Is the MACC avoiding Bala?
On 17 December 2009, the MACC wrote to private investigator P. Balasubramaniam’s lawyer. On 24 December 2009, the lawyer responded to the MACC letter, which the MACC replied to on 12 January 2010. On 22 January 2010, the lawyer, again, wrote to the MACC. But it appears like the MACC is too busy to reply to the letter or to proceed with the meeting with Bala although he has agreed to meet them. Is the MACC avoiding Bala? How can they establish whether Bala told the truth if the MACC does not interview him?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia,
Blok D6, Kompleks D,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Perseketuan,
62007, Putrajaya,
Attn: En. Abdul Rahman Bachok
24 December 2009
Dear En. Abdul Rahman,
Re: Report lodged by Shamsul Iskandar Mohd. Amin in relation to the recent disclosures by P. Balasubramaniam
I refer to the above matter wherein I act for Mr. Americk Sidhu.
My client informs me that he had, on the 4th December 2009, sent you an email informing you that Mr. P. Balasubramaniam was prepared to assist you in your investigations into the above report subject to certain conditions. The conditions which were listed are as follows:
1. That any interview of Mr. P. Balasubramaniam by MACC be conducted in either Singapore or London.
2. That the date, time and place of the interview be mutually agreed upon to suit all parties.
3. That all necessary air fares be borne by the MACC, including those of counsel involved.
4. That all hotel expenses, subsistence, transportation and meals in respect of Mr. P. Balasubramaniam, Mr. Americk Sidhu and other counsel necessarily present be borne by the MACC.
5. That any statement recorded by your officers be in the English language and a copy thereof be given to Mr. P. Balasubramaniam immediately after the interview has been completed.
6. That an audio visual recording of the interview be taken by our client or his representatives, and a copy thereof be provided to the MACC.
Please note that Mr. Americk Sidhu is not in the Malaysia at the moment and therefore all future correspondence from MACC on this matter should be addressed to this office for my attention.
I look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours sincerely,
Manjeet Singh Dhillon
Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia,
Blok D6, Kompleks D,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Perseketuan,
62007, Putrajaya,
Attn: En. Abdul Rahman Bachok
22 January 2010
Encik Abdul Rahman Bachok,
Re: Report lodged by Shamsul Iskandar Mohd. Amin in relation to the recent disclosures by P. Balasubramaniam
I refer to the above matter and your letter dated 12 January 2010 in reply to my earlier letter dated 24 December 2009. I place on record that your letter was received by pos laju on 19.1.2010.
Several issues need to be clarified before this matter can proceed further.
1. My earlier letter was an open letter to you. You have arbitrarily resorted to labeling your reply ‘Rahsia’ in two separate places on your letter. Please take note that I do not agree to such an arbitrary classification [of secret] by you to an exchange of correspondence between a lawyer and MACC. You have neither a right to append such classification to any such correspondence nor do you have a right to reclassify my letter or its contents into such a category. I fail to understand the need to resort to such classification and would request that you take immediate steps to resend your letter to me without any such ‘Rahsia/Secret’ classification.
2. I will upon receipt of an open letter from you revert with my client’s further instructions on the matters/conditions set out in your letter under reference.
3. In addition you may wish to note that everything Mr. Balasubramaniam has to say has been extensively reported, both in video and audio mode, all over the world. The statement that will be recorded by MACC will as such be exactly the same material albeit in the form and style of a recorded written document. I do not think there is anything new that MACC officers could introduce into the statement that I from some 40 years of experience at the Criminal Bar would have not have seen, considered or questioned in the course of the videoed interview that was broadcast. As such your demand in condition 3 in your letter that the statement recorded from him would be classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 and ‘cannot be provided to him’ is both a preposterous and ridiculous stance more so as the whole of Malaysia already knows the nature and contents of his statement. You have as such neither a legal basis nor a legal right to classify the proposed statement from Mr. Balasubramaniam under the Official Secrets Act 1972. Would you thereafter resort with a similar classification [and threats of OSA prosecutions under the Malaysian Official Secrets Act??] to the same material that is already in his SDs and in the YouTube interviews and in so many world wide blogs, media and net reports? I trust you will see the absurdity of such a demand.
4. You have equally neither a proprietary interest in Balasubramaniam nor his statement, whether as a witness or otherwise. He, and his lawyers, have as much a right to the statement as does anyone interested in the welfare of the nation. I would have thought that the MACC, having learnt a lesson from the Teoh incident, would in this one instance want total transparency in all their actions to show themselves to be an independent body. Acting in secret and in a cloak-and-dagger style invites criticism of unfair play and ‘dirty’ tactics. Surely you would want to avoid that. Mr. Balasubramaniam and his legal team want transparency. Why would MACC want it otherwise?
5. Carrying on from 4 above, MACC should not be afraid to agreeing to a video/audio recording. I again fail to see why when investigative agencies the world over are resorting to comprehensive video/audio recordings of statements to ensure transparency and fair play that the MACC should only want to limit itself to an archaic audio recording. What is that the MACC fears will reveal itself in a video recording that it wants to avoid?
I must stress that 2 to 5 above are not my client’s instructions but are my observations from a legal perspective on MACC’s dubious positioning in your letter. If MACC truly wants justice to be done then it must equally adhere to the precept that it [justice] MUST ALSO BE SEEN TO BE DONE.
I look forward to hearing from you shortly in line with 1 above. I will after receiving your ‘open’ letter revert with my client’s instructions on the forward progress of this matter that means so much to the nation’s health.
Please take note that this is an open letter and NO secrecy applies to its contents.
Yours sincerely,
Manjeet Singh Dhillon
