DAY 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (part 2) (UPDATED with BM Translation)

On 27 May 1999, the Defence filed a Notice of Alibi proving that the alleged scene of the crime, Tivoli Villa, had not been completed yet, so it would have been impossible to have sodomised Azizan in that place in May 1992. And Azizan had testified he will never forget, as long as he lives, that it had occurred in the Tivoli Villa.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Trial Judge may be linked to the PM’ son; but this is not conflict of interest

The AG, Abdul Gani Patail, kicked of the morning by bringing to the court’s attention the Defence’s application to disqualify the trial judge, Ariffin Jaka, due to conflict of interest.

In 1990, the judge was both a director and shareholder in a company, Dataprep Holdings Sdn Bhd, that was owned by the Prime Minister’s son, Mirzan Mahathir.

“Dataprep and Mirzan Mahathir are not parties to the proceedings,” said the AG. “Neither are they an issue in this trial.”

“Therefore, there cannot be any question or any real likelihood of bias on the part of the learned judge.”

“The only common factor between the learned judge and the Prime Minister’s son is that they were Directors of Dataprep up to 1990.”

“It is grossly inadequate and manifestly unsafe to allege bias on the part of the learned judge by relying on this loose association of facts.”

“It is far too remote to even suggest that such circumstances could give rise to a real danger of bias on the part of the learned judge when he heard this case.”

Time may be the essence, but it is not important

On 29 September 1998, Anwar and Sukma were charged for sodomising Azizan ‘one night in the month of May 1994’. Soon after, their trial started, and the ‘victim’, who is also the Prosecution’s star witness, testified that he was never sodomised after May 1992.

On 27 April 1999, the charges were amended to ‘one night in the month of May 1992’.

The Defence claims that this amendment was to match Azizan’s testimony. The Prosecution however, says that the ‘1994’ date was a typographical error and that the real date should have actually been ‘1992’ - therefore the need for the amendment.

On 27 May 1999, the Defence filed a Notice of Alibi proving that the alleged scene of the crime, Tivoli Villa, had not been completed yet, so it would have been impossible to have sodomised Azizan in that place in May 1992. And Azizan had testified he will never forget, as long as he lives, that it had occurred in the Tivoli Villa.
So, on 7 June 1999, the charges were amended, yet again, to read ‘one night between the months of January to March 1993, at or about 7.45pm’. In the meantime, Azizan changed his testimony to say that the sodomy did in fact occur way past May 1992, and not as he had earlier testified.

Yesterday, the Prosecution said that the date may be hazy, but the place still remains the same - and that’s all that counts.

Dates are important only in specific cases, said the Prosecution. In the case of Anwar’s and Sukma’s sodomy trial, dates are not that crucial.

“From time immemorial, dates have never been important in an indictment,” said the AG.

However, because of the amendment to the date in the charge, the earlier Notice of Alibi filed was no longer valid. It was an alibi to contest the ‘May 1992’ charge. It would not support the ‘one night between the months of January to March 1993, at or about 7.45pm’ charge.

So the Defence asked for a postponement of 12 days to file a fresh Notice of Alibi. But the Trial Judge turned down this request.

“The learned trial judge finally ruled, shortly before the trial finally commenced on 16 June 1999, that the second appellant need not file a fresh Notice of Alibi, and ordered that the trial was to commence without any further postponements,” said the Prosecution.

Translated into BM by Jason:
HARI 7 - 8 APRIL 2003 (bahagian 2)

Pada 27 Mei 1999, Pembelaan mengemukakan Notis Alibi bagi membuktikan bahawa lokasi yang dikatakan tempat kejadian, iaitu Tivoli Villa, belum pun siap dibina. Jadi, adalah mustahil Anwar meliwat Azizan di situ pada Mei 1992. Dalam hal ini, Azizan pula berkata bahawa selama dia hidup, dia takkan lupa bahawa kejadian itu berlaku di Tivoli Villa.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Hakim perbicaraan mungkin ada kaitan dengan anak PM, tetapi ini bukanlah percanggahan kepentingan

Peguam Negara, Abdul Gani Patail memulakan hujahnya dengan memberitahu mahkamah mengenai permohonan Pembelaan untuk menyingkirkan hakim perbicaraan, Ariffin Jaka atas alasan konflik kepentingan.

