The consistency of inconsistency (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)

ARCHIVES 2013

By MT Webmaster On Mar 26, 2013

Let me explain it this way. I make an allegation that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once told me that he has evidence that Anwar Ibrahim is gay. I then ask the police to investigate Dr Mahathir. The police then arrest and charge for the crime of defaming Anwar. Did I make an allegation against Anwar or did I make an allegation against Dr Mahathir? And are Dr Mahathir and Anwar government officers?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

A-G has no power, desire, guts or clearance?

Ravinder Singh, The Malaysian Insider

What rubbish is the Attorney-General talking “I have no power to investigate Bala’s SD2”? So who has the power, or has nobody such power? Are we to believe that feudalism still holds sway in Malaysia?

The case is about the two police officers Sirul Azhar and Azilah Hadri who were sentenced to death. Has the case against them been proven beyond doubt? SD2 casts a very serious doubt on their guilt. They may have pulled the trigger, wrapped the corpse in C4 and ignited it, but all this by itself does not prove their guilt. It must be shown that they had a motive to do what they did. If the intention to annihilate all traces of Altantuya Shaariibuu was not theirs, then they cannot be sentenced to death even though they pulled the trigger.

It was mandatory for the court to find the motive for their doing so. This the court did not do. Instead it came out with a novel argument that MOTIVE was not relevant. This was to camouflage its refusal to find the motive, not that motive is no longer relevant in all criminal proceedings in this country. Why? Did the court have the power to take it upon itself to overrule the requirement to discover the motive for the crime before passing sentence? Do courts not have to adhere to all the principles of justice in carrying out their duties?

Could the learned A-G please explain to Malaysians why MOTIVE is not relevant in this particular case while it is all-important in all other criminal cases? Please show us where is the court’s power to overrule the requirement to discover the motive, the basic ingredient of a criminal case.

The confession by the senior lawyer who prepared the SD2 is new evidence. Any new evidence coming to light, even decades later, must be investigated. That is the hallmark of a justice system that upholds justice.

In the murder case of Jean Perera Sinnappa, a witness who gave false evidence confessed to it a few days later. Why could that case be re-opened and re-investigated? As a result, the person sentenced to death was freed and the confessor jailed for giving false evidence. Is the A-G saying that the power which the A-G or the court had at that time has been removed by some amendment to some law? And if so, please tell us the rationale for removing that power to re-open cases (especially involving the death penalty) when new evidence, in any form, surfaces?

Of all people, the A-G should know and uphold the adage that justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done. The court’s ruling that MOTIVE was irrelevant in this case only shows that justice was not seen to have been done. Now the A-G’s refusal to take cognizance of the senior lawyer’s confession and re-open the case is further evidence that justice is not seen to be done. There is a Malay saying: “Jika hendak seribu daya, jika tidak seribu dalih”. So, dear A-G, if you want it you can do it!

When lives are at stake, should our justice system be so cruel as to arrogantly shut the door to justice by giving all manner of excuses which are aptly described in Malay as “tak masuk akal”?

********************************************

Ravinder Singh’s letter to The Malaysian Insider makes interesting reading indeed. I am not sure whether this chap is a lawyer and not being a lawyer myself I can’t comment on his legal arguments. What I do want to comment about, however, is regarding the inconsistency between how the Attorney-General (AG) handled P.I. Bala’s Statutory Declaration (SD) and how he handled mine, which were both more or less about the same matter.

When I signed my SD the month before Bala signed his, the AG reacted very differently from the way he reacted (and is still reacting) regarding Bala’s SD. Bala was also treated differently. Bala was given a Malaysian passport and was allowed to leave the country and later allowed to return to Malaysia many times — and eventually for good — while I am not being allowed a Malaysian passport.

Anyway, that could be because Bala left the country ‘legally’ while I did not — I sneaked out. Hence I committed a crime while Bala did not — which means he can be allowed a passport and also allowed back into Malaysia while I cannot. I can understand that.

Anyway, that is not the point. The point I want to discuss is that the very next day after an Umno Blogger revealed that I had signed the SD (which was supposed to be confidential and hence I do not know how the Umno Blogger got his hands on it) the AG announced that I had signed a false SD and that they (the AG’s office) will be taking action against me.

First of all, this was what the Blogger reported. The AG had not even seen a copy of that SD yet. Hence he did not know at that time whether such a SD even existed. Nevertheless, he already announced that the SD was false and that they would take action against me for signing a false SD.

The AG’s office had also not started any investigation yet — not only whether this SD existed or not but whether what was mentioned in that SD was true or false. However, even without confirming the existence of this SD and, if it did, whether the contents were true or not, he announced that they would be taking action against me for signing a false SD.

The very next day, without investigating whether the SD did or did not exist and whether the contents were true or not, the IGP also announced that the SD is false and that the police were going to charge me for signing a false SD.

How did both the AG and IGP know I had signed a false SD? They had not even started any investigation yet. It was not until the following week that the police called me in for my statement to be recorded. And my statement was recorded based on a so-called police report made against me.

Now, according to the AG and IGP, my crime is for signing a false SD — a SD that they had not even seen yet and which they did not know whether it existed or not since it was supposed to be confidential and for the eyes of only the Prosecutors in the Altantuya murder trial. However, when they brought me to court to charge me, they did not charge me for the crime of signing a false SD. They charged me for the crime of criminal defamation.

First of all, how did they know I had committed criminal defamation? They never interrogated or took the statements of those people mentioned in the SD. How could they come to the conclusion that I had defamed those three people I was charged with defaming? Are they clairvoyant?

Secondly, criminal defamation applies only when you defame a government officer in the execution of his/her duties. Is Rosmah Mansor, the wife of the then Deputy Prime Minister, a government officer? Even now, as the so-called ‘First Lady’, she is not a government officer. So how could I be charged for criminally defaming her?

As for the husband-and-wife Lt. Col. team, they may be government/army officers, but were they on duty at the time I alleged that they were at the site of Altantuya’s murder? Isn’t it damaging to the government to admit that after midnight on the night of Altantuya’s murder they were still on duty? What were their ‘duties’ after midnight on the night Altantuya was murdered?

Hence, if the government thinks that I had signed a false SD, then why not charge me for that crime rather than for some other crime that I did not commit? I mean, if I robbed a bank then charge me for the crime of robbing the bank. Why charge me for the crime of fraud and say that I misled the bank teller into handing over the money that does not belong to me. The crime is robbery, not fraud.

And the third and more troubling part of this whole thing is that I was alleged to have defamed Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Even if I am guilty of defaming someone, it is not Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. I had defamed. I defamed a fourth person — who I was never charged for defaming. I defamed the number two of the military intelligence that I alleged had made that allegation against Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols.

Hence, even if I did commit a crime of criminal defamation, it is not Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. I defamed but the number two in the military intelligence, who I was never charged for defaming.

And that was why when they charged me in court I refused to reply to the charge, which took the court by surprise. I told the court that the charge was defective plus mala fide. Charge me for criminal defamation if you wish but not for defaming Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Charge me for defaming the number two of the military intelligence.

I refused to stand trial on a bogus charge. Hence I refused to answer to that charge. The court can, if it so wishes, then send me to jail. I was prepared for that. However, the court refused to accept my refusal to answer to that charge and instead insisted that they take that as a plea of not guilty.

I was furious. I shouted at the judge and told him that I did not enter a plea of not guilty. The judge ignored me and set bail. I refused to accept bail and instead walked out of court and headed straight for the lockup below with the police officer chasing after me while trying to persuade me to stay in court and accept bail.

For two years I tried explaining that I never made any allegation against Rosmah and the two Lt. Cols. Instead, I had made an allegation against the number two of the military intelligence. Why, therefore, was I arrested and charged for something I did not do? Why not charge me for a crime I did commit — if the government is of the view that I had committed a crime?

But all this fell on deaf ears. Finally, I went on TV3 to explain exactly as I had written above. This interview was done in Perth, Australia, after consultation with a few friends who were in Sydney together with me. These friends thought it was a good idea that I go on TV and explain the details.

Of course, today, that TV3 interview has been interpreted as me having done a U-turn. I don’t know in what way I did a U-turn. In fact, a copy of that SD was shown in that TV interview. So we are still talking about the same SD, not a new SD or SD2 like in Bala’s case.

What TV3 wanted to know is what were the circumstances and reasons behind me signing that SD. So I explained what happened and the reason why I signed the SD. This, however, has been interpreted as me withdrawing that SD.

I did not withdraw the SD. Instead, I explained the story behind that SD. And when the Malaysian police met up with me in the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, soon after that TV interview to record my statement, I repeated what I had said in that TV3 interview without changing one bit of my story and I signed that police statement.

The AG says he has no power or authority to take action on Bala’s SD2. But he did take action on my SD. And the action he took was against me. Bala, no doubt, has since died. But Bala was in the country a few weeks before he died. Yet the AG did nothing. And if Bala had not died the AG would most likely still do nothing.

Why is that? And why was Bala allowed back into the country and allowed to travel all over the country to give talks all over the place? I would never have been allowed the same. Why?

Is it because they had made a deal with Bala? In that case, what deal did they make with him? I am beginning to suspect that they are not giving Bala the same treatment that they are giving me.

Okay, you can say that my SD is based on hearsay. You can argue that what I said was what someone told me and not what I saw with my own eyes. But was not Bala’s SD also based on hearsay? His SD was about what Razak Baginda and Altantuya told him, not what he personally saw. That is also hearsay, just like what I said.

When Bala signed his first SD he was considered a hero. Even Anwar Ibrahim gave him red carpet treatment at the PKR headquarters. When he signed his second SD, he was called an Indian Pariah, a turncoat, a traitor, etc., and was nicknamed ‘Bala U-turn’. Then he again did a U-turn and said that SD1 is true while SD2 is false. And, again, he became a hero and was given red carpet treatment and garlanded.

Signing two contradicting SDs is a serious crime. Why does the AG say he has no power and authority to do anything? And if the AG is powerless to take action until and unless a police report has been made, many police reports have already been made. The AG can pick and choose from the many police reports to take action against Bala. Why did he not do this?

And if the AG really has no power or authority to take action, why then did he take action against me and announce that he is taking action against me even before he could confirm the existence of the SD and confirm the authenticity of that SD, if it did exist?

Many people, especially those from the opposition, scream about justice, good governance, selective prosecution, and whatnot. Actually, these people do not even know what that means. If they really mean what they say then they can clearly see that the manner the AG handled Bala and the manner he handled me are glaringly based on two different standards of justice.

And if you were really a believer in justice, then you would focus on what I said in my SD and not what you imagine I said or wish I had said. And because of this I no longer believe that the opposition people are true proponents of justice. They twist what I had said and allege I had said what I did not say. And this makes the opposition exactly like the government we are trying to kick out.

If you believe that a lie is okay as long as we lie about the government and not lie about the opposition, then your fight is not my fight. That is the plain and simple truth of my perjuangan.

Some of you say I have turned. Of course I have turned. I have turned against those in the opposition who behave just like those in the government. And being a victim of these untruths I, of all people, should know this.

************************************

@font-face { font-family: “宋体”; }@font-face { font-family: “Calibri”; }@font-face { font-family: “SimSun”; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }strong { }em { }p { margin-right: 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }span.st { }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

不一致中的一致

让我给你一个简单易懂的例子。我，RPK，对外宣称，马哈迪告诉我说他有证据证明安华是同性恋。我要求警方去调查马哈迪讲的东西。然后警察就来控告我刑事诽谤了安华。请问，我RPK到底是诽谤了马哈迪还是诽谤了安华呢？还有，马哈迪和安华是政府人员吗？

原文：Raja Petra Kamarudin

译文：方宙

这篇由Ravinder Singh 写给 The Malaysian Insider 的信的确是很有意思。我不清楚他是不是一个律师，但我无法就他的法律论点上给任何看法，因为我不是个律师。不过，在首席检察官（Attorney-General，AG）以不同方式处理我和巴拉（Bala）私家侦探于阿丹都亚案的法定宣誓书（Statutory Declaration ，SD）（我们俩的SD所谈及的内容大致都一样）的行为上，我有我的看法。

我比Bala早一个月签下了我的SD，而AG对我们俩的反应是很不同的（现在他的反应也还是很不同）：Bala可以用他的马来西亚护照自由的进出—-而最后他永远地留在（死在）马来西亚—-而我则不被允许使用我的马来西亚护照。

或许AG这样的反应是因为我犯罪了吧：Bala他‘合法’的出境，而我则‘偷偷’的出境。所以，Bala被允许应用他的护照，而我则不能，这一点我能够理解。

不管怎样，这不是这篇文章的重点。我要讲的是，就在某个巫统博客说出我已经签了SD的第二天，AG就宣布我签了假的SD，他要采取行动对付我（我签SD是件很保密的事情，我不知道那个博客是从哪得到消息）。

当时那个博客只是空讲，AG根本就没有看过我的SD，所以他根本就不知道那份SD是否真的存在。但，他还是宣布那份SD是假的而要对付我。

AG办公室当时根本都没有进行任何调查—-他们连到底这份SD是否存在也不知道，而SD的内容是否有如巫统博客报导般也不清楚。就这样，AG决定我将会被对付

到了第三天，也在没有任何调查下，总警长（Inspector-General of Police ，IGP）也来掺一脚，宣布说我的SD是假的，警方会把我提控。

请问，AG和IGP是怎样知道我签了一份假的SD？他们根本都还没有进行任何调查。直到一个星期过去了，警方才传召我去录口供。而我被传召的原因仅仅是因为有人向警方报案。

好，现在AG和IGP说我的罪是我签了一份假的SD—-一份他们根本都还没有看到过，都还不清楚是否真的存在的SD（那份SD严格来讲应该是很机密的，而且只有阿丹都亚案的检查官才能看到）。然而，他们最终把我控上了法庭，但罪名不是签了假的SD，而是刑事诽谤。

问题第一点，他们是怎样知道我诽谤他人呢？他们从没有把SD里边提及到的有关人士请来问话，那他们是怎样做出结论的呢？他们是有千里眼吗？

第二点，刑事诽谤是当被诽谤人士为（A）政府人员和（B）正在执行公务才有效的。那请问，罗斯玛，我们的首相夫人，是政府人员吗？直到现在我们所谓的‘第一夫人’都还不是政府人员。所以我怎算是在‘刑事’上诽谤了她呢？

对于那对中校军人夫妻档，他们的确是政府人员，但在他们涉案的时间点上，他们是不是已经下班，不再执行公务了？我被控的是刑事诽谤，那就代表政府默认那对夫妻档当时半夜三更出现在阿丹都亚谋杀现场其实是在执行任务，难道这不是政府自己损自己面子吗？那又请问当时他们的‘公务’又是什么呢？

所以说，如果政府认为我真正罪状是签了假的SD，为什么他们不告我那个罪名而是告我一个我根本都没有犯的罪呢？打个比方，如果我打抢银行，就告我‘打抢银行’好啦，你又何必告我‘欺诈银行，用计让银行职员把不属于我的钱拿给我’呢？我是‘打抢’银行，不是‘欺诈’银行。

第三点，也是很复杂的一点，他们指控我诽谤罗斯玛和那两个中校。如果我真的被判诽谤罪的话，我诽谤的根本就不是以上三人；我诽谤的是第四个人，那就是军事情报组的第二号人物，因为我的SD里讲的是‘我宣称，那个军事情报员宣称说罗斯玛与那对夫妻档涉案。

所以，如果我真的诽谤了人家，那绝对不是罗斯玛和那对夫妻。我诽谤的是那个军事情报的第二号人物。但是，就从来没有人告我诽谤那个军事情报员。

这就是为什么我到了法庭后，我拒绝对那个控罪作出任何回应。我对法庭说，他们指控我的，都是恶意和站不住脚的。如果你真的要控我刑事诽谤，那对象应该是那个军事情报组的第二号人物，而不是罗斯玛等三人。

我拒绝为一个假的指控作供，所以我拒绝作出任何回应。法庭当然可以因此而把我丢进监狱里，我其实已经做好准备了。但法庭拒绝接受我的‘拒绝回应’，他们坚持的把我的‘拒绝回应’当成‘不认罪’。

我怒火冲冠的对法官大吼，我并不是‘不认罪’，但法官就是没当一回事，而且开始给我订保释金。我拒绝被保释，然后直接离开法庭并走向楼下的扣留室。警察跟着追了出来劝我回去法庭和接受保释。

两年以来，我不停的解释我从来没有指控过罗斯玛等人；我指控的是军事情报组的第二号人物。那为何我为我没犯的罪而被捉呢？如果政府真的认为我犯罪了，那它应就我所犯的罪提控我。

这一切都被大家当成了耳边风。后来，我和住在澳大利亚的朋友商量过，他们认为上电视解释是个不错的主意。所以，我在珀斯上了TV3的访问。

到今天为止，大家都认为我在那个TV3的访问上出尔反尔。我到现在也搞不懂我到底做了什么出尔反尔的动作。我在访问上亮出了同一张的SD，不是其他的SD，更不是Bala的‘第二张SD’。

TV3 想要了解我签SD的原因和背景，我回答了他们的答案。但，大家都认为这是我收回SD的动作。

我并没有收回那个SD；相反的，我详细的解释了SD背后的故事。当我的访问播出后，警方就约我到曼谷的马来西亚大使馆录口供。我当时一字不改的像警方陈述了我之前跟TV3所说的东西。

AG表示他目前没有权力对Bala的SD采取行动，但他有对我的SD采取行动，而他采取行动的对象正是我。Bala确实已经死了，但他生前的最后几个星期是在马来西亚渡过的，而AG则一点行动也没有。我猜测，即使Bala没有死，AG也还是会按兵不动的。

这是什么状况？Bala他被允许回国，而且还周游全国开演讲会，而我则不能？为什么？

是否有可能他们已达成协议？若真的是那样，那那个协议的内容又是什么？我开始怀疑我和Bala是受到不同的对待。

Okay，你可以说我的SD是道听途说的。你可以说我所宣称的是别人告诉我的而不是我亲眼看见的。但Bala的不也是道听途说的吗？他的SD是针对Razak Baginda 和 Altantuya 对他讲的东西，而非他亲眼看到的。

Bala签下第一张SD时，所有人都当他是英雄。安华甚至还公正党总部铺上红地毯来欢迎他。但当他签下第二张SD来推翻第一张时，大家都骂他为‘无能的印度人’，‘变节’，‘叛徒’等，还给他取了个称号“U转Bala”。然后，他又U转一次，说第二张是假的，第一张才是真的，他又成为了英雄。

签下两张自相矛盾的SD是很严重的刑事罪案，为什么AG会说他没有权力呢？如果说AG要到了警方接到报案才可以行动的话，那就更说不通了；很多人就此报了案，AG有很多报告可以选择来对付Bala。为何AG会静若寒蝉呢？

如果AG确确实实没有权力，那他之前哪来的权力对付我？那还是在他还没掌握充分证据前呢！

有很多人，尤其是反对党，都大打‘正义’，‘廉政’，‘司法公正’的旗子。事实上，他们根本就不懂这些名词的意义。如果他们真的懂的话，他们早就一眼看穿了AG对待我和Bala课题上的双重标准。

如果你真的很正义的话，你会注重我真真确确写在SD上的东西，而不是你认为我会讲（抑或你希望我会讲）的东西。正因如此，我不再相信反对党是正义的拥护者。他们会扭曲我讲的东西，然后指控我讲了我没讲的东西。这样的反对党跟我们现在要踢走的政府又有什么两样呢？

如果你相信对政府散播谣言是可以的，但对反对党就不行，那对不起，我俩志不同道不合。我的斗争就是那么的平白简单。

你们当中有人说我变了。我当然变了，因为反对党现今有一些份子的动作跟政府都是一样的，所以我变得跟这些人不同路了。身为这些谎言的受害者，我，跟所有人比起来，当然是最清楚这点的。