4 May, 2008
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, ‘Razak’. I thought they were brothers. I asked her (Altantuya) if they were brothers.”
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
When the new Selangor State Government took office soon after the 8 March 2008 general election, all it was able to inherit were empty rooms. Even some of the furniture and sofas had been removed, never mind these all did not personally belong to the previous occupants of the room but had been bought with government money. And government money would of course mean the rakyat’s or taxpayers’ money. And for sure none of the computers are any longer around.
Within minutes of Khir Toyo being told that his government had fallen, he rushed to his office and removed three lorry-loads of files and documents. Yes, that is three lorry-loads. And they were sent to a secret location that until today has remained undetected. It makes one wonder what is in those three lorry-loads of files and how much secrets would now remain a secret. Certainly there would not be enough jails in Malaysia if all those files were to fall into the hands of the new powers-that-be in Selangor. Suharto and Marcos combined would appear tame in comparison if you were able to peep into those three lorry-loads of documents that were quickly removed from the Menteri Besar’s office during the wee hours of 9 March 2008.
Files that could not be removed in time were shredded so that not a single trace of evidence of the previous government’s misdeeds would fall into the new government’s hands. For example, Selangor has the most expensive road in the entire world. For that amount of money per kilometre, you could probably build an undersea tunnel from West Malaysia to Sumatra. Selangor is also the state that has privatised its treatment plants where the amount of revenue earned for water is higher than that for oil. Malaysia is the second country after Saudi Arabia where a gallon of water is more profitable than a gallon of oil.
This sounds ridiculous does it not and Malaysia Today must certainly be exaggerating, yet again? Well, when the private company owned by the previous Menteri Besar has to pay Selangor State only RM2.4 million per year while the company can earn almost RM400 million per year, this is definitely no exaggeration. Even Petronas is not that profitable, gallon to gallon.
And this is for only one treatment plant, mind you. How many treatment plants all over Selangor have been privatised to this ‘Bumiputera’ company? And if you think this is terrible, wait till you hear the best part. The privatisation is for 30 years. Yes, that’s right, long after many of you reading this are already dead and buried, these crooks will still be earning money by scamming Selangor State.
Khir Toyo’s entire scam has been revealed in a book written by Mohamad Rafi Awang Kecik entitled ‘KHIR TOYO: antara amanah dan khianat’. But you may face a lot of problems trying to find this book in the market. Khir Toyo has bought up every copy he could get his hands on plus he got the police to arrest the poor chap who wrote the book.
That’s right. The messenger gets arrested because those who walk in the corridors of power do not like the message. So the police arrest the messenger while ignoring the message. And I was told that the Attorney-General will be deciding in a day or two whether I too should be sent to jail under a sedition charge for commenting on the Altantuya trial which is still ongoing. Yet again the messenger is going to be sent to jail because those who walk in the corridors of power do not like the message.
Okay, I shall not comment on the Altantuya trial. Instead, I shall reproduce reports from the mainstream media, which I shall refrain from commenting on. I shall, however, highlight certain parts of these reports so that you need not read the entire eight or nine pages. And these are not my comments, mind you. These are mainstream media reports which have raised as much questions as I have in my previous articles -- which will now be the basis for building a case against me and which can result in me being sent to jail.
Altantuya murder trial starts today
The Star, 4 June 2007
The trial of the year – the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial – begins today at the Shah Alam High Court.
Scheduled to run for a month or more to hear the prosecution’s arguments in its entirety, the trial will shed light on one of the most sensational, not to mention gruesome, murders to hit this country.
The victim, a 28-year-old Mongolian beauty, was reportedly blown to pieces using explosives after she was apparently shot dead.
In the dock are policemen Cif Inspektor Azilah Hadri, 31, and Koperal Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, who are charged with committing the murder in Mukim Bukit Raja, Selangor, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year.
Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, 47, who is accused of abetting the two Unit Tindakan Khas (special action force) personnel, allegedly committed his offence at the Bangunan Getah Asli in Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur, between 9.54am and 11.05am on Oct 18 last year.
However, despite assurances that the trial would go on uninterrupted, recent developments have cast doubts on this.
Today, at least one or two issues have to be sorted out.
Presiding judge Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin will first have to hear an application by veteran lawyer Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family, to “participate actively in the trial.”
Karpal Singh, in his application filed last Thursday, is seeking the right to question prosecution witnesses and make submissions.
Although the application would appear to favour the prosecution, its (the prosecution’s) stance on this matter is still not clear.
On the other side, the defence is almost certain to oppose Karpal Singh’s bid.
One of the lawyers in the case, when asked about the application, said that his client would most likely instruct him to object to it, saying it would otherwise subject all accused to two sets of prosecutors.
Another matter that the court is expected to assess is the question mark floating above C/Insp Azilah’s defence team following the appointment of two new lawyers – Hazman Ahmad and J. Kuldeep Kumar.
In their first appearance last Tuesday, the two lawyers informed the court that they were appointed by the chief inspector in April after Zulkifli Noordin, the counsel on record until then, had discharged himself.
However, Zulkifli has indicated that he would be present in court today.
Apart from these two issues, there is still the matter of the appeal by Kpl Sirul Azhar against the dismissal of his application for access to all witnesses’ statements ahead of the trial.
Justice Mohd Zaki dismissed the application last Tuesday, ruling that the law only provided the accused the right to his own statement recorded by the police.
Kpl Sirul Azhar’s lead counsel Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin filed the notice of appeal last Wednesday and obtained a certificate of urgency from the Shah Alam High Court registry while repeatedly stressing that he would not seek an adjournment of the trial proper despite the appeal.
Any request for postponement would definitely be objected to by lawyer Wong Kian Kheong, counsel for Abdul Razak, who has continuously applied for an earlier trial citing widespread negative publicity against his client.
Najib seen with Altantuya
Malaysiakini, 29 June 2007
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 in Hong Kong 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, mentioned the photograph when re-examined by DPP Manoj Kurup.
Manoj was asking whether she had personal knowledge of Altantuya’s disappearance.
Burmaa began her answer conveyed by her translator Enkhjargal Tsetsgee that she knew Altantuya had come to see Razak who happens to be the only person she knows in Malaysia.
“I know why she wanted to see Razak Baginda - I have seen pictures of Altantuya with Razak and a government official,” she said.
After Burmaa said that, prosecutor Manoj abruptly cut her off.
But 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.
"I have no record of this," judge Mohammed Zaki Mohammed Yasin said, referring to Burmaa's comment about the picture.
The prosecution also said they had no record, prompting Karpal to fire back: "Don't hide things in this court!"
"I am not hiding things. Shut up for the moment," replied lead prosecutor Tun Majid Tun Hamzah.
Karpal turned to the judge and said, "He is out here to conceal this."
Judge Zaki then allowed Karpal to question the witness about the picture. The veteran lawyer proceeded to ask Burmaa what was depicted in the photograph.
“She (Altantuya) was having a meal at a round table 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, ‘Razak’. I thought they were brothers. I asked her (Altantuya) if they were brothers.”
This sparked off another exchange as the prosecutor raised new objections to Karpal's questioning.
The judge then asked Karpal to explain its relevance.
"The relevancy is this. We must not hide anything. It was the ADC (aide-de-camp) officer of the deputy prime minister who had directed his personnel to go in front of Razak's house to take the deceased away. That is the purpose."
Tun Majid accused Karpal of turning the proceedings into a "political forum". He said the attorney-general had promised that everything would be presented at the trial.
"Why can't you just have faith in the system?" Tun Majid asked.
A lawyer for one of the accused policemen accused Karpal of "coaching" the witness Burmaa.
The judge eventually dismissed Burmaa and directed the courtroom to stand down for 15 minutes before calling the next witness, lance corporal Rohaniza Roslan, 29 - considered the prosecution's star witness.
Hearing will resume on Monday.
*************************************************
Whatever Happened to Altantuya Shaariibuu?
Asia Sentinel, 15 October 2007
Timid prosecution, long delays and avoiding a powerful witness in a sensational murder case raise questions about Malaysia’s judicial system
The trial of Abdul Razak Baginda and two of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s bodyguards for the October 2006 murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu has been underway for 150 days with neither the prosecutors nor defense showing much appetite for an aggressive proceeding.
The brutal demise of Abdul Razak’s jilted girlfriend, a freelance Mongolian translator, has been lost in a haze of procedural motions and delays. Critics of Malaysia’s judicial and political systems frequently point to the closeness of Abdul Razak and the two bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 31, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, to Najib. The latter were part of the Special Action Squad, an elite team of bodyguards directly under Najib’s control, until they were arrested last November.
Fewer than 50 days have been spent in court over the course of the five months since the trial began. As the trial resumed Oct. 10 after yet another lengthy delay, the prosecution said it had another 15 witnesses left to go with the 38 that have already appeared, leading one lawyer connected with the case to tell Asia Sentinel, “that is a huge number of prosecution witnesses to call, which I think is totally unnecessary.”
What began as gripping drama has devolved into grinding routine, and the Malaysian public has become increasingly bored with the trial. But it still remains one of the most spectacular trials in Malaysian history because of the gruesome execution of the beautiful 27-year-old woman, who was shot twice in the head and then had her body blown up with plastic explosives in a jungle clearing.
The foot-dragging and numbing technical proceedings have led to suspicions on the part of many that it is being deliberately delayed by the prosecution and the judiciary to lessen the eventual impact of an expected not-guilty verdict, although legal sources point out that Malaysia has no pre-trial discovery process, which means that in other jurisdictions time-consuming activities like the identification of evidence are concluded before the trial begins. But in the case at hand, suspicions have been heightened because of the politically well-connected defendant in a judicial system saddled with scandal, inefficiency and suspected collusion with government for nearly 20 years. The concerns emanate from a landmark event in 1988, when then-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sacked Tun Salleh Abbas, the highly respected Lord President of the Supreme Court, when the court refused to buckle under on government decisions.
Certainly, there are questions about the delays, including a one-week break in mid September for a judges’ conference and another while Abdul Razak Baginda went for treatment of an eye problem. In August, there was a three-week break to give lawyers on both sides time to handle other cases. There have been lengthy trials-within-trials while prosecutors and defense attorneys squabbled over the admissibility of evidence. Most of last week was taken up with a debate on DNA evidence.
“In civil cases this is the usual thing,” the lawyer said. “But I am surprised that it has gone on this long. I don’t think we have had this kind of factual circumstance in a criminal trial in Malaysia’s legal history.”
The bodyguards accused of pulling the trigger, Azilah and Sirul, are alleged to have killed Altantuya at the behest of Abdul Razak, who had broken off his affair with her. She was demanding as much as US$500,000 in support money for a child he supposedly had fathered. In a statement to police, he acknowledged that he had given Altantuya US$10,000 on three separate occasions.
As Asia Sentinel previously reported, there is abundant reason to suspect that Najib also knew Altantuya, despite his protestations, although his name has been mentioned only once in the Shah Alam high court where the trial is being held. Malaysia’s government-influenced newspapers have mentioned Najib only reluctantly in connection with the case, merely printing that he had sworn before Allah that he had never met the woman.
Najib and Abdul Razak, probably accompanied by the translator, were in France together at the same time in 2005, perhaps because of a military procurement deal that netted Abdul Razak a fortune. In a letter left behind after her death, Altantuya said she regretted blackmailing Abdul Razak, although she didn’t say what the blackmail entailed.
At the time she accompanied Abdul Razak to Paris, Malaysia’s defense ministry, headed by Najib, was negotiating without bids through a Kuala Lumpur-based company, Perimekar Sdn Bhd, which at the time was owned by yet another company called Ombak Laut, wholly owned by Abdul Razak Baginda, to buy two Scorpene submarines and a used Agosta submarine produced by the French government under a French-Spanish joint venture, Amaris.
The Malaysian ministry of defense paid one billion euros (RM4.5 billion) to Amaris for the three submarines, for which Perimekar received an 11 percent commission, 114 million euros (RM510 million) from Amaris. Deputy Defense Minister Zainal Abdidin Zin told the Dewan Rakyat, Malaysia’s parliament, that the whopping commission was not a bribe, but was a fee for “coordination and support services.”
What was Razak’s outburst all about?
New Straits Times, 21 February 2008
Just what triggered an outburst from political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in court yesterday?
This was the question on the minds of those present at the High Court for the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial.
The drama started before proceedings began in the morning when Razak’s father, Datuk Abdullah Malim Baginda, whispered something to his son who was in the dock.
Razak’s demeanour changed and he stood up and walked back to the holding cell as proceedings had not yet begun.
He turned, faced his father angrily and shouted: “Shall I shout it out?”
His father pointed his finger at him and indicated no.
Razak did not let up: “I’m innocent! I’m innocent,” he said loudly before going into the cell.
He did not look his normal, self-assured and smiling self when he returned to the dock minutes later for the start of yesterday’s proceedings.
But just as those present in court thought that the side-show was over, Razak started again after trial judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin adjourned proceedings for lunch.
His father went up to him and again whispered something into his ears. Razak jumped up from his seat and in an animated way shouted: “Oh no, oh no.”
He then kicked the dock gate angrily as he walked out, stunning the court room into silence. It did not end there.
He then banged on the lock-up door and looked terribly upset. He was also in tears.
Those present, including family members and reporters, were taken aback to see Razak’s unprecedented behaviour in court since the trial began in June.
Abdullah also appeared stunned but stood silently.
A family member of co-accused, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, then approached Razak’s mother, Datin Rohana Abdullah, urging her to pacify her son.
Rohana, who was seated in the public gallery, quickly walked to the lock-up to calm Razak.
By then Razak’s counsel Wong Kian Kheong, who had left the court room earlier, returned upon been informed of his client’s outburst, and went straight into the lock-up.
Wong refused to say what Razak’s outburst was about.
Proceedings, meanwhile, were not disrupted.
No comments:
Post a Comment