...And So The AG Is Charging Him

Just went the election fever is up and kicking. And that Malaysians want to see the mother of all battles and the start of a new destiny, DSAI will have to answer to the charge framed by the AG under s. 377 Penal Code tomorrow at Jalan Duta Session Court. The charge will be read to him, and DSAI will answer...

"Not Guilty". Bail will then be imposed.

Bail is paid. Off to a campaign that Malaysians are waiting.

What do I feel about this sequel, Sodomy 2?
Well the medical report speaks volume.

So why charge DSAI?
Waste time and public funds. That is what our government is good at anyway.

Lingamgate No 2 part 2

"Judge's stunning allegation in court". The Article below is taken from the NST online on the disclosure by YA Datuk Ian Chin on allegation of interference by the then Prime Minister. I think what YA did was above par. At least for that matter his Lordship cautioned everybody that he will not hesitate to dismiss or struck off the application if certain rules of procedure are not followed OR evidence not convincing enough or facts that are not substantiated. Meaning he will decide without fear or favour.

Subsequent to that he even went further to ask the parties whether the parties have any objection of him presiding as a judge. His Lordship even adjourned the matter for half an hour for parties to discuss. And guess what? "None, however, was made."

SIBU: A High Court judge here has alleged that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad threatened to punish the judiciary in 1997 for decisions he disliked.

Justice Datuk Ian Chin, 60, is the most senior of the 48 High Court judges in the country.

He made the stunning allegation at the start of proceedings on Monday when hearing an election petition filed by Wong Hus She, the defeated DAP candidate for the Sarikei parliamentary seat, the Borneo Post reported.

Anticipating a motion for his recusal, Chin took the "step to disclose what the parties and counsel may not be aware of but which they may later complain that I should have disclosed".

Wong lost the Sarikei seat to Barisan Nasional's Ding Kuong Hing by 51 votes.

Both sides did not object to Chin as the presiding judge, the Borneo Post reported.

He referred to two cases he had presided over in February 1997 - a libel suit and an election petition - the decisions with which the then prime minister was apparently displeased, he said.

He said Dr Mahathir had gone to the judges' conference about a month later "to issue a thinly veiled threat to remove judges by referring to the tribunal that was set up before".

From May 26 until 30, he was "packed off to boot camp" for lessons on taking the government line in judicial decisions.

Last month, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip castigated Dr Mahathir for going against the Constitution in appointing judges and called for an investigation into Dr Mahathir.

According to the notes of proceedings made available to the New Straits Times, Chin said in the libel suit: "I distinguished M.G.G. Pillai v Tan Sri Datuk Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Other Appeals (1995) 2 MLJ 493 and refused to give what I consider to be an astronomical award for damage to reputation in libel cases".

In the election petition, he had set aside the victory of BN's Mong Dagang in the 1996 state polls in the Bukit Begunan seat.

Chin said Dr Mahathir had "expressed unhappiness" over the decision.

"After he was done with issuing that threat, he then proceeded to express his view that people should pay heavily for libel.

"He managed to get a single response from a Court of Appeal judge who asked whether he would be happy with a sum of RM1 million as damages for libel.

"He approved of it and he later on made known his satisfaction by promoting this judge (since deceased) to the Federal Court over many others who were senior to him when a vacancy arose."

Chin said he was "devastated" by what went on but was consoled by fellow judges who remarked "the prime minister was too much".

"It will be recalled that the prime minister not long after he assumed office had said, in a much publicised campaign against corruption, that he will put the fear of God in man but this apparently, given his diatribe in that conference, changed to instilling a fear of him if any judgment is to his dislike."

He said the "boot camp" he attended with selected judges and judicial officers was "an attempt to indoctrinate those attending to hold the view that the government's interest" was "more important than all else when we are considering our judgments".

"Stating this devilish notion was no less a person than the president of the Court of Appeal," he said.

"The perversion of justice did not stop there. My brother judge (Datuk Muhammad) Kamil Awang was one morning looking for me after clocking in. We were both then serving in Kuching.

"When I met him in his chambers, he was distraught and he told me about receiving a telephone call the night before from the chief justice asking him to dismiss the election petition that he was going to hear in Kota Kinabalu.

"He sought my opinion as to what to do about the telephone call.

"We went into the possibility of making a police report or of writing to the chief justice a letter to record what he had said over the telephone but in the end, he decided against it since it would be his word against that of the chief justice," Chin said.

"I was happy to learn later on that he did not bow to the pressure by the chief justice and went on to hear the petition and thereafter, making a decision based on the law and evidence."

Chin also declared that he had twice stood unsuccessfully for election as a BN candidate in the 1980s, in one of which he lost to the DAP. He had also heard other election petitions.

"Now, though no longer the prime minister and so no longer able to carry out his threat to remove judges which should, therefore, dispel any fear which any judge may have of him, if ever there was such fear, nevertheless the coalition party that he led is still around and the second respondent won on a ticket of that coalition party and it may cross someone's mind that I may have an axe to grind against the party concerned or any member thereof.

"The petitioner in this case may also have a similar view with regard to my defeat by a candidate standing on the ticket of the party to which he belongs.

"So I wish to hear from the parties as to whether they entertain any such notion and whether they wish to apply for my recusal so that, if any, I can make a decision thereon.

"After this disclosure, litigants who were affected by the hundreds of judgments that I handed down since those infamous days may justifiably worry as to whether any of my judgments were in any way influenced by this attempt to hang the Sword of Damocles over my head.

"No amount of words from me would assuage you of your worry; you will have to read my judgments as to whether they are according to the evidence and the law or whether they were influenced by threat."

Chin then adjourned for half an hour to let the parties consider an application for his recusal.

None, however, was made.

Lingamgate No. 2

After the VK Lingam's videotape episode, there came another shocking revelation (I am not shocked though, as I have expected) : A confession (disclosure) of a Judge on the interference of the Executive in the Judiciary.

YA Ian Chin disclosure put shock waves across the east and west of Malaysia and I believed also beyond the shores of Malaysia. Boot camp for selected judges for brainwashing session? I think this is an act of betrayal of trust by the former Prime Minister. This is an acceptable.

I echoed the opinion by my President, Miss Ambiga Sreenevasan, that this event must be investigated. She also noted the case of Harris Mohd Salleh -v- The Returning Officer, Ismail Majin & Ors (2001) 3 CLJ 161, the dicta by YA Mohammad Kamil (former High Court judge) which corroborates YA Ian Chin's disclosure where his Lordship stated, “The only guide to a man is his conscience, the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and the sincerity of his action... In my view, it is an insult to one’s intelligence to be given a directive over the phone that these petitions should be struck off without a hearing, and above all, it is with prescience conscience that I heard these petitions.’’

This is definitely a brave act of a judge and with judges like that, Malaysians applaud and respect as the dignity of the judiciary is restored and corrected. Syabas to YA Mohammad Kamil and YA Ian Chin.

Singapore takes Batu Puteh

A small island that prove a point for Malaysia and Singapore. The International Court of Justice decides that Singapore takes Pedra Branca and Malaysia retains Middle Rock. The decision is still read when I am blogging.

Taken from the Malaysian Bar website. Thanks to the accurate reporting from the Malaysian Bar Webmaster

The International Court of Justice has ruled by majority of 12-4 that Batu Puteh/Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore. The Court however rules by majority 15-1 that Middle Rocks belong to Malaysia. South Ledge, however, belongs to the state where in the territorial waters of which it is located.

16.17pm: The Court ruled that the Sultan of Johor has consistently claimed sovereignty over Batu Puteh. The Court ruled that Sultan of Johor has original title to Batu Puteh. This is supported by the activities undertaken by the orang laut, being subjects of the Sultan, surrounding Batu Puteh.

16:24pm: The court now discusses whether this 1812 title has been affected by activities which took place between 1824-1840. Despite the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty dividing the Sultanates into Sultanate of Johor and Riau, the Sultan of Johor continues to have territorial title to the island.

16.33pm: Court concludes that when the Hosburgh Lighthouse was constructed on the island in 1844, the Sultan of Johor has sovereignty over the island. The court now discusses whether sovereignty has since passed to Singapore through the conduct of parties such as acquiescence.

16.44pm: Singapore has passed domestic laws to deal with the Hosgburgh Lighthouse. On 21 September 1953, the Acting State Secretary of Johor replied to the British Adviser to the Sultan that the Johor government does not gain ownership over Pedra Branca. The court considers this letter to be of central importance.

17.12pm: The court is of the view that Johor State Secretary's letter is clear in its meaning. The court rules that since 1953, Johor no longer has sovereignty over the island.

17.16pm: However, the court rules that the 1953 letter does not amount to an estoppel. The court also does not feel that the letter is a binding unilateral undertaking and that letter is merely a reply to an enquiry.

17.37pm: The court notes that 6 maps prepared by Malaysia indicating Pedra Branca is within Singapore's territory gives strength to Singapore's argument.

17:40pm: The court rules that Malaysia's conduct since 1953 shows that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.

17.45pm: The court rules that Middle Rocks belong to Malaysia.

17:47pm: The court rules that ownership over South Ledge lies with the state in which it is located within its territorial waters.

Subahsini's Decision a NO NO

I have read the decision of the Federal Court in Subashini's custody and divorce battle with much headache. I find it difficult to accept the reasoning by all the judges both dissenting judgement as well as the majority decision. I feel that a review has to be done hopefully by seven or nine justices as it involved constitutional arguments that needed not just three heads but a full panel. Though the decision clarify the jurisdictional powers of the Civil Court as the sole jurisdiction to dissolve a civil marriage when one spouse convert to Muslim. It did not addressed the fact that the Syariah Court is subordinate to the High Court of Malaya.

Though it is now settled law that the convert husband should seek divorce in the Civil Courts so that the non Muslim wife can seek legal redress, however what is more problematic now is that the Husband can now convert his son without informing the mother. This Federal Court's decision is absurd and without any basis and must be condemned. The Court should have looked at the decision of Chang Ah Mee's case that went further to decide that both parents must consent to the conversion of their child. What is the point of the Civil Court having jurisdiction to hear and decide on matrimonial disputes involving a spouse who has converted to Islam when it will take no action to prevent that converted spouse to also convert their children. Everybody should read the judgement in full and realize that the impact of allowing such unilateral conversion by any parent regardless of objections from the other parent. The other non-Muslim parent will not be able to re-convert the child out of Islam. The child will also be deprived of its right to convert out of Islam at the age of 18 and as such put the child in a catch 22 situation.

As Guan Eng stated in his press statement "By changing a child's religion without the consent of both parents will cause much heartbreak. Worse is that Subashini’s case has effectively lost custodial rights of both hers sons (where one is converted whereas the other remains unconverted with the mother) if the father proceeds with the conversion. Under Islamic law, a non-Muslim parent has no rights over a Muslim child."

This is one reason why the Malacca Bar is organising a forum "What Next After Lena Joy" this coming Friday at 7.30pm in Legacy Hotel. ALL are invited.

3-0

Yup that is the score in Subashini. Started in the High Court then to the Court of Appeal and as we reached the end of 2007, the Federal Court gave the decision on a 2-1 majority even though it is now settled law that the convert husband should seek divorce in the Civil Courts so that the non Muslim wife can seek legal redress, however what is more problematic now is that the Husband can now convert his son without informing the mother. This Federal Court's decision is absurd and without any basis and must be condemned.

In order to set things right, the Malaysian Parliament must addressed and debate this issue of conversion of one parent converting a child against the will of another or it will continue to be unfair to the other party. Or a review by a full court of seven justices in deciding something that is so fundamental on religious conversion.

Ikut Suka Hati AG

Either it's "ikut suka hati" or "cin cai"... depending on how you interpret the judgement of the Attorney General (AG) when he withdrew the charges against the 31 Hindraf supporters for attempted murder. Why charge them in the first place?

After putting them in the lock up for more than 14 days, he suddenly had a change of heart to withdraw the charge against them. Though I welcome his sudden change of heart but still I call it MALICIOUS INTENTION by the AG in charging them initially. He should known better the difficulty in establishing the elements of attempted murder under the Penal Code. More so he has to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I bet you all first year law students would understand the difficulty in establishing the element of such crime.

So what can I say except a "cin cai" or tak apa attitude by the highest ranking legal officer of the government. Such a pathetic threats against Malaysians by those in powers. What an abuse of power...

Hindraf....AG prosecuting

I was in Shah Alam High Court on Thursday morning for a case (nope, me not involved in Hindraf's case). While waiting for my case to be called, I heard loud cries downstairs (btw I'm at the 7th floor) by members of the families of the NOW-detained 31 so-called Hindraf's supporters. YES, their bail application were all denied by the Session Court judge. Meaning they would have to wait until trial and that is fixed in January 08. How long more after that, I don't know.

That aside. I am more perplexed with the overzealous prosecution by the Attorney General himself. I know that Article 145(3) confers upon the AG the power to institute proceedings. But never have I expected that he himself would do the prosecution in the Session Courts. I am sure the judge sitting on the bench would be very uneasy that her boss is prosecuting.

I am more shocked to learn that all 31 men were charged under attempted murder and not for illegal assembly. I must cautioned the AG that though he is so over zealously behaving like a little Napoleon, the law of evidence clearly states that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt every element stated in the charge. For him to frame such a charge (attempted murder), I now doubt the AG's office motive and direction for prosecuting all 31 people on the same type of offence. Suddenly I was reminded by the notorious decision of Sim Kie Chon who was sentenced to die under the ISA even though there were no evidence to suggest that he was a threat to national security. Why can't he be charged under the Arms Act or under the Fire Arms (Increase Penalty) Act?

Just like Mahatir.....

Piggy Case LOST in High Court Melaka

I seriously did not expect the pig farmers application dismissed. It was very unexpected. There were no evidence adduced by the Respondents (Local Council and State Government) on issues of pollution or environment hazards except ONLY letters of complaint that were issue in February 2006 ONLY. The only thing I can say is that the letters of complaint were planned to literally bring down the pig farming activities in Malacca. I have spoken to one of the applicant and he told us that the business was running since his fore fathers without any problems. "4 generations", that was his exclamation.

I am sad.

UMNO is LAW

Reading the article below confirm my speculation that those in UMNO are above the law. I am really shocked. What has Malaysia becoming?

----

All charges dropped against Zakaria, partners

By WANI MUTHIAH

KLANG: All 37 charges against controversial Port Klang assemblyman Datuk Zakaria Md Deros and five of his business partners instituted by the Companies Commission (CC) have been withdrawn.

The CC had taken Zakaria and the five to court by virtue of their position as directors of Harvest Court Industries Bhd and Titi Steel Sdn Bhd, which had contravened the Companies Act 1965.

Each charge could be punished with a fine of up to RM30,000 and five years jail.

They were charged for failing to notify of change of address, failing to hold annual general meetings, failing to submit financial statements and failing to submit profit-and-loss accounts.

Mozni Sham Ahmad and Joseph R. Samuel who appeared for Zakaria, his partners and the two companies said the charges were withdrawn because the "outstanding problems had been settled".

Companies Commission's prosecutor Azmil Haron told magistrate Fadzilatul Isma Ahmad Refngah that he had been instructed to withdraw the charges against the two companies and its directors.

Will the goverment be fair?

Maybe I should say enough is enough. Will the government be fair? Will the PM be a PM to all regardless of political ideology, racial, religion and cultural differences? I must say I doubt the words and honesty of the PM. I believe Malaysians all walks have heard this again and again. His Deputy said it a couple of weeks ago and that was echoed by the UMNO youth wing very loud and clear. So will PM back away from the statements by his fellow members who vote him as the President of the ruling UMNO? I doubt.

The PM even when as far as to say that any decision on the issue would be guided by the Constitution, the principles of the Rukun Negara and other policies. As I said I have been hearing all these promises for quite a long time. We don't want a 'talk only PM' but we want a walk the talk PM. A PM that would be able to lead this country in a multi racial and religious environment. Unfortunately Malaysians all over saw how racial and ultra his party is.

The non Muslims, as far as I'm concern, holds the view that Malaysia is not an Islamic State and that the only avenue for remedies available for non Muslims is the Civil Courts. Non Muslims will not submit to the jurisdiction of the syariah courts and that the civil courts must hear every application made by non Muslim affected party.

Case like Subashini would be clear example of such a conflict as she was told that by virtue of Article 121 (1A) she has no recourse to the civil High Court against her husband as he had converted to Islam. That suggest she has to make an application before the syariah court which she herself do not believe in. If she submits to the jurisdiction of the syariah court and if the court assume jurisdiction notwithstanding the express ouster of jurisdiction over non Muslim, she will have subjected herself to syariah family law pertaining to custody of children. This would seem in my opinion a violation to her fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

As such if the PM is sincere about this, there are no two ways about it. Either confess that Malaysia is an Islamic State or a secular state (not meaning anti-religion) as stated by our founding fathers.

Supremacy of the Constitution

I must first applaud the recent decision by the Federal Court especially from the learned decision of Judge Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad who said that the civil court was the right forum because non-Muslims could not commence action or appear in syariah courts. As such any disputes between a Muslim and a non-Muslim family and religious matters should be settled in a civil court.

The reason he mooted the idea was that the non Muslim cannot be present to defend themselves in the syariah court and that it is not the function of the civil courts to review laws passed by parliament and state assemblies. The function of the court is to apply and interpret the law. An interesting observation his Lordship made was that it is the legislature to decide which issues fell under the jurisdiction of the civil court and syariah court.

His Lordship also observed that he was confronted again by the issue of conflict of jurisdiction between civil and syariah courts, a problem that arose and had become more serious over the last two decades. As such, he was tempted to take a fresh look at the jurisdiction issue from a broad perspective since the federal constitution was now 50 years old and had the opportunity to review 46 other judgments from 1970 to last year. His Lordship strongly felt that there must be laws to vest jurisdiction in the High Court and the syariah court. The syariah courts will have no jurisdiction if the the state legislature did not pass an enactment to give them the power.

I have not heard a bold statement for such a long time until today. It is definitely a matter to be applaud. Glad to know that the Constitution is supreme.

One after Another

I wonder when will the suing of the Directors of CTOS and CTOS will stop. The way I see it, anybody who is blacklisted after a CTOS check will take defamation suit of millions of ringgit. And if the Claimants wins they will become instant millionaires thus able to settle their debts. As far as I could remember, this is the third such suit against CTOS. Moral of the story, never sell things that does not belong to you. I wonder....

----------

©The Star (Used by permission)
By M.Mageswari

KUALA LUMPUR: A businessman has filed a defamation suit against four CTOS companies and its two directors for allegedly causing his name to be blacklisted by financial institutions.

Seeni Mohamed Mohamed Ali, 42, has named CTOS Sdn Bhd, CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd, CTOS-EMR Sdn Bhd, CTOS Business Systems Sdn Bhd and brothers Chung Tze Keong, 52, and Chung Tze Wen, 49, as defendants in the civil suit.

The plaintiff said that the defendants had inserted information of a civil suit pending against him at the Shah Alam High Court in their database.

He claimed that the Shah Alam civil suit, which was initiated against him on Sept 10, 2003, was still being disputed there.

He said the company's move had resulted in him failing to get loans to finance his business, or to buy a van for use at his restaurant, or getting credit card facilities from three banks and a company for the last three years.

The plaintiff claimed that the four had rejected his loan applications because of the data provided by CTOS Sdn Bhd.

Speaking to reporters after filing the suit yesterday, Seeni Mohamed said the banks had rejected his applications after their search with CTOS Sdn Bhd.

However, Seeni Mohamed said he had evidence from Bank Negara to support his claims that he did not owe money to any bank.

“Everything is okay. I just do not know where CTOS got information about me. They do not know the outcome of the Shah Alam suit but display it in their record. It is unfair as I did not give them the consent to do so,” he added.

In the statement of claim, Seeni Mohamed said that CTOS Sdn Bhd had failed to update its records, although it been notified via a letter dated June 22, 2005, over the matter.

He claimed further that the defendants’ action had implied that he was a liar, a compulsive debtor and an irresponsible person.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had violated Section 73 of the Computer Crime Act 1997 and Human Rights Commission Act 1999 when they collected, sold or distributed incomplete information on him to a third party without his permission.

He is seeking a declaration from the court to expunge or cancel the data on him from their database.

He is also asking for a declaration prohibiting the defendants from forwarding his particulars to a third party.

He is asking for RM100mil in damages and any other relief deemed fit by the court.

Is It Enough?

In a court proceeding, in order to win a case the lawyers in either side will try their very best to convince the judge the facts and the various interpretation of the law to sway the judge to accept their argument. This is what the lawyers will do. We will try to convince the judge to accept our argument. And let the best argument or submission wins.

Unfortunately this is not the case here, the DPM will not issue any statements on Altantuya murder case. What we all heard was that the DPM had never met and known Altantuya and was not involved in the case. Meaning a mere and bare denial. Legal proceeding a bare denial is rarely or never a winning strategy in a trial. There must be a meritable argument. Something that would substantiate the whole argument. I believe that Malaysians of all walk of life would want to know the issue regarding the photograph. And here the DPM has failed to convince all Malaysian.

I don't think it is right for a holder of a public office to actually deny any involvement. There must be actual explanation why and what. If he had met this Mongolian lady, so be it. There is no harm or wrong being seen having a meal with this Mongolian lady. More so there are many people at the meal table. The more the DPM denies, the more lies created that will not be good for the office of the DPM. The following below is taken from Bernama.

-----

Najib will not issue statement on Altantuya murder case - aide

Saturday, 30 June 2007, 07:21pm

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak©Bernama (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will not issue any statement on the claim by a witness linking the picture of the deputy prime minister in the on-going murder trial of a Mongolian model, Altantuya Shaariibuu, at the Shah Alam High Court as it could be subjudice to the case.

His press secretary Datuk Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad, however, said Najib was maintaining his statements made several times before that he had never met or known Altantuya, 28, and was not involved in the case.

"I wish to make it clear that the deputy prime minister had on several occasions when interviewed by the media previously and during the Ijok by-election had said that he had never met and known Altantuya and was not involved in the case.

"I wish to make it clear that the deputy prime minister had on several occasions when interviewed by the media previously and during the Ijok by-election had said that he had never met and known Altantuya and was not involved in the case.

"As such, the issue over the picture does not arise.

"This brief clarification is made because media reports on yesterday's proceedings of the court case have given rise to various views and statements by certain parties that could affect public opinion on the deputy prime minister," Tengku Sarifuddin said in a statement to Bernama today.

In the high-profile murder trial yesterday, Altantuya's cousin, Burmaa Oyunchimeg, 26, told the court that she had seen a picture of Altantuya having a meal in the same table with political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, 46, and a Malaysian government official who is known by the name of "Najib Razak" and several others.

Burmaa, also known as Amy, said Altantuya showed her the picture when they were in Hong Kong after the Mongolian beauty returned from France.

Replying to lawyer Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya's family, Burmaa, the sixth prosecution witness, said Altantuya mentioned that the Malaysian government official's name was Najib Razak and she could remember the name because it was similar to Abdul Razak's.

However, the picture in question was not shown in court.

When campaigning in the Ijok state by-election in April, Najib had repeatedly denied his involvement in the Mongolian model's case and had also chided the opposition for resorting to character assassination strategy by making wild accusations including linking him to the Altantuya's case.

Najib said all parties including Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi knew the actual situation.

Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, from the police special action unit, are charged with murdering Altantuya at lots between 12843 and 16735 in Mukim Bukit Raja at Shah Alam between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year.

Abdul Razak is charged with abetting the policemen between 9.54am on Oct 18 and 9.45pm on Oct 19 last year. The three face the death sentence if convicted.

Following is the full statement by Tengku Sarifuddin to Bernama:

1. I wish to refer to today's media reports on a witness' testimony on a picture (not shown in court) of Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the murder trial of Mongolian model Altantuya.

2. Since the trial is in progress and any statement might be subjudice to the case, it is not appropriate for the deputy prime minister to comment on the matter.

3. Nevertheless, In wish to clarify that the deputy prime minister had on several occasions when interviewed by the media before and during the Ijok by-election had stated that he had never met or known the victim and was not involved in the case. As such, the issue over the picture does not arise.

4. The brief clarification is made because media reports on yesterday's court proceedings have given rise to various views and statements by certain parties that could affect public opinion on the Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib.

Datuk Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad

Press Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister

hmmmmmmm...... serious ar?

Found this in Malaysiakini on the murder of Altantuya. Latest news, DPM Najib did mentioned that he did not know Altantuya during the Ijok By-election, but now the prosecution witness revealed that the murdered Mongolian National had been photographed having a meal with a Malaysian government official named Najib Razak. That was the latest news today by the sixth prosecution witness Burmaa Oyunchimeg, also known as Amy.

This is definitely a contradiction by the DPM and I believe and hope, as a public figure and the second in line of power after the PM, the DPM should come forward to restore the confidence of the DPM office. Statements made in the course of justice are admissible evidence even though may not be directly relevant to the fact in issue.

The contradictions in statements would cause a strong doubt that may to a certain extent create unnecessary tension that may surround the integrity of the DPM's office. As such the DPM must take initiative to let the Malaysian public know the truth OR else there will be a lot of unnecessary speculation and misunderstanding by members of the public regarding the DPM's office.

The Public should also remain calm not to over react and do allow the DPM a chance to clear any doubts in the minds of the public.

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)

A Mongolian witness caused a stir in court today when she revealed that murdered Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu had been photographed having a meal with a Malaysian government official named Najib Razak.

Burmaa Oyunchimeg, also known as Amy, told the Shah Alam High Court that Altantuya had shown her the photo when she returned from a trip to France.

It is believed that the government official in the photograph is Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who has close ties with political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda.

The latter has been charged with abetting the murder of Altantuya, 28.

Najib has previously denied that he had personally met the murdered woman and that he heard of her only from newspaper reports after Altantuya was murdered.

This morning, Burmaa, 26, had mentioned the photograph when cross examined by deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup.

However, she was cut short by the prosecution when she said the photograph showed Altantuya having a meal with Razak and a “government official.” She was then quizzed on other matters.

About 20 minutes later, lawyer Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief for the deceased’s family, sought permission from the court to pose a question on the photograph.

'They had the same name'

This drew protests from the prosecution and a verbal exchange ensued on the relevance of the question. However, judge Mohd Zaki Mohd Yusni granted Karpal permission.

The veteran lawyer then proceeded to ask Burmaa on what was depicted in the photograph.

“She (Altantuya) was having a meal with Razak (Baginda), a Malaysian government official and other people,” she replied.

Karpal then asked her on the identity of the government official, and she replied: “I remember the name Najib Razak, they had the same name. I thought they were brothers. I asked her (Altantuya) if they were brothers.”

This sparked off another exchange between the prosecution and Karpal.

Two police officers - chief inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35 - are charged with the murder of Altantuya.

Prosecutors allege that Abdul Razak and Altantuya met in 2004 and began a whirlwind affair, during which he gave her money.

After they broke up a year later, he allegedly continued to give her money whenever she demanded it. But the payments stopped last year, prompting her to become dissatisfied and travel to Malaysia in October, the prosecution said.

Altantuya was killed by "probable blast-related" injuries in a clearing in Shah Alam after she was driven away from outside Abdul Razak's house in mid-October.

All three accused faced the death penalty.

The real Altantuya

I found the below in a Susan's blog about the real Altantuya. She was murdered. Bombed by C4. Worst of all, the image of Malaysian Police and the Malaysian Government are at stake because it involved the Agencies of the government. The Malaysian Government is also in a dilemma. Now to face an impending suit. So many questions that need real answers. Many conspiracy and mystery that need to be unveil. Only the truth shall set us free says the Bible. And all Malaysian would wants to know the truth. In the Press conference that was not covered by our local papers states that Altantuya was never a model but an interpreter and had two university degrees on language.

Interestingly, he revealed that Abdul Razak Baginda and his daughter not had anything sexual but a business relationship backed by documents revealed only for the first time in a packed press conference. This must be a start of something very-very interesting.

AND Tomorrow hopefully, the trial will and must go on.

----

Taken from http://sloone.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/dad-reveals-who-the-real-altantuya-is/

Dad reveals who the real Altantuya is

At a press conference today (Saturday 15.6.2007) held by SUARAM and Women’s Development Collective in Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur, Altantuya’s father, Mr Stev Shariibuu, chided newspapers for “mis-informing” the public about his daughter. He went on to reveal facts about his daughter, confirming various stories by this blogger since the case exploded on Malaysian soil, in November last year.

“The victim’s side had always been reported negatively, misunderstood and had wrong facts”.

First of all he revealed that Altantuya was never a model. She was a professional interpreter. She studied languages for 6 years and had 2 university degrees. (There was another Altantuya who was a model and friend, but it was not his daughter).

He said the media portrayed her as a “prostitute”, as a “bad person”. “But my daughter was a simple person, quite beautiful. Everywhere she goes, every single man will stop and look at her”.

He added that there was even a “contract” between a Malaysian and Mongolian newspapers to write negative stories about Altantuya. “I want to apologise for one word. This is called “prostitution”. When journalist write something and sell it to get rich”.

“Abdul Razak Baginda and my daughter had a business deal, not a sexual relationship,” he said, showing documents that supported his claims. These documents were revealed for the first time.

Shariibuu then asked why was Altantuya killed on 19 october (2006). What was the significance of the date? It was Ramadhan time, where everyone was at home, enjoying with their family.

In Mongolia, he said, it was Mother’s day where daughters bought under wears for their mothers.

“But until today, I could not give that under wear to my wife,” he added.

Lastly, Shariibuu reminded all Malaysians not to forget the Altantuya story. He said he had only one thing to say:

“What duty do policemen have? They are the most trusted people for us. In case something happens, we approach police. But in this case, who committed the crime? The police of Malaysia. That’s why the government must be responsible”.

Mother of all Trials to start tomorrow

Borrowed from the Sunday Times

By : A. Hafiz Yatim, Rita Jong, Lydia Gomez and V. Shuman

KUALA LUMPUR: The murder captured the attention of the nation. The trial is set to do the same.

One of the biggest and most talked about trials in recent years starts tomorrow and tongues will most definitely wag from start to finish. And, beyond.

All eyes will be on High Court 3 in Shah Alam where the murder trial of Altantuya Shaariibuu begins in a quest to determine the culprit and motive behind the death of the Mongolian beauty.

Altantuya, 28, was killed and her body blown up with explosives in a secluded spot in a forest area in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam.

It was there that what was left of her was found last November. With 132 names on the witness list, the trial which has been fixed for a month, has attracted local and foreign media.

This is because of the gruesome manner in which Altantuya was killed and the "big" names allegedly involved.

One of these "big" names is 46-year-old political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, charged with abetting Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, who were both charged with with Altantuya’s murder.

Many have speculated about what events on the day Altantuya disappeared and who gave the order to end her life.

These rumours are expected to be laid to rest during the trial.

The witnesses include top police officers, two private investigators and the victim’s family.

The proceedings will be nothing but headline-grabbing, with lurid details of a love affair turned sour and Altantuya’s last moments expected to be brought up.

Even before the trial begins, the case has attracted attention with the "details" out in the open.

Abdul Razak’s counsel, Wong Kian Kheong, let the cat out of the bag when he divulged information on the analyst’s affair with Altantuya, which lasted seven months, in one of his two failed attempts to apply for his client’s bail in January.

He said the former lovers had been together in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, France and Kuala Lumpur in 2004 and 2005.

Wong also went on to tell the court details of what happened just before and after her death.

Even the change of lawyers for the accused became a topic on its own.

Abdul Razak was first represented by counsel M. Puravalen and Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah when he was charged last November. Wong was later appointed as his counsel.

Azilah, too, has had his fair share of lawyers.

When he was first charged in November, counsel Shaun Tan Kee Shaan appeared for him. A month later, Tan discharged himself and counsel Zulkifli Nordin took over.

On April 17, Zulkifli was nowhere to be seen and Azilah was instead represented by Hazman Ahmad and J. Kuldeep Kumar.

Zulkifli is, however, expected to be present tomorrow.

Sirul is represented by counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, Hasnal Rezua Merican and Ahmad Zaidi Zainal.

Altantuya’s murder trial has also seen two judges presiding over it.

When the matter was first transferred to the Shah Alam High Court, it was heard before judge Datuk K.N. Segara.

Owing to his packed court diary, Segara fixed hearing for March next year.

The case, however, was later transferred to High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin after three new courts were set up in Shah Alam to help clear the backlog of hearings.

It was Zaki who brought the trial forward.

Events following the murder

• Nov 7, 2006: Bone fragments of a woman, later identified as Altantuya Shaariibuu, are found in forested area in Puncak Alam, Shah Alam. Police investigations conclude she was shot dead and her body blown up two weeks earlier. By this date, police have two policemen, a policewoman and prominent political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in custody.

• Nov 9: Abdul Razak takes police to his house in Bukit Damansara, where several items are seized. Two private investigators are picked up by police.

• Nov 10: The victim’s father, Shaariibuu Setev, tries to identify his daughter’s remains at Kuala Lumpur Hospital. Abdul Razak is admitted to the same hospital for chest pains and breathing difficulties.

• Nov 11: Shaariibuu gives his first press conference and says he hopes his daughter is still alive.

• Nov 13: The remand orders for the three police personnel are extended.

• Nov 14: Abdul Razak’s remand order is extended by two days.

• Nov 15: Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, are charged in the Shah Alam magistrate’s court with Altantuya’s murder.

• Nov 16: Abdul Razak is charged in the Kuala Lumpur magistrate’s court with abetting Sirul and Azilah in the murder.

• Nov 22: The two private investigators picked up by police are released and are reported to now be prosecution witnesses.

• Nov 23: The Kuala Lumpur High Court releases Abdul Razak on a RM1 million bond with two sureties on medical grounds.

• Jan 5, 2007: Abdul Razak is remanded in Sungai Buloh prison after the bid to extend his bail is rejected.

• Jan 9: Abdul Razak applies to the Court of Appeal to review the rejection.

• Jan 11: The Court of Appeal rejects the application.

• Jan 19: Abdul Razak’s counsel, Wong Kian Kheong, reads out an affidavit detailing his client’s love affair with Altantuya during an application for bail.

• March 9: The Shah Alam High Court fixes hearing for 25 days from June 4.

• April 5: News reports say Altantuya’s family will file a suit against the Malaysian government seeking damages over her murder.

• May 24: Counsel for Sirul, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, applies to have the court compel the prosecution to supply him with statements of the witnesses.

• May 29: Court rejects Kamarul’s application.

DO YOU KNOW THAT...

• Only 50 to 60 people will be able to fit into the Shah Alam High Court 3 public gallery. More police officers will be placed in the courtroom to handle the crowd.

• Two Mongolian interpreters will be assigned to the case. One of the interpreters is based here, while the other will fly in from Mongolia.

• Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri was a former investigating officer. He still has a 2002 culpable homicide case pending at the Klang Sessions Court, which involves two accused. He is scheduled to take the stand as the investigating officer of the case on Aug 9, 10 and 14.

• Azilah served the police force for about 10 years. He was an investigating officer in the Sepang police headquarters when he applied to join the Special Action Squad after realising his forte laid in the field rather than behind a desk.

• There are 132 names on the witness list.

• Altantuya’s family will be suing the Malaysian government over the death of the Mongolian. They are expected to file the suit this week.

• Five Mongolian journalists and media from other countries are expected to cover the proceedings.

• Abdul Razak Baginda (picture) appeared on TV talk shows, analysed political events and speeches and gave input to policy makers.