MALAYSIA BOLEH! Macam-macam ada… Guess what after this?
BALA
KUALA LUMPUR: Political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda’s private investigator P. Balasubramaniam on Friday retracted the statutory declaration which he made less than 24 hours ago. In a startling turn of events Balasubramaniam revealed in a second statutory declaration that he wished “to retract the entire contents of my statutory declaration dated July 1 2008. I was compelled to affirm the said statutory declaration under duress”. The document also read that all statements made were inaccurate and not the truth. A visibly perturbed Balasubramaniam remained mum on Friday when met by pressmen who had rushed to a hotel here where his new lawyer Arulampalam Mariam Pillai accompanied him for the brief press conference. Private investigator P.Balasubramaniam (left) talking with his new lawyer Arulampalam Arulampalam Mariam Pillai after the press conference Friday where he retracted the earlier statutory declaration, denying that Abdul Razak Baginda said anything to him that linked the Deputy Prime Minister to Mongolian murder victim Altantuya Shaariibuu. – Bernama Dressed in a cap and T-shirt Balasubramaniam refused to answer questions posed to him and left quickly after his lawyer distributed the second statutory declaration to reporters. Arulampalam also refused to entertain pressmen, giving only a brief statement that his client was under duress and that he was upset. The new statutory declaration withdrew all statements that Balasubramaniam had revealed to a packed press conference organised by PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at party headquarters 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 10 statements highlighted in the second statutory declaration dated July 4 were:
* At no material time did Razak inform him (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 as a commission for a submarine deal she “assisted” with in Paris;
* At no time whatsoever did Razak and/or Altantuya inform him that Najib met with 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 has 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.
Dunia Kemanusiaan 
There is something disturbing about the spate of affadivits or statutory declarations sprouting up in whats really a political spat between 2 opposing groups. Lawyers either unwittingly or as I suspect deliberately and negligently are allowing themselves to become snared in the mess, laying down their professional credibility on the line in the process.
Subramaniam makes some startling allegations based on second hand or third hand unsubstantiated hearsay. It has drawn little fire from Malaysia’s human rights watch dogs or the so called custodians of the democratic rights of Malaysians which in itself raises some very serious questions about their deafening silence in the face of Subramaniams allegations> Embarrasing for what its worth.
The allegations are of a crimnal nature and imputes criminal conduct on the targets of his allegations. Yet no one has pointed out the futility of such an exercise because of the very defamatory nature of the allegations against those identified whom these allegations are directed against and the fact such allegations made in the manner in which Subramaniam has made them are inadmissible in a proper court of law.
His withdrawal has the tactical hallmarks of Anwar Ibrahims ‘seeking refuge in the Turkish Embassy’ ploy. Now you see him now you don’t.
I like many others have grave reservations as to how and why Subramaniam made these allegations then withdrew them. He after all is a former Malaysian policeman. trained presumably in both the law and its application at the very basic levels at least.
If his Affadivit or statutory declaration is to be admitted by any chance, the bulk of it must be struck out for what it is whilst the remainder will provide adequate ammunition for any half baked lawyer to attack his credibility as a witness.