Harga runcit RON95 turun sebanyak 21 sen kepada RM1.70 seliter. – Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider, 31 Januari, 2015.
Harga runcit RON95 turun sebanyak 21 sen kepada RM1.70 seliter dan harga runcit RON97 turun 11 sen kepada RM2 manakala diesel turun sebanyak 23 sen kepada RM1.70 berkuatkuasa tengah malam ini.
Timbalan Menteri Kewangan Datuk Ahmad Maslan menulis tweet mengatakan: "Minyak turun lagi mulai 1 Februari. RON95 seliter RM1.70, diesel RM1.70 dan RON97 RM2. Wang lebih untuk belanja lain/tambah pelaburan!"
Sementara itu, Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan Datuk Seri Hasan Malek dalam satu kenyataan berkata, Putrajaya pada 21 November lalu memutuskan penetapan harga runcit RON95 dan diesel mengikut kaedah pengapungan terkawal bermula 1 Disember.
"Harga baru bagi petrol dan diesel dibuat berdasarkan kepada purata harga kos produk sepanjang bulan Januari 2015 dan kadar pertukaran matawang," katanya malam ini.
Beliau berkata, kerajaan akan sentiasa mengikuti perkembangan pasaran harga kos produk dan kadar pertukaran mata wang bagi menetapkan harga runcit petrol dan diesel bagi bulan-bulan berikutnya.
"Semua syarikat minyak dan pengusaha stesen minyak diingatkan mematuhi penetapan harga baru ini dan tindakan tegas akan diambil bagi mereka yang melanggar peraturan harga baru yang ditetapkan kerajaan ini," kata Hasan.
Menurut jurucakap kumpulan sukarelawan lori dengan muatan 3 tan yang digunakan mengangkat barangan keperluan harian bagi diagihkan di sekitar 20 perkampungan orang asli di pedalaman negeri itu lesap bersama muatan mereka..
Apakejadah punya manusia ni.. bantuan untuk mangsa banjirpun dilarikan?.. langsung tak ada peri kemanusiaan..
Lebih malang lagi bila ada antara pemandu yang diamanahkan untuk menghantar bantuan juga tidak amanah.. main ambil ikut suka dia saja..
Bacalah..
Ketika Putrajaya membelanjakan hampir RM800 juta untuk membantu mangsa banjir yang terjejas di seluruh negara, terdapat beberapa pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab mengambil kesempatan atas kesulitan mangsa banjir.
Timbul dakwaan barangan keperluan makanan yang sepatutnya diagihkan kepada mangsa banjir tidak diterima mereka seperti yang sepatutnya apabila sebahagian daripada sumbangan berkenaan "dilarikan" mereka yang tidak bertanggungjawab.
Antara insiden berkenaan termasuklah misi bantuan pasca banjir pertubuhan sivil ke perkampungan Orang Asli suku Temiar di kawasan Gua Musang, Kelantan semalam yang dicemari insiden "rompakan" apabila bantuan beras didakwa dilarikan pihak berkenaan.
Menurut jurucakap kumpulan sukarelawan tersebut, Siti Zabedah Kassim, seorang peguam hak asasi manusia daripada Majlis Peguam, lori dengan muatan 3 tan yang digunakan mengangkat barangan keperluan harian bagi diagihkan di sekitar 20 perkampungan orang asli di pedalaman negeri itu lesap bersama muatan mereka.
Insiden berkenaan dipercayai berlaku ketika salah sebuah daripada 8 lori yang digunakan untuk mengangkut barangan keperluan harian seperti beras, gula, sardin, biskut, dan banyak lagi, bernilai lebih RM50,000, sumbangan daripada syarikat Allianz Malaysia dan individu persendirian, dari Kuala Lumpur ke Gua Musang tidak tiba seperti yang dijadualkan.
Beliau difahamkan oleh penduduk orang asli di Kampung Parek, 7 lori tiba di Gua Musang sekitar jam 12 tengah malam, dan ketika di kawasan perkampungan yang dijadikan pusat pengumpulan sebelum bekalan diagihkan ke kampung berdekatan kira-kira sejam kemudian, sebuah lori bersama muatan beras tiada di lokasi.
"Mereka memaklumkan saya sebuah lori tiada di Kampung Parek, sedangkan kesemua lori itu tiba di Gua Musang," kata Siti kepada The Malaysian Insider, di Kelantan.
Malah, beliau turut mendakwa, pemandu lori yang menghantar barangan makanan kepada penduduk orang asli tersebut turut mengambil sumbangan yang diberikan orang ramai atas alasan masyarakat orang asli berkenaan "sudah mempunyai banyak stok makanan".
"Perkara seperti ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku, penderma semua perlu pastikan barangan yang didermakan mereka sepatutnya tiba ke kawasan mangsa banjir," kata Siti, kepada The Malaysian Insider.
Malah, turut timbul dakwaan beberapa pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab menyimpan stok bantuan kepada mangsa banjir dan tidak mengagihkan bantuan makanan berkenaan kepada penduduk orang asli yang terjejas banjir.
Banjir yang melanda negara pada penghujung Disember 2014 adalah antara yang terburuk apabila hampir 200,000 orang dilaporkan menjadi mangsa banjir.
Negeri di pantai timur seperti Kelantan, Terengganu dan Pahang antara kawasan terburuk terjejas akibat banjir apabila terdapat penduduk yang kehilangan kediaman mereka apabila rumah mereka dihanyutkan air deras.
Tinjauan The Malaysian Insider di lokasi perkampungan orang asli di pedalaman Gua Musang semalam juga mendapati kediaman mereka masih lagi terbiar dengan sebahagian daripada mereka kini mula membina pondok di kawasan bukit apabila kediaman mereka tidak lagi boleh digunakan.
Selain menggunakan khemah dan kanvas, mereka yang terjejas juga turut menggunakan buluh untuk membina pondok kediaman sementara menunggu kediaman mereka boleh diduduki semula.
Sukarelawan misi bantuan banjir juga terpaksa menggunakan kenderaan pacuan roda (4WD) dan helikopter untuk memasuki kawasan kampung terpencil kerana kemudahan jalan perhubungan terjejas akibat banjir.
Terdapat sebahagian kawasan perkampungan penduduk orang asli juga tidak mempunyai pilihan lain selain menantikan bantuan dan sumbangan makanan daripada pihak luar apabila sumber makanan dan tanaman mereka musnah dilanda banjir
But if the Federal Court agrees with the prosecution regarding Anwar’s sworn testimony, or rather the absence of it, plus regarding the 13 witnesses who later got cold feet when they found out about the CCTV recording, then Anwar is going in, probably with a 4-1 majority. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Anwar given 5 years’ jail after appellate court reverses sodomy acquittal
(Malay Mail Online, 7 March 2014) — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was today sentenced to five years’ jail after the Court of Appeal overturned his previous sodomy acquittal, ruling that the trial judge erred in rejecting the DNA evidence adduced.
The three-men bench led by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, Datuk Aziah Ali and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh unanimously decided that the High Court failed to “critically evaluate” the evidence submitted by government chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong.
The bench delivered their decision in 90 minutes after hearing submissions from both parties in yesterday and today.
Balia said that High Court Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah had wrongly concluded that investigating officer Jude Blacious Pereira may have compromised DNA samples submitted as evidence when he opened a sealed bag in which they were kept.
“We are of the view that had the learned judge properly and correctly appreciated that the so-called tampering was solely to P27 (the bag containing the test tubes holding the samples), he would not have come to the conclusion that by cutting open P27, the confidence and integrity of the samples was gone and the samples had been compromised before they reached PW5 (Dr Seah) for analysis,” Balia said.
(See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/anwar-acquittal-reversed)********************************************
On Tuesday, 10th February 2015, the Federal Court will be delivering its verdict as to whether the trial judge was right in acquitting Anwar Ibrahim of the charge of sodomy or whether the Appeal Court was right instead in overturning this acquittal and in sentencing Anwar to a jail term of five years.
Basically, the disagreement between the trial judge and the Appeal Court was regarding whether the samples taken from Anwar’s lockup were obtained legally or illegally and whether they had been subsequently tampered with.
The Federal Court will be focusing more on the conduct of the trial rather than whether it believes Anwar is guilty or innocent. If you can remember, on 2nd September 2004, the Federal Court acquitted Anwar of sodomy, which he received a nine-year jail sentence for, and in the same breath the court said it believes Anwar is guilty but then the prosecution failed to prove it.
Anwar actually sued to try to get that statement expunged from the record but failed. Hence that statement stays on record.
Anwar’s legal team initially took the line of defence by alibi.
In other words, Anwar could not have possibly done what he was alleged to have done because he has witnesses to prove he was never alone with Saiful Bukhari Azlan at that particular time and place.
And he has 13 witnesses to support this alibi. So the defence filed a notice that it would be calling 13 witnesses to testify in Anwar’s favour.
But that was before they found out about the CCTV recording that showed the movements of various people in and out of the condo.
When they realised that the CCTV recording would prove this alibi false, they dropped the plan to call these witnesses, one who was the condo owner and the other Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. This definitely did not work in Anwar’s favour and the prosecution went to town on this.
Why did Anwar’s defence file a notice to call 13 witnesses and then after they found out about the CCTV recording that would demolish their testimony they dropped the plan to call these witnesses who would give Anwar an alibi? Until today this matter has not been explained and this one point created a lot of doubts in the minds of the Anwarinas, many who later turned from him.
The second very damaging move was the statement from the dock that Anwar made. An unsworn statement from the dock is treated as testimony that is not admissible and which cannot be cross-examined. Hence its value is greatly diminished. Anwar might as well have spoken in a DAP ceramah for all that it is worth.
Why did Anwar not take the stand and testify?
He could have told his story as a sworn testimony and then allow the prosecution to try to demolish this story and prove him a liar. And if the prosecution fails then some doubts would have been created as to whether Anwar did really commit the crime and in the event of any doubts the benefit of the doubt needs to be given to the accused.
But Anwar did not do this and he lost the opportunity to allow the prosecution to try to prove him a liar whereby if they failed to prove him a liar then Anwar would have to be declared innocent. And under this situation the Appeal Court would have found it impossible to overturn the acquittal.
... Anwar did not testify under oath to defend himself and the defence of alibi that they started on was later abandoned when the witnesses they said they were going to call were never called in the end. Anwar’s silence (other than his ceramah from the dock, which has no value) plus the silence of those witnesses who were initially supposed to help give Anwar an alibi more or less appeared like an admission of guilt.
... if the Federal Court agrees with the prosecution regarding Anwar’s sworn testimony, or rather the absence of it, plus regarding the 13 witnesses who later got cold feet when they found out about the CCTV recording, then Anwar is going in, probably with a 4-1 majority. Raja Petra Kamarudin
My comments : Ini bukan saya cakap. Ini orang lain cakap.
So apparently, there are some men who think that it is completely acceptable to cane women as a measure to reprimand her of her duties as a woman.
Most Malaysians are aware that we live in a patriarchal society, a system that favours men and disregards the significance of the opposite gender.
Understandably, certain ancient religious scriptures may highlight verses that may come across as permitting a husband to “strike lightly”.
A few days ago, a local daily reported that an influential individual expressed his thoughts on the matter. “Husbands are allowed to hit their wives for the purpose of teaching without the intention to hurt them or disgrace them. This method, however, should be the last resort after all other methods fail, including reprimanding her and sleeping separately,” he said.
In other words, in order to keep women in line, husbands must shower them with blows and I don’t mean the affectionate type.
Whatever happened to discussing things or talking things over? Violence or inflicting both physical and mental harm on anyone should never be the last resort. For someone in a top-ranking position to utter detestable remarks that showcase just how misogynistic some Malaysian men are, is regrettably unflattering.
It was reported that Prophet Muhammad’s dying words were “Treat women well. You have rights over them and they have rights over you. They are your committed partners.”
This advice resonated well with his successors: Zaynab bin Ali was a noted brilliant community leader, one of the greatest during his time; Lubna of Cordoba and Fatima al-Fihri of Morocco – academics who inspired and contributed to the Golden Age of Islam and the positive ways women were treated back then.
Islam’s solution to end violence against women and preventing all forms of discrimination was embodied as a secular practice, one that could co-exist with religion.
Of course, these days, the term secular brings shivers down the spines of every conservative traditionalist who associate the word with apostasy.
Islam is a beautiful religion, one that certainly does not advocate violence or encourage men to discriminate women.
Our religion requires men to safeguard the wellbeing of women – wives and daughters, it requires men to treat women as equals and most unquestionably, be responsible for their (men) own behaviour.
Prophet Muhammad forbade Muslim men to hit women, according to hadith (Abdullah ibn Zama’ – who narrates from the Prophet): “Don’t beat your wife as if she is a slave”.
Most men tend to misuse and misinterpret the true positive teachings of Islam, endorsements created to perpetuate ill-will towards women are a gross violation to the spirit and law of Islam.
It is after all, a question of interpretation, whether it is correct or false, whether it is in line with universal value or contradicting, is something human beings must understand.
For example, in the Quran, Surah An-Nisaa 4:34-35 states: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) hit them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things.”
Although the word “hit” is used, it does not imply physical abuse or does it permits any form of violence towards women.
The word itself and the entire verse can be interpreted in various ways but it does not permit violence nor condone disciplining women or wives into submission. Therefore, it is especially important to read the entire section carefully and thoroughly. Interpretations must not be taken out of context nor shall it be used to justify any transgressions.
How we dress or what lifestyle choices we make or how opinionated we choose to be do not inspire or instigate any form of violence or maltreatment.
Domestic abuse and gender bigotry happens when men do not treat women with respect. It happens because our society may choose to ignore the significance of moral characteristics through civility in discourse and respecting women’s rights to self-empowerment and determination.
Our society chooses, instead, to allow men to do or say as they please without any consequences –punishment is reserved for women and commemoration is reserved for men.
Unfortunately, misogynistic remarks will continue to happen and little action will ever be taken upon those who utter such crass suggestions.
There are other alternatives than rehabilitating women through caning, try talking and identifying any grouses in a respectable and cordial manner for a change.
You know, women are excellent listeners if some men take the time and effort to learn the art of communicating.
So caning women for the purpose of training us in our duties isn’t exactly the best solution, as a matter of fact it is never a solution, but in a different context – one that might include some unspeakable fetishes, well, that isn’t something the public wants to hear and requires another article all together.
Our most learned legal counsellor, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu, is back once again, this time to question Razak Baginda on the latter's recent views about the Shaariibuu Altantuyaa case.
What was it that Razak said that so annoys Mr Americk Sidhu? Well, Malaysiakini reported Razak Baginda saying "... Najib was a 'poor guy' who became a 'victim' of the conspiracy surrounding Altantuya's murder."
Razak claimed that Najib had never met Altantuya before, stating:
"Najib never knew the woman. Najib is innocent. If you all think there is a connection, where is the evidence? Let's not forget that in any situation like this, there are a lot of opportunists out there. We have seen this so many times". On P Subramnaiam's SD, where our learned legal counsellor helped draft, Razak dismissed it, saying: "All utter rubbish. Anal sex as well. All rubbish. Everyone took the SD as the truth. Furthermore, in the SD, Balasubramaniam says: ‘someone told me’ or ‘I told him’. It's all hearsay." And this mention of 'hearsay' was also what had irritated Counsellor Mr Americk Sidhu who commented: “Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 were hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?"
Well, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu sir, I suppose, nay, I don't suppose, rather I am aware that "some people" (wakakaka) have taken Bala's words as gospel truth, forgetting that they were hearsay, so what's wrong for Razak Baginda to reiterate that legal point? Surely Razak Baginda has a right to do so inasmuch as "some people" (wakakaka) have been doing otherwise.
Incidentally I've also read Razak Baginda saying, when referring to Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, the two police officers convicted of murdering Altantuyaa:
"There are still people out there who are convinced that police cannot do this without instructions."
"How many people die in remand? The last count was 156 from 2008 and the figure is going up. So who instructed this?" Now the following is interesting. In an interview with TMI, one of the questions with Razak [RB] responding had been: Q: No fee for her services as interpreter?
RB: What interpreter fee? The whole episode of her being an interpreter is a joke. She can't even speak French. We are all victims of a political game. And we all fell right into it. It's a narrative from the beginning – the murder, Najib, Razak and then the submarine deal.
This narrative was fed to the Malaysian public from day one andeveryone like a herd of buffaloes, followed.
Trace and see if she can speak a word of French. None of the French guys in the submarine deal met her or knew her. The French were so sophisticated. They all speak perfect English. Nobody questioned. Why would you want a Mongolian French interpreter?
Think about it. If I wanted an interpreter, I would have a French interpreter or a British-French interpreter. Why on earth would I want a Mongolian? Has she ever been to France and stayed and learnt French? And yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that. Oui, elle parle français?"... yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that". Yeah, what about that? But obviously most Pakatan supporters or those against Najib frown on such silly inconvenient statements by Razak Baginda, wakakaka.
But OTOH, a question could well be: Why shouldn't Razak Baginda defend Najib over Altantuyaa's murder? Helloooooo, freedom of expression? Mananya?
Now, we have been aware that Counsellor Americk Singh Sidhu has, since his initial press interview (or statement) which I saw on YouTube declaring that he was a neutral party, moved on to a far more active role in representing the late P Balasubramaniam. In 2012 as I had blogged:
Mr Americk Singh Sidhu had then assured us that he was nominated because he was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter (presumably the Altantuuyaa case).
In a Malaysiakini news article on 25 Nov 2009, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu again asserted his political neutrality and his original unfamiliarity/non-interest in the Altantuyaa case, which in fact became the reason* for being nominated, presumably by the group at 'The Backyard' pub**, to record Bala’s revelation.
* He informed us: "Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral." ** current post addition to explain the significance of 'The Backyard' pub - 'twas a pub in Sri Hartamas where Mr Americk Sidhu, our famous (the late) P Balasubramniam, ASP Suresh, Puravalen (a lawyer) were having a few drinks and discussing the Altantuyaa case, when surprise surprise, they were joined by none other than Sivarasa Rasiah who coincidentally was/is a PKR MP. I had posted on this before, but nonetheless I reproduce here those questions I had asked of Mr Americk Singh Sidhu in an earlier post, as follows:
(1) Why was Anwar Ibrahim spearheading the press conference which exposed Balasubramaniam’s original (1st) SD?
(2) Why didn't he (Americk) accompany Bala to the police station when Bala was summoned to one of Malaysia’s most dangerous places after the press conference on the first SD, especially more so when the SD was so damning against the then-DPM?
If I recall reading in Malaysiakini, he (Mr Americk Singh Sidhu) had advised Bala to be a good lad or good citizen and to report to the police station* as required ... all by himself unescorted by a lawyer.
In fact Bro Haris Ibrahim wrote a caustic post on this 'negligence', that of allowing Bala to report to a police station 'unescorted'.
* of course now, with subsequent revelations by Bala, we've ‘learnt’he went instead to Rawang with ASP Suresh to ‘burn some copper wires’ and to meet Deepak. (3) Wasn’t he (Americk) aware of the danger to Bala reporting to the police unescorted by a lawyer, especially after Bala had made such a damning SD against the then-DPM?
(4) Was ASP Suresh part of the group at ‘The Backyard’ pub who encouraged Bala to record all he heard from Razak Baginda and to reveal all in a SD?
(5) Wasn’t he (Americk) aware that the involvement (persuasion) of PKR MP Sivarasa in Bala’s SD (and the high profile chairing of the press conference by Anwar Ibrahim to reveal Bala's 1st SD) would by default be a political involvement, removing any claims of ‘neutrality’ in such an affair?
Most surprising for me, I read in FMT that Mr Americk Sidhu asked ... why Razak Baginda appeared to be trying to shield Najib. “He keeps saying Najib is an innocent victim, that Najib has been dealt with unfairly, that this is all a political stunt and that there is no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death” ... even though no one had accused Najib of being involved." Huh? "... no one had accused Najib of being involved"? Seriously, I wonder where Mr Americk Sidhu has been the last few years? Anyway, we're now left with only the two policemen-murderers to tell us that Ah Jib Gor has been the principal culprit, or at least Rosmah Mansor, who ordered the murder of Shaariibuu Altantuyaa.
And what if they do .. of course not to save their own bloody necks ... but nobly to serve public interests?
Will that be accepted as concrete evidence?
After all, we can even declare a "hero" out of a person who was obligated to adhere to mandatory instructions but who violated them in a song & dance before the press, so what's so difficult about making convicted murderers into heroes ... if their revelations can "fix" Ah Job Gor, wakakaka.
And indeed such thinking and/or acts would not be so strange if we remember PAS Pak Haji's opinion on the late Dr Azahari Husin, a Jemaah-Ismaiah terrorist bomber-murderer supreme - see my 2005 post PAS does not believe Dr Azahari was a terrorist. But ... but ... what if Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar were to now reveal that a certain "someone", BUT not Ah Jib Gor or Rosmah Mansor - gasp gulp omigosh, had ordered them to murder Altantuyaa, will that be accepted? As an old story goes, be careful what you ask for!
Rogue police may possibly kill. That has been proved with the convictions of Azilah and Sirul. But the young lady killed in this case was not under remand. So why draw the analogy with the number of deaths in police custody? This does not make sense.
Razak Baginda says he is now willing to speak "from a legal point" as the criminal case involving Azilah and Sirul is over. He fails to explain why he chose to call a press conference shortly after his acquittal in November 2008. See this link.
The criminal case was still in progress then, sans his presence of course.
Why does Razak Baginda keep insisting this case has been politicised and at the same time refers to it as "just another straightforward murder case"? He doesn’t explain why he thinks it is "political". How has this case been used against Najib? He doesn’t explain.
No one has accused Najib of being involved in this murder. Is this a Freudian slip on his part? Does he know more about this whole sordid affair than he is letting on?
The public are more than curious to know why these two policemen murdered Altantuya. They didn’t even know who she was. Sirul said Azilah referred to her as the "perempuan China", in his cautioned statement. He couldn’t therefore have known she was a Mongolian citizen when she was taken away outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of October 19, 2006. No questions seemed to have been asked as to who this young lady was and why they were supposed to kill her.
They both appear to have been acting like automatons. Who wound them up?
Razak Baginda wants people to be "a bit more creative and look at the wider picture". What exactly does he mean? Isn’t this what the general public are doing? Isn’t it understandable that the general public want to know why these two policemen killed a defenceless young lady for no apparent reason? Isn’t Razak Baginda himself a little curious as to why they would do this with no provocation?
Razak Baginda thinks the truth behind this murder is "simply extremely too boring". Does he know the truth then? If he does, why not reveal it, boring or not. Let the people be the judge. And yes, he is right when he says people cannot believe these two policemen would murder this young lady for no apparent reason. And yes, people cannot believe these two policemen would so callously shoot and kill this young lady without instructions or an inducement, or both. This is called normal human logic. What Razak Baginda is trying to make us believe is totally illogical.
Razak Baginda erroneously says that the court has determined these two policemen acted on their own accord. This is absolute rubbish. All the court was called upon to do was to determine whether these two policemen committed the murder of one Altantuya Shaaribuu, for which they were charged. The court was not called upon to determine the reason why they committed this murder. The prosecution chose not to lead any evidence as to motive. Therefore we are left in the dark in relation to the background circumstances.
Razak Baginda says the court proceedings were “so transparent”. He does not however make any mention of the fact that before those proceedings began, the judge was changed, the entire prosecution team was changed and all defence counsel were changed. Does he explain why he discharged his first lawyer and family friend, Puravalen, a well-known senior criminal lawyer, in favour of KK Wong? Even Shafee got the boot in between.
Razak Baginda wants us to believe that there is no explanation as to why Altantuya was killed... just as there is no explanation why MH370 went missing. What he conveniently omits to mention is the fact that everyone is still trying to find out where MH370 is.
Similarly, everyone is still trying to find out why these two policemen killed Altantuya for no apparent reason, because this is not normal human behaviour. This is despite what he thinks of the Royal Malaysian Police Force and their propensity to wantonly kill.
Why did Razak Baginda say Bala’s SD 1 was all utter rubbish? He has yet to deny telling Bala about the relationship Altantuya supposedly had with Najib although he had every opportunity to do so at the press conference he held in November 2008 and in the interview he gave to TMI.
What about the rest of the contents of Bala’s SD 1? Is that all rubbish too? Is Bala’s evidence on oath given as the first witness called in the murder trial all rubbish? This evidence is exactly what was said in parts of his SD 1.
Let us turn to the night of October 19, 2006. Altantuya was outside Razak Baginda’s house demanding to see him. He was not at home. Bala was there trying to pacify her. He sent Razak Baginda an SMS informing him Altantuya was there. Razak Baginda sent him an SMS back saying “delay her until my man comes”.
Who was this “man” Razak Baginda was referring to? It was Azilah, was it not? This is because the “man” who turned up 15 minutes later most certainly was Azilah, with Sirul and another police officer Corporal Rohaniza in tow. This trio drove her away and she was never seen again.
When Altantuya’s cousins turned up at Razak Baginda’s house a couple of nights later looking for Altantuya, why did Razak Baginda call Musa Safri and ask him to speak to Bala on his handphone? How and why was Musa Safri involved in all this? Who suggested Razak Baginda contact either Azilah or Musa Safri?
And why were Sirul and Azilah invited guests at Razak Baginda’s house on October 23 or 24, 2006, for a Hari Raya function? Bala was there working until October 26, 2006. He knew who attended that Hari Raya function.
On October 24, 2006, Razak Baginda accompanied Bala to the Brickfields police station to lodge a report over the harassment Razak Baginda was receiving from Altantuya’s cousins regarding her disappearance. Razak Baginda lodged a report in front of ASP Tonny. Razak Baginda was supposed to provide ASP Tonny with a recorded statement but he refused on the grounds he was leaving the country. Razak Baginda promised ASP Tonny that he would prepare a statement himself and download it on a thumb drive to hand over to ASP Tonny. He never did this. Why?
Prior attempts by Bala to persuade Razak Baginda to lodge a police report at the beginning stages of the harassment from Altantuya failed. Why? Apparently Razak Baginda did not want the police involved as there were VIPs involved.
Razak Baginda apparently left Malaysia for Hong Kong on his own on October 26, 2006, one week after the murder. Why?
There is something Razak Baginda has conveniently omitted to mention. Who exactly recommended that he contact Azilah and Musa Safri to assist him in solving the problem Altantuya was posing?
Razak Baginda appears to be coming across as Najib’s protector. He keeps saying Najib is an innocent victim, that Najib has been dealt with unfairly, that this is all a political stunt and that there is no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death.
He does not however explain why he finds it necessary to do this. No one has accused Najib of being involved. Bala in his SD 1 certainly didn’t accuse Najib of having anything to do with the murder of Altantuya. All Bala said in that SD was that Razak Baginda told him about Najib’s involvement with Altantuya. That is all. Razak Baginda has yet to specifically deny he told Bala this. Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 was hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?
Razak Baginda has also conveniently avoided mentioning anything as to why he felt Najib, Rosmah, Nazim Razak, Deepak and a host of other personalities found it necessary to combine their efforts into ensuring Bala and his family were evacuated from this country post haste immediately after SD 1 was released. This doesn’t really lend any credibility to Razak Baginda’s assertion that Najib is an innocent victim of political subterfuge.
What Razak Baginda actually fails to appreciate is Bala’s loyalty to him.
When Bala was interviewed by the press in London in July 2010 at the Holiday Villa, Bayswater (on his own), he volunteered to the reporters there that he thought Razak Baginda had nothing to do with the murders and that he was innocent. Bala felt Razak Baginda was a little naive in thinking those UTK personnel would not harm Altantuya.
Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?
There was also the dinner Bala, Razak Baginda and a lawyer Dhiren Norendra had at Nagar’s Restaurant in Brickfields on October 13, 2006. This dinner was organised by Bala so that Razak Baginda could meet ASP Suresh. Apparently ASP Suresh was to organise the arrest of Altantuya. Unfortunately ASP Suresh did not turn up because he himself had been arrested by the ACA (as it was then known), that very evening.
At that dinner, Razak Baginda specifically told Bala that he was to make sure Altantuya was not harmed in any way. But Razak Baginda did not realise what he was getting into when he became involved with Musa Safri and Azilah.
Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?
So is Razak Baginda now going to “sue the shit” out of me for saying Bala always thought he was innocent. This is something I can’t prove. – TMI
After Singapore separated from Malaysia about 50 years ago, the value of the ringgit dropped from year to year and has never been the same since.
Prior to the separation, the ringgit was at par and started to lose its value/power during the first year when Malaysians had to pay, say, 5-20 sen more to change one Singapore dollar. However, it went up in the next year and slowly but surely until today, Malaysians are paying RM1.70 more to buy one Singapore dollar. That means we are paying RM2.70 to buy one Singapore dollar as of January 21, 2015. This is a lot, especially for nations whose currency was 1:1 at time of separation.
We, the rakyat, do not understand why the government keeps on saying that Malaysians should not compare the value or strength of the ringgit with stronger currencies of other nations. We are also lead to believe that the ringgit is doing fairly well in comparison with the currencies of Myanmar, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. Of course when the ringgit is looked at in comparison with these poorer nations, it is still ahead.
In fact, the best and proper thing to do is to use the Singapore
dollar as the measuring stick to monitor how the ringgit is performing daily because that will put pressure on the government that if they do not face the facts, accept the severity, and to do the right thing quickly, then the value/power of the ringgit will continue to slide further until it is beyond recovery.
You see, Singapore took about 50 years to enjoy the existing stronger currency, so hypothetically speaking, it would take Malaysia at the least 50 years or maybe longer to catch up if the government keeps on saying that the ringgit is still strong when it is compared only with poorer nations.
For your information, Singapore started planning the best for her 50th national day celebrations since 2014. Everybody there is happy and proud of their achievements over those 50 years, particularly when the Singapore dollar reached RM2.70 to a dollar on January 21. Singaporeans are optimistic that it will reach RM3 to one Singapore dollar this year.
That's good for Singapore but bad for Malaysia.
In short, Malaysians should not brag that Malaysia can do everything under the sun when the nation had surpassed 50 years of independence as the fact is we are not able to buy the same goods, services and things as we used to with RM1. Cash is king mah!
Why Singapore? You seem this neighbouring nation was at one time much smaller than Malacca and had nothing much when they separated from Malaysia nearly 50 years ago.
The bottom line is, Malaysia must face reality and be brave to compare its standing performances in all fields with nations whose currencies are strong and appreciating instead depreciating.
When the government says that the ringgit will recover, do they mean its value/power will return to 1:1 against the Singapore dollar? Is that misleading?
We can understand if Singapore’s currency also fell when the ringgit depreciated with a weakening US dollar – on the contrary, though, the Singapore dollar remains strong and surprisingly, Malaysians still need to pay more to buy the dollar. - MAILBAG
Harga runcit RON95 turun sebanyak 21 sen kepada RM1.70 seliter. – Gambar fail The Malaysian Insider, 31 Januari, 2015.
