"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Ampun tuanku, sembah patek harap diampun...Patek ingin menyampaikan siapakah PENGKHIANAT sabenar kepada ketuanan Sultan di negara ini...malah dikalangan tuanku pun ada yang bersekongkol dengan mereka kerana di beri habuan yang lumayan...Patek patek yang marhaen dinegara ini masih tetap setia dengan tuanku walau pun difitnah dengan pelbagai tuduhan..ampun tuanku beribu ampun, sembah patek harap diampun..

Saturday, November 14, 2009

How quickly people forget


By Raja Putra Kamaruddin

The SD made by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam linking Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak with Mongolian Altantuya Shaaribu, cannot be withdrawn, says Bar Council President Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan. She said the statutory declaration was made in accordance with the procedure and sealed by a Commissioner of Oaths.


Now you know why we come out with this revelation in series. Most Malaysians have short memories and can only absorb a limited amount of information at one time. Give them too much in one go and they can’t focus and start going off in the wrong direction. So we have to give this information in small bits and pieces and allow it time to sink in before you offer them more.

Must be something about this mother-tongue education and the teaching of English in Bahasa Malaysia and all that.

Anyway, before you make further comments and start looking like idiots, or even more of an idiot, maybe you should recap what has been said and written before.

Take note you can’t retract a Statutory Declaration (like they said Bala did but actually did not) and if Bala has made a false declaration (like the government says he did) then the government has to charge him (like they did me) instead of promising him RM5 million (like they did me).


Why Balasubramaniam's First Declaration Is Still Significant

(Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, 4 July 2008) - P Balasubramaniam has made an about turn and released a new statutory declaration. From media reports, it appears that he claims that those parts of his original Statutory Declaration that pertained to the Deputy Prime Minister were made under duress.

He has not been forthcoming with particulars of his purported duress. This is unfortunate as it raises many questions that the Malaysian public is deserving of answers to. As I understand it, the inflicting of duress in law requires the subjecting of a person to the kind of treatment that would leave that person with no doubt that he or someone close to him would be in grave danger, life and limb, unless that person cooperated with the person inflicting duress.

Is Balasubramaniam saying that representatives of Keadilan inflicted duress or that his previous lawyer did? We cannot overlook the statement given by Anwar Ibrahim at the same press conference yesterday in he explained how Balasubramaniam had come to make the Statutory Declaration. From this perspective, the accusation of duress is not a trivial one as it carries grave implications and consequences.

In the same vein, if in fact the police were in contact with Balasubramaniam yesterday, after the press conference at which he released his original (and now retracted) Statutory Declaration as the media suggests, the police should also make it clear to the rakyat what it is that transpired, if only to clear up any doubt as to the circumstances in which Balasubramaniam retracted his original statement.

I say this because the original Statutory Declaration was itself of grave importance and carried with serious implications. I have noted that some writers have been quick to question or dismiss the value of the original Statutory Declaration for it allegedly being hearsay, or put another way, containing only second hand information not directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam.

I do not share this view. Allow me to explain why.

The law requires direct evidence of a fact. Second-hand knowledge is considered to be unreliable. However it does not follow that ‘hearsay’ evidence is not admissible or irrelevant in all cases. Evidence is multi-faceted and is never merely proof of one fact. Considered from different angles, a single piece of evidence may tell more than one story.

For example, A tells B that A had stolen some money. B then tells C. C’s evidence of the conversation is not admissible as an admission by A or as proof of theft. Put another way, A could not be convicted purely on the say so of C. Evidence of A having committed the theft would have to be put before the court, in one form or the other. This is the essence of the hearsay rule.

However, this does not mean that the fact of B telling C is of no relevance. The fact is that A and B had that conversation and though C’s evidence may not be able to establish the truth of what was told to him by B, it can establish that such a conversation took place. The law permits this. If admitted, such evidence could be considered as ‘circumstantial evidence’.

Seen in this light, it is clear that the original Statutory Declaration was of great significance. In it Balasubramaniam categorically stated that he gave information to the police about the conversations he had had with Razak Baginda and Altantuya AND that such information was excluded from his statement AND that the Prosecution did not ask him any questions about this aspect of the information he gave to the police. These pieces of evidence were not hearsay as they were matters directly within the knowledge of Balasubramaniam. They were also manifestly relevant.

Additionally, for the reasons explained above, the fact of the conversations between Balasubramaniam and Razak Baginda and Altantuya respectively were also of relevance for equally suggesting an alternative or additional line of enquiry that the police ought to have looked into but apparently did not.
The about-turn and the possible, though as yet uncertain, involvement of the police do not do any good for the already seriously undermined confidence of the rakyat in the justice system.

We deserve better.

Bala's original SD stands: Bar

(Daily Express, 5 July 2008) - The SD made by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam linking Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak with Mongolian Altantuya Shaaribu, cannot be withdrawn, says Bar Council President Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan. She said the statutory declaration was made in accordance with the procedure and sealed by a Commissioner of Oaths.

"A statutory declaration is a document that contains evidence given on oath.

It is sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths. As in the case of all evidence given under oath, it cannot be withdrawn," she said.

However, she said, a statutory declaration could be supplemented or corrected. "... and just as in the case a witness giving false evidence in court, anyone who swears a false declaration can commit an offence," she said when contacted.

Balasubramaniam, who had testified in the Altantuya murder trial, called a news conference on Thursday to reveal his 16-page statutory declaration dated July 1, containing allegations about the slain Mongolian's involvement with Najib.

However, at 11.30am Friday, Balasubramaniam announced that he was retracting the entire statutory declaration. He also issued a new declaration in which he said that his previous statements were inaccurate and not the truth.

Meanwhile, lawyer Datuk Hazman Ahmad, who is representing Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, the first accused in the Altantuya murder case, said Balasubramaniam had the right to substitute his previous statutory declaration with a new one.

"He doesn't need to go through court process to come up with a new statutory declaration, but the question is, what is the status of the previous declaration? Is this amounting to cheating? It's up to the Attorney-General to take action," he said when contacted.

Lawyer Hasnal Redzua Marican, who is representing Corporal Sirul Azhar Omar, the second accused in the same case, said there were no provisions under which the statutory declaration could be retracted.

Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arsyad described Balasubramaniam's action as inappropriate as if he was making a mockery of the country's laws. He said the former policeman should have been firm with his allegations.


Bala told all six months ago: Nephews

(The Sun Daily, July 7, 2008) : The nephews of missing private investigator P. Balasubramaniam claimed today that their uncle had revealed to them months earlier all the details he had stated in his first statutory declaration (SD) which alleged that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had links with murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Brothers R.Kumaresan, 27, and Segar, 24, of Batu Caves said their uncle had shared with them about what he had mentioned in his first SD about six months earlier, and they believed he would one day make it public.
Kumaresan, an information technology (IT) professional said his uncle had expressed relief after he made his first statutory declaration public on Thursday but what he did the next day by denying it had shocked the siblings.

Balasubramaniam who had made public his first SD on Thursday based on what political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda -- one of the accused in the Alatantuya murder case -- had told him, on Friday retracted his allegations via a second SD, claiming his first SD had been made under duress.

The brothers spoke to reporters at the Gombak district police headquarters with their lawyer R.Surendran yesterday after giving a statement to investigators over a police report he lodged on the disappearance of his uncle, aunt and three cousins on Saturday.

"He claimed he made the first SD under duress, but from the expression on his face on that day, it was clear that he was not, everyone could see that," said Kumaresan.

"But when he retracted the SD and replaced it with another the next day, the expression on his face showed that he was really under duress. Compare his face on the first day with the second day.

"We are very close to our uncle and know him very well. There is no way he would have disappeared like this without informing us first." he said adding that his family strongly believe Balasubramaniam and his family had not gone into hiding but are being detained at an unknown location.

Kumaresan said had his uncle planned to go into hiding or feared for his safety, he would have done so on the very first day, after making the first statuatory declaration.

"But everything was normal after he made the statement on Thursday; and then Friday he goes missing with his family." he said.

Kumaresan said he also had no idea of who M Arulampalam, the lawyer who accompanied his uncle when he made the second SD is.

"We are worried about their safety. My aunt is a like mother-figure to me. I do not even know if they are still alive." he said.

Segar, an engineer said his uncle had also handed him an envelope two days before he made his first SD and told him to pass it to Kumaresan.

"He told me to tell Kumarasen to open it two days later but after he made public his first SD, we opened it and found that it was a copy of the SD," he said.

Meanwhile lawyer R.Surendran said the main concern of Kumaresan and Segar was the safety of his uncle and his family and not the statutory declarations he had made.

"I hope the police will look more into the angle that Balasubramaniam may be held against his will, as it does not seem that he has gone into hiding." he added.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Jika Anda terlepas.....ada ulang tayang disini????

Lagi disini

Tambah satu lagi........lepas ni...lu fikir la beb....

RPK Speaks His Mind - Altantuya Statutory Declaration