Blogckchew: Mourning for the death of Altantuya & Beginning of the Dark Age in Malaysia. Takziah: Blogckchew berkabung sempena kematian Altantuya & bermulanya zaman kegelapan di Malaysia

death of judiciary – Raja Petra ordered by a kangaroo court to pay RM 1 million to a crook.

death of democracy – 7 May 09 Putsch in Perak.

death of Altantuya – the murderer has finally became the 666th piem.

Rakaman Debat Isu Linggam: Menteri kata peguam koret koret koret didapati tidak bersalah

jiwokelate2009

Anwar: We need substantive change – Pakatan has a special responsibility

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim told a Pakatan Rakyat seminar yesterday on the two-party system that Malaysia must move from the forms of representation to the substance of democratic experience to give validity to the nation’s founding constitution.

Speaking to several score leaders from PKR, PAS and DAP, the component parties of Pakatan, at the seminar in Kuala Lumpur organised to infuse them with a sense of mission, Anwar held that the country’s democratic beginnings were not sustained because of servile subscription to certain shibboleths.

One was that its racial diversity was potentially explosive and the other was that the need for rapid economic progress was touted as incompatible with democracy.

“Our diverse ethnic make-up, rather than an asset, was treated as a powder keg that could be ignited by the slightest spark,” he said.

He said this manipulated fear of the country’s social fragility was compounded by the perception that “economic development was not compatible with the freedoms that have been established in other democratic nations.”

He said delusive beliefs led politicians to give free rein to “greed and avarice and not what Vaclav Havel described as a heightened responsibility for the moral state of society.”

Havel was the Czech playwright who figured prominently in his country’s break with its communist past in 1989 and became president shortly afterwards, a modern epitome of Plato’s ideal of the ‘philosopher-king’ that held philosophers as best equipped to rule a country because of their passion for truth and justice.

Of course, these notions are scoffed at by the hardnosed, realist school of leaders who think of politics as offering success only to those skilled at deploying the wiles of a fox and the strength of a lion.

That period is over

Anwar said the period was over when the notion held sway that Asians had a cultural predisposition to such values as social order, deferred gratification, and respect for hierarchy, in preference to the cacophony of democratic dissent.

He said this was the pet theory of a cadre of Asian authoritarians whose influence had waned. In any case their theory has been deflated by Asian intellectuals like Nobel laureate Amartya Sen who has cogently argued that there was nothing intrinsically Asian about a preference for social conformity over democratic individualism.

Sen posited the contrary view that freedom and democracy are vital factors in wealth creation and social advancement in Asian societies.

Once again Anwar aired his opinion that while the Western world had established strong institutions of democracy, they held no monopoly on its underlying principles.

He reiterated that the theories of liberal democracy’s progenitor John Locke were adumbrated by the principles laid down in Prophet Muhammad’s Last Sermon, to wit, the sanctity of contracts and property rights, racial equality and women’s rights.

These principles were upheld as the higher objectives of Islamic Law by the Andalusian legal scholar, al-Shatibi, in his treatise, maqasid al-Sharia, which sanctify the preservation of religion, life, family and wealth.

Anwar again claimed that the philosophic antecedents of the Enlightenment principles of Locke and Montesquieu that seeded the flowering of democratic government in the West could be found in the the Last sermon and the maqasid al-Sharia.

He said there was a discontinuity between Malaysia’s beginnings as a constitutional democracy and its subsequent experience as a nation as its rulers deviated from the original spirit of the Constitution.

“The upshot is that Malaysia’s experience as a pseudo democracy has been an utter disaster. A nation blessed with vast wealth and a people with the ability to learn and excel have been left in the lurch by decades of failed policies. Hope in a brighter future has been snuffed out by the blunt instrument of state power and the cancer of corruption,” claimed Anwar.

Pakatan has a special responsibility

He said the impetus given to the two-party system by the results of the general elections of March 8, 2008, would be lost if the main values of the democratic societies are not fortified. These were liberty, social pluralism and political constitutionalism.

“The intent of these values and the institutions that mediate the relationship between the citizen and the government is to guard against the exercise of tyranny,” he said.

Anwar said an independent and free judiciary, a free press and a legislature that applied moral precepts to its output, are vital to the mediation of the relationship between government and the citizen.

He proposed the concept of democracy articulated by the political scientist Ian Shapiro – that it is “an ideology of opposition as much as it is one of government” – as an animating principle for the two-party system.

“Yet we would be in a state of self-deception, however, if we pinned the hopes for healthy democracies on just one of its attributes,” said Anwar.

He said free and fair elections in which all parties are allowed to compete on a level playing field and unobstructed governance by those elected by voters were the other attributes of a vibrant two-party system.

Anwar said all these features were envisaged by the country’s founding constitution but the sum of subsequent deviations – 700 amendments to be sure – eventuated in the contorted construct Malaysians are faced with today.

He said the Pakatan coalition had a special responsibility to nurture the new consciousness that has emerged in Malaysian society after March 8, 2008, to “retrieve, revive and reinvigorate the spirit of liberty, individualism, humanism and tolerance” that was the underlying spirit of the founding constitution.

 

Terence Netto/Mkini

Molotov cocktails thrown at former Bar President’s home — a “warning and a threat”

I have learned that several Molotov cocktails were recently thrown into the home of prominent Malaysian lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon, a former Bar Council President.  He said he regarded the attack on his home as a possible warning and threat to him and his family.

He and his family were  fortunately out of the country at the time. The incident illustrates once more that lawyers in Malaysia, acting in their professional capacity to protect the legal rights of government critics, are exposed to risks of harassment, threats or worse.

 

Many of you will be aware that  Manjeet Singh Dhillon is counsel for (now former) prisoner of conscience Dr Munawar Anees and will know that Dr Anees made a Statutory Declaration during his incarceration a decade ago, in which he detailed the appalling treatment to which he had been subjected in prison.  Manjeet has remained his counsel during the numerous court challenges to clear Dr Anees’s name.

The Molotov cocktail attack is believed to be related to Manjeet Singh Dhillon’s recent  interview with  private investigator  P Balasubramaniam, who had alleged a year ago that  Prime MInister Najib Abdul Razak had been sexually involved with murder victim Altantuya Shaariibuu of Mongolia and that police were ordered to remove evidence of any links. Balasubramiam later retracted the allegations and fled.  Manjeet Singh Dhillon asserted that he conducted the interview (now on Youtube) as a professional duty in the absence of Balasubramaniam’s actual counsel, Americk Sidhu.

BACKGROUND

Amnesty International has previously expressed concern about attempts to intimidate lawyers carrying out their professional duties.  In the most controversial case in Malaysia’s recent history, defence lawyers were harassed  and their offices searched during the trial for sodomy a decade ago of  former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.  At that time, prominent defence lawyer Karpal Singh was arrested under the Sedition Act in connection with remarks he made in court.   Referring to high levels of arsenic in Anwar’s blood,  Karpal Singh expressed in court his concern that “someone out there wants to get rid of him…even to the extent of murder. I suspect that people in high places are responsible for the situation”.  Karpal Singh is himself a former prisoner of conscience.  One of the more recent cases involves  five lawyers who were arrested for illegal assembly when they gathered outside a police station where a group of candlelight demonstrators was held.   The five lawyers wished to provide legal assistance to detainees.

A number of international standards guarantees protection for lawyers carrying out their professional duities. These include:  UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the Latimer House guidelines.   Such standards, however,  do not always provide protection in Malaysia in cases in which there is a link to criticism of the government.

Margaret John
Coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia
Amnesty International Canada

MP Machang bahas dengan fakta yang bernas Hak Royalti Minyak Kelantan tetapi menteri merapu tak tertentu hala

jiwokelate2009

Rakaman Ketua Pembangkang Bahas Bajet JPM (1) – Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim (PKR Permatang Pauh) Membahaskan Bajet 2010 mengenai laporan audit & penyelewengan dalam kerajaan persekutuan

jiwokelate2009

Hari kelima, Kembalinya Hantu Altantuya – Akhbar Arus Perdana hanya menyiarkan kenyataan polis, masih nak sorok kenyataan Bala: Part 5 – I just want the harassment to end/Bala hanya hendak hentikan segala gangguan & nama nazim razak adik jibby Altantuya terpalit dengan najis skandal Bala

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q 69. How long had you known ASP Suresh before this incident? (Berapa lamakah kamu berkenalan dengan ASP Suresh sebelum insiden ini?

A. I have known him for about 10 years. I met him when he was a senior Investigation Officer at the IPK Kuala Lumpur. I was a private investigator then. ASP Suresh used to ask me to assist him in obtaining fast traces and details on mobile phones as I had contacts in the phone companies and was able to get the information required faster than the police who had to go through official channels.

At one stage I was working for ASP Suresh as a bouncer at his pub in Jalan Imbi.

He had been suspended from his duties as a police officer sometime in 2006 as he was being investigated for corruption by the ACA. (Saya berkenalan dengan beliau selama lebih kurang 10 tahun. Saya berjumpa dengannya ketika beliau masih memgang jawatan pegawai kanan siasatan/IO di IPD KL. Saya ketika itu adalah PI. ASP Suresh pernah meminta pertolongan dari saya dalam memperolehi maklumat panggilan telepon kerana saya mempunyai kenalan dalam syarikat kommunikasi & boleh mendapat maklumat itu dengan lebih cepat berbanding polis kerana pihak polis kena menggunakan saluran rasmi. Pada satu ketika saya bekerja sebagai bouncer ASP Suresh di pub kepunyaan beliau di Jln Imbi. Dia telah digantung tugas kerana dia masih disiasat oleh BPR sekitar tahun 2006)

Q 70. Had you met Deepak before this incident? (Pernahkah kamu jumpa Deepak sebelum ini?)

A. No. But I had done some PI work for his brother Dinesh in the past. I knew Deepak was Dinesh’s brother. (Tidak, tetapi saya sebagai PI pernah melakukan kerja untuk Dinesh. Saya tahu Deepak & Dinesh adalah adik beradik)

Q 71. You have said that you met a Malay VIP Datuk outside the Volkswagen showroom at The Curve on the night of July 3rd 2008. Who was this gentleman? (Kamu memberitahu bahawa kamu berjumpa dengan seorang VIP Datuk di luar showroom Volkswagon di The Curve pada 3hb Julai 2008. Siapakah orang itu?)

A. He was Datuk Nazim Razak, the younger brother of Najib. He was there with his pregnant wife. Although I did not speak to her, I recognised her as being a TV personality. I think she was the host on the ‘Nona’ programme.

Deepak was the one who brought them there to meet me.

That is why ASP Suresh did not want us to meet in a place where there would have been a CCTV camera. (Dia adalah Datuk NAZIM RAZAK, adik kepada NAJIB. Dia bersama isterinya yang sedang mengandung. Sungguhpun saya tidak berbual dengan isteri beliau saya kenalnya kerana beliau adalah personaliti di TV. Saya fikir beliau adalah hos untuk rancangan Nona. Deepak adalah orang yang membawa mereka berjumpa dengan saya. Itu sebabnya ASP Suresh tidak mahu kami berjumpa di tempat yang mempunyai CCTV)

Q 72. When you were in the Hilton Hotel at KL Sentral with Deepak, Dinesh and ASP and after you had signed the 2nd statutory declaration, was there anything said to you which you consider to be significant? (Ketika kamu berada di hotel Hilton bersama Deepak, Dinesh & ASP & selepas kamu menandatangani SD kedua, ada apa-apa yang dikatakan oleh mereka kepada kamu yang kamu anggap penting?)

A. Yes there were two things which Deepak told me. 

He informed me that Rosmah was very happy with me for retracting my 1st statutory declaration and wanted to have breakfast with me.

When I enquired from Deepak how long I was expected to leave the country for, he informed me it would be until Najib became the next Prime Minister and that I could return after that. (Ya, 2 perkara yang Deepak beritahu saya. Dia memberitahu saya bahawa Rosmah sangat gembira kerana saya telah menarik balik SD pertama saya & beliau ingin bersarapan pagi bersama saya. Apabila saya menanyakan kepada  Deepak berapa lamakah saya perlu ke luar negara, beliau jawap saya boleh kembali ke tanahair selepas Najib menjadi PM)

Q 73. When did you contact your lawyer Americk Sidhu? (Bilakah kamu berjumpa dengan peguam Americk Sidhu?)

A. I called him in the middle of July 2009. I was still in India then. I wanted to arrange a meeting with him to inform him what had happened to me and to apologise for all the trouble I had caused. Americk was in the UK when I called him so we arranged to meet in Kuala Lumpur when he returned at the beginning of August. (Saya menelepon beliau pada pertengahan bulan Julai 2009. Saya masih berada di India ketika itu. Saya ingin mengatur satu perjumpaan dengan beliau & memberitahu beliau apa yang berlaku ke atas saya & memohon maaf atas segala kesulitan yang  disebabkan oleh saya. Americk berada di UK ketika itu, oleh yang demikian kami mengatur untuk berjumpa di KL selepas beliau pulang pada awal bulan Ogos.

Q 74. Did you meet him? (Adakah kamu berjumpa dengannya?)

A. Yes. We met in early August. At the meeting were two other senior lawyers who Americk had arranged to be present. I told them everything that had happened to me from the time I left Americk’s office in the evening of the 3rd July 2008. (Ya, Kami berjumpa pada awal bulan Ogos. Americk juga menjemput 2 peguam kanan untuk hadir bersama di perjumpaan tersebut. Saya memberitahu mereka apa yang berlaku kepada saya dari ketika saya meninggalkan pejabat Americk pada petang 3hb Julai 2008)

Q 75. Did you realise that this meeting had been secretly videoed? (Adakah kamu sedar bahawa perjumpaan itu dirakam?)

A. I did not realise I was being filmed. I was however subsequently informed that a recording had been made and this video is safekeeping. I understand this was done to protect me in the event something untoward happened to me again. (Saya tidak sedar ketika rakaman itu dibuat akan tetapi saya diberitahu perbualan itu dirakam untuk tujuan penyimpanan & keselamatan. Saya faham ia dilakukan untuk melindungi saya sekiranya sesuatu yang tidak diingini berlaku ke atas saya sekali lagi)

Q 76. How did you manage to survive financially all the time you were away? (Bagaimanakah kamu dapat wang untuk sara hidup ketika diluar negara?)

A. Deepak arranged intermittent payments to be made to me. Some payments were made to my wife directly into her account with the EON Bank in KL.

Other payments were made to ASP Suresh who then arranged payment to me directly or through a friend of mine in Malaysia.

I have copies of some of the cheques issued by Deepak Jaikishan and from his company Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd.

I also have copies of my wife’s bank statements showing the deposits which were made.

I also have copies of my HSBC account in Chennai. (Deepak mengaturkan bayaran secara berkala kepada saya. Sebahagian daripada bayaran itu dimasukkan ke dalam akaun EON bank isteri saya. Bayaran selebihnya dibuat kepada ASP Suresh yang akan diberi kepada saya secara langsung atau pun menerusi kawan saya di Malaysia.

Saya masih menyimpan salinan cek yang dikeluarkan oleh Deepak & juga oleh syarikat beliau Carpet Raya S/B. Saya juga menyimpan salinan kenyataan akaun bank milik isteri saya yang menunjukkan wang tersebut dimasukkan. Saya juga mempunyai salinan akaun HSBC saya di Chennai.)

Q 77. How much money did you receive from Deepak from the time you left Malaysia in July 2008 till now? (Berapa banyakkah wang yang kamu terima dari Deepak dari ketika kamu meninggalkan Malaysia pada Julai 2008 sampai sekarang?)

A. All together approximately RM750,000.00. (Kesemuanya kira-kira RM750,000)

Q 78. Do you have any money left? (Berapakah wang yang masih tinggal bersama kamu?)

A. Yes, I have invested approximately RM250,000.00 for my future as I am not sure what will happen to me.

I also spent some money on renovations to my house in Rawang as my wife and youngest child were there. These renovations were in respect of the security of my home only.

The rest of the money was spent on renting accommodation in Chennai, paying for my children’s schooling and for daily expenses. (Ya, saya melaburkan kira-kira Rm250,000 untuk masa depan saya kerana saya tidak tahu apa yang akan berlaku ke atas saya. Saya juga membelanjakan wang tersebut untuk memperbaiki rumah saya di Rawang kerana keluarga saya masih tinggal di situ. Ia hanya melibatkan aspek keselamatan untuk rumah saya. Selebihnya saya membelanjakan untuk sewa tempat tinggal saya di Chennai, bayaran persekolahan anak-anak saya & perbelanjaan seharian.)

Q 79. Didn’t Deepak promise you RM5 million? (Tidakkah Deepak berjanji untuk memberi RM5 juta kepada kamu?)

A. The negotiations were all conducted by ASP Suresh at the Bak Kut Teh stall in Rawang on the night of the 3rd July 2008. I was not involved in these negotiations as I was not concerned about money but the safety of my family.

I have subsequently come to realise that ASP Suresh had a vested interest in all this as I know he has received about the same amount of money from Deepak as I have. His job was to keep me under control. This is why he is annoyed with me for not following his instructions because his income from Deepak would be affected. (Rundingan itu hanya dilakukan oleh ASP Suresh di kedai Bak Kut Teh di Rawang pada malam 3hb Julai. Saya tidak terlibat dalam rundingan tersebut kerana saya tidak menaruh perhatian terhadap hal kewangan, saya lebih risau tentang keselamatan keluarga saya. Saya sesudah itu sedar bahawa ASP Suresh mempunyai kepentingannya sendiri dalam hal ini kerana saya mendapat tahu beliau juga menerima sejumlah wang yang sama banyak dengan saya dari Deepak. Tugasnya adalah meletakkan saya dibawah kawalan. Oleh sebab itu beliau marah dengan saya apabila saya tidak menurut arahan beliau, ini akan menyebabkan upahnya dari Deepak terjejas.)

Q 80. Why did you wait so long before revealing all this? (Mengapakah kamu mengambil masa yang begitu panjang untuk mendedahkan semua ini?)

A. When I was at the Hilton Hotel at KL Sentral, I had asked Deepak how long I would have to stay out of the country. He told me it would have to be until Najib became the Prime Minister.

I could not return to Malaysia before February 2009 as one Kumar had my passport in his possession in India for 5 months.

I only got my passport back after I complained to Deepak when he visited me in India with ASP Suresh. Deepak called his brother Rajesh to find out what had happened to my passport and within 2 days Kumar asked me to pick it up from him.

I was at this time in India illegally as my visa had expired on the 5th September 2008.

In order to get my visa extended I had to seek assistance from my wife’s uncle the exco member who managed to get it extended for 1 year. Only after this was I able to travel back to Malaysia. (Ketika saya berada di hotel Hilton, saya menanyakan kepada Deepak berapa lamakah saya akan berada di luar negara. Beliau memberitahu saya bahawa saya boleh kembali selepas Najib menjadi PM. Saya tidak dapat balik ke Malaysia sebelum 5hb Feb2009 kerana Kumar masih memegang passpot saya di India selama 5 bulan. Saya hanya mendapat balik passpot selepas saya mengadu kepada Deepak ketika beliau menziarahi saya di India bersama ASP Suresh. Deepak memanggil adik ASP Suresh, Rajesh untuk mencari sebab ke atas apa yang berlaku dengan passpot saya & dalam masa 2 hari Kumar meminta saya mengambil passpot itu darinya. Saya pada masa itu tinggal di India secara haram kerana visa saya telah tamat tempoh pada 5hb Sept 2008. Untuk saya pulang ke Malaysia saya terpaksa meminta pertolongan pak cik isteri saya, ahli exco yang berjaya melanjutkan visa itu untuk 1 tahun. Hanya selepas itu saya dapat pulang ke Malaysia)

Q 81. What happened when you arrived back in Malaysia in February 2009? (Apakah yang berlaku apabila kamu pulang ke Malaysia pada bulan Feb 2009?)

A. When I landed in KL, I called Dinesh to inform him I was back in Malaysia. I was summoned to Deepaks office in Sungai Besi at 11.45 pm the same night and was told in no uncertain terms to leave the country immediately, but I stayed a little longer as I wanted to be with my children and my wife. They didn’t know I had not left immediately. (Apabila saya sampai di KL, saya memanggil Dinesh untuk memberitahu beliau yang saya telah kembali ke Malaysia. Saya diarah untuk pergi ke pejabat Deepak di Sg Besi pada 11.45 pada malam itu juga & diberitahu dengan kerasnya untuk meninggalkan negara dengan segera, tetapi saya terus tinggal untuk masa yang lebih panjang kerana saya mahu bersama keluarga saya. Mereka tidak tahu saya tidak meninggalkan negara dengan segera)

Q 82. Why did you come back to Malaysia in April 2009? (Mengapakah kamu pulang ke Malaysia pada bulan Apr 2009?)

A. Just to see my wife and children. This time I did not tell anyone I was back and so I was not harassed. (Saya hanya ingin berjumpa dengan keluarga saya. Kali ini saya tidak memberitahu sesiapa pun & saya tidak diganggu)

Q 83. Why have you now decided to reveal everything? (Mengapakah kamu putuskan untuk mendedahkan kesemua ini?)

A. Because I want to stop all harassments and so that I can return to my normal life. (Kerana saya mahu menghentikan kesemua gangguan & saya dapat kembali untuk menjalani kehidupan biasa)

Q 84. Were the contents of your 1st statutory declaration true? (Adakah kandungan SD pertama kamu benar?)

A. Yes. (YA!)

Q 85. Were you forced to sign the 1st statutory declaration under duress? (Adakah kamu dipaksa untuk menandatangani SD pertama kamu?)

A. Absolutely not.  (See the video here: Was PI intimidated or induced?) (Tidak sama sekali!)

Q 86. Were you forced to sign the 2nd statutory declaration under duress? (Adakah kamu dipaksa untuk menandatangani SD kedua kamu?)

A. Yes, because I was fearful for the safety of my family and I did not read the contents of the 2nd statutory declaration before I was asked to sign it. (Ya, kerana saya takut akan keselamatan keluarga saya & saya tidak membaca kandungan SD kedua sebelum saya diarah untuk menurunkan tandatangan saya)

Bahagian 1

Bahagian 2

Bahagian 3

Bahagian 4

(Nota: Tolong sebarkan, bisa dilakukan apa sahaja dengan penterjemahan ini, ikut suka hati kerana blog ini tidak bermotifkan keuntungan wang ringgit ataupun nama kecuali keuntungan jatuhkan bn)

Hari keempat Hantu Altantuya kembali, Molotov cocktail pun sudah tetapi Berita ini masih disorok oleh media perdana: Part 4 – Bala finds his life turned upside down / Hidup Bala jadi terumbang ambing (BM & Eng)

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q 55. Why did you not tell them the truth about the way the 2nd statutory declaration was made since you had your family with you and they were all safe? (Mengapakah kamu tidak memberitahu mereka perkara sebenar berkenaan keadaan SD kedua dibuat sejak keluarga kamu telah bersama kamu & mereka telah selamat?)

A. I was still in a state of confusion and was still concerned for the safety of my family. I was made aware that Deepak had some very powerful connections, especially after meeting the Malay VIP Datuk at The Curve a few nights previously and his advice was still in my mind.

I was also surprised at how far Deepak’s connections reached as he seemed capable of organising things in different countries and had even arranged a Thai woman to apply for our Indian visas in Bangkok.

At that time I had no idea what to expect so I felt I should follow their advice until I could think more clearly as I had my family to consider as I did not want them to be harmed.

My family and I were also in a foreign country with no access to finances. (Saya masih berada dalam keadaan keliru & risau terhadap keselamatan keluarga saya. Saya difahamkan selepas saya berjumpa dengan VIP datuk di the Curve bahawa Deepak mempunyai pertalian dengan yang ber’power’ & nasihat itu masih dalam minda saya.

Saya juga terkejut dengan sejauh mana pertalian Deepak dapat  menjangkau kerana beliau nampaknya boleh menguruskan hal-hal di negara-negara luar & telah mengatur seorang wanita Thai untuk memohon visa kami di Bangkok. Pada ketika itu saya tidak dapat menjangka apa yang mereka boleh lakukan, oleh itu saya hanya mengikut arahan mereka sehinggakan saya dapat berfikir dengan tenang/jelas sebab saya masih memikirkan keluarga saya & saya tidak mahu mereka dicederakan.Saya & keluarga saya berada di luar negara dengan tidak mempunyai sebarang kemudahan kewangan)

Q 56. Did you communicate with anyone after this? (Adakah kamu berhubung dengan sesiapa selepas itu?)

A. Yes. ASP Suresh called me from KL and advised me to change hotels so that the police officers from KL would not be able to contact me again if they required a further statement.

He also informed me to call my nephew in KL and ask him to stop talking to the press and to avoid holding any more candle light vigils as this was making Deepak feel uneasy. I then called my nephew and told him to stop all activities of this nature and he agreed. (See the video here: Stop the campaign, PI tells nephew) (Ya, ASP Suresh menelefon saya dari KL & menasihati saya supaya menukar hotel untuk memastikan pihak polis tidak dapat menghubungi saya jika mereka memerlukan kenyataan lanjut. Dia juga meminta saya menelepon anak saudara saya di KL & minta beliau berhenti daripada bercakap dengan wartawan & berhenti dari menganjur candle light vigil kerana Deepak dalam kerisauan. Saya kemudian menelepon anak saudara saya & minta beliau berhenti dari melakukan aktiviti sebegini & beliau bersetuju.)

Q 57. Did you change hotels? (Adakah kamu menukar hotel?)

A. Yes, we moved to the Beverly Hills Hotel.  It was while we were at this new hotel that I received news from Rajesh that our visas could not be done in time as it would take at least 5 working days to process.

Deepak then arranged for a moneychanger, to whom he was acquainted, to pay me 100,000 Thai Baht for my expenses. I then waited for further instructions at this hotel. (Ya, kamu pindah ke hotel Beverly Hill. Pada ketika di hotel ini saya menerima maklumat dari Rajesh bahawa visa kami hanya dapat disiapkan dalam masa 5 hari. Deepak kemudiannya mengatur seorang pengurup wang yang beliau kenal untuk membayar saya 100,000 baht untuk perbelanjaan saya. Saya kemudian menunggu arahan selanjutnya di hotel ini)

Q 58. What happened after that? (Apakah yang terjadi selepas itu?)

A. At about 2.30 pm on the 11th July Rajesh called me to tell me to go to the airport to collect some e-tickets he had arranged for my family and I to fly to Kathmandu, so we packed our bags and headed to the airport.

However when we reached the airport Rajesh called and told me the flight had only been arranged for the next morning at 10.00 am. We then took a taxi back into town and checked into another hotel.

The next morning we returned to the airport, picked up our tickets and flew on a Thai Airways flight to Kathmandu. (Pada jam kira-kira 2.30 petang Rajesh menelepon saya untuk memberitahu saya supaya pergi ke airpot untuk mengambil e-tiket yang dia tempah untuk keluarga saya & saya untuk berterbang ke Kathmandu, oleh sebab itu, kami berkemas & terus ke airpot. Akan tetapi, apabila kami sampai ke airpot Rajesh memanggil lagi & memberitahu saya penerbangan kami hanya diatur keesokkan hari pada jam 10.00 pagi. Kami kemudian mengambil sebuah teksi untuk kembali ke bandar & daftar masuk di hotel yang lain. Pada pagi keesokkan hari, kami pergi semula ke airpot, mengambil tiket kami & terbang ke Kathmandu dengan Thai Airways)

Q 59. What happened when you landed in Kathmandu? (Apakah yang berlaku sewaktu kamu berada di Kathmandu?)

A. We were met at the airport by a representative of the Yak & Yeti Hotel who drove us to that hotel. (Seorang wakil dari hotel Yak & Yeti menyambut kami & membawa kami ke hotel)

Q 60. Why was it necessary for you to fly to Kathmandu? (Mengapakah perlu kamu terbang ke Kathmandu?)

A. Before we could enter India we needed to apply for our Indian visas, which we had not been able to get in Bangkok.

ASP Suresh told me Deepak did not want us to stay in Bangkok any longer as the police knew we were there and that is why he wanted us to leave to Kathmandu so we could apply for our visas there. (Sebelum kami sampai ke India kami perlu mempunyai visa tetapi kami tidak dapat visa itu di Bangkok. ASP Suresh memberitahu saya bahawa Deepak tidak mahu saya tinggal lagi di Bangkok kerana pihak polis telah mengetahui kedudukan kami di sana & oleh yang demikian, beliau mahu kami pergi ke Kathmandu untuk membuat permohonan visa)

Q 61. How long did you spend in Kathmandu? (Berapa lamakah kamu berada di Kathmandu?)

A. We had applied to the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu for our Indian visas.  After we managed to obtain 1-month visas for India, we left Kathmandu for New Delhi. This was on the 22nd July. We had spent approximately 10 days in Kathmandu. (Kami membuat permohonan visa di kedutaan India di Kathmandu. Selepas kami memperolehi visa untuk 1 bulan, kami berlepas ke New Delhi. Ini berlaku pada 22hb Julai & kami berada di sana selama 10 hari)

Q 62. How long did you spend in Delhi? (Berapa lamakah kamu berada di New Delhi?)

A. We stayed in a hotel in Delhi for 2 nights before flying to Madurai en-route to Madras. (Kami tinggal di hotel di Delhi selama 2 hari sebelum terbang ke Madras melalui Madurai)

Q 63. How did you manage to extend your 1-month visas? (Bagaimanakah kamu dapat melanjutkan visa 1 bulan kamu?)

A. Our visas expired on the 21st August 2008. Deepak’s people had promised to get an extension for 1 year for us but nothing was done. So I had to get a 1-month extension for myself and my family till 20th September 2008.

I then sent my wife and children back to KL to stay with my mother-in-law in Segambut without Deepak’s knowledge.

I remained in Madras trying to get my visa extended. Deepak’s agent called Kumar tried to help me but after 5 months nothing had happened. I complained about this to Deepak and ASP Suresh when they visited me in Chennai. Deepak called Kumar who returned the passport to me with a sick certificate saying I could not have left the country due to an illness. This had to be done as I was then in India illegally as my visa had expired.

I then asked for help from my wife’s uncle who is a State Exco Member for Karaikal district. He managed to get my visa extended until 5th September 2009. (Visa kami lupuh tempoh pada 21hb Ogos 2008. Konco Deepak berjanji untuk mendapatkan lanjutan visa kami ke 1 tahun akan tetapi ia tidak dilakukan. Oleh yang demikian, saya sendiri terpaksa melakukannya untuk melanjutkan visa kami 1 bulan lagi ke 20hb Sept. Saya kemudiannya menghantar balik isteri & anak-anak saya ke KL untuk tinggal bersama emak mertua saya d Segambut tanpa pengetahuan Deepak. Saya tinggal di Madras untuk cuba melanjutkan visa saya. Agen Deepak yang bernama Kumar cuba menolong saya akan tetapi selepas 5 bulan, tiada sebarang apa yang berlaku. Saya mengadu kepada Deepak & ASP Suresh apabila mereka melawat saya di Chennai. Deepak menelepon Kumar & beliau memulangkan passpot saya bersama MC yang menyatakan saya tidak dapat meninggalkan India kerana uzur. Ini perlu dilakukan kerana visa saya telah tamat tempoh & saya berada di India secara haram. Saya kemudian meminta bantuan daripada pak cik isteri saya yang juga seorang ahli exco negeri untuk daerah Karaikal. Beliau berjaya melanjutkan visa saya sehingga 5hb Sept 2009)

Q 64. Did you return to Malaysia during this period? (Pernahkah kamu kembali ke Malaysia?)

A. Yes, I returned a few times to sort out some of my personal affairs. Each time I returned I entered the country via Thailand across the Malaysia-Thai border at Bukit Kayu Hitam and left the same way. I did not go through Malaysian immigration.

I did not contact anyone each time I returned as I was afraid Deepak would find out. The only person who knew I had returned to Malaysia was ASP Suresh but he did not let Deepak know. He was upset with me for allowing my wife and children to return to Malaysia but I explained to him that my children needed to be educated and they could not get into a local school in Chennai.

Whenever I returned to Malaysia I used to stay with my wife and mother-in-law in Segambut. (Ya, saya balik beberapa kali untuk menyelesaikan hal peribadi saya. Setiap kali saya balik melalui Bkt Kayu Hitam & kembali dengan jalan yang sama. Saya tidak menghubungi sesiapapun ketika saya balik kerana saya takut Deepak akan mendapat tahu. Orang yang mengetahui kepulangan saya adalah ASP Sureshtetapi beliau tidak memberitahu Deepak. Dia berasa kecewa kerana saya hantar balik keluarga saya tetapi saya menerangkan kepada beliau bahawa anak-anak saya perlu bersekolah & mereka tidak masuk ke sekolah tempatan di Chennai)

Q 65. Where did your wife stay all the time she was in Malaysia? (Di manakah isteri kamu tinggal sewaktu berada di Malaysia?)

A. She stayed with my mother-in-law in Segambut and managed to get my children into a school in Sentul. She did come to Chennai a few times with the children to visit me. (Dia tinggal bersama emak mertua saya di Segambut & dapat mendaftarkan anak saya di sebuah sekolah di Sentul. Beliau ada datang ke Chennai bersama anak-anak saya untuk melawat saya)

Q 66. Where are your wife and children now? (Di manakah keluarga kamu sekarang?)

A. They are at present in Chennai. I managed to enrol my 2 eldest children into a school there. My wife may return to KL so that my youngest child can receive his schooling there. I will have to stay with my eldest two children in Chennai. (Mereka sekarang berada di Chennai. Saya dapat mendaftarkan 2 anak saya di sekolah di sana. Isteri saya mungkin akan pulang ke KL kerana anak bongsu saya akan bersekolah di sana. Saya akan tinggal bersama 2 anak saya di Chennai)

Q 67. Can you remember the dates you returned to Malaysia? (Bolehkah kamu ingat kembali tarikh kamu pulang ke Malaysia?)

A. Yes, I was in KL from the 16.02.2009 to the 05.03.2009. During this period I met Deepak at his office in Sungai Besi. He was very worried I had returned to Malaysia and asked me to go back to Chennai immediately. He warned me that my life would be in danger if I stayed any longer.

The second time I returned to Malaysia was from the 11.04.2009 to the 02.05.2009.

The third time I returned to Malaysia was at the end of July 2009. (Ya,saya berada di KL dari 16hb Feb 2009 ke 5hb Mac 2009. Sewaktu itu saya berjumpa dengan Deepak di pejabatnya di Sg Besi. Dia sangat sangat risau dengan kehadiran saya & minta saya kembali ke Chennai dengan segera. He mengugut saya jikalau saya masih tinggal di sini nyawa saya berada dalam keadaan berbahaya. Kali kedua saya pulang ke Malaysia ialah dari 11hb Apr 2009 ke 2hb Mei 2009 & kali ketiga ialah pada penghujung bulan Julai 2009)

Q 68. What did you do when you returned at the end of July? (Apakah yang kamu buat ketika kamu pulang pada bulan Julai?)

A. I decided to contact my lawyer Americk Sidhu and explain to him exactly what had happened to meover the past 1 year as I was very unhappy with the situation I was in. (Saya memutuskan untuk menghubungi peguam Americk Sidhu & menerangkan kepada beliau apa yang berlaku kepada saya dalam tempoh 1 tahun kerana saya tidak berasa gembira dengan keadaan yang saya berada sekarang)

TO BE CONTINUED

Bahagian 1

Bahagian 2

Bahagian 3

Bahagian 5

The show begin – Now they attacked the lawyer of Bala: Molotov cocktails thrown at Manjeet’s house tonight

I have today at 7.20 pm had Molotov cocktails thrown at my house. The resulting fire caused damage.

I believe this was a warning and threat to me and my family arising from my presence as a lawyer at a recent recording of an interview with the missing PI  Bala who is connected to the Altantunya case.

It is tragic that such threats have to be issued. Those who have elected to issue such threats have failed to appreciate that lawyers have a role to play in the discharge of their professional duties. I have no affiliations or ties with any political party or faction and have for the last 39 years of my role as a lawyer maintained that neutrality.

My presence at the interview was as Mr. Americk Sidhu’s lawyer. Mr. Americk Sidhu was the lawyer who acted for PI Bala in the making of Bala’s first Statutory Declaration. My presence and role in this PI Bala interview was apolitical and was to ensure the integrity and voluntary nature of the interview.

Manjeet Singh Dhillon

Kuala Lumpur 18 November 2009

(Courtesy of Malaysia Today)

————————————————

Altantuya: Who got what for the sale of French submarines to Malaysia?

These questions assume added relevancy in light of revelations last week that someone, allegedly close to the Prime Minister, was willing to pay RM5 million (US$1.48 million) to a private detective to forget his statement connecting Najib to Altantuya.

Asia Sentinel

On September 3, a 66-meter submarine named for Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s founding father, glided into the Royal Malaysian Navy base at Port Klang on Malaysia’s western coast after a 54-day voyage from France. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was there to greet them.

As defense minister, Najib had commissioned a huge military buildup to upgrade Malaysia’s armed forces including the purchase of two Scorpene-class submarines and the lease of a third, a retired French Navy Agosta-class boat, for US$1 billion. The two submarines were designed by France’s DCNS naval shipbuilder and built in partnership with Spain’s Navantia. Both companies are state owned. The deal earned a commission of €114 million for a company owned by Najib’s best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, once the head of a Kuala Lumpur political thinktank.

The Tunku Abdul Rahman, along with its companion, to be named for Najib’s father Tun Abdul Razak and to be delivered in 2010, is at the very heart of the continuing controversy over the death of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian translator and Razak Baginda’s jilted lover. Altantuya was murdered in October of 2006 by two bodyguards attached to Najib’s office after Razak, who had jilted Altantuya, went to Najib’s chief of staff, Musa Safri, for help in keeping the 28-year-old woman away from him. Not long after being acquitted under questionable circumstances of participating in her murder, he left the country for England.

Questions over the purchases go well beyond the death of a spurned paramour and point to some difficult subjects for French and Malaysian officials. These questions assume added relevancy in light of revelations last week that someone, allegedly close to the Prime Minister, was willing to pay RM5 million (US$1.48 million) to a private detective to forget his statement connecting Najib to Altantuya.

The continuing controversy makes it appropriate to ask to examine the defence minister’s diaries, calendars and telephone logs and those of Razak Baginda in 2002, when the Royal Malaysian Navy ordered the vessels. In letters found after her death, Altantuya said she was attempting to blackmail Razak Baginda for as much as US$500,000, apparently, her father said, because of her role as translator over the purchase of the submarines. Malaysia ordered the two diesel-electric submarines from DCN SA (Direction des Constructions Navales), a French manufacturer of warships and submarines and the largest naval shipyard in Europe, in 2002. However, Razak Baginda and Altantuya went to France at the same time Najib did in 2005 to settle details of the purchase.

Perimekar, a company owned by Abdul Razak Baginda, received the €114 million for “coordination and support services” – 11 percent of the sale price of the submarines. Zainal Abidin, then the deputy defense minister, told a parliamentary inquiry that such commissions were commonplace in Malaysia. No further inquiry was made as to the commission, nor was any attempt made to determine what coordination and support services Perimekar might be providing.

However, it might pay to take a look at some other deals in which top French politicians were involved in, some of them along with DCN, and to ask whether all of that €114 actually went to Razak Baginda, or if some, with the complicity of Malaysian politicians, went into the pockets of their French counterparts.

There is plenty of reason to entertain that possibility. French politicians seem to have a knack for backhanders. On October 26, in a trial that centered on illegal arms sales to Angola, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, the son of the late president Francois Mitterand, was given a two-year suspended sentence and a €375,000 fine for receiving embezzled funds. The court ruled that he had accepted millions of euros in “consultant fees” on the arms deals between 1993 and 1998. In the dock with him were 42 people accused of selling weapons to Angola in defiance of a UN arms embargo, or of taking payments from the arms dealers and using their influence to facilitate the sales.

The trial, it was said, shined a light into a murky world of secret payments made in cash and discreet deals linking Parisian high society with one of Africa’s longest-running wars. But it hasn’t shined a light on what happened elsewhere with contracts concluded by the representatives of France, and particularly by DCN. For instance, 11 French engineers employed by DCN, which peddled Malaysia’s subs to Pakistan, were blown up in a bus bombing in 2002 which was first thought to have been perpetrated by Islamic militants. The 11 were in Karachi to work on three Agosta 90 B submarines that the Pakistani military had bought in 1994, with payment to be spread over a decade. According to Reuters, commissions were promised to middlemen including Pakistani and Saudi Arabian nationals. Agosta is a subsidiary of DCN.

Two French magistrates, Marc Trevidic and Yves Jannier, who were looking into the case on behalf of the victims, said kickbacks ended up in the campaign funds of Edouard Balladur, then the French prime minister and a rival of Jacques Chirac in the 1995 presidential election. The current French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was Balladur’s campaign manager as well as budget minister when the contract for the subs was signed.

Although Sarcozy and Balladur have both denied any wrongdoing, a top-secret memo turned up in October 2008 from DCN, which was state-owned at the time of the alleged kickbacks. Copies of the memo were shown on French television. The memo reportedly said France had stopped paying the bribes after Chirac won the 1995 elections despite requests by Pakistani officials for several years afterwards. Eventually, according to the story, the Pakistanis eventually lost patience and orchestrated the bus attack on the Agosta engineers in retaliation. The third submarine ordered and leased by Malaysia was an Agosta.

Another case involves the French company Thales, formerly Thompson-CSF, which sold six DCN-built La Fayette-class ’stealth’ frigates to Taiwan in 1992 for US$2.8 billion. The warships, designated Kan Ding by Taiwan, were delivered between 1996 and 1998. The website DefenseNews reported that Taiwan is seeking US$882 million, down from US$1.12 billion on its claim against Thales, according to documents filed with the French market regulator Authorité des Marches Financiers. The update was made to its reference document submitted on April 12.

Taiwan’s claim, the website said, is based on allegations that Thales wrongfully paid commissions to agents in the sale of the frigates. Thales said in the filing that it and its industrial partner have consistently contested the claim. A Thales spokesman declined to comment to Reuters beyond the information contained in the filing. Thales was prime contractor on the sale of the frigates, which were built by DCN. If Taiwan won the case, Thales would be liable for 30 percent of the claim, the filing said.

French judges have been investigating corruption allegations arising from the Taiwan contract over a number of years but have made no arrests, notably because documents are protected by defense secrecy laws, which the government refuses to lift. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that at least some of the alleged kickbacks were used as political campaign funds in the French 1995 elections.

At least six people connected with the case have died under suspicious circumstances, including a Taiwan naval captain, Yin Ching-feng, who was found floating off the country’s coast, a victim of foul play. Yin is believed to have been killed because he planned to go to the authorities about the case. His nephew, who was also pursuing the case, a Thomson employee in Taiwan and a French intelligence agent were also among the dead. It gradually emerged that some $600 million in commissions had been paid into various Swiss accounts set up by Andrew Wang Chuan-pu, the Taiwan agent forThomson-CSF. In October 2008 a French judge finally ruled that no one could be prosecuted because of lack of evidence.

Berita tak tahu malu yang akan digelapkan oleh ahkbar milik mca, the star: Gara-gara tak dapat jawatan, ketua wanita & pemudi mca menangis di khalayak ramai.

Menangis jangan tak menangis, jawatan dah hilang.

The third day but News bn & msm still try to hide: Part 3, The return of the ghost of Altantuya – The Malaysian police catch up with Bala (Eng & BM)

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q 41. Where did you go once you landed in Bangkok? (Ke manakah kamu pergi sesampai di Bangkok?)

A. Deepak was supposed to arrange for someone to meet us at the airport but there was no one there. As I was feeling very tired, I hired a taxi to take my family and I to the Shangri La Hotel. We checked in to this hotel and we went to sleep. (Deepak sepatutnya mengatur seseorang untuk berjumpa dengan kami di airpot tetapi tidak seorang pun di sana. Oleh kerana saya merasa letih, saya mengambil satu teksi untuk membawa kami ke Hotel Shangri la. Kami daftar masuk ke hotel tersebut & terus bristirehat)

Q 42. Did anyone contact you while you were at the Shangri La Hotel? (Adakah kamu menghubungi sesiapa ketika kamu berada di hotel?)

A. No, because no one knew where we were and I did not have a Thai SIM card so I could not use my hand phone to call anyone. (Tidak, kerana tiada orang yang tahu di mana kami berada & saya tidak mempunyai SIM kad Thailand oleh itu saya tidak dapat guna handpon saya untuk menghubungi sesiapa)

Q 43. What did you do the next day? (July 5th). (Apakah yang kamu buat keesokan hari?)

A. I took my wife and children shopping to buy some clothes as we did not have much with us. I also managed to buy a Thai SIM card and communicated with ASP Suresh to inform him where I was.

Deepak had told me that all communication should be through ASP Suresh and that his brother, Rajesh, would be handling everything for me from now on. (Saya membawa isteri & anak-anak membeli-belah baju kerana kami tidak membawa baju yang banyak. Saya juga membeli sim kad Thailand & berhubung dengan ASP Suresh memberitahu beliau kedudukan kami. Deepak memberitahu saya sebelum ini supaya berkomunikasi dengan ASP Suresh & Rajesh, adik beradik beliau yang akan menguruskan hal saya)

Q 44. What did you do the day after that? (July 6th). (Apakah yang kamu buat sehari kemudian?)

A. The Shangri La management informed me the hotel was full that night due to a pre-booked wedding function so we had to leave. I then left and checked in to the Hilton Hotel nearby with my wife and children.

Rajesh had arranged for one of his contacts in Bangkok to assist me and my family in obtaining Indian visas. This contact was a Thai woman who came to the hotel to collect all our passports and the visa fees from me. (Hotel Shangrila telah ditempah penuh malam tersebut & kami terpaksa pindah. Kami kemudian pindah ke Hotel Hilton. Rajesh telah mengatur kontact beliau di Bangkok untuk membantu kami memohon visa ke India. Kontack beliau seorang wanita Thai datang mengambil passpot & yuran visa dari saya)

Q 45. What happened on July 7th? (Apakah yang berlaku pada 7 Julai?)

A. I received a call in my room from a Special Branch officer. He was calling from the lobby and asked to see me. I then went down to meet him. I recognised him as he used to be a colleague of mine when I was with the Special Branch. He was the liaison officer from the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok. (Saya menerima panggilan di kamar saya dari seorang SB. Beliau menelefon dari lobi & ingin berjumpa dengan saya. Saya kemudian turun untuk berjumpa dengannya. Saya kenal beliau kerana kami pernah bekerjasama sewaktu saya berkhidmat dalam SB. Dia adalah pegawai perhubungan dalam kedutaan Malaysia di Bangkok)

Q 46. What did you both discuss? (Apakah yang kamu bincangkan?)

A. He asked me whether I would give permission for the Malaysian Police to record a statement from me and if I was agreeable, he would inform KL about this. I asked him to wait while I called ASP Suresh to inform him about this development. (Dia menanya saya samada saya bersetuju untuk memberi kenyataan kepada polis & jika ya, beliau akan memberitahu KL. Saya minta beliau tunggu sementara saya menghubungi ASP Suresh untuk memberitahunya perkembangan ini)

Q 47. Did you call ASP Suresh? (Adakah kamu menelepon ASP Suresh?)

A. Yes. ASP Suresh told me exactly what to tell the police interviewers. He wanted me to avoid any mention of the involvement of Deepak, Dinesh and himself. (Ya, ASP Suresh beritahu saya apa yang hendak disampaikan kepada polis. Beliau tidak mahu saya menyebut keterlibatan Depaak, Dinesh & beliau dalam hal ini)

Q 48. So what did he tell you to say? (Apakah yang dia minta kamu cakap?)

A. In short, he basically told me to tell the police that after I had made public my 1st Statutory declaration, I felt remorse and wanted to retract it so I decided to call a lawyer called Arunampalam, who I was supposed to have met through my PI work, and arranged to meet him at the Lotus restaurant next to the Nikko Hotel on Jalan Binjai.

When I met up with him at this restaurant he advised me to retract the 1st statutory declaration and that he would draft a second one for me to that effect. I was supposed to say that I went to his office with him where he prepared the 2nd statutory declaration which I signed and that I went to the Prince Hotel the next day with him to release this statutory declaration to the press.

This is what I was told to say to the police when they recorded my statement, according to ASP Suresh. (Secara ringkasnya dia mahu saya memberitahu polis selepas saya mengumumkan SD pertama saya, saya berasa salah & hendak menariknya balik, oleh itu saya menghubungi peguam Arunapalam yang saya kononnya berjumpa melalui kerja PI saya & mengatur untuk berjumpa dengannya di restauran Lotus bersebelahan dengan hotel Nikko di Jln Binjai.

Apabila saya berjumpa dengannya di restauran tersebut, beliau menasihati saya menarik balik SD pertama & akan merangka SD kedua untuk tujuan menarik balik SD pertama. Saya sepatutnya berkata saya pergi ke pejabatnya dengan beliau di mana beliau menyiapkan SD kedua & saya menandatanganinya & saya pergi ke Hotel Prince keesokkannya dengan peguam tersebut to mengumumkan kepada wartawan SD kedua)

Q 49. What did you do next? (Apakah yang kamu buat selepas itu?)

A. After discussing this with ASP Suresh, I informed the Special Branch officer from the Malaysian Embassy that I was agreeable to my statement being recorded, so this officer informed KL and told me he would come and pick me up from my hotel the next morning and take me to the Malaysian Embassy. In fact we went out for a meal together that evening. (Selapas berbincang dengan ASP Suresh, saya memberitahu pegawai SB itu yang saya setujuan untuk memberi kenyataan, oleh itu pegawai tersebut menghubungi KL & memberitahu saya dia akan datang & mengambil saya dari hotel esok pagi utuk ke kedutaan Malaysia. Kami makan bersama malam itu)

Q 50. Were you picked up the next morning? (Adakah beliau datang esok pagi?)

A. Yes, this SB officer came to the hotel the next morning and drove me to the Malaysian Embassy where we arrived at about 9.00 am. At about 9.30 am, 3 police officers arrived. They had apparently flown to Bangkok from KL the evening before once they had received confirmation that I was prepared to allow them to record a statement from me. (Ya, SB ini datang ke hotel pagi keesokan hari & membawa saya ke kedutaan di mana kami sampai kira-kira jam 9.00 pagi. Sekitar 9.30 pagi, 3 pegawai polis sampai. Mereka datang dari KL malam kelmarin selepas saya menyetujui kenyataan saya direkod)

Q 51. Did you recognise any of these police officers? (Adakah kamu kenal pegawai tersebut?)

A. Yes, there was ASP Muniandy from the Commercial Crimes division of Bukit Aman, another Indian officer and a Malay officer, whose names escape me at the moment. (Ya, ASP Muniandy dari bahagian jenayah komersial, seorag Indian & seorang Melayu yang saya lupa nama mereka waktu ini)

Q 52. How did they greet you? (Bagaimana mereka menyambut kamu?)

A. They were all very pleasant to me. ACP Muniandy asked me which of the two statutory declarations was true and I said the 1st one. He then shook my hand and told me I was a very brave man. (Mereka sangat ramah ketika berjumpa dengan saya. ACP Muniandy menanyakan saya SD mana yang benar & saya jawap SD pertama. Dia kemudian menjabat tangan saya & mengatakan saya seorang yang berani)

Q 53. Did they record your statement? (Adakah mereka mengambil kenyataan anda?)

A. Yes. They questioned me for about 6 hours. They did not seem to be interested in my 2nd statutory declaration and concentrated their questions in relation to my 1st statutory declaration.

They wanted to know who was involved in it and how I was led into making it.

I explained everything to them from the time I met my lawyer Americk Sidhu in a pub one night with ASP Suresh, M. Puravalen and Sivarasah Rasiah in April or May 2008 up to the time of my first press release.

ACP Muniandy was the officer asking all the questions while his colleague recorded my statement. (Ya, mereka menyoal saya selama 6 jam. Mereka nampaknya tidak berminat dengan SD kedua & hanya menumpukan semua soalan berkenaan SD pertama saya. Mereka hendak tahu siapa yang terlibat & bagaimana saya diajak untuk membuat SD itu. Saya menerangkan kepada mereka dari masa saya berjumpa dengan peguam Americk Sidhu di sebuah pub dengan ASP Suresh, M Puravalen, Sivarasah Rasiah pada bulan April atay Mei 2008 sampai ke waktu saya membuat kenyataan akhbar. Hanya ACP Muniandy menyoal saya  sementara rakan-rakannya hanya menulis kenyataan saya)

Q 54. Did they comment on anything you told them? (Adakah mereka memberi komen kepada kenyataan yang kamu beritahu mereka?)

A. No. I just repeated what ASP Suresh had told me to tell them about the circumstances which prompted me into affirming the 2nd statutory declaration and they recorded all of it. (Tidak, saya hanya memberitahu mereka apa yang ASP Suresh minta saya katakan kepada mereka iaitu berkenaan keadaan yang membuat saya mengumumkan SD kedua & ia direkodkan oleh mereka.

TO BE CONTINUED

Bahagian 1

Bahagian 2

Bahagian 4

Bahagian 5

News bn & msm try to hide: Part 2 The return of Ghost of Altantuya – Bala’s prison without bars (Eng & BM)

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q 23. What happened next? (Apakah yang berlaku selepas itu?)

A. Deepak gave instructions to Dinesh to book a room at the Hilton Hotel KL Sentral. I left with ASP Suresh to my house in Rawang to see my wife and explain to her what was happening. I was concerned for the safety of my family. Deepak had informed me he wanted me to retract my 1st statutory declaration and then to immediately leave the country with my family. I was in a state of shock as to what was happening. I had anticipated that I would be arrested and interrogated after releasing my 1st statutory declaration but I did not anticipate my family would be threatened so I was not prepared for this. As this VIP Datuk was also involved, I realised the situation was very serious. (Deepak memberi arahan kepada Dinesh untuk menempah sebuah bilik di Hotel Hilton, KL Sentral. Saya pulang ke rumah di Rawang bersama ASP Suresh untuk menerangkan apa yang terjadi kepada isteri saya. Saya sangat risau keselamatan keluarga saya. Deepak telah memberitahu saya supaya menarik balik SD pertama saya& meninggalkan negara dengan segera. Saya masih dalam keadaan terkejut akibat daripada apa yang berlaku (ugutan Deepak). Saya menjangkakan bahawa saya akan ditangkap & disoalsiasat selepas mengumumkan SD pertama saya tetapi saya tidak menjangkakan keselamatan keluarga saya diancam & tidak bersedia menghadapinya)

Q 24. What time did you arrive home after leaving The Curve? (Pukul berapakah kamu sampai ke rumah selepas meninggalkan The Curve?)

A. ASP Suresh and I arrived at my house at about 2.00 am that morning. I explained everything to my wife and told her we had to pack up and leave Malaysia that very day, as I had been instructed. I also told her to get ready to go to the immigration department that morning to apply for my children’s passports and to renew hers. I had arranged with a friend of mine called Christopher to pick them all up at 8.30 am and to drive them to the Pusat Damansara immigration department that morning with all their luggage. (ASP Suresh & saya sampai ke rumah kira-kira 2.00 pagi. Saya menerangkan kesemuanya kepada isteri saya & beritahu beliau supaya mengemas untuk meninggalkan Malaysia pada hari iu juga seprti yang diarahkan oleh Deepak. Saya juga memberitahu isteri saya untuk pergi ke immigesen untuk memohon passpot untuk anak saya & memperbaharui passpot beliau. Saya meminta pertolongan kawan saya Christopher untuk membawa keluarga saya pada 8.30 pagi ke Pusat immigesen Damansara pada pagi tersebut berserta bagasi mereka )

Q 25. Where did you go next? (Ke manakah kamu pergi selepas itu?)

A. ASP Suresh then drove me to the site at which he was burning wires where he organised his workers to do the loading onto some 3-ton trucks. We then left for the Hilton Hotel in KL Sentral. (ASP Suresh membawa saya ke kawasan kabel buruk dibakar di mana beliau mengarah pekerja-pekerjanya memunggah kuprum itu ke dalam lori 3 ton. Kami kemudian bertolak ke Hotel Hilton.)

Q 26. What time did you arrive at the Hilton Hotel? (Pukul berapakah kamu sampai ke Hotel Hilton?)

A. We reached the Hotel about 3.00 am. ASP Suresh called Dinesh to find out the room number. Both Deepak and Dinesh met us in the lobby and we all went up to the room. I had been told earlier that my family and I would be sent to Hong Kong. I said I was not happy about being sent to Hong Kong and I would prefer to go to Chennai. Deepak agreed to this. He then tried to arrange a private jet for us. This had to be cancelled when it was realised we would have to go through immigration at the airport. Deepak then suggested we go through Singapore by road, then fly to Bangkok en route to Chennai. I agreed. They continued talking to me about the seriousness of my 1st statutory declaration and that I would have to retract it otherwise they could not guarantee anything if the deal failed. Eventually Dinesh left for home to take a nap. (Kami sampai ke sana kira-kira jam 3.00 pagi. ASP Suresh menelepon Dinesh untuk mendapat nombor bilik. Deepak & Dinesh bertemu dengan kami dilobi & kami bersama naik ke bilik. Saya diberitahu sebelum itu bahawa saya & keluarga akan dihantar ke Hong Kong. Saya tidak bersetuju kerana  saya lebih suka pergi ke Chennai. Deepak setuju & kemudian cuba mengatur sebuah jet peribadi untuk kami. Ia telah dibatalkan kerana mereka sedar bahawa kami kena melalui immigresen di airport. Deepak mencadangkan kami pergi ke Chennai menggunakan jalanraya ke Singapora & kemudian terbang ke Bangkok, dari situ ke Chennai. Saya setuju. Mereka berbincang dengan saya tentang seriousnya SD pertama saya & saya kena menarik baliknya jika tidak mereka tidak dapat jamin apa-apa jika urus janji ini gagal. Akhirnya Dinesh pulang untuk tidur.)

Q 27. What else did you discuss while in the hotel room? (Apakah lagi yang kamu bincangkan semasa di hotel?)

A. Deepak was telling me how he had become very good friends with Rosmah from the time she used to visit his shop in Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman. He wouldn’t let me sleep as he was talking all the time. (Deepak memberitahu saya bagaimana beliau menjadi rakan karip kepada Rosmah dari waktu Rosmah mengunjung ke kedainya di Jln Tuanku Abd Rahman. Dia bercakap dengan saya sepanjang masa & tidak mahu saya pergi tidur.)

Q 28. Did anything else happen that morning? (Ada apakah lagi yang berlaku pagi tersebut?)

A. Dinesh returned to the hotel looking refreshed. At about 7.45 am someone delivered a draft copy of the 2nd statutory declaration to the hotel. Deepak went down to the lobby to collect it after receiving a call on his hand phone. Sometime later a Commissioner for Oaths arrived. He was a Malay man. I was asked to sign this statutory declaration in front of this commissioner for oaths and he attested my signature. He asked me if I knew where his office was and I said I did not. He then told Deepak to make sure he showed me where his office was on the way to the Prince Hotel. I was never given an opportunity to read the contents of this statutory declaration. (Dinesh kembali ke hotel. Pada jam kira-kira 7.45 pagi draf SD kedua dihantar ke hotel. Deepak turun ke lobi untuk mengambilnya selepas menerima panggilan dari seseorang. Selepas itu pesuruhanjaya sumpah sampai. Beliau adalah seorang Melayu. Saya diarahkan menurunkan tandatangan di SD tersebut di depan pesuruhanjaya sumpah. Beliau kemudian menanya saya samada saya tahu pejabat beliau & saya jawab tidak. Beliau memberitahu Deepak supaya Deepak memastikan beliau menunjukkan kepada saya pejabatnya dalam perjalanan ke Hotel Prince. Saya tidak diberi peluang untuk membaca SD itu.)

Q 29. Did you know at this stage that you would be taken to the Prince Hotel? (Adakah kamu tahu mereka akan bawa kamu ke Hotel Price?)

A. Yes. Deepak had informed me that he would be organising a press conference at the Prince Hotel later that morning and that he would make sure a lawyer represented me. He told me not to worry and that I would not have to say anything, just leave it up to the lawyer to talk to the press. (Ya, Deepak memberitahu saya beliau akan mengatur satu PC di Hotel Prince pagi tersebut & beliau akan memastikan saya diwakili oleh seorang peguam. Beliau cuba menyakinkan saya & memberitahu saya bahawa saya tidak perlu bercakap apa-apapun, & hanya membiarkan peguam tersebut bercakap dengan wartawan)

Q 30. What time did you leave the Hilton Hotel? (Pada pukul berapakah kami meninggalkan Hotel Hilton?)

A. About 8.45 am.  Deepak, Dinesh and I left together. I went with Dinesh in his BMW while Deepak went on his own. Dinesh did not show me where the Commissioner for Oaths office was. (Kira-kira jam 8.45 pagi. Deepak, Dinesh & saya beredar bersama. Saya pergi bersama Dinesh dengan BMWnya & Deepak pergi sendiri. Dinesh tidak menunjukkan kepada saya pejabat pesuruhanjaya sumpah)

Q 31. What time did you reach the Prince Hotel? (Pukul berapakah kamu sampai di Hotel Prince?)

A. We arrived at the Prince Hotel at about 9.15 am and drove up the ramp to the car park where we waited for further instructions from Deepak who was apparently downstairs by that time. Eventually Dinesh received a call on his hand phone and he escorted me to a lift which took us down to what looked like a type of lobby on an upper level. (Kami sampai ke hotel itu pada jam 9.15 pagi & terus naik ke tempak letak kereta di mana kami menunggu arahan selanjutnya dari Deepak yang telah berada di tingkat bawah. Akhirnya, Dinesh menerima panggilan & meneman saya ke lift yang membawa kami ke lobi di tingkat atas.)

Q 32. Did you meet anyone in this lobby area? (Adakah kamu menjumpa sesiapa ketika di lobi tersebut?)

A. Yes. Deepak was waiting in this lobby with another Indian man. This Indian man was introduced to me as one Mr. Arunampalam, a lawyer. This lawyer spoke to me and told me to just keep quiet in the press conference arranged for us in the main lobby. He told me not to talk to any of the reporters under any circumstances and that he would do all the talking. Deepak then told Arunampalam to answer not more than 3 questions from the reporters waiting downstairs and handed him a few copies of the 2nd statutory declaration to distribute to the reporters. (Ya, Deepak menunggu di lobi dengan seorang Indian. Orang Indian itu memperkenalkan dirinya sebagai Arunampalam, seorang peguam. Peguam ini memberitahu saya supaya berdiam diri ketika PC yang diatur di lobi utama hotel tersebut. Dia memberitahu saya supaya tidak berbual dengan wartawan dalam apa keadaan pun & beliau akan bercakap sahaja. Deepak memberitahu peguam tersebut tidak memjawab lebih dari 3 soalan dari wartawan yang sedang menunggu di tingkat bawah & memberikannya beberapa salinan SD kedua to diberi kepada wartawan.)

Q 33. What happened next? (Apakah yang terjadi selepas itu?)

A. At about 10.00 am Mr. Arunampalam and myself took the lift down to the main lobby where we met about 4 or 5 reporters. Mr. Arunampalam talked to them and gave each of them a copy of the 2nd statutory declaration. He told the reporters that I had been forced to sign the 1st statutory declaration under duress and that I now wanted to retract the contents. He would not answer any of the questions the reporters asked him. (Kira-kra jam 10.00 pagi, peguam & saya mengambil lift untuk turun ke bawah ke lobi utama di mana kami berjumpa dengan 4 atau 5 wartawan. Arunapalam berbual dengan mereka & memberi salinan SD kedua kepada mereka. Dia memberitahu wartawan saya dipaksa untuk menandatangani SD pertama saya di bawah tekanan & saya ingin menarik baliknya. Dia tidak mahu menjawap sebarang soalan dari wartawan.)

Q 34. Where were Deepak and Dinesh during the press conference? (Di manakah Deepak & Dinesh ketika itu?)

A. I think they left the hotel as they did not join us in the press conference. (Mereka telah meninggalkan hotel tersebut kerana mereka tidak bersama kami dalam PC tersebut)

Q 35. What happened after the press conference? (Apakah yang berlaku selepas PC itu?)

A. Mr. Arunampalam then drove me back to the Hilton hotel in his own car. He dropped me off at the lower lobby and I never saw him again. (Peguam itu membawa saya balik ke Hotel Hilton dengan keretanya sendiri. Saya turun di lobi & tidak jumpa beliau lagi)

Q 36. Did you at any time engage Mr. Arunampalam as your lawyer to appear in the press conference? (Adakah kamu mengupah Arunampalam sebagai peguam untuk PC tersebut?)

A. No. I have never met this lawyer before. Deepak was the one who arranged for him to represent me at the press conference. I never told him what to say. All this was arranged by Deepak and not myself. (Tidak, Sebelum ini, saya tidak pernah berjumpa dengan peguam itu. Deepak yang mengaturnya untuk mewakili saya dalam PC itu. Saya tidak pernah beritahu beliau apa yang hendak dicakap. Semua ini diatur oleh Deepak bukan saya)

Q 37. What did you do once you had been dropped off at the Hilton Hotel? (Apakah yang kamu buat sesampai di Hotel Hilton?)

A. I went back to the room and knocked on the door. Deepak and ASP Suresh were there. I waited in the room while Deepak was making phone calls to a Ms. Wong who I think was his secretary. She was apparently with my wife and children at the Pusat Damansara immigration centre helping my wife with the passport applications and renewal. During this period Deepak gave me RM20,000.00 in Hong Kong dollars for my expenditure. He told me he had arranged a tourist van to drive me and my family to Singapore where we were to catch a flight to Bangkok. (Saya kembali ke bilik hotel & mengetuk pintu. Deepak & ASP Suresh telah berada di sana. Saya menunggu dalam bilik sementara Deepak memanggil Ms Wong, saya fikir adalah setiausaha beliau. Dia sebenarnya telah bersama isteri & anak saya di immigesen untuk memohon & memperbaharui paspot mereka. Pada masa itu, Deepak memberi saya RM20,000 dalam wang Hong Kong dollar untuk perbelanjaan saya. Dia memberitahu saya dia akan mengatur van pelancong untuk membawa saya & keluarga ke Singapora di mana kami akan terbang ke Bangkok)

Q 38. What time did you leave the Hilton Hotel? (Pukul berapakah kamu meninggalkan Hotel Hilton?)

A. At about 1.00 pm Deepak received a phone call from Ms. Wong informing him the passports had all been done and so I left the Hilton Hotel in the van with an Indian driver. This van then drove me to the Pusat Damansara immigration centre. The driver was talking to Ms. Wong during the journey and was receiving instructions where to meet my wife and children. When we arrived at the Pusat Damansara immigration centre, I met my wife and children and we loaded all the luggage into the van and proceeded on our journey to Singapore. (Kira-kira jam 1.00 tengahari Deepak menerima panggilan dari Ms Wong memberitahu beliau passpot kami telah siap & kemudian saya beredar dari Hotel Hilton menaiki sebuah van yang dipandu oleh pemandu Indian. Van ini kemudiannya membawa saya ke Pusat immigesen Damansara. Pemandu itu berbual dengan Ms Wong & menerima arahan dari Ms Wong untuk ke lokasi di mana keluarga saya berada. Sesampai di Pusat immigesen Damansara, saya berjumpa dengan isteri & anak-anak saya & memunggah bagasi ke dalam van & terus bertolak ke Singapora )

Q 39. What happened when you arrived in Singapore? (Apakah yang terjadi sesampai kamu di Singapora?)

A. The driver stopped at the Malaysian immigration at the causeway and we all had to get out of the van to present our passports at the counter. None of our passports were stamped. We then proceeded across the causeway to Singapore immigration who did stamp our passports. After clearing immigration, we were driven straight to Changi Airport. (Pemamndu tersebut berhenti di immegesen Malaysia di tambak Johor & kami keluar dari van untuk proses passpot di kaunter. Semua passpot kami tidak dicopkan. Kami kemudian pergi ke immigesen Singapora di mana passpot kami dicopkan. Selepas selesai, kami dibawa ke Changi airpot)

Q 40. What happened at Changi Airport? (Apakah yang berlaku di airpot Changi?)

A. I changed some money to get Singapore coins so I could call Deepak to find out about our flight to Bangkok. Deepak told me our tickets were waiting for us at the Silkair counter. I proceeded to this ticket counter and collected our tickets. We all caught the evening flight to Bangkok which left Singapore at about 8.00 pm. (Saya menukar wang untuk mendapat duit siling Singapora supaya saya dapat menelepon Deepak untuk mendapat maklumat penerbangan kami ke Bangkok. Deepak memberitahu saya tiket kami berada di kaunter Silkair. Saya kemudian pergi ke kaunter tersebut & mengambil tiket kami. Kami mengambil penerbangan ke Bangkok waktu malam & berlepas jam 8.00 pm.

TO BE CONTINUED

Bahagian 1

Bahagian 3

Bahagian 4

Bahagian 5

News bn & msm try to hide: Part 1 – The Return of the Ghost of Altantuya – The Bala’s mystery unveiled (English & BM)

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q 1. After the press conference held at the PKR headquarters on the 3rd July 2008 you returned to the office of your lawyer where you stayed until about 4.30 pm. ( Selepas PC di ibu pejabat PKR pada 3 Julai 2008, kamu telah kembali ke pejabat peguam kamu sehingga jam 4.30pm)

A. Yes that is correct (Ya betul)

Q 2. Who was with you in your lawyer’s office at that time? (Siapa bersama kamu di pejabat peguam pada ketika itu?)

A. My lawyer Americk Sidhu, ASP Suresh and my ex-assistant Suras Kumar.(Peguam saya, Americk Sidsu, ASP Suresh & bekas pembantu saya Suras Kumar)

Q 3. What time did you leave your lawyers office? (Pada jam berapa kamu meninggalkan pejabat tersebut?)

A. About 4.45 pm. I left with ASP Suresh and Suras Kumar. ASP Suresh had his car parked underneath the office. Suras left on his own motorcycle. (Kira-kira 4.45pm. Saya beredar bersama ASP Suresh & Suras Kumar. Kereta ASP Suresh letak di tempat letak kereta di bawah pejabat. Suras membawa motornya sendiri)

Q 4. Where were you intending to go? (Ke mana kamu hendak pergi?)

A. I had a conversation over the telephone with ASP Tonny from the Brickfields police station earlier that afternoon. He wanted to meet me to discuss the contents of my 1st statutory declaration which I had released at the press conference that morning. He told me he was off-duty at 6.30 pm and suggested we meet informally at an ‘ikan bakar’ stall near the police station. I agreed. ASP Suresh was to drive me there after leaving my lawyers office. (Saya telah bercakap dengan ASP Tonny dari balai polis Brickfield awal tengahari tersebut. Beliau hendak berjumpa dengan saya untuk membincang tentang kandungan SD pertama saya yang telah diumumkan pagi tersebut. Beliau memberitahu saya beliau habis kerja jam 6.30pm & cadangkan kami berjumpa secara tak rasmi di gerai ikan bakar dekat balai polis tersebut. Saya bersetuju. ASP Suresh membawa saya ke sana sejurus kami tinggalkan pejabat peguam.)

Q 5. What did ASP Tonny want to see you to discuss? (Apa yang ASP Tonny hendak berbincang dengan kamu?)

A. He sounded glad that I had released my 1st statutory declaration as he was the investigating officer in the Altantuya murder trial and was therefore involved in the case. I think he just wanted to have an informal chat with me. (Dia nampak gembira bahawasanya saya telah mengumumkan SD pertama saya  kerana beliau adalah pegawai IO kes Altantuya & oleh sebab itu beliau terlibat dalam kes tesebut. Saya fikir dia hanya mahu bersembang dengan saya)

Q 6. So you had met him before? (Kamu sebelum ini pernah berjumpa dengan beliau?)

A. Yes, he had interviewed me in relation to the Altantuya murder previously (during the murder investigation). (Ya, dia yang menyoal-siasat saya berhubung dengan kes Altantuya sebelum ini)

Q 7. Did you manage to meet with ASP Tonny? ( Adakah kamu sempat berjumpa dengan ASP Tonny?)

A. No. After leaving my lawyers office, ASP Suresh suggested we go to Cheras instead. I informed ASP Tonny that I could not make it that evening and that I would see him the next day. (Tidak, Selepas meninggalkan pejabat peguam, ASP Suresh cadangkan kami pergi ke Cheras. Saya memberitahu ASP Tonny bahawa saya tidak dapat berjumpa dengannya petang tersebut & akan berjumpanya esok hari)

Q 8. Why did ASP Suresh want to go to Cheras? (Mengapa ASP Suresh hendak ke Cheras?)

A. He had some business dealing in copper wires and he needed to do some work at his scrap yard there. (Beliau mempunyai perniagaan dalam jual-beli kabel kuprum & beliau kena melakukan sedikit kerja di gudang besi buruknya di sana)

Q 9. Was ASP Suresh a police officer at that time? (Adakah ASP Suresh anggota polis ketika itu?)

A. He was an officer with the IPK D9 division CID but had been suspended pending some internal investigations conducted by the ACA. (Beliau adalah pegawai di IPK D9 bahagian CID tetapi telah digantung tugasnya sementara menunggu siasatan ACA)

Q 10. Where did you go after leaving Cheras? (Ke mana kamu pergi selepas beredar dari Cheras?)

A. ASP Suresh needed to go to Rawang to burn some of his scrap wires. We left Cheras at about 7.30 pm on the way to Rawang. We were still in ASP Suresh’s car. (ASP Suresh kena pergi ke Rawang untuk membakar kabel buruknya. Kami bertolak ke Rawang dari Cheras pada jam 7.30pm. Kami masih dalam kereta ASP Suresh )

Q 11. What happened on the journey from Cheras to Rawang? (Apakah yang berlaku dalam perjalanan dari Cheras ke Rawang?)

A. ASP Suresh received some calls on his hand phone from persons I subsequently discovered were Dinesh and Deepak. They apparently wanted ASP Suresh to arrange a meeting with me. At first ASP Suresh did not agree to any meeting but finally agreed to meet in a Bak Kut Teh shop in Rawang. (ASP Suresh menerima beberapa panggilan telepon dari seseorang yang kemudiannya saya dapati adalah Dinesh & Deepak. Mereka hendak ASP Suresh mengatur satu pertemuan dengan saya. Pada mulanya ASP Suresh tidak setuju untuk berjumpa tetapi akhirya akur untuk menjumpa mereka di kedai Bak Kut Teh di Rawang)

Q 12. Did you go straight to the Bak Kut Teh shop? (Adakah kamu pergi terus ke kedai Bak Kut Teh tersebut?)

A. No, we first went to the Kuala Garing area to burn some cables and wires. After that we went to the Bak Kut Teh shop where both Deepak and Dinesh were waiting for us. (Tidak, kami pergi ke Kuala Garing dulu untuk membakar kabel buruk. Kemudian baru kami pergi ke kedai Bak Kut Teh di mana Deepak & Dinesh sedang menunggu kami)

Q 13. What did you discuss? (Apakah yang kamu bincangkan?)

A. Deepak started talking to me to try and persuade me to withdraw my 1st statutory declaration. He mentioned to me that there was a red car outside my house in Rawang with military intelligence personnel in it, and that they knew my wife and children were at home. (Deepak cuba memujuk saya supaya menarik balik SD pertama saya. Dia memberitahu saya bahawa satu kereta merah sedang berada di luar rumah saya di Rawang dengan pegawai risikan askar didalamnya & mereka tahu isteri & anak saya berada dalam rumah)

Q 14. What was your reaction to this piece of information? (Apakah reaksi kamu terhadap informasi tersebut?)

A. I was very concerned about this as my wife had called me on my hand phone while I was on my way to Rawang with ASP Suresh to inform me that there was a suspicious looking red car parked opposite our house and that the persons inside appeared to be watching the house. She had been informed of the presence of this car by a neighbour. I told her to lock the gates and to remain inside. (Saya sangat risau kerana isteri saya telah memberitahu saya melalui telepon sewaktu dalam perjalanan kami ke Rawang bahawa ada sebuah kereta merah yang mencurigakan berhenti bertentangan rumah kami & orang dalam kereta tersebut sedang memerhati rumah kami. Isteri saya telah diberitahu kehadiran kereta tersebut oleh jiran kami. Saya memberitahunya supaya kunci pagar & duduk dalam rumah.)

Q 15. What else did Deepak say? (Apakah lagi yang Deepak beritahu?)

A. He talked to me about the virtues of the present government and what a wonderful woman Rosmah was. He told me he was very good friends with Rosmah and how she visited his shop all the time. He then offered to pay me RM4 million to withdraw my 1st statutory declaration. I was rather stunned but before I could say anything ASP Suresh signaled me to refuse this offer. I said I was not interested in money and so Deepak said he could also organise the release of 5 Hindraf leaders in Kamunting, he could arrange for 528 Tamil schools to become fully-aided schools by the government, that he could get ASP Suresh’s job back and also give him RM4 million as well. He wanted to take me to Putrajaya and kept persisting but I refused to go. (Dia memberitahu saya kebaikan kerajaan sekarang & bertapa kagumnya Rosmah Mansor. Beliau juga memberitahu saya beliau adalah rakan karip Rosmah & Rosmah sering datang ke kedainya. Deepak kemudian menawarkan RM4 juta kepada saya untuk menarik balik SD pertama saya. Saya terkejut dengan tawaran tersebut & sebelum saya bercakap, ASP Suresh memberi isyarat supaya saya tolak tawaran tersebut. Saya kata saya tidak berminat dengan soal wang & Deepak memberitahu bahawa beliau boleh mengatur untuk membebaskan 5 pemimpin Hindraf dari kamunting &  menjadikan 528 sekolah Tamil sekolah bantuan penuh kerajaan serta mengembalikan jawatan Suresh bersama bayaran Rm4 juta. Beliau bersungguh-sungguh hendak membawa saya ke Putrajaya tetapi saya menolaknya)

Q 16. What happened next? (Apakah yang terjadi selepas itu?)

A. ASP Suresh asked Deepak to raise the offer to RM5 million and he agreed straight away. He also told me he was willing to organise a monthly payment of RM20,000.00 and that if there was anything else I wanted to put this in writing. He then made a few phone calls on his handphone and then told ASP Suresh to drive me to The Curve near One Damansara Utama. (ASP Suresh meminta Deepak meninggikan tawaran tersebut kepada Rm5 juta & langsung beliau bersetuju dengannya. Deepak memberitahu saya beliau boleh mengatur untuk memberi Rm20,000 setiap bulan kepada saya & menanya samada saya ingin membuat apa-apa permintaan lagi yang akan dituliskan dalam hitam-putih. Beliau kemudiannya membuat beberapa panggilan telepon & memberitahu ASP Suresh supaya membawa saya ke The Curve.)

Q 17. Were you negotiating with Deepak? (Adakah kamu berunding dengan Deepak)

A. No, I did not say anything. ASP Suresh was doing all the talking and negotiating. I was more concerned with the safety of my family as I did not know what was going to happen to them. (Tidak, saya tidak kata apa-apa. ASP Suresh yang meruding. Saya lebih risau perihal keselamatan keluarga saya kerana saya tidak tahu apa yang akan berlaku ke atas mereka)

Q 18. What happened next? (Apakah yang berlaku kemudiannya?)

A. Deepak left by himself leaving his brother Dinesh with us. After about half an hour we all left in ASP Suresh’s car. Dinesh was seated in the front passenger seat and I sat in the rear seat. We reached The Curve about half an hour later. The time now was 11.45 pm. (Deepak meninggalkan Dinesh untuk bersama kami. Selepas 1/2 jam kami beredar dengan kereta ASP Suresh. Dinesh duduk didepan kereta & saya di belakang. Kami sampai ke The Curve setengah jam kemudian. Waktu ketika itu 11.45pm.)

Q 19. Why were you going to The Curve? (Mengapa kamu pergi ke The Curve?)

A. ASP Suresh told me we were going to meet a VIP there. When we reached the curve I suggested we go to the MacDonald’s restaurant but ASP Suresh said that was not a good idea because there were CCTV cameras there. We then proceeded to the Volkswagen showroom where a Malay gentleman arrived with his pregnant wife and Deepak. (ASP Suresh mengatakan kami akan berjumpa dengan seorang VIP di sana. Setiba di The Curve saya cadangkan kami pergi ke Macdonald akan tetapi ASP Suresh menolak idea tersebut kerana di situ terdapat CCTV. Kami kemudian pergi ke showroom Volkswagen dimana seorang lelaki Melayu & isterinya yang sedang mengandung  datang bersama Deepak)

Q 20. Who was this Malay gentleman? (Siapakah lelaki tersebut?)

A. I did not recognise him. I was just told he was a VIP Datuk. I did however recognise his wife. (Saya tidak kenalnya. Saya diberitahu beliau adalah VIP Datuk. Tetapi saya kenal isteri beliau)

Q 21. Did you speak to this Malay Datuk? (Adakah kamu berbual dengan Datuk itu?)

A. Yes, I was introduced to him by Deepak. I was very surprised when I realised who he was. (Ya, Deepak memperkenalkan beliau kepada saya. Saya terkejut apabila mendapat tahu siapa Datuk tersebut)

Q 22. What did this Malay Datuk talk to you about? (Apakah yang Datuk ini kata kepada kamu?)

A. He told me he knew I had a family and asked me whether I loved them. I replied saying of course I loved my family. He then told me I should take good care of them as anything could happen to them. He then told me that if I wanted to avoid any problems with my family I should just follow Deepak’s instructions and everything would be OK. He told me I had to retract the contents of my 1st statutory declaration. This Malay Datuk then left immediately with his wife. (Dia beritahu saya yang dia tahu saya ada keluarga & ingin tahu samada saya sayangkan keluarga saya. Saya tentu sayangkan mereka jawap saya. Dia kemudian beritahu bahawa saya patut menjaga mereka dengan baik sebab apa-apa pun boleh berlaku ke atas mereka. Jika saya tidak mahu sesuatu yang tidak diingini terjadi kepada keluarga saya, saya mesti mengikut cakap Deepak & semuanya akan jadi OK. Dia memberitahu saya supaya menarik balik SD pertama saya. Beliau kemudiannya pergi dari situ bersama isterinya.)

TO BE CONTINUED (Akan Disambung)

Bahagian 2

Bahagian 3

Bahagian 4

Bahagian 5

Anwar declares war to defend S’gor

Pakatan Rakyat supremo Anwar Ibrahim today said that they were ready to defend Selangor when Barisan Nasional makes a move to topple the state.

He said that his recent appointment as the state economic advisor was also in line with this as the appointment would give him an avenue to be on a standby mode to ward off the BN attacks.

He said he was fully aware of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s plan to take over the state from Pakatan.

Speaking to about 1,500 PKR delegates at Selangor convention in Shah Alam today, Anwar, who is also the PKR advisor, said he was confident Pakatan would be able to withstand any BN attack to topple the state government.

“(And) we will emerge victorious,” he said.

“I interfered (in the state’s administration) because there will be an attack from the federal government. The prime minister had said that he wanted Selangor back,” he added, stressing that Menteri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim was not Najib’s opponent.

“I know Khalid can be compared with (Deputy Prime Minister) Muhyiddin Yassin and not with Najib. That is why, when Najib said he wanted the Umno machinery to be strengthened in Selangor, I decided to be here.

“That is why I am not scared, I have opened the battle field and if he steps foot in Selangor, we will launch an attack until we emerge victorious,” said Anwar to a thunderous applause.

Anwar said that the attacks by Umno on Pakatan-led Selangor were ‘never-ending’ and the ‘cow-head’ protest against Khalid in August was just the tip of the iceberg to topple the administration.

“Anyone who thinks that the ‘cow-head’ episode has ended, think again. When the Umno president said he wanted to take back Selangor, he would use every means… that is why we need to watch our steps,” he told the delegates.

In August, Najib had vowed to take back Selangor after the rich state fell to Pakatan in the March 2008 general election.

Describing the state as the heartbeat of the country, Najib had said that the BN has a bright chance of winning back the state provided that all component parties, led by Umno, were prepared to change.

Selangor is our fortress

Meanwhile, Anwar in his 45-minute high-spirited speech also said that he would be working with Khalid as the economic advisor using his experiences as the finance minister previously.

“I don’t need the money, although Khalid said he would give me RM1 in allowance,” said Anwar, drawing laughter of those present.

He said he would be stationed in the state secretariat building in Shah Alam and hoped to strengthen the state’s economic position.

“I am not saying this just to please you. I am confident to strengthen this state and we will win (with even bigger majority) in Selangor (next elections).

“This is our fortress, this is our strength. If they come and touch it, ‘kita lesing dia’(we will thrash them)!,” said Anwar to approval from the crowd.

Later at a press conference, Anwar clarified that the ‘war declaration’ was only a response to the Umno president who promised to wrest back Selangor from Pakatan.

At the same time, he did not rule out the possibility of working with the federal government for the sake of state development.

“If they declare a war on us, of course we will retaliate. However, if there is a cooperation between us in line with democracy, we will adhere to that,” he said.

Rahmah Ghazali/Mkini

Anwar to party members: Stop playing the race card

PKR members were sternly told not to indulge in racial politics as it would be a stumbling block for the party to grow into a multi-racial party.

“There is no room for racial politics among PKR members. We will take stern action against members who get involved in racial politics,” said the party’s advisor Anwar Ibrahim in his speech at the Perak PKR meeting in Ipoh last night.

About 1,200 party delegates from the state’s 24 divisions attended the meeting.

Anwar said that party was facing teething problems as certain individuals were only interested in championing the cause of only one race in the party.

“We have to arrest this trend in order for a healthy political growth of Keadilan,” he said.

“The members have to be clear of the objective of the party which is to champion for the equal rights of the poor, regardless of race,” he added.

He said the party must not follow the BN concept of highlighting only a particular race for their own political mileage and survival.

He said such a move was the cause to the slow demise of the BN as the people’s party.

He also said that it was important for the party leadership to embrace both experienced and young members to uplift the political struggle of the party.

He further added that all internal disputes should be settled amicably within the party, without taking the matter to the media.

New PKR state HQ

He pointed out that the mainstream media would twist and manipulate the situation to create chaos and disunity in the party.

Anwar had then attended the opening ceremony of the new state PKR headquarters in Bandar Ipoh Raya.

There he once again trained his gun at Inspector General of Police whom he said had his tenure of service extended despite the rising crime rate in the country.

He also took a swap at the BN for enriching itself with people’s money.

“When we (Pakatan Rakyat) are short of political funds, we go overseas and give lectures for which we are paid and return with the funds to strengthen our parties.

“However, in the case of BN, they take people’s funds to be kept safely in foreign countries,” he said, drawing laughter from the crowd.

Anwar also said he admired the unity shown by the Perak Pakatan partners in the face of the ongoing political turmoil in the state.

“The Perakians are aware of the unity shown by the Pakatan partners in this state,” he said.

About 1,000 people braved the rain witness the opening ceremony of the state headquarters.

Humayun Kabir/Mkini

RM9 mil shares: Azmin dismisses allegations

Gombak parliamentarian Azmin Ali and his family have been the targets of baseless accusations from various quarters since 1998, he said today in reference to the latest salvo on he and his wife owning millions in shares.

The attack came from Malaysian Indian Youth Development Foundation (MIYDF) chairperson SA Vigneswaran who had claimed that Azmin and his wife Shamshida Taharin owned shares worth more than RM9 million in total in the early 1990s.

Azmin dismissed the allegations as untrue.

Vigneswaran held a press conference yesterday in which he had urged Azmin to verify whether he had purchased shares of that value worth during the early 1990s when private secretary to then finance minister Anwar Ibrahim.

The former MIC Youth chief had also revealed a set of documents claiming that Azmin had purchased shares worth more than RM800,000 while his wife had allegedly bought at least RM8.5 million in shares.

“I have not seen the documents, but I believe the documents have been manipulated by certain parties to associate with me and my wife,” said Azmin in a statement to Malaysiakini.

“Since 1998, my family and I have often become the targets of defamation seeking to humiliate me and my family.

“I was hunted by the police, the anti-corruption agency and the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) to conduct an inquiry into my property acquisition,” he said.

Azmin, who is also the Bukit Antarabangsa assemblyperson, said that he was detained in 1998 for the same reason and had disclosed full details of his assets to the authorities then.

Vigneswaran told reporters yesterday that an envelope containing the documents as well as alleged receipts of the shares bought by the couple was delivered to his Klang house at 3am on Thursday.

He said that the person who dropped the documents off at the guard house of the gated residential area did not leave a name or any contact details.

One of the documents had a detailed breakdown of the funds deposited into what is believed to be Azmin’s Bank Islam account and Shamshida’s Malaysia French Bank Berhad account.

Clarify call to Azmin

There were also addendum with a breakdown of the shares purportedly owned by Shamshida in various companies.

According to one of the documents, Azmin had purchased through Bank Islam shares worth RM812,925 with his wife Shamshida’s amounting to RM8,496,492 through Malaysia French Bank Berhad.

“After going through the documents, I realised that large sum of money was transferred into their accounts and at that time Azmin was the private secretary to Anwar,” said Vigneswaran.

Since Azmin is now a public personality, the vice-president of PKR and member of parliament… he should explain these purchases and the transactions, he said.

Although Vigneswaran conceded that the documents could be forged, he urged Azmin to publicly declare whether the documents are authentic or not.

He said that he has written to Azmin to seek clarification on the ownership of the shares and the money transferred to the bank accounts.

“I just want him to clarify if these documents contain facts or are they false. Then I will decide on the next course of action,” he had said.

Azmin expressed frustration at “the vile attack by the opposition”.

“What happened today shows that the Barisan Nasional will not stop launching attacks to disrupt the peace and harmony of my family. I see these as disgusting tactics planned to humiliate and defame our reputation.”

He added that malicious motives were behind the statements and the clear political aim is to damage his reputation as MP and PKR vice-president.

“I hereby deny the allegations made by Vigneswaran and I have directed my solicitors to initiate the appropriate legal actions immediately against the relevant parties,” declared Azmin.

S Pathmawathy/Mkini

Fitnah Barisan Nasional Semakin Kencang

Dari Blog Azmin Ali

Kenyataan bekas ketua pemuda MIC, Vigneswaran yang mendakwa saya dan isteri memiliki saham bernilai RM 8.5 juta dari tahun 1992 sehingga tahun 1994 adalah tidak berasas sama sekali. Saya belum melihat dokumen yang didakwa oleh Vigneswaran tetapi saya percaya dokumen itu dimanipulasikan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu untuk mengaitkan dengan saya dan isteri saya. Semenjak tahun 1998, saya dan keluarga sering menjadi sasaran fitnah bertujuan untuk mengaibkan saya dan keluarga. Saya diburu oleh pihak berkuasa seperti polis, Badan Pencegah Rasuah dan juga Lembaga Hasil Dalam Negeri untuk menjalankan siasatan mengenai perolehan harta saya. Malahan, alasan yang sama digunakan untuk menangkap dan menahan saya pada 16 September 1998 sehingga 22 September 1998. Saya telah memberikan kerjasama penuh kepada pihak berkuasa termasuk butiran lengkap aset kami.

Saya merasa kesal kerana apa yang berlaku hari ini menunjukkan Barisan Nasional tidak akan berhenti dari melancarkan serangan fitnah yang jahat untuk mengganggu keamanan dan ketenteraman saya dan keluarga. Saya melihat tindakan jijik yang terancang ini adalah untuk mengaibkan dan mencemarkan nama saya dan isteri. Kenyataan berunsurkan fitnah dan berniat jahat itu jelas mempunyai motif politik bertujuan merosakkan reputasi saya selaku Ahli Parlimen Gombak serta Naib Presiden Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Saya dengan ini menafikan sekeras-kerasnya tuduhan yang dilemparkan oleh Vigneswaran. Saya telahpun mengarahkan peguam saya untuk bertindak segera prosiding perundangan yang sewajarnya terhadap pihak yang membuat kenyataan dan melaporkan kenyataan fitnah tersebut.

PI Bala was in town, now on Youtube

A private investigator who made shocking allegations of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s links with Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, appears to have freedom of movement in the country despite being ‘wanted’ by the authorities.

P Balasubramaniam spoke to Malaysiakini in a brief phone conversation last month confirming that he returned from exile early last month for several weeks to attend to family matters.

The former police special branch officer also confirmed that he had been in and out of the country several times over the past year.

Balasubramanaim  said the authorities were aware of his presence in the country but was unafraid, adding that “they should fear me” due to the information he possesses.

He indicated a willingness to speak in a formal interview, but on the scheduled date, he was unreachable. It is believed that he had again gone into exile in India with his entire family.

Last year, Balasubramaniam stunned the nation when, in a statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008, he alleged that Najib was sexually involved with Altantuya.

His statutory declaration also claimed that prosecutors and the police were ordered to remove evidence linking Najib to Altantuya’s murder.

Youtube video

This statutory declaration was read out at a press conference on July 3, but he recanted and retracted it, substituting it with another one the following day under strange circumstances.

He then fled the country with his family on July 5 and was never seen in public again, until yesterday when he appeared in an online video interview on popular video sharing website Youtube [Click here for link].

In the interview, Balasubramaniam alleged that he was offered RM5 million by one ‘Deepak’ to retract his first statutory declaration.

Rolling text on the video suggests that ‘Deepak’ was linked to first lady Rosmah Mansor and that the interviewed was conducted on Oct 27 in the presence of three Malaysian lawyers.

It is unsure who conducted the interview, believed to have taken place somewhere in India, but it was indicated that the clip was merely the first in a series with Balasubramaniam.

The 90-second video was posted by a user under the name c4productionhouse, which was responsible for a posting a series of interviews with fugitive blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin and a series of videos condemning Rosmah. Mkini

More to come!! Part One – On Video The Return of Bala, the Missing PI: PI Bala reiterates his first SD and says he was offered RM5 million to retract it

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Bala: ” Deepak datang berjumpa saya kerana beliau mahu saya menarik balik kenyataan bersumpah saya. Beliau minta saya pergi ke Putrajaya bersamanya tetapi tidak memberitahu siapa yang akan kami akan jumpa, selepas itu dia menawarkan RM5mil kepada saya untuk menarik balik kenyataan bersumpah saya”

PI Bala surfaces to drop Bombshell 3

MISSING private investigator P. Balasubramaniam  has broken his 15-month silence, claiming that Prime Minister Najib Razak’s younger brother, Nazim, met and threatened him into withdrawing his first statutory declaration.

Bala alleged that carpet businessman Deepak Jaikishan, an aide of the Prime Minister’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, instructed him to meet Nazim on the day he made public his statutory declaration.

He said the first statutory declaration in which he claimed that Najjib had a relationship with murdered Mongolian model Altantuya Shariibuu, a lover of the Prime Minister’s associate Abdul Razak Baginda, was true.

But he withdrew it and signed a second declaration after he was taken to see Nazim at the Curve in Damansara on July 3 2008 when he was told by the Prime Minister’s architect brother to “follow instructions if he loves his family.”

According to Bala, the specific instruction to him was to withdraw the July 3^rd statutory declaration and leave Malaysia immediately.

Hours after that meeting, Bala signed a second statutory declaration which was prepared for him and later issued to the media.

He and his family were then taken by road to Singapore before being flown to Thailand and and Nepal and eventually to India, where he has been hiding since.

Bala gave the startling account of the alleged threats made by Nazim in a tell all interview done overseas which concluded with him saying:  “As a family man, I want to have a normal life. I want to put a stop to all this. ”

FreeMalaysiaToday was provided with excerpts of the interview done in the presence of three lawyers including Bala’s.

In the hour long interview, Bala gave an account of money allegedly promised by Deepak, whose orders Nazim told him to follow.

He claimed Deepak offered him a RM4 to RM5 million deal to sign the second statutory declaration retracting his allegation against Najib, and to remain overseas until Najib was installed as Prime Minister.

In the course of their conversations, Bala said Deepak related to him how he came to know Rosmah and even offered to arrange a breakfast meeting with the Prime Minister’s wife.

“(Deepak said) I can come back to Malaysia after Najib become the PM.  (Also) he will make arrangements to have breakfast with Rosmah (for her to ) thank me ,” for retracting the first SD, Bala added.

However, no breakfast meeting took place with Rosmah, and Bala said he never received the RM5million sweetener promised to him.

Although Najib’s smooth ascension to power took place as scheduled in April this year, Bala saw little to suggest that he would be allowed to return to Malaysia to lead a normal life with his family.

Bala said Deepak gave him about RM750,000 in total to cover expenses for him and his family during their stay overseas. The money was mostly banked into his account with cheques issued by Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd, of which Deepak is a director.

Another revealation by Bala was his meeting with a Malaysian Police Special Branch team which tracked him to Bangkok in July last year.

Bala said the officer in charge of the Special Branch team, ASP Muniandy, asked him which of the two statutory declarations was true.

“ I told him the first SD was the true SD. Then he just shook my hand and said ‘You are really brave,’” Bala quoted Muniandy as saying.

He said the police team then proceeded to record a statement from him for nearly seven hours on the contents of the first statutory declaration and events leadings to the release of the document.

Given the circumstances of fear and continued harrassment against him and his family, Bala indicated he wanted to start his life   afresh overseas with his family rather than returning to Malaysia as long as Najib and his people were in power.

Efforts to contact Nazim and Deepak were unsuccessful. Free Malaysia Today

Berita yg selalu disorok oleh media perdana: Sri Gading tempelak menteri pengangkutan sekali lagi, minta Sprm siasat menteri dari A ke Z

ACA had cleared Anwar of ‘RM3 bil bank account’ & SD from the former ACA officer

Former ACA director of investigations Abdul Razak Idris told the High Court today he had cleared Anwar Ibrahim of allegations of stashing RM3 billion in foreign accounts and having foreign links to Western interests.

Abdul Razak, 60, who is now retired but a director of several companies, said ACA had investigated the matter following allegations made in a statutory declaration by former assistant governor of Bank Negara Abdul Murad Khalid.

He said a team of ACA officers went to Singapore and United Kingdom to probe the allegations.

“We went to meet Murad and several British witnesses. But the investigations resulted in ‘No case’ against Anwar pertaining to allegations made in Murad’s statutory declaration.”

“Further, I concluded that the allegations contained in the SD (statutory declaration) were baseless and unsustainable, and I consequently ordered that the investigations be closed.”

Murad signed the statutory declaration on Oct 29, 1999 – about one month after Anwar was arrested following his sacking as deputy prime minister in early September that year.

In the declaration, Murad claimed there were 20 master accounts established for Anwar by his cronies and believed the amount to be more than RM3 billion.

Abdul Razak, who was the second witness called after Anwar, then submitted his own statutory declaration on the matter and tendered it in court.

The former top ACA investigator was testifying in a RM100 million defamation suit by Anwar against New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd and its former group editor-in-chief, Abdullah Ahmad.

The alleged defamatory article, ‘Anwar’s link to US lobbyist’, was published on March 2, 2002.

The opposition leader filed the suit on July 4, 2003, where the NSTP article was based on another article – ‘The Bush Administration’s dubious envoy to Taiwan’ – that was published in the political weekly magazine New Republic’s March 2002 issue.

Abdul Razak told the court on being cross-examined by NSTP’s lead counsel Nad Segaram that he had directed the investigations following the allegations made by Murad. He admitted he did not carry out the probe himself.

Abdul Razak said he went to Singapore to interview Murad, as well as to the United Kingdom to interview two European witnesses. However, he admitted he did not go to the United States or direct investigations to be conducted there.

He said he also directed investigations on one Douglas H Paal, who headed the Asia Pacific Policy Centre (APPC), a United States lobbyist group, following Murad’s allegations.

However, Abdul Razak said he did not meet or interview Paal, or directed the ACA to go to the US as he found it unnecessary.

The witness said after the ACA completed investigations, a copy of its findings was handed to the senior federal counsel in the attorney-general’s chambers.

Responding to a question from Karpal during re-examination, Abdul Razak said after handing over the papers, and holding discussions, he and AG’s chambers found there was no case against the former deputy premier.

Anwar: Article affected his dignity and standing

Anwar said the defamatory article made him out to be a person with no integrity, morals and dignity, bereft of principles; disloyal to Malaysia, dishonest; a corrupt and untrustworthy leader and politician.

“It also suggested that I am an American agent and a person who has abused my position for my personal gains. I felt defamed by these paragraphs and in the full context of the entire article.

“It had exposed me to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the minds of reasonable men,” he said, adding that he could not defend himself then as he was imprisoned in Sungai Buloh in 2002.

Asked by Karpal whether he challenged the veracity of the article, Anwar said he had challenged the Malaysian government, the prime minister and cabinet to conduct an independent inquiry into the said allegations made by Murad, and into the wealth of the present and former leaders.

“I also made a clarion call to the authorities to investigate the same and also demanded the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry into all allegations contained in Murad’s statutory declaration. In fact, Murad had also publicly denied free consent to the statutory declaration,” the opposition leader said.

Anwar, who is also Permatang Pauh MP said he filed the action as the article contained false and baseless allegations against him, and he complained about the 10 paragraphs containing the defamatory words.

“The article is a scurrilous attack on my character. I was in prison. Newspapers owned by Umno and the ruling alliance were used to attack me and my character.”

“I am defenceless because the newspapers would not even carry a word of my denial. This said article is just one in a series of character assassination against me,” he said.

Cross-examined by Nad, Anwar said the Prime Minister’s office then, along with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), had established ties with APPC to establish better rapport with Asia Pacific leaders and in particular from the US.

“APPC along with ISIS (was) tasked is to invite US congress leaders to come to a series of dialogues here,” he said.

These events, the opposition leader said, would be officiated by the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and not by him. “I knew my place,” he quipped in responding to a question by Nad.

Anwar admitted he knew Paal and agreed that the APPC head had ran an article favouring him (Anwar) following his arrest in 1998 by the government.

“It was not only him who had written such articles on me but there are hundreds of articles in Arabic and Chinese. This is just one of them,” he said.

Article was based on New Republic

Rose Ismail, formerly the New Straits Times managing editor, who wrote the article said she had based it on an article that was published on the New Republic article.

“I found the magazine to be a reputable publication when I was doing a Masters in Journalism at Boston University in 1984. I have continued to subscribe to it as it contained stories of substance.

She agreed she did not contact Anwar to verify the facts as her intention was merely to highlight the New Republic article, and that the NST article did not carry her name as the article was based on another report.

“It was not an article that carried my own views or comments on the subject matter of the same. In circumstances where an article is based on another article that has already been published, it was not always the practise of the NSTP to set out the name of the author of the article.

Cross-examined by Karpal, Rose agreed the article contains serious allegations made against Anwar and she agreed she did check and speak to people before writing it.

Rose however admitted she did not speak with Anwar as he was in prison and that she did not attempt to contact him through Anwar’s lawyers.

Karpal: It could possibly have been done

Rose: Possibly

Karpal: Did you verify its contents with Murad or with Paal?

Rose: I could not locate Murad or Paal, I tried to look at the APPC website for contact details but it was not possible.

Karpal: So you ran the report without verifying the truth of the article

Rose: I would say I did, I (verified) through earlier reports including from the US congressional website based on its hearing and reports.

Karpal: You make allegations recklessly without taking steps to verify the truth?

Rose: I disagree as all (matters) is within the public sphere.

The hearing continues before Judicial Commissioner Harmindar Singh Dhaliwall for submissions.

Mkini

SD by former ACA officer cleared Anwar of RM3bil bank account:

img-Y11114751

RPK discharged but not acquitted over sedition: Kah!Kah!Kah! caya sama polis di Malaysia

Blogger Raja Petra Raja Kamarudin, who is charged with sedition, was given a discharge not amounting to acquittal by the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court today because the police could not trace him.

Judge Rozina Ayub, in making the order, said it was most embarrassing for all the parties concerned that the prosecution had failed to serve the warrant of arrest on Raja Petra, as a result of which a discharge had to be given and the case was left hanging and without an ending.

“This case cannot proceed. It’s a pity because the prosecution had called seven witnesses,” she said.

Rozana also ordered that a notice be served on Raja Petra’s wife, Marina, to show cause why she should not forfeit the RM5,000 bail that she had posted.

“The bailor in this case, namely his wife, has to come to court to explain his absence, or forfeit the bail,” she said.

Three postponements

Earlier, deputy public prosecutor Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar informed the court that the police had failed to trace Raja Petra till today.

The court had expected the case to be disposed of by end of next month and the prosecution had lined up at least eight witnesses. However, Raja Petra went missing after seven witnesses were called.

The court subsequently gave three postponements – on May 22, July 17 and a final one on Oct 12 to enable the prosecution and police to trace him.

On May 6 last year, Raja Petra, 60, pleaded not guilty to posting seditious words relating to an article in his web site www.malaysia-today.net on April 25 last year.

- Bernama/Mkini

Lingam is not ‘legally clean’: We found out that Lingam had actually written a judgment for a particular judge and that he had gone on a trip to New Zealand with another judge.

There are no takers for a minister’s claim that lawyer VK Lingam ‘has not breached any specific law’ in the alleged brokering of judicial appointments.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz had yesterday defended the government’s decision not to take action, although he conceded that Lingam’s actions could be deemed ‘morally wrong’.

In 2007, a royal commission of inquiry into the ‘Lingam tape’ case had recommended investigations against Lingam  and several high-profile personalities under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and Penal Code for obstructing justice.

The matter was also referred to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), but it has closed the file on the ground that it could not locate key witnesses.

The decision has not gone down well, as the following reactions reveal.

Edmund Bon, chairperson, constitutional law committee, Bar Council

The royal commission has already decided that several laws were breached. Therefore Nazri’s statement is not correct. It is unthinkable that a commission picked by the Agong could have been wrong.

Public perceptions would be towards the royal commission’s findings as these would appear to be more transparent compared to the MACC report.

We should still charge him (Lingam) under corruption, and follow the recommendations of the commission.

The Bar Council is in the process of proceeding with disciplinary action against Lingam and so far, (several) witnesses have come forward (to help with the) investigation.

Andrew Khoo, co-chairperson, human rights committee, Bar Council

If (the actions have) the potential to undermine the judiciary, then he (Lingam) should be charged under the Sedition Act.

Although the Bar Council’s official position is that it is against the Sedition Act, undermining the integrity of the judiciary seems to fit squarely with conduct that is seditious. The government seems to be happy to use the Act against people like (lawyer and DAP national chairperson) Karpal Singh.

Nazri  cannot say that what Lingam did is within the law because brokering the appointment of judges implies that there are rewards to the broker, be it monetary or otherwise.

If Lingam brokered the appointments, it would suggest that he did it for some gain. A distinction should be made between lobbying and brokering.

Prof Khoo Kay Kim, member of the ‘Lingam tape’ royal commission

Our findings have been published. There was evidence to suggest that Lingam had committed offences. For example, we found out that Lingam had actually written a judgment for a particular judge and that he had gone on a trip to New Zealand with another judge.

Unfortunately the Executive is so powerful that it can interfere with the role of the judiciary. And the Lingam case is an example of how the Executive has usurped the power of the judiciary.

With regards to the MACC decision to not proceed with its investigation, how do we know that it is telling the truth?

Ultimately, (this matter) will go back to the people and the sovereignty that lies within the people. Unfortunately we can only decide once every five years.

Ustaz Idris Ahmad, PAS information chief

PAS feels that Nazri’s answer in Parliament yesterday – that Lingam has not committed any offence – is illogical. It shows that the enforcement and justice system in the country is in turmoil.

Nazri agreed that the person in the video clip is Lingam, but that he assumes Lingam is (only) boasting and showing off his influence.

This answer is unacceptable because, during the inquiry, Lingam had said that the video clip showed someone that looks like him and sounds like him, but is not him.

Therefore, we have two different facts with regard to Lingam’s identity. This has to be proven in a court of law.

PAS also feels that the royal commission’s recommendations for an investigation against the other individuals implicated have been neglected. No official report has been made. Nazri’s answer is filled with assumptions alone and has let Lingam off easily.

This case should be investigated with care. The parliamentary reply seems to have disregarded 100 percent the royal commission’s recommendation for further investigations to be conducted.

PAS would like the case to be investigated immediately and taken to the court. This is a chance for the MACC, the police and judiciary to improve their image, as they have lost the trust of the people.

Christine Chan/Mkini

Lingam case: Opposition presents ‘key witness’

Opposition MP R Sivarasa brought Jayanthi LG Naidu, who is said to be the ‘key witness’ sought by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in the VK Lingam case, to Parliament today.

This was to disprove Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz’s statement yesterday that MACC could not contact a key witness in the probe.

Nazri had said that further investigations into the matter cannot be undertaken by the MACC as the key witness could not be located.

Hence, the anti-graft body had classified the case as ‘no further action’.

Jayanthi however claimed that she has been available to assist MACC in their investigations at all times.

“The ACA (now MACC) have at all times been able to contact me earlier for my statement…

“After the announcement (written reply) by Nazri on Oct 23 (that no action would be taken), I called and asked the MACC who the key witness was that they were looking for.

“They were unable to answer me,” she told reporters at Parliament. Mkini

Interview with Bangkok-based French journalist Arnaud Dubus: Pic Linking jibby to Altantuya “Missing” under police nose

TEN months after his explosive investigative piece on the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaaribuu, Bangkok-based French journalist Arnaud Dubus gave Free Malaysia Today’s Sara Celestine an update on the scandal which has dragged down the good name of Najib Razak. In the 45-minute interview, Dubus, who wrote the article for French newspaper Liberation, admitted that the trail connecting the Prime Minister to Altantuya had gone cold. The 46-year-old journalist of 20 years believed the only evidence – a photograph – linking Najib to the dead Mongolian beauty would never be found.  Here are excerpts from the interview.

 

 

It has been 10 months since you wrote the article. How come there has been no follow-up story from you?

There’s no follow up to my article because I could not find any new element to the story.

In Malaysia, there are allegations – especially from pro-Najib bloggers – that you were paid by pro-Anwar Ibrahim people to write the story.

I’ve read that there was a conspiracy initiated by me, Anwar and the Rothschild family (which owns Liberation). It was really kind of funny. But seriously, there is no such conspiracy.

I heard about (Altantuya’s murder) when I was in Malaysia at the end of 2008 to write an article on affirmative action in Malaysia and Malaysian politics. And I thought it was a great story for a French newspaper because it had all the elements of a good article – French weapon company, corruption, politics, sex, Mongolian lady and murder.

After checking I found that no French journalists did any (intensive) investigation of it. Most of the stories were second hand, from news agencies. And I thought I should investigate the story extensively by going to Mongolia, Malaysia and France. I discussed with my newspaper and it agreed.

At that point, I contacted Anwar’s people and I told them that I was interested in writing that story. They sort of did not encourage me to work on it. They told me they’ve been trying to find something but they could not find anything and thought that I would not find anything.

So I work on the story for three months, going to Mongolia and meeting Altantuya’s family and friends and people in Malaysia. In the course of this investigation I was given this police report by somebody who I don’t want to mention the name. Not somebody involved in politics.

And this report (written by one of the Altantuya’s convicted murderers, Sirul Omar, a Special Branch officer) was actually introduced in the court but it was never published (by the media). And I thought this was an element which would make my story more interesting.

There’s talk on the Internet that you have been quiet since the article appeared because you have been paid by the anti-Anwar people?

No, they have a lot of imagination. What can I say?

However, I was a bit surprised by the stir my story created. I was not expecting the story to have a big impact in Malaysia.

From your investigation, is there any evidence that Najib is linked to Altantuya’s murder?

I’m not sure what you call evidence, but I think that everybody notices the elements that are linking Najib to Altantuya.

First is this photograph, which has been described by Shaaribuu Setev, the father of Altantuya.  He has seen the photograph of Najib, Abdul Razak Baginda and Altantuya in Paris as his daughter showed it to him.

And Altantuya’s best friend, Amy, also saw the photograph. And she can remember quite well when Altantuya explained who was who in the picture. Amy asked Altantuya who was this guy (in the photograph) and Altantuya said “he was the prime minister.” Actually around that time Najib was Deputy Prime Minister, but (clearly Altantuya was referring) to Najib.

This photograph was given to Mongolia’s Honorary Consul in Malaysia, Datuk Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi, who gave it to the Malaysian police and then it sort of vanished.

Altantuya also gave documents to the Honorary Consul who gave them to the police and these documents also vanished.

The second element is the statutory declaration of P. Balasubramaniam (a private investigator hired by Abdul Razak to deal with Altantuya in 2006 when she started ‘harassing’ him).

But one thing that I have to say is Altantuya has never mentioned to her family and friends that she had an intimate relationship with Najib. Maybe she wanted to hide … but the fact is she never mentioned any intimate relationship with Najib.

Can the missing photograph be found?

Well, the photograph was given to the Malaysian police; so if we want to check where was the pix somebody has to go to the Malaysian police and the one who can do it is the Honorary Consul as he was the one who gave it to them.

Unfortunately Altantuya’s father is a down-to-earth man who trusts people easily. He really trusted this Honorary Consul. And he gave him all the documents without making any copy which I thought was very naive. And everything vanished.

I think the photograph will never be found because it is too incriminating. It is just too sensitive.

Why is this photograph important?

It is important because Najib has always denied that he knew Altantuya. He has sworn on the Quran that he has never met this woman. If the photograph is found, it would contradict him and that would be very embarrassing.

There’s a report that you are going to do a movie on Altantuya’s murder?

No, no, no. It is not correct.  I’m not involved in any movie.

When I went to Mongolia (in February 2009) Altantuya’s father mentioned that he has been contacted by several movie companies to make a movie about his daughter. And he said he did not want to give his support yet as he considered that the story was not finished. He can only cooperate with movie makers only after he considers the case closed.

From your investigation of the submarine deal between the Malaysian government and the French company, do you think corruption was involved?

Yes, the fact that a deputy minister in the Malaysian parliament admitted that a commission was given by the French company to Perimekar.

Tell us about your experience investigating the Altantuya murder.

One thing which is a bit shocking, I think, especially from Razak Baginda – because with Najib we don’t know how closely he was involved with Altantuya – who was with her for several years. He has not done anything to help her family. From a purely human viewpoint, he should do something to help the family.

I knew Razak Baginda because when I was going to Malaysia he was one of the people I interviewed because he was with the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre. I don’t know him well, but I have interviewed him four or five times and I am quite disappointed with his behaviour (of not supporting Altantuya).

Free Malaysia  Today

MB slams mca rep over ‘cow head’ protest – Dare mca to have balls to chide umno for taken the lead in the protest

The ‘cow head’ demonstration which stunned the nation was raised during the Selangor state legislative assembly sitting today, with Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim taking a MCA rep to task.

Khalid chided Sungai Pelek assemblyperson Yap Eee Wah for appearing as if he was in the dark as to who organised the demonstration in August.

The menteri besar however refused to name those involved in the demonstration, which made news the world over.

The the proposal to relocate a Hindu temple in Shah Alam saw Muslim residents opposing the move in the demonstration held outside the state secretariat building.

The demonstrators brought along the severed head of a cow, which they kicked and spat on. The cow is considered sacred by Hindus.

Responding to Yap’s oral question on what measures have been taken to ensure such an incident does not recur, Khalid said he has met with the parties involved.

The menteri besar said the state government’s efforts to restore ties between the races following the incident was however ‘impeded’ by these parties.

“Sungai Pelek knows who were involved, not in helping to resolve the problem, but rather in worsening the situation,” he added when debating the motion on the state budget. Mkini

Anwar issues ultimatum to PKR leaders

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has issued an ultimatum to party leaders and elected representatives – toe the line or leave the party.

Stressing that they should be loyal to the party, the parliamentary opposition leader also pointed out to PKR divisional leaders, assemblypersons and parliamentarians that they should always adhere to party policies.

“A person shall not think that he or she would be leaders and elected representatives forever,” he warned while opening the Penang PKR convention in Komtar Dome, Georgetown last night.

“You must deliver, reach out to the people and adhere to the party’s reform principles and policies. Otherwise, you will be sacked from the party.”

Anwar said that while certain criticisms against the party leaders and elected representatives were acceptable, he would not compromise when it came to those refusing to follow the stipulated party policies.

“If you cannot do that, then leave and join Umno,” he told the PKR crowd.

Anwar said the stance was taken as there were many PKR leaders who wanted stern action taken against errant members.

He also gave a stern warning to grassroots leaders who wanted to be division chief, parliamentarian, state representative and councillor – all at the same time.

“If this is the case, go form your own party … then you can hold all the positions,” said Anwar, the Permatang Pauh parliamentarian.

According to Anwar, party leaders and elected representatives should not become arrogant and forget that they were sitting in their current positions because of the people’s support.

“The people are the ultimate judges in deciding our political fate. We shall never forget them,” he said.

Pro-BN Hindraf leaders slammed

He also accused certain Indian Malaysian leaders of being Umno stooges in hijacking the spirit of Hindraf, or Hindu Rights Action Force.

Pointing out that Makkal Sakthi (people’s power) was Pakatan Rakyat’s battle cry in the last general election, he accused these Umno-sponsored Indian leaders for usurping the “spirit of Hindraf” for their own selfish gains.

“I would like to tell to them that I am Malay and Muslim leader who will fight for Indian interests and defend Hindu rights,” he said drawing applause.

Anwar also touched on the PAS national seminar yesterday, saying party president Abdul Hadi Awang had vowed that the Islamist party was fully committed to Pakatan.

“Hadi has made it clear that PAS rejects Umno,” said Anwar.

Athi Shankar/Mkini

Pas tetap komit bersama Pakatan Rakyat

Rumah baru ketua bahagian umno Bkt Bendera, ahmad ismail berharga RM3.5mil

Ahmad Ismail, Umno Bukit Bendera division chief proved to be more than stealth when it come to breaking the local council law. Just recently he bought a 3 stories house valued at about RM3.5Mil at Sanctuary garden in Batu Uban & renovated it without submitting any new building plan to the local council.

The resident association has tried to call on Ahmad Ismail to discuss about the renovation that would affect the approval of strata title & the uniformity of their houses in the exclusive housing estate but their afford were futile.

They then upon checking with Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang found that no plan was submitted by him for approval. The RA then lodge a report with MPPP in order for it to investigate & take the necessary actions set by law against him. It has being about several month since the report was lodge but it seems like the MPPP is not doing anything about the matter.

According to a resident in Sanctuary garden, the housing project was less than two years old & it still has not obtained the strata title, thus when Ahmad Ismail renovated his house by adding a new extension, it has altered the original building plan & as a result the strata title may not be approved by MPPP.

“What is MPPP going to do against Ahmad Ismail who blatantly ignore the rule set by local council?” query the resident who wanted to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal.

The resident further added that it’s conceivable for the state government or the local council not to take any action against Ahmad Ismail if the state government is still helmed by previous administration because it’s widely known that the Bukit Bendera Umno chief was holding ransom against the ex-CM Koh Tsu Koon for the support of Umno members & Malay community in Tsu Koon’s constituency of Tg Bungah which is part of Bukit Bendera.

But now, the state government & local council is under the Cat government of Dap, to which it baffled the residents.

Why no action is taken against him who was an MPPP ex-councilor himself?

Ahmad Ismail is notorious for calling the non Malay Pendatang or immigrant during the Permatang Pauh by election leading to the arrest of a female journalist under ISA & tearing of Koh Tsu Koon pictures by his supporters in front of reporters. He is also the main crony involved in the PORR project & according to the news report he was the very reason the project was vehemently opposed by Dap leadership including their advisor Lim Kit Siang. But it’s seems like he has acquired a new stealth within the Cat local council & is untouchable as proven by the inaction of the state administration so far.

The extension of the new wing of Ahmad Ismail’s newly renovated house in Batu Uban.

Another view of Ahmad Ismail’s RM3.5mil house.

Hujah Bernas MP Kuala Selangor: Bajet 2010 jibby Altantuya – panjang rhetorik, isi kosong

jiwokelate2009

Bukan sahaja media perdana tidak akan siarkan, tetapi kementerian pun tidak berani jawap: Rakaman video Soalan dari Khalid Samad berkenaan demo kepala lembu

Berita tak akan masuk dalam akhbar milik bn: Rakaman video jibby Altantuya yg berbohong terpaksa berselindung dlm seluar dalam speaker utk mengelak drp dirujuk ke JK Hak dan Kebebasan

Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan kes MB vs MB Perak telah disusun atur: Lihat berita ini – Double-tracking project the next PKFZ? The major stakeholders of Gamuda and MMC are Raja Datuk Seri Eleena Sultan Azlan Shah and Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary respectively.

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani, MI

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5 — With former Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy implicated in the Port Klang Free Trade (PKFZ) scandal yesterday, will the RM6 billion double-tracking project be the next?

The Public Accounts Committee yesterday recommended that Chan and former Port Klang Authority (PKA) general manager Datin Paduka O.C. Phang to be investigated for criminal breach of trust in the PKFZ scandal.

According to the report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), it said the project outlay of RM4.947 billion will go up to RM7.453 billion due to interest payments and PKA must restructure the loan or it will balloon to RM12.453 billion by 2051.

But PAC also recently announced that it was planning to investigate the RM6 billion double-tracking project, after recent revelations that the project has been managed poorly, resulting in losses amounting to more than RM1 billion so far.

According to this year’s audit report, the government may have to bear part of the RM1.14 billion loss in the 179km double-tracking rail contract between Rawang and Ipoh as the project was poorly managed.

But Chan told the PAC that the double-tracking project is “three times the size” of PKFZ.

“No, it is not the biggest (project under the Ministry of Transport). Double-tracking project is much bigger. It is 12 almost 13 billion? It is three times the size of this project (PKFZ).

“We are talking only the northern, the southern part is almost four billion,” he said in his testimony to PAC on PKFZ.

The Rawang to Ipoh (southern) double-tracking and electrification project was completed in 2008 while the Ipoh to Padang Besar portion was proposed in 2002 as a continuation of the existing tracks.

In 2003, former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that the government had decided to postpone the project which drew heavy criticism from his predecessor Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

However, the project was revived when then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that the Cabinet Committee on Public Transport had decided to revive the shelved northern section double-tracking project in 2007.

Dr Mahathir had said the cancellation was a wastage of public funds.

“When the double-tracking and electrification of the railway from Johor Baru to Padang Besar was proposed the lowest proposal cost RM14 billion and would take six years to build. Roughly the government would need RM2 billion a year for the project. It could be started in 2004.

“But upon taking over the Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi government decided to postpone it for some reason or other, although Abdullah had promised the former prime minister to go ahead with the project.

“Now the government has found that there is a need to go ahead. Unfortunately the cost has gone up. To build the double tracks and electrification of the portion from Ipoh to Padang Besar alone would cost RM12 billion, an increase of roughly 50 per cent or roughly RM7 billion if the line from Johor Baru to Padang Besar is to be constructed (as it must),” he wrote in his blog on June 24, 2008.

The project was awarded to Gamuda Berhad and MMC Corporation Berhad.

The major stakeholders of Gamuda and MMC are Raja Datuk Seri Eleena Sultan Azlan Shah and Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary respectively.

Rakaman Video MP Lembah Pantai bidas ocpd Brickfield & agensi kerajaan Persekutuan jadi barua untuk menumpaskan kerajaan Pakatan negeri Selangor serta lain2 bahas

jiwokelate2009

Rakaman Video Diskusi Belanjawan 2010: Anwar Ibrahim

Who will hear Nizar’s case tomorrow?

Ousted Perak Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin’s final appeal at the Federal Court tomorrow will be closely watched as the reputation of the judiciary is at stake.

Speculations are rife if Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Richard Malanjum and highly-respected judge Justice Gopal Sri Ram may be on the bench.

This is because out of the 13 Federal Court judges, Malanjum and Gopal, along with recently elevated judge Justice Heliliah Mohd Yusoff have not taken part at all in the Perak case.

Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, along with recently elevated Justice Md Raus Sharif, who were part of the three-member bench at the Court of Appeal, that overturned the decision in favour of Zambry Abdul Kadir as the menteri besar, are not expected to be part of the panel to hear this appeal.

Zaki had said in the past that he is keeping himself out from handling political cases, owing the fact that he was Umno’s legal advisor.

That leaves 11 judges to be selected to the bench tomorrow. However, the apex court can call or promote judges from the Court of Appeal as part of the panel as has been practised in the past.

Mohd Nizar had applied for a full bench of 11 judges to hear the appeal that he hopes could end the Perak political imbroglio.

President of Court of Appeal Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria have been permanent features in handling all Perak cases that comes before the Federal Court.

Certainly, impartiality, along with justice and fairness are important characteristics needed when hearing the case as outlined by Mohd Nizar in his affidavit in support of a full bench.

And certainly, to show impartiality, judges who have not played a role in any part of the Perak matter will be seen to have this characteristic.

Sri Ram delivered Metramac judgement

Sri Ram (right), who was the most senior judge in the Court of Appeal prior to his elevation earlier this year, is scheduled to retire in about six months.

He is known for his bold and reputed judgment in the Vincent Tan vs MGG Pillai case.

His judgments are highly respected and have been used as guidelines for the lower courts.

One of his well-known judgments was in the Metramac case where in his decision, he implicated corporate figure Abdul Halim Saad, and former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin, in having to pay damages to Fawziah Holdings Sdn Bhd.

Sri Ram remains a highly respected judge who is not only held in high regard by lawyers but the public as well.

Malanjum lone dissenter in Lina Joy case

The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, who is the youngest to be appointed to the post, is seen as one of the better judges who is not only sharp but delivers excellent writen judgments.

Justice Malanjum was the only dissenting judge on the apex court who sat in the controversial Lina Joy conversion case.

Many have commended his reasons and basis to dissent the majority judgment that ruled that Lina had to go to the Syariah Court to renounce Islam.

He had ruled to allow Lina to change the status of her religion in her identity card, as she could not get legal recourse in the Syariah Court.

Mohd Nizar in a press statement on the eve of his case is hoping that the presiding judges selected for his case are well versed in constitutional law.

Judiciary’s reputation at stake

“At a time when the reputation of the judiciary is being questioned, the public expects a fair trial,” said Nizar.

“I venture to suggest certain judges have been conspicuous by their absence although they are eminently qualified. Why have they been sidelined?

“The best way to convince the public that the hearing tomorrow is a fair one is to ensure that all Federal Court Judges sit on that day as this case is of national importance,” he added.

He said public perception is that justice must be seen to be done.

Besides the judges mentioned above, the other federal court judges are justices S Augustine Paul, Hashim Yusoff, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Ghazali Mohd Yusoff, James Foong and Abdul Hamid Embong.

There will be five judges, identities yet unknown, who will first hear Mohd Nizar’s application for a full bench.

Humayun Kabir & Hafiz Yatim/Mkini

umno bn Dalangi Tindakan JAIS – Khalid Samad

Don’t play with syariah laws: Anwar to Umno

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said that the arrest of former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin is an indication that syariah law is becoming politicised.

“The Umno leadership is trying to make it seem that they are very Islamic and will not compromise… but if they are playing with the syariah law, then we have a problem in our country,” the PKR leader told reporters at the Parliament lobby.

According to Anwar, being a former mufti, Asri’s qualifications are not questionable, and this kind of action has also been taken against many other PAS and PKR leaders.

He added that he has spoken to Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim on the matter, and has recommended that it be brought to the attention of the Sultan.

“We understand that the Selangor Islamic Department (Jais) is not under his (Khalid’s) jurisdiction. However, I have requested that he seek an explanation for the arrest, and if required, to present his findings…to the Sultan,” he said.

Commenting on the further postponement of his sodomy trial to Nov 23, Anwar said that this was on the suggestion of both the prosecution and defence.

Anwar said the prosecution is causing the delay by appealing against the High Court’s ruling to hand over documents relating to the case, including the medical report, to the defence team.

“If the prosecution, on the instructions of Umno, insists that I am in the wrong, then just provide me with the documents and continue with the trial,” he said.

We made a mistake with Badrul

Speaking about Port Klang state assemblyperson Badrul Hisham’s decision to quit PKR, Anwar again admitted that there are flaws in PKR’s selection process.

“We admit that the selection process before March 8 (has caused us) to choose those who did not show worthy performance and qualification. We were still new and I apologise for this weakness,” he conceded.

Anwar shared that he had a meeting with Badrul to discuss his performance and absence from the state assembly sittings about seven months ago.

“At the time I noticed he had personal problems. I advised him to resolve his problems and improve his performance. I viewed his situation with some sympathy,” he said.

He added that PKR candidates now undergo training, are reviewed and assessed, and that those fielded in the future will be those who are qualified and have a good track record of performance.

Aidila Razak & S Pathmawathy/Mkini

Lagi berita yg bn & media perdana tidak mahu Rakyat tahu – gabungan bn terus kecoh: Menteri tinggal di banglo, Rakyat Sabah tinggal di tandas banglo & Menteri KPI tidak tahu Kebelakangan atau Kalabakan

jiwokelate2009