The Star and its Chinese agenda

By MT Webmaster Last updated Mar 30, 2016

Anyway, I have in my possession a report made by the Special Branch four years ago back in 2012. My Deep Throat in the Special Branch gave it to me and I challenge the new Director of the Special Branch to come out and officially deny this report.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I asked a Chinese tycoon, a Datuk, who is very close to the MCA leadership, and by extension to The Star, as to why The Star, which is supposed to be owned by MCA, is serving the opposition agenda, in particular DAP’s agenda.

What the tycoon told me was quite interesting. He told me that The Star is more concerned about the Chinese agenda rather than the Barisan Nasional-MCA or Pakatan Harapan-DAP agenda.

In a way, The Star is the counter to Utusan Malaysia, NST, etc., which are serving Umno’s agenda in general and the Malay agenda in particular. So there is nothing morally wrong for The Star to do the same.

I suppose that is fair. Utusan and those of its ilk support the government and the Malay agenda while The Star and those of its ilk support the opposition and the Chinese agenda. The only problem with this, though, is that eventually pro-government becomes associated with Malay while pro-opposition becomes associated with Chinese.

And that will bring Malaysia back to the political scenario of the 1960s before the formation of Barisan Nasional, which was a move by Tun Razak Hussein to end racial politics.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with The Star serving a Chinese agenda (or even a Pakatan Harapan-DAP agenda) just as long as we are aware of it (like we are aware that Utusan is serving an Umno-Malay agenda). Then we will know why they report the way they do.

For example, whenever The Star (just like those others such as Malaysiakini, etc.) report about the Scorpene submarine case they will also always mention ‘Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu’ at the same time. The phrase ‘Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu’ must always come in the same sentence as ‘Scorpene submarines’.

The same goes with reports on Sirul Azhar Umar. The name ‘Sirul Azhar Umar’ must include the phrase ‘Prime Minister Najib Razak’s bodyguard’.

This has been going on for almost ten years that no one really notices it anymore. ‘Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu’ and ‘Prime Minister Najib Razak’s bodyguard Sirul Azhar Umar’ have been automatic for all reporters.

The Star and those of its ilk know, of course, that there is some inaccuracy in those reports and since 2012 new evidence has surfaced to prove that what we earlier believed was wrong.

For example, the French police have since proven that Altantuya was neither a translator nor was she involved in the Scorpene submarine negotiations. It has also been proven that Sirul was not Najib’s bodyguard. He was the Prime Minister’s bodyguard. And at that time the Prime Minister was Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and not Najib. In fact, he used to be Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s bodyguard when the old man was the Prime Minister (and Mahathir has said so).

Nevertheless, in spite of all that, The Star and those of its ilk still insist on using ‘Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu’ and ‘Prime Minister Najib Razak’s bodyguard Sirul Azhar Umar’ because then this links Najib to Altantuya’s murder. If not it would be very difficult to link Najib to the murder.

I also challenge the Special Branch to explain why this report was kept confidential and why were the facts of this report not revealed so that once and for all this matter can be laid to rest?

Or is the Special Branch still part of the ANC (Anti-Najib Campaign) like it used to be prior to July 2015 before the main operatives of the ANC were axed?

Anyway, read on and I hope in the meantime the new Director of the Special Branch can start preparing his explanation.

The idea to initiate a campaign to keep the Scorpene submarines issue alive until the 13th General Election was mooted by R. Sivarasa and Tian Chua some time back in 2009. Sivarasa and Tian Chua discussed the matter with Anwar Ibrahim who decided that Suaram would be the best vehicle to use to initiate the action.

French lawyers were engaged to act on behalf of Suaram who would then apply to the French court for a probe to be conducted on all the companies and personalities involved in the contract. This was a sort of class action suit to be taken by Suaram but Suaram had to first convince the court that it had locus standi on the matter. Suaram was presented to the court as an international NGO similar in status to Amnesty International whose job is to uphold democracy and human rights. This can be seen in document D1.

This is not an open court hearing but merely an application by Suaram who filed a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party — Civil Party Petition — before a judge in chambers who will first have to determine whether a crime has been committed before ordering a trial. Based on Suaram’s application, the prosecutor then ordered the judge to follow up with a police investigation all the allegations regarding impropriety in the submarine contract. The result of this police investigation runs into hundreds of pages from D1 to D153.

Most of the police reports to the court were quite routine in nature touching on the background of all the French and Malaysian companies involved in the contract plus the role of the various personalities in those companies plus identify the money trail. It traces the history of the entire transaction to the present day and it explores whether there are any criminal elements in how the transaction was conducted.

It appears that Suaram placed a lot of emphasis on Altantuya Shaariibuu and her role in this transaction. While the investigation did not reveal Altantuya’s involvement, it did, however, raise many questions as to the conduct of the Scorpene submarine contract. It appears that this contract was being used as a means to raise funds for Umno through nominees who were acting on behalf of the government. It also appears that the Malaysian government was putting pressure on the French to deal through these nominees and not on a direct G-to-G basis.

Document D54 is a statement by the police to the court that there are no records of Altantuya Shaariibuu, Razak Baginda and/or Najib Tun Razak ever having entered France from 1999, the date the Scorpene submarines were first negotiated, until the day Altantuya was reported murdered. The immigration authorities and the French intelligence also confirmed the same. Hence the story that Altantuya, Razak and Najib had dinner in Paris where their photograph was taken cannot be true. There is, however, a report in document D146, that a dinner was going to be organised in Paris between Razak Baginda and Najib Tun Razak in June 2000 plus a later report that says Razak and Najib visited the DCNI office. Nevertheless, there appears to be no immigration records to confirm this.

Document D76 presented to the court is a statement to the police by Fredric Faura regarding his role in the submarine contract. The police had asked him whether he had ever met Altantuya or knows who she is and he replied that he had never met her or knows of her. He added that they do not need any translator to transact business with Malaysians since Malaysians can all speak perfect English. Furthermore, all the negotiations were done in Malaysia and not in France where the need for a translator was not necessary. Also, Altantuya did not speak French so that would have made it impossible for her to be an English-French translator.

Suaram submitted a list of names to the French court which includes amongst others the name of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. The court has not yet determined whether these names are relevant to the case and whether their statement needs to be recorded by the French police. For that matter, it has also been revealed in the police report to the court that not only Najib Tun Razak but also Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi were involved in the Scorpene submarines matter as they were Prime Ministers in 1999 and 2003 respectively. However, Dr Mahathir’s and Abdullah Badawi’s names are not in that list of people to be called that Suaram sent to the court, apparently because the main target of Suaram is just Najib Tun Razak.

The impression being created is that the French police are ‘looking’ for Najib or are about to issue a warrant of arrest to drag Najib to court. This is not true although he has been named as a crucial party to the deal. The court is yet to decide whether Najib’s statement is crucial and relevant to the case. Thus far, there is no hard evidence to link Najib to any corrupt act involving this contract. Ultimately it will have to be up to the judge to decide whether Najib’s testimony is required.

Two critical elements in this entire police investigation are whether there was anything illegal in the Scorpene submarine transaction and whether Altantuya was involved in the matter. This appears to be the angle that Suaram is working on. Thus far, the French police investigation and the report to the court show that neither was there anything illegal nor was Altantuya involved as a translator or whatever. In fact, investigations revealed that Altantuya never went to France during that entire period and neither did Razak Baginda or Najib Tun Razak.

It is not clear where this investigation will be heading and whether the French police would need to probe the matter any further. However, based on what has been reported to the court so far, it appears like there is no case to answer. Suaram will try to keep this case alive by requesting the court to act on the list of witnesses it submitted to the court. If the court acts on that list and the police are asked to record statements from these people then the case can be kept alive right into the next general election, which will be political mileage for the opposition. If not, this would be the end of the case.

It appears that Suaram is not giving the public the proper facts to the case. The impression they are creating is that an open court hearing is ongoing in France. This is not true. There is no open court hearing but just an investigation conducted by the judge based on the police reports. The impression also being created is that the court or the French government is investigating Najib because there is evidence of wrongdoing. This is again not true. The judge has not even decided yet whether there is a need to charge Najib in order to force him to go to France to testify. And the most important element to this case is regarding Altantuya. No one in France appears to have met her or knows of her and official records show that she had never entered France during that entire period. Other than that, the police investigation shows that the OECD convention against corruption has been bypassed, but whether this was legal or not has to be proven. This, Suaram or the French lawyers are not telling the public.

The conclusion would be that many questions have been raised by this investigation and who are the nominees and ultimate beneficiaries to the commissions paid will need to be established by the investigation. This investigation has actually raised more questions than it has provided answers and probably many more statements will need to be recorded from various people, which may take some time to come before a final decision is made as to whether this needs to go to the next level of a proper court hearing.

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK