MORE PICS & Video – BN Cracks showing – PPP Denies Ultimatum for 60s Seats held; Najib: Allocation - BN Spirit & Principle; UMNO demands Retraction
and Najib's Denial again of Involvement in S'pore Interview (see below)
ABOVE & BELOW: Malaysiakini has the Day 27 Trial on Jul 30 07 out at 3.51 pm on the same day. Details H E R E by subscription
= = == = == = = == = ==1
ABOVE: The three accused arriving in Court on Day 27 Trial; BELOW: The luggage of evidence being wheeled in
Court to decide admissibility of Sirul's remark
R. Surenthira Kumar, from SUN
SHAH ALAM (July 30, 2007): The court hearing the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial will decide on Wednesday (Aug 1) whether to admit or disallow the statement purportedly uttered by Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to the police, when he led them to the crime scene. The crux of the issue is whether Sirul's statement, "I can show the place where the woman was blown up", coupled with his conduct of pointing to the spot, and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The question before the court is also whether Sirul's statement and his subsequent conduct of pointing to the spot were separate, unconnected things or were part of one.
Lawyers for both the defence and the prosecution submitted at length on the issue this morning before the proceedings were adjourned to Wednesday.
The submissions of both parties centred around the following:
* Section 8 (Evidence Act) - on motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct; and
* Section 27 (Evidence Act) - on how much information received from accused may be proved.
Sirul's lawyer, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin (ABOVE), started his submission around whether the statement and the subsequent act of his client were two separate things, or one. He said based on the testimony of ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, it was alleged that Sirul had uttered certain sentences relating to the murder of the Mongolian woman to the police when he was taken to the crime scene.
"The question is whether the statement, "I can show the place where the woman was blown up", coupled with his conduct of pointing to the spot, is admissible under Section 8," he said.
Kamarul Hisham said at first glance the word "conduct" does not include a "statement". It (Section 8) bars any conduct that amounts to a statement, and it does not include statement," he added.
Kamarul Hisham, who argued they were two separate things - words spoken, and act done - said although this case deals with the old Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), it does not matter as the word statement is still available in the current Section 113 of the CPC.
"In the old Section 113 anything said to the police is barred. Under the new Section 113, a statement made is barred unless there was caution and was not induced," added Kamarul Hisham.
He went on to quote PP v Kanapathy Kupusamy (2001) where there was an act by the accused person after interrogation, of taking the police to premises. He brought the police to the house and put his hands under the mattress showing drugs. He said nothing.
Kamarul Hisham said the argument by the defence lawyer in the case was that the conduct of accused amounts to an answer to a question during interrogation, thus it was a cautioned statement under Section 113.
He said however, due to lack of caution, it was inadmissible.
Kamarul Hisham said the court in that instance held that it was not an answer to a question but a conduct simpliciter meaning it stands alone, and was hence admissible under Section 8.
"We propose the inextricably woven test and if the act and statement so closely connected, this amounts to statement and therefore caught by Section 113 of the CPC, or barred by Section 8 explanation 1 of the Evidence Act," said Kamarul Hisham. He said a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is subject to raison d’etre of discovery. He said the same safeguard is applicable and the accused can still be called during a trial-within-a-trial to determine that issue.
Next to submit was Abdul Razak Baginda's lawyer Wong Kian Kheong (ABOVE) who said the right to remain silent includes a suspect's right not to show anything that might implicate him, if he had been cautioned about the right. Wong also referred to a case which limited itself to the conduct of a suspect without any statement from him. He said in another case which involves conduct and statement, the doctrine of separation does not apply.
"If it is used, it will contradict explanation 1 of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. " said Wong. He said ASP Zulkarnain's testimony clearly showed there was a statement and conduct and therefore Section 113 of the CPC comes into force.
Lawyer Hazman Ahmad did not submit on the matter but said he adopted Kamarul Hisham and Wong's submission.
Meanwhile, Deputy Public Prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah (ABOVE) said it is the prosecution's contention that the statement accompanying the act must be admitted. "In our case, the act of pointing was at the scene where the woman was exploded, coupled with the accompanying statement," he added.
Tun Abdul Majid said it was argued by the defence that such statement should not be admitted under Section 8, and by seeking to do so, they are going through the back door, disregarding Section 113 of the CPC and Section 27 of the Evidence Act. "We argue that Section 8 should also be treated as an exception, similar to Section 27. Otherwise, Section 8 would not have been worded in such manner.
"Parliament does not enact a law in vain. The Evidence Act has so many provisions that can either be read together or alone," he added.
Referring to several cases, Tun Abdul Majid said at this point, the prosecution does not think nor venture to say that Section 113 of the CPC has repealed the Evidence Act.
"I cannot go under Section 27 anymore for the second accused as the place has been discovered. "But Section 8 should be treated as an exception. It should go hand in hand with Section 27," argued Tun Abdul Majid.
On Wong's points, Tun Abdul Majid said it was his contention that conduct should accompany statement, otherwise the conduct would not have had any meaning at all. "It is my submission that the statement made by second accused at the same time as pointing out the place should be admitted under Section 8(2) on the authority of the Indian cases," he added. Tun Abdul Majid urged the court to rule that statement made by Sirul Azhar coupled with the act of pointing is to be admitted under Section 8.
Mohd Zaki will deliver his decision tomorrow (Wednesday 1st Aug 07); as case postponed.
* Lawyers for both the defence and the prosecution submitted on whether the statement purportedly uttered by Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar to the police when he led them to the crime scene should be admitted or disallowed;
* Judge Mohd Zaki will deliver his decision on Wednesday.
= = == = == = And Najib’s Denial of Involvement in S’pore Interview
Malaysian deputy PM denies link to Mongolian murder case
Monday July 30,
involvement in a high-profile murder case and accused the country's
opposition of trying to exploit it. In an interview published in
He said
Prosecutors allege Abdul Razak ordered police to kill his former lover after
she harassed him for money. The trial, which entered its seventh week on Monday, is seen by observers as a test of
Tian Chua, information chief with the opposition Keadilan, or People's Justice Party, posted on the Internet a fake photograph depicting Najib with Altantuya. "It is aimed to push Najib to explain his link in the case," Tian said. In the Straits Times interview, Najib said Tian had resorted to "underhand politics. I believe in politics you have to stand on some principles." The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, which governs the Internet, has said it was probing the photo. A police detective testified recently at the trial that only bones remained after Altantuya was shot dead and "blasted" in a jungle area southwest of the capital
= = == =and from Bernama
Court To Decide Admissibilty Of Sirul Azhar's Testimony
SHAH ALAM, July 30 (Bernama) -- The High Court here will decide on Wednesday whether corporal Sirul Azhar Umar's testimony on the disclosure of the location where Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu was blasted is admissible as a relevant fact in the trial. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yassin deferred decision after hearing submissions from all the parties concerned Monday. The issue before the court is whether Sirul Azhar's statement, in which he allegedly said that he could show where Altantuya's body was blasted, accompanied with his conduct in showing the place to the police, can be admitted under section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950. Last Thursday, Sirul Azhar's counsel, Kamarul Hisham Kamarudin, objected to the evidence of the prosecution's 23rd witness, ASP Zulkarnain Samsudin, relating to Sirul Azhar's disclosure of the location where Altantuya's body was blasted.
Zulkarnain had told the court that Sirul Azhar had gone with a police team to the crime scene in Puncak Alam and allegedly uttered the words: "Saya boleh tunjuk tempat perempuan itu diletupkan."
(I can show the place where the woman was exploded.) Kamarul Hisham (ABOVE) had objected on the ground that the evidence was prejudicial and inadmissible but deputy public prosecutor Tun Abdul Majid Tun Hamzah said the evidence was admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act as it only revealed Sirul Azhar's conduct. Sirul Azhar, 36, and Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, both of the Special Action Squad, are jointly charged with murdering Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu at Mukim Bukit Raja, Selangor, between 10pm on Oct 19 and 1am on Oct 20 last year. Political analyst Abdul Razak, 47, is charged with abetting them.
Kamarul Hisham submitted today that the word `conduct' in section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 did not include a statement made by an accused person.He said a statement, coupled with a conduct, made by an accused was caught under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and could not be obtained by inducement, threat or promise. Counsel Wong Kian Kheong, for Abdul Razak, submitted that section 113 of the CPC had a wide application and included any statement coupled with a conduct made by an accused person. Tun Abdul Majid replied that the statement accompanying the act must be admitted under section 8, otherwise the conduct would not have any meaning at all.He said section 8 should be treated as an exception, otherwise it would not have been worded in such manner."The Parliament does not enact a law in vain. The Evidence Act has so many provisions that can either be read together or alone," he said.
The hearing continues on Wednesday.
= = == = ==
Altantuya Murder Trial Put Off Until Wednesday
SHAH ALAM, July 30 (Bernama) -- The Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial has been put off until Wednesday to make way for a 2004 part-heard murder case following a complaint by the counsel in that case. Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin, who only heard the case for half the day Monday, informed the prosecution and the defence that he had allowed the application by the counsel to try the part-heard case at
The case involving Vasutevan Batumalai was scheduled for hearing today and tomorrow but Mohd Zaki had previously decided to hear his other cases on Friday to concentrate on the Altantuya case from Monday to Thursday. The judge said K.A. Ramu, counsel for Vasutevan, had persistently asked him in a raised voice last Friday to give priority to his case because his client was sick and had been remanded since 2004.
The trial of C/Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, 36, both of the Special Action Force, and political analyst Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, 47, had been going on since June 18. The two policemen are accused of murdering Altantuya, 28, at a location between Lots 12843 and 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja between
= = == = = =Watch Video Clip (57 sec) - Day 27 Trial - Jul 30 07
= = = == = == = = == = =
Response & Reaction from PPP Kayveas
Kayveas: No threats, PPP members will decide future
Terence Fernandez
PETALING JAYA (July 30, 2007): People's Progressive Party (PPP) president Datuk M. Kayveas today denied threatening to pull out of Barisan Nasional (BN) and issued veiled references against senior Umno leaders. "I would never issue such threats. A threat is waving a keris and asking when you are going to draw blood," he said. "I just said we would have to think about our future in the BN if we are not going anywhere. I don't think that is an ultimatum. Come on, we are in no position to give ultimatums to anyone." He also took to task Umno vice-president and Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam for saying the PPP can join other political parties, which will just mean more seats for other BN member parties. He said Malacca can "award 200 Datukships to people without positions or even addresses in
Stressing that PPP's future presence in BN will be dictated by its members, Kayveas said: "While I would prefer the party to remain in the ruling coalition, I also cannot ignore the voices of our 500,000 party members. "I'd rather work from within than from outside, but at the end of the day, if the majority of PPP members decide we have to rethink our strategy, and if we are strong enough to do so, then I will have to respect the voices of the majority." Kayveas, who holds the PPP's sole seat as Taiping MP, said Sunday (yesterday)'s reports that he issued an ultimatum to the BN that PPP would leave the coalition if its demand for more seats and positions were not fulfilled, were untrue. He said he did make the request for four parliamentary seats, 12 state seats, 79 local council seats and the position of Ipoh mayor at the party's 54th anniversary celebrations in Johor Baru on Friday (July 27).
"These are seats and positions that were already in PPP's hand before it joined the BN in 1972," he said. "When you speak to party members, of course you need to tell them what they want to hear. They want to know where the party is headed and it is my responsibility to tell them but I never issued any ultimatum although I did voice my disappointment at not being given due recognition."
Kayveas said the seat allocation to the PPP would be discussed in September among the four main BN component parties - Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan.
"PPP is not part of this and there are two parties that will not be happy if seats are given to PPP." Kayveas, who is a deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department, said he did not request a full ministership because it was inappropriate for him to do so as the position would ultimately go to him as party president. Yesterday, Kayveas was taken to task by senior BN component party leaders, including Umno deputy president Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak, Ali Rustam, Umno vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, Perak mentri besar Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli Ghazali, and MCA vice-president and Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.
Kayveas said: "Ali Rustam doesn't know history. It was our strength, not weakness that prompted (then prime minister) Tun Abdul Razak to invite us to join the coalition. "PPP is worse off now after joining the BN. If we are outside, we could be a formidable opposition. This, again, is not a threat. I'm just stating facts." Accusing Mohd Ali of not recognising the PPP's contributions, he said: "In 1996, he asked for the PPP's single senate allocation to be given to Umno. I acceded to his request, and when I asked for the seat to be returned, he refused. It was only through the prime minister's intervention that we got our senatorship back." Kayveas also said the party is on a membership drive.
In Kelantan, he said, 5,000 Malays, including Umno members, have joined the party. "Eventually, we want at least a 40% Malay membership in the PPP," he said. Updated:
ABOVE & BELOW: MALAYSIAKINI early story on PPP Demands on the Seats Allocation; Details H E R E 
= == = == = = = =and now PPP Kayveas denies UltimatiumThe PPP is harping on its past glories in the days of the Seenivsagam brothers (fondly known as DR & SP). But times have changed and this mosquito party is f no concern to UMNO (as Ali Rustum has said). With the demise of the brothers who were lawyers and the Council elections, its influence has declined. Its members are reportedly to be mostly "paid" by others (in power) to maintain its numbers and ask for demands of seats & positions
PPP President Kayveas denies Ultimatum:"I am very clear. I know when to speak my mind and mind my speech. I don’t simply make statement and give ultimatum. I think we are not in a position to give ultimatum to anybody. I must say it is just a struggle for PPP, which has been a very strong party; which has been in the opposition; close to forming a government in Perak; which has joined the BN in the early seventies, founder member and a very senior member in BN. It is the right of members and duty of the President to speak for them or speak on behalf of them.”
UMNO Leaders Condemn PPP Ultimatum
Vice-President Muhyiddin Yassin: Wrong to issue such ultimatum
VPAli Rustum: This ultimatum is irresponsible, Act of sabotage If PPP wants to leave I have no concern
VP Mat Taib: More appropriate to hold negotiations; Don’t play politics & issue threats
= = == STAR
= = == =
Don't Fuss Over Seat Allocation, Najib Tells BN Components
PEKAN, July 29 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today asked BN component parties not to make a fuss over seat distribution for the next general election as the issue will be discussed only at the right time. The Deputy Prime Minister said the Barisan leadership did not make decisions according to component parties' demands. "When it comes to seat allocation, we will negotiate when the time is ripe," he said when responding to the ultimatum by the People's Progressive Party (PPP) that it would leave the Barisan if it was not allowed to contest seats it held three decades ago in the general election. PPP president Datuk M. Kayveas, who issued the ultimatum, was referring to the clutch of seats the party had held in its stronghold in Perak in the 1960s before it joined the coalition.
The party is asking for four parliamentary seats, 12 state seats, 79 local council seats and the post of the Batuk Bandar of
= = ==
Watch Video Clip (45 Sec) : PPP Kayveas Denial;
= = == = ==
= = == = == = = = =
posted by multidimid at 8:45 AM
2 Comments:
Statements made by the various UMNO leaders signify one thing - PPP is irrelevant to them. So, Kayveas, for heaven's sake man, leave the coalition and walk out like a man rather than carrying on staying in the BN and whimpering like a stray dog. MCA, Gerakan and the rest are getting the crumps. PPP is getting the crumps of the crumps. Where is your pride and dignity?
Kayves is just fishing for votes, just like Najid when he raised the claim that Malaysia is an islamic state. Power hungry politikos like these 2 bums should be blown apart with c4
Post a Comment
<< Home