A Malaysian Private Eye Recants an Explosive Statement

Asia Sentinel
04 July 2008

Complete reversal on charges against Malaysia's deputy prime minister raises questions of political pressure

In a stunning turnaround that raises as many questions as it answers, the Kuala Lumpur-based private investigator who set off a firestorm Thursday by alleging that Deputy prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was involved in the 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu today retracted the entire contents of his statutory declaration and said he had made it under duress (Note: Both declarations can be found here).

Media in Kuala Lumpur reported that P. Balasubramaniam, a private investigator who once represented accused murderer Abdul Razak Baginda, said everything he had alleged in his July 1 statutory declaration was wrong, then rushed off without taking questions. Local media also reported that he had come under severe pressure after releasing the declaration in the company of opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim Thursday.

The investigator did not say who pressured him to issue the initial statement, but his action today raises the inevitable specter that powerful political forces are at work over the sensational murder. The allegations against Najib have already undermined his standing as the heir apparent to the leadership of the powerful United Malays National Organization. Opposition leaders denounced the retraction as the result of political pressure and called for an investigation.

The ongoing trial has thus far avoided questioning Najib or bringing his name into the proceedings, with both prosecutors and defense attorneys challenging attempts to have him brought into the proceedings.

Anwar, who himself faces recent allegations of forcibly sodomizing a 23-year-old man who works in his office, was excoriated by pro-government loyalists from the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition led by the UMNO after he released the initial declaration. Najib and Anwar are bitter rivals for power who were once allied in UMNO before Anwar was booted out of the Deputy Prime Minister’s job in 1998 before being jailed on sexual perversion charges. Building on opposition gains in the March elections, Anwar has declared his intention to unseat the BN by September.

Najib called the private investigator’s statement “a desperate move by Anwar Ibrahim to divert attention from the sodomy allegation he is facing.”

For some, the episode reveals rot inside the political system. “They are all damaged, it doesn’t matter, really,” said a disgusted lawyer and political insider in Kuala Lumpur. “I think new leaders will emerge after this mess.”

In the new declaration, a sworn statement made in writing as was his first declaration, Balasubramaniam said: "I wish to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress.

"I wish to expressly state that at no material time did (Abdul) Razak (Abdullah) Baginda inform me that he was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP and at no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib (Tun Razak) had a sexual relationship with Altantuya Shaaribu and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse. At no material time did Razak Baginda inform me that Datuk Seri Najib instructed Razak Baginda to look after Altantuya Shaaribu as he did not want her to harass him since he was the Deputy Prime Minister."

Balasubramaniam’s previous statement was extraordinarily detailed, accusing the deputy prime minister of having had an affair with Altantuya and introducing her to Razak; he also recounted SMS conversations between Razak and Najib on the night of her murder. The statement described the cars that came to take the woman away, related conversations with the accused and described his disappointment at the fact that a detailed statement he had given police about the matter had been censored so completely that nothing of the relationship between Razak and Najib survived.

Razak went on trial in June 2007 for Altantuya’s murder along with two of Najib’s bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar of the elite Unit Tindak Khas or Special Police Action Unit. The 28-year-old Mongolian woman was shot twice in the head on October 19, 2006 and her body dumped in a patch of jungle near the suburban city of Shah Alam before she was blown up with explosives.

Balasubramaniam wrote in his first declaration that he wanted the “relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecution’s case.”

In that declaration Balasubramaniam, who was hired to help Razak deal with the woman, said he repeatedly tried to get Razak to have Altantuya arrested for harassment, but that he refused to do so.

The July 1 statement described in meticulous detail a series of visits by Altantuya and two friends from Mongolia to Razak’s office and home, seeking to corner the political analyst about their relationship and demanding US$500,000 for her services as a translator in a questionable transaction involving Malaysia’s purchase of French submarines.

The document also purported to confirm long-reported rumors that Najib, Razak and Altantuya had been at a dinner in Paris during the time when the submarine transaction was being negotiated. It described conversations with Altantuya, in which she told the private investigator that Razak had even bought her a house in Mongolia.

Malaysian Political Blogger Charged with Sedition

By Jed Yoong - Asia Sentinel
6 May 2008

Questions over the alleged involvement of the deputy prime minister in a murder case earn a stint in jail

Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the editor of a popular Malaysian website called Malaysia Today, was ordered jailed Tuesday on sedition charges after a flame-throwing article last month that linked Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to the murder case of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu and accused Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi of withholding evidence about the case.

Altantuya was executed on October 20, 2006, allegedly by two of Najib’s bodyguards at the request of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda, one of Najib’s closest friends. She had flown to Malaysia to confront Abdul Razak, who jilted her, and to ask for money for support when she was executed with two bullets in the head and her body was blown up with plastic explosives in a patch of jungle near the suburban city of Shah Alam. She was last seen being bundled into a car and driven away from Abdul Razak’s house.

The article, titled “Let’s Send the Murderers of Altantuya to Hell,” highlighted a series of controversies and irregularities in the trial of Abdul Razak and the two bodyguards, and questioned whether Najib is immune from Malaysia’s laws. The murder trial has been droning on for nearly a year, raising questions of whether it is being deliberately delayed because of the closeness of the three to top political figures.

Stung by the questions, Najib’s press secretary, Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad, issued a statement defending his boss’s innocence on April 29 and threatened legal action if allegations in the press and elsewhere of Najib’s involvement in the case continued. The statement also denied that Najib had anything to do with erasing the victim’s immigration records, or that he had ever met her. Many questions were left unanswered, however, with bloggers subsequently questioning the statement and with questions seemingly growing to the point where observers are beginning to question Najib’s viability to succeed Abdullah Badawi when the prime minister ultimately decides to step down.

The police showed up at Raja Petra’s door last Friday to question him about the matter. He refused to cooperate. On Tuesday, he refused to pay RM5,000 in bail Tuesday in protest of what he called “political harassment” after being charged, and elected to go to jail instead. There was no indication when he would be released.

"Is it seditious to influence people against corrupt leaders? There is nothing seditious," he told reporters outside the court where he was charged.

The sedition charge is unusual to say the least, since such charges are laid for conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state. Although scathing, his questions over allegations that the deputy prime minister was connected to the case hardly appear to constitute inciting rebellion. Some legal authorities in Kuala Lumpur had expected Najib to file suit for defamation, although others pointed out that a civil suit for defamation would expose the deputy premier to motions for discovery and questioning over his relationship, if any, to the dead woman.

The leadership’s depth of irritation over Raja Petra is evidenced by the fact that he has been charged although he is a member of the royal family of Selangor. It is extremely rare for royalty to be charged for any criminal offenses. Some members of royalty have literally got away with murder. However, as a continuing thorn in the side of Malaysian government leaders, he has been arrested and questioned before. Malaysia Today, he said in an interview last year with local media, gets as many as 1 million hits a day.

In the offending article, Raja Petra called attention to the prosecutors' sudden announcement before the start of the trial that only three people were involved in the murder and the abrupt change in the prosecuting team who built the case and subsequently resigned.

The article also charged that an affidavit filed by Razak Baginda after his arrest said he accused had gone see Najib and Rosmah Mansor, Najib's wife, about his problems with Altantuya. It also said that Najib had written to the Malaysian embassy to support Altantuya's visa application and that a photograph exists of Altantuya, Najib and Baginda taken in Singapore that was taken in Singapore. Najib has sworn to Allah that he had never met the woman. Rosmah last week also denied any involvement in the matter.

The most explosive part of the article suggested that Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi might be holding on to evidence given to him which implicates Najib to “keep Najib in line” and accused the prime minister of being an accessory to murder, adding that “burying evidence that will affect the outcome of the trial and interfere in seeing justice done renders Abdullah as guilty as those currently on trial and those who also should be on trial but are not.”

Opposition politicians condemned the sedition charge as political intimidation and asked for justice to be served. The nonpartisan reform organization Aliran commented that the arrest "only raises more questions. It raises suspicion that it is meant not only to politically bludgeon Raja Petra but also to make an example of him for the rest of the blogging fraternity and civil society."

“This is more political harassment of bloggers. Is this part of the reforms that the prime minister is talking about? Is this the new open government?” William Leong, the People's Justice Party treasurer and Raja Petra’s lawyer, told reporters.

“The case has dragged on for far too long. It is undermining public confidence in the system,” said Lim Kit Siang, the founder of the opposition Democratic Action Party, which his son now leads, said when asked about his views on the case.

Faux Pas By Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad

By Little Bird

Tengku Sarifudin faux pas is not pronounced 'fox pass'. It is pronounced 'four par'. It means a bad mistake, a false step.

I have just read the letter by the DPM's Press Secretary Sarifuddin Ahmad rebutting an article written by RPK in this Blogsite and also RPK's reply to Sarifuddin.

As Press Secretary to the DPM, you should know more than anyone else that politics is all about perception. The real truth can be something else. The trick is, Sarifuddin, to move the perception and the truth of a matter both in the same direction. Then you have what the physicists call 'resonance' - elections are won, leaders become idols, philosophies become written in stone and other such things - when you resonate.

My personal view is that lately, say over the past 20 years, the UMNO politicians have simply lost their ability to think things through properly, especially when they are in a tight spot. Even when there are no tight spots, UMNO politicians are not capable of strategising well or paying enough attention to that which is obvious and using their common sense. Hence they fumble easily and really look the idiot.

Your reply to Raja Petra's article is a fatal mistake, a faux pas.

I recall during the time of Anwar's downfall, there was a Chinese Muslim lawyer in Anwar's 'Institut Kajian Dasar' by the name of Faiz or something (who ran an expensive books shop too) who made the greatest mistake of making a Police report over the book '50 Dalil....' by Khalid Jeffri. That got the Police rolling which led them to reinvestigating the Police raid on the house of Dr Ristina in Bangsar. After that it was just a matter of tracing things backwards to nail the 'abuse of power' angle. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that Police report started the sequence of events which led to Anwar's first trial for abuse of power.

Daim had advised Anwar 'Dont make any Police reports about Khalid Jeffri's book. Just leave it alone'. But just like you now, Anwar was concerned about public opinion and perceptions about him in the public eye. By the way has anyone seen or heard this Faiz character anywhere? Just curious.

Your reply to RPK has only given more credibility to RPK as well as to the Blogsite Malaysia Today. You speak on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. You have deemed it necessary to reply to a Blogsite that your cohorts have labelled as being run by 'bored housewives', full of lies, etc. It would have been better if you (or Datuk Najib) had chosen to remain silent and just ignore the Blog. Now you have muddied the public's perception even further. As I said the UMNO boys just cannot think anymore.

There is also some desperation that is perceptible in your reply. As I said it is all about perception. But in this case what has transpired so far in Court seems to create a resonance with the public's perceptions of the matter. That is a powerful combination. I refer the truth of the matter that has actually been established through the Court and reported in the Press. And they do not seem to favour your view. It will get even murkier if the court acquits Razak Baginda and/or Azilah Hadri. I dont know about Sirul.

Before saying further we must discuss again the unusual treatment of high profile murders in our country. There is a record of high profile murders not getting proper treatment (and remaining unsolved too) despite going through the legal process.

The first one is of course the murder of Mustakizah during the time of Megat Junid. I believe Mustakiza's murderers were never found. It was widely known that Mustakizah was having a relationship with the late Megat Junid and that she may have been pregnant with his child. Yet this angle was never explored in Court. The Court of Laws was satisfied but can you blame the Court of Public Opinion which was not very convinced - till this day?

Then we have the high profile murder of Siti Hasleza in Perak. This pretty girl was killed with a 'karate chop' and then thrown over a bridge onto some rocks while she was possibly still alive. The men who killed her were caught, tried and found guilty. But those tried included an Indian labourer, a bomoh type character, one minor royal and even a Chinaman (I think).

The question that the Court refused to pursue or investigate was 'what did the pretty Malay girl, who was the second wife of a Malay Royal, have to do with these jokers, especially the Indian labourer, that they wanted to kill her?' Does an Indian labourer working the fishing boats in Kuala Kurau get up one fine morning and simply decide 'Well today I am going to find a pretty Malay girl, preferably one married to a Malay Royal, kill her and then throw her over a bridge in Batu Kurau'?

But this was exactly the truth established in the Court of Law. Who can argue with that? It was a Court of Law.

But the Court of Public Opinion knows that this was shoddy workmanship by the Court. Everyone knows that another woman was involved, who had hired the Indian labourer and the others to get rid of Siti Hasleza. But that woman was never arrested by Police, never charged in Court and never even questioned. Just like in the Altantuya case where the AG's office announced way ahead of everything else 'Only three people are involved, we are not pressing charges against anyone else' the AG never went beyond the actual perpetrator's of the murder without investigating the dalang or conspirator behind the affair.

By law and by fact, it was established that the Indian labourer and the others had killed Siti Hasleza. There was no argument about that. But what was their motive and what was the overall motive behind the murder of the girl? Why did she have to die? The Court has sidestepped this question.

Now, Sarifuddin, do you think that the Court of Public Opinion is stupid? Do you think that the Court of Public Opinion cannot read, cannot question and cannot think? Until this day these questions about the Siti Hasleza murder remain unanswered. What do you suggest the Court of Public Opinion should do? Vote for the BN? Wake up.

Then we have the high profile murder of Norita Shamsudin in Kuala Lumpur. Norita was found dead by her room mates. She was found dead sprawled in her bed. When the Police were called, two Indian detectives were the first on the scene. This was reported from the Court proceedings. When they arrived, these two Indian detectives closed off the room door and spent about three hours alone with Norita's body. No other police were allowed inside the crime scene. Then early in the morning, the two detectives left. Nothing has been heard from them or of them since. They were never called as witnesses in the Court case. Have they been sucked up into the sky by alien spaceships?

But when the Police Forensics team entered the room after them, Norita's body was found in a different position - with her hands tied and stuff. What type of Police training is it where detectives tamper with evidence and distort the crime scene? And why would they want to do that in the first place? Is that acceptable Police behaviour?

Then they arrested a patsy, a fall guy, and made huge Press reports about him as though he was a serial killer. Then the Court case became a joke. From day one, the Prosecution team bungled and fumbled all the way, as though they wanted to lose the case, close the file and be done with it. The Defense just smiled all the way through.

It soon transpired in Court that witnesses had glimpsed another dark-skinned man, with a bad body odour who was in the apartment when Norita's friends came home. Someone even shouted at this dark-skinned, bad smelling man and saw him running away.

Then there was the case of Norita's handphone. Despite so many other handphone records being subpoenaed, records of Norita's phone calls on the fateful night she was murdered were never presented as evidence in Court. Why? Maybe like Altantuya's passport records, Norita's phone records have also been mysteriously erased.

And as can be expected, the poor accused, the fall guy, was found innocent and released. The murder is not solved. But the Police and the AG have since refused to reopen the case. My question is : most certainly they have Norita's phone records. Surely they know who she spoke to on the night she was killed. There was also DNA of more than one male found on Norita. Surely they could at least cross reference the DNA with some of the people she spoke to on that same night? Has this been done? If not why not?

So Sarifuddin, this was what was presented (OR NOT presented) as evidence in the Court of Law in this beautiful country of ours. Do you honestly think that the Court of Public Opinion will accept this type of shoddy and tidak apa simplicity? Apa you ingat kita semua bodoh ke?

Then we come to the Altantuya case. What was the motive? Why was she killed? This is a general question. And to be more specific why did Sirul and Azilah have to kill her? Sirul and Azilah never met her before. Did Sirul and Azhar just get up one morning and say 'Hari ini jom kita pi cari sorang pompuang Mongolia, kita culik dia, kita rogol dia, kita tembak dia lepas tu kita letup dia.' Maybe you would like to suggest that Sirul and Azilah were related (or went to the same school) as that Indian labourer in Kuala Kurau.

Do people just get up in the morning in our country and then go out and find exceptionally pretty young women and kill them by the most horrendous and unusual means? But this is what the Court of Law in this country will want us to believe. Sarifudin do you expect the Court of Public Opinion to be as easily convinced?

Then, just like in the Norita Shamsudin case, it appears that this case has also been thrown by the Prosecution. In the Norita case, there was a dark-skinned man, with a bad body odour who was seen running away. In this Altantuya case, a very straight talking Police woman testified that a Suzuki Vitara appeared driven by a man wearing a baseball cap. Azilah spoke politely to Altantuya who then got down from one car of her own free will and got into the Suzuki Vitara, alone with the man with the baseball hat who then drove away with her. That was the last time Altantuya was seen alive. She was NOT last seen with Azilah.

RPK has said that the registration number of the car and the identity of the owner have been made known. Yet the Police say they cannot trace the owner of the car or the person to whom he sold the car (if the car had been sold). This is really spooky. Betul ke ni?

But again we want to know the motive? Why would Sirul and Azilah want to kill a Mongolian woman whom they have never met before in their lives? And we know from Razak Baginda's Affidavit that there is a man by the name of Musa Safri. Musa is Najib's ADC. We know that as Najib's bodyguards Azilah (and Sirul) must take orders from Musa.

If there was no Immigration record of Altantuya ever entering or leaving the country did she slip into the country in a secret submarine (no pun intended)? Since it is not likely that she came by submarine, who erased her travel records and how?

So you see, Sarifudin, the Court of Law in this country has a terrible record of probing the right questions and the motives behind this type of high profile murders. Yet we are expected to accept the Court's findings because they are the findings of a Court of Law.

But the Court of Public Opinion does have its own mind. Sarifuddin, may I make a suggestion. If you just happen to know of anyone who is in the habit of resorting to, shall we say, draconian measures to solve their problems, please tell them to stop. There is more, much more to life than resorting to actions that we may regret later on. There are also easier ways to do things. Granted that the faculty of thinking may be quite retarded in this country, n'theless it is still possible to think things through instead of just blasting a way through the rocks.

As for Dato Najib, I feel that he is quite incapable of hurting even a fly. The guy is quite a limp noodle. Dr Mahathir says he is a penakut. The Court of Public Opinion will also agree that Najib is a penakut. The Court of Public Opinion will not likely attach much blame on him. But there may be stiffer noodles in his kitchen. Sarifudin, maybe Najib needs to get a new maid for his kitchen. Why live with indigestion? Think.

Malaysian Deputy Premier Denies Murder Links

Asia Sentinel

Najib Tun Razak says he had nothing to do with the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu. So why won’t he testify in court?

In a blistering defense of his boss’s innocence, Najib Tun Razak’s press secretary Tuesday issued a statement that neither the Malaysian deputy prime minister nor his wife, Rosmah Mansor, had anything to do with the October 2006 murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

In the statement, made to the Malaysian internet publication Malaysia Today, the press secretary, Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad, threatened legal action if allegations in the press and elsewhere of Najib’s involvement in the case continued. The statement also denied that Najib had anything to do with erasing the victim’s immigration records, or that he had ever met her. Many questions were left unanswered, however.

Although Najib, whom many see as the heir apparent to the prime minister’s post, has neither been questioned nor asked to appear in the marathon trial of his friend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and two of his bodyguards for the murder of Altantuya, his reputation has been considerably tarnished by his apparent links to the victim and the accused. Some media have questioned his suitability to take over as prime minister when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi gives up the post.

Abdul Razak, 46, who had been Altantuya’s lover, is charged with abetting the slaying, which prosecutors say was carried out by Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, 30, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 35, both of whom were assigned to Najib’s elite police bodyguard detail. The 28-year-old woman was shot on October 20, 2006, and her body was blown up with explosives available only to the military. Altantuya was last seen in front of Abdul Razak’s house, being pushed into a car and driven away.

The trial of the three, originally scheduled to last just 26 days, has been droning on since June 2007 and has raised suspicions that it is being deliberately delayed to cushion public opinion for an eventual mistrial or exoneration because of the political influence of those involved. So far, 75 witnesses have been called, but the trial has been in recess for several weeks for reasons that are unclear. Altantuya’s father, Mongolian psychology professor Shaariibuu Setev, returned to Malaysia last week to demand justice for his daughter. He managed to attend the opening of the Dewan Rakyat, Malaysia's parliament, on Tusday, where he spoke briefly to the prime minister before Badawi offered him a cursory greeting and a promise that "Justice will be served." Najib was also in parliament but Setev failed to speak with him.

The statement by Najib’s aide hardly settles matters. For instance, he describes as “hearsay” allegations that the immigration records of Altantuya, her cousin, Namiraa Gerelmaa, 23 and a third Mongolian woman had been erased after the three came to Kuala Lumpur from Mongolia to confront Altantuya’s former lover and to demand money from him. The victim had claimed that Abdul Razak fathered a child with her.

Gerelmaa told the court in June 2007 that the records had been erased but no attempt was made by either defense or prosecution lawyers to find out how or why the records disappeared. Gerelmaa also said she had seen a picture of Altantuya at a dinner with Najib and Abdul Razak, but lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense immediately protested and no attempt was made to find out where she had seen the picture or if indeed the picture existed. It has not yet surfaced.

Najib’s aide also described it as “strange” that “no legal attempt had been made to produce this picture as evidence in court to date by (the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat) as it appears it is only admissible in the public opinion court.”

Sariffuddin, the spokesman for Najib, also described as “baseless” public allegations that the murder of the translator was linked to Malaysia’s 2005 purchase of French submarines. Altantuya is known to have accompanied Abdul Razak to Paris at a time when Malaysia’s defense ministry – with Najib as defense minister ‑ was in Paris negotiating through a Kuala Lumpur-based company connected to Abdul Razak to buy the submarines.

Najib, Abdul Razak and Altantuya were in Europe at exactly the same time. Najib visited a naval base where Malaysian navy submariners were training, and, according to the log of an Australian submariner association, presented jackets made available by Abdul Razak’s company to the crew.

Najib could easily clear up all the allegations and suspicions, observers say, by appearing in court under oath with his diaries, telephone logs and other data to prove his contention that he never met the victim.

Similarly, the public in Malaysia has been awash in reports that female Police Lance Corporal Rophaniza Roslan, 29, who accompanied the accused, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar, to Abdul Razak’s house, where they are alleged to have bundled the translator into a car to take her to her death, was the bodyguard of Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor. The lance corporal was held by police after the murder but was released. The prosecution attempted to impeach her as a witness during the trial. But despite the widespread rumors over her connection to Najib’s wife, neither the prosecution nor the defense raised the issue in court. Lawyers have not asked for details of her employment.

If Najib were to appear in court, he could certainly explain how it was possible for Abdul Razak to use his bodyguards to remove the victim from his residence. A deputy police commander, who is an associate of the two bodyguards, testified that members of the bodyguard unit are required to follow the orders of their superiors without question; he described the bodyguard members as being “like robots” who only respond to orders from superior officers. Abdul Razak, a civilian and a mere friend Najib’s, was not a superior officer in any sense.

Najib could also be called upon, as defense minister, to explain how the two bodyguards were able to get their hands on military explosives to blow up the translator’s body.

Najib, according to Tuesday’s statement, “has been very restrained and guarded in making any public statement on the matter since people known to him have been implicated and have been charged in court. It could be misinterpreted or seen as interfering in the case since the court proceedings is ongoing.”

The statement concludes that the Deputy Prime Minister “also shared this sentiment (that the case is not about politics and should not be dealt with as such) and should seek out the truth, and justice should be served.”

With the case still unfolding, however slowly, the next step, for many observers, would be for Najib to appear in court. That might do more to obtain justice than issuing a public relations denial.