The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on on May 24, 2012 titled “Malaysian People’s Court“. In it the influential newspaper challenges Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to admit to committing “civil disobedience” at the April 28 Bersih Rally and accept the consequences of that action.  The paper says rather cynically “If Mr. Anwar wants to practice civil disobedience, he can’t pretend to be innocent at the same time.”

The Wall Street Journal seems to believe that the primary purpose of the gathering on April 28 was to protest the Public Assembly Act, which states in Section 4(2)(c):

“a person commits an offence if he organises or participates in a street protest.”

It’s clear however that the April 28th demonstration has nothing to do with the Public Assembly Act, just like the previous BERSIH rallies in 2011 and 2007 had nothing to do with the predecessor laws to the Peaceful Assembly Act that restricted public assembly in Malaysia and presumably rendered those public gatherings technically illegal under Malaysian laws. The April 28th demonstration had the stated purpose of protesting electoral fraud. Subsumed within that protest are a whole litany of laws that prevent free expression and assembly of Malaysians.

What exactly did Anwar do that is illegal? Currently he has been charged with violating the Public Assembly Act and pleading not guilty. What legal tradition does the WSJ belong to that suggests an accused must prove himself innocent when charged with a crime?

Such an upside down approach to the law is usually the modus operandi of the Malaysian Attorney General, where politically motivated trials place the burden of proof on the defendant and not the prosecution in a true perversion of the justice system.

If indeed Anwar Ibrahim was engaged in an act of civil disobedience by participating in the April 28th BERSIH Rally then so too were the 200,000 other Malaysians gathered in downtown Kuala Lumpur, not to mention the thousands of others who demonstrated throughout the country. Why is Anwar Ibrahim and his two associates the only ones to be charged by the government? And why would the WSJ place the lions share of responsibility on Anwar Ibrahim and not BERSIH chairperson herself Ambiga Srenavasan?

Additionally, if the BERSIH gathering was deemed legal but it was the breaching of the barriers at Dataran Merdeka in particular that are considered the illegal act which Anwar was expressing civil disobedience over, then the WSJ’s point is also fundamentally flawed. Anwar has denied giving any instructions for people to breach the barrier and in fact the extended video of him near the barrier shows he tried to get the people to disperse, rather than cross the barrier.

A legitimate, independent investigation needs to be conducted to figure out what happened. The likely conclusion will be that those near the barrier were dead set on crossing over and prepared to face the consequences. There was no mechanism for Anwar, Ambiga or anyone else to control that sentiment. However, it’s also clear that a truly independent inquiry is virtually impossible in Malaysia and even when inquiries do happen, their results are ignored.

So why then should Anwar plead guilty to an act of civil disobedience when 1) he was not expressing civil disobedience but rather demonstrating in support of electoral reform and 2) when doing so would necessarily land him in jail or with a fine that would disqualify him from contesting in the upcoming general election?

Is now the time for Anwar to willingly banish himself to prison or to the political wilderness just to prove a point that the opposition is willing to adhere to the rule of law in a country where the laws are themselves fundamentally flawed. Is the Wall Street Journal trying to make a point that Malaysia is a reformed nation now and that both government and opposition should be held to the same high standard of adhering to the rule of law?

What laws are we talking about here? Whose laws? The Public Assembly Act was forced through parliament just like all of Najib Razak’s so called reform measures. They are in each case an example of giving some rights out with their right hand and taking away a series of other rights with their left hand. The net effect is pretty much zero. Is the WSJ drinking the Kool-Aid that Najib’s administration is mixing with the help of well paid international media consultants, including some journalists formerly employed by the WSJ?

Instead the WSJ should have read the latest polling results from the Merdeka Center that show 90% (i.e. virtually all) of Malaysians want to see the electoral roll cleaned before the next election and that nearly half of all Malaysians do not have faith in the integrity of the electoral process. There are also a large percentage of Malaysians, Malays in particular, who remain unclear about the stated goals of the BERSIH movement. Presumably, if given the chance to be informed and educated, a large percentage of these people will also question the integrity of the electoral process.

Is this not the real story that the WSJ missed by zeroing in on Anwar’s act of civil disobedience? The fact that an election is likely to take place in Malaysia within the next 11 months in the midst of the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the return to public office of Aung Sun Sii Kyi where 50% of voters do not believe in the integrity of the process and are thus likely to question the integrity of the counting and results?

KUCHING: Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan Menteri Pertahanan, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi akan disapina agar datang ke mahkamah Perancis untuk memberikan keterangan.
 
 
(Apakah Najib dan Zahid boleh tersenyum lagi di mahkamah Perancis nanti)
 
Peguam Suaram yang baru pulang dari Perancis Fadiah Nadwa Fikri berkata, pihaknya telah memaklumkan kepada mahkamah Perancis tentang saksi-saksi yang akan dipanggil itu.

Turut disenaraikan sebagai saksi adalah bekas penasihat Najib, Abdul Razak Baginda dan isterinya Mazlinda.

Mahkamah Perancis sedang menyiasat dakwaan rasuah dalam pembelian dua kapal selam Scorpean yang dibuat oleh syarikat Perancis.

“Bila kami berjumpa dengan hakim pada 16 Mac lalu, kami telah serahkan senarai saksi yang perlu disapina agar datang ke mahkamah.

“Kami memberikan nama Najib Tun Razak, Zahid Hamidi and Razak Baginda,” kata Fadiah dengan mendapat tepukan gemuruh dari lebih 2,000 yang hadir dalam ceramahnya di Third Mile Bazaar, Kuching Ahad lepas lapor Free Malaysia Today.

Apabila kesnya difailkan di Perancis, Zahid berkata, beliau akan memberikan kerjasama penuh.

Namun, baru-baru ini selepas namanya disebutkan sebagai saksi, Zahid berkata beliau keberatan untuk pergi ke sana kerana tidak ada dana yang cukup untuknya.

“Siapa akan membayar kos penerbangan dan hotel saya di Perancis, ” soal Zahid.

Fadiah (gambar) dalam ceramahnya berkata, rakyat Malaysia sedia membayar kos penerbangan dan hotel Zahid di Perancis asalkan beliau sedia memberikan keterangan.

Menurut beliau, jika mereka enggan datang menjadi saksi selepas sapina dikeluarkan, mahkamah akan mengeluarkan notis sekali lagi.

Jika gagal hadir juga, mahkamah akan mengeluarkan waran tangkap untuk memaksa mereka hadir.

“Dan jika mereka gagal lagi, Interpol (International Police) boleh mengeluarkan amaran dan boleh ditangkap dan dibawa ke mahkamah Perancis,” katanya.
 
Sementara itu, rakyat Malaysia mula memberikan respon ke atas laporan ini dengan berkata mereka sedia menyumbang untuk membolehkan mereka berdua (Najib dan Zahid) menjadi saksi.

“Saya akan menyumbangkan RM1.00 dari wang yang saya cari dengan susah payah untuk menampung kos mereka. Jika tak cukup, saya boleh tambah RM1.0 lagi,” kata Cheong Seng Keong.

Namun katanya, “Saya tidak mahu menyumbang untuk kondom mereka.”

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and his party deputy were charged in court Tuesday in connection with a street protest last month in Kuala Lumpur that led to riot police turning tear gas and water cannons on demonstrators, in some of the most chaotic scenes Malaysia’s capital has seen in years.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim addressed protesters during an anti-government rally in Kuala Lumpur.

If convicted, Mr. Anwar could lose his seat in Malaysia’s Parliament, adding to a long list of legal problems the opposition leader has faced in his political career, including two sodomy charges. He was eventually cleared of the charges in both those cases, which he said were politically motivated.

The deputy leader of Mr. Anwar’s People’s Justice Party, Azmin Ali, was charged in Kuala Lumpur’s Sessions Court along with Mr. Anwar for allegedly urging demonstrators to surge into an area cordoned off by police. A party member, Badrul Hisham Shaharin, was also charged. All three said they were innocent.

