An Act of Personal Vengeance

Press Statement by Anwar Ibrahim KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA; JULY 17, 2008 On Saturday, 12-07-2008, the police came to my house to serve a Section 111 Criminal Procedure Code notice, harassing my family and demanding my presence at the IPK Kuala Lumpur (Federal Territories Police headquarters) at 2pm on Monday, 14-07-2008 despite an earlier agreement with my lawyers for me to come to the IPK on Monday 14-07-2008. On the next day, Sunday, the police also served an ex-parte court order, prohibiting me from physically being within 5 km from the Parliament on Monday 14-07-2008. As you can see, my house and the IPK KL are within 5 km radius from the parliament building. The court order effectively put me under house arrest on Monday and at the same time prevented me from going to the IPK. On Monday, 14-07-2008, the presence of police personnel outside the compound of my house strengthened our suspicions that they would be prepared to arrest me as soon as I left the compound of my residence, on the pretext of me violating the court order. The issue here, is which order should I comply with, the ex-parte court order or the Section 111 notice from the police? On the same day, the police through the Investigating Officer, one DSP Jude Pereira wrote and faxed to my lawyer at about 1.06pm, informing that I was required to be present at the IPK KL on Wednesday, 16-07-2008 at 2.00 pm to assist with the investigation. I conveyed my agreement to the appointment and it was communicated to the police through my solicitor, Messrs S.N Nair and Partners via telephone and letter on the same day. On Wednesday, 16-07-2008, I was at the Anti Corruption Agency (BPR) head office to record my statement pursuant to the police report lodged by me at IPK Shah Alam on 01-07-2008, against the Attorney General Gani Patail and the Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan for their involvement in the fabrication of evidence way back in 1998. To ensure that we will be able to attend the appointment with the police at 2pm, we cut short our statement at the BPR’s office, and this fact was clearly conveyed to the BPR officers present. At about 12.45 pm, the IO, DSP Jude Pereira called Mr Nair to confirm about our attendance and Mr. Nair confirmed that we would attend that 2pm appointment. We were about to have a quick lunch at my house before proceeding to the IPK. 5 minutes later, we were ambushed by a team of masked and heavily armed police personnel near my house. I was arrested and brought to the IPK. I cooperated fully with the police by giving my cautioned statement from 2.30 pm to about 7.30 pm. At this particular point, the IO and the other officers handling this case were doing their job professionally. I was then given assurances by Assistant Commissioner of Police Razali and later Senior Assistant Commissioner II Khor (through my lawyer) that I would be released on police bail on the same day. However, later on, upon my return from Kuala Lumpur General Hospotal (HKL), the IO, DSP Jude Pereira informed me and my lawyers that I will be detained and put in the police lock-up overnight for the purpose of recording a further statement in the morning. I and my lawyers protested, giving our undertaking that we will be back anytime required by the police to continue with the recording of the statement, and there was no need for me to be detained overnight, and that I should be released on police bail. The police, through the IO were adamant that I should be detained and put in the police lock-up overnight, despite them knowing about my physical condition. I had to spend the night sleeping on a cold cement floor, which aggravated my back injury which was due to the beating I received from the then IGP, Tan Sri Rahim Nor on 20th September, 1998. This morning, after a short statement that was recorded for about 30 minutes, I was released on police bail. I was in pain and had to immediately receive some medical treatment upon my return home. I now wish to deal with the statement of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Director, Dato Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin as appeared in Utusan Malaysia today, inter alia “Pasukan khas bertopeng polis terpaksa memintas kenderaan DSAI di Bukit Segambut di sini dan menahan Anwar ekoran tindakan Penasihat PKR itu mengubah haluan kenderaannya pada saat-saat tempoh yang diberi kepadanya untuk menyerah diri kepada polis pada pukul 2 petang ini hampir berakhir” This is a blatant lie from the CID director to cover up their shameful act of abuse of police powers. I have given the assurances and had just informed the IO 5 minutes before the disgraceful ambush by the police through my lawyer who was with me in the same car. In addition to the above, the Deputy Home Minister, Wan Farid said, as reported in Star Online that, I “went voluntarily to the police car without any incident.” Again, this is also a blatant lie by the government. I take to task the IGP for this abuse of police power against me through the events I’ve narrated above. It appears that the events of the last few days, the nature of my unwarranted arrest, my overnight incarceration which was actually absolutely unnecessary, were an act of personal vengeance against me in retaliation to the reports I lodged earlier against him, which are now being investigated by the ACA. DNA I have reasonable grounds for having no confidence in the system. In the course of the trial of the false allegations of sodomy in 1998, DNA evidence was fabricated and used against me. The persons responsible for the fabrication then were the IGP, SAC Rodwan and the AG, are new key players in this investigation. Until now, I have been denied access to the police report made by the accuser against me. My accuser is still under police protection and as such, any fabrication is possible if they take my DNA. My decision to refuse a DNA test is taken through advice of my lawyers and DNA experts, both local and overseas. ANWAR IBRAHIM ...source

Arrest Intended To Intimidate

New Sodomy Charge for Malaysian Opposition Figure July 17, 2008 - New York Times By SETH MYDANS BANGKOK — In what seemed a reprise of one of the more unusual moments in recent Malaysian history, police officers wearing ski masks seized the country’s most prominent opposition politician, Anwar Ibrahim, on Wednesday and took him to jail on suspicion of sodomy. Although Mr. Anwar was freed on bail on Thursday morning, his lawyers said, his arrest was likely to add to political tensions that have grown since the governing party suffered the biggest losses in its history in an election in March. Mr. Anwar, 61, has strongly denied the accusation of sodomy, which was made last month by a 23-year-old male aide. He called it a political fabrication by the same governing establishment that convicted him on charges of sodomy and corruption in 1998. The sodomy conviction was later overturned. Sex between males is against the law in Malaysia. After his previous arrest, tens of thousands of supporters challenged the government in the streets. The manner of Mr. Anwar’s arrest on Wednesday seemed intended to intimidate and to challenge the opposition as much as to enforce the law. According to one of his lawyers, Sankara Nair, who said he witnessed the arrest, Mr. Anwar was pulled roughly from his car and driven to the police headquarters just one hour before he had promised to turn himself in. Another of his lawyers, William Leong, said, “If it had been an ordinary investigation, then they should have allowed him to go to the police headquarters as has been agreed and they should have allowed him to make his statement.” During his previous arrest Mr. Anwar was famously punched in the eye by a high-ranking police officer, who later apologized to him when the Federal Court set him free in 2004. Both times, the charges were brought at a moment when Mr. Anwar was posing a serious challenge to incumbent prime ministers, first Mahathir Mohamad and now Dr. Mahathir’s successor, Abdullah Badawi. In 1998, as deputy prime minister and finance minister, Mr. Anwar had been Dr. Mahathir’s chosen successor but had apparently pushed his own ambitions too quickly for the prime minister’s taste. The sodomy conviction was overturned after Dr. Mahathir had left office, after Mr. Anwar had served six years in prison. By then, Malaysian politics had moved on, with a new prime minister and new contenders for power, and most analysts said chances were slim for a revival of Mr. Anwar’s political career. But Dr. Mahathir has turned against Mr. Abdullah, who had been his new designated successor, and the government has been seriously weakened by its disaster in the March election. At that time, the governing Barisan Nasional coalition lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority and ceded five states to the opposition, and Mr. Anwar’s challenge gained credibility and momentum. About 400 supporters gathered outside the police headquarters on Wednesday demanding his release, and police officers in riot gear warned the crowd to disperse or face arrest. Mr. Anwar’s supporters replied with a warning of their own. “Why are the police trying to test the people’s patience?” said Azmin Ali, a leader of Mr. Anwar’s party, the People Justice Party. “I am giving a very strong reminder to the police, don’t provoke us.” The government denied that politics was involved in the sodomy accusation. “The purpose of the investigations is not to fix someone but is to really help him clear his name,” said Shahrir Samad, the domestic trade minister. ...source

Another day, another arrest

Raja Petra arrested, on way to court Jul 17, 2008 - Malaysiakini Malaysia Today editor Raja Petra Kamarudin has been arrested and is being taken to the Jalan Duta court complex to be formally charged. He is expected to be charged with criminal defamation under section 500 of the Penal Code in relation to allegations in his statutory declaration that implicated Rosmah Mansor - wife of deputy premier Najib Abdul Razak - in the murder of Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu. Accompanied by two lawyers and his wife, Raja Petra told reporters earlier outside the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters that he was in the mood to fight. "I'm in the mood to f*** the government. What more do you want me to say?" ...more

Shame on sham arrest of Anwar

The sham arrest of Anwar Ibrahim on 16 July 2008 brought immediate shame to the country in the eyes of the world. Within hours almost all the major international news outfits have posted reports on the arrest (see sampling below).

Anwar arrested on sex charges - Aljazeera

Anwar Is Arrested in Malaysia After Sodomy Accusation - Bloomberg

Malaysia's Anwar arrested - Associated Press

Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim arrested - BBC

Lawyer says Malaysia’s Anwar has been arrested - International Herald Tribune

Police Arrest Malaysian Opposition Leader - Wall Street Journal

Malaysians also reacted with disbelief and incredulity the high-handedness used by the police to arrest Anwar using Special Action Force personnel clad in balaclava and leather jacket. He was escorted in a convoy of 15 patrol to the police headquarters to have his statement taken on the police report made against him. This was done despite his expressed intention to comply with the deadline issued by the police in an ultimatum.

The following are some of the comments from readers of Malaysiakini:

YOUR SAY: 'Why 15 police patrol cars?' Jul 17, 2008 - Malaysiakini On CID chief reveals why Anwar was arrested Diana Husin: Do the police have to arrest him escorted by a convoy of 15 patrol cars and special squad cops with balaclava? No wonder they can’t find Bala (and his whole family) because all the police are deployed to get Anwar. CK Chim: If only the Federal CID director Bakri Zinin can exercise the same level of anticipation in eradicating the state of corruption and crime in this country. His action in sending in 15 police cars and men in balaclava to arrest DSAI one hour before the stated deadline is absolutely amazing. Just like their road blocks over the weekend in ‘anticipation’ of the mass demonstration at the Parliament House on Monday when everyone else were not even aware of such an event. No wonder our country is going down the tube what with such kind of people manning the security of our country. Peter: I see no reason why the police must arrest Anwar before expiry of the deadline. How did the CID chief know that Anwar would not proceed to the police headquarters after going home? With all the surveillance by the police being focussed on Anwar alone, what were the possibilities that Anwar could escape to neighbouring country? Yes, Bakri Zinin, your reasoning went against logic and we would not buy your story. Coming to the way Anwar was arrested. Can you explain why you needed 15 police patrol cars and a four-wheel drive to escort him to the police station? Also tell us why did the arresting officers had to wear a balaclava? It is mind boggling! Is Anwar a terrorist high on a wanted list? If not, he did not deserve to be arrested in such a manner. As far as I know, soldiers would be dressed in balaclava when raiding terrorist hideouts. DelCapo: I want to express my utter disgust at the police's actions. This is a 60-year old man with a bad back. He had just spent hours at the ACA. He had excused himself, with apologies, from the ACA to make sure he would not be late for the 2pm appointment with the CID. Was he armed and dangerous like a terrorist? Was he speeding towards the expressway to Thailand or Singapore or the airport or a seaport for an escape?? Why the 10 police cars? Why the balaclava-clad special force? Where was the arrest warrant? I would like to know which part of police professionalism instruct an overkill and use of force under the circumstances above? Where? It shows there was an instruction by the IGP and BN government to use excessive force. It displayed no respect for the ‘innocent till proven guilty principle’, it is against democracy, against human rights, against rules of law. You showed that it was political and personal. It is a total disgrace. You have put all Malaysians to utter shame. Vijayya Segootan: When Anwar agreed to be present at 2 pm, there is no reason for the police to arrest Anwar before the deadline. Where did the CID Chief receive his orders from? You are paid by the rakyat and should be faithful to the rakyat. The CID chief, the Barisan government should resign for this shameful act. This is an abuse of power. William D: What a flimsy excuse to say that they were afraid that Anwar would not turn up at the appointed time of 2 pm, so they have to arrest him earlier at 12.55 pm. If Anwar can go to the ACA office in Putrajaya, I see no reason why he would not appear at the police headquarters. If they were afraid that he would not turn up, then why not arrest him at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka where the debate was held on Tuesday night? All they have to do is wait for him to come out from the building, put their hands on his shoulders and say, ‘You are under arrest’. Just to arrest one man, do you honestly need 15 patrol cars and men clad in black jackets and balaclava? And yet our prime minister said Anwar is irrelevant. http://www1.malaysiakini.com/news/86263

'Speak up now or you will be next' Jul 17, 2008 - Malaysiakini On Anwar arrested outside his house William D: I am totally disgusted with our police force. What's wrong with these people? For some days now, Anwar Ibrahim has been told he has been given until 2 pm yesterday to report at the police headquarters. Then why are they at the Anwar's house at 12.55pm to arrest him? Shouldn't this be done if Anwar fails to turn up after 2 pm? If he could report to the ACA in the morning, shouldn't they give him a bit of leeway for him to have the time to make it to the police headquarters? I have already lost respect for our police force. This callous action only entrenches my feelings further. They are supposed to remain neutral and operate by the law. The way the arrested Anwar gives me the impression on how eager they are to please their political masters. Maniam Sankar: The police had to block up the whole of KL roads based on unsubstantiated hearsay and rumors of an impending demonstration. And now they need 15 police cars and thuggish cops to arrest Anwar, after giving him until 2 pm to turn up at the police station. Does anyone else feel we are sliding dangerously into an authoritarian, police state? Speak up now or you will be next. Primus: This is atrocious. I think the people's patience has reached its boiling point. The situation now is different compared to ten years ago when Dr M deviously orchestrated the whole drama so to speak. DSAI's strength is bigger compared to then and he draws a humongous level of support from a bulk majority of the citizens. Again and again the government is making all the wrong moves which I think will definitely backfire. I think the repercussions of this move will be disastrous and huge. All this trumped up accusations against Anwar is an insult to the intelligence of all Malaysians. Why does this accusation arise now? Why? Because the government has realised that he is the biggest threat to the survival of the ‘stable’ BN government? I strongly believe in the principles of karma. There will be a time when it all comes back to the BN government. Angry Big Time: In honour of our police force's highhanded tactics including the barricade of Parliament yesterday and the pre-emptive arrest of Anwar Ibrahim, I propose we change their official name from Polis DiRaja Malaysia to Police DiRaja Umno. No better still, call them Polis Umno as that would more accurately describe who they are working for. They certainly don't work for the rakyat who pay the taxes that go to their salary. Ganasan Kailasanathan: Why did the police arrested Anwar before the 2 pm deadline. The police and the home minister need to explain to the rakyat. If Anwar is a suspect, so too is Najib. Why are you not arresting Najib and Rosmah? Why did the police manhandle Anwar? Please BN and Pak Lah, it is enough. If you do not know how to govern the country please resign. Stop arresting the opposition figures and arrest the country’s real criminals and traitors. As for the police, you are not arresting the criminals but arresting opposition leaders. Reduce crime first. Do your work Dorai Dubai: Anwar arrested? Why? There could be only one reason for the arrest and that is Anwar’s numerous claims of seizing power from the ruling government. It is obvious that we have to lose our freedom. They (BN) can increase the fuel price as they like, and arrest anyone so that they will not be heard anymore. The two options are either for our King to intervene or for the public to protest. Arianna: I am fed up, tired, pained and frustrated with the current situation in Malaysia. Here we are facing a serious economic crisis, onset of worrying inflation, high cost of living arising from higher oil prices and the Abdullah's regime does little to cushion the blow or introduce preventive measures. Instead, the government is obsessed with Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim. Even when our stock exchange rattles under the weight of political war games, Abdullah and his regime appear unconcerned. And do little to soothe fears among foreign investors who are more concerned about the country's economy than the government of the day. And it's all because the BN regime is worried sick about losing government to Anwar who is not even a member of Parliament. Compounding this problem is the police who apparently consider sodomy the worst crime among crimes. That a suspect of such a crime warrants a special squad and 15 police vehicles to arrest! Never mind that out there, smugglers are smuggling our precious oil and gas, cooking oil and other essentials aggravating our already alarming economic situation. Never mind that our crime rate continues to surge because priority must be given to arresting sodomy suspects! We have had enough of the 1998 shameful political games and want no more of such despicable acts. If anything, it would only hurt the country's economy and the people at large. The rakyat has given the BN the mandate on March 8. But until now, they have not proven that they are worthy of it. Meng: The speed at which the Royal Malaysian Police have investigated the Anwar case and arrive at an arrest is impressive and yet shameful. Impressive because in light of all the many rape cases and murders in this country which go unsolved it is amazing how they have acted with lightning speed. It is shameful because behind all this there is so many questions left in the rakyat’s mind. Shameful because out of so many unsolved rape and murder cases, the police have been so inefficient and rude. They have failed the rakyat but yet served their political masters. This entire case bleeds of political vengeance. We want Saiful Bukhari to come out and speak in person about his alleged involvement with Anwar. Katrina Lam: There are so many other issues that the country needs to pay attention to - not digging into the people’s personal sex life. I am sitting here in a hotel looking at the advertisement ‘Malaysia, truly Asia’ and the next scene is of Anwar’s arrest on CNN. Come on, just move on and leave that man alone with his family. I feel so much pain for Wan Azizah and her children yet they stand firm and strong. Justice? I don't even want to get there. Religion? Oh, there’s total hypocrisy there. My regards to Anwar and his family and all I can say is pray and be strong. There is only a limit God will take and may the Almighty be with you. Kenny Gan: The highhanded arrest of Anwar is totally unwarranted. His case is at worse, a matter of consensual sexual misconduct based on an archaic law akin to consensual oral sex. Unless we believe that a 61-year-old man with a bad back can forcibly sodomise a 23-year-old youth, any allegation of forced sodomy does not make sense. Why are the police pursuing the case as if a rape had occurred? If indeed, any sodomy has taken place, why isn’t Saiful investigated for consensual sodomy as he is equally a suspect? Why devote so much manpower and resources to investigate something so insignificant? Why arrest a national leader on such superficial grounds when he was willing to cooperate with the police? These are questions which demand answers but if we accept that there is a conspiracy against Anwar, then everything falls into place. It looks like the powers-that-be are willing to once again pervert the criminal justice system to convict Anwar on false charges in a repeat of 1998. They can suppress the truth and bulldoze a conviction against the tide of public opinion but there will be hell to pay. For it to be repeated a second time is even worse than the first time. Whatever remaining respect the police, the AG and the judiciary have from the public will be shattered. Malaysia will become an international pariah from which investments and tourists will bypass. Rodney1663: The script of Ops Lallang is rewritten. Looks like there could be many more arrests to come. When you are beginning to feel too much force coming, you will lock them up to shut their mouths. End of story. Watch out RPK, Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Tian Chua, Karpal Singh, Azman Ali, Khalid, Nizar etc (though we know you are fearless). Anwar, a suffering or beaten force would do unbelievable destruction along its path so please do not frighten them further by revealing too much too soon. Suresh Dass: From what has been reported about the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim and from the YouTube video of the arresting team's arrival at the Jalan Hang Tuah station, we can thus conclude that the PDRM have over-allocated personnel to carry out this simple procedure. Anwar Ibrahim had already made an appointment with the CID chief, Bakri Zinin. Why was there the overzealousness on the part of the PDRM in arresting him an hour before his appointment? It's KL after all, jams do occur. Perhaps a bit of patience would have been more cost effective. Judging by the entourage of unmarked police vehicles which arrived at the police station, the PDRM spent a whole lot on fuel today. What I would like to know is the bill that taxpayers have to foot at the end of the day in carrying out such an extensive and comprehensive police operation? (Which included fully masked police commandos and lots of fancy SUV's) What is the opportunity cost of undertaking such a large operation? How many hardcore criminals could have been arrested? How many robberies, snatch thefts, car thefts etc. could have been foiled? How many rapists, molesters etc could have been arrested? http://www1.malaysiakini.com/news/86261

Bala's SD fills void

Bala's affidavit fills void in Altantuya trial Kim Quek Jul 16, 2008 - Malaysiakini Letters Any one who has read through private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s (Bala) sensational affidavit implicating Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak in the Altantuya murder case must have been deeply impressed by the believability of the contents therein. For that affidavit has filled a huge void left gaping by the one-year old Altantuya trial – the absence of a compelling motive by the three accused. That the on-going Altantuya trial appears somewhat surreal is obvious from the facts that the first two accused who were charged for the killing appear to have no apparent motive while the third accused who was charged for abetting did not have any authority over the first two, as apparent from the following facts: The first two accused, who were bodyguards to Najib, had no knowledge of the girl. They were from the Special Action Force, where they were trained to execute extreme duties and to obey absolutely the orders from (and only from) their superior. The third accused, Razak Baginda, who is a confidante of Najib, is not a government official. Razak only met the two bodyguards for the first and only time one day before the murder. They were sent to Razak by Najib’s aide camp ASP Musa Safri. Since Razak couldn’t have given the order to kill, and the two bodyguards had no reason of their own to do so, surely there must be some one else involved who had authority over the two bodyguards. Why didn’t the police and the prosecutor pursue the cause of actions by the three accused? By leaving the core issue of motivation out of the case, is it not futile for the court to drift on and on rather aimlessly in looking for the elusive truth? Bala’s affidavit has landed with a big bang because it has boldly stated a position that has hitherto been taboo but actually makes sense of a seemingly perplexing case. It’s revelation of the alleged Najib-Altantuya-Razak triangle and the alleged attempt by police and prosecutors to eliminate Najib from this triangle actually explain some of the puzzling phenomena we have observed over this case. Bala, who had been engaged to protect Razak and his family from harassment by Altantuya, attempted through his affidavit to give a full account of what he has gone through and observed and what he has learned from the various parties involved in the case. It will be seen that Bala’s affidavit is an important document that not only offers significant new leads to the case, but also exposes the alleged collusion between higher powers to thwart justice. These accusations, though unproven as yet, are rendered credible by the logic-defying act of leaving Najib and Musa Safri completely out of the radar screen of the police, prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judge. In any democratic country with sound rule of law, Bala’s affidavit would have caused the immediate formation of an independent panel to probe into the veracity of the facts and allegations contained therein, with the aim to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to punish those found guilty of obstructing and transgressing justice. However, in this Boleh Land, this affidavit hardly caused a stir among those responsible to uphold the law – from the prime minister to de facto law minister to the attorney general, police and the judiciary. There has been no visible sign that any of these law enforcers are concerned about the fact that our laws and justice system might have been seriously violated, except the standard response to this kind of high-level scandal – the police are looking into the two affidavits, full stop. At the rate things are going, it looks almost a certainty that the so-called police investigation will not come up with anything that may impede the court session which will resume on July 23 to hear the summaries by both parties. A decision on whether there is a prima facie case will hence be made disregarding the Bala affidavit, despite the strong possibilities of serious transgression of justice as presented by the affidavit. This shameful episode is making a mockery of the prime minister’s most recent renewal of his vow to institute judicial reforms and to improve the rule of law. It also fortifies public perception that the institutions of state have existed to preserve the hegemony of the ruling political power as their top priority and not to serve the interests of the rakyat. The double-standard and the abuse of power that have been glaringly and disgustingly displayed in recent days by these law enforcers only deepen the alienation of the masses against the regime. The recent election has spoken in unmistakable term that the people have awoken to re-possess their rights under the constitution, and the ruling power is well warned not to take lightly to this political renaissance of the people. The corrupt power may win in a corrupt court, but there is no way it can escape harsh judgment in the hearts and minds of the masses. http://www1.malaysiakini.com/letters/86228

The Case of the Two SDs

Numerous articles and blog comments are now available online on the sensational statutory declaration made by P. Balasubramaniam on 1 July 2008 and released to the public on 3 July which was followed by an equally sensational second statutory declaration made on 4 July which essentially retracts the first statutory declaration.

The following articles capture the gists of the serious issues related to this case of two statutory declaration made by the same person with contradictory content within a period of two days.

A Malaysian Private Eye Recants an Explosive Statement Asia Sentinel - 04 July 2008 Complete reversal on charges against Malaysia's deputy prime minister raises questions of political pressure In a stunning turnaround that raises as many questions as it answers, the Kuala Lumpur-based private investigator who set off a firestorm Thursday by alleging that Deputy prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was involved in the 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu today retracted the entire contents of his statutory declaration and said he had made it under duress (Note: Both declarations can be found here). Media in Kuala Lumpur reported that P. Balasubramaniam, a private investigator who once represented accused murderer Abdul Razak Baginda, said everything he had alleged in his July 1 statutory declaration was wrong, then rushed off without taking questions. Local media also reported that he had come under severe pressure after releasing the declaration in the company of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim Thursday. The investigator did not say who pressured him to issue the initial statement, but his action raised the inevitable specter that powerful political forces are at work over the sensational murder. The allegations against Najib have already undermined his standing as the heir apparent to the leadership of the powerful United Malays National Organization. The prominent Internet journalist Raja Petra Kamaruddin in his own statutory declaration recently flatly stated that Najib's wife had been present at Altantuya's execution. Raja Petra now faces charges of sedition and is scheduled to go on trial in October. Opposition leaders denounced the retraction as the result of political pressure and called for an investigation. To Balasubramaniam's assertion that he had been pressured into making the original statement, they pointed out that he was in the company of his own lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu, when he made the statement public to reporters. The respected independent reform organization Aliran issued a statement questioning the reversal and said that an assistant superintendant of police had met with Balasubramaniam at the Brickfields police station in Kuala Lumpur the night after he made his first statement, and that his second was witnessed by a commissioner of oaths named Zainul Abidin Muhayat from an address of the law firm Zul Rafique and Partners, reportedly owned by the brother of Federal Territories Minister, Zulhasnan Rafique. The minister is a top UMNO wheelhorse. The ongoing trial has thus far avoided questioning Najib or bringing his name into the proceedings, with both prosecutors and defense attorneys challenging attempts to have him brought into the proceedings. Given the assertions by Raja Petra and Balasubramaniam it seems almost inconceivable that the High Court hearing the case would not reopen it to attempt to get at the truth. Anwar, who himself faces recent allegations of forcibly sodomizing a 23-year-old man who works in his office, was excoriated by pro-government loyalists from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition led by UMNO after he released the initial declaration. Najib and Anwar are bitter rivals for power who were once allied in UMNO before Anwar was booted out of the deputy prime minister’s job in 1998 and later jailed on sexual perversion charges. Building on opposition gains in the March elections, Anwar has declared his intention to unseat the BN by September. Najib called the private investigator’s statement “a desperate move by Anwar Ibrahim to divert attention from the sodomy allegation he is facing.” For some, the episode reveals rot inside the political system. “They are all damaged, it doesn’t matter, really,” said a disgusted lawyer and political insider in Kuala Lumpur. “I think new leaders will emerge after this mess.” In the new declaration, a sworn statement made in writing as was his first, Balasubramaniam said: "I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress. "I wish to expressly state that at no material time did (Abdul) Razak (Abdullah) Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP and at no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib (Tun Razak) had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse. At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister." Balasubramaniam’s previous statement was extraordinarily detailed, accusing the deputy prime minister of having had an affair with Altantuya and introducing her to Razak; he also recounted SMS conversations between Razak and Najib on the night of her murder. The statement described the cars that came to take the woman away, related conversations with the accused and described his disappointment at the fact that a detailed statement he had given police about the matter had been censored so completely that nothing of the relationship between Razak and Najib survived. Razak went on trial in June 2007 for Altantuya’s murder along with 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. The 28-year-old Mongolian woman was shot twice in the head on October 19, 2006 and her body dumped in a patch of jungle near the suburban city of Shah Alam before she was blown up with explosives. Balasubramaniam wrote in his first declaration that he wanted 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 prosecution’s case.” In that declaration Balasubramaniam, who was hired to help Razak deal with the woman, said he repeatedly tried to get Razak to have Altantuya arrested for harassment, but that he refused to do so. The July 1 statement described in meticulous detail a series of visits by Altantuya and two friends from Mongolia to Razak’s office and home, seeking to corner the political analyst about their relationship and demanding US$500,000 for her services as a translator in a questionable transaction involving Malaysia’s purchase of French submarines. The document also purported to confirm long-reported rumors that Najib, Razak and Altantuya had been at a dinner in Paris during the time when the submarine transaction was being negotiated. It described conversations with Altantuya, in which she told the private investigator that Razak had even bought her a house in Mongolia. ...Asia Sentinel

Why Balasubramaniam's First Declaration Is Still Significant Disquiet - July 4, 2008 P Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress. He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress. Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences. In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement. I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why. The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story. For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule. However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’. Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not. The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system. We deserve better. ...Disquiet

Was Bala’s second declaration made under duress? 04 July 2008 - Aliran Aliran views private investigator P Balasubramaniam’s two contradictory statutory declarations with shock and concern. It is difficult to believe that he could have retracted his earlier statutory declaration dated July 1, which implicates and condemns the Deputy Prime Minister’s involvement with Altantuya Shaaribuu, within a matter of three days. His latest statutory declaration dated July 4 retracts every thing that he had solemnly sworn “consciously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.” When he disclosed the contents of his first statutory declaration at the press conference on July 3, he was in the presence of his lawyer, Americk Singh Sidhu. His lawyer even clarified that Balasubramaniam made the statutory declaration because the prosecution had wrapped up their case against Abdul Razak Baginda without raising his revelation to them in the course of the trial. What he had revealed to the police implicated Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. According to Americk, Balasubramaiam wanted to bring to light the available evidence and tell the police and the prosecution that the private eye was at their disposal at any time. Up to this point there was no mention of any coercion or duress from any quarter that compelled the former police officer to appear at the press conference. We could only observe the voluntary nature of his conduct and it did not go unnoticed that he was at the press conference as a concerned citizen whose primary duty was to ensure that justice prevailed. But his second statutory declaration retracting his earlier declaration raises all sorts of questions. If the first one was a false declaration as he now claims, how are we to believe that his second one is not another concocted story? How are we to believe that his latest declaration was made freely, voluntarily and not under duress? It also does not go unnoticed that he came up with his retraction this morning after he had gone to Brickfields to meet an ASP yesterday evening, soon after the first press conference. Malaysians would like to know what transpired last night. Was he turned over by their incredible methods of making people “see the light” as was demonstrated by a top police officer during the first Anwar trial? When did the new lawyer, Arulampalam, get involved in this matter? Who recommended this new lawyer? Even Americk is “extremely surprised” at the change of lawyers. His second declaration was affirmed before commissioner of oaths Zainal Abidin Muhayat bearing an address reportedly belonging to law firm Zul Rafique and Partners owned by Federal Territories Minister Zulhasnan Rafique’s brother. This is what makes this sordid affair suspicious and questionable. It is difficult to believe that Balasubramaniam had once again made “this solemn declaration consciously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.” There is reason to believe that there may be an attempt to suppress evidence borne out by these contradictory declarations. There are hands, it seems, at work to derail justice and bury the truth. What has unfolded in this disturbing episode suggest that there are forces bent on subverting our justice system. Malaysians are perturbed by this latest turn of events and are not sure what to believe. Is this part of the script so that his first declaration will be thrown out as evidence coming from an unreliable source? Thinking Malaysians will remain sceptical with regard to the second declaration for very obvious reasons. P Ramakrishnan President 4 July 2008 ...Aliran

Déjà vu For Malaysia's Anwar?

Malaysia is once again in the news and the headlines worldwide have featured the story of Malaysia’s former Deputy Prime Minister and de facto leader of the Pakatan Rakyat (Peoples’ Pact) alliance Anwar Ibrahim being accused of sexual misconduct – as he was in 1998.

During the turbulent years of 1998-1999 when Malaysia was caught in the midst of the Asian financial crisis and the meltdown of the ‘Tiger economies’ of Southeast Asia, Malaysia’s woes were compounded by the dismissal and subsequent arrest of Anwar Ibrahim who was accused of abuse of power and sexual misconduct by his erstwhile mentor, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The controversy then took an enormous toll on the public’s confidence and after he was finally released many a revelation has come to light about the questionable manner in which he was investigated, prosecuted and jailed. For the past few years, the judicial and governmental institutions of Malaysia have been slowly trying to rebuild their image and win back the confidence of the public, until this happened.

This time round, Anwar has once again been accused of sexual misconduct by a young party worker. A police report has been filed, and the Malaysian police have stated that a proper investigation will take place in due course. Anwar’s supporters have been quick to react, claiming that there have even been rumours that Anwar’s life is in danger. Over the weekend Anwar has taken refuge at the Turkish embassy – a move that has now entangled Turkey, an important ally of Malaysia and a move that has attracted the attention of the world media. In less than 24 hours, news of the developments in Malaysia have become headline news worldwide.

...

- Farish Noor, The Other Malaysia

The following videos on the Anwar trials in 1998 will remind Malaysians the questionable and despicable means which were used to tarnish the reputation of Anwar. Such methods must never be allowed to be used again.

Part 3

Part 5

Links to Part 1-7:

• Part 1
  
• Part 2
  
• Part 3
  
• Part 4
  
• Part 5
  
• Part 6
  
• Part 7
  

Mahathir still untouchable by the law?

Mahathir still untouchable by the law? Kim Quek 17 April 2008 - Malaysia Today That both the previous AG Mohtar and current AG Gani appeared to have acted dubiously with regards to these scandals involving Mahathir should come as no surprise, if we know their questionable role in the sham trials of Anwar Ibrahim. Despite being out of power for almost five years, former autocrat Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad appears to be still enjoying immunity from the long arms of our law enforcement bodies, just like in the good old days of his rule. This is the irresistible conclusion from events surrounding the revived controversy over Mahathir’s alleged interference in an Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) investigation on a former Director General (DG) of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) during Mahathir’s reign. During the second trial (on sodomy) on Anwar Ibrahim, former DG of ACA Shafee Yahya testified on 12th June 2000 that Mahathir angrily told Shafee to stop investigating then DG of EPU Ali Abu Hassan Sulaiman. Shafee had earlier (in 1998) raided Ali’s office and found large amount of unaccounted for cash (RM100,000) in the latter’s drawer. Former United Nation Special Rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy took up Mahathir’s recent challenge for any foreign agency to investigate his misdeeds, and exposed this incident. In defence, Mahathir refuted the allegation by giving his side of the story in a letter published in the Sun on 8th April 2008. However, this letter appears more like an attempt to distract rather than to take on the real issue which is the finding of large amount of unaccounted for cash in Ali’s office drawer. Mahathir claimed that in the meeting with Shafee in his office (on 19th June 1998), it was Shafee who lost his temper on Mahathir after being asked a series of questions, angrily and loudly accusing Mahathir of interfering with his works. MAHATHIR’S DEFENCE WEAK Never mind about who is angry with whom, what about the meat of the issue which is the finding of the unaccounted for cash? Is it true that there was such a large amount of cash in Ali’s drawer? Is it true that Ali could not account for it? What did Mahathir, being Ali’s immediate superior, do upon being confronted with such alleged misdeed by his top official? Did Mahathir pursue this serious allegation to the very end? If he didn’t, why? If he did, can he tell us now the true story of this cash in Ali’s drawer? I think Mahathir owes the nation true answers to these questions. With regards to whether Mahathir did or did not order Shafee to stop investigation, the test of the pudding is in the eating. What happened to the investigation? Did Shafee continue to investigate diligently after the said meeting with Mahathir and brought the investigation to a swift conclusion? The answer is an emphatic no. ACA’s director of investigation Mohd Shukri Abdul said that it took three years (1988 to 2001) to complete the investigation on Ali. Is it not strange that a simple case like this – either Ali could or could not justify the cash on him – which should have taken only days or weeks, had actually taken 3 years to complete? What possible justification could there be for this long delay if not for the fact that the case had in fact been put on cold store after the fateful Mahathir-Shafee meeting? Such suspension of investigation would surely have been reflected in ACA’s report, the conclusion of which is certainly of great interest to the public. So, can we ask what the finding of this report is? No, according to Mohd Shukri. Reason? He could not give details as investigation was conducted before his time. What kind of nonsensical answer is that? By Mohd Shukri’s logic, if his position is taken over by someone today, the new officer would be in the ridiculous situation of not being able to answer any question at all on any case, as he has only taken the new position this day. ACA’s naked attempt to hide the skeletons in the cupboard is only too obvious. Perhaps the greatest weakness of Mahathir’s defence is his failure to appear in court to refute Shafee’s allegation. Contrary to Mahathir’s claim that he was not allowed the opportunity to refute the accusation, Mahathir in fact took the opposite course. He fought tooth and nail to resist a subpoena to appear in court. Even on the very day that Shafee testified against Mahthir – 12th June 2000 – Anwar’s counsel, Christopher Fernando, had a clash with High Court Judge Arifin Jaka arising from this subpoena. Arifin asked Christopher to close the case at the end of the day, but Christopher objected on the ground that he was still awaiting a decision from the Federal Court (the highest court) on Anwar’s appeal against the Court of Appeal decision upholding Judge Arifin’s ruling to allow Mahathir not to testify in the trial. When a prime minister is accused by his top corruption buster in court of having stopped an investigation on the pm’s top aide, and the PM steadfastly refused to take the stand in the same court to refute the accusation, what conclusion can we draw other than the PM is guilty as charged? That is what the common people would think, but not our attorney general and police. HIDING SKELETONS? On 8th April 2008, Attorney General Gani Patail said police investigated Mahathir for the alleged misdeed, and the investigation papers were received by the Chambers in February 2000. He said, however, “the Chambers had found no evidence to suggest Mahathir had interfered in investigations”. (Param pointed out in a letter to Malaysiakini published on April 11 that it was impossible for AG to receive the investigation papers in February 2000 when Shafee only testified in June 2000, but AG has not made any public clarification to date). On 9th April 2008, Federal CID director Mohd Bakri Zinin said he would obtain the files containing the investigation papers submitted to the Attorney General and go through it to ascertain whether the probe was properly done. If the case needed to be re-opened, he would refer his findings to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) Musa Hassan. On 10th April 2008, Musa Hassan was asked whether the case would be re-opened. He answered: “What for? Are there any witnesses? It would be the same thing.” With that, we take it that Musa had already made up his mind the case would not be looked at, and the CID director could therefore save his time by not looking at the files. On the same day, Gani Patail said the Mahathir case was officially closed and would not be considered for re-opening unless fresh evidence surfaced. With that, it looks like AG and police have acted in concert to block current effort to re-open this Mahathir abuse-of-power case. Then what about the Ali Abu Hassan’s cash-in-drawer case? ACA’s Shukri said that then AG Mohtar Abdullah had asked for the case to be closed due to “inconsistent witness statements and lack of supporting statements”. Doesn’t this smell fishy - an officer caught red-handed with unaccounted for cash by the chief of ACA himself personally, and yet the ACA could have bungled with such mangled statements as to cause the AG to reject them after three long years of investigation? Since our ACA could not be so hopelessly inefficient, what choice do we have except to conclude that either ACA or AG or both have been less than honest? AG’S SHADY ROLE That both the previous AG Mohtar and current AG Gani appeared to have acted dubiously with regards to these scandals involving Mahathir should come as no surprise, if we know their questionable role in the sham trials of Anwar Ibrahim. Mohtar and Gani, (who was then the leading prosecutor), were accused in an affidavit by lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon to have blackmailed Manjeet’s client S. Nallakaruppan with threat of the death penalty to concoct evidence against Anwar. In fact on the same day that Shafee testified against Mahathir (12th June 2000), counsel Christopher examined Manjeet (a former Bar Council Chairman) on Gani’s attempt to blackmail Nalla. I reproduce below the relevant section of an AFP news report dated 12th June 2000 touching on this part of the court proceeding: Fernando, seeking to prove that witnesses against Anwar had been coerced, then called lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon. Manjeet was the lawyer for Anwar’s one-time tennis partner S. Nallakaruppan (better known as Nalla). Nalla was initially charged with possessing live ammunition under an act which carries a mandatory death sentence. Prosecutors later reduced the charge and Nalla in February 1999 was jailed for 42 months. Manjeet said he met state prosecutor Abdul Gani Patail in October 1998. There was a “blatant attempt by Abdul Gani to extort and blackmail evidence from a man (Nalla) by using his life as a bargaining chip,” he said. Manjeet said Abdul Gani told him that prosecutors “were looking into the matter on behalf of the prime minister and that he wanted evidence from Nalla concerning (Anwar’s affairs with) women. “In the course of mentioning that fact he moved in numbers and finally settled for five women.” Manjeet said Abdul Gani told him “that I had to impress on Nalla to bear in mind that he could die.” Nalla did not give evidence against Anwar. Both Mohtar (famous for his selective prosecution) and Gani had perverted justice to serve the personal interests of Mahathir, and it is certainly not unreasonable to suspect that they have done likewise in theses cases, considering that the circumstances surrounding this scandal have overwhelmingly pointed to Mahathir’s guilt. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi vowed in a major post-election speech on Mar 25 to renew efforts to fulfill his pledges of reforms made in his 2004 election manifesto. Now is the time to honour this renewed pledge by restoring some shine to our tarnished law-enforcing bodies by accepting Mahathir’s challenge to invite an international body to investigate the allegations against Mahathir. Does Abdullah have what it takes to fulfill the yearnings of the electorate so eloquently expressed in the Mar 8 election? ...Malaysia Today