Sri Lanka fully intends to destroy Tamil Homeland, says Boyle

Responding to Sri Lanka's President Rajapakse's statement to heads of media Tuesday ruling out the re-merger of Northern and Eastern provinces, Professor Boyle said, "[o]bviously, the Government of Sri Lanka fully intends to carve-up, destroy, and dismantle the Tamil Homeland on the Island of Sri Lanka for all time, and towards that end inflict even more acts of genocide against the Tamils living there. Historically, the only way for this to be counteracted is to establish an Independent State for the Tamils on Sri Lanka."

• Text of Boyle speech at Chennai seminar

Boyle pointed out that his Chennai speech in June this year provides the legal basis for the Tamils to establish an Independent State.

"For the reasons argued therein, I would encourage the Tamil People on a worldwide basis to give the most serious consideration to the adoption of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and the establishment of a Provisional Government for Tamil Eelam," Boyle said.

"This would be similar to what the Palestinians did in their own Declaration of Independence dated 15 November 1988, as I have detailed in my book "Palestine, Palestinians and International Law."

"Today the State of Palestine is recognized de jure by about 126 other states. Palestine has Observer State status at the United Nations, and has all the rights of a U.N. Member State but the right to vote. Recently, the Palestinian leadership announced that it will apply for Membership in the United Nations Organization. Palestine is also a member state of the League of Arab States and the Islamic Conference Organization. The World Court also invited Palestine to participate in its proceedings," Boyle added.

"Certainly history cannot guarantee the same type of results for Tamil Eelam. But what is the alternative?"

PI's lawyer: 'Anwar not behind Bala tapes' - Malaysiakini

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is not involved in the latest twist to P Balasubramaniam's sensational allegations against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, said the private eye's lawyer.

Balasubramaniam had last year produced a statutory declaration alleging that Najib had close personal ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.

But 24 hours later, in a dramatic reversal, the private investigator recanted his statutory declaration and subsequently went into hiding in India for over one year.

In August, he re-emerged in Malaysia to stand by his first statutory declaration, saying that threats and inducements were used by certain quarters to make him change his story.

Balasubramaniam's lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu, in an interview with Malaysiakini, denied that Anwar was behind this latest development.

"Many people think Anwar Ibrahim is behind all this. That is absolutely untrue. Anwar has no idea about this whole episode except what he may have read in the blogs and on Malaysiakini," Americk told in an interview.

"Anwar had nothing to do with the release of the first statutory declaration except to deliver a speech prior to the press conference at the PKR headquarters last July. I have had no communication with Anwar at all and neither has he or any PKR member tried to contact me."

The following is the second additional to the three-part interview:

Malaysiakini: Do you think the state institutions, such as the police and the immigration, were involved in this matter?

Americk: I don't think the immigration authorities were involved. If they were, there would have been no need for a suggestion of bribery to be made to hasten the process of obtaining the passports.

As for the police, I feel they were primed to obtain a statement from Bala to the effect that he was forced to make the first statutory declaration (SD) under duress so that this would lend more credence to the second SD. The whole interview by the Special Branch officers in Bangkok was in accordance with a pre-arranged script orchestrated by Deepak and ASP Suresh with the complicity of the police, which Bala was also told to follow.

Inspector-general of police Musa Hassan said last week that the police were still looking for Bala.

Why would they still be looking for Bala? They had found him in Bangkok over a year ago and did nothing. They were supposed to have been investigating both the first and second SDs to find out which one was sworn falsely. They recorded a statement from Bala himself. They recorded statements from myself and two other lawyers, M Puravalen and Sivarasa Rasiah.

They recorded statements from the commissioner of oaths who attested the first SD. They also recorded a statement from my secretary who typed out the first SD while Bala was sitting in my office.

All these statements showed there was absolutely no coercion in the making of the first SD.

They had all these statements available. They should have been able to decide whether to charge Bala for making a false declaration, and if so which one?

The only reason I can think of for the IGP to say the police are still looking for Bala is to charge him. They couldn't possibly want to record another statement from him.

Let's look at this from another angle.

It should be remembered that Bala gave the police a cautioned statement in the Altantuya murder investigations in which he has said certain passages had been deleted by the police as he had mentioned names of certain VIPs.

Just prior to the hearing of the murder charge in court, Sallehuddin (Saidin), a senior federal counsel from the Attorney General's Chambers, had interviewed Bala extensively and had reduced the interview into a 76-page statement.

Bala has categorically stated that everything he has told the investigators and the federal counsel, which has all been recorded, is exactly the same as the contents of his first SD. All the police need to do is to refer to all these statements and compare them with the contents of Bala's first SD to see whether they are consistent.

Why do they need to see Bala again? They can easily put two and two together and figure out which SD is the false one. (There are certainly enough witnesses available to show that the first SD was made voluntarily.)

And if they did that they would discover quite easily that the second SD could not possibly be correct in the circumstances, they should charge Bala for making a false second SD. But they can't do that because it would open a can of worms none of them want opened.

What's next? What can Bala do to clear his name? Can he return home? Is his life in danger?

The next step should be taken by the authorities. There should be a full investigation into the allegations Bala has made and these investigations should stretch way beyond the question as to which SD is true and which is false.

These investigations should concentrate on revisiting the Altantuya murder case as there are so many questions which remain unanswered. Bala has done what is necessary to 'clear his name' by revealing everything that has happened to him over the past 15 months. What more can he do?

I doubt whether he can return home to Malaysia under the present circumstances when it is not even possible for one of the lawyers involved, namely Manjeet Singh Dhillon, to be able to sleep peacefully at night not knowing when the next Molotov cocktail attack on his home will happen.

The whole purpose of these interviews was to protect Bala. If this had not been done, then I think his life would have been in much greater jeopardy for obvious reasons.

Are you representing any party? Is that party paying Bala to recant?

Let me make this absolutely clear. I only represent Bala and no one else. I engaged Manjeet Singh Dhillon (right) as my counsel after the second SD was made to protect my interests as accusations of impropriety were made against me by not-so-subtle innuendo.

There are no unseen hands at play here. I am honoured that two senior members of the Malayan Bar have seen fit to assist me in this whole matter, especially when they have no vested interest in doing so. At least the best traditions of the Bar are still alive and well in these desperate times.

Let me assure you, no one is paying Bala to recant on his second SD. Please remember that it was Bala who contacted me and not the other way around. I had no idea where Bala was until he called me in mid-July this year. He is certainly concerned about his future but that is why he has saved some of the money Deepak gave him.

In fact, he has even moved premises from the apartment Deepak housed him in as it was costing too much. He is now paying very, very much less for accommodation as he realises he has to reduce his expenditure dramatically if he is to survive on the money he has left.

Many people think (Opposition Leader) Anwar Ibrahim is behind all this. That is absolutely untrue. Anwar has no idea about this whole episode except what he may have read in the blogs and on Malaysiakini.

Anwar had nothing to do with the release of the first SD except to deliver a speech prior to the press conference at the PKR headquarters last July. I have had no communication with Anwar at all, and neither has he or any PKR member tried to contact me.

Where is Bala now?

Bala is now back in Chennai with his whole family. We advised him to take his wife and children out of Malaysia to Chennai for obvious safety reasons after the interview was carried out.

Did Bala say anything more about the characters involved in this - as in who Deepak is, ASP Suresh? Has he come under any threats or pressures after his recent interviews?

Bala only said he knew who Deepak was as he had been offered some PI (private investigation) work by his younger brother, Dinesh. He had never met Deepak before.

ASP Suresh... I guess he was Bala's friend from the time Suresh was working as a police officer at the IPK D9 (serious crime) division at Jalan Hang Tuah, Kuala Lumpur. Bala used to help him trace telephone details on the suspects he was investigating as Bala had connections in these telcos and could get the info faster than the CID (criminal investigation department) guys.

ASP Suresh had actually been suspended as he was under investigation by the ACA for taking bribes. Apparently Suresh also owns a pub called the 'Madurai' at the Melia Hotel along Jalan Imbi and had employed Bala as a 'security officer' at some time.

ASP Suresh also runs a scrap yard business dealing in wires. This is why ASP Suresh took Bala to his scrap yard on the night he went missing as he obviously needed to do some work while he was also organising and being the go-between in these shenanigans.

Bala has since come to the realisation that ASP Suresh is nothing more than an opportunist who used Bala for his own benefit. Bala believes he was set up by Suresh from the beginning and that Deepak had used ASP Suresh to monitor Bala long before the first SD was publicised, but ASP Suresh took the whole situation as an opportunity to gain some reward for 'assisting' Deepak in neutralising Bala. This was his plan from the beginning.

In fact, Bala informed me, long after all this, that ASP Suresh had told him there were people who were willing to offer him RM3 million not to publish the first SD. They knew Bala was going to do this as ASP Suresh was very close to him and was obviously reporting matters back to Deepak et al. Bala of course ignored all this as his mind was made up.

ASP Suresh followed Bala like a hawk in the days leading up to the disclosure of the first SD as he needed to know exactly what was happening to report all this to his bosses.

Remember Bala left my office at 4.45pm on July 3 with ASP Suresh.They were supposed to go and see inspector Tonny Luggan at a restaurant near the Brickfields police station after he got off work at 6.30pm.

That was the arrangement made when Bala was in my office. I encouraged Bala to go and meet Tonny informally as I felt it would have been to Bala's benefit. And besides, he was with ASP Suresh, a police officer, who gave the impression he was looking after Bala's interests.
It was ASP Suresh who persuaded Bala not to see Tonny, and instead took him to his scrap yard in Cheras, all the time receiving phone calls from Deepak and organising arrangements to meet him that evening.

ASP Suresh knew at this stage that the stakes were higher which would attract a higher value in terms of a 'settlement figure'. This is why ASP Suresh was doing all the negotiating with Deepak at the Bak Kut Teh stall in Rawang. First, Deepak offered RM4 million but ASP Suresh signaled Bala to keep quiet and asked for RM5 million instead, which Deepak readily agreed to.

Apparently the deal was that ASP Suresh would get the same figure as Bala as his payment for keeping Bala under control and under wraps.

This is why ASP Suresh is in a state of panic now and has been trying to get hold of Bala by whatever means, even through third parties. ASP Suresh has now been cut off from his supply of finances, and I am sure there are people around who are less than happy with him.

As regards to threats since this interview ... not to my knowledge. Bala has moved and no one knows where he is. His family is with him so they can't threaten them anymore.

The only people who have received threats so far are Manjeet Singh Dhillon, whose house was fire bombed with Molotov cocktails.

Part 1: Lawyer: Najib 'linked' to Bala's disappearance

Hindraf members commemorate Nov 25 rally at KLCC with Photo

(Photo above even went it was raining we didn’t move from where we sat) Valga HINDRAF Makkal Sakthi

DAP/PKR land for 843 Chinese factories but no to 97 Tamil schools.

843 Illegal factories legalized. So says DAP State New Village Development and illegal factory Task Force Committee Chairman (EXCO) Ean Yong Hian Wah. But this very same PKR and DAP dominated Selangor State government has refused to grant state government land to all 97 Tamil schools in Selangor. Why? Isn’t DAP and PKR playing to the Chinese majoritarian gallery? But for the Indian gallery vis a vis the said 97 Tamil schools isn’t there enough political mileage for DAP and PKR?

Editor.

Hindraf’s chindraf support! ( China Press 26/11/09 at page A3 )

Kapar PKR Indian MP mondare: 2 computers for two Tamil schools. (Refer Makkal Osai 26/11/2009 at page 5)

But this mandore is powerless to get his “Tuan” Menteri Besar Selangor to grant all 97 Tamil schools in Selangor state government land. So to make up for this, he succumbs to this low level MIC style mandore Tamil press politics.

Editor.

The bald truth about how one BN party's venture into cyberspace hit a Wall

One party had actually attempted to reach out earlier to Netizens even before anyone had the faintest idea that March 8 would take place. But of course, almost no one knew of MCA's efforts in the form of mylivingwall.com because it turned out to be a disaster mired in corruption, a sex scandal and sheer incompetence.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

By I Love Malaysia

Most people thought BN component parties headed into cyberspace only after the watershed March 8 2008 general election which saw the opposition make unprecedented gains, largely due to the primary and secondary reach of the New Media such as blogs and news portals like Malaysia-Today and Malaysiakini.

Largely, BN parties have just left the starting mark in the race towards cyber information dominance while Pakatan Rakyat parties are already miles ahead. But one party had actually attempted to reach out earlier to Netizens even before anyone had the faintest idea that March 8 would take place. But of course, almost no one knew of MCA's efforts in the form of mylivingwall.com because it turned out to be a disaster mired in corruption, a sex scandal and sheer incompetence.

The idea of mylivingwall was first hatched in 2007 out of one woman's frustration with her superior. AL Ho was working in INSAP, MCA's think tank but everyone knew she could not get along with her boss, another Iron Lady, Song Fui K, formerly from the American Chamber of Commerce. With both having strong characters, their daily arguments got too much and Ms Ho decided it was time to part ways.

But she ain't gonna just call it a day in MCA without first extracting her pound of flesh from the oh-so-generous MCA president then, Ong Ka Thing. A window of opportunity presented itself when Ka Thing appointed Fu Ah Kiow to head the publicity bureau. That's when she sold the idea of setting up a portal called mylivingwall.com to the MCA president through Ah Kiow. And Ah Kiow, being Chan Kong Choy's right-hand man, can just about lead Ka Thing to leap off KLCC if he wanted to. Ka Thing was sold to the idea faster than the dotcom bust of the early 2000s.

But then, Ms Ho also wanted a good deal for her severance-package-cum-platinum-handshake. And she had a secret weapon: the then MCA legal bureau head Dato' Leong Tang Chong, with whom she shared a relationship that went far beyond work. The bald lawyer with close ties with Ka Thing helped her draft a contract with MCA which made her CEO of The Living Wall Sdn Bhd, with MCA HQ having to grant RM800,000 seed money and a MONTHLY retainer of RM65,000 for three years.

And before one could hear "ta da!", MCA's venture to turn over the notoriously anti-establishment Netizens was born, out of one woman's frustration with work, with the help of a long-time lover, in a business arrangement that reeks of high-handedness.

And the "portal" itself? It's just a one-woman effort to compile bits of information from all over cyberspace. No one runs around interviewing Ministers or braving the FRU during illegal rallies, much less brave the crowd in ceramahs. And Ong Ka Thing was banking on this woman to turn things around in the face of seething anger from the urban middle-class Chinese. By the time March 8 took place, it was already too late. Living Wall hit a wall, pun intended.

With the Living Wall's 3-year contract expiring in February 2010, Ms Ho's fortune does not seem to be all that bright. Neither is the luck of her lover boy Leong Tang Chong, who was removed as MCA legal bureau head shortly after the October 10 EGM for plotting against the president. Baldy and Ms Ho go back a long way and are part of the Bangsar Group, named after their power base, and are known for being English-speaking MCA activists, in a largely Mandarin-speaking party.

But really the person more worried about the MCA not renewing Living Wall's contract than Ms Ho is Leong Tang Chong. Having given up his legal practice years ago, which he made a fortune from the generosity of Ling Liong Sik and Ong Ka Thing, Bald Tang Chong would have no more income if Living Wall tumbles like the Berlin Wall exactly 20 years ago. Tang Chong has just been redesignated as The Star chairman to an ordinary board member in a move that leaves him one leg at the Star exit (http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/11/6/business/5055017&sec=business).

Of late, Tang Chong, who made no attempt to hide his estranged relations with his wife, was often seen in MCA treasurer-general Tan Sri Tee Hock Seng's office in Cheras lobbying not to be chopped off as director in Huaren, the party's investment arm as well as in Wisma MCA Sdn Bhd. Having loaned RM170,000 from his lover for the new Maserati, Tang Chong did not want to be caught deep in debt. Hence, he agressively pushed for the renewal of Ms Ho's lop-sided contract.

Towards this end, Tang Chong even cut a deal with Liow Tiong Lai. In return for declaring Ong Tee Keat's EGM illegal, the botak, as he is also known, will be given the post of MCA Federal Territory deputy chairman, a much more glamorous post than the legal bureau head which he has held since Ling Liong Sik's days. On top of that, the Living Wall will continue to be as erect as he is whenever he is with its CEO.

But as the MCA leadership impasse drags on, the Living Wall, Ong Ka Thing's baby, is stillborn while Pakatan's ones are trudging far ahead. (Just do a whois domain search online and one can see that Living Wall is owned by Ms Ho (complete with her mobile number!!) and has its address in Wisma MCA KL). And BN parties like MCA can lead sites like Living Wall to the sledgehammer, just like how the fall of the Berlin Wall brought hope and prosperity. Otherwise, the only thing "living" insofar as the next general election is concerned is false hopes and illusions.

DPM defends BTN courses against racist brainwashing charges

Muhyiddin says BTN courses are not for ‘converting’ participants. — File pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 26 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin defended the controversial Biro Tata Negara (BTN) courses today as a form of nationalism in line with the 1 Malaysia concept despite growing criticisms of racism and political indoctrination.

The deputy prime minister denied that the courses, which are compulsory for civil servants and public university undergraduates, are aimed at “converting” participants to the political ideology of Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN).

His defence of the BTN courses comes a day after the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat (PR) administration moved to bar its civil servants and students from state-owned institutions from the course described as racist and a form of political indoctrination by the federal government.

PR leaders have accused the federal government of using the BTN courses to “brainwash” participants.

It has been reported that participants of BTN courses were repeatedly told of the concept of Ketuanan Melayu, or Malay superiority. Participants are also told not to question “Malay rights” and the “social contract.”

“There are no ulterior motives. These courses are well intended,” Muhyiddin said in Muar today.

He claimed that the Selangor state government had been misinformed and given a wrong impression of the courses.

But his comments today appear to run counter to a proposal by his own Cabinet colleague Datuk Seri Idris Jala to revamp BTN courses in an acknowledgement that it did not promote the 1 Malaysia concept.

The Malaysian Insider had reported last week that the proposal to revamp BTN courses is part of initiatives being pushed by Idris and a task force set up to promote 1 Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Razak's concept announced when he took the top job on April 3.

1 Malaysia is one of several laboratories set up to push through ideas on Key Performance Index (KPI) and National Key Results Areas (NKRAs) that Najib knows will be the tipping point in the next general election.

His ruling BN coalition was badly beaten in Election 2008 under the leadership of former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when it lost four more states and 82 federal seats to give up its customary two-thirds parliamentary majority.

It was felt the BTN needed a complete makeover to promote inclusiveness.

But Muhyiddin provided a stout defence of the BTN courses today, and asserted that the programmes promoted nationalism and unity.

BTN courses have been running for years, and are intended to instil nationalistic values and patriotism, but are now seen as more of a propaganda unit. The courses are for university students on public scholarships and civil servants. BTN is under the Prime Minister’s Department.

Under the Selangor PR administration's new directives, students at Selangor government-owned institutions of higher learning including Universiti Industri Selangor (Unisel), Kolej Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Selangor and Inpens Selangor will no longer be required to go for BTN courses.

Last week, a group of young PR elected representatives urged the Selangor government to stop allowing students to be sent for what they called “brainwashing propaganda” programmes by BTN.

The group of seven PR lawmakers had also said BTN courses — compulsory for local university students and civil servants — taught students to hate and were contrary to their original purpose as well as the Constitution.

Seri Setia state lawmaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, speaking from his own experience, said they were told that PKR members were Jewish agents, that DAP was a Singapore party, while PAS was labelled a deviant movement.

Batu Caves lawmaker Amirudin Shari said a big part of the programme had nothing to do with nation building or education but was an Umno and BN race-based programme where participants are indoctrinated with propaganda about “Ketuanan Melayu”.

Nik Aziz’s son blames Husam for state problems

Husam is being blamed for the troubles in Kelantan. — File pic

By Adib Zalkapli - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 26 — Kelantan PAS continues to be rocked with apparent infighting with Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat's son Nik Abduh blaming his father's protege Datuk Husam Musa for the problems in the state.

Nik Abduh, who is a PAS Youth executive committee member, blogged today that Husam's aide Syed Azidi Syed Abdul Aziz, who was sacked from the Kelantan Mentri Besar Corporation (PMBK) early this month, has now started an attempt to topple his father.

Syed Azidi, who blogs as Kickdefella, joined the state investment arm in 2007 upon the invitation of Husam, a state executive councillor.

He was sacked by the PMBK CEO Ariffahmi Abdul Rahman, who is also Nik Aziz’s son-in-law, for allegedly conspiring with a Barisan Nasional (BN) assemblyman and leaking corporation’s information to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

“Why did you present roses to my father only to stab him the moment you step out of Kota Darul Naim?” asked Nik Abduh in his blog.

“Maybe it was not your fault. It was the person who brought you to Kelantan who is guilty, and now he is trying to cleanse and distance himself from you,” he said, claiming that Syed Azidi was given VIP treatment when he arrived in the state.

Last April, Nik Abduh slammed Nik Aziz’s advisers for instigating the PAS spiritual adviser to oppose moves to initiate political cooperation with Umno and his criticism was seen to be directed at Husam.

Since his removal, Syed Azidi has repeatedly accused Arrifahmi of abuse of power, an action described as cowardice by Nik Abduh.

“Why didn’t you criticise Ariffahmi privately in front of him like I did. No one was threatened by my father for criticising his son-in-law,” said Nik Abduh.

Ariffahmi, who is currently under the MACC investigation, was ordered to resign by Nik Aziz early this week after intervention by the PAS central committee led by president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang.

Nik Abduh described the controversy in PMBK as one of the toughest issues that has affected the family and he vowed to defend Ariffahmi from what he called slander.

Husam was Nik Aziz's choice for the PAS deputy presidency and is seen as a leading light of the Erdogan faction, named after the Turkish prime minister, for promoting closer ties with opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

But Husam lost to incumbent Nasharuddin Mat Isa, who was later accused of wanting PAS to unite with political rivals Umno.

Nik Aziz last month called for a special congress to sack leaders who are promoting unity with Umno in what was seen as a veiled attack against Abdul Hadi and his faction. The move failed but the party remains divided over the issue although Abdul Hadi has reiterated the party remains in the Pakatan Rakyat.

Mixed views to controversial GST proposal

Najib plans to table the proposed GST Bill for a first reading before the current sitting of the Dewan Rakyat ends in mid-December. — File pic

By Lee Wei Lian - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 26 — The Najib administration’s move to bite the bullet by strengthening its finances via a new tax regime has drawn mixed reactions from the public as well as industry.

Malaysia, along with Hong Kong, is one of the few countries that have put off implementing the goods and services tax (GST) while countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore have long had a form of GST in place.

But the country already has a sales and service tax of 5 per cent which will be subsumed by the GST.

"GST is a politically sensitive piece of legislation," said the tax director at a leading accounting firm.

"However, countries that have implemented it, for example Australia, tend to see tax revenues go up significantly. There tends to be a higher rate of compliance and less evasion compared with income tax."

The tax director also said that it is not a given that the prices of goods will go up with the introduction of the GST, which is a frequently expressed worry.

The GST, which is described as a "consumption tax", is levied on transactions at all stages of production of goods and services but ultimately paid for by the end consumer.

The proposal comes as the government is trying to reduce the federal budget deficit, currently at 7.6 per cent of GDP, and grow revenue by widening its tax base.

The public, not only in Malaysia but also in other countries, tends to be sceptical over the introduction of any new taxes. To ease the transition, Singapore, for example, started with a low GST rate of 3 per cent before gradually increasing it over time to the current level of 7 per cent and even then gave tax credits to eligible citizens to help them cope with the additional cost.

Others, such as Canada, have either exempted or imposed a tax rate of zero on essentials such as basic groceries, housing rent and medical services.

Some members of the public have approved the proposal as it is expected to spread the tax burden more evenly across the population as only an estimated one-tenth of workers are currently paying income tax.

There is some expectation, however, that income tax rates should come down if GST is introduced.

Others have criticised the proposal, saying that the government should first address revenue leakages and wastage before introducing new taxes to boost its income.

The Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) says that timing and ease of compliance is key.

"The timing of the implementation has to be right," said FMM president Tan Sri Mustafa Mansur, adding that FMM was going to have a dialogue with the government over the GST next week.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced on Tuesday that he plans to table the proposed GST Bill for a first reading before the current sitting of the Dewan Rakyat ends in mid-December and engage the public in order to fine-tune the proposal.

He said the proposed GST would replace the current sales and service tax and any implementation of GST would be done "very gently" with a rate that would not burden the poor or middle-class Malaysians nor increase inflation.

All faults news from Hindraf split group.

Hindraf supporters lighting a lamp to mark the movement’s second anniversary last night. — Pictures by Jack Ooi

By Lee Wei Lian - The Malaysian Insider

KLANG, Nov 26 — A faction in the outlawed Hindraf celebrated the 2nd anniversary of its mammoth march by “sacking” exiled leader P. Waythamoorthy for being ineffective and another leader confirming he will join PKR.

Former ISA detainee and treasurer of the banned Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) Vasantha Kumar said Waythamoorthy was "sacked" as Hindraf chairman by the Hindraf organising committee on Nov 17 for the alleged reason that he was ineffective and confusing the Indian community.

"We have sacked him as the self-proclaimed chairman and won't recognise him," Vasantha told reporters last night at an event to commemorate Hindraf’s second anniversary.

Waythamoorthy is in self-exile in London after Vasantha and four others were detained under the ISA on Dec 13, 2007. The government had also then outlawed Hindraf which claimed Indians were dying in a genocide.

Vasantha also disclosed that he is getting Hindraf registered as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with the Registrar of Societies (RoS) next week along with a "back-up" NGO called the Malaysian Indian Voice, in case Hindraf's application is rejected.

He also said he submitted his membership application form to PKR around the time of the Bukit Selambau by-election earlier this year but is restricted from entering politics until Dec 13 due to his stint in ISA.

"My form is still with PKR. I will make an announcement at a different event after Dec 13," he replied when asked about whether he was going to join PKR.

He admitted that there is some confusion in the Indian community over the state of Hindraf but denied that it was a spent force.

Vasantha has applied to join PKR.

Vasantha had a falling out with Waythamoorthy and his brother P. Uthayakumar earlier this year over financial and other issues.

Uthayakumar, also a Hindraf leader, established the new Human Rights Party in July while another former Hindraf leader, R.S. Thanethiran, has gone on to establish the Makkal Sakthi party which is friendly to Barisan Nasional.

About 1,000 people turned out for the anniversary celebrations, including several Pakatan Rakyat leaders. PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had earlier given a speech where he expressed solidarity with Hindraf.

The Parliamentary Opposition Leader was also presented with a 10 point proposal from the Malaysian Indian Voice touching on economic, education, religious and other issues.

The same proposal is expected to be presented to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak when he returns from his overseas trip.

The movement, which was fuelled by dissatisfaction among Indians with the Barisan Nasional administration, was a key factor of the March 2008 "tsunami" but opinion polls conducted this year and the recent Bagan Pinang by-election results suggest that Indian voters have largely swung back to the ruling coalition.

Keeping Chin Peng out

By Koh Lay Chin
thenutgraph.com

WE talk about feeling sorry for old men. Or about being upset with the idea of Chin Peng stepping back on Malaysian soil. We have been swamped with evocative words that demand strong reactions. "Old man wants to die at birthplace." "Just a grandfather." "Notorious murderer." "Massacre of innocents." The "evils of communism". Strong words for strong feelings, that's for certain.

MuhyiddinBut whether one abhors left-leaning youths or loathes anti-communist conservatism, the bottom line is that deals and agreements are signed and sealed on paper specifically to leave these emotions aside. When one comes to the table and inks his or her name to an agreement, they do so as men and women of intellect and rationale.

And the fact is, the government of Malaysia signed an agreement with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), of which Chin Peng was the secretary-general. And today, the Malaysian government is reneging on that agreement. Even Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Muhyiddin Yassin is adamant about the government not fulfilling its end of the bargain.

Forgotten commitment

The Malaysian government signed two agreements with the CPM on 2 Dec 1989 in Haadyai, Thailand. The landmark peace treaty ended the armed conflict between the government and the CPM. The treaty consisted of The Agreement Between The Government of Malaysia and The Communist Party of Malaya to Terminate Hostilities, and The Administrative Arrangement Between The Government Of Malaysia and The Communist Party Of Malaya Pursuant To The Agreement To Terminate Hostilities.

We were represented by no less than then Home Affairs secretary-general Datuk Wan Sidek Wan Abdul Rahman, former Defence Forces chief General Tan Sri Hashim Mohd Ali, former Inspector General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Mohd Haniff Omar, then deputy IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor, and then Special Branch director Datuk Zulkifli Abdul Rahman.

Chin Peng (pic courtesy of
Farish Noor)Families of the victims of the communists must have been upset or conflicted when the Malaysian government went to negotiate with the CPM in 1955 in what was the failed Baling talks, and again in 1989 for the successful peace treaty. But these aside, the leaders of the day did what they did for the nation's peace. In these leaders and in the government did our nation place its trust for rational and principled deliberation. It is therefore a step back for our government today to choose to cloud the issue with plenty of emotional and defensive talk.

It would be timely to remember that the people who signed this peace treaty on behalf of Malaysia with the CPM, represented by Chin Peng, committed the Malaysian government to the following:

Article 1 — Upon the signing of the agreement, the Malaysian government and the CPM would cease all armed activities.

Article 2 — The CPM would disband all its armed units, destroy its arms, ammunition, explosives and booby traps in Malaysia and Thailand.

Article 3 — Members of the CPM and members of its units who are of Malaysian origin and who wish to settle down in Malaysia would be allowed to do so in accordance with Malaysian laws.

Article 4 — The Malaysian authorities would assist members of the CPM and members of its disbanded armed units to start their peaceful life afresh.

Identification portrait of communist
used by Commonwealth troops in
Malaya (public domain /
Wiki Commons)

The rest of the agreement is gracious and honourable in word and spirit. It actually states that the Malaysian authorities would help CPM members who wanted to start anew in Malaysia with assistance like temporary accommodation and other transitional support.

While it is clear that the CPM has fulfilled its end of the peace treaty, the same cannot be said of the Malaysian government. Unfortunately, in April 2009, the Federal Court upheld an earlier ruling that compelled Chin Peng to show identification papers to prove his citizenship, hence closing the door on Chin Peng ever returning to Malaysia.

Chin Peng himself has maintained that his birth certificate was seized by the police during a raid in 1948. These were the years of the Emergency; a time of turmoil and chaos, it must be remembered. The court ruling deprives Chin Peng of the right of residence based on the principle of jus soli. Indeed, Chin Peng was born in Sitiawan, Perak and has siblings and relatives who can easily testify to this.

It would seem then that despite the evidence, the Malaysian government has been let off the hook from having to fulfil its legal obligations under a peace treaty that it voluntarily signed 20 years ago.

Not a "pinky swear"

Not how it happened...

Government agreements are not a ten-year-old's "pinky swear", where children can run to their corners and backtrack in a tantrum. When two parties commit to a treaty, it means that both come to the table as willing parties who agree to assume certain obligations. A treaty's fundamental principle is expressed in the Latin maxim pacta sunt servanda, which holds to the idea that promises made in good faith must be respected and agreements carried out.

A deal is a deal is a deal. Many people who now comment on the Chin Peng versus the government case argue around the concepts of forgiveness, apologies, sympathy and a sense of compassion. They bring in examples of leaders who have been wronged but remain gracious and non-bitter such as Nelson Mandela. Some even pontificate in romantic tones about Che Guevara-type socialist ideology and how we should let different roses bloom and the like. Some mention the "irony" of letting current leaders from China enter the country.

Che Guevara (public domain /
Wiki Commons)In my opinion, these are all beside the point and sometimes, over the top. These arguments rotate around an axis of "What we should do". But really, based on the agreement between CPM and the Malaysian government, the crux should be, "What we must do".

What are the implications of a sovereign nation, which aspires to be developed by 2020, dishonouring a contract? Keeping promised commitments is a standard of developed nations worldwide. What example is the government setting not only for its people, but for governments and investors outside of Malaysia? And even if we are willing to put international regard and confidence aside, perhaps our leaders should remember the nation's own Rukunegara which upholds the sovereignty of the law.

Frankly, I could not care any less for Chin Peng but by showing us that some rules and promises can be broken, we tell our children and the world, that our commitments can be unkept and our principles negotiable. Our government had, and has, the chance to show through example, that when the Malaysian government gives its word, it will keep it no matter the flavour of politics for the season.

Sepet Versi 10.5

The Malaysian Insider
By Dina Zaman

NOV 25 — Inter-racial relationships and marriages in Malaysia can be fraught with peril and heartbreak. The lovers have to face opposition from their parents and family members, and when one of the partners has to convert to Islam, it is a guarantee for migraine.

Falling in love with a non-Muslim man has its comic moments. And it is precisely these moments that my girlfriends and I bond stronger, because dating an apek, so to speak, has its Hollywood moments. We laugh and cry, and commiserate with each other. Yes, misery loves company, and a sense of the ludicrous makes us view love, race and religion in a very different light.

We get very understanding friends who say it is good that we are dating non-Muslim men, for it is dakwah. The very fact that these men will convert to Islam one day, for whatever reason, is good enough and we women are doing a good job gathering more Muslims into the fold.

Er. Okay.

Then you get a few rabid Muslim men who decide they will woo you to save your soul.

“But I don’t want to be saved,” a friend said, perplexed by her friend’s sudden interest in her. “I just wanna marry my Mat Salleh boyfriend and have babies.”

Still, no matter how modern we errant Malay girls may seem for transgressing, for falling in love with a Chinese/Indian/Caucasian/Monkey-man, we don’t have the balls to run off overseas and have one of those marriages. These men will have to convert, somehow.

This, of course, leads to many late-night coffees and pecah-kepala discussions on how to convert our non-Muslim boyfriends.

Some are direct: they pepper their homes with pamphlets on Islam and become the new Messiahs. They drag their hapless men to all the ceramahs and meet with religious people. They even look for gentle doctors to scalp their men’s nether regions.

Some are not so direct: they approach the issue of conversion softly. They start inviting their men to meet other relatives and family members. They charm their men into seeing a new way of life. They buy baju Melayu, they feed him Malay food, they seduce their men into conversion.

But what happens if the men they love are hardheaded stone-cold non-believers?

This is where stealth mode and drastic measures come in.

He comes to visit the Malay girl (not me, okay) he is in love with. He thinks you are this amusing creative person who has batty ideas. He asks for tea and cheesecake and you, the demure Malay girl that you really are, dash to the kitchen. You make his favourite tea but with a dash. You pour in half a cup of Air Yasin/Zam-zam/Musafar into his tea, and then serve him it.

“Wah. Damn kow la your tea. Very nice. May I have some more?”

So you serve him more tea laced with all the Quranic verses swimming in it.

One month later, he still has yet to convert.

Your mother calls you up to find out how the stealth mode is working out. (Not my mother, okay.)

“He’s still an effin’ atheist, Mummy,” you say.

You can hear your mother trying to stifle her laughter.

Two months later, he really loves you, your tea and cheesecake, and you’re sitting on the chair with the bottle of Air Yasin/Zam-zam/Musafar on your lap, staring at it incredulously, because he still does not believe in God. But because you’re an ostrich, you just bury your head in the sand and figure Allah will pave the way.

Sometimes, parents who oppose the union can turn political.

Now this happened to a friend whose parents were ultras and almost had a coronary when their beloved daughter told them she was going to marry a Chinese man. The father, for your information, had been part of the May 13 riots and had turun padang to sembelih the Chinese. Let’s just say it wasn’t even dramatic. It was… combustive.

Mother slapped the Pendatang.

Pendatang yelled back, "Oi, I’m Malaysian okay! You are Pendatang too!"

My friend tried to break up the fight. The neighbours came out of their homes to observe the fray.

The fight got more ugly.

More name-calling. After using up epithets like “Pendatang”, “Kafir”, “Cina tongkang”, her mother mustered one more insult.

“You. You. YOU… SPACE ALIEN!”

I am not making this up.

So what do girls like us do when poo hits the fan?

Macam-macam. Trial separations. Date other men (though in your case the man has this unerring ability of knowing that you are straying. He must have some sami tucked somewhere-lah). Ponder on life as an old maid. Actually spinsterhood sounds like a more calm and attractive option.

Love in Malaysia.

It can be tough.

The writer does not know which gives her more headaches: inter-racial romances or getting back into the game.

MB NS 'hilang kata - kata' isu pengeludupan RM 10 juta ke luar negara

Isnin lepas, YB Antony Loke telah membangkitkan isu mengenai kaitan Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan yang dikaitan dengan Salamath Ali Money Changer Sdn Bhd sebuah syarikat yang dibatalkan lesen oleh Bank Negara kerana terlibat dalam pemindahan wang 'melanggar undang undang ke luar negara dalam persidangan DUN NS.

Menurut maklumat yang diperolehi dari sumber dalaman Bank Negara cukup untuk mengaitkan Menteri Besar Negeri Sembilan terlibat dalam pemindahan wang dalam jumlah amat besar ke luar negara sekitar Mac 2008. YB Tian Chua telah membangkitkan perkara ini dalam Parlimen dan cheGuBard telah menulis surat terbuka mencabar penjelasan Menteri Besar.sila klik untuk baca surat terbuka kepada MB NS

Semalam semasa ucapan penggulungan dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri Sembilan, Menteri Besar NS kelihatan hilang kata - kata dengan hanya mengatakan dia tak berminat nak jawab soalan pembangkang mengenai penglibatan beliau dalam 'penyeludupan wang' ke luar negara tetapi sebaliknya mengakui beliau kini sedang di sisasat oleh pihak berkuasa.

Tanpa menyebut pihak berkuasa agensi mana yang menyiasat beliau mengenai penglibatan beliau dalam penyeludupan wang tersebut beliau telah diselamatkan dari asakan soalan dengan tindakan 'kurang ajar' beberapa ADUN Bn yang bangun menjerit - jerit malah speaker juga bertindak menyelamatkan Menteri Besar dari terus diasak.

Apa yang penting di sini Menteri Besar jika berani jawab surat terbuka cheGuBard !!

Keduanya yang pasti beliau mengakui terlibat dan takut hendak menafikanya dalam dewan kerana cheGuBard amat yakin Menteri Besar tahu apa bukti yang cheGuBard punya. Jika dia berani menafikan dalam dewan maka dia akan menjadi Menteri Besar pertama yang akan dihadapkan ke Jawatankuasa hak dan kebebasan Dewan kerana menipu.

Persoalan jauh lebih penting ialah wang siapa yang 'diseludup' keluar ? Wang tersebut 'diseludup' kepada siapa ? Transaksi berlaku sekitar Mac 2008, adakah ia berkaitan dengan wang dana kempen pilihanraya ?

Jika ia transaksi sah kenapa ia perlu diselindungkan sehingga melanggar akta Bank Negara sehingga menyebabkan Salamath Ali Manoy Changer dibatalkan lesen.... jika ia dilakukan secara sah terangkan kepada rakyat Negeri Sembilan segera !!

Walaubagaimana pun seperti biasa media seperti SINAR Harian diganggu tangan ghaib dari menyiarkan berita ini .............

Surat terbuka sebelum ini yang dihantar kepada MB NS sebelum Bagan Pinang tidak dijawab oleh MB malah usaha dari pejabatnya menghalang media melaporkan surat tersebut. sila klik untuk baca surat terbuka menjelang Bagan Pinang.

Namun surat terbuka telah dihantar 16 November, MB diberi masa menjawab sehingga 14 hari. Jangan harap isu ini akan disenyapkan dengan hanya penafian dangkal dan 'penggelapan' media.

Crazy IGP

Lawyer: Najib 'linked' to Bala's disappearance - Malaysiakini

Any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is somehow linked to the disappearance of P Balasubramaniam, according to the private investigator's lawyer.

"The facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute," said Americk Singh Sidhu (left) in an interview with Malaysiakini.

"As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim (Razak), Najib's younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala's disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?" asked Americk.

Balasubramaniam recently emerged from hiding to reveal that he had met Nazim, an architect, the night before he made a dramatic reversal and recanted his first statutory declaration in which he alleged that Najib had close ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Balasubramaniam also claimed that he was offered RM5 million by one Deepak, a businessman close to Najib's wife, Rosmah Mansor, to retract his first statutory declaration.

Najib had repeatedly denied speculations that he was behind Balasubramaniam's retraction.

In the interview, Americk recounted how he was introduced to Balasubramaniam, on his reaction to the retraction of Balasubramaniam's first statutory declaration and his subsequent meeting with the former police officer after he emerged from hiding a year later.

The lawyer also revealed that the video recording of his interview with Balasubramaniam three months ago was secretly taken as an "insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago".

"He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it," said Americk.

According to him, while Balasubramaniam may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 for giving conflicting statutory declarations, he could nevertheless defend himself against the charge as it "would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second statutory declaration under duress".

But those who allegedly instigated the swearing of the false second statutory declaration - Deepak, one ASP Suresh and lawyer M Arunampalam - are also liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy, added Americk.

"In so far as Nazim is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false statutory declaration."

The following is the first of a two-part interview:

Malaysiakini: When did you first meet Bala?

Americk: I first met Bala sometime in April or May 2008. I was having some early evening drinks with several lawyer friends of mine at 'Fogles', which is a delicatessen/bar at Plaza Damas. We were later joined by ASP Suresh and Bala.

One of the lawyers I was with, M Puravalen, introduced me to them. I had no idea who they were before that. I had not been following the Altantuya case very closely so I had not realised that Abdul Razak Baginda had a private investigator assisting him and this was Bala.

I then started enquiring about this whole saga out of curiosity.

Puravalen had been involved in the Altantuya case as he was the first counsel Abdul Razak Baginda had engaged before he was discharged and a new counsel engaged, and so he enlightened me as regards the more salient facts.

I am not sure how ASP Suresh featured in all this but he appeared to be a good friend of Bala's and appeared to have his interests at heart.

Eventually some of the other lawyers left and the restaurant started closing so we decided to move on to 'The Backyard' pub in Sri Hartamas, which is only a short distance away from Plaza Damas. There were four of us ... Bala, myself, ASP Suresh and Valen.

We were drinking and still discussing the whole Altantuya murder case as I found it fascinating. Sometime later (Subang MP and lawyer) Sivarasa Rasiah walked in. I know Siva as he is also a friend, but we are not very close. We asked him to join us. He also listened to what Bala had to say and after that suggested Bala get someone to record everything.

Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral. I agreed and that was when I made an appointment for Bala to come to my office so that I could record all he had to say.

The recordings occurred about two or three times over a period of about two months and lasted a few hours each time.

How did you feel when Bala came out with the second statutory declaration? Did you attempt to contact him?

I received a call from a member of the press at about 9.30am on July 4, 2008 asking me why my client, Bala, had called a press conference for 11am that morning at the Prince hotel.

I was a little surprised as I had no idea what this was about so I proceeded to call Bala, who did not answer his phone. I then proceeded to make further enquiries only to find out that Bala had purportedly been represented by another lawyer, one Arunampalam who had spoken to the press at that press conference on behalf of Bala and had said that Bala was retracting the contents of his first SD as he had been forced to sign it under duress.

When I came to know of this press conference and what transpired thereat, I was absolutely flabbergasted. Bala and I had spent two months and many hours over the first SD to ensure it was absolutely correct and for him to deny the contents in the space of 24 hours did seem incredible to me.

Bala had anticipated that he would be arrested by the police after releasing the first statutory declaration and he told me so. This is why he had handed over his mobile phone to me for safe keeping before he left my office the evening before as he did not want the police to download information from it.

We were therefore preparing for his arrest and then to go to the police station he was being held at to represent him. I never expected him to have been 'hijacked' by the personalities involved, and I am sure, neither did he.

It is also worth mentioning here that this lawyer, Arunampalam, was not engaged by Bala to represent him at the press conference at the Prince hotel despite the fact that Arunampalam has said Bala called him and asked him to do so. This is a blatant lie.

Bala does not know this man and had never met him prior to that press conference. In fact, it is well-known that Arunampalam does legal work for Deepak and this can be substantiated quite easily.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bala was forced, coerced, threatened and intimidated into signing the second statutory declaration.

Bala subsequently disappeared for one year. When did you meet him next?

Bala called me around July 19, 2009. I was at that time in a little village called Llanwarne on the Welsh border staying with some friends of mine. My wife was also with me. I was surprised to hear his voice as I hadn't heard from him since he left my office with ASP Suresh in the early evening of July 3, 2008.

He started off the conversation by apologising to me for any trouble he had caused. He said he was returning to Malaysia on July 28 and wanted to see me. I informed him I was only returning to Kuala Lumpur on Aug 2 and landing in the early hours of the morning. He gave me a contact number to call and I said I would call him after I landed to arrange a meeting.

At approximately 9am on Aug 2, 2009, I called the number Bala had given me and we arranged to meet in about two days' time. We left the exact time and place to be decided later.

On Aug 4, we finally arranged to meet at my apartment in Ampang Hilir at about 1pm the next day. As Bala wanted to tell me everything that had happened to him since I saw him last, I thought it would be best to have some witnesses present and so I called my counsel, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and another lawyer, Amarjit Singh Sidhu. They both turned up at about 12pm and we waited for Bala to arrive.

Bala eventually turned up a little later than expected as he was having difficulty locating my apartment. He arrived with two other Indian gentlemen who were introduced to us but I cannot recall their names.

He then spent about three hours telling us exactly what had happened to him. During this time he was constantly questioned by myself, Manjeet and Amarjit.

We had arranged for a concealed audio visual device to record this conversation as we felt Bala may have needed some insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago. He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it.

There's an easy way to plan for retirement. Find out how.

Were you convinced by Bala's story? What documentary evidence did you have?

After approximately three hours of conversation, we were more than convinced that what he was telling us was the truth. It took quite a long time to unravel the details as Bala was recalling events which had taken place over a year ago coupled with the fact that there were so many details.

At that stage, Bala did not reveal any documentary evidence as he was still very apprehensive of the entire situation but he did tell us details of all the evidence he had from bank account statements, passports, flight tickets and photocopied cheques paid to him.

We therefore asked him to produce this evidence and he assured us he would.

What was your advice to Bala at the meeting? Was there a follow-up meeting after that?

After digesting everything we were told, we felt it was necessary to record the events which had taken place in a suitable, chronological and coherent format as we were concerned the matter was rather serious.

We advised Bala to hand over all documents to us to enable us to further verify his story. He promised us he would but said he would have to go to his wife's bank (EON) to get her statements for the past year and that other documents were still in India. He did however have copies of his family's passports and copies of the cheques Deepak had signed. He eventually produced these documents to me by hand, by post and by fax.

We advised Bala to behave normally with Deepak and ASP Suresh and not to let them know he had seen us. He told us he would be returning to India shortly and would contact us again. From then on, all contact with Bala was by phone and email.

As a lawyer, do you think Bala has committed any offences?

Technically, he may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 by swearing a false declaration. By this I mean the second SD, not the first SD. However under the circumstances, he would have a good defence to a charge of that nature as it would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second SD under duress.

Making a false second SD technically exposes Bala to criminal prosecution. It would equally make the ones who instigated the swearing of the false second SD [Deepak/ Arunampalam/Suresh], liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy.

If we refer to section 3 of the SD Act 1960, this states that SDs made under the Act are such declarations as are referred to in sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, and where false would be punishable under that Act.

Section 199 of the Penal Code reads:

"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."

This provision is then followed by Section 200 of the Penal Code which states that 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.

Even if we limit ourselves to these provisions alone, offences are clearly shown to have been committed by Deepak, Suresh and Arunampalam. Bala may well have a defense of duress but that would be a matter of evidence.

In so far as Nazim (Razak) is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false SD.

Note also that under section 10[b] of the ACA 1997, it is an offence to corruptly give to any person an inducement in such circumstances as those in which Bala was induced to make the false second SD. Deepak, Suresh and Nazim could well be prosecuted under these provisions.

With the evidence that you and the other lawyers have seen from Bala and based on Bala's own explanation, do you think the PM (Najib Abdul Razak) and his wife (Rosmah) are personally involved in this (matter)? Or was it done on their behalf by someone?

If you mean Bala's disappearance, then the facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute.

As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim, Najib's younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala's disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?

I think this is the conclusion any reasonable person would come to.

Tomorrow - Death and Molotov cocktails

THE BALA TAPES

Part 1: Bala was in town, now on Youtube

Part 2: PI Bala reveals his final hours in M'sia

Part 3: Cops grill PI Bala in Bangkok, praise his courage

Part 4: PI Bala - From Bangkok to Kathmandu to Delhi

Part 5: 'I was told Rosmah was happy with my retraction'

Hindraf anniversary: Presenting PM with roses

Hunger strike to mark Hindraf's 2nd anniversary

LGE : Don't politicise land conversion

Lawyer: Najib 'linked' to Bala's disappearance - Malaysiakini

Any reasonable person would draw the conclusion that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is somehow linked to the disappearance of P Balasubramaniam, according to the private investigator's lawyer.

"The facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute," said Americk Singh Sidhu (left) in an interview with Malaysiakini.

"As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim (Razak), Najib's younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala's disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?" asked Americk.

Balasubramaniam recently emerged from hiding to reveal that he had met Nazim, an architect, the night before he made a dramatic reversal and recanted his first statutory declaration in which he alleged that Najib had close ties with murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Balasubramaniam also claimed that he was offered RM5 million by one Deepak, a businessman close to Najib's wife, Rosmah Mansor, to retract his first statutory declaration.

Najib had repeatedly denied speculations that he was behind Balasubramaniam's retraction.

In the interview, Americk recounted how he was introduced to Balasubramaniam, on his reaction to the retraction of Balasubramaniam's first statutory declaration and his subsequent meeting with the former police officer after he emerged from hiding a year later.

The lawyer also revealed that the video recording of his interview with Balasubramaniam three months ago was secretly taken as an "insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago".

"He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it," said Americk.

According to him, while Balasubramaniam may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 for giving conflicting statutory declarations, he could nevertheless defend himself against the charge as it "would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second statutory declaration under duress".

But those who allegedly instigated the swearing of the false second statutory declaration - Deepak, one ASP Suresh and lawyer M Arunampalam - are also liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy, added Americk.

"In so far as Nazim is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false statutory declaration."

The following is the first of a two-part interview:

Malaysiakini: When did you first meet Bala?

Americk: I first met Bala sometime in April or May 2008. I was having some early evening drinks with several lawyer friends of mine at 'Fogles', which is a delicatessen/bar at Plaza Damas. We were later joined by ASP Suresh and Bala.

One of the lawyers I was with, M Puravalen, introduced me to them. I had no idea who they were before that. I had not been following the Altantuya case very closely so I had not realised that Abdul Razak Baginda had a private investigator assisting him and this was Bala.

I then started enquiring about this whole saga out of curiosity.

Puravalen had been involved in the Altantuya case as he was the first counsel Abdul Razak Baginda had engaged before he was discharged and a new counsel engaged, and so he enlightened me as regards the more salient facts.

I am not sure how ASP Suresh featured in all this but he appeared to be a good friend of Bala's and appeared to have his interests at heart.

Eventually some of the other lawyers left and the restaurant started closing so we decided to move on to 'The Backyard' pub in Sri Hartamas, which is only a short distance away from Plaza Damas. There were four of us ... Bala, myself, ASP Suresh and Valen.

We were drinking and still discussing the whole Altantuya murder case as I found it fascinating. Sometime later (Subang MP and lawyer) Sivarasa Rasiah walked in. I know Siva as he is also a friend, but we are not very close. We asked him to join us. He also listened to what Bala had to say and after that suggested Bala get someone to record everything.

Somehow I was chosen to do this as everyone felt I was the one lawyer who did not have an agenda in this matter as I was someone neutral. I agreed and that was when I made an appointment for Bala to come to my office so that I could record all he had to say.

The recordings occurred about two or three times over a period of about two months and lasted a few hours each time.

How did you feel when Bala came out with the second statutory declaration? Did you attempt to contact him?

I received a call from a member of the press at about 9.30am on July 4, 2008 asking me why my client, Bala, had called a press conference for 11am that morning at the Prince hotel.

I was a little surprised as I had no idea what this was about so I proceeded to call Bala, who did not answer his phone. I then proceeded to make further enquiries only to find out that Bala had purportedly been represented by another lawyer, one Arunampalam who had spoken to the press at that press conference on behalf of Bala and had said that Bala was retracting the contents of his first SD as he had been forced to sign it under duress.

When I came to know of this press conference and what transpired thereat, I was absolutely flabbergasted. Bala and I had spent two months and many hours over the first SD to ensure it was absolutely correct and for him to deny the contents in the space of 24 hours did seem incredible to me.

Bala had anticipated that he would be arrested by the police after releasing the first statutory declaration and he told me so. This is why he had handed over his mobile phone to me for safe keeping before he left my office the evening before as he did not want the police to download information from it.

We were therefore preparing for his arrest and then to go to the police station he was being held at to represent him. I never expected him to have been 'hijacked' by the personalities involved, and I am sure, neither did he.

It is also worth mentioning here that this lawyer, Arunampalam, was not engaged by Bala to represent him at the press conference at the Prince hotel despite the fact that Arunampalam has said Bala called him and asked him to do so. This is a blatant lie.

Bala does not know this man and had never met him prior to that press conference. In fact, it is well-known that Arunampalam does legal work for Deepak and this can be substantiated quite easily.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bala was forced, coerced, threatened and intimidated into signing the second statutory declaration.

Bala subsequently disappeared for one year. When did you meet him next?

Bala called me around July 19, 2009. I was at that time in a little village called Llanwarne on the Welsh border staying with some friends of mine. My wife was also with me. I was surprised to hear his voice as I hadn't heard from him since he left my office with ASP Suresh in the early evening of July 3, 2008.

He started off the conversation by apologising to me for any trouble he had caused. He said he was returning to Malaysia on July 28 and wanted to see me. I informed him I was only returning to Kuala Lumpur on Aug 2 and landing in the early hours of the morning. He gave me a contact number to call and I said I would call him after I landed to arrange a meeting.

At approximately 9am on Aug 2, 2009, I called the number Bala had given me and we arranged to meet in about two days' time. We left the exact time and place to be decided later.

On Aug 4, we finally arranged to meet at my apartment in Ampang Hilir at about 1pm the next day. As Bala wanted to tell me everything that had happened to him since I saw him last, I thought it would be best to have some witnesses present and so I called my counsel, Manjeet Singh Dhillon and another lawyer, Amarjit Singh Sidhu. They both turned up at about 12pm and we waited for Bala to arrive.

Bala eventually turned up a little later than expected as he was having difficulty locating my apartment. He arrived with two other Indian gentlemen who were introduced to us but I cannot recall their names.

He then spent about three hours telling us exactly what had happened to him. During this time he was constantly questioned by myself, Manjeet and Amarjit.

We had arranged for a concealed audio visual device to record this conversation as we felt Bala may have needed some insurance in the event he was apprehended by the parties involved in his departure from this country over a year ago. He did not know he was being filmed at that time but we did inform him of this later and he understood why we did it.

Were you convinced by Bala's story? What documentary evidence did you have?

After approximately three hours of conversation, we were more than convinced that what he was telling us was the truth. It took quite a long time to unravel the details as Bala was recalling events which had taken place over a year ago coupled with the fact that there were so many details.

At that stage, Bala did not reveal any documentary evidence as he was still very apprehensive of the entire situation but he did tell us details of all the evidence he had from bank account statements, passports, flight tickets and photocopied cheques paid to him.

We therefore asked him to produce this evidence and he assured us he would.

What was your advice to Bala at the meeting? Was there a follow-up meeting after that?

After digesting everything we were told, we felt it was necessary to record the events which had taken place in a suitable, chronological and coherent format as we were concerned the matter was rather serious.

We advised Bala to hand over all documents to us to enable us to further verify his story. He promised us he would but said he would have to go to his wife's bank (EON) to get her statements for the past year and that other documents were still in India. He did however have copies of his family's passports and copies of the cheques Deepak had signed. He eventually produced these documents to me by hand, by post and by fax.

We advised Bala to behave normally with Deepak and ASP Suresh and not to let them know he had seen us. He told us he would be returning to India shortly and would contact us again. From then on, all contact with Bala was by phone and email.

As a lawyer, do you think Bala has committed any offences?

Technically, he may have committed an offence under the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 by swearing a false declaration. By this I mean the second SD, not the first SD. However under the circumstances, he would have a good defence to a charge of that nature as it would appear he was coerced, intimidated and/or forced to sign the second SD under duress.

Making a false second SD technically exposes Bala to criminal prosecution. It would equally make the ones who instigated the swearing of the false second SD [Deepak/ Arunampalam/Suresh], liable to criminal charges for abetment and conspiracy.

If we refer to section 3 of the SD Act 1960, this states that SDs made under the Act are such declarations as are referred to in sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, and where false would be punishable under that Act.

Section 199 of the Penal Code reads:

"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."

This provision is then followed by Section 200 of the Penal Code which states that 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.

Even if we limit ourselves to these provisions alone, offences are clearly shown to have been committed by Deepak, Suresh and Arunampalam. Bala may well have a defense of duress but that would be a matter of evidence.

In so far as Nazim (Razak) is concerned, he was involved in criminal intimidation of Bala besides a possibility of being roped into the abetment/conspiracy charges arising from the creation of the second false SD.

Note also that under section 10[b] of the ACA 1997, it is an offence to corruptly give to any person an inducement in such circumstances as those in which Bala was induced to make the false second SD. Deepak, Suresh and Nazim could well be prosecuted under these provisions.

With the evidence that you and the other lawyers have seen from Bala and based on Bala's own explanation, do you think the PM (Najib Abdul Razak) and his wife (Rosmah) are personally involved in this (matter)? Or was it done on their behalf by someone?

If you mean Bala's disappearance, then the facts seem to point to the possibility that they wanted him out of the way and delegated this job to others close to them to execute.

As matters stand, I am concerned about the involvement of Nazim, Najib's younger brother. The question is why would he have an interest in Bala's disappearance if it were not to protect his brother?

I think this is the conclusion any reasonable person would come to.

Tomorrow - Death and Molotov cocktails

THE BALA TAPES

Part 1: Bala was in town, now on Youtube

Part 2: PI Bala reveals his final hours in M'sia

Part 3: Cops grill PI Bala in Bangkok, praise his courage

Part 4: PI Bala - From Bangkok to Kathmandu to Delhi

Part 5: 'I was told Rosmah was happy with my retraction'