TMI - Why is Razak Baginda protecting Najib over Altantuya’s murder, asks lawyer
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."
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.
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?"
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?
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.
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?
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?
Sigh, it's such a confusing affair.
For more, you may wish to read couple of my earlier posts:
(a) Balasubramaniam's lawyer linked Najib to Bala's disappearance
(b) Bala's SD - Americk Sidhu clears Anwar Ibrahim from involvement
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?
Sigh, it's such a confusing affair.
For more, you may wish to read couple of my earlier posts:
(a) Balasubramaniam's lawyer linked Najib to Bala's disappearance
(b) Bala's SD - Americk Sidhu clears Anwar Ibrahim from involvement
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.
“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!
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.