ACA got Statements from Video Clip Lawyer, Businessman & Anwar; Nazri Assures Identity of Source is protected but No guarantee of personal Safety
Latest Update: 7 Oct 07; 8.30pm
PM denies whistle blowers are targeted & shocking disclosures from Nazri (Below)
PM Abdullah actual words on TV“You interpreted that one as a diversion of issue. Maybe they want to know a little bit more on how they get all these information so that they can further investigate. Because the person who submitted that Video Clip must have more information that might be useful for the panel to make a decision. .
= == = == = == = = why wrong view? the public cannot be correct? and why want only? Practise what you preach is more important than just saying itSometimes the public are too quick to express the wrong view about the Government’s intention. The Government’s intention is not to delay; the Government’s intention is not to do something that is not fair. We want to be fair”
Abdullah Promises Thorough Investigation On VideoClip
KEPALA BATAS, Oct 7 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi Sunday reiterated that a thorough investigation will be carried out to determine the authenticity of the video clip of a telephone conversation purportedly between a lawyer and a judge concerning the appointment of judges. The Prime Minister said the government had a responsibility to investigate the allegation and had no intention of diverting the probe to other matters. He said that at times, the people accused the government of trying to divert the investigation when the individual who recorded the scene was questioned, but this meant that the investigation was being carried out extensively.
"There is still further investigation being carried out on the matter and we should not make such an assumption," he told reporters here after presenting aid from the Kepala Batas Umno Division to the poor. The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) recently recorded statements from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim with regard to the investigation on the authenticity of the video clip. Anwar, who is also the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor, had told a press conference after giving his statement to the ACA that he was prepared to cooperate fully with the agency and admitted that the video clip was first exposed by him.
Source Of Video Recording Will Be Protected As Witness
KUALA KANGSAR, Oct 7 (Bernama) -- The government will protect the source of the video recording purportedly showing a lawyer talking to a senior judge over an appointment if the person becomes a witness in the ongoing investigation. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz said the witness will not only be protected by the government but will also be given a new identity and a new face through cosmetic surgery. "The protection is stated under the Witness Protection Act," he said when commenting on the refusal by the source of the video recording to assist the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and the special panel to investigate the authenticity of the recording, fearing his safety.
Nazri said the source should not use safety as an excuse as the government has guaranteed his safety. "We have an Act to protect witnesses. If we do not have trust in the government to protect the witness whom can we trust. Surely not Anwar (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim)," he told reporters after giving Aidilfitri goodies at Lubuk Merbau, near here Sunday. Anwar, who is Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor, had said the source of the video recording was prepared to come forward if he is given immunity and protection by a Royal Commission set up to investigate the matter. Nazri said protection is accorded to witnesses in cases investigated by the police and ACA and not only when a Royal Commission is involved. "They may be confused by the law or they simply do not have the tape," he added. Nazri said the panel needs to verify the authenticity of the recording and source to ascertain its validity. "If they do not cooperate, then the authenticity cannot be determined and this will prevent the panel from discharging its responsibility. As such, it is important for them to reveal the source failing which we can conclude that they are lying. "The government will give the witness a new identity. So what is there to be afraid of? There is a Malay saying `Takut Kerana Salah'. I think he is scared because he is in the wrong."
Nazri said it is the government's job to protect sources or witnesses, not the ACA. He added the identity of a protected witness would be kept secret to safeguard him from public persecution
ACA got Statements from Video Clip Lawyer, Businessman & Anwar; Nazri Assures Identity of Source is protected but No guarantee of personal Safety
MALAYSIAKINI latest coverage of the development of the Lingam Video Clip probe includes
ACA officials quiz Anwar Andrew Ong | Oct 5, 07 4:17pm
Whistleblowers 'trade off' for royal commission Oct 5, 07 5:16pm and
ACA sniffing along the wrong trail Soon Li Tsin | Oct 5, 07 3:36pm but was not privy to the statements ACA recorded from the lawyer and the business which the STAR carried on 6th Oct 07
The behind the scene moves are clearer now with the Legal Affairs Department (in the PM department) orchestrating and directing the Probe Panel. The Panel seems to be at a loss over its "terms of reference" so much so that the Datuk Shankar had to distribute to Pressman a copy in Bahasa Malaysia and had a copy translated of their appointment letter (which might not have the terms of reference). When he called for witnesses to come forward; he was shot down by DPM Najib that "they were not supposed to call witnesses" and use Government agencies help to determine the authenticity.
After the probe panel first meeting, they have gone into a two week recess waiting for others to do the job. And the bombshell came from ACA when they threatened the two PKR whistler blowers to reveal their source(s) or face a two-year jail term. It looks like the Panel is just a camouflage for a Government damage control initiative to get at the source. Statements have been recorded from the lawyer in the Video Clip, the prominent business man and s from Anwar Ibrahim from his house. The 3-member Independent Panel is a Powerless 3-member Stooges Panel making its decision basing on the investigations of the ACA and perhaps the Police.
What sort of protection is the de facto law minister Nazri talking about?
“We protect whistleblowers from being made known to the public, not from the authorities”. Anwar Ibrahim was quick to point out that ACA had said it was willing to protect the identity of the source, but it could not guarantee the personal safety of these whistleblowers. So a Royal Commission is the way out.
Now ACA has secretly recorded statements from that famous lawyer and the prominent businessman and with the Statement from Anwar; can the so called independent Panel come to a conclusion on the Clip authenticity without the source being revealed?
The fear factor in whistleblowers - there is nothing within you to fear.
The purpose behind all life lessons is learning how to overcome our fears, for doing so is the only way that we can let go and move on with our evolution as conscious beings. Fear can be in a variety of contexts, including perceived fears, the fear of impulses and the fear of emotions. For whistleblowers, the real fear is physical personal safety i.e the fear of death – you might get blow off from this earth for exposing something. And this reality is your own creation. We must organize our reality according to our strength and not to our fears. Actually, there is nothing within yourself to fear.
All consciousness has within it the deep abiding impetus to use its abilities fully, to expand its capacities, to venture joyfully beyond the seeming barriers of its own experience. The very consciousnesses within the smallest molecules cry out against any ideas of limitation due to fears. They yearn toward new forms and experiences. Even atoms, then, constantly seek to join in new organizations of structure and meaning. They do this "instinctively."
All deep aspirations and unconscious motivations, all unspoken drives, rise up for the approval or disapproval of the conscious mind, and await its direction.
= = == == === == = = == == = == = =
Lawyer questioned over video clip
By
PETALING JAYA: The Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) has recorded the statements of two prominent people – a lawyer and a business tycoon – in connection with the controversial video clip purportedly showing a senior lawyer on the phone brokering the appointment of judges. Sources familiar with the investigations said ACA officers recorded the lawyer’s statement on Monday while the businessman, whose name was mentioned several times in the video, had his statement recorded last week. They said ACA officers took several hours to record their statements. ACA officials declined to comment as investigations were in progress. Telephone calls made to the prominent lawyer's cellphone were answered by a man who identified himself as friend of the lawyer. The man said lawyer had left the cellphone with him after dinner last night. It was learnt that the lawyer had returned from overseas last weekend. Asked whether the lawyer had gone to the ACA to give a statement, he said the lawyer had gone to ACA several days earlier. The ACA has so far recorded statements from several people including Parti Keadilan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who made public the eight-minute video clip on Sept 19. Following the revelation of the controversial video clip on Sept 19, the government set up a three-man independent panel to investigate its authenticity.
The panel has been given 30 days from Sept 27 to complete its assignment and report to the government. The three-man panel is headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor and assisted by former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shanker as well as National Service Council chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye.
= == =
Whistleblowers are protected by law, says Nazri
Enforcement sources confirmed that the person enjoyed protection under the Anti Corruption Act. They said the Act guaranteed that the identity of those who provide information of offences under the Act could not be revealed. Section 53 (1) of the Act reads: The identity of the person from whom such information is received shall be a secret between the officer who made the complaint and the person who gave the information, and everything contained in such information, the identity of the person who gave the information and all other circumstances relating to the information, including the place where it was given, shall not be disclosed or be ordered or required to be disclosed in any civil, criminal or other proceedings in any court, tribunal or other authority.
While Section 53 (2), which expands on the protection reads:
That if any book, paper or other document or any visual or sound recording, or other matter or material which is given in evidence or liable to inspection in any civil, criminal or other proceedings in court, tribunal or other authority as are referred to in subsection (1) contains any entry or other matter in which any person who gave the information is named or described or shown or which might lead to his discovery the court before which the proceedings are held shall cause all such parts thereof or passage therein to be concealed from view or to be obliterated or otherwise removed so far as is necessary to protect such person from discovery.
Anwar quizzed by ACA
Maria J. Dass; theSUN
ABOVE: the two ACA Officers from Putrajaya arriving at Anwar's Office and BELOW: Seen climbing up the staircase to the office and emerging almost 2 hrs later
PETALING JAYA (Oct 5, 2007): Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was questioned by Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officers for about 90 minutes today but the former deputy premier was not "threatened" with charges. Yesterday, the ACA also quizzed two PKR officials - vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah and Anwar's political coordinator Sim Tze Tzin - who were both given seven days' notice to reveal the source of an eight-minute damning video clip on the judiciary or face action under the Anti Corruption Act 1997.The ACA officers, identified as Wan Rahman and Ang from the Putrajaya ACA headquarters entered Anwar’s office at 3.30pm and left at about 5.20pm.
Anwar described his meeting with the officers as cordial. "I respect their (ACA’s) role but reiterate the importance to protect and guarantee the personal safety of the people who brought the video clip to our attention. "We must understand that the system has failed them (whistle-blowers) in the past. It protected ministers and corporate players involved," said Anwar. "Under Section 53 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 which I introduced in Parliament promises anonymity to the source, and allows the name of the source to be withheld during court proceedings. However, the ACA is powerless to guarantee the personal safety of the source," he said.
"For all these reasons we advocated the need to set up a Royal Commission which can grant the sources protection and immunity. Then they will feel more secure," said Anwar, adding that he met up with the sources less then 24 hours before the ACA questioned him.
"Right now, the focus is on determining the authenticity of the video clip which we have no doubts while the role of the lawyer, the tycoon and the Cabinet Minister implicated in the video clip have been completely ignored.
"The influence and prominence of these figures are also a reason why the sources are reluctant to reveal their identities or fear for their safety," he added.
When asked why they were in so much fear and perceived the country to be such an unsafe place, Anwar said: "Don’t you remember the Mongolian woman who was blown up in a jungle last year?" "The sources of the clip want to fully cooperate with the ACA. But they are unwilling to come forward for fear of their safety," said Anwar. Asked if the remaining six minutes of the video which may reveal the identity of the source would be released soon, he said: "Shortly, with the consent of the source." On ACA's threat to charge Sivarasa and Sim if the two did not reveal the source of the video clip within seven days, Anwar said: "I lodge a strong protest against it as I am the one who gave them the instructions and am privy to the information."
However he said he had not received a similar notice (yet). Asked why the ACA officer took the trouble to come to his office instead of summoning him to the ACA office, Anwar said: "The ACA was kind to me because I told them I had to attend a funeral today." Anwar said: "I asked the officers why they had yet to question the people depicted and mentioned in the video clip and they assured me that they are going through the due process of investigations." He said the conversation of the lawyer in the video clip is further confirmed by the subsequent appointments in the judiciary. "This lawyer is either an expert, in the know or an astrologer," said Anwar.
= == = == == = ==
Updated:
= == = == === = = Bernama brief ccount
ACA Records Statement From Anwar
PETALING JAYA, Oct 5 (Bernama) -- The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) today recorded a statement from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in connection with investigations to determine the authenticity of a video clip showing a lawyer engaged in a telephone conversation purportedly on judges' appointment. Two investigating officers from the Putrajaya ACA office arrived at the office of the party PKR advisor in Section 16, here this afternoon.
Both officers declined comment on their meeting with Anwar, which was also attended by his lawyer, William Leong, when met by reporters two hours later. Meanwhile at a press conference later, Anwar said he was prepared to cooperate fully with the ACA on the investigation on the video clip. Anwar said it was appropriate that the ACA questioned him as he was the one who first exposed the video clip.
ACA goes after PKR whistleblowers
Llew-Ann Phang, theSUN
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 4, 2007): The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has compelled Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah (ABOVE) and party adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s political coordinator Sim Tze Tzin to reveal the source of the eight-minute video clip, or face action under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. Sivarasa and Sim were served with a notice to provide information under Section 22(1)(c) of the Act in the ACA office, here today. It was signed by ACA headquarters Special Action Branch enforcer Chua Lay Choo.
"We understand from the attachment to the notice that they want to know the identity and full details of the source," Sivarasa said.
Both Sim and Sivarasa have one week to comply or face two years jail, a fine of RM10,000 or both. He said they had not responded yet but will discuss with their lawyers and the party leadership before deciding on their next move.
"They are using the law to reveal the source and ACA justifies it to their need to compile evidence to determine the authenticity of the clip," he said, adding that this will further reduce the public’s confidence in the government agency.
The recording was of a telephone conversation purportedly between a senior lawyer and a "Datuk" believed to be a senior judge.
PKR released the clip – originally 14 minutes long – in a Sept 19 press conference and Sivarasa lodged a report with the ACA the next day.
He said PKR gave the source a guarantee of protection from the start and added that he (Sivarasa) and Sim were willing to take the penalties in efforts to protect the source.
PKR, he said, was disappointed over the directions of the investigations and questioned ACA’s technical investigations to determine the authenticity of the clip.
Investigations in the technical sense can be done if the tape is handed over to its video experts or they could even call the people in the video but they are asking for the details of the source, he said.
Sivarasa said investigations had taken a wrong direction - similar to the nude ear-squat recording in 2005.
Investigations in that incident, he said, were centred on the person who captured the video and not the offence of misconduct where the woman was made to strip and carry out the act.
"I told Chua it is the same here. Instead of investigating the root of the problem – corruption (within the judiciary) – they are going after the source of the video," he said.
Sivarasa and Sim both said that without the formation of a Royal Commission, the source would not be revealed because of a lack of immunity.
Sivarasa and Sim were accompanied by lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad.
Updated: 07:26PM Thu,
= = == = =from Bernama
Video Clip Panel Welcomes Info, Materials From Public
"We cannot compel you ... but you can volunteer to come forward through
our secretariat with your statement or whatever," he told reporters after the panel held its first meeting today.
The three-member panel, which also comprises social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, met at the office of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) at Menara Tun Razak here.
Panel member Mahadev said those who wanted to submit such materials must ensure that they were reliable and relevant. "We have no legal power to compel anybody. We have no power to administer oaths. We have no power to compel witnesses to come to us. We have no immunity under the law either. The only immunity we have is our good faith and our honesty," he said, adding that the panel would function without any interference from anybody. Meanwhile, the Attorney- General, the police and the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) have assured the panel of their cooperation. Haidar, a former chief judge of
= == = = =
No Ambiguity In The Terms Of Reference For Panel, Says Najib
Speaking to the media:
“No, No, No they are not supposed to call witnesses. They know the terms of reference. There is no ambiguity. They will work within the terms of reference. They will work very closely with the appropriate Government agencies”
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 3 (Bernama) -- There is no ambiguity in the terms of reference given to the independent panel set up to determine the authenticity of a video clip showing a lawyer purported discussing judicial appointments with a senior judge, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today. The deputy prime minister said the panel was not supposed to call witnesses and knew their terms of reference. He was speaking to reporters after launching the book, "Your Rights and the Law", written by the Defence Ministry's Judge Advocate General, Teo Say Eng.
The panel, set up on Sept 25, is headed by former Chief Judge of
Najib was commenting on the panel's power to investigate and verify the authenticity of the video clip.The panel had its first meeting today, attended also by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan. Asked whether the panel would be able to make conclusions, Najib said it could although it had no power to call witnesses.
[…]
UPDATE: DAY 46 – Trial –
Touch and go' cannot reveal DNA presence
R. Surenthira Kumar; theSUN
DAY 46
ABOVE: Dr J.Primulapathi, the director of the Chemist Department’s forensic division
SHAH ALAM (Oct 5, 2007): DNA presence cannot be detected without a person coming into contact with an item, unless it is planted, said a chemist and forensics expert in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder hearing today. J.Primulapathi, the director of the Chemist Department’s forensic division, said someone could extract specimens or samples of blood, sweat, skin scrapings, hair or other things and plant it onto an item. He said in order for the DNA to be present on an item, a person would have had to be in contact with the item for a considerable period of time, and it cannot remain in the particular item in a '"touch and go" situation. Asked if the person who carries out such act needs to have expertise in the field, Primulapathi surprised all present in court: "Even school children can learn to extract DNA samples. In Form Six, they can do it, it’s a simple process which one can learn from the Internet." He was responding to questions posed by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Noorin Badaruddin, during examination-in-chief, on the 46th day of the trial.
"So you are saying it is impossible, unless it is extracted," said judge Datuk Ahmad Zaki Md Yasin. Primulapathi nodded and said "Yes" to Mohd Zaki’s question. However, the chemist said the person who planned to extract DNA samples from a specimen must have some knowledge about the process. Earlier when the hearing began, Noorin asked Primulapathi to repeat the findings and analysis he carried out on the bones and blood samples taken from Altantuya’s parents, Setev Shaariibuu and Altansetseg Shaariibuu. Primulapathi had yesterday stated the findings but Noorin told Mohd Zaki the chemist will repeat the findings, minus all the alphabet and digits given to the samples sent for the tests. Primulapathi said he made the following findings:
* the tissue specimen and bone matched each other, thus indicating that they are from similar source. Further to this the DNA profile revealed that the source was the biological daughter of the donor of the blood specimen labelled Setev Shaariibuu and Altantsetseg Sanjaa. The possibility of parentage is 99.9999% based on the Malaysian Malay, Chinese and Indian population.
* the mitochondrial DNA (MT-DNA) developed from tissue specimen labelled unknown to match that of blood specimen labelled Altantsetseg, thus indicating that the sources were from the same maternal lineage.
* the MT-DNA sequences developed from the bloodstains on slippers, hairs, and swabs from wristwatch, earrings, ring, and jacket to match each other and with that of tissue specimen labeled "unknown", thus indicating that the sources were from the same maternal lineage.
* the MT-DNA sequences developed from the hair shaft to be different from that the blood specimens labeled "Setev Shaariibuu", "Altansetseg", Sirul Azhar Umar", Abdul Razak", Azilah Hadri" and "Rohaniza Roslan".
Noorin (ABOVE): From your records, the blood specimen of Setev Shaariibuu and Altantsetseg and the the tissue specimen T5, you found from your analysis that the donor of tissue specimen T5 is the biological daughter of Setev Shaariibuu and Aaltantsetseg?
Primulapathi: Yes.
Noorin: You also found that the donor of the blood stains on the slippers and the donor of hairs T12, T13 (tufts of hair) and Z11A (strand of hair) and the swabs from wristwatch, earrings, ring and jacket, match tissue specimen T5?
Primulapathi: Yes.
Noorin: Can you conclude that the donor of the bloodstains on slippers, hairs, and swabs from jewelleries is the same person?
Primulapathi: I can only infer based on the results which I obtained that they could have all come from the same person. As I have said earlier, MT-DNA shows that all these bloodstains on slippers, hairs and swabs from jewelleries and jacket had come from persons of the same maternal lineage. So, based on STR (short tandem report) DNA profile which revealed that tissue specimen T5 was the biological daughter, therefore I can infer that the hair, bloodstains and swabs could have come from the same person too.
Primulapthi was then asked to go into the details of the analsysis he performed on the samples and specimens and also asked to explain the basis of his findings, which was more scientific based.
At one point, the courtroom was again surprised when Primulapathi said there were similarities in the sequence of the blood samples taken from Sirul Azhar and Abdul Razak.
When asked by Noorin, whether the similarities indicated there was a linkage between the two men in the maternal lineage, Primulapathi replied in the affirmative.
"There’s ‘bau-bau bacang’ relationship between them," said Noorin to Mohd Zaki.
Abdul Razak’s lawyer Wong Kian Kheong, during cross-examination, asked if DNA presence of his client was found on the samples of the valuables, believed to belong to Altantuya, Primulapathi said: "There were none."
On the maternal lineage link between Abdul Razak and Sirul Azhar, Primulapthi said it could have resulted due to mutations in the past generations.
ABOVE & BELOW: Abdul Razak arriving in Court on Day 46 of Trial
= = == === = == = =Bernama’s Brief Account
SHAH ALAM, Oct 5 (Bernama) - Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda's DNA profile was not detected on the wristwatch, ring and earrings belonging to murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu, the High Court here heard today. K. Primulapathi Jaya, the director of the forensic division at the Chemistry Department in Petaling Jaya, said he also did not detect Abdul Razak`s DNA profile on Cpl Sirul Azhar Umar's slippers but Altantuya's DNA were found on it.
When giving testimony in this high-profile trial yesterday, Primulapathi had said that the DNA of the bloodstains on the slippers and jewellery belonged to the biological daughter of Setev Shaariibuu and Altansetseg Sanjaa (Altantuya's parents). Sirul Azhar, 36, and Chief Insp Azilah Hadri, 31, both of whom are from the Police's Special Action Squad (UTK), are charged with murdering Altantuya, 28, at a location between Lots 12843 and 16735, Mukim Bukit Raja, between 10pm on Oct 19 last year and 1am the following day. Abdul Razak, 47, a prominent political analyst, is accused of abetting them.
ABOVE: The hooded ones arriving on Day 46 Trial
= = == == = == == = ==
ABOVE: Altantuya's Father Setev Shaariibuu and her friend Uuriintuya Gal-Ochir is back in Malaysia for the trial since Day 45. She testified on Day 7 Trial (Jun 26 07) that she faced problems at the KL
= == = == = == = = == = == == = = == = = ==
see video link in next post H E R E
posted by multidimid at 10:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home