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

Evidence Act 1950 , 114A

PAKATAN RAKYAT PRESS STATEMENT – 28TH June 2012

We the undersigned Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament wish to record our serious concern with the impact of introducing the new section 114(A) to the Evidence Act 1950.
This amendment was rushed through in the last part of the April session of Parliament.  We are of the view that the serious consequences of the amendment have been overlooked.
Our concerns about the amendment include the following:
i. The amendment wrongfully presumes guilt rather than innocence.  It makes individuals and organizations who administer, operate or provide spaces for online community forums, blogging and hosting services, liable for content that is published thought its services. This undermines core principles of justice, democracy and fundamental human rights.
ii. It allows hackers and cyber criminals to go free by making the person whose account/computer is hacked liable for any content/data which might have changed.
iii. The above will cause a chilling effect on user-driven production and consumption of Internet content which can negatively impact Malaysia’s thriving Internet economy, a significant contributor ( about 4% ) to our country’s GDP.
iv. It threatens the principle of anonymity online, which is crucial in promoting a free and open Internet.
v. It threatens freedom of expression online. UN special Rapporteur Frank La Rue issued a 2011 report underscoring the right to freedom of expression on the Internet and expressed his concern that laws that purportedly protect an individual’s reputation, public order, or national security ultimately are used censor the expression of information deemed unfavorable to the government and other powerful bodies.
 This amendment contradicts the policy of local governments like DBKL and others who are promoting and considering making it mandatory for food establishments like cafes and restaurants to provide Wifi services to their customers. These amendments put the owners of such establishments in the unacceptable situation where they are now held criminally liable for the actions of anonymous customers.
We call upon the Barisan Nasional government to halt any further progress on this Bill although it has been approved by the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, and not gazette the Bill.
Legislation to repeal this Bill should be initiated at the next session of Parliament.
Pakatan Rakyat commits to such a repeal in the event that the Barisan Nasional does not implement it.

Sivarasa Rasiah,  Member for Subang,  Parti Keadilan Rakyat
Fong Po Kuan, Member for Batu Gajah, Democratic Action Party
Dr Dzukifli Ahmad, Member for Kuala Selangor, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia

Sivarasa interviewed on BFM89.9

SivarasaRasiah takes a look at LGBT rights, Sabah defections & PR's chances at governing Putrajaya http://t.co/2mHKLQJh