Can the People of Malaysia Ever Forgive this Man ?

I have been denied happy life, good future, happy marriage, good job, good sex, good alcohol, good EPF savings, good retirement and all other entitlements because of this bastard son of the devil. 




Malaysia's own Marcos who robbed his PEOPLE & NATION!.

Malaysia : The man who changed his race and betrayed a country. 

Can the People of Malaysia Ever Forgive this Man? 
If a non-Malay writes bad about Dr M, maybe that would be understandable . . . 
But for another Malay to be writing BAD about him, that is telling . . . 
Read what Hussein Hamid wrote.

Can you forgive this Man ? As for me - NO, unless he, his sons, and his family return the billions they have stolen from the nation. 
This man has instituted a culture of Evil within UMNO (not only of incompetency, irresponsibility, and unaccountability but also of insatiable greed), an Evil that keeps on stealing more and corrupting more . . . an Evil that refuses to go away and keeps on demanding more & more . . . 

We may forgive him for single-handedly destroying the nation, impoverished millions, especially the kampung Malays, abused his power, brought corruption to every sector of government, wasted billions that could have brought prosperity to the nation if well spent, created racial disharmony, brought disrepute to the judiciary, caused distrust upon the civil servants, etc. etc. etc . . . but as long as he does not return what he and his family have stolen from the nation, can we forgive him ? 
I think, even God cannot forgive him . . . if he doesn't do that. 

Pass this on to everyone in Malaysia and world wide . . . thanks 


Can the people of Malaysia ever forgive Mahathir ? 

Written by Hussein Hamid 

“[Mahathir Mohamad has] . . . created a legacy so monumental that no one could have presumed his mantle.” That was what Abdullah Ahmad gushingly said of Mahathir when the ‘Great Man’ announced his resignation as Prime Minister. Tan Sri Abdullah was Group Editor-in-Chief of the New Straits Times when he wrote the above on 26 June 2002 following the News of Mahathir’s intention. 
I believe that came from Abdullah’s heart for you cannot write anything so ‘Moving’ if it . . . does not come from the heart. 
Now let me tell you what comes from my heart when I read that. 
Who would be foolhardy enough to presume the Mahathir mantle?. 
This man used money and power like no other PM of Malaysia has ever done ! Like no other Leader in most parts of the civilized world has ever done, save for some parts of Africa and some parts of our world where accountability for one’s action is easily dismissed through the barrel of the Gun!.
Who would dare to presume the monumental mantle of this Mahathir who was instrumental in bringing into our way of life such concepts as Operasi Lalang ( ISA and the ends justify the means of preventive detention ), nepotism, money politics, greed, privatization, IPPs and Perwaja ; the monumental mantle of this Mahathir that displayed such utter vindictiveness to [ destroy ] those who simply do not agree with his point of view?. 
It is a monumental mantle to have left as his legacy – negotiated tenders, a tainted judiciary, Bakun, Renong and its horrendous debts, Khir Toyo, Daim Zainuddin and the list is endless. The monumental man almost left us a crooked bridge as well. 
Every government machinery, every high public office appointment, every political decision made during Mahathir’s time was at his pleasure and made to do his biddings. 
Not Dollah, not anyone . . . nobody would be foolhardy enough to try and assume that mantle. 
All the personal excesses that we now talk about had its beginnings, development and reached its zenith during Mahathir’s time. Samy Velu, Rafidah, VK Lingam, Augustine Paul, Liong Sik, Daim, Vincent Tan, Abdullah Ang, Eric Cheah . . . the mind boggles at the billions these people made at the expense of the Nation. 

Sir , you need to take responsibility 
What defines greatness in a man ? “It’s not what you take but what you leave behind that defines greatness.” – Edward Gardner. 
Mahathir left us with debts measured in billions, not millions ! 
This man left us with monuments of First World stature but failed miserably to prepare our then third-world mentality to be ready for these iconic structures. If you bring a nation into an era that it is not ready for, you are being irresponsible. 
If you cut corners and award projects to people who YOU think can do the job and they fail to do that job – you take responsibility. 
If you do nothing about a Leader that robs his own people blind – like Samy Velu did to the Indians – then you take responsibility. 
If you take power away from the Sultans and empower UMNO with the same power and UMNO abuses that power – you take responsibility. 
When you remove two of your deputies and in so doing caused: 
1) Within UMNO, a factionalism that forever weakened the party; 
2) and had one of these removed deputies, Anwar, come back 10 years later and inflict upon UMNO its biggest defeat, you take responsibility. 
When you take a dentist and make him Menteri Besar of Selangor – and this MB then proceeds to enrich himself so excessively that it finally culminated in the loss of Selangor to the opposition – then you take responsibility. 
When you take Oil Royalties away from Terengganu and Kelantan because the people voted for the Opposition, you take responsibility for the suffering of the people within that state who are now without the funds for development. 
When you use Petronas Money to bail out your son’s shipping company to the tune of hundreds of millions, then you take responsibility for abusing the trust the people placed in you as the guardian of public monies.

Can he walk down a street unmolested ? 
That a man of your previous stature would require me, a 62-year-old man living in Adelaide, Australia to write this biting and hurtful article about you simply indicates the depth you have allowed yourself to sink to. 
Once you told us to look East. We looked East. 
You told us to buy British last. We bought British last. 
You told us to buy Proton, we bought Proton – albeit with a little arm-twisting. Possibly all those were relevant at that point in time. So Tun, using that analogy, let me respectfully tell you this: 
Tun, you are no longer relevant”. 
You are no longer relevant in UMNO except to serve the selfish purpose of certain factions. “ Hear ! Hear ! ” or as ( the blogger ) Antares said for the benefit of Ibrahim Ali, “ Dengar, Dengar ! ” 
You are no longer relevant to the Malays. You have done enough damage to us and we see through your deceptions. 
You are no longer relevant to the people in this country. We have all moved on and demand a more open and responsible government. We see through your duplicity and untruths. 
Tun, you are only relevant to those that still love you for what you are – a Grandfather, a Father and a Husband. Is it not time that you return their Love and their Need to have you back in their fold ? And that you return the Love and Respect that they give to you for what you are today ? An 84-year-old Grandfather, Father and Husband. 
Sir, you would need all the goodness that is in Mecca, all the forgiveness that Mandela has shown to the very people that imprisoned him, and all the love that the families of Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan and Aminulrasyid have for their loved ones if you are ever to be forgiven by the people of Malaysia. 
And I know that even with all that, you would still have a hard time walking down the streets of KL without worrying that someone might spit on you . . . and that Sir is the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth . . . so help me God !

Arguing for a secular state.

To many Muslims and especially the Islamists, the term secular is a very repugnant term and this abhorrence to anything secular stems mainly from the previously bitter experience of secularism in Turkey that had led to the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate, the last Caliphate in the Muslim world.

The fall of the Ottoman Caliphate led to some Muslim scholars to push for a new entity known as an Islamic state. The concept of an Islamic state was not known in the Islamic world before that. The main proponent for an Islamic state was none other than Muhammad Rashid Redha, a great Muslim reformer in the early 20th century. The main intention of Redha was to stem the onslaught of Western imperialism.

History has shown that while secularism was born in the West, its values spread across the world in many different continents and societies. According to Louay Safi, a scholar at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, secularism denotes a set of notions and values whose aim is to ensure that the state is neither engaged in promoting specific religious beliefs and values, nor uses its powers and offices to persecute religion.

To prevent state officials from using their political authority to impose a narrow set of religious attitudes and values on the larger society, and to foreclose the possibility of using religious symbols to agitate one religious community against another, a separation must be made between political authorities from religious affiliation.

The Islamic state conundrum

It is an unshakeable belief among many Islamists that the establishment of an Islamic state must be the first and foremost agenda in any political struggle. It is only when an Islamic state is established that hudud penal code could be implemented.

Since the issue of Islamic state and hudud is intertwined and will become more prominent every time the general election is around the corner, it would be pertinent for us to revisit this issue. To many proponents of Islamic state, in particular those in the Islamic party PAS, the concept of Islamic state is basically a replica of the medieval ideas promoted by al-Mawardi in al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Ordinances of Government).

Barring the Erdoganists in PAS, the ulama wing has been preaching this medieval concept that has been ingrained even in the younger generations, especially among the religious educated. It basically fails to tackle some fundamental issues in the 21st century. It fails to discuss the concept of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship as an integrated framework that is very fundamental in modern states. It is of note that it is constitutionalism that provides a legal and political framework for the preservation of human rights, freedom and equality among its citizens.

However in an Islamic state as envisioned by many Islamists – the religious educated especially – citizenship is classified between Muslim and dhimmis, namely non-Muslims who pledged submission to Muslim authority and therefore granted protection in exchange for a payment of a special tax known as jizyah. Dhimmis are basically the opposite of harbis that generally mean non-Muslims who are hostile to Islam.

In classical texts of Islamic state like Mawardi’s al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, the dhimmis are prevented from riding horses or donkeys within the city limits. In modern days, this may be equivalent to driving cars in the city. And that they wear distinctive clothing in public and bells around their necks when visiting pubic bathing facilities. The question is, would such discriminatory policies be acceptable in the modern era?

It must also be acknowledged that an Islamic state will surely be based on Islamic values. This would entail banning all forbidden things in the Quran. Many Muslim ideologues like Mawdudi, for example, believe that it is impossible for such a state to limit its framework because it is a totalitarian state encompassing the whole human life and moral theory. So nobody has the right to stand up against the state and thwart any encroachment of the state in personal matters. Obviously this is very similar to a fascist state.

Going by the current discourse in Malaysia, one gets the impression that the priority of an Islamic state is then to impose a set of rules known as hudud. This obsession with hudud stems from the understanding that hudud is divine law in the Quran that is imposed upon believers. Many people believe that hudud is a set of codified law that can be imposed without resorting to human agency at all. This is an obvious fallacy since the Quran only lays down some basic texts that require human agency to interpret them.

The formulation, adoption and implementation of legislation are always matters of human judgment and reasoning. Therefore their intended implementation is subject to human error and fallibility and can always be challenged and questioned. The problem will arise when such laws are deemed sacred and of God’s divine will and any sort of criticism will be deemed as heresy.

On this matter, Prof Hashim Kamali has argued that hudud Allah in the Quran is a broad concept that is neither confined to punishments nor to a legal framework. It provides a comprehensive set of guidelines on moral, legal and religious themes. Whenever the Quran specified punishments for the offences, it also made provisions for repentance and reformation, whereas juristic doctrine has either left this totally out or reduced it to a mechanical formality that can hardly be said to be reflective of the original teachings of the Quran.

On another note, not only is hudud in direct conflict with the Federal Constitution but in the context of a multiracial and multi-religious society, such a proposition also raises the issue of whether the nation should be governed by two sets of laws: one for Muslims and the other for non-Muslims.

The real problem of having laws such as hudud is that it is presented as mandated by the divine will of God. This makes such laws immune to any criticisms whereas in reality they were merely the product of some literal interpretations of a certain group of scholars that failed to see the maqasid or higher intentions of such laws in attaining the ideals of justice. Criticisms against such laws have been made by many Muslim intellectuals such as Prof Hashim Kamali and until today, have not received any rebuttals from the proponents of hudud.

Syariah must neither be privileged nor enforced as a source of state law and policy simply because they are believed to be the will of God. Prof Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim argued in “Islam and the Secular State” that the belief of even the vast majority of citizens that these principles are binding as a matter of Islamic religious obligation should remain the basis of individual and collective observance among believers. But that cannot be accepted as sufficient reason for the enforcement by the state because they would then apply to citizens who may not share that belief.

Why a secular state

Secularism does not mean the exclusion of religion from the public life of a society. The misconception that it does, is one of the reasons many Muslims tend to be hostile towards the concept.