By charging Mr. Anwar, 64 years old, state prosecutors risk heightening political divides in a polarized nation, with elections expected to be called in the next few months. The protest at the center of the cases involving Messrs. Anwar and Azmin was one of the biggest in Kuala Lumpur in more than a decade.

“It is clearly a politically-motivated charge. Elections are around the corner,” Mr. Anwar told reporters, the Associated Press reported.

On April 28, more than 50,000 people protested in a mostly peaceful show of support for electoral reforms, as Prime Minister Najib Razak and his ruling National Front coalition prepare for national elections that must be called by spring 2013, and which could come sooner.

The protests, dubbed Bersih, the Malay word for “clean,” came after a run of political changes that the prime minister introduced in response to calls for reforms to strengthen Malaysia’s democracy, and to boost the electoral appeal of the National Front, which has governed Malaysia for decades.

While moves such as ending arrests without warrants and allowing more political dissent have helped improve Mr. Najib’s opinion poll ratings, some Malaysians want to see faster and wider changes aimed at helping this resource-rich but authoritarian-minded nation emerge as a full democracy.

The credibility of the Peaceful Assembly Act—a centerpiece of Mr. Najib’s changes, enacted after a 2011 prodemocracy protest—could be affected by Mr. Anwar’s latest case. The government says the legislation was designed to create more leeway for political protests in the country, but critics and opposition political say it criminalizes protesters who step beyond the bounds of the law.

In a statement, a Malaysian government spokesperson said state prosecutors will pursue charges against anyone involved in inciting or committing acts of violence during the recent Bersih protest.

“To date, charges have been brought against various individuals, including two policemen, for events that took place during the protest,” the spokesperson said. “Charges are decided on by the public prosecutor following receipt of police investigation papers.”

Political analysts said Mr. Anwar’s prosecution reflects a pattern of government officials using legal cases to question the credibility of opposition figures, especially Mr. Anwar.

“There is a fine line between these tactics succeeding, or galvanizing support for the opposition,” said Bridget Welsh, a professor at Singapore Management University and a long-time observer of Malaysian politics.

In 1998, government leaders attempted to portray Mr. Anwar as a dangerous radical when he led mass protests after being sacked as deputy prime minister. He was charged with sodomy–a crime in this conservative majority-Muslim nation—later that year. Mr. Anwar denied the charge and was later cleared of it in 2004 after spending six years in jail.

In 2008, Mr. Anwar was charged with sodomizing a young male aid. Mr. Anwar again said he was innocent and called the charges trumped up to destroy his political career. He was acquitted in January, although state prosecutors have appealed that decision.

Mr. Najib has denied orchestrating a conspiracy against Mr. Anwar.

New York-based Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, urged Malaysian authorities not to use aftermath of the latest Bersih demonstrations to sideline opposition leaders.

“The Malaysian authorities appear to be using what happened at the Bersih demonstrations as a pretext to prosecute political opposition leaders,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These charges, and the actions by police at the Bersih rally, don’t inspire confidence that the Malaysian government is committed to protecting basic free expression rights.”

Pemimpin oposisi Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim dan dua rekannya, Selasa (22/5/2012), didakwa melakukan sejumlah pelanggaran hukum selama demonstrasi besar untuk menuntut pemiliu yang jujur beberapa waktu lalu.

Dakwaan itu bisa mengganggu persiapan Anwar Ibrahim dalam pemilihan umum yang kemungkinan dilaksanakan pada September mendatang.

Anwar didakwa bersama Azmin Ali yang merupakan deputi presiden untuk Partai Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) dan pengurus organisasi pemuda partai itu, Baharul Hisham Shaharin.

Pengadilan Kuala Lumpur mendakwa ketiganya melawan larangan pengadilan tentang berkumpul di tempat publik di Kuala Lumpur bulan lalu dan menghasut pengunjuk rasa lainnya untuk menerobos barikade polisi di Lapangan Merdeka.

Dalam persidangan itu, ketiganya menyatakan tidak bersalah dan menghadapi hukuman maksimal, yakni enam bulan penjara dan denda total 12.000 ringgit jika terbukti bersalah. Persidangan berikutnya dijadwalkan pada 2 Juli untuk menentukan tanggal-tanggal sidang selanjutnya.

“Ini jelas dakwaan bermotif politis. Pemilu sudah di ambang pintu,” kata Anwar yang dikerumuni wartawan.

Dakwaan itu merupakan yang pertama bagi Anwar setelah dia dibebaskan dari dakwaan kasus sodomi pada Januari lalu. Pemerintah membantah tuduhan Anwar bahwa persidangan kasus sodomi itu direkayasa untuk melemahkan aliansi oposisi yang secara mengejutkan mengalami peningkatan dukungan pada pemilu 2008.

Anwar, Azmin, dan Baharul bergabung dengan puluhan ribu demonstran pada 28 April silam untuk menuntut perbaikan undang-undang pemilu. Polisi menggunakan gas airmata dan water cannon setelah sejumlah demonstran menerobos barikade yang dipasang di Lapangan Merdeka yang tidak boleh dimasuki.

Deputi direktur Asia Human Right Watch, Phil Robertson, mengatakan dakwaan terhadap para pemimpin oposisi itu “tidak menunjukkan bahwa pemerintah Malaysia berkomitmen melindungi hak-hak untuk kebebasan berekspresi.”

Perdana Menteri Malaysia Najib Razak dan para pejabat lainnya menuduh oposisi berusaha menciptakan kekacauan di demonstrasi itu. Beberapa bahkan menuduh Anwar dan Azmin memprovokasi para pengunjuk rasa agar melempari polisi.

Jika Anwar dan Azmin mendapat vonis maksimum, mereka terancam kehilangan kursi parlemen.

Pemilu nasional memang baru akan digelar pada 2013, namun spekulasi yang kini berkembang adalah Najib akan membubarkan parlemen dalam waktu dekat. Pemerintah koalisi yang berkuasa di Malaysia sejak 1957, kini hanya menguasai kurang dari dua pertiga kursi parlemen setelah mengalami kekalahan pada pemilu 2008.

Dalam unjuk rasa April lalu itu, para demonstran menuntut pengunduran diri para pejabat Komisi Pemilu dengan alasan mereka berpihak. Mereka juga menginginkan dibersihkannya daftar pemilih yang mereka tuduh berisi nama-nama palsu, selain menuntut aturan pemilu yang adil untuk memastikan setiap partai mendapat akses ke media-media besar.

The Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and another leader of his party were expected to be charged Tuesday in relation to a protest last month in which the police fired tear gas and water cannons to disperse thousands of demonstrators calling for free and fair elections.

Mr. Anwar and Azmin Ali, deputy president of the People’s Justice Party, received a summons on Monday informing them that they would be charged in court Tuesday morning, said Ibrahim Yaacob, Mr. Anwar’s chief of staff.

Mr. Ibrahim said the summons stated that Mr. Anwar and Mr. Azmin would be charged with participating in a street protest, which is illegal under the peaceful assembly act, and for breaching a court order by inciting protesters to break through barriers.

The street protest, one of the largest in Malaysia in recent years, turned violent after demonstrators broke through barriers around Independence Square in Kuala Lumpur on April 28.

More than 500 people were arrested, and some demonstrators have complained that they were beaten by the police during the rally, which was organized by the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections, a group of 84 organizations calling for major reforms to the country’s election system.

The government has pledged to introduce reforms to the election system, but the group, known as Bersih – “clean” in Malay – argues that those measures will not be enough to ensure that the next elections, which are expected to be called within months, are conducted fairly.

Bersih organizers estimated that 250,000 people attended the protest, but the police put the figure around 50,000.

Before the protest, the police had obtained a court order banning anyone from entering Independence Square.

Participating in a street protest is punishable by a fine of 10,000 ringgit, or $3,200. It was unclear whether the opposition leaders could also face prison terms. Andrew Khoo, a lawyer and a member of the Bersih steering committee, said that anyone found to have defied the court order could face a fine of 2,000 ringgit, six months in prison, or both. However, Sankara Nair, a lawyer for Mr. Anwar, told Reuters that Mr. Anwar could not be imprisoned for the latest charge.

Mr. Ibrahim said Mr. Anwar and Mr. Azmin would appear in court Tuesday and would fight the charges. They have denied claims that they encouraged protesters to break through the barriers.

In January, Mr. Anwar, a former deputy prime minister, was acquitted of sodomy, a charge his supporters had condemned as politically motivated. Mr. Anwar previously served six years in prison on charges of sodomy and abuse of power, before he was freed in 2004 after the sodomy conviction was overturned.

He now leads the opposition coalition, which made historic gains in the 2008 election when the governing coalition, which has dominated Malaysia since independence from Britain in 1957, lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time.

Mr. Ibrahim said he believed that the charges were “definitely” related to the next election. “Of course we know that’s what they’re aiming at,” he said.

A Malaysian government spokesman said in a statement that the public prosecutor had made it clear that charges would be pursued against anyone involved in inciting or committing acts of violence during the protest.

“To date, charges have been brought against various individuals, including two policemen, for events that took place during the protest,” the statement read. “Charges are decided on by the public prosecutor following receipt of police investigation papers.”

Authoritarian governments have learned from the Arab Spring that the best way to nip revolution in the bud is to exploit the new technologies

For a moment at the Oslo Freedom Forum, it was possible to believe that Pyotr Verzilov was the coolest guy on the planet. Breathless and unshaven, the young performance artist arrived in Norway from the street protests in Moscow. With the élan of an exultant radical, he explained the personal and political reasons for taking on Putin’s kleptocracy.

He had been lucky enough to persuade a member of Pussy Riot to be his wife. The celebrated feminist collective had been outraged when Patriarch Kirill continued the Russian Orthodox Church’s subservience to whatever autocrat occupied the Kremlin by announcing that Putin’s leadership had been a “miracle of God”, and adding for good measure that the regime’s opponents were a degenerate minority in love with western culture.

Pussy Riot responded with a “punk prayer” at Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The protest was not the offence to delicate religious sensibilities it seems on the web, Verzilov explained. The women danced for about a minute in their balaclavas and fluorescent tights before security guards told them to leave. They added the screaming soundtrack to “Holy Mother, Blessed Virgin, Chase Putin Out” later. For this impromptu stunt, the FSB jailed his wife, and threatened her with a seven-year sentence, even though she was pregnant.

They would not win, said Verzilov with indomitable confidence. As soon as the conference was over, he would return to Russia to take part in a revolution that would free his wife and unborn child. All the other Russians on the stage agreed that regime change was coming – even Garry Kasparov, who is hardly an adolescent hothead.

It was easy to feel that way in Norway. The Oslo Freedom Forum is a Davos for revolutionaries. Activists who have overthrown dictatorships meet activists who want to overthrow dictatorships. Even if they need translators, everyone speaks the same language. They agree on the radical potential of the new technologies. The magnificent Egyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy said that when Mubarak’s interior ministry police beat and sexually abused her, she knew her first task was to get to her mobile and tweet that she needed help to her 133,000 followers. Help came.

The audience was not surprised. It took for granted the ability of the web to mobilise support – a power that would have been incredible even five years ago. They agreed on tactics – non-violent civil disobedience. They had a common programme – secular democracy, the rule of law and human rights. And they agreed that they should look west for support. Not necessarily to western governments. But to the west of the human rights movements, George Soros, activist charities, concerned journalists and academics: Europe and North America’s network of altruists. The camaraderie generated the exultant feeling that a new world was not only possible, but inevitable.

Thor Halvorssen, founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum, exemplifies the best the west can offer, but he is a realist with no time for light-headed optimism. He pointed me to statistics from the human rights monitoring group Freedom House. Despite globalisation, “Twitter revolutions” and the Arab Spring, the numbers living under oppressive regimes have not shifted in a decade. Freedom House defined 86 of the 192 countries in the world in 2000 as “free”; 58 as partially free – authoritarian states with some liberties but restrictions on full democratic participation; and 48 as straight “unfree” dictatorships. In 2010, 87 of the by then 194 countries were free, 60 partially free and 47 unfree.

Technological and economic changes are strengthening the ability of autocrats to dominate. Authoritarian men have learned the lessons of the Arab Spring well. They are exploiting the sinister potential of the new technologies to ensure that the net-literate activists never surprise them again. Western companies are eager to oblige them. A recent documentary on Swedish television exposed double standards in the Nordic telecoms giant TeliaSonera. Its executives in Stockholm have a fine line in progressive babble. They talk about their commitment to democracy and respect for the privacy rights of their customers, while giving the security services of Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan unrestricted access to the phone system previous generations of secret policemen could only have dreamed of.

A young member of the Belarusian opposition, Franak Viacorka, told me how the state’s new powers disorientate and demoralise. After hiding with friends in the Minsk underground for 10 days he made the mistake of alerting the KGB to his presence by turning on his mobile. When they tracked down the signal and hauled him in, the interrogator showed him copies of all his texts to parents, friends and political allies. The intercepted messages filled 20 sheets. “These are moments you want to cry,” he said. “You feel undefended. Very weak. It looks like Sweden helps the regime to suppress, to isolate and control the opposition. Europe does not live by its principles. Business interests come first.”

The traditional response of human rights activists has been to force the west to behave with at least a minimum of morality. I worry they will not win their arguments in a recession. We are living through a crisis in western economies as far-reaching as any since the 1930s – and historians among you will know that liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness did not flourish in that “low dishonest decade”. The British and American banking systems have collapsed. America has a feeble recovery but Britain’s leaders have no idea how to repair the damage. Meanwhile, the eurozone has become a machine for wealth destruction, which Europe’s politicians cannot turn off. Those who want governments to put human rights before jobs or spend blood and treasure on humanitarian interventions are going to have an even harder time of it than before.

The economic crisis is also a crisis of political legitimacy. It may be vulgar to say so, but in the late 20th century, many wanted to be free because they wanted to be rich. Last week a global survey by the BBC World Service showed how the crash of the west had shifted attitudes. Respect for democratic EU countries had gone down and admiration for authoritarian China gone up. The post-2008 lesson appears to be that repression works. It makes money. It is good for business. Who are liberals from declining countries to lecture others?

I am not arguing that we should stop lecturing. Quite the reverse. Simply that we should not fool ourselves. It has always been hard to win a change worth having, and it will soon get harder.

A Paris court of inquiry has started an investigation which may finally link the dots between Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, his country’s purchase of two French submarines, bribes worth nearly $200 million and the murder of a Mongolian model by his bodyguards.

The in camera inquiry by judges Roger Le Loire and Serge Tournaire, who are highly experienced investigators in corruption and human rights cases, will try to discover if the French defence company DCNS and its project partner Thales International paid the bribes to secure the 2002 contract to supply two Scorpene submarines to the Malaysian navy.

Their inquiry will build on two years of investigation and evidence-gathering by French police.

The deal was done while Najib was defence minister and attention is focused on the role played by Najib’s close friend and policy adviser, Abdul Razak Baginda.

French officials have let it be known they are especially interested in two payments by the French arms dealers.

One was for 114 million euros ($148 million) and went to a Malaysian company called Perimekar for “logistical support.”

Perimekar was at the time wholly owned by a company which was controlled by Razak Baginda and his wife, Mazalinda.

The examining magistrates also want to hunt down the story behind payments worth $46 million to a company called Terasasi, which was originally incorporated in Malaysia, but then registered itself in Hong Kong where, according to the online magazine Asia Sentinel, it is listed among 142 companies at a convenience address in the Wan Chai district.

The registered directors of Terasasi are Razak Baginda and his father Abdul Malim Baginda.

Questions about the submarine deal became more intense and sharp in October 2006 after the body of Mongolian model and translator Altantuya Shaariibuu was discovered in the jungle outside Kuala Lumpur.

She had been shot in the head and an attempt then made to destroy her body with military C4 explosive.

Altantuya was the jilted lower of Razal Baginda and she had last been seen causing a scene outside his house.

A few years before she had been a model in France and in 2004 she accompanied Razal Baginda to act as translator when he was negotiating the Scorpene deal.

In a handwritten letter found after her death she said she intended to confront Razak Baginda and demand $500,000 as the price of her silence on the details of the Scorpene agreement.

Even the politically attuned Malaysian courts could not avoid this case.

But although Razak Baginda and two of then-defence minister Najib’s bodyguards, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar, were charged with murder the outcome was deftly finessed.

In an astonishing piece of courtroom stage management, Razak Baginda, was not required to answer to the charges of abetting Altantuya’s murder, was released and now lives in exile in Britain.

The bodyguards took the fall and have been sentenced to death. They are appealing the verdict, but that hearing has been delayed.

It is widely predicted that appeal will not be heard until after the next elections, expected in June, when, if Najib and his governing coalition are returned to power, a way may be found to acknowledge the bodyguards’ loyalty.

After failing to get a full investigation of the Scorpene affair in Malaysia, many Malaysian human rights advocates and Altantuya’s family put a lot of faith in the French investigation.

However, there was initial disappointment when it appeared that judges Le Loire and Tournaire would investigate only the bribery allegations and not look at the murder of Altantuya.

But 10 days ago the Malaysian human rights group Suaram was allowed to give the judges a private briefing. Spokesmen for the group said afterward they described the political context of the affair from the Malaysian point of view and gave the judges a list of potential witnesses.

Among them is Razak Baginda, and there are reports the judges may attempt to subpoena him from Britain.

Others on the list, such as Prime Minister Najib, are unlikely to take any notice.

But Altantuya’s father, Setev Shaariibuu, says he intends to go to Paris from Mongolia and that from his last conversation with his daughter he can “connect the dots” for the judges.

KUALA LUMPUR: Inkuiri di mahkamah Perancis telah memulakan siasatan yang bakal menghubungkan segala titik mengenai Perdana Menteri Malaysia Datuk Seri Najib Razak, pembelian dua kapal selam Perancis, rasuah sebanyak RM500 juta dan pembunuhan terhadap model Mongolia oleh para pengawal beliau.

Inkuiri berkamera yang diketuai hakim Roger Le Loire dan Serge Tournaire, yang cukup berpengalaman dalam kes korupsi dan hak asasi manusia, akan cuba membongkar samada syarikat pertahanan Perancis, DCNS dan rakan projeknya Thales International telah membayar rasuah untuk mendapat kontrak pada 2002 untuk membekal dua kapal selam Scorpene kepada tentera laut Malaysia.

Inkuiri tersebut adalah berdasarkan penyiasatan selama dua tahun dan pengumpulan bukti oleh polis Perancis.

Kontrak tersebut dimeterai ketika Najib masih menjadi Menteri Pertahanan dan perhatian khusus diberikan kepada peranan yang dimainkan oleh kawan karib dan penasihat politik beliau, Abdul Razak Baginda.

Pegawai berkuasa Perancis telah memaklumkan bahawa mereka sangat berminat terhadap dua bayaran yang dibuat oleh pembuat senjata Perancis.

Satunya berjumlah Euro 114 juta yang dibayar kepada syarikat Malaysia bernama Perimekar untuk kemudahan pengangkutan.

Pada waktu itu, Perimekar dalah dimiliki sepenuhnya oleh Razak Baginda dan isterinya Mazalinda.

Pihak majistret Perancis juga ingin mencari kebenaran di sebalik pembayaran Euro 36 juta kepada sebuah syarikat bernama Terasasi, yang pada asalnya dikorporatkan di Malaysia sebelum dipindahkan pendaftarannya ke Hong Kong, di mana berdasarkan Asia Sentinel adalah antara 142 syarikat yang mendaftar di Wan Chai.

Pengarah berdaftar Terasasi adalah Razak Baginda dan ayahnya Abdul Malim Baginda.

Persoalan mengenai pembelian kapal selam menjadi hangat dan tajam pada Oktober 2006 selepas cebisan mayat model Mongolia dan penterjemah Altantuya Shaariibuu dijumpai di hutan di luar Kuala Lumpur.

Beliau telah ditembak di kepala dan terdapat cubaan untuk memusnah mayat beliau dengan bom C4 milik tentera.

Altantuya merupakan bekas kekasih Razak Baginda dan beliau kali terakhir dilihat di luar rumah kekasihnya yang menimbulkan situasi tidak senang.

Beberapa tahun yang lalu, Altantuya merupakan seorang model di Perancis dan pada2004 beliau mengiringi Razak Baginda sebagai penterjemah semasa beliau merunding kontrak Scorpene.

Dalam satu surat tulisan beliau yang dijumpai selepas beliau dibunuh, menyatakan beliau ingin berdepan dengan Razak Baginda dan menuntut USD 500 juta sebagai harga untuk menutup mulut beliau dalam kontrak pembelian Scorpene.
 

(Aktivis Suaram dan peguam mereka [kanan sekali] di Perancis)
 
Kes ini tidak dapat diendahkan oleh mahkamah Malaysia, yang dikuasai golongan politik.

Walaupun Razak Baginda dan dua orang bekas pengawal Najib, Azilah Hadri dan Sirul Azhar Umar didakwa dengan pembunuhan, keputusan kes tersebut adalah pincang dan tidak menjawab banyak persoalan.

Dalam satu drama mahkamah yang menakjubkan, Razak Baginda tidak dipanggil untuk menjawab tuduhan bersubahat membunuh Altantuya, dan dilepaskan dan kini tinggal di Britain.

Para pengawal peribadi Najib telah menerima padah dan telah dijatuhkan hukuman mati. Mereka sedang dalam proses rayuan tetapi pendengaran telah ditangguhkan.

Spekulasi berkata pendengaran itu tidak akan berlaku sehingga lepas pilihanraya umum yang bakal tiba, dijangka Jun, di mana jika Najib dan kerajaannya mengekalkan kuasa, dijangka satu cara akan difikirkan untuk membalas kesetiaan pengawalnya.

Selepas gagal mendapat penyiasatan penuh ke atas skandal Scorpene di Malaysia, ramai aktivis hak asasi manusia dan keluarga Altantuya telah meletakkan harapan kepada penyiasatan Perancis.

Namun demikian, terdapat sedikit kekecewaan apabila mengetahui bahawa hakim Le Loire dan Tournaire hanya boleh menyiasat tuduhan rasuah dan bukan pembunuhan Altantuya.

Akan tetapi, 10 hari yang lepas, Suaram Malaysia telah diberikan kebenaran untuk memberikan penerangan kepada hakim secara peribadi.

Jurucakap Suaram berkata mereka telah menceritakan skandal Scorpene ini daripada konteks politik Malaysia dan memberikan hakim senarai saksi-saksi yang dikehendaki.

Antara senarai itu ialah Razak Baginda, dan telah ada laporan bahawa hakim akan cuba mengeluarkan subpoena terhadap beliau daripada Britain.

Tetapi akan ada yang tidak mengendahkan senarai itu, termasuk nama Najib.

Namun begitu, ayah Altantuya, Setev Shaariibuu berkata beliau ingin ke Perancis daripada Mongolia dan percaya perbualan terakhir bersama anak perempuannya akan dapat menghubungkan segala titik yang tergantung dalam skandal Scorpene ini kepada hakim di sana.