Search box

Brutal murder of a Mongolian beauty

Search This Blog

Sunday, March 29, 2009

My name is RPK, I am Malaysian, and I am no prostitute

MalaysiaToday 27 March 2009 | Raja Petra Kamarudin | NO HOLDS BARRED

Yes, I am no prostitute. And all those Malays who justify joining Umno for business reasons, and those Chinese and Indians who say they support Barisan Nasional to
cari makan, are worse than prostitutes.

I remember something my late mother once told me back in 1960 or thereabouts: a house is not a home. A home is a house, but a house is not a home.

I was only ten years old then so it took me many years to grasp the wisdom of her words. Today, 48 years on, I now understand what she meant. I have a house. But that house is not my home. And that is because I no longer live in that house since it is in Selangor and I no longer live in Selangor. I am now forced to tumpang in somebody else’s house outside Selangor. But that is not my home. It is someone else’s home. I am just a penumpang, sort of like a pendatang.

I also no longer own a car. I have to take public transport to move around. So I don’t move around anymore since public transport is a hassle, especially in Malaysia that has a primitive public transport system.

Many of my friends tell me they joined Umno for business reasons. My one-time neighbour, a young Malay lawyer, confessed he joined Umno so that he can be assured of getting government contracts. He is a lawyer in Zul Rafique and Co. and an Umno Bukit Bintang youth leader. His purpose for joining Umno is purely economic reasons.

And this goes for many other Malays as well, some of my relatives included. My relatives resent me opposing the government because they are worried that Umno may punish the family for what I am doing. They depend on the government for their livelihood so they do not want me to jeopardise their periuk nasi (rice bowl).

Chinese, too, tell me the same thing. Cari maka mah! They support Barisan Nasional because they need to survive. It’s all about the money. If we oppose the government then we may suffer, economically, they tell me.

Yes, it’s all about the money. Of course, they try to justify their actions by saying they have no choice. They don’t want to support Barisan Nasional. They don’t like supporting Barisan Nasional. But they have no choice but to support Barisan Nasional for the sake of their rice bowl.

To these people they have done no wrong. Okay, it may be immoral for them to support a party they do not believe in. It may be immoral for them to support a party that they actually hate. But they are supporting this party not out of choice. They have no choice in the matter. They are doing it to protect their livelihood.

Prostitutes say the same thing. They open their legs and do blowjobs on their clients not because they are sex-starved or actually enjoy what they are doing. In fact, most prostitutes hate life as a prostitute and hate themselves for doing what they do. But they have no choice. It is not about the pleasure of sex. It is about the necessity of money.

Prostitutes would willingly choose another profession if one was available to them. But they can’t get an honest job for whatever reason, mostly because they lack the education, qualification and skills. So the only option available to them is life as a prostitute.

A house is not a home. That was the title of a movie back in 1960. And the movie was about life as a prostitute. I too live in a house. But that house is not a home. It is someone else’s home. I am just a penumpang. But I am not a prostitute. And it is because I am NOT a prostitute that I now live in a house that is not a home.

But I was offered the opportunity to prostitute myself. One day, some time back, a person by the name of Rusdi Mustaffa who works for Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, called me and said he wanted to meet me. I was then at the Havana Club in the Concord Hotel in Kuala Lumpur enjoying cigars with my friends.

Rusdi arrived way past midnight and we talked. He wanted to know how much I wanted. I did not understand what he meant and told him so. He repeated the question and asked me how much I wanted to stop writing about Najib and Altantuya. Name my price.

The conversation went on for about half an hour, and to cut a long story short, I turned down the offer. The following morning I phoned a certain Chinese Datuk and requested him to make an appointment with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

At 3.00pm, the Chinese Datuk and me, together with my wife, went to Tun Dr Mahathir’s office in Petronas at the Twin Towers where I related what happened the night before. Tun Dr Mahathir joked that I should have asked for RM20 million. “Then you can give me half.”

I never knew Tun Dr Mahathir as being a joker. I told Tun Dr Mahathir I have never received any money either to write or not write an article or expose in Malaysia Today, “Not even from you,” I added as I pointed to the Tun. He just smiled. I wanted the point to be driven home that I am not a prostitute. I think from that day the Tun and I strengthened our respect for each other. I then kissed Tun’s hand and left his office.

Tun Dr Mahathir phoned Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and asked him to go and see Najib. Najib was then in Pekan so Tengku Adnan had to fly to Kuantan and drive down to Pekan. The message from Tun was short and sharp. “Don’t try to buy my boy. I know you tried to buy off Raja Petra.”

Within minutes I received a call from Rusdi. He was angry as hell. “I thought I could trust you. Why did you tell Tun about our meeting last night?” I told him that I told Tun so that Najib can be sent the message that I am not for sale, not for any amount of money. And I wanted no less than Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to deliver this message to Najib, his ‘boy’, which he did through Tengku Adnan.

Yes, I am no prostitute. And all those Malays who justify joining Umno for business reasons, and those Chinese and Indians who say they support Barisan Nasional to cari makan, are worse than prostitutes. I despise them. They are shit. And I have no mercy for these people. They are scum of the earth.

Nothing and I mean nothing can justify you prostituting yourself.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Najib is in the news

Wednesday, 25 March 2009 | MalaysiaToday | THE CORRIDORS OF POWER | Raja Petra Kamarudin

It appears that Najib is constantly in the news nowadays. With him about to become the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, he would undeniably be the hottest story in town. But the stories that the international media are running focus on the kickbacks in the submarine deal and Altantuya’s murder. This is how the international media views Najib, a corrupt man and possibly a murderer to boot.

Scorpene’s Sting: Liberation Publishes Expose re: Malaysia’s Bribery & Murder Scandal
Defense Industry Daily, 24 March 2009

The Franco-Spanish Scorpene diesel-electric attack submarine competes on the global market against an array of competitors, foremost of which is ThyssenKrupp HDW’s U209/212/214 family. In June 2002, the Malaysian government signed a EUR 1 billion contract with Armaris (now DCNS) and Spanish naval shipbuilder Izar (now Navantia) for 2 SSK Scorpenes and associated support and training. The first of class KD Tunku Abdul Rahman has begun trials , and is scheduled to enter service in 2009.

Within Malaysia, the sale has been compromised by an ongoing trial and set of legal actions around the public kidnapping and private execution of Mongolian modeling student, translator, and paramour Altantuya Shaariibuu. The case took a dramatic turn when the victim was closely connected to EUR 114 million in “commission” payments to Perimekar, a firm owned by a close associate of Malaysia’s current Defence Minister and impending Prime Minister. The monies were paid by Armaris (now DCNS) for for “support and coordination services,” a term that may bring to mind the murder of Taiwanese Captain Yin Ching-feng in connection with a bribery scandal involving Taiwan’s DCNS frigates .

Full and impartial accountability for public figures is not a prominent feature of Malaysian justice, but French Journalist Arnaud Dubus added to the pressure with a March 5/09 report in France’s Liberation, “Un cadavre tres derangeant: L’etrange affaire du meurtre d’une interprete mongole qui gene le pouvoir en Malaisie” (Page 30-31). It names very prominent names, offers details, and reveals the contents of documents the Malaysian court has refused to admit…

If the documents are true, Altantuya was murdered on the orders of Abdul Razak Baginda. Baginda is a close associate of Najib Razak, who is Malaysia’s Deputy PM and Minister of Defence, and impending Prime Minister. Baginda has been acquitted in a Malaysian court, but Razak himself has been implicated in the associated bribery deal, and Dubus’ report includes detauls of text messages Baginda was reportedly sent by Razak, which strongly imply efforts by Razak to cover up the case and interfere with police investigations.

The motive for Altantuya’s death was reportedly twofold: EUR 500,000 she wished to claim as her share of the “commission,” and the public embarrassment caused to Baginda’s marriage after she tried to collect. The kidnapping was carried out by by agents of the Malaysian Special Branch police, in broad daylight, in front of Baginda’s house, with witnesses present. Malaysian sources have not published full details, but media organizations outside of Malaysia have.

On March 16/09 the case took another turn when Malaysia’s ruling party suspended an opposition lawmaker for a year, after he called Razak a murderer and demanded that he answer questions about his role in the affair.

As is usually true in these operations, it’s the small details that matter. The entire wet operation apparently gave insufficient consideration to the payment of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s cab fare. Somewhere, a cadre of retired Bulgarian KDS professionals are shaking their heads, and wondering what’s wrong with the kids today.


'Doomsday pin pulled' on Malaysian politics over Najib Razak
Radio Australia, 25 March 2009

* Listen to the audio report: Windows Media

In Malaysia, an explosive speech by a former UMNO minister has cast a shadow over the imminent prime ministership of Najib Razak. Prominent Malaysian lawyer Zaid Ibrahim says long-standing scandals and sensational charges, including alleged links to a murder case, against Datuk Najib make him unfit for leadership.

Presenter: Joanna McCarthy
Speaker: Professor Clive Kessler, emeritus professor in international studies, University of New South Wales; Lim Kit Siang, parliamentary leader, Democratic Action Party; Razali Ibrahim, UMNO youth head, Johor

McCARTHY: It was, according to long-time Malaysia watcher Clive Kessler, not your average Rotary Club speech.

Speaking to a weekly Rotary luncheon in Kuala Lumpur, former minister in the prime minister's department, Zaid Ibrahim, lashed out at Najib Razak, tying him to a host of scandals that he says make him unfit to be the country's next prime minister.

IBRAHIM: This is really the high noon of Malaysian politics you could say. It is, by making that speech, Zaid, by going public, by making that speech, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim you may say pulled the pin on the doomsday machine of Malaysian politics.

McCARTHY: Clive Kessler says Zaid Ibrahim has thrust into the public eye the range of sensational allegations that have long dogged Najib Razak but have been ignored by Malaysia's government controlled media.

They include charges of cronyism over the award of military contracts, the recent power grab in Perak state, and most controversially, alleged links to the brutal murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya, charges he denies and for which no evidence has been produced.

KESSLER: I think the point that I would make and possibly I think Zaid Ibrahim would make is without going into, without canvassing, without going into the substance of these accusations, that many people are discussing, are talking about these things. Many people believe them to be true and I think Zaid Ibrahim's central point is that however eager people may be in Malaysia to get rid of somebody who is perceived as a weak prime minister they should not rush to replace him with somebody who is no less widely seen to be a compromised prime minister.

McCARTHY: The alleged ties to the murder of Altantuya, for which two of Najib's bodyguards have been tried and are awaiting a verdict, continue to haunt Najib Razak.

Last week opposition lawmaker Gobind Singh called him a murderer in parliament. He's now been been banned from the house for one year.

Gobind Singh's colleague and leader of the opposition Democratic Action Party, Lim Kit Siang, says Najib Razak needs to answer to a royal commission over the allegations against him.

SIANG: There should be open transparent accountability. He should come forward so that all these allegations, serious allegations and doubts over him will stop hounding and haunting him, which will affect definitely his legitimacy as the prime minister. For the first time in the country's history, no one who is going to become the prime minister has been caught with so many questions and inquiries and this is something that has to be addressed and creates serious problems of crisis of confidence.

McCARTHY: Despite the allegations, Najib Razak is expected to be safely appointed party leader this week and assume the prime ministership soon afterwards.

The UMNO conference is a chance for the party to take stock of its unprecedented losses in last year's elections and set a course for tackling the country's looming recession.

The UMNO youth head for Johor, Razali Ibrahim, says the party is united behind Najib Razak.

He says the allegations raised by Zaid Ibrahim, who was ousted from UMNO last December, are an attempt to tear down his former party.

IBRAHIM: Who is Zaid anyway? And of course this transition will strengthen the position of UMNO and the opposition will be not happy with this transition. I can assure that it will be the best for Malaysia, furthermore, in this world economic crisis, that with this transition, UMNO will be able to overcome the downfall of the problem that is existing before.

McCARTHY: But Clive Kessler says Najib Razak's leadership has been undermined by these allegations.

He says Zaid Ibrahim has raised the so-called doomsday scenario by urging Malaysia's king to intervene.

KESSLER: I believe that there were a number of people who are trying to promote this idea that the ruler might not want to and might not be obliged to appoint Najib even if he wins the UMNO election, but that was a kind of a bit of an underground movement. It's now out in the open, and there is a head of steam behind it, and I think it's got a much better chance than it did a week ago. It may not be a great chance, but it's a much stronger one than it was a week ago.

Play it again, Sam

Wednesday, 25 March 2009 | MalaysiaToday | NO HOLDS BARRED | Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let’s call a spade a spade. In the 1980s, when Umno attacked the Rulers, the opposition rallied to the Rulers’ side. It was the opposition that defended the Monarchy in 1980 when Umno attacked it. That is a fact that has gone down into history.

Don't twist historical facts, says Najib

Umno deputy president Datuk Seri Najib Razak reminded all quarters not to twist the facts of history in recounting Umno's action to amend the law with regard to the Malay rulers.

"It was never done in bad faith, but rather with the noble intention of preserving the royal institution and upholding the doctrine of the separation of powers which is the basis of any democratic government.

"I wish to take this opportunity to remind all Malays (Malaysians) not to do things which we may regret later. To those who speak with a forked tongue, do not pledge allegiance in the morning only to betray by mid-afternoon," he said in his speech when simultaneously opening the Wanita Umno, Youth and Puteri Delegates' Conference 2008 at the Putra World Trade Centre, here, tonight.

The deputy prime minister said Umno held sacred the position of the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land, while the position of the Malay rulers was an essential part of the Constitution.

"Although in our system, the monarchy reigns but does not rule, the state governments and the federal government rule in the name of the Malay rulers as the head above the executive arm of government.

"Therefore, if the Malays (Malaysians) themselves fail to show utmost respect to the Malay rulers who have all this time served as the symbol of unity and stability, then who else will?" – Bernama, 24 March 2009


That was an extract of Najib’s speech at the Pemuda and Wanita Umno general assemblies yesterday. Now it is very clear. Umno insulted the Rulers, dragged them through the mud, defiled them, stripped them naked, and left them with absolutely no dignity back in the 1980s, not to destroy the institution of the Monarchy, but to save it.

I suppose Umno will now say they detain Malaysians without trial under the Internal Security Act not to silence them from speaking but for their protection. Hmm…… come to think of it, they did say that.

What a load of bull. Does Najib think that Malaysians are so gullible and naïve or what? Hmm……. come to think of it, Malaysians are gullible and naïve.

If Najib wants to talk about history then let me take Najib down memory lane and teach him a bit about Malaysian history. The Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s -- there were two, actually -- was a Battle Royal between Umno and the Rulers. Prior to that, Malaysia was in a unique situation of having four branches of government -- the Executive (the Prime Minister), the Legislature (Parliament), the Judiciary, and the Monarchy. Each of the four was independent of one another but worked in tandem.

This means Malaysia has four parallel power bases. And this makes Malaysia unique because most countries have three. Malaysia, however, has four, the fourth being the Monarchy.

Not long after Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad became Prime Minister, Umno decided it would eliminate the four branches of government and replace it with only one -- the Executive. This means Malaysia will retain the trappings of a democracy but in actual fact would become a dictatorship.

First to go was Parliament. That is why Barisan Nasional is so paranoid about losing its two-thirds majority in Parliament. Without the two-thirds majority, Barisan Nasional can’t control Parliament. With the two-thirds majority in Parliament they can scream and shout at the opposition and tell the Chinese and Indians to go back to China and India.

Next to suffer was the Judiciary. When the judges demonstrated independence, they were sacked or placed in cold storage or demoted (by transferring them to the Makhamah Dagang at Wisma Denmark where they spend the rest of their career listening to unpaid credit card cases). We saw that happen also in the 1980s.

That left only one institution that needed to be clipped. And that institution was the Monarchy. So the Constitutional Crisis was triggered in the 1980s, twice, and the last independent branch of government hit the dirt.

With Parliament, the Judiciary and the Monarchy neutralised, the Executive became the absolute power in Malaysia. No longer did Malaysia have four branches of government. It was left with only one. And this gave the Executive, the Prime Minister of course, the powers of a dictator.

That was what the Constitutional Crisis was all about and Najib knows this pretty well. Umno wanted to not only neutralise the Rulers but Parliament and the Judiciary as well. And it did, back in the 1980s.

So what crap is Najib talking about? Umno was treasonous. Going by the ‘old laws’, heads would have rolled. Umno and its leaders declared war on the Rulers. When it lost the first time around in the early 1980s, Umno retreated, and after a new strategy was implemented, came back for a second round in the late 1980s and finished what it started a few years earlier.

And this new strategy that Umno adopted was to disgrace and smear the Rulers to the point that the rakyat rose up in anger and demanded that the Monarchy be abolished and Malaysia get turned into a republic. That was how successful Umno’s campaign of hate was. They succeeded in getting the rakyat disgusted enough to want to sack the Rulers and declare the Prime Minister Malaysia’s first President.

Let’s call a spade a spade, as Tun Ghazali Shafie was fond of saying. Umno declared war on the Rulers. And they brought the Rulers down through a smear campaign and by using the mainstream media to spin lies. No doubt, some of what they published was true. But much of what they spun was downright lies.

For example, they showed photographs of the Sultan of Selangor’s so-called lavish palace on a hill in Penang that was actually the home of a Chinese towkay. They showed photographs of the Sultan of Kedah’s so-called lavish mansion by the sea in Northam Road overlooking the sea in Penang that was actually Rumah Kedah -- which was for the use of any Kedah civil servant who visited Penang. They accused the Sultan of Kelantan of evading tax on the car he imported whereas the Sultan did not evade tax since he was exempted from tax anyway, according to the Kelantan State Constitution. And so on and so forth.

And there was much more lies that Umno spun -- which the rakyat believed to be true and which resulted in the rakyat becoming disgusted with the Rulers to the point they wanted the Monarchy abolished and Malaysia transformed into a republic. The Monarchy never recovered from this 1980s attack that it suffered. Until today, the Rulers still remember how dangerous it is to cross Umno. And if Umno says it wants the opposition government sacked and the Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar replaced with a Barisan Nasional Menteri Besar the Rulers would never dare say no.

Sure, today, Umno says it is the defender of the crown. But if the Sultan of Perak had held his ground and had refused to sack Nizar and replace him with Zambry, would Umno still sing this tune or would Umno, again, take the Rulers through a third Constitutional Crisis like it did in the 1980s?

In the beginning, the Sultan of Perak was actually not in favour of sacking Nizar. When Nizar had his audience with the Sultan, His Highness was actually quite receptive to the idea of dissolving the State Assembly so that new state elections could be held. But His Highness got cold feet after Najib visited him and reminded Tuanku that he would be jeopardising his throne if he took Pakatan Rakyat’s side in the Perak Constitutional Crisis.

Yes, that’s right. Najib threatened the Sultan and reminded His Highness that his future lies in the hands of Umno. And Najib has the gall to say that Umno is the defender of the crown. Bullshit! I know what happened. And that is why I spoke in defence of the Sultan of Perak -- and many Malaysia Today readers whacked me because of that. But I also asked Nizar to hold his ground and not back down even if it results in a Constitutional Crisis.

Let’s call a spade a spade. In the 1980s, when Umno attacked the Rulers, the opposition rallied to the Rulers’ side. It was the opposition that defended the Monarchy in the 1980s when Umno attacked it. That is a fact that has gone down into history. And history can’t be changed. You can rewrite history. But you can never change it. And I challenge Najib to prove wrong what I said.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Sarawakians, Here's Where Some Of The Money Stolen From You Went

Monday, 23 March 2009 | MalaysiaToday

The handsome new home of Ottawa developer Sean Murray and his wife, Jamilah Taib, has shot to No. 2 among Ottawa's most expensive private residences, as measured by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (MPAC).

The couple's house at 688 Manor Ave. in Rockcliffe Park, completed late last year, is worth $9,609,000, assessors have decided. That puts it second only to that of neighbours Marlen and Michael Cowpland. The Cowplands' modern mansion at 234 Perley Crt. has an updated assessment value of $12,535,000.

The Cowpland residence has been controversial because of its ultra-modern look, which some traditionalists have grumbled is out of place in Rockcliffe Park, where many of Ottawa's most expensive homes are located.

The new home of Mr. Murray and Ms. Taib has a more traditional look, which blends in with older, and much smaller, houses nearby. Its construction has been the talk of Rockcliffe for months.

Well-heeled neighbours were impressed when the couple showed off their new home at a recent house-warming and Christmas party.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Raja Petra Kamarudin : I am now persona non grata and living in exile

Sunday, 22 March 2009 13:51

As a loyal subject of the Sultan of Selangor, I bow my head and sembah in an act of loyalty. And as I have refused to abide to the wishes of the Selangor Palace for me to apologise and retract what I wrote, I am prepared to exile myself from Selangor and never set foot in Selangor again.

Dear Peter,


It would appear that you have misinterpreted my letter of 14th March 2009 to you.

In all fairness to your readers, I urge you to post the full text of the letter in your Blog.

Thank you and Wassalam,

Aunty Fuziah


Dear Peter,

I am sending you this letter as you have not responded to my telephone calls nor to my telephone message inviting you to the house on Saturday afternoon to talk over family matters, particularly in connection with the open letter to Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, which you posted in your Blog on 2nd March 2009.

As you already know, I admire your ability to write and express your thoughts, ideas and comments about events in your Blog, especially your mastery of the English language. I have also often reminded you that truth should always prevail in communicating these things to the public. It is also not for you to decide ‘what is clearly lawful’.

Had Tok Uda been alive, he would have considered the content and manner of what you wrote in the open letter to Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, as a betrayal of the code of conduct and values which he had subscribed to, cherished and passed on to us. And for this to have come from his favourite grandson would certainly have made him collapse in a state of shock.

While Tok Uda, as a true Royalist had demanded loyalty and the upholding of family honour, tradition and adat, he had, on many occasions, also emphasised that we are entitled to our own personal views, accepted our sense and spirit of adventure, freedom of thought and action as you may well have known from the family history. But “RESPECT FOR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY” or “UPHOLDING LAW AND ORDER“ was his cardinal principle, to be dearly valued and respected by the family at all times.

I believe that in the case of the open letter, you have crossed the line. Such writings would appear to be seditious. Therefore, for the sake of Tok Uda, and, in upholding the family honour, I feel that the only discourse open is to diffuse/redeem this and for you to apologise through your Blog to the rulers and the public.

We all love you Peter in our own small ways, but I have this task to keep the family together, so help me Peter. And so help me too, Ya-Allah.

With my personal good wishes and love to you and Marina and the family,
I remain,


Aunty Fuziah


My Aunty, Raja Fuziah Tun Uda, was referring to my Open letter to Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin ( In that piece of 2nd March 2009, I wrote as follows:

Dear Datuk Seri,

I am going to make this short and sweet. No more
cheong hei article from me.

They can lock the Perak State Assembly building if they want. The building is not important. If the building is inaccessible -- say like there is a flood or an earthquake brings it down -- does this mean the State Assembly can’t meet?

Of course it can. It can meet anywhere, not necessarily in that particular meeting.

Go find another meeting place, tonight, now itself, and hold the meeting there tomorrow. Pass a vote of confidence to support you as the Menteri Besar. Then pass all the other motions, including the motion to dissolve the Perak State Assembly. Then drive up to Bukit Chandan as soon as possible and inform Tuanku of the State Assembly’s decision.

If Tuanku refuses to comply with what is clearly lawful, then challenge him and, if necessary, trigger a Constitutional Crisis like never before seen in the 52-year history of this nation.

The people are ready. The next ‘revolution’ is not going to be a race riot a la May 13. It is going to be a class struggle. And I am with the Rakyat on this, never mind my so-called Royal background.

I speak as a Royal but speak for the Rakyat. And rest assured there are many other Royals who share my view. Don’t allow a handful of those who sit on the throne intimidate you into thinking that you are alone, representing the Rakyat, against the Monarchy. No, we are with you, as are many other Royals.

Grab the bull by the horns and bring it to its knees. And if this bull wears a crown so be it. The Rakyat have spoken. Don’t back down now. Go all the way or forever lose that advantage. And if you fail to go all the way, the Rakyat will never forgive you and you will lose our support till the end of time.

Daulat Tuanku. Daulat Tuanku. Daulat Tuanku.

Patek yang hina sembah Tuanku dan memohon perkenan agar Tuanku jangan kecewakan Rakyat. Hasrat Rakyat ialah untuk mencari kebenaran dan keadilan. Biarlah ini juga menjadi hasrat Tuanku.

Daulat Tuanku. Daulat Tuanku. Daulat Tuanku.

On 14th March, my Aunty sent me the e-mail above and my response to that can be read in the following piece called Raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah (, which I wrote on 16th March.

At my Aunty’s request, I have published both e-mails. My stand, however, remains the same. I see no need to apologise to His Highness the Sultan of Perak, as I do not feel I have acted in a treasonous or seditious manner. I have already explained why I feel that way in my article of 16th March, so there is no necessity for me to repeat what I have already said.

I have been told by palace sources that the government wants to arrest me and charge me for treason. My lawyers have advised me that no such law exists. Nevertheless, they can charge me for ‘waging war against the King’, like how they charged the Al Maunah group -- who were subsequently found guilty and soon after that hanged in the Sungai Buloh Prison in October 2006.

My reluctance to apologise for what I wrote would certainly be interpreted as an act of defiance on my part. The government will also take the view that my two Internal Security Act detentions in 2001 and 2008 have not ‘done the trick’ and have instead made me more ‘difficult’. This would mean Internal Security Act detention is ‘wasted’ on me. The only way to silence me would be to charge me for ‘treason’ and then send me to the gallows to end my life.

I have no reason to believe they would not secure a conviction. My three ongoing trials and the way they keep ‘moving the goalposts’ every time they appear to be losing their case against me only strengthens this belief. I have written about this many times so I do not need, again, to go through the points of not only my concerns but that of my lawyers as well.

I do not believe that apologising, as my Aunty has asked me to, will change anything. The government will not spare me just because I have apologised. The only way I can be spared would be for me to renounce the opposition and announce that I am joining Umno. I would be expected to explain that I had erred in supporting the opposition and did not see, at the time, that the opposition is wrong and has been misleading Malaysians. Maybe, and I repeat, maybe only then will the government spare me.

But I will not do that. I can’t do that. I have come so far, 30 years to be exact -- the last ten years through the Reformasi Movement -- to now change my stand. Why would I take the trouble of spending more than half my life opposing the government and then, towards the end of my life, do a U-turn, especially if the purpose in doing so is to settle the many legal problems I am now facing?

I never intended to bring shame to my family, in particular to smear the name of my late Grandfather, Raja Sir Tun Uda. If my family feels embarrassed about my actions I apologise for that. But I offer no excuses for what I did. While I apologise for bringing shame to my family, I do not apologise for what I have done and will stand firm in defence of my actions.

I understand my family would now have to disown me. I can never be regarded as the grandson of Raja Sir Tun Uda -- or a grandson of Tengku Badariah binti al-Marhum Sultan Ala'uddin Suleiman Shah of the great-grandson of His Royal Highness Sultan Ala'uddin Suleiman Shah ibni Raja Muda Musa. As much as I am proud of my heritage, my love for my family is more important. And if I have to save my family by becoming an outcast then this is what I must do for the sake of my family.

Yes, I am the grandson of Raja Sir Tun Uda as well as the great-grandson of Sultan Ala'uddin Suleiman Shah. But I am a rakyat’s man. Just because of my royal lineage I can’t take the side of the palace when the rakyat has been wronged. Justice demands I stand on the side of truth. My personal affiliations and family loyalty can’t stand in the way of truth and justice.

I understand I am a Raja first and all others second. And, as a Raja, I am expected to take the stand as a Royalist and defend the palace whenever it is under attack. But that is just it. I did do that in the 1980s when Umno attacked the Rulers. Anwar Ibrahim, then, was in Umno and I turned my back on Anwar when he sided with Umno against the Rulers. I ‘disowned’ Anwar in spite of my earlier support for him when he did not defend the Rulers from Umno.

But I defended the Rulers and turned my back on Anwar not because I am a Raja and therefore must take the stand as a Royalist. I did so because the Rulers were being unfairly attacked and Umno, through the mainstream media, was spinning lies about the so-called misconduct of the Rulers. No doubt, some of the Rulers had misbehaved. But this does not warrant attacking all the Rulers, in particular those who were innocent and had done no wrong.

I paid a heavy price for that. I was then living and doing business in Terengganu. Umno Terengganu, at the behest of the Menteri Besar, went out of its way to bring me down. Eventually, my business was brought to ruin. Umno approached my foreign partners and told them that as long as they had Raja Petra as their partner their business prospects in Malaysia would be very bleak. After awhile, when they realised they were being blacklisted just because they had me as their partner, they ended our partnership and took new partners ‘recommended’ by Umno.

By 1994, I could hardly do any business anywhere in Malaysia. My name was untouchable. The very mention of my name meant you were doomed. The only option I had left was to close down all my businesses and retire, at the age of 44, into my new life as a writer. Umno ‘advised’ me to leave Terengganu, which I did, for my safety and that of my family.

I started writing for the cycling and motorcycling columns of The Star in the early 1990s. In 1994, when I had left Terengganu, I started my own website and wrote about political, social and economic issues. My time was spent staying at home churning out an article a day on various issues. My wife baked cookies, curry-puff and whatnot, which I went around on my motorcycle to sell.

At one stage we were so tight for cash we could no longer even buy new clothes. My wife had to be contented with hand-me-downs from my daughter and, for me, hand-me-downs from my son-in-law. To put food on the table (we ate once a day; dinner only) my wife sold rice in front of the mosque in Sungai Buloh.

One Friday, my wife could not sell even one plate of rice. She sat there for hours waiting for customers but no one bought any. I told me wife I needed to go home for a short while to write an article and left her in front of the mosque all alone. I lied. I just could not stand seeing her sit there with an anxious look on her face, wondering if she was going to sell anything that day. I went home and had a good cry. I cried like a baby, wondering if I had done the right thing in opposing the government and subject my family to this very uncertain future.

Yes, I paid the price for my ‘folly’ in opposing the government. I took a stand and suffered for it. But I never once went to my family to tell them of my problems. My family knew me as a successful businessman with plenty of money. The truth is, I was broke and could not afford to even feed or clothe my family. I suffered in silence. My family never knew what we were going through.

When the situation demanded it, I took the side of the Rulers against Umno. I even turned my back on my friends in Umno, people like Anwar Ibrahim who later became the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Those around Anwar became rich. I too could have become rich. But I chose to be poor on grounds of principle. I never sold my principles just to end my financial predicament.

When they sacked and eventually jailed Anwar, I rallied to his side. Yes, Anwar who had wronged the Rulers, as far as I was concerned. And for that I suffered arrest and detention, to add to my financial predicament, which was still unresolved at that time.

When I said in my 16th March 2009 article that I have earned the right to take the Rulers to task if they err or misbehave, I meant it. And I knew what I was saying when I wrote that. I had never shied away from pain. Even when the pain became unbearable I stood my ground. I just sneaked away and cried. But I never sold out my principles.

Today, my family is unhappy with me because I have acted treasonously towards the Sultan of Perak. Maybe, maybe I am treasonous. But I do not see it as treason. I am of the opinion that the Sultan has erred. And that is why I wanted Nizar to hold his ground and not back down -- which he did. And, most importantly, I have earned that right, the hard way, to take the Rulers to task if they err. And, this, I did.

As a loyal subject of the Sultan of Selangor (my late father has a certificate Kerabat Selangor), I bow my head and sembah in an act of loyalty. And as I have refused to abide to the wishes of the Selangor Palace for me to apologise and retract what I wrote, I am prepared to exile myself from Selangor and never set foot in Selangor again. That is what is expected from a loyal Kerabat Selangor who has acted treasonously (durhaka) and has incurred the wrath of the Sultan and the Selangor Royal Family.

As of today, I am persona non grata in Selangor and will live in exile outside Selangor. My decision is final and my stand is firm. There is not a soul on earth who can persuade me to change my stand.

Daulat Tuanku.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

The Confession that Never Was

Saturday, 21 March 2009 - Malaysiatoday

A statement by the confessed murderer of Altantuya Shaariibuu raises more questions

In other court testimony, Sirul said Azilah had told him "there was work to be done and just asked me to follow him." Musa Safri, Najib Tun Razak's chief of staff, he testified, "had told him about a friend …who had women problems."


Asia Sentinel

On November 9, 2006, at Kuala Lumpur's Travers police station, Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, then a 35-year-old member of the country's elite Special Action bodyguard unit under Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, sat down and confessed to the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

See Sirul Azhar's Caution Statement here

The dead woman, a Mongolian translator who had been executed nearly three weeks before in gruesome fashion with two bullets to the head, is at the center of what would be one of Malaysia's biggest political scandals ever, involving not only sex and murder but hundreds of millions of dollars in defense contracts.

But the case, which has been underway in a Shah Alam courtroom since June of 2007, is notable for what neither the prosecution, the defense or the judge appeared to want to be bought into open court.

On Feb. 3, a tearful Sirul asked the court not to sentence him to death for Altantuya's murder, saying he was like "a black sheep that has to be sacrificed" to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or faced questioning.

"I have no reason to cause hurt, what's more to take the life of the victim in such a cruel manner," Sirul said. "I appeal to the court, which has the powers to determine if I live or die, not to sentence me so as to fulfil others' plans for me."

Sirul and Azilah are now awaiting sentencing despite the fact that the trial was concluded in February.

Sirul's confession is an extraordinary and chilling document. In the session, tape-recorded and conducted in Bahasa Malaysia, or Malay language, Sirul was told he was not obliged to answer questions but that whether in answer to questions or not, his remarks would be recorded as a statement.

But although the volunary confession indicates that Sirul had been cautioned, it has been ruled inadmissible in the long-running trial of Sirul and his boss, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri, and Abdul Razak Baginda, the admitted lover who jilted Altantuya after a torrid affair. Razak was later declared not guilty and freed without having to put on a defense. He has since left the country for England.

An extraordinary amount of evidence connects Najib, now preparing to become Malaysia's prime minister, to the case. SMS messages exist between Baginda and Najib reassuring him not to worry when he was first under suspicion, saying Najib would fix things. A private investigator hired by Razak Baginda to keep Altantuya away from him after she returned to Malaysia to confront him said in a statutory declaration that Baginda, a well-connected head of a political think tank, had told him Najib had introduced Altantuya to him. The private investigator was forced to recant his statement and hurriedly left the country.

Although Sirul's statement was ruled inadmissible, presumably that would not have prevented lawyers from repeating the questions in open court in an attempt to get him to answer them. Among other things, in the confession, Sirul says "Azilah talked about a reward of between RM50,000 and RM100,000 if the case was settled."

Since Baginda has been freed, it raises the question of who else was going to pay the two men to kill Altantuya. That question was never asked or answered in court.

In other court testimony, Sirul said Azilah had told him "there was work to be done and just asked me to follow him." Musa Safri, Najib Tun Razak's chief of staff, he testified, "had told him about a friend …who had women problems."

Neither Najib nor Musa has been questioned about who sent the two men first to the Hotel Malacca, where, according to the testimony, Azilah wanted Sirul to kill not only Altantuya but the two women who had accompanied her to Kuala Lumpur in an attempt to confront Baginda.

According to other reports, Altantuya had served as a translator in Paris for the Malaysian government's US$1 billion purchase of three French submarines which was routed through a firm owned by Baginda and which netted him a €114 million commission. Najib, one of Baginda's best friends, was defense secretary at the time and engineered the purchase.

In a letter found after Altantuya's death, she expressed regret for attempting to blackmail Razak. Baginda, in a statement to the police, said she was asking for US$500,000 from him, presumably for her role in the transaction.

Sirul and Azilah went to the Malaya Hotel but decided not to kill the three women "because of the presence of CCTV (closed circuit television cameras)."

Ultimately, according to the confession, the two went to Razak Baginda's house where "there was a Chinese woman (Altantuya) who was causing a commotion."

The two, with the help of a Malay woman, presumably Lance Corporal Rohaniza Roslan, Azila's former girlfriend, bundled Altantuya into a red Proton Wira and drove her to where Sirul's jeep awaited. Rohaniza later claimed she had been coerced to change her testimony. The prosecution attempted to impeach her as a witness.

"Along the journey, Azilah asked me to find a place to ‘shoot to kill the Chinese woman." Eventually after she was driven to Sirul's house to pick up the military explosives that would be wrapped around her body after she was dead, she was then driven to the Punchak Alam forest reserve near the suburban city of Shah Alam.

"I saw Azilah outside the jeep carrying a bag containing an M5 weapon and silencer from the jeep that was located at the foot rest of the passenger seat and gave it to me ordering me to ‘shoot to kill' the Chinese woman who was inside the jeep."

They took her jewelry and other articles, Sirul said, and "I saw that she was in a state of fear and she pleaded not to kill her and said she was expecting." Nonetheless, Azilah wrestled her to the ground, apparently knocking her unconscious, and "I opened fire towards the left side of the woman's head. After the Chinese woman was shot, Azilah removed all her clothes and I took a black garbage bag and Azilah put all the Chinese woman's clothes into the bag."

Azilah, he said, "noticed movements in the Chinese woman's arm and ordered me to fire another shot but the gun did not fire. I then emptied the weapon and loaded the gun again and fired another shot at the same area which was the left side of the woman's head. I then took a black plastic garbage bag and with Azilah's help put the bag over the Chinese woman's head to prevent blood from spilling."

With Sirul holding her arms and Azilah holding her legs, they carried Altantuya into the woods. "Azilah then carried the bag containing the explosives and handed it to me. I took the explosives and attached them to the victim's head while Azilah attached the explosives on the victim's legs up to the abdomen." After attaching a wire to the explosives, they blew her up.

After returning to the Bukit Aman police station, "I had a bath and changed clothes and put the clothes that I wore during the incident together with the victim's clothes into a plastic bag. After that, I entered the jeep and drove the jeep to a rubbish container in the Bukit Aman area near a construction site. I threw some of the victim's belongings and the wire that was used to detonate the explosives together with the empty bag that contained the explosives into the container.'

Then he went home and went to sleep.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Baggage too heavy for our new PM

MARCH 13 — Tunku Aziz | malaysianinsider

No one in living memory has ever had to drag so much unnecessary baggage along with him as Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak is doing on assuming the highest political office in Malaysia.

My heart naturally goes out to the unfortunate man who has had to fend off, without a break, a relentless barrage of poison-tipped arrows all aimed at his personal and public integrity.

I will not claim to know how he must feel because I would have absolutely no idea unless I were in his well-heeled shoes. And this would be most unlikely even in a million years.

Under different and happier circumstances, he should be celebrating his moment of destiny, the attainment, albeit Umno-style, of the greatest political prize of all.

However, I doubt, in spite of his calm and controlled demeanour and composure that he is looking forward to the great day with even the same degree of enthusiasm that I manage to wake up each morning for my breakfast.

Frankly I marvel at his ability to remain almost as unflappable (as the legendary Harold Macmillan, the British Tory prime minister of the “winds of change” fame) in such a difficult and dangerous situation. He would, in my book, rate an A+ for sang froid and panache.

For Najib, the saying “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown” seems entirely superfluous and irrelevant. Lucky you to be oblivious to the hostile world around.

Najib in the eyes of his detractors, and their numbers are legion, apparently has no redeeming feature at all which cannot be true because no human being is all bad.

However, the rumours about him that appear with such regular monotony on many blogs are unlikely to go away any time soon. The allegations are serious in the extreme, touching as they do upon his personal honour and integrity.

They will continue to dog and haunt him for as long as he holds public office. What a way to begin his stewardship of a troubled nation, a nation that seems to lack moral direction under the present government.

On present showing, his moral and ethical legitimacy to lead the nation is in serious doubt, and he must, for the sake of putting these malicious allegations to rest, once and for all, begin the process of suing those who have blackened his name and threatened his elevation to the office of prime minister of Malaysia.

This is the only way of clearing his name before the world. Nothing less than a full and open recourse to the justice system will suffice. The people of this country must not be shortchanged by having someone who has yet to clear his name in a court of law foisted on them.

They deserve better and Najib the new prime minister will then deservedly enjoy inestimable legitimacy and prestige in the eyes of the people of this country and the wider world.

Najib has all the positive qualities of leadership. He is literally and figuratively head and shoulders above the rest of the Umno stalwarts and it would be a pity if he chose to ignore the increasingly persistently strident collective voice for high moral and ethical standards in our political leaders.

It seems only fair that if Najib should feel unable for any reason to defend his honour and integrity in a court of law, then he will have to put up with more imputations of improper motives.

If he is not prepared, again for any reason, to put all of his actions under the closest public scrutiny, then he should reconsider his position. This is the ethical way forward, the only way, for anyone aspiring to the highest public office who harbours even the slightest doubt about his moral and ethical fitness for office. Yes, the standards expected are high, and the rewards are even higher. If you believe that you meet these expectations, then I wish you a long and successful stewardship of this nation, always I hope in the public interest.

Friday, March 6, 2009

The Sedition Act for Dummies

Friday, 06 March 2009 | RPK | Malaysiatoday

Actually, my case is very complicating indeed. The police report against me was that I was seditious because I had lied (di ada adakan). Therefore, should not the focus of my trial be on whether I did or did not lie? The government realises that this was a mistake so it is trying to amend the charge without officially amending it.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

I am currently on trial for the crime of sedition. It seems, according to Malaysia’s Sedition Act, I have committed a crime. The novel thing about the Sedition Act is that it does not matter whether I had lied or had told the truth. Even if I had not lied and had told the truth it would still tantamount to sedition. Therefore, I can go to jail for telling the truth if the government can prove that the truth I told is seditious. That is the fate that awaits me.

This means the court can block the truth from surfacing. I can’t use the truth as my defence. Therefore, I would not be allowed to adduce any evidence to support what I wrote or said. Never mind if I have evidence that so-and-so were the people behind the Altantuya murder or so-and-so were also present during the murder. This is not crucial to my defence and the court is not interested in seeing this evidence. The question would be: did I write or say what they allege I have written or said? If I did, then I am guilty. Whether I lied or not is not crucial to the charge and the court is not in the least interested in looking at whatever evidence I may have.

Now can you see why they chose to charge me under the Sedition Act as well as for criminal defamation for the second trial? This is so that the truth or falsity of what I wrote and said need not be argued. They only need to focus on whether I did it. This would mean the truth can forever remain suppressed and need never surface during the trial.

If they had instead charged me for making a false declaration or for signing a false Statutory Declaration, then I would need to prove I did not make a false declaration or had signed a false SD. So the truth of what I said and wrote would be very crucial. We would need to get to the bottom of things so that I can defend myself. The truth must be established so that we can prove I had not lied. Alas, this will not be the case because what I have been charged with does not require the truth to be established.

Actually, when they initially brought me in for interrogation, it was for the crime of making a false declaration. They probably realised that this would be suicide in the event I have the evidence to prove I did not make a false declaration. So they changed their mind and instead charged me under the Sedition Act as well as for criminal defamation. This would be safer as the truth of the matter need not be argued and can in fact be blocked from ever surfacing.

Let us look at what the Sedition Act is all about. This is actually a law from the time when the King was appointed by God and could do no wrong. To question the King is tantamount to questioning God and would therefore be an act of sedition. But those were in the days when the King could send you to your death. Today, the King is purely a Constitutional Monarch who does not possess the executive powers of the Kings of days gone by.

In Public Prosecutor vs. Param Cumaraswamy, the sedition charge against Param was:

That you on 24 July 1985 at about 11:00 a.m. at the office of the Selangor and Federal Territory Bar Committee in the old High Court Building, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, uttered seditious words to wit, that part of your press statement as underlined, (the full text of which is attached as Sch. ‘A’ to this charge) and that you have thereby committed an offence under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act, 1948 (Revised 1969) and punishable under s 4(1) of the said Act.

The judge in this case was Justice NH Chan, who has now become famous because of his opinion on the Perak Constitutional Crisis where he said that Pakatan Rakyat is on solid legal grounds.

Another case involved Marina Yusof who was alleged to have made a seditious statement during a DAP ceramah in Penang. Marina successfully proved she had not lied but they still found her guilty. This, as I said, is because the truth of the matter is not crucial to the charge. Even if she had told the truth, which was proven she did, she is still guilty.

Because of her age, the court decided to just fine her instead of sending her to jail. She paid the fine and went home. If she had not been over 60 and a grandmother to boot, they would have sent her to jail. And she was found guilty not because she had lied but because she told the truth. But the truth she told was considered seditious.

My defence in my sedition trial, therefore, becomes very dicey indeed. I can’t adduce whatever evidence I have. If I do, I will go to jail. Instead, I will have to allow them to prove that I committed the act. And if they can’t prove that then I will be home free. To admit that I committed the act by attempting to prove that I had not lied and by adducing the evidence I possess means I am confessing to a crime and would therefore lose my case.

Many are hoping that the evidence I have will surface during my trial. The government, however, is clever enough to make sure that it never will. And even if I am prepared to lose my case and risk going to jail by taking the line of defence that I may have done it but I did not lie, the court can still block this evidence as ‘not relevant’ to the case. They can bar me from adducing any evidence unless it involves proving I did not commit the act. If it is about whether I had told the truth or not, then the court does not want to see it.

Sir James Stephen’s definition of sedition found its way into the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. Section 326 sub-s 8 of the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast, 1936 Revision, c 9, states as follows:

A ‘seditious intention’ is an intention:

(1) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, His heirs or successors or the Government of the Gold Coast as by law established; or

(2) to bring about a change in the sovereignty of the Gold Coast; or

(3) to excite His Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of the Gold Coast to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in the Gold Coast as by law established; or

(4) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in the Gold Coast; or

(5) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of the Gold Coast; or

(6) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of the Gold Coast:

It is not a seditious intention if:

(a) to show that His Majesty has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures; or

(b) to point out errors or defects in the government or constitution of the Gold Coast as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the reformation of such errors or defects; or

(c) to persuade His Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of the Gold Coast to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the Gold Coast as by law established other than that referred to in para (2) of this sub-section; or

(d) to point out with a view to their removal any matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of the Gold Coast.

Provided that none of the acts or things mentioned in provisos (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be deemed to be lawful if they are done in such manner as to effect or be likely to effect any of the purposes (1) to (6) which are declared in this section to be a seditious intention.

‘Seditious words’ are words expressive of a seditious ‘intention’.

And what, you may ask, is ‘seditious intent’?

In both the Stephen and the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast definitions, an intention to achieve one or more of the objects specified in the definition is an essential ingredient of the crime of sedition. The important question is whether the “intention” must be proved. In article 94 of the Digest (4th Ed) Stephen put it thus:

In determining whether the intention with which any words were spoken, any document was published, or any agreement was made, was or was not seditious, every person must be deemed to intend the consequences, which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so conducted himself.

In Wallace-Johnson v The King, counsel for the appellant contended (a) that both in English common law and in the Criminal Code in question there must be some evidence of intention outside the mere words of the instrument before a seditious intention can be said to exist; and (b) that in the present case, when the document is read, there cannot be found in it any seditious intention at all; and therefore before the appellant can be convicted there must be some evidence of seditious intention extrinsically, and, there being none, this conviction cannot stand on any ground.

3. (1) A ‘seditious tendency’ is a tendency:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State; or

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Pt III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sect. (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency:

(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in para (f) of sub-s (1) otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects;

(c) except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in para (f) of sub-sect, (1):

(i) to persuade the subjects of any Rulers or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established; or

(ii) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation if the act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.

Actually, my case is very complicating indeed. The police report against me was that I was seditious because I had lied (di ada adakan). Therefore, should not the focus of my trial be on whether I did or did not lie? The government realises that this was a mistake so it is trying to amend the charge without officially amending it. In other words, they want the court to focus on the seditious act itself (whether I wrote the article) and not on whether the article is true of false (di ada adakan).

But what about the seditious tendency of the act I was alleged to have committed? And what if my intention, assuming I want to take the risk of admitting I wrote the article, was: to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects? Well, then it will not be seditious in nature and I, therefore, have not committed any crime. But I will have to first admit I wrote that article to explain why I wrote it and this would mean they would be able to nail my balls to the wall.

Sigh…..damned if you admit it and damned if you don’t.

I think I will be a lawyer when I grow up.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

The truth that refuses to surface

Thursday, 05 March 2009 | RPK | Malaysiatoday
In my sedition trial, Superintendent Gan Tack Guan just refuses to reply to YB Gobind Singh Deo’s questions as to how and why Altantuya Shaaribuu was killed and whether someone had paid Azilah and Sirul to kill her. Gan also refuses to confirm whether C4 was used to blow up her body after she was killed. Gan, in fact, says it was not C4 and he does not know what type of explosive was used. Today, Malaysia Today will reveal the truth that Gan refuses to reveal in my trial.


Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Altantuya Shaaribuu’s case: how and why she was killed
Published in the Liberation French newspaper on 5th March 2009

This is the English translation of the Liberation French article:

Shaaribuu Setev is a bitter and disappointed man. Yet, behind the saddened face of this Mongolian lies a fierce determination. Seated in a sofa in the lobby of an Ulaan Baataar hotel rattled by gushes of a freezing wind, this sixty years old man is ready to fight. His face features, hardened by the suffering and the stern climate, and his intense gaze tell all. “My daughter has been murdered by Malaysians on Malaysian territory. And they did not have even offer a word of apology,” states this professor of psychology at the National University of Mongolia.

The assassination of his daughter, Altantuya Shaaribuu, took place in October 2006. This was a murder unlike others in a region where business conflicts or petty politics are often settled with a gun. Everything in this case, which started in 2002 when the French Spanish company Armaris concluded the sale of three submarines to the Malaysian government for the amount of one billion Euros, is out of the ordinary.

The impact of the “Altantuya case” in France, Malaysia and Mongolia has yet to reach its climax. The murder of the 28 year old Mongolian was the result of a “commission” at the price of 114 million Euros by Armaris to its Malaysian counterpart. This “commission,” which was acknowledged by the Malaysian government in front of the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, has triggered a chain of events that has led to the assassination of Altantuya and the disappearance of several key witnesses in the case.

A report from the Malaysian police, written on 19th november 2006 and which has been kept secret until now (can be read below), reveals dry and precise descriptions as to how this young woman, a member of Asian high society, has been killed. In this document, one of the killers, a policeman of the Malaysian Special Branch named Sirul Omar, replied to the questions of an officer at a police station close to the murder scene. “When the Chinese woman saw that I was taking a gun, she begged me to spare her, saying she was pregnant. Azilah (the commanding officer of Sirul) grabbed her and [threw] her on the ground. I immediately shot the left side of her face. Then Azilah took off her clothes and put them in a black plastic bag. Azilah noticed that her hand was still moving. He ordered me to shoot again, which I did”, said Sirul. This is the first confirmation of Altantuya’s assassins’ identity. “Then we carried her body into the woods. Azilah wrapped the explosives around her legs, her abdomen and her head, and we exploded her.”

The revelation of this report in the French newspaper Liberation is the latest chapter in this colourful and dramatic saga featuring French weapon sellers, Mongolian Shaman, and Malaysian politicians. This case is explosive not only for the Malaysian government, since the deputy Prime minister Najib Razak (who is scheduled to become Prime minister at the end of March) is suspected of having links to the case, but also because it could embarrass the DCNS, this French company specialising in military shipbuilding. The French Spanish company Armaris, which sold two Scorpène and one Agosta submarines to Malaysia in June 2002, was bought by DCNS in 2007.

With her magnetic beauty and sophistication, Altantuya is reminiscent of the troubling image of a Far East Mata Hari. She grew up in Saint Petersburg (Russia), then studied at the Institute of Economic Management in Beijing. Besides speaking English, she is fluent in Russian, Chinese and Korean. The fateful cycle for Altantuya came into gear when she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Hong Kong in 2004. Baginda is a security expert and the director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a pro-government think-tank. The two quickly became romantically involved. Altantuya, nicknamed Tuya by her friends, proved to be a useful assistant, helping Baginda translate from Russian to English.

Whereas Altantuya is young and beautiful, the rich and alluring Baginda is a well known figure of the Kuala Lumpur’s elite, notably because of his proximity to the Malaysian Deputy Prime minister and minister of Defense Najib Razak (he is also his security affairs adviser). Baginda parades in the most exclusive circles of Kuala Lumpur, sometimes accompanied by his legitimate wife.

In March 2005, Altantuya and Baginda departed for Europe, touring France, Germany, Italy and Portugal in the red Ferrari of Baginda, staying in posh hotels and dining in the finest restaurants of the old Continent. This trip, however, was not only for tourism: the contract for the sale of the submarines had been signed in 2002, but important details had yet to be settled. “We knew that Baginda was used by Deputy Prime minister Najib Razak as an intermediary for weapons systems deals, especially the high level ones,” says a regional security affairs expert.

At the end of March 2005 the couple was in Paris, where they met with Najib Razak. A picture shows the threesome in a Parisian private club. “Tuya showed me the pix. She said that one of the men was her boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda, and the other the “big boss”, Najib Razak. I asked her if they were brothers because of the names, but she said no, and that Najib Razak was the ‘prime minister’”, said Amy, Altantuya’s best friend (Najib Razak has sworn on the Koran that he has never met Altantuya). According to a private detective, now in hiding in India, the beautiful Tuya was also the occasional mistress of the deputy Prime minister, who was introduced to her by Baginda at the end of 2004.

The story became dramatic when, in October 2006, Altantuya was informed that the commission paid by the French-Spanish company Armaris had arrived on a Kuala Lumpur bank account. It had been paid to Perimekar, a company owned by Baginda. Altantuya rushed to Kuala Lumpur, in order to claim her share of the commission from Baginda ; she said she was entitled to 500,000 dollars. Baginda and Altantuya broke up prior to this. A jealous Rosmah Mansor, the feared businesswoman and wife of Najib Razak, objected any payment to Altantuya. Altantuya arrived in Kuala Lumpur with two other Mongolian women, one of them was a Shaman responsible for putting a spell on Baginda if he refused to pay. For several days, Altantuya harassed her ex-lover.

On the 18th of October, Baginda could no longer tolerate the daily scenes made by Altantuya in front of his house. He contacted the Director of the Special Branch, Musa Safrie, who happened to also be Najib Razak’s aide de camp. On October 19th, 2006, a little before 9 pm, two police officers of the Special Branch, Azilah Hadridan and Sirul Omar, were sent in front of Baginda’s house where Altantuya was gesticulating and shouting. They had the order of “neutralising the Chinese woman.” They kidnapped her, and drove her ten kilometers away and shot her several times. Then, they destroyed her body with C4 explosives, a type which can only be obtained from within the Defense Ministry. Her entry into Malaysia was erased from the immigration records. It would appear that Altantuya had never come to Malaysia, because there is no trace left of her.

There is no perfect crime. The taxi driver hired by Altantuya for the day did not appreciate that his passenger was kidnapped under his eyes without payment for the fare. He took note of the registration plate of the kidnapper’s car and filed a complaint at the local police station. In a few days, the police identified the car and realised that it was a government vehicle.

Events unfolded that even the Deputy Prime minister Najib Razak could not impede. He tried to cover the case. A few hours before the arrest of Baginda, he sent him a SMS: “I will see the Inspector General of Police at 11 am today… The problem will be solved. Be cool”. A few hours after, Baginda was arrested as well as the two police officers of the Special Branch, Azilah and Sirul.

After a trial considered dubious by many observers, Baginda was acquitted with the accusation of having ordered the murder and released in November 2008. Accused of having perpetrated the murder, Azilah and Sirul appeared in front of the Court last month. If convicted, their sentence is death. The verdict is scheduled for the 9th of April.

Thousands of miles from there, in the Mongolian capital city Ulaan Baataar, Shaaribuu Setev, Altantuya’s father, is trying to control his anger. To him and his family, the acquittal and release of Baginda is symbolic of the unfairness of the Malaysian judicial process: “The Malaysian government is not even answering to the letters from the Mongolian Foreign Affairs Ministry,” he says.

When Shaaribuu came to the Malaysian Parliament to meet Najib Razak, the Deputy Prime minister had to escape through a back door in order to avoid an embarrassing encounter. The Altantuya case has become a key element of the Malaysian political game between Najib Razak (who is expected to become Prime Minister after the United Malay Nation Organisation (UMNO) Congress in March) and the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. So far, Najib Razak has navigated around the obstacles, but the murder of the young Mongolian remains a sword suspended over his head.

One of the most obscure aspects of the Altantuya case is the role of the Armaris company. In October 2007, the Malaysian Deputy Defense minister, Zainal Abdidin Zin, acknowledged in front of the Parliament that Armaris had effectively paid 114 million Euros in commission to Perimekar. He maintained that it was not a bribe, but a payment for “support and coordination services.”

Was there corruption as in the case of the Taiwanese frigates in which the French DCNS was also implicated? DCNS, a private company with public financing, has declined our request for a meeting. “Nobody can comment on this case,” was the sober reply of the DCNS Press relations officer in Paris. A document, which could establish a link between Altantuya and the French company is the guarantee letter written by Abdul Razak Baginda so that his mistress could obtain a visa to enter the Schengen zone (of whom France is a member country). The French embassy could not refuse this service to a man decorated with the Legion d’Honneur. But the role of Altantuya in the submarines negotiations is still not clear. Intelligence agencies find her background intriguing and the Russian FSB (ex-KGB) is following closely the case.

In Ulaan Baataar, Mungunshagai, the eldest son of Altantuya, who is 12 years old, is traumatised by the death of his mother. Altanshagai, the youngest, who is five years old and mentally handicapped, has not understood that he will never see again his mother. “He is asking for her all the time and is staying the whole day prostrated on his chair. Every evening, I bring him sweets and I tell him that his mother gave it to me for him”, says Shaaribuu Setev, the grandfather of the two boys. As for Baginda, he settled down in the United Kingdom with his family. He never uttered a word of regret on the deadly fate of the one who shared his life for two years.

Arnaud Dubus (in Kuala Lumpur, Ulaan Baataar and Paris)
Arnaud did extensive research into this story and travelled the world in search of the truth. I met him in Kuala Lumpur soon after my release from ISA detention after he returned from Mongolia.
This is the original cautioned statement that Sirul Azhar Omar made in the interrogation by the police on 19 November 2006 that confirms not only how and why Altantuya was killed but also that they were hired to kill her:

search box