Calling for a state to be secular is not similar in any way to the call for secularising the society. A state should be secular in the sense that it is neutral to all the differing religious doctrines. As Abdullahi An-Naim argued, state neutrality is necessary for true conviction to be the driving force of religious and social practice, without fear of those who control the state.

A secular state must embrace democracy. And democracy cannot be based on syariah law, as that, on the contrary, would denote a theocracy. A secular state would allow every living Muslim a true freedom. Freedom to pray and fast as he or she ought to, freedom to follow in the footsteps of the Prophet as he or she sees fit and freedom to submit to the will of God as he or she understands it.

Mustafa Akyol in his book “Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty” wrote a chapter on Freedom to Sin. In it he argued that Muslims should rethink the meaning of the phrase “amar ma’ruf nahi munkar” or simply “commanding the good, forbidding the wrong”. They need to make a clear distinction between “crime” and “sin”. While combating crime can be made via legal means, sins should only be through civil means like preaching.

The argument does not arise from an antagonistic attitude against piety but from a true appreciation of what piety is all about: a sincere belief free from coercion. Any regime that imposes piety because of the belief that it is part of the doctrine “commanding the good and preventing the wrong” like Saudi Arabia, for instance, is basically creating a community of hypocrites rather than genuine piety.

Genuine piety only arises through personal choice. And that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. In other words freedom to sin is a necessary medium to be sincerely pious. The erudite Muhammad Asad made it very clear when making his commentary in his magnum opus “The Message of the Qur’an” regarding verse 25 of al-A’raf or Faculty of Discernment where he commented on the story about Adam and Eve temptation when he said:

“The growth of his consciousness – symbolised by the willful act of disobedience to God’s command – changed all this. It transformed him from a purely instinctive being into a full-fledged human entity as we know it – a human being capable of discerning between right and wrong and thus of choosing his way of life. In this deeper sense, the allegory of the Fall does not describe a retrogressive happening but rather, a new stage of human development: an opening of doors to moral consideration. By forbidding him to “approach the tree”, God made it possible for man to act wrongly, and therefore, to act rightly as well. And so man became endowed with that moral free will which will distinguish him from all other sentinel beings.”

The way forward

The arguments regarding this topic could go ad infinitum. However, the main intention is just to stir a debate among the protagonists of Islamic state to that of a secular state. One thing is very clear and succinct: there is no mention about an Islamic state in the Quran. With that in mind, we have to work on the best form of government that will be tenable to all the different races and religions in our country.

If we still want to continue fighting for an Islamic state, we have to agree on one basic fact. Not a single particular Muslim whether the Grand Syeikh of al-Azhar or Saudi Mufti could claim to have a theocratic authority. Considering that Muslims have been divided into different sects, ideas and views, the only system that would be fair for all would be the one that would include all of them in the political process. Taking also into consideration the significant non-Muslim community in our country who should never be considered as second-class citizens, then a secular state that embraces democracy is the most logical option.

We have to agree that secularism, as the separation of state from religion, is probably the minimum requirement for participation in the sphere of civic reason. Secularism needs religion to provide a moral guidance for the community and in turn, religion needs secularism to mediate the relations between the different communities that share the same political space and space of civic reason.

Secularism is able to unite diverse communities of belief and practice into one political community simply because the moral claims it makes are minimal. And secularism is able to tolerate differing view in a religiously diverse community while maintaining its political stability. Whereas such a situation is probably just a dream in an autocratic Islamic state envisioned by many Islamists.

The writer is a director at Islamic Renaissance Front.

An open letter to Tunku

Reform-minded CT Ali hopes that former DAP vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz stays away from the game of political hypocrisy and deception.

I can write about the magnificent par excellence monuments of KLCC, KLIA and Putrajaya that Malaysia has on display for the entire world to see and ignore the massive debts our nation incurred to put up this monstrosity to perpetuate Mahathir’s legacy to this once great nation of ours.

Ignore the hideous and insane profiteering by Umno politicians, their families and their cronies in the building of these monstrosities.

Ignore the dire need for decent housing of our poor, the deplorable lack of proper medical care for the needy, the impossibly high cost of travel on the toll highways and the many other needs of our nations which the costs of building these monuments have deprived us of.

And in the same manner I can go on bashing and whacking Anwar Ibrahim until, like what that contemptible ex-IGP Rahim Nor did to him while he was defenceless, Anwar is left senseless and critically wounded.

Anyone who writes can do this and tell you that the reason he is doing so is in the name of justice, fair play and telling the truth.

No Tunku Abdul Aziz, on whatever level you choose to put yourself on, I fear that what you are doing in calling Anwar the Don Quixote of Malaysian politics is purely for personal gain –for vested interest –your own!

You quote from earlier writings to impress upon us that you have not changed in your thinking on Anwar. Then pray tell me, why did you endure your time in DAP when Anwar is head of Pakatan Rakyat?

Your lack of decorum in mentioning about the goings on in the course of a DAP central executive committee meeting where you said a very senior DAP colleague said of Anwar  “Ah, well, you know….”.

Surely a man of honour, integrity and principal would not divulge such comments made not for public consumption?  Or are you not a man of honour, integrity and principle anymore?

And Tunku I beg to differ on your comment “I cannot imagine anything baser and more grotesque than attempting to corrupt and seduce perfectly decent and honourable parliamentarians to betray the trust of the voters who have put them there in the first place to represent them in their constituencies”.

Where Tunku do you find these “perfectly decent and honourable parliamentarians” who will not betray the trust of the voters? Surely not in Barisan Nasional?

As you said, and I quote you here “I have always said that elections in our country are free but not fair”. Who Tunku do not make them fair? Pakatan Rakayat or Barisan Nasional? Our gripe is this Tunku –if election has been free and fair then maybe Pakatan Rakyat will already be in government and not Barisan Nasional!

Who engineered Perak?

To quote a friend of mine Azam64

“You talked about Anwar trying to engineer a mass defection among MPs in the land below the wind. It did not materialise, maybe Anwar did not have the resources or he did not try hard enough. That it did not happen then does not speak much of any such incident.

What about an incident that really happened? The Perak state government fell because of defections. Somebody engineered it. You did not mention anything about it. This state of selective amnesia is not limited to only one person. How can you talk of anybody losing the moral high ground when you forget a case that is so similar? In case you have also forgotten, the Sabah state govt under the PBS of Pairin Kittingan also fell in 1994 because of defections. Who engineered it? It was the party that you now seems to be in bed with.

Engineering defections is not anything new in Malaysian politics, although undesirable. Always it was the party that you are in love now that gained”

Yes Tunku, politics is a game of political hypocrisy and mutual deception – one that it would seems you want to put yourself above joining.

For these sentiments we will hold you in high regard and reverence. Now please stay at that high and exalted level you have placed yourself at and try to resist the temptation to join us sub-humans in the abyss that is Malaysian politics. You owe yourself that much. Salam!

Malaysia's Murky Water War

Does the Klang Valley’s water company mainly service UMNO?

In the mid-1990s, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad ordered the privatization of a wide range of government activities from highways to airports to railways to shipyards and much more.

However, privatization Malaysia-style would result in a cornucopia of money funneled to companies linked to the ruling national coalition, and particularly to the United Malays National Organization, the country’s leading political party. There are few better examples of that river of cash than the system that provides water to the 8 million-odd residents of Selangor, the country’s biggest state, Kuala Lumpur proper and the new Putrajaya government center. The water service was hived off in a 30-year contract to a company called Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd, more popularly known as Syabas, which was incorporated to operate the system.

That was when the state of Selangor was an UMNO stronghold. But in the 2008 election, Selangor fell to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition. And since that time, Pakatan Rakyat has been attempting to get the water service re-nationalized. It has been an intense and so far unsuccessful campaign that has become a game of chicken between the federal and state governments ahead of the next general election, which could be held in November.

The issue has become part of Umno’s attempt to re-take Selangor state from the opposition, with government figures charging that the standoff will lead to water shortages for the domestic and international companies involved in manufacturing in the area.

Syabas is 70 percent owned by Puncak Niaga Holdings Bhd., whose chairman and beneficial owner is Rozali Ismail, a personal friend of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor. Rozali is also the former UMNO treasurer of Selangor state. He has been given the honorific of Tan Sri, the second-highest of Malaysia’s odd hierarchy of titles. The other 30 percent is held by two vehicles of the Selangor state government. Malaysia’s Finance Ministry holds a single so-called golden share, which gives it voting primacy.

The water system pays Rozali RM8.4 million (US$2.68 million) per year, making him Malaysia’s 16th highest paid executive director although he has denied the figures. In any case, the water company paid RM17 million to its executives last year despite the fact that the water company suffered an RM75 million pre-tax loss according to Bursa Malaysia. The company’s 2011 financial statement shows current liabilities of RM2.38 billion against assets of RM1.7 billion, with debt at nearly Puncak Niaga also faces a RM2 billion lawsuit over the fact that it has paid only 40 percent of its obligations to water treatment companies. Despite the debt – or perhaps because of it -- it appears that Syabas may have been a cash cow for a long list of UMNO cronies. According to an auditor general’s report that was abruptly withdrawn from public view under the country’s stringent Official Secrets Act, 72 percent of all subcontracts with the water company were awarded through direct negotiation to the contractors without recourse to public bidding.

Syabas is just one of more than a score of government-linked companies that provide the mother’s milk of money for UMNO. As Asia Sentinel reported on Oct. 23, 2010, at least 23 of Malaysia's biggest companies appear to have been vehicles to siphon off money via government contracts. The companies and the people who run them are so hard-wired into UMNO and its investment arms that de-linking them could conceivably destroy the party. Many of the companies have suffered from disastrous mismanagement and have had to be rescued by the government.

In Syabas’s case, the government has staged a no-holds-barred fight to keep the water company in UMNO hands. A special cabinet committee set up to deal with the issue recently rejected a state government proposal to take back the system, with Muhyiddin Yassin, the deputy prime minister, saying the state government doesn’t comply with a variety of procedural matters.

The problem is that the squabble between the state and national governments has meant that some of the 34 water treatment plants in Selangor have hit capacity, with critics alleging that several areas of the Klang Valley, in which Selangor lies, to face water problems.

The state government argues that the concession agreement granted to Syabas is not in the interest of citizens, that returning water to public ownership is a basic citizens' basic right and that in fact Puncak Niaga is asking an exorbitant penalty payment from Selangor to surrender the concession agreement.

In an effort to open up the issue to its constituents, the state government sought permission to make the concession agreement between Syabas and the government public. A high court in Selangor agreed with the opposition only to have the federal court, which is famously malleable to political winds, reverse the high court’s decision on appeal. That was a year and a half ago. The appellate judges have yet to furnish a written judgment justifying their decision.

In lieu of cancelling the agreement and re-taking responsibility for water supply, Selangor officials are calling for an independent audit of the 50-year study on which the agreement was predicated, to verify the validity of the assumptions on gross domestic product growth, projected water demand and population increases, and to identify options to improve existing capacity of the treatment plants. The state government also wants to list water conservation measures for households and factories to reduce wasteful consumption.

The federal government has refused to consider an independent audit. It suggests that Selangor pay up or shut up.

Meanwhile, the opposition charges, the federal government and its UMNO machinery are in fact creating a false scare over the water shortage threat.

Charles Santiago, a Democratic Action Party member of parliament, charged in an interview that the crisis is being manufactured to pressure the state to endorse the construction of a new treatment plant that would lock the state into a major financial commitment which in turn would impose unacceptable water tariffs on the state’s citizens.

The proposed plant, called Langat 2, is part of a larger plan to tap water resources in Pahang state to the north through piping infrastructure and tunneling to bring the water to the Klang valley. An interstate plan which needs federal oversight, it already appears to be a cash cow for UMNO-linked companies. The Langat 2 treatment plant itself will take three and a half years to build and the government charges that without building it, the infrastructure committed already will be wasted.

One of the principal joint venture contractors on the project is United Engineers Malaysia, or UEM, a company that since its inception has been notorious for profiting from a long list of government projects including highways and other construction projects.

Response to RPK's lies

Press statement by Sivarasa Rasiah in response to the scandalous lies of Raja Petra Kamaruddin – 14th August 2012

Raja Petra  does his lies again!
I refer to Raja Petra’s article published on his blog “Malaysia Today” entitled “The day I met P. Balasubramaniam (part 3) which makes  scandalous and false allegations against me and another lawyer M. Puravalen.
Raja Petra does his usual spin of mixing truth and fiction in order to make a story sound interesting. Unfortunately for him, lies remain lies.
Let me give an example of how he did this just a few weeks ago on 18.7.12 in his blog. He dramatically did this opening intro for an article:
“When Sivarasa was in the opposition, he represented Sri Aman Development against MBPJ. Once Pakatan Rakyat took over the Selangor State Government, Sivarasa did a U-turn. He changed sides. He became a turncoat and represented MBPJ against Sri Aman Development ...”
I have never represented Sri Aman Development against MBPJ or in any case for that matter. That is a fiction created by RPK.  It is true that I acted for MBPJ when Sri Aman Development sued MBPJ in a judicial review action. You can read about the details at  http://sivarasa.blogspot.com/2012/01/raja-petras-scurrilous-and-dishonest.html.   So RPK’s words such as “U-turn”, “changed sides”, “turncoat” are all interesting sounding but in essence mischievous and false statements.
In the same way, he creates fictions ( i.e. lies ) in his recent above mentioned  article.
Example 1.
He says I invited him to a meeting at lawyer M Puravalen’s house on 2nd July 2008 – this is the day before the press conference at PKR Headquarters where P. Balasubramaniam’s  (“Bala” ) 1st SD made on 1st July 2008 was made public.
 RPK also says that at this meeting “ In the presence of Sivarasa and Puravalen, Bala and his ex-police officer friend boasted how they used to bump off criminals and got rid of their bodies. Azilah, Sirul and we  were all in the same team, they laughed”. This is a malicious FICTION created by RPK to attempt to smear me, Puravalen and Bala.  It is false that Bala knew Sirul and Azilah and that that fact was made known to me and Puravalen.
If Bala had truly known Sirul and Azilah, he would probably have been charged together with them.  In fact the police remanded Bala for about 2 weeks after the murder of Altantuya  on a section 302 murder charge investigation.  He was released without being charged.
RPK was invited to that meeting in Puravalen’s house the day before the 3nd July press conference to be given a pre-view of Bala’s 1st SD to put up on his blog and write about it which he did.
Example 2
RPK then goes on to say that after that meeting in Puravalen’s house, we adjourned for dinner at a nearby Italian restaurant to discuss the following day’s conference. Then, he adds, “Sivarasa coached Bala on what he should and should not say at the press conference”.
This is the same mixture of truth and fiction. It is true that we all went to the Italian restaurant. The rest of the allegations which I have highlighted above ie that we went there to discuss the press conference  and that I coached Bala what to say is all a malicious lie and a fiction created by RPK.
What he does not mention is that we simply went to the restaurant because Puravalen had a pre-arranged dinner commitment there with some other friends.  We did not go there purely to discuss the press conference. In fact Bala was quite open about his SD and mentioned the contents to the others present.
What RPK has omitted to mention from his story is that Americk Sidhu, a senior and reputable lawyer  and who is also Bala’s lawyer, was present at the house and also at dinner at the Italian restaurant.  RPK also omits to mention that he knew all along that Bala’s 1st SD was actually prepared by Americk after weeks of discussions and meetings with Bala going over all the details.  It is quite far-fetched to suggest a scenario where I am coaching Bala in front of his own lawyer and people I had just met for the first time.  Americk was also present at the press conference the next day at PKR HQ.
RPK might want to ask Americk for his recollection of the events at Puravalen’s house and also at the restaurant.  He might also want to check with his own wife Marina as she was present throughout.
Example 3
RPK then goes on to spin the fiction that I asked Anwar Ibrahim to arrange for a Chinese tycoon to pay Bala RM20,000 per month in India . This again is a malicious lie and made to suggest that Bala was given a financial inducement to make a false SD.
Let me state this for the record – no one including myself offered or gave Bala any financial inducement to make the 1st SD.
Americk Sidhu has in fact informed me of a very interesting fact - that it was RPK himself who organised some financial help for Bala after he uploaded the interviews that Bala did in Singapore in November 2009  which were widely reported in the Internet ( the urls are cited in RPK’s Part 3 ).  I have no problem with RPK helping Bala who was by then already over a year overseas. But RPK needs to be honest about why he is now  singing quite a different tune and attacking Bala to suit a UMNO/BN script.  But I suppose we cannot expect anything different now from RPK after his TV3 ( just prior Sarawak State elections )  and Utusan interviews ( end of 2011 ).
Example 4
Another lie he creates in the last two paragraphs of his article is that I promised to arrange another financier to support Bala in return for him doing his recent interviews  with Malaysiakini where Bala  revealed the attempts by Deepak Jaykisnan and  UMNO Deputy Minister Hamzah Zainuddin to get him to sign statements smearing  me and Anwar ibrahim and in return to get a deal to come home.
For  the record, I do not go around paying anyone to make false statements.  I would have better use for the millions of ringgit that I would have needed to do that, which I don’t have in the first place.
Americk Sidhu as Bala’s lawyer is fully aware of all the moves that Deepak and Hamzah Zainuddin made and documented the entire affair to expose the manner in which UMNO was still trying to get Bala to backtrack on his 1st SD.    
Example 5
Another false and mischievous insinuation that RPK tries to sneak into his article is the idea that SUARAM coached Bala on what to say to the French investigators.  This is a somewhat foolish assertion as RPK himself knew at all times that Bala did his statement to the French investigators in the presence of his lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon whose seniority, experience and public profile is well-known.
RPK’s allegations a feeble, belated attempt to damage Bala’s credibility
 I conclude this response by saying this. The real issue is not what RPK is conjuring up now.  The real issue is the truth about the real murderer of Altantuya.  The Malaysian public understands that Azilah and Sirul were merely the instruments in the murder of Altantuya. The real murderer is the person or persons who directed these 2 policemen to kill her and dispose completely of her body by blowing it to bits with C4 explosive.
This question as to who is the real murderer/s was never really probed by the police, the AG’s Chambers ( at least from what we know publicly ) and also in the farce of the murder  trial that took place.  The question of what role Musa Safiri ( Najib’s ADC ) played and why he was making calls to the 2 policemen the night they killed Altantuya was never allowed to be probed.
The question of what Nasir Safar ( Najib’s private secretary for 20 years ) was doing driving around slowly in a blue Proton in front of Razak Baginda’s house shortly before the 2 policemen/killers take Altantuya  away is also not asked.
The question whether it is true ( as asserted in Bala’s video interview in Singapore, put up by RPK himself ) that Najib’s brother, Nazim Razak met him on the night of 2nd July 2008 to threaten and also bribe him to retract the 1st SD)  needs to be answered.
Why the Attorney General Gani Patail and the police are so reluctant to prosecute Bala for the offence of making a false SD if the 1st SD is claimed to be false is also very revealing and a key question in itself.
So what RPK is doing now are simply irrelevant side-shows to try to discredit Bala at a very late stage of the game.
If Bala’s credibility is an issue, then this should have been easily resolved a long  time ago with the AG charging him for making a false SD and also charging Americk Sidhu for abetting in that offence.  The fact that the AG refuses to do anything and our learned Minister Nazri ( in charge of legal affairs ) maintains that Bala has committed no offence speak volumes about where the truth lies.

Sivarasa Rasiah, Member of Parliament for Subang.
Member of Central Leadership Council and Political Bureau for Parti Keadilan Rakyat