Proton and MV Agusta : The Story
"Proton lost approximately RM800 million selling M.V. Agusta for RM5. The buyer invested one Euro and made 160 million Euro" - Tun Dr. Mahathir (http://www.chedet.com/) *1
The Story
Purchase and Sales by Proton
In December 2004, Proton advisor and former Prime Minister Mahathir and the then CEO of Proton Tengku Mahaleel decided to buy MV Agusta for RM367.6 million, which represents a 57.75% stake: thus a controlling stake of an Italian motorcycle manufacturer.
Tengku Mahaleel said at that time that the purchase, similar with its acquisition of Lotus Group International, gave the group the engineering capability to develop a full range of transport products from motorcycles and watercraft to light aircraft and military vehicles.
However, in July 2005 Tengku Mahaleel was ousted as the CEO of Proton.
Khazanah Nasional Bhd, the government investment agency, which owns 42.7% of Proton, through the Proton board, exercised their most important prerogative as an owner – the right to hire and fire; and out goes Tengku Mahaleel.
On November 30, 2005, Proton Chairman Mohammed Azlan Hashim announced the appointment of Perodua Auto Corp executive director Syed Zainal Abidin Syed Mohd Tahir, then 43, as its new managing director.
Heavily indebted, the manufacturer was bought by Malaysian carmaker Proton in December 2004 for 70 million euro.
In December 2005 however, Proton decided to cut its ties with MV Agusta and sold it to GEVI SpA, a Genoa-based financing company related to Carige, for a token euro excluding debt.
In 2006 that financing company, GEVI SpA, with 65% of the share capital, had refinanced MV Agusta, and by so doing allowed the company to continue, and brought MV Agusta ownership back to Italy.
Mahaleel and Proton advisor Mahathir strongly criticized the Agusta sale and demanded information on why it went ahead, saying their credibility is at stake over the deal.
Proton Chairman Mohammed Azlan Hashim claimed that Agusta failed to deliver the synergies expected
Husqvarna sale to BMW
In July 2007 MV Agusta Motor S.p.A, sold the Husqvarna motorcycle brand to BMW Motorrad for an undisclosed amount. (90 Million Euro (RM 450 Million) - chedet.com)
Accorting to MV Agusta president Claudio Castiglioni, the sale was a strategic step to concentrate all of the company's resources in order to expand MV Agusta and Cagiva presence in the international markets having more financial resources for new models development.
Acquisition by Harley-Davidson
On July 11, 2008 Harley-Davidson announced they had signed a definitive agreement to acquire the MV Agusta Group for $109M USD (€70M).
Why Proton Acquire MV Agusta
From the View Point of Tengku Tan Sri Mahaleel Ariff , Former CEO of Proton *2
"Recalling that it took some 14 months to deliberate on the purchase of Agusta, Tengku Mahaleel expressed surprise that selling it off took just two months to decide. According to him, the 14-month period began in December 2002 when Agusta was identified for acquisition" - Tengku Mahaleel
Reason for Purchase
(1) Agusta has the Technology
The key technologies which Agusta already has have been presented as one of the important reasons for acquiring it and he again emphasised them with more elaboration than before.
Being a motorcycle manufacturer, Agusta has the expertise to make small yet powerful high-tech engines and could develop 850 cc and 1000 cc engines for Proton models at 50% what it would cost Proton/Lotus to develop. Such engines would be RM2,500 cheaper than the engine currently used in the Savvy, and on a production run of 250,000 Savvys over 5 years, it would thus be possible to lower production costs by RM625 million.
This figure, he pointed out, more than paid for the 70 million euros which Proton had paid to buy over Agusta.
(2) Agusta has a Concept for a RM10,000 car and Patented airflow system
Tengku Mahaleel also revealed that Agusta had a concept for a RM10,000 car using unique manufacturing methods and also had a patented airflow system which was going to be used for the Campro engines. The Italian company also has a very unique gearbox which would be valuable to Proton
(3) Agusta could be a profit centre for Proton
Agusta could actually become a profit centre for Proton, he revealed the 2006 earnings forecast prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers, an independent accounting firm, which was said to be a ‘conservative’ one. In the forecast (before tax), Agusta could be making RM73 million this year (best case) and even in the worst case, RM31 million. The forecast for 2010 was RM228 million.
(4) Agusta Debt Restrucring Plan
Tengku Mahaleel revealed the purchase conditions which were agreed upon when Proton bought over Agusta (or more accurately, acquired the MV Group through a share injection of 70 million euros). The conditions related to the settlement of Agusta’s debts with specific terms over a 4-year period, and he claimed that even prior to purchase, Proton had managed to reduce the debt level to 68 million euros.
Crucial to the survival of Agusta, which was on the brink of bankruptcy, was getting working capital and to address this quickly, it was decided that the unused credit line of 9 million euros available through Proton UK would be utilised. Also, group purchasing of Japanese parts worth 12 million euros was carried out, optimizing buying power.
Why Proton Sell MV Agusta
From the View Point of Datuk Azman Mokthar , CEO of Khazanah National Berhad *4
Extracted from Liputan Media Utusan Malaysia 30 Jul 2006
MINGGUAN: Penjualan MV Agusta terus dipertikaikan?
AZMAN: Dari aspek kewangan mahupun strategik, mengikut tinjauan kami sebagai pemegang saham
utama Proton jelas bahawa keputusan penjualan itu wajar. Walaupun saham Agusta dijual satu
euro, sebenarnya jumlah itu jauh melebihi satu euro oleh kerana bebanan hutang Agusta yang
berjuta-juta. Kita mungkin masih ingat suatu masa dahulu cadangan penjualan Keretapi Tanah
Melayu (KTM) sebanyak seringgit tiada sambutan kerana seperti Agusta, KTM juga ada beban
hutang beratus juta. Selama enam tahun berturut-turut Agusta mengalami kerugian, jadi mengikut tinjauan Proton, peluang memulihkan juga adalah amat tipis.
Dari segi strategik pula, sama ada motosikal dan enjin motosikalnya ada kaitan dengan Proton,
yang kami difahamkan ialah paling baik pun, tidak jelas akan kepentingan strategiknya kepada
Proton. Apa yang jelas adalah banyak lagi perkara strategik yang lebih penting yang memerlukan
tumpuan pengurusan.
MINGGUAN: Isu tender penjualan MV Agusta ini macam mana? Kenapa tender tidak dikeluarkan kepada rakyat Malaysia sahaja?
AZMAN: Mengikut laporan Proton kepada Khazanah, proses yang dilakukan memang teratur, dari segi
proses dalaman Proton dan juga mengikut proses luar termasuk undang-undang pasaran saham
dan sebagainya. Yang kami difahamkan dan perlu dijelaskan juga, oleh kerana Agusta memikul
beban hutang dengan pihak bank dan peminjam di Itali, banyak hak yang di luar bidang kuasa Proton, yang mana peminjam ada hak tertentu untuk menentukan pembeli.
References :-
(1) Tun Dr. Mahathir Blog - Chedet.com
(2) Tengku Mahaleel Speak Up on Agusta Issues
(3) Wikipedia - MV Agusta
(4) Khazanah - Datuk Azman opinion on the sales on MV Agusta by Proton for 1 Euro (30 Jul 2006)
(5) Mavericksm.blogspot.com - Proton Agustarded or Bagustarded (Cakap Tak Serupa Bikin)
Tuesday 15 July 2008
Tuesday 8 July 2008
SAPP : Loss of Confidence in PM STILL STAND
Briefing Statement by SAPP
Kota Kinabalu (6 July 2008):
1. SAPP and its leaders and members are advised not to fall into the trap of racialist opportunists who whip up racial tensions in order to divert attention from the real issues affecting the people which may possibly set the stage for emergency rule in the country.
Stick to the real issues affecting the people
2. This is because SAPP believes that the real issues affecting the people are the rising costs of living, stagnating economy, illegal immigrants, political autonomy of Sabah and local Malaysians heading federal departments, empowerment of the people, unfair laws and policies affecting the people and an equitable share of our own oil revenues of 20%. We should not allow racial politics to bury these real issues affecting the people nor will we do anything to give the authorities an excuse to declare emergency.
3. In the last 4 days, the national media has reported the prospects of an emergency rule that will lead to the suspension of Parliament. The deliberate disclosure of the 6-day joint exercises starting July 2 between the armed forces and the police in maintaining DOMESTIC public order can be seen as a type of "psychological preparation" and "psychology warfare" that is used by governments all over the world. This has caused anxiety among the people. The denials (of impending emergency rule) from the PM carry no weight among the people because of his previous flip flops such as "no dissolution of Parliament", "no fuel price hikes", "no fuel to foreign cars", "paying salaries twice a month" etc.
Racialists stirring racial sentiments
4. The blatant stirring of racial sentiments are proven beyond any doubt when on Wednesday July 2, the MP for Kota Belud who is also the UMNO Youth National Secretary, in Parliament warned of (tumpah darah) blood shed if SAPP MPs were to proceed with the no confidence motion on the PM. This kind of inflammatory talk is totally unwarranted and an affront to parliamentary democracy. SAPP hails the decision of the Speaker, himself from the Kota Belud district, for putting a stop to the incendiary remarks of the first term MP from UMNO Youth.
5. It is also worth noting that the weekend before the UMNO Tawau demonstration, that the UMNO Youth Deputy Leader, Khairy Jamaluddin, was in Tawau and later made wild accusations against the SAPP President.
6. All BN component parties, including UMNO, have admitted that the brandishing of the keris at previous UMNO Youth conventions was a major cause of the loss of BN. These youth leaders never learn.
7. Last week, an UMNO Vice President, who is also a Chief Minister, further displayed the arrogance of power by justifying the demonstrations of UMNO in Tawau and Sepanggar. Such instigation has re-created an atmosphere of intimidation and fear among sections of the people.
8. There has also been talk of a PAS-UMNO Youth alliance that they cannot allow a Malay leader such as the PM to be "humiliated" by a non-Malay MP.
9. Although our SAPP political culture is non-racial, we do not underestimate the risks of an UMNO-PAS battle cry of "Ketuanan Melayu". SAPP President has been told personally by a senior UMNO leader that if SAPP proceeds with the motion against the PM, then it would be seen as a Chinese party versus the Malay leadership, reminding SAPP that the government media has deliberately portrayed SAPP as "Chinese", even though in fact, SAPP is a non-racial party with multi-racial members and leaders.
10. SAPP's move is based on the genuine grievances of the people and Sabah issues. Racial conflict is never a part of our agenda.
Loss of confidence still stands
11. The fundamental position of losing confidence in the PM still stands. Change is only a matter of time because the people have lost confidence on the PM. BN leaders too have lost confidence on the PM. Only the vested interests are cheering the PM like the story of Emperor's clothes. SAPP nor its President has anything personal against the PM. We have not touched any thing personal about the PM such as family, son, son-in-law and businesses etc. unlike what many UMNO leaders have thrown at the PM and family.
12. When he first became PM, the PM did ask the people to tell him the truth and to work with him, not work for him. But what is happening now at the national level show that PM has lost the confidence of the people and also control over their own BN leaders.
13. For instance, even BN MPs defied government authority by "gangsters-style removal of barricade at Parliament lobby", which was a glaring display of loss of authority on a scale unseen in Malaysia. Residents in Cheras physically removing the barricade at access to a highway, the panic in Sabah on June 24 among the public over rumours of petrol stations on strike, the fiasco of attacks and counter-attacks involving top leaders of the nation, different statutory declarations, police reports against the IGP and A-G, continuing rising costs of living affecting the people etc¡.etc¡are more than enough to show that the people have lost confidence in the current leadership to sort out the mess that the country is in.
14. SAPP reaffirms the 8-point Declaration of June 20, 2008 (copy attached) and is forming specialized committees to look into the formulation and implementation of laws and policies towards the complete fulfillment of the struggle contained in the 8 points.
15. For instance, the issue of Petronas formed under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 allows for a National Petroleum Advisory Council (Section 5) to include those from oil producing states.. Is there member from Sabah in this NPAC? If yes, who? If no, why not? Section 7A allows the delegation of powers to the State Authority (say, the Chief Minister) under the Act over the oil and gas industry in Sabah. Is there such delegation of powers to the State authority? As for the increase in oil royalties, this can be reviewed under Section 4 of the Act which stipulated cash payment to the relevant State. SAPP will closely pursue this and other issues of interests to the people.
16. SAPP shall continue to play our role as a people-based party striving for the people. We will not do anything to give the authorities an excuse to declare emergency rule.
Kota Kinabalu (6 July 2008):
1. SAPP and its leaders and members are advised not to fall into the trap of racialist opportunists who whip up racial tensions in order to divert attention from the real issues affecting the people which may possibly set the stage for emergency rule in the country.
Stick to the real issues affecting the people
2. This is because SAPP believes that the real issues affecting the people are the rising costs of living, stagnating economy, illegal immigrants, political autonomy of Sabah and local Malaysians heading federal departments, empowerment of the people, unfair laws and policies affecting the people and an equitable share of our own oil revenues of 20%. We should not allow racial politics to bury these real issues affecting the people nor will we do anything to give the authorities an excuse to declare emergency.
3. In the last 4 days, the national media has reported the prospects of an emergency rule that will lead to the suspension of Parliament. The deliberate disclosure of the 6-day joint exercises starting July 2 between the armed forces and the police in maintaining DOMESTIC public order can be seen as a type of "psychological preparation" and "psychology warfare" that is used by governments all over the world. This has caused anxiety among the people. The denials (of impending emergency rule) from the PM carry no weight among the people because of his previous flip flops such as "no dissolution of Parliament", "no fuel price hikes", "no fuel to foreign cars", "paying salaries twice a month" etc.
Racialists stirring racial sentiments
4. The blatant stirring of racial sentiments are proven beyond any doubt when on Wednesday July 2, the MP for Kota Belud who is also the UMNO Youth National Secretary, in Parliament warned of (tumpah darah) blood shed if SAPP MPs were to proceed with the no confidence motion on the PM. This kind of inflammatory talk is totally unwarranted and an affront to parliamentary democracy. SAPP hails the decision of the Speaker, himself from the Kota Belud district, for putting a stop to the incendiary remarks of the first term MP from UMNO Youth.
5. It is also worth noting that the weekend before the UMNO Tawau demonstration, that the UMNO Youth Deputy Leader, Khairy Jamaluddin, was in Tawau and later made wild accusations against the SAPP President.
6. All BN component parties, including UMNO, have admitted that the brandishing of the keris at previous UMNO Youth conventions was a major cause of the loss of BN. These youth leaders never learn.
7. Last week, an UMNO Vice President, who is also a Chief Minister, further displayed the arrogance of power by justifying the demonstrations of UMNO in Tawau and Sepanggar. Such instigation has re-created an atmosphere of intimidation and fear among sections of the people.
8. There has also been talk of a PAS-UMNO Youth alliance that they cannot allow a Malay leader such as the PM to be "humiliated" by a non-Malay MP.
9. Although our SAPP political culture is non-racial, we do not underestimate the risks of an UMNO-PAS battle cry of "Ketuanan Melayu". SAPP President has been told personally by a senior UMNO leader that if SAPP proceeds with the motion against the PM, then it would be seen as a Chinese party versus the Malay leadership, reminding SAPP that the government media has deliberately portrayed SAPP as "Chinese", even though in fact, SAPP is a non-racial party with multi-racial members and leaders.
10. SAPP's move is based on the genuine grievances of the people and Sabah issues. Racial conflict is never a part of our agenda.
Loss of confidence still stands
11. The fundamental position of losing confidence in the PM still stands. Change is only a matter of time because the people have lost confidence on the PM. BN leaders too have lost confidence on the PM. Only the vested interests are cheering the PM like the story of Emperor's clothes. SAPP nor its President has anything personal against the PM. We have not touched any thing personal about the PM such as family, son, son-in-law and businesses etc. unlike what many UMNO leaders have thrown at the PM and family.
12. When he first became PM, the PM did ask the people to tell him the truth and to work with him, not work for him. But what is happening now at the national level show that PM has lost the confidence of the people and also control over their own BN leaders.
13. For instance, even BN MPs defied government authority by "gangsters-style removal of barricade at Parliament lobby", which was a glaring display of loss of authority on a scale unseen in Malaysia. Residents in Cheras physically removing the barricade at access to a highway, the panic in Sabah on June 24 among the public over rumours of petrol stations on strike, the fiasco of attacks and counter-attacks involving top leaders of the nation, different statutory declarations, police reports against the IGP and A-G, continuing rising costs of living affecting the people etc¡.etc¡are more than enough to show that the people have lost confidence in the current leadership to sort out the mess that the country is in.
14. SAPP reaffirms the 8-point Declaration of June 20, 2008 (copy attached) and is forming specialized committees to look into the formulation and implementation of laws and policies towards the complete fulfillment of the struggle contained in the 8 points.
15. For instance, the issue of Petronas formed under the Petroleum Development Act 1974 allows for a National Petroleum Advisory Council (Section 5) to include those from oil producing states.. Is there member from Sabah in this NPAC? If yes, who? If no, why not? Section 7A allows the delegation of powers to the State Authority (say, the Chief Minister) under the Act over the oil and gas industry in Sabah. Is there such delegation of powers to the State authority? As for the increase in oil royalties, this can be reviewed under Section 4 of the Act which stipulated cash payment to the relevant State. SAPP will closely pursue this and other issues of interests to the people.
16. SAPP shall continue to play our role as a people-based party striving for the people. We will not do anything to give the authorities an excuse to declare emergency rule.
ACA's Performance in Dismal
ACA investigated 10.1% or just 7,223 cases out of the total of 71,558 reported
Graft Cost Country RM 10 Billion
“At present, there is less than satisfactory public confidence in the ACA. It is about time the ACA is free from the control of the PM’s office as this will ensure greater transparency, integrity and accountability.”
Statistic
2000 to 2006 (Seven years)
71,558 Cases Reported
7,223 Investigated (10.1%) - What happened to the remaining 90%?
2,905 Arrested (4.1%)
1,287 Charged / Prosecuted (1.8%)
524 Convicted (0.7%)
The Sun Daily Reported the following article in its front page news on 6 July 2008.
Graft cost country RM10 billion a year
By Tim Leonard
KUALA LUMPUR (July 6, 2008) : Corruption, if left to fester, can cause the country to lose RM10 billion a year in domestic growth.
ACA's performance is dismal
Pemudah, the government's special task force to facilitate business, gave this cost of corruption statistic in pushing its case for the Anti-Corruption Agency to be given a quick fix and a much-needed shot in the arm to give investors confidence to do business here.
Statistics made available to theSun show the ACA's performance is dismal -- it has only investigated 10.1% or just 7,223 cases out of the total of 71,558 reported between 2000 and 2006.
Serious Cause for Concern - Dismal Results could pose bigger problem
Pemudah co-chairman Tan Sri Yong Poh Kon told theSun in a recent interview that the statistics and dismal results could pose bigger problems for the country in years to come. “Something must be done fast as the actual situation is a serious cause for concern,” he said.
“The ACA must be given more resources to work with, including an increase in budget by the Government. It is about time to seriously consider recruiting foreign officers to work with the ACA on a contractual basis to solve more cases.”
Yong said World Bank statistics show that corruption can reduce the country’s growth rate by between two and four per cent and this translates to a loss of up to RM10 billion a year.He said although the ACA is trying to better itself, the figures speak for themselves and paint a gloomy picture of things to come.
The Ugly Statistic
Of the total number of cases reported in that seven-year period, only 4.1% or 2,905 people were arrested, 1.8% or 1,287 persons charged/prosecuted and only 0.7% or 524 actually convicted.“We should perhaps look at emulating the success of Hong Kong, which has done very well in curbing corruption,” said Yong.
As a comparison with Hong Kong ICAC
Between 2000 and 2006, Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigated 77.2% or 21,649 cases out of the 28,057 reported, with 29.2% ending up in arrests.“On an average, the Hong Kong Government spends close to RM40 per capita on anti-corruption efforts. In Malaysia, the sum is just a mere RM5 per capita.”
In sufficient Allocation
Yong added: “So it is time the Government looked seriously into the problems affecting ACA and work out a solution. Even if RM1 billion is spent on improvising the ACA, the Government will actually be saving RM 9 billion.”
The Government's allocation for the ACA last year was RM148 million.
Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said the country risks dropping further on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) if immediate efforts are not taken to put ACA in order. Malaysia has remained at the 43rd spot for the past two years.
In 2003, the country was at the 37th spot, before sliding to the 39th spot in 2004 and gradually to its current position.
ACA is NOT INDEPENDENT
Navaratnam said he hoped the ACA would become independent from the Prime Minister’s Department.
“At present, there is less than satisfactory public confidence in the ACA. It is about time the ACA is free from the control of the PM’s office as this will ensure greater transparency, integrity and accountability.”
Navaratnam added it was also time for ACA to be made up of credible people, especially as it will be made a commission soon as announced by the prime minister shortly after the general election.
Hard to emulake Hong Kong ICAC
When contacted, ACA director-general Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan said it will be hard for Malaysia to emulate Hong Kong’s success in anti-corrution efforts.
“Hong Kong is a small, one-state country but we are bigger so we can’t be compared to them,” said Ahmad, in response to Yong’s call.
“We cannot investigate all the cases that were reported because some were anonymous letters, poison pen letters and tip-offs from even Government servants.
“We did investigate all those cases which we could and left no stones unturned in our investigations,” he said.
He added that the ACA has no problem if it is placed under Parliament. “We are constantly striving to be the best and it doesn't matter under whom we work.”
Graft Cost Country RM 10 Billion
“At present, there is less than satisfactory public confidence in the ACA. It is about time the ACA is free from the control of the PM’s office as this will ensure greater transparency, integrity and accountability.”
Statistic
2000 to 2006 (Seven years)
71,558 Cases Reported
7,223 Investigated (10.1%) - What happened to the remaining 90%?
2,905 Arrested (4.1%)
1,287 Charged / Prosecuted (1.8%)
524 Convicted (0.7%)
The Sun Daily Reported the following article in its front page news on 6 July 2008.
Graft cost country RM10 billion a year
By Tim Leonard
KUALA LUMPUR (July 6, 2008) : Corruption, if left to fester, can cause the country to lose RM10 billion a year in domestic growth.
ACA's performance is dismal
Pemudah, the government's special task force to facilitate business, gave this cost of corruption statistic in pushing its case for the Anti-Corruption Agency to be given a quick fix and a much-needed shot in the arm to give investors confidence to do business here.
Statistics made available to theSun show the ACA's performance is dismal -- it has only investigated 10.1% or just 7,223 cases out of the total of 71,558 reported between 2000 and 2006.
Serious Cause for Concern - Dismal Results could pose bigger problem
Pemudah co-chairman Tan Sri Yong Poh Kon told theSun in a recent interview that the statistics and dismal results could pose bigger problems for the country in years to come. “Something must be done fast as the actual situation is a serious cause for concern,” he said.
“The ACA must be given more resources to work with, including an increase in budget by the Government. It is about time to seriously consider recruiting foreign officers to work with the ACA on a contractual basis to solve more cases.”
Yong said World Bank statistics show that corruption can reduce the country’s growth rate by between two and four per cent and this translates to a loss of up to RM10 billion a year.He said although the ACA is trying to better itself, the figures speak for themselves and paint a gloomy picture of things to come.
The Ugly Statistic
Of the total number of cases reported in that seven-year period, only 4.1% or 2,905 people were arrested, 1.8% or 1,287 persons charged/prosecuted and only 0.7% or 524 actually convicted.“We should perhaps look at emulating the success of Hong Kong, which has done very well in curbing corruption,” said Yong.
As a comparison with Hong Kong ICAC
Between 2000 and 2006, Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigated 77.2% or 21,649 cases out of the 28,057 reported, with 29.2% ending up in arrests.“On an average, the Hong Kong Government spends close to RM40 per capita on anti-corruption efforts. In Malaysia, the sum is just a mere RM5 per capita.”
In sufficient Allocation
Yong added: “So it is time the Government looked seriously into the problems affecting ACA and work out a solution. Even if RM1 billion is spent on improvising the ACA, the Government will actually be saving RM 9 billion.”
The Government's allocation for the ACA last year was RM148 million.
Transparency International Malaysia president Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam said the country risks dropping further on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) if immediate efforts are not taken to put ACA in order. Malaysia has remained at the 43rd spot for the past two years.
In 2003, the country was at the 37th spot, before sliding to the 39th spot in 2004 and gradually to its current position.
ACA is NOT INDEPENDENT
Navaratnam said he hoped the ACA would become independent from the Prime Minister’s Department.
“At present, there is less than satisfactory public confidence in the ACA. It is about time the ACA is free from the control of the PM’s office as this will ensure greater transparency, integrity and accountability.”
Navaratnam added it was also time for ACA to be made up of credible people, especially as it will be made a commission soon as announced by the prime minister shortly after the general election.
Hard to emulake Hong Kong ICAC
When contacted, ACA director-general Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan said it will be hard for Malaysia to emulate Hong Kong’s success in anti-corrution efforts.
“Hong Kong is a small, one-state country but we are bigger so we can’t be compared to them,” said Ahmad, in response to Yong’s call.
“We cannot investigate all the cases that were reported because some were anonymous letters, poison pen letters and tip-offs from even Government servants.
“We did investigate all those cases which we could and left no stones unturned in our investigations,” he said.
He added that the ACA has no problem if it is placed under Parliament. “We are constantly striving to be the best and it doesn't matter under whom we work.”
Thursday 3 July 2008
Statutory Declaration by Bala : Altantuya Link with Najib, Razak
Altantuya Scandal - Link with Najib Abdul Razak (Deputy Prime Minister , Malaysia)
Statutory Declaration by L.Balasubramaniam : Altantuya Link with Najib, Razak
Full Statutory Declaration by P.Balasubramaniam
JULY 3 — Below is the statutory declaration in full made by murder accused Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P. Balasubramaniam that claimed police suppressed evidence to protect some personalities, including proof that Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu knew Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak.
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC No: 600928-08-6235), a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at No. 32, Jalan Pelangi 1, Taman Pelangi, Rawang, Selangor, do solemly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a freelance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Some time in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2-1⁄2 days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian “bomoh” and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as “Aminah” and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognised him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr Ang, arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for US$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that:
25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me “Happy Deepavali”. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “to delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following:
28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3 That she was promised a sum of US$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.
28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
28.6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plainclothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said “Yes”. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00pm to 8.00am the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called “Amy” who was apparently “Aminah’s” cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr Ang and another Mongolian girl called “Amy” turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling my handphone and I was to pass the phone to the inspector from the Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi inspector. The conversation lasted 3-4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock-up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock-up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30am to 6.00pm every day for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers’ office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00am today … matter will be solved … be cool.”
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to:
54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4 Emphasise the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBSCRIBED and solemnly declared by the abovenamed
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal
this day of 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
Statutory Declaration by L.Balasubramaniam : Altantuya Link with Najib, Razak
Full Statutory Declaration by P.Balasubramaniam
JULY 3 — Below is the statutory declaration in full made by murder accused Abdul Razak Baginda's private investigator P. Balasubramaniam that claimed police suppressed evidence to protect some personalities, including proof that Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu knew Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak.
I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal (NRIC No: 600928-08-6235), a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at No. 32, Jalan Pelangi 1, Taman Pelangi, Rawang, Selangor, do solemly and sincerely declare as follows:
1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.
2. I have been working as a freelance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.
3. Some time in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.
4. I resigned from this job after 2-1⁄2 days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.
5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.
6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.
7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian “bomoh” and that he could never look her in the face because of this.
8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.
9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.
10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.
11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.
12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.
13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.
14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as “Aminah” and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.
15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.
16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.
17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.
18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognised him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.
19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.
20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.
22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr Ang, arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for US$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.
23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.
24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.
25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that:
25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.
25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse.
25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.
25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.
25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.
26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me “Happy Deepavali”. The taxi then left.
27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “to delay her until my man comes”.
28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following:
28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.
28.3 That she was promised a sum of US$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris.
28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.
28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.
28.6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.
28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plainclothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.
30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said “Yes”. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.
31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.
32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.
33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00pm to 8.00am the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called “Amy” who was apparently “Aminah’s” cousin in Mongolia.
34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.
35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr Ang and another Mongolian girl called “Amy” turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.
37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling my handphone and I was to pass the phone to the inspector from the Dang Wangi Police Station.
38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi inspector. The conversation lasted 3-4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.
39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.
40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.
42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.
43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.
44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.
45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.
46. I was then placed in the lock-up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.
47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock-up and remanded for 7 days.
48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.
49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30am to 6.00pm every day for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.
50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers’ office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.
52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00am today … matter will be solved … be cool.”
53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to:
54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.
54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.
54.4 Emphasise the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.
54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.
55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.
SUBSCRIBED and solemnly declared by the abovenamed
Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal
this day of 2008 )
Before me,
………………………………….
Commissioner for Oath
Kuala Lumpur
Wednesday 2 July 2008
The Oil-for-Food scandal revisited
One of the names that cropped up in the final report of the Independent Inquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme was the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Malaysia was the fourth highest purchaser of oil - RM1.8 billion.
Malaysia Today published a posted an article the UN Oil for Food Programmed on 1 Jul 2008.
Read the Full Report of the article from Malaysia Today in PDF Format by clicking the following link
Click here for - The Oil-for-Food scandal revisited (PDF) - Malaysia Today (1 July 2008)
Quotes from Malaysia Today article posting on 1 Jul 2008
Malaysia Today
On Sunday, the BBC reported as follows:
The Iraqi government has said it will file lawsuits in US courts against firms and people suspected of illegally profiting from a UN programme. The UN oil-for-food programme allowed Saddam Hussein's government to sell oil in order to buy humanitarian supplies during UN sanctions from 1996-2003. An inquiry found that 2,200 firms paid $1.8bn in bribes to Iraqi officials.
An earlier posting on how the UN Oil for Food Programme was linked to Malaysia Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was posted on my blog (Malaysia Alternative Voices) previously on 7 May 2008
Click Here for - Malaysia Alternative Voices - PM & The Oil for Food Scandal (7 May 2008)
Quotes from my earlier posting :
The report specifically stated that Iraqi officials gave such a large allocation to Faek Ahmad because of his relationship to Abdullah Badawi. In written documents, Iraqi officials referred to Faek Ahmad as "Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef/for the benefit of Abdullah".
According to the definition of corruption as defined by the Anti-Corruption Agency, translated as below:“Any officer of the civil service using his/her position or post in the service to obtain bribes/benefits regarding any decision made by the person or making a decision regarding any matter, in which he/her, his/her family members, friends or partners have a stake in the matter, whether direct or indirect.”
Details on how the UN Oil for Food Programme is linked to Malaysia Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can be for on the following
Click Here for - Independent Inquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme
Malaysia Today published a posted an article the UN Oil for Food Programmed on 1 Jul 2008.
Read the Full Report of the article from Malaysia Today in PDF Format by clicking the following link
Click here for - The Oil-for-Food scandal revisited (PDF) - Malaysia Today (1 July 2008)
Quotes from Malaysia Today article posting on 1 Jul 2008
Malaysia Today
On Sunday, the BBC reported as follows:
The Iraqi government has said it will file lawsuits in US courts against firms and people suspected of illegally profiting from a UN programme. The UN oil-for-food programme allowed Saddam Hussein's government to sell oil in order to buy humanitarian supplies during UN sanctions from 1996-2003. An inquiry found that 2,200 firms paid $1.8bn in bribes to Iraqi officials.
An earlier posting on how the UN Oil for Food Programme was linked to Malaysia Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was posted on my blog (Malaysia Alternative Voices) previously on 7 May 2008
Click Here for - Malaysia Alternative Voices - PM & The Oil for Food Scandal (7 May 2008)
Quotes from my earlier posting :
The report specifically stated that Iraqi officials gave such a large allocation to Faek Ahmad because of his relationship to Abdullah Badawi. In written documents, Iraqi officials referred to Faek Ahmad as "Mr. Faek Ahmad Shareef/for the benefit of Abdullah".
According to the definition of corruption as defined by the Anti-Corruption Agency, translated as below:“Any officer of the civil service using his/her position or post in the service to obtain bribes/benefits regarding any decision made by the person or making a decision regarding any matter, in which he/her, his/her family members, friends or partners have a stake in the matter, whether direct or indirect.”
Details on how the UN Oil for Food Programme is linked to Malaysia Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can be for on the following
(For easy reference the details relating Malaysian Company to the Oil for Food Programme is available on Page 160-168 on the Indepedent Inquiry Report - Chapter 2)
The Full Details on the "Independent Inquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme" can be obtained from its website including the deatils of the Inquiry ReportsClick Here for - Independent Inquiry Committee into The United Nations Oil-For-Food Programme
Tuesday 1 July 2008
Anwar Ibrahim Police Report Against IGP Musa and AG Abdul Gani
PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today lodged a police report against Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail alleging that they concocted evidence for his corruption and sodomy trials in 1998 and 1999.
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s daughter Nurul Izzah looks through the gates as she was not allowed into the police headquarters.
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim arriving at the Shah Alam police headquarters to lodge the report. — Pictures by Choo Choy MaySHAH ALAM, July 1 — PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today lodged a police report against Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail alleging that they concocted evidence for his corruption and sodomy trials in 1998 and 1999.
Anwar arrived at the Shah Alam police headquarters accompanied by hundreds of supporters. After making the report, Anwar head for the PKR headquarters in Petaling Jaya where he held a press conference.
Below is Anwar’s police report in full:POLICE REPORT LODGED BY DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM
1st July, 2008
I, Anwar bin Ibrahim, (NRIC No: 470810-07-5095), hereby make the following police report based on information that I have recently received.
1. This report is in relation to the investigation into the assault on me by the former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor on 20 September 1998. I believe Tan Sri Rahim Noor, after being prosecuted, pleaded guilty to the assault. I had lodged a police report in respect of the assault on 27.9.98.
2. In relation to the investigation into the assault, I believe that the Investigating Officer ACP Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (now Datuk Mat Zain) had conducted a thorough investigation and prepared an investigation paper (“IP”) which was presented by October 1998 to the former Attorney General Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah and his team which included the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail for further action.
3. The said investigation paper concluded that Tan Sri Rahim Noor was the perpetrator of the assault on me. The said paper reached a conclusion after a thorough investigation which included medical reports by Hospital KL forensic specialists such as Dr Ab. Halim Haji Mansar and Dr Zahari bin Noor and statement from at least 60 witnesses. The medical reports concluded that the injury inflicted on me was consistent with an assault.
4. Despite the contents of the Investigation paper and the medical reports already available, Tan Sri Mokhtar with the assistance of the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail then obtained the services of another doctor whom I was informed to be one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof.
5. Doctor Rahman in an undated and second report speaks of a “reconstruction of the scene” on 14 December 2008. I believe that this so-called reconstruction of the scene never happened.
6. It is an undisputable fact that Dr Rahman’s reports in relation to the assault on me were done without actually even examining me at any time.
7. However, despite the IP and the already existing medical reports, Tan Sri Mokhtar in his press statement of 5 January 1999 appears to accept the views of Dr Rahman on the so-called “inconsistencies” in the other medical reports by the doctors who actually physically examined me.
8. Tan Sri Mokhtar’s press statement also states that the investigation which had been carried out did not identify the person or persons responsible for my injuries. This is inconsistent with the IP which had already concluded by October 1998 that it was Rahim Noor who assaulted me. Tan Sri Mokhtar and his team therefore had wilfully misled the public. As the police investigation done by Mat Zain had apparently not led to any conclusion, there was a public outcry and demand for a Royal Commission which was then set up. Tan Sri Mokhtar also made a false statement that the IP was submitted to him on 19.11.98. I believe that Tan Sri Gani Patail had full knowledge of the false contents of this press statement.
9. I believe Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Gani Patail were present in Bukit Aman on 20 September 1998 and knew about the assault by Tan Sri Rahim Noor on me. Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani further concealed the fact of the assault on me from the public until my black eye and injuries were revealed in court.
10. I believe both Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani Patail were actively involved in the procuring of the second undated report by Dr Rahman which makes false and incredible conclusions such as “the pattern and nature of the injuries are not consistent with a direct blow”, “accidental nature of the injuries could not be ruled out” and “self-inflicted nature of the injury should be considered”. They gave the instructions to Dr Rahman to proceed to write this second report and were acting under the direction and/or jointly with Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah.
11. These facts show that Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Tan Sri Gani Patail and SAC II Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (who, according to Dr Rahman’s second report, accompanied him to the cell in Bukit Aman where I was detained and participated in the so-called reconstruction of the scene) conspired with Dr Rahman to procure the production of this second report. This was done so that my police report of 27.9.98 in respect of the assault would be regarded as a false police report for which I could be charged, or at the very least, to damage my credibility, so as to affect my defence in the other criminal cases where I was charged for so-called “corruption” and sodomy to facilitate a conviction.
12. I wish to point out that Tan Sri Gani Patail was the senior prosecutor assisting Tan Sri Mokhtar in the prosecution against me. Tan Sri Musa Hassan was the Investigating Officer for my prosecution. I also believe, that in an unprecedented manner, an operation room specially for my prosecution was set up at Bukit Aman’s compound where all these individuals would meet regularly.
13. This is not the first time that allegations of fabricating evidence had surfaced in connection with Tan Sri Gani Patail. I am informed that in the Federal Court decision Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ, Steve Shim CJ in delivering his judgment pointed out that “… was he not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that Tan Sri Gani Patail’s conduct at the meeting on 2.10.1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him for other alleged sexual offences?” The references to “he” and “him” in that sentence are references to myself.
14. In relation to the above, I refer to the following documents which will be of assistance to the police:
1. The press statement by Tan Sri Mokhtar issued on 5.1.99.
2. The notes of proceedings in the report of the Royal Commission of the evidence of Dr Rahman
3. The second undated report produced by Dr Rahman exhibited in the Royal Commission report.
15. I call for a fresh investigation into the fabrication of evidence in this case which I am advised is an offence contrary to section 192 of the Penal Code punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. I ask that all the persons who are implicated in the procuring of this second report by Dr Rahman i.e. Tan Sri Gani Patail, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Dr Rahman and Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim be investigated thoroughly so that the truth is known and the offending individuals punished.
ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM
1st July 2008
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s daughter Nurul Izzah looks through the gates as she was not allowed into the police headquarters.
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim arriving at the Shah Alam police headquarters to lodge the report. — Pictures by Choo Choy MaySHAH ALAM, July 1 — PKR leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today lodged a police report against Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail alleging that they concocted evidence for his corruption and sodomy trials in 1998 and 1999.
Anwar arrived at the Shah Alam police headquarters accompanied by hundreds of supporters. After making the report, Anwar head for the PKR headquarters in Petaling Jaya where he held a press conference.
Below is Anwar’s police report in full:POLICE REPORT LODGED BY DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM
1st July, 2008
I, Anwar bin Ibrahim, (NRIC No: 470810-07-5095), hereby make the following police report based on information that I have recently received.
1. This report is in relation to the investigation into the assault on me by the former IGP Tan Sri Rahim Noor on 20 September 1998. I believe Tan Sri Rahim Noor, after being prosecuted, pleaded guilty to the assault. I had lodged a police report in respect of the assault on 27.9.98.
2. In relation to the investigation into the assault, I believe that the Investigating Officer ACP Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (now Datuk Mat Zain) had conducted a thorough investigation and prepared an investigation paper (“IP”) which was presented by October 1998 to the former Attorney General Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah and his team which included the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail for further action.
3. The said investigation paper concluded that Tan Sri Rahim Noor was the perpetrator of the assault on me. The said paper reached a conclusion after a thorough investigation which included medical reports by Hospital KL forensic specialists such as Dr Ab. Halim Haji Mansar and Dr Zahari bin Noor and statement from at least 60 witnesses. The medical reports concluded that the injury inflicted on me was consistent with an assault.
4. Despite the contents of the Investigation paper and the medical reports already available, Tan Sri Mokhtar with the assistance of the current Attorney General Tan Sri Gani Patail then obtained the services of another doctor whom I was informed to be one Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof.
5. Doctor Rahman in an undated and second report speaks of a “reconstruction of the scene” on 14 December 2008. I believe that this so-called reconstruction of the scene never happened.
6. It is an undisputable fact that Dr Rahman’s reports in relation to the assault on me were done without actually even examining me at any time.
7. However, despite the IP and the already existing medical reports, Tan Sri Mokhtar in his press statement of 5 January 1999 appears to accept the views of Dr Rahman on the so-called “inconsistencies” in the other medical reports by the doctors who actually physically examined me.
8. Tan Sri Mokhtar’s press statement also states that the investigation which had been carried out did not identify the person or persons responsible for my injuries. This is inconsistent with the IP which had already concluded by October 1998 that it was Rahim Noor who assaulted me. Tan Sri Mokhtar and his team therefore had wilfully misled the public. As the police investigation done by Mat Zain had apparently not led to any conclusion, there was a public outcry and demand for a Royal Commission which was then set up. Tan Sri Mokhtar also made a false statement that the IP was submitted to him on 19.11.98. I believe that Tan Sri Gani Patail had full knowledge of the false contents of this press statement.
9. I believe Tan Sri Musa Hassan and Tan Sri Gani Patail were present in Bukit Aman on 20 September 1998 and knew about the assault by Tan Sri Rahim Noor on me. Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani further concealed the fact of the assault on me from the public until my black eye and injuries were revealed in court.
10. I believe both Tan Sri Musa and Tan Sri Gani Patail were actively involved in the procuring of the second undated report by Dr Rahman which makes false and incredible conclusions such as “the pattern and nature of the injuries are not consistent with a direct blow”, “accidental nature of the injuries could not be ruled out” and “self-inflicted nature of the injury should be considered”. They gave the instructions to Dr Rahman to proceed to write this second report and were acting under the direction and/or jointly with Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah.
11. These facts show that Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Tan Sri Gani Patail and SAC II Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim (who, according to Dr Rahman’s second report, accompanied him to the cell in Bukit Aman where I was detained and participated in the so-called reconstruction of the scene) conspired with Dr Rahman to procure the production of this second report. This was done so that my police report of 27.9.98 in respect of the assault would be regarded as a false police report for which I could be charged, or at the very least, to damage my credibility, so as to affect my defence in the other criminal cases where I was charged for so-called “corruption” and sodomy to facilitate a conviction.
12. I wish to point out that Tan Sri Gani Patail was the senior prosecutor assisting Tan Sri Mokhtar in the prosecution against me. Tan Sri Musa Hassan was the Investigating Officer for my prosecution. I also believe, that in an unprecedented manner, an operation room specially for my prosecution was set up at Bukit Aman’s compound where all these individuals would meet regularly.
13. This is not the first time that allegations of fabricating evidence had surfaced in connection with Tan Sri Gani Patail. I am informed that in the Federal Court decision Zainur bin Zakaria v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 MLJ, Steve Shim CJ in delivering his judgment pointed out that “… was he not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that Tan Sri Gani Patail’s conduct at the meeting on 2.10.1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him for other alleged sexual offences?” The references to “he” and “him” in that sentence are references to myself.
14. In relation to the above, I refer to the following documents which will be of assistance to the police:
1. The press statement by Tan Sri Mokhtar issued on 5.1.99.
2. The notes of proceedings in the report of the Royal Commission of the evidence of Dr Rahman
3. The second undated report produced by Dr Rahman exhibited in the Royal Commission report.
15. I call for a fresh investigation into the fabrication of evidence in this case which I am advised is an offence contrary to section 192 of the Penal Code punishable up to 7 years imprisonment. I ask that all the persons who are implicated in the procuring of this second report by Dr Rahman i.e. Tan Sri Gani Patail, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Dr Rahman and Datuk Mat Zain bin Ibrahim be investigated thoroughly so that the truth is known and the offending individuals punished.
ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM
1st July 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)