Balasubramaniam’s Bombshell- A Naked Conspiracy by Lawyers?

GENESIS

There is something rather disingenuous and sinister about the recent spate of voluntary confessions  being made by judges, lawyers, public officials and policemen from within the emerging ‘latent’ conscience of Malaysian political circles. All of these ‘inspired’, appear not out of nowhere. They conveniently conspire to converge at a critical point in a strange coincidence of events. That critical point of convergence, a coalition of opposition political parties in Malaysia.

SMOKING GUNS AND MIRRORS

All of the so called ‘smoking guns’ that arise mysteriously out of these confessions appear to have mirrors around them for effect. It distorts the truth and provides an illusory semblance  of honesty and integrity.  And these converts to the truth all appear to claim a mysterious road to Damascus conversion. They appear to have suddenly and almost miracleously found their voices and  the courage to speak where none existed before. Much like the carefully cultivated, choreographed and well rehearsed converts at a Billy Graham evangelical crusade.

A typical example of the point made here and an example of the character of this new ” inspired” class is, one Balasubramaniam anak laki Perumal. His Statutory Declaration (the first of two) is a statement purportedly of fact and first hand knowledge of facts where relayed to him otherwise by third parties.

Without good reason though, and like his political ally RPK, Balasubramaniam went AWOL, melted into oblivion when his statements were subjected to the heat of scrutiny. He then conveniently (mysteriously) retracted his first Statutory Declaration  (perhaps the best thing he could have done apart from naming the lawyer who drafted such a document on his behalf) citing fears for his personal safety as his reason for vanishing.

And that’s not the end of the matter either. Balasubramaniam now emerges from hiding. Fires another salvo at the authorities at a time coincidentally when Anwar Ibrahim is to face trial on sodomy charges yet again.  He makes another incredulous claim now that his first Statutory Declaration (Stat Dec) was in fact the true record of his evidence.  He further reinforces the allegations he made in it against those named therein and lists a chronology of events leading to the death of  Altantuya Shaariibuu as fact.

Balasubramaniam is of his own admission a former member of an elite branch of the security apparatus. The Special Branch. An outfit  trained to overcome fears of personal safety in the discharge of their duties.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATION BY BALASUBRAMANIAM ANAK LAKI PERUMAL.

The so called Bombshell. The first Statutory Declaration sworn by Balasubramaniam, who lawyer Amrick Siddhu in a public statement admits (in the presence of Amrick’s own lawyer) to having drafted on Balasubramaniam’s instructions is now subject of wide public interest and speculation.

An extract of that document is found below. From its form and content, the document on closer examination appears to be an attempt at an affidavit but presented in a desultory form of the Statutory Declaration it purports to be.

The notes and the comments below (in red) are those penned in by a lawyer engaged by GRK to review the document for what it purports to be and for its omissions and flaws that could shed light as to why it wass created in the first place. The lawyers name and other details have been witheld by this blog at his request.

One cannot help but be confronted by the glaring omissions, the unsubstantiated hearsay and the embarrassment that is the document arising from the  paucity of legal skills in its drafting.

The question therefore arises a to who actually drafted the document on Balasubramaniam’s behalf, if it indeed was made on Balasubramaniam’s behalf? Could Amrick Siddhu be concealing the true origins of this now highly topical and controversial Statutory Declaration number one by Balasubramaniam?

Amrick Siddhu is widely reported to having admitted to assisting Balasubramaniam, making copious notes about the man, ‘observing his character‘  in the preliminary interview and prior to drafting the Statutory Declaration. Amrick Siddhu of his own words claims to have advised Balasubramaniam of the consequences of making statements that he ought to have reasonably known were either false or inaccurate, proceeds to draft the document in the form of the so called Statutory Declaration. This is of itself conduct that is potentially harmful to Amrick Siddhu’s reputation as a lawyer.

The reasons become clear when one reads the Act that governs Statutory Declarations in Malaysia. There is a plethora of case law within the commonwealth in the context of a lawyer’s legal, professional and ethical obligations to the law when faced with similar circumstances (three qualities that are found badly wanting within the Malaysian legal fraternity) as faced by Amrick Siddhu when drafting Balasubramaniam’s Statutory Declaration. Amrick Siddhu regardless proceeds to draft Balasubramaniam’s Statutory Declaration in the face of all the warning signs available to him as  a lawyer and his own analysis of the situation.

Why anyone would rejoice at the approbation by Balasubramaniam of his first Stautory Declaration is of itself a mystery. Considering the dangers that document now presents to the lawyer Amrick Siddhu who appears to have created or at the very least been party to the creation of the document in the first place one wonders why he continues to advocate for Balasubramaniam and those other forces that lie behind the lie.

REVELATION

BALASUBRAMANIAM PERUMAL’S STAUTORY DECLARATION (THE FIRST OF TWO)

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal … (I believe he is also meant to state his occupation and address here for clarity and completeness) do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force, having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the police field force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance corporal (promoted in what year?) and finally resigned (finally resigned?? does he mean he resigned more than once prior to 1998?) from the police force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch (does not say when he moved to the special branch and under what circumstances and what he did at the special branch. Is that up to the reader to guess or speculate on?).

2. I have been working as a freelance private investigator since I left the police force. (since meaning since 1998 or was it much later after that. If so when then?)

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8am to 5pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party. (what does the term “look after him” mean here?. Was he providing Baginda with personal security services or was he taking care (nursing) of Baginda whilst he was ill? What was so apparent (his words) about disturbances he states here and a third party? What does disturbances by a third party mean? who was that third party? This is speculative nonsense).

4. I resigned from this job after 2½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions. (nothing unusual about his resignation. It would appear that Bala was not good at holding jobs from his work history as he describes it here and from his own statements in paragraph 1. Yet he describes his role with Baginda in para 3 as being employed by him to look after him between the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm each working day. Does that mean he resigned on the third day at approximately 1.30pm? He does not say what instructions he expected and how he expected these to be given to him and what he means by not receiving proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the Oct 5, 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 (Why would someone feel threatened by another who threatens to pay his debts? In a natural situation one would be relieved at the offer and not consider it to be a threat. So which of the two propositions is Bala’s statement meant to convey to the reader? that it was a threat or an offer? Did he actually hear the ‘threat’ he states as fact here and was he able to and by what means identify the person who identified himself as ASP Tan? If not why does he swear to a statement in this Statutory Declaration asserting hearsay which is inadmissible as fact? Was he advised by the solicitor taking his statement that such a statement should not be included in his Statutory Declaration for the dangers of perjury?). I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu (really? how did he find this out? How did he ascertain the relationship between the man whose real name he now identifies as Ang and the citizenship and race of the woman he identifies as Altantuya Shaaribu? How did he make that connection to swear it as fact? and when did he find all of these ‘facts’ out and by what means?).

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him. (Did Abdul Razak Baginda convey all of this information to Bala? If so when how and in exactly what circumstances and what precisely were his words?)

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this (There is no historic record of Mongolia having had any Malay influence in its entire turbulent history to have been capable of having the Malay spiritual cultural phenomenon of Bomoh. Mongolia for decades was a spiritual and religious vacuum under one totalitarian ruler or another. More recently of course the atheistic Soviets. (rumour, speculation and hearsay).

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.( What actually did Baginda say to Bala, where, in what circumstances, what exact words, when and how)

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high-profile people involved. (again where, when, in what circumstances, what words and how)

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people (He is defaming and making value judgements about someone incapable of defending themselves by repeating the defamation, if true, without any substance or evidence capable of supporting his statements in this regard. Again when, where, in what circumstances in what words and how. And more importantly has the lawyer advised Bala of the penalties of making statements he cannot verify or substantiate. Has the lawyer informed him of the need to stick to first hand facts in such a situation? or is the lawyer through his own professional negligence encouraging Bala and leading him on……..I suspect there are voices in the background (metaphorically….not heard here for convenience) She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia. (Again illogical and irrelevant. Whats the meaning of “he even financed a property for her in Mongolia?” a residential unit, half the Russian Steppes? the writings of Genghis Khan?” what property did who finance? and is Bala speculating from speculation? he fails to say who said what, where when and in what words. Scant details and his discredited word only)

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed. (okay. What did the message say specifically for him to arrive at the conclusion that the caller was demanding money and making a threat to harm Baginda and to harass his daughter? Why does he not describe the voices and the quality of the recording? Being a former cop and special branch operative did he at least make mental notes of the event such as the telephone number of the caller on the handphone display, background noises and the language used? Was it male or female. What day did was it that he heard all of this? Did he ask Baginda for details?)

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well (and did he? How did he protect her how and from who or what and what did he protect her?. Why not describe a typical day in his routine now that had have been re employed by Baginda. Surely he must have kept a diary for each of his days as a security operative for such an important individual as Baginda?).

13. On Oct 9, 2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance (what surveillance for whom?, where was he and why was he not with Baginda as required and as he claims earlier as he always was between 8-ooam and 5.00pm on each working day? or was this not a working day? did Baginda know or was he informed that Bala served two masters? did Baginda and the other employer approve of this?) I sent my assistant Suras (Suras who? has he another name? can the prosecution verify that from just the name Suras? Was Suras also engaged by Baginda to protect him? did Baginda authorized the engagement of other individual security officers as part of the deal? Who paid Suras, how much and for what? What were Suras’ duties and how did that fit into your schedule of duties working to protect Baginda?. What was Suras’ background, his training and his skills) to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. (how did Suras control the situation. Why did Bala not describe the situation he refers to in greater detail? Altantuya is described as being demanding and a nuisance in effect. What did he do to ‘persuade her to leave?’) However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya notepaper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given? what was the number?) and wrote down her room number as well.( what was that number, he remembers the name Hotel Malaya and the remainder of the note. Strangely he does not appear to recall an important detail like her room number?)

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda. (How does Bala come to this conclusion about this particular meeting and the details he puts forward?)

15. These three Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda. (Which three girls? why no description, where? what circumstances? no description, no names, no mention of their nationality and race as he provides so descriptively previously on Altantuya how did he manage to conclude they were Mongolians? did they show him their passports?)

16. On Oct 11, 2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently. (What sort of paper was it written on? Hotel Malaya Paper? writing in ink? what colour? what did the message say?)

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.(why? what legal authority or reason would there have been for Bala to have arranged for her arrest?) 

18. In the meantime, I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these three Mongolian girls, but they recognised him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room. ( and this is the same Suras, Bala engaged to conduct security services for an important person on his behalf whose personal safety was entrusted to Balas care? and Bala hired Suras to deputise for him?)

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah (does he mean romatically close or physically close?) he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.(How did he ask Bala to do that What were his words to that effect?)

20. On the Oct 14, 2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t, so I called the police who arrived in two patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.(who at the police station did Bala call? What time did this particular incident occur? what time did Bala call the police and what time did the police arrive? who was in charge of the police at Baginda’s house? were there any other witnesses? did Baginda have family with him at any of these occasions when these incidents complained of with the girls and menacing calls occur?)

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.(What taxi?…where is the description?…..number plate…..taxi cab company name…..What is lawyer Dirren’s full name. How come Bala has details of the various people he meets and comes into contact with to the point of their first names but nothing else?)

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own private investigator, one Mr Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for US$500,000 and three tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris. (who was Bala told all of this by? what words were used? what deal did the speaker say took place in Paris? did he obtain anyd etails of this Mr. Ang? IC Number of full name? in such a situation an ex  trained special branch person would know what to look for in detail and how to in special circumstances obtain it from his subject….in this case Ang  or perhaps ASP Tan)

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably. (who was this police woman and what rank did she hold? What exactly did she say? did she ask Altantuya to leave as well? who else was there? is Aminah Altantuya? or has Bala doubts to express himself in this way when describing the woman he knows as Aminah)

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made (to whom were these demands made? or is Bala referring to the demands he refers to in the previous paragraph of this his stat demand?) and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.(How did Bala express all of these matters to Baginda… what words did he use….or has he no recollection of his words in that conversation?)

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that: 1) He had been introduced to Aminah by Najib Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.( what diamond exhibition? what date what location in Singapore?  would these details not corroborate other assumptions being made?…or linking suspect parties to persons and events? did he also confirm that Aminah was in fact Altantuya? if so why is it not stated here expressly so…is that not relevant?)

2) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse (how does Bala know this to be fact? was he with Baginda when Najib Razak allegedly made this statement?…..did his lawyer not warn him of the dangers of making statements under oath which he could not particularise or authenticate which could lead to perjury or in the alternative to perverting the course of justice or its equivalent in Malaysia?? 

And why susceptible? does Bala mean she had a preference for it or was partial to it? whose words are these like ‘susceptible?’…..clearly they do not form part of the pattern of words found in Bala’s limited vocabulary and appear to have been introduced into this stat declaration by someone else……. Amrick Siddhu? is this Bala’s Stat Declaration or have we a driver here?……is this perhaps someone else’s attempt to introduce the vexed topic of anal intercourse as an accepted practice amongst certain Malay politicans…one is already being charged the second time for the offence albeit against another male….. is this the counter attack against the government’s charges against Anwar for sodomy?).

3) Najib Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the deputy prime minister. (did Bala hear Najib Razak say this to Baginda? Or is it his own highly vivid imagination that leads him to believe this is the case? Or did some one else tell him this is what occurred? why is it in a stat dec and not in an affidavit?)

4) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris. (Really and what proof does Bala have of this contention? When during that time and in what circumstances did Bala go to Paris to be witness to these events he claims occurred? And where does he allude to it here in this paragraph? More importantly who guides Bala to produce these statements? I thought he had a lawyer preparing these statements for him to incorporate into his  Statutory Declaration? did the lawyer know what he was getting himself into?)

5) Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris. (statements 1-5 above are insignificant and inadmissible hearsay said to have been relayed to Bala whose credibility here is suspect. These statements to a very large part are unsubstantiated allegations of events Bala was never privy to of his own admission here and elsewhere in his Statutory Declaration. Why include such statements in a Statutory Declaration? Who inspired this poor half educated chap to go ‘public’ with this mischief?)

26. On Oct 19, 2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual (what car did Bala drive.? Whose car was it? Where outside the house did he park it as usual?). I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with three ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.( Taxi number. Taxi cab company details. Remember this is a trained ex special branch person we are dealing with here. Was it Deepavali? was there a cryptic message in that greeting if it was not Deepavali? Where is the description of the driver? Malay? Chinese? Indian? did he look like a soldier or police man with short back and sides? what was his build and his demeanour?)

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “to delay her until my man comes”. (Has Bala a copy of this SMS record? why is there no reference to this record.  It would show date and time of SMS. Valuable evidence again could corroborate otherwise unsubstantiated allegation.)

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

1) That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Najib Razak. (okay)

2) That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Najib Razak at a dinner in Paris (the dinner when Bala was there as one might imply from a previous reference in this  Statutory Declaration to Najib and Altantuya having dinner in Paris?).

3) That she was promised a sum of US$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris. (okay)

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

5) That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment. (okay)

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

7) That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Najib Razak. (this is admissible as it was what he says was relayed to him directly and personally by the maker of this statement)

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be lance corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plainclothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.(okay)

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said “Yes”. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.(now notice the details Bala provides as to the driver of the vehicles and the other three individuals who arrived in the red Proton Aeroback? is this a case of selective perceptions or coaching?……….. no other instance of a car being described so clearly why? if you want my opinion…I would say that Bala appears to have been coached into making this Stat Declaration. In any event even if he had made this Stat Declaration of his own volition……the document was crafted by a very poorly trained lawyer and could not have been Balas own work.

NOTE

Amrick Siddhu admits to preparing the document on Bala’s instructions which he declared at a press conference around July August of 2009 (youtube). Amrick Siddhu’s  lawyer was also present. My view is that they saw the scheme comming apart from a professional point of view. They realised the dangers of what appears to be fabrication of events and conversations in Bala’s statements and that they could now easily be implicated in aiding Bala in his misconduct in this matter. It has criminal implications for Balasubramaniam and Amrick Siddhu.

This document now serves as an indictment of the Amrick Siddhu, his culpability in what can only be viewed as a fabrication of  lies supported by grave inconsistencies,  made without care (no warning or insufficient warning or advice from the lawyer on the dangers of making statements. There is a level of care required of a lawyer in the discharge of his professional duties which appears to be absent or at the least grossly deficient in this case).

 A lawyer either negligent or simply incompetent in the discharge of his duties.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her (did they say they were arresting her or did Bala simply imply that from his own experience or practices when in the forces? did any of them read her her rights or inform her that she was being arrested?). The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that lance corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah. (He implicates himself in the unlawful detention and abatement of this person Aminah by what he says here. He detains her till the alleged assailants either real or impersonators of policemen and women arrive to take her away ‘under arrest’.)

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred. He SMS’s Baginda but does not say whether or not Baginda was in the house when he arrived. Yet he draws the conclusion he was not there when he informed him of what had transpired outside his home.

33. After Oct 19, 2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7pm to 8am the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia. (Again what’s apparent about this claim? how does he know that all of this occurred. Did Baginda tell him so? if he did Bala fails to include it in his statement here)

34. On the night of Oct 20, 2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before. (why did he not admit to having unlawfully detained Aminah then or subsequently?)

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house. (how so?. Elaborate….more details required….did they say why they were convinced she was being held at the house? what were they saying?? Again Bala fails to say whether he verified Mr. Ang’s credentials)

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi police station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy. (what was the ‘commotion’ about? Was there an argument, a scuffle or a melee? Why no details?)

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi police station. (and Bala’s hand phone would contain details of the call records?)

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

39. On or about Oct 24, 2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report. (lodge a police report…adviced by who?…did Bala see the text message Baginda claims or Bala claims Baginda told him he had received?)

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tony. (Tony who? Bala is a former special branch operative. Yet his ability to retain in his memory or diary critical details of what must to a trained person like him been irregular events appears to be shoddy to say the least if not selective)

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

43. However ASP Tony asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did. (And what did the alternative Bala statement consist of? Does Bala have a copy?)

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 26, 2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own. (How does Bala know he left on his own. He may have arranged to rendezvous with an accomplice on board the aircraft? Speculation)

45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tony from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under Section 506 of the Penal Code for criminal intimidation. (intimidation of who and by what means? and are those allegations true?)

46. I was then placed in the lock-up and remanded for five days. On the third day, I was released on police bail. (has Bala a copy of the charges proffered against him?)

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

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 19, 2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone. (interrogated by who and for how long? Why no details? Who is ASP Pereira? Any idea of his involvement and connections with one Samy Velu? The US intelligence in South East Asia and ASIO appear to know quite about this former UN peace keeping policeman who is believed to be complicit in this entire affair. Does he also go by the name of Tony? Bala appears to admit to having committed an offence against Altantuya or Aminah by unlawfully detaining her. So where is this set up conspiracy theory coming from? is he being selectively truthful or is he a patsy?)

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 am to 6pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Najib Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out. (Why not include the details of what he told them over a period of seven days? There is much material there presumably. That material may be critical to solving Altantuya’s case is it not? or Does Bala suffer from convenient amnesia here? or perhaps worse still have the lawyers deliberately omitted facts here in order to support the wider case of fabrication of a case against the current prime minister of Malaysia and others in which the lawyers behind this document may well be implicated?)

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Najib Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Najib Razak and/or his wife. (Why should the prosecutor have asked Bala about Prime Minister Razak? Whay did Bala want him to ask about the Prime Minister? (a disturbing pattern emerges throughout this  Statutory Declaration which I believe the lawyers who drafted this stat declaration had something to do with. Only an open hearing in an open court will be able to determine the truth to these matters. But whats emerging here is rather sad and shocking if y belief and the evidence of interference by a lawyer is proved) did Bala have more irrelevant fabrications to give the prosecutor to further fabricate allegations against others these lawyers may have wanted him to present in court as part of their wider politically motivated campaign against the current prime minister?)

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response. (How does Bala know this? Where are the specifics other than his speculation and hearsay uncorroborated?)

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”. (Has Bala a copy of this message on his mobile phone? If so can he supply it to an independent investigator? Has anyone else independent of Bala seen it?)

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

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to:

1) State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu. (Bala has a vested interest here…..what standards he had in mind about the conduct of this investigations ? from his own record here one can only speculate….perish the thought. What and why is Bala interested in the conduct of the investigations into the murder of Altantuya Sharibu? Bala has serious problems with his recollection of events as he has recorded in his Statutory Declaration inspite of assistance from Amrick Singh Siddhu. How could he determine what a higher standard of investigation would be?)

2) Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the three accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu. (how does Bala conclude Altantuya was murdered? She could have been a suicide bomber who blew herself up rather than to be humiliated when caught in an illegal arms deal? or she could have been involved in an accident involving the unlawful carriage of explosives. She was after all a woman who admitted to being involved in dealing in arms?)

3) Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case. (there are other ways to do it and why has he chosen a  Statutory Declaration of such poor quality which now places him in a precarious position as to his own character, the reliability of his statements and his motives)

4) Emphasise the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years, I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first. (yet the allegations are precisely this. They are about the Malaysian Police shooting a woman in the head then blowing her up at the behest of the current Prime Minister of Malaysia?……..and the allegations of police shoot outs all over the press over the last couple of years involving unarmed people of Bala’s own community. Perhaps Bala can shed some light on these matters as well??)

5) Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.(Bala did not say this nor give instructions to have these words written expressly as they are written……I’ am prepared to have this entire document tested in an open court for its veracity as to the truth of the assumptions made here and more notably to refute and debunk any notion that Bala made these statements all of his own. Or that the words used here are Balas own words).

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960. (Bala does not give evidence as to who concocted this abortion referring to it as a  Statutory Declaration) Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal July 1, 2008

 

Comments
14 Responses to “Balasubramaniam’s Bombshell- A Naked Conspiracy by Lawyers?”
  1. sri hartamas says:

    Gopal

    The police have to investigate the “loopholes” in Bala’s SD and take action, either to:

    – charge him for making a false SD, or
    – full investigation of the main actors i.e. Najib, Abdul Razak baginda, Rosmah Mansor.

    What I want is that the real killers (AND those who gave the orders to have her killed) be charged and convicted.

    Like

    • grkumar says:

      Intersting you should say ‘loopholes’. Could you be more specific about these ‘loopholes’ in Balas SD?

      We believe the SD was a complete fabrication made with a specific purpose in mind. Getting it admitted into evidence at the trial of Baginda. That of itself is in the view of our legal team criminal conduct on the part of those involved, considering the fact the so called ‘evidence’ was a fabrication where Bala was only a part willing player. A Patsy. He was and remains vulnerable.

      Willing only to the extent of what he knew of the consequenses (which we believe he was not made fully aware of) of making a false declaration. A false declaration constitutes a number of things all of which are present in his SD and the events leading up to it. We won’t detail those here.

      It is the people who brought Bala into the fray, ‘providing him ‘legal advice’, then ‘drafting (as they say) on his behalf and not according to his instructions (according to our legal team) the SD that need to be questioned and charged if necessary. Bala’s lawyers failed him and the law dismally.

      Najib has not been charged. There is no evidence regardless of how people perceive the man to be, to charge him on any count. Apart from rumour and other forms of inadmissible evidence including second and third hand hearsay (much of which is libelous) there is nothing in the form of evidence which could render Najib or his wife liable in the murder or in aiding and abetting the murder of Altantuya Sharibu. We will not be party to a witch hunt or lynch mob.

      If you want the ‘real killers’ to be brought to justice, you must have real evidence (based on fact and not populist rumours) to convict. Your present position means the courts have convicted the wrong people and that you know something the courts, the police and the public do not know about. If your claims are based on evidence, we would be happy to back an investigation into the facts you are able to provide us.

      GRK

      Like

  2. chris says:

    I really pray to almighty god,something like what happened to the mongolian lady happen to you or someone you hold close to your heart and i would like to see if you continue to write like this.

    Like

    • A pathetic response. Thats what the Malaysian Bar has been purusing all this while with Anwar. A sensational pursuit of one individual with no proof to support their allegations.

      Hoping something like this happens to someone I love will not bring closure to the death of Altantuya Sharibu nor will it be the magic wand to cure the defective approach of the Malaysian bar nor will it somehow make the prime minister of Malaysia guilty of her death.

      To achieve that one needs solid evidence admissable and that too to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Not gossip and malicious gossip.

      My suspicions are that even if solid proof existed, there would be great difficulty amongst Malaysian lawyers being able to identify the proof.

      GRK

      Like

  3. chris says:

    At least Bala anak lelaki PERUMAL, but how about you?

    Like

  4. iskandar johan says:

    since Malysian Bar and Pakatan Rakyat already know about this so called Najib Conspiracy why dont you all including Bala come out with all the evidences???

    accusing does not one guilty la aa..

    Like

    • grkumar says:

      Since when did Pakatan and Malaysian Bar “know about” the so called Najib conspiracy? what evidence Bala had is evident in the analysis here. he had none, has none and his lawyer must answer for it.

      The Malaysian Bar are fast becoming a collection of drunks, drunk on the disproprotionate power they undeservedly weild over apopulation too ignorant to do anything about it. A marriage of convenience you might say. Bala would have difficult spelling ‘dirty underpants” let alone a word like susceptible.

      Amrick Singh Siddhu has yet to come out publicly and redeem his personal and professional integrity. So far we have not received any threatss to sue for that proverbial MYR 100 million like Anwar unsuccessfully did.

      GRK

      Like

  5. ZAR says:

    Dear GRK

    I respect your comments, there is like to much question that Bala have to answer against the SD drafted.
    Keep the good works bro !!!

    Like

    • grkumar says:

      Dear ZAR

      its not Bala who ought to be made responsible for the manufactured SD. And it is a manufactured document whether or not Bala was a willing or part willing participant in its making. It is his lawyer that must be brought to account. Therre is an open challenge to Amerik Singh Siddhu to redeem his reputation wwhich he continues to dodge and has tthus far failed to do. He has a legal, ethical and professional obligaiton to answer for his negligence, his failures and the resultant defamation and cavalier contempt for the law he has thus far displayed.

      the fight goes on. Bala is a half educated man with a demonstrated inability to whip up what he is being pawned to do.

      GRK

      Like

  6. Ferris_l says:

    After reading the blog ..i wonder to what extend of details need to concluded as an ex-special branch.

    Like

  7. Given that we’re speaking about things within the region of Balasubramaniam’s Bombshell- A Naked Conspiracy by Lawyers? | Gopal Raj Kumar, One of the main criticisms of positivism as a theory came in light of the linguistic considerations of HLA Hart, a leading international legal philosopher. He stated that the positive law is far from fixed in nature, for the simple reason that language is not fixed.

    Like

  8. grkumar says:

    Language may not be fixed which is all the more reason Balasuubramaniam’s language ought not to have been ‘fixed’ by the lawyers that manipulated him and his statements.

    Whilst you correctly quote from Hart a jurist and legal philosopher in terms of language not being fixed, his comments are taken out of context when you appear to suggest that because language is not fixed, one may therefore engage in fixing language?

    It is the substance of the affidavit and not simply form over substance. It is both form and substance that give the game away coupled with Balasubramaniam’s own perfidious conduct in admitting to lying.

    Thank you for your comments.

    GRK

    Like

Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] link: Balasubramaniam's Bombshell- A Consiracy by Lawyers? « Gopal Raj Kumar Share and […]

    Like



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: