Najib, ONE Malaysia atau MULTI crises in society Ijtihad, Freedom of Expression and Contemporary Politics

June 9, 2009 · No Comments

Najib, ONE Malaysia atau MULTI crises in society

And the tyrants looked at them and desired what they owned
And plotted and planned to take it.
“Dispossess them!”
“Massacre them!”
“Use all necessary force to bring them to submission!”
And the dispossessed cried for mercy.
Yet, no one heard.
“ reformasi” They yelled.
And the tyrants cried “ISA THEM KUGAN THEM!”
“Starve and beseige them!”
“Use all necessary force to bring them to submission!”
And to the world the tyrants raged: “Security!”
And the sycophants cried in defense of the tyrants.
Then Conscience spoke and asked.
“Who will secure the starved, beseiged and dispossessed?”
Silence.
“Accountability!”
Corrupt political leadership does not attractive men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government. That truism has practically reduced our options to only one – a change of political leadership. That is, if we are still serious about restoring the rule of law and the pursuit of excellence for the country. ”He is not immune from action under the law. Investigation can be made if he had acted beyond the scope of his official duties,” MACC’s Legal and Prosecution Division Director Datuk Abdul Razak Musa told reporters.

so is najib when when he sent theabuse of power liketext message correspondence is between yab dato’ sri mohd najib tun abdul razak, deputy prime minister of malaysia, and dato’ shafee abdullah“tentative” charge and that “all is not lo

Pada tahun 2003, Suhakam pernah mencadangkan supaya ISA dimansuhkan dan diganti dengan akta baru seperti Akta Terorisme tetapi tidak pernah diteliti oleh kerajaan atau dibentangkan di Parlimen.

ISA membenarkan penahanan tanpa perbicaraan dan tanpa perlu kepada pembuktian. ISA juga membenarkan kuasa yang luas, arbitrari dan tidak boleh dicabar mahkamah yang menyebabkan berlakunya penyeksaan fizikal dan mental seperti mana yang telah terbukti dalam banyak kes terdahulu.

the Utusan Malaysia urged the Malay majority to “rise and unite” against demands by ethnic minorities.

“the crises in society, the family, morality, politics, security and the economy which have made life hard for humanity and continue to put great pressure on all nations have come about because the prophets have been forgotten, the almighty has been forgotten and some leaders are estranged from god

the Utusan Malaysia urged the Malay majority to “rise and unite” against demands by ethnic minorities.

Former Selangor Menter Besar Khir Toyo implicated Selangor Senior Exco member Teresa Kok on the “azan” issue as part of his concerted effort to incite racial and religious hatred by the Malays/Muslims against the Chinese community in Selangor.

The Editor-in-Chief of Utusan Malaysia did not check the facts prior to publication of the false allegation made by Khir Toyo, instead Utusan Malaysia raised the tone of the allegations to a more dangerous level.

Both Khir Toyo and Editor-in-Chief of Utusan Malaysia had malicious design in falsely accusing Teresa Kok. It is apparent that both of them aimed to achieve a wider objective of fanning racial and religious discontent and hatred by Malay/Muslims against the Chinese community, which in our view, seriously endangers our national security.

Khir Toyo and the Editor-in-Chief of Utusan Malaysia must be arrested and brought to justice for falsely accusing Teresa Kok on the “azan” issue.

If Syed Hamid Albar wants to use the ISA, he should instead go out and arrest the 189 residents who had politely written a letter to UMNO State Assemblyman Mohamad Satim Diman to talk to the mosque officials to help resolve their concerns about lowering the loudspeakers at the mosque during the long hours of the religious sermons.

MAULANA WAHIDUDDIN KHAN: IJTIHAD, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND CONTEMPORARY POLITICS

Translated by Yoginder Sikand

Muslims today suffer from a bizarre sense of loss. Perhaps no other community faces this sort of predicament to the same extent. They have failed to make use of the myriad opportunities provided by modernity. One of these valuable opportunities is freedom. The ideologues of the French Revolution claimed that man is born free but everywhere is in chains. This became the slogan of the modern world, and now freedom has been accepted as the basic right of every human being. Everyone has the right to adopt what he or she thinks is right and to act accordingly. There is only one limit to this unfettered freedom: in the exercise of one’s right one should not harm someone else, and in the pursuance of one’s objectives one should seek to use peaceful, not violent, means.

300 years ago, when America won freedom from England, an American man, so the story goes, rushed out into the street to celebrate. He swung his arms up in the air in glee and as he brought them down he hit the nose of a passerby. The latter was, naturally, enraged, and demanded an apology. The first man said to him, ‘Now America is free and so I can do what I want’. The passerby retorted, ‘Undoubtedly you are free, but your freedom ends where my nose begins’.

This story very succinctly expresses the modern concept of democracy. Modernity provides us with freedom but on the condition that the exercise of this freedom does not entail violence against others. Gandhi was aware of this principle and used it in the course of the Indian freedom movement. In 1857, Muslim leaders launched a violent movement to oust the British from India, and Muslim-led militant anti-British uprisings continued thereafter for sixty years. However, these efforts all failed. Then, in 1919, Gandhi took over the leadership of the anti-colonial movement and changed its tactics to that of non-violent struggle, and, finally, India became independent in 1947.

What was the cause of the different fates that these violent and non-violent movements met? One major reason was that the Muslim leaders referred to above were conditioned by a taqlidi mindset, blindly adhering to the prescriptions of the established corpus of fiqh, and so they knew of only one method of struggle—that of armed jihad. The books of medieval fiqh have no conception of peaceful struggle. They speak of just one method—that of violent struggle, because they were written in a period when the only form of power that people knew of was that of the sword. This is reflected in the Arabic saying, ‘War can be stopped by war’, and in the Persian phrase, ‘Coins are struck in the name of he who wields the sword’.

This militant mindset remains deeply ingrained among most Muslims even today. Hardly any Muslims are free of it. This belief is expressed in different forms. The mental framework which is based on medieval fiqh is so deeply entrenched that even many so-called modern Muslim thinkers were and are influenced by it. For instance, Syed Jamaluddin Afghani, Syed Qutb, Muhammad Iqbal, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, and so on. This is the single major cause for the sacrifices of our leaders all going to waste.

The efficacy of non-violent, as opposed to violent, methods in today’s world can be understood from an instance from Gandhi’s life. Gandhi joined the Indian freedom struggle in 1919. Prior to this, the movement was characterized by violent mobilization, and the British responded to this by counter-violence to quash it. Then, when Gandhi announced that the movement would abide by non-violence, the British were confounded, because they had no moral argument that they could use to suppress a non-violent freedom movement. It is said that in the wake of Gandhi’s announcement a British collector sent a telegram to his superior officials, saying, ‘Kindly wire instructions as to how to kill a tiger non-violently’.

An Anachronistic Approach

Because of their taqlidi mindset, present-day Muslim leaders and intellectuals display what can be called an anachronistic approach. The ulema of the past who they strictly follow, because of being wedded to the notion of taqlid, had no conception of peaceful methods or peaceful struggle. This conception was clearly evident in the Quran and Hadith, but to directly derive rules from the Quran and Hadith ijtihad was needed, but the medieval Muslims had already firmly closed the doors of ijtihad.

The Quran describes an eternal law in the following words: ‘such settlement is best’ (Surah al-Nisa, 128). This means that the method of adjustment, reconciliation and making peace is better than the confrontational approach. This clearly indicates the importance of non-violence as compared to violence. Likewise, according to a Hadith report, the Prophet is said to have declared that God gives softness that which he does not give to harshness. This clearly means that peaceful methods are more efficacious than violent ones. Thus, although the Quran and Hadith contain such explicit teachings in support of peaceful methods, modern-day Muslim leaders and intellectuals, owing to their taqlidi approach, failed to discern these teachings. Instead, they uselessly engaged in conflict and thought to themselves that they were, in this way, setting great examples of sacrifice and martyrdom.

This taqlidi mindset has caused considerable harm and destruction for Muslims themselves, without bringing them any gain whatsoever. If the Palestinians knew this they would not have unleashed a destructive and violent movement after 1948. Instead, using peaceful methods, they would have made use of the opportunities that were available to them. In that way, they could have gained that position of strength in Palestine that the Jews acquired in America by using peaceful means and taking advantage of the opportunities opened up by modernity. Likewise, if the Muslims of Kashmir had realized this they would not have resorted to violent struggle. Using peaceful means, they could have gained such an influential position in India that would have been a hundred times better for them than what the people of the so-called Azad Kashmir presently enjoy. In the same way, if Muslim leaders in various countries who are engaged in violent movements in order to capture political power had adopted peaceful means they could have transformed their countries in the direction of truly Islamic societies. But this they could not do, and by resorting to violence instead they caused massive destruction.

The way to win other people’s hearts is through promotion of close peaceful social interaction with them. In this way, one can influence others through their morals and personal example. It was this that drew the Qureish towards Islam in the wake of the treaty of Hudaibiyah. On the other hand, promoting conflict with others can only further reinforce their hatred and opposition. But only those with an ijtihadi mindset can truly appreciate this fact.

Criticism and Ijtihad

Criticism and taqlid are opposites of each other. Where taqlid reigns, there can be no criticism. Contrarily, where criticism is allowed, taqlid cannot reign. The matter with ijtihad is the opposite of this. Ijtihad requires criticism. Where criticism is not allowed, ijtihad cannot happen.

Criticism is not a bad thing per se. Rather, it is a means for intellectual development. Without criticism intellectual advancement is not possible. The choice before us is not one between criticism and the lack of it, but, rather, that between criticism and intellectual stagnation. If criticism is stopped our intellectual progress shall cease.

Ijtihad proceeds through discussion and exchange of views. Ijtihad is a process of moving from what is known to what is as yet unknown. When we are faced with some problems or issues that need to be answered and if we are free to express our views on it, naturally out of this exchange new aspects or dimensions of the issue will emerge before us. This leads to the clearing of doubt, and then to the emergence of a well-researched opinion or position on the issue, which is the objective of our intellectual quest. This intellectual activity is known as ijtihad.

Ijtihad appears, from both the ideological as well as practical points of view, to be an indispensible necessity of life. It is the means for the progress of human communities. A community that does not allow for ijtihad will cease to progress. Proper ijtihad, as mentioned earlier, cannot happen in the absence of the freedom to criticize. Only those can benefit from ijtihad who are able to take or accept criticism. Those who are unwilling or unable to accept criticism cannot benefit from it.

Let me cite two examples to illustrate my point. The battle of Badr took place in the second year of the Islamic century. The Prophet was then in Madinah, and he heard that the army of the Qureish was advancing on the town. Accordingly, he gathered his forces and moved in the direction from where the Qureish were coming. He and his companions halted at a place before Badr. Had they stayed on there they would have confronted the Qureish army at that spot. A companion of the Prophet, Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar, approached the Prophet and asked him if he had chosen to halt at that place because God had instructed him to do so or was it because he had decided this on his own. The Prophet replied that this was his own opinion. In response, Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar said that the place was not appropriate.

Now, this response might appear as a sort of criticism. However, the Prophet did not take this amiss, but simply asked Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar why he did not feel that the place was an appropriate one to halt at. In reply, this companion of the Prophet noted that there were several wells located between the Muslims and the Qureish army. If the Muslims halted at that spot, it would allow the Qureish to capture all these wells. He, therefore, suggested that they should move ahead till they had gone beyond all the wells and then make a halt. This would have cut off the water supply to the enemy army. Hearing this, the Prophet said that Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar’s advice was indeed good.

Now, this entire conversation between the Prophet and Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar was conducted in a very balanced way. In the end, the Prophet accepted Hazrat Khabab bin Manzar’s opinion and acted accordingly. And the Muslims won a decisive victory in the battle.

This example clearly indicates how important is the freedom of expression for arriving at a proper position or stance. It shows how, through exchanging different, even contradictory, views, new aspects and dimensions of problems can be highlighted, and how this is necessary to come to a proper decision on a particular matter. In fact, this is so invaluable that even if conflict of opinions becomes heated and aggressive it must be cheerfully accepted.

The Harm of Not Accepting Criticism

In 1831 Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi gathered an army of Muslims and launched a jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Sikh ruler of Punjab. The two armies met at a place called Balakot, and in this battle Syed Ahmad and most of his companions were slain. And so this zealous jihad ended in complete failure.

Most of the men in Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi’s army were those who had taken baiat or the oath of spiritual allegiance to him. One of these men was Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali of Delhi, who was considered to be an accomplished Islamic scholar. He was part of the army of Syed Ahmad Shahid that was advancing to meet the forces of Ranjit Singh. When this army reached a place called Charsadda he asked Syed Ahmad on what basis he had declared jihad against the Sikhs. Syed Ahmad replied that he had done so on the basis of divine illumination (kashf) and dreams that he claimed to have seen. Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali responded that jihad could not be declared on these bases. He cited the Quran as mentioning about the need for conducting affairs by mutual consultation (al-Shura 38). He also added that the Prophet engaged in jihad on the basis of consulting his followers. Hence, he argued, Syed Ahmad should do the same, and that, before launching a jihad, must properly study the then prevailing conditions.

However, Syed Ahmad Shahid did not accept his advice. Instead, he accused him of creating hurdles in his path with his criticism. He told him that his role, as his follower, was to silently accept what he was told—to be, in fact, as silent as the mountain ahead of them. Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali then left Syed Ahmad’s army and returned to Delhi.

This incident is presented in some books [of Syed Ahmad Shahid’s supporters] as a case of Mir Mahbub Ali allegedly ‘going astray’. Maulana Syed Abdul Haye, former rector of the Nadwat ul-Ulema, Lucknow, wrote that Maulana Mir Mahbub Ali was a great Islamic scholar of his times, but that ‘the devil had put an evil suggestion in his heart’ and so he abandoned Syed Ahmad Shahid and returned to India.

However, the fact of the matter is that Syed Ahmad Shahid Barelvi did not consult others about the step that he was taking. He did not even investigate how far the reports that he had heard about the disrespect of the shariah [at the hands of the Sikhs] in Punjab were true. He did not even try to gauge the strength of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army and to find out how his untrained forces could battle it. Instead, he simply entered Ranjit Singh’s territory without even proper knowledge of its geographical conditions. Naturally, then, he and most of his companions were easily killed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army. And so his movement ended with a one-sided orgy of destruction that the Muslims had to face.

From this example one can discern how important it is for different, including conflicting, viewpoints to be able to be freely expressed in order to arrive at a proper position on collective affairs. People’s criticism should be heartily listened to, and only after free intellectual debate and discussion can efforts to reach a proper decision succeed. This, in turn, is related to the need for reviving ijtihad at the same time as it points to the hazards of remaining wedded to taqlid.
———————————————————————–

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 inMalaysia 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.

C4 Murder: Malaysian Police will be calling up Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamaruddin to investigate allegations in his recent statutory declaration on purported facts related to the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan said the three individuals named in the document filed on June 18 would also be called up.

In an explosive statutory declaration to a Malaysian court, one of Malaysia’s most prominent web journalists has alleged that the wife of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak as well as a Malaysian Army officer and the officer’s wife were directly involved in the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006, and that people at the very top of the Malaysian government are aware of the fact. Raja Petra Kamaruddin states:

“Altantuya’s body is alleged to have been blown up with C4 explosives at a secondary forest in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam. The murder trial is currently ongoing at the Shah Alam High Court.
“My informer states that Aziz was the person who placed the C4 on various parts of Altantuya’s body witnessed by Rosmah and Norhayati,” Raja Petra claimed in the document.
“I make this statutory declaration because I have been reliably informed about the involvement of these three people who have thus far not been implicated in the murder nor called as witnesses by the prosecution in the ongoing trial at the Shah Alam High Court.
“I also make this statutory declaration because I am aware that it is a crime not to reveal evidence that may help the police in its investigation of the crime,” read the document, which was first posted on the bigdogdotcomblog run by another blogger.“

He further alleged that he has also been ‘reliably informed’ that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi knows of Najib’s wife alleged involvement.

Najib and Rosmah have repeatedly denied they are linked to the killing of Altantuya, describing the widely-known allegations was nothing more than ‘slander and concocted stories’.

The declaration, by Raja Petra Kamaruddin, a well-connected journalist who edits the web publication Malaysia Today and is on trial for sedition charges stemming from a commentary on the case. There is no independent confirmation of Raja Petra’s allegations, and the declaration was ignored by Malaysia’s government-linked mainstream media and one Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer with connections to top United Malays National Organisation figures expressed doubt about it.

In the declaration, Raja Petra claimed that the trio – one of them a prominent woman – were present at the scene during the murder of the Mongolian translator in October 2006.

Copies of the two-paged declaration together with the identity of the trio have been posted on various blog sites.

In the document, Raja Petra said he was “reliably informed” of these allegations. An aide to Najib also said they were aware of this latest claim made by Raja Petra. The aide however refused to comment if any action could be taken against Raja Petra.

Musa said the matter could be sub judice as the Altantuya murder case was still being heard.

He also said Raja Petra must be “brave enough to face the consequences if he is bold enough” to make the allegations.

Meanwhile, the Attorney-General’s Chambers has lodged a police report against Raja Petra over the statutory declaration.

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said the allegations were “highly defamatory” and if found untrue, those making the allegations would have to face the consequences.

“We want to investigate because we want the truth. As far as I am concerned, we have to look at it seriously.”

“If it’s true, we will act accordingly. If not, the writer will be investigated,” he said, adding that the report was lodged in Putrajaya on Saturday.

Raja Petra said he expected to be called up.

He said he was bold enough to face the consequences. This is not the first time he is alleging that Najib was involved in Altantuya’s murder, but he has failed to produce any solid proofs besides empty talks so far.

The story adds considerable chaos to the country’s political mix. The Barisan Nasional, the national ruling coalition, is reeling from the loss of its two-thirds majority in March elections. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, taking the brunt of criticism over the loss, has already promised to step down at some future date to cede the premiership to Najib. District elections are due in July in the United Malays National Organisation and there are suspicions that the verdict in the Altantuya murder trial is being delayed until the elections are completed.

Raja Petra wrote that Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, and Acting Colonel Aziz Buyong and his wife, Norhayati, Rosmah’s aide-de-camp, were present at the scene of the murder and that Aziz Buyong was the individual who placed C4 plastic explosive on Altantuya’s body and blew it up. Both Najib and his wife have repeatedly denied any involvement in the case although Kuala Lumpur has been buzzing for months with rumors of their complicity.

Shaariibuu was executed by two shots to the head and her body was blown up with military explosives in a patch of jungle near the suburban city of Shah Alam. One of Najib’s closest friends, Abdul Razak Baginda, once the influential head of a political think-tank, and two of Najib’s bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the elite Unit Tindak Khas or Special Police Action Unit, are the subjects of a marathon murder trial that got underway more than a year ago.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has ordered the police to conduct a thorough probe into the murder of a beautiful Mongolian freelance model.

The Prime Minister said Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan informed him about the murder of 28-year-old Altantuya Shaariibuu.

“I told the IGP he had to investigate the case thoroughly and properly.

“Nobody is above the law. That should be remembered,” he said when asked to comment on the high-profile murder that took place about two weeks ago.

The police have detained a 46-year-old prominent political analyst who heads a local think-tank and remanded him for five days from yesterday to facilitate investigation.

On the involvement of police personnel in the murder, Abdullah, who is also Internal Security Minister, said action must be taken against anybody found guilty under the law.

Three police personnel — a chief inspector, a lance corporal and a constable — have also been remanded to assist investigation into the gruesome killing of Altantuya, who was shot before her body was blown up to bits in a secondary jungle in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam.

The woman arrived in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 9 with her sister and a cousin in search of the political analyst whom she claimed fathered her 16-month-old son.

Altantuya’s case came to light after her sister lodged a police report following her disappearance on Oct 21. Police identified the political analyst, who is said to have befriended the deceased a few years ago, as a suspect.

Earlier, Abdullah launched the Royal Professor Ungku Aziz Chair and the Centre for Poverty and Development Studies at Universiti Malaya.

Neither Najib nor his chief of staff, Musa Safri, has been questioned nor summoned to testify despite the fact that Baginda, in a sworn statement in November 2006, said he had contacted Musa for help in dealing with Altantuya, his jilted lover who was demanding money. That statement raised suspicions that all sides in the court – prosecution, defense and judiciary – are struggling to keep the case under wraps. The trial has been subject to numerous delays for reasons that are unclear.

Raja Petra himself is due to go on trial in October on sedition charges that were filed against him for writing an article titled “Let’s Send Altantuya’s Murderers to Hell.” In that piece, he accused Najib, his wife and others of complicity in the murder. He amplified the statement considerably in his statutory declaration, made last Wednesday, in which he also said that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had seen a full report by military intelligence on the involvement of the deputy premier’s family. Badawi gave the intelligence report to his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, for safekeeping, according to Raja Petra’s statement.

Raja Petra, a member of the Selangor royal family, also wrote that one of the country’s sultans had been given a full report on the matter. He didn’t identify the sultan, but if his statements are true it means that at least one member of royalty may be able to back up his declaration, which was not made under oath.

From the time Altantuya’s body was discovered, the case has raised dark questions about the possible involvement of top government figures. Others also believe that the 28-year-old mother of two may have been involved in a much bigger controversy than a jilted relationship. She made several trips to Kuala Lumpur to attempt to confront Baginda, at one point standing in front of his house and screaming “Razak, bastard, come out!” The last time she was seen alive was again in front of his house, when she was bundled into a car and taken away.

She had accompanied Baginda to France when he was involved in negotiating the purchase of two Scorpene submarines and a used Agosta submarine produced by the French government through a French-Spanish joint venture, Armaris, for the Malaysian defense ministry, which was headed by Najib as minister. The submarines were bought through a Kuala Lumpur-based company, Perimekar Sdn Bhd, which at the time was owned by yet another company, Ombak Laut, which was wholly owned by Abdul Razak Baginda.

The €1 billion (RM4.5 billion) contract to buy the submarines was non-competitive and netted Perimekar €114 million. Although Najib has sworn an oath to Allah that he had never met the woman, he was in France at the same time as Najib, one of his best friends, was there, dealing with matters over the submarine. A cousin of Altantuya’s testified at the trial that she had seen a picture of Najib together with the dead woman, but she was quickly hushed up by both defense and prosecution lawyers about the matter and the picture has not been produced.

Altantuya admitted in a letter discovered after her death that she had been blackmailing Abdul Razak, presumably to keep his family from finding out about their relationship. But in his statement to the police, Baginda said he had already informed his family of the relationship; he said she was pressuring him for US$500,000. Her father, Setev Shaariibuu, a psychology professor in Ulan Bataar, has said she was killed because she “knew too much,” although he has never elaborated on that statement.

Given the close relationship between the two men, and that Najib was reported as presenting jackets made available by Perimekar to the submarine crews training in France, and that Altantuya was traveling with Baginda, it is difficult to understand why the court has not pursued the issue of whether they met.

It is also difficult to understand, given published reports, plus the fact that the accused Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar were members of Najib’s own bodyguard unit, that neither Najib nor Musa has been questioned about how the bodyguards came to be accused of Altantuya’s murder.

There have been many other discrepancies as well. Prosecutorial setbacks over the course of the trial have endangered the case. Sirul’s purported confession has been thrown out. The prosecution has attempted to impeach one of the prosecution’s star witnesses, Rohaniza Roslan, a 28-year-old policewoman and Azilah’s girlfriend. Rohaniza said she had seen the victim bundled into a red Proton car and taken away. Later, in court, she said she had been “tortured and coaxed” by police interrogators into signing that statement; she then offered the court a version of events that differed considerably from her initial account.

“The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor cannot remain silent on the latest bombshell,” wrote Lim Kit Siang, leader of the opposition Democratic Action Party. “The credibility and legitimacy of the Abdullah premiership and government will suffer a mortal blow if Abdullah, Najib and Rosmah remain silent on Raja Petra’s bombshell allegations.”

Raja Petra Kamarudin has made a serious statutory declaration on June 18 alleging that Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib’s wife, was at the murder scene of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006. Whether the allegation is truth or not is not known… in fact only very few people would know at the moment. RPK has shown his courage over the years, some say he is abusing his influence to bully the politicians.

Altantuya was last seen on Oct 19, 2006 as she was being bundled into a car outside Abdul Razak’s home.

ANWAR TO NAJIB: “Nothing personal!”

(Courtesy of MalaysiakiniTV 29 June 2007)

Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has been asked to explain the claim made in a court testimonial today that he had been photographed with murdered Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu. PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim said it was all the more compelling for the deputy premier to explain since he had previously denied having met her.

THE MONGOLIAN PM WROTE TO THE MALAYSIAN PM BUT NEVER GOT A RESPONSE…

Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa (Mongolian language: Шаарийбуугийн Алтантуяа; sometimes also Altantuya Shaariibuu; 1978 – 2006), a Mongolian national, was a murder victim who was either murdered byC-4 explosives or was somehow killed first and her remains destroyed with C-4 in October 2006 in a deserted area in Shah Alam, Malaysia near Kuala Lumpur.

Altantuyaa was born in 1978. Her parents raised her and her sister while they worked in Russia where Altantuyaa started first grade elementary school. She was reportedly fluent in Mongolian, Russian, Chinese and English.

Altantuyaa moved back to Mongolia in 1990 and a few years later, married a Mongolian techno singer, Maadai. They had a child in 1996 but the marriage ended in divorce and the child went to live with Altantuyaa’s parents.

Despite training as a teacher, Altantuyaa briefly moved to France where she attended modeling school before returning to Mongolia. She only modeled part-time, for a brief time also opening a tour business in Mongolia.

Altantuyaa remarried and had another child in 2003 but the second marriage also ended in divorce (this is questionable). The second child also lives with Altantuyaa’s parents. Her mother said she never been a model.

She moved to Hong Kong in 2005, it was around this time she met Abdul Razak Baginda, a defense analyst from the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre think-tank, reportedly beginning a relationship with him. Initial reports of Altantuya having a child with Abdul Razak have been proven to be untrue.

Some sources allege that Altantuya came to Kuala Lumpur with a cousin in early October 2006 intending to confront Abdul Razak. When she went missing on Oct 19, her cousin lodged a police report and sought help from the Mongolian embassy in Bangkok.

Malaysian police found fragments of bone, later verified as hers, in forested land near the Subang Dam in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam. Police investigation of her remains revealed that she was shot twice before C-4 explosives were used on her remains, although there has been later suggestion that the C-4 explosives may have killed her. When her remains were found their identity could only be confirmed with DNA testing. The provenance of the C-4 remains unclear.

Abdul Razak and three members of the police force were arrested during the murder investigation. The two murder suspects have been named as Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30 and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35. They had been members of the elite Unit Tindakan Khas (the Malaysian Police Special Action Force or counter-terrorism unit) and were both assigned to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, who was also the Defence Minister at the time of the murder. Abdul Razak has been charged with abetment in the murder.

Altantuya’s brutal murder received wide, detailed coverage in Malaysia, Mongolia and other Asian countries.

The trial was originally going to be held in March 2007, but was postponed until the 4th of June 2007. Due to controversial and last-minute changes in the prosecution and defence teams, and the presiding judge, the trial was again postponed until 18 June 2007. The pre-trial preparations have seen both the prosecution and defence teams level accusations of evidential impropriety at one another.

During the trial there was an incident between Baginda’s wife and the victim’s father.

In a statutory declaration in his sedition trial in October 2008, Raja Petra accused Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor (the wife of Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak) of being one of three individuals who were present at the crime scene when Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered on Oct 19, 2006. He wrote that wrote that Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, and Acting Colonel Aziz Buyong and his wife, Norhayati, Rosmah’s aide-de-camp, were present at the scene of the murder and that Aziz Buyong was the individual who placed C4 plastic explosive on Altantuya’s body and blew it up.