BENARKAH LAPORAN AUTOPSI KEDUA TEOH BENG HOCK SUDAH KELUAR?

Neutral Daily telah menyiarkan satu laporan hari ini bertajuk “Teka-Teki: Siapa Pembunuh Teoh?” (baca di sini),  yang sebenarnya menyalin sepenuhnya laporan Free Malaysia Today yang bertajuk "Laporan pakar sahkan Teoh dibunuh" (baca di sini). Laporan ini dipetik di bawah:

Teka-teki kematian setiausaha politik exco Selangor, Teoh Beng Hock akhirnya terjawab apabila laporan kedua pakar patologi terkemuka, Pornthip Rojanasunand dari Thailand membuktikan kesasihan ujian forensik itu yang mensabitkan mendiang mati dibunuh Julai lalu.

Menurut sumber-sumber kementerian kesihatan Pornthip membuat rumusan itu setelah hadir sama pada bedah siasatan kedua mendiang Teoh pada 22 Novermber lalu di Hospital Sungai Buloh.

Memetik laporan akhbar rasmi PKR, Suara Keaadilan, sumber berkenaan juga mendakwa, Pornthip sudah menyerahkan laporan kepada pihak-pihak berkenaan, termasuk keluarga Teoh dan kerajaan negeri Selangor yang meminta bantuan kepakarannya selepas terdapat keraguan yang melampau terhadap kesan yang ada pada mayat mendiang.

Inkues kematian Teoh ini akan disambung pada 7 Januari 2010 selepas dua kali ditangguh.

Difahamkan, Pornthip mengguna pakai beberapa teknik dan proses baru yang meyakinkan beliau sepenuhnya bahawa Teoh mati dibunuh dan bukan membunuh diri atau pun menjadi mangsa kemalangan.

[ Laporan seterusnya boleh dibach di sini atau sini ]

Komen:

Laporan di atas mengundang berbagai soalan. Pertama, sudahkah laporan autopsi kedua Teoh yang rasmi dikeluarkan?

Kedua, kalau betullah bacaan saya ke atas laporan ini, Dr. Pornthip membuat rumusannya sendiri sahaja. Bagaimana pula dengan pendapat pakar-pakar lain yang terlibat sama, iaitu Dr Peter Vanezis, Dr Khairul Azman Ibrahim, Dr Prashant Naresh Samberkar dan Dr Shahidan Md Noor? Tidakkah pendapat mereka wajib diambil kira? Laporan ini hanya tertumpu kepada pendapat Dr Pornthip dan oleh itu ianya berat sebelah dan tidak menyeluruh.

Ketiga, laporan ini juga berdasarkan maklumat dari sumber-sumber Kementerian Kesihatan dan Suara Keadilan PKR. Pendedahan ini membawa soalan, bagaimana Kementerian Kesihatan boleh mendedahkan maklumat yang sepatutnya hanya boleh didedahkan pada 7 Januari 2010 apabila inkues Teoh bersambung? Tidakkah inkues pada 7 Januari adalah masa dan tempat yang sepatutnya untuk menimbangkan laporan autopsi kedua rasmi yang lebih menyeluruh, iaitu laporan yang juga mengandungi pendapat lain-lain pakar yang terlibat? Sepatutnya laporan rasmi inilah yang mengandungi rumusan muktamad pasukan autopsi, bukan setakat pendapat Dr Pornthip sahaja. Laporan Neutral Daily dan Free Malaysia Today di atas, terutama tajuk dari Free Malaysia Today, dipaparkan seolah-olah ia berdasarkan laporan rasmi dan keputusan muktamad autopsi kedua telah tercapai, walhal ia hanya pendapat Dr Pornthip seorang sahaja. Ini boleh mengelirukan sesiapa yang membacanya.

Keempat, kalau benarlah sumber-sumber Kementerian Kesihatan yang mendedahkan maklumat tersebut, tidakkah ia melanggar peraturan dan juga etika perubatan (breach of medical ethics)? Tidakkah ini bermakna Kementerian Kesihatan dan Suara Keadilan telah melakukan kesalahan? Bolehkah ia disebut "contempt of court"?

Kita tunggu penjelasan selanjutnya dari pihak-pihak yang membuat laporan ini.

MR PRIME MINISTER, DO SOMETHING!

I've not been posting for some time due to health reasons, but the incorrigibly loose-tongue Raja Petra's article in Malaysia Today and blogger WBhim's reactions here and here, forces my ailing fingers to my computer keyboard. In this article, Raja Petra has urged that our constitutional monarchy be abolished and replaced by a republic.

The point is, Raja Petra has all along been saying things that are detrimental to the country's well-being, yet no action has been taken against him. We have a Minister who only gives warning but no action, and we have a PM who does not seem to have the will to take action.

This is not to criticize the PM and what he has done so far, but keeping silent in the face of our enemies' incessant onslaught does nothing but embolden them to keep up with the offensive until their objectives are met, and until the next general elections. Many, notably Anwar Ibrahim, Raja Petra and the chauvinist DAP (aided sadly and shamelessly by the very people, the Malays, who are supposed to defend our constitutional monarchy) have already crossed the threshold - the line between constructive criticism and sedition/treachery. This Raja Petra's latest statement represents the latest in the seemingly unbroken chain of offensives. And let us not forget the what Anwar has done to our country. Do we have, or want, to wait until the damage becomes irreparable?

We would understand it that the PM has to safeguard the already fragile racial relations, and he must do so in these uncertain times. Worse, he now has to contend with enemies (and issues) within the government and party. But surely he can't allow this to go on unabated. 

We the bloggers can only do so much but we are not the power that be. We, and the general populace, still rely on our leaders to do what is necessary to maintain peace and stability in the country. As I had said in many of my previous comments in a few blogs, our country cries for a strong leader with a formidable political will. And we need it now more than ever before.

I've that uneasy sense of foreboding that things are not going to get any better. But don't be mistaken, I'm not anti-establishment. I've supported the BN for over 30 years, since my schooling days. But I, like other peace-loving citizens, don't want to see our beloved country go down in ruin.

And I'm not just talking about 1Malaysia, I'm more concerned about the environment conducive to the fostering of 1Malaysia - peace and stability.

Over to you, DS Najib. Do something!

ISU 'STATUTORY DECLARATION' BALA

Dari bacaan saya di beberapa blog, nampaknya masih banyak yang tidak berapa faham tentang isu Statutory Declaration (SD) yang dikeluarkan oleh Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal. Semua sudah sedia maklum tentang apa yang berlaku semasa isu ini mula-mula meletup tidak lama dahulu.

Yang menjadi isu hingga kini adalah SD yang pertama (SD 1). Baru-baru ini Bala tiba-tiba menjelma setelah hilang sekian lama dan membuat dakwaan bahawa SD 1 beliau adalah rekod sebenar bukti-bukti berkaitan tuduhannya terhadap orang-orang yang dinamakan di dalam SD tersebut, khususnya Perdana Menteri kita, DS Najib. Maksudnya, mengikut Bala, SD 1 beliau mengandungi fakta-fakta belaka, bukan andaian atau sesuatu yang meragukan.

Bagaimana pun, beberapa blogger telah pun menyangkal dakwaan Bala - bukan saja SD beliau tetapi juga personaliti/kelakuan beliau sendiri. Pembaca boleh merujuk kepada tulisan blogger-blogger tersebut, antaranya seperti Rocky's Bru, Barking Magpie, Apanama, dan Unspinners (posts 1, 2, dan 3). Dari tulisan-tulisan mereka, kita sedia maklum bahawa SD 1 Bala mengandungi banyak keraguan, percanggahan, ketidaksejajaran, dan perkara-perkara yang tidak boleh dipercayai, semuanya bertujuan semata-mata untuk memburukkan imej DS Najib. Malah, ia merupakan usaha terancang Anwar Ibrahim dan para peguam pembangkang untuk menjatuhkan DS Najib.

Bagaimana pun, sebelum ini, keraguan yang dimaksudkan itu tidak dijelaskan dan dibahaskan secara terperinci. Dalam hal ini, blog Gopal Raj Kumar telah menulis secara terperinci keraguan yang terdapat di dalam SD 1 Bala. Saya perturunkan di bawah ini sedutan (tanpa disunting) dari tulisan Gopal Raj Kumar, di mana beliau menyalin kandungan SD 1 Bala dan memberi komen (iaitu keraguannya) kepada hampir setiap perenggan SD tersebut (komennya dalam warna merah):

REVELATION
BALASUBRAMANIAM PERUMAL’S STAUTORY DECLARATION (THE FIRST OF TWO)

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal … (I believe he is also meant to state his occupation and address here for clarity and completeness) do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force, having joined as a constable in 1981 attached to the police field force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance corporal (promoted in what year?) and finally resigned (finally resigned?? does he mean he resigned more than once prior to 1998?) from the police force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch (does not say when he moved to the special branch and under what circumstances and what he did at the special branch. Is that up to the reader to guess or speculate on?).

2. I have been working as a freelance private investigator since I left the police force. (since meaning since 1998 or was it much later after that. If so when then?).

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8am to 5pm each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party. (what does the term look after him mean here?. Was he providing Baginda with personal security services or was he taking care of Baginda whilst he was ill? What was so apparent about disturbances he mentions here and a third party? What does disturbances by a third party mean? who was that third party? This is speculative nonsense.

4. I resigned from this job after 2½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions. (nothing unusual about his resignation it would appear as Bala was not good at holding jobs from his work history as he describes it here and from his own statements in paragraph 1. Yet he describes his role with Baginda in para 3 as being employed by him to look after him between the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm each working day. Does that mean he resigned on the third day at approximately 1.30pm? He does not say what instructions he expected and how he expected these to be given to him and what he means by not receiving proper instructions.

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the Oct 5, 2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts (Why would someone feel threatened by another who threatens to pay his debts? In a natural situation one would be relieved at the offer and not consider it to be a threat. So which of the two propositions is Bala’s statement meant to convey to the reader? that it was a threat or an offer? Did he actually hear the ‘threat’ he states as fact here and was he able to and by what means identify the person who identified himself as ASP Tan? If not why does he swear to a statement in this Statutory Declaration asserting hearsay which is inadmissible as fact? Was he advised by the solicitor taking his statement that such a statement should not be included in his Statutory Declaration for the dangers of perjury?). I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu (really? how did he find this out? How did he ascertain the relationship between the man whose real name he now identifies as Ang and the citizenship and race of the woman he identifies as Altantuya Shaaribu? How did he make that connection to swear it as fact? and when did he find all of these ‘facts’ out and by what means?).

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him. (Did Abdul Razak Baginda convey all of this information to Bala? If so when how and in exactly what circumstances and what precisely were his words?)

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this (There is no historic record of Mongolia having had any Malay influence in its entire turbulent history to have been capable of having the Malay spiritual cultural phenomenon of Bomoh. Mongolia for decades was a spiritual and religious vacuum under one totalitarian ruler or another. More recently of course the atheistic Soviets. (rumour, speculation and hearsay).

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.( What actually did Baginda say to Bala, where, in what circumstances, what exact words, when and how)

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high-profile people involved. (again where, when, in what circumstances, what words and how)

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people (He is defaming and making value judgements about someone incapable of defending themselves by repeating the defamation if true without any substance or evidence capable of supporting his statements in this regard. Again when, where, in what circumstances in what words and how. And more importaantly has the lawyer advised him of the penalties of making statements he cannot verify or substantiate. Has the lawyer informed him of the need to stick to firtshand facts in such a situation? or is the lawyer through his own professional negligence encouraging Bala and leading him on……..I suspect there are voices in the background (metaphorically….not heaard here for convenience) She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia. (Again illogical and irrelevant. Whats the meaning of “he even financed a property for her in Mongolia? a residential unit, half the Russian Steppes? the writings of Genghis Khan?” what property did who finance? and is Bala speculating from speculation? he fails to say who said what, where when and in what words. Scant details and his discredited word only)

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed. (okay what did the message say specifically for him to arrive at the conclusion that the caller was demanding money and making a threat to harm Baginda and to harass his daughter. Why does he not describe the voices and the quality of the recording? Being a former cop and special branch operative did he at least make mental notes of the event such as the telephone number of the caller on the handphone display, background noises and the language used? Was it male or female. What day did was it that he heard all of this? Did he ask Baginda for details?)

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well (and did he? How did he protect her how and from who or what and what did he protect her?. Why not describe a typical day in his routine now that had have been re employed by Baginda. Surely he must have kept a diary for each of his days as a security operative for such an important individual as Baginda?).

13. On Oct 9, 2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30am informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance (what surveillance for whom?, where was he and why was he not with Baginda as required and as he claims earlier as he always was between 8-ooam and 5.00pm on each working day? or was this not a working day? did Baginda know or was he informed that Bala served two masters? did Baginda and the other employer approve of this?) I sent my assistant Suras (Suras who? has he another name? can the prosecution verify that from just the name Suras? Was Suras also engaged by Baginda to protect him? did Baginda authorized the engagement of other individual security officers as part of the deal? Who paid Suras, how much and for what? What were Suras’ duties and how did that fit into your schedule of duties working to protect Baginda?. What was Suras’ background, his training and his skills) to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. (how did Suras control the situation. Why did Bala not describe the situation he refers to in greater detail? Altantuya is described as being demanding and a nuisance in effect. What did he do to ‘persuade her to leave?’) However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya notepaper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given? what was the number?) and wrote down her room number as well.( what was that number, he remembers the name Hotel Malaya and the remainder of the note. Strangely he does not appear to recall an important detail like was her room number?)

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda. (How does Bala come to this conclusion about this particular meeting and the details he puts forward?)

15. These three Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda. (Which three girls, why no description, where? what circumstances? no description, no names, no mention of their nationality and race as he provides so descriptively previously on Altantuya how did he manage to conclude they were Mongolians? did they show him their passports?)

16. On Oct 11, 2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently. (What sort of paper was it written on? Hotel Malaya Paper? writing in ink? what colour? what did the message say?)

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.(why? what legal authority or reason would there have been for Bala to have arranged for her arrest?)

18. In the meantime, I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these three Mongolian girls, but they recognised him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room. ( and this is the same Suras, Bala engaged to conduct security services for an important person on his behalf whose personal safety was entrusted to Balas care? and Bala hired Suras to deputise for him?)

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah (does he mean romatically close or physically close?) he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.(How did he ask Bala to do that What were his words to that effect?)

20. On the Oct 14, 2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t, so I called the police who arrived in two patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.(who at the police station did Bala call? What time did this particular incident occur? what time did Bala call the police and what time did the police arrive? who was in charge of the police at Baginda’s house? were there any other witnesses? did Baginda have family with him at any of these occasions when these incidents complained of with the girls and menacing calls occur?)

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.(What taxi….where is the description…..number plate…..taxi cab company name…..What is lawyer Dirren’s full name. How come this chap has details of the various people he meets and comes into contact with to the point of their first names but nothing else.?)

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own private investigator, one Mr Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for US$500,000 and three tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris. (who was Bala told all of this by? what words were used? what deal did the speaker say took place in Paris? did he obtain anyd etails of this Mr. Ang? IC Number of full name? in such a situation an ex  trained special branch person would know what to look for in detail and how to in special circumstances obtain it from his subject….in this case Ang  or perhaps ASP Tan)

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably. (who was this police woman and what rank did she hold? What exactly did she say? did she ask Altantuya to leave as well? who else was there? is Aminah Altantuya? or has Bala doubts to express himself in this way when describing the woman he knows as Aminah)

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made (to whom were these demands made? or is Bala referring to the demands he refers to in the previous paragraph of this his stat demand?) and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.(How did Bala express all of these matters to Baginda… what words did he use….or has he no recollection of his words in that conversation?)

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that: 1) He had been introduced to Aminah by Najib Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.( what diamond exhibition? what date what location in Singapore?  would these details not corroboraate other assumtions being made….or linking suspect parites to persons and events? did he also confirm that Aminah was in fact Altantuya? if so why is it not stated here expressly so…is that not relevant?)

2) Najib Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that she was susceptible to anal intercourse (how does Bala know this to be fact?? was he with Baginda when Najib Razak allegedly made this statement?…..did his lawyer not warn him of the dangers of making statements under oath which he could not particularise or authenticate which could lead to perjury or in the alternative to perverting the course of justice or its equivaleent in Malaysia?? 

And why susceptible? does Bala mean she had a preference for it or was partial to it? whose words are these like ‘susceptible?’…..clearly they do not form part of the pattern of words found in Bala’s limited vocabulary and appear to have been introduced into this stat demand…….is this Bala’s Stat Declaration or have we a driver here?……is this perhaps someone else’s attempt to introduce the vexed topic of anal intercourse as an accepted practice amongst certain Malay politicans…one is already being charged the second time for the offence albeit against another male….. is this the counter attack against the government’s charges against Anwar for sodomy?).

3) Najib Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the deputy prime minister. (did Bala hear Najib Razak say this to Baginda? Or is it his own highly vivid imagination that leads him to believe this is the case? Or did some one else tell him this is what occurred?)

4) Najib Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris. (Really and what proof does Bala have of this contention? When during that time and in what circumstances did Bala go to Paris to be witness of these events? And where does he allude to it here in this paragraph? More importantly who guides Bala to produce these statements?)

5) Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a US$500,000 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris. (statements 1-5 above are insignificant and inadmissible heresay said to have been relayed to Bala whose credibility here is suspect. These statements to a very large part are unsubstantiated allegations of events Bala was never privy to of his own admission here and elsewhere. Why include such statements in a Statutory Declaration? Who inspired this poor half educated chap to go ‘public’ with this mischief?)

26. On Oct 19, 2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual (what car did Bala drive. Whose car was it. Where outside the house did he park it as usual?). I saw a yellow Proton Perdana taxi pass by with three ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.( Taxi number. Taxi cab company details. Remember this is a trained ex special branch person we are dealing with here. Was it Deepavali? was there a cryptic message in that greeting if it was not Deepavali? Where is the descriptionof the driver? Malay? Chinese? Indian? did he look like a soldier or police man with short back and sides? what was his build and demenour?)

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “to delay her until my man comes”. (Has Bala a copy of this SMS record? why is there no reference to this record.  It would show date and time of SMS. Valuable evidence agains could corroborate otherwise unsusbtantiated matters.)

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following:

1) That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Najib Razak. (okay)
2) That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Najib Razak at a dinner in Paris (the dinner when Bala was there as one might imply from a previous reference in this stat demand to Najib and Altantuya having dinner in Paris?).
3) That she was promised a sum of US$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a submarine deal in Paris. (okay)
4) That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it. (okay)
5) That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment. (okay)
6) That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix. (okay)
7) That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Najib Razak. (this is admissible as it was what he says was relayed to him directly and personally as maker of this statement)

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red Proton Aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be lance corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plainclothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.(okay)

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said “Yes”. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The drivers window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.(now notice the details Bala provides as to the driver off the vehicles and the other three individuals who arrived in the red Proton Aeroback? is this a case of selective perceptions or coaching…………if you want my opinion…I would say that Bala appears to have been coached into making this Stat Declaration. In any event even if he had made this Stat Declaration of his own volition……the document was crafted by a very poorly trained lawyer and could not have been Balas own work.

NOTE

Bala’s lawyer admits to preparing the document on Bala’s instructions at a press conference around July August of 2009. The lawyers lawyer was also present. My view is that they saw the scheme comming apart from a professional point of view. They realised the dangers of what appears to be fabrication of events and conversations in Bala’s statements and that they could now easily be implicated in aiding Bala in his conduct in this matter.

This document now serves as an indctment of the lawyers, their culpability in what can only be viewed as a fabrication of what appears to be lies supported by grave inconsistencies,  made without care (no warning or insufficient warning or advice from the lawyer on the dangers of making statements which are inconsistent or staments that cannot be substantiated. There is a level of care required of a lawyer in the discharge of his professional duties which appears to be absent or at the least grossly deficient in this case).

 A lawyer either negligent or simply incompetent in the discharge of his duties.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her (did they say they were arresting her or did Bala simply imply that from his own experience or practices when in the forces? did any of them read her her rights or inform her that she was being arrested?). The other two persons then got out of the red Proton and exchanged seats so that lance corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah. (He implicates himself in the unlawful detention and abatement of this person Aminah by what he says here. He detains her till the alleged assailants either real or impersonators of policemen and women arrive to take her away ‘under arrest’.)

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred. He SMS’s Baginda but does not say whether or not Baginda was in the house when he arrived. Yet he draws the conclusion he was not there when he informed him of what had transpired outside his home.

33. After Oct 19, 2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7pm to 8am the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia. (Again what’s apparent about this claim? how does he know that all of this occurred. Did Baginda tell him so? if he did Bala fails to include it in his statement here)

34. On the night of Oct 20, 2006, both of Aminah’s girlfriends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before. (why did he not admit to having unlawfully detained Aminah then or subsequently?)

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house. (how so?. Elaborate….more details required….did they say why they were convinced she was being heldd at the house? what were they saying?? Again Bala fails to say whether he verified Mr. Ang’s credentials)

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi police station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy. (what was the ‘commotion’ about? Was there an argument, a scuffle or a melee? Why no details?)

