Be careful what you ask for!

By MT Webmaster On Jan 31, 2015

KTemoc Konsiders

TMI – Why is Razak Baginda protecting Najib over Altantuya’s murder, asks lawyer

Our most learned legal counsellor, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu, is back once again, this time to question Razak Baginda on the latter’s recent views about the Shaariibuu Altantuyaa case.

What was it that Razak said that so annoys Mr Americk Sidhu?

Well, Malaysiakini reported Razak Baginda saying “… Najib was a ‘poor guy’ who became a ‘victim’ of the conspiracy surrounding Altantuya’s murder.”

Razak claimed that Najib had never met Altantuya before, stating:

“Najib never knew the woman. Najib is innocent. If you all think there is a connection, where is the evidence? Let’s not forget that in any situation like this, there are a lot of opportunists out there. We have seen this so many times”.

On P Subramnaiam’s SD, where our learned legal counsellor helped draft, Razak dismissed it, saying:

“All utter rubbish. Anal sex as well. All rubbish. Everyone took the SD as the truth. Furthermore, in the SD, Balasubramaniam says: ‘someone told me’ or ‘I told him’. It’s all hearsay.”

And this mention of ‘hearsay’ was also what had irritated Counsellor Mr Americk Sidhu who commented:

“Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 were hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?”

Well, Mr Americk Singh Sidhu sir, I suppose, nay, I don’t suppose, rather I am aware that “some people” (wakakaka) have taken Bala’s words as gospel truth, forgetting that they were hearsay, so what’s wrong for Razak Baginda to reiterate that legal point?

Surely Razak Baginda has a right to do so inasmuch as “some people” (wakakaka) have been doing otherwise.

Incidentally I’ve also read Razak Baginda saying, when referring to Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, the two police officers convicted of murdering Altantuyaa:

“There are still people out there who are convinced that police cannot do this without instructions.”

“How many people die in remand? The last count was 156 from 2008 and the figure is going up. So who instructed this?‎”

Now the following is interesting. In an interview with TMI, one of the questions with Razak [RB] responding had been:

Q: No fee for her services as interpreter?

RB: What interpreter fee? The whole episode of her being an interpreter is a joke. She can’t even speak French. We are all victims of a political game. And we all fell right into it. It’s a narrative from the beginning – the murder, Najib, Razak and then the submarine deal.

This narrative was fed to the Malaysian public from day one andeveryone like a herd of buffaloes, followed.

Trace and see if she can speak a word of French. None of the French guys in the submarine deal met her or knew her. The French were so sophisticated. They all speak perfect English. Nobody questioned. Why would you want a Mongolian French interpreter?

Think about it. If I wanted an interpreter, I would have a French interpreter or a British-French interpreter. Why on earth would I want a Mongolian? Has she ever been to France and stayed and learnt French? And yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that.

Oui, elle parle français? “… yet everybody believed she was an interpreter of French and she got paid. Nobody questioned that“.

Yeah, what about that? But obviously most Pakatan supporters or those against Najib frown on such silly inconvenient statements by Razak Baginda, wakakaka.

But OTOH, a question could well be: Why shouldn’t Razak Baginda defend Najib over Altantuyaa’s murder?

Helloooooo, freedom of expression? Mananya?

Now, we have been aware that Counsellor Americk Singh Sidhu has, since his initial press interview (or statement) which I saw on YouTube declaring that he was a neutral party, moved on to a far more active role in representing the late P Balasubramaniam.

In 2012 as I had blogged:

READ MORE HERE