Archive for November, 2009

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags , on November 30, 2009 by ckchew

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

Advertisements

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags , , on November 30, 2009 by ckchew

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags on November 29, 2009 by ckchew

jiwokelate2009

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags on November 29, 2009 by ckchew

jiwokelate2009

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags on November 28, 2009 by ckchew

A road to Hajj from China

AlJazeeraEnglish

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags , on November 27, 2009 by ckchew

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

Posted in Malaysia news with tags , on November 27, 2009 by ckchew

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