Tag: Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa

Stir Away RPK.


I’m still trying to work out this RPK rubbish.

If I said you to you that you were at a brothel, you’d have to either deny or admit to it. My opinion of you should not bear on whether I would say this to you, if your being at a brothel was a fact witnessed by me.

If I said to you that someone said to me he saw you at a brothel, your options would be better. You could still deny it or admit it. Or, you could ask me who was that someone who told you. On my part however, I would not have mentioned to you what that person said to me unless I had an element of doubt about you. My opinion of you becomes relevant in that sense.

If we then push this out even further and I were to say to you, that I was told someone had credible information that you were at a brothel, I’d really have to have a lot of doubt about you, before I would even raise the matter with you. My opinion of you would be most relevant in this context.

Therein lies the problem with Raja Petra and his alleged U-turn and stories about his “selling out” and becoming a Najib supporter.

Raja Petra made a statutory declaration in 2008 based not on what he saw. He did not see Rosmah Mansor at the jungle near Shah Alam on that fateful night in 2006. Neither was he told by someone who alleged Rosmah was there. That wretched Statutory Declaration was based on what someone (Nik Azmi Nik Daud) told him someone else (Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin) had “credible information” on – that Rosmah Mansor was at the C4 site.

I find it incredulous that Raja Petra, for all his apparent wily nous, could doubt Rosmah ‘s presence at the site Altantuya was murdered (as he said in his infamous TV3 interview) yet declare a statement which is based on what someone told him someone else had credible information on. Any reasonable person would have deemed it necessary to verify the matter by either sighting the report which allegedly set out the account of Rosmah’s presence, or at the very least, speaking to the person (Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin) who had allegedly authored that report.

It just does not make sense. Unless of course, the whole saga is in turn, just another piece in a prolonged game of chess and it did not matter if a move made sense at a particular point in time, as long as it sets in motion a series of moves to lead to a desired outcome.

Maybe he did think Rosmah was indeed present at the murder scene.

Maybe there were elements to the murder and its surrounding circumstances which he wanted to train the spotlight on, and which were hitherto neglected for one reason or another. What might these be?

  • That the records of Altantuya and her friends were expunged from immigration database?
  • That Najib had occasion to meet with Altantuya in a number of circumstances and had sexual liaison with her?
  • That there were elements of DCNS Scorpene submarine deals which bore Najib’s fingerprints all over some alleged kickback money?
  • That the Malaysian ambassador to Mongolia had stolen evidence from Altantuya’s family and given these to the Malaysian police under the custody of Abdul Gani Patail and/or ex IGP Musa Hassan?
  • That records of military personnel and armaments suggest Najib provided the green light to employ these resources at the time of the murder?
  • To train the spotlight on PI Bala’s statutory declarations again?

Were the manoeuvres to prevent Najib’s ascension and push Ku Li up instead, as defined as they were said to be? Or was it such a given that Najib was to succeed Badawi that stories of these Machiavellian moves were transparently non-sensical?

Certainly the question of whether a military intelligence officer did or did not author a report suggesting Rosmah’s presence at the murder scene, has little impact on the other questions which have always caused Najib’s role to be anything other than an outright falsehood. If Raja Petra’s intention is to have the public re-examine all these other issues all over again, he certainly has a strange way of getting to this. Maybe it is all serendipitous and all he wanted to do was to stir crap again. That he is a master at this there is little doubt.  Certainly the stench has hit cyber waves again.

If this however, is what it takes to flush crap out like UMNO and its leaders of the system, stir away RPK.

Related Articles

Malaysian Tragedy


The recent statement by Raja Petra on the events leading up to his Statutory Declaration on Rosmah Mansor, and Din Merican’s response to that statement, really showed how things are done in Malaysia. Reliance on a couple of telephone conversations, which appeared really short on details, lead to a statements which the masses were too happy to jump on with conclusions.

Apparently a guy called Nik Nazmi Nik Daud orchestrated the whole thing. He duped Raja Petra into thinking there was an intelligence report by Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin which proved Rosmah Mansor’s presence on the murder site. 

Raja Petra, for all his resourcefulness, relied on just 2 apparently quick phone calls to verify the existence of the report. He did not insist on seeing the report or even talking to the purported author of the report. He spoke to third parties on the strengths of their connections with influential people.

That unfortunately sounds all too familiar. Businesses are transacted, assets are purchased, marriages are instituted, and other major decisions are made far too frequently on the say so of someone rather than on detailed investigation of what is the substance of the matter.

“Is this speaker any good?” Yeah he is – so and so said so. There he is on the pulpit delivering hogwash based on non-existent exegesis and some snake oil theology.

“Is this company share worth buying?” Yeah it is – so and so said so. A couple of million ringgit later the buyer is cursing and swearing for losses made because some fund manager was actually trying to offload his holdings.

This reliance on “so and so said so” is mind boggling. Malaysians are just so scared, so lazy, of doing the hard yards. The investigations, the reading, the comprehension and analysis, are often all missing. The short cut is easy but often riddled with dangers. We deserved better. We had one of the best education systems in the world (had is the operative word now) – so why make ourselves look like lazy, uneducated sloths?

I know 20-20 hindsight is always 100% accurate but unless we learn to put in the hard yards by getting our eyes and hand down for some grinding work, we can only blame ourselves if things go wrong. RPK may have been well liked and trusted but despite his Welsh blood, he is as Malaysian as they come. Din Merican said Anwar said ok and John Pang said Ku Li said ok, and bang, the mother of all SD’s out there to spawn a whole saga all its own. Malaysia boleh? There’s a twist even to that stupid phrase.

Related Articles

Najib Involvement in Altantuuya Murder – Further Evidence?


From Malaysiakini 4 MayEnough evidence to launch Scorpene probe
Susan Loone | May 4, 10 1:40pm
Was the 114 million euro (RM534.8 million) paid to Perimekar a “commission”?The Malaysia government has argued that the huge sum was not a commission but for the provisions of “support services” to the RM3.7 billion Scorpene submarines bought from France.

That’s the crux of an on-going Parisian investigation as under French and international laws, giving commissions on such deals are illegal.

According to French lawyer Joseph Breham, who is part of a team investigating the scandal, there was enough “prima facie evidence” to justify a probe.

“How did this company suddenly obtain 114 million euro (RM482 million) in their bank account?” he asked in an interview with Malaysiakini last week.

“Also, the main shareholder of this company, is the wife (Maslinda) of a close associate (Abdul Razak Baginda) to the (then) minister of defence (Najib Razak).”

Breham’s team hopes to unearth enough evidence to convince the French court to institute corruption charges.

Excerpts from the interview follow:

Malaysiakini: You said in media reports that you have sufficient evidence to proceed in the case. Can you reveal what kind of evidence you have?

Breham: We have Perimekar’s account statement in 2001 and 2002. And between these years, they have lost about RM75,000. How can a company lose RM75,000 when the only thing the company did was related to some administrative cost? There was no income, and it was just renting an office.

How did this company suddenly obtain 114 million euro in their bank account? This is the basis for suspicion. Also, the main shareholder of this company is the wife (Maslinda) of a close associate (Abdul Razak Baginda) to the (then) minister of defence (Najib Razak).

These are strong elements (for suspicion) and if you add to this the fact that Altantuya Shaariibuu was killed by the bodyguards of the prime minister, and if you add to this the fact that the immigration records of Altantuya’s entry into the country have disappeared, there is proof that a high official did not want any evidence of her entering the country.

And the fact that the two policemen blew her up with C4 (explosives), it appears as if they completely do not want anything of her to appear.

So, we have the proof that someone who is a high official is involved in this case. We have the proof that the wife of one of the close friends of the PM is involved – (he or she may have) nothing to do with the Altantuya case, but in the issuing of commissions.

I am saying that there is enough evidence, enough prima facie evidence, based on all these elements to make an enquiry.

You are saying that the French prosecutors have accepted your arguments to proceed with the case?

Yes, and there is an key argument that each time (French state-owned shipbuilder) DCN makes a deal in a foreign country, there is corruption. Of course, this does not prove anything but they are not ‘white knights’ either.

How similar is the Malaysian case to the Taiwanese and Pakistani cases that you mentioned in recent media reports?

I am not the lawyer for the Taiwanese or the Pakistani side. However, the Taiwan and Pakistan cases began the other way around. They both started because there were dissension in the French political parties. For example, the Pakistani case started because there were factions in the conservative party.

One of the factions was running for president in the presidential elections. So, the one in power stopped the other from getting kickbacks. In the end, the Pakistanis were not getting their money from the French.

The Taiwanese case came exactly the same way. It was related to a former French minister involved in another case with the company, and they proved that one of his mistresses bought him very expensive shoes.

They inquired where the money came from, and by tracing the money, they found that it came from a bank account in Switzerland. They also managed to prove that the money came from someone involved in the Taiwanese contract.

The reason why it went to such a high level was because of a provision in the contract that stated that there should be no commission paid and that the French government could ask DCN to pay back the commission.

Taiwan lost a lot of money because of this. They filed a civil case against DCN to make them pay back the commission and they won. So the French judicial system could not just ignore the evidence.

If those involved in the DCN case were found to be giving out commissions, can action be taken against them? Is there a law in France against giving out commissions?

There are three laws against giving out commissions. They are the 2002 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention, 2003 United Nations Convention against Corruption, and the French national law.

[Malaysia is not party to the OECD Convention but it ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption on Sept 24, 2008.]

These conventions are interesting: they have a mechanism to monitor whether a country respects the conventions. In the French system, when there is risk of corruption among prosecutors, OECD can ask the French government to act against these prosecutors.

In France, there is a written instruction that a decision not to prosecute a case of corruption is not only based on technical criteria, but (also on) either quality of fact or consistency of proof.

A decision not to prosecute could not be motivated based on quality of person, or by consideration of national economic interest. A courageous prosecutor can ask in writing if he was instructed not to prosecute a person for corruption. He can say, “Excuse me, you give me instructions against the convention, please tell me which to follow.” This, too, he should ask in writing.

What happens if you cannot obtain any information from the Malaysian side to help you with your investigation?

Once a judge decides, he can issue an instruction called ‘the international warrant of search’ and this warrant of search will be sent to the Malaysian side, saying, “We, the French judiciary, want this company to disclose to us this, and this, and this (information). According to the UNCAC, you are obliged to cooperate with me”.

If Malaysia does not deal with the situation, it will at least prove that the government has something to hide. Moreover, if we can find elements showing that Perimekar has parked its accounts somewhere else, the solution in corruption cases is always to follow the money. If we can find the money somewhere else other than Malaysia, then we have some chances.

I, as a lawyer, can ask (apply to) the (French) judge to make such an instruction. It is up to him to decide. If he decides against my application, I can appeal.

If DCN were indicted, you of course expect the Malaysian public or NGOs like Suaram to take up the case against the government.

I am a lawyer and I look for proof. So, if corruption happens involving any of its official in Malaysia, we hope the Malaysian justice system will take care of it. It is not up to the French justice system to do this. It would not be logical. So, for now France must do something against DCN corrupting people outside of France.

But I hope that as soon as – and if we have proof – that Malaysian officials have received the commissions, the Malaysia justice system must then do its work.

If nothing happens, the only thing that could be done – but this is very theoretical, as far as I know it had never been done before – is that there is an application that is called ‘either you extradite or you prosecute’ in the UNCAC.

If a country considers that there is a huge problem, that there is such a (corrupted) person in another country, it can ask for extradition and that it is a duty of the other country either to extradite or prosecute.

Can a country refuse to do either?

No, it cannot say ‘no’ since it is international law. Of course, Malaysia will not be invaded if they decide to do neither. However, there is a way for them (Malaysia) to circumvent this, and that is to prosecute.

But in this case, there is a theoretical possibility – although it has never been used – that France may consider that the inquiry (on the Malaysian side) was such a false one. If they can show enough proof that the Malaysian inquiry was not valid, then it (France) can apply for an ‘international binding judgment’.

For example, this applies to an official who must be sentenced to jail. If the official goes out of the country, he can be taken into custody (based on international laws).
Related Articles