Friday, May 2, 2008

Artikel 'Altantuya' Malaysia Today: Kenyataan Pejabat Najib & RPK's Reply

(Pimpinan PR, PAStikan Rakyat DAPat KeAdilan!)
(Rakyat, Teruskan Lonjakkan Minda!)

KLpos.com
Artikel 'Altantuya' dalam Malaysia Today: Pejabat Najib buat kenyataan

Oleh Agendadaily
Khamis, 01 Mei 2008
PEJABAT Timbalan Perdana Menteri telah menghantar satu kenyataan kepada pengendali laman web Malaysia Today untuk menafikan berbagai dakwaan dalam artikel di bawah tajuk “ Let’s Send Altantuya’s Murderers To Hell” yang disiarkan di laman itu pada 25 April yang lalu yang mengaitkan Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan isterinya Datin Sri Rosman Mansor dengan pembunuhan wanita Mongolia itu.

Menurut kenyataan bertarikh 29 April yang ditandatangani oleh Setiausaha Akhbar kepada Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad memandangkan tuduhan-tuduhan liar yang dilemparkan terhadap Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu adalah sangat serius dan membawa kesan negatif terhadap maruah dan imejnya, beliau tidak akan teragak-agak untuk mengambil tindakan undang-undang terhadap pihak yang bertanggungjawab.

Berikut ialah kenyataan penuh itu:
1. Saya ingin merujuk kepada rencana yang disiarkan pada laman web tuan di bawah tajuk “ Let’s Send Altantuya’s Murderers To Hell” pada 25 April yang lalu.

Untuk makluman pembaca laman web tuan, saya membuat kenyataan ini untuk menjelaskan perkara sebenar, memandangkan ada sindiran- sindiran dan juga komen-komen yang tidak berasas yang dilontarkan terhadap Timbalan Perdana Menteri Dato Sri Mohd Najib Tun Razak serta isterinya, Datin Sri Rosmah Mansor.

2. Artikel tersebut menuduh bahawa kononnya Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan isterinya ada kaitan dengan pembunuhan seorang wanita Mongolia; bahawa kononnya Timbalan Perdana Menteri pernah menyokong permohonan visa wanita itu; bahawa kononnya rekod imigresen wanita itu telah sengaja dihapuskan dan kononnya ada gambar yang dirakamkan (menunjukkan Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan isterinya) bersama dengan wanita Mongolia itu.

Kesemua kenyataan ini merupakan kenyataan padang-dengar (hearsay) yang tidak pernah dibuktikan, tetapi pihak tuan sewenang-wenangnya menyiarkan kenyataan seperti itu seolah-olah ianya fakta, dan menjelaskan pendirian pihak tuan, dengan menyebut “ kami juga telah melaksanakan perbicaraan kami sendiri di mahkamah pendapat umum, dan kami telah mencapai keputusan kami sendiri.”

3. Rencana berkenaan juga menggambarkan seolah-olah penyiasatan polis dalam kes ini penuh kelemahan dan kecacatan serta proses perundangan berkaitan kes ini juga dikompromi dengan tujuan menyembunyikan pesalah sebenar dalam kes itu.

Gambaran ini pihak tuan nyatakan dengan ayat “ show trial in the Kangaroo Court”dalam rencana terbabit.. Walaupun pada hakikatnya tuduhan-tuduhan dalam kes ini adalah tertakluk dalam bidang kuasa polis dan institusi kehakiman, Timbalan perdana Menteri berhak untuk mengulangi pendiriannya dalam “mahkamah pendapat umum’ ini bahawa beliau tidak pernah kenal, malah tidak pernah bertemu dengan mangsa dalam kes bunuh ini.

Maka segala tuduhan-tuduhan liar yang mengaitkan Timbalan Perdana Menteri , sama ada secara langsung atau secara sindiran, adalah tidak lain dan tidak bukan berniat jahat untuk mencemarkan nama baik Timbalan Perdana Menteri pada mata rakyat Malaysia.

4. Dakwaan seorang saksi dalam perbicaraan kes Altantuya bahawa konon-kononnya si mati pernah makan bersama dengan Razak Baginda dan individu bernama “Najib Razak” tidak pernah disahkan, malah kredibiliti saksi itu juga tidak pernah diteliti.

Dakwaan kononnya ada gambar si mati dengan Razak dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri juga tidak pernah dibuktikan oleh mana-mana pihak melainkan gambar rekaan yang terbukti palsu serta dibuat dan dikeluarkan oleh Ketua Penerangan PKR, Tian Chua.

Jika benar gambar seperti yang didakwa itu wujud, mengapakah ia tidak dibawa ke dalam perbicaraan kes bunuh itu sebagai bahan bukti? Apakah “gambar” yang ghaib itu hanya boleh dijadikan bukti dalam “mahkamah pandangan umum” yang disebut dalam rencana itu?

5. Butiran kes, mengenai penglibatan Razak Baginda dan dua anggota polis yang dituduh, akan terungkai sepenuhnya dalam perbicaraan kes ini.

Saya ingin menyatakan di sini bahawa dakwaan kononnya kes pembunuhan Altantuya ini pula bersangkut paut dengan pembelian kapal selam oleh Kerajaan Malaysia adalah tidak berasas sama sekali dan dakwaan itu dibuat semata-mata untuk menjadikan dongengan yang timbul sekitar kes ini lebih menarik.

6. Dato Sri Najib sekian lama menahan dan mengelak dari membuat sebarang kenyataan tentang kes ini kerana ia melibatkan tuduhan terhadap individu-individu yang beliau kenali.

Sebarang kenyataan daripada beliau sudah tentu mengundang pelbagai tafsiran atau dianggap sebagai mencampuri urusan mahkamah, memandangkan perbicaraan kes itu sedang berlangsung.

Suka diingatkan di sini bahawa pernah berlaku dalam sejarah negara ini, seorang bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri didapati bersalah atas tuduhan menyalahguna kuasa apabila beliau cuba menutup penyiasatan salahlaku seksual terhadap dirinya.

7. Seperti yang dinyatakan sendiri oleh tuan dalam rencana itu, ada isu berkaitan “subjudice” dan penghinaan mahkamah, apabila membincangkan kes ini secara terbuka.

Semua pihak, termasuk Dato Sri Najib, rakyat Malaysia, dan juga pelawat asing yang berada di Malaysia perlu menghormati undang-undang dan peraturan negara ini dan dalam konteks kes ini, menghormati undang-undang dan peraturan tersebut bermaksud tidak membuat pelbagai spekulasi atau kenyataan tentang kes yang sedang dibicarakan.

Justeru, amatlah tidak adil tuduhan-tuduhan liar dan tidak berasas berkaitan perkara yang sebegitu serius dilemparkan sewenang-wenangnya terhadap Timbalan Perdana Menteri bagi tujuan menjatuhkan maruahnya pada pandangan umum.

8. Dalam rencana tuan, ada disebut “hal ini bukan hal politik dan tidak harus diuruskan sebagai hal politik”. Timbalan Perdana Menteri amat bersetuju dengan pandangan ini dan berpendapat bahawa kes ini perlu mendedahkan kebenaran, dan diselesaikan dengan seadil-adilnya.

Namun begitu, jelas sekali ada pihak yang tidak berminat untuk mendapatkan pengadilan yang sebenar untuk Altantuya. Sebaliknya mereka hanya berminat dengan aspek politik kes Altantuya ini.

Harapan saya agar pembaca-pembaca laman web tuan dapat membezakan antara apa yang benar, separuh benar, dan apa yang sebenarnya pembohongan dan penipuan yang nyata. Maklum sahajalah, seseorang ahli politik itu diadili di “mahkamah pandangan umum”.

9. Akhir sekali, ingin saya tegaskan di sini, bahawa, memandangkan tuduhan-tuduhan liar yang dilemparkan terhadap Timbalan Perdana Menteri itu adalah sangat serius dan membawa kesan negatif terhadap maruah dan imejnya, beliau tidak akan teragak-agak untuk mengambil tindakan undang-undang terhadap pihak yang bertanggungjawab.

Terima kasih.

Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad
Setiausaha Akhbar Kepada Timbalan Perdana Menteri


JAWAPAN KEMBALI RAJA PETRA KEPADA DATUK TENGKU SARIFFUDDIN TENGKU AHMAD

My reply to Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

First of all, thank you for writing to Malaysia Today. (Read letter here). As promised, I have published your letter in toto without any amendments, additions, deletions, or ‘touch up’, though I felt some improvement to the language may have been necessary. Nevertheless, I was very careful in not ‘doctoring’ any parts

of your letter lest I open myself to accusations of any sort.

I must admit I am pleased and honoured that the Press Secretary of the Deputy Prime Minister and likely future Prime Minister would take the trouble to write to Malaysia Today. As I have said so many times in the past, the only way to deal with the independent media is to engage it, not ignore it, for you ignore it at your own peril. And note that I have used the term ‘independent’ media and not ‘alternative’ media or ‘opposition’ media -- because that is exactly what we are. In fact, what you call the ‘mainstream’ media, today, could actually be called the alternative media.

Now, on the points in your letter. A ‘trial’ by court of public opinion has been what we, the Rakyat, have had to rely on since 1998. Some say that the judiciary has in fact been compromised since 1988 after the sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas and his fellow judges. The fact that these half a dozen or so judges were recently honoured in a dinner graced by the Prime Minister where Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that the government will spend millions of the taxpayers’ money to pay these judges their 20 years back-pay confirms that the Abdullah government, in which Dato Sri Mohd Najib Tun Razak is part of, agrees with the court of public opinion’s view of events that happened 20 years ago.

This opinion is of course strengthened by your very own de facto Law Minister’s statement, barely a few days after taking office, that the government should apologise to Tun Salleh and his fellow judges. This was of course shot down by the Cabinet, and instead of an apology, they are being paid millions of Ringgit, which Najib said should not be interpreted as an apology. Maybe Najib is right when he says that if the government pays out millions of Ringgit of the taxpayers’ money this should be only taken as 20 years back-pay and not be taken as an apology. Nevertheless, this still tantamount to an admission that the judges had been wrongfully dismissed, apology or no apology.

We must also not forget the statement by Justice Kamil when he delivered his judgement in the Likas election petition case. Yang Arif admitted that he always receives instructions from the top before he delivers his judgement on important or crucial cases. Justice Kamli also said that he is not the only judge to receive such instructions but that many other judges are also subjected to interference and instructions from the top and that they are told how they should rule. When asked who this person from the top is, he replied that we should know whom it is he means and he left it at that. No one had any misgivings as to whom Justice Kamil meant.

One very respected retired Chief Justice, who is known as an extremely straight and no-nonsense chap, remarked, if he had to be tried in court, he would not like it to be in a Malaysian court. He further remarked that the windscreens of the cars of judges are blacked-out not for security reasons but because the judges are ashamed to be seen by the public. This is coming from someone who is placed above normal men and when someone of that calibre makes such statements how can the public not feel that the Malaysian judiciary can no longer be trusted? As they say, let you be judged by your peers, and the judiciary’s peers have made their ruling.

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

To argue that we should leave this matter to the courts to decide is just not on. It can never be on until we see genuine and real reforms in the judiciary. And when the talk amongst legal circles is that, in September, the President of the Court of Appeal will take over as the new Chief Justice, this just erodes our confidence in the judiciary even further. Putting Umno’s lawyer in charge of the judiciary is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse or, as the Malays would say, putting the kambing in charge of the sireh. And you want us to leave it to the courts to decide? When you have highly-respected judges and retired Chief Justices openly condemning the Malaysian judiciary what do you expect the lesser-learned Rakyat like us to do?

Of course, you will say that one is innocent until proven guilty. That is a beautiful concept. However, if you believe such a thing is possible in Malaysia, then you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well. Do you remember Anwar Ibrahim’s trial ten years ago? Anwar was tried in a court of public opinion when they paraded that mattress in and out of court every day. What happened to that mattress? It was never part of the evidence and eventually just quietly disappeared out of sight. Was that not grandstanding for the media and TV cameras?

In Anwar’s case, he was not innocent until proven guilty. Though the Malaysian judicial system, which follows the British and not the French system, stipulates that a man is innocent until proven guilty, Anwar was assumed guilty and he was made to prove his innocence. The onus should be on the court to prove guilt but in Anwar’s case he was considered guilty and he had to prove his innocence. And the judge sent Anwar to jail because, according to the judge, Anwar had failed to prove his innocence.

We are therefore using the same ‘burden of proof’ on the present Deputy Prime Minister just like what the previous Deputy Prime Minister was subjected to. If this system of ‘prove you are innocent or else we have to assume you are guilty’ was good enough for Anwar then it is certainly good enough for Najib. Why should there be different standards between one Deputy Prime Minister and another? Should there not be one standard for all?

Note that Malaysia has a law called the Internal Security Act. When you are detained under this law, you are assumed guilty until you can prove you are innocent. And if you fail to prove your innocence then you are detained without trial indefinitely. Some Malaysians have spent more than 20 years under detention because the hapless person was not able to prove his innocence. Ahmad Boestaman, the famous Malay nationalist and independence fighter, was detained for 14 years or so. You may remember him. His son, Rustam Sani, died recently.

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

I must remind you that I too was arrested on Hari Raya Haji Day in 2001 after I walked into the police station to be with my wife who had earlier been arrested. Her ‘crime’ was for trying to help an old woman who had a knee injury and who was struggling to walk up a hill. The police arrested my wife, the poor old woman, and her daughter.

When I walked into the police station, Bakri Zinin, the current CID Director, assaulted me when I attempted to step outside to make a phone call. I was trying to step outside because a policeman shouted at me that I am not allowed to make a phone call inside the police station. But when I tried to step outside as instructed, Bakri assaulted me. He then instructed his officers to arrest me.

When I asked what my crime was and as to the reason I was being arrested, they told me they will think of something later. In the meantime they will arrest me first. I then insisted I be allowed to make a police report against Bakri but they refused to take my report. When I refused to accept no for an answer, they reluctantly took my report but nothing further was done after that. That police report made on Hari Haji Day of 2001 is probably no longer in the file.

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

I am glad you talk about respect for the law. I just wish you and Najib had said the same thing when they beat me up, handcuffed me, and threw me into the lockup without a charge back in 2001. Will I be accorded justice as well just like how you and Najib want to see justice done? Will Bakri Zinin be taken to task for beating me and for arresting me without any charge? Thus far, the only action taken against him is that he has been promoted from OCPD Dang Wangi to Director CID. Let us talk about justice when I see justice done to me as well. Until then we shall rule by law of public opinion, as that appears to be the only ‘system’ available to us.

I understand the concept of subjudice when commenting on an ongoing trial. So allow me to comment only on what the mainstream newspapers have already covered. The mainstream newspapers reported about a green Suzuki Vitara. The registration plate of the car was also mentioned in that newspaper report. Malaysia Today traced the owner of this car to an address in Ijok. On further checking with the SPR registration, it was confirmed that this person exists and his name, address and IC number tally with that in the JPJ registration.

The house exists and the neighbours confirm that the person concerned does live there and that the green Suzuki Vitara has been seen in front of the house. This, according to the newspapers, is the car that took Altantuya away after she was arrested in front of Razak Baginda’s house and taken to Bukit Aman.

Has this man been picked up? And, if not, then why since Altantuya was last seen alive driving off with him? Malaysia Today has revealed his name, address and IC number. And this man’s neighbours in Ijok confirm his existence and that of the car. Note that this was raised in the trial and was reported by the mainstream newspapers. So this is not mere insinuations and innuendoes.

In an interview in 2002 or 2003, Razak Baginda confirmed that his company brokered the submarine deal. He even mentioned the commission he had earned. This matter was confirmed by Razak himself and is documented in that interview. So this is also no insinuation or innuendo. And have we forgotten Razak’s wife’s outburst when she said that her husband is innocent and that it is not he who wants to become the next Prime Minister? Was Razak’s wife talking about Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Anwar Ibrahim or Khairy Jamaluddin? And was not Razak’s wife once a magistrate who would therefore know the law and know what constitutes subjudice?

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

I can go on but let the above suffice for the meantime. The issue of the changing of the judge after the filing of the Affidavit during the bail hearing (which was raised by Karpal Singh), the defence lawyers resigning because of threats from certain people (which Zulkifli Nordin confirmed), the changing of the entire prosecuting team the morning of the trial (which the prosecutor admitted when he asked for a one-month postponement) , and much more are all documented and are on public record. Let the court of public opinion decide whether Malaysia Today is merely raising what is already well-documented or whether Malaysia Today is dabbling in insinuations and innuendoes.

Again, I thank you for your letter and really appreciate you taking the time to write to us. Let us together, in the spirit of Islam, the religion we profess, seek the truth and oppose transgressions -- as made mandatory by Islam under the concept of amar maaruf, nahi munkar. From God we come and to God we shall return. And we shall be made accountable for all that we have done on this earth. And, in the eyes of God, those defending kemunkaran will be as guilty as those committing it. Let us not fear man for man proposes but God disposes. And nothing will befall us that God has not planned will befall us. Subjudice and contempt of court are creations of man that will not carry any weight in God’s court. So fear God because man even as powerful as Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers will be powerless to help you in God’s court where we shall all ultimately be judged.

Yours truly,

Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin



HARI SABTU PAKAI KUNING! / WEAR YELLOW ON SATURDAYS!
Lawati laman 10November di http://10nov. himpunan. info/
Lawati laman Bersih di http://bersih. org/


*****.*****

Daripada Abu Umarah iaitu al-Bara' bin 'Azib radhiallahu anhuma, katanya: "Kita semua diperintah oleh Rasulullah s.a.w. untuk melakukan tujuh perkara, iaitu meninjau orang sakit, mengikuti janazah, menentasymitkan orang yang bersin, menolong orang yang lemah, membantu orang yang teraniaya, meratakan salam dan melaksanakan sumpah."

(Muttafaq 'alaih)

No comments: