jibby Altantuya, bro must come clean on PI’s allegations

Karpal Singh has called on Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his younger brother Nazim to set the record straight with regards to the recent revelations related to private investigator P Balasubramaniam.

“The allegations are serious in nature and should be answered. Najib must answer. His silence would be seen as an admission of guilt,” the senior lawyer said.

Karpal, who is also DAP national chairperson, had previously represented Shaariibuu Setev, the father of slain Mongolian national Altantuya.

Last week, Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang, said Najib should stop ignoring the allegations of his involvement in the gruesome murder.

In interviews appearing on the internet, Balasubramaniam maintained that his first statutory declaration, which implicated the premier, was correct.

Malaysiakini had also published an interview with his lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu.

‘Push for criminal defamation’

Meanwhile, Karpal said Nazim should “push for criminal defamation” against the private investigator if the allegations were untrue.

“It should not be let off silently. Questions have been raised and they should be answered,” he added.

Describing the latest turn of events as “very disturbing”, Karpal said he also regretted that a molotov cocktail was thrown into lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon’s home on Nov 18.

Manjeet, a former Bar Council chairperson, was the other lawyer besides Americk who witnessed Balasubramaniam’s tape interviews.

Karpal said if the premier and his brother do not clear the air, the allegations would continue to linger on.

Similarly, he said to one Deepak who had also been quoted by Balasubramaniam, must also come out to clarify his position.

Asked if he had informed Shaariibuu of the latest development, Karpal said he had not and would consider the matter in entirety first, before informing his client.

Shaariibuu had filed a RM100 million suit on June 4, 2007, seeking damages over his daughter’s death.

In the statement of claim, the family said her death had caused them mental shock and psychological trauma, entitling them to be compensated with exemplary and aggravated damages.

Hafiz Yatim/Mkini

Ini baru kaki rasuah: Bank Negara probes MB’s RM10 mil fund transfer/Negri Umno warlords seek to unseat MB

The central bank is investigating a local money changer which was allegedly involved in the transfer of RM10 million to London by Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Mohamad Hasan in 2008.

Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) confirmed this yesterday but declined to comment further as investigations are ongoing.

“As part of standard investigating procedures, the bank shall inform the appropriate authorities of any findings which fall beyond the scope of the bank’s purview for their further action.

“Once the investigation is completed, BNM will refer the matter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers,” it said in a statement to Malaysiakini.

Earlier, PKR’s strategy director Tian Chua claimed that Mohd Hasan  could have broken the country’s banking laws by allegedly transferring funds amounting to RM10 million through a money changer.

Tian Chua also revealed that Mohd Hasan had used the services of Salamath Ali Money Changer Sdn Bhd to transfer the amount to London.

Hasan keeping silent

Bank Negara had yesterday said that Salamath Ali had contravened Section 30 of the Money-Changing Act 1998 and its licence had been revoked on Oct 26.

“BNM adheres to rigorous monitoring systems and processes in ensuring that our regulatees and licensees function effectively and responsibly as financial intermediaries in serving the needs of the public,” it said.

Mohd Hasan, who is also Rantau state assemblyperson, came under fire from the opposition during the ongoing state assembly sitting.

However, he kept mum and refused to give an explanation on the matter.

Opposition representatives have also called on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to conduct a probe on the scandal.

Yip Ai Tsin/Mkini

Ignorance no defence for Negri MB in RM10m transfer

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 30 — Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan has found himself in a pickle over his alleged transfer of RM10 million to London, due to the perception that he should have known better than to send the money through a money changer.

The Negeri Sembilan Mentri Besar’s use of a money changer has thrown up a host of questions, most of which involve corruption allegations that the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) — and even his enemies in Umno — are already exploiting.

Mohamad’s predicament has invited comparisons to another Umno politician — Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib, the former Selangor MB — who was caught in Brisbane in 1997 for failing to declare nearly RM4 million worth of Australian dollars.

Muhammad admitted in court later that he had bought several properties worth nearly RM17 million. He was eventually acquitted after he claimed ignorance of Australian laws because he could not understand English.

But Mohamad does not have the same option.

Before he was made Negri Sembilan Mentri Besar in 2004, he was the managing director of Cycle & Carriage.

 

As a major corporate figure, Mohamad is familiar with the laws surrounding money transactions.

The Malaysian Insider reported yesterday that Mohamad is understood to have privately blamed his own staff for making him use the services of a money changer.

But the questions surrounding him now is not just that he used a money changer instead of a bank, where he would have had to make an official declaration, but why he chose the illegal option.

Mohamad, who became mentri besar in 2004, is currently under Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) probe for allegedly transferring funds amounting to RM10 million to London through a money changer, Salamath Ali.

Mohamad’s illegal transaction surfaced because of Bank Negara’s drive to go after hot money sent through Indian-Muslim money changers in the system known as hawala — which financial authorities and even the United Nations had promised to eradicate as a conduit for financing global terrorism and crime.

Mohamad had avoided answering questions about the transaction from DAP lawmaker Anthony Loke in the Negri Sembilan state assembly sitting last week.

But he cannot stay silent for long, now that the knives are out for him in his own party.

Yesterday, The Malaysian Insider reported that Negri Sembilan Umno warlords are using allegations of the illegal money transfer to unseat the unpopular Mohamad.

PR lawmakers are also pressing the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to initiate an investigation.

In 1997, Muhammad was forced to resign as Selangor Mentri Besar after his failure to declare the cash he was carrying surfaced.

Mohamad’s enemies in Umno will want him to do the same as Muhammad, and possibly install the popular Tan Sri Isa Samad as his replacement.

But The Malaysian Insider understands that Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak is not likely to push for his removal.

The original plan was always to have a new MB in Negri Sembilan only after the next general elections.

But both Mohamad and Najib will have to come up with convincing arguments to appease the state’s party warlords and also to avert a potential backlash from the public. MI

Negri Umno warlords seek to unseat MB

By Adib Zalkapli

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 29 — Negri Sembilan Umno warlords are using allegations of an illegal money transfer to unseat the unpopular Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, whose aides denied the mentri besar is under central bank probe.

“We believe that there is no point letting the issue being exploited by the opposition, the leadership must take action, now we are just waiting for the president’s return,” a Negri Sembilan division chief told The Malaysian Insider.

Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak is now attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) 2009 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Mohamad, who became mentri besar in 2004, is currently under Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) probe for allegedly transferring funds amounting to RM10 million to London through a money changer, Salamath Ali.

An aide to Mohamad said the BNM probe has nothing to do with his employer.

“The investigation is against the money changer and not against Datuk,” the aide told The Malaysian Insider.

The Malaysian Insider understands that Mohamad has privately blamed his staff for making him use the services of the money changer.

Pakatan Rakyat’s Batu MP Chua Tian Chang revealed the matter after the central bank said Salamath Ali Money Changer had contravened Section 30 of the Money Changing Act 1998 and its licence had been revoked on Oct 26.

State Umno warlords are making their moves now to prevent the issue from being further exploited by the opposition.

“He is already not liked by 80 per cent of the Umno members here, so this case will not be ignored,” said the division chief.

The state Umno warlord pointed out that despite the blackout by the English and Bahasa Malaysia mainstream press, the issue has found its way to the party grassroots via text messages.

“Umno members in Jempol, Kuala Pilah, Rembau they don’t access the Internet, so initially only civil servants talked about it, later people started sending SMS on ‘kes duit haram MB’,” he said.

Mohamad came under fire from Negri Sembilan opposition leader Loke Siew Fook during the state assembly sitting over the issue but the Rantau assemblyman kept mum and refused to give an explanation.

Opposition lawmakers have also called on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to conduct a probe into the scandal.

Mohamad had also refused to talk about the matter openly at a press conference early this month. MI

Kritikan lantang Isu ancaman sisa radioaktif di Kuantan: MP PKR Kuantan Bahas Bajet 2010 Kem Sumber Asli & Alam Sekitar

jiwokelate2009

Kos beli komputer riba sebanyak RM42,000: Adakah ia termasuk kos duduk atas riba? – MP Pokok Sena

jiwokelate2009

The road to Hajj: Islam in the Land of the Rising Sun & A road to Hajj from China

A road to Hajj from China

AlJazeeraEnglish

Kembalinya Hantu Altantuya: Rakaman perbualan Bala – Deepak beri S$128,000 tunai kepada Bala. Bah 3

Bahagian 1

Bahagian 2

Malaysia Today/c4productionhouse

Two parts in Bala’s SD, explains PI’s lawyer: Razak Baginda had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD

The first statutory declaration signed by controversial private eye P Balasubramaniam consists of two parts – one on what was told to him and the other involves what he personally saw himself.

According to Balasubramaniam’s lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu , the first part involves statements that the private investigator was in a position to ascertain their truth.

“He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.”

This include where Balasubramaniam said he was told about the fact that Najib and murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu had a relationship.

“The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence.”

Examples are the message Balasubramaniam saw on Abdul Razak Baginda’s mobile phone on the day the political analyst was arrested.

The SMS message, purportedly from Najib Abdul Razak, informing Razak Baginda that the then deputy prime minister was “seeing the IGP (inspector-general of police) at 11am that day and to be cool”.

Razak Baginda, known to be Najib’s close confidant, was later freed from the charge of abetting the murder of his former lover Altantuya.

Americk also said that the Altantuya trial raised more questions than answers and where certain evidence was not brought to court.

“As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason. This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.”

The following is the final of a three-part interview:

Malaysiakini: When you recorded Bala’s first SD, did you feel he was telling you the truth?

Americk: I have said this before. I have no reason to doubt the contents of Bala’s first statutory declaration (SD). However, it must be borne in mind that there are actually two parts to Bala’s first SD.

The first part involves statements that Bala says were told to him by third parties. Bala himself cannot verify the truth of these statements. That is why I said at the first press conference that these statements reflect exactly that.

All Bala was saying is that these statements were made to him and that he perceived them with his own senses. He was therefore alluding to the fact that these statements were made to him, but was not alluding to the truth of those statements.

In legal parlance these statements were hearsay and would not be admissible as evidence in a court of law until and unless they could be supported by other independent evidence and even if they were, the weight of this combined evidence is something a judge would have to consider before accepting or rejecting it.

Examples of statements under this category would include the following:

1) That Altantuya had a relationship with Najib.

2) That Razak Baginda was introduced to Altantuya by Najib at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

3) That Altantuya was promised a commission of US$500,000 for her services in the Scorpene submarine deal.

The second part of Bala’s first SD reflects what he experienced himself. This would be not be regarded as hearsay evidence. Examples of these statements include the following:

1) That he had contact with Altantuya on a number of occasions in October 2006.

2) That Razak Baginda hired him to keep Altantuya away from him.

3) That he saw Azilah (Hadri) and Sirul (Azhar Umar) bundle Altantuya into a car outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of Oct 19, 2006.

4) That Altantuya, at that time and place, had asked Bala to arrange for her to see Najib.

5) That Bala had, on Oct 21, 2006, received a call on his mobile phone from Musa (Mohd) Safri whilst he was outside the front gate of Razak Baginda’s house, asking to speak to the police officer who was there attempting to persuade three of Altantuya’s friends to disperse.

6) That Bala had given evidence for the prosecution in the Altantuya murder trial and had not been asked a number of very pertinent questions.

7) That Bala had himself seen a message on Razak Baginda’s mobile phone (the day Razak Baginda was arrested), purportedly from Najib, informing Razak Baginda that he was “seeing the IGP at 11am that day and to be cool”.

It is also pertinent to note that Razak Baginda  had every opportunity of denying all Bala had said in his first SD, at the press conference he called after his acquittal. However, he chose not to say anything except that he had given his statement to the police.

If there is any doubt as to the veracity of Bala’s first SD, this can be tested by comparing it to two other statements recorded from him.

The first statement was recorded by the investigating officers in the Altantuya murder case. This is the statement Bala complained of in his press conference and first SD. He alleged that all ‘sensitive’ information he had given the police was erased from that statement.

The second statement was given to senior federal counsel Sallehuddin (Saidin) just prior to the commencement of Altantuya’s murder trial. It must be remembered Sallehuddin was one of the prosecutors on the first prosecution team but dropped when the second prosecution team was mustered.

According to Bala, this second statement is 76 pages long and details everything that appeared in his first SD.

If the police are really keen in looking into this whole matter again to determine the truth, my suggestion would be to obtain copies of both these statements and compare them to the contents of his first SD. After all, they were prepared by the prosecuting authorities and should be readily available to the police.

What prompted Bala into making the first SD?

As Bala pointed out, he was a little frustrated that the police had not investigated the murder properly and that the prosecution had not conducted their case appropriately. He had been called to give evidence as a prosecution witness but was not asked a number or relevant questions.

He felt the police and the prosecution were trying to cover up the possible involvement of other parties in this murder.

There is no doubt Azilah and Sirul shot Altantuya in the head and blew her body up with C4 explosives. The court has already found them guilty.

There is also available on the Internet a full confession under s.113(1)(a)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, signed by Sirul and dated the 9.11.2006 (Travers report no. 7380/06) in which he has detailed the circumstances in which he and Azilah committed this murder.

There is also a mention of a promise of a reward of RM100,000 for these services. This statement was recorded by one inspector Nom Phot Prack Dit at Bukit Aman. This statement was not allowed to be tendered at the murder trial.

Azilah and Sirul did not give evidence under oath in their defence and therefore avoided any cross-examination on motive.

As the matter stands, we have two highly trained members of the Special Action Force killing a Mongolian national for no apparent reason.

This is what was bothering Bala at the time he made his first SD.

In his experience as a police officer attached to the Special Branch, he found it rather odd that two policemen would kill someone without receiving instructions to do so from their superiors.

In this case Azilah  and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards and were supposed to take instructions from Musa Safri, Najib’s ADC (aide-de-camp).

Bala felt Musa Safri, at least, should have been called to the stand to testify.

Do you think the Altantuya murder trial was conducted in a fair manner?

Fair to who?

I think the first question that ought to be asked is why it was necessary to change all the players in this trial even before it started? No doubt this is the prerogative of the accused in their choice of counsel, and of course the Attorney General’s Chambers in the appointment of prosecutors it feels more suitable. Of course a judge can be changed as well, but all three parties at once seems a little odd.

As the trial proceeded, it became obvious that there was a concerted effort by the prosecution and the defence to prevent any highly fragile evidence from being adduced. This became even more obvious during the questioning of Altantuya’s cousin, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, by Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family.

Burmaa, whilst being questioned by the prosecution had mentioned a photograph shown to her by Altantuya that showed Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a senior government official at a meal. The prosecution and the defence vehemently objected to the eventual answer that Burmaa gave, ie that the senior government official was Najib.

This episode begs the question as to whose interests the defence was supposed to have been protecting? Certainly not their own clients.

It is also interesting to remember Sirul’s statement from the dock at the end of the trial. He said, and I quote, “A black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning”.

I think that says it all. Mkini

Selamat Hari Raya Aidil Adha

Kit Siang: Najib, answer Bala’s claims

The prime minister should stop trying to ignore allegations of his involvement in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu, said veteran DAP leader Lim Kit Siang today.

This is especially after the reappearance of private investigator P Balasubramaniam and Malaysiakini‘s interview with his lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, which linked the premier to the murder.

Lim said, in a statement, that the prime minister’s denial would “gravely impair the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of (his) office and the key national institutions in Malaysia”.

It is also imperative for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to respond, if he really wants to “tell the Malaysian story”, as mentioned during his recent visit to New York, added Lim.

He was referring to Najib’s remarks in New York that Malaysia’s message of reforms and transformation must be told to foreign investors if Malaysia is to avoid being overshadowed by countries like China.

Lim, who is also Ipoh Timur MP, added that the prime minister’s tendency to ignore “damaging disclosures” only further undermines the nation’s competitiveness.

“Najib should allow the true Malaysian story to be told to Malaysians first or (its) credibility to global investors…would come under a great discount,” he said.

If the prime minister does not practice full-disclosure, he added, the global investors will continue to take “true Malaysian story” with “more than a pinch of salt”.

Drop in global competitiveness

Malaysia has in the past three months slipped in competitiveness rankings, dropping three spots in the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) 2009-2010 and two places in World Bank’s Doing Business 2010: Reforming Through Difficult Times.

The worst, Lim said, was the Transparency International’s corruption perception index 2009, which ranked Malaysia at 56^th place from last year’s 47, making the slide the worst in 15 years.

Such poor performance, he said, was evidence that global investors were “privy to the true Malaysian story” even if the prime minister continues to avoid the matter.

Private eye Balasubramaniam had recently said that he was whisked out of the country by people close to Najib after forcing him to recant his statutory declaration which had implicated the premier and his wife to Altantuya’s death.

He said that he was offered RM5 million by a go-between who was allegedly close to Rosmah. He also said that he had met with Najib’s younger brother on the day before his second statutory declaration which absolved Najib and Rosmah was released.

Balasubramaniam’s lawyer Americk Singh told Malaysiakini that he had no reason to disbelieve Balasubramaniam as he had seen all the evidence. Mkini

The return of the Ghost of Altantuya: PI’s lawyer – ‘Anwar not behind Bala tapes’ & Bala is away somewhere in India

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is not involved in the latest twist to P Balasubramaniam’s sensational allegations against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, said the private eye’s lawyer.

Balasubramaniam had last year produced a statutory declaration alleging that Najib had close personal ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.

But 24 hours later, in a dramatic reversal, the private investigator recanted his statutory declaration and subsequently went into hiding in India for over one year.

In August, he re-emerged in Malaysia to stand by his first statutory declaration, saying that threats and inducements were used by certain quarters to make him change his story.

Balasubramaniam’s lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu, in an interview with Malaysiakini, denied that Anwar was behind this latest development.

“Many people think Anwar Ibrahim is behind all this. That is absolutely untrue. Anwar has no idea about this whole episode except what he may have read in the blogs and on Malaysiakini,” Americk told in an interview.

“Anwar had nothing to do with the release of the first statutory declaration except to deliver a speech prior to the press conference at the PKR headquarters last July. I have had no communication with Anwar at all and neither has he or any PKR member tried to contact me.”

The following is the second additional to the three-part interview:

Malaysiakini: Do you think the state institutions, such as the police and the immigration, were involved in this matter?

Americk: I don’t think the immigration authorities were involved. If they were, there would have been no need for a suggestion of bribery to be made to hasten the process of obtaining the passports.

As for the police, I feel they were primed to obtain a statement from Bala to the effect that he was forced to make the first statutory declaration (SD) under duress so that this would lend more credence to the second SD. The whole interview by the Special Branch officers in Bangkok was in accordance with a pre-arranged script orchestrated by Deepak and ASP Suresh with the complicity of the police, which Bala was also told to follow.

Inspector-general of police Musa Hassan said last week that the police were still looking for Bala.

Why would they still be looking for Bala? They had found him in Bangkok over a year ago and did nothing. They were supposed to have been investigating both the first and second SDs to find out which one was sworn falsely. They recorded a statement from Bala himself. They recorded statements from myself and two other lawyers, M Puravalen and Sivarasa Rasiah.

They recorded statements from the commissioner of oaths who attested the first SD. They also recorded a statement from my secretary who typed out the first SD while Bala was sitting in my office.

All these statements showed there was absolutely no coercion in the making of the first SD.

They had all these statements available. They should have been able to decide whether to charge Bala for making a false declaration, and if so which one?

The only reason I can think of for the IGP to say the police are still looking for Bala is to charge him. They couldn’t possibly want to record another statement from him.

Let’s look at this from another angle.

It should be remembered that Bala gave the police a cautioned statement in the Altantuya murder investigations in which he has said certain passages had been deleted by the police as he had mentioned names of certain VIPs.

Just prior to the hearing of the murder charge in court, Sallehuddin (Saidin), a senior federal counsel from the Attorney General’s Chambers, had interviewed Bala extensively and had reduced the interview into a 76-page statement.

Bala has categorically stated that everything he has told the investigators and the federal counsel, which has all been recorded, is exactly the same as the contents of his first SD. All the police need to do is to refer to all these statements and compare them with the contents of Bala’s first SD to see whether they are consistent.

Why do they need to see Bala again? They can easily put two and two together and figure out which SD is the false one. (There are certainly enough witnesses available to show that the first SD was made voluntarily.)

And if they did that they would discover quite easily that the second SD could not possibly be correct in the circumstances, they should charge Bala for making a false second SD. But they can’t do that because it would open a can of worms none of them want opened.

What’s next? What can Bala do to clear his name? Can he return home? Is his life in danger?

The next step should be taken by the authorities. There should be a full investigation into the allegations Bala has made and these investigations should stretch way beyond the question as to which SD is true and which is false.

These investigations should concentrate on revisiting the Altantuya murder case as there are so many questions which remain unanswered. Bala has done what is necessary to ‘clear his name’ by revealing everything that has happened to him over the past 15 months. What more can he do?

I doubt whether he can return home to Malaysia under the present circumstances when it is not even possible for one of the lawyers involved, namely Manjeet Singh Dhillon, to be able to sleep peacefully at night not knowing when the next Molotov cocktail attack on his home will happen.

The whole purpose of these interviews was to protect Bala. If this had not been done, then I think his life would have been in much greater jeopardy for obvious reasons.
Are you representing any party? Is that party paying Bala to recant?

Let me make this absolutely clear. I only represent Bala and no one else. I engaged Manjeet Singh Dhillon  as my counsel after the second SD was made to protect my interests as accusations of impropriety were made against me by not-so-subtle innuendo.

There are no unseen hands at play here. I am honoured that two senior members of the Malayan Bar have seen fit to assist me in this whole matter, especially when they have no vested interest in doing so. At least the best traditions of the Bar are still alive and well in these desperate times.

Let me assure you, no one is paying Bala to recant on his second SD. Please remember that it was Bala who contacted me and not the other way around. I had no idea where Bala was until he called me in mid-July this year. He is certainly concerned about his future but that is why he has saved some of the money Deepak gave him.

In fact, he has even moved premises from the apartment Deepak housed him in as it was costing too much. He is now paying very, very much less for accommodation as he realises he has to reduce his expenditure dramatically if he is to survive on the money he has left.

Many people think (Opposition Leader) Anwar Ibrahim is behind all this. That is absolutely untrue. Anwar has no idea about this whole episode except what he may have read in the blogs and on Malaysiakini.

Anwar had nothing to do with the release of the first SD except to deliver a speech prior to the press conference at the PKR headquarters last July. I have had no communication with Anwar at all, and neither has he or any PKR member tried to contact me.

Where is Bala now?

Bala is now back in Chennai with his whole family. We advised him to take his wife and children out of Malaysia to Chennai for obvious safety reasons after the interview was carried out.

Did Bala say anything more about the characters involved in this – as in who Deepak is, ASP Suresh? Has he come under any threats or pressures after his recent interviews?

Bala only said he knew who Deepak was as he had been offered some PI (private investigation) work by his younger brother, Dinesh. He had never met Deepak before.

ASP Suresh… I guess he was Bala’s friend from the time Suresh was working as a police officer at the IPK D9 (serious crime) division at Jalan Hang Tuah, Kuala Lumpur. Bala used to help him trace telephone details on the suspects he was investigating as Bala had connections in these telcos and could get the info faster than the CID (criminal investigation department) guys.

ASP Suresh had actually been suspended as he was under investigation by the ACA for taking bribes. Apparently Suresh also owns a pub called the ‘Madurai’ at the Melia Hotel along Jalan Imbi and had employed Bala as a ‘security officer’ at some time.

ASP Suresh also runs a scrap yard business dealing in wires. This is why ASP Suresh took Bala to his scrap yard on the night he went missing as he obviously needed to do some work while he was also organising and being the go-between in these shenanigans.

Bala has since come to the realisation that ASP Suresh is nothing more than an opportunist who used Bala for his own benefit. Bala believes he was set up by Suresh from the beginning and that Deepak had used ASP Suresh to monitor Bala long before the first SD was publicised, but ASP Suresh took the whole situation as an opportunity to gain some reward for ‘assisting’ Deepak in neutralising Bala. This was his plan from the beginning.

In fact, Bala informed me, long after all this, that ASP Suresh had told him there were people who were willing to offer him RM3 million not to publish the first SD. They knew Bala was going to do this as ASP Suresh was very close to him and was obviously reporting matters back to Deepak et al. Bala of course ignored all this as his mind was made up.

ASP Suresh followed Bala like a hawk in the days leading up to the disclosure of the first SD as he needed to know exactly what was happening to report all this to his bosses.

Remember Bala left my office at 4.45pm on July 3 with ASP Suresh.They were supposed to go and see inspector Tonny Luggan at a restaurant near the Brickfields police station after he got off work at 6.30pm.

That was the arrangement made when Bala was in my office. I encouraged Bala to go and meet Tonny informally as I felt it would have been to Bala’s benefit. And besides, he was with ASP Suresh, a police officer, who gave the impression he was looking after Bala’s interests.
It was ASP Suresh who persuaded Bala not to see Tonny, and instead took him to his scrap yard in Cheras, all the time receiving phone calls from Deepak and organising arrangements to meet him that evening.

ASP Suresh knew at this stage that the stakes were higher which would attract a higher value in terms of a ‘settlement figure’. This is why ASP Suresh was doing all the negotiating with Deepak at the Bak Kut Teh stall in Rawang. First, Deepak offered RM4 million but ASP Suresh signaled Bala to keep quiet and asked for RM5 million instead, which Deepak readily agreed to.

Apparently the deal was that ASP Suresh would get the same figure as Bala as his payment for keeping Bala under control and under wraps.

This is why ASP Suresh is in a state of panic now and has been trying to get hold of Bala by whatever means, even through third parties. ASP Suresh has now been cut off from his supply of finances, and I am sure there are people around who are less than happy with him.

As regards to threats since this interview … not to my knowledge. Bala has moved and no one knows where he is. His family is with him so they can’t threaten them anymore.

The only people who have received threats so far are Manjeet Singh Dhillon, whose house was fire bombed with Molotov cocktails. Mkini

Monopoli saham Bernas oleh Wang Tak (China linked Co & kini, Syed Mokhtar): Kerajaan hilang kawalan terhadap industri strategik negara

jiwokelate2009

Return of the Ghost of Altantuya: Lawyer – It’s jibby Altantuya!, jibby ‘linked’ to Bala’s disappearance

Any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is somehow linked to the disappearance of P Balasubramaniam, according to the private investigator’s lawyer.

“The facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute,” said Americk Singh Sidhu in an interview with Malaysiakini.

“As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim (Razak), Najib’s younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala’s disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?” asked Americk.

Balasubramaniam recently emerged from hiding to reveal that he had met Nazim, an architect, the night before he made a dramatic reversal and recanted his first statutory declaration in which he alleged that Najib had close ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Balasubramaniam also claimed that he was offered RM5 million by one Deepak, a businessman close to Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, to retract his first statutory declaration.

Najib had repeatedly denied speculations that he was behind Balasubramaniam’s retraction.

In the interview, Americk recounted how he was introduced to Balasubramaniam, on his reaction to the retraction of Balasubramaniam’s first statutory declaration and his subsequent meeting with the former police officer after he emerged from hiding a year later.

The lawyer also revealed that the video recording of his interview with Balasubramaniam three months ago was secretly taken as an “insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago”.

“He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it,” said Americk.

According to him, while Balasubramaniam may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 for giving conflicting statutory declarations, he could nevertheless defend himself against the charge as it “would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second statutory declaration under duress”.

But those who allegedly instigated the swearing of the false second statutory declaration – Deepak, one ASP Suresh and lawyer M Arunampalam – are also liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy, added Americk.

“In so far as Nazim is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false statutory declaration.”

The following is the first of a two-part interview:

Malaysiakini: When did you first meet Bala?

Americk: I first met Bala sometime in April or May 2008. I was having some early evening drinks with several lawyer friends of mine at ‘Fogles’, which is a delicatessen/bar at Plaza Damas. We were later joined by ASP Suresh and Bala.

One of the lawyers I was with, M Puravalen, introduced me to them. I had no idea who they were before that. I had not been following the Altantuya case very closely so I had not realised that Abdul Razak Baginda had a private investigator assisting him and this was Bala.

I then started enquiring about this whole saga out of curiosity.

Puravalen had been involved in the Altantuya case as he was the first counsel Abdul Razak Baginda had engaged before he was discharged and a new counsel engaged, and so he enlightened me as regards the more salient facts.

I am not sure how ASP Suresh featured in all this but he appeared to be a good friend of Bala’s and appeared to have his interests at heart.

Eventually some of the other lawyers left and the restaurant started closing so we decided to move on to ‘The Backyard’ pub in Sri Hartamas, which is only a short distance away from Plaza Damas. There were four of us … Bala, myself, ASP Suresh and Valen.

We were drinking and still discussing the whole Altantuya murder case as I found it fascinating. Sometime later (Subang MP and lawyer) Sivarasa Rasiah walked in. I know Siva as he is also a friend, but we are not very close. We asked him to join us. He also listened to what Bala had to say and after that suggested Bala get someone to record everything.

Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral. I agreed and that was when I made an appointment for Bala to come to my office so that I could record all he had to say.

The recordings occurred about two or three times over a period of about two months and lasted a few hours each time.

How did you feel when Bala came out with the second statutory declaration? Did you attempt to contact him?

I received a call from a member of the press at about 9.30am on July 4, 2008 asking me why my client, Bala, had called a press conference for 11am that morning at the Prince hotel.

I was a little surprised as I had no idea what this was about so I proceeded to call Bala, who did not answer his phone. I then proceeded to make further enquiries only to find out that Bala had purportedly been represented by another lawyer, one Arunampalam who had spoken to the press at that press conference on behalf of Bala and had said that Bala was retracting the contents of his first SD as he had been forced to sign it under duress.

When I came to know of this press conference and what transpired thereat, I was absolutely flabbergasted. Bala and I had spent two months and many hours over the first SD to ensure it was absolutely correct and for him to deny the contents in the space of 24 hours did seem incredible to me.

Bala had anticipated that he would be arrested by the police after releasing the first statutory declaration and he told me so. This is why he had handed over his mobile phone to me for safe keeping before he left my office the evening before as he did not want the police to download information from it.

We were therefore preparing for his arrest and then to go to the police station he was being held at to represent him. I never expected him to have been ‘hijacked’ by the personalities involved, and I am sure, neither did he.

It is also worth mentioning here that this lawyer, Arunampalam, was not engaged by Bala to represent him at the press conference at the Prince hotel despite the fact that Arunampalam has said Bala called him and asked him to do so. This is a blatant lie.

Bala does not know this man and had never met him prior to that press conference. In fact, it is well-known that Arunampalam does legal work for Deepak and this can be substantiated quite easily.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bala was forced, coerced, threatened and intimidated into signing the second statutory declaration.

Bala subsequently disappeared for one year. When did you meet him next?

Bala called me around July 19, 2009. I was at that time in a little village called Llanwarne on the Welsh border staying with some friends of mine. My wife was also with me. I was surprised to hear his voice as I hadn’t heard from him since he left my office with ASP Suresh in the early evening of July 3, 2008.

He started off the conversation by apologising to me for any trouble he had caused. He said he was returning to Malaysia on July 28 and wanted to see me. I informed him I was only returning to Kuala Lumpur on Aug 2 and landing in the early hours of the morning. He gave me a contact number to call and I said I would call him after I landed to arrange a meeting.

At approximately 9am on Aug 2, 2009, I called the number Bala had given me and we arranged to meet in about two days’ time. We left the exact time and place to be decided later.

On Aug 4, we finally arranged to meet at my apartment in Ampang Hilir at about 1pm the next day. As Bala wanted to tell me everything that had happened to him since I saw him last, I thought it would be best to have some witnesses present and so I called my counsel, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and another lawyer, Amarjit Singh Sidhu. They both turned up at about 12pm and we waited for Bala to arrive.

Bala eventually turned up a little later than expected as he was having difficulty locating my apartment. He arrived with two other Indian gentlemen who were introduced to us but I cannot recall their names.

He then spent about three hours telling us exactly what had happened to him. During this time he was constantly questioned by myself, Manjeet and Amarjit.

We had arranged for a concealed audio visual device to record this conversation as we felt Bala may have needed some insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago. He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it.

Were you convinced by Bala’s story? What documentary evidence did you have?

After approximately three hours of conversation, we were more than convinced that what he was telling us was the truth. It took quite a long time to unravel the details as Bala was recalling events which had taken place over a year ago coupled with the fact that there were so many details.

At that stage, Bala did not reveal any documentary evidence as he was still very apprehensive of the entire situation but he did tell us details of all the evidence he had from bank account statements, passports, flight tickets and photocopied cheques paid to him.

We therefore asked him to produce this evidence and he assured us he would.

What was your advice to Bala at the meeting? Was there a follow-up meeting after that?

After digesting everything we were told, we felt it was necessary to record the events which had taken place in a suitable, chronological and coherent format as we were concerned the matter was rather serious.

We advised Bala to hand over all documents to us to enable us to further verify his story. He promised us he would but said he would have to go to his wife’s bank (EON) to get her statements for the past year and that other documents were still in India. He did however have copies of his family’s passports and copies of the cheques Deepak had signed. He eventually produced these documents to me by hand, by post and by fax.

We advised Bala to behave normally with Deepak and ASP Suresh and not to let them know he had seen us. He told us he would be returning to India shortly and would contact us again. From then on, all contact with Bala was by phone and email.

As a lawyer, do you think Bala has committed any offences?

Technically, he may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 by swearing a false declaration. By this I mean the second SD, not the first SD. However under the circumstances, he would have a good defence to a charge of that nature as it would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second SD under duress.

Making a false second SD technically exposes Bala to criminal prosecution. It would equally make the ones who instigated the swearing of the false second SD [Deepak/ Arunampalam/Suresh], liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy.

If we refer to section 3 of the SD Act 1960, this states that SDs made under the Act are such declarations as are referred to in sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, and where false would be punishable under that Act.

Section 199 of the Penal Code reads:

“Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any court, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.”

This provision is then followed by Section 200 of the Penal Code which states that whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.Even if we limit ourselves to these provisions alone, offences are clearly shown to have been committed by Deepak, Suresh and Arunampalam. Bala may well have a defense of duress but that would be a matter of evidence.

In so far as Nazim (Razak) is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false SD.

Note also that under section 10[b] of the ACA 1997, it is an offence to corruptly give to any person an inducement in such circumstances as those in which Bala was induced to make the false second SD. Deepak, Suresh and Nazim could well be prosecuted under these provisions.

With the evidence that you and the other lawyers have seen from Bala and based on Bala’s own explanation, do you think the PM (Najib Abdul Razak) and his wife (Rosmah) are personally involved in this (matter)? Or was it done on their behalf by someone?

If you mean Bala’s disappearance, then the facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute.

As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim, Najib’s younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala’s disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?

I think this is the conclusion any reasonable person would come to. Mkini

Hantu Altantya kembali lagi – Rakaman temuramal dengan Bala bah 2: latarbelakang nazim razak

Making the right choice: Ku Li to head oil royalty caucus

Veteran Umno leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has agreed to head the caucus to deliberate on the issue of petroleum and liquefied gas royalty, said Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Speaking to reporters in the Parliament lobby today, Anwar said Razaleigh, the Gua Musang BN MP, had given his consent this morning.

Pakatan Rakyat proposed the caucus last week, following premier Najib Abdul Razak’s announcement that the federal government would make ‘goodwill payments’ from offshore oil operations to the PAS-ruled state of Kelantan from next year.

This saw opposition from Pakatan representatives, especially those from Kelantan, who said the federal government should pay the oil royalty and not make a goodwill payment to the state.

Razaleigh was not at the press conference today, but had told Anwar to make the announcement.

“This is a hot issue right now and I think Razaleigh, with his years of experience, will be able to help us,” said Anwar.

The caucus will also look into drafting an amendment to the Petroleum Development Act 1974.

“We have just circulated the draft. (Although) there is clear provision (as far as the original Act is concerned)… the ambiguity is (where it does) not specify the issue of territorial and offshore (borders),” said Anwar, the Permatang Pauh MP.

“We want to make it explicit in the law so that there is no interpretation that would run against the interests of the states. We will try to get the draft ready for debate during this parliamentary sitting.”

He also said he would inform Minister in the Prime Minister Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz  about the formation of the caucus.

“We have talked about it but we have to officially communicate over teh tarik (tea),” he quipped.

Anwar said other parliamentarians from across the political divide will be invited to join the caucus once it is set up.

“We will suggest that the caucus be represented by all parties – representatives from BN and Pakatan and representatives from the (oil-producing) states, namely Kelantan, Terengganu, Sarawak and Sabah.”

The proposal for the caucus resulted from the government’s refusal to budge from its position that oil is extracted beyond three nautical miles of Kelantan’s territorial waters, and therefore the state is not entitled to royalty.

Mohd Nazri insisted, when winding up on points raised during the debate on the Supply Bill 2010 last week, that the term ‘royalty’ is not specifically cited in the agreement and the Petroleum Development Act 1974, in referring to the five percent from oil revenue paid to oil-producing states.

Nazri also argued that territorial boundaries and the definition are not stated in the agreement of 1974.

Pakatan platform ready soon

On a another matter, Anwar said the draft of Pakatan Rakyat’s common platform is also well underway, and that all the component parties are engaged in the process.

He said that it will be ready before Pakatan’s convention scheduled to be held next month.

“We have given our input and it will be drafted again to include our suggestions. The objective of the common platform is to explain our stand as Pakatan Rakyat,” Anwar reiterated.

“PKR, PAS and DAP will also scrutinise the draft on their own before coming up with the final product.

S Pathmawathy/Mkini

Kecoh – Hantu Altantuya kembali: Rakaman MP Pokok Sena & Batu bawa soalan SD Bala di Dewan Rakyat

jiwokelate2009

musa hasan akan kata klip video ini palsu, polis & samseng itu datang dari myanmar: Malaysian POLICE allow mob justice

Jikalau orang bukan Islam boleh menerima Tok Guru sebagai pemimpin utama atau PM , cukup la, Muhasabah diri dulu & jangan lagi menyusahkan Tok Guru!!

Kembalinya hantu Altantuya, Rakaman perbualan Bala: ya, Dia adalah adik jubby Altantuya, nazim razak – Bah 1

Malaysia Today

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