“…where a witness is dead, it may be better to admit evidence of what he said than to deprive the court of all proof” – Phipson on Evidence.
That’s a text book commentary on the English common law position in the matter of what is commonly referred to as the ‘dying declaration’ exception to the hearsay rule.
In our jurisdiction, that exception is encapsulated in section 32(1)(a) of the Evidence Act, 1950, which reads :
(1) Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:
(a) when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.
In 1939, the Privy Council heard an appeal from India which involved a consideration of the Indian equivalent of our section 32(1)(a). This is the case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. King-Emperor. I will not burden you with the facts of the case, which was one of homicide, but just reproduce below what Lord Atkins said in relation to the Indian equivalent to our section 32(1)(a) :
‘…The statement may be made before the cause of death has arisen, or before the deceased has any reason to expect to be killed. The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction. General expressions indicating fear or suspicion, whether of a particular individual or otherwise, and not directly related to the occasion of the death, will not be admissible. However, statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by such person to meet him, would each of them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether the person was unknown, or was not the person accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused. “Circumstances of the transaction” is a phrase, no doubt, that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous use in “circumstantial evidence”, which includes evidence of all relevant facts.
Such a statement is relevant whether the person who made it was or was not at the time when it was made under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question’
That’s a lot to absorb, I know, but what might all this mean in the context of Bala’s first SD?
Again, have a look at the SD posted by Howsy HERE.
Read paragraphs 26 to 31 inclusive. These narrate a conversation between Bala and Altantuya on the night of 19th October, 2006. If this conversation did in fact take place, it may well be the last conversation that Altantuya had before her death that we may ever know about.
Are the contents of all of paragraph 28 hearsay?
I think so.?
Might they come within the exception permitted by section 32(1)(a)?
A court of law must decide that question.
The People's Parliament 
su
July 7, 2008
This needed some thinking through.
As you’ve said, this might have been the last conversation before her death that we would know of. Hence making it even more important not to overlook every last bit of the conversation.
The SD only states what Altantuya told Bala, but not of how it was told to him. Questions should be asked as to why Altantuya decided to tell him? Did Bala ask those questions? Did she mean it as making “small talk”? Or did she tell those things to Bala in hopes that Bala could offer her help? Did she imply anything else? Did she say or refer to anything else? What did Bala say in response to what he heard?
I think these questions (and their subsequent answers) are as important as what Altantuya told Bala that night.
su,
Ever thought of reading law after you’re done with the architecture?
Much of your questions might well be relevantly put in cross-examination to assist a court in coming to a decision as to weight, etc.
temenggong
July 7, 2008
‘Such a statement is relevant whether the person who made it was or was not at the time when it was made under expectation of death.’
The case law decides it is relevent!
The purchase of the house in Mongolia, the marriage in Korea, and the conversation with Mr. Ang and Amy can be easily established!
wattahack
July 7, 2008
this educating post is more like what ppl wanna read but funny no one comments? but politiking and hate posts get filled up fast why?
ctchoo
July 7, 2008
True. I’ve been blogging for several months & I notice that when blogs contain more thought-provoking analysis there is a deathly silence. Why-ah? I suppose it’s easier to rant & rave. But how to rant & rave when Haris gets technical on the intricacies of hearsay evidence. But kudos to Haris for an incisive piece of legal opinion-making. Good stuff & good points. SD1 lives!
I like chopin
July 7, 2008
Dear Haris,did it ever cross your mind that a tape recorder to secretly tape down conversations should be an important tool for a P.I.?Why Bala didn’t carry one with him when he is on an assignment that involves VIPs
really baffles me.Surely he knows the need to tape down some conversations secretly to be use later as proof or just as reference.
If he carries one that night,then we don’t have to speculate on the authenticity of paragraph 28.
What kind of P.I. is this Bala?
I like chopin,
Let’s not presume so quickly that he was not armed with a recording device.
Never know!
lovemalaysiarakyat
July 7, 2008
Thank-you for thinking. We need more people like you Haris.
It is true all the claims made by Altantuya – or rather what she said to her hearers before she died can be used as evidence.
Like someone did say – the restaurant where the ill-fated dinner in Paris can actually be found, the diamond show in Singapore can be verified etc. all this takes some digging and if our Malaysian Police Force will do some CIA and FBI style of investigations, they probably can find lots of leads. Even Anwar’s alleged misdeed. Whatever it is none are guilty until proven so and the police need to think and do their work. I am informed that the ACA and Police Force trains their people to do forensic investigation and lots of deduction and logic in the curriculum; I hope that does not go to waste.
Most importantly our ministers whether in BN or PKR need to use their brains to find a solution for this inflation caused by the oil price hike and the depletion of our country’s resources – they need to put on their thinking caps and give us an answer soon or there wil be no future for us all. Don’t talk about NEP; it will be a never-emerge-plan for our future.
Keep up the good work Haris and I still tabik Petra!
mwrmmg
July 8, 2008
What is mind boggling is the issue with commission (para 28.3). Government signed the contract in 2002. What kind of a deal that makes her deserve such commission.
To introduce MoD to DCNS of France? She’s only 22 yo at that time, and these contracts takes months or years to negotiate, meaning she was at a younger age to influence the Malaysian Government to purchase the submarine!!! Brilliant! where was I at that age?
Or is this just a convenient snippets inserted, as supplementary to further implicate some kind of corruption also took place.
It is badly done.
28.2 tries to reiterate some previous allegations about a photo which has not surfaced other than a lousy photo-chopped. And looking how fast saiful’s photos with ministers surfed the net, it’s doubtful that such photo with three of them actually exist. So the alleged dinner by this rational was in real doubt.
So the point is, if some of the contents of the SD is proven false, then the whole SD for its purpose is dubious, and made with malicious intent rather than seeking truth, which the lawyer was quick to point – may not be the truth!
kimlye
July 8, 2008
Dear Haris,
Forget about ‘Hearsay’, forget about law, forget about logic. Let’s invent ‘Pinocchio’s DNA’!!!
All our public servering personnel must be ‘Pinocchio’s DNA’ enabled, not only for telling lies, but also for half truth or diplomatic truth.
artic turban
July 8, 2008
harris, well researched, but in this case it is noT what he said or what she said to him, the bottomline here is, IF THERE IS A WILL BY THE POWERS TO BE, WANTING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS CASE OF ALL THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IMPLICATED, WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A COVER-UP OF FACTS FROM THE VERY BEGINING. How can the Attorney General make a broad statement that other than the three accused “NO ONE ELSE” is involved in the murder, this is very strange, as never before have I heard such. How can such a statement be made when, the case had not even started, defense had not made any statements before the judge implicating other hidden hands. other than all the other strange happenings, with the changing of the judge and prosecuting attorney etc, nothing has been brought up about, where the C4 came from, because of its lethalty were demolition experts involved, as shown that the motives was murder due to blackmail involving commisions of militiry hardware, militry grade explosives involved, immigration records erased, alegedly adc to the defense minister talking to the police, two of the suspects charged are attached to defense minister who also is the DPM, the handling of the case up to now I would consider sloopy as though there is an agenda to loose the case. allegedly falsified attendance records of one of the accused as an alibi from BUKIT AMAN.I would say Bala’s first sd is not as far-fetched as it sounds, as some try to make it sound, there are very high stakes involved in this case, which has an international audience watching and waiting. EITHER THE AG’S OFFICE BUCKS UP or the malaysian judicary will be the laughing stock of the world. Mark my words, it is going to come back and haunt them.
Littlebird
July 8, 2008
Dear Lawyer, according to The Sun, Bala told the nephew about the content of the first SD six months ago. That means before the sodomy, no vote confidence, fuel price hike..etc..etc. So with this new “evidence” can the second SD be relevant anymore?
But see the difference between Bernama and the Sun.
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=344596
Nephew Claims That Missing Uncle May Be Held By Certain Quarters
KUALA LUMPUR, July 7 (Bernama) — R. Kumaresan, the nephew of private investigator P. Balasubramaniam who went missing along with his wife and three children on Saturday, believes that his uncle may be kept by certain quarters and has not run away.
Kumaresan, 27, said he believed that the person or persons responsible had resorted to such action after his uncle retracted a statutory declaration (SD) he had made with another SD earlier.
Balasubramaniam initially revealed some shocking revelations from his statutory declaration at a press conference in Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s headquarters in Petaling Jaya on Thursday concerning the murder case of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu.
In his second press conference held at a hotel here hardly 24 hours after the first, he retracted most of what he revealed.
Kumarasen then lodged a police report on their disappearance on Saturday after losing all contact with the family.
Speaking to reporters after giving a statement on their missing at the Gombak police headquarters here Monday, Kumaresan said the expressions on his uncle’s face during the first SD and the second were markedly different.
“In the first he was relaxed and cheerful and appeared satisfied with the disclosure he had made but in the second he appeared as though he was under pressure. This has caused doubts to arise. I believe he was forced to make the retraction,” he said.
His younger brother Sega, 24, also gave a statement to the police regarding the same matter. They were accompanied by lawyer N. Surendran.
They arrived at 10.20am and spent about three hours giving their statements.
Kumaresan also took to task Federal CID director Datuk Mohd Bakri Zinin for saying that he (Kumaresan) did not want to give his cooperation in the case.
“Since Saturday, I myself made arrangements to brief the police on this matter. They just told me that they had begun investigations and had recorded statements from my uncle’s neighbours apart from going through his house (in Rawang) and running a background check on him,” he said.
He added that all his attempts to trace their whereabouts so far had been unsuccessful.
— BERNAMA
But in The Sun:-
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=23814
Bala told all six months ago: Nephews
Charles Ramendran
KUALA LUMPUR (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 statuatory 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.
Updated: 07:43PM Mon, 07 Jul 2008
Printable Version | Email to a Friend
Littlebird,
Thanks for this helpful input.
Littlebird
July 8, 2008
To temenggong,
“The purchase of the house in Mongolia, the marriage in Korea, and the conversation with Mr. Ang and Amy can be easily established!”
According to Bala’s SD Altantayu was here for US500K. But now for say for US5million we never know what new evidence going to emerge.
rajraman666
July 8, 2008
Bala and hearsay.
During ALtantuya missing and found dead,the hearsay from my source Razak is the one involved.
Sure enough Razak arrested.
Bala.
Bala and his side kick have alot of contact with this Mongolian beauty.Infact there are alot of hearsay Bala side kick also have some fun with this MOngolian girls.(ALtantayu gilffriends).
In between Bala play PI with Altantayu and get some confidence.This poor girl is really under pressure and stress.SO its might or possible Altantayu confide with Bala some facts to BALA.
Regarding the commision- I personally knows (my client)there are certain amount of commision is involve (very big one)when comes to arm deals.My clients represents American/Jerman company (i forgot).
The problem of hearsay is Altantuya is little cute girl and she gone overboard by demanding the commission to a wrong person or persons and meanwhile she did have an affair with powerfull people (hearsay).
So,i strongly believed the first SD from Bala is true but he went to the wrong guy to expose.
This guy will dance according to the tune,like a opera player and he is so drunk for power,he forget the safety of Bala.THIS GUY IS ANUAR.
rajraman.Hear say of me in PP i am mad.
count down 28days stale rava thosai.
rajraman666
July 8, 2008
If anyone got some money and power try it in poor third world country.(if you are no heart and feeling)
You can get whatever age of girls with their parents concern.This life and the poor try to survive and try to survive by try to suck some $ form oldman but this oldman is rich and powerfull and more cunning.
He use them and dispose them like a diapers.
rajraman.Have seen it personally some old cows (politician)from Malaysia doing that.
rajraman.The ulama also use vulgar words as reminder for PAS.
su
July 8, 2008
Haris,
Law happens to be one of my interests, along with a lot of other stuff. Might dabble in law one day, and I’ll probably look you up to mentor me a couple.
And now coming to think of it, the SD also mentions one particular “Malay man” in a blue Proton Saga was also there. This is one part of the SD that has not been retracted by the second SD. So what the AG initially said about only 3 people being involved in the case is not valid, because Bala can stand witness to the existence of at least two other people (one Rohaniza and one unknown) there that night.
There should be enough to throw a spannar in the works. The AG has to explain his stand on why he remains adamant that only 3 people were involved.
su,
Good point about the man in the blue proton.
Look forward to ‘mentoring’.
Kenny Gan
July 8, 2008
mwrmmg,
Did the SD state she introduce MoD to DCNS of France? Nowhere can I find it. Are you jumping to conclusion that she got a commission so she did the introduction?
No photo doesn’t mean the dinner in Paris is in doubt. It just means it’s not proven.
I think you’re tripping over yourself to cast doubt on the SD.
There are a wealth of leads in the SD for an investigation if PDRM wants to follow up. Immigration records of Singapore and France would be a good start.
piqued
July 8, 2008
Whilst most of us may choose to believe SD1 over SD2, the fact remains that the credibility of Bala in the eyes of the court, has been irreparably damaged. To redeem himself he would have to prove that he was without any doubt under duress when either SD1 or SD2 was drawn.
Statements by his relatives clearly show that he was not under duress whilst making SD1.
If he so chooses, how will he prove that he was under duress whilst making SD2? Will it be a convincing argument? Can he corroborate his version of events?
barry
July 8, 2008
What about the cousin/friend of Altantuya who claimed to have witnessed Altantuya and Najis together in Paris? If she was not lying (why would she?) then I am sure there must be other witnesses who will easily turn up to prove Najis’ involvement. The SD500k ‘commission’ could have included the sex (anal or otherwise) ‘services’ rendered to Najis. Money is a very powerful force, driving many young beautiful women to perform sexual favours to even ugly people like Najis.
matt
July 8, 2008
The fact of the matter is how fast the police managed to convince bala to come with second sd. The 500 million dollar question, was this also hearsay.
JJ
July 8, 2008
My understanding of the hearsay evidence is that it must be heard directly by the witness (or from the horse’s mouth, so to say). Thus the statement at the beginning by Phipson would be correct. However, if what is said is heard from a 3rd party, eg. A told be and B told C what A had said, then what C hears as to what A had said will be hearsay and not admissable.
So while para 26 to 31 appears to be admissable based on what PB heard directly, part of para 25 appears to be hearsay.
And on the part where she had married ARB in Korea, surely that can be verified with the marriage registry in Korea. So if these verifiable portion of the SD can be verified, then the SD will certainly gain more credibility. But if any part of the SD is shown to be untrue, then it will similarly lose credibility. Negative confirmation is not easy, but showing proof is.
Cheers.
Kenny Gan
July 8, 2008
I think the more important question in everybody’s mind should be “WHERE IS BALA & FAMILY NOW?”
If they doesn’t turn up safe and sound, all the argument on hearsay is academic as it means the rule of law in Malaysia has collapsed.
LJ
July 8, 2008
Hello Haris,
What’s all this “dying declaration” bit all about man? who died?
LJ
Littlebird
July 8, 2008
Who is Najib? The obvious answer is our DPM and probably the future PM. So isn’t it the role of the police to ensure the safety of the DPM and also to ensure smooth transition of power according to the the support of majority MPs in case Badawi resigns?
Now, who is Bala? Bala is someone who dropped a bombshell linking Najib to a murder by claiming that an accused said so. So Bala made a very serious allegation which can cause the country political stabilty to be destabilize. So since the police’s job is to ensure the security of our country how could they let this Bala to roam around the town without anyone watching? You mean our police not bothered whether Bala said is true or not?
Let us ask ourself..isn’t it normal for police to pay special interest on Bala coz’ 1) if what Bala said is true then it is the responsiblity of the police to investigate for the sake of the security of the country by not allowing a criminal to become a PM.
OR 2) if what Bala said was untrue then this Bala is a threat to the nation secuirty and therefor any police intelligence would be watching his move 24 hours for the sake of the country so that they can establish if Bala is a foreign agent or whatever is motive maybe including blackmail.
In any event, I find it hard to believe that Bala was not monitored after he made the first SD and more so after he made the second SD. I find it strange that one ASP thought it fit to have fish curry with him after one hell of SD which put the entire police force and the AG on defensive.
Are we missing something here?
Oldstock
July 8, 2008
Salam Saudara Haris,
Having read Rocky’s view on this `Hearsay’ issue, I’m happy to note that you have provided a legal perspective on this issue in your 2 posts.
But there are still some questions in my mind as to the legal implications of issuing an SD. I’m not talking about the contents of the SD per se, but rather the act of affirming one. Balasubramaniam’s SD (and I guess all other SD’s issued in Malaysia) closes with the phrase that the declaration is made under the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
So what are the pertinent provisions of this Act? Surely whoever makes an oath under the SD Act is legally liable for he/she has said. In issuing a second SD to retract parts of his first SD, isn’t Balasubramaniam liable for prosecution for false information?
May I impose on you Saudara Haris, to clarify on this point. Thank you.
