Is Sivarasa’s response shedding any light?

FMT LETTER, From Kevin Fernandez, via e-mail

In Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK)’s recent three episode exposé of the PI Bala’s disposition as a card carrier for Abdul Razak Baginda is rather astonishing. What bewilders is the ability to resonate with RPK’s claims and Sivarasa Rasiah’s response to the former’s accusations.

For an instance RPK questioned what was Bala’s alleged involvement with this company called Perimekar. One would question, why Bala was first of all a nominated director of the company in a report submitted by the French authorities, for which, Sivarasa did furnish us with inadequate information.

Sivarasa however, discredits RPK because of his recent interview stints with TV3 and NST. Sivarasa does concede that RPK was in fact an attendee at meetings held by Bala and M Puravalen.

Though Sivarasa further elucidates that Bala’s lawyer was also present at the meeting, but why would Bala then have meetings at the PKR headquarters. Bewildering as it may seem, is Bala paid off by opposition parties to make certain claims to taint the picture of the then would be PM?

What it has certainly done is further taint a picture of the opposition’s disposition as a defender of civil liberalities. As a law maker, Sivarasa with vested interest (Suaram co-founder, law maker and future MP) at his capacity should have not met with PI Bala in the first place if there was a need to fulfil their gustatory necessitates. If he did, there seems to be too much smoke alarms in these inflammatory claims.

Secondly, PI Bala’s character seems so questionable. For one, he had a stake in the company. Did he fall out of favour? Was there vested interest to relive the Shaariibuu murder? Has that been backfired by RPK’s claims?

Unless one gets it right, RPK has nothing to lose or gain from his recent expose but Sivarasa and PI Bala has more to lose.