Share |

Monday 21 February 2022

Maria Hertogh Conversion

 
The year is 1950.
You are a young Malay man, currently standing outside the Tanjong Pagar Railway station in Singapore, waiting to receive relatives from Trengganu. Two days ago, you received news that a distant aunt Aminah Binte Mohamed and her 13-year-old daughter Nadra are coming down to Singapore urgently to settle some "family issues".

You have not seen Nadra since your last trip to Trengganu but you have a very distinct memory of her Eurasian features and halting Malay. That's because Nadra was adopted by Cik Aminah, your mother told you.

You learnt that Nadra, originally Maria 'Bertha' Hertogh, was born to Dutch-Eurasian parents in Java. After her father was taken as a prisoner of war during the Japanese occupation, Nadra's biological mother gave her up to Cik Aminah. Both Cik Aminah and Nadra moved to Kemaman, Trengganu after the war and never heard from the Hertoghs again.

Cik Aminah and Nadra arrived promptly on the seven o'clock train. You notice their tear-stained faces and wonder what is wrong. Nevertheless, you salaam Cik Aminah dutifully before bringing her and Nadra over to your place.

Once settled in at your home, Cik Aminah started to tell her story. It turns out that after the war ended, the Hertogh family enlisted the help of Dutch officials to help look for Nadra. They searched all over the region and finally found her in Kemaman. Now the Dutch have demanded that Cik Aminah bring Nadra to Singapore where she will be taken back to her biological parents.

"What am I going to do?" Cik Aminah weeps uncontrollably while Nadra hugs her tightly.

Round One: The court ruled in favour of the Dutch

The following week, on 17 May 1950, Cik Aminah and Nadra appear in court.

There was a palpable tension in the air. You glance over at the mother and daughter pair huddled together, and whisper a little prayer for them. Unfortunately, the court ruled in favour of the Dutch. Nadra has to return to the Hertoghs.

Cik Aminah is devastated but she is determined to appeal against the court's decision. In the meantime, while waiting for the appeal to be heard, the court orders Nadra to be sent to the Social Welfare quarters at York Hill for safekeeping.

During your calls with Nadra, you learn that a 22-year-old English tutor has been assigned to her at York Hill. His name is Inche Mansoor Adabi and Nadra seems to be enjoying her lessons with him a lot. It has been awhile since you heard laughter in her voice.

Round 2: The court overturns the earlier ruling

Two months later, on 28 July 1950, the court hears Cik Aminah's appeal and overturns the earlier decision. Nadra is now reunited with Cik Aminah. The family and Malay community celebrate with a belated Hari Raya feast at the home of the President of the Muslim Welfare Association.

The atmosphere was electrifying as guests after guests from the community came by and celebrated with Cik Aminah and Nadra. There was abundant music and food -- such a stark difference from her two months at York Hill.

Marriage

Shortly after Cik Aminah's successful appeal, Nadra announces that she is getting married to her English tutor, Mansoor Adabi. Cik Aminah is overjoyed that she has found a respectable husband.

Privately, you wonder if it is a wise decision to let a 13-year-old girl get married to a 22-year old man. While it is permissible under Muslim laws, some in the Malay community raise concerns about marriage.

The marriage takes place on August 1, 1950. It is a grand affair since amidst the ongoing court proceedings, Nadra is becoming something of a national celebrity. Reporters from the newspapers are rushing to snap pictures of the newlyweds while loud music entertains guests who came from all over Malaya. Little did everyone know that soon the tides would turn.

The beginning of the end

It is now the morning of November 15, 1950. The custody fight for Nadra has been renewed for about a month now. Nadra's biological mother, Adeline Hertogh, comes over for a visit, to convince Nadra to stop the fighting and go home with her.

The tense atmosphere in the living room is punctuated by Nadra's insistent 'No's to Mrs Hertogh's pleadings. Hidden away in the corner of the house, you catch snatches of their exchanges* in Malay:

Mrs Hertogh: "Whatever may be the difficulties, I will stay here and overcome them until I can take you back to your father and brothers and sisters in Holland."

Nadra: "If my parents love me, they should leave me where I am. Besides I cannot love you, because when I was a child you gave me away."

The final verdict

Fast forward to two weeks later, December 2, 1950. The court rules in Adeline Hertogh's favour - that the marriage between Nadra and Mansoor Adabi is not legal, and Nadra is to be given back to the Dutch. Cik Aminah applies for a stay of execution to be heard on December 11, 1950.

Before leaving the court, you spot Cik Aminah and Nadra clutching at each other, crying loudly and refusing to leave. Your heart breaks for them. Nadra is then transported to the Convent of the Good Shepherd and placed under the care of Catholic nuns.

The girl with two faces

The newspapers sensationalize the situation.

The Singapore Standard publishes the headlines "Bertha knelt before Virgin Mary Statue" while Melayu Raya publishes a picture of Nadra caught between a mosque and a church. The Utusan Melayu runs pictures of a miserable Nadra with the headline "I am very miserable – forced to wear a gown" while The Straits Times publishes photos of a smiling and happy Nadra posing with Catholic nuns. Which is the real her?

You notice that many members of the Muslim community also feel that by nullifying Nadra's marriage to Mansoor Adabi and separating the couple, the court was not respecting the religious laws that Muslims abide by.

The tension snaps

By December 11, 1950, crowds of demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court to demand the release of Nadra back to Cik Aminah. The situation quickly deteriorates into a bloodbath. As you scramble to run out of the way, you hear Eurasians and Europeans alike being stoned and beaten by the angry mobs.

From December 11, 1950, to 13 December 13, 1950, 18 people died, 173 people were injured, and damages to property amounted to more than 20,000 Straits Dollars.

Nadra was relocated to St John's island during the riots and subsequently taken back to the Netherlands. You never saw her again, just the carnage left behind in her wake.
A cautionary tale

In retrospect, there are many lessons to learn from Nadra's story, but perhaps most of all, it serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of religious disharmony, particularly in a religiously diverse place like Singapore.

Mutual understanding and accommodation of different religious beliefs can only happen when we educate ourselves and appreciate the intricacies of different religions. This is the goal of the Harmony in Diversity Gallery (HDG).

Harmony in Diversity Gallery (HDG)

Set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in collaboration with community partners such as the Inter-Religious Organisation, the HDG was opened on August 2 2016 as a key feature of the SGSecure movement.

It consists of four thematic galleries which aim to present a cohesive and broad understanding of the different religions here and how we can exercise mutual understanding when differences in beliefs create friction.

Visitors will witness unique religious artifacts from various religions in Singapore, as well as the commonalities in a religious expression such as prayer, meditation, and fasting.

While understanding different religions is important, the real test comes when friction from conflicting values creeps up in our daily interactions with each other. At the HDG, visitors can explore an interactive exhibit that demonstrates how our decisions can either build bridges that connect or walls that divide.

Sunday 20 February 2022

Controversial cases of unilateral child conversion in Malaysia

While M. Indira Gandhi won her case at the Federal Court against the conversion of her three children to Islam without her consent, a few other women were not so fortunate.

The apex court’s decision to nullify the unilateral conversion of Indira’s children ― which was done by her Muslim convert ex-husband who also abducted their youngest child nine years ago at the age of 11 months ― was the opposite of a previous verdict in another case of unilateral child conversion ― R. Subashini’s case.

The Federal Court yesterday ruled that according to the Federal Constitution, the consent of both parents is needed to convert a minor, while another apex court panel in Subashini’s case had interpreted the Constitution to only require the permission of one parent.

Here are three cases of the unilateral conversion of minors to Islam.

S. Deepa

In 2012, Izwan Abdullah, formerly known as N. Viran, converted his children, V. Mithran and V. Sharmila, without the knowledge of their mother, S. Deepa.

Izwan then applied and was given custody of the children by the Seremban Shariah court and changed Viran and Shamila's name to Nur Nabila Izwan and Muhammad Nabil Izwan respectively.

Deepa applied for and won in 2014 custody of her two children at the Seremban High Court.

Despite the Seremban High Court’s custody orders, Izwan reportedly abducted his son.

In 2016, the Federal Court split custody of the two children, granting Nabil to Izwan while Shamila was given to Deepa, after the judges spoke to both children about which parent they wished to remain with.

The panel recorded agreement by Deepa and her ex-husband to access their children once every two months on a Saturday, at the home of the children's Muslim maternal grandmother Siti Aishah Abdullah, who is also Deepa's mother.

R. Subashini

In July 2006, R. Subashini received a notice from the Registrar of the Shariah High Court Kuala Lumpur that her husband had commenced proceedings in the Shariah High Court for divorce and custody of their eldest son.

This was because her husband, T. Saravanan or now known as Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, converted himself and their elder son to Islam in May 2006.

The couple, married since July 2001 under Hindu rites and registered under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, have two children ― Dharvin Joshua and Sharvin.

After discovering Shafi’s custody application in the Shariah Court, Subashini filed a petition on August 4, 2006, which was after the husband’s conversion, for dissolution of the marriage and an application for custody and ancillary reliefs in the civil High Court. In September 2006, the Kuala Lumpur High Court dismissed Subashini’s application to stop Shafi from resolving their marital problems in the Shariah court.

The Federal Court decided, in a 2-1 decision in 2007, that the unilateral conversion of Subashini’s eldest son was constitutional, interpreting the word “parent” in Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution to be singular.

Article 12(4) states that “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.” In the same judgement, the apex court also decided that the Shariah Court cannot dissolve a civil marriage and all dissolutions made in the religious court are only effective and applicable within the confines of Islamic law.

S. Shamala

In 2002, Dr Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah embraced Islam and subsequently converted his two sons to Islam without the knowledge and consent of his wife, S. Shamala.

Dr Jeyaganesh, now known as Dr Muhammad Ridzwan, also obtained custody of both sons from the Shariah court in 2003.

Following the Shariah court’s decision, Shamala applied to the civil High Court for the custody of her sons.

The High Court granted joint custody to both parents on July 20, 2004, but Shamala was prohibited from teaching her children Hinduism and from allowing them to eat pork.

Shamala later reportedly fled to Australia that year with her two children.

This led the Federal Court in 2010 to avoid hearing constitutional issues regarding the conversion of children to Islam without the consent of both parents.

The majority of the panel also declined to grant time to Shamala to return to Malaysia to appear in the court to determine her referral application.

In 2011, Shamala withdrew her legal representative as she who did not want to pursue her civil case concerning her children's custody, following three appeals made by her husband.

She cited that there was no legal remedy following the Federal Court's decision to decline to answer five constitutional questions.

Loh Siew Hong

Controversy regarding Penang mother Loh Siew Hong’s objections to her three children’s conversion to Islam, a decision that was made unilaterally by her now ex-husband Nagahswaran Muniandy, has reopened discourse on high profile religious conversion cases in the country.

Malaysia is no stranger to cases like this, with some notable ones having garnered international attention and media coverage.

The following are some of the landmark religious conversion cases that have set legal precedents in the nation.

Lina Joy

Among the significant cases in Malaysia, one involving a Muslim converting to Christianity, is the case of Lina Joy, who was born a Muslim with the name Azlina Jailani.

In 1998 she converted to Christianity to marry her Christian boyfriend but was legally unable to do so seeing that her identification card (IC) stated that she is a Muslim.

After being baptised that year, the woman had sought to have her conversion legally recognised by the Malaysian court.

Although she managed to change her name, the National Registration Department (NRD) did not change the status of her religion in her IC, seeing that it did not receive any confirmation document from the shariah court.

Hoping to live as a Christian, in 1999 she filed a suit with the high court and bypassed the shariah court (the Islamic court holding authority on conversion and other Islamic jurisprudence).

In 2006, in her bid to embrace Christianity, Joy took the matter to the country’s apex court.

On May 30, 2007, her appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court in a 2-1 majority verdict – a three-man bench with chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff ruling against her.

They stated that: “A person who wants to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practises of the particular religion. Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity.

“In other words, a person cannot, at one’s whims and fancies, renounce or embrace a religion.”

The dissenting view by chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum wrote: “Hence, in my view this is tantamount to unequal treatment under the law. In other words, it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down.”

“For this reason alone, the relief sought for by the appellant should be granted, namely for a declaration that she is entitled to have an identity card, in which the word ‘Islam’ does not appear.”

If Joy had succeeded in her bid, she would have created a precedent allowing Muslims to officially change their religion on their IC, while also removing the barrier for Muslim and non-Muslim marriages.

M. Indira Gandhi

Another notable case is M. Indira Gandhi, whose ex-husband Muhammad Riduan Abdullah, also known as K. Pathmanathan, left their house with their youngest 11-month-old daughter, Prasana Diksa in 2009.

Prior to the separation, he had converted to Islam, and then unilaterally converted their three children to Islam after he left the house. This action was made without Indira’s knowledge.

In that same year, he was granted permanent custody of the children by the shariah court. However, the Ipoh High Court granted Indira full custody of the children the following year.

While her two eldest children have stayed with Indira, she is still unable to contact her youngest daughter and despite the ruling, the police were not able to recover Prasana.

Riduan also remained missing, even though the high court had issued an arrest warrant in 2014. Prasana was just 18 months old when Indira last saw her.

Nyonya Tahir/Wong Ah Kiu

Wong Ah Kiu was born in 1918 to a Muslim family as Nyonya Tahir but was later adopted by a Chinese family and raised as a Buddhist.

In 1936, she married a Chinese man, who did not convert to Islam, and she continued to practice Buddhism and adopted the Chinese way of life, with her children also culturally raised as Chinese.

While her children were recorded as ethnically Chinese in their identity cards, she was still recorded as a Malay. In 1986, when she applied to change her name and religion recorded in her IC, the application was denied after being investigated by the Alor Gajah Islamic Affairs office.

When her husband died in 1989, she wished to be buried next to him, but this was not possible without legal recognition of her status as a Buddhist.

She then filed two more applications to recognise her change of religion in 1991 and 1998 but both were rejected.

Wong left behind a written declaration stating that she was Buddhist and that she wanted to be given a Buddhist funeral instead.

When she died on January 19, 2006, her burial was put on hold after the Negri Sembilan Religious Affairs Department had the Tampin Shariah Court issue an injunction after they found out she was a Malay.

The head of the Negri Sembilan Religious Affairs Department went to her family’s house to present the order that she be buried in Muslim fashion.

However, after hearing testimonies from her children, the shariah high court eventually ruled that she lived and died as a Buddhist, which permitted her family to proceed with Buddhist funeral rites.

She was finally buried next to her husband in the Chinese cemetery in her birthplace of Simpang Ampat, Alor Gajah.

This case marked the first time that a non-Muslim had testified in a shariah court in Malaysia and it remains as one of the most well-known religious conversion cases until today.

Juli Jalaludin

Juli Sumardiati Mohd Jalaludin was born in Ketereh, Kelantan as a Malay and was raised in a Muslim family with a strict cultural and religious upbringing.

However, her faith slowly eroded over the years after she started questioning the rules she had to adhere throughout her life.

In her blog, she said “I wanted to know the answers to simple questions I had since I was a child. For example, why was hijab mandatory? Why were dogs forbidden to be touched?

“Why were we still being taught the prayer and fasting rituals for a slave even though slavery had been abolished more than a hundred years ago?

“Slowly, I started to see the imperfections of Islam. I thought, what else could be wrong? Little by little, as I got more answers, my faith in Islam gradually weakened.”

She also disliked the fact that she was taught that “infidels” would not earn a place in heaven.

Unlike other notable cases, Juli did not go through any court processes but instead, she made controversial postings online.

At first, she joined a local apostate group on Facebook to find other like-minded folk. But eventually, she and other members of the group were harassed online.

This took a severe toll on her that caused her to suffer from depression. However, she chose to fight back as she realised that “my silence would only make bullies stronger”.

She left Malaysia in June 2013 after receiving a job offer in Norway.

She, together with a group of Facebook friends, went on to create the Facebook pages, Murtad di Pantai Timur (Apostate in the East Coast) and Murtad in Kelantan (Apostate in Kelantan).

However, these pages were perceived to provoke and insult Islam, and were later blocked by the government.

The Muslim community also reacted aggressively and sent threatening messages to her posts that encourage her to gain the status of an asylum seeker in the United States as she did not feel safe at home.

Syarifah Nooraffyzza, Tiong Choo Ting, Salina Jau, Jenny Peter

Even though the previous cases saw issues hitting Peninsula Malaysia, Sarawakian Muslims wishing to convert out of the religion also face similar problems as their Malayan counterparts.

In Syarifah Nooraffyzza’s case, she is ethnically Malay but had left Islam and embraced Christianity in 2009. On the other hand, Tiong Choo Ting, Salina and Jenny had all converted due to their marriages.

Although Sarawak has its own high court separate from the peninsula, the state’s high court still deemed that it has no jurisdiction to hear apostasy cases and dismissed their appeals for a civil court hearing.

Even though the four of them had taken their case to Sarawak’s Federal Court, they were still unsuccessful in their bid to renounce Islam. Instead, the state’s apex court ruled that their apostasy applications can only be heard by the Sarawak Shariah Court, resulting in successful applications.

Tuesday 17 December 2019

MP: Focus on ex-AG, cops and judges in Altantuya murder case as well

Thirteen years after Altantuya Shaariibuu was shot dead and her remains blown up with explosives in a secondary forest in Shah Alam, one of her convicted killers has claimed that he had acted on the orders of former premier Najib Abdul Razak.

In 2015, the Federal Court had upheld the conviction of former police special action force (UTK) chief inspector Azilah Hadri and another personnel from the elite unit Sirul Azhar Umar for the murder and sentenced the pair to death.

While Sirul managed to flee Malaysia after the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's conviction and is now in an immigration detention centre in Australia, Azilah, however, had spent the last four years on death row in the Kajang prison.

The courts, however, did not establish a motive for the murder of the Mongolian national.

Following Azilah's damning allegations in a statutory declaration (SD) filed together with an affidavit seeking a judicial review of the Federal Court's decision and a retrial, DAP lawmaker Lim Lip Eng said the authorities must re-examine the entire saga from start to end.

“Since the onset, the trial was shrouded in controversy,” he told Malaysiakini this evening.

Among others, he said, the prosecution did not call Najib's former aide de camp, DSP Musa Safri, to testify during the trial.

“The motive behind her murder was never revealed because the judge was reported to have said that 'motive, although relevant, has never been essential to constitute murder.'

“The prosecution did not appeal [Abdul] Razak Baginda's acquittal. The immigration department did not have any record of Altantuya entering Malaysia,” he added.

In his SD, Azilah had outlined Musa's alleged role in the “covert operation”, which led to Altantuya's murder.

He also claimed that Razak Baginda, who was a close associate of Najib, had also asked him to kill the woman.

According to Azilah, both Najib, who was then deputy premier, and Razak Baginda had purportedly convinced him that Altantuya was a foreign spy who posed a threat to national security.

Razak Baginda was initially charged with abetting the murder but was later discharged.

Demanding a re-investigation into the fresh allegations, Lim, who is also a lawyer, said the authorities must not only focus on whether Najib and Razak Baginda had ordered the killing.

He said the actions of the then attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail, the police officers who conducted the investigation, the DPPs who prosecuted and the judges who heard the case must also be scrutinised.

“This definitely warrants a re-investigation by a new police team or perhaps a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).

“The ex AG, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and others involved in the trial should help the new investigation team to see that justice is done,” he added.

Lim said if investigations revealed that there was collusion to protect certain individuals, then those involved must also be brought to justice.

In his affidavit seeking a review, Azilah had claimed there was suppression of evidence and material facts during the proceedings at the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, Najib had dismissed the allegations as a fabrication and accused the Pakatan Harapan government of wanting to silence him and divert attention from its shortcomings.

Azilah's SD will have severe impact on PI Bala suit, says lawyer


An explosive statutory declaration (SD) that fingered Najib Abdul Razak as allegedly giving the order for the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, will have a “severe impact” in a bid to include former prime minister Najib Razak and seven others as third parties in the PI Bala civil suit linked to the Mongolian national’s death.

This was revealed by lawyer Vinod Kamalanathan, who is acting for Deepak Jaikishan in the carpet businessperson’s third-party bid against Najib, his wife Rosmah Mansor and six others.

“If it (SD) does involve PI Bala and the rest of the party (Najib and seven others), it would have a severe impact on the case,” Vinod told Malaysiakini this afternoon.

Vinod was referring to Malaysiakini’s exclusive report today over the SD by former Special Action Unit (UTK) officer Azilah Hadri, which alleged that the then deputy prime minister gave Azilah the order to murder Altantuya.

Azilah and fellow ex-UTK officer Sirul Azhar Umar were convicted and sentenced to death by the Federal Court over Altantuya's 2006 murder.

On Oct 29 last year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court directed Deepak’s lawyers to serve third-party claims against Najib, Rosmah, Najib's siblings Ahmad Johari and Nazim, lawyers Cecil Abraham, Sunil Abraham and M Arulampalam, and commissioner of oaths Zainal Abidin Muhayat.

Initially, Najib, Rosmah, Johari, Nazim, Cecil, Sunil, Arulampalam, Zainal and Deepak were named as defendants in the civil action over the 2008 exile to India purportedly suffered by the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam (photo), popularly known as PI Bala, and his family, linked to the 2006 murder.

However, on July 25 last year, the Court of Appeal allowed applications by Najib and several others to remove him, Rosmah, Johari, Nazim, Cecil, Sunil, Arulampalam and Zainal from the legal action.

The Court of Appeal outcome left Deepak as the sole defendant in the said suit, which was initially filed in August 2017.

Following this, Deepak applied for the High Court to issue third-party notices against Najib and his affiliates so that they would share the damages and liabilities in case the court ruled in favour of Balasubramaniam's widow.

During case management of the suit on Jan 8 this year, counsel for Najib, Rosmah, Johari, Nazim, Cecil, Sunil, Arulampalam and Zainal objected to them being added as third parties in the suit filed by Balasubramaniam’s widow, A Santamil Selvi, and the couple’s three children.

Vinod today said he would be meeting his client Deepak to discuss the potential impact and ramification of the SD, which could have “severe impact” on his client’s third-party application against Najib and the other seven individuals.

“We are going to pursue the matter, I will meet the client (Deepak) and discuss the issue," he told Malaysiakini.

"The other parties (Najib and the seven others) were struck out (of the suit by the Court of Appeal last year). We have put in the application to bring them in (as third parties into the suit) that is still pending in the court.

“This recent SD (by Azilah) will have a bearing, but I have to discuss with the client (Deepak) over this new piece of information," Vinod added.

“Azilah is seeking for the Federal Court to order retrial (over the murder case). Just a mere statement alone will not have an impact, though. We need to see what he (Azilah) will introduce (as evidence in the application for the Federal Court to review the verdict in the Altantuya murder case)."

Vinod believes that he (Azilah) was asking for a retrial (of the Altantuya murder case) as there was (alleged) substantial evidence (purportedly) suppressed in the initial (Altantuya murder) trial.

“We do not know what that is, so we need to see what evidence he (Azilah) intend to introduce,” Vinod said.

It was reported that Balasubramaniam and his family returned from India in February 2013. However, the private investigator died a month after returning to Malaysia due to a heart attack.

Azilah's Statutory declaration - Convinced of threat, I agreed to do it for my beloved nation


Almost five years after the Federal Court upheld his conviction and death sentence in January 2015, former police special action force (UTK) personnel Azilah Hadri has broken his silence on the gruesome murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Seeking a review of the Federal Court's decision and re-trial, Azilah made a series of explosive allegations in a statutory declaration (SD).

He accused former premier Najib Abdul Razak and the latter's close associate Abdul Razak Baginda of ordering the killing of the Mongolian national.

He claimed that both Najib and Razak Baginda had claimed that Altantuya was a foreign spy, who was a threat to national security.

Below is the full version of Azilah's SD:

I, Azilah bin Hadri (No KIP: 1 /14055) am a Malaysian citizen who is of mature age and currently serving [a prison sentence] sentence at the Kajang prison, verily and truthfully affirm the following:

I have been tried and convicted by the Shah Alam High Court for a charge as follows:

"That you together [with Sirul Azhar Umar] between 10.00pm Oct 19, 2006 to 1.00am Oct 20, 2006 between Lot 12843 and Lot 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja in the Petaling district within the state of Selangor Darul Ehsan, in the common intention, killed by causing death to Altantuya Shaariibuu Passport No. E0217865, a citizen of Mongolia and therefore you have committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code read together with section 34 of the same code. "

At the end of the trial, at the High Court of Shah Alam, the second accused, Sirul Azhar Umar and I were sentenced to death by hanging. The Court of Appeal later released me and Sirul from the conviction for the failure of the public prosecutor to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Federal Court, however, allowed the public prosecutor’s appeal and found Sirul and me guilty of the said charge and at the same time sentenced us to death.

I swear by the name of Allah SWT, most gracious, most merciful that I am now going through my last days before I am sentenced by hanging. I have no intention to persecute or offend any party, [and] shall state the truth, of the matter, to my knowledge of the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, so that the truth might be be exposed. May I confront this punishment with a calm conscience and in the blessings of Allah SWT.

Oct 17, 2006: On official duty at the Sri Kenangan Residence, Pekan, DSP Musa Safri, aide-de-camp to the deputy prime minister (DPM) at that time, Najib [Abdul] Razak told me that the DPM wanted to see me. Musa told me that there was an assignment to be carried out in Kuala Lumpur.

I asked Musa what the assignment was. Musa replied: “Secret assignment involving state security.” Musa informed me that the assignment in Kuala Lumpur was at Bukit Damansara. I told Musa that it was under the jurisdiction of the Brickfields police.

Musa asked if I knew any officer at the Brickfields police headquarters. I told him that the head of the criminal investigation division, DSP Idris and I were friends when we were at the Sepang police headquarters where I was then an investigating officer.

Musa told me there was a VIP who is the special officer to the DPM and also the DPM’s friend who is facing a threat. I suggested to Musa that the said VIP lodge a police report so that the police can conduct further investigations. I said I would then contact the head of the division to assist.

Musa said this was a difficult operation and should not be made public knowledge. I sought clarification several times from Musa why this matter cannot be known publicly and why a police report cannot be made.

Musa could not explain. He then went into the house and about five minutes later, he came back and brought me to see the DPM.

Musa brought me to see the DPM in an office room at the Sri Kenangan residence in Pekan after which he left the room. The DPM asked me if I knew any police officers at the Brickfields police station to which I replied in the affirmative.

The DPM then told me that a foreign spy is in Kuala Lumpur and is trying to threaten the DPM and his special officer known as [Abdul] Razak Baginda.

The special officer was a good friend of the DPM whom I met during my official assignment in London sometime ago.

I was informed that the foreign spy was a woman and was very dangerous because of the numerous secrets she knew about national security.

The foreign spy could not approach the DPM due to the tight security [detail] and therefore the foreign spy is threatening the DPM’s special officer [instead].

The DPM instructed me to carry out a covert operation when I returned to Kuala Lumpur later.

I had to be cautious about the foreign spy woman as she is a smart talker and is cunning - one of which is that she [claims to be] is pregnant.

I told the DPM that a police report had to be made on this matter and I would ask for help from my friend at the Brickfields police headquarters but this was turned down by the DPM.

The DPM stated that this [matter] could not be publicly known as it [involved] a threat to national security. The DPM then instructed me to carry out a covert operation to arrest and destroy the spy secretly and destroy her body using explosives.

I asked the DPM what he meant by “arrest and destroy the foreign spy” and he responded: “Shoot to kill,” indicating a “neck cut signal.”

Asked about the purpose of destroying the foreign spy with explosives, the DPM replied: “Dispose the foreign spy's body with an explosive device to remove the traces. The explosives can be obtained from the UTK store [armoury].”

The DPM reminded me to carry out this covert operation carefully and with a high level of security and secrecy as it involved a threat to national security.

I suggested that the foreign spy be arrested and expelled from the country but the DPM did not agree with me. The DPM told me to keep him informed of any progress on this covert operation and to take further instructions from Musa or him.

The DPM also instructed me to meet his special officer in Kuala Lumpur for details on the foreign spy.

The DPM handed me a white Samsung mobile phone for me to be in direct contact with him. The DPM also reminded me that the mobile phone had to be disposed of after the covert operation was completed.

The DPM then asked me: “When are you going back to KL?” I replied: “Tomorrow.”

The DPM said: “When you reach KL, call my special officer. Did Musa give his phone number?” l shook my head. The DPM said: “Then my special officer will give further instructions. Follow my special officer's instructions because all the instructions come from me.”

I said “yes” before leaving the room. The meeting with the DPM was about five to 10 minutes. When I left the DPM’s room, I saw Musa sitting in a chair outside.

Musa got up and asked me to wait in the garage outside and I saw him going back into the DPM’s office.

I was waiting for Musa in the garage. He came over and gave me a phone number of the DPM’s special officer - Razak Baginda.

Musa reminded me to contact Razak Baginda upon returning to Kuala Lumpur later. I told Musa that I did not know Razak Baginda. Musa replied that I had met Razak Baginda during my services as an escort officer of the DPM in London. But I still could not remember.

Musa said he was confident that I would remember when I met Razak Baginda later. After completing the official assignment in Pekan and in Kuantan, the DPM reminded me to meet his friend - his special officer when returning to Kuala Lumpur and I replied: “OK.”

Musa also reminded me of the same thing. That night, I returned to Kuala Lumpur.

Oct 18, 2006: As soon as I arrived in Kuala Lumpur in the morning, I contacted Razak Baginda via the telephone number given by Musa the previous day. But it was the wrong number and others were answering the call.

I then contacted Musa to inform him. Musa gave Razak Baginda’s phone number again to me. I kept calling the phone number and when my call was answered, I asked whether the person I contacted was Razak Baginda and he said, “Yes”.

I introduced myself and Razak Baginda told me that he was informed that I would contact him and asked me to go to his office at Bangunan Getah Asli. I said: “OK.”

Razak Baginda then gave his office address. At that time, I wondered why it was so easy for me to meet Razak Baginda, who was a special officer of the DPM and a good friend of the DPM without any appointment.

I assumed that all meetings had been arranged by Musa or the DPM because of this covert operation involving a threat to national security.

I went to the Bangunan Getah Asli and reported at the security counter formally in accordance with the set procedures.

When I arrived at the office, I was greeted by a woman. I asked if this was the office of Razak Baginda. The woman replied in the affirmative. She asked me if I was Azilah and I said, “Yes”. I was then brought into a room.

Shortly thereafter, a man came in and introduced himself as Razak Baginda. At that time, I remembered who this VIP was. I met him in the United Kingdom a long time ago when we boarded a special chartered aircraft together from Liverpool to London with the DPM after attending the British Open.

As a security officer to the DPM when he travelled to London, I had escorted the DPM and Razak Baginda to a condominium located not far from the hotel where the DPM stayed.

During the meeting with Razak Baginda at his office, I introduced myself as a police officer from Bukit Aman UTK and that I was instructed by the DPM to meet him and Musa.

Razak Baginda told me that he was aware that I would call and meet him on the DPM’s instructions to get more information on a covert operation involving threats to national security.

Razak Baginda then told me that a foreign spy had threatened the DPM and sent a threatening letter; made a phone call; created a commotion at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli; and also tried to go to his house but was prevented by security guards.

Razak Baginda also said the foreign spy was trailing his movements around Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya but was unable to approach the DPM due to tight security from the UTK and the police at the official residence of the DPM.

Razak Baginda then took out several white and brown envelopes and asked me to read the contents of the letters. I asked Razak Baginda whether all the envelopes were sent by the foreign spy and he said, “Yes.”

I asked permission to view and open all the letters but Razak Baginda did not approve. I told Razak Baginda what is the point of being restricted to one letter. I was better off not reading at all.

I then handed back the letter to him and I noticed that his face changed as he did not like my response, but I ignored it. Razak Baginda was holding a piece of A4 paper and told me that I was not allowed to get a copy and could only note the important details. The details given by Razak Baginda to me while referring to the A4 paper were as follows:

- The foreign spy was a Mongolian citizen named Altantuya @ Amina who has three passports -- from Mongolia, France and Russia.

- She was intelligent, a clever speaker and a spy.

- It would be easy to recognise the foreign spy because she looked like a Chinese woman.

- Several pieces of information related to national secrets, national security assets and the DPM’s secrets are known to this foreign spy.

- The DPM is worried that this foreign spy would reveal those secrets.

- The foreign spy had come to Malaysia twice.

- She is a danger to national security, threat to national security.

- The foreign spy is full of deception among others she [claims to be] is pregnant.

- She is staying at Hotel Malaya, where there are two room numbers because the foreign spy changes room.

I asked what kind of threat did the foreign spy use to threaten him and the DPM. Razak Baginda replied that the foreign spy wanted a lot of money but he refused to entertain her.

The foreign spy threatened to leak the country's secrets that could jeopardise the security of the country if her demands were not met.

I asked what he meant by country's secrets that could threaten the security of the nation, Razak Baginda replied that she had knowledge of the details of the country's security assets, about the personal relationship of the DPM and Razak Baginda with that foreign spy.

Razak Baginda also talked about the DPM’s official visit to London to review state security assets during an air show at the Farnborough Air Show.

Razak Baginda asked me if I remembered a woman whom he and the DPM met at the lobby of a condominium in London.

I told him that I could not remember her but I remembered that I had escorted the DPM and Razak Baginda from the hotel to the condominium. Razak Baginda then told me that the woman is the foreign spy which he meant. I said, “Ok” and at the same time I tried to recall the face of the woman but it was still not clear to me.

Razak Baginda also told me that some of his people including an Indian man named Bala [believed to be the late private investigator P Balasubramaniam] monitoring the foreign spy’s movements and that I would be informed about her movements from time to time.

I suggested that a report be made for the police to take action but Razak Baginda disagreed as this would attract public attention as it involved the DPM and threats to national security. I told him that I would have nothing to do with this matter and I was reluctant to carry out this covert operation.

I told him: “If you want to file a police report, I can help.” Razak Baginda told me that the DPM had instructed me while in Pekan to carry out this covert operation for national security and the DPM believed I could carry out this operation without public knowledge.

If any issues arose, I should not worry because the DPM would “back me up”. I asked Razak Baginda how he knew that the DPM gave me instructions when in Pekan.

Razak Baginda smiled and said the DPM had contacted him. Otherwise, how could I have met him today to discuss the related matters.

Based on my observations at that time, I think it was true that Razak Baginda was a special officer of the DPM. At first, I was quite reluctant but after the explanation from Razak Baginda, I agreed to carry out the covert operation as it was the same instruction given by the DPM in Pekan.

I was then told by Razak Baginda that this foreign spy must be executed while showing a sign of “cutting the neck” with his hand [the same gesture used by the DPM in Pekan] and to destroy the foreign spy's body using explosives.

I also told Razak Baginda that this was a big thing and I was not able to do it but Razak Baginda told me that this was a directive from the DPM because the DPM trusted me.

According to him, Musa had suggested my name to the DPM. I told him that this matter must be made known to my superiors at UTK but Razak Baginda told me this was a directive from the DPM. He said the operation had to be carried out secretly and most importantly, this covert operation must be carried out soon without public knowledge.

For certainty, I asked Razak Baginda again, if this directive was from the DPM and Razak Baginda replied, “Yes.”

According to Razak Baginda, he is the closest person to the DPM and had worked and cooperated with the DPM on national security. I believed the information given by Razak Baginda to me was the same as the information and instructions given by the DPM in Pekan.

I also believed that the covert operation to execute and destroy the foreign spy was directed by the DPM.

As a result of the discussions with the DPM and Razak Baginda, I believed that this was a covert operation and must be kept confidential from public knowledge for national security reasons.

After discussing with Razak Baginda at the Bangunan Getah Asli, I called Musa and told him the result of the discussions with Razak Baginda. At first, I was still reluctant to agree to this covert operation as I would be unable to execute it alone but Musa told me that I could find another trusted member to assist in this covert operation.

I then suggested Musa to inform my superior officer in UTK or at least my commanding officer (CO) because my instructions must come from my commanding officer. I also told Musa that he was not my “CO.”

Musa said the covert operation is not to be known to the CO as I was now under his (Musa's orders) and that his instructions came directly from the DPM.

At that time, I asked myself who would dare disobey the DPM's instructions, who was then also the minister of defence?

I felt guilty. Since this covert operation involved a threat to national security, I then decided to believe and adhere to the instructions of the DPM.

Musa reminded me to run this covert operation and report to him so that he can report it directly to the DPM. I called and asked Musa if there is a guarantee of protection arising from this covert operation and would they be resolved by Razak Baginda and the DPM in terms of confidentiality and security.

Musa said “yes” and reasoned that was why it was not necessary to tell my CO of this covert operation as the assurances covered confidentiality on all the security matters.

Because of these assurances, I became more confident with Musa's explanation. After reviewing the direct instructions I received from the DPM when I met him in Pekan and the encounter with Razak Bagiunda and having received the same instructions as the DPM’s instructions in Pekan, I agreed.

I also took cognizance of the detailed information on the foreign spy. I was convinced that this covert operation was important because it involved the security of the nation.

I sincerely agreed to carry out this covert operation for the sake of my beloved country.

On the same day, I found out that Sirul was a “standby driver” at the office. I contacted Sirul and waited for him at the side of the street opposite the Central Market [in Kuala Lumpur]. I went to Sirul's car and told him about the covert operation, including the meeting with Musa and the DPM in Pekan and the meeting with Razak Baginda and the telephone conversation with Musa earlier.

Sirul agreed to join the covert operation. We then went to Razak Baginda's residence in Bukit Damansara and later to Hotel Malaya to identify the target.

I contacted Razak Baginda, Musa and the DPM and informed them about Sirul’s involvement in this covert operation and obtained their permission.

The DPM told me “proceed.” I told Sirul that I am going to escort DPM to Hong Kong in the near future and if the target is identified and if he is ready to act, I would contact him. Sirul answered “Ok.”

I assigned the job of immediately obtaining explosives from the UTK armory to Sirul because of the urgency of this covert operation. With the target already in Kuala Lumpur, the operation could be carried out any time.

Sirul understood the ethics involved in carrying out such operations as he was a member of the UTK operations team, who was experienced in carrying out covert operations related to threats to national security.

Oct 19, 2006: While at the UTK office in Bukit Aman, I was instructed to prepare to travel as the DPM’s escort officer to Hong Kong. Along with seven other members, we made preparations. Weapons including guns and two armed magazines were handed over for customs and security declaration purposes. I packed my clothes and my team was instructed to be ready at any time to move.

The same afternoon, I was informed that the assignment to Hong Kong was cancelled and ASP Azani asked me to replace him as chief escort officer to the DPM the next day. At that time, the DPM was still outside Kuala Lumpur and the team of DPM's escorts were at RMAF Subang waiting for the arrival of the DPM.

After breaking fast with L/Kpl Rohaniza in Petaling Jaya, I went to the UTK office to pack my clothes for the purpose of escorting within the country. The group of DPM's escorts would be housed in Putrajaya that night.

When I was at the UTK office, Razak Baginda called me and told me that the “Chinese woman” with Bala was in front of his home in Bukit Damansara and asked me to act.

Since it involved a woman, I called L/Kpl Rohaniza to go to Bukit Damansara. I called Sirul and he told me he was going to Bukit Damansara. On arriving at Bukit Damansara, in front of Razak Baginda’s house, I saw a Chinese woman and an Indian guy standing beside a taxi.

At that time, I suspected that this was the Chinese woman or foreign spy that Razak Baginda had meant. It occurred to me that I had seen this woman during my official escort duty of the DPM and Razak Baginda at a condominium in London, where I saw both the DPM and Razak Baginda meeting her in the condominium lobby.

At that time, I was directed to wait in the lobby of the condominium where the three returned to the lobby of the condominium.The DPM, Razak Baginda, and the woman came out of the elevator. I continued to escort the DPM and Razak Baginda out of the condominium but the woman did not follow.

I was approached by the Indian man and he asked if I was Azilah from UTK. I was surprised how the Indian man knew my name and presence. The Indian man introduced himself as Bala and he told me: “This is the woman who has a problem with Razak Baginda.”

I contacted Razak Baginda for clarification if this woman with this Indian man called Bala was the foreign spy and the target for this covert operation. Razak Baginda said, “Yes”. Razak Baginda also reminded me not to talk much with the foreign spy because she is a good talker and convincing liar.

I took note of the reminder and tried to contact Musa but failed. I also tried to contact the DPM via the phone he handed to me but failed to contact him.

I called Razak Baginda again and informed him that I had tried to contact Musa and the DPM but failed because their phones were switched off. Razak Baginda instructed me to continue the covert operation as instructed by the DPM.

I contacted Sirul and informed him that the Chinese woman or target is in front of Razak Baginda’s house. Sirul said, “Ok” and told me that he was heading there. I waited for Sirul to arrive and when he arrived, I got out of the red [Proton] Wira car from which I arrived in .

I saw the Chinese woman and the Indian guy walking towards the car talking to each other. I told Rohaniza to sit in the rear seat with the Chinese woman. Bala closed the door while Sirul sat in the front passenger seat. When I wanted to make a U-turn, a Chinese man [taxi driver] came to ask for taxi fare and I gave him money.

We left Razak Baginda's house and arrived at a junction, Sirul asked to be dropped there because he wanted to take his own car and we agreed to meet at Bukit Aman.

I continued to Bukit Aman and on my way introduced myself as a police officer to the Chinese woman and advised her not to make a commotion in front of Razak Baginda’s house.

The Chinese woman told me not to be rough with her as she was pregnant. At that time, I assumed that was just a lie based on the information given to me by the DPM and Razak Baginda.

The Chinese woman agreed to heed my advice and I informed Sirul about it. Upon our arrival at Bukit Aman, I went to Sirul’s car and I ordered the Chinese woman to enter Sirul’s car.

Then I ordered L/Kpl Rohaniza to go back and I told her I would contact her to help send me to Putrajaya when I had completed my assignment.

I then contacted Razak Baginda that night and told him that I have brought the Chinese woman from the front of his house and I had also advised her.

Razak Baginda told me that the Chinese woman was dangerous and [asked me] to follow the instructions given by the DPM. Razak Baginda said that everything would be settled once the Chinese women is eliminated.

That same night, Sirul and I carried out the covert operation as instructed by the DPM based on the information provided through his aide-de-camp Musa and the special officer and his friend Razak Baginda.

Before the foreign spy was killed, she informed me that she knew it was “Mr. Razak” who sent me and Sirul to kill her. When I asked her who she meant by “Mr. Razak”, the woman replied: “Deputy prime minister.” The foreign spy also told me that she was pregnant.

Immediately after the covert operation, I telephoned Razak Baginda and informed him that the covert operation had been carried out and Razak Baginda replied, “Ok.”

I also tried to contact Musa and the DPM via telephone but both could not be reached. Razak Baginda told me that he would inform them.

Oct 20, 2006: I was on duty as the DPM’s chief escort officer and was waiting for the DPM at his official residence in Sri Satria, Putrajaya.

While waiting for the DPM to leave his house for the office, I chatted with Musa who told me that Razak Baginda had telephoned him and told him that the covert operation was carried out the previous night. Musa said he had informed the DPM who would see me later.

Musa told me that the DPM was glad about the successful operation which was carried out by me and Sirul. I kept silent because at that time, it was an open place and inappropriate to discuss secret matters. Musa acknowledged my response and reaction.

The DPM then came out of his house and went towards the car. The DPM smiled at me and shook my hands while saying: “Congrats” and “Thank you.” I just smiled and went straight into the car and headed to the DPM’s office. Upon arrival at the car park of the DPM’s office, we walked together towards the elevator at the DPM’s office.

The DPM spoke to me softly, asked me to maintain contact with Musa and I agreed.

After the DPM arrived at the office, Musa called me to his office and asked about the covert operation. I told him everything went well and that I had informed Razak Baginda.

I also told Musa that I had telephoned him and the DPM but both of them could not be reached. Musa told me that he had switched off his phone because he had a job to do with the DPM outside Kuala Lumpur and returned late.

I then contacted Razak Baginda and he told me that he had informed the DPM and Musa. I told him that Musa had told me the same that morning.

According to Razak Baginda, the DPM was glad that the covert operation had been completed and [told me] not to worry as Sirul and I had carried out instructions and that the DPM was in control.

Oct 21, 2006: During the time I was at Musa’s office, I was given RM2,000 to be divided among all the members of the DPM’s escort team.

The DPM also gave (Hari Raya) money to his staff. After completing my duty at the DPM’s office, the DPM, at his residence, gave Raya money to all UTK members who escorted him. The DPM then called me into a room and gave me RM300 as Raya money and he told me that he was satisfied with the covert operation that Sirul and I had carried out. The DPM congratulated me and was happy that the covert operation was completed while reminding me to keep it a secret. I agreed.

At midnight, Razak Baginda telephoned me several times while I was sleeping. When I woke up, I contacted him. Razak Baginda told me there was a commotion outside his house in Bukit Damansara and according to him, there were foreign women creating a disturbance and he had sought help from Musa and another police officer, SM Alias.

Razak Baginda requested me to come over but I was unable to go. I immediately called SM Alias and SM Alias told me there were foreign women trying to make noise in front of Razak Baginda’s house. They were also trying to get into his house and that police personnel in a patrol car had resolved the issue and the situation was under control.

Oct 22, 2006: I contacted Musa and told him about the commotion at Razak Baginda's house the previous night. Musa was aware as Razak Baginda had contacted him.

DSP Musa asked me if I had completed the covert operation as instructed as there was still a commotion by foreign women. I told Musa that Sirul and I had carried carried out the covert operation. I told him I had not made a mistake because it was Razak Baginda's man – Bala - who identified her at that time.

Sirul and I were not familiar with the foreign Chinese woman spy. DSP Musa was worried how this could happen again and how was he going to inform the DPM about the incident at Razak Baginda's house.

I told Musa to check and get clarification from Razak Baginda because the final identification of the target came from Razak Baginda and his own personnel.

During the time when I was escorting the DPM, I met Musa and he told me that the commotion outside Razak Baginda's house was caused by the foreign spy's friends who were under the impression that Razak Baginda had hidden the woman and the commotion was due to Razak Baginda refusal to come out [of the house].

Before the DPM got into his car to go to the office, the DPM told me not to be concerned as everything was under control and that the incident at Razak Baginda’s house was just a misunderstanding. I just nodded my head.

Upon arrival at the DPM’s office, Musa met the DPM in the office for about 10 minutes. Later, Musa called me to his office and told me that the DPM was informed by Razak Baginda and the DPM assured that there was nothing to worry about and everything would be fine.

If any matters arose, Musa told me to inform him so that he could refer to the DPM for further instructions. I just kept quiet. After Musa's explanation, I conducted DPM's daily routine in Putrajaya and Klang Valley for several days. Occasionally, I came across Razak Baginda at the DPM's office in Putrajaya and at the DPM's official residence.

Nothing strange or unusual happened while I was doing escort duties for the DPM until Oct 31, 2006 when Musa summoned me to his office.

Oct 31, 2006: While carrying out the DPM's escort duties in Putrajaya, Musa called me to his office and told me that he and Razak Baginda had been called to the Brickfields police station and had met my friend, DSP Idris Karim, to assist the inquiry about the commotion in front of Razak Baginda’s house.

Musa told me that DSP Idris required me to assist in the investigation and I replied, “Ok”. Musa also told me that he had informed Supt Mastor (my CO) that Idris wanted me to go to Brickfields to assist in the investigation regarding the incident at Razak Baginda's house.

Musa assured me there was nothing to worry about or be afraid of because the DPM would “back me up” as long as it does not involve the DPM's name. Musa also reminded me to keep his

involvement secret because the DPM is influential and would help anyone in any matter arising from the covert operation.

This was the assurance from the DPM so long as his good name was not implicated. This explanation from Musa caused me to suspect the truth of the covert operation which Sirul and I had carried out.

I received direct instructions from the DPM in Pekan and further information from Razak Baginda about the foreign spy's movements in Kuala Lumpur.

The last identification resulted in me and Sirul picking up the foreign spy in front of Razak Baginda's house. Musa's explanation that this confidential information should not be communicated to my CO in UTK caused some concerns.

I was confused and felt that I was being played out and used by the DPM, Razak Baginda and Musa. I tried to contact Sirul but failed.

That afternoon Khairi contacted me and instructed me to go to the Brickfields police station to assist in the investigation of a police report on the disappearance of a foreign woman and a commotion in Bukit Damansara.

He told me that Inspector Zaidi would take over my duties and I replied, “Ok”. I contacted Mastor, who was my commanding officer and informed him that I was required to go to Brickfields to assist in the investigation.

Mastor replied, “Ok” and asked me to make sure there was a replacement and he also told me that he was briefed by Musa about the need to assist in the investigation.

Later that afternoon, Zaidi told me he was instructed to replace me to escort the DPM in Putrajaya.

Nov 1, 2006: DSP Musa instructed me to go to see him at the DPM's office before going to Brickfields. I went to see Musa at his office. Musa greeted and hugged me. I wondered why DSP Musa hugged me because he had never hugged me before.

I tried to get clarification from Musa on what really happened in this covert operation. I saw Musa’s dejected face and he was sort of speechless.

Musa brought me to see the DPM. I told them that I would be going to the police headquarters in Brickfields to meet with Idris to assist in the investigation.

I was sure it was about the covert operation that Sirul and I had carried out. I was angry but I could control myself. The DPM told me everything would be settled and to follow the procedure.

The DPM said he would assist in whatever issues that arose and that it was important that the secrecy of the covert operation be kept secret without fail. This assurance given by the DPM gave me the confidence to go to Brickfields.

Before I went to Brickfields, I contacted Mastor and he informed me to report to him directly on any development.

When I reached the Brickfields police station, I met Idris where he was the head of the CID. Idris was busy at that time because there were police officers in his office.

When he saw me, he asked me to go to the office and we chatted as usual because I did not see him for some time. Idris contacted a police officer and said that I was in his office.

Idris told me that Musa and Razak Baginda had been called previously to assist investigation into the case of the missing Mongolian woman.

Idris told me that the investigation had been taken over by the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters. Shortly thereafter, an assistant superintendent named Tony [Lunggan] entered Idris' office.

Idris told me that Tony was the investigating officer of the case and he would take me to the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters. Before leaving, Idris hugged me and whispered to me to be patient and hoped this investigation would be completed soon and I would not have any problems.

I saw tears running down his cheeks. I shook hands with him and he told me that the DPM liked me and trusted me. I ignored those words as they could be a compliment or a sarcastic remark.

I contacted Mastor and he answered by asking me if the investigation had been completed and told me: “Hurry!” I told him I was going to the city police headquarters as the investigation had been taken over by D9 [serious crime division] Kuala Lumpur.

Mastor replied “Ok” in a disappointed tone. I then went with ASP Tony and another officer to the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters.

Upon arriving at IPK Kuala Lumpur, I was taken to an interrogation room and on the way, I passed by other rooms where I saw a fax machine printing a phone bill with the DPM's name.

Next to the fax machine I saw the bills of the phone numbers that I used. At that time, the gun that I used for escort duties was still in my possession. I was questioned by four or five detectives and an officer, ASP Samsudin. Shortly thereafter, I was brought into an identification parade with a one-way mirror.

I could vaguely see an Indian man – Bala - with DSP Gan coming in and going out. I knew that Bala was identifying me.

Investigations then resumed and various techniques [were employed], some were gentle and persuasive, but I knew all these was part of their job.

The feeling of anger was there due to the provocation from the investigation carried out by them and if I lost my senses and control, anything could have happened at that time. I held on to the assurance given by Musa not to implicate the good name of the DPM.

The interrogation was carried out from morning to evening. During the interrogation, I was silent and I just answered what was asked. After office hours, I was taken to a room of one of the D9 IPK Kuala Lumpur officers.

I saw Mastor and Khairi sitting with a Chinese offer, whose name I do not remember. Mastor stated that he was informed by Musa and asked if I would like to hand over any personal belongings to him. I handed over my wallet. I also stated that I had a gun and I saw their faces change. I handed over an armed magazine after I disarmed my gun before handing it over to Mastor.

When the gun was handed, I saw clearly the relief on their faces. When I turned back, there were many other officers outside the room.

When D9 officers, including Khairi, took my gun and left, Mastor whispered to me and told me not to mention the DPM in this investigation and that the DPM would assist me. He also told me to cooperate in the interrogation process so that the investigation could be completed swiftly. I agreed.

While I was in remand at the Sungai Buloh Prison, lawyer Zulkifli Noordin [former PKR MP] frequently came to see me and he promised to be my lawyer.

As a lawyer, he needed information on my case to prepare the defence for the trial in court. In the discussions in preparation of the trial, Zulkifli prepared a representation to the Attorney-General's Chambers for reduction of the charge from section 302 of the Penal Code to 304 of the Penal Code on the grounds that I acted on instructions from my superiors.

Zulkifli provided the defence of obeying “orders from superiors” for my case but I did not agree with that defence. At that time, the Ijok by-election was around the corner. Through the information which I received from my family and friends who visited me at the prison, I was informed that the situation was quite bad as Zulkifli had used my case as campaign material for PKR on the issue of the murder of a Mongolian woman involving the DPM.

I felt uneasy that Zulkifli had used my case as election campaign material and this involved the DPM. I had already been told by the DPM to keep it a secret.

For me, Zulkifli as a lawyer was responsible to maintain the confidentiality of his client’s instructions but unfortunately this did not happen. I was disappointed with Zulkifli’s actions.

For that reason, I discussed my case with other lawyers, among others, the lawyer of my prisoner friend, Sahari Usul, a lawyer named Kuldeep Kumar.

After being satisfied with my discussion with Kuldeep Kumar, I decided to appoint him as my lawyer and instructed him to write to Zulkifli to terminate his services.

During remand, Razak Baginda also told me not to appoint Zulkifli as my lawyer because he was a member of the opposition. He reasoned how the DPM could assist me if my lawyer was from the opposition.

Razak Baginda told me that I should appoint another lawyer and only then, the DPM could provide assistance in my case.

Razak Baginda also promised me when he was set free, he would help me and Sirul. At the same time, I had appointed Dato' Hazman Ahmad as my lawyer.

I state that during the course of this covert operation, I acted in accordance with the instructions of the DPM who was also the defence minister based on information provided by Razak Baginda and Musa.

I was convinced that this covert operation involved intelligence as well as threats to national security and a high degree of confidentiality was required.

I had no motive whatsoever to plan and kill the deceased except upon the instructions which I received as an operative officer acting as the assault commander of the PDRM [UTK] where I had been involved in various other national security and public order operations.

I also wish to state that I am conscious and matured enough to evaluate any assignment entrusted to me with regard to any national security operation, especially when it involves the life of a targeted person and threat to national intelligence.

I would have never carried out any operations if I had I not received instructions from my superiors.

Any information regarding this target would not have reached me unless it was given by Musa and Razak Baginda.

I would not have carried out this covert operation to kill and eliminate the deceased if it was not for the instructions from the DPM, who was also defence minister at the time.

I was also convinced by Musa that this covert operation was absolutely essential for the security of the country in which I, as a public servant, had in good faith carried out his instructions.

I am willing to give my life for my beloved country. I would not have got Sirul involved in this covert operation unless I had obtained permission from the DPM, Razak Baginda and DSP Musa.

If I am allowed to defend myself and give evidence under oath in any criminal or civil case involving the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, I would give a detailed explanation of this case.

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and in accordance with the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1960.

The above is an English translation of Azilah Hadri's statutory declaration in Bahasa Malaysia. The English version has been edited for grammar and brevity.

Tuesday 8 October 2019

Umno will not support formation of IPCMC says Zahid


THERE is no need for the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) as there are sufficient arrangements to monitor errant cops said Ahmad Zahid Hamidi

The Umno president said the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) had been set up to look into disciplinary cases across all enforcement agencies.

Tengku Permaisuri Selangor upset over rough handling of stray by local authority dog-catchers


SHAH ALAM (Bernama): Tengku Permaisuri of Selangor, Tengku Permaisuri Norashikin has expressed her regrets over the rough manner shown by Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) employees in treating a dog during an operation, which had gone viral through a video clip on social media recently.

Tengku Permaisuri Norashikin, who is also the Royal Patron of the Stray Free Selangor (SFS) campaign, was also disappointed and saddened that such cruelty was still happening in the community despite numerous awareness campaigns on strays.

"I was very upset by the video clip which showed MPSJ employees trying to catch a stray dog in an utterly inhumane way.

"I urge the authorities to be more sensitive and humane in dealing with cases involving abandoned animals on the streets," she said in a statement posted on the Selangor Royal Office Facebook page Monday (Oct 7).

Meanwhile, she hoped that the proper procedure of catching strays would be followed strictly to ensure the well-being of the animals and the safety of the local authorities involved.

"I cannot emphasise more on the importance of carrying out the procedure as closely as possible without harming or injuring the animals. The procedure need to be revised and implemented according to the situation.

"Once and for all I urge everyone, regardless the authorities or the general public, to develop compassion for stray animals in need of care and attention," she said.

Tengku Permaisuri Norashikin reminded all parties to take heed of the Animal Welfare Act 2015, which provides for a fine of RM20,000 to RM100,000 or up to three years imprisonment, for those who commit acts of cruelty to animals. - Bernama

KENYATAAN AKHBAR DYMM TENGKU PERMAISURI SELANGOR TENGKU PERMAISURI NORASHIKIN BERHUBUNG ISU KEGANASAN TERHADAP HAIWAN TERBIAR

“Saya amat kesal apabila diperlihatkan dengan satu klip video yang menunjukkan beberapa anggota Majlis Perbandaran Subang Jaya (MPSJ) cuba menangkap seekor anjing terbiar secara ganas.

Sebagai Penaung Diraja kempen Stray Free Selangor (SFS), saya kecewa dan sedih kerana kejadian kejam seumpamanya masih berlaku dalam masyarakat meskipun banyak kempen kesedaran telah dilaksanakan membabitkan haiwan-haiwan terbiar.

Di sini saya ingin menggesa agar pihak-pihak berwajib lebih peka dan berperikemanusiaan dalam menguruskan kes-kes membabitkan haiwan-haiwan terbiar di jalanan.

Saya difahamkan kerajaan Negeri Selangor melalui YB Ng Sze Han telah memohon maaf di atas tindakan kasar anggota MPSJ terbabit.

Justeru, selepas ini saya berharap prosedur penangkapan haiwan-haiwan jalanan yang telah ditetapkan seharusnya dipatuhi untuk memastikan kesejahteraan haiwan itu dan juga keselamatan kakitangan pihak berkuasa tempatan yang terlibat.

Saya juga ingin menegaskan betapa pentingnya prosedur ini dijalankan dengan sebaik mungkin tanpa menyakiti atau mencederakan haiwan-haiwan terbabit.

Dalam masa sama, prosedur ini juga perlu diperkemas dan dilaksanakan sesuai dengan situasi-situasi tertentu.

Buat kesekian kalinya saya mohon agar semua pihak, tidak kiralah kakitangan pihak berkuasa atau masyarakat secara amnya, supaya menyemai sifat belas kasihan terhadap haiwan-haiwan terbiar yang memerlukan bantuan.

Harus diingat, Akta Kebajikan Haiwan 2015 telah jelas memperuntukkan bahawa hukuman denda RM20,000 hingga RM100,000 dan/atau penjara sehingga 3 tahun boleh dikenakan terhadap sesiapa yang melakukan kekejaman terhadap haiwan.

Sebagai Penaung Diraja kempen Stray Free Selangor The Humane and Compassionate Way bersama SPCA Selangor, saya menggesa pihak berkuasa terlibat agar bekerjasama dengan badan-badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) dan masyarakat yang prihatin, ke arah membanteras sebarang bentuk perlakuan kejam terhadap haiwan.”

DYMM Tengku Permaisuri Norashikin
Istana Alam Shah
7 Oktober 2019