Oldstock
Section 3 of the SDA, 1960 : Declarations made by virtue of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be such declarations as are referred to in sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code.
Section 199 of the Penal Code : Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Section 200 of the Penal Code : Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such declaration knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
Both SDs cannot be correct. He has, on the face if it, committed an offence.
Why cares
July 8, 2008
Dear Learned Haris ,
You hit the jackpot.
The Law is explicit and clear.
They come within the exception permitted by section 32(1)(a)
“…paragraphs 26 to 31 inclusive. These narrate a conversation between Bala and Altantuya on the night of 19th October, 2006. If this conversation did in fact take place, it may well be the last conversation that Altantuya had before her death that we may ever know about…”
Altantuya cried out from the unmarked grave.
The Grass of the field groans & the Trees clapped its hands as witnesses.
It thundered & rain heavily during the crime scene inspection by the Trial Judge last year,right ? Many were caught & soaked wet without umbrellas ?
Hairs stands on ends ! The fifth dimension is errie..
Syabas to all Peacemakers.
mwrmmg
July 8, 2008
Kenny Gan,
That is exactly my point, the dinner is never proven.
And why just dinner? not lunch, breakfast or tea or other events ? If there’s something between Najib and Altantuya, what is the significant of that one dinner that she has to mention. And even if there is one dinner, that does not mean there’s an affair. There has to be more credentials if one were to implicate Najib. Otherwise we will just speculate on hearsay, which is exactly what all of us are doing.
…”The SD500k ‘commission’ could have included the sex (anal or otherwise) ’services’ rendered to Najis”…
That is a ridiculous thing to say. Your mind is screwed by this hearsay. Thats eq. RM 1.8m plus for sex?
Are you out of your mind?
And now you’re saying you don’t believe the 1st SD, coz the first SD said that was for the sub deal!!!
I think you need to understand some simple logic.
Hypothetically, the French does not have to use sex to secure billion dollar contract. The amount of money will simply overide. Sex is easy when you have the money.
What is still unclear, what was Altantuya role to deserve the commission. And it was a done deal back in 2002. One has to be realistic. If Altantuya is used (sexually) to soften Najib and persuade him to make ministerial decision, then the french should be paying her, not ARB or DSN!!
One hearsay to another hearsay still does not add up.
We have to dismiss these until a clear evidence surface, which is beyond reasonable doubt, or else, we are just screwing our heads
Patricia
July 8, 2008
Dear Haris,
Thank you for the info on hearsay. Purely from a language point of view, there is much to digest (ex english teacher, ma). I just love the way the law is written, don’t you? And the fact that it would seem to be all laid out plain and simple – and yet, to decide on whether it can be construed as hearsay or not, ‘it would take a court of law to decide’! Cool.
But, my fascination aside, this more than proves to me why I stay clear of politics.
Most of us seem to believe that SD1 is the ‘truth’ and SD2 the one he made under duress. However, I think there is more than meets the eye here.
Just like in the Anwar case being investigated, everyone and his uncle believes that Anwar is innocent, mainly because he would not be so stupid as to be caught with his pants down now, when the prize is within reach.
Similarly, everyone and her aunty believes Najib is the one behind the retraction of SD1.
BUT. I just wonder about all this! Would whoever is trying to ‘frame’ Anwar use such a stupid means as the sodomy charge? Or is that the very motive of the ‘frame up’? That it is stupid, and therefore, not believed?
And in the SD1/SD2 case, even an idiot can see that since all that was retracted in SD2 pertained to Najib – then, logically, he is the one who caused the ‘duress’, no? But I think not. Because I think that despite all that is said about him, Najib is an intelligent person, and doing this is so not intelligent!
But I think this way because I am a cynic and a skeptic and I have a really sick and sad mind 🙂
I think that someone else’s hand is at play here. I am not saying that either of the two mentioned are guilty or guilt-less. But, I think the only reason these things are seeing the light of day is that some unseen hand is playing them, and us, like chess pieces on a giant chessboard. THe more likely scenario would have been to keep everything under wraps. Forever.
Frankly, I don’t trust politicians. It is the nature of this beast that they be less than pure. But when they drag us, and the nation, down into the quagmire with them, that I get riled. As I am now.
For at the end of the day, I think we will never know the truth about what is happening here now. We will be fed some drivel at some later point; some people will make a fuss; LKS will demand a Royal Commission of Enquiry; and still the whole thing will fade from our collective memory.
Paul Warren
July 8, 2008
All of Para 25 of SD1 is purportedly told to Bala by Baginda. Baginda is still alive. He can vouch for if he had told Bala these things. Can these things be double checked against Baginda’s own SD which he issued attempting to gain bail? And what if Baginda vouches for these “hearsay”? Does not matter if they were the truth. But Baginda could have said these things to Bala. Or does Razak deny having spoken to Bala these things?
Para 28 gives what Bala claims to have been told to him by Altantuya, the deceased. Accepting that they had this conversation, one cannot assume that what ever Altantuy may have told to Bala were in expectation of death. It was not a statement made by a dying woman in expectation of her death. How could she have known at this time anyway. So how much can the court rely on this, assuming this even goes to the courts?
Of course it may be possible to factually establish the truth of some of these claims. If so, does that then lend weight to other claims made that cannot be verified?
Paragraph 52 states that on the day Baginda was arrested he had received an sms from Najib which he had showed to Bala and Baginda’s lawyer. That sms indicated that Najib was to see the IGP and had asked Baginda to remain cool. Now, this cannot surely be heasay. Bala saw the message. Of course it could have been sent by anyone. Can it be verified that on that day Najib saw the IGP? Well, I guess the police files, diaries, and Najib’s records will not show him meeting the IGP on that date will it?
Problem as I see with the SD2 is that how can there be a lot of “truths’ still remaining in SD1 assuming SD2 is allowed to stand? How can only those items that named Najib be removed because they alone are false whereas the others are true? Even then I bet some of the allegations can be verified. Like was Najib in Singapore during a diamond exhibition? Was Altantuya in Singapore at that time too? Now, I don’t suppose Najib can reach out to erase records in Singaproe too can he?
The veracity of the first SD can be further reinforced if Baginda were to confirm that these are true. But will he? Why won’t he, assuming he really needs to save himself? Why won’t he save himself? Does he already know that the defence will not be called? So sure ah!!!
Avtaran
July 8, 2008
Bala while giving testimony on oath in court stated the deceased wanted US 500,000 and three tickets back to Mongolia. Interestingly no commission was mentioned.
And further, Bala stated he did not remember if he told the police about the 2 demands above. He was even permitted to refresh his memory by looking at his 112 statement.
At this juncture, one cannot but wonder why Bala did not state what he said in his first SD on the commission for the submarine deal.
And Bala was photographed during this period by the press and he did not display any ‘visible duress’.
And why would a non French speaking person be involved in a French deal. Maybe a Russian deal would be more plausible since the deceased spoke Russian. And there is no rumour or SD to state the deceased was a defence expert who could then be involved in the French deal for her expertise. Only ‘interpreter’ has been the rumour.
When was Bala telling the truth? In Court or in his first SD? I do not believe the SD because its contents and timing are conveniently in Anwar’s favour. Its all politics and nothing else.
In the end we believe what we want to believe.
barry
July 8, 2008
mwrmmg said:
“That is a ridiculous thing to say. Your mind is screwed by this hearsay. Thats eq. RM 1.8m plus for sex?
Are you out of your mind?
And now you’re saying you don’t believe the 1st SD, coz the first SD said that was for the sub deal!!!
I think you need to understand some simple logic.
Hypothetically, the French does not have to use sex to secure billion dollar contract. The amount of money will simply overide. Sex is easy when you have the money.
What is still unclear, what was Altantuya role to deserve the commission. And it was a done deal back in 2002. One has to be realistic. If Altantuya is used (sexually) to soften Najib and persuade him to make ministerial decision, then the french should be paying her, not ARB or DSN!!”
It is a well known fact that Najis is a skirt chaser, like many politicians (AI could well be included), therefore it would not be too outlandish to think that Najis had had sex with Altantuya, as described by Bala in SD1. It does not mean that she asked for USD500k for sexual favours (of different types including anal), but it is likely. And how do you know if the French did NOT provide other girls to service this guy’s love for skirts?
Kenny Gan
July 8, 2008
Patricia,
I think you credit the conspirators and evil doers with too much intelligence. I don’t.
As I see it, they can’t even get their act straight to deflect suspicion away from themselves, much less do a complicated double take. It’s way over their heads.
Look at the explanations given for Saiful’s visit to DPM’s office and residence. Are they convincing? Just a little poke and they’ll fall apart.
As for the SD2 which remove specifically all matters relating to Najib and the haste it was done after SD1, isn’t it too obvious? Who do they expect to fool?
Anonym08
July 8, 2008
Haris, thank you for this tutorial.
A little blur over this. Didn’t Bala retract his entire SD of July 1, not just on matters relating to the DPM?
Anonym08,
Actually, there is no such thing as retracting an SD.
What the purport of SD2 is Bala saying he lied on oath when he swore SD1.
SD1 cannot be withdrawn, ie, it never happened.
mwrmmg
July 8, 2008
Lets look at it this way,
1. Bala is not close at all to either Razak or Najib. Hardly a loyal friend or aide. He was just hired for that particular time.
2. For this reason, very unlikely for Razak to reveal all the “juicy” details to Bala. Especially Malaysia’s no.2 “sex life”. His premiership will be at serious risk.
3. Razak probably has a lot of interest with Najib, so he must be very careful with what goes out.
4. Bala is paid by Razak, so Razak does not have to justify to Bala by revealing all these “details” in order for Bala to perform his task.
5. So realistically, it’s unlikely that Razak should reveal anything to Bala which he “just hired”.
6. Looking at the details “revealed by Razak to Bala” , these details then conveniently “confirmed” by Altantuya in the details “revealed by Altantuya to Bala”.
7. Its a big mystery to what entails as commission payable to Altantuya on the military procurement. No explanation of her role to deserve the the large amount of money. Her background does not suggest having prior involvement in such deals. Plus….. the Government already signed the agreement to buy the french sub in 2002. Altantuya was only 24 and still in Mongolia and only moved to HK in 2005. How can she be involved. That amount does not justify, unless she’s some very very senior military official.
8. The Altantuya case happened in 2006 and from the first SD, it appears that Bala knew a lot of crucial details implicating Najib.
9. THE BIG QUESTION: Shouldn’t Bala life been in danger ever since Altantuya was murdered.? Since he too knew all the details and basically a serious risk to Razak and Najib if all the details in the first SD are true? He should have been hiding all this while…
10. Now comes the 2nd SD which retracts the juicy details of the 1st SD. And only now he’s in hiding.!!!
11. If 1st SD is true, Bala should be in hiding since 2006.
12. Even, hypothetically, Razak and Najib assured his safety by making Bala promised / declared not to reveal the “details as in 1st SD”, and maybe by paying him a large sum of money, would Najib able to sleep at night? Bala can just, from time to time, ask Razak or Najib to top up his bank account.
13. If the above is true, should it be more convenient for whomever that killed Altantuya, might as well kill Bala in one go.? No more risk.
14. So now, whom is Bala hiding from? after releasing the 2nd SD.
15. Najib is unlikely, otherwise he would have been hiding since 2006.
ibat
July 8, 2008
what mwrmmg 5:58 say above deserve some hard thinking.
Kenny Gan
July 8, 2008
mwrmmg,
[1. Bala is not close at all to either Razak or Najib. Hardly a loyal friend or aide. He was just hired for that particular time.]
A person under stress can easily form a bond with someone he believes can help him solve his problems. It’s human nature.
[7. Its a big mystery to what entails as commission payable to Altantuya on the military procurement.]
Bala was just reporting what Altantuya told him. It’s not necessarily the truth. Altantuya may be pursuing Razak or Najib for an sum which she conveniently describes as “commission”. How that amount comes about is their secret. It may be a lover’s promise…whatever.
[11. If 1st SD is true, Bala should be in hiding since 2006.]
As long as he keeps his mouth shut he’s fine.
[14. So now, whom is Bala hiding from? after releasing the 2nd SD]
I’m not so sure that Bala is in hiding and I think it’s possible harm has befallen him. If he’s in hiding why did he not give a word to his next-of-kin instead of letting them worry sick about him?
Mr Smith
July 8, 2008
INTERPOL is the world’s largest international police organization, with 186 member countries. Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.
INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. INTERPOL’s constitution prohibits ‘any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.
Source: http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/default.asp
So the Malaysian Police is seeking the help of Interpol to track down ‘fugitive’, P. Balasubramaniam. Something is not right here. What crime is he wanted for?
I do not know how the police functions but I am trying to use my common sense.
Take a look at the Interpol website. (URL given above). Interpol clearly states that its mission “is to prevent or combat international crime” and it goes on to say that its constitution “prohibits any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character”.
My questions:
Is Bala wanted in connection with international crime or activities of a political nature?
If Bala is a criminal, why was he allowed to slip away so easily with his entire family?
Will Interpol classify this request as an ” intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character”?
In any case, a police force worth its salt will conduct exhaustive investigations and comb every nook and corner of the country before calling in Interpol as its last resort.
In this case, it seems, Interpol’s help is being sought even before interviewing the people who were last seen with Bala, namely the mysterious second lawyer?
Am I thinking aloud?
http://mrsmith2.blogspot.com
Kenny Gan
July 8, 2008
Mr. Smith,
All this is pointing to a Sandiwara (wayang kulit). The police now declare they believe Bala & his family may have left the country (see malaysiakini) but yesterday the CID chief said that immigration records do not show they have left the country. What is going on?
Interpol is being used to divert attention. Bala is a missing person, not a fugitive from crime. As you’ve pointed out, it does not come under the purview of Interpol.
Everyday that Bala and his family doesn’t surface, the horror grows. What is going on?
LordLabakdass
July 8, 2008
ONE:
‘…The statement may be made before the cause of death has arisen, or before the deceased has any reason to expect to be killed”
If memory serves, didnt altantuya leave a note with an instruction that it be opened in the case of her death. if so, doesnt it mean that she expected to be kiilled then ? Does bala’s SD take precedent over her death note?
TWO:
Does it matter that the relationship between altantuya and bala PI is rather vague. They were not friends for sure. The closest word to describe them would be strangers. During the duration of both their involvement, their stated goals seemed to be antagonistic to each other. Based on this kind of relationship, why should anyone believe that even if altantunya had said anything to Bala, she was speaking to him in a truthful manner. She had no incentive to be truthful to Bala PI afterall. As a matter of fact, she had an incentive to lie. Would this and can this be a consideration in considering the admisibility of the SD? Afterall, even if Bala was truthful in repeating what altantuya told him, there is still the question of why should anyone expect altantuya to be truthful to him?
I like chopin
July 8, 2008
Dear Haris,sorry to digress a bit.I read from M’siakini that Putera Umno suggested to Anwar,Najib and Rosmah to swear by the Quran to deny their respective ‘crimes’.
I think they won’t take up this challenge but in case they do,is this act admissible in the civil court?If no,then why the trouble and necessity?
Sorry,I am quite ignorant of court procedures.Hope you don’t mind my question.Thanks,Haris.
I like chopin,
Swearing on the Qur’an has no place in the civil courts.
Why the trouble? I really cannot answer on their behalf.
mwrmmg
July 8, 2008
Swearing by the Quran does not guarantee the truth. Its just a test of one Faith rather than objective search for truth.
It will extend further speculation on whatever happens next, whether one will get struck by lightning or something.
This is where the muslim will have to be careful, as this is like “expecting” God to respond and execute or give a sign.
Islam itself has the Syariah law and the courts as part of civility order.
If everything boils down to swearing by the Quran and waiting for lightning to strike, there’s not need for Islamic Law and civility to develop.
The propose muhabalah is more of a doa concept, and just like any doa, it may or may not be fulfilled. Again, it may not solve the situation objectively.
mwrmmg
July 8, 2008
Kenny Gan Says:
July 8, 2008 at 6:43 pm
….”A person under stress can easily form a bond with someone he believes can help him solve his problems. It’s human nature.”
Agree, but not all humans. Depend on type of person. And some people don’t break under pressure.
…..” Bala was just reporting what Altantuya told him. It’s not necessarily the truth. Altantuya may be pursuing Razak or Najib for an sum which she conveniently describes as “commission”. How that amount comes about is their secret. It may be a lover’s promise…whatever.”
Lets just stick to what the “commission for” as stated in the SD rather than speculate on endless possibilities. The SD is in question, we are not trying to imagine things.
…..”As long as he keeps his mouth shut he’s fine.”
Anybody with long political career will know nobody will keep his mouth shut. This is Malaysia. Bala will sure talk to someone close, like his wife for eg. and his wife talks to A, A whispers to B, B gossips to C. and C talks to the internet and remain completely anonymous.
Can Najib trust his political future on Bala’s mouth?
I wouldn’t bet on that if I commit such a crime.