THE RPK STATUTORY DECLARATION- A STARTING POINT
RPK’s statutory declaration (SD) purportedly sworn on 18 May 2008 at the High Court of Malaysia suffers from the same defects found in the Statutory Declaration made by one Balasubramaniam, former policeman turned private security & bodyguard to Razak Baginda. Baginda is one time defendant (now discharged) charged with the murder of Altantuya Sharibu (Altantuya).
This matter of Altantuya has a history which it is not necessary to go into any lengthy detail here.
Conveniently woven around the facts surrounding her tragic life and death, during the process of the trial of the two people accused of murdering her, were fabricated stories of a conspiracy and the alleged involvement of the Malaysian prime minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Datin Rosmah (Najib and Rosmah).
THE STATUTORY DECLARATION (SD)
The SD sworn by RPK in pursuit of a wider campaign to destabilise Malaysia and to literally overthrow its government through organized mayhem, contains very little information of any real substance about who killed Altantuya.
Instead it sets out to create an aura of legitimacy out of patent falsehoods, hearsay and gossip the Raja swore under oath in his SD with colourable and questionable statements. These are then supported by very noble reasons he provides in a single paragraph at the end of the SD. This being his motive as it appears for swearing that SD.
Raja’s allegations in the SD drafted outside of the form supplied in the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1962, contains unreliable, third hand hearsay of which the Raja had neither reason nor evidence sufficient for him to have declared his belief in the truth of assertions contained in that SD.
It is instead with the benefit of his recent confessions on TV 3 a monumental deception deliberate and planned that the Raja sought with hindsight to justify and embellish his SD perhaps with the benefit of hindsight and realizing the impacts and consequences of his actions.
RPK in his SD makes some very serious, unsubstantiated claims of a vile and criminal nature against Najib Razak and Datin Rosmah. These allegations he subsequently revealed in admissions he makes in an interview with TV 3 to have been the result of pressure on him to do so at the behest of the head of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Anwar Ibrahim.
Now whether or not the reasons proffered by RPK for having lied under oath in his SD are valid defences to a charge of falsifying evidence at the very least, he does not deny that his allegations were in fact a fabrication of lies against both Najib and Rosmah. For that he needs to be charged, tried and if convicted penalised as prescribed by law.
SEMANTICS AND SYLLOGISMS, SLIGHTS AND SLANDER
Seemingly clever he omitted having to attest to his belief in the truth of the statements in that SD by not using the prescribed form for an SD under the Statutory Declarations Act 1962 (Act).
A provision of the Act is the form in which SD’s are to be made. The preamble to the declaration is clear that the statements are made by the deponent declaring his belief in the truth of the assertions he swears to in the SD.
RPK may have deliberately omitted that form and the prescribed preamble to his SD in the belief it would mitigate the offences he committed in creating such a document in the event it were to be challenged or the truth revealed otherwise. But that may not be as easy as the Raja thinks or was advised would be the case.
If he had been properly advised by a lawyer who may have assisted in the drafting of his SD (which I suspect was the case) then he should have been cautioned against making statements about matters over which he had no evidence or direct knowledge of to support the SD.
RPK should have been warned of the consequences of making a deposition in an SD especially where the contents of the SD have turned out to be outrageous, defamatory and without any proper foundation in truth; Added to this outrage of his, is his subsequent admission to having sworn the SD under pressure not believing in the truth or veracity of the statements he swore to be true. The lawyers again. Who were they?
At the very least he could have qualified his statements in the SD by stating as is prescribed in the Act that he makes the statements in his SD with words to the effect that “the statements he makes he conscientiously believes them to be true” if that were indeed the case.
It is not suggested that by adding these words he would have made his statements in his SD any more reliable or true. They were lies and they remain lies.
RPK then proceeds to play the role of self appointed moral policeman of the country with the last paragraph (7) of his SD with the following statement:
“The purpose of this Statutory Declaration is to urge all these parties who have been duly informed and have knowledge of this matter to come forward to reveal the truth so that the police are able to conduct a proper and thorough investigation into the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.”
If it weren’t so tragic this particular statement by the Raja would be hilarious. apart from anything else he is tacitly admitting that he does not know the truth about the Altantuya affair. If he did he would not have to call on others “who have knowledge and duly informed” to come forward.
Who these ‘parties’ are who ‘have been duly informed’ he does not say. Something cryptic in his message coded in the SD perhaps? It appears more like the workings of a delusional mind like that of his mentor and sometime friend and political ally Anwar Ibrahim and perhaps even the two lawyers who assisted Balasumbramaniam with his SD.
Grand statements with an aura of nobility, authoritative but without a shred of truth to it or the moral mandate the Raja claims for himself to support.
The idea it appears was to create a semblance of authority to his otherwise unimpressive hollow incitement in writings and fictitious claims he managed to fool his followers with for so long.
In omitting or discarding the prescribed form for a SD and by making the declaration in the way in which RPK’ swore his SD, he may not have cured the defect of the material lies contained in it, nor has he escaped liability for his misstatements and defamation a product of his SD.
RPK is unlikely to escape liability let alone punishment for the offences that have resulted from the deliberate misstatements in that SD the Malaysian Bar demanded be ventilated in court at the trial of the two convicted for the murder of Altantuya.
RPK’s recent admissions on TV 3 which amount to a retraction of his allegations against Najib and Rosmah’s involvement in the death and disposal of the corpse of Altantuya and an admission that what he swore his SD as fact had no basis in fact or law is crucial in understanding the undercurrent of opposition plans to literally overthrow a lawfully elected government using unconstitutional means.
And at the very least RPK’s revelations in the TV 3 interview demonstrates he did not conscientiously believe the hearsay he promoted in his SD which he conveniently blames now on a number of factors:
a) Anwar Ibrahim and certain other people putting pressure on him
b) The Colonel Buyang being the source of his statement (which he did not check for its veracity).
RPK’S EXCUSES – SELF INCRIMINATION
RPK’s defences (or excuses) he now proffers to the public are the kind of excuses mockingly referred to as “the devil made me do it defence”.
It is something NH Chan Retired Justice may be able to interpret through the widest possible extrapolation and distortions of obscure case law to fit the situation or to justify RPK’s mischief.
Chan may still have both capacity and the temerity to repeat his somewhat esoteric though embarrassing interpretation of legal reasoning to a decision in R v Dudley and Stephens (QBD 1884) to a coalition audience of academics, opposition groups and lawyers not long ago in Malaysia.
What RPK’s SD is unequivocal about is a declaration made under oath that he now admits was a deliberate and planned defamation, a politically motivated one at that, made with malice aforethought with the sole intent of causing as much damage as possible to the credibility and character of Najib and Rosmah. Raja justifies that act in infamy by now claiming the “devil made him do it”. The devil of course being none other than Anwar Ibrahim.
The lies in that controversial SD conceived, promoted and pursued by RPK in advancing his own agenda as a blogger retracted in his recent admissions on TV3 is dwarfed in stature by comparison to the shocking allegations he makes against Najib and Rosmah in the SD itself.
RPK has unequivocally admitted in more ways than one that he had no belief in the scurrilous criminal allegations he repeats in inadmissible and unacceptable hearsay against his targets Najib Razak and Datin Rosmah.
He proffers no defence for his misconduct. He has no valid defence for his misconduct, nor has he offered a reasonable excuse as to why he now sees fit to withdraw those allegations against Najib and Rosmah.
Why would he have risked inviting ridicule on himself in the first place? And why would he embark on a campaign to smear the good reputation of two people at the behest of others? Especially if those others were none other than Anwar Ibrahim himself?
There is a vocal minority in Malaysia who would like to convince the world that their views are those of the majority in Malaysia. In addition to this they attempt to justify the phenomenon of being anti-government in Malaysia as a national right of a disgruntled and imagined marginalized persecuted majority.
THE NGO -AND THE OPPOSITION-TWO UNREPRESENTATIVE PLANKS IN AN OTHERWISE HARMONIOUS SOCIETY
Amongst that shrill, bellicose minority of opposition to government in Malaysia is a phenomenon often erroneously referred to as NGO’s (non governmental organizations). These are in fact the stalking horse of private single interests groups operating under a foreign ideological purpose directed often from outside of Malaysia and without a mandate from the people they claim to serve in Malaysia.
There is an old saw in law which says “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. It may mitigate what wrongs we do but it is no defence to plead ignorance against an offence at law.
RPK so readily proffers views about those he says coerced him into making the SD. Anwar for one. He has a view and an opinion about everyone except his precious self. Anwar has always been a naked stalking horse of not one but as many NGO’s.
RPK now also claims Anwar cannot be trusted or believed anymore. As if to say what he RPK has to say about anyone including Anwar following his own recent admissions about the outrageous claims in his SD carries any weight in any respect of his views about Anwar or Anwar’s credibility.
MY ENEMY’S ENEMY IS MY FRIEND
(WHY RPK CANNOT HIMSELF BE TRUSTED AND SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED)
RPK claims in most of his articles in Malaysia Today (a publication he owns and has total editorial control over) that he knows the constitution and laws of Malaysia better than anyone in government. Well at least that is the inference one is compelled to draw on reading his criticisms of government and its servants.
The Malaysian Bar and the opposition funded media in Malaysia encouraged the man, carried his defamation as if it were the gospels and added layers of their own spin to it for effect.
Further if as he claims, RPK was being intimidated by of all persons Anwar Ibrahim, “the punching bag of government”, then RPK was on neutral and safe ground in Australia and in Malaysia when he still resided there in respect of the ‘threats and pressure’ brought to bear upon him by Anwar. He did not.
What these pressures are that Anwar brought to bear on RPK sufficient for him to lie under oath he does not disclose.
Regardless of what went on in the background, RPK cannot avail himself of the defence or justification of pressure by Anwar for his lies, for his misconduct.
Malaysia would have been and remains the safest place on earth for someone having a beef or confrontation with Anwar Ibrahim if that were genuinely the case.
Anwar is certainly not Malaysia’s most popular man let alone its most popular politician. He makes waves yes attracts controversy wherever he goes, but that has less to do with his popularity for his policies than it has to do with his slip ups and delusionary statements in defence of his indefensible position in general.
RPK has no legitimate or moral defence for what he has done. He must be charged with contempt, sedition and for incitement for his actions. And when the government gets around to charging him, it would make a number of people in Malaysia’s fragmented coalition of self interested opposition very, very nervous. Not least of these would be some of the most high profile of its body of legal practitioners.
What RPK has done goes beyond betrayal of the trust of his many of his ignorant and naieve followers. This even though many of them deserve what they got from him for being wantonly naieve, selectively ignorant allowing themselves to be fooled by the biggest fool of all.
COLLABORATORS -HIS PARTNERS IN CRIME
THE ROLE OF THE MALAYSIAN BAR
The role of the Malaysian Bar and its high profile members in this sordid affair needs to be closely scrutinised by government and the attorney general of Malaysia. This is a professional body that is very partial in politics and cannot serve without ‘fear or favour’ . It lacks public confidence for its involvement in politics struggling in the process to come to terms with its credibility and integrity.
The 2008 press conference given by Amrick Siddhu Singh, Sivarasa and Manjit Singh Dhillon to respond to questions about a Statutory Declaration Siddhu assisted the controversial Bala ex PI to draft is now the subject of further controversy linked to same subject.That being of Najib and his wife being linked to the death of Altantuya Sharibu.
The Bala/ Siddhu Statutory Declaration subsequently overridden by a second Statutory Declaration made by the same deponent, Siddhu’s client, Balasubramaniam a former policeman turned private investigator needs closer scrutiny by the authorities investigating RPK and the conspiracy that RPK has been at the heart of a movement created with the intent of overthrowing government.
One merely has to pay attention to the language and the confidence with which the lawyer sitting with Siddhu (Sivarasa) delivers his diatribe on a ‘serious crime’ having been committed (meaning the murder of Altantuya Sharibu) leading his audience to draw the inevitable inference that someone in high office (Najib Tun Razak) was in some way connected with the murder of Altantuya Sharibu.
He proffers no evidence or proof for such an outrageous claim. None. And having relied on the RPK lie corroborated in some respects by the Balasubramaniam lie, Sivarasa, Siddhu and Dhillon were on a very rickety platform with the proverbial noose around their necks by Sivarasa’s actions and words at that conference.
It beggars belief that the man, a high profile lawyer and politician is able to get away with such scandalous statements with impunity (thus far) saying what he said with such equanimity as if he were corroborating fact (the lies of RPK) as he appears to be doing.
These are some of the the incriminating words of his extracted from youtube of his performance at that conference:
“because ultimately the offence (of Bala being induced or threatened to change his earlier statements in a Statutory Declaration) is of manipulating suppressing evidence related to a a murder trial (trial of the two men charged with the murder of Altantuya Sharibuu) which involves personalities you know, not ordinary personalities but people who run this country”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEE3zMCjdfg&feature=related (for the full press conference)
Who are these ‘people who run this country‘ that Sivarasa refers to in his statement ? He appears to be a bit more coy on that point than his ally PKR leader, Raja Petra Kamaruddin who in his SD claims it was the wife of Najib Tun Razak, Datin Rosmah he believes was present at the disposal of the corpse of Altanatuya Sharibu.
RPK in that SD proffers the following reasons for making that SD:
“I also make this Statutory Declaration because I am aware that it is a crime not to reveal evidence that may help the police in its investigation of the crime.”
Why would R Sivarasa an officer of the courts himself not be motivated by such a high ideal to name ‘those people who run this country‘ as RPK misguided had so boldly made in his SD instead of inviting the public to draw their own inferences that the ‘people running this country’ he refers to are in fact Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah?
WHO ELSE BESIDES RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN?
The drafters of RPK’s SD and his legal advisors for starters could well be the same lawyers who advised and drafted Balasubramaniam’s first Statutory Declaration, Balasubramaniam’s lawyer Amrick Siddhu. It is objectively likely that both R Sivarasa and Anwar were complicit in the drafting of the RPK SD.
Then there is Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan, apart from Sivarasa other members of Malaysia’s Bar who either expressly or by their conduct, and support for the claims made by RPK and Balasubramaniam against the state, Najib Tun Razak and Datin Rosmah, who are tainted by their association with the Balasubramaniam and RPK.
It was deliberate, it was planned and it was calculated. The claims and their support of those claims by RPK and Balasubramaniam were seditious, malicious, defamatory and an incitement to bring down a legitimately elected government through an unlawful campaign of lies and fabrication of evidence.
There are also those lawyers who acted for the family of the late Teoh Beng Hock who presented a forged document from RPK purporting to have been written by disgruntled members of the MACC. That unsigned document in contempt of court was presented as a piece of evidence to the coronial inquiry into Teoh Beng Hock’s death. It had been published also in contempt by RPK on his Malaysia Today blog prior and subsequent to it being submitted to the inquiry.
Elements of the media who published his defamation from Malaysia Kini, the Nutgraph and a number of prominent blogs and members of parliament who mainly from the opposition took the opportunity to use RPK’s slander as a political weapon to advance the causes of individuals in opposition and the Malaysian Bar to bring down the government of the Barisan Nasional in Malaysia.
Each of these are people who by their public commentary on the subject of RPK’s arrest and his detention entered into the fray with statements of their own in some form or the other supporting RPKs’ lies are burdened with criminal liability for their actions.
This whole campaign involving Balasubramaniam and RPK was a political circus designed and choreographed in part by elements of the Malaysian Bar. It had nothing to do with free speech, democracy or ‘corrupted government’. Each of the participants in this farce that includes members of the Bar and the media implied that the country was not free, government and its institutions corrupted and that RPK had been unfairly treated before the courts in breach of his constitutional rights.
A CONCLUSION WITHOUT CLOSURE – THE BADAWI FACTOR
Something needs clarification here and we say this guardedly.
RPK it is said had confided to an associate of his that Abdullah Badawi former Malaysian Prime Minister and his faction within UMNO were the primary drivers of this campaign to destroy Najib Razak and that this faction had in fact actively encouraged and pursued spreading of the rumours RPK had concocted in his SD. They engaged sympathisers within the Malaysian Bar to act knowing full well the impact statement of lawyers and journalists would have on an unsuspecting public.
It is further suggested that Abdullah Badawi may have in fact had prior knowledge of the defamation against Najib Razak and Datin Rosmah and it is suggested that it had all been part of an internal factional feud within UMNO with some degree of support from elements within the US state department.
OF SLEEPERS AND OPPORTUNISTS
It is known that a prominent Malaysian representative at the UN some time ago had been cultivated by US interests whilst he served as Malaysia’s ambassador to the UN. Nothing new about such a practice by the US state department and its clandestine agents within the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It is an age old practice now unravelling itself courtesy of leaks presented to Wiki Leaks and other public interest groups.
It is widely suspected that Badawi is amongst a group of ‘sleepers’ cultivated by both the US and their nearest errand boy in the region Australia over the past 2 decades to be put to effect at a time of their choosing.
Anyone who believes RPK acted alone has a problem with reality.
There is more much to be raked over and much more will be said in the coming weeks months and perhaps even years. Its not over by a long shot yet.
NEW RUMOURS: WHY RPK CONFESSED TO LIES IN HIS SD
It appears that this saga of the Raja and his rumour mongering, spinning lies and creating fictitious scenarios has not quite come full circle. RPK has now come out with a sob story about how he was coerced into making the admissions he made on TV3 under threats that his son Raja Azman under incarceration in Malaysia would be further harmed.
RPK reputedly told Malaysian’s in Australia during his recent tour that his son Raja Azman had swallowed razor blades earlier this year whilst in custody in order to end his torture in captivity under the ISA.
RPK told Malaysian’s in Australia that his wife and he were living in fear for the welfare and safety of their son Raja Azman who they were reminded by someone from government could be further harmed if he RPK continued with his campaign against Najib Tun Razak and his wife.
A note on Raja Azman. Raja Petra had claimed in his blog that his son inflicted the injuries on himself as he could no longer take the physical and mental torture he was subjected to by the prison authorities .
Raja Azman was earlier this year charged with receiving stolen property and criminal trespass. Raja Azman a young man of privilege by his title is also known amongst his associates to always want to have his way whenever possible and to’spit the dummy’ if he does not get his way, being destructive and abusive in the process.
It is odd that Raja Petra Kamaruddin so eager otherwise to lodge reports and to claim in his SD the following:
“I also make this Statutory Declaration because I am aware that it is a crime not to reveal evidence that may help the police in its investigation of the crime.”
once so ready to report a ‘Crime’ that was allegedly committed by Najib and Rosmah appears less eager to report a crime committed by his own son.
The more one examines this farce for the motives behind such bizarre behaviour the more one is compelled to conclude that it all boils down to a question of credibility and personality in the end.