CECIL ABRAHAM- A LYNCHING BY THE MALAYSIAN BAR

A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO A STATUTORY DECLARATION DRAWN BY CECIL ABRAHAM

In what may be a case of over playing their hand, the Malaysian Bar may have unwittingly created then walked into a trap of its own making by demanding, that a hearing into allegations of professional  misconduct against Cecil Abraham, a lawyer of their own ranks, be held in public.

Cecil Abraham is alleged to have, in short, ‘concocted’ the Statutory Declaration (SD) made by the controversial late Balasubramaniam Perumal (Bala) a private investigator who claimed to have known everything behind the life and death of Mongolian prostitute Altantuya Sharibu.

In addition to this, Abraham is alleged to have coerced the late Bala into signing a retraction of an earlier SD Bala swore, courtesy of his handlers, lawyers Amrick Singh Siddhu and another lawyer Sivarasa MP.

BALASUBRAMANIAM A TICKING TIME BOMB-AN UNMITIGATED LIAR

Bala came into notoriety after having made several claims which he later retracted, amended or materially changed about his involvement in and his engagement with those allegedly involved with the woman called Altantuya.

Bala also claimed to have had first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the mysterious and controversial death of Altantuya Sharibu.

Notably none of Bala’s claims about the Altantuya affair and the surrounding peripheral issues that kept the story and media attention on him alive were consistent. He provided no proof of his assertions nor did any of the evidence in the courts on the trial of the two people convicted of murdering Altantuya corroborate Bala’s exaggerations and fanciful stories.

Bala’s recollection of events, “facts” and “statements” about the Altantuya affair, whenever presented an opportunity to air “his role” as a bodyguard of Razak Baginda and his time with Altantuya were at best irrelevant, inconsistent or hazy the second time round. Much of his recollections on reflection were made up by the man caught up in the spotlight of someone else’s misery.

BALA-AMRICK SINGH SIDDHU-SIVARASA AND MANJIT DHILLON-BIRDS OF A FEATHER?

Balasubramaniam and his lawyers, Amrick Singh Siddhu and Sivarasah have both of their own material made admissions in public on the record to having ‘assisted’ Bala, a semi literate man, not only to prepare his SD but to also in the process author and edit its contents.

There are words in the Bala SD that did not belong in Bala’s limited vocabulary. Siddhu, with Sivarasah and Dhillon in the now infamous “press briefings”  of 4 July 2008 admit to their part in crafting Bala’s litany of lies they call his SD. Lies because Bala’s statements have not been proved to be anything else and appear to have no basis at all in the truth.

AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL? NOT THE MALAYSIAN BAR

The call by the Malaysian Bar for Cecil Abraham to have the proverbial torch put to his belly in a public circus they intend to choreograph over Bala’s SD is something Abraham and his lawyers ought to welcome and encourage. 

However in order that any hearing against Cecil Abraham be seen and for it to be impartial and fair, the Malaysian Bar and Abraham should not have any part in the selection process of the panel to conduct that hearing.

The Malaysian Bar, because it is a political organization and their call for investigating Cecil Abraham a political exercise.

Cecil Abraham on the other hand should have no part in the selection of the panel for the lesser reason that he is the accused, the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the Malaysian Bar.

OPEN TRIBUNALS TO CHECK CONSPIRACIES AND LIES

Self regulation even in the hands of trusted and highly learned men and women of the professional classes is subject to the frailties and weaknesses of human nature. And no better example of self regulation falling victim to the frailties of human nature can be found anywhere else than in the Malaysian Bar.

JUST FOR THE RECORD-LEST WE FORGET

In 4 July of 2008 the following event occurred staged by the protagonists featured in a youtube recording of a press briefing by Siddhu, Sivarasa and Dhillon about the Bala SD.

In this press briefing is a taped Malaysia Kini press conference called by Siddhu, Sivarasa MP and Manjeet Dhillon to explain the circumstances in which Bala’s SD was created.

In that briefing Dhillon referring to himself as Siddhu’s lawyer provides critical admissions with his self destructive, inculpatory testimony of Siddhu’s conduct  in the drafting of Bala’s SD. (A point to note here).

Sivarasah does not come to the conference armed with a lawyer but Siddhu does. (and why?)

The following is a transcript of the final minutes of that press briefing called by Siddhu, Sivarasa and Dhillon recorded by Malaysia Kini uploaded 4 July 2008 given by Siddhu, Sivarasa and  Siddhu’s lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon.

In that press conference Siddhu’s legal representative, lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon takes to the microphone to defend Siddhu by making the following statements appearing below in italics:

(Notably none of the lawyers present rebutted any of the statement below issued by Dhillon:)

Fatally, lawyer Sivarasa’s contribution to the conference implicates him as well in what has always been suspected to be a politically motivated conspiracy (the Altantuya affair) by members of the Malaysian Bar on behalf of Anwar Ibrahim and the opposition political parties:

Manjeet Singh Dhillon commenting on Balasubramaniam’s affidavit and Siddhu’s role in the July 4 press briefing in 2008 says thus. (underlined for emphasis by the  author)

As far as Amrick is concerned he is (sic) discharging his duties as lawyer. He was basically helping to prepare and format the document (in context the Balasubramaniam SD).  He was not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the document. The document was presented…information on the document was coming from his client and he merely put it in the necessary language of the SD. That declaration was then sworn voluntarily before a commissioner of oaths. Mr. Amrick Singh’s position was that is was a voluntary document……..”  

A LAWYER’S DUTY TO HIS CLIENT THE LAW AND THE COURTS

Critically Siddhu says through Dhillon his lawyer ‘he was not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the document’ (meaning Balas statements in the controversial Bala SD). If that statement by Siddhu made on his behalf by his lawyer Dhillon does not constitute professional misconduct, professional negligence or misleading conduct by Siddhu, Dhillon and Sivarasa then the tribunal and the Malaysian Bar have a serious problem which goes to their credibility and competence.

Such a statement as that made by Dhillon on Siddhu’s behalf and not withdrawn or retracted by Siddhu or Dhillon  at the earliest possible opportunity to do so and within a reasonable time, incriminates Siddhu in a material particular in so far as the offence of professional misconduct and professional negligence is concerned.

In Siddhu’s case, he either knew very well what the purpose of the Bala SD was drawn and sworn for or at the very least he was reckless as to what Bala and his handler’s were attempting to achieve by that SD. Dhillon corroborates this point very well and willingly at the press briefing referred to here.

Siddhu cannot deny that knowledge now, having for so many years been embedded in the heart of the political circus now know as the Altantuya affair.

A lawyer as an officer of the court cannot afford to be negligent, callous or unconcerned about the truth or otherwise (meaning falsehoods) of a statutory declaration or any other document he draws up on behalf of a client.

An SD of the Bala variety was intended and used as evidence to further allegations against Malaysia’s Prime Minister and his wife in an attempt to falsely implicate them in the murder of prostitute Altantuya Sharibu.

Knowing or reckless as to whether the contents of the evidence (being the material in the SD) was true or otherwise is an explicit admission to misleading conduct.  And it misled many an agency, the public and distorted the truth about Altantuya and how she died.

A lawyer has a duty to caution his client (the deponent) about the penalties for falsehoods and the consequences of perjury, make every reasonable effort to determine the veracity and the truth of the statements the deponent swears to before him (especially where he assists in drafting it contents) as an SD. Amrick Singh appears to have avoided that duty of his as a lawyer assisting Bala.

Where the lawyer does not witness the signing of the deposition in the SD, then he ought to at least be certain that what he has drawn in the SD on behalf of the deponent is as far as he is able to reasonably ascertain, accurate in the circumstances, reliable and the truth.

A lawyer has an overriding obligation to ensure the document is neither false, over stated nor made without regard for the truth or prospect of proof being reasonably deduced out of what is deposed to in the SD. It is after all evidence.

Amrick Singh Siddhu wantonly and deliberately avoided all of his professional responsibilities in this respect.

WHO DID BALA BELONG TO?

At law, no one has property over a witness. This is especially true as concerns a witness like Bala in court proceedings.

In order to demonstrate there was an ongoing exclusive relationship between lawyer and client in Siddhu’s case, the panel of inquiry must be shown and be satisfied that there was  an unconflicted relationship between Bala and his interests as a client of Siddhu. Siddhu must demonstrate the unconflicted interests of his and those of  with Sivarasah and Dhillon in a given matter or retainer.

Conversely with Abraham the panel must be shown there existed an unconflicted relationship between Bala and Abraham at that point of time that Bala approached Abraham to act for him.

Further still it must also be shown and satisfactory to the tribunal that those interests of Bala’s for which Siddhu is said to have originally been retained by Bala (if in fact he was) did not conflict with any of Abraham’s ethical obligations to Siddhu as a lawyer when he is said to have taken on a retainer from Bala.

WHOSE CLIENT WAS BALA AND WHEN DOES A RETAINER TERMINATE?

Critically the relationship between Bala and Siddhu can only be resolved by Siddhu placing before the tribunal evidence of the written retainer he claims between himself, his firm and Bala signed by the parties.

Equally important a question will be how Siddhu was paid for his services by Bala a man said to be impecunious (and subjected to the torments of temptation with bribery by many).

Once that element of the professional lawyer client relationship between Siddhu and Bala is established as proof of what it purports to be, it is then open to Abraham to rebut Siddhu’s claim against him. He does this by demonstrating that the matter Bala came to retain him for (the controverted second Statutory Declaration) did not in fact place him Abraham (and not Siddhu) in a position of potential conflict with his (Abraham’s) ethical obligations to Siddhu under the legal profession act.

This simply means that at the time Bala approached Cecil Abraham, Abraham did not have an existing retainer to say act for Siddhu in some other matter: or that Abraham was not engaged in a matter with a nexus to Siddhu’s interests conflicting with Bala’s instructions to Abraham, Dhillon, Sivarasah or Siddhu.

If such a relationship arose through Bala’s ‘lawyer shopping’ it could well have breached Abraham’s ethical obligations to both client (Bala) and Siddhu under the Legal Profession Act. No such conflict is known to have existed or declared to exist or claimed by Bala, Siddhu or Abraham.

If such a conflict (or potential for conflict) did exist, it has not been placed in evidence before the tribunal or any other tribunal from our knowledge. The Malaysian Bar as a starting point should because of its own rules have been informed by Siddhu of that conflict. The Bar it appears was not.

However and judging from the Malaysian Bar’s recent history of direct involvement in politics, and amongst other matters, the Altantuya matter, it could well have been aware of Siddhu’s conflict but chose instead to ignore it.

If Abraham is to be believed, then Abraham was dealing with a matter that necessarily (by implication of Bala’s conduct in approaching him), ended the retainer between Bala and Siddhu.

TERMINATION OF RETAINER-  MOVING FROM CIVIL TO CRIMINAL

In approaching Abraham over the issue of the SD, Bala is necessarily and by implication of his conduct suggesting that there was a problem with his previous SD drafted by Siddhu.

It is implied that something caused Bala to either loose his confidence in Siddhu or feel that he needed to end his retainer with Siddhu. Siddhu after all by his trade mark conduct would have compromised any lawyer client privilege by going public with matters relating to Bala, his evidence and matters relating to his alleged involvement in the Altantuya affair.

There is another possibility: Bala may have felt that the Siddhu drafted SD was not a reflection of what he Bala had intended to put down in a Statutory Declaration and wanted the SD rectified or withdrawn and replaced with a new SD that more accurately reflected what he had to depose to under oath.

In such circumstances as described above, all that was needed was for Bala to formalize the termination of his retainer with Siddhu by putting it in writing, or for Abraham to write to Siddhu with a note from Bala confirming his instructions that he Bala would be terminating his retainer with Siddhu in favour of the new retainer with Abraham.

At this point the relationship between the parties changes. Siddhu becomes a potential witness in a criminal matter involving Bala and his SD. Such a situation carries with it professional misconduct and criminal implications and possible sanctions against both Bala and Siddhu, possibly vis a vis each other.

Further still in circumstances as sensitive and controversial as that which Bala had made previously about his personal security and safety, it would not have been unprofessional or unethical for Abraham not to have informed Siddhu immediately or at all about the change of Bala’s circumstances (retainer).

He would have logically waited perhaps, after receiving advise from the police, to who Abraham should have reported Bala’s personal safety concerns. (which would include  informing the police of Bala approaching him over his complaint and the personal safety issues).

Given the circumstances of Bala’s history of duplicity and contradictions and his paranoia of the police it would be excusable if he instructed Abraham not to contact the police. But that of itself does not exonerate Siddhu, Dhillon and Sivarasa.

MH 17 HOW DOES THE WEST KNOW SO MUCH SO SOON?

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (2001) Now Malaysian Airlines MH 17 (2014)

Siberianairlines

Oleksandr Kuzmuk, pictured above, the Ukrainian Minister of Defense who resigned after the shooting down of Siberian Airlines Flight 1812.

WAS PUTIN THE INTENDED TARGET OF THE MISSILE ATTACK

Times of India one of many media organizations reports that there is speculation that Vladimir Putin’s aircraft may have been the intended target of the missile battery that brought down MH 17. Both planes are painted in similar colours and if visual contact was required to take out the target, the colours of a Malaysian Airlines aircraft are eerily and deceptively similar enough to look like Putin’s Illyushin IL 96 aircraft.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

Whats interesting is that the Times of India once owned by Bennett Coleman is a very pro western paper with one of the largest if not the widest circulation of any publication in the English speaking world.

The claim or suggestion by the Times of India is no more a conspiracy theory than that being floated by US vice president Joe Biden and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott about what and how MH 17 met its end.

Perhaps the Air India pilots who flew within visual range of the ill fated MH 17 could shed some light on what occurred. They were only 25 Kms behind MH 17.

ANOTHER UKRAINIAN SHOOTING OF A CIVILIAN AIRLINER? LEST WE FORGET

The precedent for the shooting of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 in the Ukraine is the shooting down in 2001 of a Russian built Tupolev passenger jet a TU 154 by Ukrainian Armed Forces missile batteries on October 4, 2001.

In that crash 64 Siberian Air passengers and 12 crew on board the ill fated aircraft en route from Novosibirsk to Tel Aviv were killed when the plane was shot down over the Black Sea by a Ukrainian missile. No reason was cited for the shooting down of the plane except for the speculation that it was a military exercise gone wrong. The victims were mainly Jews.

There was an outpouring of grief and the Ukrainians were described as anti Semites by various Jewish groups following this event (and for their history of supporting Hitler and their documented careless disregard for human life in world war 2). It did not help that at the time of the crash their denials over the shooting down of a civilian airliner were equally careless as it is with the crash of MH 17.

More notably the Ukrainian armed forces then too offered speculative reasons as to what happened attempting to blame others for the shooting down of the Air Siberia TU 154.

DENIALS THEN AS THEY ARE NOW

It took a while for the Ukraine to admit that it had in fact shot down the aircraft. And that too after considerable pressure was brought to bear on the Ukrainian leadership by Russian investigators.

Ukraine’s then-president, Leonid Kuchma, eventually conceded that the Ukrainian military was responsible for the shooting down of the Russian passenger jet.

The day of the shoot-down of the aircraft occurred at a time the Ukrainian military was conducting a massive exercise which involved shooting down 23 missiles at drones.

“Experts say that the radar-guided S-200, among the farthest-flying and most capable anti aircraft missiles in the arsenal of former Soviet nations (at the time), simply locked onto the Russian airliner after it raced past the destroyed drone some 20 miles off the Crimean coast,” the New York Times’ Michael Wines reported then.

Then President of the Ukraine Leonid Kuchma accepted the resignation of his Minister of Defense, Oleksandr Kuzmuk, following the admission that the military was culpable.

From 2003 to 2005, Ukraine paid a total of $15.9 million to families of victims following a deal with the government of Israel.

Oddly enough the Ukrainians today rush to play what they say (without independent verification) that they intercepted radio conversation between Russian backed separatists discussing the shooting down of an aircraft at the same time MH 17 went down.

The west likewise keen to demonize the Russians and to take the heat off  the Ukraine on one side whilst conveniently taking the attention off Israel’s butchering of Palestinians by Israel’s military on the other is playing up that smokescreen of Ukrainian “evidence” that Pro Russian separatists brought the aircraft down.

If it indeed was a Russian mistake then how different a mistake would it be to that of the US shooting down an Iranian Air civilian passenger aircraft in the late 1980’s? In that particular instance, the US claimed its radar could not distinguish between civilian and military aircraft. How criminally convenient. But the west bought that excuse till the Pan Am disaster over Lockerbie believed to be revenge for the downing of the Iranian passenger jet. But the US un willing to test the resolve of the Iranians if they went toe to toe over that incident chose Libya instead to pin the tail on for Lockerbie.

THE MYTH OF THE AUDIO INTERCEPT

The latest from the “audio intercept” as the Ukrainians claim to have in their possession is one which requires very close scrutiny for what it does not say rather than for what it purports to.

The Russians have one of the most sophisticated field radio systems for communication in a battle zone which is designed to hop frequencies and to avoid detection.

The Russian made anti aircraft radio or wire guided missile batteries (BUK) which the Ukrainians and the Americans say brought down  MH 17 is in the military inventories of both nations.

The BUK (s 300 or its predecessor S 200) is a Russian designed and built anti aircraft system often marketed to client states via Belorussia and the state arms corporation Rosoboronexport. To “brother states” like the Ukraine it is sold directly. Most former Soviet states have these missiles in their inventories.

It seems that social media is attributing many absurd claims about the crash of MH 17 to a pro Russian military commander.  And the US and Australia appear to be lending credibility to these absurd comments each time they appear in the  press.

IT WAS ” (THE MUSLIM) COSSACKS” AND THE GRU- GOOD GUYS BAD GUYS

The rush to blame Russia and the Cossacks (the ethnic Muslim Russians who live in the Ukraine supporting Russia) in the “intercepted radio messages” is suspect.  Being Muslims they the Cossacks are an easy target of hatred worldwide. The apocryphal so called radio message “audio intercept” released by the Ukraine does not support Russian  (or any other trained army) protocols for communication on the battlefront in the field.

The Russians and their allies do not contact the GRU directly just as the filed operatives of US backed militia in Iraq, Afghanistan or other battle zones do not contact the CIA and its director directly to report an event. It is highly improbable and would be unprecedented if it did occur.

NEW IDEAS NEW TACTICS- NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER

There was no such radio intercept of the downing of the 3 other aircraft supposedly downed by Pro Russians separatists in the Ukraine. Suddenly all sides change tactics radically with the Pro Russian separatists speaking to the head of the GRU Igor Sergun and a Russian Major in the armed forces of the Russian Federation we are asked to believe by Holland and the US.

Then we have the paradigm shift in Ukrainian tactics of intercepting highly classified but uncoded open line communications between pro Russian separatists and Moscow.

What is tragic about this incident coming so close to the heels of the yet unsolved MH370 incident is that civilians are now more than ever coming to grips that there is no such thing as “innocent bystanders in a conflict”. That phrase coined by a Palestinian hijacker who hijacked a BOAC VC 10 aircraft in the early 1970’s told his passengers appears to have been prophetic indeed.

A LESSON FOR MAS AND THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT

It is time the government of Malaysia and its national Airline learned how to deal with the world and the western media by engaging professional media consultants regardless of their race colour class or creed when dealing with such disasters.

There is nothing wrong in an investment in quality, impressive public speakers (without the fake US accents) personnel, trained, knowledgeable  and savvy when dealing with the international media.

As it stands the prime ministers own ability to impress is impaired following the MH 370 incident. The then acting minister Hishamuddin Onn although not incompetent was short of what the media had expected. There is a special skill required to deal with a media organizations and agencies run by sensationalists ready and waiting to bait an ill prepared minister or other official in such situations. And that damage from not being prepared in such situations may be irreversible.

There is an art and a skill not present within the existing Malaysian media scrum. Neither is it present in Malaysia’s government apparatus capable of dealing with such a situation. And that’s a disaster in itself.

Government needs spokespersons who are skilled. People who are informed, with a legal background, international current affairs specialists who are forensic, articulate and possessed of people and crisis management skills sufficient for them to be able to interact amiably with the diverse and often hostile international media that throng to KL each time something like this occurs.

The Staccato Malaysian accent is horrible and for most of the time not understood. With punctuation and expressions all misplaced in what should otherwise be a short and sharp response is often dragged on, disabled by the accent, the diction, mispronounced words and inappropriate analogies.

It is best that Malaysia give the media a plausible explanation of events than for them to make up their own minds and lend their own interpretations in frustration from dealing with incompetent spokespersons.

Such a situation always ends up causing untold damage to a nation that has gained so much in a short time and has so much to lose in a shorter time by the poor handling of these events.

 

 

 

ANWAR THE END

ANWAR: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

The Malaysian opposition in politics is doomed to repeat the failures of its leading light Lim Kit Siang, the longest serving opposition leader anywhere in the world.  Being in opposition is all Lim it appears has achieved in his political lifetime. And that’s Lim’s legacy. It is now likely to be passed on like that proverbial poisoned chalice  to Anwar Ibrahim or anyone else who succeeds him in opposition.

Recent events and developments in the fortunes of  Parti Keadlian Rakyat (PKR) leader seems to suggest that Anwar may have already drunk out of that poisoned chalice of Lim’s.

The Malaysian government (if that’s who is behind  the timing of the Court of Appeal decision against Anwar: although there is no evidence to back up that proposition), could not have chosen a better time to destroy Anwar Ibrahim than now. With the reversal of his acquittal on the charge of sodomy in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur Anwar is now set to face a further test of his credibility as a person and as a politician. 

Yet there are those who will say that the Court of Appeal’s decision on the Sodomy charge against Anwar Ibrahim is politically motivated and timed. Lawyers are amongst these critics. And if it is indeed the case that the timing has been politically motivated then, why not? we ask.

Anwar is a politician with a history of playing dirty and outside of the Rule of Law and the rules of fairness and justice (The Fairuz Video for one).

For all intents and purposes Anwar’s ambitious play for the Kajang seat is over before it even began.  A political still birth. His political fate has been sealed with a criminal conviction and a jail sentence.

Anwar may now be barred from contesting the Kajang by election under Article 48 (e) of the Federal Constitution. Under that particular article of the Federal Constitution he is disqualified under the Constitution from holding office as a member of parliament.

The courts are not bound to stay the sentence imposed on him by the Court of Appeal pending a further appeal on his behalf. A stay of execution is not a right that accrues to Anwar but a discretion in the hands of the judges to exercise if they are persuaded to do so. And considering how the legal fraternity and Anwar have treated the courts in the recent past, they should not expect the good graces of the courts and judges who they have brought into disrepute to prevail. The courts are not inclined to show any mercy or tolerance for the man or his mission. It would be inimical to justice and the preservation of the reputation and integrity of the courts and its judges to do so.

An analysis of the law and a prelude to Anwar’s acquittal being quashed is to be found in our earlier article here from 201.

https://takemon.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/anwar-naked-but-free/

PARALYZED FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES

The US, especially presidential hopeful and big time Anwar supporter, Hillary Clinton and her president Obama are in a pickle in the Ukraine now.

Having backed a bloody coup there by the Nazi group Svoboda in the Ukraine ( a group not unlike what Bersih is to Malaysia), the US and Hillary are now faced with a reality they had not foreseen or calculated into the matrix of politics in that region. Those same failures appear to have manifested themselves in Egypt, Syria, Malaysia, Thailand and Libya.

These American funded “Springs” abroad are quickly turning into winters of discontent and rivers of blood everywhere. In light of whats happening in the Ukraine and with Putin’s fight back and local resistance, Anwar and his problems pale into insignificance and irrelevance as far as the west is concerned. Anwar and his mates (Ambiga included) are no priority for the west to deal with now.

The west have bigger fish to fry and their hands are getting burned in the process. Their media will throw a one liner on and off in the interests of hedging their bets on Anwar Ambiga and their minions. Anwar is a non entity. Ambiga is on a very slippery slope and a watch list.

WHO AND WHAT IS ANWAR?

Anwar is a man whose sole objective in his personal and political life has always been his ego and that of his family dynasty  interests (apart from demonizing Dr. Mahathir). And as long as that remains his creed and the main focus of his politics he will continue to be a target of his opponents, friends and foes alike. And as long as he treats the law and the courts with contempt, he can expect nothing better in return.

Anwar will continue to fall into traps he sets for others and in the process he will continue to shoot himself in what remains of his already shot out foot.

The fact of Anwar Ibrahim’s bi sexuality is legend from his days at Malay College. The fact he has been unable to shake off allegation after allegation against him in this regard is where his main problem lies. His supporters are in large part to blame for his problems. Its always been and always will be only about Anwar and his family versus Dr. Mahathir and not about his no show policies. And that’s been a fatal flaw for the opposition and Anwar in general.

Western Gay lobbies wanting to transplant their life styles and interests into the Malaysian socio political and cultural milieu stand tall amongst Anwars backers. The others who pursue personal and political interests of their own using him are the likes of Ambiga Sreenivasan  and the Kit Siang dynasty. Neither of the latter or former are any different to Anwar in many respects.

In previous articles on this blog we warned of these so called Anwar supporters. Anwar paid no heed to these warnings. Instead we were subjected to the invectives and threats by PKR supporters and followers .

Anwar should have learned to rely less on each of these so called ‘supporters,’ each of who has an agenda of their own whilst riding comfortably on his coat tails. There is no cohesion within the opposition. There never will be any as they represent disparate mainly personal interests which have no alignment with national priorities. And they never will win in their present form. That’s also because the opposition one hears of is not the only opposition to government in Malaysia. PKR are merely another set of loud mouths amongst many.

THE OPPOSITION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COURTS

Each time the “opposition” to government in Malaysia receives a favourable judgment in the Malaysian courts, they refer to the judges who hand down those judgements as “Brave” “Great” and “Good”. Whenever an unfavourable judgment comes down on any of them or their activities however just that judgment may be, they attack the government in all its forms, the judiciary and the courts in the process.

Such conduct may be forgiveable (although it is not) when lay people attack the integrity of the courts and judges. However these attacks are often the work of lawyers and politicians. As lawyers these critics are officers of the courts, sworn to protect its integrity, to maintain and uphold its dignity at all times. They do not. That’s a dereliction of the duty of the Malaysian Bar Council and its members. And the buck ought to stop with them.

Back to Anwar Ibrahim and his present dilemma. Anwar may have thought he was running free. However he does run around like a desperate man with his past catching up behind him (if you will excuse the pun).

Anwar knew all along that the ghost of his Sodomy past ( and other sexual indiscretions) would come back to haunt him. The video images of Anwar in his tryst with an unnamed prostitute was merely the tip of a large moral iceberg. His wife and daughter as first family in waiting ought to have said or done something about it. They did not.

ANWAR THE MAN ?

Anwar has never been known for his discretion. Quite the opposite. He has an ego the size of Mount Everest. Where he has no stage he  is prone to creating one either by standing on the weaknesses of others or by creating a platform of cheap rhetoric and personal attacks on others he despises. Judges, the courts and parliament. This is because Anwar is a man with whom time has caught up and to whom his mortality is now a reality.

He looks gaunt, tired, frail and emaciated at the best of times. The reasons for this are best known to those close to him. Anwar does not like being attacked. He does not mind others being the target of his bile and vitriol though.

Anwar has nothing of an achievement in political terms to boast of as a politician or a leader. His promises of late (the last decade) have been remarkable for its failures to deliver. He has never given up an opportunity to miss out on an opportunity either.

ANWAR’S PROMISES OF A SECULAR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND FAIR PLAY

The contradictions of Anwar and his PKR (his family) are best manifest in the recent matrimonial dispute between his daughter and her beau.

Whilst spitting out secularism and democracy from one side of the PKR mouth to frothing point, Nurull Izah chose the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts to launch her divorce proceedings against the prince she married. So much for support of secular promises by the PKR.

On another score, his wife and daughter both have an overriding obligation to their constituents and to the public they claim to serve, to have said something about Anwar’s sexuality and, at the very least to have said something about the state of their family. They are after all a first family in waiting and we have a right to know about them.

There is no privacy in public life for them to hide behind. As public figures their trademark has been to condemn and defame anyone who they disagree with. Yet Wan Azziza and Nurull have remained deafening silent on at least the video. What kind of first family does the country deserve?

In the view of the PKR Datin Rosmah, the family of former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammed is fair game but not the first family in waiting of Anwar, Wan Azziza and Nurul.

A year ago the country was in the grip of election fever. Anwar was so confident he would trounce the Barisan to snatch government from them and went around distributing victory speeches to select western media representatives, requesting an Australian journalist put the finishing touches to his draft.

It was not to be so and he cried foul losing the support of even those Gay journalists from abroad who crowd around the man often enough hoping he will be the crest of that tsunami sweeping the west in the advancement of Gay rights ‘uber alles’.

We reported from interviews with prominent Saudi Wahhabi clerics just prior to the elections last year 2013. Each of these clerics said Anwar categorically that Anwar was the forerunner to an Islamic state in Malaysia. And they blessed him.

A GOOD OPPOSITION IS NECESSARY BUT NOT THE PKR

Anwar is not being honest. He never was and never will be. There is and always will be need for an opposition whether that be in Malaysia, England, Japan or the USA. But an opposition for the sake of an opposition is a recipe for disaster as it is evident in Malaysia.

A weak and incompetent opposition like the PKR strengthens government and reduces its efficiency paving the way for weaknesses and yes corruption. But there is an opposition in Malaysia and it is not only the PKR or Chinese assemblies like the DAP.

The opposition we speak of does not take to the streets on Hillary Clinton and George Soros’s money or that of the National Endowment for Democracy. They are more into engagement and negotiation, proper political discourse and argument even if through blogging and writing.

The opposition we refer to are people who are proudly independent and can rely on their own intellect, intelligence and their ability to fight within a democratic parliamentary constitutional government. Their arguments based on merit, fact and not rumour. But they are not the stuff the pretend journalists of the alternative media are interested in. These are the silent achievers who do not have a finger in someone else’s pie.

A BAG OF HOT AIR

Anwar shifts his policies (what policies?) and his preferences, his position on any topic like the proverbial fly does from turd to turd. He has no policies other than the borrowed clichés from wherever it falls.

He moves from constituency to constituency and from electorate to electorate unnerving even some of his closest aides and advisors. And yes Bloomberg and other trash rags seeking world domination through street campaigns would love that.

Anwar has not once posited a single costed policy of his which could be identified as an alternative to what government can or already does not provide to the citizens of Malaysia. He instead boasts of a ‘one size fits all’ raft of promises which can never be achieved in the manner he says it could be.

SODOMY AN ACQUITTAL CAN BE APPEALED- BAD LEGAL ADVICE

In 2012 a court acquitted (not dismissed ) Anwar on a charge of sodomy against his wife’s driver. That acquittal if read closely, was a precursor to an appeal. That appeal has now resulted in a higher court setting aside or overturning that earlier acquittal. The reasons for the earlier court’s decision was flawed.

That decision was unsound and the reasoning for that acquittal was peppered with appealable content chapter and verse. Anwar allowed to speak from the dock let out a tirade then which was used to hang him recently. That was the fatal flaw of his over confident lawyer. He hid from an opportunity to be cross examined, his alibis (all 13 of them) having disappeared in the heat of the hearing.

Adding to this problem one might want to know why someone like Anwar, a moving target of the government as he claims he is, would continually find himself in hot water.

To find an answer to that question a cursory read of the application drafted by lawyers acting for the Catholic church in the Allah affair would hold a clue. Anwar was and continues to be represented by incompetence from amongst the Malaysian legal profession to compliment his own.

BAD LEGAL SKILLS HANG THE DEFENCE

The Church’s application is a prolix document which relegates to a small appendix at the end of their application, the questions they seek to have resolved by the court.

A copy of that 50 page document is supplied in PDF form at this site: http://www.loyarburok.com/2014/03/05/allah-submissions/

The document is preceded by what is meant to be a set of legal arguments. Much of what is in their pleadings in that document is not footnoted, has little reference to legal authorities or merit from a legal perspective. It is desultory and haphazardly cut and paste. It has little in the character of properly drafted set of pleadings by skilled lawyers.

This is what Anwar and the church are faced with as an opposition to government. And till they are able to correct those flaws in their strategies and their ranks they are doomed to wander in the proverbial political wilderness.

ANWAR A MAN WITH MANY DAGGERS STUCK IN HIS BACK

It was clear a long time back that Anwar would never be prime minister of Malaysia. At least not while he has his so called “allies” and “advisers” remain with him in the PKR.

There is not a single force within the opposition from Bersih, especially Bersih who has not made or sought to make a deal independent of Anwar during these past 3 years with the Najib government in office.

There is much evidence and documented evidence at that, that Bersih and the DAP have all acted in a conspiratorial manner to hasten Anwar Ibrahim’s demise politically.

There is much evidence that Berish’s leadership had indicated in private conversations that Anwar would never be PM. Yet the mule cart rolls on as the wheels fall off one by one and the mules die.

UNMASKING AMBIGA BERSIH AND ANWAR

​”The following is the first in a 3 part series of extracts from an article published on http://www.globalresearch.ca in its entirety. The author is Tony Cartalucci.​

AMBIGA ANWAR AND THE SELL OUT TO WALL STREET

Wall Street and London’s hegemonic ambitions in Asia, centered around installing proxy regimes across Southeast Asia and using the supranational ASEAN bloc to encircle and contain China, suffered a serious blow this week when Western-proxy and Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s party lost in general elections.

While Anwar Ibrahim’s opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat (PR) or “People’s Alliance,” attempted to run on an anti-corruption platform, its campaign instead resembled verbatim attempts by the West to subvert governments politically around the world, including most recently in Venezuela, and in Russia in 2012.

Just as in Russia where so-called “independent” election monitor GOLOS turned out to be fully funded by the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Malaysia’s so-called election monitor, the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED.

Despite this, Western media outlets, in pursuit of promoting the Western-backed People’s Alliance, has repeatedly referred to Merdeka as “independent.”

FOREIGN MONEY BEHIND BERSIH, MERDEKA CENTRE  AND THE OTHER FRAUDSTERS

​Despite the US mobilizing the summation of its media power and pouring millions of dollars into the opposition party, including the creation and perpetuation of fake-NGOs such as Bersih and the Merdeka Center, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak sailed to a comfortable victory in this year’s general elections.

The cheap veneer has begun peeling away from America’s “democracy promotion” racket, leaving its proxies exposed and frantic, and America’s hegemonic ambitions across Asia in serious question.

The BBC in its article, “Malaysia election sees record turnout,” lays out the well-rehearsed cries of “stolen elections” used by the West to undermine the legitimacy of polls it fears its proxy candidates may lose – with  the US-funded Merdeka Center cited in attempts to bolster these claims. Their foreign funding and compromised objectivity is never mentioned (emphasis added) :

Allegations of election fraud surfaced before the election. Some of those who voted in advance told BBC News that indelible ink – supposed to last for days – easily washed off.

“The indelible ink can be washed off easily, with just water, in a few seconds,” one voter, Lo, told BBC News from Skudai.

Another voter wrote: “Marked with “indelible ink” and voted at 10:00. Have already cleaned off the ink by 12:00. If I was also registered under a different name and ID number at a neighbouring constituency, I would be able to vote again before 17:00!”

The opposition has also accused the government of funding flights for supporters to key states, which the government denies.

“Independent pollster”  Merdeka Center has received unconfirmed reports of foreign nationals being given IDs and allowed to vote.

MERDEKA CENTRE, ANWAR AND BERSIH’S “INDEPENDENCE”

However, an election monitoring organization funded by a foreign government which openly seeks to remove the current ruling party from Malaysia in favor of long-time Wall Street servant Anwar Ibrahim is most certainly not “independent.”

The ties between Anwar Ibrahim’s “People’s Alliance” and the US State Department don’t end with the Merdeka Center, but continue into the opposition’s street movement, “Bersih.” Claiming to fight for “clean and fair” elections, Bersih in reality is a vehicle designed to mobilize street protests on behalf of Anwar’s opposition party.

Bersih’s alleged leader, Ambiga Sreenevasan, has admitted herself that her organization has received cash directly from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy’s National Democratic Institute (NDI), and convicted criminal George Soros’ Open Society.

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

“…admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.”

A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.

​THIS IS THE FIRST IN A 3 PART SERIES UNMASKING THE IDENTITY OF THE COUP PLOTTERS WHO SOUGHT TO HIJACK GOVERNMENT ON 5 MAY 2013.

BALASUBRAMANIAM: THE TRUTH AT LAST

balasubramaniam

BALASUBRAMANIAM: A CANARY’s SWANSONG 

In a brief telephone conversation in September 2012 with the late Balasubramaniam a man we had followed closely at great expense, Bala agreed to come clean and to do so without his handlers being present.

That first opportunity was afforded to us through an intermediary who knew Bala well enough for him to feel secure without his handlers being present. The intermediary had limited access to Bala but enjoyed his confidence.

Bala’s handlers who he referred to by name, one of them lawyer turned politician Sivarasa Rasiah, the other two being the two men seated by Sivarasa’ side in the youtube broadcast published on or about 4 July 2008.

All three men it appears have a lot to answer for in regards to Bala’s misery and the fraud they helped perpetrate on the public. That fraud being the Altantuya affair and other highly contentious, defamatory comments relating to a number of people these 3 lawyers and their friends consider their enemies.

That event shown on youtube was a press briefing organized by Malaysia Kini at the behest of the three lawyers present in that youtube broadcast. It was designed to explain Bala’s (embarrassing) Statutory Declaration 1 and 2 (SD).

Bala told us in September 2012 that it was these  3 lawyers who had placed a caveat on his speaking to anyone outside of Malaysia Kini and selected opposition run media outlets and lawyers without their consent first obtained.

The late Balasubramaniam also admitted to our link that he was aware of our critique of his SD in our blog and claimed that he wanted the opportunity to answer some of the criticisms of his SD  carried earlier in our blog.

The authorship of Bala’s SD 1 and 2 he attributed to two lawyers. One of who he described as Sivarasa Rasiah who he said vetted the document. The other and the sentient mind behind his SD he named as Amrick Singh Siddhu. More on that in our earlier piece and later.

https://takemon.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/balasubramaniams-bombshell-a-consiracy-by-lawyers/

BALASUBRAMANIAM A PUPPET STRUNG BY LAWYERS

It was indeed a sad day when we discovered that Balasubramaniam could not speak freely to anyone after his disastrous and largely concocted claims about the death of Altantuya and his earlier testimony of the extent and nature of the relationship between her and Abdul Razak Baginda. All this from a man who professed the “truth” as his creed.

Balasubramaniam’s handlers realized not long after engineering the fiasco relating to disclosures by Bala over Altanatuya’s death as revealed in his SD 1, that they may have gone in way over their heads in the matter with Bala as their Patsy.

Promptly and in a desperate attempt at self preservation they chose to make the man Bala a prisoner in his own world and captive in theirs.

We were given access to Balasubramaniam after much cloak and dagger manoeuvring when a third party ( a former policeman minder who lawyers had arranged and was paid for by Pakatan) in September 2012 arranged for Bala to speak with us briefly over a mobile phone connection. His minders were not present. And we accepted that assurance from him.

The discussion with Bala was brief.  He sounded as if he were on the move and the line connection to him was poor as the signal broke up and distorted intermittently.

Bala agreed during that conversation that much of the inconsistencies in his SD as critiqued by us in our blog was authored by his lawyers.

He agreed that much of what he had deposed to in his SD’s was based on personal perceptions of people and events (as they were reported) and that his depositions were not aided with the benefit of any admissible first hand evidence or proof of events he had deposed to. Nonetheless he said he believed that the “best Malaysian lawyers” referring to those who had helped him cultivate his story had told him that with what he had deposed to in his SD “they” could prove the “truth” about the Altantuya affair.

There clearly were other voices and much chatter in the background in ‘Bala’s’ SD 1 at play as suspected by many. Clearly Balasubramaniam’s “admissions” were not of his own making. Clearly Balasubramaniam’s Statutory Declarations were of the Raja Petra Kamaruddin variety and made for some other and ulterior political purpose and not the truth.

Behind each of these was and remains, Anwar Ibrahim, shadowed cleverly by the DAP (who very intelligently have remained largely silent in the background) whilst the Indian and Malay components of the opposition joined elements of the Malaysian Bar in making the noises that now incriminate them.

BALASUBRAMANIAM A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND SPINNING YARNS FOR A PRICE

When asked if he personally liked Altantuya or had a relationship with her, It was vintage Bala all over again. “She actually asked me many times to go with her but I said no”. When asked why he was carrying out this crusade against the Prime Minister he said “she was very beautiful and I think Najib and some other people was jealous”.

We asked the question again, “do you know for sure how she died?“, his response was “Only God know that one”. It was the admission we wanted from Bala but perhaps a little more background to which we may never now be able to obtain from the man.

Balasubramaniam then asked if we were prepared to pay him for a full interview face to face and with his minders present. We asked him why? his response was one of an agitated and nervous person. “How do I know who you are? How do I know you don’t work for Najib? I have a lot of expenses and many papers and TV shows want to interview me even international”.   He followed that then with an abrupt “look I have to go now. If you are serious ask…….(our link man) to arrange for it. I am a busy man okay?”.

There was a brief exchange between our link and Bala and the conversation ended there. We spoke to two police officers in KL who had agreed to arrange a meeting with Balasubramaniam. That meeting however never materialised and with the intervention of fate now it never will.