had no reason to doubt what Mr. Bala told me as being anything other than the truth and my role was confined to listening to what he had to say, recording the same, and transcribing it into a statutory declaration in a systematic and comprehensible format.
This statutory declaration was then attested before the above said commissioner of oaths, Dr. T. Yokheswarem in my presence, and of course in the presence of Mr. Bala. The contents of this statutory declaration were read in front of this commissioner of oaths who enquired from Mr. Bala whether he understood the contents and whether that was his declaration. After Mr. Bala confirmed the same, he was asked to sign 3 copies and the commissioner attested each copy. Mr. Bala was asked to produce his NRIC to the commissioner and then signed the commissioners recording book.
I am therefore extremely surprised that Mr. Bala, in the space of 24 hours, has engaged the services of another lawyer and affirmed another statutory declaration swearing the first one was untrue and that he was forced to sign it.
As I am familiar with the character of Mr. Bala having spent hours with him recording his statement, I am very skeptical that he has signed the second statutory declaration of his own free will and I am convinced he has been intimidated to do so by either threats or promises, as I can think of no other reason.
The commissioner of oaths who attested the first statutory declaration is prepared to confirm what I have stated above as far as the voluntariness of Mr. Bala’s statutory declaration is concerned.
In fact Mr. Bala recognized the commissioner as soon as he saw him as both apparently grew up in the same neighbourhood in Slim River, which is something I had no knowledge of.
AMERICK SINGH SIDHU
— PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BY SIVARASA RASIAH —
4 July 2008, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
Yesterday, in this very room, in the presence of many of you here again today, Mr. Bala Subramanian released a Statutory Declaration which gave evidence of criminal suppression of evidence and perjury in the Altantuya murder case. In front of dozens of persons, Mr. Bala stood by his sworn statement, but in an answer to a question he acknowledged his fear for his personal security due to the power and position of those he has implicated. I am very troubled that last night, one way or another, and true to Mr. Bala’s concerns, another crime was committed. The crime was something which caused Mr. Bala this morning to retract the statements he made on Tues 1st July 2008 and revealed publicly yesterday. In particular we have taken notice that line by line the specific statements that were revised in Bala’s new statement have selectively removed those which specifically implicate the Deputy Prime Minister by name.
This sorry episode confirms again what Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said yesterday - that there is a consistent pattern of manipulation of the criminal justice system in this country. Last night witnessed yet another instance of manipulation of evidence relevant to the most significant murder trial in recent times.
We are fully satisfied that the first statutory declaration by Mr. Bala was voluntary and with the intention the truth should no longer be hidden from the public – that it was important for us to know the secrets he had carried with him since October /November 2006. Our confidence in the original declaration is based on the information given to us by Mr. Americk Singh Sidhu and our observation of Mr. Bala himself. For the record, his SD was first shown to us on Wednesday 2 July, one day after it was attested to with his attorney on Tuesday the 1st.
Now the key question arises – which of these two statutory declarations represents the truth? This is the question that the Royal Commission we called for yesterday must immediately deal with first.
The fact that the retraction was done so speedily and in circumstances where Mr. Bala says it was made under duress but will not name who pressured him speak for themselves.
Who would have a motive to send Mr. Bala to make such damaging allegations against the police, the AG’s Chamber and Datuk Seri Najib with the idea that he would then withdraw it the next day to attempt to embarrass us? It’s difficult to think of anyone.
Who however would have a motive to intimidate Mr.Bala last night to retract his statement immediately? Obviously, from the contents of his first statutory declaration, a number of people would have that interest.
We demand that a Royal Commission be established to investigate the key question stated above – which of these two statutory declarations represents the truth?
This issue must also be ventilated in the Altantuya trial by all parties there so that the truth is established. In fact, the prosecution is now duty-bound to reinvestigate all of Mr.Bala’s allegations.
SIVARASA RASIAH
Vice President, Parti Keadilan Rakyat
Thank you for joining the live webcast of the press conference. KeADILan Vice President Sivarasa Rasiah (MP for Subang) and lawyer for P. Balasubramaniam, Americk Sidhu’s statements are below.
— PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BY AMERICK SINGH SIDHU —
4 July 2008, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
I have been made to understand that Mr. Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal has issued a statutory declaration at a press conference held at the Prince Hotel at 11.00 am this morning, retracting his earlier statutory declaration affirmed on the 1st July 2008.
The reason given for this retraction is that his original statutory declaration, recorded by myself, was “compelled to be affirmed under duress”.
No details of this alleged compulsion and duress have been put forth. Mr. Bala is reported as not answering when asked this morning in his press conference who was it who intimidated him.
For the record, I confirm that the statutory declaration affirmed by Mr.Bala on 1st July 2008 which he released yesterday was affirmed voluntarily before a commissioner for oaths Dr. T. Yokheswarem and in my presence.
I first met Mr. Bala in the presence of a few other persons in a restaurant about two months ago where he asked me to assist with preparing a formal document incorporating some evidence that had not been presented in the ongoing Altantuya trial. I started the process about two weeks after that. I would have met him a few times where I recorded in long hand, what Mr. Bala told me.
I have had no reason to doubt what Mr. Bala told me as being anything other than the truth and my role was confined to listening to what he had to say, recording the same, and transcribing it into a statutory declaration in a systematic and comprehensible format.
This statutory declaration was then attested before the above said commissioner of oaths, Dr. T. Yokheswarem in my presence, and of course in the presence of Mr. Bala. The contents of this statutory declaration were read in front of this commissioner of oaths who enquired from Mr. Bala whether he understood the contents and whether that was his declaration. After Mr. Bala confirmed the same, he was asked to sign 3 copies and the commissioner attested each copy. Mr. Bala was asked to produce his NRIC to the commissioner and then signed the commissioners recording book.
I am therefore extremely surprised that Mr. Bala, in the space of 24 hours, has engaged the services of another lawyer and affirmed another statutory declaration swearing the first one was untrue and that he was forced to sign it.
As I am familiar with the character of Mr. Bala having spent hours with him recording his statement, I am very skeptical that he has signed the second statutory declaration of his own free will and I am convinced he has been intimidated to do so by either threats or promises, as I can think of no other reason.
The commissioner of oaths who attested the first statutory declaration is prepared to confirm what I have stated above as far as the voluntariness of Mr. Bala’s statutory declaration is concerned.
In fact Mr. Bala recognized the commissioner as soon as he saw him as both apparently grew up in the same neighbourhood in Slim River, which is something I had no knowledge of.
AMERICK SINGH SIDHU
— PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BY SIVARASA RASIAH —
4 July 2008, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia
Yesterday, in this very room, in the presence of many of you here again today, Mr. Bala Subramanian released a Statutory Declaration which gave evidence of criminal suppression of evidence and perjury in the Altantuya murder case. In front of dozens of persons, Mr. Bala stood by his sworn statement, but in an answer to a question he acknowledged his fear for his personal security due to the power and position of those he has implicated. I am very troubled that last night, one way or another, and true to Mr. Bala’s concerns, another crime was committed. The crime was something which caused Mr. Bala this morning to retract the statements he made on Tues 1st July 2008 and revealed publicly yesterday. In particular we have taken notice that line by line the specific statements that were revised in Bala’s new statement have selectively removed those which specifically implicate the Deputy Prime Minister by name.
This sorry episode confirms again what Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said yesterday - that there is a consistent pattern of manipulation of the criminal justice system in this country. Last night witnessed yet another instance of manipulation of evidence relevant to the most significant murder trial in recent times.
We are fully satisfied that the first statutory declaration by Mr. Bala was voluntary and with the intention the truth should no longer be hidden from the public – that it was important for us to know the secrets he had carried with him since October /November 2006. Our confidence in the original declaration is based on the information given to us by Mr. Americk Singh Sidhu and our observation of Mr. Bala himself. For the record, his SD was first shown to us on Wednesday 2 July, one day after it was attested to with his attorney on Tuesday the 1st.
Now the key question arises – which of these two statutory declarations represents the truth? This is the question that the Royal Commission we called for yesterday must immediately deal with first.
The fact that the retraction was done so speedily and in circumstances where Mr. Bala says it was made under duress but will not name who pressured him speak for themselves.
Who would have a motive to send Mr. Bala to make such damaging allegations against the police, the AG’s Chamber and Datuk Seri Najib with the idea that he would then withdraw it the next day to attempt to embarrass us? It’s difficult to think of anyone.
Who however would have a motive to intimidate Mr.Bala last night to retract his statement immediately? Obviously, from the contents of his first statutory declaration, a number of people would have that interest.
We demand that a Royal Commission be established to investigate the key question stated above – which of these two statutory declarations represents the truth?
This issue must also be ventilated in the Altantuya trial by all parties there so that the truth is established. In fact, the prosecution is now duty-bound to reinvestigate all of Mr.Bala’s allegations.
SIVARASA RASIAH
Vice President, Parti Keadilan Rakyat
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Altantuya murder: PI implicates senior politician
The Star Online > Nation
Thursday July 3, 2008 MYT 3:19:16 PM
Altantuya murder: PI implicates senior politician
PETALING JAYA: Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P. Balasubramaniam says the police omitted information about the relationship between a senior politician and Mongolian murder victim Altantuya Shaariibuu in his statement.
In the high profile case, Unit Tindakan Khas (UTK) operatives C/Insp Azilah Hadri and Kpl Sirul Azhar Umar are charged with murdering the 28-year-old Mongolian translator between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 two years ago in Mukim Bukit Raja, Shah Alam.
P. Balasubramaniam
Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda is accused of abetting them.
THE STATUTORY DECLARATION
THE STATUTORY DECLARATION
Balasubramaniam a/l PerumalLaman M@RHAEN
THE STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at xxxxx, Selangor do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-
25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-
28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.
28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
28.6That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 - 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- ” I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-
54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this day of 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
03 July 2008
Najib dituduh bersama Altantuya
Datuk Seri Najib Razak sekali lagi dikaitkan dengan Altantuya Shaariibuu - yang ditemui terbunuh di sebuah kawasan terpencil di hutan Puncak Alam - kali ini dakwaan yang lebih menggemparkan daripada penyiasat persendirian kepada penganalisis politik Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda.
Dalam sidang media bersama Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, penyiasat itu memberikan beberapa butiran maklumat yang didakwa menunjukkan hubungan awal antara mangsa bunuh dengan pemimpin negara itu.
P Balasubramaniam, yang ditahan polis di awal siasatan kes berprofil tinggi itu, turut mendakwa keterangannya mengenai Najib telah tidak dimasukkan dalam kenyataan beramarannya.
Dakwaan-dakwaan tersebut terkandung dalam akaun berkanunnya setebal 16 halaman - yang turut diedarkan di sidang media di ibu pejabat PKR, Petaling Jaya tengah hari ini.
Akuan berkanun tersebut difailkan pada 1 Julai.
Balasubramaniam juga mendedahkan bahawa Najib telah memberitahu Abdul Razak bahawa ketua polis negara Tan Sri Musa Hassan akan "menguruskan" kes bunuh yang membabitkan rakan rapatnya.
Dan beliau turut mendedahkan bahawa bahagian yang mengaitkan Najib dalam kes tersebut, telah dibuang oleh pihak polis dari pada kenyataan beramarannya, untuk melindungi pemimpin itu.
Hantar SMS
Balasubramaniam, penyiasat persendirian yang diupah oleh Abdul Razak untuk menguruskan Altantuya yang datang ke Malaysia pada tahun 2006 untuk menyelesaikan beberapa perkara dengan penganalisis itu.
Tidak lama selepas itu, Altantuya ditemui terbunuh di sebuah kawasan terpencil di Shah Alam, Selangor.
Dalam akuan berkanunnya itu, Balasubramaniam berkata, beliau diberitahu oleh Abdul Razak mengenai hubungan Najib dengan Altantuya.
Beliau juga mendedahkan bahawa Abdul Razak telah menghantar SMS kepada Najib pada hari beliau ditahan berhubung siasatan pembunuhan Altantuya dan telah menerima jawapan daripada Najib yang menyatakan "beliau telah bercakap dengan ketua polis negara".
Balasubramaniam berkata, dalam jawapannya itu, Najib telah memberitahu Abdul Razak bahawa "perkara itu akan diuruskan oleh ketua polis negara".
Pegawai penyiasat itu juga mendedahkan bahawa beliau telah memberitahu semua itu kepada polis ketika mereka mengambil kenyataannya, tetapi terperanjat kerana semua bahagian yang membabitkan Najib, tidak dimasukkan dalam kenyataan tersebut.
Laporan polis
Balasubramaniam juga memberitahu sidang media tersebut bahawa beliau membangkitkan isu itu sekarang kerana kecewa dengan pihak pendakwaan - yang telah menutup kes pendakwaan terhadap dua anggota polis dan Abdul Razak yang dituduh membunuh Altantuya - kerana tidak berbuat apa-apa untuk mengemukakan keterangannya mengenai Najib.
Katanya, beliau tidak ditanya langsung mengenai perkara itu apabila memberi keterangan di mahkamah. Beliau merupakan saksi pertama pihak pendakwa.
Anwar berkata, ini membuktikan bahawa pihak polis dan pihak pendakwa, terutama Musa dan peguam negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, telah menyembungikan maklumat yang relevan dengan kes tersebut.
Ketua umum PKR itu bimbang bahawa mereka akan melakukan perkara yang sama dalam siasatan kes liwat terhadapnya sekarang, ekoran dakwaan bekas pembantunya Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Anwar juga telah membuat laporan polis terhadap Musa dan Gani Isnin lalu yang didakwanya memalsukan bukti dalam kes ditumbuk Tan Sri Rahim Noor, ketua polis negara waktu itu, pada 1998.
Timbalan perdana menteri sebelum ini beberapa kali menafikan beliau mengenali wanita Mongolia itu dan juga menafikan sebarang kaitan dengannya.
Dalam sidang media bersama Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, penyiasat itu memberikan beberapa butiran maklumat yang didakwa menunjukkan hubungan awal antara mangsa bunuh dengan pemimpin negara itu.
P Balasubramaniam, yang ditahan polis di awal siasatan kes berprofil tinggi itu, turut mendakwa keterangannya mengenai Najib telah tidak dimasukkan dalam kenyataan beramarannya.
Dakwaan-dakwaan tersebut terkandung dalam akaun berkanunnya setebal 16 halaman - yang turut diedarkan di sidang media di ibu pejabat PKR, Petaling Jaya tengah hari ini.
Akuan berkanun tersebut difailkan pada 1 Julai.
Balasubramaniam juga mendedahkan bahawa Najib telah memberitahu Abdul Razak bahawa ketua polis negara Tan Sri Musa Hassan akan "menguruskan" kes bunuh yang membabitkan rakan rapatnya.
Dan beliau turut mendedahkan bahawa bahagian yang mengaitkan Najib dalam kes tersebut, telah dibuang oleh pihak polis dari pada kenyataan beramarannya, untuk melindungi pemimpin itu.
Hantar SMS
Balasubramaniam, penyiasat persendirian yang diupah oleh Abdul Razak untuk menguruskan Altantuya yang datang ke Malaysia pada tahun 2006 untuk menyelesaikan beberapa perkara dengan penganalisis itu.
Tidak lama selepas itu, Altantuya ditemui terbunuh di sebuah kawasan terpencil di Shah Alam, Selangor.
Dalam akuan berkanunnya itu, Balasubramaniam berkata, beliau diberitahu oleh Abdul Razak mengenai hubungan Najib dengan Altantuya.
Beliau juga mendedahkan bahawa Abdul Razak telah menghantar SMS kepada Najib pada hari beliau ditahan berhubung siasatan pembunuhan Altantuya dan telah menerima jawapan daripada Najib yang menyatakan "beliau telah bercakap dengan ketua polis negara".
Balasubramaniam berkata, dalam jawapannya itu, Najib telah memberitahu Abdul Razak bahawa "perkara itu akan diuruskan oleh ketua polis negara".
Pegawai penyiasat itu juga mendedahkan bahawa beliau telah memberitahu semua itu kepada polis ketika mereka mengambil kenyataannya, tetapi terperanjat kerana semua bahagian yang membabitkan Najib, tidak dimasukkan dalam kenyataan tersebut.
Laporan polis
Balasubramaniam juga memberitahu sidang media tersebut bahawa beliau membangkitkan isu itu sekarang kerana kecewa dengan pihak pendakwaan - yang telah menutup kes pendakwaan terhadap dua anggota polis dan Abdul Razak yang dituduh membunuh Altantuya - kerana tidak berbuat apa-apa untuk mengemukakan keterangannya mengenai Najib.
Katanya, beliau tidak ditanya langsung mengenai perkara itu apabila memberi keterangan di mahkamah. Beliau merupakan saksi pertama pihak pendakwa.
Anwar berkata, ini membuktikan bahawa pihak polis dan pihak pendakwa, terutama Musa dan peguam negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, telah menyembungikan maklumat yang relevan dengan kes tersebut.
Ketua umum PKR itu bimbang bahawa mereka akan melakukan perkara yang sama dalam siasatan kes liwat terhadapnya sekarang, ekoran dakwaan bekas pembantunya Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
Anwar juga telah membuat laporan polis terhadap Musa dan Gani Isnin lalu yang didakwanya memalsukan bukti dalam kes ditumbuk Tan Sri Rahim Noor, ketua polis negara waktu itu, pada 1998.
Timbalan perdana menteri sebelum ini beberapa kali menafikan beliau mengenali wanita Mongolia itu dan juga menafikan sebarang kaitan dengannya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
