My Anthem

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

A Setback for DEmocracy and WRITERS LIKE DR AZmi SHarom, BUT...


FRom the MAlaysian INsider;~~~

Court rules Sedition Act legal, Azmi Sharom to stand trial
Published: 6 October 2015 10:27 AM | Updated: 6 October 2015 3:27 PM
Law professor Dr Azmi Sharom seen at the Federal Court in Putrajaya today. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Kamal Ariffin, October 6, 2015. Law professor Dr Azmi Sharom seen at the Federal Court in Putrajaya today. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Kamal Ariffin, October 6, 2015. 

Law professor Dr Azmi Sharom will have to stand trial for sedition after the Federal Court today dismissed his move to challenge the constitutionality of the Sedition Act 1948.

The apex court today declared the law enacted under British rule was constitutional.
Today's ruling will impact some 30 politicians, government critics and activists who have been charged under the act since last year.
In September 2 last year, Azmi, a law lecturer with Universiti Malaya, was charged under Section 4(1)(b) and Section 4(1)(c) of the act over his comments in an article titled “Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told” that was published in a news portal.
If convicted under either charge, he will face a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years’ prison, or both.
Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria, who delivered the unanimous judgment of the five-man bench, said the act did not run foul of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which pertained to the freedom of speech, expression and assembly.
He said the courts had limited power to review an act passed by Parliament.
"It is not for the court to determine a restriction imposed by parliament," he said.
In April, Federal Counsel Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah told the court during submissions that although the act was not a law made by Parliament, it must be construed to have been made by the federal legislature.
He said Malaysia's Parliament was only founded in 1959, and although the Sedition Act was not enacted by parliament, the law received a stamp of constitutional approval by the legislature.
The Sedition Act was also extensively amended after the racial riot in 1969.
Azmi 's counsel, Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, submitted that the act, originally known as the Sedition Ordinance 1948, was enacted by the Legislative Council.
He said the act was incapable of being modified and had become void upon establishment of the Federal Constitution in 1957.
Malik added that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong did not have the authority in law to modify the Sedition Ordinance.
But Arifin today told a packed court room that Parliament had the exclusive authority to make laws and that the legislature could modify pre-independence legislation.
"Such could be modified to bring them in line with the constitution," the judge added.
He said the court could also not add or remove words in the constitution or else it would be construed as rewriting the supreme law of the land.
Arifin added that the punishment provision in the act was in line with aims and object of Articles 10 (2) (a), which allowed Parliament to impose restrictions on the freedom of speech as it deems necessary in the interest of security, public order or morality and on other grounds to protect the federal and state legislatures.
He also noted that the Sedition Act did not impose total prohibition on freedom of speech, as there were exceptions in law, such as in legitimate criticism of a ruler or of the government.
"It is not seditious to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures, or to point out errors in any government or constitution as by law established," the chief judge added.
"With the above findings, we now order that this matter (Azmi's trial) be remitted to the Sessions Court for the proceedings to be continued without any further delay," he said. – October 6, 2015.
- See more at:



FRom the MAlaysian INSider:~~~

Lawyers group repeats call to abolish Sedition Act after court ruling
Published: 6 October 2015 12:27 PM
Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen says the rampant and indiscriminate use of the Sedition Act compounds the reasons why the act needs to be repealed. – The Malaysian Insider pic, October 6, 2015.Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen says the rampant and indiscriminate use of the Sedition Act compounds the reasons why the act needs to be repealed. – The Malaysian Insider pic, October 6, 2015.
The Federal Court ruling today declaring the Sedition Act constitutional was immediately decried by legal rights advocacy group, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), which said the colonial era law was antiquated and undemocratic.
LFL executive director Eric Paulsen said that most modern states in the world would have either repealed or put the oppressive legislation into disuse.
The Federal Court's decision today means Universiti Malaya law professor Azmi Sharom will have to stand trial for sedition, after being charged in September last year. The apex court today dismissed his bid to challenge the constitutionality of the 1948 act.
Paulsen, in a statement today, also lashed out at the rampant and indiscriminate use of the act, citing selective and double standards.
"The rampant and indiscriminate use of the Sedition Act and its wide, arbitrary and ill-defined 'seditious tendency' offence functions as a catch-all provision to target all and sundry for anything that is remotely contentious, thus stifling democratic norms and creating a climate of fear.
"The situation is made worse by the blatant selective and double standards use of the Sedition Act – cracking down hard against dissidents and opposition politicians for anything remotely controversial. For example against N. Surendran, Teresa Kok, Adam Adli (Abd Halim), RSN Rayer and many others while Umno or pro-Umno personalities like Ibrahim Ali and ‘Ali Tinju’ are let off even though what they have said is far more inflammatory," Paulsen said.
Surendran and Kok are federal lawmakers while Rayer is a Penang state assemblyman.
Adam Adli is a youth activist while Ibrahim heads Malay rights group Perkasa.
Ali Tinju, who real name is Mohd Ali Baharom, is the president of the Malay Armed Forces Veterans Association and has been in the news lately for allegedly making inflammatory remarks outside Kuala Lumpur's Low Yat Plaza in July.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in 2012 had promised to repeal the Sedition Act but made an about-turn following pressure from conservatives who want the law retained to protect national harmony and Malay privileges.
Paulsen also said that investigations and prosecutions using the Sedition Act were a waste of the police and Attorney-General’s Chambers resources, adding that they should have been better used to address real crimes.
LFL repeated calls to abolish the law and wants a moratorium imposed on its further use, including a drop of all prosecutions pending a repeal of the act.
Today's ruling is expected to impact some 30 politicians, government critics and activists, all of whom have been charged under the act since last year. – October 6, 2015.

- See more at:

Monday, October 05, 2015

Another Columnist's Write to Share: to chase away MOnday's BLues?

I would like to later RUMINATE on this current column along with another two days ago, my INTRO reproduced below:



Saturday, October 03, 2015

Media MOnitor: Columnist Extraordinare DR AZMI SHAROM

writes on POLITICS of PRINCIPLE. And those in the old PAkatan RAkyat and the new PAkatan HArapan must take note and RUMINATE Over this weekend, yes for 48hours. ME, I do so for 24, on Sundaes only because I relish the thought of BAnana Split at the Milo MIlkBar -- if you do not no where this is, ask any FURONGknight worth his/her/its salt like DEsi's.  Those were the days, my freiend, we thought they'd never end......

FRom TheSUN, 5 October 2015, PRINT COPY,  yes, a free copy from the 7ELEVEN As I went for socialist BF At 8.00AM -- nasi lemak at 70sen, two karipap at 2X40sen = RM2.50:~~~: 

Cut&PAstry from sun ONLINE -- hey, I can't be writing out in longhand OK!; furthermore, I reseve Energy to comeback wit' a Commentary, OK!:~~~~~~~~~~~~

Law Speak - Restore integrity

THE jail term imposed on Khir Toyo for corruption committed while he held the people’s trust as the mentri besar of Selangor shows the level to which our political leaders have descended to. This is not the first such case. Another Selangor MB was also jailed for corruption. A Johor MB was exposed by the Supreme Court of usurping land meant for army veterans for himself and his cronies. The 1980s cooperative scandals resulted in jail terms of political stalwarts. The PKFZ scandal implicated high-ranking politicians.
Although prosecutions are far and in between – a tip of the iceberg as not all cases are “discovered” or revealed – it reflects the unabated decay of the body politic.
Corruption is more than a matter of jailing wrongdoers. It diverts or denies services intended for the people, it empties state coffers. Ultimately it bankrupts nations.
Invariably, the corrupt disguise the gratification they receive. These ingenious contrivances are criminal nonetheless, as the MACC Act makes clear. A corrupt “gratification” can be in the form of money, donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property or interest in property, financial benefit, or any other similar advantage.
The 2014 Transparency International’s Corruption Index placed Malaysia at 50. Our immediate neighbour which shares the same demographic make-up as us (indeed many of their public officials are Malaysians or ex-Malaysians) ranked 7th.
How come this yawning gap?
Is it because their “Rules of Prudence” stress upholding the fundamentals: integrity, honesty and incorruptibility – with an enforcement machinery to match?
But then our PM has also issued similar clarion calls to “intensify efforts in fighting corruption and abuse of power” together with a “comprehensive integrity plan that cross borders to prove the government’s seriousness in addressing governance, integrity and corruption”.
Yet there seems to be a terrible trust deficit. Is this a mere matter of misplaced perception? An independent and transparent enquiry can speedily dispel this notion.
But the signs are dismal – exacerbated by recent episodes and the dismissal of officials. An AG retired abruptly; ministers dismissed summarily; parliamentary investigations stalled; other investigative bodies dismantled; investigation officers arrested.
The rakyat bears the brunt of corruption by public servants: a devalued currency, downturn in the economy, flight of funds, substandard services and conditions of life.
You see, public service officials are truly servants of the people. We the people, give them our utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect the nation’s property and money. This in law is known as a “fiduciary”. And a fiduciary is accountable for any dereliction of this duty. Our courts recognise this.
The Federal Court said as much – that government stands in a fiduciary relationship to those it serves (Bato Bagi v Sarawak Government). It must protect our interests. Else it betrays our trust. It can be hauled up in court for this breach of fiduciary duty.
It is ultimately our institutions which are entrusted with the obligation to maintain the integrity of our public officials: the police, the attorney-general in his role as a public prosecutor, the courts, the auditor-general and to some extent parliamentarians. But these institutions are under siege.
The former AG was unceremoniously bundled out of his office. The police hardly inspire public confidence – what with incessant arrests and selective and arbitrary exercise of power. Courts deny standing to citizens in public interest cases on archaic procedural grounds. Judicial review of governmental overreach receives much the same short shrift. The report of a Commission of Inquiry of misconduct implicating the judiciary lies buried in some deep recess. And the promotion of judges with an exemplary record of unquestionable integrity is aborted by the executive.
Even parliamentarians often disappoint. Note that the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act which the opposition condemns – was passed by a vote of 81-68; and the Prevention of Terrorism Act by 79-60. If all the 86 opposition MPs were present, these two acts could have been defeated! Hence the public outcries against well-salaried MPs fiddling while the proverbial Rome burns!
Ultimately, it is all about integrity. Larry Hagman, the famed villain JR of the Dallas TV series, sums it succinctly: “Once you get rid of integrity the rest is a piece of cake.”
There is an emerging consensus that the solution, and the challenge, lies in restoring integrity as the uncompromising overarching value of our society – along with the entire architecture of institutions that helps foster it.
Recently, the Perak sultan warned leaders and administrators against the undermining of the integrity and independence of our institutions.
Else it will not be easy to contain the wrath of a frustrated citizenry – as seen in the recent episodes both within and outside this country. For who does not yearn to replace the cold and bitterness of winter with the warmth and splendour of spring?
Gurdial is professor at the Law Faculty, University of Malaya. Comments:

DESIDERATA: INitial REmark, cun? COmmentary to follow aft my SNooze, OK? Hey, that's a rhetorcial Q -- no answer from ye please! Conditional DEsi doesn't continue to sleep unto ETernity; this word ETernity often cometh up in my recent CONversations wit' ttT -- he oft quotes Einstien about INFINITY, STUPIDITY, UNIVERSE, and I like to extrapolate to include ETERNITY because it's a natural extensuon to "INfinity", RIght? THIs is another R.Q. unless thou art that ttT, who says he likes to "Irritate" Me so we can keep on our meaningfool debate... Isn't that STOOOPPIIID Of ttT? -- YL, DEsi

Sunday, October 04, 2015

RUMINATION: Another Explosive Chapter extracted from DOnPLayPUKs' eBOok on ALTANTUYA MURDER...

DEar ER: IF you wish to COMMENT ON the following article, please do so at the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S BLOG:  AS a CHinoserie would say, THank Q YOu; XIe XIe, TERima kasih. YL, DESi


The World Anthem




by Donplaypuks®



Shooting The Breeze 

There is an old Tamil saying that you can’t hide a full pumpkin in half a plate of rice.
If there is one reason, and only one, why the murder of Altantuya is the result of a massive conspiracy, then it must be that her executioners blew her body up with C4 explosives. It is not unknown for men and women to kill on the spur of the moment with homicidal tendencies leaping to the fore from a rush of blood. Crimes of passion are often the result of  such uncontainable emotional experiences and outbursts. But no one, and no one, can lay claim to unpremeditated murder when they go out of their way to collect C4 explosives and then use it to kill, never mind their motives. 

The Central Clue
This then is THE central clue to unravelling the entire mystery of the Altantuya murder affair. Premeditated murder here unequivocally points to a darker motive or two, possibly three. What did those who planned Altantuya’s execution wish to hide forever by blowing up her body to the winds?  

It must be that she was carrying someone’s unborn child. 

Sirul, in his inadmissible confession, states exactly that: 

“I saw that she was in a state of fear and she pleaded not to kill her and said she was expecting.” 

It must be the unborn child of someone very high up in defence or at the uppermost echelon of government, or both. Now we know why Judge Zaki refused to let the confession stand. The Attorney General’s office had tied his hands by publicly announcing that only three persons were responsible for Altantuya’s murder. What other negotiations took place between the judge and the Attorney General can easily be guessed at. A murdered baby would have blown open a massive conspiracy and brought down the government of prime minister Najib Tun Razak! 

Two Central Questions – Motive And The Mastermind 

The other central questions are why would two cops, neither of whom knew Altantuya (or Baginda) personally, kill her unless instructed to do so by their superiors and other conspirators? Who was the mastermind who gave the orders to kill?  

It is also a given that Azilah and Sirul participated in Altantuya’s killing. Sirul’s original confession, ruled inadmissible by High Court trial judge Zaki, contains a graphic tale of spine-chilling, ruthless, efficient and cold-blooded murder that would be beyond the mere fantasy imagination of a lowly corporal like Sirul; it can only be a description of actual happenings. It is a fact that Azilah recruited Sirul, and so their dual fates were sealed forever.

Which brings us to the curious case of evidence planted in Sirul’s flat and car. It is important to understand that Azilah could not logically have out of the blue calledup Sirul and asked him for the first time to help him commit murder. Azilah could not risk working with novices in a case where he received instructions from PM Najib’s security chief Musa Safri, and from Razak Baginda, Najib’s blue-eyed boy and front-man linked to the RM7.5 billion (US$2.3 billion or €1.5 billion) Scorpene submarines contract scandal and the RM 575 million (US$180 million or €115 million) “co-ordination and support services” fee suspected to be a sham arrangement for fraudulently payments to Perimekar, a Baginda controlled company.

It could not be a random choice, unless of course, Azilah had a pool of killer cops  to pick and choose from. That possibility is surely there. Razak Baginda had in his sworn affidavit mentioned about Azilah having told him that he had killed six to ten others before. Azilah denied it on the stand under oath. However, it is a fair assumption that Azilah lied andthat Sirul must have been in on those killings as well.

Were those previous killings cases of : 

1. Cops indulging in extra-judicial executions to get rid of difficult gangsters and 
criminals? or, 
2. Cops working hand in glove with triads and criminal gangs to off rivals? or, 
3. Cops working for crooked politicians? Or 
4. All of the above?  

There have been several accusations in recent years that some Ministers, the AG and the  IGP were under the pay of triads. 

Throughout this episode, Sirul was in contact with only Azilah and received all the instructions from him. The lines of communication were very clear – Baginda to ? to Musa Safri to Azilah to Sirul. So, it is entirely conceivable that Sirul was kept in the dark about the big picture and all the connections and links. Azilah would have had to be told some aspects of the big picture, but not all. The fact that till today he has kept his lips tightly sealed means he knows a heck of a lot more and has been rewarded handsomely to maintain an unholy silence.

Sirul, on the other hand, protested until his original confession was ruled inadmissible at the High Court, and then claimed in his unsworn statement read from the dock that:
“Before I complete my statement, I must clarify that I have never met the victim in this case and have had no personal dealings whatsoever with her. I also do not know Abdul Razak bin Abdullah (Baginda) and have had no dealings with him before this case. I appeal to this Court to take into account that throughout this hearing, I have followed the proceedings and note that many important prosecution witnesses, principally those from D9 IPK cooked up stories, lied and always changed their stories when cross-examined. I note this with concern because, for me, their actions are done with the deliberate intention of implicating me so that I will be the black sheep who has to be sacrificed to protect the plans and evil intentions of those who are not in Court today to face the outcome of their treatment and schemes. I have not a single reason to hurt, what more,  take the life of the victim in such a cruel manner. I appeal to this court which is in session and has the power to determine whether I live or die, so that I will not be hung, to, once and for perfectly complete the agenda they have for me.” 
Sirul is clearly hinting at a conspiracy.

Is it possible Azilah and Sirul were misled by their superiors and the conspirators as to their mission to kill? Could they have been briefed and spun a story that Altantuya was a national security threat which had to be exsanguinated, and that they would be performing a great service to the King and citizens of Malaysia? 

Sirul, possibly, but not Azilah.

Why would Sirul agree to a deal, presumably the same generous one like Azilah did, and then renege on it? Obviously, part of the deal must have been that he would never hang for Altantuya’s murder.  So, either Sirul was double-crossed or something went terribly wrong and they, the conspirators, panicked and had to make sure enough incriminating evidence was hung on at least one of the accused, but not Baginda their crony, to secure conviction, the troubling ‘guilty beyond reasonable doubt’ legal nicety. This explains why Azilah and Sirul were both packed off to foreign missions on short notice.

They could not plant evidence in Azilah’s home as he lived there with his parents and brothers; Baginda was out of the question. So, Sirul was the obvious choice, as he was divorced and lived alone in his flat. More obligingly, he had left the keys to his car (parked at police HQ in Bukit Aman) in his own office in-tray, and told about it to his long-time friend and immediate superior at UTK, Sgt. Rosli. Sirul had so thoroughly cleaned his car such that subsequently police could not find a single fingerprint or bloodstain anywhere in it. There were, as testified under oath on the stand by Rosli, 4 days from 3 November 2006 to 6 November 2006 when the car keys were in the possession of ASP Khairi.  

Similarly, he had handed over the keys to his flat to ACP Mastor on 5th November. Mastor had testified that the keys eventually found their way to ASP Zulkainain via CI Koh Fei Cheow. But when asked to verify the keys in court, Mastor had no doubt that the set of 3 shiny keys were the originals, of which there had been more and they were old and discoloured from use. 

And hey presto, on 9th November, a police forensic team led by Superintendent Soo Mee Tong “discover” the infamous pair of blood-stained slippers in the back-well interior of Sirul’s car and a single spend bullet cartridge on the floor in the space between the driver’s seat and door. Soil samples extracted from Sirul’s car did not match with those found at the murder site. On 7th November, police, led by ASP Zulkarnain and CI Koh Fei Cheow, find Sirul’s blood-stained jacket and Altantuya’s jewellery items in his flat. Sgt, Rosli testified that the police had a different set of keys to Sirul’s flat from those he had seen! 

Planting the spent bullet cartridge was a mistake, another huge and careless blunder. Forensics could only identify the cartridge to a gun officially issued to Sirul. Sirul had surrendered that gun to UTK Armoury on 31 October 2006. UTK Armoury Storekeeper Fatimah Wahab testified that Sirul had returned both the gun and all 60 bullets issued to him earlier on 4 October 2006, although she had not recorded it as such in the relevant register.
Subsequently, anyone could have accessed that gun, given the porous security and poor record-keeping at UTK. However, since Altantuya’s body was never found, and no spent cartridges were found at the murder site, the prosecution was never able to prove that it was Sirul’s gun that had been used to shoot her; in fact, they had not a scrap of evidence that Altantuya had been shot at all before being blown up by explosives. It was a complete waste 
of time.

In his original confession Sirul clearly states that after the killing, he went home to shower and change clothes, following which he disposed the soiled clothes, some of Altantuya’s personal belongings and the detonation wires in a rubbish container at a construction site near Bukit Aman. So, how did all these so incriminating blood-stained items re-appear so conveniently? It defies belief that an experienced killer cop like Sirul would retain Altantuya’s blood-stained jewellery and slippers and stash it away in, of all of all places, his flat and car, to be caught flat-footed.

There is a school of thought that Azilah and Sirul never expected to be brought to court, which is why Sirul got careless. They were undeniably seen by PI Bala and taxi driver  Ong Ah Choon outside Baginda’s house and leaving in Altantuya’s company with Corporal  Rohaniza on the night of the murder. Musa Safri was also spotted in his car driving past Baginda’s house by PI Bala on the same night. So, all these parties, including Baginda, who was kept informed of the events as they unfolded by PI Bala, knew that Azilah and Sirul were without a shadow of doubt connected with Altantuya’s disappearance. Yet, Azilah and Sirul carried out their execution as though they would never be discovered. They got careless. Such arrogance and confidence can only have stemmed from the fact that they must have been given assurances by their highly-placed and influential co-conspirators that, even if captured 
and brought to trial, they would escape the gallows, and be spirited away quietly and protected under some local Special Branch protection program or away overseas, where they could live their lives in the lap of luxury. 

So, what went so wrong that evidence had to be planted, implicating Sirul as if caught with the smoking gun in his hand? 

It must be that the so-called more intelligent conspirators higher up the chain did not anticipate that Azilah and Sirul would be so careless as to appear at Baginda’s house with an uninvolved fellow cop (Lance Corporal Rohaniza) and without ensuring Altantuya would be alone there when they whisked her away. They might have felt that they could buy PI Bala out, if push came to shove.

Later, they moved quickly to ensure that Rohaniza would change her testimony from her sworn statement given to the DPP. She lied on the stand that Azilah did not depart with Sirul and Altantuya from Bukit Aman, but left with him, thereby cooking Sirul’s goose completely.

Baginda’s lap top was only “discovered” in his car by his wife and handed over to the police some five days after they first interrogated him! They pressed the buttons to change judges, prosecutors and lawyers. But, how could they have hoped to ward off the obvious missing-persons report that Altantuya’s family would file? 

Altantuya’s father was a university professor, and her mother, a Russian language teacher. They were no country yokels from the boondocks of a third-world economy.  

It was sub-standard strategizing and planning from start to finish. Azilah and Sirul botched it further. The primary aim of the conspirators was to prevent Altantuya from leaking out publicly that the father of the child she was expecting was someone very high up in defence or at the uppermost echelon of government, or both! Whose child was it that was murdered so heartlessly, blasted to smithereens before it could take one breath of fresh air, before being born to celebrate and enjoy its birth right?

But how did the blood-stained items appear so unerringly to incriminate Sirul? Sirul must have got it wrong. It is likely that he handed his blood-stained jacket and jewellery and spent bullet cartridges immediately after the murder to Azilah or a more senior killer cop who was on the scene, for disposal. And that proved to be his undoing. These blood-stained items incriminated Sirul like nothing else. They helped the conspirators to spin successfully a prosecution which from day one had publicly announced that the murder was the action of two rogue cops, that Azilah and Sirul were the only killers (with Baginda abetting them) involved in Altantuya’s murder, and that the questions of motive and prior knowledge or association with Altantuya was irrelevant. 

And Razak Baginda knows this all. He knows this all as surely as he knows the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Otherwise, his PhD is not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Following Azilah and Sirul’s conviction at the Federal Court, the indecent haste with which Baginda attempted to convince the masses that two rogue cops committed unpremeditated murder with no motive whatsoever, or that motive was not essential at all, is a clear indication of his desperation in wanting to bury this conspiracy forever. More than that, once again he wanted to absolve PM Najib and distance him from Altantuya in the most loathsome, nauseous and toadying of manner. 
Baginda when asked what Altantuya was blackmailing him about, replied, “There was some personal matter, the relationship. This is something very personal.” He went on to say: 

Q: What about the alleged US$500,000 commission (from the submarine deal)?
RB: Where did that come from? That's the thing. Everybody is lazy now days, journalists, everybody is lazy. They never check the source. Trace where the US$500,000 came from. 

Q: It was mentioned in Bala's first statutory declaration. 
RB: OK, anybody can say that. (Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho! Not anybody, but Private Detective Bala who was engaged by Baginda himself for protection from the blackmailing Altantuya). Where did that come from? Honestly the US$500,000 was news to me. I didn't know that. She (Altantuya) was blackmailing me for US$5,000, US$8,000. That's why I succumbed to it. Q: No fee for her services as interpreter? RB: What interpreter fee? The whole episode of her being an interpreter is a joke. She can't even speak French. We are all victims of a political game. And we all fell right into it. It's a narrative from the beginning – the murder, Najib, Razak and then the submarine deal. This narrative was fed to the Malaysian public from day one and everyone like a herd of buffaloes, followed. Trace and see if she can speak a word of French. None of the French guys in the submarine deal met her or knew her. The French were so sophisticated. They all speak perfect English. Nobody questioned. Why would you want a Mongolian French interpreter? Think about it. If I wanted an interpreter, I would have a French interpreter or a British-French interpreter. Why on earth would I want a Mongolian? Has she ever been to France and stayed and learnt French? And yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that.

Q: In Bala's first SD, there was another allegation that Najib introduced Altantuya to you. 
RB: That's part of the narrative. I have said this hundreds of times. I don't even know how to say it anymore. Najib never knew the woman. Najib is innocent. If you all think there is a connection, where is the evidence? Let's not forget that in any situation like this, there are a lot of opportunists out there. We have seen this so many times. 
Q: How did you come to know Altantuya? 
RB: If I know Najib, it doesn't mean that he knows everything about me. But the assumption is that he knows everything I do. I think that is a wrong assumption. I have already said it in my affidavit and that is the truth. The truth hurt my family and there was a debate among my legal team if I should put it in. I even told how I met her. It's all there (in the affidavit).

Q: So are you rubbishing Bala's first SD? 
RB: All utter rubbish. Anal sex as well. All rubbish. Everyone took the SD as the truth. Furthermore, in the SD, Bala says: "someone told me" or "I told him". It's all hearsay. 

Q: Who is behind all this (narrative)? 
RB: Dracula, vampire, werewolf, you name it... My favourite character has always been Dracula. 

Q: The main aim then was to implicate Najib? 
RB: Yes, of course.

Q: And you were also the victim? 
RB: No, I wouldn't say I was a victim. There was a murder that took place and because I had a connection in the whole thing, and it's just too juicy a story to let go. There are a lot of opportunists out there. And don't forget, Najib at that point was deputy prime minister, and in this country of ours, the DPM is a heartbeat away from becoming the PM. Everyone knew he had the potential of being the PM.

And there we have it, why PM Najib and his wife could not in any way be implicated in Altantuya’s murder. Why PI Bala’s first SD had to be neutralised and rubbished quickly by Najib and Rosmah as revealed by Deepak, and he, his wife and children hounded out of their  native birthplace to India. Najib had already been humiliatingly once denied the premiership by Mahathir in 2003 in favour of Abdullah Badawi, and over which a shocked Rosmah shed tears in public. Standing on the cusp of a kind of immortality, Najib and Rosmah would not be denied the ultimate prize a second time or be shamed and scandalised out of it in the process, come hell or high water! 

High Court, Court of Appeal, Federal Court – Who’s The Odd Man Out? 

Of the three, the decision by the Court of Appeal would seem to be the odd one out.

The CoA did not follow the script which was written before the case went to the High Court. It now seems obvious. Before the High Court case could commence, Putrajaya conspired with the CJ and AG and to get rid of the two most senior prosecutors in the land from leading the government’s case, i.e. DPP Salehudin Saidin and Yusof Zainal Abiden. The flimsiest of excuses was put forward by the AG to explain what was apparent to everyone, i.e. that it was a clear case of manipulation by two top law enforcement officials. The only reason Salehudinand Yusof were removed must be that they would not agree to any deal; their integrity and name was at stake in the murder trial of the century.

The deal must have been to free Baginda at the High Court stage and convict Azilahand Sirul, and to limit the prosecution to these three persons, no more, no less. After all, someone had to pay for murder, and it was not going to be Najib’s blue-eyed boy and St. John’s Institution Alumni pal, Baginda, who knew some nasty secret or two about stupendous corruption involving Putrajaya, and could name names. Better two unknown cops whom the public at large would eventually forget, and who knows, with the passage of time, might yet be rescued or be given a royal pardon. So, the masquerade with Azilah and Sirul donning muslin masks and hooded jackets, so wonderfully supported by the police and Judge Zaki.

Not an inch was to be given to implicate Deputy Prime Minister Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor or allow the case to enmesh the RM7.5 billion (US$2.3 billion or €1.5 billion) Scorpene submarines contract or gratuitous, sinecure and sham “co-ordination and support services” fee of RM575 million (US$180 million or €115 million) earned by Baginda’s company or the RM142 million ((US$44 million or €36 million) said to have been paid to his company for selling classified state secrets to a French government-owned naval company, DCNS.

Treason? Not if it is one of us, an old boy! 

Judge Zaki stuck to the bargain. The AG stuck to the plot by refusing to appeal Baginda’s acquittal. When Azilah and Sirul appealed, the CJ and AG slipped up. They must have thought that the COA judges knew the script, theme and plot, and would throw the appeal out. However, inexplicably, the COA acquitted  Azilah and Sirul. What possessed the three CoA judges? Moral outrage, more than likely. Why should Baginda, who was the only one of the three defendants to have real money and a real motive to wish Altantuya dead, get off scot-free, and the AG not even appeal the decision? So, they threw a spanner in the works.

But, the CoA did not go far enough. They had only so much courage. In a land where straight Chief Justices have been thrown into sacrificial fires with impunity by the Executive, and crooked ones rewarded with security of tenure and fabulous post-retirements rewards,what were mere CoA judges? They should have ordered a fresh re-trial when there was so much doubt, and made Baginda enter his defence, which would at the very least have forced DSP Musa Safri, Najib’s chief of security, to the stand. But all that was not to be. 
The partial courage of the CoA was undone by the complete capitulation of the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Arifin Zakaria, and his 5-man Federal Court, to Putrajaya. The courage of the CoA was matched by the gutlessness and treasonous conduct of CJ Arifin Zakaria and his kangaroo court. Once they knew in advance the decision that was expected of them, it was child’s play to find all the “defects” in the CoA’s written judgement, and placate Putrajaya’s paranoia. 

Then came the warning from that bully and coward, IGP Khalid Abu Bakar, to the public about questioning the motive for Altantuya’s murder, saying that it would undermine the judiciary. In recent weeks, Khalid has outdone even Mahathir by arresting over a hundred people, mainly opposition politicians, for alleged sedition, and in the process usurped thepowers of the Home and Prime Minister who have been supremely supine. Khalid has, however, not exhibited or demonstrated that same enthusiasm, speed and vigour in pursuing pro-government politicians and supporters who have made incendiary statements such as referring to Chinese traders as rogues or calling for the burning of bibles or churning out a completely spurious story that some Chinese were burning the Koran.

CJ Arifin Zakaria, not to be outdone, then warned the public about contempt of court proceedings against anyone who undermines the judiciary. The rot had set in, marrow deep, long, long ago. 

To be continued - A Theory of Murder.

SUNdae Rumination: DEsi's Recommendation to my ESTeemed REAders, even ET, Extra-TErresterials!

Najib clinging on to power because he’s afraid, says Dr Mahathir
Published: 3 October 2015 6:16 PM
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says today Datuk Seri Najib Razak risked being investigated and even jailed if he were to step down over a string of financial scandals. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Wan Asraf, October 3, 2015.Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad says today Datuk Seri Najib Razak risked being investigated and even jailed if he were to step down over a string of financial scandals. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Wan Asraf, October 3, 2015.
Datuk Seri Najib Razak is clinging on to the prime minister’s office because he is afraid, the embattled leader’s arch critic, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, said today.
The retired statesman, who is one of the prime movers in attempts to unseat the prime minister, said Najib ran the risk of being investigated and even imprisoned if he were to step down.
“It is not that he does not want to step down, he is afraid because if he does, no power can stop the investigations and he will be jailed.
“That’s why he does not want to step down,” Dr Mahathir told a crowd of Umno members today at a high tea event organised by the Pusat Bandar Taman Cempaka Umno branch.
Najib is under fire over a RM2.6 billion “donation” from an unknown Middle Eastern country. The money was deposited into his personal accounts, a large portion of which was given ahead of the 2013 general election.
He is also under pressure over his brainchild, state investment firm 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), which is facing multiple probes, including by foreign authorities, over alleged financial irregularities. 
However, Najib had repeatedly stated that he would not step down, and told American fund managers and investors to ignore the “1MDB noise”.
Dr Mahathir today described Najib’s administration as “cruel” for acting against his critics.
He cited the example of sacked Umno member Datuk Seri Khairuddin Abu Hassan who is currently detained under an anti-terrorism law, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (Sosma), for lodging reports against 1MDB in other countries.
The police have said that Khairuddin’s actions amounted to using foreign enforcement agencies to put pressure on Malaysia over the 1MDB issue, and could be deemed an act of sabotage against the country.
Dr Mahathir, who led Malaysia for 22 years, also said investigators probing into 1MDB were either sacked or transferred.
He went on to question the identity person who donated the RM2.6 billion to Najib, who has said that it was normal for him as Umno president to hold donations in trust on behalf of the party.
“No person in the world will give you RM2.6 billion because they love you so much. Who is this donor? I, too, want to meet him. 
“Not only we do not know who the donor was, but we don’t even know where the money went,” Dr Mahathir said, adding that Malaysians had the right to ask these questions. – October 3, 2015.
- See more at:



Don’t get upset if China funds parties to oust Umno, says veteran leader
Published: 3 October 2015 9:39 PM
Umno leader Tan Sri Sanusi Junid says today if Umno can accept donations from other countries so can other parties. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, October 3, 2015.Umno leader Tan Sri Sanusi Junid says today if Umno can accept donations from other countries so can other parties. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, October 3, 2015.

Umno should not get upset if China donated to Chinese-based parties in Malaysia in order to oppose its rule, veteran party leader Tan Sri Sanusi Junid said today, since the ruling Malay party accepted political donations from foreigners.
Sanusi said Umno, which heads the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, had as part of its practice, received such donations.
“Don’t be angry if they donated to leaders of Chinese parties to oppose Umno Malays, when we ourselves accept such donations,” the former federal minister and Kedah menteri besar said at a high tea dialogue organised by the Pusat Bandar Taman Cempaka Umno branch in Ampang, Kuala Lumpur, today.
Sanusi did not give a specific example, but the political spotlight has fallen on Umno president and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of late for receiving RM2.6 billion from a Middle Eastern donor. Najib and other Umno leaders who support him have said it was a political donation, and maintained that there was nothing wrong with the party president holding such funds in trust on behalf of the party.
Another Umno later said the money came from a “brotherly” Middle Eastern country which wanted to see BN remain in power.
Sanusi’s remarks about China follow a diplomatic spat after ambassador Dr Huang Huikang made remarks while on a visit to Petaling Street following threats by a Malay group of “red shirt” protesters to hold a rally there against ethnic Chinese traders.
Huang had said China opposed any form of discrimination and extremism based on race – remarks which got him summoned to the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Also present with Sanusi at the Umno event today was former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who has become Najib’s arch critic over his policies and alleged financial scandals. – October 3, 2015.
- See more at: