By V. Anbalagan and Sharanjit Singh, New Straits Times July 5, 2008
KUALA LUMPUR: Criminal lawyers said private investigator P. Balasubramaniam has committed an offence for making conflicting statutory declarations (SD) in relation to the ongoing Altantuya murder trial.
They also said the prosecution or the defence should recall Balasubramaniam to the stand as the contents of the first SD were related to the case.
Kuala Lumpur Bar criminal practice committee chairman N. Sivananthan said recalling Balasubramaniam to the witness stand was provided for under the law.
"Although prosecution had closed its case, it can still call witnesses because the trial judge had not heard submissions from the prosecution and defence," he said.
The court has fixed July 23 to hear submissions whether the prosecution had made out a prima facie case.
Two special action force officers -- Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri -- are currently being tried for the murder of Altantuya while political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda is being tried for abetment.
He said Balasubramaniam should be recalled because it was for the court to find out the truth.
Sivananthan said the court should allow the application to recall Balasubramaniam as his statement was relevant to the charge faced by Abdul Razak.
Lawyer Gurbachan Singh said a SD stood as truth as it was made under oath.
"Balasubramaniam's claim that he made the first SD under duress was a mere excuse.
"This is utter nonsense because he had a lawyer advising him. Moreover, the SD was made before a Commissioner for Oaths," he said.
He said no lawyer was going to draft a SD without his client's instruction.
"He is not a country bumpkin. He is an educated fellow who was an ex-police officer," the lawyer said.
"Just like a police report, one cannot withdraw a SD."
Gurbachan said the prosecution could recall Balasubramaniam in view of new information revealed in the first SD.
"You cannot blame the DPPs (in the Altantuya case) as what was revealed in the SD was not in their domain. Their questions to witnesses were formulated according to the contents in the witnesses' statements," he said.
Gurbachan said the blame solely was in the hands of the police.
Lawyer Mohamad Ramli Abdul Manan said Balasubramaniam made two contradictory statutory declarations. "Both cannot be true or false. One of it is definitely false."
Mohamad Ramli said whether Balasubramaniam was going to be prosecuted was another question.
He said Abdul Razak's defence team could call Balasubramaniam as their witness should the defence be called.
He said this was because Balasubramaniam's first SD appeared to favour Abdul Razak's case.
"But Balasubramaniam will have to explain why he made two conflicting SDs," he added.
In George Town, lawyer Karpal Singh said Balasubramaniam should be investigated under the Penal Code.
He said one cannot just make such a declaration and later withdraw it and such an act amounted to giving false evidence, an offence which carries a maximum of seven years' jail.
Karpal said it was baffling that the private investigator was now claiming he made the declaration under duress.
"What duress is he talking about. He has not given any details of the kind of duress under which he made it (the statutory declaration). The sting of his declaration is now gone," he said.
"I am acting on behalf on Altantuya Shaariibuu and the Mongolian government in her murder trial.
"The dramatic disclosure in the declaration is a serious matter which involves Malaysia's reputation," he said.
KUALA LUMPUR: The lawyer who had taken down the statutory declaration by private investigator P. Balasubramaniam said it was done voluntarily.
Americk Singh Sidhu claimed Balasubramaniam had been "intimidated" to change his story within 24 hours.
He said at a press conference he first met Balasubramaniam two months ago where he was asked for assistance in preparing a formal document incorporating evidence that had not been presented in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial.
"I started the process about two weeks after that.
"I would have met him a few times when I recorded in longhand what Balasubramaniam said to me."
Americk said he had no reason to doubt that what Balasubramaniam told him was the truth.
Americk said the statutory declaration was read in front of a commissioner for oaths, who then attested it.
"I am, therefore, extremely surprised that Balasubramaniam, in a space of 24 hours has engaged the services of another lawyer and affirmed another statutory declaration swearing the first one was untrue and that he was forced to sign it."
Americk said he had last spoken to Balasubramaniam at his office on Thursday.
"After we finished with the press conference we went back to my office.
"He had been receiving a lot of phone calls but Balasubramaniam did not answer them."
Americk said when he asked him who had been calling him, Balasubramaniam said it was "ASP Tony from the Altantuya trial".
"He spoke in front of me. It was lively, they were talking about fish head curry.
"The impression I got was Balasubramaniam was going to meet Tony in Brickfields at 6.30pm."
KUALA LUMPUR: Barely 24 hours after making it public, private investigator P. Balasubramaniam has retracted the entire content of his statutory declaration that alleged police omitted vital information in the Altantuya murder case.
In the first statutory declaration, Balasubramaniam had claimed that police omitted vital information, allegedly linking Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the Altantuya murder case.
Yesterday, Balasubramaniam revealed in a second statutory declaration that he was “compelled to affirm the (first) statutory declaration dated July 1, 2008 under duress???.
The document also read that all substantive statements made were “inaccurate and not the truth???.
Balasubramaniam kept mum when met by pressmen and his lawyer, Arulampalam Mariam Pillai, was the only one speaking during the brief press conference.
Arulampalam also refused to entertain questions from pressmen, giving only a brief statement that his client was under duress and that he was upset.
The statutory declaration withdrew all statements that Balasubramaniam had revealed during a press conference organised by PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Thursday.
This included the fact that he had informed police what political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda had purportedly told him prior to Altantuya’s murder.
The second statutory declaration dated July 4 said:
> At no material time did Razak inform Balasubramaniam that the former was introduced to Altantuya Shaariibuu by a VIP;
> At no material time did Razak inform him that Najib had a sexual relationship with Altantuya and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse;
> At no material time did Razak inform him that Najib instructed Razak to look after Altantuya, as he did not want her to harass him since he (Najib) was the Deputy Prime Minister;
> At no material time did Razak and/or Altantuya inform him that Najib, together with Razak and Altantuya, had met and all been together at a dinner in Paris;
> At no material time did Altantuya inform him that she wanted money in the sum of US$500,000 (RM1.65mil) as commission for a submarine deal she had assisted with in Paris;
> At no time whatsoever did Razak and/or Altantuya inform him that Najib met Altantuya in Singapore;
> At no time whatsoever did Altantuya inform him that she wanted Balasubramaniam to arrange to see Najib;
> At no time did he tell the police during the course of their investigations about any relationship between Najib and Altantuya, as no such relationship existed to his knowledge;
> At no time did Razak inform him that he had sent Najib an SMS the evening before he (Razak) was arrested; and
> At no time did Razak inform him that Najib had sent him an SMS on the day of his (Razak) arrest to the effect that he was going to see the IGP that day and that the matter should be resolved and for Razak to remain calm.
Meanwhile, Americk Singh Sidhu, who represented Balasubramaniam during the press conference with Anwar on Thursday, said he was unaware of Balasubramaniam's actions.
“Reporters have been calling me all morning and I myself have no information on this,??? he said, adding that he was unable to get in touch with Balasubramaniam.
By CHELSEA L.Y. NG, MANJIT KAUR and ANDREA FILMER, The Star Saturday July 5, 2008
PETALING JAYA: A statutory declaration is evidence given under oath which cannot be retracted, said a serving judge and several senior members of the legal fraternity.
They believed private investigator P. Balasubramaniam’s act of retracting his initial declaration, which made serious accusations against Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, could open the former to perjury charges.
According to the judge, who is an authority in criminal law, affirming a statutory declaration was akin to giving evidence in court.
“Under the normal rule of evidence, one cannot withdraw it unless he has very strong reasons. Those reasons must be included in the withdrawal or else he would be committing perjury,??? he said.
About-turn Balasubramaniam at a press conference held with his lawyer in a hotel in Kuala Lumpur after making a new statutory declaration. He claimed that his earlier declaration was made under duress. — Bernama
He said if one was citing duress as a reason for making false accusations in a statutory declaration, he must present proof of such pressure.
“He must show that the pressure was serious like it’s life-threatening to him or his family members.
“He cannot just say that he is withdrawing the statutory statement because he had earlier been forced to do it. Someone can now lodge a police report against him and he could face a perjury charge,??? he said.
Balasubramaniam announced yesterday that he had retracted the entire content of his statutory declaration that alleged police had omitted vital information in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case barely 24 hours after he made it public on Thursday.
Bar Council chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan said a statutory declaration was basically evidence on oath that, once given, could not be retracted.
She, however, said a person could add or correct the statutory declaration to file a further declaration.
“Because it is evidence on oath, and if there are untrue statements, then there is the possibility of a person having given a false statement.???
Bar Council’s criminal law committee deputy chairman Datuk V. Sithambaran said that under the law, two inconsistent statements meant that a person had most likely committed perjury.
“Such an act under the case law suggests that a person is guilty of perjury,??? he said.
Senior lawyer Roger Tan said once a statutory declaration was made it could not be cancelled midway because it was a sworn statement of fact.
Tan said Section 3 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1960 provided that a false declaration was punishable.
Veteran lawyer Karpal Singh said the retraction amounted to an offence under Section 193 of the Penal Code.
“Under the section, making a false statutory declaration carries the penalty of not more than seven years' imprisonment or fine or both,??? said the DAP chairman.
He also urged the private eye to make public the nature of the alleged duress.
Related Stories: Balasubramaniam retracts entire content of his first statutory declaration
A conference on the Roadmap to Local Government Elections was jointly organized by the Malacca Bar Committee in cooperation with the Civil Society Initiative for Parliamentary Reform (CSI-Parliament) and the Centre for Policy Initiatives (CPI) on July 26th, 2008 at King’s Hotel. The aim of this conference was to serve as a platform to propel practical but exciting development options to hold elections in local government and to encourage further collaboration between the federal administration and local authorities in regards to civil society advocacy. The outcome of this conference will form the basis for wider public consultation and it is the fervent wish of the organisers that it would ignite institutional reform towards a democratic system of locally elected representatives.
About 60 participants had attended the conference.
In the opening speech, the Chairman of the Malacca Bar Committee, Mr. Ng Kong Peng commented that the implementation of local government elections was a virtual and complete exercise of democratic right by the people. Mr. Ng also recorded his appreciation for the hardwork and effort given by the Chairman of the Malacca Bar’s Human Rights and Contemporary Issues Sub-Committee, Mr. Anthony Chua and his sub-committee members, CSI-Parliament as well as CPI in organising this conference. Chief Executive Officer of CPI, Dr. Lim Teck Ghee told the audience that the authority had systematically tried to expunge local government elections from people’s memory. Before the general election results in March, 2008 were announced, restoration of local government elections was generally regarded as unthinkable. However, after the political tsunami of March, 2008, there is hope of having the elections again. Wong Chin Huat, a founding member of CSI-Parliament opined that the principle of “no taxation without representation??? should be upheld. As such, all taxing authority should be elected. He urged the five states governed by Pakatan Rakyat to set out a timetable for local government elections to be carried out in respective states soonest possible.
Session 1 of the conference was entitled “Why Local Democracy???. Moderator of this session was Mr. Ng Kong Peng. The first speaker was Mr. Derek Fernandez, a town planning lawyer and a member of the Petaling Jaya City Council. Mr. Derek gave a presentation on the topic of “An Assessment of the Status Quo Under the Current Laws.??? He commented that the will of Pakatan Rakyat state governments in having local government elections was eroding. This should not have happened as the most crucial factor of Pakatan Rakyat’s win in urban areas in the last election was due to its’ component parties’ promise of restoring local government elections. He further elaborated that the need to restore local government elections arises from the many issues concerning poor management and abuse of power in local authorities as highlighted by our local newspapers. People were angry by political interferences in the decision-making of the local councils and they want changes to be made. He also went through the statutory provisions governing local government with the participants, amongst others, section 9 of the Local Government Act 1976 (power of state authority to issue directions) and section 10(2) of the Local Government Act 1976 (criteria for councillors of the local authority to be appointed). The appointment of local councillors under the present scheme or system is a political appointment and certainly there is no transparency. Mr. Derek was of the view that section 1 (4) of the Local Government Act 1976, Article 95B(1)(a) and Article 113(4) of the Federal Constitution actually provided a way out for the state governments to abolish the present appointment scheme and call for the elections for local government. He also opined that certain emergency legislations which suspended the local government elections may be invalid. Article 150(5) of the Federal Constitution was also interpreted by Mr. Derek as requiring emergency laws to contain the express provision on emergency matters and if there is none then such emergency legislations should be invalid.
The next speaker was Mr. Edward Lee, the state assemblyman for Bukit Gasing, Selangor and the President of Resident Association Section 5 Petaling Jaya who spoke on the topic of “The Role of Civil Society in Local Governance.??? Mr. Lee shared about his personal experience of taking part in the community activities and assured the participants that he would use his official position to contribute to the restoration of local government elections. He also encouraged the participants to take more active role in local governance by taking step such as attending the local council meetings.
The last speaker for this session was Mr. Victor Oorjitham, a former local councillor serving from 1970 to 1975 in the Petaling Jaya Council. Mr. Victor shared with the participants about the historical background of the local councils. He outlined the differences between the local councillors in the 1970s and their successors since 1980s. In 1970s, when the local councillors were appointed, section 10 of the Local Government Act 1976 was followed strictly. He also gave examples of the types of persons who were appointed in the 70's. The Petaling Jaya Council included a Banker, the Legal advisor of the Employees Provident Fund, a senior police officer, a senior civil servant from the Treasury, a senior civil servant from the Ministry of Information, the Editor of a leading newspaper, a medical practitioner, himself (Legal Advisor to A.I.A ) and others who came within the guidelines. But, all these people, in addition to the professional expertise they brought to the post, were involved in community affairs. However, in 1980s, the local councillors began to change to be political appointees from component parties of the ruling coalition. Before 1980s, the local councillors were loyal to the public but after that, the local councillors were only loyal to their political masters. Since then, corruption had tarnished the service given by the local authorities whereby by-laws and guidelines were not followed strictly. This had then affected people’s lives and interests.
After a tea break, the conference resumed with Session 2 -“Reviving Local Elections:The State Solutions???. The moderator for the session was Dr. Lim Teck Ghee.
The first speaker for the session was Mr. Andrew Khoo, the Co-Deputy Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar. Mr. Khoo went through the statutory provisions passed for the purpose of suspending local government elections and the available statutory provisions for the state authorities to pave way for the local elections to be carried out. He concluded that state authorities may apply the “opt-out??? notifications provided by the provisions in their attempt to conduct the local government elections. The audience then had Tan Sri Dato’ Dr Chin Fook Weng, a national speaker for Gerakan, to present Gerakan’s position with regards to the issue. Tan Sri Chin pointed out that Gerakan had actually included local government elections as one of its promises in their manifesto in 1969. However, after going through the state of emergency laws and having formed a coalition with their political partners in Barisan Nasional, it cannot be carried out as there were other issues to be considered. He was of the view that although there has been no local government elections since the suspension of the elections, people have been giving mandate to the elected state assemblymen forming the state authorities to appoint their councillors. As such, this is an indirect elections for local councils. He also stated that our society is fragile and the direct election for local government can only be restored when people become more mature. The Gerakan’s view presented by Tan Sri Chin triggered comments from the participants as they have doubts on the “immaturity??? of Malaysian society after 50 years of independence and question on the cause of such “immaturity???.
The next speaker for the session was Mr. Ronnie Liu, the Selangor Government Exco member for Local Government, Study and Research Committee. Mr. Liu began his presentation by making a stand that it was the intention of the Pakatan Rakyat government in Selangor to restore local government elections as there were advantages of doing so. However he mentioned that in view of the fact that the federal government does not propose to amend the laws to restore the local government elections, it may not be practical for the state government alone to conduct the elections at the moment. He was prepared to meet the federal minister who is in charge of the local government and the Prime Minister in order to persuade them to convince the cabinet so that such amendment may be tabled and passed in Parliament. During the Q & A time, Mr. Wong Chin Huat tried to get a confirmation from Mr. Liu on the preparation and timetable for the local government elections to be implemented by the Selangor government. However, Mr. Liu insisted that a thorough study needed to be carried out on the matter first. According to Mr. Liu, a special committee would be set up by the Selangor government in 6-month’s time, as proposed by the Menteri Besar of Selangor, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim. Nevertheless, the actual time needed for the process could not be confirmed now as the state government had other priorities to consider. After session 2 ended, the participants took a break for lunch.
The third session discussed ways to revive local elections via federal solutions. Professor Abdul Aziz Bari addressed the fact that in the Federal Constitution, the conduct of elections is regulated by the Elections Commission. As long as it is under the prerogative of the federal government, the political will to conduct local council elections shall come from the federal government.
Mr. Sivarasa Rasiah, MP for Subang and Vice President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat spoke next on the parliamentary mechanisms to initiate local government elections via the private members’ bill and select committees. He believes that one should not separate the state and federal process. Clause 4 of Art.113 of the Federal Constitution provides that Federal or State law may authorise the Election Commission to conduct election. Thus the State Assembly could pass local elections law themselves by drafting the law and promulgating it to the public. Mr. Rasiah further mentioned on the difficulties to have the private members’ bills tabled in the Parliament. The Standing Order 15 provides for conduct of meetings in the Parliament and, as always the case would be, the governmental matters would always take precedence over private concerns. To have the private members’ bills discussed or passed at Parliament is an uphill task. Thus, according to him, there is an urgent need for Parliamentary reform. The problem of lack of supporting staff for individual members of parliament needs to be addressed . He compared our Parliament to that of Indonesia where an MP there would be designated five staffers; and in the Philippines, seven staffers would be designated to a single MP. In Malaysia, an MP does his duties without such assistance.
Dr Goh Ban Lee, a retired USM Associate Professor spoke on the National Council of Local Governments (NCLG). On November 28th, 1971, after NCLG deliberated on the Athi Nahappan Report in its meeting, it was held that the suspension of local government elections should continue to be in force. At another meeting held on September 30th, 1972, it was decided that local councils were incapable of running their own affairs satisfactorily. In the pre-independence period, Penang’s local councillors were fully elected. However, because of lack of understanding on the meaning of being councillors, in new Chinese villages, the elected councillors behaved without constraint and were above the law. Dr Goh thus holds the view that elections do not necessarily bring about a good government. Dr Goh said that it was possible to appoint an Independent Committee to select local councillors.
At the end of the conference, a joint press statement was issued and resolutions were adopted. They are as follows:-
Joint Press Statement issued by Mr. Ng Peng Kong, Melaka Bar Committee Chairman Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, Director, Centre for Policy Initiatives Mr. Wong Chin Huat, Civil Society Parliamentary Initiative for Parliamentary Reform
This press statement is issued as the outcome of the “Roadmap to Local Government Elections??? Conference jointly organised by the Malacca Bar Committee, Centre for Policy Initiatives and Civil Society Initiative for Parliamentary Reform (CSI-Parliament) on July 26th, 2008 in Malacca.
Participants at the one day conference adopted the following resolutions:
1. the restoration of local elections constitutes an important step forward in reviving democracy, improving the standard of governance and checking the scourge of corruption, excesses and mismanagement presently plaguing the urban population in Malaysia;
2. the restoration of local elections lies clearly within the jurisdiction of the state government, as provided for by the Article 113(4) and Item 4, List II, Schedule 9 in the Federal Constitution. State governments, especially the Pakatan Rakyat ones which have made election promises on reviving local elections, should take immediate steps to formulate state laws to such effect;
3. the Federal Government should, at the same time, initiate consultations with the general public and hold negotiations with the state governments to formulate a comprehensive plan to have local elections that are clean, free, fair and representative.
Speakers at the conference included the following:
Professor Abdul Aziz BARI is lecturing at the Department of Public Law at the International Islamic University.
Tan Sri Dato’ Dr CHIN Fook Weng is a national speaker for Gerakan and a former senator and Associate Professor.
Mr Derek FERNANDES is a town planning lawyer and a member of the Petaling Jaya City Council.
Dr GOH Ban Lee is a retired USM Associate Professor interested in urban governance, housing and urban planning.
Mr Andrew KHOO is the Co-Deputy Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, with interests running from parliamentary reform, electoral reform to Free Trade Agreements.
Mr Edward LEE is the state assemblyperson for Bukit Gasing and the President of Resident Association Section 5 Petaling Jaya.
Mr Ronnie LIU is the state assemblyman for Pandamaran, Selangor and the Selangor Government Exco member for Local Government, Study and Research Committee.
Mr Victor OORJITHAM is the Chairman of Maxwell Towers Resident Association (local joint action committee) and former local councilor for Petaling Jaya.
Mr Sivarasa RASIAH is the member of Parliament for Subang and the Vice President of Parti Keadilan Rakyat.