Bala’s testimony in France (part 4)

 

Bala just talks about the RM700,000 he received from Deepak. He is not revealing the hundreds of thousands more he received from the Chinese tycoon. This is because, if he does, then he would also have to reveal the identity of the people who arranged this funding. This is not about protecting the identity of the Chinese tycoon. It is about protecting the identity of the middlemen in this entire arrangement, those people who are behind Bala and who are planning his every move.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The four-page statement (document D71) that the French National Police recorded from private investigator Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (a.k.a. P. Balasubramaniam) in July 2010 can be read below. All the questions posed to Bala were regarding the submarine contract and the role the various people played in that contract, Altantuya Shaariibuu included.

The focus of the French investigation is on the contract and whether there is an element of corruption in the procurement of the submarines. The French National Police are not investigating Altantuya’s murder, which is a matter outside their jurisdiction. This is what has not been made clear to us.

Basically, the salient points of Bala’s statement in France are:

Bala was twice employed by Abdul Razak Baginda in October 2006. His job was to protect Razak from Altantuya Shaariibuu and to prevent her from getting to him (Razak). This, Bala said, he managed to do each and every time.

After Bala signed his Statutory Declaration on 1st July 2008 (which Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim revealed to the public in a press conference in the PKR headquarters on 3rd July 2008) he was threatened by Deepak Jaikishan and was promised USD197,000 (about RM600,000) to back-track on his Statutory Declaration. But he must also agree to go into hiding (exile) until March 2009, the date when Najib would become Prime Minister.

This he did -- he signed a second Statutory Declaration that contradicted the first one of four days earlier plus he left the country with his entire family and went to India.

Bala said, one year later, in July 2009, he returned to Malaysia to meet his lawyers (who he did not name) to speak to them about ‘telling the truth’. His lawyers told him that it was not the right time yet. He then went to Singapore to do his video interview that was covered in part 3 of this report. After that he went back to India.

Bala also told the French investigators that in July 2010 he asked to meet the MACC in London because he cannot return to Malaysia. However, the MACC officers did not turn up as they originally said they would although Bala was already waiting in London. (This was when Bala went to France to meet the French investigators to have his statement recorded).

Bala was then asked about the details regarding the financial ‘conditions’ (conditions financières) of the French submarines and he replied that all he knows is what he learned from the press or what Altantuya told him (Tout ce que je sais, je l'ai appris de la presse ou de madame Altantuya).

As for the rest of the questions posed by the French National Police, Bala said he does not know the details and could not reply to the questions.

Now, according to Bala’s Statutory Declaration, which he signed on 1st July 2008 and which he was not coerced into signing, he said:

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 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party. 

I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 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. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

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”.

Now, in his July 2010 statement to the French National Police, Bala said he sent Razak Baginda a text message (SMS) but he (Razak) did not respond. Then, moments later, three police officers (2 men and 1 woman) came and asked him to confirm the identity of Altantuya before taking her into their car. However, in his 1st July 2008 Statutory Declaration, Bala said he did receive a response from Razak instructing him “To delay her until my man comes”.

Now, this is a very crucial point and makes a big difference regarding Razak’s involvement in the murder. Going by what Bala said in his Statutory Declaration, Razak is certainly implicated in Altantuya’s murder because it was he (Razak) who had ordered Bala to keep her there till the others arrive. But if you look at Bala’s statement to the French National Police, he said the reverse.

One statement implicates Razak while the other absolves him. In other words, the instruction to hold Altantuya until the others arrive did not come from Razak but it was Bala’s own decision to do so, according to what Bala told the French investigators.

Hence which statement is correct, Bala’s statement in his Statutory Declaration, which was done voluntarily, or his statement to the French National Police, which was also done voluntarily?

Another point to note is the part where Bala told the French National Police that he was promised RM600,000 to do the U-turn while he now claims he was promised RM5 million, out of which he was paid only RM700,000.

Did Deepak stop paying Bala one year later because he was promised only RM600,000 while RM700,000 had been paid, which means he was paid more, or did Deepak promise Bala RM5 million but only paid him RM700,000?

What is even more interesting is concerning what Bala told the French National Police regarding his trip back to Malaysia in July 2009, a year after he left the country to go to India. Bala said he met his lawyers (named in the previous report) and told them he would like to come clean and tell the truth, whatever that truth is supposed to be. However, his lawyers did not agree with this because they thought it was not time yet.

Is there a ‘proper time’ for coming clean and telling the truth? Why prevent Bala from revealing whatever it is he wanted to reveal and instead ask him to go back into exile in India? Would it not have been better that three years ago Bala come out to reveal the truth rather than allow this matter to go on and on for another three years?

Bala told the French National Police he is not able to go back to Malaysia for reasons of his safety. But just a year before that, in July 2009, he did go back to Malaysia to meet his lawyers in Kuala Lumpur. And he admitted that he had, in fact, made many trips back to Malaysia. And he had used his Malaysian passport to go in and out of Malaysia.

The thing is, by July 2009, Deepak had already paid Bala RM700,000 and there was no more money forthcoming. The payments had already stopped. So Bala did not want to continue to stay in India without funding. And that was why he wanted to return to Malaysia and ‘tell the truth’.

The lawyers then arranged ‘new funding’ for Bala to enable him to continue to stay in India. And this was when the Chinese tycoon was roped in to take over from where Deepak had left off.

Bala just talks about the RM700,000 he received from Deepak. He is not revealing the hundreds of thousands more he received from the Chinese tycoon. This is because, if he does, then he would also have to reveal the identity of the people who arranged this funding. This is not about protecting the identity of the Chinese tycoon. It is about protecting the identity of the middlemen in this entire arrangement, those people who are behind Bala and who are planning his every move.

In the next part we will talk about Bala’s response regarding parts 1 and 2 of this report, in particular concerning his denial that the ‘Bala Subramanian’ mentioned in the French National Police report to the court is another Bala and not him.