Question: There have been numerous U-turns made by various individuals linked to the case: first there was the dramatic withdrawal of PI Bala’s incendiary statutory declaration of 1st July 2008, followed by a second statutory declaration on July 4 which glaringly omitted all references to Najib Razak.
Then there was Raja Petra Kamarudin’s (RPK) shocking appearance on TV3 in April 2011 where he backpedalled on his explosive June 18, 2008 statutory declaration naming Rosmah Mansor as an active party to the execution of the Mongolian woman.
Answer: RPK’s son Azman who was in prison on trumped-up charges of theft had claimed he was being tortured in prison and had attempted suicide. The relationship between father and long-lost son may have been tenuous. But, it would have taken a cold-hearted father of stone to ignore a son’s dire predicament in that situation. Whatever deal RPK made with Najib, the result was his son was freed and found his way to safety soon in London.
But everyone must remember that in RPK’s original SD, he clearly did not say what everyone thought he did. The opening sentence there clearly starts with “I have been reliably informed…”
He was clearly saying he only had second-hand knowledge of the accusations against Najib and Rosmah. So, he can’t really be faulted for everyone’s presumption. Of course he could have clarified it later, instead of allowing the apparent misunderstanding to mushroom internationally, but did nothing to dampen opinions that Najib and Rosmah were guilty.
When he attempted to do so in the 2011 TV3 interview, he of course lost credibility and respect. Legions of his fans dumped him forever.
READ MORE HERE
*********************************************
As I said many times, not only is it in politics, everything is about perception. And if you repeat, again and again, the same lie, then it eventually becomes the truth. And I, for one, should know because for more than four years I have been subjected to that same thing.
Malaysiakini knows that what they wrote above is not true. But they published it anyway because this is what they have been saying for more than four years. So they continue doing this because this is what they want to sink in. But then Malaysiakini is being funded by Anwar Ibrahim’s people so this has to be expected of them.
“Then there was Raja Petra Kamarudin’s (RPK) shocking appearance on TV3 in April 2011 where he backpedalled on his explosive June 18, 2008 statutory declaration naming Rosmah Mansor as an active party to the execution of the Mongolian woman,” said Malaysiakini.
If you were to view the one-hour interview that I did in Perth, you will not find any evidence of that at all. What I did say (and I have explained this so many times and yet Malaysiakini still repeats that lie) is that I was informed about this matter but at first did not believe it until I obtained confirmation from both Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Anwar Ibrahim that the story is true. And I stated that Din Merican and Nik Azmi Nik Daud (Bul) can both vouch for this.
So what does Malaysiakini mean by backpedalled? Backpedal is to do a U-turn. I did not do a U-turn. I explained how I obtained that information and who gave me that information. That is not backpedalling or doing a U-turn. So why does Malaysiakini keep repeating that lie?
The part about my son is again a lie. After my son got arrested, two lawyers contacted me (J. Chandra and Amarjit Sidhu) and asked for my permission to represent him. I replied, let my son handle his own problems. I am not getting involved. Anyway, I do not have any money to pay the legal fees.
The lawyers said they were going to represent my son free-of-charge and I replied they can do whatever they want. Just do not involve me. So they went to meet my son. Both Chandra and Amarjit can confirm this if Malaysiakini wishes to get confirmation. However, confirming the truth is not what Malaysiakini wants to do.
Then Chandra and Amarjit discovered that the case was terribly flawed. My son was alleged to have stolen a mobile phone but the mobile phone owner testified that he never lost his mobile phone. He was also alleged to have stolen a motorcycle but the police officer that arrested my son testified that he was not in possession of the motorcycle when they arrested him. In fact, the motorcycle was owned by his housemate and not owned by my son.
Based on those reasons the judge threw the case out without calling for the defence. In short, there was no trial because there were no grounds for a trial.
These are the facts of the case. But does Malaysiakini talk about the facts of the case? Did Malaysiakini interview the two lawyers and get their confirmation? Does the truth not matter? Malaysiakini is suggesting that my son is guilty (even when the court says otherwise) and since he did not get sent to jail that can only mean one thing: I did a deal with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.
Malaysiakini said, “Of course he could have clarified it later, instead of allowing the apparent misunderstanding to mushroom internationally, but did nothing to dampen opinions that Najib and Rosmah were guilty.”
But I did clarify later. I clarified this whole matter in that 2011 interview. But then they say I backpedalled. They say I did not clarify and when I do they call it a U-turn. So which is it they want me to do: to clarify or to just keep quiet?
Then Malaysiakini said, “When he attempted to do so (clarify) in the 2011 TV3 interview, he of course lost credibility and respect. Legions of his fans dumped him forever.”
So at least Malaysiakini admits that I ‘lost credibility and respect’ for attempting to clarify and not for backpedalling or for doing a U-turn. They need to make up their mind as to what it is that I did. Was it a clarification or was it a U-turn?
Anyway, as I had written earlier, in September 2008, three months after I had signed that Statutory Declaration, I was detained under the Internal Security Act and the officer in charge of my case (he is now the CPO of Kedah so Malaysiakini can call him to get his statement) told me that I was wrong and that Bul had given me false information.
They showed me photographs of Rosmah Mansor at a function in the Tabung Haji building plus odometer records and gatekeeper records showing that Rosmah could not have been at the scene of the crime as alleged. My lawyer, Chandra, has copies of all this evidence in case Malaysiakini would like to talk to him about it.
Nevertheless, whatever I said in 2011 and whatever I say now is not going to do any good. For more than four years they have been repeating this lie again and again. And that is the only ‘truth’ as far as these people are concerned — the ‘truth’ based on how they see it and not the real truth based on evidence.
So damn you, Malaysiakini! And damn those opposition people from PKR who are behind Malaysiakini. To these people the truth does not matter. And these are the people you want as the next government? As the late Karpal Singh said: over my dead body!
Source: Malaysia Today
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment