Malaysian Submarine Scandal Continues

Malaysian Submarine Scandal Continues

NEWS/COMMENTARIES

Wednesday, 28 April 2010
French Lawyer Looks for Answers for Scandal in Kuala Lumpur

Breham said the French prosecution is particularly concerned about the fact that Razak Baginda's wife, Mazalinda, was the principal shareholder of KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd, which owned Perimekar.

Written by Hamish McKenzie, Asia Sentinel

Joseph Breham, one of a team of lawyers looking into allegations of corruption in a Malaysian submarine purchase from a French defense conglomerate, told reporters in Kuala Lumpur Wednesday that he had filed a 10-page inquiry with the French courts that calls into question the actions of a company with close ties to the Malaysian Prime Minister's best friend and aide, Abdul Razak Baginda.

Breham is also expected to question several witnesses in Kuala Lumpur about the case, which has broken into the open after years of silence in Malaysia. The inquiry, which now rests with independent French prosecutors, is directed at a €114 million (US$151.1 million) commission paid to a company called Perimekar, which Breham's legal team suggests was established in 2001 purely for the purpose of receiving the kickback. Najib Tun Razak, then Malaysia's defense minister, led the negotiations with the French government to buy the two Scorpene-class submarines, build by Armaris, a subsidary of the French defense giant DCN, and to lease a third a few months later, in 2002.

Political reformers in Malaysia say they are placing their hopes on the French investigation to get to the bottom of the payment to Perimekar and its implications because, they say, there is little hope that the Malaysian justice system will bring the truth to light. Despite repeated requests for information by opposition leaders in Malaysia's parliament, Najib and other top members of the government have refused to answer.

Cynthia Gabrial, who sits on the board of directors of the human rights NGO Suaram, for whom Breham and his colleagues are acting, told Asia Sentinel that "whoever's guilty must be punished, and if it has the be the French court system that actually brings this issue to surface, then so be it."

It isn't likely that anybody will get any answers soon, however. The Perimekar episode goes well beyond Malaysia and is believed to be just a part of years of peddling defense equipment including submarines to countries across the globe by DCN.

Investigating judges looking into some parts of the French establishment have been stalled for years by their inability to obtain defense secrets, partly because of a suspicion that they are related to top figures in French politics. In the past allegations have arisen that sought to ensnare such figures as Edouard Balladur, who ran against President Jacques Chirac, and Nicholas Sarkozy, now the French president, who was Balladur's campaign manager.

Perimekar, according to the Malaysian government, was paid by DCN for "coordination and support services" during the submarine negotiations. But Breham and Suaram say it's highly unlikely the company had the ability to carry out such a role.

"Perimekar was created only in 2001, a few months before the submarine contract was definitely signed," Breham told the press conference. "This means that Perimekar has no experience at all in submarine deals, has no experience in logistics, has no experience in nothing regarding submarines."

"Perimekar until this contract had never had any contract with any company. The only thing Perimekar had done until this signature of the €114 million contract was lose RM75,000 (US$23,310) in 2002. That was the only thing Perimekar had ever done," Breham said.

Breham said the French prosecution is particularly concerned about the fact that Razak Baginda's wife, Mazalinda, was the principal shareholder of KS Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd, which owned Perimekar. He said he hopes the inquiry will answer where the money for the commission came from, where exactly the money went, and if the money stayed in Malaysia.

Perimekar appears to have been subsumed into another company, Boustead DCNS, a joinrbenture between Boustead's parent company and DCNS, SA, the Frnch defense company. In its annual report, Boustead Heavy Industries described Perimekar as an "associate of the Group" that is "involved in the marketing, upgrading, maintenance and related services for the Malaysian maritime defence industry."

The inquiry is now at a preliminary stage, Breham said. If the French prosecution finds that the questionable elements surrounding the commission payment to Perimekar warrant further investigation, it will pass the case on to an 'instruction judge' who will conduct a deeper inquiry that could last for years. For instance, a similar corruption case involving DCN and the sale of frigate to Taiwan has dragged on for more than 10 years, Breham said. Then, if the judicial power believes there is sufficient evidence of corruption, the case will move to trial phase.

The scandal began to come to the surface in 2006 with the gruesome murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a Mongolian translator and spurned lover of Razak Baginda who had accompanied him to France for some of the transactions over the submarines. Altantuya was shot in the head and her body was blown up with military explosives in a patch of jungle outside of Kuala Lumpur. Two of Najib's bodyguards, who were directed to intercede with her by Musa Safri, Najib's chief of staff, have been convicted of the killing. Neither Najib nor Musa has ever been questioned by law enforcement officials about the case. Razak Baginda was tried along with Najib's two bodyguards but was acquitted without having to put on a defense in a trial that left more questions than answers. Immediately after his acquittal, Razak Baginda left the country for England, where he remains.

Breham said the French jurisdiction cannot consider the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu in its investigation. "The only thing that France's jurisdiction will delve into is corruption."

The Murder that Won't Go Away

The Murder that Won't Go Away
7 Dec 2009

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib again ducks questions over the death of a Mongolian translator

According to Alexa.net, as many as 1,700 sites are linked to Malaysia Today, whose own uniques run to as many as 100,000 daily readers. The Facebook interviews have circulated by email and have been translated into both Malay and Chinese. A photocopy brigade also copies and distributes translated items in the rural areas that do not have internet. Thus tens of thousands of people have probably seen the interviews.

Asia Sentinel

When reporters sought to question Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur Friday by reporters regarding private investigator P Balasubramaniam's latest revelations implicating Najib's family in covering up the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, Najib snapped: "I will not entertain any frivolous statement" and asked to move on to the next question.

Balasubramaniam was hired by Abdul Razak Baginda, one of Najib's best friends, to protect him from the 28-year-old Altantuya in 2006 after Baginda had jilted her. In a series of conversations, Baginda reportedly told Balasubramaniam he had in effect inherited the young woman from Najib, who felt that as deputy prime minister it would be unseemly to have her as a mistress. Balasubramaniam disappeared suddenly after making public a statutory declaration giving excruciating details of Baginda's relationship with both Altantuya and Najib.

In a series of sensational exchanges published on YouTube in November, Balasubramaniam surfaced to say that after he had made public the statutory declaration giving the details of what Baginda had told him, he was forced to retract it and to disappear along with his family into India.

Bala alleged that Deepak Jaikishan, who operates a carpet company in Kuala Lumpur and who is a close associate of Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor, had offered him RM5 million (US$1.47 million) and that Nazim Razak, Najib's brother, had threatened to harm his family unless he followed Deepak's instructions to disappear. This happened on July 4, the day Balasubramaniam disclosed his first affidavit. Fearing for the safety of his family, Bala said he had retracted under coercion the allegations linking Najib to Altantuya in a second affidavit the next day, and disappeared immediately with his family until his recent interview, which was captured in video and recorded in transcripts. These were first published in Malaysia Today.

In the interview, Bala described how he and his family had embarked on their fugitive journey to India under the overall direction of Deepak, a rather convoluted and lengthy voyage that saw them passing through or staying for various durations at Singapore, Bangkok, Kathmandu, New Delhi, Madras and eventually Chennai.

Bala gave a detailed description of occurrences supported by factual details that pinpoint the relevant players, locations, times, dates, durations, hotels, monetary figures, checks, bank accounts, etc, which were displayed on the Internet.

Circulated first on Malaysia Today, edited by Raja Petra Kamarudin, the Balasubramaniam interviews created a storm on the Web and were subsequently picked up by Malaysiakini and a flock of other blogs. According to Alexa.net, as many as 1,700 sites are linked to Malaysia Today, whose own uniques run to as many as 100,000 daily readers. The Facebook interviews have circulated by email and have been translated into both Malay and Chinese. A photocopy brigade also copies and distributes translated items in the rural areas that do not have internet. Thus tens of thousands of people have probably seen the interviews.

But against the allegations, Najib, his associates, his family and his government have maintained a deafening silence, at least until Najib dismissed the questions as "frivolous" and not worthy of his response during a press conference after an UMNO supreme council meeting.

Bala's accusation is buttressed by precise facts and details such as checks to Balasubramaniam that were drawn on Kuala Lumpur banks and signed by Deepak that could be easily debunked if false, while Najib and his group have chosen to remain silent in spite of the serious nature of the accusations. Although Najib as prime minister had the power to order an investigation to bring Balasubramaniam to face justice, so far he has not done so, apparently preferring to hope to ride out the accusations.

There are mountains of questions Najib could have answered. Evidence of justice being aborted to protect Najib is found in the numerous irregularities that have occurred before and during the trial of the Altantuya murder. Najib was not questioned despite the fact that the two elite bodyguards who were convicted of the woman's gruesome execution took orders from him. Najib's chief of staff, Musa Safri, by Baginda's admission, sent the two bodyguards to pick her up. The two convicted policemen had no apparent motive to commit the murder on their own.

The judge, prosecutors and even a defence lawyer abruptly replaced without credible reasons shortly before the trial. No motive for the murder was ever raised during the trial.

Both prosecutors and defense lawyer teamed up during the trial to prevent critical evidence being pursued in court, such as reports of a photograph showing Altantuya and Najib taking meals together. Immigration entry records of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions disappeared from the immigration ministry. Bala's original affidavit ws barred from the court without credible reasons.

Baginda, the third accused, who was charged with instigating the murder, was released without his defense being called, leaving open the question of who ordered the killing – especially since a confession by one of the two bodyguards indicated someone was going to pay them RM100,000 to kill her and her Mongolian companions – who were spared after the two went to their hotel to discover the building was protected by CCTV. Instead they chose to pick up Altantuya in front of Baginda's house and drive her to a suburb where she was shot in the head and her body was blown up with explosives.

It is difficult for Najib to this clear himself of the lingering suspicions that have surrounded him and his wife, by waving away inquisitive questions by a curt reply like he gave at the press conference. The latest Bala revelations are regarded as constituting a challenge to the integrity and legitimacy of Najib's premiership, for which he must now account to the nation. The only way to do that without dishonoring his oath of office is to commission a truly independent panel to uncover the truth and account to the nation. It is unlikely, however, that any independent panel would ever be established.

PM denies knowing Altantuya

PM denies knowing murdered model
4 June, 2009

BEIJING (AP): Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak on Wednesday laughed off opposition attempts to link him to the murdered Mongolian mistress of one of his aides.

Najib told The Associated Press he "had nothing to do with" Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old Mongolian model and translator who was having an affair with his close friend and aide Abdul Razak Baginda when she was shot on Oct. 19, 2006. Her body was then blown up in a forest outside Kuala Lumpur, and only fragments were found.

Opposition leaders have repeatedly tried to link Najib to Shaariibuu's death. They claim his close association with Abdul Razak makes him suspect.

"There's no evidence," Najib said. "They've not offered any evidence at all... I have sworn in the name of God, of Allah, that I had nothing to do with her and I can't go beyond that."

Najib added what he described as a "tongue in cheek comment," saying the fact that Shaariibuu was staying at "a two-star run down hotel" at the time of her death was further indication that he had not been involved with her.

"If she was my girlfriend, she will be totally insulted if I put her (there)," he said with a laugh.

The aide, Abdul Razak Baginda, has acknowledged the affair but was acquitted last October of abetting the slaying. Two policemen were sentenced to death in April for her murder, though the trial never established what their motive was. They have appealed.

Sigh… Hafidz Baharom does not respect me

Sigh… Hafidz Baharom does not respect me
23 May, 2009

But they refuse to allow it to end there. They refuse to acknowledge that they can’t get me in spite of bending the rules and moving the goalposts so many times halfway through the trial. This is no longer even a kangaroo court. They have set new standards for what a kangaroo court should look like.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Today, Hafidz Baharom’s piece ‘Why I don't respect RPK’ was published in The Star. Once upon a time, The Star used to be known as ‘Suara Tunku Abdul Rahman’ -- when it was then merely a regional newspaper for Penang folks. Now, of course, it is better known as Suara MCA and has since been transformed into a national newspaper.

Back in the early 1990s, I too used to write for The Star. At that time I was just a freelance columnist writing for the Cycling, and later, Motorcycling columns in The Weekender. The Weekender’s editor then was Sharifah Intan. I think she is the Tunku’s granddaughter but I never did ask her.

Hafidz echoes what many Umno types have repeatedly said: berani kerana benar. What he means is: I have lied. So I should be man enough to face the music and walk into jail with my head held up high. First of all, they assume I have lied. Secondly, since I have lied, then I should suffer a sham trial and accept the verdict of a kangaroo court and go quietly to jail.

Okay, let us focus on that one issue for the meantime. We can always talk about the other issues later.

The issue they raise is: I have lied. Since the court has not ruled either way just yet, let us assume, therefore, that I have. And we will give them the benefit of the doubt and agree that I have lied. I shall not dispute that. And this means I need to go to court so that the court can rule whether I did or did not lie.

I have no problems with that. In fact, in the beginning, that was what my sedition trial was all about. Superintendent Gan made a police report against me alleging that I had lied. And I was arrested and charged for sedition because it is said I had lied. And I faced trial and defended myself against the allegation that I had lied.

Then Gan was called to testify. He was not my witness but the prosecution’s witness. And he went into great detail relating how he arrived at the conclusion that I had lied -- and which was why he made that police report against me.

It was an open and shut case. Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin lied in that article he wrote. So Gan was forced to make a police report against me. He was the investigating officer in the Altantuya murder. He knows the full details of the murder investigation. And he therefore knows very well that what I wrote are total lies.

Then it came to our turn to cross-examin him. He had already testified for the prosecution. Now it was our turn to cross-examin him on his testimony he gave the prosecution.

And that was when he changed his story.

No, he did not investigate the Altantuya murder after all. Another person did. So he is not that knowledgeable about the details of the murder investigation. He just knows small patches of the investigation.

Okay, but he said I had lied. Which parts of that article were the lies? My lawyer went through the article and identified four (4) paragraphs where, according to Gan’s police report, I was supposed to have lied. Okay, now let us look at the charge. The charge says seven (7) paragraphs contain lies. But only three (3) of the seven (7) tally with the three (3) of the four (4) that Gan had identified. This means there is one paragraph that does not tally. So, Gan has four, the charge says seven, and there is one where Gan and the prosecutor can’t agree whether is a lie or not.

The next step is to try to establish the truth. Only by establishing the truth can the lies be established. Since I was alleged to have lied, let us then seek the truth and only when we know the truth can it be proven whether I had lied or not.

But when Gan was asked about the truth he refused to reply to YB Gobind’s questions. He would just not reveal what was the truth. Each time he was asked a question he replied he does not know or does not know how to answer or does not know what to say.

How then does he know I had lied when he does not know what is the truth? Well, he came to the conclusion that I had lied because he had never stumbled across what I had written before. This means, if I were to write that female mosquitoes bite humans while male mosquitoes feed on fruits and not on blood, since he had never stumbled across this fact before, this means I must be lying. There are no two ways about it.

YB Gobind then goes through the article, paragraph by paragraph. He reads each paragraph and asks Gan where in that paragraph are the lies. Then it is discovered that Gan was not able to tell the court where the lies were. In short, what he initially thought to be lies were in fact not.

How did Gan then come to the conclusion they were lies when he made that police report, but when testifying on the stand he can’t stand by his allegation that I had lied? And remember, his police report said I had lied and that I had committed sedition because I had lied.

At this point, when it became clear that the prosecution’s case against me on the basis that I had committed a crime of sedition because I had lied appeared to be falling apart, the prosecutor stood up and told the court that the truth of the matter, or otherwise, is not important. Sedition has nothing to do with true or false. It would be seditious and therefore a crime even if I had told the truth.

But Gan’s police report and testimony were very clear. It was based on the fact that I was supposed to have lied. Now that the lie allegation can no longer stand, they want the court to forget about the lying part and focus on whether I did write what I was alleged to have written even if it is true. And even if it is true they still want the court to send me to jail.

To add insult to injury, the prosecution wants the court to ignore the four or seven paragraphs and whether one paragraph does not tally between the police report and the charge. The article, the court was told, has to be looked at in its entirety, not based on four paragraphs or seven paragraphs.

But the police report clearly marked four paragraphs. And it was these four paragraphs that constituted my so-called crime. The charge, on the other hand, marked seven paragraphs. And this was why I was on trial. Now they want the court to agree that all these paragraphs are no longer relevant and instead the article must be seen as a whole, minus the marked paragraphs.

Okay, the court was told, forget about whether I had lied or in fact had told the truth. Forget the police report. Forget even the charge. Let us just look at the article. Did I or did I not write that article? That is all that matters. And if I did then I must be sent to jail.

Fine, let us do just that. Let us forget about whether I had lied or in fact had told the truth. Let us forget the police report. Let us even forget the charge. Let us instead just look at the article. Did I or did I not write that article? That will be the focus.

The prosecution then adduced the article. This, according to the prosecution, was the article I was alleged to have written. And this article was downloaded from the website called Malaysia Today.

Then it was discovered that the article was NOT downloaded from Malaysia Today. It was in fact typed out. This means this was not the original evidence. It was created or fabricated and NOT downloaded from Malaysia Today. For all intents and purposes, I did not write that article. They, the prosecution, wrote that article. It is a copy. It is not an original article download from Malaysia Today.

When they realised that it was game over, they asked for a postponement so that they could amend the charge. The new charge, this time around, will have the real article downloaded from Malaysia Today.

Then they read out the new charge. But the new charge also had a fabricated article. It DID NOT have the original article downloaded from Malaysia Today. So, again, they were stuck. And at this point the court should have just acquitted me without the necessity of my defence having to be called because the charge was clearly defective and the evidence had been fabricated.

But they refused to give up. Instead, again, they applied for a postponement so that they can do a SECOND examination of the computer. They already did one examination but could not find any copy of that article. The article just did not exist. That is why they had to fabricate the evidence -- because they could not find the evidence.

And why did they need to do a SECOND examination of my computer? So that they could prove that I had used the computer to update the website. This would be the evidence to prove I had published the article.

At this point they were asked how, in the first place, did they even know that the computer belongs to me? Well, because it was confiscated from my house. Am I living in that house alone? No! When they raided my house there were other people there as well. Then how do they know that I own that computer? They don’t, they just assume.

In fact, they confiscated TWO computers and one of them actually belongs to someone else and the files in it prove this. But when they confiscated the two computers they never asked me whether I owned those computers and I never said that I did. So who owns those two computers? The police do not know.

They then summoned an IT expert to testify. They wanted the IT expert to testify that the computers the police had confiscated were used to update Malaysia Today on the day the article was published. The IT expert, however, testified that the computers never accessed Malaysia Today on the day in question. In fact, many days before the alleged crime was committed, the computers they confiscated never accessed the Internet at all, let alone Malaysia Today.

So there goes their case against me. They confiscated two computers that they can’t prove belong to me. Even if the computers do belong to me, they were never used to publish the offending article. In fact, there is no copy of that article in the two computers so there is no evidence I had even written it in the first place. They can’t prove that I lied. They are no longer interested whether I lied or not because they can’t prove that I lied. So where do they go from there? And why are they still pursuing their case against me when they no longer have a case?

Not willing to admit that they no longer have a case, the prosecution told the court they still have many witnesses to call. Okay, they are supposed to tell the court before the trial starts who they are calling as witnesses. How many NEW witnesses are they calling and who are they? They don’t know yet. They are still figuring it out and will inform the court later once they have decided.

Yes, berani kerana benar, all these people say. If I am benar, then I must be berani to face the court. Hey, I did. I did just that; I faced the court. And I allowed them to build their case against me. I allowed them to get to the truth so that they can establish that I had committed the crime of lying and therefore I am seditious. But they failed to do so, each step of the way. And each time they failed they asked for a postponement so that they could go back to the drawing board and come out with new charges, new witnesses, new testimony, new evidence, new rules of the game, and whatnot. And, still, they failed to nail me.

But they refuse to allow it to end there. They refuse to acknowledge that they can’t get me in spite of bending the rules and moving the goalposts so many times halfway through the trial. This is no longer even a kangaroo court. They have set new standards for what a kangaroo court should look like.

Yes, berani kerana benar. I berani walk away from this sham trial and tell them to go to hell kerana benar. And I beranikerana benar. And I berani say to their faces: no more bullshit. And I berani tell them I refuse to allow them to detain me, yet again, under the Internal Security Act. And I berani do all this kerana I benar. And I will not lose any sleep over the matter just because Hafidz Baharom does not respect me and challenges me with berani kerana benar. face the warrant of arrest they have issued for not turning up in court

The Malaysia-Singapore ‘cold war’

The Malaysia-Singapore ‘cold war’
23 May, 2009

Surely Dr Mahathir can’t agree to Najib giving in to Singapore’s demands like what is currently happening. Are we going to see Dr Mahathir going berserk like back in 2006 with all these concessions Najib is granting Singapore?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

An old acquaintance of mine who was once quite senior in the Fisheries Department related this story, which he said stunned everybody in the room. The occasion was a briefing session and the man who was the target of the briefing was Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the then Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia.

This government officer who was conducting the briefing tried to impress Dr Mahathir on what they were doing. He went into great detail talking about their plans and strategies and how things are going to improve once these plans and strategies are in place. And he concluded by assuring Dr Mahathir that it will work because this is exactly what Singapore is doing.

Dr Mahathir gave the briefing officer a long and hard stare and said, “Please never mention Singapore in front of me again. Don’t you know we are at war with Singapore?”

From that day on, word spread like wildfire that you must never, at all costs, mention Singapore in front of Dr Mahathir, unless it is in a negative light that is. To say that Malaysia too is doing such and such because Singapore is doing the same is to invite disaster and a dead-end career in the government.

We both had a good laugh and I never thought about this incident again until 2006, something like 30 years after I was first told the story about the briefing session. And 2006 was when I started my association with Dr Mahathir soon after the dialogue session that Malaysia Today organised at the Kelab Century Paradise in Taman Melawati in Kuala Lumpur.

“Singapore is just a little red dot,” Dr Mahathir would tell all and sundry, sometimes to a crowd of 1,000 or more.

Why is Dr Mahathir so upset with Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi? Because Pak Lah tunduk (kow tow) to Singapore.

Why is Dr Mahathir so upset that his Crooked Bridge has been aborted, and at a price that is more costly than if they went ahead and built it on top of that? Because Singapore does not want it -- so, by aborting it, Malaysia is bowing to Singapore’s demands.

Why is Dr Mahathir so angry with Kalimullah (whom he calls Hindu God and Muslim Priest)? Because Kalimullah is a Singapore agent.

Why is Dr Mahathir so angry with Khairy Jamaluddin? Because Khairy works for Singapore and is being funded by that ‘little red dot’.

Anything and everything even remotely associated with Singapore is a no-no in Dr Mahathir’s books.

“Of course I can’t get along with Singapore,” laments Dr Mahathir. “I can’t go to Singapore and play golf with Singapore’s leaders and pat each other on the back like those in Pak Lah’s government.”

“Who cares if Singapore wants a new straight bridge to replace the Causeway or not. They can keep their half of the Causeway. We will demolish our half and build half a bridge. And if half a bridge is too short then we shall make it longer by building a crooked bridge.”

“Lee Kuan Yew told me that Goh Chok Tong is too sentimental. That’s why he does not want to see the Causeway demolished. So we will have to wait until Chok Tong retires and then, after he retires, we shall demolish the whole Causeway.”

“Malaysia fought hard to gain independence from Britain. We opposed the British and the British plan for a Malayan Union. However, after 50 years of Merdeka, we are still not independent. We still can’t decide what to do in our own country. Singapore tells us what we can do in our own country. So we are not really that independent after all.”

And it goes on and on -- Singapore this and Singapore that. It is all about Singapore. And all of Dr Mahathir’s unhappiness is because Singapore is the cause of everything that is wrong with this country and all his plans are being torpedoed because of Singapore.

There are those in Umno who say that in 2006 I abandoned Anwar Ibrahim and then jumped into Dr Mahathir’s camp. Then I left Dr Mahathir and swung over to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s camp. And after that I left Tengku Razaleigh to return to Anwar. Why I ‘left’ Dr Mahathir is not clear because there was no quarrel or bad blood between Dr Mahathir and me. I sort of just moved on without any reason offered.

That is what the Umno chaps say and they say this openly enough in their Blogs.

True, I did ‘swing over’ to Dr Mahathir back in 2006. But come 2008, I was involved in the general elections and after that the Pematang Pauh by-election followed by the Kuala Terengganu by-election. In between that I was arrested for sedition and then for criminal defamation after which I was detained a couple of months under the Internal Security Act. So that sort of kept me busy for the last year or so, in between going to the police station numerous times and the many court appearances.

Nevertheless, while I may have been too busy to personally go meet Dr Mahathir in his house and office like I used to from 2006 to early 2008, I still kept in touch by phone and by passing messages through a mutual friend. I also met Matthias many times for lunch, tea or dinner to spend hours discussing matters of mutual interest. And most times the messages would be passed to and from Dr Mahathir through these people.

Dr Mahathir understood that our association was only because we both wanted the same thing -- we both wanted to see Pak Lah ousted from office. That was the one thing that united us. However, after Pak Lah leaves, who should be the man to replace him?

Dr Mahathir knew that my choice of successor was Tengku Razaleigh. In fact, I had personally gone to meet Dr Mahathir in his house during Hari Raya of 2007 to inform him about this. Furthermore, we had a series of meetings with Tengku Razaleigh together with Mukhriz’s boys to discuss how Tengku Razaleigh could make a bid for the Umno Presidency.

I was not naïve in thinking that Anwar would be the next prime minister. This was before the 8 March 2008 general election and we were not sure yet at that time whether there was even going to be a Pakatan Rakyat (or maybe there would be three- or four-corner fights with PKR, PAS and DAP all contesting the same seat against Barisan Nasional). So the man who becomes prime minister has to be someone from Umno and that would have to be Tengku Razaleigh.

But we were not really sure whether Dr Mahathir would endorse Tengku Razaleigh in spite of Mukhriz’s boys appearing to be backing him. When we asked Dr Mahathir to his face whether he preferred Najib over Tengku Razaleigh, he did not give the impression he preferred Najib.

We never thought Dr Mahathir would want Najib because of the ‘Singapore connection’. He is angry with Pak Lah, Kalimullah and Khairy because they are said to be tools or agents of Singapore. But then would this not also be so for Najib?

Tun Daim Zainuddin has personally told Dr Mahathir that Singapore possesses all the evidence that Najib, Razak Baginda and Altantuya met at the Oriental Hotel in Marina Square one year before she died. This means, with the evidence that Singapore possesses, they would be able to blackmail Najib. Surely Dr Mahathir would not want someone who can be blackmailed into doing Singapore’s bidding become the next prime minister knowing how he feels about Singapore and those perceived as under Singapore’s control?

Najib has just made a trip to Singapore and while in Singapore he announced that Malaysia agrees to build a third bridge linking Malaysia and Singapore. Third bridge? If there is going to be a third bridge then there would certainly be a second bridge. And we are no longer talking about crooked bridges as what Dr Mahathir wants. We are talking about straight bridges as what Singapore wants. And Najib also announced that the New Economic Policy would most likely be abolished as what Singapore would like to see.

Hmmm…this is interesting. Does Dr Mahathir know what Najib is doing? Surely Dr Mahathir can’t agree to Najib giving in to Singapore’s demands like what is currently happening. Are we going to see Dr Mahathir going berserk like back in 2006 with all these concessions Najib is granting Singapore?

Well, Dr Mahathir knows I support him in his move to oust Pak Lah. But I just can’t support him on the move to replace Pak Lah with Najib. My choice of successor was Tengku Razaleigh and I never hid that fact from Dr Mahathir. Probably the whole of Umno knows this as well. Anwar Ibrahim and the PKR people certainly do.

Of course, if Pakatan Rakyat forms the government, and Anwar Ibrahim becomes prime minister instead, that is also okay with me. But back in 2006 no one imagined that Pakatan Rakyat would ever be formed, let alone win five states and deny Barisan Nasional its two-thirds majority in parliament.

So the choice was either Tengku Razaleigh or Najib and I never dreamt that Dr Mahathir would choose Najib considering he is so pantang about Singapore and would never accept as prime minister someone whom Singapore can squeeze by the balls -- especially when this someone can be blackmailed about a very secret and sensitive meeting with a woman in the Oriental Hotel in Marina Square who is later found murdered.

The Altantuya murder: snippets from The Times of UK

The Altantuya murder: snippets from The Times of UK
9 Apr, 2009

Now that the court has delivered its verdict as to whether the two UTK officers are guilty of murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu, maybe we can flashback on just some of the things that The Times of UK wrote about the matter since the story first broke in late 2006. And why The Times of UK? Well, The Times of UK would not lie like how Malaysian Bloggers normally would.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

10 November 2006

An inquiry into the disappearance of a Mongolian model, who was apparently shot before her body was blown apart with explosives, was ordered by Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Malaysian Prime Minister, yesterday.

His intervention came after police held a prominent political analyst in connection with the case that has caused a sensation in the country. Abdul Razak Baginda, 46, a member of the World Economic Forum, is the fourth person to be remanded in custody in connection with the death of the 28-year-old Altantuya Shaariibuu, whose body was found on Monday. He is a member of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, a television political pundit in Malaysia, and is studying for a doctorate at Oxford.

The others held after Miss Shaariibuu’s body was found on wasteland near Shah Alam are a police chief inspector and two police lance corporals, one male and one female. Mr Badawi said he had told the inspector-general of police to “investigate the case thoroughly and properly through due process”.

It has been reported that Mr Baginda met Miss Shaariibuu in Mongolia two years ago and the two had a relationship. The girl’s father in Mongolia said he believed they were married and that Mr Baginda was the father of her baby son.

His arrest sent Malaysian society reeling. Unnamed politicians and intellectuals described him as a “good” and “affable” man to the Malaysian Star newspaper. One said that Mr Baginda had showered Miss Shaariibuu with diamonds and other jewellery and had deposited $30,000 in her bank account. They had been on holiday together to Europe and South Africa.

“The father of murdered model Altantuya Shaariibuu will come with the marriage certificate to prove that they were married. He will also bring his grandson to undergo DNA tests to prove he is Abdul Razak’s son,” Mongolia’s honorary consul, Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi, said.

18 June 2007

An adviser to Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister ordered two police officers from an elite bodyguard unit to murder his beautiful Mongolian lover, a politically-charged murder trial heard today.

The remains of Altantuya Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old translator, part-time model, and unmarried mother of two from Mongolia, were found blown up by explosives in a jungle clearing near Kuala Lumpur late last year.

Abdul Razak Baginda, 47-year-old father of a teenage daughter, planned the murder, prosecutors said in what promises to be the most closely-followed trial in Malaysia for years. Mr Abdul Razak and the two police officers face the gallows if found guilty.

Mr Abdul Razak is alleged to have turned to the police officers – from a unit charged with protecting Malaysia's leaders - after Miss Shaariibuu began blackmailing him when their relationship turned sour.

He was well known in Kuala Lumpur as a high-flier close to the ruling party and a friend of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who has been forced to deny any knowledge of the case.

The trial, which has already been postponed in controversial circumstances, is being widely seen as a test case for a judicial system, which has often been criticised in the past as vulnerable to political interference.

Tun Majid Tun Hamzah, for the prosecution, told the High Court in Shah Alam that Mr Abdul Razak abetted the police officers "in planning and giving instructions so that the deceased is killed." He denies the charge.

He said that the officers, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Constable Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, carried out the killing and that Sirul had confessed. The two officers are charged with her murder.

After their arrest, Mr Azilah had led police to the clearing where Miss Shaariibuu’s remains were found.

Miss Shaariibuu had threatened Mr Abdul Razak's child unless Mr Abdul Razak paid her, the prosecutor said.

Mr Tun Majid said that a pathologist's report would show that the cause of death was 'probable blast-related injuries'. A pair of slippers found in Mr Sirul's house were stained with what DNA tests proved was Miss Shaariibuu's blood, he said.

The trial had been scheduled to start earlier this month but was postponed after the attorney general replaced the prosecutor after he was seen playing badminton with the judge.

Before the trial started it had become a political football, with former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim calling for fairness and lamenting what he described as the failure of police to question Deputy Prime Minister Najib.

No evidence has emerged to link Mr Najib with the case and the Deputy Prime Minister issued a statement insisting that he had had no involvement with the dead woman.

Malaysia's judiciary has often been the subject of criticism. Nearly ten years ago Mr Anwar was himself dismissed by then premier Mahatir Mohammad and convicted of corruption and sodomy, a decision which was widely criticised abroad.

Mr Anwar has said that the judiciary and police are on trial in today's case, and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has pledged there will be no cover-up.

22 March 2009

A FRENCH arms company is at the centre of a deepening scandal involving the sale of three submarines, the murder of a beautiful Mongolian interpreter and the man most likely to become prime minister of Malaysia next month.

All three have been linked in a sensational sequence of revelations that has convinced many Malaysians that the woman was killed to silence her demands of a share in the rewards of the transaction.

The scandal exploded last week after the French newspaper Libération alleged that the submarines deal and the murder of Altantuya Shariibuu, 28, were connected.

A glamorous, cosmopolitan woman, Altantuya grew up in St Petersburg, spoke Russian, Chinese, Korean and English, moved in elite circles and has been dubbed “a Far Eastern Mata Hari”.

She became the mistress of a Malaysian political fixer and was allegedly trying to extort money from him at the time of her violent demise.

Two members of an elite Malaysian police unit that protects top politicians are on trial in Kuala Lumpur, accused of shooting her in the jungle and then blowing up her body with military explosives.

Azilah Hadri, 32, and Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, officers in the Special Branch, could go to the gallows if convicted of abducting and murdering Altantuya on October 19, 2006. A verdict is expected early next month.

Their trial is unfolding as Najib Razak, the country’s deputy prime minister, stands on the verge of taking over as premier after a ruling-party leadership election, due within days.

Najib was accused by a young opposition MP, Gobind Singh Deo, in parliament, of involvement in the murder. Deo was suspended by the Speaker for making the remark. The deputy prime minister has strongly denied any involvement.

Testimony in an earlier court case has established an intimate personal and financial connection between the dead woman and a close aide to Najib, who was minister of defence at the time of the submarine deal.

The aide, Abdul Razak Baginda, was acquitted by a court last November of being an accessory in the murder. He has since been working on a doctorate at Trinity College, Oxford.

Baginda admitted that the dead woman was his mistress for about a year and prosecutors said she had pestered him for money after their break-up.

Just before her death she arrived in Kuala Lumpur, accompanied by a Mongolian shaman, who was to put a curse on Baginda if he did not pay up.

Altantuya was dragged away from outside Baginda’s home by two Special Branch officers, but he was acquitted after maintaining that he never gave orders for her to be harmed.

The Libération exposé linking the murder to the shadowy world of arms contracts has embarrassed the French war-ship firm DCNS. Armaris, a firm now merged with DCNS, sold the three submarines to Malaysia in 2002 for £937m.

Attention has centred on why Armaris paid £107m to a Malaysian company called Perimekar in 2006.

Opposition leaders alleged in parliament that the payment was a “commission” for intermediaries and that Perimekar was secretly owned by Baginda. Najib replied that it was not a “commission” and that Perimekar was a “project services provider”.

Libération has alleged that Altantuya, who toured France with Baginda in a Ferrari, wining and dining at expensive restaurants, learnt of the payment. It said she was demanding $500,000 (£345,000).

DCNS has refused to comment. It is already the subject of a French judicial investigation into corrupt practices, thanks to a whistleblower who has detailed bribery and industrial espionage allegations.

Last week, efforts to contact Baginda, a self-styled political analyst, at his new home in Oxford were unsuccessful.

Najib has avoided public comment but his politically influential wife, Rosmah Mansor, told the French news agency AFP that she was “shocked” by attempts to link her husband and her to the case.

The Times is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

Cops to hang for Altantuya murder

Malaysia

Cops to hang for Altantuya murder

SHAH ALAM, April 9 — Policemen Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar were today sentenced to death by the High Court for murdering Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, ending one of the longest trials in Malaysian history. Azilah, 33, and Sirul, 37, were found guilty of killing Altantuya, 28, and then blowing up her body in a jungle clearing at nearby Bukit Raja between 10pm on Oct 19, 2006 and 1am the next day. They are appealing their sentence. The two members of the Bukit Aman Special Action Squad (UTK) were charged under Section 149 of the Penal Code, which carries the mandatory death sentence upon conviction.

On Oct 31 last year, the same court acquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, 48, of abetting them in the murder, which drew intense international scrutiny due to its tenuous link to newly-minted Prime Minister Datuki Seri Najib Razak. The former aide to the then deputy premier walked free without ever having to enter his defence and has since moved to Britain. The courtroom was full with media and family members of the two accused but not as packed as Razak's verdict day. Azilah looked relaxed earlier, smiling to his fiancee and family. He even sprayed himself with cologne. Sirul only appeared at the last minute. Initially the duo were tried together with Razak, executive director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre (MSRC). The prosecution team, consisting of Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah, Noorin Badaruddin, Manoj Kurup and Hanim Rashid, stressed in its submission that Azilah and Sirul were the people behind Altantuya's murder. Based on the evidence gathered from prosecution witnesses, the explosive used to blow up Altantuya's body was probably placed in her mouth. Manoj noted at the end of the prosecution's case that both accused had the motive to kill and it was a preplanned crime. Manoj noted that circumstantial evidence that the prosecution tried to prove was never denied, explained or answered by both defendants. "Several of the strong evidence deduced from the testimonies when spun together will make two ropes that are strong enough to hang each one of them. "The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the actions of the duo call for their conviction on the murder carried out with common intention," he had said. Azilah, who started his testimony on Jan 15, stated that he had no motive to kill or destroy the woman and instead he only met Altantuya to advise her politely not to harass Abdul Razak or create a ruckus outside the latter's home. Azilah also told the court that he was ordered by a superior, DSP Musa Safri, to help Abdul Razak and thus he would not have done something stupid like killing and what more when he was a policeman. While defending himself, Sirul broke down a few times and related to the court that he had been made the “sacrificial lamb” in the murder. The case has set many records including being the most number of days for hearing (159 days) and the calling of 84 witnesses at the prosecution stage and two at the defence stage, and it remained a high-profile case for almost two years before Razak was released. According to records, Azilah has been detained at the Sungai Buloh Prison for 891 days while Sirul for 895 days.

Party machine trumps morality

Party machine trumps morality
5 Apr, 2009

Baginda had a glamorous assistant and lover, Altantuya Shaaribuu, 28, who came down to Kuala Lumpur and claimed $US500,000 of the commission when it was paid in October 2006. When Baginda refused, she took to turning up outside his house and making a scene.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Hamish McDonald, Sydney Morning Herald

Yesterday one of the countries Australia and its friends have long seen as a pillar of regional stability took another big step towards becoming a pariah nation. Malaysia swore in perhaps one of the most questionable current politicians in any of the world's democracies as its new prime minister, in a triumph of party machine politics over sound governance and morality.

Najib Razak, 55, is widely expected to cement his hold on power with more of the media shutdowns, national-security detentions without trial and fabricated charges against rivals that have already marked his ascent.

This comes as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development lists Malaysia as one of the hold-out nations refusing to exchange information to prevent tax avoidance. On top of a trade collapse, it now risks new sanctions against tax havens agreed upon at this week's Group of 20 meeting.

Najib is far from a new broom, bringing in the reforms that his older predecessor Abdullah Badawi had promised but never delivered. Instead, he embodies all that has gone wrong in the Malaysian state over the last 30 years from its corrupted policies of addressing racial inequalities through pro-Malay policies in education, government jobs and economic opportunities.

He never had to struggle for his start in politics. When his father, prime minister Abdul Razak, died in 1976, Najib took his father's parliamentary seat aged 22, and within a few years was rising in cabinet and the ruling United Malays National Organisation.

He put a distinctive stamp on the defence portfolio, which he held for 14 years until last year. Malaysia's armed services became notable for their multiple sources of equipment - a policy, many analysts think, with the main rationale of increasing the number of big arms contracts and consequent opportunities for lucrative commissions. The Malaysian air force, for example, flies both Russian and American fighters, the MiG-29 and Sukhoi 30s alongside the Boeing F/A-18s.

It was one of these defence deals that has led to the biggest stink around Najib. In 2002 his ministry entered a €1 billion deal with a French-Spanish shipyard, Armaris, for delivery of two new Scorpene and one refurbished Agosta conventional submarines to the Malaysian navy.

The Malaysian intermediary in the noncompetitive tender was a company called Perimekar, which was then owned by another Malaysian company, Ombak Laut, wholly owned by Abdul Razak Baginda, head of a government-backed strategic studies think tank who was a close friend and adviser to Najib. The deal earned Perimekar a commission of €114 million.

Baginda had a glamorous assistant and lover, Altantuya Shaaribuu, 28, who came down to Kuala Lumpur and claimed $US500,000 of the commission when it was paid in October 2006. When Baginda refused, she took to turning up outside his house and making a scene.

In a sworn statement that has just surfaced, Special Branch policeman Sirul Azhar Umar confessed that he was asked by a superior officer, Azilah Hadri, to deal with a woman disturbing Baginda, for a large reward. On the evening of October 19, 2006, he and Azilah bundled her away from Baginda's gate, drove her to a state forest, shot her dead, and blew up the body with military explosives.

However, the abduction had been witnessed by a taxi driver. Azilah and Sirul were soon charged with murder. Baginda was also charged as an accomplice despite an SMS message from Najib: "I will see the Inspector General of Police at 11am today … The problem will be solved. Be cool."

In the event, it has been cool: a judge ruled last October that Baginda had no case to answer. Now he is reported to be studying for a PhD at Oxford. Azilah and Sirul, whose embarrassingly detailed statement was ruled inadmissible, face judgment next Thursday and a possible death sentence.

On February 3, Sirul made a tearful plea against a death sentence. He said he was "a black sheep that has to be sacrificed" to protect unnamed people who had not been before the court or questioned. "I have no reason to cause hurt, what's more to take the life of the victim in such a cruel manner," Sirul said. "I appeal to the court, which has the powers to determine if I live or die, not to sentence me so as to fulfil others' plans for me." The judgment will come, conveniently, a day after Najib faces his first electoral test, in the first of three byelections. In recent weeks the government machinery has tear-gassed an opposition rally, bribed rival MPs to defect, closed the two main opposition newspapers for three months, barred an opposition MP who tried to ask Najib questions about the murder, and charged the veteran lawyer-MP Karpal Singh with sedition.

Anwar Ibrahim says he has not had "one minute" on the state-run broadcast media since he returned to parliament and became opposition leader last August. Ousted as deputy prime minister by Mahathir in 1998 and convicted over manufactured sodomy and corruption crimes, Anwar faces a new trial for sodomy in July, based on evidence given by a young man whom Najib has admitted meeting before the alleged offence. South-East Asia seems to be getting a new Marcos.

Evidence, or the lack of it

Evidence, or the lack of it
2 Apr, 2009

Christopher Fernando told the court that Anwar Ibrahim was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are those who are of the view that Najib Tun Razak should first be cleared of any involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder before he be allowed to take over as Prime Minister. And the way to do this, they feel, would be through a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

Anwar Ibrahim was once convicted of corruption and sodomy and was sentenced to 15 years and seven months in jail not because there was evidence he had in fact committed a crime. The court found him guilty because there was just an allegation he had committed a crime and Anwar was not able to prove otherwise.

In short, the burden of proof was placed on Anwar, the accused, and not on the prosecution. And Anwar was made to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

Now, if they apply the same standards of burden of proof on Najib as they had on Anwar, not only would Najib not be able to become the next prime minister, as what happened to Anwar, but he would also be sent to jail, as what happened to Anwar.

The issue here is not the evidence of a crime having been committed but the lack of evidence of a crime not having been committed. That was how they denied Anwar the job of Prime Minister and sent him to jail. Should that not also be what Najib is subjected to?

Anyway, to demonstrate what I mean, I am republishing below the court transcripts of Anwar’s trial of 25 March 2003 as argued by his lawyers.

***************************************

The burden of proof is on the prosecution but was shifted to the defence instead

An accused person is not required to prove his innocence. Instead, his accusers have to prove his guilt. In Anwar Ibrahim’s case, however, he was placed in an unenviable position of having to prove his innocence.

Anwar was charged for ‘committing sodomy one night, at 7.45pm, between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’. Even with such a wide and vague charge, Anwar still managed to provide alibis for all those 90 days except one.

Yet, the judge still insisted that Anwar had not established his alibi. But the judge was not able to say which one of those 90 days Anwar’s alibi had not been established.

“All an accused person has to do is to create reasonable doubt,” said Christopher Fernando. “He does not have to prove anything or establish his defence beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“He is not required to prove anything conclusively with respect to his defence of alibi. But the judge held he had to and the he had not proved it 'conclusively'.”

“Conclusive proof is a standard even higher than beyond reasonable doubt.”

Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.

“This is most unusual; alien to the law,” argued Fernando

“All Dato’ Seri Anwar had to do was to raise reasonable doubt.”

“Between 4 February and 31 March 1993, Dato’ Seri Anwar managed to establish his alibi, except for 19 February 1993, said the judge.”

“There was no rebuttal at all by the prosecution to counter Dato’ Seri Anwar’s alibi.”

“The prosecution failed to observe this very basic principle of law.”

“Dato’ Seri Anwar had to prove he was not in the Tivoli Villa in the 90 days between 1 January and 31 March 1993.”

“Instead, it should have been the prosecution’s task to prove that he was there.”

The burden of proof was on the prosecution, argued Fernando. But in Anwar’s case it was the other way around.

“In spite of the monumental task to prove Dato’ Seri Anwar was not there (Tivoli Villa) the defence still managed to do so.”

“Yet the judge still insisted the defence did not establish his alibi.”

“But the judge did not say which one day over the 90 days the alibi was not established.”

“From 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993 the apartment was under renovation.”

“So, from 4 February 1993 onwards, the alibi needs to be proven, and it was proven.”

“Witnesses were brought to testify and documents submitted to support the alibi.”

“The judge’s mind was cluttered. He was very confused and could not see the wood for the trees.”

“Tivoli Villa was not occupied. It had no furniture and was under renovation and the prosecution never rebutted this alibi.”

“The prosecution said Sukma had free access to the apartment but this was never proven.”

Azizan Abu Bakar had testified that he had been sodomised in the Tivoli Villa and that the act had taken place on a bed in a fully-furnished apartment, complete with carpets and all. He further testified that the act had taken place prior to 1993.

The defence, in turn, managed to prove that the apartment was under renovation from 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993, and that from 4 February 1993 to 31 March 1993 Anwar was never in the apartment.

“The judge tried to buttress the evidence. He was trying to prop up a case that was so weak and unconvincing.”

“He said Azizan’s evidence is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar.”

“Preposterous is too mild a word to use.”

“No judge in the history of this nation has gone this far to build up the credibility of a witness such as this – a witness who has no credibility whatsoever.”

Fernando explained that if there is any benefit of the doubt, it should have been given to the accused, not the prosecution. Instead, it was the opposite in Dato’ Seri Anwar’s case.

“This is a basic fundamental principle of law.”

“Azizan should have been impeached. This is not difficult as clearly he lied.”

“If Azizan had been impeached, the hearing would have ended then and there as the entire trial hinged on Azizan’s testimony.”

ON THE EVE OF 3RD APRIL

ON THE EVE OF 3RD APRIL

2 Apr, 2009

On the eve of 3rd April 2009, let us take a trip down memory lane and recap what Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal said on 1st July 2008. I spent six hours with him the day he signed his Statutory Declaration and I can confirm he did not sign it under duress. In fact, he was quite disappointed that my SD had come out a couple of weeks earlier, so that made his SD the second instead of the first. He said he would have liked his to be the first.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted] do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that [deleted by nat out of respect to the family of the deceased].

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-

54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

SUBCRIBED and solemnly )

declared by the abovenamed )

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]

this 1st day of July 2008 )

Before me,

………………………………….

Commissioner for Oath

Kuala Lumpur

Next Malaysian PM linked to murder (1)

Next Malaysian PM linked to murder (1)
GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc Updated March 18, 2009 12:00 AM

Upon winning unopposed as head of his ruling UMNO party at month’s end, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak will become the new PM. Allegations of sleaze have marred his political rise. Now a fresh report in French newspaper Liberation of ties to a murdered Mongolian model threatens his career. Reprinted in two parts is the English version, “The Altantuya Case: How and Why She Was Killed”, with permission from author Arnaud Dubus. Writing from Kuala Lumpur, Ulan Bator and Paris, Dubus presents a gripping account from his investigative journalism:

Sharibu Setev is bitter, disappointed — but determined. Seated at an Ulan Bator hotel lobby, the 60-year-old Mongolian is ready to fight. With face hardened by suffering and harsh climate, his intense gaze tells it all. “My daughter has been murdered by Malaysians on Malaysian soil. And they did not even offer a word of apology,” states the psychology professor of the National University of Mongolia. Altantuya Sharibu was assassinated in Oct. 2006. It was a murder unlike others in a region where business conflicts or petty politics are often settled with a gun. Everything about it, starting 2002 when French-Spanish company Armaris sealed a sale of three submarines to Malaysia for a billion euros, is out of the ordinary. The “Altantuya case” has yet to reach full impact in France, Malaysia and Mongolia. The 28-year-old model’s murder was the result of a 114-million euro “commission” from Armaris to its Malaysian counterpart. This “commission,” acknowledged in Malaysia’s Parliament, triggered a chain of events that led to the slaying of Altantuya and the disappearance of several key witnesses.

A Malaysian police report, kept secret till now, reveals details of how the young member of Asian high society was killed. In the document one of the killers, agent Sirul Omar of the Malaysian Special Branch, told police investigators at a station near the murder scene: “When the Chinese woman saw me drawing a gun she begged me to spare her, saying she was pregnant. Azilah (Sirul’s commanding officer) grabbed her and [threw] her to the ground. I immediately shot the left side of her face. Azilah tore off her clothes and put them in a black plastic bag. He noticed that her hand was still moving. He ordered me to shoot again, which I did.” This is the first confirmation of the killers’ identities. “Then we carried her body into the woods. Azilah wrapped explosives around her legs, her abdomen and her head, and we exploded her.”

Revelation of this report in Liberation is the latest chapter in the saga featuring French weapons sellers, Mongolian shaman, and Malaysian pols. It is explosive not only for the Malaysian government, since deputy prime minister Najib Razak (scheduled to become Prime Minister) is suspected of having links to the case, but also because it could embarrass the DCNS, the French firm specializing in military ship-building. Armaris, which sold two Scorpène and one Agosta submarines to Malaysia in June 2002, was bought by DCNS in 2007.

With magnetic beauty and sophistication, Altantuya is reminiscent of Mata Hari. She grew up in Saint Petersburg (Russia), then studied at Beijing’s Institute of Economic Management. Besides speaking English, she is fluent in Russian, Chinese and Korean. By fate Altantuya came to meet Abdul Razak Baginda in Hong Kong in 2004. Baginda is a security expert and director of Malaysia’s Strategic Research Centre, a pro-government think tank. The two quickly became romantically involved. Altantuya, or Tuya to friends, proved to be a useful assistant, helping Baginda translate Russian to English. Rich and alluring Baginda is well known among Kuala Lumpur’s elite, notably because of his closeness to deputy prime minister and defense minister Najib Razak (he is also his security affairs adviser). He struts around the most exclusive circles, at times accompanied by his real wife. In Mar. 2005 Altantuya and Baginda departed for Europe, touring France, Germany, Italy and Portugal in his red Ferrari, staying in posh hotels and dining in the finest bistros. It was not solely for tourism: the contract for the submarine sale had been signed in 2002, but important details had yet to be settled. “We knew that Baginda was used by Najib Razak as intermediary for weapons systems deals, especially high level ones,” said a regional security affairs expert.

Najib Razak met up with the couple in Paris end of March. A photo shows the threesome in a Parisian private club. “Tuya showed me the pix. She said one of the men was her boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and the other the ‘big boss’, Najib Razak,” said Amy, Altantuya’s best friend. “I asked her if they are brothers because of the names; she said no, and that Najib Razak was the ‘prime minister’.” (Najib Razak has sworn on the Koran that he has never met Altantuya.) According to a private detective, now hiding in India, beautiful Tuya was also the occasional mistress of the deputy prime minister, whom Baginda introduced to her at the end of 2004. (Continuation on Friday)

'Unknown' Najib ready to be Malaysian PM

'Unknown' Najib ready to be Malaysian PM
26 Mar, 2009

There are also issues of character. Najib has been mauled on opposition-supporting internet sites that have linked him to the lurid murder of a Mongolian model, although there has been no evidence and Najib has repeatedly denied involvement.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

REUTERS

Najib Razak, who is set to be Malaysia's sixth prime minister, has been in parliament for over 30 years, yet outside of a close coterie of friends and family he is an enigma.

On Thursday, the 55-year old who is the son of Malaysia's second premier is to be endorsed as the leader of the United Malays National Organisation, the main party in the National Front coalition that has ruled the country for 51 years. The position effectively guarantees him leadership of the country as well.

Although Najib trained as an economist at a British university, he has little direct experience of economic management. He has held the defence and education portfolios as well as his current posts of deputy prime minister and finance minister.

"Najib is the most known unknown," said Bridget Welsh, a Malaysia specialist at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S. He has promised to use the current global economic downturn to boost the Southeast Asian country up the economic value chain and to liberalise services, reduce dependence on commodities and oil exports as well as low-end electronics.

He has however provided few clues on how he can do that in an economy that relies on millions of cheap immigrant labourers to produce electronics that account for nearly 40 percent of the country's exports. Whether he can do that in a country of 27 million people that imprisons people without trial, divides on racial lines and with a ruling coalition that is still wounded from its worst ever election losses at national and state level a year ago is also moot.

He has been labelled as a hardliner by Malaysia's opposition which cites recent sedition charges against one of its lawmakers, a ban on their newspapers and pressure on opposition-supporting websites as evidence of a coming crackdown.

Najib initially appeared to promise action to end economic and social privileges for the 60 percent of the population that is Malay and that have been criticised for nurturing corruption and hampering economic growth.

But he recently backed off any "drastic" move. In his previous ministerial posts he spent lavishly and as finance minister unveiled Malaysia's biggest ever budget spend of 60 billion ringgit to help stave off recession and layoffs in an economy that is the third most dependent on exports in Asia after Hong Kong and Singapore.

AN ABLE ADMINISTRATOR, BUT CAN HE FIGHT? The composition of the budget spending showed caution. Only 15-17 billion ringgit was new government spending, the rest came from various investment funds and bank guarantees. That measure was criticised by some economists for lack of transparency or impact, but it cannily preserved Malaysia's credit rating and cash for a prolonged downturn where more firepower may be needed as government revenues slide. Najib is said by people who work for him to have a strong appetite for detail and he is also popular with his staff.

Married for a second time, Najib has five children and plays golf with close political allies from Malaysia's elite and has close links to business, including his brother who heads Malaysia's second largest bank, CIMB. Najib has taken his time to get to the top job, perhaps learning lessons from the fall of former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim who was over eager in his bid to oust then-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and ended up out of government and in jail. Some say that while Najib is good at details he lacks the capacity for decisive action.

Mahathir, who led the country for 22 years and is still an influential force, damned him with faint praise in a recent interview with Reuters, although much of his anger was reserved for incumbent Abdullah Ahmad Basawi who succeeded him. "Najib can do well, but we will have to see, because when I asked Abdullah to appoint him as deputy I had a lot of hope for him, but he did not perform the way I expected," Mahathir said.

There are also issues of character. Najib has been mauled on opposition-supporting internet sites that have linked him to the lurid murder of a Mongolian model, although there has been no evidence and Najib has repeatedly denied involvement.

Nonetheless it provides a rallying point for the opposition and any in UMNO who may wish to attack Najib's suitability to be prime minister. Those attacks are in public and becoming more intense, with an opposition legislator recently being banned from parliament for shouting "murderer" at Najib.

The honeymoon for Najib will be short, with one parliamentary by-election and two state seat by-elections on April 7. "Throughout his political career, Najib has never had to fight like this before," said political analyst Ong Kian Ming.

Scandals Cloud Succession in Newly Unsure Malaysia

Zainal Abd Halim/Reuters

The party of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi begins its annual convention on Tuesday.

By THOMAS FULLER

Published: March 23, 2009

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — A slew of political scandals gripping Malaysia and a transfer of power fraught with uncertainty have shaken the elite here, with exquisitely poor timing.

As a major trading nation, Malaysia has been slammed by the global downturn. Its exports have collapsed by nearly one-third, and current projections show that its economy will shrink by as much as 5 percent this year.

Yet the main preoccupation of the government and opposition parties appears to be what analysts say is an increasingly dysfunctional political system. The man in line to become prime minister has been linked to the murder of a Mongolian woman whose body was obliterated with military-grade explosives.

The leader of the main opposition party awaits trial on sodomy charges, in a highly politicized case. The government is using draconian laws to prosecute other opposition figures, and last week it suspended a member of Parliament for one year after he called the prime-minister-in-waiting a murderer. And a state legislature has been paralyzed for six weeks by a dispute over who should govern.

“At the rate things are going, we’re going to be a failed state within a decade,” said Salehuddin Hashim, secretary general of the People’s Justice Party, the largest opposition party.

For Malaysia, an oil-rich country with a large, well-educated middle class, the pessimism may seem hyperbolic. But analysts say the current political woes strike at the heart of the functioning of government, damaging institutions like the royalty, the judiciary and the police.

“I see a rough ride ahead for the country,” said Zaid Ibrahim, the founder of Malaysia’s largest law firm, who resigned as law minister in September over the government’s practice of detaining its critics without trial. “The institutions of government have become so one-sided it will take years to restore professionalism and integrity.”

Much of the anxiety is focused on the rise of Najib Razak, a veteran politician in line to become prime minister sometime after the governing party’s annual general assembly, which starts Tuesday. No date for his ascension has been set, and some Malaysians speculate that the incumbent, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, will hold on to power, though he has said he will step down.

Mr. Najib’s supporters say he will reverse the sagging fortunes of the governing party, the United Malays National Organization, and offer decisive leadership, a contrast to the languid style of Mr. Abdullah. But Mr. Najib lacks popular support, and many expect further crackdowns on his opponents if he becomes prime minister. The government already seems to be taking a harder line, shutting two opposition newspapers on Monday while the police used tear gas to break up a rally by opposition leaders in the northern state of Kedah.

In a speech on Wednesday, Mr. Zaid called on the king, Mizan Zainal Abidin, to reject Mr. Najib if the party puts him forward as prime minister, and to appoint someone who would “bring us back from the brink.”

Mr. Najib declined to comment for this article.

The highest-profile scandal to tarnish his reputation is the murder of the Mongolian, Altantuya Shaariibuu, the mistress of Mr. Najib’s foreign policy adviser.

Prosecutors say Ms. Shaariibuu was killed in October 2006 by government commandos who also serve as bodyguards to the country’s top leaders.

Mr. Najib has not been charged with any crime, and he denies having known Ms. Shaariibuu or ever having met her.

According to news accounts, Ms. Shaariibuu had been seeking her share of a commission — the opposition calls it a bribe — worth about $155 million, paid by a French company as part of a deal reached by the government to buy submarines. Mr. Najib, who is defense minister as well as deputy prime minister, handled the submarine purchase.

The huge size of the commission — about 10 percent of the total cost of the submarines — is not being investigated, despite an official acknowledgment by the Malaysian government that it was made to a company linked to Mr. Najib’s aide, who was acquitted in connection with Ms. Shaariibuu’s murder.

Lawyers say the handling of the case has been irregular, and they criticize the prosecution for failing to call Mr. Najib to testify at his aide’s trial.

Perhaps more worrying for the country is the standoff in Perak, a state where since early February the police have barred lawmakers who oppose the governing party from entering government buildings.

Mr. Najib spearheaded an effort to install a new chief minister in Perak by claiming that he had enough defectors from the opposition coalition, the Pakatan Rakyat, which last year took control of the State Assembly for the first time since the country won independence from Britain in 1957.

Both sides remain at an impasse, and the sultan of Perak has rejected a plea by the speaker of the Assembly for a new election, which polls indicate would probably restore the opposition coalition to power.

Ibrahim Suffian, director of the Merdeka Center, an independent polling agency, said that as the governing party’s popularity wanes, Malaysia is failing a key test of any democracy: the peaceful transfer of power.

“Malaysian democracy hasn’t fully matured, in the sense that those who lost the elections are unwilling to accept the results,” he said. The United Malays National Organization has governed the country since independence but nearly lost power in elections last March, a watershed that put into question Malaysia’s ethnic-based party system.

Mr. Zaid, the former law minister, traces Malaysia’s current troubles to the privileges given to the country’s dominant ethnic group, the Malays. Governments led by the United Malays National Organization have provided contracts, discounts and special quotas to Malays through a far-reaching program of preferences. “We have sacrificed democracy for the supremacy of one race,” said Mr. Zaid, who himself is Malay. “It’s a political hegemony.”

The other two major ethnic groups, Chinese and Indian, have withdrawn support for the governing party in recent years and now largely back the opposition.

Declining support for the governing party has heightened the personal rivalry between Mr. Najib and Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader facing sodomy charges. In a measure of the political nature of the case, Mr. Anwar’s accuser met with Mr. Najib before going to the police.

“Our position vis-à-vis Najib is clear,” Mr. Anwar said in an interview. “He has become so repressive and crude in his methods.”

Mr. Anwar added, “There’s no way we will have any dealing or respect for him.”