Response to Razak Baginda’s interview

– Americk Sidhu
The Malaysian Insider
31 January 2015

Rogue police may possibly kill. That has been proved with the convictions of Azilah and Sirul. But the young lady killed in this case was not under remand. So why draw the analogy with the number of deaths in police custody? This does not make sense.

Razak Baginda says he is now willing to speak “from a legal point” as the criminal case involving Azilah and Sirul is over. He fails to explain why he chose to call a press conference shortly after his acquittal in November 2008. See this link.

The criminal case was still in progress then, sans his presence of course.

Why does Razak Baginda keep insisting this case has been politicised and at the same time refers to it as “just another straightforward murder case”? He doesn’t explain why he thinks it is “political”. How has this case been used against Najib? He doesn’t explain.

No one has accused Najib of being involved in this murder. Is this a Freudian slip on his part? Does he know more about this whole sordid affair than he is letting on?

The public are more than curious to know why these two policemen murdered Altantuya. They didn’t even know who she was. Sirul said Azilah referred to her as the “perempuan China”, in his cautioned statement. He couldn’t therefore have known she was a Mongolian citizen when she was taken away outside Razak Baginda’s house on the night of October 19, 2006. No questions seemed to have been asked as to who this young lady was and why they were supposed to kill her.

They both appear to have been acting like automatons. Who wound them up?

Razak Baginda wants people to be “a bit more creative and look at the wider picture”. What exactly does he mean? Isn’t this what the general public are doing? Isn’t it understandable that the general public want to know why these two policemen killed a defenceless young lady for no apparent reason? Isn’t Razak Baginda himself a little curious as to why they would do this with no provocation?

Razak Baginda thinks the truth behind this murder is “simply extremely too boring”. Does he know the truth then? If he does, why not reveal it, boring or not. Let the people be the judge. And yes, he is right when he says people cannot believe these two policemen would murder this young lady for no apparent reason. And yes, people cannot believe these two policemen would so callously shoot and kill this young lady without instructions or an inducement, or both. This is called normal human logic. What Razak Baginda is trying to make us believe is totally illogical.

Razak Baginda erroneously says that the court has determined these two policemen acted on their own accord. This is absolute rubbish. All the court was called upon to do was to determine whether these two policemen committed the murder of one Altantuya Shaaribuu, for which they were charged. The court was not called upon to determine the reason why they committed this murder. The prosecution chose not to lead any evidence as to motive. Therefore we are left in the dark in relation to the background circumstances.

Razak Baginda says the court proceedings were “so transparent”. He does not however make any mention of the fact that before those proceedings began, the judge was changed, the entire prosecution team was changed and all defence counsel were changed. Does he explain why he discharged his first lawyer and family friend, Puravalen, a well-known senior criminal lawyer, in favour of KK Wong? Even Shafee got the boot in between.

Razak Baginda wants us to believe that there is no explanation as to why Altantuya was killed… just as there is no explanation why MH370 went missing. What he conveniently omits to mention is the fact that everyone is still trying to find out where MH370 is.

Similarly, everyone is still trying to find out why these two policemen killed Altantuya for no apparent reason, because this is not normal human behaviour. This is despite what he thinks of the Royal Malaysian Police Force and their propensity to wantonly kill.

Why did Razak Baginda say Bala’s SD 1 was all utter rubbish? He has yet to deny telling Bala about the relationship Altantuya supposedly had with Najib although he had every opportunity to do so at the press conference he held in November 2008 and in the interview he gave to TMI.

What about the rest of the contents of Bala’s SD 1? Is that all rubbish too? Is Bala’s evidence on oath given as the first witness called in the murder trial all rubbish? This evidence is exactly what was said in parts of his SD 1.

Let us turn to the night of October 19, 2006. Altantuya was outside Razak Baginda’s house demanding to see him. He was not at home. Bala was there trying to pacify her. He sent Razak Baginda an SMS informing him Altantuya was there. Razak Baginda sent him an SMS back saying “delay her until my man comes”.

Who was this “man” Razak Baginda was referring to? It was Azilah, was it not? This is because the “man” who turned up 15 minutes later most certainly was Azilah, with Sirul and another police officer Corporal Rohaniza in tow. This trio drove her away and she was never seen again.

When Altantuya’s cousins turned up at Razak Baginda’s house a couple of nights later looking for Altantuya, why did Razak Baginda call Musa Safri and ask him to speak to Bala on his handphone? How and why was Musa Safri involved in all this? Who suggested Razak Baginda contact either Azilah or Musa Safri?

And why were Sirul and Azilah invited guests at Razak Baginda’s house on October 23 or 24, 2006, for a Hari Raya function? Bala was there working until October 26, 2006. He knew who attended that Hari Raya function.

On October 24, 2006, Razak Baginda accompanied Bala to the Brickfields police station to lodge a report over the harassment Razak Baginda was receiving from Altantuya’s cousins regarding her disappearance. Razak Baginda lodged a report in front of ASP Tonny. Razak Baginda was supposed to provide ASP Tonny with a recorded statement but he refused on the grounds he was leaving the country. Razak Baginda promised ASP Tonny that he would prepare a statement himself and download it on a thumb drive to hand over to ASP Tonny. He never did this. Why?

Prior attempts by Bala to persuade Razak Baginda to lodge a police report at the beginning stages of the harassment from Altantuya failed. Why? Apparently Razak Baginda did not want the police involved as there were VIPs involved.

Razak Baginda apparently left Malaysia for Hong Kong on his own on October 26, 2006, one week after the murder. Why?

There is something Razak Baginda has conveniently omitted to mention. Who exactly recommended that he contact Azilah and Musa Safri to assist him in solving the problem Altantuya was posing?

Razak Baginda appears to be coming across as Najib’s protector. He keeps saying Najib is an innocent victim, that Najib has been dealt with unfairly, that this is all a political stunt and that there is no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death.

He does not however explain why he finds it necessary to do this. No one has accused Najib of being involved. Bala in his SD 1 certainly didn’t accuse Najib of having anything to do with the murder of Altantuya. All Bala said in that SD was that Razak Baginda told him about Najib’s involvement with Altantuya. That is all. Razak Baginda has yet to specifically deny he told Bala this. Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 was hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?

Razak Baginda has also conveniently avoided mentioning anything as to why he felt Najib, Rosmah, Nazim Razak, Deepak and a host of other personalities found it necessary to combine their efforts into ensuring Bala and his family were evacuated from this country post haste immediately after SD 1 was released. This doesn’t really lend any credibility to Razak Baginda’s assertion that Najib is an innocent victim of political subterfuge.

What Razak Baginda actually fails to appreciate is Bala’s loyalty to him.

When Bala was interviewed by the press in London in July 2010 at the Holiday Villa, Bayswater (on his own), he volunteered to the reporters there that he thought Razak Baginda had nothing to do with the murders and that he was innocent. Bala felt Razak Baginda was a little naive in thinking those UTK personnel would not harm Altantuya.

Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?

There was also the dinner Bala, Razak Baginda and a lawyer Dhiren Norendra had at Nagar’s Restaurant in Brickfields on October 13, 2006. This dinner was organised by Bala so that Razak Baginda could meet ASP Suresh. Apparently ASP Suresh was to organise the arrest of Altantuya. Unfortunately ASP Suresh did not turn up because he himself had been arrested by the ACA (as it was then known), that very evening.

At that dinner, Razak Baginda specifically told Bala that he was to make sure Altantuya was not harmed in any way. But Razak Baginda did not realise what he was getting into when he became involved with Musa Safri and Azilah.

Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?

So is Razak Baginda now going to “sue the shit” out of me for saying Bala always thought he was innocent. This is something I can’t prove. – January 31, 2015.

* Americk Sidhu is the lawyer who had prepared the first statutory declaration for the late private detective P. Balasubramaniam who was engaged by political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda in 2006.