Lim Kit Siang
All Malaysians are asking why the Attorney-General is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramiam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu in 2006.
There are many issues pertaining to public confidence in the independence, impartiality and professionalism of the Attorney-General that can be raised, but because of time constraints, I will just mention in passing the following:
Why AG is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramaniam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu?
All Malaysians are asking why the Attorney-General is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramiam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu in 2006.
In an extraordinary twist to the sordid saga of the C4 murder of Altantuya, Balasubramaniam has hit back at the government for closing the case on his double statutory declarations.
In an open letter to attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail the day after the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz told Parliament that the Attorney-General had closed the case, Balasubramaniam said that he was “surprised” that despite having conceded to signing a false statutory declaration, the police could not find evidence of any wrongdoing.
In his Open Letter, Balasubramaniam wrote:
“I have been made to understand that you have decided to close the case involving two statutory declarations I signed sometime at the beginning of July 2008 in Kuala Lumpur.
“The contents of these statutory declarations were diametrically opposed. Both could not have been true and therefore one of them was false. I trust that makes sense to you.
“The police, I believe, have investigated the circumstances surrounding the making of these two statutory declarations under section 199 of the Penal Code, for an offence which carries a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and a fine. “This is not a trivial offence.
“The police must have interviewed my lawyer, Americk Sidhu, his secretary, the commissioner of oaths who attested my signature and a variety of other witnesses you have mentioned who were somehow intrinsically interwoven in the construction and affirmation of both statutory declarations, one way or another.
“It has therefore come as a great surprise to me to discover that you have been unable to decipher any wrongdoing from the enormous amount of evidence the police must have been able to accumulate from their investigations.
“Please permit me to assist you. Firstly, may I suggest that you re-open this file immediately. I will make it easy for you.
“Let me admit to you that I did sign a false statutory declaration. Yes, I did. I signed a false statutory declaration. It was the second one, not the first one. The first one was entirely truthful. The second one was a complete pack of lies. I admit this.
“This statutory declaration was prepared by some unknown person(s) and I was forced by very thinly veiled threats and intimidation to sign it. I have already made this known to the world at large and I am surprised your office has not picked this up as yet. Everyone else has.
“If you are unable to ascertain this information which I have just provided to you directly, please feel free to contact me at this email address bala.p.i@hotmail.com and I shall forward to you a copy of the video recorded interview I had in the presence of my lawyers in Singapore last November, and a copy of the transcript thereof.
“Otherwise you can find this information on all the blogs worth reading (such as Raja Petra Kamarudin’s Malaysia Today) and also on ‘YouTube’ (just type in ‘PI Bala’ into the search column and you will be surprised what comes up).
“So you may now consider charging me for making the false second statutory declaration after the clues I have given you. I do however reserve the right to plead not guilty to the charge as I believe I have a very good defence.
“Your prosecutors will also have to make sure they call all the necessary witnesses to prove their case against me. These witnesses will have to include the following personalities:
1. A lawyer named Arunampalam Mariam Pillai (who coincidentally does legal work for Deepak Jayakishan and Rosmah Mansor’s personal companies).
2. A commissioner of oaths (Zainal Abidin Muhayat) who works in the office of Zul Rafique and Partners (Advocates & Solicitors) and who attested my signature when he came to the room in which I was being held at the Hilton Hotel Kuala Lumpur.
3. Deepak and Dinesh Jaikishan (very good friends and confidantes of Rosmah Mansor).
4. Nazim Razak (younger brother of the prime minister), and his wife.
5. ASP Suresh (a suspended police officer formerly attached to the IPK headquarters in KL).
6. Officers from the Immigration Department Damansara (who assisted in obtaining urgent passports for my family).
7. A host of journalists and reporters who were present in the lobby of the Prince Hotel Kuala Lumpur when a lawyer called Arunampalam released my second statutory declaration without my permission.
“These are just some of the witnesses I can think of but I am sure you know how to do your job so that should be not a problem. I don’t want to be accused of trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
“If for some strange reason my defence is called, I will also be able to provide witnesses to support what I have to say. I need not disclose who these witnesses are at this stage and I am sure you know that as well.
“I shall now wait for the charge against me to be laid.
“I will be more than happy to return to Malaysia to defend myself but you will have to ensure that my safety is guaranteed as there are some people who would prefer that I was not around.”
Is the Attorney-General prepared to take up Balasubramaniam’s challenge and charge him for the crime of making a false statutory declaration – and if not, why not.
The Attorney-General’s handling of Balasubramiam’s two conflicting statutory declarations and the C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya do not conduce to enhancing public confidence in the administration of the justice, but the reverse – which has far-reaching consequences in undermining Malaysia’s international competitiveness and driving away not only FDIs and foreign talents, but also local funds and local talents.
[Kit Siang is the MP for Ipoh Timur. This is his speech (part2) in Parliament when moving RM10-cut motion for Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail on Tuesday, November 8, 2010]
MC
10/11/10
All Malaysians are asking why the Attorney-General is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramiam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu in 2006.
There are many issues pertaining to public confidence in the independence, impartiality and professionalism of the Attorney-General that can be raised, but because of time constraints, I will just mention in passing the following:
Why AG is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramaniam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu?
All Malaysians are asking why the Attorney-General is so eager to close the books over the two conflicting statutory declarations by Private Investigator P. Balasubramiam on the heinous C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu in 2006.
In an extraordinary twist to the sordid saga of the C4 murder of Altantuya, Balasubramaniam has hit back at the government for closing the case on his double statutory declarations.
In an open letter to attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail the day after the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz told Parliament that the Attorney-General had closed the case, Balasubramaniam said that he was “surprised” that despite having conceded to signing a false statutory declaration, the police could not find evidence of any wrongdoing.
In his Open Letter, Balasubramaniam wrote:
“I have been made to understand that you have decided to close the case involving two statutory declarations I signed sometime at the beginning of July 2008 in Kuala Lumpur.
“The contents of these statutory declarations were diametrically opposed. Both could not have been true and therefore one of them was false. I trust that makes sense to you.
“The police, I believe, have investigated the circumstances surrounding the making of these two statutory declarations under section 199 of the Penal Code, for an offence which carries a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and a fine. “This is not a trivial offence.
“The police must have interviewed my lawyer, Americk Sidhu, his secretary, the commissioner of oaths who attested my signature and a variety of other witnesses you have mentioned who were somehow intrinsically interwoven in the construction and affirmation of both statutory declarations, one way or another.
“It has therefore come as a great surprise to me to discover that you have been unable to decipher any wrongdoing from the enormous amount of evidence the police must have been able to accumulate from their investigations.
“Please permit me to assist you. Firstly, may I suggest that you re-open this file immediately. I will make it easy for you.
“Let me admit to you that I did sign a false statutory declaration. Yes, I did. I signed a false statutory declaration. It was the second one, not the first one. The first one was entirely truthful. The second one was a complete pack of lies. I admit this.
“This statutory declaration was prepared by some unknown person(s) and I was forced by very thinly veiled threats and intimidation to sign it. I have already made this known to the world at large and I am surprised your office has not picked this up as yet. Everyone else has.
“If you are unable to ascertain this information which I have just provided to you directly, please feel free to contact me at this email address bala.p.i@hotmail.com and I shall forward to you a copy of the video recorded interview I had in the presence of my lawyers in Singapore last November, and a copy of the transcript thereof.
“Otherwise you can find this information on all the blogs worth reading (such as Raja Petra Kamarudin’s Malaysia Today) and also on ‘YouTube’ (just type in ‘PI Bala’ into the search column and you will be surprised what comes up).
“So you may now consider charging me for making the false second statutory declaration after the clues I have given you. I do however reserve the right to plead not guilty to the charge as I believe I have a very good defence.
“Your prosecutors will also have to make sure they call all the necessary witnesses to prove their case against me. These witnesses will have to include the following personalities:
1. A lawyer named Arunampalam Mariam Pillai (who coincidentally does legal work for Deepak Jayakishan and Rosmah Mansor’s personal companies).
2. A commissioner of oaths (Zainal Abidin Muhayat) who works in the office of Zul Rafique and Partners (Advocates & Solicitors) and who attested my signature when he came to the room in which I was being held at the Hilton Hotel Kuala Lumpur.
3. Deepak and Dinesh Jaikishan (very good friends and confidantes of Rosmah Mansor).
4. Nazim Razak (younger brother of the prime minister), and his wife.
5. ASP Suresh (a suspended police officer formerly attached to the IPK headquarters in KL).
6. Officers from the Immigration Department Damansara (who assisted in obtaining urgent passports for my family).
7. A host of journalists and reporters who were present in the lobby of the Prince Hotel Kuala Lumpur when a lawyer called Arunampalam released my second statutory declaration without my permission.
“These are just some of the witnesses I can think of but I am sure you know how to do your job so that should be not a problem. I don’t want to be accused of trying to teach an old dog new tricks.
“If for some strange reason my defence is called, I will also be able to provide witnesses to support what I have to say. I need not disclose who these witnesses are at this stage and I am sure you know that as well.
“I shall now wait for the charge against me to be laid.
“I will be more than happy to return to Malaysia to defend myself but you will have to ensure that my safety is guaranteed as there are some people who would prefer that I was not around.”
Is the Attorney-General prepared to take up Balasubramaniam’s challenge and charge him for the crime of making a false statutory declaration – and if not, why not.
The Attorney-General’s handling of Balasubramiam’s two conflicting statutory declarations and the C4 murder of Mongolian Altantuya do not conduce to enhancing public confidence in the administration of the justice, but the reverse – which has far-reaching consequences in undermining Malaysia’s international competitiveness and driving away not only FDIs and foreign talents, but also local funds and local talents.
[Kit Siang is the MP for Ipoh Timur. This is his speech (part2) in Parliament when moving RM10-cut motion for Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail on Tuesday, November 8, 2010]
MC
10/11/10
No comments:
Post a Comment