Thursday March 31, 2011
PM: People want good governance, not just development
PETALING JAYA: Malaysians not only want economic development but efficient and transparent governance as well, said Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
Well, well. Mr. 'Umno-appointed' PM. Even as the DPM, you were linked to the murder of Altantuya. How transparent were you? Were you not 'Najib Razak', the name mentioned by one of the witnesses? ;-)
In the aftermath, a police report was lodged against one of the defence lawyers while the grudge between a veteran counsel and the lead DPP intensified.
It began when Burmaa Oyunchimeg, a cousin of Altantuya, was being re-examined by DPP Manoj Kurup on a contention made by lawyer Wong Kian Kheong on Thursday.
The 26-year-old witness was asked why she disagreed with Wong, the counsel for Abdul Razak Baginda, that she did not have personal knowledge of how Altantuya disappeared. Her answer was that she knew Altantuya came here to see “Razak Baginda.”
“She only knew Razak Baginda in Malaysia. I knew why she wanted to see Razak Baginda because I’ve seen a picture of Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a government official.”
DPP Manoj immediately stopped her from continuing, and repeated his question.
Burmaa said Altantuya’s second cousin Namiraa Gerelmaa and friend Uuriintuya Gal-Ochir had told her about it.
Just before the witness was discharged, lawyer Karpal Singh, who represents the family of the victim and the Mongolian government, asked to pose two questions and clarify the testimony on the “government official.”
The moment “government official” was mentioned, lawyer Hazman Ahmad representing C/Insp Azilah Hadri and lead prosecutor DPP Tun Abd Majid Tun Hamzah stood up almost simultaneously to deny that there was such evidence.
A commotion followed as Hazman and DPP Tun Abd Majid continued to dispute Karpal Singh’s observations while Justice Mohd Zaki checked his notes.
In the midst of it, Burmaa put up her right hand and said loudly: “Yes, I said that.”
“In Hong Kong ... after Altantuya came back from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet me to show me the picture,” she said as the judge replied that he had not noted that part down earlier.
At this point, Hazman and DPP Tun Abd Majid began quarrelling with Karpal Singh over the matter.
After the commotion, Justice Mohd Zaki finally made a ruling that since he had missed the part, Karpal Singh could proceed to ask about the “government official.”
Karpal Singh: You said after Altantuya came back from France, she showed you a picture. Can you tell us what the picture was?
Burmaa: There was a picture ... having a meal. A picture of Altantuya having a meal with Razak Baginda and a Malaysian government official and other people.
Karpal Singh: Who was the government official in the photo?
Justice Mohd Zaki: You should ask her whether she knows him or not.
Burmaa: Najib Razak. I remember the name Najib Razak because the name Razak is the same. I thought maybe they were brothers.
Justice Mohd Zaki: What is the relevance of this to the charge?
Hazman: Political basis.
DPP Tun Abd Majid: Irrelevant.
Karpal Singh: The relevance is in the affidavit of the third accused (Abdul Razak), he had mentioned that the ADC of Najib Razak, the police officer ...
Burmaa: (Putting up her right hand to interrupt) The picture was even shown to her (Altantuya’s) father.
Karpal Singh: It was the ADC that directed and who helped in the three police personnel going to the house of Razak to take Altantuya away.
DPP Tun Abd Majid: DSP Musa Safri is listed as a witness in our list. You can examine him when he is called to testify later.
Hazman: It’s subjudice. The witness (DSP Musa) has not been called yet. This witness (Burmaa) is being coached. If he wants to make allegations, I also can make.
Karpal Singh: There is an allegation of coaching. My Lord, would he withdraw that? This witness has not been coached.
DPP Tun Abd Majid: What is the purpose of watching brief? To safeguard the interest of the victim’s family. You are not here to turn this court into a political forum. This is a court of law... The AG (Attorney-General) has given his assurance that we will produce everything in court leaving no stone unturned.
Wong, suddenly stood up to implore all parties including the press to allow his client Abdul Razak to defend against a capital punishment charge through the process of law.
Justice Mohd Zaki: I’ve been thinking, what is your purpose of watching brief, Mr Karpal?
Karpal Singh: My Lord, it’s to make sure everything comes out in the open.
The judge then told the court what he had recorded so far and that he was not allowing Karpal Singh to ask Burmaa any further questions. He then adjourned the court.
After the break, DPP Tun Abd Majid asked if Burmaa’s testimony about the picture would form part of the evidence.
The judge replied: “It is part of the record. Unless both sides want to pursue further on the replies?”
When Justice Mohd Zaki saw that no one had stood up, he discharged Burmaa from the stand.
Up to this point, the alleged photograph had not been produced in court.
After the proceedings ended at noon, Burmaa lodged a police report against Hazman over his allegation that she had been coached on how to give evidence in the trial.
Saturday June 30, 2007
Picture causes ruckus in court
THERE was a heated exchange among lawyers and prosecutors during the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial following a witness’ testimony that she had seen a picture of the deceased and Abdul Razak Baginda with a government official.In the aftermath, a police report was lodged against one of the defence lawyers while the grudge between a veteran counsel and the lead DPP intensified.
It began when Burmaa Oyunchimeg, a cousin of Altantuya, was being re-examined by DPP Manoj Kurup on a contention made by lawyer Wong Kian Kheong on Thursday.
|
Daily ritual: Abdul Razak waving to his family members as he is escorted to the courthouse yesterday along with C/Insp Azilah and Kpl Sirul Azhar who have always arrived with jackets covering their faces. |
“She only knew Razak Baginda in Malaysia. I knew why she wanted to see Razak Baginda because I’ve seen a picture of Altantuya, Razak Baginda and a government official.”
DPP Manoj immediately stopped her from continuing, and repeated his question.
Burmaa said Altantuya’s second cousin Namiraa Gerelmaa and friend Uuriintuya Gal-Ochir had told her about it.
Just before the witness was discharged, lawyer Karpal Singh, who represents the family of the victim and the Mongolian government, asked to pose two questions and clarify the testimony on the “government official.”
The moment “government official” was mentioned, lawyer Hazman Ahmad representing C/Insp Azilah Hadri and lead prosecutor DPP Tun Abd Majid Tun Hamzah stood up almost simultaneously to deny that there was such evidence.
A commotion followed as Hazman and DPP Tun Abd Majid continued to dispute Karpal Singh’s observations while Justice Mohd Zaki checked his notes.
In the midst of it, Burmaa put up her right hand and said loudly: “Yes, I said that.”
“In Hong Kong ... after Altantuya came back from France, she went to Hong Kong to meet me to show me the picture,” she said as the judge replied that he had not noted that part down earlier.
At this point, Hazman and DPP Tun Abd Majid began quarrelling with Karpal Singh over the matter.
After the commotion, Justice Mohd Zaki finally made a ruling that since he had missed the part, Karpal Singh could proceed to ask about the “government official.”
Karpal Singh: You said after Altantuya came back from France, she showed you a picture. Can you tell us what the picture was?
Burmaa: There was a picture ... having a meal. A picture of Altantuya having a meal with Razak Baginda and a Malaysian government official and other people.
Karpal Singh: Who was the government official in the photo?
Justice Mohd Zaki: You should ask her whether she knows him or not.
Burmaa: Najib Razak. I remember the name Najib Razak because the name Razak is the same. I thought maybe they were brothers.
Justice Mohd Zaki: What is the relevance of this to the charge?
Hazman: Political basis.
DPP Tun Abd Majid: Irrelevant.
Karpal Singh: The relevance is in the affidavit of the third accused (Abdul Razak), he had mentioned that the ADC of Najib Razak, the police officer ...
Burmaa: (Putting up her right hand to interrupt) The picture was even shown to her (Altantuya’s) father.
Karpal Singh: It was the ADC that directed and who helped in the three police personnel going to the house of Razak to take Altantuya away.
DPP Tun Abd Majid: DSP Musa Safri is listed as a witness in our list. You can examine him when he is called to testify later.
Hazman: It’s subjudice. The witness (DSP Musa) has not been called yet. This witness (Burmaa) is being coached. If he wants to make allegations, I also can make.
Karpal Singh: There is an allegation of coaching. My Lord, would he withdraw that? This witness has not been coached.
DPP Tun Abd Majid: What is the purpose of watching brief? To safeguard the interest of the victim’s family. You are not here to turn this court into a political forum. This is a court of law... The AG (Attorney-General) has given his assurance that we will produce everything in court leaving no stone unturned.
Wong, suddenly stood up to implore all parties including the press to allow his client Abdul Razak to defend against a capital punishment charge through the process of law.
Justice Mohd Zaki: I’ve been thinking, what is your purpose of watching brief, Mr Karpal?
Karpal Singh: My Lord, it’s to make sure everything comes out in the open.
The judge then told the court what he had recorded so far and that he was not allowing Karpal Singh to ask Burmaa any further questions. He then adjourned the court.
After the break, DPP Tun Abd Majid asked if Burmaa’s testimony about the picture would form part of the evidence.
The judge replied: “It is part of the record. Unless both sides want to pursue further on the replies?”
When Justice Mohd Zaki saw that no one had stood up, he discharged Burmaa from the stand.
Up to this point, the alleged photograph had not been produced in court.
After the proceedings ended at noon, Burmaa lodged a police report against Hazman over his allegation that she had been coached on how to give evidence in the trial.
Johari (left) had
Agreeing that there is a likelihood that Teoh could have received “one or two blows” to the chest prior to the fall as suggested by Bar Council lawyer Christopher Leong , Vanezis said: “I cannot rule out the possibility that in isolation there could have been one or two blows which could have caused light bruising (on the chest). Nevertheless, Vanezis stressed that the tramline bruises to the chest, as well as bruises at the neck region and the hairline fracture to the skull, were not clear enough to prove Teoh was hit, giving it as his opinion that they were pre-fall injuries. 
Speaking to thousands at a rally at the Melawati indoor stadium in Shah Alam last night, Anwar said the latest allegation - that he was caught on film with a prostitute - was another concerted attempt to derail the opposition's advances, adding that the producers of the scandalous video clip appeared to have Putrajaya's backing.
In a statement today signed by five MCCBCHST leaders, the council takes issue with the alleged promise by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak made during a Christmas party in December 2009 to release 5,000 copies of the Al-Kitab impounded at Port Klang. 







KUALA LUMPUR, March 24 — Teoh Beng Hock could have been pushed off the building where he was found dead in 2009, an anti-graft officer told the royal panel investigating Teoh’s death today.




Responding to reports that Selangor mufti Mohd Tamyes Abd Wahid had joined his Perak counterpart, Harussani Zakaria, in opposing the release of copies of Al-Kitab, 35,000 of which have been impounded at the ports in Kuching and Port Klang, Paul Tan in his capacity as bishop of the Melaka-Johor diocese spoke to 
In a statement today, Karpal said he was in left in a state of shock upon learning that police had yet to take any action to arrest 'Datuk T' following the 'public viewing' of the pornographic video clip and added, "The police ought to have sprung into action yesterday itself to arrest 'Datuk T'. He has clearly committed offences under Section 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act, 2002 and Section 292 of the Penal Code."

This morning, the media were called to the luxury Carcosa Seri Negara hotel in Kuala Lumpur to witness the 'unveiling' of the video clip that was managed with great secrecy - several individuals connected with the 'showing' were formally dressed and conducted security check on the 'invitees'.
