In the Teoh Beng Hock RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry), MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) senior assistant superintendent Mohd Nazri Ibrahim admited rewriting a report to match his fellow colleague so that the 2 reports matches.
The big question is the credibility of an investigative report which is altered. It causes people to question if what is in the report.
All this shenanigans confirm that the high expectations that MACC will be able to live up to the reputation of Hong Kong's ICAC. MACC certainly does not deserve that.
Showing posts with label MACC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MACC. Show all posts
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Ramon Navaratnam reputation took a hit re: Abdul Ghani MAS issue
The reputation of Ramon Navaratnam has suddenly took a dive when for unknown reasons he was so quick to absolve Abdul Ghani the Attoney Genreral any wrongdoing over his recent Haj trip and made a sweeping statement that the whole MACC panel concurred that Abdul Ghani had done no wrong. 2 members of the panel has come out to refute that Ramon's opinion is shared by them. Read the article below which is courtesy of Malaysiakini: Ramon roasted over AG Haj trip issue:
Ramon roasted over AG Haj trip issueHafiz Yatim
Some anti-graft body members are cheesed off with Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail being absolved of any wrongdoing during his haj trip.
The target of their umbrage is Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's corruption prevention committee chairperson Ramon Navaratnam for having said that the whole panel was satisified that the AG was innocent when it was just his personal opinion.
Although they admitted that Abdul Gani seemed truthful and produced receipts and invoices acquired during his haj trip it was not Ramon's (left) role to clear him.
This view was shared by fellow panel members Robert Phang Miow Sin and Prof Dr Ishak Tambi Kechik.
Ishak said it was improper for Ramon to reveal to the press, what he considers as the former's personal opinion, as what had actually transpired at the meeting.
"Ramon was quoted to have said that the MACC panel members were satisfied with Abdul Gani's explanation as there was no evidence to link him with the accusations. This is his personal view as the matter was not discussed at the panel meeting held after the Abdul Gani briefing," he said.
He added that he will raise the issue at the at the next Corruption Prevention Committee meeting.
"I also have my own views. But, I cannot divulge what they are."
Ishak said as the briefing with AG was a closed door affair, he cannot divulge details of what had transpired and was surprised that Ramon disclosed some of them.
Phang, who has been one of the most vocal about the allegations against Abdul Gani concurred that Ramon had misrepresented the panel.
"He should not play the role of a judge in determining a person's innocence. This is improper and to say that this represented the views of the panel was certainly misrepresentation," he said.
It is learnt that Abdul Gani nearly broke down when he tried to clear himself of the allegations.
He had presented vouchers and reciepts to prove that he had made the payments.
Apparently, Abdul Gani, his wife and son had paid for the trip which amounted to over RM60,000 each through his and his wife's savings.
However, the reciept and vouchers were only shown to MACC's chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohammed and his deputy Shukri Abdull.
Phang: AG should step forward
Phang, (right) said he respected Abdul Gani's frankness in organising the meeting with the MACC.
"I respect him for clearing the air by showing the reciepts and etc. Coming out with his own money to pay for the trip to fulfil the religious obligation is commendable" he said.
"However, I feel Abdul Gani should clear the air in the public rather than briefing us only. The allegations were made in the public domain.
"That is why I have asked him to personally rebut the allegations circulating in the public domain. It is only proper the attorney general clear this in public."
There is no other solution, he said but for Abdul Gani to go public.
"I hope the attorney-general will hold a press conference to clear this as it is not right for a public prosecutor to remain mum on the issue," he said.
Phang also revealed that Abdul Gani had described Shahidan Shafie just a friend.
Shahidan, is alleged to be Tajudin's proxy and the allegations which surfaced over the Internet especially on the Malaysia Today website, claimed that the former had played a role resulting in the former MAS chairperson not being charged.
It was alleged that Shahidan had possibly paid Abdul Gani and his family's haj trip last year.
Malaysiakini had then contacted Abdul Gani and Shahidan regarding the allegations but both refused to comment.
Phang said Abdul Gani had also briefly touched on the MAS Kargo issue but there was nothing much into it.
Turning back to Ramon, Phang has taken as a direct attack on himself on the former absolving Abdul Gani.
"I had called on Abdul Gani (left) to clear the air over public allegations of his relationship with Shahidan and the Haj pilgrimage. I was concerned that his silence would lead to deepening suspicions and confusion.
"Ramon can speak for himself but he has no mandate from me or the other panel members to make that statement on our behalf.
"That was not how I perceived the meeting. What was certain was that my esteemed colleagues who attended the meeting did not want to humiliate Abdul Gani any further. It was not our intention to humble the Top Lawyer of the country," he said.
Some anti-graft body members are cheesed off with Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail being absolved of any wrongdoing during his haj trip.
The target of their umbrage is Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's corruption prevention committee chairperson Ramon Navaratnam for having said that the whole panel was satisified that the AG was innocent when it was just his personal opinion.
Although they admitted that Abdul Gani seemed truthful and produced receipts and invoices acquired during his haj trip it was not Ramon's (left) role to clear him.
This view was shared by fellow panel members Robert Phang Miow Sin and Prof Dr Ishak Tambi Kechik.
Ishak said it was improper for Ramon to reveal to the press, what he considers as the former's personal opinion, as what had actually transpired at the meeting.
"Ramon was quoted to have said that the MACC panel members were satisfied with Abdul Gani's explanation as there was no evidence to link him with the accusations. This is his personal view as the matter was not discussed at the panel meeting held after the Abdul Gani briefing," he said.
He added that he will raise the issue at the at the next Corruption Prevention Committee meeting.
"I also have my own views. But, I cannot divulge what they are."
Ishak said as the briefing with AG was a closed door affair, he cannot divulge details of what had transpired and was surprised that Ramon disclosed some of them.
Phang, who has been one of the most vocal about the allegations against Abdul Gani concurred that Ramon had misrepresented the panel.
"He should not play the role of a judge in determining a person's innocence. This is improper and to say that this represented the views of the panel was certainly misrepresentation," he said.
It is learnt that Abdul Gani nearly broke down when he tried to clear himself of the allegations.
He had presented vouchers and reciepts to prove that he had made the payments.
Apparently, Abdul Gani, his wife and son had paid for the trip which amounted to over RM60,000 each through his and his wife's savings.
However, the reciept and vouchers were only shown to MACC's chief commissioner Abu Kassim Mohammed and his deputy Shukri Abdull.
Phang: AG should step forward
Phang, (right) said he respected Abdul Gani's frankness in organising the meeting with the MACC.
"I respect him for clearing the air by showing the reciepts and etc. Coming out with his own money to pay for the trip to fulfil the religious obligation is commendable" he said.
"However, I feel Abdul Gani should clear the air in the public rather than briefing us only. The allegations were made in the public domain.
"That is why I have asked him to personally rebut the allegations circulating in the public domain. It is only proper the attorney general clear this in public."
There is no other solution, he said but for Abdul Gani to go public.
"I hope the attorney-general will hold a press conference to clear this as it is not right for a public prosecutor to remain mum on the issue," he said.
Phang also revealed that Abdul Gani had described Shahidan Shafie just a friend.
Shahidan, is alleged to be Tajudin's proxy and the allegations which surfaced over the Internet especially on the Malaysia Today website, claimed that the former had played a role resulting in the former MAS chairperson not being charged.
It was alleged that Shahidan had possibly paid Abdul Gani and his family's haj trip last year.
Malaysiakini had then contacted Abdul Gani and Shahidan regarding the allegations but both refused to comment.
Phang said Abdul Gani had also briefly touched on the MAS Kargo issue but there was nothing much into it.
Turning back to Ramon, Phang has taken as a direct attack on himself on the former absolving Abdul Gani.
"I had called on Abdul Gani (left) to clear the air over public allegations of his relationship with Shahidan and the Haj pilgrimage. I was concerned that his silence would lead to deepening suspicions and confusion.
"Ramon can speak for himself but he has no mandate from me or the other panel members to make that statement on our behalf.
"That was not how I perceived the meeting. What was certain was that my esteemed colleagues who attended the meeting did not want to humiliate Abdul Gani any further. It was not our intention to humble the Top Lawyer of the country," he said.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Reasons why Teoh Beng Hock Inquest open verdict not acceptable
Teoh Beng Hock's family has rejected the open verdict for the late Teoh's inquest by the coroner.
1. Neck injuries which he didn't have prior to going into MACC office confirmed
2. First post mortem not even a squeak about neck injuries thus imputing suspicions on the integrities of the doctors who performed the first post mortem and their findings
3. MACC denied violence was pepetrated upon Teoh Beng Hock thus 1. impute MACC integrity questionable
4. Extend of injuries preclude Teoh Beng Hock could have exited the window on his own
5. Pathologist Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar concluded likely suicide but how can it be suicide when there are proof of of pre-fall injuries to extent of ruling out falling out of window by Teoh Beng Hock himself thus again raising suspicion on integrities of pathologists
Article below courtesy of Malaysiakini: Coroner: Force was used on Teoh
1. Neck injuries which he didn't have prior to going into MACC office confirmed
2. First post mortem not even a squeak about neck injuries thus imputing suspicions on the integrities of the doctors who performed the first post mortem and their findings
3. MACC denied violence was pepetrated upon Teoh Beng Hock thus 1. impute MACC integrity questionable
4. Extend of injuries preclude Teoh Beng Hock could have exited the window on his own
5. Pathologist Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar concluded likely suicide but how can it be suicide when there are proof of of pre-fall injuries to extent of ruling out falling out of window by Teoh Beng Hock himself thus again raising suspicion on integrities of pathologists
Article below courtesy of Malaysiakini: Coroner: Force was used on Teoh
Coroner: Force was used on TeohAidila Razak
Jan 5, 11
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should not breathe a sigh of relief over the open verdict delivered today in the inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, even though homicide was ruled out.
This is because despite MACC insistence that no force was used on the deceased, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas (right) found that Teoh had sustained bruises to his neck prior to the fall which ultimately killed him.
The 30-year-old aide to Selangor DAP exco member Ean Yong Hian Wah was concluded to have died between 11.15am and 1.15pm on July 16, 2009.
He was found dead on the fifth floor landing of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam between 1 to 1.30pm, after an interrogation the night before at the MACC's office on the 14th floor on the same building.
“Evidence showed that Teoh did not have these injuries when he went into the MACC office, and you and I know he never left the MACC office.
“So how did he come by these injuries and who is responsible? These questions are of grave significance…do we just sit by and let it be?” asked the Teoh family's lawyer Gobind Singh Deo.
Reduced oxygen to the brain
In his verdict today, Azmil said that pathologists Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand and Dr Shahidan Md Noor both found evidence of bruising to the deceased's neck.
Both found that the neck injury could have caused a reduction of oxygen to the brain leading to “celebral edema, mild or moderate hypoxia, confusion, fainting and decreased motor control”.
The edema could not be confirmed in the second post mortem because the neck tissue area had been dissected.
“(Dr Shahidan) submitted that the consequences of such an injury raise serious doubts as to the capability of the deceased exiting the window unassisted, both physically and mentally,” said the coroner.
However, he ruled out homicide as there was no conclusive evidence that the neck injuries had led to the fall which ultimately killed Teoh.
Injury found in second post-mortem
Interestingly, the evidence of the neck injury only came forth after the second post-mortem which was conducted after Pornthip (right) requested for an exhumation of the body.
“It is only because of the exhumation do we know of the bruises and injury, which MACC has maintained were not inflicted by its officers.
“(Pathologist Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar) testified that he ruled out an accident (and said) it was likely to be suicide as there was no evidence of a struggle. But what is an injury to the neck if not evidence of struggle or force?
“You rule out accident and suicide then what else is left? The family cannot have closure,” he told reporters after the verdict was read out.
Can't say it's a suicide note
The coroner in his verdict said that he ruled out suicide because there were “some unsettled issues which are still questionable and to fulfill this verdict of suicide would entail some form of guesswork.”
He said that MACC had relied heavily on the note found in Teoh's bag two months after his death as evidence of suicide and tried to adduce that he was feeling guilty over the alleged abuse of funds for which he was called in by the commission.
“It was assumed that Teoh felt so guilty and was afraid to leave the MACC office because he was ashamed to face society, especially his boss.
“I regret to observe that no forensic psychiatrist did a report on Teoh's state of mind or the impugned note... I don't think as a coroner I am qualified to make my own assessment purely from assumption,” he said.
“At best I can only assume that the note was authored by Teoh but I am not qualified to say it is a suicide note,” he said.
The family is seeking a review of the verdict at the High Court, and is pushing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to open a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Jan 5, 11
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) should not breathe a sigh of relief over the open verdict delivered today in the inquest into the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, even though homicide was ruled out.
This is because despite MACC insistence that no force was used on the deceased, coroner Azmil Muntapha Abas (right) found that Teoh had sustained bruises to his neck prior to the fall which ultimately killed him.
The 30-year-old aide to Selangor DAP exco member Ean Yong Hian Wah was concluded to have died between 11.15am and 1.15pm on July 16, 2009.
He was found dead on the fifth floor landing of Plaza Masalam, Shah Alam between 1 to 1.30pm, after an interrogation the night before at the MACC's office on the 14th floor on the same building.
“Evidence showed that Teoh did not have these injuries when he went into the MACC office, and you and I know he never left the MACC office.
“So how did he come by these injuries and who is responsible? These questions are of grave significance…do we just sit by and let it be?” asked the Teoh family's lawyer Gobind Singh Deo.
Reduced oxygen to the brain
In his verdict today, Azmil said that pathologists Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand and Dr Shahidan Md Noor both found evidence of bruising to the deceased's neck.
Both found that the neck injury could have caused a reduction of oxygen to the brain leading to “celebral edema, mild or moderate hypoxia, confusion, fainting and decreased motor control”.
The edema could not be confirmed in the second post mortem because the neck tissue area had been dissected.
“(Dr Shahidan) submitted that the consequences of such an injury raise serious doubts as to the capability of the deceased exiting the window unassisted, both physically and mentally,” said the coroner.
However, he ruled out homicide as there was no conclusive evidence that the neck injuries had led to the fall which ultimately killed Teoh.
Injury found in second post-mortem
Interestingly, the evidence of the neck injury only came forth after the second post-mortem which was conducted after Pornthip (right) requested for an exhumation of the body.
“It is only because of the exhumation do we know of the bruises and injury, which MACC has maintained were not inflicted by its officers.
“(Pathologist Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar) testified that he ruled out an accident (and said) it was likely to be suicide as there was no evidence of a struggle. But what is an injury to the neck if not evidence of struggle or force?
“You rule out accident and suicide then what else is left? The family cannot have closure,” he told reporters after the verdict was read out.
Can't say it's a suicide note
The coroner in his verdict said that he ruled out suicide because there were “some unsettled issues which are still questionable and to fulfill this verdict of suicide would entail some form of guesswork.”
He said that MACC had relied heavily on the note found in Teoh's bag two months after his death as evidence of suicide and tried to adduce that he was feeling guilty over the alleged abuse of funds for which he was called in by the commission.
“It was assumed that Teoh felt so guilty and was afraid to leave the MACC office because he was ashamed to face society, especially his boss.
“I regret to observe that no forensic psychiatrist did a report on Teoh's state of mind or the impugned note... I don't think as a coroner I am qualified to make my own assessment purely from assumption,” he said.
“At best I can only assume that the note was authored by Teoh but I am not qualified to say it is a suicide note,” he said.
The family is seeking a review of the verdict at the High Court, and is pushing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to open a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Bala first statutory declaration - Altantuya murder
Malaysia Today has published the answer PI Bala had given to the MACC in London. Here is the first statutory declaration made by Balasubramaniam on the first of July 2008:
PI Bala reiterates his first SD and says he was offered RM5 million to retract it (see Video: Private Investigator Bala reiterates his first SD and says he was offered RM5 million to retract it)
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted], Selangor, do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a freelance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang, between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaariibuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaariibuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaariibuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006, I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note, which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-
25.1. He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
25.3. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5. Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me to “delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-
28.1. That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2. That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3. That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.
28.4. That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5. That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
28.6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7. That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling my handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from the Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields Police Station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields Police Station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields Police Station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006, which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. every day for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-
54.1. State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
54.2. Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
54.3. Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4. Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this 1st day of July 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
STATUTORY DECLARATION
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC NO: xxxxxx-xx-6235) a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted], Selangor, do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a freelance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang, between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaariibuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaariibuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaariibuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006, I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note, which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-
25.1. He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
25.3. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5. Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me to “delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-
28.1. That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2. That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3. That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.
28.4. That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5. That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
28.6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7. That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling my handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from the Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields Police Station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields Police Station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields Police Station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006, which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. every day for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-
54.1. State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
54.2. Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.
54.3. Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4. Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBCRIBED and solemnly )
declared by the abovenamed )
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]
this 1st day of July 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
Video: Private Investigator Bala reiterates his first SD and says he was offered RM5 million to retract it
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Public Forum: "Penang for Teoh Beng Hock"
Teoh Beng Hock's body was found on the morning of 17 July 2009 below the 14th floor window of the Selangor MACC office in Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam. A purported suicide note by Beng Hock emerged at the eleventh hour of the inquest into his death. Interests were also generated internationally by the MACC counsel for his comical (and nationally embarassing) line of questioning during the inquest.
Will Teoh Beng Hock get justice and will the real truth on the cause of his death be uncovered?
Welcome to a public forum at the Han Chiang College in Penang this Sunday afternoon. Show your support to Beng Hock's family as his sister will also speak in this forum.
***********************************************************************************************
Public Forum: "Penang for Teoh Beng Hock"
Date:
Sunday 5 September 2010
Time:
2.30 - 4.30pm
Venue:
Han Chiang College,
Jalan Lim Lean Teng, Penang.
Speakers:
Ms Teoh Lee Lan (Teoh Beng Hock's sister)
Dato' Dr. Toh Kin Woon (President, Lim Lian Geok Cultural Development Centre)
Mr. P. Ramakrishnan (President, Aliran)
Mr. Ng Eng Kiat (Secretariat, SUARAM Penang).
Co-organisers:
SUARAM Penang
Aliran
Sembang Forum Group
Lim Lian Geok Cultural Development Centre, Penang Branch.
ADMISSION IS FREE. ALL ARE WELCOMED.
View Larger Map
Will Teoh Beng Hock get justice and will the real truth on the cause of his death be uncovered?
Welcome to a public forum at the Han Chiang College in Penang this Sunday afternoon. Show your support to Beng Hock's family as his sister will also speak in this forum.
***********************************************************************************************
Public Forum: "Penang for Teoh Beng Hock"
Date:
Sunday 5 September 2010
Time:
2.30 - 4.30pm
Venue:
Han Chiang College,
Jalan Lim Lean Teng, Penang.
Speakers:
Ms Teoh Lee Lan (Teoh Beng Hock's sister)
Dato' Dr. Toh Kin Woon (President, Lim Lian Geok Cultural Development Centre)
Mr. P. Ramakrishnan (President, Aliran)
Mr. Ng Eng Kiat (Secretariat, SUARAM Penang).
Co-organisers:
SUARAM Penang
Aliran
Sembang Forum Group
Lim Lian Geok Cultural Development Centre, Penang Branch.
ADMISSION IS FREE. ALL ARE WELCOMED.
Location map: Han Chiang College, Jalan Lim Lean Teng, Penang
View Larger Map
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Khir Toyo palace: Where did he get the money from?
Umno Warlord's palace - sky view. When the next general election come, remember this photo (click on it to enlarge). Teoh Beng Hock lost his life due to MACC investigation over a miserly couple of thousand of ringgits. Khir Toyo could afford a palace (and not only that it was most probably located in a forest reserve) after only a few years as Menteri Besar and MACC never even try to investigate how he got so much of money to build this palace on his MB's salary:
You can see this when you take pencala link from duta!!
TOWARD DAMANSARA PERDANA NEAR ttdi
This is the palace that a warlord builds in Shah Alam.
This palace cost RM24 million, they said.
The warlord says he earns it thro" his businesses.
What businesses and what taxes do you pay?ax men and MACC never seem to question him. Why?
Things like these only happen in a failed state.
Warlords also exist only in a failed state.
Selective failure and prosecution are characteristics of a failed state.
SO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THIS MAN ??? NO FURTHER ACTION ???
HOW COME THE SO CALLED MACC ARE SITTING IDLE OVER HIM ???
THE TAX GUYS TAKUT & MACC CHABUT ...SEBAB HE IS LOCAL MAFIA
& HE IS UMNO MAN ??? THEY THINK AFTER SOMETIME, THE PEOPLE
WILL FORGET !!!! TEOH BENG HOCK LOST HIS LIFE OVER A RM2,500/=
MACC ENQUIRY...!!! CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN IN SIMPLE WORDS WHY
AND HOW THE HELL THAT COULD HAPPEN ???
See for yourself, this is rumah Khir Toyo.....a gentle reminder to Malaysians !!!
He is not born in Malaysia ! He was born in Indonesia came over quite late. This Indon can join UMNO and become a politician! (former MB of Selangor). He called others - immigrants!
Looking at the background,I wonder if the land is a forest reserve.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Datuk Melampau ( Datuk who is too much)
This video shows the tirades of a Datuk Melampau ("Too much Datuk") probably from Perak, real name unknown, issue unknown. What I can gather are frequent references to Melayu, Orang Melayu and Tanah Melayu (Malay, Malay people, Malay Land) and at least too expletives - puki mak. Towards the end of the video, 3 banners were displayed and to make it easier for you to read what the banner says, I have uploaded screen shots of the banner below. Do listen to the video to find out what that Datuk Melampau is raving about. Please if you know the issues, do leave a comment and let us know what it is all about and help me update this post. If you can help do a transcript, that would be great:
Banner 1:
Kami mohon Ke...... Duli Tunku campurtangan dalam membantu masalah ini, ..... orang-orang Melayu.
We appeal to ... Tunku to intercede and help in this problem, ..... Malay people.
Banner 2
Mengapa nasib kami orang-orang Melayu di.... ..... dan dihina, adakah ini sikap peminpin Melayu di negeri Perak
Why the fate of us Malays .... ....., is this the attitude of Malay leaders in the Perak state?
Banner 3
Kami mohon pihak badan pencegah rasuah menyiasat wakil rakyat, 8 Exco dalam kes ini.
We appeal to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate the people representative, 8 Exco in this case.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Najib committed election bribery or power abuse or misused government funds and facilities or all 3
Everyone should by now know Najib's "You help me, I help you, you no help me, I no help you" at BN's Rejang Park ceramah during the Sibu buy-election campaign. Everyone except idiots like the Election Commission's chairman agrees that Najib has committed election bribery. Another idiot, UMNO's legal counsel Datuk Hafarizam Harun Najib claimed that Section 10 of the Election Offences Act only applies to natural person and Najib is not a "natural person" (then perhaps Najib is a hantu or toyol). On a more serious note, he claimed that Najib represents the government when he among others told the Sibu voters - "Let's make a deal....." and thus Najib representing the Government is not subject to Section 10 of the Election Offences Act.
Now let me put it this way, that if Najib as the government bribed the voters, even if we accept that government is not included in Section 10 of the Election Offences Act which we do not accept, Najib will still be guilty of abuse of power and abuse/misuse of Government funds and facilities in campaigning in the Sibu (and Hulu Selangor buy-election). Either way, Najib has committed an offence, election briber and/or abuse of power and using Government facilities and funds for campaigning.
So folks, can we start the ball rolling and campaign to have Najib charged with either election bribery and/or using government facilities and funds to campaign.
Now let me put it this way, that if Najib as the government bribed the voters, even if we accept that government is not included in Section 10 of the Election Offences Act which we do not accept, Najib will still be guilty of abuse of power and abuse/misuse of Government funds and facilities in campaigning in the Sibu (and Hulu Selangor buy-election). Either way, Najib has committed an offence, election briber and/or abuse of power and using Government facilities and funds for campaigning.
So folks, can we start the ball rolling and campaign to have Najib charged with either election bribery and/or using government facilities and funds to campaign.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Najib guilty election bribery - Pekan by-election
Najib Abdul Razak was found guilty of election bribery and jailed 3 years plus fined RM100,000. This is what he said in the Sibu by-election ceramah at Rajang Park (video). Because of the conviction for election bribery, Najib lost his Pekan Member of Parliament seat and the EC has declared that the Pekan seat is now vacant and that nomination for a by-election will be June 16 while the by-election itself will be on
Sunday June 27.
Sadly, the chances of that happening (Najib prosecuted for election bribery) is not too good because we have a good-for-nothing EC (Election Commission), a good-for-nothing MACC and a good-for-nothing AG (Attorney General) Ghani Patil.
But read the transcript of what he offered the Sibu electorate below:
It does not require a lawyer to be able to see that Najib has clearly committed election bribery. Even a schoolboy can tell that. Here is the Lion of Gelugor Karpal Singh, a highly respected lawyer confirming that Najib has committed election bribery (video below):
Sunday June 27.
Sadly, the chances of that happening (Najib prosecuted for election bribery) is not too good because we have a good-for-nothing EC (Election Commission), a good-for-nothing MACC and a good-for-nothing AG (Attorney General) Ghani Patil.
But read the transcript of what he offered the Sibu electorate below:
I want to make a deal with you. Boleh tak. Can we have a deal? Can we have an understanding or not? OK the understanding is quite simple. You help me, I help you. Ini bukan tipu. Because Hulu Selangor, you read in the papers. I gave this, I made this deal with the people in Hulu Selangor. They wanted 3 million ringgit for a Chinese school. New bangunan (building). I said to them: "Barisan Nasional wins on Sunday, on Monday I will ask a cheque to be prepared. They said yes. When we won on Sunday, Monday I called, prepare the cheque. Wednesday I delivered the cheque.
It does not require a lawyer to be able to see that Najib has clearly committed election bribery. Even a schoolboy can tell that. Here is the Lion of Gelugor Karpal Singh, a highly respected lawyer confirming that Najib has committed election bribery (video below):
Friday, August 21, 2009
Khir Toyo denies allegation; MACC Selangor Deputy Director on leave
by Chen Shaua Fui, Merdeka Review
The Deputy Director of the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission or MACC (Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah atau SPRM), Hishamuddin Hashim whose name was mentioned in the mystery letter that was broadcasted yesterday, have taken emergency leave today.
Reporters from Merdeka Review tried to interview him regarding the allegation in a "mystery letter" that was exposed in "Malaysia Today", in his office. However, the office staff informed them that Hishamuddin has take leave and will not be coming in to office today.
The reporters thus failed to get his response regarding the allegation that was thrown at him as was broadcasted in that letter.
Meanwhile, former Selangor Chief Minister, Khir Toyo who was implicated in a "plot to bring down the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government" in the "mystery letter" yesterday, denied all the allegations in his blog.
Khir Toyo who is currently in Mecca, claimed that all the allegations in the "mystery letter" are defamation and slander, and declared that he will make a police report when he return to Malaysia.
Source:
KHIR TOYO NAFI TUDUHAN; TP SPRM SELANGOR AMBIL CUTI
The Deputy Director of the Selangor Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission or MACC (Suruhanjaya Pencegah Rasuah atau SPRM), Hishamuddin Hashim whose name was mentioned in the mystery letter that was broadcasted yesterday, have taken emergency leave today.
Reporters from Merdeka Review tried to interview him regarding the allegation in a "mystery letter" that was exposed in "Malaysia Today", in his office. However, the office staff informed them that Hishamuddin has take leave and will not be coming in to office today.
The reporters thus failed to get his response regarding the allegation that was thrown at him as was broadcasted in that letter.
Meanwhile, former Selangor Chief Minister, Khir Toyo who was implicated in a "plot to bring down the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government" in the "mystery letter" yesterday, denied all the allegations in his blog.
Khir Toyo who is currently in Mecca, claimed that all the allegations in the "mystery letter" are defamation and slander, and declared that he will make a police report when he return to Malaysia.
Source:
KHIR TOYO NAFI TUDUHAN; TP SPRM SELANGOR AMBIL CUTI
Friday, July 24, 2009
MACC lied, claimed Lim Guan Eng
Last night at the Teoh Beng Hock Memorial Vigil, Lim Guan Eng accused MACC of lying regarding CCTV for the Selangor MACC office. Why questioned why the MACC office do not have CCTV, MACC claimed they only just shifted in a "short while" ago. Checks later turned out that MACC had actually shifted into its office at Plaza Masalam 2 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)