Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

Friday, 4 July 2008


The legal principle of one is presumed innocent until proven guilty translates into one is presumed to tell the truth, until otherwise proven. Hence proceeding from this principle, we are led to support the veracity of the claims made by the most shocking revelation in the form of a statutory declaration.


(i) P. Subramaniam.

1. The story must start with one P. Subramaniam. He is of Indian origins. A Malaysian citizen. He was trained as a policeman. He served the Malaysian police for 17 years. He left the force. He then began work as a private investigator.

2. In Malaysia, the services of a private investigator are sometimes used by private people. Suspicious wives of prominent Datuks or untitled persons employ them. To carry out surveillance on their targets. Sometimes they can also serve as body guards.

3. In 2006, our P. Subramaniam was employed by one Razak Baginda of whom we shall tell more later. Subramaniam was asked to guard Razak Baginda at the latter’s office. It is located as Wisma Getah Asli. In front of the world famous Petronas twin towers.

4. The purpose of the employment was to protect Abdul Razak Baginda from disturbances the latter had been receiving from some people. Mr Subramanian revealed that after two boring days he left the employment of Abdul Razak.

5. Abdul Razak Baginda must have been impressed with Mr P Subramaniam. For he re-employed Subramanian several months later. At this juncture, our story becomes more elaborate.

6. Mr Subramaniam stated that Abdul Razak Baginda revealed his cause for concern. Abdul Razak says he has been receiving threats from one Altantuya Shaaribu. She is a lady of Mongolian origins. She has made disturbing calls to Razak Baginda.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda must have been intimidated by this Mongolian lady. She is said to have used and received special powers from a Mongolian bomoh. As a result, Razak Baginda says he cannot look her in the eyes. Such is the power of a Mongolian bomoh that has been invested in Altantuya.

8. Balasubramaniam has given these information in his statutory declaration. If the SD is a recounting of the events involving the deceased Mongolian and the people now accused but not convicted or acquitted yet, it would have passed with scarcely a second glance.

9. It is the iallusion of our DPM Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak’s involvement in this sordid affair that makes Mr Balasubramniam’s SD special.

10. Dato Seri Najib has stated a long time ago, that he does not know the murdered Mongolian. The statutory declaration says they knew each other and have met.

11. The statutory declaration says Dato Najib was at a diamond exhibition promotion in Singapore. The Mongolian was there. She was introduced to Razak Bagainda. The DPM was the one who did the introduction.

12. This can be verified by the exhibition promoter. Perhaps it can be proven by close circuit television or any other surveillance apparatuses. There must be some as this was an exhibition of diamonds. Or perhaps it can verified by some registration evidence.

13. The statutory declaration also says that Dato Najib sent an sms to Razak Baginda on the morning the latter was to be arrested. It said something like, the DPM is seeing the IGP at 11 am and that this matter will be resolved and asked Razak Baginda to be cool.

14. The statutory declaration alleges the DPM of serious moral depravity. It says the DPM told Razak Bagnda that he has had sexual relationship with the Mongolian and that the latter was amenable to anal intercourse. It is also known as sodomy.

15. Then we are sprung with surprises. Our erstwhile Private investigator, Balasubramaniam has retracted certain passages in his statutory declaration. These were offending passages relating to our DPM. The other material facts were not retracted.

What are we to make of Bala’s actions?


  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by 2008

Back to TOP