Pada tahun 1990, hakim itu adalah pengarah dan juga pemegang saham sebuah syarikat, Dataprep Holdings Sdn Bhd, yang dimiliki oleh anak Perdana Menteri, Mirzan Mahathir.

"Dataprep dan Mirzan Mahathir bukanlah pihak yang terbabit dalam prosiding ini,” kata AG. "Mereka juga tiada kena-mengena dalam perbicaraan ini.”

"Oleh itu, tidak boleh ada persoalan ataupun kemungkinan berat sebelah yang nyata di pihak hakim yang arif."

"Satu-satunya faktor umum antara hakim dan anak Perdana Menteri adalah mereka adalah Pengarah Dataprep hingga tahun 1990."

"Adalah sangat tidak memadai dan nyata tidak selamat bagi menuduh pertimbangan berat sebelah di pihak hakim yang arif, yakni dengan bergantung pada perkaitan fakta yang longgar ini.”

"Malah adalah tidak berpatutan bagi mengisyaratkan bahawa keadaan seperti itu dapat menimbulkan bahaya berat sebelah yang nyata di pihak hakim yang arif ketika dia mendengar kes ini."

Waktu mungkin menjadi pokok persoalan, tetapi ia tidak penting

Pada 29 September 1998, Anwar dan Sukma didakwa meliwat Azizan pada 'suatu malam pada bulan Mei 1994'. Tidak lama kemudian, perbicaraan mereka bermula dan ‘mangsa’ yang juga saksi utama Pendakwa memberikan keterangan bahawa dia tidak pernah diliwat selepas Mei 1992.

Pada 27 April 1999, pertuduhan itu telah diubah kepada 'satu malam pada bulan Mei 1992'.

Pembelaan mendakwa bahawa pindaan itu dilakukan supaya pertuduhan selari dengan keterangan Azizan. Namun begitu, Pendakwa mengatakan bahawa tarikh '1994' adalah disebabkan kesalahan tipografi, dan bahawa sepatutnya, tarikh yang sebenar adalah '1992' – jadi, pindaan itu perlu dilakukan.

Pada 27 Mei 1999, Pembelaan mengemukakan Notis Alibi bagi membuktikan bahawa lokasi yang dikatakan tempat kejadian, iaitu Tivoli Villa, belum pun siap dibina. Jadi, adalah mustahil Anwar meliwat Azizan di situ pada Mei 1992. Dalam hal ini, Azizan pula berkata bahawa selama dia hidup, dia takkan lupa bahawa kejadian itu berlaku di Tivoli Villa.

Jadi, pada 7 Jun 1999, pertuduhan itu sekali lagi dipinda, iaitu kepada 'satu malam antara bulan Januari dan Mac 1993, pada atau sekitar jam 7:45 malam'. Sementara itu, Azizan menukar keterangannya, yakni bahawa dia masih diliwat selepas Mei 1992, dan bukannya sebagaimana keterangannya sebelum itu.

Pada hari sebelumnya, Pendakwa berkata bahawa tarikhnya mungkin kabur, tetapi tempat kejadian tetap sama - dan hanya itu yang penting.

Kata Pendakwa, tarikh hanya penting hanya dalam kes-kes tertentu. Dalam perbicaraan liwat Anwar dan Sukma, tarikh tidaklah begitu penting.

"Sejak zaman-berzaman, tarikh tidak pernah penting dalam pendakwaan," kata Peguam Negara.

Namun disebabkan tarikh dalam pertuduhan dipinda, maka Notis Alibi yang difailkan sebelum itu tidak lagi sah. Ini kerana ia adalah alibi bagi mencabar pertuduhan 'April 1992'. Ia tidak dapat digunakan bagi mencabar pertuduhan 'satu malam antara bulan Januari dan Mac 1993, pada atau sekitar jam 7:45 malam'.

Dengan demikian, Pembelaan memohon penangguhan 12 hari bagi mengemukakan Notis Alibi yang baru. Tetapi hakim perbicaraan menolak permintaan ini.

"Tidak lama sebelum perbicaraan bermula pada 16 Jun 1999, hakim yang arif memutuskan bahawa perayu kedua tidak perlu mengemukakan Notis Alibi yang baru, dan mengarahkan bahawa perbicaraan akan bermula tanpa sebarang penangguhan lanjut," kata Pendakwa.

DAY 7 – 8 APRIL 2003 (part 3)

The time immemorial debate as to whether the accused must prove their innocence or the Prosecution needs to prove their guilt was taken to new heights today when the court was told it is Anwar’s and Sukma’s task to prove they are innocent of the charges of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar’s and Sukma’s alibi may be airtight, but they should be rejected

The time immemorial debate as to whether the accused must prove their innocence or the Prosecution needs to prove their guilt was taken to new heights today when the court was told it is Anwar’s and Sukma’s task to prove they are innocent of the charges of sodomising Azizan Abu Bakar.

Anwar and Sukma not only had to prove their innocence, but they did manage to do so, and they did this by providing alibis for the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993, the date (one night in those 90 days) they were supposed to have sodomised Azizan.

But the Prosecution said their alibis should be rejected because it had not followed proper procedure. Their alibis may be good, but it was not proven the right way, so it should not be considered.

The Defence had earlier asked that the trial be declared null because they had requested for a twelve-day postponement to enable them to file their Notice of Alibi, which is mandatory under Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the trial judge had rejected this request.

The trial judge cannot use his discretion in this matter, argued the Defence. It is mandatory and the trial judge should have complied with this rule.

And, now, the Prosecution has jumped on the bandwagon and agrees with the Defence. However, it is not that the trial should be declared null as what the Defence wants, but that Anwar’s and Sukma’s alibis should be declared null instead.

“We agree that the learned judge misdirected himself for failing to comply with the requirements of Section 402A of the Criminal Procedure Code to exclude the evidence in support of Anwar’s alibi on the ground that he did not serve a Notice of Alibi on the Prosecutor at least ten days before the commencement of the trial,” said the Prosecution.

But the amendment to the charges was made DURING the trial - on 7 June 1999 - and not BEFORE the trial. So how could the Defence have filed their Notice of Alibi ten days BEFORE the trial? Further to that, the Defence DID ask for a ten-day postponement to enable it to file this notice, but it was the judge who turned down the request.

Well, the judge was wrong, says the Prosecution, so Anwar’s alibi should be rejected. Anwar, therefore, no longer has an alibi for the period of January to March 1993, which means he can no longer prove he was never at the Tivoli Villa.

The prosecution concluded by saying, “In conclusion, it is submitted that his honourable court ought to exclude the evidence of Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim on the ground that he did not serve a notice to the Public Prosecutor in accordance with Section 402A of the Criminal procedure Code.”

Then, to add insult to injury, the Prosecution went on to say, “But the argument on the unconstitutionality of the trial ought to be rejected because the evidence in support of the alibi, if excluded, would be rightly excluded.”

So, there you have it. The Trial Judge was wrong. Even the Prosecution agrees with this. He broke the law. Anwar should have been given the postponement to file his Notice of Alibi. This is mandatory and the Trial Judge ought not to have used his discretion in the matter.

But the trial itself is not defective. So it should not be declared a mistrial. Instead, only Anwar’s alibi should be rejected. So, Anwar would no longer be able to prove he was never in Tivoli Villa those entire 90 days from 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1993.

Now, that’s one very sleek way to screw the one-time Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. It looks like it was not Anwar who sodomised Azizan after all, but the AG who is screwing Anwar. And what a clever way to do it too! Use the Defence’s argument. Agree with them that the Trial Judge acted illegally. Then, use the Trial Judge’s illegal act against the very person who brought it to the court’s attention - though it was he in the first place who raised the protest.

MP pertikai kontrak RM6.47b bekal makanan tentera

Kementerian Pertahanan telah menganugerahkan kontrak bernilai RM6.47 bilion kepada sebuah syarikat tempatan untuk membekalkan rangsum (catuan makanan) segar kepada anggota tentera, demikian menurut portal 'MyProcurement' yang baru diwujudkan oleh kerajaan.

Mengulas mengenai perkara itu, ahli parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara, Tony Pua berkata, portal berkenaan mungkin memberikan maklumat salah kerana kontrak itu tidak mungkin bernilai sebanyak itu.

"Jumlah ini cukup untuk beli empat buah kapal selam. Tapi saya cenderung untuk percaya ada kesilapan meletakkan titik perpuluhan," katanya kepada pemberita di bangunan parlimen hari ini.

Portal MyProcurement merupakan pusat maklumat perolehan kerajaan yang dilancarkan oleh Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.Pua melahirkan kekecewaannya terhadap portal MyProcurement yang didakwanya tidak mengandungi maklumat lengkap dan berguna kepada rakyat.

Satu lagi contoh yang diperhatikannya ialah kontrak untuk membekalkan perisai badan kepada tentera bernilai RM82.3 bilion tanpa menyebut butiran lain.

"Itu yang saya perhatikan sepintas lalu sahaja," katanya lagi yang meminta kerajaan supaya benar-benar mencontohi kerajaan Singapura dalam membina portal pemerolehan seperti itu.

Katanya lagi, portal GeBiz oleh Singapura mempunyai lebih banyak maklumat, termasuk jumlah pembida dan juga bidaan alternatif oleh setiap pembida berkenaan.

Beliau mempertikaikan sama ada kerajaan bersungguh-sungguh untuk membina portal berkenaan.

Tony juga mempertikaikan 38 kontrak yang dimuatkan dalam laman tersebut, yang tidak menyebut nama syarikat terbabit.

"Portal ini juga tidak menyediakan maklumat asas seperti tarikh tender, tarikh dianugerahkan, dan bilangan (kontraktor) yang mengambil bahagian," katanya.

Tambahnya, masalah paling besar dalam sistem perolehan kerajaan ialah kontrak yang diberikan secara rundingan terus.

"Kontrak seperti ini biasanya diberikan secara kroni kepada ali baba, menyebabkan bukan sahaja pembaziran tetapi juga projek yang berstandard rendah atau gagal," katanya.

Azan saman RM29 juta terhadap Utusan

KUALA LUMPUR: Ahli Parlimen Indera Mahkota Azan Ismail hari ini memfailkan saman malu RM29 juta terhadap Utusan Melayu  (Malaysia) Berhad dan pengarang berita akhbar itu kerana memfitnah terhadap beliau.
Beliau memfailkan saman itu di pejabat pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi melalui pejabat peguam, Vasudevan A & Co.


Ahli parlimen dari Parti Keadilan Rakyat (KEADILAN) itu menamakan pengarang berita Zulkiflee Bakar dan Utusan sebagai defendan  dan mendakwa Zulkiflee telah menulis artikel yang menghina beliau pada keluaran 6 Mac lalu dalam akhbar tersebut.

Dalam kenyataan tuntutannya, beliau berkata artikel itu melaporkan beliau keluar KEADILAN dan gambarnya disiarkan bersama ahli-  ahli politik lain yang meninggalkan parti.

Beliau menyatakan Utusan telah menerbit dan mencetak pembetulan pada 8 Mac lalu sambil berkata, beliau tidak meninggalkan  KEADILAN tetapi meletak semua jawatan dalam parti, termasuk timbalan ketua perhubungan negeri dan pengerusi biro keahlian negeri.

Beliau mendakwa kedua-dua laporan itu telah menyebabkan beliau kehilangan kewibawaannya.

Beliau menuntut ganti rugi RM29 juta kerana kecederaan, memohon injunksi untuk menghalang Zulkiflee dari terus menulis laporan  yang merosakan terhadap keperibadian beliau dan Utusan dari mencetak laporan-laporan yang menghina dan kadar faedah 8% atas  jumlah yang dituntut dari tarikh kes ini difailkan.
- Bernama

Suspend me if you support Israel, Anwar challenges Parliament

HULU SELANGOR, April 5 - Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has dared the government to suspend him from Parliament if it planned to continue its support for Zionist Israel.

In a fiery speech at Kampung Sungai Tengi here last night, the Permatang Pauh MP continued his attack on the government’s purported link to Israel through international public relations firm APCO, adding that aside from outright denial, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had never answered to the allegations.

“These are same people who govern us, who preach to us that the rights of the Malays and the Muslims must be protected. Najib is not brave enough to answer to this.

“I am willing to volunteer myself — you continue to support Israel, you suspend me from Parliament. Suspend me, three months, six months, a year, I do not know.

“God willing, let the people decide for themselves,” he said.

Anwar condemned the BN administration for its willingness to seek advice from a company linked to “the murder of the Muslims in Palestine”.

“Apco is led by these people and Najib is seeking advice from them.

“I revealed the names of APCO’s leaders but they claimed I was wrong.

“I showed the agreement signed between Apco and Israel and still they denied.

“These people are advising Najib on strategic communication, on reform initiatives, on his New Economic Model, his education policies — all this, Apco carries out,” he continued.

Anwar added that as a lawmaker himself, he often engaged with foreign leaders to seek their thoughts and opinions.

“But I never took them as my advisor. Najib is doing this, and its not even Muslim leaders — it is people who work for the Israeli Defence Agency,” he claimed.

Anwar is currently facing the possibility of suspension over his attack on the government’s link with Apco and his claim that the company was also the brains behind Ehud Barak’s One Israel campaign.

Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had said the government to refer Anwar to the parliamentary Rights and Privileges Committee over his allegations.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department had said Anwar had so far not been able to provide concrete evidence to support his allegation that 1 Malaysia was taken from One Israel.

APCO has however released a statement denying the allegations made by Anwar.

Mafrel bidas 'sogokan' pilihan raya

Badan pemantau pilihan raya, Malaysian for Free and Fair Election (Mafrel) membidas tindakan kerajaan menyogok pengundi Hulu Selangor dengan limpahan projek perumahan dan sekolah.

Pengerusi Mafrel, Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh berkata Umno-BN sekali lagi menunjukkan ia tidak menghormati proses pilihan raya demokratik, dan menggesa Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya bertindak tegas terhadap parti itu.

"Ini satu jenis kempen dan kalau berbalik kepada peraturan pilihan raya dia merupakan satu kesalahan peraturan pilihanraya.

“Jadi seharusnya pihak SPR memberikan amaran dan kemudian mungkin mengambil tindakan supaya mengeluarkan arahan supaya tidak ada berlaku apa-apa kempen sekarang sehinggalah apabila hari penamaan calon," katanya dalam satu kenyataan media.

Menurut Mafrel, pihak kerajaan mungkin mendakwa apa yang dilakukan mereka itu dalam rangka menjalankan tanggungjawab sebagai penjawat jawatan kerajaan tetapi hakikatnya ia jelas berunsurkan kempen.

Kempen pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor sepatutnya belum boleh dimulakan selagi proses penamaan calon pada 17 April ini belum berlansung.

Namun, semalam Timbalan Perdana Menteri Muhyiddin Yassin mengumumkan bahawa Hulu Selangor akan mendapat empat sekolah baru, dan projek pembinaan banjir bernilai RM2 juta ringgit.

Muhyiddin juga berkata Kementerian Pendidikan sedang mengenalpasti tapak sesuai untuk membina sebuah sekolah aliran Cina.

Hari ini pula Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak mengumumkan projek perumahan baru untuk warga Felda di Gugusan Sungai Dusun.

Projek bernilai RM32 juta ringgit ini membabitkan 2,50 unit, setiap satunya bernilai antara RM42,000 dan RM75,000 ringgit.

Pilihan raya kecil Hulu S'gor - 25 April ini

Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya sebentar tadi mengumumkan pilihan raya kecil parlimen Hulu Selangor ditetapkan pada Ahad, 25 April.

Menurut pengerusi SPR, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, penamaan calon pula ditetapkan pada Sabtu, 17 April.

Beliau membuat pengumuman itu selepas mengadakan mesyuarat selama dua jam di pejabatnya di Putrajaya.

Katanya, SPR menerima pemakluman kekosongan kerusi Hulu Selangor pada 29 Mac oleh speaker Dewan Rakyat.

Writ pilihan raya akan dikeluarkan hari ini - 2 April dan notisnya pula akan dikeluarkan tiga hari selepas itu.

SPR juga mengumumkan pelatinkan pegawai daerah Hulu Selangor, Nor Hisham Ahmad Dahalan sebagai pegawai pengurus pilihan raya dan tujuh orang pembantunya.

Kerusi Hulu Selangor kosong berikutan kematian penyandangnya, Datuk Zainal Abidin Ahmad pada 25 Mac lalu akibat barah otak.

Pada pilihan raya umum Mac 2008, Zainal membuat kejutan dengan merampas kerusi selamat BN di Hulu Selangor daripada penyandang Datuk G.Palanivel yang juga merupakan Timbalan Presiden MIC, dengan majoriti tipis 198 undi.

Kematian Zainal Abidin dilihat ramai penganalisis memburukkan lagi keadaan di PKR yang baru-baru menghadapi masalah apabila tiga ahli parlimennya berpaling tadah manakala seorang lagi dipecat.

Bagaimanapun, kekosongan kerusi Hulu Selangor juga bukan berita gempira bagi Barisan Nasional yang menghadapi dilema untuk mencari calon yang sesuai.

Sejak kematian bekas menteri besar Selangor itu, Umno berusaha keras untuk melobi kerusi itu yang secara tradisinya diserahkan kepada sekutunya, MIC.

Zahrain in the spotlight again over Sept 16 takeover plan

By Rahmah Ghazali

KUALA LUMPUR: Former PKR-turned-independent MP Zahrain Mohd Hashim was once again thrust into the spotlight over his outburst against Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
However, this time around, it was Anwar's turn who was at bat as he accused Zahrain for his "insincere" claims of friendship and “hypocritical” stance on supposedly defending the Malays.

Relating his experience when Zahrain first broke into the opposition political scene, Anwar claimed that he and Zahrain have never been good friends as alleged by the latter previously.

"From 1998 to 2006, we never talked to each other but now he said we were good friends. He has never been this outspoken in the House when he talks about Malay rights before; now he says he is fighting for them.

"If he is truly my good friend, he should have at least visited me in jail and attended any of my children's wedding reception," Anwar said in Parliament.

Anwar's attack on his former colleague started when Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz was winding up his speech on the royal address, when he touched the alleged takeover attempt on Sept 16, 2008, as revealed by Zahrain three weeks ago.

In his speech, Nazri accused Anwar of "stealing" Barisan Nasional MPs in order to form a new government two years ago.

But Anwar rebutted, saying that he would never steal them and that he had only made an "open invitation" to all his friends on the other side of the political divide.

He also reiterated that the Sept 16 takeover plan was done according to the federal constitution, where the last avenue was to seek the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's consent.

"First, I sent a letter to the then prime minister (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) to seek a meeting but that was rejected. Then I wrote a letter to the Speaker but this was not entertained. The third time, I wrote a letter to the King.

"But I felt strange because Bayan Baru would not know all this as he was not in Kuala Lumpur at that time. He was just a small leader in Penang," said Anwar.

At this juncture, Zahrain accused Anwar of "lying", which Anwar replied tongue-in-cheek: "You are a big guy, with a small heart.”

Nazri defends Zahrain, challenges Anwar

Three weeks ago, during the first week of Parliament's session, Zahrain dropped a bombshell in the Dewan Rakyat, claiming that Anwar had "lied" about the Sept 16 takeover and he had resigned from PKR following the loss of confidence in his (Anwar's) leadership.

Today, following attacks against Zahrain, Nazri stood up to defend him, arguing that "someone should not judge him based on his speech in Parliament only.

"I believe Bayan Baru has done a fantastic job in his constituency although he was silent in the Dewan Rakyat before," he said.

Nazri also refuted Anwar's claim that the opposition had never intended to "steal" the BN representatives as the ruling coalition consisted of 140 MPs then compared with the opposition's 82.

"How is it possible for them to table a vote of no confidence in the prime minister when they had fewer MPs than ours? That is why I said, they tried to steal our representatives," he said and challenged Anwar to reveal the BN representatives who were supposed to defect.

Anwar refused but insisted that he had the number of the BN representatives who were supportive of the takeover plan.

"Otherwise, I would not have the guts to write all the letters," he said.

Anwar hantar surat kepada Agong

Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim mengaku beliau ada menghantar surat kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin pada 19 Sept 2008 untuk memohon menghadap bagi memaklumkan sokongan majoriti ahli Dewan Rakyat terhadap pakatan pembangkang bagi membentuk kerajaan.

Pengakuan Anwar itu dibuat ketika beliau mencelah ucapan penggulungan Menjunjung Kasih Titah Ucapan Yang di-Pertuan Agong oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz di Dewan Rakyat, malam semalam.

"Pada 18 September, saya mendapat persetujuan pimpinan tiga parti pembangkang iaitu Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang dan Lim Kit Siang untuk menulis kepada Perdana Menteri (Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi) supaya diadakan sidang khas Parlimen bagi membincangkan usul dewan sudah hilang kepercayaan terhadapnya dan kepimpinan beliau.

"Mustahil jika saya berani menulis surat itu jika saya tidak mendapat perakuan Ahli Parlimen lain dan selepas surat itu ditolak, saya menulis pula kepada Speaker tetapi turut ditolak dan kemudian kepada Tuanku Mizan," katanya.

Pendedahan Anwar itu menyebabkan Dewan Rakyat riuh seketika.

Bagaimanapun, beliau tidak pula menyebut nama-nama anggota Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BN) yang didakwanya telah membuat perakuan untuk menyokong pakatan pembangkang ketika itu.

Mohamed Nazri berkata Anwar sudah pasti akan menghantar surat tersebut terus kepada Seri Paduka Baginda jika beliau berjaya "menarik" antara 20 hingga 30 anggota Parlimen BN tanpa perlu bersusah-payah mengikut saluran pertama dan kedua itu.

"Sepatutnya Anwar membawa tandatangan 20 atau 30 orang yang berjaya ditariknya dari BN kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, tetapi dia tidak ada. Pembangkang ada 82 dan BN ada 140, bagaimana nak buat undi tak percaya itu," katanya.

Mohamed Nazri juga berkata dakwaan bahawa ramai anggota Ahli Parlimen BN melompat parti untuk menyertai pakatan pembangkang adalah tidak benar, sebaliknya, anggota Parlimen mereka pula yang keluar parti untuk menjadi calon Bebas.

Katanya, tuduhan bahawa BN memberi imbuhan atau sogokan kepada wakil rakyat pembangkang yang menyertai BN juga tidak berasas dan rakyat boleh menilai sendiri pembohongan itu selepas anggota Parlimen terbabit membuat pendedahan.

Beliau berkata BN tidak perlu mencuri wakil rakyat pembangkang kerana mereka mempunyai kerusi mencukupi di Dewan Rakyat walaupun bukan dua pertiga.

SPRM tahan 25 ahli politik

Mengenai Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM), Mohamed Nazri berkata, bagi tempoh 1 Jan 2009 hingga 28 Feb lepas, seramai 25 ahli politik ditahan dan 15 daripadanya dihadapkan ke mahkamah.

Daripada jumlah tersebut, beliau berkata 13 daripada BN.

"Ini membuktikan SPRM badan profesional dan bukannya alat politik UMNO dan BN. Sumbangan agensi itu perlu diberi pengiktirafan tinggi kerana siasatan dilakukan tanpa dipengaruhi arahan mana-mana pihak," katanya lagi.

Dewan kemudian meluluskan usul menjunjung kasih titah ucapan Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin.

Persidangan dewan bersambung Isnin ini.

- Bernama

Bala : ZUL NOORDIN‘S PARLIAMENTARY FALLACY

The only question Noordin should answer today is why he waited so long to divulge information which might have been pertinent to the investigation. If they were factual links of a conspiracy why didn’t he reveal them sooner?

By P. बलासुब्रमानिं

On March 24th, Member of Parliament Zulkifly Noordin claimed he had been instructed to implicate Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the murder of the Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu. The mainstream media picked up on Noordin’s statement, using it in an attempt to paint Altantuya’s murder as part of a conspiracy to undermine Najib Razak’s position as the Deputy Prime Minister and future Prime Minister.

Whatever Noordin says should in no way distract Malaysians from the facts of this case and the pressing need to re-open the investigation into the murdered Mongolian woman.

Furthermore Noordin is foolish to think that he is somehow in a unique position to make such a daring allegation. The basic facts of this gruesome murder and conspiracy that are in the public domain already demonstrate a clear link between Najib Razak, his wife, the heinous crime and its subsequent cover-up. There was no need for him, of all people, to have been chosen as the revealer of all this ignominy. Nor is it reasonable that his services were needed to concoct a false link given how strong the actual links really are.

The only question Noordin should answer today is why he waited so long to divulge information which might have been pertinent to the investigation. If they were factual links of a conspiracy why didn’t he reveal them sooner? If these links could possibly have exonerated your client, Azilah, from the charge that he faced, are you not duty bound as his attorney to have pursued them to the fullest extent to save Azilah from the cruel fate that he now faces?

Before further confusion arises from Noordin’s grandstanding let me review the established facts of the case and reiterate my willingness to clarify these facts to the Malaysian authorities:

1. Musa Safri is Najib Razak’s aide-de-camp and a superior officer to Azilah and Sirul, who now face capital punishment for the murder of Altantuya.

2. Azilah and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards at the time of the murder. Najib recently denied this fact once again in an interview in the Economist yet ***

3. Musa Safri ordered Azilah and Sirul to help Razak Baginda “solve the problem” with the Mongolian girl.

4. Sirul confessed to having been offered a sum of between RM50,000 to RM100,000 to eliminate Altantuya, or as Sirual described it, “selamatkan”.

5. Sirul, at the end of the trial, said in court… “I am just a black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or questioned”.

6. Razak Baginda and Najib Tun Razak are close associates. Both were intrinsically involved in the purchase of Scorpene submarines and Sukhoi jets for the Malaysian armed forces.

7. Razak Baginda’s company, Perimekar Sdn. Bhd., received substantial commissions for these two deals.

8. Altantuya was Razak Baginda’s mistress at some point in time. Her services as a French and Russian translator were used by Razak Baginda in negotiations for the purchase military hardware.

9. Altantuya had alleged she was owed some commissions for her role in these deals.

10. Najib Tun Razak was the Defence Minister during the period these deals were taking place.

11. Altantuya had travelled to Kuala Lumpur in October 2006 to secure payment of her commissions from Razak Baginda, who had employed my services to keep her away from him.

12. I was called as a witness for the prosecution during the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Razak Baginda and gave evidence in court.

13. I also affirmed a statutory declaration in July 2008 in which, inter alia, further links were established in respect of the relationship between Najib Tun Razak and Altantuya.

14. I retracted this first SD within 18 hours by producing another one, and then went missing with my family immediately thereafter.

15. I have since revealed everything that happened since I released the first SD including evidence of threats, harassment and bribery orchestrated by influential people to ensure my silence.

16. I have identified a number of personalities involved in my removal from Malaysia after I released my first SD and have provided details of payments made to me by these personalities.

17. None of the personalities mentioned by me have denied their involvement in these matters.

18. A police report has been lodged based on my revelations but no police action has been taken to date.

19. A report has also been lodged with the MACC but no action has been taken to date despite my willingness to assist so long as reasonable precautions are taken to ensure my personal safety.

These are simply facts of the case which are known to everyone yet ignored by the courts, the Malaysian authorities and perhaps also YB Zulkifly Noordin. Furthermore in light of these very public facts and allegations key individuals linked to the crime and cover up have neither refuted nor denied the statements made against them:

1. That I myself had seen a message from Najib on Razak Baginda’s handphone, in the presence of a lawyer, which said…. “Seeing IGP at 11 am, everything will be OK…be cool”. This occurred on the morning of Razak Baginda’s arrest for allegedly abetting the murder of Altantuya Sharibu.

2. Raja Petra Kamarudin’s SD stating Rosmah was at the scene of Altantuya’s murder and detonation.

3. That Deepak and Dinesh Jayakishan were representing Rosmah and and/or Najib’s family in seeking to negotiate a ‘deal’ in order to entice me to retract my first SD.

4. That I was subjected to mental pressure by thinly veiled threats against my family, which were made personally by Datuk Nazim Tun Razak (Najib’s Razak’s brother) the day I released my first SD.

5. That Rosmah had invited me for breakfast after I retracted his first SD in order to thank me for doing so.

6. That Deepak organised the application for and securing of passports for my wife and children so that they could leave the country that very same day.

7. That Deepak or Dinesh had organised transportation for me and my family from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore in a van, and thence to Bangkok, Kathmandu, New Delhi and finally Chennai.

8. That Deepak Jayakishan made substantial payments to me to keep me away from Malaysia until Najib Razak became the Prime Minister.

9. My production of copies of various cheques for substantial sums drawn on the accounts of Deepak Jayakishan and Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd in support of my allegations that he had been paid off to leave the country.

10. My identification of the person who was in a blue Proton Saga the day Altantuya was abducted outside Razak Baginda’s house by Sirul and Azilah as one Nasar Safri, Najib’s right hand man.

In October 2009 I recorded an interview in the presence of my lawyer, Americk Sidhu Singh and two other prominent Malaysian attorneys explaining in detail what happened to me after July 3, 2008 when I publicized my first Statutory Declaration. The transcript of this lengthy interview is available online.

I then offered to give a complete statement to the MACC with only one stipulation – that my personal safety be guaranteed. Instead the MACC offered to conduct the interview within the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore, which is virtually identical to conducting the interview inside Bukit Aman itself. Knowing what I have endured for the past 18 months and that witnesses have recently been killed while in MACC custody, the MACC’s offer is foolish and reflects how unwilling they are to take my statement.

Given the interest Zulkifly Noordin has taken in the Altantuya murder mystery I would ask him to raise these important matters with Prime Minister Najib Razak when he sees him next.