Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Let’s go the whole nine yards
Battle Royale in Lembah Pantai (UPDATED WITH BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS)
So you think you know the voters
Debating the dog collar, not the dog
Monitor it, not send it underground
Beware of red herrings
What say you now?
It looks like me, sounds like me, but…(part 5)
Bala’s testimony in France (part 4)
The day I met P. Balasubramaniam (part 3)

Posted: 27 Aug 2012 08:13 PM PDT

Almost two years later, in April 2011, TV3 aired an interview they did with me. What I said in my TV3 interview was basically a repeat of my YouTube video (below). This time it finally got the attention I wanted (which was why I did that TV3 interview in the first place). A few weeks later, the Malaysian police met up with me in Bangkok, Thailand, and took my statement, which I signed. You can read my statement to the police below.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) lodged a report at the Hulu Kelang police station on Saturday, 25th August 2012. JMM president Azwanddin Hamzah said the police were urged to investigate the revelation by blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin which alleged that M Puravalen, Abdul Razak Baginda's former lawyer; Subang member of parliament, R Sivarasa; and private investigator P Balasubramaniam were involved in a conspiracy to defame the prime minister and threaten national security.

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

Dear Azwan, how are you? And how is your brother, Din? Is he still with Finas? Please send my salam to Din. It's been a long time since we last met and I thought I would write this open letter in response to the police report you made recently on 25th August 2012.

You are probably aware of my June 2008 Statutory Declaration and the host of problems I got into for signing it. What you are probably not aware about, though, is that when I was brought to court and the three charges of criminal defamation were read out to me, I told the judge that I was not going to respond to the charges on grounds that the charges are defective and mala fide.

The judge, in fact the whole court, was stunned and did not know how to respond. The judge then said he would take that as a 'not guilty' plea. I then raised my voice and told the judge that I did not enter a plea of 'not guilty'. What I said was I was not going to respond to the charges on grounds that the charges are defective and mala fide. The judge did not dare look up or look me in the face and he insisted that that would tantamount to a 'not guilty' plea.

The Prosecutor then asked the court to set bail at RM10,000 for each charge, which means totalling RM30,000. My lawyer then stood up and asked the court to reduced the bail to RM5,000. I shouted at the judge and told him that I did not authorise my lawyers to negotiate a reduction in bail, hence I am sacking my lawyers and will represent myself. I then told the judge I refuse to pay any bail even if it is a mere RM1.00.

The judge did not know what to do so he called for a short recess and asked the Prosecutors and my lawyers to meet in chambers. They then discussed what to do. The judge wanted to know whether my lawyers could convince me to accept bail. The Prosecutor told the judge that I am very stubborn so I would probably not back down.

After a few minutes the court resumed and the judge fixed the bail at RM3,000 for all three charges. Everyone in court was surprised. The Prosecutor had asked for RM10,000 while my lawyers had asked for RM5,000. The judge, however, on his own initiative, reduced it to RM3,000 for all three charges, something that the court had never experienced before.

When the judge announced the bail I walked out of the dock and headed for the court lockup. The police officer just stood there and did not know what to do. I then turned and shouted at the police officer to follow me. He tried to persuade me to stay in court but I shouted at him to just follow me to the lockup and to do his job.

The police officer, however, refused to put me in the lockup. He told my lawyer and my wife to talk to me and to try to persuade me to accept bail. After a bit of drama and with my wife reduced to tears, I agreed to accept bail and went home.

Not long after that I left the country and eventually the charges against me were dropped, as was the earlier charge of sedition. However, my SD was never investigated.

About six month later, in August 2009, I did a video, which was published in YouTube (see below). In that video I related the story regarding my SD. Still nothing was done in spite of the fact that almost 150,000 people have viewed the video.

Again, what I said in my signed statement to the Malaysian police is exactly the same as what I said in my YouTube video of August 2009 and my TV3 interview of April 2011. The only difference is my statement was officially recorded and signed.

Hence, Azwan, seeing how concerned you are about the investigation regarding Altantuya's murder, you may want to go the whole nine yards (an English idiom such as 'better the devil you know') and also take up this issue and ask the Malaysian police what has happened to the recorded and signed statement they took from me in May 2011.

My salam aidil fitri to you and your entire family.

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

RPK Speaks His Mind - Altantuya Statutory Declaration

f4yE5vv73DA

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4yE5vv73DA

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

My recorded and signed statement to the Malaysian police regarding the 18th June 2008 Statutory Declaration (SD) that I signed

In early June 2008, an old schoolmate of mine named Nik Azmi Nik Daud (Bul) phoned me and requested to meet. He did not tell me what the meeting was about. I not only knew Bul from my Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) school days of the 1960s but also know him as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's (Ku Li) campaign manager. Whenever Ku Li needs to reach me or he needs to pass me any information it is done though Bul.

We met at La Bodega in Jalan Telawi 2, Bangsar, Kuala Lumpur, for tea (about 3.00-4.00pm). I can't remember the exact date (maybe around the second week of June 2008 between the 3rd-5th), but it was about two weeks or so before I signed the SD and it was a working day, mid-week.

My wife, Marina Lee, accompanied me to the meeting and there was another person with Bul. I was not introduced to this fourth person and since Bul did not introduce us I took it I was not supposed to know who he is, so I did not ask. This fourth person did not speak a word throughout the meeting so I could not ascertain whether he was Malay or Chinese although he looked more Chinese than Malay (but then many Malays look Chinese so I could not be sure). As the discussion progressed I began to suspect that he may be from the military or military intelligence (he had that 'regimented' look) but this was only my suspicion based on the subject matter that we discussed.

Bul related the story regarding the number two in the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence, Lt. Kol. Azmi Zainal Abidin, meeting Ku Li to inform Ku Li about the night that Altantuya Shaariibuu was murdered. Bul said that Lt. Kol. Azmi told Ku Li that the Deputy Prime Minister's wife, Rosmah Mansor; and Rosmah's ADC, Lt. Kol. Norhayati Hassan; and Lt. Kol. Norhayati's husband, Lt. Kol. Aziz Buyong; were all present (all three of them) at the scene of Altantuya's murder the night she was murdered and blown up with C4 explosives.

Bul said he was present in the meeting when Lt. Kol. Azmi told Ku Li about this episode. He also told me that Ku Li would like this matter to be exposed, hence the purpose of the meeting that day.

After the meeting with Bul, Marina and I discussed the matter and she did not agree that I pursue this expose because she considered the story as farfetched, plus also because Bul was not reliable and in the past some of his stories have proven to be false. Hence, at the behest of Marina, I did nothing about the matter.

About ten days or so later, Bul again phoned me to ask me whether I was going to follow up on the matter we discussed. I told him I was not going to and he requested to meet again. We met the second time on Sunday, 15th June 2008, for lunch at the Selangor Club at Dataran Merdeka.

I arrived around noon and Bul was already there with about a dozen or so people. They were all having lunch on the veranda. Bul signalled to me to move to another table a bit farther from the group and he joined me there together with the fourth person whom he had brought when we first met at La Bodega. (This fourth person again did not say a word throughout the meeting).

Bul asked me why I did not want to expose the story he had told me earlier and I explained that I thought it was too risky and I would definitely get arrested and charged if I did that. Bul assured me that if that happens then he and Lt. Kol. Azmi would come forward to back up my story. They were prepared to go to court to testify in my defence if required to do so.

Marina told Bul that she was not prepared for me to take the risk in exposing the story. Bul assured Marina that he has all the documents to support the story. The documents are in the form of a confidential report by the Military Intelligence that confirms Rosmah, Lt. Kol. Nothayati and Lt. Kol. Aziz were all at the scene of Altantuya's murder the night she was murdered. This report is the same report that was given to the Prime Minister (Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) and DYMM the Agong. Bul said that if the police took action against me they will then give me a copy of this report to use in my defence plus they will come forward to testify on my behalf.

After considering it for a while, I told Bul I would run the story. Marina, however, disagreed with my decision and she told Bul this. Bul assured Marina that all will be well and that he (Bul) will make sure of that ("We will never let Pet go to jail," Bul said). Marina told Bul that if I were to be sent to jail then Malaysia Today would be in trouble. Who would keep Malaysia Today running, in particular to pay for the cost of maintaining the server, which at that time came to about RM10,000 a month? Bul told Marina that if I get sent to jail then they would take over the RM10,000 a month cost of maintaining Malaysia Today.

Bul then asked me when I would be doing the expose. I replied that I would write the story in a day or so but Bul disagreed. It must not be just a story, he told me. It has to be in the form of a Statutory Declaration. The government can just ignore a story. But they can't ignore a SD, which is a legal document. They would have to take action if it was a SD. So Bul asked me to sign a SD instead of just writing a story.

I was still not fully satisfied that Bul's story was accurate. I was also not sure whether Lt. Kol. Azmi really existed (although Bul showed me his calling card), let alone whether his story is real and whether he is reliable. So I called John Pang, who also works for Ku Li, and told John Pang what Bul had told me. I then asked John Pang to confirm the story with Ku Li.

John Pang called me back and said that Ku Li is aware of the story and that this person called Lt. Kol. Azmi is very reliable. It seems he always goes to Ku Li's office to pass Ku Li classified information. According to John Pang, Lt Kol. Azmi is also close to Anwar Ibrahim.

I then called Din Merican, who at that time was working for Anwar Ibrahim, and asked Din Merican to also confirm the story with Anwar. Din Merican called me back and said exactly what John Pang had said. Din Merican added that Lt. Kol. Azmi is not only reliable but goes to meet Anwar very often to pass Anwar information, which had been very useful for the 2008 general election.

Based on these 'references' from Ku Li and Anwar, I then signed the SD on Wednesday, 18th June 2008, at the Kuala Lumpur High Court. My lawyer was present when I signed that SD and the following day he sent my SD to the Prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial.

On Friday, 20th June 2008, an Umno Blog (http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/) published a copy of my SD. That same day, the Blog owner, Zakir, phoned me to ask about the SD and whether I did sign it. I responded with a 'no comment'. He then published the SD and stated that he did call me and that I refused to comment. I do not know where Zakir got a copy of that SD from, as I did not send him a copy.

That same day, Friday, 20th June 2008, the Attorney General told the media that I had signed a false SD and that they will be investigating the matter. The following day, Saturday, 21st June 2008, the IGP told the media that they would be taking action against me for signing a false SD.

Both the AG and IGP based their comments on the copy of that SD that was published in http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/. This is because they both referred to the SD published in http://bigdogdotcom.wordpress.com/ when they made their comments. This was reported in the mainstream media on Friday and Saturday, 20th and 21st June 2008 respectively.

Not long after that, I was arrested and charged for criminal defamation and on 11th September 2008 I was detained under the Internal Security Act and was subjected to a 10-day interrogation session where, amongst others, they wanted to know the details regarding the background to that SD. I told the Special Branch exactly what I had related above but no action was taken. In fact, Lt. Kol. Azmi was promoted from the number two to the head of the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence.

According to Datuk Zambri Ahmad, the Special Branch officer in charge of my interrogation, the information I was given by Bul was a red herring and was aimed at trapping me and to get me into trouble. I do not know where Datuk Zambri got that information from or why he told me that.

RAJA PETRA BIN RAJA KAMARUDIN

Battle Royale in Lembah Pantai (UPDATED WITH BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS)

Posted: 26 Aug 2012 08:28 PM PDT

If the total number of registered voters is about 70,000, we can expect a voter turnout of about 50,000, plus-minus. That would be an increase in voter-turnout of about 9,000. Now, Nurul Izzah's majority in March 2008 was less than 3,000 votes or just 7%. This does not give her too much room to play with. It is certainly touch and go from where I am sitting, even though I am sitting thousands of miles away.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Is Nurul Izzah losing her grip?

The Malay Mail

In the last general election, Nurul Izzah Anwar was 'David' against Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil's 'Goliath' in the battle for Lembah Pantai. The eldest daughter of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim achieved what opposition colleagues Zainur Zakaria and Tun Salleh Abas could not -- wrest the parliamentary constituency from the charismatic Shahrizat.

However, four years later, words on the ground have it that Nurul Izzah is losing support to Umno's Datuk Seri Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin. In what can be called a role reversal, the Barisan Nasional (BN) senator has been hard at work turun padang, speaking to the people and using his position as Federal Territories and Urban Well-being Minister to address their problems, ranging from City Hall issues, housing and business related problems.

Seri Pahang flats resident Mohd Shardi Hashim, 34, an ardent fan of Raja Nong Chik, pointed out that the latter was more 'people savvy' and had contributed a lot to the Lembah Pantai folks.

"He made a lot of changes and assisted us in many ways. He goes to the ground often and talks to the people. He also listens to our problems and addresses them, especially on housing. On the other hand, I seldom see Nurul Izzah. I don't know what she has done for the constituency. What I do know is, she just started appearing again quite recently."

Sue Anna Tan, 34, agreed with Mohd Shardi and said she was surprised when Raja Nong Chik sent her an SMS wishing her happy birthday recently.

"I have no idea how he got my number but it was rather sweet of him to text me," she said. The main concern of Tan -- a victim of snatch thefts three years ago -- was the 'ever increasing crime rate'.

"I must say Bangsar nowadays seems to turn into a hotspot for criminals. Every day residents hear of snatch thefts and, almost every week, burglary cases. My neighbour's house was broken into recently and it happened on a Sunday afternoon."

"In my case, the first incident was in 2008 outside my home, the second in 2009 while I was walking along Jalan Telawi, and the third was in 2010 when they smashed my car window at Bangsar Shopping Centre," Tan said.

Shop owner Norzilla Abdullah, 66, would also root for Raja Nong Chik because it would be easier for her to run her business since he held a Cabinet post. "I like Nurul Izzah but I have to be practical when it comes to business. I would rather have an MP who is also the minister who supervises City Hall," she said.

She said Nurul Izzah, who defeated Shahrizat in the 2008 general election, was seen by many Lembah Pantai residents as 'not doing anything much' for the constituency. To this, Nurul Izza said: "We (Pakatan Rakyat) are rendered powerless by City Hall, which is answerable to the minister. This affects our job in Kuala Lumpur itself, let alone Lembah Pantai."

"I find it challenging to do good work for my constituents because most complaints are directly related to City Hall. Sometimes I feel like I'm just the middle person trying to push City Hall to provide better services to the constituents."

"It doesn't help that BN has a service centre near Seri Pahang flats as well. This confuses the people. Who do they go to for help? Me or my political nemesis? I'm the rightful MP but he's the minister."

The 31-year-old, who is also PKR vice-president, also claimed that City Hall and various administrators of public facilities were 'unfriendly' towards her programmes, projects and campaigns.

"It has come to a point where we just try to do it. Can you imagine the Bangsar mosque is not allowing us to distribute charity to the poor? They say we should not have 'political activities' in a mosque," she said.

However, when The Malay Mail brought the matter up with Raja Nong Chik, he firmly denied it, saying that Nurul Izzah 'must adhere procedures just like everyone else'. "Even Umno members are sometimes denied facilities by City Hall. It depends on a lot of factors," he said.

"I have been doing my best to assist the poor of Lembah Pantai for 25 years. My opponent has only been doing it for the past two to three years as an MP. I was here even when I lost the division chief's post for Umno but I stayed on to serve."

Raja Nong Chik said he knew the issues concerning the poor. "It is housing, It has always been the case and I've been on top of it to provide low-cost housing for the squatters."

"I basically want to improve their overall living conditions, including better pensions for the elderly and providing better homes for everyone, especially the poor."

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

When you pray five times a day, you remember Allah and Raja Nong Chik, not necessarily in that order of priority, though.

That was what The Malay Mail had to say about the matter. Now read what I have to say, not that I have not written about this matter a couple of times already. However, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad likes to say: Melayu mudah lupa. I say all Malaysians mudah lupa. So sometimes we need to repeat what we have already said to keep reminding you.

There were almost 57,000 registered voters in Lembah Pantai in March 2008. I do not know what the exact figure is now but I am guesstimating that it should be roughly 70,000, plus-minus. I am basing this estimate on the ratio of the national increase in voters and am assuming that the increase in voters for the parliamentary constituency of Lembah Pantai is in tandem with the national figure. If it is higher, then we should begin to worry and suspect that something devious is happening here -- such as 'phantom' voters.

Anyhow, whatever it may be, slightly over half those voters are Malays, say 52-54%, and less than half are non-Malays -- mainly Chinese, about a quarter, and Indians, about 20% or so. Hence the Malay voters would probably decide the outcome of the coming general election in Lembah Pantai.

I would not put too much weight on The Malay Mail report above. I mean, a swallow does not make a summer and interviewing one or two people for their comments does not reflect the majority view. Nevertheless, The Malay Mail is not entirely wrong and there are certainly some areas of concern. And I am definitely concerned about them -- although Nurul Izzah's 'machinery' is very gung-ho about the situation.

We must remember that the PKR Youth machinery is always gung-ho. In the Indera Kayangan by-election ten years ago in 2002 -- the campaign that was run by the PKR Youth Movement -- I said that PKR was going to lose by at least 2,500 votes. PKR Youth, however, said it was going win by not less than 3,000 votes, maybe even 5,000 votes.

Even Rafizi Ramli, who at that time was still studying in the UK, said that PKR was going to lose by at least 2,500 votes, and he spoke to me about it. Nevertheless, the PKR Youth election machinery was still confident it was going to win. Finally, Rafizi and I were proven right. PKR lost by 2,593 votes, worse than in 1999 when they lost by less than 2,000 votes.

Hence I am always very worried about these Young Chicos in PKR. They are too confident and always end up wrong in the end. So why should I not be worried about Lembah Pantai when it is the same Young Chicos who are running the campaign and who look down on us Old Cocks as out of touch with what is happening on the ground?

And Indera Kayang is just one of many examples of how wrong these PKR Youth campaigners have been. They always forecast a win and the result turns out the opposite. And I fear we may see this happening in the coming general election as well if they don't pull their heads out of the sand and look at reality.

Let me make one thing very clear. Places such as Lucky Gardens in Bangsar used to always vote Barisan Nasional. For the first time in 2008 they voted Pakatan Rakyat. And this is because of ABU or 'anything but Umno'. Will they still vote ABU this time around or will they go back to what they used to do in the many elections before 2008 -- that is, vote ruling party?

When the Bangsarians voted ABU it was mainly because they hated Umno. Hence it is not so much because they loved Nurul Izzah as much as because they hated Umno, and by extension the Umno candidate, meaning Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.

One question we need to ask is: did they hate Umno or did they hate (or 'did not like' in case 'hate' is too strong a word to use) Shahrizat? If they hated Umno, then well and fine. But if it were Shahrizat rather than Umno that they hated (or disliked), would they still feel the same way if it were not Shahrizat who is contesting but someone else instead -- such as Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin?

Now, I personally know Raja Nong Chik. In fact, I have known him since back in the 1980s. And I must admit that he is a very likeable character. It is very difficult to hate him just because he happens to be in Umno and is Umno's candidate for Lembah Pantai. And, being a very successful businessman, he has good PR and knows how to rub you the right way.

Another important thing is Raja Nong Chik is wealthy and can afford to throw his money around. And when you have a pleasant personality, are always smiling, walk around with an aura of humility, and are spreading hard cash all over the place, it becomes very difficult to find fault with you.

Other than that, Raja Nong Chik is the Federal Territories and Urban Well-being Minister and Lembah Pantai comes under the Federal Territory. Hence he can do 'favours' for the residents of Lembah Pantai that Nurul Izzah cannot do (and Nurul Izzah does not deny this fact, and neither do the voters).

Is this an abuse of power, and hence corruption? Those who are receiving favours and cash handouts do not care whether it is abuse of power or corruption. They will just take the favours and money and vote for whoever it is giving them these favours and cash. That is the reality of the situation. I mean those who scream corruption are the same people who bribe a policeman to escape a fine, is this not so? Hence it is corruption only when others benefit, not when you benefit.

An even greater obstacle facing Nurul Izzah is the fact that, while the Bangsar residents (meaning mainly non-Malays) may have been voting ABU in the last election, the Malays in the Pantai Dalam area were not voting ABU. They were voting ABS -- anything but Shahrizat. I know this because I was involved in 'bribing' some of the Malay Umno members to cross over and become 'turncoats'.

You see, for a long time, Raja Nong Chik had been working the ground and was building his support amongst the Malays in Pantai Dalam in the hope that he would be selected to contest the 2008 general election. When Shahrizat was retained instead, many of Raja Nong Chik's Umno supporters were pissed off. Hence they voted for Nurul Izzah just to teach Umno a lesson.

And all we did was to capitalise on this and give them more reason not to vote for Shahrizat -- money being that icing on the cake. But the cake was already there. We just provided the icing. So they took the money and voted Nurul Izzah not because they wanted Nurul Izzah but because they did not want Shahrizat. And they did not want Shahrizat because they wanted Raja Nong Chik.

Sounds very complicating, no?

This normally happens when the candidate is not the choice of the ground but the choice of the 'higher-ups' in the Umno hierarchy. And this is Umno's main worry in the coming general election as well. And that is why the 13th General Election is facing a delay. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is having a headache trying to sort out the candidates list to avoid internal sabotage if they field the 'wrong' candidate.

So the delay in the 13th General Election has nothing to do with Altantuya Shaariibuu, as some PKR people would have us believe. It is because they need to sort out the candidates list and see how they can 'reward' (also meaning 'bribe') those candidates who are going to be dropped so that they will not sabotage their own party, Umno.

And now do you know why some Umno Sabah people are jumping? They are going to be dropped and they are not happy with the 'retirement package' they are being offered. So they cross over to the opposition. But I will talk about this matter later in another article. I already have all the shit and will soon be revealing it.

Anyway, back to Lembah Pantai. If the total number of registered voters is about 70,000, we can expect a voter turnout of about 50,000, plus-minus. That would be an increase in voter-turnout of about 9,000. Now, Nurul Izzah's majority in March 2008 was less than 3,000 votes or just 7%. This does not give her too much room to play with. It is certainly touch and go from where I am sitting, even though I am sitting thousands of miles away.

The biggest issue to the Malays is housing. If Raja Nong Chik can sort out the housing problem that the Malays are facing (which he certainly can and is doing so) then I fear all is lost. Would the Malays take these houses (and the cash that Raja Nong Chik is dishing out) and still vote opposition? I doubt it. The Malays suffer from this 'disease' called 'terhutang budi'. Once you show kindness to them they repay in kindness.

And this I strongly believe is also Nurul Izzah's main concern.

Nurul Izzah needs a better election machinery. But is it too late for that? I really don't know. But better late than never I always say. The campaign should no longer be just about ABU. We must remember that many who voted for Nurul Izzah in the last general election were Umno people. ABU will not work on Umno people. They will take it as a personal attack. How do you expect to get their votes when you attack them, meaning scream ABU?

Malays have this other 'disease': tak kenal maka tak cinta. And this is Raja Nong Chik's strong point. He makes the voters cinta him but getting them to kenal him. And never visit them empty-handed -- as the Malays would say, bawa air lior basi. But to visit them with gifts means you need to have a deep pocket, something which Raja Nong Chik has and which Nurul Izzah will be hard-pressed to match.

Nurul Izzah has to stop all her gallivanting. No need all those trips and going around the country to ceramah. Focus on Lembah Pantai, which is a large enough territory as it is. The voters need to see your face and shake your hand. Kiss babies if need be. Just make sure that your presence is felt. What you lack in Ministerial powers and millions in cash you need to make up for in personal touch.

And get rid of those Young Chikos. Get some Old Cocks onto your team. And go poach some Umno people as well. Pay them to work for you if need be. You need to pull every trick in the book at this stage. And if you need more money just holler. With 500,00 readers, and if each Malaysia Today reader donated just RM10 on average, that can already come to RM5 million.

You need to fight Raja Nong Chik using his own weapon. And his weapon is money. So you must use that same weapon. And if this is something you are not prepared to do then get out of Lembah Pantai and contest somewhere else.

It is now in the hands of you, Malaysia Today readers. If you want Nurul Izzah to win then open your cheque books now. If not, then bye-bye Nurul Izzah and hello Raja Nong Chik. And do not say I did not tell you when I write my 'I told you so' article the day after the 13th General Election.

NOTE: Bank account where you can send money to is "AHLI PARLIMEN LEMBAH PANTAI", Maybank, account number 5641 2834 5008

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

By the way, on another note, I have spoken to my lawyer to form a Board of Trustees and to open a bank account where people can donate money towards the coming general election. I will not interfere in its operation and will leave it to the Board of Trustees to manage the funds and to make the decision where the funds will go. This will be a group of lawyers and accountants that are wealthy in their own right.

So stay tuned and I will keep you posted once things are up and running. The rest will be up to you. I can only do so much but without money Pakatan Rakyat will be hard-pressed in fighting the coming general election. Will you guys and gals promise me at least RM10 million? If you can't even do that then Barisan Nasional deserves to win.

So you think you know the voters

Posted: 21 Aug 2012 01:00 AM PDT

About 61 percent of Malays considered themselves Muslims first, with only 28 percent identifying themselves first as Malaysians. When asked whether they rely upon their religion when making major life decisions, 92 percent of Malays and 85 percent of Indians answered affirmatively, while only 37 percent of Chinese agreed.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

In October 2006, the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur sent the report below to Washington. This was, of course, six years ago and a year before the first Bersih rally of November 2007 and about 17 months before the 12th General Election in March 2008.

We would like to believe that this report is already outdated and that Malaysians have generally changed since then. But have they?

This opinion poll, funded by The Asia Foundation (http://asiafoundation.org/), surveyed more than 1,500 young Malaysian adults aged 18-32. The results showed sharp differences of views on religion and national identity and the relation between state and religion among the country's three largest ethnic groups - the Malays, Chinese and Indians.

Maybe you should read the report below and unless things have changed drastically over the last six years, which I feel they have not, then you are going to be in for a surprise this coming general election.

The salient points you should take special note of are the following:

1. About 61 percent of Malays considered themselves Muslims first, with only 28 percent identifying themselves first as Malaysians.

2. Only 31 percent of Malays agreed that 'all cultures and religions should be given equal rights', compared with 61 percent of Chinese and 66 percent of Indian respondents (which means 69 percent of Malays support 'Ketuanan Melayu').

3. The Chinese put ethnicity first (47 percent), followed by nationality (44 percent) and religion (5 percent).

4. Indians were the most nationalistic, with 75 percent identifying themselves first as Malaysians, followed by their ethnic group (14 percent) and religion (5 percent).

5. When asked whether they rely upon their religion when making major life decisions, 92 percent of Malays and 85 percent of Indians answered affirmatively, while only 37 percent of Chinese agreed.

6. Only 9 percent of Malays agreed 'it is not wrong for unmarried couples to hold hands in public places', compared with 96 percent of Chinese and 58 percent of Indians.

7. With regard to the connection between government and religion, only 3 percent of Malays agreed that 'government and religion should be kept separate', compared with 64 percent of Chinese and 47 percent of Indians.

8. About 30 percent of Malays hoped Malaysia would become 'more Islamic', while that outcome was supported by 0 percent of Chinese and 4 percent of Indians.

9. About 34 percent of Malays agreed that 'government should increase the implementation of Islam by introducing Hudud laws for Muslims', compared with only 2 percent of Chinese and 0 percent of Indian respondents.

10. A majority of Malays (53 percent) stated that they would not accept a woman as prime minister, compared with only 11 percent of Chinese and 6 percent of Indians.

11. Over 40 percent of respondents (of all races) would forgo elections in exchange for government-guaranteed peace, stability and economic growth (which means 'democracy' is not as important as peace, stability and economic growth).

Those who do not understand the method that opinion polls are done would probably argue that 1,500 respondents do not reflect the opinion of 15 million registered voters or 28 million Malaysian citizens. Those who do, however, would know that in a properly conducted poll, 1,500 respondents are all you need to get a plus-minus 5% accuracy result, and even if you increase the number of respondents to 15,000 or more, the accuracy would only improve by 1-2%.

Anyway, the bottom line is, we think we understand the psyche of the Malaysian voter, in particular the young or first-time voter. But do we?

Note that some within the age group of those polled back in 2006 were not yet registered voters or of the age where they could vote. This time around, however, many are able to vote and/or have registered to vote and will be voting in the coming general election, maybe three million or so.

Are you surprised to learn how Malaysians think and the sentiments they have and did you suspect this is what they think? Yes, that is the million dollar question and going by the comments posted in Malaysian Today, which I have been monitoring these last few years since 2008, I can see that many of you do not really know what is in the mind of most Malaysians and you are of the view that other Malaysians think exactly the way you do.

Can you now see how wrong you were?

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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KUALA LUMPUR 001913

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/26/2016

TAGS: PHUM, PREL, PGOV, KDEM, KWMN, PINR, SOCI, KISL, MY

SUBJECT: MALAYSIAN YOUTH POLL REVEALS SHARP ETHNIC DIVIDE AND POLITICAL APATHY

A recent opinion poll, funded by The Asia Foundation, of over 1,500 young Malaysian adults aged 18-32 showed sharp differences of views on religion and national identity and the relation between state and religion among the country's three largest ethnic groups - the Malays, Chinese and Indians. The majority of Malays, defined under law as Muslims, identified themselves first as Muslims and secondarily as Malaysians, in stark contrast to the other ethnic groups. In addition, Malays exhibited far greater willingness to involve the government in religious affairs.

About a third of all Malay respondents hoped that Malaysia would become "more Islamic" and supported adoption of Islamic (hudud) statutes for criminal offenses. Less than a third of Malays surveyed supported equal rights for all cultures and religions. The survey found common ground across ethnic boundaries in terms of Malaysian youths' high degree of cynicism toward elected officials, apathy about current affairs and political disengagement. Over 40 percent of respondents would forgo elections in exchange for government-guaranteed peace, stability and economic growth.

The survey's results highlighted the strong sense of Malay/Muslim identity and illustrated the sharp inter-ethnic differences that will continue to work against the emergence in Malaysia of a large multi-ethnic, multi-religious political party. Post has forwarded the complete survey data to EAP/MTS.

Sixty-one percent of Malays considered themselves Muslim first, with only 28 percent identifying themselves first as Malaysians. The Chinese put ethnicity first (47 percent), followed by nationality (44 percent) and religion (5 percent). Indians were the most nationalistic, with 75 percent identifying themselves first as Malaysians, followed by their ethnic group (14 percent) and religion (5 percent).

When asked whether they rely upon their religion when making major life decisions, 92 percent of Malays and 85 percent of Indians answered affirmatively, while only 37 percent of Chinese agreed. Only 9 percent of Malays agreed that "it is not wrong for unmarried couples to hold hands in public places," compared with 96 percent of Chinese and 58 percent of Indians.

With regard to the connection between government and religion, only 3 percent of Malay respondents agreed that "government and religion should be kept separate," compared with 64 percent of Chinese and 47 percent of Indians.

Thirty-four percent of Malays agreed that "government should increase the implementation of Islam by introducing hudud law for Muslims," compared with only 2 percent of Chinese and 0 percent of Indian respondents. (Note: hudud, or Islamic law encompassing criminal offenses, currently does not apply to any Malaysians; all citizens are subject to a secular criminal law system.)

Thirty percent of Malays hoped Malaysia would become "more Islamic," while that outcome was supported by 0 percent of Chinese and 4 percent of Indians. Only 31 percent of Malays agreed that "all cultures and religions should be given equal rights," compared with 61 percent and 66 percent of Chinese and Indian respondents, respectively.

A majority of Malays (53 percent) stated that they would not accept a woman as prime minister, compared with only 11 percent of Chinese and 6 percent of Indians.

The survey included various questions that attempted to determine the greatest concerns of respondents, as well as their degree of awareness about local and global political affairs. The young adults surveyed were primarily concerned with completing their education, advancing their careers and supporting their families.

According to the Merdeka Center, "only a handful" expressed concern about wider societal issues. In its summary report about its survey, the Merdeka Center concluded that "a majority of youth tend to have a negative, cynical and dismissive view about politics."

The survey indicated that most of Malaysia's young adults remain disengaged from their political environment. When asked how frequently they discuss "government policies and current issues" with friends, family members, schoolmates or colleagues, the most frequent responses were once per week (43 percent), once per month (26 percent), and rarely/never (17 percent).

Respondents placed high value on holding elections, but 41 percent would agree to eliminate elections if the government could guarantee "stability, peace and economic growth."

Malaysia's young adults, like those in many other nations, appear to focus largely on advancing their educations or careers, and pay significant attention to their families and home environment. When asked an open-ended question about how they spend their free time, the young adults listed "stay at home" as their primary response (34 percent), with "shopping complexes" (15 percent), "sports venues/fields" (6 percent), "scenic areas" (6 percent) and "go to town" (6 percent) as the next most popular responses.

Favourite hobbies were reading (24 percent), sports (23 percent), listening to music (9 percent), watching television or movies (8 percent), and fishing (6 percent). Only 26 percent have visited another country, with nearby Singapore the most common destination by far. Fifty-three percent of respondents stated they have no access to the Internet, and only 15 percent said they accessed the Internet 6 or more times per week.

Mobile phone penetration was significantly higher, with 86 percent of respondents owning at least one of the devices.

Debating the dog collar, not the dog

Posted: 20 Aug 2012 06:22 PM PDT

So does it really matter what the punishment for crimes are and what type of punishment system we use when the system itself rather than the punishment is the problem? The problem is not the punishment. The problem is the manipulation of the system and the corruption in the system. Unless that is solved, Malaysians are never going to see justice, whether man-made justice or God's form of justice.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It looks like, yet again, the Islamic law of Hudud is being hotly debated. And this time, every man and his dog is involved in the debate.

Talking about dogs, as I said before, when a dog wearing a red collar is brutally killed, most Malaysians would quarrel over the red collar and whether it should have been another colour instead of debating the brutal manner in which the dog was killed.

What is Hudud? Hudud involves the type of punishment that certain crimes would attract. Some would view these punishments as unjust and barbaric. Others would view them as punishments prescribed by God and thus beyond debate or discussion.

All this, of course, depends on your religious beliefs. So how do you tell a Muslim that he or she is wrong just like how impossible would it be to tell Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., that they are wrong, especially if you are someone who does not share their religious beliefs and is seen as trying to 'teach' them their own religion?

I get many Christians or Hindus whacking me and telling me to not talk about Christianity or Hinduism because I know nothing about their religion. That is more or less the same as how Muslims feel when non-Muslims try to 'teach' them Islam, in particular in matters regarding Islamic law.

I know non-Muslims are looking at Hudud from the perspective of the legal system. Hence they are not wrong when they comment on Hudud and make comments such as they do not support those laws. After all, laws are not the monopoly of just the Muslims.

Muslims, however, are not looking at Hudud from a purely legal aspect. They are looking at it from the perspective of it being God's command. Would Christians oppose what they view as a command from God? Muslims feel the same way. God's command cannot be opposed.

And herein lies the problem. Two people are looking at the same issue from two different perspectives. One perspective allows discussion and debate. In the other perspective, the door to discussion and debate is closed. It is a non-negotiable issue.

Hence, as long as one side looks at things from the legal aspect and the other from the aspect of a non-negotiable command from God, it is going to be a matter that will never see a resolution.

It is almost like Muslims trying to engage Catholics regarding the dogma of the Trinity and expecting the Catholics to 'come around' to the Muslim view that Jesus Christ was not divine but a mere man, exactly like Prophet Muhammad, and nothing more and nothing less.

In the first place, can the Catholics even accept Muhammad as the last Prophet after Christ, let alone accept Christ as equal to Muhammad? In short, this discussion is a non-starter and one that we might as well not bother to engage in.

Anyway, the pro-Umno Hudud versus pro-PAS Hudud, the liberals versus the conservatives, the Muslims versus the non-Muslims, whatever it may be, they are all overlooking a bigger issue than the form of punishment that Hudud prescribes on convicted criminals. And that would be the application or miss-application of Malaysian laws, never mind whether Hudud or whatever.

Let me give you one example. Under Hudud, Chin Peng must be allowed back into Malaysia. Rebellion is one of the crimes that are covered by Hudud. However, once the rebels lay down their arms, they must be pardoned and allowed back into society. They can no longer suffer punishment.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Malaysia adopts Hudud as part of the criminal law system. Can they now allow Chin Peng back into Malaysia? Under Hudud, he must be allowed back into Malaysia since he has signed a peace treaty with Malaysia and is no longer bearing arms.

If Malaysia still refuses to allow Chin Peng back into Malaysia then this is not Hudud. Those who are preventing Chin Peng from returning to Malaysia are violating God's command. They are defying God. These Muslims who defy God and violate God's command are called kufur.

Kufur is the act of those who change/distort God's word or 'modify/amend' the Qur'an. And kufur basically makes you are a kafir or infidel. And some ulama are of the opinion that, according to Hudud, those Muslims who become kafir can be put to death.

Hence will all those Muslims who oppose Chin Peng being allowed back into Malaysia be marched to the public square and beheaded after Friday prayers in full view of thousands of Malaysian citizens like in Saudi Arabia?

Is it possible to behead 3.5 million Muslims, basically Umno members who oppose Chin Peng being allowed back into Malaysia, in one day or will they need a whole year of 365 days to do this? Even then they will need to behead about 10,000 people a day.

Hence, if you are a Communist, you should support Hudud because this would mean Chin Peng will be celebrating Christmas in Malaysia this year.

Okay, what about those who used to be sentenced to death when they commit a crime using firearms or those caught trafficking drugs? Will they still receive the death sentence? If you commit armed robbery, you will just have one of your hands cut off and are no longer given the death sentence. And will drug traffickers walk free since there is no death sentence for trafficking under Hudud?

Then we have a situation of a married man and a married woman being caught for adultery. The only problem is one partner is Muslim while the other is not. So will one partner be stoned to death while the other gets to walk home unharmed? Is this considered equal punishment under the law, which the Federal Constitution of Malaysia has guaranteed us?

It appears like there is no equality in Malaysia after all. What we have is discrimination. If you are Muslim you die and if you are not a Muslim they smile at you and pat you on the back and send you home.

I am sure after that millions of non-Muslims would be lining up outside the office of the religious department to convert to Islam. There are so many advantages in becoming a Muslim. There are separate laws for Muslims, which non-Muslims do not get to enjoy.

Our problem is not the punishment, which Hudud is all about. Our problem is the system, which is corrupt like hell. We already have capital punishment in Malaysia. However, for the right price, you can escape the gallows.

For between RM250,000 to RM10 million you can avoid the death sentence. However, you need to engage the 'right' lawyer to act for you. And the cost to avoid the death sentence will depend on who you are and how rich you are. The higher up the social and economic ladder you are, the higher the price.

Those who have no money will die. Those who can afford to pay can get to go home. Does it matter, therefore, whether the sentence is stoning, amputation, beheading, hanging, or whatever? It only affects poor people. It does not affect those who are rich.

Traffickers, who according to the law should be put to death, can walk out of jail due to 'lack of evidence'. The arresting officer can 'forget' details regarding the day/night of the arrest. Two witnesses can 'get confused' and contradict one another. Evidence can be 'misplaced' and will never be found again. Evidence can be tampered with so that the charge sheet says one thing while the actual evidence does not tally with what the charge sheet says. And so on.

For the right price, you can escape the death sentence, even in cases of murder, which has happened so, so many times in Malaysia.

So why are we arguing about the punishment for crimes, Hudud or otherwise? Does it really matter what the punishment is when it means nothing in the end? A corrupt system can help you escape punishment anyway, whatever that punishment may be.

And if the government wants to get you, they can fix you up anyway, even if you are absolutely innocent.

Five people can testify in court that they found the gun/bullets or drugs in the boot of your car. You might scream that the gun/bullets or drugs are not yours but were planted in your car when the police stopped you at the roadblock. But it is your word against five others.

So you have to die. Or you can pay RM5 million and the five witnesses will contradict one other in court and you walk away a free man, but poorer by RM5 million.

And why are the proponents and opponents of Hudud not talking about this bigger and more serious problem? Are they so stupid that they do not know what is going on? Who the hell cares what the punishments are when the law can be 'tailored' depending on how rich you are and how much of an enemy to Umno you are?

Monitor it, not send it underground

Posted: 19 Aug 2012 07:40 PM PDT

My opinion, however, is that we should not get angry about this meeting and start calling Nasharudin all sorts of nasty names, like what you are doing now. It is good that this meeting was reported. It could have been worse. The meeting could have gone unreported and no one would have known about it -- like in the case of so many of the other meetings since 2008 that were held but went unreported.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PAS not practicing maturity in politics when handling Nasharudin's issue in Mecca with PM – Mustapa

(Bernama) -- PAS leaders and members have not shown maturity in their political ideology in the recent issue whereby its former Deputy President Nasharudin Mat Isa was seen in a photograph, seated beside prime minister Najib Tun Razak during a meeting in Mecca.

Kelantan Barisan Nasional (BN) Liaison Chief Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed who is also International Trade and Industry Minister said PAS members should not make any assumptions based on the photograph.

"They (PAS) should me matured in their political ideology and not conclude that when both leaders are seen together it meant Nasharudin has joined Umno," he told Bernama when met at the Hari Raya Aidilfitri Open House hosted by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Cabinet Ministers at Seri Perdana here today.

Nasharudin, upon his return from Mecca on Thursday had said that his meeting with Najib and religious scholars in Mecca had not touched the issue of Umno or PAS, because the topic of discussion was regarding the ummah.

Last Wednesday, Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat had said he would not be surprised if Nasharudin quits PAS after being seen together with Najib in Mecca last Tuesday.

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

Malaysia has what is called The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism, or the MCCBCHST. As you can see, Islam is not part of that Council or else it would be called MCCIBCHST, meaning The Malaysian Consultative Council of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism.

Now, let us put aside politics for the meantime, at least for this paragraph, and ask: why is Islam not in that Council? I am only guessing, of course, but I suppose it is because Muslims do not feel 'threatened' or consider Islam as being 'under attack', like maybe those from the other religions. Hence Muslims do not feel that Islam needs the 'security' that the Council can offer.

Anyway, I said I am only guessing but the fact still remains that Muslims are of the opinion that Islam needs no representation in that Council. Muslims feel that the government can take care of Islam so they do not need a 'movement' to look after the interests of Islam.

Now, the Muslims are 'divided', as even the government admits, into pro-government Muslims and pro-opposition Muslims. And, say what you like, it is Islam that divided them in the first place when the 'liberals' and 'conservatives' in Umno disagreed on matters concerning Islam and the 'Muslim Wing' left Umno to form PAS (then called the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party or PMIP) on 4th April 1956. (Coincidentally, PKR was also formed on 4th April, but in 1999).

Note that Umno was formed in 1946 so PAS is just ten years younger than Umno -- but 'older' if you consider that Umno (Baru) was actually formed 32 years later in 1988 and hence can be considered a 'new' (Baru) party.

Anyway, that is not the issue but merely my 'normal' way of turning a short article into a long (cheong hei) article to irritate you and get you to comment on all sorts of things that all have nothing to do with this article.

The point I want to make is, let us say that there are two Muslim groups in Malaysia, one pro-government and the other anti-government. Both groups, however, the pro-government as well as the anti-government, refuse to work with the MCCBCHST. In that sense, although the Muslims may be divided politically, they are still united in certain matters -- such as not to work with the Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Taoists (meaning to not join the MCCBCHST).

Malaysians at large may not be aware of this, but if Muslims can set aside their political differences, they can actually work together. However, because religion is also politics, at least as far as Islam is concerned, this stands in the way of Muslim unity.

At times, however, Muslims from both sides of the political divide do attempt to reach out to the other side on the platform of the ummah (or community, normally meaning the Muslim community). The news report above is one such occasion. But there are many other occasions where 'secret' meetings have been held and which have gone unreported.

I know many people, even from the opposition, are very unhappy about the recent meeting between the former Deputy President of PAS, Nasharudin Mat Isa, and Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. And the fact that this was reported makes them even angrier.

When the meetings are held openly and are reported, then at least we would know what is going on. If the meetings were 'pushed underground' that would be worse. Then we would be totally ignorant about the existence of these meetings and about what they discussed.

On Wednesday, Malaysia Today is going to publish a report, which is going to surprise you. You thought you understood the Malays but actually you do not. And this report is going to reveal what the Malays are really thinking.

I would rather, instead of whacking those from PAS who meet those from Umno (since they are still going to meet anyway whatever we may say), we ensure that the meetings are aboveboard so that we can monitor the progress of such meetings and not get caught with our pants down.

Ideally, of course, people from PAS and Umno should not meet, even if they meet not to discuss politics but just to discuss Islam. However, the Muslims do not have the equivalent of the MCCBCHST and are not part of the MCCBCHST. Hence they will meet on an 'informal' platform. And this will raise a problem because although they meet to discuss Islam and not to discuss politics, since Islam and politics cannot be separated, invariably an 'agreement' on Islam would upset the political equation.

So how do we resolve this problem then? Well, wait for my Wednesday's report to understand why it is a problem that cannot be easily resolved. We must instead figure out how to accommodate the problem rather than how to eradicate it. Sometimes, some problems do not have a solution and instead of going head-on we may need to navigate around that problem.

Beware of red herrings

Posted: 14 Aug 2012 08:16 PM PDT

I knew it was RM35 million. I wanted them to confirm that it was RM35 million. And I wanted them to remain silent about the amount of money collected and about the status and details of the land. So they swallowed the bait and told us what I wanted them to tell us and remained silent about all the other allegations. Their silence was the 'proof' that I needed to support my allegation.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Eight years ago, back in 2004, I received information from some contacts in Umno Sabah regarding its new headquarters building. Yes, even back then I already had contacts in Umno Sabah and some of these people are amongst the group that is leaving Umno to join Pakatan Rakyat.

Anyway, they are leaving Umno Sabah because they are not going to be selected to contest the coming general election seeing that they have been wakil rakyat since the days when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the Prime Minister. The Chief Minister, Musa Aman, feels it is time for some new faces.

I was told they plan to field at least 50% of the candidates from the younger generation to ensure that they garner support from the young or first-time voters, many who are clamouring for reforms. Or else how can Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak claim that his government is a reform government if they field candidates who are relics from the Dr Mahathir era?

The problem I faced, though, was that the information, as is the case most times when I receive information, is by word of mouth with no tangible evidence or supporting documents. Hence how do I prove the allegation?

The information that I was given was that Umno Sabah was going to build a RM35-RM50 million headquarters building. And Musa Aman was suspected to have collected RM60-RM100 million from various businessmen to fund the construction of this building.

But that is not the main issue. The bone of contention raised by these Umno Sabah Deep Throats of mine was that the money that Musa Aman collected did not flow into Umno Sabah's bank account. Umno Sabah's bank account did not reflect the RM60-RM100 million nor show whatever money was paid out for the building. And this was what they were sore about.

The second bone of contention was regarding the land. The land was a piece of government land alienated to Umno Sabah. But the land was not registered in Umno Sabah's name even though Umno was supposed to be the owner. Furthermore, only part of the land was being used for the Umno headquarters building. So what happened to the balance of this very expensive prime land in the 'Golden Triangle' of Kota Kinabalu, which the government 'sold' to Umno for a song?

I needed Umno to prove this allegation. But if I wrote exactly what I was told above they would just deny it and call me a liar. I needed to throw them a red herring and make them come out and admit this allegation.

So I spun a story that Musa Aman had collected more than RM100 million from various businessmen to finance the construction of Umno's headquarters building that cost more than RM60 million and that the money had gone into Musa Aman's pocket. This was of course not quite accurate. Umno Sabah then excitedly jumped in to prove me a liar. I was wrong and they 'caught' me telling a lie.

Rahim Ismail, the Umno Sabah Information Chief, then issued a press statement that was carried in Malaysiakini saying that the building cost only RM35 million and not RM60 million. However, they made no mention of how much money they had collected from the businessmen or offered any details regarding the land. They were so happy that they could prove me wrong regarding the cost of the building.

I knew it was around RM35 million or slightly more. I wanted them to confirm that it was RM35 million. And I wanted them to remain silent about the amount of money collected and about the status and details of the land. So they swallowed the bait and told us what I wanted them to tell us and remained silent about all the other allegations. Their silence was the 'proof' that I needed to support my allegation.

If they had remained silent totally then I would have had a problem. What proof do I have? But the fact that they came out to confirm the existence of that building plus the real cost of that building means my story is confirmed. And the fact that they remained silent about the money collected and about the land also confirmed what I said is true.

If they can reply to the cost of the building why not also reply to the other allegations regarding the money collected and the land?

Anyway, some reports on this matter can be read below, which were plucked from Malaysia Today. My point of this article is: beware of red herrings! When I expose something you never know whether this is an expose or whether it is bait to get you to say something. And sometimes it is not what you say but what you do not say that I am interested in. Your silence could be worse than your words.

And that is all I wish to say about what R. Sivarasa said in his press release: Raja Petra does his lies again!

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

The mystery of Umno Sabah's new building

(Malaysiakini, 15 December 2004) - Umno Sabah is presently building its new headquarters in Karamunsing, Kota Kinabalu. No one in Umno Sabah seems to know the construction cost of the building though. There has been no building committee formed to oversee the construction of the building and no meetings have ever been held to either discuss details of the building or seek approval from Umno Sabah's main committee.

But this is not all that is happening. More perplexing is the choice of site.

Umno Sabah actually owns a five-acre piece of prime land close to the Bank Simpanan Nasional building in the swanky neighbourhood of the Sutra Resort. For all intents and purposes, this piece of land can be considered a 'gold mine'.

But the new Umno Sabah is not on Umno's own land. Instead, it is being built on an alternative piece of land in which someone has a vested interest in. What is the size of this land, whether the entire piece of land or just part of it is being used for this building, and how much has this piece of land been valued for has not been revealed and no one in Umno Sabah knows the details.

The signboard says that the building owner is Badan Perhubungan Umno Negeri Sabah. However, below this is another name, Accodon Sdn Bhd, which is listed as the developer of the building. Who then, is the owner of this new Umno Sabah building, Umno Sabah or Accordon? This is not clear.

What is clear is that Umno Sabah does not own the land. The party that does own it appears to be Accordon. But what is the relationship between Umno Sabah and Accordon? No one in Umno Sabah seems to know.

If Umno Sabah was the owner of this piece of land - or the building - then it would have had to register it in the names of the trustees. And those who are authorised to act as trustees would have to be named and approved by Umno Sabah's main committee. As it stands, Umno Sabah has never met to discuss this matter nor has it authorised anyone to act as its trustee.

In short, Umno Sabah has entirely no interest in either the land or the building and its name is just being used for purposes best known to those behind this entire scam.

But why is Umno Sabah's name being used? For two reasons.

First of all, a piece of land of this size and location would attract a hefty premium. However, since the land is now allegedly owned by Umno, then the premium can either be reduced or waived altogether.

Whoever, therefore, owns this land can get it practically for 'free'. All they have to do is use part of this land to build the Umno Sabah building, get an exemption on the premium, and the balance of the land would be theirs for free.

This is actually not a new tactic. They did this with the former Selangor Turf Club land in Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur. Ananda Krishnan built the Twin Towers there. He then sold one of the towers to Petronas for the price it cost to build both towers plus the cost of the land thrown in.

He therefore ended up getting the second tower free, paid for by Petronas, or rather the Malaysian taxpayers. And this is what is happening with the new Umno Sabah building.

But in Ananda's case he had to fund the purchase of the land plus the construction of the towers before he could sell off one of the towers to Petronas. With the Umno Sabah building, it is even better. Not only can the landowner get the land for free, but the building is being built not with Accordon's money but with donations from the public.

As it is now, no one in Umno Sabah seems to know how much the construction cost of the new building is. But donations are being collected left, right and center (and probably behind as well) from all and sundry.

The donation box is overflowing as it is, yet money is still being collected. No one knows how much money has been collected because there is no committee, meaning no accounts or reports need to be tabled at any meetings.

Questions, questions and more questions that beg for answers from Sabah Chief Minister and Umno head Musa Aman. Is he not worried someone may question him?

Well, Sabah has been adopting the 'rotation of chief ministers' system for some time now. Musa Aman is supposed to retire soon. But now they are abolishing the rotation system and Musa Aman feels he is going to be chief minister for life. Maybe the two-year rotation system is good after all for it keeps the chief ministers straight and clean.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should address this matter. If it is proven that there has indeed been an element of corruption behind the Sabah Umno building, then action should be taken against those guilty.

Only then will Pak Lah be seen as serious in combating corruption. If not, he would only be seen as just another 'talk-only-no-action' man.

And if the Umno Sabah building exercise is above board, can we please see the accounts?

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

More questions on Umno Sabah's new building

(Malaysiakini, 12 January 2005) - Umno Sabah, being a political party, speaks like a politician - it talks a lot but says nothing. And this is what it has done to 'explain' the scandal behind its new building being built in Karamunsing in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

Umno Sabah's so-called explanation is as clear as the skies above Kuala Lumpur during an outbreak of haze as a result of an Indonesian forest fire.

According to a report in The Star: 'Sabah Umno is of the view that everything is in the clear for its new RM35mil, 11-storey headquarters now under construction in the city'.

Well, so it is now confirmed, the building costs RM35 million. That is what we wanted to know. We had estimated it could be anything between RM30 million to RM50 million. What is most interesting is that key people within Umno Sabah themselves do not know the actual figure. Now, of course, they do.

'As far as Sabah Umno is concerned, I can assure you that everything is above board,' Rahim Ismail, Umno Sabah's information chief, said.

'Above board'? What exactly does Rahim mean by 'above board'? Was the figure of RM35 million confirmed at any Umno Sabah meeting prior to Umno Sabah embarking on construction of the building? Was a building committee set up? Was a finance committee set up? Was a Board of Trustees appointed?

The answer is no to all the questions. In that case, how can the whole thing be 'above board'? How can one man decide everything on his own, on behalf of Umno Sabah? Is Umno Sabah a private family enterprise just like the provision shop on the corner or is it a legally registered association - a political party - owned by many members?

And there is still no answer as to why Umno Sabah decided to build its new building on a 0.48 hectare site in Karamunsing which belongs to someone else, instead of Umno Sabah's own two hectare land in Sembulan.

And what Rahim Ismail conveniently did not explain is who is paying for this RM35 million building? Is Umno paying for it or is it too (just like the land it is being built on) being paid for by donations from 'friendly parties' and rich benefactors who share Umno's 'perjuangan' (struggle)?

No one in Umno Sabah seems to know and if Umno Sabah is paying for the building's cost, then this is news to the senior Umno Sabah officials.

And what about all the donations collected so far? How much has been collected? It is estimated that between RM100 million to RM200 million has been collected to date. And why is the donation drive still going on? Who were the ones who donated the money? Are all these donors companies and businessmen that have benefited from state jobs and contracts? And who is keeping the money collected? Why have no accounts been tabled at the Umno Sabah meetings?

Umno Sabah has confirmed that the land was 'donated by a private company, with the full knowledge of the party leadership'.

Okay, since we are talking about being 'above board' here, can Umno Sabah then please confirm which company donated the land?

Is the donor Accordon Sdn Bhd? No? Then what about the following companies?

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Holdings Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Herbal Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Trading Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Engineering Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Aquaculture Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah (Kota Kinabalu) Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah (Kota Marudu) Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah (Beaufort) Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah (Keningau) Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah (Tawau) Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah (Sandakan) Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Realty Sdn Bhd

Pembinaan Kekal Mewah Resorts Sdn Bhd

Did any of these companies donate the land to Umno Sabah? And, if so, what did they get in return? What about Rentak Hasil Sdn Bhd? Is this company the one that donated the land?

Another scandalous act that is yet to become public knowledge is the aborted paper and pulp project that has already swallowed hundreds of millions of ringgit. The Chinese partner that was supposed to have a joint venture with Yayasan Sabah decided to pull out after they smelt a rat.

What is puzzling is that although the project has been put to sleep, logging at the 300,000 hectare site is still going on. Why are they logging the site if there is not going to be a pulp-and-paper mill after all? Someone is definitely getting rich selling logs that were supposed to be turned into paper.

And why is Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi still prepared to risk his career and make a mockery of his Islam Hadhari by reappointing Musa Aman as Sabah's chief minister with all this mismanagement going on in broad daylight?

Is Abdullah just naïve or is he turning a blind eye knowing full well what is going on?

What say you now?

Posted: 14 Aug 2012 06:15 PM PDT

Actually, the pro-Umno Bloggers are wrong. PKR started its expose only in June 2012, less than two months ago. Malaysia Today already revealed the links between Tan Kay Hock and Najib more than two years ago back in 2010. And one year before PKR started screaming, Malaysia Today had revealed that George Kent would be getting the Ampang LRT project.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

PKR denies Treasury officer is George Kent whistleblower

(The Malaysian Insider, 15 August 2012) - PKR has denied claims by pro-Umno bloggers that the Ministry of Finance's (MoF) Datuk Fauziah Yaacob is the whistleblower for the controversial award of the Ampang LRT Line extension project to the George Kent joint-venture.

PKR said today the "attacks" against the ministry procurement committee's secretary are meant to warn the civil service not to go against the decisions made by the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government.

"I can confirm that Datuk Fauziah Yaacob is not the individual responsible for giving the documents to Keadilan," PKR Wanita chief Zuraida Kamaruddin told reporters here.

"We feel this attack on Datuk Fauziah Yaacob who is a very senior civil servant...is intended to strike fear and intimidation among civil servants," said PKR's Rafizi Ramli (picture), who was also present at the press conference.

He claimed that the bloggers who had written on Fauziah "receive support" from Umno leaders, with "half of them paid by Umno".

The PKR strategic director said he found the bloggers' "attack" to be an "unethical move by BN and Umno to warn whistleblowers especially from the civil servants."

"I think they fear that more and more civil servants will come forward and become whistleblowers."

Rafizi has repeatedly accused Datuk Seri Najib Razak of interfering in the tender bid and granting the multimillion contract to George Kent, which he claimed was controlled by a "close associate" of the prime minister and which also scored one of the lowest points in the technical and commercial evaluation for the project.

Last month, state-owned infrastructure firm Syarikat Prasarana Negara Bhd announced that the George Kent-Lion Pacific joint venture (GKLP-JV) had won the deal, which George Kent said is worth RM956 million.

George Kent had also denied the "baseless allegations that GKLP-JV failed the full technical and commercial evaluations."

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

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak who knows that the Internet and social media has emerged as a very potent political weapon now has a team of pro-Umno Bloggers to act as his spin-machine. And I personally know most of them and do keep in touch with them from time to time. No doubt we are adversaries, but we maintain a cordial relationship just like how the CIA and KGB used to do in the days of the Cold War.

By the way, while on that subject, back in 2006 I attended a function at the Perdana Leadership Foundation in Putrajaya where Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad 'holds court'. In his speech, Dr Mahathir made a reference to spin-doctors and he glanced at me as he said that. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who was in the audience and sitting in the front row also turned to look at me. Ku Li smiled and pointed his finger at me, meaning to tell me, Dr Mahathir is talking about you.

So it appears like Dr Mahathir and Ku Li understand what I am. And what I am not is I am not a journalist or reporter and Malaysia Today is not a news portal but a psychological warfare outfit. This is something that many Malaysia Today readers just can't seem to understand and because of this lack of understanding they moan, groan, lament, bitch and complain about what I am doing.

The trouble with Najib's pro-Umno Blogging team is that they are not as clever as they think. And sorry to sound pompous but I can lick them with one arm tied behind my back. I mean, if I am good I am good and should I be apologetic about that? And humility is certainly not my middle name if you know what I mean.

Anyway, the pro-Umno Bloggers have 'identified' the whistleblower in the George Kent-Ampang LRT revelation -- or at least they think they have. And this has forced PKR to issue a statement denying it, which you can read above

Actually, the pro-Umno Bloggers are wrong. PKR started its expose only in June 2012, less than two months ago. Malaysia Today already revealed the links between Tan Kay Hock and Najib more than two years ago back in 2010. And one year before PKR started screaming, Malaysia Today had revealed that George Kent would be getting the Ampang LRT project.

That's right, one year before PKR jumped onto the bandwagon and started screaming, Malaysia Today already told you that George Kent is going to get the LRT project. But did anyone bother to talk about it?

We told you a year before it happened that this was going to happen. But only after it happens you get hot around the collar and start screaming blue murder. Why not make all this noise before it happens to make sure it does not happen? Do you achieve anything now by trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted?

Quite a number of readers posted comments in Malaysia Today asking me why I am exposing the wrongdoings of the opposition. Why not expose the wrongdoings of the government instead? I normally just delete such comments and don't even bother to post them because it is a total waste of time.

Hello, you idiots, one year or two years before something happens I tell you about it. Sometimes even five years before it happens I tell you it is going to happen. Now that it has already happened you scream at me and demand to know why I do not expose this wrongdoing.

What a stupid statement that can only come from stupid people. What is there to expose? It has already happened. You all know about it. It is already all over the news. What is there to expose what is already exposed? You want me to strip naked a naked person? A naked person is already naked. How to strip naked a person with no clothes on? Bodohnya!

The Ampang LRT is not the only expose we made long before it happened. There are so many other revelations that Malaysia Today made long before the event. And what did the opposition do about all these revelations? Zilch! They did nothing about them. Then, years later, when it finally does happen, they start screaming and foaming at the mouth.

PKR is now denying that Datuk Fauziah Yaacob from the Ministry of Finance is the whistleblower. Aiyoh! Why just deny? Denying is what Barisan Nasional and Umno does.

Najib also denied that he had an affair with Altantuya Shaariibuu or even knew her. But you all do not believe him. You cannot accept a mere denial. So why should anyone accept a denial from the opposition as well?

Tell the truth. Don't just deny the allegation by the pro-Umno Bloggers. Tell them that Malaysia Today was the whistleblower. And tell them that PKR only started talking about the LRT project one year after Malaysia Today had revealed the matter.

Is this so difficult to do?

And tell them that since 2004 Malaysia Today has revealed so, so many things and is still doing so until today. And also tell them that Malaysia Today is not an opposition portal because it whacks the opposition as well as the government. And spare Datuk Fauziah Yaacob the agony of being accused of doing something that she did not do. Then let the police come for me instead of punishing the most unfortunate Datuk Fauziah Yaacob who is not guilty of anything.

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

MALAYSIA TODAY'S REVELATIONS

Otak lembu (17 March 2010) http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2010/30672-otak-lembu

How playing golf with the Prime Minister can earn you billions (5 September 2010) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/34319-how-playing-golf-with-the-prime-minister-can-earn-you-billions

WIKILEAKS: The people with the big cables in Malaysia (19 May 2011) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/40526-the-people-with-the-big-cables-in-malaysia

See what playing golf with Najib can do for you (7 July 2011) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/41776-see-what-playing-golf-with-najib-can-do-for-you

Tan Kay Hock under the spotlight, again (28 July 2011) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/42424-tan-kay-hock-under-the-spotlight-again

Let me tell you more about Tan Kay Hock (31 July 2011) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/42481-let-me-tell-you-more-about-tan-kay-hock

Thank you, Pete - re: Tan Kay Hock (22 August 2011) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/42971-thank-you-pete-re-tan-kay-hock

And the Winner is.... Tan Sri Tan Kay Hock...!!! (28 December 2011) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/46112-and-the-winner-is-tan-sri-tan-kay-hock

And what did I tell you? (22 June 2012) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/50144-and-what-did-i-tell-you

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

MALAYSIA TODAY'S OTHER REVELATIONS

EPISODE 9: The reward for giving Perak back to Umno (20 February 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/47350-episode-9-the-reward-for-giving-perak-back-to-umno

The MAS Saga: victims continue to fall (27 February 2012) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/47616-the-mas-saga-victims-continue-to-fall

Tajudin deal connected to 1992 forex losses? (27 February 2012) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/47623-tajudin-deal-connected-to-1992-forex-losses

EPISODE 25: The invisible web (of deceit) - part 1 (12 April 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/48640-episode-25-the-invisible-web-of-deceit-part-1

EPISODE 26: The invisible web (of deceit) - part 2 (12 April 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/archives/archives-2012/48643-episode-26-the-invisible-web-of-deceit-part-2

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

PKR'S REVELATIONS

PKR questions Ampang LRT job award to losing bidder (25 June 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50207-pkr-questions-ampang-lrt-job-award-to-losing-bidder

Najib went against panel in Ampang LRT contract (27 June 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50255-najib-went-against-panel-in-ampang-lrt-contract

Disquiet over winner of Ampang LRT RM960m system works (29 June 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50287-disquiet-over-winner-of-ampang-lrt-rm960m-system-works

PKR wants probe on Ampang LRT job award (29 June 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50285-pkr-wants-probe-on-ampang-lrt-job-award

PM never denied George Kent got LRT project (1 July 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50317-pm-never-denied-george-kent-got-lrt-project

PKR: George Kent 'failed' LRT tender (3 July 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50374-pkr-george-kent-failed-lrt-tender

PKR threatens to make Ampang LRT a campaign issue (3 July 2012) http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50371-pkr-threatens-to-make-ampang-lrt-a-campaign-issue

Document shows Najib's committee settled for 'ill-qualified' George Kent (11 July 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50521-document-shows-najibs-committee-settled-for-ill-qualified-george-kent

George Kent mum over LRT tender (18 July 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50639-george-kent-mum-over-lrt-tender

Rafizi challenges George Kent to deny letter of intent (19 July 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50676-rafizi-challenges-george-kent-to-deny-letter-of-intent

George Kent clinches lucrative Ampang LRT deal (31 July 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50886-george-kent-clinches-lucrative-ampang-lrt-deal

PKR wants RCI on George Kent saga (2 August 2012) http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/50917-pkr-wants-rci-on-george-kent-saga

It looks like me, sounds like me, but…(part 5)

Posted: 14 Aug 2012 01:00 AM PDT

I think it is most likely there is only one Razak Baginda, one Jasbir Singh Chahl and one P. Balasubramaniam. I was told the Jasbir Singh Chahl is the same person although Suaram is not too sure and thinks they may be two different people. And I think there is only one P. Balasubramaniam, the private investigator Bala, because he was the one called to France while the other, if he exists, was not.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

On 18th April 2012, Suaram submitted a long list of potential witnesses who should be called to testify when it filed its complaint at the Tribunal Grande Instance de Paris. Amongst the names Suaram proposed were Jasbir Singh Chahl; Abdul Razak Bagina; PM Najib Tun Razak; Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi; private investigator P. Balasubramaniam; the father of Altantuya Shaariibuu, Dr Setev Shaariibuu; and the chief executive of Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera, Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin Lodin, who is also Boustead Holdings Berhad group managing director and deputy chairman.

Note that amongst that list of names are Jasbir Singh Chahl and private investigator P. Balasubramaniam (Bala).

Now, Cynthia Gabriel of Suaram said that Jasbir Singh Chahl is going to be the FIRST witness to have his statement recorded in France. However, two years ago, in July 2010, Bala went to France to have his statement recorded by the French National Police, also arranged by Suaram (see document D71 in part 4 of this report).

Why is Jasbir mentioned as the FIRST and not the SECOND witness after Bala to be called? Is it because the French are discarding Bala's statement on grounds that it is unreliable and hence his statement is 'not counted', which means Jasbir would now be the first and not the second witness to be called?

If you read the news items below, you will see that Jasbir has denied any involvement in the submarine contract and has denied receiving any subpoena to go to France. Suaram also confirmed that it is another Jasbir and not the Jasbir everyone is talking about. So we have two Jasbirs here, one who is involved with the submarine contract and the other who runs a restaurant.

If the Jasbir who runs the restaurant is not the same Jasbir who was involved in the submarine contract, then which Jasbir is Suaram talking about? Actually, Suaram is not even sure.

And it appears that both Jasbirs personally know Razak Baginda. What a coincidence! But one Jasbir was involved in the submarine contract while the other Jasbir was not, although both Jasbirs know Razak Baginda.

Then we have two Balasubramaniams. One Bala was involved in the submarine contract while the other Bala was not. And, again, both Balas know Razak Baginda well plus both Balas know each other as well, just like in the case of the two Jasbirs. But the second Bala worked for Razak Baginda personally and not for Perimekar, the company that was involved in the submarine contract.

But the Bala who was called to France for his statement to be recorded in July 2010 was private investigator Bala and not submarine Bala. Submarine Bala has not been asked to go to France. He is not on Suaram's list of witnesses. Only private investigator Bala has. So did they summon the wrong Bala to France or is there only one Bala? If there are two Balas then where is submarine Bala and why is he not being called to France for his statement to be recorded?

Private investigator Bala says he knows submarine Bala because the latter introduced the former to Razak Baginda. So both Balas know each other plus they both know Razak Baginda.

This is certainly very confusing.

Now, are there two Razak Bagindas as well or is there only one Razak Baginda? The man mentioned in the French National Police report is named as Razak Baginda and not Abdul Razak Baginda. So are we talking about the same Razak Baginda or two different Razak Bagindas, seeing that the names are slightly different (no 'Abdul' in the 'Razak Baginda' in the French police report)?

So, what do we have in the end? We have two Jasbir Singh Chahls, two P. Balasubramaniams and two Razak Bagindas (one without the Abdul). And one is involved in the submarine contract while the other is not. And they all know each other very well.

That reminds me of a case six years ago regarding the Iraqi 'Oil-for-Food' scandal. Malaysia was the fourth highest purchaser of Iraqi oil under that program totalling RM1.8 billion.

The UN oil-for-food programme allowed Saddam Hussein's government to sell oil in order to buy humanitarian supplies during UN sanctions from 1996-2003. The new Iraqi government then filed lawsuits in the US courts against firms and people suspected of illegally profiting from the UN programme.

Three people from Malaysia named in that UN report were Abdullah Badawi, Noor Asiah Dato' Mahmood (Abdullah Badawi's sister-in-law), and Faek Ahmad Shareef (Noor Asiah's ex-husband).

However, they said that this was a different Abdullah Badawi and not Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi the then Malaysian Prime Minister. And this 'other' Abdullah Badawi also happened to have a sister-in-law and her husband with the same names, also mentioned in that report.

So, Abdullah Badawi, Noor Asiah Dato' Mahmood (Abdullah Badawi's sister-in-law), and Faek Ahmad Shareef (Noor Asiah's ex-husband) named in that UN report were entirely different people from Abdullah Badawi the Prime Minister, Noor Asiah Dato' Mahmood (Abdullah Badawi's sister-in-law), and Faek Ahmad Shareef (Noor Asiah's ex-husband).

I suppose in Malaysia this happens very frequently. People get named in reports but they are entirely different people from those we thought. Hence the Balasubramaniam named in the French National Police report is another Bala, submarine Bala, and not Bala the private investigator. But private investigator Bala was called to France while submarine Bala was not. And submarine Bala is not on Suaram's list of witnesses to be called while private investigator Bala is.

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

(Malaysiakini, 9 August 2012) - Former private investigator P Balasubramaniam denies having served with Perimekar Sdn Bhd, saying he is not the person referred to in French court documents.

Speaking to Malaysiakini from abroad, Balasubramaniam admitted that he knew the other Balasubramaniam, who was named in court documents highlighted by Raja Petra Kamarudin in his Malaysia Today blog.

"We together worked in the security business and this Perimekar Balasubraniam was the one who introduced me to (political analyst) Abdul Razak Baginda.

"So, Raja Petra Kamarudin (or RPK) equating me with the Perimekar Balasubramaniam is untrue as he is a different person altogether.

"I was not Razak's nominee in Perimekar as I was never in the company. Raja Petra got it wrong," he said.

He added that while he knew the other Balasubramaniam, the last time he saw the man was after being introduced to Razak, when he took the 10-day job in 2006.

"When he needed help to do investigation, I was roped in. However, after I worked with Razak for 10 days, I quit," he said.

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

(Free Malaysia Today, 16 June 2012) - A right hand man of defence analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, Jasbir Singh Chahl, is the first Malaysian to be subpoenaed as witness in the Scorpene case hearing currently underway in France.

"Jasbir Singh is a central figure in the negotiation and procurement process."

"He is the first person to be served with a subpoena," said Suaram director Cynthia Gabriel during Suaram's Ops Scorpene fund raising dinner held at Petaling Jaya Civic Centre last night.

Gabriel claimed that Jasbir would be required to cooperate and reveal information on what had transpired in the Scorpene submarine deal that was purchased in 2002 via French submarine maker DCNS.

"He has confirmed that he would cooperate with the panel and the subpoena is being sent to his house," Gabriel told the more than the 1,000-strong crowd present.

"The story will now come from the horse's mouth," Gabriel said on the purchase of two Scorpene submarines from French shipbuilding company DCNS in 2002.

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

(The Malaysian Insider, 19 June 2012) - Businessman Jasbir Singh Chahl today denied he had played a central role in the sale of two French submarines to Malaysia as alleged by human rights group Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram).

Jasbir also rubbished claims he was subpoenaed to testify in an ongoing French investigation into defence contractor DCNS.

"Following comments made by Suaram co-ordinator Cynthia Gabriel at a fundraising dinner on 15th June ... I wish to make clear that I have not received any subpoena from any jurisdiction in relation to any legal proceedings whatsoever," Jasbir said in a statement emailed to The Malaysian Insider today.

"These are false and distressing allegations made by someone whom I do not know and indeed have never met.

"They are a total fabrication, an utter distortion of the truth and, I believe, part of a deliberate attempt to undermine my reputation and my credibility. I call for them to be immediately withdrawn," he added.

The businessman runs an Indian restaurant, Gills, in the upscale Damansara Heights neighbourhood here where Abdul Razak used to live.

He admitted knowing the former political analyst personally when contacted by The Malaysian Insider, but maintained he had nothing to do with the Scorpene case as alleged.

Suaram had submitted a long list of potential witnesses when it filed its complaint at the Tribunal Grande instance de Paris on April 19.

Among others, Suaram proposed Jasbir Singh Chahl; Abdul Razak; PM Najib; Defence Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi; private investigator P. Balasubramaniam; the father of murdered Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, Dr Setev Shaariibuu; and chief executive of Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT), Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin Lodin, who is also Boustead Holdings Berhad group managing director and deputy chairman.

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

(The Malaysian Insider, 19 June 2012) - A French court investigating the multimillion ringgit Scorpene submarine scandal issued its first subpoena to Jasbir Singh Chahl, a director in Malaysian naval support services firm Perimekar Sdn Bhd and not a restaurateur, human rights group Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) said today.

"We have just double-confirmed with our lawyers that the subpoena has been issued. We don't have further information on when it will be served," Cynthia Gabriel, who is on Suaram's board of directors, told The Malaysian Insider this evening.

She stressed the Jasbir Singh Chahl she was referring to was a Perimekar director and that she was unaware of any other details surrounding his life.

"We are not in contact with the witness," she said.

Bala’s testimony in France (part 4)

Posted: 12 Aug 2012 01:00 AM PDT

Bala just talks about the RM700,000 he received from Deepak. He is not revealing the hundreds of thousands more he received from the Chinese tycoon. This is because, if he does, then he would also have to reveal the identity of the people who arranged this funding. This is not about protecting the identity of the Chinese tycoon. It is about protecting the identity of the middlemen in this entire arrangement, those people who are behind Bala and who are planning his every move.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The four-page statement (document D71) that the French National Police recorded from private investigator Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (a.k.a. P. Balasubramaniam) in July 2010 can be read below. All the questions posed to Bala were regarding the submarine contract and the role the various people played in that contract, Altantuya Shaariibuu included.

The focus of the French investigation is on the contract and whether there is an element of corruption in the procurement of the submarines. The French National Police are not investigating Altantuya's murder, which is a matter outside their jurisdiction. This is what has not been made clear to us.

Basically, the salient points of Bala's statement in France are:

Bala was twice employed by Abdul Razak Baginda in October 2006. His job was to protect Razak from Altantuya Shaariibuu and to prevent her from getting to him (Razak). This, Bala said, he managed to do each and every time.

After Bala signed his Statutory Declaration on 1st July 2008 (which Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim revealed to the public in a press conference in the PKR headquarters on 3rd July 2008) he was threatened by Deepak Jaikishan and was promised USD197,000 (about RM600,000) to back-track on his Statutory Declaration. But he must also agree to go into hiding (exile) until March 2009, the date when Najib would become Prime Minister.

This he did -- he signed a second Statutory Declaration that contradicted the first one of four days earlier plus he left the country with his entire family and went to India.

Bala said, one year later, in July 2009, he returned to Malaysia to meet his lawyers (who he did not name) to speak to them about 'telling the truth'. His lawyers told him that it was not the right time yet. He then went to Singapore to do his video interview that was covered in part 3 of this report. After that he went back to India.

Bala also told the French investigators that in July 2010 he asked to meet the MACC in London because he cannot return to Malaysia. However, the MACC officers did not turn up as they originally said they would although Bala was already waiting in London. (This was when Bala went to France to meet the French investigators to have his statement recorded).

Bala was then asked about the details regarding the financial 'conditions' (conditions financières) of the French submarines and he replied that all he knows is what he learned from the press or what Altantuya told him (Tout ce que je sais, je l'ai appris de la presse ou de madame Altantuya).

As for the rest of the questions posed by the French National Police, Bala said he does not know the details and could not reply to the questions.

Now, according to Bala's Statutory Declaration, which he signed on 1st July 2008 and which he was not coerced into signing, he said:

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.

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.

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".

Now, in his July 2010 statement to the French National Police, Bala said he sent Razak Baginda a text message (SMS) but he (Razak) did not respond. Then, moments later, three police officers (2 men and 1 woman) came and asked him to confirm the identity of Altantuya before taking her into their car. However, in his 1st July 2008 Statutory Declaration, Bala said he did receive a response from Razak instructing him "To delay her until my man comes".

Now, this is a very crucial point and makes a big difference regarding Razak's involvement in the murder. Going by what Bala said in his Statutory Declaration, Razak is certainly implicated in Altantuya's murder because it was he (Razak) who had ordered Bala to keep her there till the others arrive. But if you look at Bala's statement to the French National Police, he said the reverse.

One statement implicates Razak while the other absolves him. In other words, the instruction to hold Altantuya until the others arrive did not come from Razak but it was Bala's own decision to do so, according to what Bala told the French investigators.

Hence which statement is correct, Bala's statement in his Statutory Declaration, which was done voluntarily, or his statement to the French National Police, which was also done voluntarily?

Another point to note is the part where Bala told the French National Police that he was promised RM600,000 to do the U-turn while he now claims he was promised RM5 million, out of which he was paid only RM700,000.

Did Deepak stop paying Bala one year later because he was promised only RM600,000 while RM700,000 had been paid, which means he was paid more, or did Deepak promise Bala RM5 million but only paid him RM700,000?

What is even more interesting is concerning what Bala told the French National Police regarding his trip back to Malaysia in July 2009, a year after he left the country to go to India. Bala said he met his lawyers (named in the previous report) and told them he would like to come clean and tell the truth, whatever that truth is supposed to be. However, his lawyers did not agree with this because they thought it was not time yet.

Is there a 'proper time' for coming clean and telling the truth? Why prevent Bala from revealing whatever it is he wanted to reveal and instead ask him to go back into exile in India? Would it not have been better that three years ago Bala come out to reveal the truth rather than allow this matter to go on and on for another three years?

Bala told the French National Police he is not able to go back to Malaysia for reasons of his safety. But just a year before that, in July 2009, he did go back to Malaysia to meet his lawyers in Kuala Lumpur. And he admitted that he had, in fact, made many trips back to Malaysia. And he had used his Malaysian passport to go in and out of Malaysia.

The thing is, by July 2009, Deepak had already paid Bala RM700,000 and there was no more money forthcoming. The payments had already stopped. So Bala did not want to continue to stay in India without funding. And that was why he wanted to return to Malaysia and 'tell the truth'.

The lawyers then arranged 'new funding' for Bala to enable him to continue to stay in India. And this was when the Chinese tycoon was roped in to take over from where Deepak had left off.

In the next part we will talk about Bala's response regarding parts 1 and 2 of this report, in particular concerning his denial that the 'Bala Subramanian' mentioned in the French National Police report to the court is another Bala and not him.

The day I met P. Balasubramaniam (part 3)

Posted: 09 Aug 2012 01:00 AM PDT

Bala wanted the balance of the RM5 million that was promised him and he told Hamzah that this would be the price of his third U-turn. Hamzah told Bala, to 'earn' this RM5 million he would need to sign a third Statutory Declaration revealing that Sivarasa and Anwar were behind him and had been supporting him financially all these years. Bala would also have to reveal that Suaram had arranged for his trip to Paris and had coached him on what he should say to the French investigators.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I first met private investigator Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (a.k.a. P. Balasubramaniam) on 2nd July 2008. The day before that, on 1st July 2008, Bala had signed his Statutory Declaration, which was revealed on 3rd July 2008 at the PKR party headquarters during a press conference organised by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Earlier that day, the PKR Member of Parliament for Subang and co-founder of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram), Sivarasa Rasiah, phoned me and asked me to go over to lawyer M. Puravalen's house for a meeting regarding the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder.

And that was when I first met Puravalen, Bala and another ex-police officer.

Bala and his ex-police officer colleague related how they too did the same 'job' as Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar, the two police officers then on trial for Altantuya's murder. In the presence of Puravalen and Sivarasa, Bala and his ex-police officer friend boasted how they used to bump off criminals and got rid of their bodies. Azilah, Sirul and we were all in the same team, they laughed.

Hence, by Bala's own admission, Azizah, Sirul and the whole lot of them already had links from way back and did not meet for the first time in front of Abdul Razak Baginda's house the day Altantuya was murdered, as the impression Bala gave in his Statutory Declaration of 1st July 2008. And they admit that bumping off people and getting rid of their bodies is what they do for a living.

The question that needs to be answered now would be, when Sirul and Azilah, appeared in front of Razak's house, did Bala know what was going to happen since he knew that these two police officers were members of the 'hit squad'? He did admit in the meeting in Puravalen's house that they were all in the same team and did the same type of job -- that is, assassinating people.

Puravalen, who was Razak's lawyer, are childhood friends and, according to the French National Police, Bala was already involved in the submarine deal since back in 2000. This gives an impression of a very long association indeed. Puravalen is also closely linked to Kalimullah Hassan Masheerul Hassan, the man who attracted a lot of controversy in the days when Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was Prime Minister and who was the architect of the equally controversial ECM Libra.

After the meeting in Puravalen's house, we adjourned for dinner at a nearby Italian restaurant to discuss the following day's press conference. Sivarasa coached Bala on what he should and should not say at the press conference. Bala was told to avoid answering too many questions from the media and in the event they ask him difficult questions then the lawyers would take those questions. They were worried that Bala might say something wrong and contradict himself.

The next day, on 3rd July 2008, the press conference was held in PKR's office where Bala's Statutory Declaration was revealed and, the following day, Bala did a second Statutory Declaration that rescinded everything he said in the first Statutory Declaration.

This was certainly most puzzling. Just a day earlier we had met in Puravalen's house and Bala and Sivarasa both assured me that everything in that Statutory Declaration was the truth. Hence why the U-turn? So which is the truth, the first Statutory Declaration or the second one?

It was only later that Bala admitted in his Singapore interview that he had been promised RM5 million to do this U-turn. But he also said he was worried about his and his family's safety if he refused to do a U-turn. They had offered him RM5 million plus safe-passage to India for him and his family if he did the U-turn.

See the Bala interview in Singapore here:

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX0l1V_Ms4

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZdiTk48400

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tVzHDuyzyE

Bala revealed in that Singapore interview that he was only paid RM700,000 and not RM5 million as originally promised. Bala repeated this in his London press conference plus in his recent three-part interview with Malaysiakini.

"Apparently promised RM5 million for his about-turn, Balasubramaniam said he received a total of RM700,000, in instalments, before the payments eventually stopped," said Malaysiakini, quoting Bala.

It was when these payments stopped and he realised he was not going to get the full RM5 million as promised that he decided to come out and do his 'revelation' as in the three-part video above. However, his price to do this revelation would be that someone would have to support him financially.

Sivarasa brought this matter to the attention of Anwar Ibrahim who arranged for a Chinese tycoon to pay Bala RM20,000 per month. They also paid for Bala's house in Chennai, India, paid for his car and life insurance, plus for his children's education in an exclusive international school in Chennai.

Then Bala secretly started negotiating with Datuk Hamzah Zainuddin, an Umno Deputy Minister. Bala was homesick and he wanted safe passage home, although since he ran off to India he had gone back to Malaysia numerous times, as he had admitted. Bala also faced a problem with his visa and India was not prepared to extend his stay in India. Hence he would soon have to get out of the country.

Bala then went back to the Chinese tycoon and revealed that Umno was prepared to pay him RM5 million if he, again, did a U-turn. Bala wanted to know whether they were prepared to 'outbid' Hamzah and offer him more. When the Chinese tycoon discovered that Bala was playing a double game, he stopped the payments to Bala and this made him quite desperate.

When I found out, I leaked the story to my contacts in Umno and threatened to expose this entire arrangement. It would certainly have been my pleasure to expose Hamzah and reveal the arrangement he was attempting with Bala. Hence, even if Bala did sign a third Statutory Declaration, no one would believe it and it would be RM5 million down the drain.

Hamzah was directed to back off and abort the deal with Bala. So, the deal with Hamzah is now off while the Chinese tycoon who was supporting Bala has also stopped all payments to him. Bala was left high and dry and was forced to crawl back to Sivarasa with his tail between his legs.

Sivarasa promised Bala they would arrange for another financier to support him but he would first need to do an interview with Malaysiakini and reveal that Hamzah had tried to 'bribe' him. And that resulted in the recent three-part interview in Malaysiakini where Bala revealed 'The Truth' about his negotiations with Hamzah regarding the deal to go home to Malaysia.

Bala is literally a gun for hire. However, this time around he has been caught with too many contradictions in his U-turn and counter-U-turn, which he has done once too often. It is no longer clear who Bala's masters are. It appears, though, that Bala is able to serve many masters at the same time but when these various masters are at odds with one another that is when problems begin to crop up.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 28 Ogos 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan