Tuesday, May 5, 2009

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU Altantuya KIDNAPING OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE WHERE ARE YOUBalasubramaniam a/l Perumal

WHY NAJIB MUST BE kickedout as PM.abdul razak meeting musa at the deputy prime minister’s (dpm) office on official matters, during which he (abdul razak) enquired about altantuya’s fate. high court judge datuk k.n.segara said the affidavit produced by abdul razak pointed to a conclusion that he had abetted with azilah to “get rid” of altantuya from

What “miracles” could the new prosecution team produce to ensure a “fair trial”, which could not be accomplished by the previous prosecution team?


Beautiful Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu was Shot in the Head Twice and Then She was blown to pieces with C4 Explosive in a Gruesome Murder in
Malaysia Allegedly by Top Level Officials and Political Elites.

 

Malaysia’s Ruling Party is on the Ropes and Things are Getting Ugly Real Fast: An influential Malaysian blogger alleges that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s wife was present when a Mongolian translator/model was murdered in 2006. Can somebody say ‘cover-up’?

I am sure when suspensions get serious they will find a “fall person” usually some local idiot and have that person convicted and executed real fast if this is a crime by the Political Elites. And people will forget about it real soon, thats the way cover ups usually work.

Since the Altantuya Shariibuu trial started last year, and all the attendant publicity surrounding it, I’ve always been curious about one name.

This person was mentioned in early news reports but didn’t even come up as a witness in the subsequent trial, and currently, the trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of Azilah Hadri’s evidence.

This was the stuff of many a mamak stall conversation. Now, what I was thinking, Raja Petra has been too, with possibly more input and thought, evidence-wise

Referring to this article posted last week in Malaysia Today. Many people I know calls RPK lots of names, from tukang karut to hatchet man, but read the stuff and make up your mind.deepening scandal involving the sale of three submarines, the murder of a beautiful Mongolian interpreter and the man most likelynot to become prime minister of Malaysia

This invisible man’s inclusion in the equation would complete the chain of circumstances. Without him, there appears to be no connection between both Azilah Hadri & Sirul Azhar, as well as the two with Altantuya and the two with Razak Baginda.

You take this one person out of the equation, and the motive for Azilah and Sirul to kill Altantuya disappears (except if the prosecution can prove a financial motive). Even if money was the carrot, there is still that connection factor.




STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: 600928-08-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at No. 32, Jalan Pelangi 1, Taman Pelangi, Rawang, Selangor do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

28.6 That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-

54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

SUBCRIBED and solemnly )

declared by the abovenamed )

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]

this day of 2008 )

Before me,

………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur

 

ROSMAH SAYS NAJIB’S DESTINY TO LEAD 

 Saturday, 14 March 2009 01:55 (AP) PUTRAJAYA, March 13 - Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, wife of Malaysia’s next prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, said today it is his destiny to lead the country, despite opposition attempts to link him to corruption and murder. Rosmah says Najib’s destiny to lead — Bernama pic In an interview with The Associated Press, Rosmah said the attacks on her husband have made the couple more mature and stronger. Najib is scheduled to take over from current prime minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi early next month. “Let’s not do anything unethical to stop it. It is his turn,” Rosmah said in her first interview with an international news agency. If “God says it is his turn, it is his turn,” Rosmah added. “That is the thing we all have to accept, because when (Abdullah became leader) … we believed that it was his time, his destiny and we went on with our lives.” Opposition leaders have tried to link Najib and Rosmah to the killing of a Mongolian woman and accused him of corruption in government deals to buy French submarines and Russian jets. Najib has rejected the accusations. Asked about the allegations linking them to the killing, Rosmah said she ignores such “mischievous statements from mischievous people.” The opposition contends that Najib was involved in the slaying of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian translator who was having an affair with a close friend of Najib. Government lawyers say Shaariibuu was shot in October 2006. Her body was then blown up in a forest outside Kuala Lumpur, and only fragments were found. Prosecutors alleged that Abdul Razak Baginda, Najib’s friend, ordered Shaariibuu killed after she started pestering him for money. Abdul Razak was acquitted last October of abetting the slaying. A court is scheduled to decide next month whether to convict two police officers charged with carrying out the killing. Rosmah said her tribulations last year, when public suspicions of Najib gained strength because of blogs that carried allegations against him, have made the couple “more mature … more strong.” “If we had not gone through this, we would not have known what resilience is all about,” Rosmah said. She stressed that her conscience was clear, saying that her own test of character is “whether you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, whether you like yourself or not, whether you have told the truth or not.” - AP

 

KIDNAPING  OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE   
 
Friday, 13 March 2009 09:56
Everyone knows that the Barisan Nasional government has done many stupid things. However, its decision not to appeal Razak’s acquittal was, no doubt, a stupidity of the highest order. It was unfortunate that hitherto no reasons have been advanced by the government in not filing an appeal against such an absurd acquittal. By Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, The Malaysian Insider   

MARCH 13 — An explosive expose of the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder hit the streets of Paris on March 5 with a two-page expose in the Liberation newspaper. An online version has been posted on its website in PDF format.

The expose came with four colour photographs of the main personalities involved including Razak Baginda, who was charged with abetting the murder and who has been acquitted by the High Court.

Everyone knows that the Barisan Nasional government has done many stupid things. However, its decision not to appeal Razak’s acquittal was, no doubt, a stupidity of the highest order. It was unfortunate that hitherto no reasons have been advanced by the government in not filing an appeal against such an absurd acquittal.

As far as the men on the street are concerned Altantuya’s bloody tragedy began with Razak. Without his intimate involvement with the late Altantuya nobody knew who Altantuya was.

Whether Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak also knew Altantuya is a matter of speculation. Nevertheless since Razak was close to Najib it is hard to dismiss the speculation that Najib might have also known her.

Without Altantuya’s harassment, Razak had no reasons to engage the services of policemen Sirul Azhar Umar and Azilah Hadri. Why should Sirul and Azilah come into picture if Razak had not contacted them? And why should not Razak have contacted Sirul and Azilah when he was consistently harassed by Altantuya.

Razak needed help to get rid of Altantuya and he got these two policemen. One of them, according to Razak’s affidavit in his application for bail, proudly confessed to him that he had previously killed six people.

The decision of the Attorney-General not to file an appeal against Razak’s acquittal was definitely not a wise decision. It has left many questions unanswered.

The refusal to appeal implies that the decision of the High Court was so strong that there was no room for appellate interference.

If this is the excuse given by the government our short answer will be — do not insult our intelligence.

Since when has the A-G been easily convinced by a decision of the court in the first instance in a crime of murder. Since when has an appeal become an expensive enterprise for the A-G.

If Haneef Basri’s acquittal in Norita Samsudin’s murder prompted the A-G to appeal against such an acquittal, why is Razak’s case different? Why was Razak given preferential treatment vis a vis other murder cases?

Altantuya’s murder was not a run-of-the-mill crime. The fact that C4 explosive was used in the murder depicts the ugly picture of the crime. By using C4 explosive, the crime has strong elements of washing away the evidence. Apart from C4, the crime also involved a powerful individual who has close and strong connections with the Deputy Prime Minister.

The reputation and the integrity of our administration of justice has been closely attached to this trial. If the prosecution of Razak brought a glimmer of hope to our justice system, the government’s decision not to file an appeal has thrown that little hope into the drain.

The government’s decision has once again brought our justice system into disrepute. It seems that our justice system will forever become a laughing stock.

The people have a right to know the actual and truthful reasons behind the decision not to appeal. Is it because the decision of the High Court judge was so powerful? Or was it the pressure by the ruling elite that led to the decision of the A-G not to appeal?

No comments: