A Threat?

Is Najib issuing a threat? Saying in a press conference that the government will withdraw the fuel rebates if the people don't appreciate it. I think he really look stupid issuing such statements. The Star reported that he appeared to be annoyed. My guess is day by day, the Prime Minister-in-waiting seats gets hotter. I remember in the 90s the Deputy Prime Minister seat is the hottest and many DPM fell, started with Musa Hitam (now Tun), the late Ghaffar Baba (also Tun), and of course DSAI.

Maybe Najib should just apologise to the public. Remember the minerals and oil in the land belongs to the people, not the government. So he is rather childish for a DPM to make such statements.

The Star reported as follows :

Najib, who appeared to be a bit annoyed, said the people must understand that for every litre, the price was subsidised 30 sen.

He also said they have forgotten about the RM625 rebate given to owners with vehicles up to 2,000cc that was announced in June.

“The rebate, if translated, will cost between 35 sen and 40 sen a litre. If the people do not appreciate the rebates, it is better for us not issue any more in the future.

PI Disappeared...

Now Mr Bala aka the PI disappeared. So is it really, that threats of one's life do exists? What about the notion of beautiful and harmonious Malaysia where threats of one's life is not our culture said our DPM and PM recently. Why Mr PI disappeared suddenly?

The first Statutory Declaration as according to his former lawyer, Mr Americk Sidhu was made when he is in his right frame of mind. As stated in one news report that he believed the private eye had been coerced “by either threats or promises as I can think of no other reason” and that it was voluntarily made without duress and it was written over a a period of one and a half months in several meetings with Balasubramaniam, each lasting hours...as according to Mr Americk Sidhu.

Then come the second SD which not only shocked Americk Sidhu but I believe a right minded Malaysian that within 24 hours his client had engaged the services of another lawyer and made another statutory declaration, swearing that the first one was untrue and that he had been forced to sign it.

Mr Sidhu also said as reported in the news report, “As I am familiar with Mr Bala's character, having spent hours recording his statement, I am very sceptical that he signed the second statutory declaration on his own free will."

So can one perceived that the second SD is tainted with some form of illegality and undue influence by some irresponsible third party.

A statutory declaration is evidence given under oath which cannot be retracted. It is liken to facts stated in court under oath and if that declaration is found to be false then the person making the said declaration can be charged in court for perjury. Just saying that the first SD declared was under duress is not enough. There must be compelling evidence to suggest that there is some form of duress and undue influence.

The new SD withdrew all statements that Balasubramaniam had revealed during a press conference organised by PKR de facto leader DSAI on Thursday and this included the fact that he had informed police what political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda had purportedly told him prior to Altantuya’s murder.

So where do we go from here? Or rather where is Mr Bala now.....

PI Bala’s nephew lodges missing person’s report (Reported in the Star)

KUALA LUMPUR: R. Kumaresan, nephew of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam, lodged a police report in Brickfields here on Saturday over the disappearance of his uncle, aunt and their three children.

Kumaresan said it was unusual for calls to his uncle to go unanswered. He added that Balasubramaniam and his family had been in communicado after the private investigator made a new statutory declaration, retracting his original statutory declaration on Friday.

In the first statutory declaration, Balasubramaniam had claimed that police omitted vital information, allegedly linking Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case.

On Friday, Balasubramaniam revealed in a second statutory declaration that he was “compelled to affirm the (first) statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 under duress”.

Open Letter to the Deputy Prime Minister

To the Deputy Prime Minister,

As a Malaysian, I am proud of what YAB Tuan Lim Guan Eng did in appointing a Gerakan member as a director of a Penang agency. That actually reflects a lot of maturity for the betterment of the people in Penang. I think that is what I call a statesmanship. And it is in my opinion an attitude for all CMs or MBs to follow. This goes beyond party affiliation, race, gender or religion. Nothing but a united Malaysian for the purposes of serving the people in Penang.

I am also proud of Datuk Datuk Lee Kah Choon though a loyal Gerakan man in accepting the position not for himself BUT for the people of Penang.

So Datuk Seri, shame of you for demanding Gerakan to state their stand. I think you should not force even the Gerakan leadership to explain. This shows that either BN or the leadership of BN is immature, still arrogant and all the more stupid and foolish. Simply - 'IDIOT'. No wonder this country is in the state of hopelessness and despair.

You are so wrong to state that members of Barisan Nasional component parties should not work for the opposition. Can't members of the BN coalition works for the sake of the people. Is it so wrong for the BN to work with the Penang State Government? Isn't it good for the people?

As such I think it is about time for you, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister to consider resigning from your position as you are the Deputy Prime Minister to all Malaysians regardless of political affiliation. I am totally disgusted with your attitude though you graduated from the United Kingdom. You, being a Nottingham University graduate should be more like minded as you are very much aware in the UK, there's nothing wrong in working with the Opposition for the sake of the people. As such Malaysians don't accept this threatening statements by leaders of the arrogant BN and UMNO.

Signed,
A fed up Malaysian

Unwarranted Statement of the Year

Unbelievable and unwarranted especially it comes from a man who is the current education minister. As a Minister of an important portfolio and a former lawyer who have read the law and understand our constitution, he must know that Malaysia is never an Islamic State except that this is a country where Islam is the official religion.

Hisham's threat and warning is nothing short of political speech and ploy trying to win the hearts of the Malays just like his cousin, the DPM recently. I guess UMNO is trying hard to win the hearts of the Malays. Now coming back to his statement, he feels that it this will cause tension. Now what is the tension about and who creates the tension first? Who is the one that cause all the disunity and the disharmony among all race? Who is the one that divides each races with such discriminating policies? The answer is staring at our face. Not the opposition parties, not the NGOs BUT they that have spoken and threaten all Malaysian. I remember every time when there is an election, somebody from the 'dacing' must say '1969'. AND every time in their general assembly a dagger is raised.

Therefore, Hisham's threat is nothing but a mere political wayang kulit. Why can't he and his cousin just shut up. Can't they just accept that Malaysia is a nation of many religion and culture with the various races across the country, such as Malay-Chinese-India-Eurasian-Kadazan-Iban-Sakai- Negrito and the others. The late Tunku must be MAD and FURIOUS if he is still around for he himself had declared that Malaysia should not be an Islamic State. This country must be defended with all cost.

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