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the inspector from Dang Wangi police station. (and Bala’s hand phone would contain details of the call records?)

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi inspector. The conversation lasted 3-4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about Oct 24, 2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report. (lodge a police report…adviced by who….did Bala see the text message Baginda claims or Bala claims Baginda told him he had received?)

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tony. (Tony who? Bala is a former special branch operative. Yet his ability to retain in his memory or diary critical details of what must to a trained person like him been irregular events appears to be shoddy to say the least if not selective)

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tony, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tony a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tony told me.(so Bala is able to identify ASP Tony then?)

43. However ASP Tony asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did. (And what did the alternative Bala statement consist of? Does Bala have a copy?)

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 26, 2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own. (How does Bala know he left on his own. He may have arranged to rendezvous with an accomplice on board the aircraft? Speculation)

45. In mid-November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tony from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under Section 506 of the Penal Code for criminal intimidation. (intimidation of who and by what means? and are those allegations true?)

46. I was then placed in the lock-up and remanded for five days. On the third day, I was released on police bail. (has Bala a copy of the charges proffered against him?)

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock-up and remanded for seven days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on Oct 19, 2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone. (interrogated by who and for how long? Why no details? Who is ASP Pereira? Any idea of his involvement and connections with one Samy Velu? The US intelligence in South East Asia and ASIO appear to know quite about this former UN peace keeping policeman who is believed to be complicit in this entire affair. Does he also go by the name of Tony? Bala appears to admit to having commited an offence against Altantuya or Aminah by unlawfully detaining her. So where is this set up consiracy theory comming from? is he being selectively truthful or is he a patsy?)

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 am to 6pm everyday for seven consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Najib Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out. (Why not include the details of what he told them over a period of seven days? Therre is much material there presumably. That material may be critical to solving Altantuya’s case is it not? or Does Bala suffer from convenient amnesia here? or perhaps worse still have the lawyers deliberately ommitted facts here in order to support the wider case of fabrication of a case agaisnt the current prime minister of Malaysia and others in which the lawyers behind this document may well be implicated?)

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Najib Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Najib Razak and/or his wife. (Why should the prosecutor have asked Bala about Prime Minister Razak? Whay did Bala want him to ask about the Prime Minister? (a disturbing pattern emerges throughout this stat declaration which I believe the lawyers who drafted this stat declaration had something to do with. Only an open hearing in an open court will be able to determine the truth to these matters. But whats emerging here is rather sad and shocking if y belief and the evidence of interference by a lawyer is proved) did Bala have more irrelevant fabrications to give the prosecutor to further fabricate allegations against others these lawyers may have wanted him to present in court as part of their wider politically motivated campaign agains the current prime minister?)

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30am. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Najib Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response. (How does Bala know this? Where are the specifics other than his speculation and hearsay uncorroborated?)

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30am, Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Najib Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows: “ I am seeing IGP at 11am today … matter will be solved … be cool”. (Has Bala a copy of this message on his mobile phone? If so can he supply it to an independent investigator? Has anyone else independent of Bala seen it?)

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to:

1) State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu. (Bala has a vested interest here…..what standards he had in mind about the conduct of this investigations ? from his own record here one can only speculate….perish the thought)

2) Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the three accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu. (how does Bala conclude Altantuya was murdered and was not a suicide bomber who blew herself up rather than to be humiliated when caught in an illegal arms deal? or an accident involving the unlawful carriage of explosives by a woman who admits to being involved in dealing in arms?)

3) Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case. (there are other ways to do it and why has he chosen a stat dec of such poor quality which now places him in a precarious position as to his own character, the reliability of his statements and his motives)

4) Emphasise the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years, I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first. (yet the allegations are precisely this. They are about the Malaysian Police shooting a woman in the head then blowing her up at the behest of the current Prime Minister of Malaysia?……..and the allegations of police shoot outs all over the press over the last couple of years involving unarmed people of Bala’s own community. Perhaps Bala can shed some light on these matters as well??)

5) Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.(Bala did not say this nor give instructions to have these words written expressly a they are written……I’ am prepared to have this entire document tested in an open court for its veracity as to the truth of the assumptions made here and more notably to refute and debunk any notion that Bala made these statements all of his own. Or that the words used here are Balas own words).

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960. (Bala does not give evidence as to who concocted this abortion referring to it as a statutory declaration) Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal July 1, 2008.

Selain dari tulisan Gopal Raj Kumar di atas, KTemoc Konsiders (seorang blogger pro-pembangkang) telah banyak menulis tentang keraguan ke atas SD 1 Bala, contohnya di sini, sini, sini, sini, dan sini. Mengikut KTemoc, SD 1 Bala mengandungi percanggahan, ketidaksejajaran, dan perkara-perkara yang tidak boleh dipercayai (contradictions, inconsistencies and implausibility). KTemoc menjelaskan di sini bahawa Bala, dalam SD 1 beliau,

"...declared he was informed by Razak Baginda who in turn was informed by Najib Razak who in turn was informed by Altantuyaa Shariibuu who in turn confessed ..."

("...mengistiharkan beliau (Bala) telah dimaklumkan oleh Razak Baginda yang telah dimaklumkan oleh Najib Razak yang telah dimaklumkan oleh Altantuyaa Shariibuu yang mengakui..."  )

Maksudnya, berdasarkan tulisan-tulisan Gopal Raj Kumar dan KTemoc Konsiders di atas, apa yang ditulis oleh Bala dalam SD 1 beliau adalah "heresay evidence" dan bukanlah fakta-fakta kukuh (hard facts). 

Jika kita tanya mana-mana peguam, kita sedia maklum bahawa "heresay evidence" tidak akan diterima oleh mana-mana mahkamah. Jika demikian, mengapa pula isu ini ditimbulkan semula? Kita tahu ia merupakan usaha terancang Anwar Ibrahim, Raja Petra (RPK) dan para peguam pembangkang untuk memburukkan imej DS Najib dan menjatuhkan beliau. Ini semua mainan politik dan usaha untuk mengekalkan persepsi bahawa DS Najib terlibat dalam pembunuhan Altantuya. Dengan hujah-hujah Gopal Raj Kumar dan KTemoc Konsiders, bolehkah kita masih mempercayai SD 1 Bala? Yang peliknya, dan menyedihkan, para pangkatan anti-Najib (termasuk GAN) masih mempercayai, malah mempertahankan, pembohongan Anwar, RPK dan Bala.

Penulis pernah memberi komen di beberapa blog semasa isu ini mula ditimbulkan. Penulis berhujah bahawa biasanya apabila "A" menuduh "B" melakukan jenayah, "A" wajib menunjukkan bukti-bukti kukuh yang menunjukkan "B" telah benar-benar melakukan jenayah itu. Perlukah "B" buat sesuatu? Begitu juga dengan DS Najib. Terpulanglah kepada orang-orang yang menuduhnya menunjukkan bukti-bukti kukuh yang DS Najib terlibat. DS Najib telah beberapa kali menafi penglibatannya, malah telah pun bersumpah dengan nama Allah. Sumpahnya sudah memadaii kerana sebagai seorang Islam, kita tidak boleh main-main dengan sumpah seperti ini. Sebaliknya, Anwar Ibrahim dan RPK, dua orang yang beriya-iya dengan tuduhan terhdap DS Najib, tidak pernah bersumpah sehingga kini.

Penulis juga mengingatkan, dua insan akan digantung sampai mati kerana pembunuhan itu. Anwar dan RPK berkata mereka mempunyai bukti-bukti yang DS Najib terlibat. Sampai sekarang, mereka tidak pernah menunjukkan bukti-bukti itu yang boleh menyelamatkan dua insan itu dari tali gantung. Kita masih menunggu! Atau pun sebenarnya, mereka tidak mempunyai satu bukti pun dan mereka tidak langsung berniat menunjukkan belas kasihan dan tidak peduli tentang kehidupan dua insan itu. Menyiarkan berita atau video yang tidak berasaskan fakta tidak membawa makna selain dari terus mengekalkan persepsi buruk terhadap DS Najib.

Terdapat pula usaha mendesak DS Najib dan isterinya mengambil tindakan seperti membersihkan nama mereka dengan mengambil tindakan saman malu terhadap mereka yang terbabit. Soalannya, mengapa pula perlunya mereka berbuat demikian? Mengapa tidak kemukakan soalan terus kepada RPK dan Anwar supaya mendedahkan bukti-bukti penglibatan Najib?

Jadi, berdasarkan penjelasan di atas, khususnya pendedahan Gopal Raj Kumar dan KTemoc Konsiders, dan kepada semua yang tak faham atau buta mata dan hati, kita sepatutnya ajukan soalan terus kepada Anwar dan RPK supaya  mendedahkan bukti-bukti penglibatan DS Najib (show us the proof once and for all). Jangan beri alasan, jangan cuba mengalihkan perhatian, dan jangan mengulangi pembohongan. Ketenteraman dan kestabilan negara bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh dipermainkan.

TEOH BENG HOCK'S SECOND AUTOPSY

The Star, in an update, reported the following on Teoh's second autopsy:

KUALA LUMPUR: The second autopsy on Teoh Beng Hock’s remains started at noon after the pathologists spent the morning discussing and performing X-ray and CT scans on the body. The autopsy was completed 3.15pm.

The family does not know when the results will be revealed. However, they said that he will be reinterred on Tuesday.

The autopsy conducted at the Sungai Buloh Hospital is expected to be completed in three to five hours.

It will be carried out by the hospital’s Pathology and Forensics Department chief Dr Shahidan Md Noor.

Witnessing it would be Thai forensic pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanansunand, who is engaged by the Selangor state government, and foreign expert Prof Peter Vanezis, who is appointed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Read the rest of the report here.

Meanwhile, blogger Rocky's Bru has reported on the attempt by Ean Yong Hian Wah (Selangor exco member and Teoh's employer) to politicize the issue, while blogger WBhim has written about the request by Gobind Singh to provide police protection for Dr Pornthip.

My opinion is that we should all refrain from commenting and let the autopsy runs its course. Hopefully, with the knowledge that the two foreign experts will balance each other out, we will be able to find a final closure to this affair, and to finally allow Teoh to rest in peace.

BUSY

The title of this post has nothing to do with me; it's related to a friend's email entitled "Busy". Since the current going-ons show that we Muslims seem to be at each other's throat and generally in disarray, the email may be relevant to us.

MEETING: (Read even if you're busy)

Satan [that's Syaitan - the devil] called a worldwide convention of satans. In his opening address he said:

"We can't keep Muslims from going to mosque.
We can't keep them from reading their Qur’an and knowing the truth.
We can't even keep them from forming an intimate relationship with their Lord.
Once they gain that connection with Allah, our power over them is broken.
So let them go to their mosques; let them have their covered dish dinners, BUT steal their time, so they don't have time to develop a relationship with ALLAH.”

"This is what I want you to do," said satan:

“Distract them from gaining hold of Allah and maintaining that vital connection throughout their day!”

"How shall we do this?" his helpers shouted.

Satan answered:

"Keep them busy in the non-essentials of life and invent innumerable schemes to occupy their minds.
Tempt them to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow.
Persuade the wives to go to work for long hours and the husbands to work 6-7 days each week, 10-12 hours a day, so they can afford their empty lifestyles.
Keep them from spending time with their children.
As their families fragment, soon, their homes will offer no escape from the pressures of work!
Over-stimulate their minds so that they cannot hear that still, small voice.
Entice them to play the radio or cassette player whenever they drive.
Keep the TV, VCR, CDs and their PCs going constantly in their home and see to it that every store and restaurant in the world plays non-Islamic music constantly.
This will jam their minds and break that union with Allah.
Fill the coffee tables with magazines and newspapers.
Pound their minds with the news 24 hours a day.
Invade their driving moments with billboards.
Flood their mailboxes with junk mail, mail order catalogs, sweepstakes, and every kind of newsletter and promotion offering free products, services and false hopes.
Keep skinny, beautiful models on the magazines and TV so their husbands will believe that outward beauty is what's important, and they'll become dissatisfied with their wives.
Keep the wives too tired to love their husbands at night. Give them headaches too!
If they don't give their husbands the love they need, they will begin to look elsewhere.
That will fragment their families quickly!
Even in their recreation, let them be excessive.
Have them return from their recreation exhausted.
Keep them too busy to go out in nature and reflect on Allah's creation.
Send them to amusement parks, sporting events, plays, concerts, and movies instead. Keep them busy, busy, busy!
And when they go for prayers in the mosque, involve them in gossip and small talk so that they leave with troubled consciences.
Crowd their lives with so many good causes, they have no time to seek the pleasure of Allah.
Soon they will be working in their own strength, sacrificing their health and family for the good of the cause.
It will work! It will work!"

It was quite a plan! The satans went eagerly to their assignments causing Muslims everywhere to get busier and more rushed, going here and there. Having little time for Allah or their families. Having no time to tell others about the love and mercy of Allah to change lives.

I guess the question is, has satan been successful in his schemes?

You be the judge!!!!!

Does "BUSY" mean:

B-eing
U-nder
S-atan's
Y-oke?

Please pass this on, if you aren't too BUSY!

Hmmm...doesn't this remind us of what has happened to our Muslim brothers across the political divide as well as to our Muslimin and Muslimat in general? Has satan been successful in his schemes? Yes, you be the judge! 

DR PORNTHIP ARRESTED

A commentator, unspinners fan, has just posted the news that Dr Pornthip was arrested today in a sweeping Thai police action designed to put an end to malicious rumors about His Majesty the King’s health. The commentator's post (unedited) as follows:

Sepandai-pandai cinma kelingh melompat, akhirnya jatug terkena mata sepet juga!

"BANGKOK – Forensic expert Dr Khunying Rojanansunanwas arrested today in a sweeping police action designed to put an end to malicious rumors about His Majesty the King’s health, which were blamed for a sell-off in the SET last month. "...

"However, police believe that, if applied to sensitive topics, the statement might cause panic and disorder among the Thai public, which could threaten national security."

"After her arrest, Dr Pornthip made a brief statement in which she pledged her loyalty to His Majesty the King but stood by her statement.

She was immediately charged on a second count of violating Article 14 of the computer law by circulating false information concerning His Majesty.

www.notthenation.com/pages/news/getnews.php?id=834

this siamese bitch dokter has finally been put a stop to. not only she insulted the king, she is also a big time share manipulator. now she has been punisher!

and the best of it blows up in the pigfaces of the fakatan scum!!

takber!

Click the above link to read the full report, or click here.

What now? Will she be able to make it to Malaysia to be involved in the second autopsy on TBH?

UPDATE - 5 NOV 08, 2.10 AM

Checks with a few Thai online mainstream papers reveal that while there were people arrested for the same offense, there was no mention of Dr Pornthip thus far. Read for example, reports from The Nation here and here, and from Bangkok Post here.

Could it all be a rumour or an unverified report from the paper linked above (notthenation.com), or the mainstream papers have yet to report it? Let's wait and see.

DR PORNTHIP: MORE QUESTIONS

In blogger Rocky Bru's post here, and following a commentator's suggestion, he proposed that the Government appoints a foreign pathologist /forensic expert to do the second autopsy with Dr Pornthip. In the interest of justice, there should not be any reason for opposing the proposal.

But what interests me more was Rocky's reference to My Sinchew's article, "Wanted: Pornthip's head!" which contained the following short paragraph:

Thanks to the intervention by Pornthip to conduct a second post-mortem on a wealthy Thai MP back in 1999, earlier police reports pointing at him committing suicide was overturned, resulting in a drastic twist in the development of the case.

Sinchew did not elaborate further. It was referring to the high profile case of  a powerful and wealthy Thai Member of Parliament, Hangthong Thammawattana. However, what Sinchew reported was in fact only a small part of the story. The full story of the case, which surprisingly was not covered extensively by bloggers except a brief mention by Anak Bangsa Malaysia here, should be made known as it casts further doubt on Dr Pornthip's reputation. The case has an eerie parallel to that of Teoh Beng Hock (TBH), which led to Dr Pornthip being probed for breaching medical ethics by the Thai Medical Council.

The Hangthong Thammawattana Case

In September 1999, Hangthong Thammawattana was found shot in his younger brother’s (Noppadol Thammawattana) bedroom clutching a gun in his hand. Hangthong Thammawattana was the administrator of his family’s vast fortunes.

The first autopsy conducted by the Thai police found that Hangthong committed suicide. The case was closed as a suicide.

Dr Pornthip did not agree to the police findings. Her team, which included Scottish pathologist Dr Adrian Linacre, then conducted a second autopsy and concluded that Hangthong was murdered. Dr Pornthip went public in announcing her findings. Noppadol was subsequently arrested in 2003 for allegedly conspiring to murder his elder brother Hangthong.

In his defence, Noppadol sought and obtained court permission for the third autopsy that took place on January 2006. The third autopsy was headed by Sawet Kanluan, a forensic pathologist based in Chicago, and  was jointly carried out by a team of forensic physicians from five universities a month later. The findings of the third autopsy was consistent with the first, i.e. suicide.  The team also included American criminalist Henry C. Lee, who likewise concluded that Hangthong's death was a suicide.

Interestingly, the experts who conducted the third autopsy are people who had taught Dr Pornthip (i.e. they were her teachers!). In his testimony in court (read here), Dr Supoj Jamsuwan, deputy head of Chulalongkorn University’s Department of Forensic Medicine, said

"...respected experts from Chulalongkorn, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai and Mahidol universities had jointly conducted the third autopsy. 'Some of them are those who have taught Khunying Pornthip, Supoj said. Without mentioning anyone by name, he said someone viewed Thailand’s forensic science as lacking standards and had tried to set the standards herself.

Dr Supoj was, needless to say, referring to Dr Pornthip when he alluded to "someone...had tried to set the standards herself."

Consequently, Noppadol was acquitted of Hangthong's murder by the Thai Criminal Court. The court ruled that substantial evidences showed that Hangthong committed suicide (read here).

Following his acquittal, Noppadol filed a defamation lawsuit, claiming over one billion baht of damage, against Dr Porntip and Dr Thamrong Chirachariyavej, the physician who also performed Hangthong’s autopsy with her, for giving a false autopsy report of his brother Hangthong. However, a Provincial Court cleared Dr Pornthip of defaming Noppadol (read here). The court says Dr Pornthip did not break any academic principle in doing her work and her statement was made in a professional capacity.

Probe into Dr Porntip's Alleged Breach of Medical Ethics 

However, that did not stop Noppadol from filing in September 2007 a complaint with the Thai Medical Council to launch an investigation as to whether Dr Porntip had breached the medical ethics related to her autopsy of Hangthong (read here and here).

Professor Amnaj Kulsalanan, Secretary-General of the Medical Council, said a committee of the council would investigate the issue and that he had sought the opinion of the Thai Royal College of Pathology as well as of the complainant and Dr Pornthip.

Professor Amnaj said the committee would find out whether the autopsy carried out by Dr Porntip was up to standard; whether she had honestly issued the certificate of the autopsy result; and whether Dr Porntip's action had violated the autopsy standard of the Royal College of Pathology or not. If Dr Pornthip is found to have breached ethics, she faces punishment ranging from a written warning to removal of her medical licence.

Professor Amnaj said that the investigation would take time as the panel would have to listen to opinions from two sides, adding that it would be completed within the year (i.e. 2007).

However, this writer has searched the internet to find out the results of the investigation but found none. It can be presumed therefore that the investigation is still on-going and that the Council has not reached a verdict.

What can be concluded from the above is that

1. Dr Pornthip erred in her second autopsy, forcing the court to order a third autopsy which found that Hangthong committed suicide (the same conclusion arrived at by the first autopsy). Regardless of what one may say about the Hangthong case, nothing can take away from the fact that Dr Pornthip did make a mistake. If we relate this to TBH case, what guarantee do we have that she will not make the same mistake? What guarantee do we have that other interested parties will not file for a third autopsy if they find it necessary to contest her findings. It is in this context that Rocky's proposal has a strong case. Someone must monitor her autopsy.
   
2. Dr Pornthip is still under investigation for the alleged breach of medical ethics in conducting the second autopsy. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the fact that she is being probed would be enough to cast doubt on her character and integrity. More importantly, can our court allow the second autopsy to be performed while she is still under investigation by the Thai Medical Council? What does our law says with regard to this situation?

The TBH case is being dragged far longer than it should, all because Gobind & Co - and the opposition camp in general - treat it as a political game. The Coroner must put a stop to this and force a final closure.

PAS' DEVIANT PRACTICE

What do we make of the following report on a deviant practice by the obsessed followers of PAS leaders?

Idris Calls For Action Against Deviant Practice

BESUT, Oct 31 (Bernama) -- Umno supreme council member Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh on Saturday called for action against the people in several villages in this district who allegedly subscribed to the deviant practice of sleeping with the photographs of the country's opposition political leaders in the belief that they would be divinely rewarded.

Idris, who is the state assemblyman for Jertih, said these villagers had also been indoctrinated by certain irresponsible people into believing that dreaming of meeting the leaders would also bring them such a reward.

"This is a serious matter which should be rectified by Islamic religious elders and intellectuals because it is clearly a deviant practice aimed at retaining political popularity," he told reporters after opening a mega sale carnival in the Besut district, here.

Meanwhile, religious advisor to the prime minister, Datuk Dr Abdullah Md Zin, said glorifying leaders and taking their photographs to bed was the result of ignorance and the deviant practice should be rectified.

He said he hoped that the religious elders of the relevant opposition political parties would rectify the situation by being forthright with their supporters. -  BERNAMA.

This practice is nothing new in the history of mankind. It is known as passionate attachment to other human beings It is a cult that encourages a person to abandon Allah and worship people instead. It is also known as "The Religion of Worshipping People" in which such people reject Allah (Who created them), and deifies a person or persons in His place. Examples include the worshiping of Egyptian Pharoahs in ancient times and of Hitler and Mao Tze Tung in the 20th century.

Sadly, the obsession of some people toward religious leaders appears to have become a trend - a dangerous one - in this country, and even more tragic, it involves Muslims themselves. This is not to imply that obsession towards Nik Aziz has reached the level of the Pharoahs', but it may soon be if left unchecked. And let's not forget the obsession towards Anwar Ibrahim by his fanatical followers.

We can only hope and pray that fellow Muslims who are entrapped in this practice return to the true path according to the Qur'an and Sunnah. In many places in the Qur'an, Allah invites humans to save themselves from this errant belief and serve only Him. In one of these verses, He says:

[Ibrahim said,] "Instead of Allah you worship only idols. You are inventing a lie. Those you worship besides Allah have no power to provide for you. So seek your provision from Allah and worship Him and give thanks to Him. It is to Him you will be returned." (Surat al-Ankabut, 17)

We hope the statements of Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh and Datuk Dr Abdullah Md Zin are not just rhetorical and are translated into concrete actions. They, and the religious authorities in general, must show courage in handling the issue and not be constrained by political considerations. And they should also not ignore the latest revelation about PAS' ikrar lafaz taklik, as reported by several blogs (see my previous post).

IKRAR LAFAZ TAKLIK PAS

Sudah lama tidak menulis di blog saya, kerana sibuk dengan tugasan dan kemudian jatuh sakit pula. Saya masih berehat dan belum bersedia menulis, tetapi satu isu yang timbul telah menarik perhatian saya dan mendorong saya menulis oleh kerana saya memandang isu ini sebagai sesuatu yang amat serius.

Isu ini adalah ikrar lafaz talik yang diguna pakai oleh PAS dan berbunyi: "Barangsiapa sahaja calon pilihanraya PAS yang dipilih untuk bertanding didalam Pilihanraya Kecil atau Pilihanraya Umum samada untuk jawatan ADUN atau Ahli Parlimen dibawah tiket PAS, maka mereka terlebih dahulu diwajibkan menandatangani ikrar lafaz taklik akan menceraikan isteri jatuh talak tiga SEANDAINYA mereka setelah menang pilihanraya tersebut mengelat mengkhianati PAS dan lompat ke parti lawan."

Ikrar ini mula didedahkan oleh blog Unspinners pada 4 Sept 09 dan diulangi pada 28 Sept 09 dan hari ini setelah blog Mahaguru58 turut melaporkannya ekoran majlis dialog beliau dan beberapa blogger dengan Dato' Dr. Hassan Ali dan Uztaz Nasharuddin. Blog-blog lain yang juga melaporkannya termasuk Al-Banjari, Cekati Tembaga, Neutral Daily, dan Dimensi. Heboh juga jadinya isu ini dan dilaporkan Dato' Hassan berhadapan dengan tindakan disiplin ekoran kewujudan pita rakaman video majlis dialog tersebut. Neutral Daily, di dalam post terbarunya di sini, menimbulkan soal amanah.

Dengan pendedahan ikrar "special" PAS ini, maka terjawablah soalan mengapa Wakil Rakyat dan ADUN PAS tidak pernah (atau tidak berani) keluar parti dan lompat ke parti lain semenjak PRU 2008. Yang keluar dan lompat parti terdiri dari ahli-ahli PKR dan DAP.

Bab agama ni penulis tidaklah begitu arif sangat dan eloklah rasanya pihak berkuasa agama tampil ke hadapan untuk memberi penjelasan. Ini disebabkan ikrar seperti ini boleh membawa kesan buruk kepada kedudukan rumah tangga orang-orang yang terlibat. Setahu saya, bila sebut cerai, ia mestilah ada pangkalnya iaitu nikah. Tiada nikah, tiada cerai. Penceraian tidak boleh berlaku jika tiada pernikahan. Jadi kita kenalah rujuk kepada apa yang diwajibkan semasa nikah di mana lafaz taklik diwajibkan oleh pengantin lelaki.

Di Malaysia, taklik terbahagi kepada dua iaitu (1) taklik yang dilafazkan oleh suami dengan pilihannya sendiri, dan (2) taklik yang telah ditetapkan oleh undang-undang tanpa kehendak suami. Lafaz taklik yang kedua inilah yang biasa dibuat selepas akad nikah (ijab kabul) oleh pengantin lelaki. Walau pun setiap negeri mempunyai lafaz taklik masing-masing, umumnya ia mengandungi syarat-syarat yang sama untuk berlakunya taklik (gugurnya talak). Contohnya, di Selangor lafaz taklik berbunyi:

“Saya mengaku apabila saya tinggalkan isteri saya (nama isteri) selama empat bulan hijrah berturut-turut atau lebih dengan sengaja atau paksaan, dan saya atau wakil saya tiada memberi nafkah kepadanya selama tempoh yang tersebut pada hal ia taatkan saya atau saya melakukan sebarang mudarat kepada tubuh badannya, kemudian ia mengadu kepada mahkamah syariah, dan apabila sabit aduannya di sisi mahkamah syariah, dan ia memberi kepada Mahkamah Syariah, yang menerima bagi pihak saya satu ringgit maka pada ketika itu tertalak ia dengan cara talak khuluk.”

Jika diperhatikan lafaz di atas, talak satu digugurkan jika (1) suami  meninggalkan isteri dengan sengaja dalam tempoh empat bulan berturut-turut tanpa nafkah, dan (2) melakukan kemudaratan fizikal dan mental. Itu pun jika isteri melapurkan kepada mahkamah dan mahkamah mendapati dakwaan itu benar. Tambahan pula, lafaz taklik tidak boleh ditarik balik, dan kuasa untuk membuat lafaz itu hanya ada pada suami.

Jika dikaitkan keterangan di atas dengan ikrar lafaz taklik PAS, timbul berbagai soalan:

1. Di manakah kaitannya penggugoran talak seperti yang termaktub dalam undang-undang di atas, dengan penggugoran talak kerana "mengkhianati parti dan lompat ke parti lain selepas menang pilihanraya" seperti yang terkandung di dalam ikrar PAS?
   
2. Adakah syarat "mengkhianati part dan lompat parti" terkandung di dalam lafaz taklik yang biasa dibuat oleh suami selepas akad nikah? Jika tidak, adakah ikrar PAS itu sah di sisi undang-undang?
3. Adakah syarat "mengkhianati part dan lompat parti" berdasarkan "fatwa" atau "undang-undang" PAS sendiri yang kita tidak ketahui? Jika benar, tidakkah "fatwa" itu bertentangan dengan undang-undang Islam negara yang sedia ada?
   
4. Adakah calon-calon pilihanraya PAS sedar tentang hukum hakam nikah-cerai apabila mereka menandatangani ikrar parti itu? Jika sedar, tidakkah mereka tahu bahawa ia boleh mendatangkan penganyiaian terhadap isteri-isteri mereka? Jika berlaku paksaan dan mereka menandatangani ikrar tanpa rela dan niat untuk mencerai isteri, adakah ikrar itu masih sah?
5. Siapakah sebenarnya yang melahirkan idea ikrar ini? Siapa dalangnya? Jika pencetusnya adalah orang dalam PAS, tidakkah mereka sedar bahawa ia boleh menghancurkan rumah tangga ahli-ahli mereka sendiri? Tergamakkah mereka berbuat demikian hanya kerana kuasa politik?
   

Ini adalah sebahagian soalan-soalan yang timbul. Mungkin banyak lagi soalan dari para blogger dan lain-lain pihak. Yang penting, bukan saja PAS perlu menjelaskan kedudukan sebenarnya tentang ikrar ini, tetapi juga pihak berkuasa agama Islam seperti JAKIM perlu tampil menyiasat perkara ini dengan segera. Sikap berdiam diri dari mereka akan membawa kesan yang buruk kepada institusi kekeluargaan Islam yang sepatutnya dipelihara dengan baik oleh orang Islam sendiri.

ILMU UNTUK DIKONGSI BERSAMA DARI SEORANG HAMBA ALLAH

Dari satu email dari seorang rakan, saya perturunkan di bawah tulisan beliau bertajuk "Ilmu untuk dikongsi bersama dari seorang hamba Allah", untuk renungan dan panduan kita bersama. Terima kasih kepada rakan tersebut kerana mengingatkan.

Salam... Saudaraku. Pesanan terbaik dari seorang rakan...

Just wanna share with everyone kisah benar yang saya lalui. Baru-baru ni ketika saya nak ke Surau berdekatan dgn rumah saya untuk sembahyang Isyak, seorang pak cik berjanggut putih dan berjubah putih dari jauh melemparkan senyum kepada saya. Kerana masih ada banyak waktu, saya tunggu pak cik berjanggut putih tu dan bertongkat yang tidak saya kenali itu. Timbul di hati saya untuk jalan seiringan ke surau.

Bila beliau hampir pada saya, kami saling memberi salam. Orangnya sudah berumur. Tiba-tiba, pak cik itu memulakan perbualan. Beliau cakap dalam bahasa Melayu dan Inggeris yang agak baik. Beliau cakap semua ayat Quran baik dan penting, tapi ada tiga surah yang beliau 'pegang' betul-betul, dan beliau nasihatkan saya supaya pegang betul-betul juga. Beliau juga nasihatkan saya supaya pesan pada anak-anak supaya pegangnya betul-betul.

Pertama, kata beliau, Surah Al-Fatihah. Selain penting untuk sah sembahyang, ia juga ada doa minta bantuan Tuhan dan mintak tunjukkan jalan yang betul. Mudah-mudahan dengan 'menjaga' bersungguh-sungguh surah Al-Fatihah, akan terbuka pintu bantuan dan jalan yang betul untuk kita, kata pakcik.

Kedua, Surah Al-Ikhlas. Surah ini, katanya surah Tauhid. Kita mesti ingat Tuhan itu Esa dan semua amalan mesti untuk-Nya. Tak guna buat baik tapi tak ikhlas.

Ketiga, Surah Al-Kafirun. Bahagian ini, menarik sikit. Pak cik tu cakap surah Al-Kafirun ada kena mengena dengan zaman sekarang, zaman globalisasi. Dalam zaman globalisasi, katanya, anak-anak saya mesti diajar supaya pegang betul-betul surah itu. Sebab, dalam zaman globalisasi, anak saya mungkin kena kerja atau belajar sampai ke Amerika atau ke mana-mana.

Kalau dia pegang pada Surah Al-Kafirun, insya-Allah, dia akan selamat, kata pak cik. Dia akan bergaul dengan orang beragama lain, tapi dia sedar 'untukmu agamamu, untukku agamaku'.

Betul juga, fikir saya. Kemudian, pak cik cakap ada satu lagi perkara yang saya mesti pegang. Orang Islam, katanya, mesti ada tiga kekuatan.

Pertama, kekuatan minda. Minda, kata pak cik, ialah ilmu. Orang Islam mesti ada ilmu, termasuk ilmu moden, ilmu teknologi, ilmu teknologi maklumat (IT) dan sebagainya, kerana ilmu-ilmu itu perlu untuk hidup.

Kedua, kekuatan hati. Hati ialah iman, kata pak cik. Hati orang Islam mesti kuat supaya betapa banyak sekali pun ilmunya, dia sedar siapa yang lebih berkuasa. Bila ilmu ada iman, barulah ilmu dan hidup jadi betul. Kalau minda kuat tapi hati tak kuat, maknanya kekuatan tak seimbang dan ilmu boleh rosakkan iman, kata pak cik.

Ketiga, kekuatan fizikal. Pertama, kalau tubuh badan lemah, susah ilmu nak masuk dalam minda, kata pak cik. Kalau pun ada ilmu dan ada iman, jika tubuh badan tak kuat, susah nak beramal. Maknanya, kekuatan masih tak seimbang, katanya.

Habis saja pak cik cakap pasal tiga surah dan tiga kekuatan, beliau minta diri dan hilang dari pandangan saya setibanya di surau tersebut.

Terima kasih kepada pak cik berjanggut tu. Sebelum itu beliau berpesan agar saya sebarkan kepada yang lain. Pesanannya memang baik untuk saya sampaikan.

Pesanan Pak Cik tersebut amatlah baik dijadikan panduan. Memang benar banyak yang sudah pun mengetahui apa yang disampaikan oleh beliau, tetapi berapa banyakkah yang benar-benar mengamalkannya, terutama di kalangan ahli-ahli politik Melayu-Islam? Jika benar dan ikhlas mereka mengamalkannya, tidaklah terjadinya keadaan politik Melayu-Islam di negara ini yang berpecah-belah tanpa ada jalan penyelesaian.

 

Bagi parti yang berlabel Islam yang nampaknya mengamalkan tabiat hentam-menghentam dan sikap agresif serta tidak menyedari muslihat pihak kafirun, ayat "untukmu agamamu, untukku agamaku" di dalam Surah Al-Kafirun adalah sesuai dijadikan amalan.

Teringat juga khutbah Jumaat tadi, di mana Khatib menyeru umat Islam supaya merapatkan saf di dalam solat berjemaah. Merapatkan saf di dalam masjid bertujuan merapatkan silatulrahim, dan jika tidak merapatkan silatulrahim, maka Allah akan memutuskannya. Di luar masjid ia bermaksud merapatkan hubungan di kalangan saudara seIslam. Apa yang ketara sekarang ialah di luar masjid pun kita Melayu-Islam, terutama di kalangan para ahli politik, gagal merapatkan saf (hubungan/silatulrahim). Jadi adakah kita orang Islam mahu menunggu sehingga Allah memutuskannya langsung? Fikir-fikirlah...